Re: exit exam editorial

[Rich Gibson <rgibson@pipeline.com>]

The loss in courts is, of course, disappointing and although I opposed this 
avenue of redress at the outset because it was a diversion from other 
things, I have to say that it is sad that judges, who may or may not be of 
good will, write rubbish like this decision and remain in power.

However, it should be abundantly clear by now that not only is Direct 
Action against the big test the best option in fighting them, it is really 
the only option.

Electoral work will not defeat the tests, since both parties support them, 
overwhelmingly. They do so because both parties are parties of the rich and 
the test are designed to serve their interests, to continue their rule. 
Moreover, a vote on the big tests put to the public might well reach the 
wrong conclusion, as people who have been abused themselves tend to abuse.

Judicial appeals, as this decision shows, will not work.

The mainstream press is only going to be a marginal help on the tests 
because it is, mostly, their press, not ours. We need our own lines of 
communication which things like this list, Substance News, Susan Ohanian's 
web page, and the Rouge Forum, seek to initiate.

Direct action by shutting down the tests, and seeking to do freedom schools 
in their place, however, is better than just the only option. It has always 
been the best option.

Direct action actually involves people in taking charge over their own 
destinies. It can dramatically change people, fast, much faster than years 
of school lectures. Uniting theory and practice, requiring people to make 
real decisions along the way, direct action is a key pedagogical tool.

Direct action can be sustained. When people have done it once, they learn 
they can do it again. This is much different from electing a politician 
who, invariably, betrays people, who then get on the electoral treadmill 
once again, only to elect another betrayer, hoping to find someone who will 
oppress them, but just a little less. Direct action is a sign of personal 
responsibility, distinct from seeking someone else to take charge of our 
lives.

Since we are what we do, and we become what we are doing, school workers 
face an ethical and very practical dilemma. Most of us know that the big 
tests are a form of child abuse. At what point do we ourselves become child 
abusers?

And, in the practical sense, the more we participate in the tests, the more 
we become alienated from our students, parents, each other, and the 
community, as, after all, we really are behaving as arms of the ruling 
classes. Then, the more we do that, the more our own salaries, benefits, 
and working conditions (freedom) will be attached to test scores. School 
workers in very urban, and very rural, districts will be hit first, with 
wage and benefit cuts, rationalized by test scores which reflect nothing 
but race and parental income. Suburban school workers will be hit next, 
however, as once the teaching force is fully divided, they will be easy 
targets.

There is one thing to do to the tests. Shut them down. Close the schools. 
Open a freedom school in a church, a home, and let school workers and kids 
have a real discussion about why things are as they are.

best r


At 09:51 AM 8/19/2006 -0700, you wrote:
> Editorial: Exit exam clarity
> Judges send unmistakable messages
>
> Published Saturday, August 19, 2006
> http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14300918p-15165614c.html
>
>
> A three-judge panel of California's 1st District Court of Appeal sent a 
> clear message in an important Aug. 11 decision: The lawyers who sought to 
> force California to give diplomas to students who do not have basic 
> English and math skills took a sharp wrong turn in their case challenging 
> California's high school exit exam.
>
> The judges ripped to shreds the silly arguments that equated a piece of 
> paper with an actual education: "A high school diploma is not an 
> education, any more than a birth certificate is a baby," they wrote.
>
> They stated the obvious: "The purpose of education is not to endow 
> students with diplomas, but to equip them with the substantive knowledge 
> and skills they need to succeed in life."
>
> It would be a "bitter hoax," wrote the judges, to give diplomas to 
> students who do not have basic academic skills. Worse, handing out 
> diplomas to these students wrongly lets the state escape responsibility 
> for actually educating them.
>
> The judges commended the state for targeting extra assistance to school 
> districts with the greatest share of students not passing the exam. But 
> oddly, the lawyers challenging the exam never asked the court to require 
> the state to expand that funding to reach all students not passing the 
> exam. The lawyers were so focused on the question of diplomas that they 
> did not ask the court to require the state to develop a plan to ensure 
> that all students have a full and fair opportunity to learn the skills 
> tested on the exam.
>
> So, it was left to the judges to make the challenge to the state. That 
> message, too, was clear: Find practical solutions quickly to make sure 
> students have an "adequate opportunity to prepare properly" for the exit 
> exam -- or expect to be back in court.
>
> This is doable. Sacramento City Unified School District, for example, 
> prepared an individualized work plan for each student in the class of 2006 
> who did not pass the exit exam. All were offered extra classes before 
> school, after school and on Saturdays.
>
> English learners, many of whom have been in our school system for fewer 
> than six years, received bilingual instruction in their intervention 
> classes. For the class of 2007, the school district worked this summer 
> with Sacramento Area Congregations Together to conduct home visits with 
> students who failed the exit exam on their first try.
>
> The district also offered a summer "Bridge Program" to eighth-graders who 
> have tested "below basic" on the California Standards Test. Without extra 
> help now, these students are not likely to pass the exit exam on their 
> first try in 10th grade.
>
> The judges urged the two sides to get beyond a "fog of war" mentality and 
> work on practical, realistic solutions such as these. Rather than meeting 
> in court as adversaries, advocates for disadvantaged students and the 
> state's top education officials should find ways for struggling students 
> to pass this very basic exam. That message is as clear as it is welcome.
>
> *
>
>
> George Sheridan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to help support the operation of Ca-Resisters,
> visit http://interversity.org/donations.html and pitch in!
> -----------------
> Thanks in advance!
> -Eric Crump