A long post, but well worth reading.
Bush Is Not Incompetent
By George Lakoff, AlterNet
Posted on July 3, 2006, Printed on July 8, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader."
Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.
To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm -- it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities -- disregarding him as a complete idiot -- and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.
The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:
Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree
Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed
Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more
Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event
Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts
Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections
Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies
Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives
Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment -- "The Healthy Forests Act" and the "Clear Skies Initiative" -- to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies
Winning re-election and solidifying his party's grip on Congress
These aren't signs of incompetence. As should be painfully clear, the Bush administration has been overwhelmingly competent in advancing its conservative vision. It has been all too effective in achieving its goals by determinedly pursuing a conservative philosophy.
It's not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it's the conservative agenda.
The Conservative Agenda
Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government's positive role in people's lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.
The conservative vision for government is to shrink it - to "starve the beast" in Conservative Grover Norquist's words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that "you can spend your money better than the government can." Social programs are considered unnecessary or "discretionary" since the primary role of government is to defend the country's border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people's own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made -- conservation, healthcare for the poor -- charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.
Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn't there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn't have failed if he bore no responsibility.
The response to Hurricane Katrina -- rather, the lack of response -- was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen's lives. This response was not about Bush's incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.
Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes -- based on recognizing global warming -- were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.
Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?
In Iraq, we also see the impact of philosophy as much as a failure of execution.
The idea for the war itself was born out of deep conservative convictions about the nature and capacity of US military force. Among the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles (signed in 1997 by a who's who of the architects of the Iraq war -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby among others) are four critical points:
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.
It also indicates that the real motive behind the Iraq war wasn't to stop Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but was a test of neoconservative theory that the US military could reshape Middle East geo-politics. The manipulation and disregard of intelligence to sell the war was not incompetence, it was the product of a conservative agenda.
Unfortunately, this theory exalts a hubristic vision over the lessons of history. It neglects the realization that there is a limit to a foreign army's ability to shape foreign politics for the good. Our military involvement in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba (prior to Castro) and Panama, or European imperialist endeavors around the globe should have taught us this lesson. Democracy needs to be an organic, homegrown movement, as it was in this country. If we believe so deeply in our ideals, they will speak for themselves and inspire others.
During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President's military decisions "unpatriotic"; when Conservatives defend the executive branch's use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the "decider." "I support our President" was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.
Additionally, as the implementer of the neoconservative vision and an unquestioned moral authority, our President felt he had no burden to forge international consensus or listen to the critiques of our allies. "You're with us, or you're against us," he proclaimed after 9/11.
Much criticism continues to be launched against this administration for ineptitude in its reconstruction efforts. Tragically, it is here too that the administration's actions have been shaped less by ineptitude than by deeply held conservative convictions about the role of government.
As noted above, Conservatives believe that government's role is limited to security and maintaining a free market. Given this conviction, it's no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market -- the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Indeed, George Packer has recently reported that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is nearing its end ("The Lessons of Tal Affar," The New Yorker, April 10th, 2006). Iraqis must find ways to rebuild themselves, and the free market we have constructed for them is supposed to do this. This is not ineptitude. This is the result of deep convictions over the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of governments to their people.
Finally, many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration; environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society.
Is it any surprise that the systemic impacts of the Iraq invasion were not part of the conservative moral or strategic calculus used in pursuing the war?
The conservative war rhetoric focused narrowly on ousting Saddam -- he was an evil dictator, and evil cannot be tolerated, period. The moral implications of unleashing social chaos and collateral damage in addition to the lessons of history were not relevant concerns.
As a consequence, we expected to be greeted as liberators. The conservative plan failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation that would have called for broader contingency planning. It lacked an analysis of what else would happen in Iraq and the Middle East as a result of ousting the Hussein Government, such as an Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.
Joe Biden recently said, "if I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority [to go to war]." Had Bush actually been incompetent, he would have never been able to lead us to war in Iraq. Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Had Bush been incompetent, he would have been blocked from stacking the courts with right-wing judges. Incompetence, on reflection, might have actually been better for the country.
Hidden Successes
Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these "failures" -- Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit -- have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.
One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government's capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush's popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.
Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won't come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call "non-military, discretionary spending;" that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.
Both Iraq and Katrina have enriched the coffers of the conservative corporate elite, thus further advancing the conservative agenda. Halliburton, Lockhead Martin and US oil companies have enjoyed huge profit margins in the last six years. Taking Iraq's oil production off-line in the face of rising international demand meant prices would rise, making the oil inventories of Exxon and other firms that much more valuable, leading to record profits. The destruction wrought by Katrina and Iraq meant billions in reconstruction contracts. The war in Iraq (and the war in Afghanistan) meant billions in military equipment contracts. Was there any doubt where those contracts would go? Chalk up another success for Bush's conservative agenda.
Bush also used Katrina as an opportunity to suspend the environmental and labor protection laws that Conservatives despise so much. In the wake of Katrina, environmental standards for oil refineries were temporarily suspended to increase production. Labor laws are being thwarted to drive down the cost of reconstruction efforts. So, amidst these "disasters," Conservatives win again.
Where most Americans see failure in Iraq - George Miller recently called Iraq a "blunder of historic proportions" - conservative militarists are seeing many successes. Conservatives stress the importance of our military -- our national pride and worth is expressed through its power and influence. Permanent bases are being constructed as planned in Iraq, and America has shown the rest of the world that we can and will preemptively strike with little provocation. They succeeded in a mobilization of our military forces based on ideological pretenses to impact foreign policy. The war has struck fear in other nations with a hostile show of American power. The conservatives have succeeded in strengthening what they perceive to be the locus of the national interest --military power.
It's Not Incompetence
When Progressives shout "Incompetence!" it obscures the many conservative successes. The incompetence frame drastically misses the point, that the conservative vision is doing great harm to this country and the world. An understanding of this and an articulate progressive response is needed. Progressives know that government can and should have a positive role in our lives beyond simple, physical security. It had a positive impact during the progressive era, busting trusts, and establishing basic labor standards. It had a positive impact during the new deal, softening the blow of the depression by creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It had a positive role in advancing the civil rights movement, extending rights to previously disenfranchised groups. And the United States can have a positive role in world affairs without the use of its military and expressions of raw power. Progressives acknowledge that we are all in this together, with "we" meaning all people, across all spectrums of race, class, religion, sex, sexual preference and age. "We" also means across party lines, state lines and international borders.
The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.
Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush's conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.
Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.
George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
NEA Challenges NCLB
NEA TO CHALLENGE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
A majority of the 8,200 delegates gathered for the National Education Association’s annual convention overwhelmingly approved a plan that would push for aggressive changes to the federal No Child Left Behind law, which is up for reauthorization next year. The nation's largest union, whose leaders have often complained they were not allowed to participate in the crafting of the country's chief education law, approved a plan that calls on NEA members to lobby Congress for reforms to bring the law more in line with the views of the 2.8 million-member union. The changes proposed include establishing an accountability system that no longer relies only on testing as the measure of success or failure. Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures. The plan also calls for smaller class sizes, more funding for schools, and revisions to the definition of “highly qualified” teacher. The plan passed with just three delegates speaking publicly against it, reports Vaishali Honawar, because they argued that the union should take even more extreme measures and try to repeal the NCLB law in its entirety. At the Representative Assembly, the union also released a survey of 1,000 NEA members that showed nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/5220/66705/129/0/
A majority of the 8,200 delegates gathered for the National Education Association’s annual convention overwhelmingly approved a plan that would push for aggressive changes to the federal No Child Left Behind law, which is up for reauthorization next year. The nation's largest union, whose leaders have often complained they were not allowed to participate in the crafting of the country's chief education law, approved a plan that calls on NEA members to lobby Congress for reforms to bring the law more in line with the views of the 2.8 million-member union. The changes proposed include establishing an accountability system that no longer relies only on testing as the measure of success or failure. Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures. The plan also calls for smaller class sizes, more funding for schools, and revisions to the definition of “highly qualified” teacher. The plan passed with just three delegates speaking publicly against it, reports Vaishali Honawar, because they argued that the union should take even more extreme measures and try to repeal the NCLB law in its entirety. At the Representative Assembly, the union also released a survey of 1,000 NEA members that showed nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/5220/66705/129/0/
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Mayors and school ( cont.)
Mayor Antonio Villariagosa of Los Angeles is in the midst of seeking power to control the Los Angleses city schools. This effort continues a pattern of urban mayors trying to reform the schools. In considering this direction it is important to consider what mayors could do with their current powers.
Here is a brief from West Ed by Richard Rothstien from his recent book, Class and Schools: Using Social , Economic and Educational Reform to close the Black-White Achievement Gap. (2006)
Reforms that could help narrow the achievement Gap.
Policymakers almost universally conclude that persistent achievement gaps must result
from wrongly designed school policies — either expectations that are too low, teachers who are insufficiently qualified, curricula that are badly designed, classes that are too large, school climates that are too undisciplined, leadership that is too unfocused, or a combination of these. This exclusive focus on schooling is wrong. Without complementary investments in early childhood preparation, health care, housing, after-school and summer programs, and other social and economic supports, the achievement gap will never be closed.
Americans have concluded that the
achievement gap is the fault of “failing schools”
because it makes no common sense that
it could be otherwise. After all, how much
money a family has, or a child’s skin color,
should not influence how well that child learns
to read. If teachers know how to teach and if
schools permit no distractions, children should
be able to learn these subjects whatever their
family income or skin color.
This common sense perspective, however,
is misleading and dangerous. It ignores how
social class characteristics in a stratified society
like ours may actually influence learning in
school. It confuses social class, a concept which
Americans have historically been loathe to con-
sider, with two of its characteristics, income and,
in the United States, race. For it is true that low
income and skin color themselves don’t influ-
ence academic achievement, but the collection
of characteristics that define social class differ-
ences inevitably influences that achievement.
If as a society we choose to preserve big
social class differences, we must necessarily also
accept substantial gaps between the achieve-
ment of lower-class and middle-class children.
Closing those gaps requires not only better
schools, although those are certainly needed,
but also reform in the social and economic
institutions that prepare children to learn in
different ways. It will not be cheap.
What follows is a series of reforms, in addi-
tion to school improvement, that could help
narrow the achievement gap.
The contents of this issue of Policy Perspectives are excerpted from Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and
Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap, by Richard Rothstein, and published by Teachers College Press (2004). Class and Schools is available at booksellers and at http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1792.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Here is a brief from West Ed by Richard Rothstien from his recent book, Class and Schools: Using Social , Economic and Educational Reform to close the Black-White Achievement Gap. (2006)
Reforms that could help narrow the achievement Gap.
Policymakers almost universally conclude that persistent achievement gaps must result
from wrongly designed school policies — either expectations that are too low, teachers who are insufficiently qualified, curricula that are badly designed, classes that are too large, school climates that are too undisciplined, leadership that is too unfocused, or a combination of these. This exclusive focus on schooling is wrong. Without complementary investments in early childhood preparation, health care, housing, after-school and summer programs, and other social and economic supports, the achievement gap will never be closed.
Americans have concluded that the
achievement gap is the fault of “failing schools”
because it makes no common sense that
it could be otherwise. After all, how much
money a family has, or a child’s skin color,
should not influence how well that child learns
to read. If teachers know how to teach and if
schools permit no distractions, children should
be able to learn these subjects whatever their
family income or skin color.
This common sense perspective, however,
is misleading and dangerous. It ignores how
social class characteristics in a stratified society
like ours may actually influence learning in
school. It confuses social class, a concept which
Americans have historically been loathe to con-
sider, with two of its characteristics, income and,
in the United States, race. For it is true that low
income and skin color themselves don’t influ-
ence academic achievement, but the collection
of characteristics that define social class differ-
ences inevitably influences that achievement.
If as a society we choose to preserve big
social class differences, we must necessarily also
accept substantial gaps between the achieve-
ment of lower-class and middle-class children.
Closing those gaps requires not only better
schools, although those are certainly needed,
but also reform in the social and economic
institutions that prepare children to learn in
different ways. It will not be cheap.
What follows is a series of reforms, in addi-
tion to school improvement, that could help
narrow the achievement gap.
The contents of this issue of Policy Perspectives are excerpted from Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and
Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap, by Richard Rothstein, and published by Teachers College Press (2004). Class and Schools is available at booksellers and at http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1792.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Patriotism : Howard Zinn
July 3, 2006
Patriotism & The Fourth of July
By Howard Zinn
In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many
speeches about the young people who 'died for their
country.' Let's be honest about war. Those who gave
their lives did not die for their country, as they were
led to believe but for their government. The
distinction between country and government is at the
heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will
be referred to again and again on July 4, but without
attention to its meaning.
Click on the title for the full document.
Patriotism & The Fourth of July
By Howard Zinn
In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many
speeches about the young people who 'died for their
country.' Let's be honest about war. Those who gave
their lives did not die for their country, as they were
led to believe but for their government. The
distinction between country and government is at the
heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will
be referred to again and again on July 4, but without
attention to its meaning.
Click on the title for the full document.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The most important Senate race in the nation
The Most Important U.S. Senate Race in 2006
By: David Sirota, The Huffington Post
July 5th/2005
A lot of people have asked me which races in 2006 are going to be most crucial.
The disgusting Katherine Harris of Bush-Gore 2000 fame is running in Florida -
should defeating her be progressives’ biggest priority? Or what about taking
out wild-eyed right-wing lunatic Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania?
Both of these races, and many others, are definitely important. But if you are a
progressive who wants to start seeing some fundamental, long-term change (as
opposed to short term incrementalism), there’s one race in 2006 that stands
head and shoulders above the rest in terms of significance: The race to replace
retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords in Vermont.
Why do I say this? Because the leading candidate in that race is Vermont’s
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders - the longest-serving Independent in
Congress. This is not a man who is independent in the “between Democrats and
Republicans” way - this is one of the most committed progressives ever to hold
federal office, a man who is an independent because he has long believed the
current political system is bought by Big Money. Electing him to the U.S.
Senate transcends this election because it would elevate one of the strongest
voices progressives to the national stage - a stage that, beyond a handful of
courageous leaders like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone, has been sorely lacking
strong progressive voices for years.
You may have recently heard about Sanders after he managed to defy a veto threat
by President Bush and pass legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You might also
have heard about him when he was the first Member of Congress to take seniors to
Canada to highlight how the drug industry is ripping off Americans with the
highest prices in the world.
The Capitol BuildingBut if you don’t know much about Sanders and think I am
overblowing the case, do yourself a favor and read this new piece on him in
Vermont’s Rutland Herald - the newspaper that covers one of the more
conservative-leaning areas of the state. If you don’t want to read an article,
check out some video of Sanders’ angrily confronting people like Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan - people that most bought-off politicians are too afraid to
criticize in private, much less challenge in public.
Make no mistake about it - the GOP and its Big Business backers are going to do
everything they can to try to knock off Sanders. They have already recruited a
multi-millionaire corporate executive who has pledged to spend $5 million of
his own money to try to buy the election. And Sanders faces special challenges
because he refuses to accept corporate PAC money. That’s why you should join me
in heading over to his website and making a donation. No matter how small, it is
important - Sanders has always relied on small contributions from ordinary
people to fund his campaigns.
For far too long, the U.S. Senate has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Corporate America, taking orders from Big Business and conservative interest
groups. Electing someone like Sanders to the Senate would finally give The Rest
of Us a voice in an insitution we have been locked out of. That’s why Vermont’s
Senate race is the most important election of 2006: because it goes beyond the
short-term partisan makeup of Congress, and finally gives us a chance to power
someone who fights for real people into the most exclusive, elitist-dominated,
and important institutions in America.
__._,_.___
By: David Sirota, The Huffington Post
July 5th/2005
A lot of people have asked me which races in 2006 are going to be most crucial.
The disgusting Katherine Harris of Bush-Gore 2000 fame is running in Florida -
should defeating her be progressives’ biggest priority? Or what about taking
out wild-eyed right-wing lunatic Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania?
Both of these races, and many others, are definitely important. But if you are a
progressive who wants to start seeing some fundamental, long-term change (as
opposed to short term incrementalism), there’s one race in 2006 that stands
head and shoulders above the rest in terms of significance: The race to replace
retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords in Vermont.
Why do I say this? Because the leading candidate in that race is Vermont’s
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders - the longest-serving Independent in
Congress. This is not a man who is independent in the “between Democrats and
Republicans” way - this is one of the most committed progressives ever to hold
federal office, a man who is an independent because he has long believed the
current political system is bought by Big Money. Electing him to the U.S.
Senate transcends this election because it would elevate one of the strongest
voices progressives to the national stage - a stage that, beyond a handful of
courageous leaders like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone, has been sorely lacking
strong progressive voices for years.
You may have recently heard about Sanders after he managed to defy a veto threat
by President Bush and pass legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You might also
have heard about him when he was the first Member of Congress to take seniors to
Canada to highlight how the drug industry is ripping off Americans with the
highest prices in the world.
The Capitol BuildingBut if you don’t know much about Sanders and think I am
overblowing the case, do yourself a favor and read this new piece on him in
Vermont’s Rutland Herald - the newspaper that covers one of the more
conservative-leaning areas of the state. If you don’t want to read an article,
check out some video of Sanders’ angrily confronting people like Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan - people that most bought-off politicians are too afraid to
criticize in private, much less challenge in public.
Make no mistake about it - the GOP and its Big Business backers are going to do
everything they can to try to knock off Sanders. They have already recruited a
multi-millionaire corporate executive who has pledged to spend $5 million of
his own money to try to buy the election. And Sanders faces special challenges
because he refuses to accept corporate PAC money. That’s why you should join me
in heading over to his website and making a donation. No matter how small, it is
important - Sanders has always relied on small contributions from ordinary
people to fund his campaigns.
For far too long, the U.S. Senate has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Corporate America, taking orders from Big Business and conservative interest
groups. Electing someone like Sanders to the Senate would finally give The Rest
of Us a voice in an insitution we have been locked out of. That’s why Vermont’s
Senate race is the most important election of 2006: because it goes beyond the
short-term partisan makeup of Congress, and finally gives us a chance to power
someone who fights for real people into the most exclusive, elitist-dominated,
and important institutions in America.
__._,_.___
Monday, July 03, 2006
NCLB: little evidence of success
STUDY SHOWS NCLB LIMITS ON IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT & REDUCING GAPS
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) has released a new study that reports the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) hasn't improved reading and mathematical achievement or reduced achievement gaps. The study also revealed that the NCLB won't meet its goals of 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 if the trends of the first several years continue. The report compares the findings from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to state assessment results and concludes that high stakes testing and sanctions required by NCLB are not working as planned under the NCLB. The findings contradict claims of the Bush Administration and some previous studies that showed positive results under NCLB. "This report is depressing given the tremendous amount of pressure schools have been under and the damage that a lot of high poverty racial schools have undergone by being declared as failing schools," said Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project. "We have not focused on the kinds of serious long-term reforms that can actually produce gains and narrow the huge gaps in opportunity and achievement for minority students."
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4602/66705/60/0/
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) has released a new study that reports the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) hasn't improved reading and mathematical achievement or reduced achievement gaps. The study also revealed that the NCLB won't meet its goals of 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 if the trends of the first several years continue. The report compares the findings from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to state assessment results and concludes that high stakes testing and sanctions required by NCLB are not working as planned under the NCLB. The findings contradict claims of the Bush Administration and some previous studies that showed positive results under NCLB. "This report is depressing given the tremendous amount of pressure schools have been under and the damage that a lot of high poverty racial schools have undergone by being declared as failing schools," said Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project. "We have not focused on the kinds of serious long-term reforms that can actually produce gains and narrow the huge gaps in opportunity and achievement for minority students."
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4602/66705/60/0/
Military spending
From Oxfam Ireland,
" For every dollar spent in development aid, ten dollars is spent on military budgets. The amount that the rich countries spend on fighting Hiv/AIDS, a disease which claims 3 million lives a year, represents three days spending on military hardware."
In Somalia, " I could clearly see emaciated and sick children and aduilts in the streets. But there were others- boys as young as 8, I would guess, and young men who roam around with Kalishnikovs and M16s- that made them the rulers of their particular street corner."
" For every dollar spent in development aid, ten dollars is spent on military budgets. The amount that the rich countries spend on fighting Hiv/AIDS, a disease which claims 3 million lives a year, represents three days spending on military hardware."
In Somalia, " I could clearly see emaciated and sick children and aduilts in the streets. But there were others- boys as young as 8, I would guess, and young men who roam around with Kalishnikovs and M16s- that made them the rulers of their particular street corner."
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Alan Bersin : Calif. Superintendent opinion
BLUEPRINT FOR STUDENT SUCCESS: A THEORY OF ACTON FOR HIGH SCHOOL REFORM
Alan Bersin left the San Diego city Schools in June 2005 -- after seven tumultuous years as superintendent of the 141,000-student system. Formerly a U.S. Attorney, Bersin and his chief academic officer, Anthony Alvarado, in 2000 launched an ambitious reform effort aimed at strengthening instruction throughout the district. The effort, known as the Blueprint for Student Success, produced gains in student achievement, particularly in the elementary grades, but also attracted strong opposition from the local teachers’ union and its allies on the school board. In 2001, San Diego became one of seven cities to participate in the Schools for a New Society Initiative. Sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the initiative aims to redesign high schools using a working theory of action that involves forming community partnerships -- particularly with local education funds (LEFs) -- and enlisting the community’s help to expand learning opportunities for youth and demand educational excellence. In this publication, Bersin shares with Collaborative Communications Group his reflections on the purpose of high school reform, how he would change San Diego’s theory of action for high schools -- and the political and governance contexts in which the reforms occurred.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4842/66705/91/0/
Look at this interview. It reveals a great deal about the views of the the California Secretary of Education
Alan Bersin left the San Diego city Schools in June 2005 -- after seven tumultuous years as superintendent of the 141,000-student system. Formerly a U.S. Attorney, Bersin and his chief academic officer, Anthony Alvarado, in 2000 launched an ambitious reform effort aimed at strengthening instruction throughout the district. The effort, known as the Blueprint for Student Success, produced gains in student achievement, particularly in the elementary grades, but also attracted strong opposition from the local teachers’ union and its allies on the school board. In 2001, San Diego became one of seven cities to participate in the Schools for a New Society Initiative. Sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the initiative aims to redesign high schools using a working theory of action that involves forming community partnerships -- particularly with local education funds (LEFs) -- and enlisting the community’s help to expand learning opportunities for youth and demand educational excellence. In this publication, Bersin shares with Collaborative Communications Group his reflections on the purpose of high school reform, how he would change San Diego’s theory of action for high schools -- and the political and governance contexts in which the reforms occurred.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4842/66705/91/0/
Look at this interview. It reveals a great deal about the views of the the California Secretary of Education
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Democratic Party we should have: Borosage
The Turning?
by ROBERT L. BOROSAGE
[from the June 26, 2006 issue]
What comes next? The catastrophic conservatism of George W. Bush and the DeLay Congress is collapsing. Americans have turned against the signature Bush initiatives: the war in Iraq, privatization of Social Security, trickle-down economics, the Big Oil energy policy. The GOP coalition is splintering. The religious right's extremism--Schiavo, stem cell research, attacks on science--alienates most Americans. The cynical posturing on immigration and gay marriage grows more transparent. DeLay is gone. Bush has moved from swagger to sorry.
Democrats are roused by the possibility of taking back the House and perhaps even the Senate this fall. But the stark failure of the right opens a far broader possibility, creating the space for a bold progressive vision and movement to challenge the grip that conservatives have had on our politics and imaginations over the past quarter-century. In this context, it's worth taking a sober look at the possibilities and limits of the coming election.
The Debate We Will Have
With nearly two-thirds of the country now disapproving of the performance of Bush and the GOP Congress, Democrats are tempted to start scoping out their new offices. Nothing could be more pernicious. When Democrats believe they are sitting on a lead, they turn from cautious to catatonic.
In fact, while the conditions for a political tsunami this fall are gathering, Republicans may still be able to survive the storm. Congressional seats are like impregnable medieval castles, populated with loyal subjects and defended with all the hot oil ads and dedicated troops that money can buy. Challengers have neither the time nor the resources for a long siege. Republicans will flood any close race with big money in the final weeks. Even with voters looking for a change, taking out any of these barons is a heroic feat; on average, 94 percent of House incumbents win re-election. Moreover, Americans still tend to scorn Congress but like their legislator; they think Congress is corrupt but that their Representative is clean. Democrats need only fifteen seats to win a majority in the House, where the rules, and the seniority of liberals, would enable even a small majority to produce a dramatic change. But it will take an extraordinary mobilization to get it done.
Democrats may have difficulties navigating the storm as well. They have no consensus position on the fundamental issue driving opinion--the war in Iraq--and aren't particularly compelling on how to fix the economy. Democrats rail at Bush's failures in Iraq, but they are all over the map on what to do going forward. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has supported the old Marine Jack Murtha in calling for getting the troops out ("redeployment" is the euphemism du jour), while others--including pre-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner--argue that it is important to leave a stable government in place, although they are divided on how to achieve that. And some, like Joe Lieberman, act like they're part of the presidential glee club.
On the economy, Democrats have an open-throated critique of Bush's failures--the budget and trade deficits, the stagnant wages, the growing inequality and poverty--but no clear alternative growth agenda. They've made fiscal probity a priority but hesitate to argue for fair taxes. This tends to leave them tongue-tied about major public investment. So when Bush argues for tax cuts and growth, too often Democrats argue about deficits.
Despite this, Democrats are in much better shape than you'd know from the pundits prating about their lack of unity and absence of ideas. In reality, George Bush's extremism has forged greater Democratic unity than ever. That unity was critical in routing Bush's primary second-term domestic initiative--privatization of Social Security--and will help Democrats make the election a national referendum on conservative corruption and incompetence. (Newt Gingrich helpfully supplied the slogan: "Had Enough?")
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate not only have drummed on the Republican "culture of corruption" but have forged relatively widespread agreement on a positive issue agenda that helps dramatize the costs of that corruption to voters. They've called for a concerted drive for energy independence, as opposed to the Administration's Big Oil cronyism. They'd fix the prescription drug program--put it in Medicare and require Medicare to negotiate lower prices--as opposed to the Big Pharma giveaways DeLay forced through Congress. They would invest in education and cut student loan interest rates in half, as opposed to GOP cuts of billions from student aid. They'd raise the minimum wage, which Republicans, catering to the business lobby, have frozen since 1997. They would get serious about homeland security, in stark contrast to the cronyism revealed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And they would attack the incompetence and corruption in Iraq, where insider companies like Halliburton made off with billions in no-bid contracts, even while the Pentagon charges them with fraudulent billing.
Neither Democratic nor Republican incumbents have exactly been stalwarts when it comes to getting big money out of politics. But this agenda gives Democrats a populist theme, pitting the common good against the special interest, working people against corporate lobbies.
Thus far, the Republicans' response has been as fractured as their popularity. Many legislators are scrambling to go local--highlighting their independence from Bush and their effectiveness in serving their constituents. But the White House and the RNC argue that their best hope is to make the election a fear-driven choice, not a referendum on conservative performance. As Karl Rove put it to the RNC, the President knows we're at war, whereas Democrats want to "cut and run"; the President will do what is necessary to keep Americans safe, while Democrats worry about warrants and procedure, opposing the "terrorist surveillance program" and renewal of the Patriot Act; Republicans are for tax cuts and growth, while Democrats will raise taxes and sabotage growth; and Republicans defend traditional values--like marriage--while Democrats undermine them.
This replays tunes that were brutally effective in 2002 and 2004. But few voters may still be listening to the President on Iraq, and most Americans think Republicans are out of touch when they tout the supposedly good economy. Plus, Republican posturing on social issues is losing credibility even on the right.
The Debate We Need to Have
How do progressives use the moment to pose a far broader challenge to the right? Democrats suffer badly from the fact that no one has any clear sense of what they stand for. In response, progressives have begun to argue that Democrats need to embrace a big idea--not simply a parcel of issue proposals--to define their public philosophy.
In an elegant essay, Michael Tomasky, editor of The American Prospect, urges Democrats to return to their tradition of "civic republicanism," of arguing for the common good, for a sense that we're all in this together and that together we can build a more perfect union. In Being Right Is Not Enough, Paul Waldman of Media Matters details how this contrasts clearly with the right's "we're all on our own" hyper-individualism. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute lays out an economic argument along the same lines. All agree that a common-good politics is best expressed in universal rather than small-bore programs--Medicare for all, for example--that contrast clearly with the conservative vision, with its scorn for any collective enterprise beyond the military.
The scope of the challenges facing the country sets the stage for this politics. And the widespread understanding that conservatives in power have championed the interests of the few rather than the many provides a compelling backdrop. But what keeps Democrats from putting forth a clear governing philosophy--and laying out an agenda to give it substance? Tomasky suggests that the problem is grounded in the success of the movements of the 1960s, which shattered the hypocrisies and racism of cold war liberalism but left in their wake an interest-group pluralism focused on rights rather than common enterprise. With less venom, he echoes the arguments of the Democratic Leadership Council and Newt Gingrich that Democrats lost their way in the 1960s, as the antiwar, women's and civil rights movements produced, to use Richard Nixon's venomous formulation, a party of "acid, amnesty and abortion." (Reagan added the "welfare queen" and the politics of racial division.)
Tomasky is silent about the failure of military Keynesianism to deal with stagflation in the 1970s, and the corporate offensive that declared open warfare on liberal economics, unions and consumer and environmental groups. Corporations built not only the ideological arsenal of the right but also the money wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats found that, as the majority in Congress, they could fill their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. Liberal Atari Democrats and conservative New Democrats learned to scorn unions as a special interest, and to champion much of the corporate agenda--balanced budgets, free trade, deregulation, privatization, capital-gains tax cuts, opposition to the minimum wage, even the short-term stock options that gave CEOs a multimillion-dollar personal incentive to cook the books. Democrats stopped speaking to the common good less because they were mugged by women's or civil rights groups than because they found it literally paid to stop fighting for working people in the economy.
The misdiagnosis leads to the wrong prescriptions. Tomasky fantasizes about a Democratic presidential candidate announcing to the "single-issue groups arrayed around my party" that "I don't seek your endorsement, won't fill out your questionnaires" in order to convince Americans that he or she would put the "common interest over the particular interest." This might be called the Democrats' Sister Souljah temptation--after Clinton's staged insult to Jesse Jackson in 1992: the calculated, if symbolic, straight-arming of your own base to demonstrate independence.
The problem with this "politics of inoculation," as Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin call it in their essay "Politics of Definition," is that it not only demoralizes the most passionate activists at the base of the party but also contributes to the sense that Democrats won't even defend their own. And of course, pushing away the base has been generally used by Democrats to move to a more cautious corporate politics--as when President Clinton gained praise for his "courage" in standing with the Fortune 500, the bulk of editorialists and all of Wall Street to champion NAFTA against trade union opposition.
In fact, it is far less the supposed dominance of the movements in the Democratic Party than the influence of Wall Street and corporate money that impedes building a bold new governing strategy. It is not women, civil rights or union movements that lead Democrats to embrace a bipartisan corporate trade strategy serving multinationals but not the nation; or that cause Democrats to help pass top-end tax cuts, that make them vote to keep CEO stock options off the books or that make them wary about backing national healthcare. To revive a true politics of the public interest, Democrats will have to challenge the grip that corporate money and conservative economic ideology have on the party.
Similarly, on foreign policy, the bipartisan assumption that the United States should police the world comes, obviously, from the corporate establishment, not the peace movement. The current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin and jihadism for communism, and summon America to a new global struggle--claiming for Democrats a muscular tradition of collective security, in contrast to Bush's "conservative unilateralism." Neocons like Peter Beinart, fresh from cheering the country into the Iraq debacle, join New Dems like Al From in urging Democrats to prove their resolve by purging the left--the "MoveOn, Michael Moore wing"--from the Democratic Party. Members of the DLC call on the United States to increase its military spending, expand its expeditionary forces and "put the economy on a wartime footing." They pledge to "rally the American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupation in Iraq. And they urge the United States to intervene aggressively in the Middle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political and social reform." Since the DLC also pledges to reduce the budget deficits at the same time, Americans will have to tighten their belts to support such a mission.
This posture is deeply flawed. It distorts the threat and gets the response wrong. The problems of the Muslim world are not caused by the United States and the West having intervened too little. We need a policy on Islamist terrorists that isolates them rather than inflates them: alliances, intelligence cooperation, joint efforts to delegitimize their fanaticism, aggressive policing to bring them to justice. We need a strategy for America in a world very different from that of the end of World War II, when the dollar was literally as good as gold. This, once more, will require challenging the grip of multinational corporations and banks and their ideological fixation on building a global market protected from national regulation. Only then will we be able to define a "common good" politics that can help make the global economy work for the many and not the few.
If we are to reclaim a bold progressive politics, then the fantasy candidate will be one willing to tell a gathering of investment bankers that he or she doesn't need their money but would like their support to champion the public interest. This won't soon be the consensus position of the Democratic Party. It will require the building of an independent progressive movement willing to challenge entrenched interests and ideology, and able to support candidates and causes while building efforts to curb the influence of big money in politics.
This effort has only just begun, but surprising progress is possible in 2006. Forceful populists like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio could help transform the debate if elected to the Senate. Audacious challenges--like that of Ned Lamont in taking on Joe Lieberman for the US Senate nomination in Connecticut--will help sober sitting Democrats about the need to represent their voters. New capacity--from the insurgent activism of MoveOn.org and the brassy blogosphere to the AFL-CIO's new community affiliate Working America's reach into middle America--will provide a greater ability to define the future, not simply to decry it.
The MoveOn wing of the party isn't about to be purged by the folks who helped propel us into Iraq. The democratic wing of the Democratic Party, in Paul Wellstone's--and later Howard Dean's--phrase, is expanding in influence and number. In response to Bush's forceful but failed project, progressives across the country are developing a feisty, populist politics that just may drive Democrats toward a real politics of the common good.
by ROBERT L. BOROSAGE
[from the June 26, 2006 issue]
What comes next? The catastrophic conservatism of George W. Bush and the DeLay Congress is collapsing. Americans have turned against the signature Bush initiatives: the war in Iraq, privatization of Social Security, trickle-down economics, the Big Oil energy policy. The GOP coalition is splintering. The religious right's extremism--Schiavo, stem cell research, attacks on science--alienates most Americans. The cynical posturing on immigration and gay marriage grows more transparent. DeLay is gone. Bush has moved from swagger to sorry.
Democrats are roused by the possibility of taking back the House and perhaps even the Senate this fall. But the stark failure of the right opens a far broader possibility, creating the space for a bold progressive vision and movement to challenge the grip that conservatives have had on our politics and imaginations over the past quarter-century. In this context, it's worth taking a sober look at the possibilities and limits of the coming election.
The Debate We Will Have
With nearly two-thirds of the country now disapproving of the performance of Bush and the GOP Congress, Democrats are tempted to start scoping out their new offices. Nothing could be more pernicious. When Democrats believe they are sitting on a lead, they turn from cautious to catatonic.
In fact, while the conditions for a political tsunami this fall are gathering, Republicans may still be able to survive the storm. Congressional seats are like impregnable medieval castles, populated with loyal subjects and defended with all the hot oil ads and dedicated troops that money can buy. Challengers have neither the time nor the resources for a long siege. Republicans will flood any close race with big money in the final weeks. Even with voters looking for a change, taking out any of these barons is a heroic feat; on average, 94 percent of House incumbents win re-election. Moreover, Americans still tend to scorn Congress but like their legislator; they think Congress is corrupt but that their Representative is clean. Democrats need only fifteen seats to win a majority in the House, where the rules, and the seniority of liberals, would enable even a small majority to produce a dramatic change. But it will take an extraordinary mobilization to get it done.
Democrats may have difficulties navigating the storm as well. They have no consensus position on the fundamental issue driving opinion--the war in Iraq--and aren't particularly compelling on how to fix the economy. Democrats rail at Bush's failures in Iraq, but they are all over the map on what to do going forward. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has supported the old Marine Jack Murtha in calling for getting the troops out ("redeployment" is the euphemism du jour), while others--including pre-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner--argue that it is important to leave a stable government in place, although they are divided on how to achieve that. And some, like Joe Lieberman, act like they're part of the presidential glee club.
On the economy, Democrats have an open-throated critique of Bush's failures--the budget and trade deficits, the stagnant wages, the growing inequality and poverty--but no clear alternative growth agenda. They've made fiscal probity a priority but hesitate to argue for fair taxes. This tends to leave them tongue-tied about major public investment. So when Bush argues for tax cuts and growth, too often Democrats argue about deficits.
Despite this, Democrats are in much better shape than you'd know from the pundits prating about their lack of unity and absence of ideas. In reality, George Bush's extremism has forged greater Democratic unity than ever. That unity was critical in routing Bush's primary second-term domestic initiative--privatization of Social Security--and will help Democrats make the election a national referendum on conservative corruption and incompetence. (Newt Gingrich helpfully supplied the slogan: "Had Enough?")
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate not only have drummed on the Republican "culture of corruption" but have forged relatively widespread agreement on a positive issue agenda that helps dramatize the costs of that corruption to voters. They've called for a concerted drive for energy independence, as opposed to the Administration's Big Oil cronyism. They'd fix the prescription drug program--put it in Medicare and require Medicare to negotiate lower prices--as opposed to the Big Pharma giveaways DeLay forced through Congress. They would invest in education and cut student loan interest rates in half, as opposed to GOP cuts of billions from student aid. They'd raise the minimum wage, which Republicans, catering to the business lobby, have frozen since 1997. They would get serious about homeland security, in stark contrast to the cronyism revealed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And they would attack the incompetence and corruption in Iraq, where insider companies like Halliburton made off with billions in no-bid contracts, even while the Pentagon charges them with fraudulent billing.
Neither Democratic nor Republican incumbents have exactly been stalwarts when it comes to getting big money out of politics. But this agenda gives Democrats a populist theme, pitting the common good against the special interest, working people against corporate lobbies.
Thus far, the Republicans' response has been as fractured as their popularity. Many legislators are scrambling to go local--highlighting their independence from Bush and their effectiveness in serving their constituents. But the White House and the RNC argue that their best hope is to make the election a fear-driven choice, not a referendum on conservative performance. As Karl Rove put it to the RNC, the President knows we're at war, whereas Democrats want to "cut and run"; the President will do what is necessary to keep Americans safe, while Democrats worry about warrants and procedure, opposing the "terrorist surveillance program" and renewal of the Patriot Act; Republicans are for tax cuts and growth, while Democrats will raise taxes and sabotage growth; and Republicans defend traditional values--like marriage--while Democrats undermine them.
This replays tunes that were brutally effective in 2002 and 2004. But few voters may still be listening to the President on Iraq, and most Americans think Republicans are out of touch when they tout the supposedly good economy. Plus, Republican posturing on social issues is losing credibility even on the right.
The Debate We Need to Have
How do progressives use the moment to pose a far broader challenge to the right? Democrats suffer badly from the fact that no one has any clear sense of what they stand for. In response, progressives have begun to argue that Democrats need to embrace a big idea--not simply a parcel of issue proposals--to define their public philosophy.
In an elegant essay, Michael Tomasky, editor of The American Prospect, urges Democrats to return to their tradition of "civic republicanism," of arguing for the common good, for a sense that we're all in this together and that together we can build a more perfect union. In Being Right Is Not Enough, Paul Waldman of Media Matters details how this contrasts clearly with the right's "we're all on our own" hyper-individualism. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute lays out an economic argument along the same lines. All agree that a common-good politics is best expressed in universal rather than small-bore programs--Medicare for all, for example--that contrast clearly with the conservative vision, with its scorn for any collective enterprise beyond the military.
The scope of the challenges facing the country sets the stage for this politics. And the widespread understanding that conservatives in power have championed the interests of the few rather than the many provides a compelling backdrop. But what keeps Democrats from putting forth a clear governing philosophy--and laying out an agenda to give it substance? Tomasky suggests that the problem is grounded in the success of the movements of the 1960s, which shattered the hypocrisies and racism of cold war liberalism but left in their wake an interest-group pluralism focused on rights rather than common enterprise. With less venom, he echoes the arguments of the Democratic Leadership Council and Newt Gingrich that Democrats lost their way in the 1960s, as the antiwar, women's and civil rights movements produced, to use Richard Nixon's venomous formulation, a party of "acid, amnesty and abortion." (Reagan added the "welfare queen" and the politics of racial division.)
Tomasky is silent about the failure of military Keynesianism to deal with stagflation in the 1970s, and the corporate offensive that declared open warfare on liberal economics, unions and consumer and environmental groups. Corporations built not only the ideological arsenal of the right but also the money wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats found that, as the majority in Congress, they could fill their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. Liberal Atari Democrats and conservative New Democrats learned to scorn unions as a special interest, and to champion much of the corporate agenda--balanced budgets, free trade, deregulation, privatization, capital-gains tax cuts, opposition to the minimum wage, even the short-term stock options that gave CEOs a multimillion-dollar personal incentive to cook the books. Democrats stopped speaking to the common good less because they were mugged by women's or civil rights groups than because they found it literally paid to stop fighting for working people in the economy.
The misdiagnosis leads to the wrong prescriptions. Tomasky fantasizes about a Democratic presidential candidate announcing to the "single-issue groups arrayed around my party" that "I don't seek your endorsement, won't fill out your questionnaires" in order to convince Americans that he or she would put the "common interest over the particular interest." This might be called the Democrats' Sister Souljah temptation--after Clinton's staged insult to Jesse Jackson in 1992: the calculated, if symbolic, straight-arming of your own base to demonstrate independence.
The problem with this "politics of inoculation," as Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin call it in their essay "Politics of Definition," is that it not only demoralizes the most passionate activists at the base of the party but also contributes to the sense that Democrats won't even defend their own. And of course, pushing away the base has been generally used by Democrats to move to a more cautious corporate politics--as when President Clinton gained praise for his "courage" in standing with the Fortune 500, the bulk of editorialists and all of Wall Street to champion NAFTA against trade union opposition.
In fact, it is far less the supposed dominance of the movements in the Democratic Party than the influence of Wall Street and corporate money that impedes building a bold new governing strategy. It is not women, civil rights or union movements that lead Democrats to embrace a bipartisan corporate trade strategy serving multinationals but not the nation; or that cause Democrats to help pass top-end tax cuts, that make them vote to keep CEO stock options off the books or that make them wary about backing national healthcare. To revive a true politics of the public interest, Democrats will have to challenge the grip that corporate money and conservative economic ideology have on the party.
Similarly, on foreign policy, the bipartisan assumption that the United States should police the world comes, obviously, from the corporate establishment, not the peace movement. The current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin and jihadism for communism, and summon America to a new global struggle--claiming for Democrats a muscular tradition of collective security, in contrast to Bush's "conservative unilateralism." Neocons like Peter Beinart, fresh from cheering the country into the Iraq debacle, join New Dems like Al From in urging Democrats to prove their resolve by purging the left--the "MoveOn, Michael Moore wing"--from the Democratic Party. Members of the DLC call on the United States to increase its military spending, expand its expeditionary forces and "put the economy on a wartime footing." They pledge to "rally the American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupation in Iraq. And they urge the United States to intervene aggressively in the Middle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political and social reform." Since the DLC also pledges to reduce the budget deficits at the same time, Americans will have to tighten their belts to support such a mission.
This posture is deeply flawed. It distorts the threat and gets the response wrong. The problems of the Muslim world are not caused by the United States and the West having intervened too little. We need a policy on Islamist terrorists that isolates them rather than inflates them: alliances, intelligence cooperation, joint efforts to delegitimize their fanaticism, aggressive policing to bring them to justice. We need a strategy for America in a world very different from that of the end of World War II, when the dollar was literally as good as gold. This, once more, will require challenging the grip of multinational corporations and banks and their ideological fixation on building a global market protected from national regulation. Only then will we be able to define a "common good" politics that can help make the global economy work for the many and not the few.
If we are to reclaim a bold progressive politics, then the fantasy candidate will be one willing to tell a gathering of investment bankers that he or she doesn't need their money but would like their support to champion the public interest. This won't soon be the consensus position of the Democratic Party. It will require the building of an independent progressive movement willing to challenge entrenched interests and ideology, and able to support candidates and causes while building efforts to curb the influence of big money in politics.
This effort has only just begun, but surprising progress is possible in 2006. Forceful populists like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio could help transform the debate if elected to the Senate. Audacious challenges--like that of Ned Lamont in taking on Joe Lieberman for the US Senate nomination in Connecticut--will help sober sitting Democrats about the need to represent their voters. New capacity--from the insurgent activism of MoveOn.org and the brassy blogosphere to the AFL-CIO's new community affiliate Working America's reach into middle America--will provide a greater ability to define the future, not simply to decry it.
The MoveOn wing of the party isn't about to be purged by the folks who helped propel us into Iraq. The democratic wing of the Democratic Party, in Paul Wellstone's--and later Howard Dean's--phrase, is expanding in influence and number. In response to Bush's forceful but failed project, progressives across the country are developing a feisty, populist politics that just may drive Democrats toward a real politics of the common good.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Union field staff position available
Staff Recruitment Announcement
California Faculty Association
Field Campaign Director
CFA is affiliated with: SEIU, AAUP and CTA/NEA
California Faculty Association seeks experienced union or political organizer to direct field component of labor friendly statewide independent expenditure campaign.
Work with progressive unions on issue oriented effort to re-elect incumbent. Strong communication, writing, organizational and supervisory skills are required.
Must be willing to get to worksites and leaflet voters and engage them directly on the issues while being able to manage staff in at least four major cities.
Sacramento-based contract position is available immediately through November, 2006. May lead to full-time employment. Salary commensurate with experience
Responsibilities:
• Develop a multiple city campaign plan that connects with targeted voters in pre-selected locations.
• Help hire and train staff to run the ground campaign in each target city.
• Work with staff to recruit volunteer leaders and campaign activists.
• Work with allies and volunteers to develop campaign infrastructure including leafleting, constituency meetings, rallies, etc.
• Write and develop field campaign materials when needed.
• Hold staff accountable to voter contact and voter identification program and compile data into reports for campaign director.
• Develop and implement GOTV plan.
Qualifications:
• Experience as a political or union organizer who can assess voters and count votes as well as lead and hold staff accountable to a program.
• A working knowledge of the California political processes and the State government.
• Demonstrated ability to analyze and explain relevant issues, legislative actions and political processes.
• Experience in developing all the elements of a political campaign.
• Computer literacy with data bases and Microsoft Office products (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) for the preparation of work related materials.
• Ability to work cooperatively with union members, staff, allies, and voters.
Contact: Sent resume via email to searchcommittee@calfac.org
or mail resume to:
Search Committee
California Faculty Association
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1590
Sacramento, CA 95814
CFA is an Affirmative Action Employer.
Women, people of color and people with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.
California Faculty Association
Field Campaign Director
CFA is affiliated with: SEIU, AAUP and CTA/NEA
California Faculty Association seeks experienced union or political organizer to direct field component of labor friendly statewide independent expenditure campaign.
Work with progressive unions on issue oriented effort to re-elect incumbent. Strong communication, writing, organizational and supervisory skills are required.
Must be willing to get to worksites and leaflet voters and engage them directly on the issues while being able to manage staff in at least four major cities.
Sacramento-based contract position is available immediately through November, 2006. May lead to full-time employment. Salary commensurate with experience
Responsibilities:
• Develop a multiple city campaign plan that connects with targeted voters in pre-selected locations.
• Help hire and train staff to run the ground campaign in each target city.
• Work with staff to recruit volunteer leaders and campaign activists.
• Work with allies and volunteers to develop campaign infrastructure including leafleting, constituency meetings, rallies, etc.
• Write and develop field campaign materials when needed.
• Hold staff accountable to voter contact and voter identification program and compile data into reports for campaign director.
• Develop and implement GOTV plan.
Qualifications:
• Experience as a political or union organizer who can assess voters and count votes as well as lead and hold staff accountable to a program.
• A working knowledge of the California political processes and the State government.
• Demonstrated ability to analyze and explain relevant issues, legislative actions and political processes.
• Experience in developing all the elements of a political campaign.
• Computer literacy with data bases and Microsoft Office products (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) for the preparation of work related materials.
• Ability to work cooperatively with union members, staff, allies, and voters.
Contact: Sent resume via email to searchcommittee@calfac.org
or mail resume to:
Search Committee
California Faculty Association
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1590
Sacramento, CA 95814
CFA is an Affirmative Action Employer.
Women, people of color and people with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Harold Meyerson on California election
Clarifying Issues in California
By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A23
LOS ANGELES -- Lord, but California is election-weary. America's mega-state
endured the dreariest of gubernatorial contests in 2002, followed by the most
surprising of gubernatorial recalls in 2003, the drama of the presidential race
in 2004 and, just last November, the who-asked-for-it special election in which
business and labor spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars fighting over Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's wildly unpopular ballot initiatives. No wonder
something like 70 percent of California's registered voters elected not to vote
in Tuesday's primary, which was essentially a sliming contest between the two
leading Democratic candidates for governor.
If the states are laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them, then
Californians have become guinea pigs in a vast failed experiment. Hold a major
election every year -- complete with a torrent of attack ads and mailings and
recorded phone messages from a startling array of personages attesting to the
virtues of your state assembly candidate -- and eventually nobody will vote.
The relation between permanent campaigns and voter participation, it turns out,
is inverse.
Still, a few hardy souls, steeled in their civic duty, stumbled to the polls
here on Tuesday and made the right selection. California Democrats chose state
Treasurer Phil Angelides to go up against Schwarzenegger in November's
gubernatorial contest. For some time the conventional wisdom has been that the
liberal Angelides would have a harder time beating Arnold than the centrist
state controller, Steve Westly -- the man Angelides defeated on Tuesday. But
Westly, despite the estimated $37 million of his own money that he put into the
race, never really established a distinct identity with state voters. His
achievements as controller were imperceptible, and polling showed that voters
imputed to him all manner of conflicting positions. California may be the land
of malleable identities, but Westly's lightness of being finally proved too
insubstantial even for Californians.
Angelides, by contrast, is a figure of hard-core beliefs and rough edges. The
Democratic nominee is an unabashed liberal. As treasurer, he responded to the
state's Enron-engendered energy crisis by proposing to establish a public power
company. The centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign has been his call to
raise taxes on the wealthiest Californians -- the only way, he argues, to boost
the state's chronically low level of per-pupil education spending.
If Angelides were facing off against a conventional right-wing California
Republican, his brand of liberalism would very likely prevail in this solidly
blue state. But Schwarzenegger is no conventional Republican, and since his
disastrous initiative campaigns last fall, he has scurried to the center in
every way possible. The Governator restocked his office with environmental
activists and a Democratic chief of staff. He joined with the Democrats in the
legislature to place on November's ballot several massive bond measures to
rebuild California's transportation and education systems. He now campaigns as
the neo-Pat Brown, master rebuilder of the Golden State.
The polling makes clear that Californians like the thought of the new roads and
schools, but it also turns up the same distemper and desire for change that
afflicts voters nationally. Schwarzenegger's approval rating has improved since
last year, but it still hovers under 50 percent, and the state's powerful labor
movement husbanded its resources in the primary -- unions helped Angelides, but
not all that much -- to better bash Arnold in the general. The state is in for
yet another megabucks battle this November, in which a serious liberal will
give a serious centrist a serious challenge.
In the other nationally watched contest out here, Republican Brian Bilbray eked
out a 4 percentage-point victory over Democrat Francine Busby in a special
election to succeed Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Jail) in a solidly Republican
district abutting San Diego. Each national party can take some solace in the
outcome -- the Republicans that Bilbray, hammering on the immigration issue in
this close-to-the-border district, didn't actually lose; the Democrats that
Busby, hammering on the incompetence and corruption of the administration and
the Republican Congress, came so close.
The themes of the coming election have emerged with crystalline clarity.
Democrats decry the debacles -- the war, the price of gas, the sleaze --
devised by the president and Congress. The best distillation of the Republican
campaign may be the radio ad for a North Carolina congressional challenger,
alleging that his Democratic opponent, Rep. Brad Miller, "sponsored a bill to
let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country
on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big
fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."
Republicans run against one big fiesta; Democrats run against one big disasta.
Fiesta, I think, lacks the punch of disasta; but that's just my hunch: I'm not
saying it hasta.
meyersonh@washpost.com
from the Washington Post
__._,_.___
By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A23
LOS ANGELES -- Lord, but California is election-weary. America's mega-state
endured the dreariest of gubernatorial contests in 2002, followed by the most
surprising of gubernatorial recalls in 2003, the drama of the presidential race
in 2004 and, just last November, the who-asked-for-it special election in which
business and labor spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars fighting over Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's wildly unpopular ballot initiatives. No wonder
something like 70 percent of California's registered voters elected not to vote
in Tuesday's primary, which was essentially a sliming contest between the two
leading Democratic candidates for governor.
If the states are laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them, then
Californians have become guinea pigs in a vast failed experiment. Hold a major
election every year -- complete with a torrent of attack ads and mailings and
recorded phone messages from a startling array of personages attesting to the
virtues of your state assembly candidate -- and eventually nobody will vote.
The relation between permanent campaigns and voter participation, it turns out,
is inverse.
Still, a few hardy souls, steeled in their civic duty, stumbled to the polls
here on Tuesday and made the right selection. California Democrats chose state
Treasurer Phil Angelides to go up against Schwarzenegger in November's
gubernatorial contest. For some time the conventional wisdom has been that the
liberal Angelides would have a harder time beating Arnold than the centrist
state controller, Steve Westly -- the man Angelides defeated on Tuesday. But
Westly, despite the estimated $37 million of his own money that he put into the
race, never really established a distinct identity with state voters. His
achievements as controller were imperceptible, and polling showed that voters
imputed to him all manner of conflicting positions. California may be the land
of malleable identities, but Westly's lightness of being finally proved too
insubstantial even for Californians.
Angelides, by contrast, is a figure of hard-core beliefs and rough edges. The
Democratic nominee is an unabashed liberal. As treasurer, he responded to the
state's Enron-engendered energy crisis by proposing to establish a public power
company. The centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign has been his call to
raise taxes on the wealthiest Californians -- the only way, he argues, to boost
the state's chronically low level of per-pupil education spending.
If Angelides were facing off against a conventional right-wing California
Republican, his brand of liberalism would very likely prevail in this solidly
blue state. But Schwarzenegger is no conventional Republican, and since his
disastrous initiative campaigns last fall, he has scurried to the center in
every way possible. The Governator restocked his office with environmental
activists and a Democratic chief of staff. He joined with the Democrats in the
legislature to place on November's ballot several massive bond measures to
rebuild California's transportation and education systems. He now campaigns as
the neo-Pat Brown, master rebuilder of the Golden State.
The polling makes clear that Californians like the thought of the new roads and
schools, but it also turns up the same distemper and desire for change that
afflicts voters nationally. Schwarzenegger's approval rating has improved since
last year, but it still hovers under 50 percent, and the state's powerful labor
movement husbanded its resources in the primary -- unions helped Angelides, but
not all that much -- to better bash Arnold in the general. The state is in for
yet another megabucks battle this November, in which a serious liberal will
give a serious centrist a serious challenge.
In the other nationally watched contest out here, Republican Brian Bilbray eked
out a 4 percentage-point victory over Democrat Francine Busby in a special
election to succeed Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Jail) in a solidly Republican
district abutting San Diego. Each national party can take some solace in the
outcome -- the Republicans that Bilbray, hammering on the immigration issue in
this close-to-the-border district, didn't actually lose; the Democrats that
Busby, hammering on the incompetence and corruption of the administration and
the Republican Congress, came so close.
The themes of the coming election have emerged with crystalline clarity.
Democrats decry the debacles -- the war, the price of gas, the sleaze --
devised by the president and Congress. The best distillation of the Republican
campaign may be the radio ad for a North Carolina congressional challenger,
alleging that his Democratic opponent, Rep. Brad Miller, "sponsored a bill to
let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country
on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big
fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."
Republicans run against one big fiesta; Democrats run against one big disasta.
Fiesta, I think, lacks the punch of disasta; but that's just my hunch: I'm not
saying it hasta.
meyersonh@washpost.com
from the Washington Post
__._,_.___
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Barbara Ehrenreich on class
A Guided Tour of Class in America
Barbara Ehrenreich on the prey and the predators
by Tom Engelhardt
Mother Jones - June 05 , 2006
http://www.mojones.com/interview/2006/06/ehrenreich.html
You turn into a middle-class, suburban housing project
on the periphery of Charlottesville, Virginia, and at a
row of attached homes, you pull up in front of the one
with the yellow "for sale" sign on the tiny patch of
grass. Ushered inside, you take in an interior of paint
cans, a mop and pail, and cleaning liquids. On the
small porch that overlooks a communal backyard, workmen
are painting the weathered wood railings a nice, clean
white. Later, when they're gone, we step out for a
minute, on a balmy late spring afternoon, and she says,
"You know what I need out here? Flowers!" And it's
true, the nearest neighbor's small porch is a riot of
red, orange, and purple blooms, while hanging from her
railing are three plant holders with only dirt and the
scraps of dead vegetation in them.
Not surprising really. Barbara Ehrenreich, our foremost
journalist of, and dissector of class is regularly not
here. Practically a household name since she entered
the low-wage working class disguised as herself and, in
her already classic account, Nickel and Dimed, reported
back on just how difficult it is for so many hard-
working Americans to get by. Then, a few years later,
she repeated the process with the middle class, only to
find herself not in the workforce but among the
desperately unemployed who had fallen out of an ever
meaner corporate world. Her most recent book, Bait and
Switch, The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, was
the result. Now, she spends much time traveling the
country talking to audiences about her -- and their --
experiences. She has become a blogger, is involved in
launching a new group to help organize the middle-class
unemployed, and in her spare time she's even finished a
new book.
Barbara Ehrenreich on the prey and the predators
by Tom Engelhardt
Mother Jones - June 05 , 2006
http://www.mojones.com/interview/2006/06/ehrenreich.html
You turn into a middle-class, suburban housing project
on the periphery of Charlottesville, Virginia, and at a
row of attached homes, you pull up in front of the one
with the yellow "for sale" sign on the tiny patch of
grass. Ushered inside, you take in an interior of paint
cans, a mop and pail, and cleaning liquids. On the
small porch that overlooks a communal backyard, workmen
are painting the weathered wood railings a nice, clean
white. Later, when they're gone, we step out for a
minute, on a balmy late spring afternoon, and she says,
"You know what I need out here? Flowers!" And it's
true, the nearest neighbor's small porch is a riot of
red, orange, and purple blooms, while hanging from her
railing are three plant holders with only dirt and the
scraps of dead vegetation in them.
Not surprising really. Barbara Ehrenreich, our foremost
journalist of, and dissector of class is regularly not
here. Practically a household name since she entered
the low-wage working class disguised as herself and, in
her already classic account, Nickel and Dimed, reported
back on just how difficult it is for so many hard-
working Americans to get by. Then, a few years later,
she repeated the process with the middle class, only to
find herself not in the workforce but among the
desperately unemployed who had fallen out of an ever
meaner corporate world. Her most recent book, Bait and
Switch, The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, was
the result. Now, she spends much time traveling the
country talking to audiences about her -- and their --
experiences. She has become a blogger, is involved in
launching a new group to help organize the middle-class
unemployed, and in her spare time she's even finished a
new book.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
NCATE bows to pressure from the Right
Accreditor of Education Schools Drops Controversial 'Social Justice' Language
By PAULA WASLEY
.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education won a key endorsement on Monday in its quest for continued federal approval of its accrediting power after announcing that it would drop controversial language relating to "social justice" from its accrediting standards for teacher-preparation programs.
The council, which is the nation's largest teacher-education accrediting organization, has come under fire from conservative activists for the wording of standards that require that candidates in education programs "demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn."
The council, known as Ncate, had said that teacher candidates' "dispositions" should be "guided by beliefs and attitudes such as caring, fairness, honesty and responsibility, and social justice."
http://chronicle.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006060602n.htm
See more.
By PAULA WASLEY
.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education won a key endorsement on Monday in its quest for continued federal approval of its accrediting power after announcing that it would drop controversial language relating to "social justice" from its accrediting standards for teacher-preparation programs.
The council, which is the nation's largest teacher-education accrediting organization, has come under fire from conservative activists for the wording of standards that require that candidates in education programs "demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn."
The council, known as Ncate, had said that teacher candidates' "dispositions" should be "guided by beliefs and attitudes such as caring, fairness, honesty and responsibility, and social justice."
http://chronicle.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006060602n.htm
See more.
Friday, June 02, 2006
This dirty election campaign
This dirty election campaign
I have spent the last 34 years teaching young people to be social studies teachers. We start with the conception that schools are to teach reading, writing, math; and civic responsibility. Our schools were established to prepare young people for civic participation.
It is hard to teach this lesson. Young people say: they are all corrupt. The rich own the politicians. And, of course, they are substantially correct. All you have to do is look at the Enron story, or World Com., and their relationship with the Bush family and you will recognize that the rich have looted our nation’s democracy. [Recommend, see the video: Enron: The smartest guys in the room]
But now the California election is adding to the cynicism. The two major candidates on the Democratic Party side are spending up to $60 million to convince voters (and young people) that the other candidate is corrupt, purchased, and controlled by big money. Now, a $60 million media buy has an effect. It teaches people that our elections are corrupt, purchased, and dirty. After seeing the ads you could well conclude that they are all dirty.
I recognize that the campaign managers each think they must do this to compete. They know that negative ads work. But, they are also teaching cynicism, hopelessness and despair. No. This is not OK.
I am deeply offended by this campaign, the campaign managers, the media advisors, and the candidates. You have sullied our democracy in pursuit of a very narrow victory.
And, one of you will win. All of this negative campaigning will weaken you in the Fall against Schwarzenegger.
Duane Campbell
I have spent the last 34 years teaching young people to be social studies teachers. We start with the conception that schools are to teach reading, writing, math; and civic responsibility. Our schools were established to prepare young people for civic participation.
It is hard to teach this lesson. Young people say: they are all corrupt. The rich own the politicians. And, of course, they are substantially correct. All you have to do is look at the Enron story, or World Com., and their relationship with the Bush family and you will recognize that the rich have looted our nation’s democracy. [Recommend, see the video: Enron: The smartest guys in the room]
But now the California election is adding to the cynicism. The two major candidates on the Democratic Party side are spending up to $60 million to convince voters (and young people) that the other candidate is corrupt, purchased, and controlled by big money. Now, a $60 million media buy has an effect. It teaches people that our elections are corrupt, purchased, and dirty. After seeing the ads you could well conclude that they are all dirty.
I recognize that the campaign managers each think they must do this to compete. They know that negative ads work. But, they are also teaching cynicism, hopelessness and despair. No. This is not OK.
I am deeply offended by this campaign, the campaign managers, the media advisors, and the candidates. You have sullied our democracy in pursuit of a very narrow victory.
And, one of you will win. All of this negative campaigning will weaken you in the Fall against Schwarzenegger.
Duane Campbell
Organizational statement against NCLB
Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
October 21, 2004 (list of signers updated May, 2006)
The undersigned education, civil rights, children's, disability, and citizens' organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act's objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy.
While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised
during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive
corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.
Recommended Changes in NCLB
Progress Measurement
1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
2. Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.
3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.
4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.
5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children
Assessments
6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.
7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:
· Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
· Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable;
· Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
· Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act;
· Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and
· Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.
8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.
Building Capacity
9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement.
10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high student achievement.
Sanctions
11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.
Funding
13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs.
14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.
We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization's proposals.
Advancement Project
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA)
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
ASPIRA
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
Center for Community Change
for the entire list, go to Fair Test. Click on the title above.
October 21, 2004 (list of signers updated May, 2006)
The undersigned education, civil rights, children's, disability, and citizens' organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act's objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy.
While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised
during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive
corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.
Recommended Changes in NCLB
Progress Measurement
1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
2. Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.
3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.
4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.
5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children
Assessments
6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.
7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:
· Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
· Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable;
· Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
· Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act;
· Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and
· Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.
8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.
Building Capacity
9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement.
10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high student achievement.
Sanctions
11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.
Funding
13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs.
14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.
We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization's proposals.
Advancement Project
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA)
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
ASPIRA
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
Center for Community Change
for the entire list, go to Fair Test. Click on the title above.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Ravitch and Meire : a neo con finally sees part of reality
An important essay in Ed Week. Click on the title. It is a link.
"Almost all the usual intervening mediators—parent organizations, unions, and local community organizations—have either been co-opted, purchased, or weakened, or find themselves under siege if they question the dominant model of corporate-style “reform.” All the city’s major universities, foundations, and business elites are joined together as cheerleaders, if not actual participants, offering no support or encouragement to watchdogs and dissidents. This allows these elites the opportunity to carry out their experiments on a grand, and they hope uninterrupted, “apolitical” scale, where everything can, at last, be aligned, in each and every school, from prekindergarten to grade 12, under the watchful eye of a single leader. If they can remain in power long enough, it is assumed (although what actually is assumed is not easy to find out) that they can create a new paradigm that no future change in leadership can undo.
"Almost all the usual intervening mediators—parent organizations, unions, and local community organizations—have either been co-opted, purchased, or weakened, or find themselves under siege if they question the dominant model of corporate-style “reform.” All the city’s major universities, foundations, and business elites are joined together as cheerleaders, if not actual participants, offering no support or encouragement to watchdogs and dissidents. This allows these elites the opportunity to carry out their experiments on a grand, and they hope uninterrupted, “apolitical” scale, where everything can, at last, be aligned, in each and every school, from prekindergarten to grade 12, under the watchful eye of a single leader. If they can remain in power long enough, it is assumed (although what actually is assumed is not easy to find out) that they can create a new paradigm that no future change in leadership can undo.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Voter recommendations
Sacramento Progressive Alliance
Progressive Voter Guide
Recomendations for California Primary Election -- Tuesday, June 6, 2006
State Offices:
Governor: Phil Angelides, clearly the more progressive candidate. He led the fight against Arnold Schwarzenegger assault on teachers, nurses, and fire fighters.
Secretary of State: Deborah Bowen.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sara Knopp. The incumbent is the author of the legislation requiring a high school exit exam and an advocate of the current school accountability programs. We oppose him.
Congressional races:
3rd. C.D. Dr. Bill Durston
4th. C.D. Charlie Brown.
11th C.D. Jerry McNerney
Assembly Seats:
Robert Haswell. 4th. AD.
County Board of Supervisors:
Larry Carr, 2nd District
Sacramento City Council:
Lauren Hammond, 5th District
Initiatives:
Prop. 81. Library Bonds: Yes
Provides funds to build public libraries.
Prop. 82. Pre School for All: Yes.
Provides free, voluntary, quality pre school for all 4 year olds in California.
Prepared by Dr. Duane Campbell, Chair of the Sacramento Progressive Alliance Electoral Committee, and adopted by the General Board.
Progressive Voter Guide
Recomendations for California Primary Election -- Tuesday, June 6, 2006
State Offices:
Governor: Phil Angelides, clearly the more progressive candidate. He led the fight against Arnold Schwarzenegger assault on teachers, nurses, and fire fighters.
Secretary of State: Deborah Bowen.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Sara Knopp. The incumbent is the author of the legislation requiring a high school exit exam and an advocate of the current school accountability programs. We oppose him.
Congressional races:
3rd. C.D. Dr. Bill Durston
4th. C.D. Charlie Brown.
11th C.D. Jerry McNerney
Assembly Seats:
Robert Haswell. 4th. AD.
County Board of Supervisors:
Larry Carr, 2nd District
Sacramento City Council:
Lauren Hammond, 5th District
Initiatives:
Prop. 81. Library Bonds: Yes
Provides funds to build public libraries.
Prop. 82. Pre School for All: Yes.
Provides free, voluntary, quality pre school for all 4 year olds in California.
Prepared by Dr. Duane Campbell, Chair of the Sacramento Progressive Alliance Electoral Committee, and adopted by the General Board.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Wesley vrs. Angelides
I find the Wesley ads against Angelides outrageous and dishonest. In the most recent one featuring land in the Sacramento basin, you would think that Angelides is to blame for Hurricane Katrina. I am offended. If he wins the primary, I won’t work for Wesley.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Democracy and schools
Choosing Democracy : a practical guide to multicultural education
There are at least two alternative views of democracy to consider.
Advocates of democracy in schooling, led by John Dewey, argued that what was needed was to educate the children of working people. Universal voting, along with universal education would make our society more democratic. An educated electorate would understand politics and the economy and make wise decisions for the entire society. Later, by the 1960’s, public education advocates argued that educating the common people to a higher level (Such as the G.I. Bill) would complete our transition to a deliberative or participatory democracy. This position is well developed by political philosopher Benjamin R. Barber in Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, first published in 1984 and re published in 2003.
The strong democracy position is confounded by the historical record in which millions of voters and non voters who scrimp to put food on the table and to pay for their housing were quite willing in 2004 to re-elect a president who worked night and day to redistribute wealth and income from the poor to the rich. That is, voters, particularly when threatened with international terrorism, often do not vote in their economic self interests. In What's the Matter with Kansas? How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America.", author Thomas Frank provides a detailed and interesting description of how this is achieved.
An alternative view of democracy is presented by Richard A. Posner, a federal appelate judge, in Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (Harvard, 2003). Posner argues that the U.S. political system is not so much self rule (democracy), but “rule by officials who are chosen by the people and who if they don’t perform are fired by the people”.
He provides interesting detail on how the courts function and how the public opinion and elections constrain elected officials. This latter view is, of course, more subject to manipulation as described well in Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America into a One-party state (2004) , and in David Cay Johnson’s Perfectly Legal; The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the rich and the super rich- and to cheat everybody else. (2003)
A great deal depends upon which view you adopt as a teacher and which view is implied in the curriculum decisions made by publishers, school districts and states.
The theme of extending democracy runs through the history of popular movements in the U.S. Some of these movements strengthened democracy; the most dramatic of these have been struggles for the right to vote. Voting was extended to women in 1920 as a result of the over 70 years of struggle by the Women’s suffrage movement , and then voting was extended to Southern Blacks as a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s after over 200 years of oppression. (Flacks,1985)
Although often taken for granted today, the establishment of public schooling k-12 and then the expansiion of public higher education since 1945 provide another important example of a long and honorable tradition of working for democracy and social justice in this nation.
In the U.S. power is exercised both by corporate elites, that it it is class dominated, and at other times power is pluralistic. While elites control the government and the economy they are limited by popular power including unions, elections, and social movements.
The philosopher Cornel West has written that within our system of weak democracy, there are two opposing tendencies; one toward more democracy and one toward more imperialism. (West, 2004)
While democratic power expanded as a consequence of popular movements and public protest int eht 1930’s and the 1960’s, since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980’s corporate power has accomodated to the changes, and expanded its own power through control of and manipulation of an activist government.
William Grieder in The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy (2003) and David Cay Johnson (2003) reveal clearly that if we are unable to achieve active, participatory democratic control over the commanding heights of our economy, then the major economic powers – the corporations- will achive political control over our governemental processes and we will loose our democracy. The corporate form of power will also use our government for aggressive foreign policy to extend economic control and markets. This imperialist direction has cost the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers as well as creating an untenable public debt.
Teachers, particularly teachers working with poor and minority students who are tracked out of equal opportunity, need to understand this alternative view of democracy. This second corporate form of government means that the public schools will always be under funded. Under funding of schools in poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods is not a mistake. It is a necessary component of the corporate neo-liberal political economy.
Schools and teaching reflect society, and also participate in constructing future society. New forms of knowledge and new approaches to teaching have emerged in response to changes in our economy, in our society, and in our schools. Teachers have forged a variety of new strategies to respond to the demands for economic relevancy, democracy, equal opportunity, and this remarkable cultural and linguistic diversity.
In the book I share the insights gained by dozens of teachers working with bilingual and multicultural education as they developed new cross-cultural perspectives, new pedagogies and curricula, and new strategies and programs to respond both to the continuing social crises of schools that are failing and to educating students in these schools. Innovative teachers have found ways to validate students’ diverse cultures while preparing them to participate in the social, economic, and political mainstream of U.S. society and to construct a new democracy.
Teachers now know a great deal more about teaching in a cross-cultural environment than we knew in previous years. Effective teaching strategies and programs have been identified, clarified, and developed to take advantage of classroom diversity and to weave stronger, more united communities. Our next task is to develop strategies to construct a more democratic society.
We know that teachers can make a difference. Dedicated teachers from all racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds can learn to be effective cross-cultural teachers and brokers of information that provides students with greater access to economic opportunity and social equality. We know a great deal about teaching.
We now know that schools are not politically neutral. Teachers and schools are situated in specific economic, political environments. Study and reflection on that reality help teachers to select strategies that empower their students and help them succeed. Studies on the nature of race, class, and gender relations in our society provide teachers with a theoretical framework for selecting and evaluating teaching strategies, counseling and coaching strategies, and leadership strategies for schools.
There are at least two alternative views of democracy to consider.
Advocates of democracy in schooling, led by John Dewey, argued that what was needed was to educate the children of working people. Universal voting, along with universal education would make our society more democratic. An educated electorate would understand politics and the economy and make wise decisions for the entire society. Later, by the 1960’s, public education advocates argued that educating the common people to a higher level (Such as the G.I. Bill) would complete our transition to a deliberative or participatory democracy. This position is well developed by political philosopher Benjamin R. Barber in Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, first published in 1984 and re published in 2003.
The strong democracy position is confounded by the historical record in which millions of voters and non voters who scrimp to put food on the table and to pay for their housing were quite willing in 2004 to re-elect a president who worked night and day to redistribute wealth and income from the poor to the rich. That is, voters, particularly when threatened with international terrorism, often do not vote in their economic self interests. In What's the Matter with Kansas? How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America.", author Thomas Frank provides a detailed and interesting description of how this is achieved.
An alternative view of democracy is presented by Richard A. Posner, a federal appelate judge, in Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (Harvard, 2003). Posner argues that the U.S. political system is not so much self rule (democracy), but “rule by officials who are chosen by the people and who if they don’t perform are fired by the people”.
He provides interesting detail on how the courts function and how the public opinion and elections constrain elected officials. This latter view is, of course, more subject to manipulation as described well in Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America into a One-party state (2004) , and in David Cay Johnson’s Perfectly Legal; The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the rich and the super rich- and to cheat everybody else. (2003)
A great deal depends upon which view you adopt as a teacher and which view is implied in the curriculum decisions made by publishers, school districts and states.
The theme of extending democracy runs through the history of popular movements in the U.S. Some of these movements strengthened democracy; the most dramatic of these have been struggles for the right to vote. Voting was extended to women in 1920 as a result of the over 70 years of struggle by the Women’s suffrage movement , and then voting was extended to Southern Blacks as a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s after over 200 years of oppression. (Flacks,1985)
Although often taken for granted today, the establishment of public schooling k-12 and then the expansiion of public higher education since 1945 provide another important example of a long and honorable tradition of working for democracy and social justice in this nation.
In the U.S. power is exercised both by corporate elites, that it it is class dominated, and at other times power is pluralistic. While elites control the government and the economy they are limited by popular power including unions, elections, and social movements.
The philosopher Cornel West has written that within our system of weak democracy, there are two opposing tendencies; one toward more democracy and one toward more imperialism. (West, 2004)
While democratic power expanded as a consequence of popular movements and public protest int eht 1930’s and the 1960’s, since the Reagan Revolution of the 1980’s corporate power has accomodated to the changes, and expanded its own power through control of and manipulation of an activist government.
William Grieder in The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy (2003) and David Cay Johnson (2003) reveal clearly that if we are unable to achieve active, participatory democratic control over the commanding heights of our economy, then the major economic powers – the corporations- will achive political control over our governemental processes and we will loose our democracy. The corporate form of power will also use our government for aggressive foreign policy to extend economic control and markets. This imperialist direction has cost the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers as well as creating an untenable public debt.
Teachers, particularly teachers working with poor and minority students who are tracked out of equal opportunity, need to understand this alternative view of democracy. This second corporate form of government means that the public schools will always be under funded. Under funding of schools in poor neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods is not a mistake. It is a necessary component of the corporate neo-liberal political economy.
Schools and teaching reflect society, and also participate in constructing future society. New forms of knowledge and new approaches to teaching have emerged in response to changes in our economy, in our society, and in our schools. Teachers have forged a variety of new strategies to respond to the demands for economic relevancy, democracy, equal opportunity, and this remarkable cultural and linguistic diversity.
In the book I share the insights gained by dozens of teachers working with bilingual and multicultural education as they developed new cross-cultural perspectives, new pedagogies and curricula, and new strategies and programs to respond both to the continuing social crises of schools that are failing and to educating students in these schools. Innovative teachers have found ways to validate students’ diverse cultures while preparing them to participate in the social, economic, and political mainstream of U.S. society and to construct a new democracy.
Teachers now know a great deal more about teaching in a cross-cultural environment than we knew in previous years. Effective teaching strategies and programs have been identified, clarified, and developed to take advantage of classroom diversity and to weave stronger, more united communities. Our next task is to develop strategies to construct a more democratic society.
We know that teachers can make a difference. Dedicated teachers from all racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds can learn to be effective cross-cultural teachers and brokers of information that provides students with greater access to economic opportunity and social equality. We know a great deal about teaching.
We now know that schools are not politically neutral. Teachers and schools are situated in specific economic, political environments. Study and reflection on that reality help teachers to select strategies that empower their students and help them succeed. Studies on the nature of race, class, and gender relations in our society provide teachers with a theoretical framework for selecting and evaluating teaching strategies, counseling and coaching strategies, and leadership strategies for schools.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Spring Graduation: bilingual teachers
Spring Graduation. Bilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Program.
CSU-Sacramento.
Shasta Hall Auditorium. 3 .P.M. May 20,2006.
Speaking. Dr. Duane Campbell. This is a speech, not an essay.
Graduation.
To th graduates and their families.
Buenas tardes.
Agradecemos mucho su presencia.
We come here to celebrate your achievement as graduates. We are very proud of you. You have spent over 4 years getting a B.A., and now one year learning to be a teacher. And, now you are ready.
This is an exciting time to be entering teaching.
California, our state, is changing.
On May 1, we witnessed the largest demonstrations in U.S. history. In was the largest demonstration in Sacramento history.
We may now be witnessing the birth of a new human rights movement. Like the African American movement of the 50’s and 60’s, the Chicano movement of the 60’s and 70’s, the feminist movement of the 70’s.
You and I have a choice:
We can join in and make this happen. To make history. Or, we can watch it go by.
Ten years from now when your children ask, teacher, what did you do in the movement, what will you say? Oh. I was too busy getting a new ring tone on my cell phone.
The demonstrations in Sacramento were fantastic.
What can we do: what can teachers do to build this movement?
We can follow the traditional slogan:
Educate, agitate, organize. Si se puede.
What is happening here? California is changing.
The U.S. is changing.
There is a massive migration of people.
What is the cause of this migration? Economics.
The U.S. ruling class, the corporations, have a policy, they call it “ Free trade.”
Its real name is capitalism.
By now, as a college graduate, you should know and understand capitalism. If you don’t, go back to your liberal studies Dean and tell him that the faculty did not do their job to prepare you.
This is both an exciting time, and a difficult time to enter teaching. You need to understand capitalism in order to understand the problems of school reform.
Next year will be a difficult year for you.
We have packed in almost all the information which we could. Now, it is time for you to practice. We learn to teach by teaching.
It is further a difficult time if you believe in teaching for justice and for democracy.
There are many, including our elected officials, who think that schooling is just about reading, writing, and arithmetic.
These are the people who support the current testing mania.
They are the ones who support the high school exit exam which only measures English and math.
These are the people who have been in charge of our school system for the last twenty years while so many of our brothers and sisters have been failed.
But, schooling is also about democracy.
We need to repair our society.
We need to create a multicultural/multiracial democracy; and we are not there yet.
You can participate in that effort as a teacher. You can teach kids to get along, to value school, to work cooperatively with each other.
At the Single subject level, at the high school, we have to teach kids that school matters; that kids can create and determine their own future, that education can serve to mobilize people.
As some of you know, I worked for a time with the United Farm workers union. Cesar Chavez said it well. He said,
When we are really honest with ourselves, we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us. So it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of people we are. ..I am convinced that the truest act of courage..is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice.
Cesar Chavez (1927-1993)
This is our task as teachers. Teaching for social justice is a totally non violent struggle for justice.
Please remember, your integrity is a valuable resource.
Be true, be authentic, to what you believe in. Don’t compromise yourself.
Don’t compromise your commitments to justice and democracy.
You may have to use Open Court and Saxon Math, you may have to teach to standards. If you are in high school you may have to teach to the stupid, right wing, ideologically scripted History/Social Science standards which try to make certain that students never study racism, the war, or the economy. But you do not have to abandon your students and the struggle for justice.
Nothing, no dollar amount, no position, is worth compromising your personal integrity.
Yes, we will have to make compromises, but not of our integrity., not of our most basic values.
That is what you have been prepared for, to join in and to continue the struggle for justice in our schools.
We, in BMED, have been engaged for over twenty years now in organizing for social change. We have been organizing for educational justice.
We have introduced you to this project. We invite you to join us in this journey.
You are our change strategy. We prepare teachers and place them in the school. But, you have the hard part. You have to make your classroom a place of dignity, and respect, and justice.
In times of fundamental change, supporting networks are essential.
We also want to support you and to stay in touch with you. Good luck, Please stay in touch.
After a couple of years of practice, we invite you to come back to further develop your skills in our graduate program.
Duane Campbell
CSU-Sacramento.
Shasta Hall Auditorium. 3 .P.M. May 20,2006.
Speaking. Dr. Duane Campbell. This is a speech, not an essay.
Graduation.
To th graduates and their families.
Buenas tardes.
Agradecemos mucho su presencia.
We come here to celebrate your achievement as graduates. We are very proud of you. You have spent over 4 years getting a B.A., and now one year learning to be a teacher. And, now you are ready.
This is an exciting time to be entering teaching.
California, our state, is changing.
On May 1, we witnessed the largest demonstrations in U.S. history. In was the largest demonstration in Sacramento history.
We may now be witnessing the birth of a new human rights movement. Like the African American movement of the 50’s and 60’s, the Chicano movement of the 60’s and 70’s, the feminist movement of the 70’s.
You and I have a choice:
We can join in and make this happen. To make history. Or, we can watch it go by.
Ten years from now when your children ask, teacher, what did you do in the movement, what will you say? Oh. I was too busy getting a new ring tone on my cell phone.
The demonstrations in Sacramento were fantastic.
What can we do: what can teachers do to build this movement?
We can follow the traditional slogan:
Educate, agitate, organize. Si se puede.
What is happening here? California is changing.
The U.S. is changing.
There is a massive migration of people.
What is the cause of this migration? Economics.
The U.S. ruling class, the corporations, have a policy, they call it “ Free trade.”
Its real name is capitalism.
By now, as a college graduate, you should know and understand capitalism. If you don’t, go back to your liberal studies Dean and tell him that the faculty did not do their job to prepare you.
This is both an exciting time, and a difficult time to enter teaching. You need to understand capitalism in order to understand the problems of school reform.
Next year will be a difficult year for you.
We have packed in almost all the information which we could. Now, it is time for you to practice. We learn to teach by teaching.
It is further a difficult time if you believe in teaching for justice and for democracy.
There are many, including our elected officials, who think that schooling is just about reading, writing, and arithmetic.
These are the people who support the current testing mania.
They are the ones who support the high school exit exam which only measures English and math.
These are the people who have been in charge of our school system for the last twenty years while so many of our brothers and sisters have been failed.
But, schooling is also about democracy.
We need to repair our society.
We need to create a multicultural/multiracial democracy; and we are not there yet.
You can participate in that effort as a teacher. You can teach kids to get along, to value school, to work cooperatively with each other.
At the Single subject level, at the high school, we have to teach kids that school matters; that kids can create and determine their own future, that education can serve to mobilize people.
As some of you know, I worked for a time with the United Farm workers union. Cesar Chavez said it well. He said,
When we are really honest with ourselves, we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us. So it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of people we are. ..I am convinced that the truest act of courage..is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice.
Cesar Chavez (1927-1993)
This is our task as teachers. Teaching for social justice is a totally non violent struggle for justice.
Please remember, your integrity is a valuable resource.
Be true, be authentic, to what you believe in. Don’t compromise yourself.
Don’t compromise your commitments to justice and democracy.
You may have to use Open Court and Saxon Math, you may have to teach to standards. If you are in high school you may have to teach to the stupid, right wing, ideologically scripted History/Social Science standards which try to make certain that students never study racism, the war, or the economy. But you do not have to abandon your students and the struggle for justice.
Nothing, no dollar amount, no position, is worth compromising your personal integrity.
Yes, we will have to make compromises, but not of our integrity., not of our most basic values.
That is what you have been prepared for, to join in and to continue the struggle for justice in our schools.
We, in BMED, have been engaged for over twenty years now in organizing for social change. We have been organizing for educational justice.
We have introduced you to this project. We invite you to join us in this journey.
You are our change strategy. We prepare teachers and place them in the school. But, you have the hard part. You have to make your classroom a place of dignity, and respect, and justice.
In times of fundamental change, supporting networks are essential.
We also want to support you and to stay in touch with you. Good luck, Please stay in touch.
After a couple of years of practice, we invite you to come back to further develop your skills in our graduate program.
Duane Campbell
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Mayors and school governance
Antonio Villaraigosa, (D) Mayor of Los Angeles, has proposed having the Mayor’s office take over the governance of the Los Angeles school district in response to the persistent failure of the schools. We in Sacramento went through a parallel cycle of Mayor's strong intervention in schools from 1994-1998. Frankly the "reforms" did not change the schools much.
While there may be some advantages to the Los Angeles Mayor’s proposal, it requires a substantive change in governance.
What could a progressive Mayor do to improve the schools that would not require a constitutional change?
Mayors could deploy police and probation to eliminate gang violence around and near the schools. School safety is a major issue.
Mayors could use their political capital to achieve adequate funding of schools. Note, California has under funded its schools for at least twenty- five years. Mayor Villaraigosa was Speaker of the California Assembly, the body which writes the budget. During his time as Speaker, California did not significantly improve school funding.
Mayors could provide safe after school facilities for recreation and home work help.
Mayors could provide safe and modern buildings for schools rather than over crowded temporary building.
Readers are invited to add to this list.
Duane Campbell
While there may be some advantages to the Los Angeles Mayor’s proposal, it requires a substantive change in governance.
What could a progressive Mayor do to improve the schools that would not require a constitutional change?
Mayors could deploy police and probation to eliminate gang violence around and near the schools. School safety is a major issue.
Mayors could use their political capital to achieve adequate funding of schools. Note, California has under funded its schools for at least twenty- five years. Mayor Villaraigosa was Speaker of the California Assembly, the body which writes the budget. During his time as Speaker, California did not significantly improve school funding.
Mayors could provide safe after school facilities for recreation and home work help.
Mayors could provide safe and modern buildings for schools rather than over crowded temporary building.
Readers are invited to add to this list.
Duane Campbell
Monday, May 15, 2006
Prop.82 and the Gap
Prop. 82: Initiative backers threaten Gap boycot
By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, May 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES - Employing a new political tactic, two large labor unions are using the threat of a consumer boycott to try to curb corporate contributions to groups opposing the universal preschool initiative on the June ballot.
The Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees sent a letter last week threatening a national boycott of all of the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores.
They said they would launch the boycott if the Gap, its affiliates or any members of the family that founded the Gap donated to groups opposing actor and director Rob Reiner's preschool initiative, Proposition 82.
"It is our hope that you come to the conclusion that opposing preschool for every child in California is bad for kids and bad for California," said the letter, signed by SEIU's and AFSCME's presidents and SEIU's secretary treasurer.
The two unions, AFSCME and SEIU, represent more than 2.7 million members nationwide. They are likely to gain more members if Proposition 82 is approved because it would allow collective bargaining among those working in the preschools the initiative would fund.
In their letter, they cited a $25,000 donation made by John Fisher, one of the sons of the Gap's founders, to one group fighting Proposition 82.
They also cited a second organization opposing the initiative, the California Business Roundtable, saying the Gap is a "leading member" of it.
None of the Fisher family members returned calls seeking comment.
Don G. Fisher, who founded the Gap, serves on the Business Roundtable's board, and he, his wife and his son, Robert Fisher, serve on the Gap's board. But John Fisher is not a member of the Gap's board.
From Politics at the Sacramento BEE.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/14254500p-15070065c.html
Don G. Fisher,of the GAP, has been on the California State Board of Education where he is a major proponent, funder, of charter schools.
By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, May 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES - Employing a new political tactic, two large labor unions are using the threat of a consumer boycott to try to curb corporate contributions to groups opposing the universal preschool initiative on the June ballot.
The Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees sent a letter last week threatening a national boycott of all of the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores.
They said they would launch the boycott if the Gap, its affiliates or any members of the family that founded the Gap donated to groups opposing actor and director Rob Reiner's preschool initiative, Proposition 82.
"It is our hope that you come to the conclusion that opposing preschool for every child in California is bad for kids and bad for California," said the letter, signed by SEIU's and AFSCME's presidents and SEIU's secretary treasurer.
The two unions, AFSCME and SEIU, represent more than 2.7 million members nationwide. They are likely to gain more members if Proposition 82 is approved because it would allow collective bargaining among those working in the preschools the initiative would fund.
In their letter, they cited a $25,000 donation made by John Fisher, one of the sons of the Gap's founders, to one group fighting Proposition 82.
They also cited a second organization opposing the initiative, the California Business Roundtable, saying the Gap is a "leading member" of it.
None of the Fisher family members returned calls seeking comment.
Don G. Fisher, who founded the Gap, serves on the Business Roundtable's board, and he, his wife and his son, Robert Fisher, serve on the Gap's board. But John Fisher is not a member of the Gap's board.
From Politics at the Sacramento BEE.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/14254500p-15070065c.html
Don G. Fisher,of the GAP, has been on the California State Board of Education where he is a major proponent, funder, of charter schools.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Education and poverty
What the politicians refuse to understand.
From the Children's Defense fund.
EDUCATION: THE PATH OUT OF POVERTY
An essential tool for child advocates for more than two decades, the
annual "The State of America’s Children," from the Children’s Defense Fund takes a close look at 37 million people living in America who are poor (including 13 million children) and the growing numbers of families struggling to survive. The 2005 edition Includes most recent (September 2005) U.S. poverty data throughout; personal stories and photographs;
in-depth analyses of the current status of family income, child health,
child care and early childhood development, education, child welfare, and youth development; and personal and policy success stories and
recommendations for just treatment for children and poor families. Chapter
Four, which can be downloaded for free, is full of analysis of pressing
education issues (including NCLB, school funding, high-stakes testing and zero tolerance policies) and powerful (and jaw-dropping) statistics.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/publications/greenbook/
From the Children's Defense fund.
EDUCATION: THE PATH OUT OF POVERTY
An essential tool for child advocates for more than two decades, the
annual "The State of America’s Children," from the Children’s Defense Fund takes a close look at 37 million people living in America who are poor (including 13 million children) and the growing numbers of families struggling to survive. The 2005 edition Includes most recent (September 2005) U.S. poverty data throughout; personal stories and photographs;
in-depth analyses of the current status of family income, child health,
child care and early childhood development, education, child welfare, and youth development; and personal and policy success stories and
recommendations for just treatment for children and poor families. Chapter
Four, which can be downloaded for free, is full of analysis of pressing
education issues (including NCLB, school funding, high-stakes testing and zero tolerance policies) and powerful (and jaw-dropping) statistics.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/publications/greenbook/
Thursday, May 11, 2006
CTA on Budget deal
Students and Schools Win as Governor’s Budget Revision Repays Schools and Settles Lawsuit Over Education Funding
Schools and Students with Greatest Need to Get Assistance
May 11, 2006
SACRAMENTO – Students and schools are the winners in the Governor’s revised budget. His decision to repay all the money owed to public education under the 2004 agreement is the news that California’s 6.2 million kids have been waiting for and settles the lawsuit the California Teachers Association filed against Governor Schwarzenegger last August. In addition, the revised budget includes an exciting opportunity to provide assistance, rather than sanctions, to our schools that need help the most.
“This is a good thing for our schools and community colleges throughout California,” said Barbara E. Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association. “Having all the money owed to our schools under Proposition 98 and the governor’s agreement of 2004 restored to our students is the news we’ve been waiting for. It is especially good for those students who live in high-poverty areas and who do not speak English as a first language. Using some of the repayment money to improve learning and instruction in our schools of greatest need will help us close the achievement gap.”
Under the revised budget proposal and legal settlement, public schools will receive $5 billion due under Proposition 98. The dollars represent repayment of the money owed to education under the 2004 agreement with the education community and schools’ share of new state revenues. It includes $3 billion that will be paid over a seven year period and will be used to help schools that are serving low-income students and English language learners. Part of the money will also go to community colleges to expand career education programs and improve transfer rates to four-year colleges.
It has been a long time goal of the California Teachers Association to increase the resources to the schools of greatest need. The repayment dollars will be used to address the problems facing struggling California public schools including reducing class sizes, improving teacher and principal training, increasing parental involvement and providing school counselors.
“The repayment of the money owed under Prop. 98 moves us forward. However, we must recognize that these are one-time dollars. We must now build on this commitment. Teachers look forward to working with the administration and the legislature to determine how we provide adequate resources for our schools on a long-term basis,” said Kerr.
Schools and Students with Greatest Need to Get Assistance
May 11, 2006
SACRAMENTO – Students and schools are the winners in the Governor’s revised budget. His decision to repay all the money owed to public education under the 2004 agreement is the news that California’s 6.2 million kids have been waiting for and settles the lawsuit the California Teachers Association filed against Governor Schwarzenegger last August. In addition, the revised budget includes an exciting opportunity to provide assistance, rather than sanctions, to our schools that need help the most.
“This is a good thing for our schools and community colleges throughout California,” said Barbara E. Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association. “Having all the money owed to our schools under Proposition 98 and the governor’s agreement of 2004 restored to our students is the news we’ve been waiting for. It is especially good for those students who live in high-poverty areas and who do not speak English as a first language. Using some of the repayment money to improve learning and instruction in our schools of greatest need will help us close the achievement gap.”
Under the revised budget proposal and legal settlement, public schools will receive $5 billion due under Proposition 98. The dollars represent repayment of the money owed to education under the 2004 agreement with the education community and schools’ share of new state revenues. It includes $3 billion that will be paid over a seven year period and will be used to help schools that are serving low-income students and English language learners. Part of the money will also go to community colleges to expand career education programs and improve transfer rates to four-year colleges.
It has been a long time goal of the California Teachers Association to increase the resources to the schools of greatest need. The repayment dollars will be used to address the problems facing struggling California public schools including reducing class sizes, improving teacher and principal training, increasing parental involvement and providing school counselors.
“The repayment of the money owed under Prop. 98 moves us forward. However, we must recognize that these are one-time dollars. We must now build on this commitment. Teachers look forward to working with the administration and the legislature to determine how we provide adequate resources for our schools on a long-term basis,” said Kerr.
Dan Weintraub on the school budget deal?
Here is the Bee's Dan Weintraub on the proposed school funding deal.
From: California Insider
School spending
If the Legislature approves the Schwarzenegger/CTA agreement on education spending, the Prop. 98 numbers will look like this for last year, this year and next year:
2004-05: $47 billion
2005-06: $52 billion
2006-07: $55.1 billlion
That's a huge increase over two years (17 percent) no matter how you count it. But next year's increase will actually be far larger than it appears in these numbers. That's because the $52 billion credited to the current year is actually $50 billion that was already budgeted, plus $2 billion that will go on the books for this year but won't actually arrive until after the next budget is signed. For all practical purposes, then, that's money that will be spent next year. If you adjusted the numbers to reflect that fact, they would look more like this:
2004-05: $47 billion
2005-06: $50 billion
2006-07: $57.1 billion
From: California Insider
School spending
If the Legislature approves the Schwarzenegger/CTA agreement on education spending, the Prop. 98 numbers will look like this for last year, this year and next year:
2004-05: $47 billion
2005-06: $52 billion
2006-07: $55.1 billlion
That's a huge increase over two years (17 percent) no matter how you count it. But next year's increase will actually be far larger than it appears in these numbers. That's because the $52 billion credited to the current year is actually $50 billion that was already budgeted, plus $2 billion that will go on the books for this year but won't actually arrive until after the next budget is signed. For all practical purposes, then, that's money that will be spent next year. If you adjusted the numbers to reflect that fact, they would look more like this:
2004-05: $47 billion
2005-06: $50 billion
2006-07: $57.1 billion
Democrats: What does full funding mean?
Dan Weintraub of the BEE makes this statement on his blog after the recent debates:
"Anyway, both candidates are still talking a lot about "fully funding" the schools without saying how that would differ from what Schwarzenegger is proposing. Especially Westly. Angelides is on the record saying he would give the schools more in ongoing funding than even the CTA is asking for. But Westly has said he would fund the existing Prop. 98 guarantee and then work out a plan to restore, over time, about $3 billion that the education lobby has said the state owed the schools. Now Schwarzenegger has done that, effectively taking the issue off the table if Westly is the nominee. And if Angelides is the nominee, he will presumably stick to his argument that we should raise taxes on the wealthy and business and give more money to the schools."
In any case, the question is correct. What is full funding? Keep asking until we get an answer before voting.
"Anyway, both candidates are still talking a lot about "fully funding" the schools without saying how that would differ from what Schwarzenegger is proposing. Especially Westly. Angelides is on the record saying he would give the schools more in ongoing funding than even the CTA is asking for. But Westly has said he would fund the existing Prop. 98 guarantee and then work out a plan to restore, over time, about $3 billion that the education lobby has said the state owed the schools. Now Schwarzenegger has done that, effectively taking the issue off the table if Westly is the nominee. And if Angelides is the nominee, he will presumably stick to his argument that we should raise taxes on the wealthy and business and give more money to the schools."
In any case, the question is correct. What is full funding? Keep asking until we get an answer before voting.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Fools Paradise
It looks as if the Governor is going to allocate to the k-12 schools some of the money owed. See prior post.
And then, they expect to be praised.
This is rich.
We should praise them because they obey the law ( Prop. 98) rather than defying the law as they did last year. Remember, we kicked their behinds in Prop. 74, 75 & 76.
Caution. News reports indicate that some "agreement" is in the works about including the new money in the Prop.98 base (as required by current law). This is significant. It could add or cost the schools billions.
Duane Campbell
And then, they expect to be praised.
This is rich.
We should praise them because they obey the law ( Prop. 98) rather than defying the law as they did last year. Remember, we kicked their behinds in Prop. 74, 75 & 76.
Caution. News reports indicate that some "agreement" is in the works about including the new money in the Prop.98 base (as required by current law). This is significant. It could add or cost the schools billions.
Duane Campbell
Gov. may pay money owed to schools
Governor to settle school funding dispute
By Clea Benson -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 1:55 pm PDT Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to give schools an additional $5 billion over the next several years, settling a dispute with advocates who said he shortchanged education when money was tight, a consultant familiar with the deal said Wednesday.
The governor will use part of a windfall of tax revenue to cover the additional amount that advocates claimed was owed to schools, said consultant Kevin Gordon, president of School Innovations and Advocacy. Education officials, including the California Teachers Association and state schools superintendent Jack O'Connell, said schools deserved an additional $3.2 billion and had filed a lawsuit designed to force the state to pay up.
The deal is intended to settle the lawsuit. Schools will receive $2 billion of the $5 billion in the budget year that starts July 1, with the rest coming over several years, Gordon said.
"In every school in the state, they care a whole lot less about politics an a lot more about meeting their basic fiscal needs," Gordon said. "The governor will undoubtedly be celebrated over the fact that he has stepped up to the plate on this issue and agreed to resolve it."
By Clea Benson -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 1:55 pm PDT Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to give schools an additional $5 billion over the next several years, settling a dispute with advocates who said he shortchanged education when money was tight, a consultant familiar with the deal said Wednesday.
The governor will use part of a windfall of tax revenue to cover the additional amount that advocates claimed was owed to schools, said consultant Kevin Gordon, president of School Innovations and Advocacy. Education officials, including the California Teachers Association and state schools superintendent Jack O'Connell, said schools deserved an additional $3.2 billion and had filed a lawsuit designed to force the state to pay up.
The deal is intended to settle the lawsuit. Schools will receive $2 billion of the $5 billion in the budget year that starts July 1, with the rest coming over several years, Gordon said.
"In every school in the state, they care a whole lot less about politics an a lot more about meeting their basic fiscal needs," Gordon said. "The governor will undoubtedly be celebrated over the fact that he has stepped up to the plate on this issue and agreed to resolve it."
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Judge strikes down High School Exit Exam
JUDGE SAYS CALIFORNIA EXIT EXAM IS UNFAIR
Final ruling today could halt plans to deny diplomas
- Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
A judge in Oakland struck down California's controversial high school exit exam Monday, issuing a tentative ruling suggesting the test is unfair to some students who are shortchanged by substandard schools.
If finalized, the unexpected ruling would block the state from carrying out its plan to deny diplomas for the first time to tens of thousands of seniors who have been unable to pass the exit exam.
Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court said he based his ruling on the concept of "equal protection" and is expected to make a final ruling at a 2 p.m. hearing today.
His ruling comes just weeks before graduation ceremonies begin at 1,129 California high schools and just days after state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell announced that 46,768 seniors -- 10.7 percent of the class of 2006 -- had not yet passed the exit exam. Of those students, 61 percent are poor, and 44 percent are English learners.
Many of them, such as Iris Padilla, a senior at Richmond High in the West Contra Costa Unified School district, have been watching their graduating classmates with envy. Earlier Monday, before the ruling, she was in tears when asked by a reporter whether she planned to attend her prom on May 19.
"How am I going to enjoy myself and celebrate graduation if I'm not going to get a diploma?" asked Iris, who is passing all classes with the help of Spanish-speaking teachers and classmates.
But everything changed a few hours later when news of the tentative ruling hit the student grapevine.
"Wow! How? This is so good!" Iris laughed and laughed and laughed some more.
O'Connell, who wrote the exit exam legislation in 1999 when he was a state senator and has called it a cornerstone of his school reform efforts, wasn't laughing.
"Recognizing that today's ruling is not final, I intend to do everything in my power to ensure that at the end of the legal day we maintain the integrity of the high school exit exam," O'Connell said. He noted that independent research has shown that the exit exam has actually led more students to buckle down to try to pass the test, and that struggling students have more access to tutoring than in the past.
California's high school exit exam also carries strong support among voters and the business community -- future employers of today's high school students -- who share O'Connell's view that a diploma should indicate a basic level of academic skill.
The exit exam tests 7th- to 10th-grade English, math and algebra skills. In all, 389,600 seniors have passed the test, although it is not clear how many have completed all their other graduation requirements.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was "disappointed" at the tentative ruling and said that "delaying the exam's implementation does a disservice to our children by depriving us of the best tool we have to make sure schools are performing as they should be."
But attorney Arturo Gonzalez of the San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster, who brought the lawsuit challenging the exam, said he was thrilled with the judge's tentative ruling.
"I felt strongly that the state should not deprive a student of a diploma unless the state can say that every student has been fairly and properly prepared for that test," Gonzalez said. "There is overwhelming evidence that students throughout the state have not been taught the material on the test. And many students have been taught by teachers not credentialed in math and English."
Gonzalez said he filed the suit after reading news reports last fall that about 100,000 seniors were poised to be denied a diploma. (The number has since dropped by more than half because many students eventually passed the exam, while others were exempted by a separate lawsuit on behalf of students with disabilities.)
On Feb. 8, Gonzalez sued the state in an 11th-hour attempt to block the exit exam altogether.
Earlier attempts to ban the test failed because, until now, no students were on the brink of being denied a diploma.
The suit, Valenzuela vs. California, was named for its lead plaintiff, Liliana Valenzuela, who, like Iris Padilla, is a Richmond High senior. According to the suit, Liliana maintains a 3.84 grade-point average and is 12th in her senior class of 413 students. She has passed the math portion of the exam, but not the English portion. Her first language is Spanish.
The suit said that students who have repeatedly failed the test -- especially English learners -- have not had a fair opportunity to learn the material because they are more likely to attend overcrowded schools and have teachers without proper credentials.
In his tentative ruling, Freedman said he was inclined to agree with that argument but will give the state's lawyers a chance to persuade him to change his opinion. However, Freedman may have signaled a reluctance to reverse himself when he asked lawyers on both sides to come prepared to talk about how conditions in the schools can be equalized.
He also asked the students' lawyers to explain what it will take to make the exit exam fair for future classes.
As for Iris Padilla of Richmond High, asked again whether she'll go to the prom, she smiled and said, "Si."
E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.
Not passed
Estimated number of California high school seniors
who had not passed the exit exam by March 1, excluding special education
students:
All students: 46,768
Asian:
2,374
Hispanic: 29,899
African American: 6,298
White: 5,712
English learners: 20,629
Economically disadvantaged: 28,359
Source: California Department of Education
Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/09/MNGSVIO7NI1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Final ruling today could halt plans to deny diplomas
- Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
A judge in Oakland struck down California's controversial high school exit exam Monday, issuing a tentative ruling suggesting the test is unfair to some students who are shortchanged by substandard schools.
If finalized, the unexpected ruling would block the state from carrying out its plan to deny diplomas for the first time to tens of thousands of seniors who have been unable to pass the exit exam.
Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court said he based his ruling on the concept of "equal protection" and is expected to make a final ruling at a 2 p.m. hearing today.
His ruling comes just weeks before graduation ceremonies begin at 1,129 California high schools and just days after state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell announced that 46,768 seniors -- 10.7 percent of the class of 2006 -- had not yet passed the exit exam. Of those students, 61 percent are poor, and 44 percent are English learners.
Many of them, such as Iris Padilla, a senior at Richmond High in the West Contra Costa Unified School district, have been watching their graduating classmates with envy. Earlier Monday, before the ruling, she was in tears when asked by a reporter whether she planned to attend her prom on May 19.
"How am I going to enjoy myself and celebrate graduation if I'm not going to get a diploma?" asked Iris, who is passing all classes with the help of Spanish-speaking teachers and classmates.
But everything changed a few hours later when news of the tentative ruling hit the student grapevine.
"Wow! How? This is so good!" Iris laughed and laughed and laughed some more.
O'Connell, who wrote the exit exam legislation in 1999 when he was a state senator and has called it a cornerstone of his school reform efforts, wasn't laughing.
"Recognizing that today's ruling is not final, I intend to do everything in my power to ensure that at the end of the legal day we maintain the integrity of the high school exit exam," O'Connell said. He noted that independent research has shown that the exit exam has actually led more students to buckle down to try to pass the test, and that struggling students have more access to tutoring than in the past.
California's high school exit exam also carries strong support among voters and the business community -- future employers of today's high school students -- who share O'Connell's view that a diploma should indicate a basic level of academic skill.
The exit exam tests 7th- to 10th-grade English, math and algebra skills. In all, 389,600 seniors have passed the test, although it is not clear how many have completed all their other graduation requirements.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was "disappointed" at the tentative ruling and said that "delaying the exam's implementation does a disservice to our children by depriving us of the best tool we have to make sure schools are performing as they should be."
But attorney Arturo Gonzalez of the San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster, who brought the lawsuit challenging the exam, said he was thrilled with the judge's tentative ruling.
"I felt strongly that the state should not deprive a student of a diploma unless the state can say that every student has been fairly and properly prepared for that test," Gonzalez said. "There is overwhelming evidence that students throughout the state have not been taught the material on the test. And many students have been taught by teachers not credentialed in math and English."
Gonzalez said he filed the suit after reading news reports last fall that about 100,000 seniors were poised to be denied a diploma. (The number has since dropped by more than half because many students eventually passed the exam, while others were exempted by a separate lawsuit on behalf of students with disabilities.)
On Feb. 8, Gonzalez sued the state in an 11th-hour attempt to block the exit exam altogether.
Earlier attempts to ban the test failed because, until now, no students were on the brink of being denied a diploma.
The suit, Valenzuela vs. California, was named for its lead plaintiff, Liliana Valenzuela, who, like Iris Padilla, is a Richmond High senior. According to the suit, Liliana maintains a 3.84 grade-point average and is 12th in her senior class of 413 students. She has passed the math portion of the exam, but not the English portion. Her first language is Spanish.
The suit said that students who have repeatedly failed the test -- especially English learners -- have not had a fair opportunity to learn the material because they are more likely to attend overcrowded schools and have teachers without proper credentials.
In his tentative ruling, Freedman said he was inclined to agree with that argument but will give the state's lawyers a chance to persuade him to change his opinion. However, Freedman may have signaled a reluctance to reverse himself when he asked lawyers on both sides to come prepared to talk about how conditions in the schools can be equalized.
He also asked the students' lawyers to explain what it will take to make the exit exam fair for future classes.
As for Iris Padilla of Richmond High, asked again whether she'll go to the prom, she smiled and said, "Si."
E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.
Not passed
Estimated number of California high school seniors
who had not passed the exit exam by March 1, excluding special education
students:
All students: 46,768
Asian:
2,374
Hispanic: 29,899
African American: 6,298
White: 5,712
English learners: 20,629
Economically disadvantaged: 28,359
Source: California Department of Education
Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/09/MNGSVIO7NI1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, May 05, 2006
NEA: Issues facing teachers
NEA Addresses Top Five Teaching Trends and Outlines 'Portrait of American Teacher'
WASHINGTON -- The teaching profession has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. The majority of the nation's 3 million teachers have at least a master's degree and an average of 15 years of experience.i In addition, more than 75 percent of all teachers participate in professional development related to their grade or subject area.i As part of its annual National Teacher Day celebration, taking place this year on Tuesday, May 9, the National Education Association is releasing a list of the top five trends in the teaching profession and outlining the main characteristics of a 21st century schoolteacher.
"Today, teachers are more educated and experienced than ever before," said NEA President Reg Weaver. "It's extremely reassuring to know that public school students are being taught by the some of the most talented educators this nation has seen in more than 40 years. On National Teacher Day, NEA and its 2.8 million members are saluting teachers, America's heroes, for making public schools great for every child."
….
Trend #4: The teaching corps in public schools does not reflect the diversity of the student population.
-1. More teachers of color are needed. Nearly four out of every 10 students is a minority (40.5 %), yet the teaching profession is overwhelmingly white (90%).i Some 40 percent of all public schools have no minority teachers on staff.iii Additionally, fewer than half of teachers participate in professional development related to managing diversity in the classroom.i
-1. The percentage of African-American teachers is the lowest since 1971 (6%).i Only five percent of the nation's teachers are Hispanics, Asians or are from other ethnic groups.i
Classroom success depends on cultural diversity. Some research suggests students of color perform better-academically, personally and socially-when taught by teachers from their own ethnic groups.vi
More details:
http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2006/nr060502.html
WASHINGTON -- The teaching profession has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. The majority of the nation's 3 million teachers have at least a master's degree and an average of 15 years of experience.i In addition, more than 75 percent of all teachers participate in professional development related to their grade or subject area.i As part of its annual National Teacher Day celebration, taking place this year on Tuesday, May 9, the National Education Association is releasing a list of the top five trends in the teaching profession and outlining the main characteristics of a 21st century schoolteacher.
"Today, teachers are more educated and experienced than ever before," said NEA President Reg Weaver. "It's extremely reassuring to know that public school students are being taught by the some of the most talented educators this nation has seen in more than 40 years. On National Teacher Day, NEA and its 2.8 million members are saluting teachers, America's heroes, for making public schools great for every child."
….
Trend #4: The teaching corps in public schools does not reflect the diversity of the student population.
-1. More teachers of color are needed. Nearly four out of every 10 students is a minority (40.5 %), yet the teaching profession is overwhelmingly white (90%).i Some 40 percent of all public schools have no minority teachers on staff.iii Additionally, fewer than half of teachers participate in professional development related to managing diversity in the classroom.i
-1. The percentage of African-American teachers is the lowest since 1971 (6%).i Only five percent of the nation's teachers are Hispanics, Asians or are from other ethnic groups.i
Classroom success depends on cultural diversity. Some research suggests students of color perform better-academically, personally and socially-when taught by teachers from their own ethnic groups.vi
More details:
http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2006/nr060502.html
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Hauck of the Business Roundtable
TRUSTEE HAUCK LEADS BUSINESS GROUP THAT FAVORS TUITION INCREASES
By Becky Bartindale
Mercury News
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg said Tuesday that she will heed a call for an investigation into conflict charges leveled by a faculty union against William Hauck, powerful California State University trustee, influential business leader and friend of the governor.
Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said she would request an investigation today through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee into whether Hauck has a conflict of interest because of his $300,600-a-year job as president of the California Business Roundtable, which advocates for student fee increases and against higher taxes.
CSU is the nation's largest four-year university system, and includes San Jose State University. Its code of conduct says trustees should not engage in activities that conflict with the interests of the CSU.
Goldberg said she hoped a state audit would answer the question of whether Hauck ``can have two masters and serve both.''
``We don't want trustees coming in with closed minds,'' said the former teacher and adjunct professor at California State University-Los Angeles. ``If he can't take a position other than the position of the Roundtable, that's coming in with an agenda.''
Hauck did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. But a spokeswoman for the CSU said his stature in California was ``value added'' to the university system.
``His presence as a trustee and his influence in the state have been tremendously positive in the CSU,'' said spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow. ``There is a lot of value added as a result of the position he has. He has been tremendously instrumental to the CSU agenda and mission.''
Goldberg said she was requesting the investigation based on a letter and background information from the California Faculty Association. Members' requests for audits are generally honored, she said.
The faculty union has vigorously opposed tuition hikes, blaming increases totaling 76 percent over the past three years for recent drops in enrollment, especially at campuses serving large percentages of poor and working-class students. It also has assailed the compact struck between Chancellor Charles Reed and the governor two years ago that called for student fee hikes and promised CSU state funding increases after more than $500 million in funding reductions.
As chairman of the trustees' finance committee, Hauck has not recused himself from votes about fee hikes but instead played a key role in influencing trustees to approve them, said faculty union President John Travis, a political science professor at Humboldt State University.
``The view of the Business Roundtable is you don't need more taxes, you don't need more money,'' said Goldberg, who is a staunch opponent of student fee hikes. ``I think trustees need to be able to say when they need more money.''
Travis said the faculty union became interested in raising awareness about Hauck's possible conflicts because of his strong support last year for a ballot measure that would have given the governor more control over the state budget and could have left the CSU even more vulnerable to budget cuts.
Hauck also has caught the union's attention by saying he'd like to see an end to tenure and collective bargaining in education.
Hauck, who got his start in politics as president of the student body at San Jose State, is a close ally of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He co-chaired Citizens to Save California, a business-backed group that qualified the governor's initiatives for the ballot last year, and the California Performance Review, the group that made extensive proposals to the governor for overhauling state government.
As president of the non-profit, non-partisan Business Roundtable, he represents the interests of the chief executive officers of California businesses who are the group's members.
Over the years, Hauck has figured prominently in state government, serving as deputy chief of staff to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and chief of staff to two Assembly speakers, Democrats Bob Moretti and Willie Brown. Hauck was appointed in 1993 by Wilson and is set to serve through 2009 following his reappointment by Gov. Gray Davis. He served as chairman of the CSU Board of Trustees from 1998 to 2000.
``I think he has a far more fundamental influence on policy than other board members because of who he is and how powerful and politically connected he is,'' Travis said, noting that Hauck serves on 8 of 10 trustee policy committees. ``Virtually everyone knows of him. When he speaks everybody listens.''
Kate Folmar contributed to this report. Contact Becky Bartindale at bbartindale@ mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5459.
Note: this is the same Business Roundtable which has often dominated school reform discussions. See the work of Kathy Emery, Why are the corporations bashing our schools?
By Becky Bartindale
Mercury News
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg said Tuesday that she will heed a call for an investigation into conflict charges leveled by a faculty union against William Hauck, powerful California State University trustee, influential business leader and friend of the governor.
Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said she would request an investigation today through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee into whether Hauck has a conflict of interest because of his $300,600-a-year job as president of the California Business Roundtable, which advocates for student fee increases and against higher taxes.
CSU is the nation's largest four-year university system, and includes San Jose State University. Its code of conduct says trustees should not engage in activities that conflict with the interests of the CSU.
Goldberg said she hoped a state audit would answer the question of whether Hauck ``can have two masters and serve both.''
``We don't want trustees coming in with closed minds,'' said the former teacher and adjunct professor at California State University-Los Angeles. ``If he can't take a position other than the position of the Roundtable, that's coming in with an agenda.''
Hauck did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. But a spokeswoman for the CSU said his stature in California was ``value added'' to the university system.
``His presence as a trustee and his influence in the state have been tremendously positive in the CSU,'' said spokeswoman Clara Potes-Fellow. ``There is a lot of value added as a result of the position he has. He has been tremendously instrumental to the CSU agenda and mission.''
Goldberg said she was requesting the investigation based on a letter and background information from the California Faculty Association. Members' requests for audits are generally honored, she said.
The faculty union has vigorously opposed tuition hikes, blaming increases totaling 76 percent over the past three years for recent drops in enrollment, especially at campuses serving large percentages of poor and working-class students. It also has assailed the compact struck between Chancellor Charles Reed and the governor two years ago that called for student fee hikes and promised CSU state funding increases after more than $500 million in funding reductions.
As chairman of the trustees' finance committee, Hauck has not recused himself from votes about fee hikes but instead played a key role in influencing trustees to approve them, said faculty union President John Travis, a political science professor at Humboldt State University.
``The view of the Business Roundtable is you don't need more taxes, you don't need more money,'' said Goldberg, who is a staunch opponent of student fee hikes. ``I think trustees need to be able to say when they need more money.''
Travis said the faculty union became interested in raising awareness about Hauck's possible conflicts because of his strong support last year for a ballot measure that would have given the governor more control over the state budget and could have left the CSU even more vulnerable to budget cuts.
Hauck also has caught the union's attention by saying he'd like to see an end to tenure and collective bargaining in education.
Hauck, who got his start in politics as president of the student body at San Jose State, is a close ally of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He co-chaired Citizens to Save California, a business-backed group that qualified the governor's initiatives for the ballot last year, and the California Performance Review, the group that made extensive proposals to the governor for overhauling state government.
As president of the non-profit, non-partisan Business Roundtable, he represents the interests of the chief executive officers of California businesses who are the group's members.
Over the years, Hauck has figured prominently in state government, serving as deputy chief of staff to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and chief of staff to two Assembly speakers, Democrats Bob Moretti and Willie Brown. Hauck was appointed in 1993 by Wilson and is set to serve through 2009 following his reappointment by Gov. Gray Davis. He served as chairman of the CSU Board of Trustees from 1998 to 2000.
``I think he has a far more fundamental influence on policy than other board members because of who he is and how powerful and politically connected he is,'' Travis said, noting that Hauck serves on 8 of 10 trustee policy committees. ``Virtually everyone knows of him. When he speaks everybody listens.''
Kate Folmar contributed to this report. Contact Becky Bartindale at bbartindale@ mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5459.
Note: this is the same Business Roundtable which has often dominated school reform discussions. See the work of Kathy Emery, Why are the corporations bashing our schools?
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
May Day Protests
May 01, 2006
The largest demonstration in Sacramento history.
I have been to many demonstration in Sacramento reaching back to the 60’s. I have marched with the UFW when they brought 15,000 to the state capitol.
Today’s march for immigrant rights in Sacramento was the largest demonstration I have ever seen. The crowds not only filled the capitol grounds, they extended over 8 blocks down the capitol mall. And from there, since the mall was full, marchers had to move over to N street to approach the capitol from the South Side. Early news reports say there were tens of thousands. Based upon prior demonstrations, there must have been at least 30,000 people here.
The entire world is experiencing a major restructuring of the global economy, directed by transnational corporations and the institutions which these corporations control (NAFTA, WTO, FTAA,GATT).
Economic policy; free trade and globalism produces massive immigration in many parts of the world. As a direct result of NAFTA , over 3 million small Mexican farmers were driven from their lands. Not surprisingly, some of them, and their children, came to the U.S. looking for work to feed their families.
While transnational capitalism produces migration, democracies need policies to respond. HR 4437 is a Republican proposal to militarize the border and to build a 700 mile wall. We have already increased border enforcement by over 800% since 1986. Militarizing the border will not work.
Neither employer sanctions, border walls, nor Minutemen will stop this migration.
A fair and just immigration policy would recognize and protect the dignity of all working people.
We need to address the economic policies which produce immigration and defeat HR 4437.
From D. Weintraub's blog the following:
A protest inside, too
One of the few public events in the Capitol today was the Senate budget subcommittee that handles education issues. The committee, like its counterpart in the Assembly, voted to eliminate funding for staff and support of the state Board of Education. The action came in response to the board's recent vote on the language curriculum guidelines, and its refusal to allow more flexibility in the teaching of reading and writing to English learners. Few expect this retaliation to stick. The money will eventually be restored. It is just the Democrats' way of sending a message that they don't like the board's current guidelines for teaching language arts to kids who are not yet fluent in English.
The largest demonstration in Sacramento history.
I have been to many demonstration in Sacramento reaching back to the 60’s. I have marched with the UFW when they brought 15,000 to the state capitol.
Today’s march for immigrant rights in Sacramento was the largest demonstration I have ever seen. The crowds not only filled the capitol grounds, they extended over 8 blocks down the capitol mall. And from there, since the mall was full, marchers had to move over to N street to approach the capitol from the South Side. Early news reports say there were tens of thousands. Based upon prior demonstrations, there must have been at least 30,000 people here.
The entire world is experiencing a major restructuring of the global economy, directed by transnational corporations and the institutions which these corporations control (NAFTA, WTO, FTAA,GATT).
Economic policy; free trade and globalism produces massive immigration in many parts of the world. As a direct result of NAFTA , over 3 million small Mexican farmers were driven from their lands. Not surprisingly, some of them, and their children, came to the U.S. looking for work to feed their families.
While transnational capitalism produces migration, democracies need policies to respond. HR 4437 is a Republican proposal to militarize the border and to build a 700 mile wall. We have already increased border enforcement by over 800% since 1986. Militarizing the border will not work.
Neither employer sanctions, border walls, nor Minutemen will stop this migration.
A fair and just immigration policy would recognize and protect the dignity of all working people.
We need to address the economic policies which produce immigration and defeat HR 4437.
From D. Weintraub's blog the following:
A protest inside, too
One of the few public events in the Capitol today was the Senate budget subcommittee that handles education issues. The committee, like its counterpart in the Assembly, voted to eliminate funding for staff and support of the state Board of Education. The action came in response to the board's recent vote on the language curriculum guidelines, and its refusal to allow more flexibility in the teaching of reading and writing to English learners. Few expect this retaliation to stick. The money will eventually be restored. It is just the Democrats' way of sending a message that they don't like the board's current guidelines for teaching language arts to kids who are not yet fluent in English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
