Re: Fwd: Re: Incoherent article by Sen. Kennedy

[Rich Gibson <rgibson@pipeline.com>]

This is a thin analysis. The question is not as Jim suggests, just 
"what is our solution.?"

The question is, what is the source of the NCLB problem? Then we can 
get to what the solution is.

It is not just bad people in public office.

NCLB, like the war in Iraq (Afghanistan, etc) is a bipartisan 
maneuver and more to the point, a form of class rule, the tyranny of 
the rich over the rest of us. The rich use the government, which no 
serious person can argue is a democracy anymore, as their executive 
committee where they work out their differences about how to rule, 
and then allow the rest of us to pulverize each other over choosing 
which one of them will oppress us best.

The realities of expanding wars for social imperial control, for oil 
in many cases, for markets, for cheap labor, and rising inequality, 
and booming irrationalism (creationism, or the fact that every major 
presidential candidate is trying to out-god the other), deepening 
racism and nationalism, coupled with the need for troops who consider 
themselves volunteers, and citizens who will sacrifice to back the 
empire's wars (which pit one group of poor and working people on one 
side, against another group of poor and working people on another 
side, both of whom have better enemies among the ruling classes in 
their home nations)---all that adds up to nations which make peculiar 
demands on schools. NCLB, we surely know, is hardly a US phenomenon. 
It is duplicated in Great Britain and to one degree or another in all 
of the industrialized world.

Jim is right in suggesting that the test resistance can hardly claim 
credit for halting NCLB, just as the nearly non-existent antiwar 
movement can hardly claim credit for any shift in war policies. NCLB 
is being held up by differences among the ruling classes, but all of 
them agree on the need to regiment curricula, militarize 
education,  strip the freedom of teachers, and to evaluate student 
knowledge using mainly quantitative methods.

And they know why they need to do that, even if we do not. They must 
regulate what people think, an important product in schooling which 
serves, for the most part, as a mission for capitalism. These are, 
after all, capitalist, not democratic, schools. That varying elements 
in the ruling classes vie over their differences of how this can be 
achieved is not something we should celebrate too much, just as it is 
mistaken to think the main thing about NCLB is privatization, which 
is just one of many paths toward social control.

Jim suggests we need to offer an alternative to the methods and 
substance of capitalist schooling. The Whole Language movement, the 
critical pedagogues, marxist educators, and many others have detailed 
those alternatives for decades. The issue is not providing a 
reasonable alternative. That work is done. The issue is a matter of 
connecting the reason we have already created to power, to effective 
strategic and tactical resistance based on an ethic of equality, 
mutual responisibility and solidarity, that has an organizational 
form which can be sustained over a long time.

Susan Harman and Calcare, as well as members of the Rouge Forum, have 
proposed boycotting the Big Tests. If that is rabble rousing (and 
just who, other than me, is rabble?) then we need lots of it. While 
research and writing are fine things, books and papers are good, it 
remains that only direct action can match power vs power. They have 
the money, We should have the people. And to get them we must act.

As I understand it, we have a meeting set for Feb 2 in Fresno. Hope 
to see you there.

The Rouge Forum is leading a national conference of education 
activists, March 14 to 16, in Louisville.

Happy happy merry merry and a good new year to all.

best, r
www.rougeforum.org



At 06:37 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote:

> 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.