Fwd: More on Miller's speech and NCLB's prospects

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

We have less than a month to get better than Millers offering. Make appointments
and go talk to them. You know more than they do. Tell them what its like on the
ground. If you dont know what improvements to suggest, ask me.

Susan

Begin forwarded message:

  From: amylvalens@comcast.net

  Date: Thu Aug 2, 2007 9:12:45 AM US/Pacific

  To: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>,
  susanharman@igc.org,hberlak@yahoo.com,pjhallam@speakeasy.org,
  deb@stanfordalumni.org,mtsustak@sonic.net,N_Katz@sbcglobal.net,
  langlois-rine@comcast.net,mke4think@hotmail.com,aaronreaven@hotmail.com,
  dawnmermer@yahoo.com,nicomo@sbcglobal.net,learn@jps.net,
  hbl04@csufresno.edu,monicalucido@comcast.net

  Cc: sfmaqui@yahoo.com

  Subject: Re: Fwd: More on Miller's speech and NCLB's prospects

  Hi Pete and everyone:  Here is my report to our board about a meeting with
  Woolsey.  The "fair, flexible, and fully funded" line is one that has been
  the catchword for quite a while.  I agree with the comments you made about
  the divisiveness of the strategy that is emerging.  OPne thing to note is
  that protests of constituents has had an effect.  We just can't sit back now
  and let them think we'll accept less than a complete turn around--even if we
  know that we will get less than we want, the more we push, the more they are
  forced to compromise.

  "This is my version of our meeting on Monday July 2 with Lynn Woolsey.  I

  attended the meeting with Sandy Dorward, Denise Bohman, and Steve Rebscher. 

  Lynn was cordial, but not terribly sympathetic.  To give you an idea of the
  tone

  of the meeting, when she greeted us she made a comment about how we should
  come

  in and get started so we could get home after a long day.  Sounded more like
  SHE

  needed to get home after a long day. 

  Steve made an excellent opening presentation, focusing on how well our
  students

  continue to do in high school and after, and our hope that the new bill will

  have more flexibility, and room for local control.  He spoke from written

  remarks, and I hope he will submit those to all of us because it was much
  better

  stated than what I just wrote. 

  While Lynn told us quite clearly that every legislator is hearing major

  complaints about NCLB, and that she herself d oes not particularly like it,
  she

  was clear that the changes she imagines will be enacted will not satisfy us,
  as there would

  still be mandatory testing.   But instead of one test at the end of the year,

  what she expects is many assessments over the course of a year, and measures

  that follow a child so you are not comparing this yearís third grade with
  last

  yearís.  She told us that she would not vote for a bill that she didnít like,

  but the model she seemed to be proposing was still very much based on the
  idea

  that you need to measure, measure, measure with one size to fit all.  

  She spoke with righteous indignation of people who said NCLB offers them no

  choice.  There is choice: you can refuse federal funds.  Ow.  When Denise
  asked if it was really so that there were no other consequences if we refused
  the money, Lynn chastised us (and the world in general) for not knowing the

  difference between c onsequences determined by the state, and those of the

  federal government.  Anita Franzi was not as sure as Lynn that there were not

  some other strings attached, and indicated that it might be worth checking
  further, which she promised to do.

  Lynn reminded us of what a privileged area we come fromónot Mississippi or
  the Canal district, and we responded by tell her of our experiences in
  Fresno,

  talking to educators there about the devastating effects NCLB was having on

  their schools and children.  This got us into talking about the larger
  picture

  of how bad the law is, and offering suggestions for what would be better

  (support for training and keeping good teachers, using an accreditation model

  instead of testing). She listened, but if I could sum up her response it was
  ìuh

  huh.î  When we asked what more we could do to help change this law, she told
  us we didnít need to anything more.  Oh. 

  In hindsight I wish w e had asked more about this new frequent assessment
  model she mentioned, as well as reminding her about what it will do to our
  community politically and financially to give up the federal funding.  But
  the consensus of the group is it didnít matter what we said.  Still it was
  not a wasted visit.  We were basically not expecting her to embrace our
  ideas.  It is just important that she know that we are not going away. 
  Perhaps we will be the drop of water that makes the glass run over. 

  Iíd have to say, if anything she was more supportive of us when we saw her
  two years ago.  At that point, running for reelection, she told us that her
  hands

  were tied until Democrats regained control of the Congress.  Hmmm.  I think
  that happened.  Politicians.  Canít live with ëem.  Canít live without ëem.

  What now?  Well, I think we have to brace ourselves, and go through this with

  the other politicians on our li st:  Stephanie sounds like sheís willing to
  get

  us a new date with Carole Migden.  We have been told that we can meet with
  one of Diane Feinsteinís aides, but I havenít called to find out more about
  that. 

  Jared Huffman and Barbara Boxer have not responded to my initial inquiries. 

  Anyone want to try another way in to him or her?  And we should also be
  looking at other directions.  Lynn may not be running for reelection, but the

  presidential elections could make this a hot domestic item.  There is someone
  in Novato I need to contact, who has been raising consciousness there. 
  Question is, do we do more this summer, or do we wait until more folks are
  around in the fall?  Let me know what you think.  Iím here until July 24,
  then gone for a month.

  Amy"

  Well, we did not come up with a plan before I left on vacation, so it will
  wait until the end of August, but needs to be our first priority at that
  time, as Miller is pushing for a September vote.  someone once said that
  freedom is a constant struggle--right?

  -------------- Original message --------------

  From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>

  Jim Crawford makes some interesting points about grass roots lobbying.  How
  about here in the Bay Area? Is it worth a shot at Barbara Lee's office?  Pete
  Stark (Fremont)?  Lynn Woolsey?  How about Pelosi???

  Pete

  PS: Yesterday, KPFA had a news report with a bit more detail on some of
  Miller's ideas (so far).  He's sticking hard to merit pay, which will
  preserve the single test as the only "feasible" way to measure growth, and he
  mentioned some "do-able" metrics, like graduation  and attendance rates, as
  possiblities for "multiple measures"  (if I heard correctly)  So we can
  forget about authentic assessments as far as he's concerned.  His
  appropriation of the term "multiple measures" seems to be a tactic to
  neutralize our base of NC LB opponents.  Oh, and as FairTest noted, his
  promise to lighten the load to prevent one or two low performing categories
  from pulling down the whole school, is a concession to mostly middle class
  schools.  Our inner city and rural working class schools have NOTHING BUT low
  performing categories.  This will WORSEN the terms of oppression for Black
  and Latin kids by isolating them and their teachers from potential allies in
  higher income areas.  Part of the ruling class' strategy of divide and
  conquer.

  The way I read them, George Miller's remarks yesterday confirm the shift
  we've noticed in the politics of NCLB reauthorization, as compared to just a
  few months ago. Owing to its widespread unpopularity at the grassroots, this
  law has few staunch defenders in Congress. On the other hand, it still has
  strong support from corporate interests and their "civil rights" allies. So
  the chairman appears to be trying to strike a middle course that would please
  both sides -- an impossible feat, in my view.

  Although his rhetoric is encouraging -- "the American people have a very
  strong sense that the No Child Left Behind Act is not fair. That it is not
  flexible. And that it is not funded" -- we would be naive to discount the
  continuing influence of EdTrust, Aspen, Business Roundtable, NLCR, et al.
  Given their huge resources and the complexity of the legislation, which is
  tailor-made for backroom deals, the test-and-punish lobby still enjoys a big
  advantage.

  So I expect that the details of Miller's forthcoming proposal will fall short
  on his promises for substantial changes -- unless we keep the pressure on.
  For those who want to influence NCLB reauthorization, now would be an
  excellent time -- the Congressional recess, Aug. 6 - Sept. 4 -- to meet with
  your representatives and senators back home. After Miller's bill is unveiled
  and House members start signing on, either out of ignorance of the issues or
  under pressure from their party leaders (or both), it will be much harder to
  have an impact. Similar forces will be at work this fall on the Senate side
  as well.

  Again, Miller's speech is posted at:
  0000,6666,0000http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/RelJul30NCLBSpeech.html.

  Jim

  Crucial Lawmaker Outlines Changes to Education Law

  By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

  Published: July 31, 2007

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31child.html

  WASHINGTON, July 30 The chairman of the House education committee, an
  original architect of the federal No Child Left Behind law, said Monday that
  he wanted to change the law so that annual reading and math tests would not
  be the sole measure of school performance, but that other indicators like
  high school graduation rates and test scores in other subjects would also be
  taken into account.

  ìOur legislation will continue to place strong emphasis on reading and math
  skills,î the chairman, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California,
  said at the National Press Club. ìBut it will allow states to use more than
  their reading and math test results to determine how well schools and st
  udents are doing.î

  In the speech, Mr. Miller described an array of criticisms that have emerged
  over the past year in hearings on renewing the education law. But he repeated
  his commitment to the law and spoke passionately of its goal of raising the
  achievement of poor and minority students.

  His comments were the first public disclosure of changes he would make to the
  law, which was put together by President Bush with strong bipartisan support
  in 2001. Although business leaders and education and civil rights advocates
  praised Mr. Millerís vision for renewal, they also said they would reserve
  judgment until an actual bill appeared. Mr. Miller said that would probably
  occur in September.

  In response to questions about his proposal for broadening the measures of
  student achievement, Mr. Miller said additional indicators of progress could
  include participation in Advanced Placement or college preparatory
  curriculums, high school graduation rates and statewide test s in subjects
  other than reading and math.

  Students ìwould still have to do very well on reading and math,î he said,
  adding, ìThis is not an escape hatch.î

  Still, Mr. Millerís remarks provoked immediate reaction from the ranking
  Republican on the education committee, Representative Howard P. McKeon of
  California, who said any changes that would weaken ìaccountability,
  flexibility and parental choice will be met with strong opposition from House
  Republicans and are likely to be a fatal blow to the reauthorization
  process.î

  The White House referred questions to Secretary of Education Margaret
  Spellings, who hinted that the administration would rather see no bill at all
  than one that ìrolled back the clock on school accountability.î

  ìWhile we all hope to see action on reauthorization soon, a comprehensive
  bill that has bipartisan support and holds firm to the goal of every child
  reading and doing math on grade level by 2014 is worth the wait,î Ms.
  Spellings said in a prepared statement.

  In his speech, Mr. Miller acknowledged the many complaints about the No Child
  Left Behind law from school districts nationwide, saying: ìThroughout our
  schools and communities, the American people have a very strong sense that
  the No Child Left Behind Act is not fair. That it is not flexible. And that
  it is not funded. And they are not wrong.î

  Mr. Miller said he would also propose so-called pay for performance, which
  would pay teachers more based in part on how much their students improved,
  and a system to reward schools if students were on a trajectory to reach
  proficiency within a few years, even if they were not actually on grade
  level. He also said a new law would differentiate between schools that failed
  on a broad scale and those in which only one or two groups of students came
  up short, allowing solutions tailored to each schoolís specific deficiencies.

  Currently, the law requires annual testing in reading and math for stu dents
  in Grades 3 to 8. High school students must be tested once. Schools must
  report results to show that each demographic group low-income, minority and
  special education students, along with students for whom English is a second
  language is showing sufficient progress toward 100 percent proficiency by
  2014. High poverty schools that fail to show sufficient progress, which
  currently number more than 9,000, face steadily more severe penalties,
  including possible closure.

  Susan Traiman, director of education and workforce policy at the Business
  Roundtable, a coalition of companies closely involved in the passage of the
  original law, said the group was encouraged by Mr. Millerís remarks but hoped
  to see a bill with bipartisan support.

  ìWe need to see the details on what he means by these multiple measures and
  how these would work,î Ms. Traiman said.

  *************************

  'No Child' Needs to Expand Beyond Tests, Chair Says

  By Amit R. Paley

  Washington Post Staff Writer

  Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A04

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education

  The House education committee chairman called yesterday for "serious changes"
  to the No Child Left Behind law, including new ways to measure school
  progress, in a proposal some Republicans fear could jeopardize efforts to
  renew the law this year.

  Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the chairman, said the five-year-old law, a
  cornerstone of President Bush's domestic policy, has put too much emphasis on
  standardized testing.

  "The American people have a very strong sense that No Child Left Behind is
  not fair, it is not flexible and it is not funded. And they are not wrong,"
  Miller, who helped write the law, said in a speech at the National Press
  Club. "I can also tell you that there are no votes in the House of
  Representatives for continuing the No Child Left Behind Act without making
  serious changes to it."

  Miller said he expects that the House will vote in September on legislation
  to renew the law, which requires students to be tested in reading and math in
  grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. Schools that fail to make
  adequate yearly progress on those tests face possible sanctions.

  But Miller said yesterday that schools should be able to include measures
  besides the reading and math tests in determining progress, such as
  graduation rates or the number of students passing Advanced Placement exams.
  "Many Americans do not believe that the success of our students or of our
  schools can be measured by one test administered on one day, and I agree with
  them," he said.

  Some civil rights groups have expressed concern that such changes could
  weaken the law. "In our experience, instit utions that are held accountable
  for too many things are, in the end, accountable for nothing," several groups
  that back the law, such as the Citizens' Commission for Civil Rights and the
  Education Trust, wrote in a recent letter to Miller.

  Ross Wiener, vice president for program and policy at Education Trust, a
  group that promotes improving education for disadvantaged students, applauded
  a reference in Miller's speech to the importance of making sure every student
  is proficient in reading and math. But he said many supporters of the law are
  concerned about using new criteria to measure progress.

  "The devil is definitely in the details in this case," he said.

  Teacher unions, a powerful force in Democratic politics, strongly support the
  use of so-called multiple measures, but they are expected to oppose another
  Miller proposal: paying teachers based in part on how their students perform.

  No Child Left Behind has come under attack from conservatives, who s ee the
  law as a federal intrusion into public schools, and from liberals, who
  believe it focuses too much on standardized tests. So far, the law has kept
  the support of leading Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

  But Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the
  House education committee, said yesterday that some of Miller's proposals
  could "be a fatal blow to the reauthorization process." Republican aides said
  he is particularly troubled by multiple measures and is pushing for more
  options for taxpayer-financed private tutoring.

  "Any attempts to weaken the law will be met with stiff resistance from House
  Republicans," McKeon said in a statement, expressing concern that "some of
  the Democrat proposals will undermine transparency for parents and the
  ability to hold schools accountable for student performance."

Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!