To the Editor:

Education should not have a 'one size fits all' mentality. Regretfully, five Regents as the sole criteria for high school graduation does not accurately measure the caliber of education our children receive. Your editorial on the Saland/Brodsky bill currently before the State Assembly does not reflect the education offered in the Consortium schools. Portfolio performance assessment measures the depth of their entire education, not merely their abilities on five days for five tests. Why would these schools be considered among the best in the city, cited by the Gates Foundation and School Chancellor as schools that work if the education offered was not of a high standard. Consider the teacher man-hours teaching to the test, instead of actually imparting knowledge, time taken away from teaching training days. Come to these schools and listen to our children defend their 'thesis'. You will be amazed at what you will learn.

Gail Rodgers Zecker.

----------------------------

To the Editor:

Your editorial (June 17) on "Educational Standards Under Assault" does a disservice to students, like my two daughters, fortunate enough to receive a public education that emphasizes critical thinking, analysis, and communication with peers and adults over being able to spit out "correct" facts on high-stakes, memory-based exams.

My daughters, who are graduating this year from School of the Future, widely recognized as one of the best public middle/high schools in the city if not the country, were required throughout their years to develop quality portfolios of their work, and to make presentations to an academic committee, on which they were evaluated.

To watch them prepare at home for their presentations, and I did for seven years, is to see just how innovative and indeed demanding their academic requirements were (far more than my own schooling decades ago). They and their peers also took as many tests as their teachers required, but were initally freed from the the Board of Regents' required exams--on which any failure would prevent them from promotion or graduation--while their school enjoyed a waiver. That freedom gave them, and their teachers, the time and space needed to focus on real, truly rigorous education.

The bill you oppose, which has passed the State Senate and is now pending in the Assembly, would not "strangle" educational reforms. Quite the contrary, it would prevent the Regents' and State Education Department's efforts to squelch truly rigorous, creative learning and evaluation, to meet phony standards that are promoted by the White House in a politically-motivated effort to present its occupant as the "education president."

Memorization may be essential to learning, but it should never substitute for critical evaluation, as the Regents exams effectively mandate. The Assembly should pass the bill in the interest of true educational reform.

Nathan Weber

----------------------------

To the Editor:

As Mr. Winerip's article in Wednesday's paper correctly stated, Commissioner Sobel lead the way to higher standards in education by including not just testing, but rigorous alternatives. These rigorous alternatives used by Consortium schools have statistically been proven successful time and time again; the proof being higher graduation rates (over 85% vs. 65% statewide) and college attendance among the graduates of these schools. Rather than rote memorization to fill in bubble tests, the answers to be forgotten soon after, students are required during their time at these schools (which adhere to the state curriculum), to research, write, present and defend a thesis in each of the core subjects in order to graduate. There is no squeaking by with just a passing score of 55 or even 65. Students are required to prove that they know what they've learned. Please be sensible. Why destroy a successful program?

Linda Aizer

----------------------------

To the Editor:

I attended public sessions of Regents meetings in Albany all year – Michael Winerip's article was dead on. Commissioner Mills consistently spoonfed manipulated data to the Regents (and public), to prop up his dismal record and justify the intensified high-stakes testing that he equates with today's favorite buzzword: accountability. The truth is, results have been so poor that tests are 'scaled' to achieve the desired results: January 2005 Math A Regents, 34 out of 86 points equaled a '65'. This is typical! High standards? Accountability? By contrast, in order to graduate, Consortium school students research, write, present and defend theses in core subjects (from the State curriculum), a rigorous alternative that requires critical thinking and effective communication -- far greater skills than the rote memorization needed for bubble-in exams. At School of the Future, we graduate virtually everyone, on time, and send them to college. Others should model, not destroy, us.

Beth Bernett

----------------------------

Mr. Winerip,

I'm sure you've gotten numerous emails about your Wednesday article as well as the editorial on Friday, but I thought I would add my outrage to the general brouhaha.

I have a 12 year old at one of the finest middle/high schools in the city, the School of the Future. (It is a consortium school.) She went to elementary school in TriBeCa, P.S. 234, which, at the time, was considered one of the finest elementary schools in the city. She was not in the top 10% of the test-taking students there and Anna Switzer, the principal at the time, kept making dire mumblings about leaving her back -- even though she consistently had a high 3 out of 4 on her state tests. It took a while but I finally understood that this highly-regarded school was much more concerned with keeping their high standings in the test-taking race than meeting the needs of its students. My daughter was never left back but only because of our firm decision not to allow it.

Moving on to middle school the School of the Future has welcomed her and helped her to thrive. She has a 95 average and wins multiple scholastic and citizenship awards every year. She still gets high 3's on the state-wide ELAs and everyone at this school praises her for that. The Bush administration doesn't seem care to about students who need a different approach to thrive. Liz Krueger's remark about a "one-size-fits-all system" is so accurate. Perhaps the State of New York will have to work a bit harder to understand the portfolio system of schools like the School of the Future, but, for the sake of all the children in the public school system, perhaps it would be wise of them to try.

Thank you for listening to me vent.
Lynn Foss

----------------------------

Editor,

As a parent of a graduating student of School of the Future, I find your editorial of June 17 on "Educational Standards Under Assault' quite offensive. I am in the unique position of being able to speak on this subject from both sides, I am New York City graduate with a Regents diploma and my son will be graduating from a consortium school. While I spent the nights before exams memorizing facts to spit out the next day, my son has had to spend months working on developing a thesis statement, researching this statement and then defending his position before his teaches and peers. For the seven years that I watch my son prepare for his presentations I was often taken back to my preparation for my Spanish Regent, at which I did very well but years later cannot and would not attempt to give any one directions in Spanish because they would be as misinformed as you are on this subject.

The bill you oppose would not lower educational standards The bill would allowed schools like School of the Future, to continue to promote education that emphasizes critical thinking. In these times when there is so much complaint about what is wrong with the public school system, the Assembly should jump at the opportunity to promote a bill that encourages what is good in our public school system.

Annmarie Clarke