Re: debate on anti-NCLB petition

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 The goals of NCLB are the same goals that ESEA has followed since its inception in 1965 - that states should improve their schools in order to eliminate the gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged children, minority children and majority children, children with disabilities and children without disabilities, and children from homes where English is not the first language and children where English is the language of the home. 
 
 In recent years a cottage industry in manufacturing paranoia and denial around school reform has taken root. This list is an outlet for it. Inadequate funding could certainly be part of the reason that states have not done more to advance the noble goals of ESEA and NCLB, But the sad fact is that public education works well for the adults who work within the system, even when it does not work well for parents and children, and the adults in the system resist changes that would help parents and children if they feel that their boats will be rocked. Some of the damage within public education is self-inflcited, and this has to be faced openly and honestlly. Pretending that the continuing problems of the schools are solely due to lack of funds or that school reform is a right-wing plot to privatize education is a monumental disservice not only to public education, but also to parents and children, particularly parents and children that could benefit most from educational reform. 
   
 Art
  
 -----Original Message-----
 From: pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Cc: ca-resisters@interversity.org
 Sent: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 7:27 AM
 Subject: [arn-l] debate on anti-NCLB petition
 
  Here's a bit of the disagreement over the anti-NCLB online petition started by Susan Ohanian, and about her idea to collect 1 million signatures and enough contributions of $10.40 to pay for a full-page NY Times ad, addressed to the new Congress. I think the 2 comments by Yetta and Ken Goodman, in response to Jim Crawford, are right on the money. I think ESEA was a well intentioned band-aid in 1965, a Poverty Program attempt to throw a little money at the problem of social class inequality in education. One of the last gasps by the fading New Deal Democrats. But there was never enough money, and there was no vision or support for restructuring public schools to move them toward the holistic pedagogy needed by most working class kids, especially African Americans and Latinos. For example, Title 1 (then Chapter 1) was premised to MAINTAIN, not challenge, the factory model school. How can we forget the straitjacket of all the strings attached to categorical funding, and the incredible wastefulness built into the added bureaucracy imposed on low income schools, labeled the "second system" by Richard Allington? The whole added funding system was premised on micromanaging at the school level (teachers and administrators were not to be trusted), and a refusal to challenge the powerful state departments of education for their decision-making. So, for example, with regard to curricular matters, school-level professionals were constantly hectored that they could only "supplement, but not supplant" the official textbooks and materials with their categorical funds. This meant that textbook publishers could continue to collude with state-level bureaucrats to invest huge amounts of the education revenues on inappropriate materials (basal readers, textbooks, standardized tests), while teachers had to scrounge for enough categorical money to buy trade books, realia, and Science kits. 
 
 I spent my whole teaching career in inner-city schools, and I don't want ESEA to be romanticized into a golden age of progressive education for the masses. Some extra money that allowed some of us to do a few good things here and there? Yes. Enough to meet the needs of poor kids in a systemic way? Not even close! 
 I worked inside the Title VII (now Title III) system for many years. Most of the good things I saw had to limit their potential to comply with silly red tape, and usually failed to get institutionalized because school districts never had enough money to pick up the funding. When the federal funds dried up, the programs died. This is not a formula for meeting the real needs of the millions of language minority kids in the US, even if you double the Title III purse. 
 
 And I don't think it's wise to advocate for reconstituting the top-down ESEA structure as a "lesser evil" to NCLB. The conservative Dems still run their party and will certainly control EVERYTHING important done in the new Congress. They probably have something like that up their sleeves now. Why make it easy for them? 
 
 Here are the Goodmans' responses (below) to Jim Crawford's arguments (far below) 
 
 Pete Farruggio 
 
 >From: Yetta Goodman <ygoodman@U.ARIZONA.EDU> 
 > 
 >Jim -- 
 > 
 >First I have mixed feelings about working within the NCLB sphere or >pushing for doing away with it. It is a punitive bill that hurts >students and demeans teachers. I also want to make clear that those >who are involved in the petition are some of the people who have put >themselves on the line for many years and have been continuoulsy >"doing the necessary hard work to have an impact." In fact the >cautions that are being raised by a larger and larger group of >people about NCLB probably is a result of their hard and continuous >work. It is possible to have different pathways to a problem's >solution. Those who want to work in the system need to make sure >that George Miller and Ted Kennedy understand the curricular >straight jacket and the deskilling of American teachers that is >taking place as a result of NCLB. So far neither of them has been >very receptive to the destructive influences of NCLB suggsting that >the only problem is that the bill wasn't funded enough. I am >sensitive to the issues that you raise but the main question for me >is how are students including ELL students benefiting from this >bill. Where is the evidence that it is doing any of the things that >it promised to accomplish? 
 >We can end NCLB as a program and still insist on funding what is >legitimate and needed 
 Ken Goodman 
 
 >James Crawford wrote: 
 >>Pat, 
 >> 
 >>I share your optimism that the new Congress will be more receptive >>to our arguments. It's likely to be a much more open place than in >>recent years, when everything was tightly controlled. (E.g., >>witnesses at hearings were carefully screened so there were no >>surprises and very few dissenting views.) It's also encouraging >>that several of the incoming freshmen made criticisms of NCLB a >>major part of their campaigns, although their influence will >>probably be limited. My main concern is that, so far, no leader has >>emerged who thoroughly understands the issues and can articulate >>them forcefully and courageously -- someone like the late Senator >>Paul Wellstone, who spoke out often against high-stakes testing. >>Let's hope that one or more legislators do step forward who can >>effectively challenge the entrenched, Stay-the-Course forces who >>now control the education committees. 
 >> 
 >>In any case, to make substantial gains, our allies on Capitol Hill >>will need what advocates like ourselves can provide: strong >>arguments and evidence, first-person experiences of teachers and >>kids, and research data to back up our criticisms. It doesn't help >>when we rally behind slogans -- e.g., Don't Reauthorize NCLB -- >>that members of Congress will see as extreme and irresponsible. 
 >> 
 >>I'm afraid I don't agree that people who sign petitions to that >>effect are "putting themselves on the line." Simply endorsing a >>militant position is a lot easier than doing the hard work that's >>necessary to have an impact. What we need now is less of the former >>and more of the latter. 
 >> 
 >>Jim 
 >> 
 >>Patricia Richard-Amato wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>Jim-- What you and others have said has been well-thought-out and >>>makes a persuasive case. However, when I think long and hard >>>about this issue and the damage that has been done to the public >>>schools in this country by NCLB, I find that I must support >>>Ohanian and Edelsky in their petition efforts. 
 >>> 
 >>>The current Congress is about to leave for the year. I think that >>>we need to have some faith that the more liberal Congress of 2007 >>>in all its wisdom (we hope) will see fit not to cut the funding >>>you mention, but will find a way to incorporate it, perhaps >>>through new legislation. Its members will know from the words in >>>this petition and the individual comments that a funding cut is >>>not what the signers are all about. The momentum built by this >>>petition is what we have needed for a long time and I am heartened >>>by its signers' willingness to put themselves on the line for what >>>they know and believe. For these reasons, I have signed the >>>petition myself and urge others to sign it. 
 >>> 
 >>>Thanks for helping me to think this out and to consider the >>>possible risks. If you and/or others draw up a petition to sign >>>that specifically mentions the importance of keeping the funding >>>while eliminating the bad stuff, I will sign that, too! 
 >>> 
 >>>Pat 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>> 
 >>>On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:55 AM, James Crawford wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>Anyone who is tempted to sign this position should ask themselves: 
 >>> 
 >>>-- Do I favor eliminating the Title I program, which is providing >>>about $14 billion in federal funding to local schools this year? 
 >>>-- Do I want to repeal Title III formula grants to schools serving >>>ELLs ($669 million)? 
 >>>-- Do I want to cancel subsidies to IHEs for teacher-training and >>>other professional development programs? 
 >>>-- Do I want to terminate federal aid for Indian education, >>>migrant education, foreign-language education, math and science >>>education, education for the homeless, and numerous other small programs? 
 >>> 
 >>>That's what it means when you call on Congress "to vote against >>>reauthorization" of NCLB. Let's remember that NCLB is the latest >>>version of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, which >>>authorizes most of the federal contribution to K-12 schools (about >>>8% of overall spending). Congress is under pressure to reauthorize >>>or extend the law by September 30, 2007, the date when funding >>>authority is scheduled to expire. 
 >>> 
 >>>If you believe that getting rid of NCLB is worth the price of >>>eliminating most federal support for elementary and secondary >>>education, think about how you'd make that argument to educators, >>>parents, and kids in schools that depend heavily on this funding. >>>A few wealthy districts that are disgusted with NCLB have >>>considered rejecting federal aid, thereby freeing themselves from >>>NCLB mandates. I say more power to them -- this would bring needed >>>attention, e.g., on the abuses of high-stakes testing. But less >>>affluent districts can't turn down the money (Title I in >>>particular) without cutting essential services. 
 >>> 
 >>>A more defensible position on NCLB is to say: Sure, we accept the >>>idea of accountability in exchange for federal funding. But let's >>>design a rational and equitable accountability system that will >>>improve schools rather than subjecting them to arbitrary AYP >>>targets and draconian punishments. 
 >>> 
 >>>We have plenty of evidence to make our case, and I think it has a >>>good chance of being taken seriously by Congress. This petition does not. 
 >>> 
 >>>Jim 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.