Fwd: Re: Incoherent article by Sen. Kennedy

[Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>]

James Crawford is an ELL advocate and the founder of the Institute 
for Language and Education Policy.  Here he weighs in on "what to do 
now" about NCLB...


> From: James Crawford <jwcrawford@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>
>
> Contrary to Ken's claims, I don't believe "we" have won anything as 
> yet. What form the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will take 
> in the future remains quite murky and that question seems unlikely 
> to be resolved by the presidential race. Thus far, the candidates' 
> discourse on education has yet to rise above the level of sound 
> bites and bumper stickers.
>
> ESEA's current form, NCLB, is such a blunt instrument that it has 
> generated opposition from many quarters and many viewpoints. While 
> this has had a welcome impact on Congress, neither "we" nor any 
> single group of critics can claim credit for the current gridlock 
> over reauthorization. Politically speaking, the complaints of 
> powerful interest groups -- the NEA in particular -- appear to have 
> exerted a major influence on Miller and Kennedy. But while such 
> groups have long laundry lists of complaints about NCLB, none has 
> advanced a coherent alternative vision of the federal role in K-12 education.
>
> This leaves us with a Congress that's ideologically wedded to 
> test-and-punish, yet unable to solve the myriad of problems that 
> NCLB-style "accountability" creates. It also provides progressive 
> educators an opportunity to develop a whole new approach that would 
> truly improve schools.
>
> Without such an alternative vision, it's hard to see how anything 
> significantly better than NCLB could emerge. As I've said before, 
> this is where we should be focusing our energies. An increasing 
> number of progressives are thinking along these lines, and I hope 
> that members of the Institute will join in. It's a time for 
> reflection, discussion, and coalition-building.
>
> It's not a time for rabble-rousing. Calling for "massive resistance" 
> is not the kind of leadership that's needed at this point. Large 
> numbers of educators, parents, and even politicians have already 
> figured out that NCLB is part of the problem. The question is: 
> what's our solution?
>
> Jim Crawford
>
>
> Ken Goodman wrote:
> > The Lesson from Kennedy's OPed is that we've won our first 
> > objective which is to raise the issues necessary to forestall a 
> > renewal of NCLB in an even worse form. We also succeeded in making 
> > it an issue in the election which will leave a Democratic president 
> > with a commitment to end or change the law or at the least lesson 
> > its impact. It's now Bush's education policy and Kennedy and Miller 
> > have to distance themsleves from NCLB in its present form. To 
> > really achieve change and force the politicians to listen we need 
> > massive resistance to NCLB- by parents, educators, and students at 
> > every level- local, state and national.
> > Ken Goodman
> >
> > James Crawford wrote:
> > > Like George Bush, who's scheduled to speak at a Chicago school 
> > > today, Ted Kennedy just seems to be going through the motions in 
> > > observance of NCLB's 6th birthday.
> > >
> > > His oped in today's Washington Post doesn't make too much sense. 
> > > One the one hand, he claims "positive changes" as a result of the 
> > > law; on the other, he embraces most of the major indictments. 
> > > Meanwhile, he attacks both NCLB supporters (Bush) and critics 
> > > (Democratic presidential candidates) for their "simplistic rhetoric."
> > >
> > > Not a great plan for building a new coalition for reauthorization. 
> > > You have to wonder whether there's any point to this article, 
> > > other than self-justification. It's hard for politicians to admit 
> > > making fundamental mistakes in legislation they coauthor. And, of 
> > > course, it's hard to turn down an invitation to appear in the Washington Post.
> > >
> > >
> > > How To Fix 'No Child'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By Edward M. Kennedy
> > > Monday, January 7, 2008; Page A17
> > >
> > > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010601828.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010601828.html
> > >
> > > With renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act high on the agenda 
> > > for the new session of Congress, it's no surprise that the 2002 
> > > law -- the Bush administration's signature domestic initiative -- 
> > > has become a political football in this intense campaign season. 
> > > The administration continues to speak glowingly of the law while 
> > > Democratic candidates blast it. But simplistic campaign rhetoric 
> > > hardly reflects what's actually happening on school reform.
> > >
> > > Tomorrow is the sixth anniversary of the law's enactment. It's a 
> > > good time to take realistic stock of things. Obviously, the 
> > > results are mixed. Many elements of the reforms have produced 
> > > encouraging progress for young children in public schools across 
> > > the nation, and they deserve to be supported. Other aspects of the 
> > > law have not been satisfactory, and some have been failures. These 
> > > must be changed.
> > >
> > > The stakes are high. At issue is a goal that Democrats have long 
> > > embraced as a fundamental principle of our party -- opportunity 
> > > for all Americans. Strengthening the nation's schools is essential 
> > > for preparing our citizens to compete and win in the global 
> > > economy. We in Congress have an obligation to parents, to teachers 
> > > and, most of all, to schoolchildren across America to draw the 
> > > right lessons from these past six years with the No Child Left 
> > > Behind Act and put school reform on a stronger path for the future.
> > >
> > > On the plus side, the law demands that all children must benefit 
> > > -- black or white, immigrant or native-born, rich or poor, 
> > > disabled or not. Before its enactment, only a handful of states 
> > > monitored the achievement of every group of students in their 
> > > schools. Today, all 50 states must do that. Across the country, 
> > > schools are poring over student data to identify weaknesses in 
> > > instruction and to improve teaching and learning. All schools now 
> > > measure performance based not on the achievement of their average 
> > > and above-average students but on their progress in helping 
> > > below-average students reach high standards as well.
> > >
> > > The positive changes are evident in the National Assessment of 
> > > Educational Progress, better known as "The Nation's Report Card." 
> > > The improvements are still modest, but they're noticeable, 
> > > particularly among students who formerly were low achievers. We're 
> > > beginning to see a narrowing of the achievement gap between white 
> > > students and other students.
> > >
> > > All of this is good news. But the law still needs major changes to 
> > > bring out the best in all children. The process for rating 
> > > troubled schools fails to reward incremental progress made by 
> > > schools struggling to catch up. Its one-size-fits-all approach 
> > > encourages "teaching to the test" and discourages innovation in 
> > > the classroom. We need to encourage local decision makers to use a 
> > > broader array of information, beyond test scores, to determine 
> > > which schools need small adjustments and which need extensive reforms.
> > >
> > > The act doesn't do enough to support teachers as the professionals 
> > > they are by training and mentoring them and by placing good 
> > > teachers in the schools that need them most. It fails to deal with 
> > > the dropout crisis, which puts large numbers of young students 
> > > beyond the reach of the American dream. It doesn't involve parents 
> > > enough in helping their children succeed. It falls short in 
> > > achieving smaller classes so that teachers can give children the 
> > > one-on-one attention they need.
> > >
> > > Most of all, the law fails to supply the essential resources that 
> > > schools desperately need to improve their performance. We can't 
> > > achieve progress for all students on the cheap. No child should 
> > > have to attend crumbling schools or learn from an outdated 
> > > textbook, regardless of where he or she lives. It's disgraceful 
> > > that President Bush has failed to include adequate funding for 
> > > school reform in his education budgets. Struggling schools can do 
> > > only so much on a tin-cup budget.
> > >
> > > Four decades ago, my brother Robert Kennedy asked at a Senate 
> > > hearing on education: "What happened to the children?" That 
> > > question is as appropriate today as it was in 1966. We're still 
> > > not doing enough for the nation's schools and children.
> > >
> > > As Democrats and Republicans choose their nominees in our 
> > > democratic process, and as President Bush prepares to deliver his 
> > > last State of the Union address, let us all remember that we owe 
> > > it to our children and our children's children to put progress 
> > > ahead of politics and support what is working in school reform, 
> > > and to work together to fix what is not.
> > >
> > > The writer, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, was a lead 
> > > author of the No Child Left Behind Act.