Re: [LiteracyForAll] No child left unfed/no unnecessary testing: bumper stickers

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

> > one that addresses the complexities of the reading and learning 
> > process.
I think the issue is public or private schools, way bigger than reading 
and learning. So...
No Corporation Left Behind
Phonics helps you read nonsense; reading helps you read books.
NCLB is failing our schools.
Don't privatize—organize!
Save public schools—repeal NCLB.
Susan

On Wednesday, December 19, 2007, at 03:14 PM, Georgia HEDRICK wrote:

> Don't forget to look at:
> http://www.cafepress.com/boycott_nclb--It's not for profit but for 
> knowledge. Wear a tshirt to school, people.  Spread the word. It's all 
> I can offer right now and change anything on site instantly at a need.
> The phrase "TESTING ISN'T TEACHING" is worth being a button or sticker 
> too.
> And I can make buttons, all sorts of designs thanks to Ken Goodman.  
> Only costs the postage.
> Whatever art you want, I can do.  gh
>
>
>
>
> Susan Ohanian <susano@gmavt.net> wrote:
> 'No Child left unfed' will resonate now as stories about empty Food 
> Pantries spread across the country.
>  NO CHILD LEFT OUT IN THE COLD: GIVE THEM HEAT,  HOUSING AND HEALTH 
> INSURANCE
>  KEEP THE HEAT ON:  NO CHILD LEFT COLD AND HUNGRY
>
>  Stephen Krashen wrote:
> > Yes, but ... It might be useful to have some bumper sticker slogans. 
> > I can think of two, so far:
> > NO CHILD LEFT UNFED. This is Susan Ohanian's idea. Brilliant because 
> > it shifts thinking to the underlying issues.
> > NO UNNECESSARY TESTING. This one says we understand the value of 
> > assessment, and sends the message that ONE of the problems is 
> > excessive testing.
> > I would like to find ways of expressing some other core truths in 
> > just a few words. I suspect that a short list might cover all our 
> > points.
> > YES, it is true that they might ignore anything we do. But they will 
> > surely ignore us if we don't do
> > anything.
> >
> > --- Elaine garan <elainegaran@hotmail.com
> > > With all due respect to Jim Crawford whom I admire enormously-- I 
> > > don't think it's a question of our side not offering or articulating 
> > > an alternative to NCLB. I really don't. I believe that we have but 
> > > what "they" want is a bumper sticker alternative rather than one 
> > > that addresses the complexities of the reading and learning process.
> > > Even if we did offer an aliternative, in 25 words or less, do any of 
> > > us really believe that it would be acknowledged much less accepted 
> > > by the other side? They have all the cards including simple-minded, 
> > > simple solutions to complex problems. They do not want to face or 
> > > deal with the underlying causes of the problems facing schools. They 
> > > are trying for a simplistic, corporate-based, academic solution to a 
> > > problem that is human, social, economic and complicated .
> > > Of course, they would not accept the brilliant alternatives offered 
> > > by whole language and contructivist approaches. Those approaches 
> > > cannot be reduced to a slogan or a bumper sticker or a few sound 
> > > bytes that Spellngs can spout off in a press release. It's not that 
> > > we have not
> > > articulated an alternative! Geez-- we've been shouting into the 
> > > abyss for years.
> > > Case in point-- a few months ago a journalist interviewed me about 
> > > the usual and the usual suspects. I said that what this all comes 
> > > down to is the misuse and manipulation of the research. I then 
> > > explained how and why. His response is that all of that is true but 
> > > it's too complicated to ever have an impact on Congress or the 
> > > public. In other words, if someone throws out a big lie, the public 
> > > and the media are too lazy and too simple-minded to delve into the 
> > > complexities that lead to the truth. Sad, sad, sad but true, true, 
> > > true.
> > > We do not suffer from sound alternatives to NCLB. Not at all! The 
> > > problem is 1) we lack a forum, 2) we are not simple-minded or 
> > > simple-sounding enough, 3) you cannot sell what we advocate, 4) you 
> > > cannot buy us
> > > That is a quadruple wallop (there are probably more points I could 
> > > make if I gave it some more time, but we're complex enough as it is 
> > > so what's the point?
> > >
> > > From: KGoodman@u.arizona.edu <mailto:KGoodman%40u.arizona.edu>
> > > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:30:23 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: [LiteracyForAll] Ken Goodman on politics and NCLB
> > >
> > > In Saving Our Schools I outlined how movement conservatism is 
> > > organized with the methods and morality of a long range political 
> > > campaign. In their campaign to privatize education they have been 
> > > able to control the policies of both the republicans and the 
> > > democrats. The Reading
> > > Excellence Act was passed under the Clinton administration. Andy 
> > > Rotherham who presents himself as a neo-liberal was the author of 
> > > the Kerry education platform which strongly supported
> > > NCLB. The money and political clout of the campaign comes from the 
> > > National Business
> > > Roundtable and various conservative foundations. That makes it 
> > > possible to use NICHD, and various scientific groups as covers for 
> > > the National Reading panel and the Snow group reports and to control 
> > > the press treatment of NCLB and related aspects of the campaign. 
> > > There is no
> > > difference between neo-liberals and neo-cons in their attitudes 
> > > about public education .
> > >
> > > The key thing to understand is that in movement consevatism a small 
> > > very smart, well-connected, highly funded, totally amoral and very 
> > > intelligent group orchestrate and control a campaign
> > > which uses many disparate groups who don't even know they are being 
> > > used by the campaign- in fact they are led to believe that they are 
> > > using the campaign. The campaign has been able to manipulate the 
> > > legislative process at both the state and national levels. They use 
> > > the institutions
> > > of democracy to effecitvely destroy democracy. What they have done 
> > > in education has used the same methods as the attack on civil 
> > > liberties and the perversion of the Constitution under Bush
> > >
> > > That's why I believe that our attempt to counter the campaign to use 
> > > NCLB to privatize education has been remarkably successful. WIth all 
> > > their power and money we brought about a stalemate
> > > on renewing or worsening NCLB. But we can't out lobby them. We can 
> > > win arguments But our appeal to sense and reason can't overcome 
> > > their political clout and their amoral ability to lie and distort 
> > > the reality of NCLB and other aspects of the attack.

> > > To actually defeat the campaign we need to organize massive 
> > > resistence on the part of parents, professionals and students. We 
> > > have to convince Congress and the presidential candidates that 
> > > continuing in the direction NCLB has taken the schools is dangerous 
> > > politically for them.

> > > It is possible that we have already had some success in forcing 
> > > Presidential candidates to take a stand on NCLB- there certainly is 
> > > a strong contrast between the rhetoric on education of the 
> > > Republications and the Democrats. That probably doesn't reflect real 
> > > differences in how they would treat education if elected as much as 
> > > it reflects a growing belief that NCLB us increasingly unpopular and 
> > > that taking a stand against it is good politics. Resistance can 
> > > convince Congress what reason can't.

> > > Ken Goodman