Bill Blanton
From: IN%"tfinley who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU" 9-OCT-1997 16:31:07.55
To: IN%"Lucy_Gabriel who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU", IN%"Karri_Medley@post.Wesleyan-College.EDU"
CC: IN%"XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu"
Subj: RE: CA law 1086- and McCarthyism
Return-path: <owner-XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu>
Received: from am.appstate.edu ("port 1841" who-is-at am.appstate.edu)
by conrad.appstate.edu (PMDF V5.1-8 #26327)
with ESMTP id <01IOLYAMT2CW8Y6I8A who-is-at conrad.appstate.edu>; Thu,
9 Oct 1997 16:31:04 DST
Received: from listserv.appstate.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by am.appstate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15859; Thu,
09 Oct 1997 16:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from refugee.Services.Peach.NET
(root who-is-at refugee.Services.Peach.NET [131.144.4.26])
by am.appstate.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16713 for
<XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu>; Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from post.wesleyan-college.edu
(post.Wesleyan-College.EDU [168.17.224.12]) by refugee.Services.Peach.NET
(8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA13725; Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:27:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:27:09 -0400
From: tfinley who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU (Todd Finley)
Subject: Re: CA law 1086- and McCarthyism
In-reply-to: <v01540b05b062c59bfec8 who-is-at [198.110.144.154]>
Sender: owner-XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu
To: Lucy_Gabriel who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU (Lucy Gabriel),
Karri_Medley who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU (Karri Medley)
Cc: XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu
Reply-to: tfinley who-is-at post.Wesleyan-College.EDU (Todd Finley)
Message-id: <610332638.5324027 who-is-at post.wesleyan-college.edu>
X-Gateway: FirstClass Gateway for SMTP/NNTP (Mac68K) version 1.02
References: <v01540b05b062c59bfec8 who-is-at [198.110.144.154]>
X-Listprocessor-version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
I think that this conversation does a nice job of showing how politicized
phonics instruction has become.
XTAR who-is-at listserv.appstate.edu,Internet writes:
>Dear friends,
> What happens when we start legislating theory!? Sandra Wilde found
>the following "oath taking" on the application for literacy inservice
>provider under the new California law.
> I don't know if you've been following the changes in California
>(and soon to be other states) as they have shifted from more process
>oriented literacy policies to those favoring systematic phonics. What
>really burns me up is the dictatorial nature of the new policies. Believe
>me- no matter what you hear- the previous guidelines were not mandated and
>board members weren't yanking materials out of the hands of teachers.
> At this point we've gone beyond theoretical discussion and we're
>talking about controlling our right to have a theoretical perspective.
>Debi Goodman
>
>This (excerpted) from Sandra Wilde:
>I thought all of you might be interested in seeing the cover sheet for the
>application to be a literacy inservice provider under this law in
>California. (The application also requires a detailed syllabus, etc., as
>provided in my previous post.) The text is appended below - it's the last
>paragraph above the signature line (headed ASSURANCES) that I thought was
>especially interesting - does it remind anybody besides me of the old
>McCarthy-era loyalty oaths?
>
>>ASSURANCES:
>>The training provider will comply with all applicable provisions of law,
>>including Section 24.03 of the 1997-98 Budget Act (Chapter 282, Statutes
>>of 1998) which prohibits the use of the Goals 2000 funds appropriated
>>for this training for any program that promotes or uses reading
>>instruction metholologies that emphasize contextual clues in lieu of
>>fluent decoding, or systematically uses or encourages inventive spelling
>>techniques in the teaching of writing.
>>
>>Authorized signature: ___________________________________________
>>Date: ______________
>>