Re: moratorium on sanctions?

[aburke5054@aol.com]

I think this is wrong-headed on both counts.  The pursuit of a perfect 
law that tackles the politically-difficult task of changing schools is 
chimerical.  Secondly, I have no doubt that policy-makers pay attention 
to national advocacy organizations, particularly the ones that can 
marshal votres and throw money into campaigns.  But that's not all 
there is to this.  In many urban areas, about half of minority students 
drop out and nationally the average African-American 12th grader 
achieves at the level of the average White 8th grader.  These problems 
are apparent to a lot of people and their pleas must be reaching the 
ears of policy-makers along with the urgings of the Theorizing Classes. 
It is not all a manufactured crisis.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: GERALD BRACEY <gbracey1@verizon.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 6:45 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] moratorium on sanctions?


I agree with Ken and the rest.  Not only do you have the Ed Trust and 
the 5
or so other organizations (La Raza, Citizens Commission on Civil 
Rights,
etc) who formed "NCLB Works!", you have Leaders and Laggards jointly 
from
the Chamber of Commerce and the Center for American Progress (strange
bedfellows, indeed), Tough Choices from Mark Tucker, and, especially 
Strong
Schools, the joint venture from Broad and Gates which has $60 million 
to gin
up publicity.  Hard to turn back that tide.


The latter is especially unnerving because it's gotten some education
organizations to sign on.  I was dismayed when I spoke to an NASSP
conference a couple of weeks ago to hear Jerry Tirozzi say they had 
backed
it.  He did say that in the context of a fear-mongering ad I showed 
which
was causing him to rethink their support, but I don't know if they have
backed off.  It's seductive because the idea is to make education an 
major
presidential campaign issue.  And more attention too often equates in
education organizations' minds to more money--the major reason they all 
fell
all over one another in support of A Nation at Risk.


JB


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Bernstein" <kber@earthlink.net>

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:05 PM

Subject: Re: [arn-l] moratorium on sanctions?



> my original argument was that since there were problems, we should 
freeze
> the sanctions while we examined what was wrong, and tried to fix the 
law.
> I was told from a number of sources that such would not fly, the 
Miller
> was determined to move ahead.  The first such conversation was with a
> member of the House committee who wanted to stop reauthorization and 
was
> looking for ammo. That Member's staffer agree on all the problems 
with the
> law, but also did not think that a freeze on sanctions would fly.

>

> And those who think NCLB is working, which includes Spellings, Ed 
Trust,
> the Wash Post editorial page, etc., woudl scream bloody murder.

>

> Ken B

>

> Kenneth J. Bernstein

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Subscribe ARN-L:

> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html

>


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

Subscribe ARN-L:

http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html






________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
from AOL at AOL.com.