During the 2009-10 school year, Applied Scholastics (AS) was on the approved under Federal NCLB legislation as Supplemental Education Services (SES) list in 14 states. This was slightly higher from our previous report at the end of the 2008-09 school year.
For the 2010-11 school year, Applied Scholastics continue to be approved in 11 states, with reports of considerable questions being raised about the numbers of students actually attending AS classes. Several states who have dropped Applied Scholastics from the approved SES lists have stated that lack of utilization was one of the main reasons.
States that have dropped Applied Scholastics from 2008 through 2010 included California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia and Kansas. The following list is the States where Applied Scholastics was currently approved as of April 2011.
1. District of Columbia [pdf]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
2. Illinois [doc]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
3. Indiana. Contact info is on the same page. (more contacts)
4. Iowa [pdf]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
5. Louisiana [doc]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
6. Massachusetts. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
7. Missouri [pdf]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
8. New Mexico [xls]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
9. Tennessee [pdf]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
10. Texas [xls]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
11. Washington State [pdf]. Contact info to file complaints here. (more contacts)
For more information and additional ammunition for use with countering the cult infiltration disguised as SES tutors in the States listed above, check out the new Applied Scholastics Exposed Info Pack collection of documents on scribd compliments of whyweprotest.net.
4 Responses to "Applied Scholastics Tutors Still Approved in 11 States (2010-11)"
Im Not into Scientology, I’m a christian.. but I know of the Study Technology your referring to. I gotta tell you, although scientology is what it is, the study tech is much different. It’s actually a useful tool. The lack of mass, to steep and gradient and mis-understood word are definitely real. I apply those principals in my everyday life and it increases understand and most importantly it increases RETENTION. The things I have “cleared” during study have actually stayed with me a hell of lot longer then when I don’t clear it and understand it.
Your just off man. I don’t know if you have a bone to pick with scientology or whatever, that’s not for me to say, that’s between you and them… But that study tech is very helpful.
And NO you don’t need it for every sentence that your reading like you suggested in your article. That’s just foolish and suggest you really havent done your homework on the subject.. You use it to grasp ideas and better understand certain things. You basiclly use it when you NEED it.
It is what it is man. It’s a cool little tool to use and im really glad it’s around. Personally, I know it’s easy to write about something you don’t really know about and anyone with a computer can write anything they want.. case in point your article.., but might I suggest you actually try it before you slam it(Without thinking about scientology or anything else like that). Just use it for awhile and see if it doesn’t help you out. Im sure it will and you may change your responses to it a little.
It’s not about Scientology, it’s simply about understanding more. I’m sure if some other guy besides LRH put something like this together it would already be in the schools and used. It is what it is.
I personally don’t care WHO devised and found out how to help us study better. All I care about is that SOMEONE did. I don’t see you doing anything like that. Just a thought.
Something tells me you won’t have the guts to keep this post up here. lol.
Anyways, just go try it, and if AFTER you actually give it a shot, you still think it’s BS, then fine.. but you will find some things you actually like.
Perhaps in a subsequent comment you can address why Study Tech has failed to help you master some of the simplest rules of grammar:
“Im Not into Scientology.” [I’m]
“I apply those principals in my everyday life and it increases understand” [principles, understanding]
“a hell of lot longer then when I don’t clear” [of a lot]
“but I know of the Study Technology your referring to.” [you’re]
“Your just off man.” [You’re]
“you really havent done your homework” [haven’t]
… and on and on. I stopped about 1/3 of the way into your comment because it began to feel mean. Seriously though, if you’re going to offer yourself as a shining exemplar of the benefits of Study Tech, your point would be far better made by demonstrating some grasp of grammar, spelling, and usage. Flunk, as they say.
LOL. Seriously dude – I think it’s the people with learning disabilities, poor communication skills, grammar, spelling, etc.. that turn to “study tech.” “Some guy” is clearly a shining example of what “steady tech” can produce.” MAJOR FLUNK!
See app iFormulas and try for free
Pings responses :