Re: repeal, reauthorize or revise

["Tauna Rogers" <taunar@plateautel.net>]

So that which is evil was embedded into that which was good, making the plan 
for the destruction of public education more certain.

I understand that George is talking about what must take place technically 
and procedurally to the law itself to undo the doings that are destroying 
public education. But beyond that, does it really matter so much which term 
we use (dismantle, repeal, revise, reauthorize) as long as we get the truth 
out there, exposing NCLB and the many deceptions that paved the way for it? 
Exposing who benefits from it and who does not?

Scrap the crap that was imbedded into the ESEA during the Bush and Co. 
regime. Leave the good pre-Dubya measures intact, even improve them.

As for the disaggregation of data, what has it revealed that hasn't already 
been known for decades? States can and probably should disaggregate data and 
can do so without corporate-serving intrusions and interventionism by the 
feds.

Public education will never be perfect but it should always be striving 
toward becoming better. What if teachers in the trenches, the people who 
actually know and work with these children for heaven's sake, had been 
invited to the reform table? What if non ideology bound researchers, policy 
analysts, and an informed citizenry (as opposed to a misinformed citizenry) 
had been consulted and invited to the reform table? Imagine the good that 
could be done to expand rather than narrow life options and opportunities 
for success! Imagine what we could do for students with the billions that 
are being wasted on high-stakes testing.

It's time to take back our schools and let our policymakers and the media 
know in no uncertain terms that they have been overlooking us for way too 
long, bending their ears instead toward corporate propaganda.

Tauna Rogers



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Cc: <ca-resisters@serv1.ncte.org>; <ca-resisters@interversity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: [arn-l] repeal, reauthorize or revise


Can the so-called No Child Left Behind Act be "scrapped"  or "eliminated"? 
What
would those words mean and what would be the result of such actions?

I decided to find out if there is any way procedurally to return to the 
status
quo ante.

I checked with someone in Washington, D.C., who is very involved with the 
three
R's - repeal, reauthorization. or revision. I was informed that "The entire 
law
is now called NCLB - not just the stupid parts.  There is no portion of ESEA 
that
is called NCLB. " My friend went on to say,

   1. If ESEA is not reauthorized, it does not revert to the previous law - 
it
     remains as it is.

   2. All federal programs (such as Title 1) would remain as they are now.


 NEA is not seeking to repeal NCLB (which is the renamed ESEA) because NCLB
 contains all the ESEA programs - Title 1 for disadvantaged students, Title 
9
 which affects girls' equity in sports, assistance for English Language
 Learners etc.  There is a general misperception that the testing insanity,
 stupidly worded "highly qualified" requirements, etc. are some sort of
 attachment to the old ESEA.  All of the new provisions are embedded within
 the old law, and if we want to keep the good things that have always been 
in
 the law, we have to surgically remove or repair the portions (now the law 
is
 over 1,000 pages) which we oppose so that we can preserve and enhance what
 the law was originally designed to do:  assist states in providing 
programs
 to underserved and disadvantaged populations of students.


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

 From: George Sheridan [mailto:learn@jps.net ]
 Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:53 AM
 Subject: scrapping eliminating or reauthorizing


 What would be the status of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if 
it
 is not reauthorized within the next twenty-four months?

 Would all Federal programs included in ESEA (such as Title !) cease to 
exist?

 Would the law revert to the language that existed prior to enactment of 
the
 so-called No Child Left Behind Act?

 Teachers in Kings and Tulare Counties, California, are seeking to 
"eliminate
 NCLB" and are organizing letters to members of Congress asking their
 representatives to  "reauthorize ESEA without NCLB attached."  <
 http://eliminatenclb.org>.

 Teacher leaders in San Diego have introduced a resolution to "scrap the
 current ESEA (NCLB)." They are suggesting that the law be rewritten by a
 bipartisan commission <http :// www.sdea.net/Column_VP/column_VP.html>.

 I am not asking about the wisdom of the strategies described above. I want 
to
 know whether the objectives are in any way practicable.





 ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net>
 To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
 Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:04 PM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: [arn2-strategy] Re: 10 Senators critique NCLB


   Nothing in Congress happens overnight. Even issues on which the 
Democrats
   acted within the first 100 hours in the House are still awaiting action
   by the Senate. Senator Kennedy expects that it will be more than a year
   before Congress completes work on ESEA reauthorization. That's enough
   time for us to lay out our positive agenda - the things that should be 
in
   the law. I wouldn't want to say "Erase everything that was done in 2001
   and just go back to what existed before that." We can say "What existed
   before 2001 is O.K. as a starting point. Now let's improve the law."



George Sheridan