Re: Why does Stratman slander FairTest?

[Dave Stratman <Newdem@AOL.COM>]

Monty--

Wow, what a reaction! Honestly, I did not mean to slander or misrepresent
FairTest/CARE's position on the Education Reform Act of 1993. I've been on
these lists for a year and a half, and I thought that you did support it. So
apparently did the student new to CARE whose question I was responding to. If
you recall, he wrote (5/17/00):

"I am posting now because I would like to know the actual wording of the
Educational Reform Act of 1993 and which corporate entities were behind it
and how directly it relates to the creation of MCAS.  Dave Stratman and the
New Democracy has claimed that this Ed. Reform Act itself is part of a
corporate strategy for dismantling our public schools.  Experience tells me
that this is very likely, but reading New Democracy literature has left me
unconvinced about the Ed. Reform Act and still mostly in the dark about how
the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, MassInsight, the Pioneer
Institute and other corporate forces relate to each other and Ed. Reform.  I
am trying to figure out the history that led us to where we are today.
        According to what I've read at
www.fairtest.org/care/Overview_of_MA_Ed_Reform.html, the Ed. Reform Act of
'93 equitably provides over $2 billion additional dollars to schools, as well
as mandating "a school council in every school, continuing education for
educators, more authority for every principal, better defined roles for
school committees, and clear, concise and measurable statewide standards for
students and schools."  Except for the standards on students, this sounds
very good to me, but in also sounds like it has been highly interpreted.
      Thanks in advance to whomever is willing to tackle my question!"

Why would someone get the impression that you do support the Act? (I can only
speak for myself, of course, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't many
supporters of CARE who have the same impression.) Some of the reasons might
be these:

1) The Education Reform Act is ferociously anti-teacher, anti-student,
anti-public education and anti-community in all the ways that I have
described and more, yet nowhere in CARE's policy statement, "Statement on the
MCAS and Education Reform," on your web page (<A HREF="www.fairtest.org">www.f
airtest.org</A>) is there a negative word about it. Instead the statement
seems to view MCAS as something that has derailed an otherwise positive
Act:"The MCAS has redefined and damaged education reform in the
Commonwealth--but, working together, the citizens of Massachusetts can put
reform back on a path that will help all students and schools....CARE
supports the notion of a comprehensive assessment of the state's public
schools and students. We call for multiple assessments in the service of
expanded learning opportunities and rigorous standards. The Massachusetts
Education Reform Act calls for such measures, and the students of
Massachusetts deserve no less."

Neither does FairTest's "Overview of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act
of 1993" have anything negative to say about the Act. Instead it presents
what could only be taken as a positive description (indeed, the description
is adapted from the Secretary of Education's Progess Report):

"The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 called for dramatic changes
in public education over a seven year period. Among the major provisions of
the Act are greater and more equitable funding to schools, accountability for
student learning, and statewide standards for students, educators, schools
and districts. By the end of this decade, the Secretary of Education
estimates that more than $2 billion new state Education Reform dollars will
have been provided to Massachusetts public schools because of the Act's
provisions.

"Some of the major changes in accountability proposed in the Education Reform
Act included these requirements: a school council in every school, continuing
education for educators, more authority for every principal, better defined
roles for school committees, and clear, concise and measurable statewide
standards for students and schools. The capstone is a "high-stakes" test
based on the new curriculum standards which every student needs to pass in
order to receive a diploma...."

To be fair, this is presented on your web page as a summary. But I think it's
easy to see how someone might take it as an endorsement of those elements of
the Act that you do not explicitly oppose--which as far as I can see are
limited to MCAS.

2) Statements by CARE leaders and spokespeople seem to endorse the Act. In
the several instances where I've heard presentations by CARE leaders or read
their published remarks and articles, the distinct impression I've come away
with is that the Education Reform Act was a positive thing hijacked by John
Silber and James Peyser and the Pioneer Institute. (In an exchange about this
on the CARE listserv with Deborah Meier [3/1/00], she commented that "a great
many noncorporate and progressive folks supported, even helped write" the
Education Reform Act.)

3) There has been a marked failure, even refusal, on the CARE list even to
discuss the Act, much less to say anything negative about. I certainly have
made many attempts to initiate critical discussion from my earliest entry on
the listserv, beginning with posting my 1997 keynote speech to the
Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, "Education Reform and
the Attack on Public Education." If the CARE leadership were in any respect
critical of the Act, one would think that they would jump at the chance for
discussion.

4) The recent (May 15) major Boston Globe op-ed piece by a member of the CARE
Steering Committee--speaking, presumably, on behalf of the
Committee--published on the day of CARE- and SCAM-organized statewide rallies
against MCAS, gives one the distinct impression that CARE endorses the
Education Reform Act and that it sees no conflict between the goals of the
sponsors of MCAS and those who oppose it. The editorial declares:

"...it is time to put this [MCAS] controversy behind us. In the last year I
have debated a range of MCAS proponents and have come to the conclusion that
there is much more common ground than many of us would think.
     "With a little flexibility on the part of the Board of Education and the
Department of Education, we can get beyond the MCAS impasse and back to the
business of education reform....This [compromise] ...is closer to the
original mandate of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which called for a
diagnostic system using multiple forms of assessment.
     "People on both sides of the MCAS controversy care passionately about
the main goal of  reform: ensuring a quality education for every child in the
Commonwealth. Let's get beyond the MCAS impasse so we can make that goal a
reality."

These CARE Steering Committee remarks clearly envision MCAS not as the
centerpiece of a very destructive piece of legislation but rather as an
exception to an essentially positive effort for education reform.

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood FairTest and CARE's position on the Act,
but I hope you can see that this was in no way an intentional
misrepresentation on my part. (I am glad to hear that you do not endorse it,
though I would be far happier if you actually opposed it.)

What now? I hope, Monty, that we can take this very sharp exchange as an
opportunity to begin a more searching and fruitful dialogue on the real
nature of education reform and the dangers it poses for our children and our
society. Perhaps a good starting point would be a detailed examination of the
Act.

Dave Stratman
Editor, New Democracy
www.newdemocracyworld.org
5 Burr Street
Boston, MA 02130
(617)524-4073

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.