From: The Daily Kos
GOP, the Know-Nothing Party
by smintheus
Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:58:54 PM PDT
Republicans have been in a lather since Barack Obama commented that American children should learn a foreign language in school. It demonstrates the extent to which they've become the party of ignorance.
Responding to a voter in GA who'd like more bilingual education, Obama said:
"Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.
You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say [is], ‘Merci beaucoup.’ Right? You know, no, I’m serious about this. We should understand that our young people, if you have a foreign language, that is a powerful tool to get a job. You are so much more employable. You can be part of international business. So we should be emphasizing foreign languages in our schools from an early age, because children will actually learn a foreign language easier when they’re 5, or 6, or 7 than when they’re 46, like me."
Hard to argue with that. It's obvious too that learning a foreign language helps you to understand your own language better. It also brings perspective on how to think, speak, and write. While thinking critically about ideas you learn to communicate them more precisely.
Predictably, right-wingers flew into a rage at Obama's un-American call for better language skills. For example, John McCormack at the Weakly Standard labeled language education as snobbery and elitism. John Derbyshire called Obama's suggestion "idiotic" because "not many human beings can learn another language", as his own failures prove. He combines that with characteristic condescension:
In fact, below some cutoff point, which I'd guess at around minus one standard deviation in IQ (that would encompass sixteen percent of the population), education beyond the three R's is a waste of time, and foreign-language instruction a total waste of time.
Many right-wingers just skipped what Obama actually said and declared that he wants to forcibly indoctrinate their children in Spanish, or make Spanish the official language of the US. Fox News knew what Republicans wanted to hear. Neil Cavuto brought on the Philly-cheese-steak bigot Joey Vento to denounce Obama: "This man is a sick man. He is a scary man."
Even before it embraced creationism and made attacks on science a guiding principle, the Republican Party had proudly turned itself into the party of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. But Obama's call for children to learn more languages (which he stands by) has given the GOP an opportunity to link two of its favorite cudgels, ignorance and bigotry against immigrants. Truly the modern heir to the Know-Nothing Party.
Poll
How un-American are you?
I speak 1 language.
I speak 2 languages.
I speak 3 languages.
I speak 4 languages.
I speak 5-7 languages.
I speak 8 or more languages.
Monday, July 14, 2008
State Test Scores and NAEP
State Test Scores in Reading and Mathematics Continue
To Increase, Achievement Gaps Narrow
Positive Trends in State Test Scores Seen Since 2002
WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 24, 2008 – Student scores on state tests of reading and
mathematics have risen since 2002, and achievement gaps between various groups of students
have narrowed more often than they have widened, according to the most comprehensive and
rigorous recent analysis of state test scores. These improvements have occurred during a
period when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), state education reforms, and local school
improvement efforts have focused on raising test scores and narrowing achievement gaps.
The report, Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?: State Test Score Trends
Through 2006-07, was released today by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy (CEP). It
analyzes state test data from all 50 states as well as trends through 2007 on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the only federally administered assessment of
reading and math achievement. While expanding on a similar report from last year, this study
continues the focus on two main questions: whether reading and math achievement has
increased since 2002 and whether achievement gaps between subgroups of students have
narrowed. The number of states included varies depending on the type of trend being reported.
CEP excluded state data from years that should not be compared because a state introduced a
new test, changed the passing score on its test, or made other major test changes. CEP also
looked at two indicators of achievement on state tests – the percentage of students scoring at or
above the “proficient” level and a statistic called “effect size,” which avoids some limitations of
percentages proficient.
The report includes an analysis of many of the differences between state test scores and NAEP scores.
To Increase, Achievement Gaps Narrow
Positive Trends in State Test Scores Seen Since 2002
WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 24, 2008 – Student scores on state tests of reading and
mathematics have risen since 2002, and achievement gaps between various groups of students
have narrowed more often than they have widened, according to the most comprehensive and
rigorous recent analysis of state test scores. These improvements have occurred during a
period when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), state education reforms, and local school
improvement efforts have focused on raising test scores and narrowing achievement gaps.
The report, Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?: State Test Score Trends
Through 2006-07, was released today by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy (CEP). It
analyzes state test data from all 50 states as well as trends through 2007 on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the only federally administered assessment of
reading and math achievement. While expanding on a similar report from last year, this study
continues the focus on two main questions: whether reading and math achievement has
increased since 2002 and whether achievement gaps between subgroups of students have
narrowed. The number of states included varies depending on the type of trend being reported.
CEP excluded state data from years that should not be compared because a state introduced a
new test, changed the passing score on its test, or made other major test changes. CEP also
looked at two indicators of achievement on state tests – the percentage of students scoring at or
above the “proficient” level and a statistic called “effect size,” which avoids some limitations of
percentages proficient.
The report includes an analysis of many of the differences between state test scores and NAEP scores.
More on Reading first
Reading First program expected to die out of classrooms
by Pat Kossan - Jul. 13, 2008 The Arizona Republic
The Bush administration's $6 billion Reading First program is expected to die out of American classrooms, including those in Arizona, by the end of the decade.
The generous program was born in 2002 and provided $130 million to 136 schools in Arizona's neediest communities. The money helped each school buy a uniform reading program, a reading coach, extensive teacher training and tools for teachers. Those tools allowed teachers to measure a student's reading progress weekly or monthly, but always in time to catch those students who were falling behind.
Many state education leaders, including those in Arizona, said Reading First refocused their scattered reading programs and helped their state's poorest kids learn to read more quickly. Detractors called the program too prescribed, with an emphasis on teaching students to decode words at the expense of comprehending sentences.
Curriculum director Barbara Wright of the Casa Grande Elementary District is among the mourners. "How sad," she said of Reading First's demise. Wright was a Reading First fan and implemented the program at every school in the district.
"This was good, solid, research-based information, and we implemented it in all our schools at the time, even though only two schools were funded," she said.
Eventually, seven of the district's nine schools were given Reading First grants. The district's third-grade AIMS reading scores have climbed every year since.
Wright said its mandates will continue to guide the district's reading program, even though the massive federal grant program has taken a beating it is not expected to survive.
The blows included reports of mismanagement at the highest levels and a pending Department of Justice investigation. That led an angry Congress to cut its funding by 60 percent. In May, a U.S. Department of Education study concluded Reading First - its own program - had little positive impact on reading skills. Arizona schools were not included in the study. In June, the U.S. Senate and House appropriations committees stripped Reading First of its remaining money, which is expected to lead to its death in 2010.
Although Reading First is fading, its legacy will live on. Arizona lawmakers were so enamored with the program they created a state law requiring all schools to create reading programs that mimic it. The state law did not provide extra money to implement the reading programs, so its impact is uncertain.
"The essence of Reading First is the method of teaching that is independent of appropriation of funds," said Tom Horne, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction. Horne said Reading First combines the best of all reading methods tried before it, emphasizing phonics, as well as comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. "Schools will continue to use it because it has proven itself," he said.
COMMENTS on website as of 4:00 pm CDT 7/14:
rlyon
Jul-13 @ 8:40 AM
Children are, and will be hurt in the political theater surrounding Reading First. Some facts: First, The Office of the Inspector General found no actual conflicts of interest in the management of Reading First (see OIG Reports) Second, Sen. Ted Kennedy had concerns that directors of Reading First technical assistance centers were receiving royalties from publishers while working for the program. But in most cases, these royalties were for books published before they worked for Reading First, or for books not connected to Reading First. In any case, Reading First technical assistance centers did not recommend specific textbooks or reading materials. Third, a Department of Education study recently published and showing that Reading First funding did not result in significant gains in achievement when compared to schools that did not receive the funding has been widely criticized for not paying attention to a well known fact – Both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice. Reid Lyon Dallas, Texas
SKrashen
Jul-14 @ 12:47 AM
In response to Reid Lyon: In the Dept of Education study, Reading First children were getting more of the elements of reading that the National Reading Panel considered to be crucial. Thus, as Tim Shanahan pointed out, it was really a comparison of more Reading First versus less. And it wasn't just a little more, it amounted to an extra six weeks per year. Concerning the state data: Alabama looks good in kindergarten but the percent reaches proficiency drops as the children move up the grades. Ohio also drops. Idaho is one of the few that doesn't.
See earlier posts on Bush Administration malfeasance with Reading First funds. Particularly the role of Reid Lyons.
by Pat Kossan - Jul. 13, 2008 The Arizona Republic
The Bush administration's $6 billion Reading First program is expected to die out of American classrooms, including those in Arizona, by the end of the decade.
The generous program was born in 2002 and provided $130 million to 136 schools in Arizona's neediest communities. The money helped each school buy a uniform reading program, a reading coach, extensive teacher training and tools for teachers. Those tools allowed teachers to measure a student's reading progress weekly or monthly, but always in time to catch those students who were falling behind.
Many state education leaders, including those in Arizona, said Reading First refocused their scattered reading programs and helped their state's poorest kids learn to read more quickly. Detractors called the program too prescribed, with an emphasis on teaching students to decode words at the expense of comprehending sentences.
Curriculum director Barbara Wright of the Casa Grande Elementary District is among the mourners. "How sad," she said of Reading First's demise. Wright was a Reading First fan and implemented the program at every school in the district.
"This was good, solid, research-based information, and we implemented it in all our schools at the time, even though only two schools were funded," she said.
Eventually, seven of the district's nine schools were given Reading First grants. The district's third-grade AIMS reading scores have climbed every year since.
Wright said its mandates will continue to guide the district's reading program, even though the massive federal grant program has taken a beating it is not expected to survive.
The blows included reports of mismanagement at the highest levels and a pending Department of Justice investigation. That led an angry Congress to cut its funding by 60 percent. In May, a U.S. Department of Education study concluded Reading First - its own program - had little positive impact on reading skills. Arizona schools were not included in the study. In June, the U.S. Senate and House appropriations committees stripped Reading First of its remaining money, which is expected to lead to its death in 2010.
Although Reading First is fading, its legacy will live on. Arizona lawmakers were so enamored with the program they created a state law requiring all schools to create reading programs that mimic it. The state law did not provide extra money to implement the reading programs, so its impact is uncertain.
"The essence of Reading First is the method of teaching that is independent of appropriation of funds," said Tom Horne, Arizona's superintendent of public instruction. Horne said Reading First combines the best of all reading methods tried before it, emphasizing phonics, as well as comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. "Schools will continue to use it because it has proven itself," he said.
COMMENTS on website as of 4:00 pm CDT 7/14:
rlyon
Jul-13 @ 8:40 AM
Children are, and will be hurt in the political theater surrounding Reading First. Some facts: First, The Office of the Inspector General found no actual conflicts of interest in the management of Reading First (see OIG Reports) Second, Sen. Ted Kennedy had concerns that directors of Reading First technical assistance centers were receiving royalties from publishers while working for the program. But in most cases, these royalties were for books published before they worked for Reading First, or for books not connected to Reading First. In any case, Reading First technical assistance centers did not recommend specific textbooks or reading materials. Third, a Department of Education study recently published and showing that Reading First funding did not result in significant gains in achievement when compared to schools that did not receive the funding has been widely criticized for not paying attention to a well known fact – Both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice. Reid Lyon Dallas, Texas
SKrashen
Jul-14 @ 12:47 AM
In response to Reid Lyon: In the Dept of Education study, Reading First children were getting more of the elements of reading that the National Reading Panel considered to be crucial. Thus, as Tim Shanahan pointed out, it was really a comparison of more Reading First versus less. And it wasn't just a little more, it amounted to an extra six weeks per year. Concerning the state data: Alabama looks good in kindergarten but the percent reaches proficiency drops as the children move up the grades. Ohio also drops. Idaho is one of the few that doesn't.
See earlier posts on Bush Administration malfeasance with Reading First funds. Particularly the role of Reid Lyons.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Algebra part II
Amazing. The Sacramento Bee editorial actually got something right on public schooling. The described the dire straights of California math teaching.
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/story/1075230.html
And, they were responsible rather than glib about alternatives they so often suggest.
I said that I would offer more on the Algebra decision.
I actually prefer their statement to my own.
They start in reality. We should expect the School Board to do what political appointees do- make grand statements. Then someone has to do the work of improving math education, including algebra.
If we start with this reality, then we are not disappointed at political grandstanding.
They note that California currently ranks 47 out of the 50 states in math achievement. Perhaps that should give the School Board something to do.
In addition to their list of ways to begin to address the math/algebra problems, I offer one more.
Notice that Math Departments at colleges teach math to all of our teachers. And, you can not major in Education in California.
Therefore, almost all of the teachers who are not being successful in teaching math k-8, have taken their math courses from our Math Departments. That is, the Math Departments did not teach the teachers. They failed.
They Math Departments need a little more humility.
In addition, as the Bee editorial calls for, we need more math majors to teach math and Algebra in grades 8-12.
But, why do we not have more math majors. Well, part of the problem is that our Math Departments are not doing a very good job of teaching math to college students. Perhaps we should take their advice on teaching with a few grains of salt.
In interesting effort called The Algebra Project has been quite successful in preparing young people in Algebra, African American, Latino and white. They approach Algebra from a hands on- experimental approach.
By the way, this is the same approach found to be successful in our best engineering schools such as my alma mater Carnegie-Mellon University.
Math Departments have a lot to they could learn from them, if they would be willing to listen and to learn.
http://www.sacbee.com/editorials/story/1075230.html
And, they were responsible rather than glib about alternatives they so often suggest.
I said that I would offer more on the Algebra decision.
I actually prefer their statement to my own.
They start in reality. We should expect the School Board to do what political appointees do- make grand statements. Then someone has to do the work of improving math education, including algebra.
If we start with this reality, then we are not disappointed at political grandstanding.
They note that California currently ranks 47 out of the 50 states in math achievement. Perhaps that should give the School Board something to do.
In addition to their list of ways to begin to address the math/algebra problems, I offer one more.
Notice that Math Departments at colleges teach math to all of our teachers. And, you can not major in Education in California.
Therefore, almost all of the teachers who are not being successful in teaching math k-8, have taken their math courses from our Math Departments. That is, the Math Departments did not teach the teachers. They failed.
They Math Departments need a little more humility.
In addition, as the Bee editorial calls for, we need more math majors to teach math and Algebra in grades 8-12.
But, why do we not have more math majors. Well, part of the problem is that our Math Departments are not doing a very good job of teaching math to college students. Perhaps we should take their advice on teaching with a few grains of salt.
In interesting effort called The Algebra Project has been quite successful in preparing young people in Algebra, African American, Latino and white. They approach Algebra from a hands on- experimental approach.
By the way, this is the same approach found to be successful in our best engineering schools such as my alma mater Carnegie-Mellon University.
Math Departments have a lot to they could learn from them, if they would be willing to listen and to learn.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
California and Algebra
As you may have read, the California School Board with one day's notice has decided that all 8th. graders shall take Algebra. This is the application of the non thinking - raise the standards- mantra of the uninformed.
In future posts I will go into this more.
However, as a start.
Did you know that under current conditions only 24 % of California students rank as Proficient of Above in math and the national NAEP exam. ( 2007)
O.K. 24% understand well the current grade level work. That means that 76% are not yet proficient.
So, rather than improving math teaching by - lowering class size, retraining teachers, assisting teachers, the Board is simply going to pass a mandate. They declare a standard. A more responsible action would be to do what they can do to improve math instruction. They could act on class size, the budget, teacher support, or curriculum. This is their job.
One of the arguments listed is that algebra teaches "critical thinking". Now, I am an advocate of critical thinking.
I have written chapters on critical thinking in my book, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education 3rd. ( 2004). There is simply no evidence that Algebra teaches more critical thinking than other math. This claim is an assertion, not a fact. Yet, the School Board acted upon it.
More to follow.
Duane Campbell
In future posts I will go into this more.
However, as a start.
Did you know that under current conditions only 24 % of California students rank as Proficient of Above in math and the national NAEP exam. ( 2007)
O.K. 24% understand well the current grade level work. That means that 76% are not yet proficient.
So, rather than improving math teaching by - lowering class size, retraining teachers, assisting teachers, the Board is simply going to pass a mandate. They declare a standard. A more responsible action would be to do what they can do to improve math instruction. They could act on class size, the budget, teacher support, or curriculum. This is their job.
One of the arguments listed is that algebra teaches "critical thinking". Now, I am an advocate of critical thinking.
I have written chapters on critical thinking in my book, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education 3rd. ( 2004). There is simply no evidence that Algebra teaches more critical thinking than other math. This claim is an assertion, not a fact. Yet, the School Board acted upon it.
More to follow.
Duane Campbell
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Federal Firefighting in California: Katrina part 2
The Collapse of Federal Firefighting in California
By Robert Cruickshank
As my recent articles have shown there is a shortage of firefighters to meet the unprecedented amount of fires burning across our state. As I began digging into this yesterday I came across the same report highlighted in today's Monterey Herald - that US Forest Service firefighting efforts have been cut to the bone and left the nation vulnerable to massive fires. Deliberate staffing shortages have left the USFS unable to do vital off-season brush clearance, and left them without the staffing to get a quick jump on fires in their crucial initial stages.
“The federal firefighting system is "imploding" in California, due to poor spending decisions and high job vacancy rates, as the region struggles to keep pace with what looks to be a historic fire season, a firefighters' advocacy group charges.
“As a result, the firefighters say, small fires have exploded into extended, multimillion-dollar conflagrations because the U.S. Forest Service has been unable to contain them during the early "initial attack" stage...
“As the "sheer number" of California wildfires pushed the nation to its worst measurable level of wildland-fire preparedness last week - Level 5 - a national multiagency coordinating group announced in a memo Monday that firefighter staffing levels in Northern California "cannot be maintained."
The report, by the FWFSA, has been around for a few months now. Wildland firefighters have been screaming about the issue to anyone who would listen, including Dianne Feinstein:
Read the rest of the report at California Progress Report.
By Robert Cruickshank
As my recent articles have shown there is a shortage of firefighters to meet the unprecedented amount of fires burning across our state. As I began digging into this yesterday I came across the same report highlighted in today's Monterey Herald - that US Forest Service firefighting efforts have been cut to the bone and left the nation vulnerable to massive fires. Deliberate staffing shortages have left the USFS unable to do vital off-season brush clearance, and left them without the staffing to get a quick jump on fires in their crucial initial stages.
“The federal firefighting system is "imploding" in California, due to poor spending decisions and high job vacancy rates, as the region struggles to keep pace with what looks to be a historic fire season, a firefighters' advocacy group charges.
“As a result, the firefighters say, small fires have exploded into extended, multimillion-dollar conflagrations because the U.S. Forest Service has been unable to contain them during the early "initial attack" stage...
“As the "sheer number" of California wildfires pushed the nation to its worst measurable level of wildland-fire preparedness last week - Level 5 - a national multiagency coordinating group announced in a memo Monday that firefighter staffing levels in Northern California "cannot be maintained."
The report, by the FWFSA, has been around for a few months now. Wildland firefighters have been screaming about the issue to anyone who would listen, including Dianne Feinstein:
Read the rest of the report at California Progress Report.
Accountability and Schools
Accountability
The school systems in most of our cities in California are currently at a crisis point. Schools can continue as they are. A segment of society will be well-educated, another segment will continue to fail. The economic crisis for working people and people of color will continue to grow (Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto, 2007). Alternatively, schools can be transformed into places where education is a rich, compelling, and affirming process that prepares all young people to make thoughtful contributions to their community in economic and civic terms.
Reforming the schools requires money. And, the Legislature is currently deadlocked. Their issue is how much to cut this year .
Frederick Douglass spoke to this issue in 1849 when he wrote the following:
The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all absorbing, and for the time being putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physically one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. (Douglass, 1849/1991, p. vii)
WE need to invest in California schools, provide equal educational opportunities in these schools, and recruit a well prepared teaching force that begins to reflect the student populations in these schools. We must insist on equal opportunity to learn, no compromise. When we do these things, we will begin to protect the freedom to learn for our children and our grandchildren, and to build a more just and democratic society.
The struggle for education improvement and education equality is a struggle for or against democratic participation. The struggle for multicultural education, based in democratic theory, is an important part of the general struggle against race, class, and gender oppression.
Schools serving urban and impoverished populations need fundamental change. These schools do not open the doors to economic opportunity. They usually do not promote equality. Instead, they recycle inequality. The high school drop out rates alone demonstrate that urban schools prepare less than 50 percent of their students for entrance into the economy and society. A democratic agenda for school reform includes insisting on fair taxation and adequate funding for all children. Political leaders in California have not yet decided to address the real issues of school reform. We cannot build a safe, just, and prosperous society while we leave so many young people behind.
The conservative/ media emphasis on accountability is a distortion. We know which schools need improvement, and we know how to improve them.. Teachers and parents together face a political choice. Shall we continue to call for high standards without providing the necessary resources for all schools to have a reasonable chance to attain such standards? Shall we continue to punish schools and their staffs for low test scores, even when we know that the tests are poor instruments for measuring learning and that their construction guarantees the failure of many students? Is increased competition and privatization the answer for schools when it has not been the answer in other sectors of our society, particularly for low income and diverse people?
The problem is to provide the resources, including well prepared teachers with adequate support, needed to make the current schools successful. We face a choice between providing high-quality schools only for the middle and upper classes, and underfunded, understaffed schools for the poor. Or, we can also choose to work together to improve schools that are presently failing.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Two Futures: part two
At present there is not a political agreement to make the necessary investments to bring about substantial school reform. The U.S. government and your state government will not make the necessary investments to improve education, nor to improve health care or to rebuild the economic infrastructure until we stop investing over 850 Billion dollars in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and whichever military intervention follows.
The conservative/ media emphasis on accountability for schools is a distortion. We know which schools need improvement, and we know how to improve them. Teachers can pursue democratic opportunity with instruction in multicultural education, critical thinking, cooperative learning, improved reading and language skills, and empowerment. Teachers and parents together face a political choice. Shall we continue to call for high standards without providing the necessary resources for all schools to have a reasonable chance to attain such standards? Shall we continue to punish schools and their staffs for low test scores, even when we know that the tests are poor instruments for measuring learning and that their construction guarantees the failure of many students? Is increased competition and privatization the answer for schools when it has not been the answer in other sectors of our society, particularly for low income and diverse people?
The problem is to provide the resources, including well prepared teachers with adequate support, needed to make the current schools successful. We face a choice between providing high-quality schools only for the middle and upper classes, and underfunded, understaffed schools for the poor. Or, we can also choose to work together to improve schools that are presently failing.
See the prior post.
The conservative/ media emphasis on accountability for schools is a distortion. We know which schools need improvement, and we know how to improve them. Teachers can pursue democratic opportunity with instruction in multicultural education, critical thinking, cooperative learning, improved reading and language skills, and empowerment. Teachers and parents together face a political choice. Shall we continue to call for high standards without providing the necessary resources for all schools to have a reasonable chance to attain such standards? Shall we continue to punish schools and their staffs for low test scores, even when we know that the tests are poor instruments for measuring learning and that their construction guarantees the failure of many students? Is increased competition and privatization the answer for schools when it has not been the answer in other sectors of our society, particularly for low income and diverse people?
The problem is to provide the resources, including well prepared teachers with adequate support, needed to make the current schools successful. We face a choice between providing high-quality schools only for the middle and upper classes, and underfunded, understaffed schools for the poor. Or, we can also choose to work together to improve schools that are presently failing.
See the prior post.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Schools: a choice between two futures
A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO FUTURES
Over half of the schools in California schools are currently at a crisis point. Schools can continue as they are. A segment of society will be well-educated, another segment will continue to fail. The economic crisis for working people and people of color will continue to grow (Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto, 2007). Alternatively, schools can be transformed into places where education is a rich, compelling, and affirming process that prepares all young people to make thoughtful contributions to their community in economic and civic terms. Strategies for this transformation are found in my book, Choosing Democracy.
The possibility for change exists and gives those of us dedicated to democratic schools hope. Current proposals promoted by conservative institutes such as school choice and using public monies to fund private education (Chubb & Moe, 1989) will not lead to democratic reform. Rather than continue these privileges, a reform movement must build on democratic ideals of progress and equality of opportunity. These traditional values can triumph over the hostility and violence produced by racism, sexism, and class bias presently accepted as “normal” and natural in our schools.
The growth of the African American, Asian, and Latino middle class—a direct result of the Civil Rights Movement’s use of political power to reduce discrimination based on race—provides powerful evidence that racism can be combated through education and public policy. Frederick Douglass spoke to this issue in 1849 when he wrote the following:
The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all absorbing, and for the time being putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physically one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. (Douglass, 1849/1991, p. vii)
We need to invest in our schools, provide equal educational opportunities in these schools, and recruit a well prepared teaching force that begins to reflect the student populations in these schools. We must insist on equal opportunity to learn- no compromise. When we do these things, we will begin to protect the freedom to learn for our children and our grandchildren, and to build a more just and democratic society.
Teacher advocates for democratic multicultural education challenge those social forces acting to preserve the present inequalities and injustices in our schools. We consider schools as sites for the struggle for or against more democracy in our society.
The struggle for education improvement and education equality is a struggle for or against democratic participation. The struggle for multicultural education, based in democratic theory, is an important part of the general struggle against race, class, and gender oppression.
Schools serving urban and impoverished populations need fundamental change. These schools do not open the doors to economic opportunity. They usually do not promote equality. Instead, they recycle inequality. The high school drop out rates alone demonstrate that urban schools prepare less than 50 percent of their students for entrance into the economy and society. A democratic agenda for school reform includes insisting on fair taxation and adequate funding for all children. Political leaders in most states have not yet decided to address the real issues of school reform. We cannot build a safe, just, and prosperous society while we leave so many young people behind.
The conservative/ media emphasis on accountability is a distortion. We know which schools need improvement, and we know how to improve them. Teachers can pursue democratic opportunity with instruction in multicultural education, critical thinking, cooperative learning, improved reading and language skills, and empowerment. Teachers and parents together face a political choice. Shall we continue to call for high standards without providing the necessary resources for all schools to have a reasonable chance to attain such standards? Shall we continue to punish schools and their staffs for low test scores, even when we know that the tests are poor instruments for measuring learning and that their construction guarantees the failure of many students? Is increased competition and privatization the answer for schools when it has not been the answer in other sectors of our society, particularly for low income and diverse people?
The problem is to provide the resources, including well prepared teachers with adequate support, needed to make the current schools successful. We face a choice between providing high-quality schools only for the middle and upper classes, and underfunded, understaffed schools for the poor. Or, we can also choose to work together to improve schools that are presently failing.
Over half of the schools in California schools are currently at a crisis point. Schools can continue as they are. A segment of society will be well-educated, another segment will continue to fail. The economic crisis for working people and people of color will continue to grow (Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto, 2007). Alternatively, schools can be transformed into places where education is a rich, compelling, and affirming process that prepares all young people to make thoughtful contributions to their community in economic and civic terms. Strategies for this transformation are found in my book, Choosing Democracy.
The possibility for change exists and gives those of us dedicated to democratic schools hope. Current proposals promoted by conservative institutes such as school choice and using public monies to fund private education (Chubb & Moe, 1989) will not lead to democratic reform. Rather than continue these privileges, a reform movement must build on democratic ideals of progress and equality of opportunity. These traditional values can triumph over the hostility and violence produced by racism, sexism, and class bias presently accepted as “normal” and natural in our schools.
The growth of the African American, Asian, and Latino middle class—a direct result of the Civil Rights Movement’s use of political power to reduce discrimination based on race—provides powerful evidence that racism can be combated through education and public policy. Frederick Douglass spoke to this issue in 1849 when he wrote the following:
The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all absorbing, and for the time being putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physically one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. (Douglass, 1849/1991, p. vii)
We need to invest in our schools, provide equal educational opportunities in these schools, and recruit a well prepared teaching force that begins to reflect the student populations in these schools. We must insist on equal opportunity to learn- no compromise. When we do these things, we will begin to protect the freedom to learn for our children and our grandchildren, and to build a more just and democratic society.
Teacher advocates for democratic multicultural education challenge those social forces acting to preserve the present inequalities and injustices in our schools. We consider schools as sites for the struggle for or against more democracy in our society.
The struggle for education improvement and education equality is a struggle for or against democratic participation. The struggle for multicultural education, based in democratic theory, is an important part of the general struggle against race, class, and gender oppression.
Schools serving urban and impoverished populations need fundamental change. These schools do not open the doors to economic opportunity. They usually do not promote equality. Instead, they recycle inequality. The high school drop out rates alone demonstrate that urban schools prepare less than 50 percent of their students for entrance into the economy and society. A democratic agenda for school reform includes insisting on fair taxation and adequate funding for all children. Political leaders in most states have not yet decided to address the real issues of school reform. We cannot build a safe, just, and prosperous society while we leave so many young people behind.
The conservative/ media emphasis on accountability is a distortion. We know which schools need improvement, and we know how to improve them. Teachers can pursue democratic opportunity with instruction in multicultural education, critical thinking, cooperative learning, improved reading and language skills, and empowerment. Teachers and parents together face a political choice. Shall we continue to call for high standards without providing the necessary resources for all schools to have a reasonable chance to attain such standards? Shall we continue to punish schools and their staffs for low test scores, even when we know that the tests are poor instruments for measuring learning and that their construction guarantees the failure of many students? Is increased competition and privatization the answer for schools when it has not been the answer in other sectors of our society, particularly for low income and diverse people?
The problem is to provide the resources, including well prepared teachers with adequate support, needed to make the current schools successful. We face a choice between providing high-quality schools only for the middle and upper classes, and underfunded, understaffed schools for the poor. Or, we can also choose to work together to improve schools that are presently failing.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Cong. Miller and NCLB
I was talking with some friends who live in Congressman George Miller (D. California) district. Miller is important since he is the Chair of the House Education and Labor Committee which is the starting point for the revision of No Child Left Behind re-authorization. Cong. Miller has held a series of town hall meeting in his district. However, as reported, these town halls were controlled and limited. Well informed teachers were limited from participation. Here Congressman Miller could have listened to those who do the work rather than the conservative advocacy organizations that dominate testimony in Washington, D.C.
One alternative is to use teachers unions- the NEA and the AFT to force open the discussion. This week’s national convention of the NEA should produce some major press.
It was no small feat for teacher based opposition to stall the re-authorization of the NCLB last year. Originally it was assumed that NCLB would easily be re-authorized. But with intense participation pressure was brought to bear. Now, the re-authorization will be considered in by a new Congress and a new President.
Our opponents are a series of right wing groups, funded by conservative foundations such as the Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. They create advocacy groups and “research” groups, such as the Fordham Center to foster a conservative- no new taxes- view of schools. They sponsor conferences and testimony to hold on to the current failing NCLB focus on testing and standards. These organizations use marketing methods, including particularly the “framing” of the issue strategy of focusing on accountability and testing.
The public needs to invest in urban schools, provide equal educational opportunities in these schools, and recruit a well prepared teaching force that begins to reflect the student populations in these schools. We must insist on equal opportunity to learn, no compromise. When we do these things, we will begin to protect the Freedom to Learn for our children and our grandchildren, and to build a more just and democratic society. We participate in rebuilding the schools by insisting that our government, our legislatures adequately fund the schools.
Democrats must challenge those social forces acting to preserve the present inequalities and injustices in our society. Schools are sites for the struggle for or against more democracy in our society. In schools, teachers and parents can participate in creating a more democratic society. Where do you think Mr. Miller stands? If you have reports from attending the Miller town hall meetings, please send them to me.
Campd227@pacbell.net
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
One alternative is to use teachers unions- the NEA and the AFT to force open the discussion. This week’s national convention of the NEA should produce some major press.
It was no small feat for teacher based opposition to stall the re-authorization of the NCLB last year. Originally it was assumed that NCLB would easily be re-authorized. But with intense participation pressure was brought to bear. Now, the re-authorization will be considered in by a new Congress and a new President.
Our opponents are a series of right wing groups, funded by conservative foundations such as the Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation. They create advocacy groups and “research” groups, such as the Fordham Center to foster a conservative- no new taxes- view of schools. They sponsor conferences and testimony to hold on to the current failing NCLB focus on testing and standards. These organizations use marketing methods, including particularly the “framing” of the issue strategy of focusing on accountability and testing.
The public needs to invest in urban schools, provide equal educational opportunities in these schools, and recruit a well prepared teaching force that begins to reflect the student populations in these schools. We must insist on equal opportunity to learn, no compromise. When we do these things, we will begin to protect the Freedom to Learn for our children and our grandchildren, and to build a more just and democratic society. We participate in rebuilding the schools by insisting that our government, our legislatures adequately fund the schools.
Democrats must challenge those social forces acting to preserve the present inequalities and injustices in our society. Schools are sites for the struggle for or against more democracy in our society. In schools, teachers and parents can participate in creating a more democratic society. Where do you think Mr. Miller stands? If you have reports from attending the Miller town hall meetings, please send them to me.
Campd227@pacbell.net
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
Friday, June 27, 2008
AFL-CIO endorses Obama
Why the AFL-CIO Endorses Barack Obama
By John J. Sweeney
If ever working families needed change we can believe
in, it is now.
America's promise to working families has been broken
by the deliberate corporatization of our economy. The
basic needs and dreams of our families have been sold
to the highest corporate bidders—Big Oil, Big Pharma,
the insurance industry, the giant mortgage lenders and
the speculators.
With 80 percent of the public saying our country is
headed in the wrong direction, it's time to turn
around America.
This primary season, we were blessed with a committed
and talented group of working family champions running
for the presidency. Each would have brought special
strengths on our behalf to the White House. AFL-CIO
unions embraced and campaigned mightily on behalf of
former Sen. John Edwards and Sens. Chris Dodd, Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
But now the AFL-CIO's autonomous unions, representing
10.5 million working men and women from every walk of
life, have come together to pledge our energy, our
hearts and our grassroots strength to electing Barack
Obama.
The reasons are many.
As the son of a single mother, as a Chicago community
organizer and Illinois state senator, Obama saw
firsthand and addressed the struggles of working
families. And in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has
earned a 98 percent record of voting on behalf of
working families.
On the greatest priorities of America's union movement
and the millions of working people we represent,
Obama's record and proposals ensure he is the right
choice.
Good Jobs and Wages: Obama proposes an "aggressive
strategy to create good, middle-class jobs," including
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy
sector. He opposed the Bush administration's move to
take overtime pay rights from some 10 million workers.
He strongly supports Davis-Bacon wage protections and
project labor agreements and voted repeatedly to
increase the minimum wage.
Health Care: Obama's plan would provide health care
for all, lower costs, improve quality and ensure no
one could be denied care because of a pre-existing
condition or illness.
Employee Free Choice Act: Obama is committed to
ensuring that workers can choose to gain a union voice
on the job and bargain with their employers for better
wages, benefits and working conditions—without
employer harassment or intimidation. He co-sponsored
and voted for the Employee Free Choice Act and
promises to sign it into law as president.
Fair Trade: Obama wants to end tax breaks for
companies that ship jobs overseas and will oppose new
trade agreements unless more steps are taken to
protect American jobs and the environment.
Fair Taxes: Obama's tax proposal would give families
making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year an average
tax cut of $1,042, compared with the $319 proposed by
rival John McCain.
Retirement Security: Obama opposes privatizing Social
Security and has a solid record of supporting Social
Security and Medicare, as well as opposing cuts in
benefits. He also has fought to lower the cost of
prescription drugs for seniors.
An Economy That Works for All: Obama says working
families' current economic hardships were not
"inevitable." They resulted from irresponsible
economic policies by the Bush administration that gave
tax breaks to the rich while cutting working family
priorities. Obama consistently has fought tax cuts for
the wealthy and program cuts for working families.
As president, Barack Obama can lead the change working
families need.
Find out more about Barack Obama and his positions on
key working family priorities at www.MeetObama08.org.
Then help us spread the word.
Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political
Education (COPE) Political Contributions Committee,
www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or
candidate's committee.
By John J. Sweeney
If ever working families needed change we can believe
in, it is now.
America's promise to working families has been broken
by the deliberate corporatization of our economy. The
basic needs and dreams of our families have been sold
to the highest corporate bidders—Big Oil, Big Pharma,
the insurance industry, the giant mortgage lenders and
the speculators.
With 80 percent of the public saying our country is
headed in the wrong direction, it's time to turn
around America.
This primary season, we were blessed with a committed
and talented group of working family champions running
for the presidency. Each would have brought special
strengths on our behalf to the White House. AFL-CIO
unions embraced and campaigned mightily on behalf of
former Sen. John Edwards and Sens. Chris Dodd, Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
But now the AFL-CIO's autonomous unions, representing
10.5 million working men and women from every walk of
life, have come together to pledge our energy, our
hearts and our grassroots strength to electing Barack
Obama.
The reasons are many.
As the son of a single mother, as a Chicago community
organizer and Illinois state senator, Obama saw
firsthand and addressed the struggles of working
families. And in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has
earned a 98 percent record of voting on behalf of
working families.
On the greatest priorities of America's union movement
and the millions of working people we represent,
Obama's record and proposals ensure he is the right
choice.
Good Jobs and Wages: Obama proposes an "aggressive
strategy to create good, middle-class jobs," including
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy
sector. He opposed the Bush administration's move to
take overtime pay rights from some 10 million workers.
He strongly supports Davis-Bacon wage protections and
project labor agreements and voted repeatedly to
increase the minimum wage.
Health Care: Obama's plan would provide health care
for all, lower costs, improve quality and ensure no
one could be denied care because of a pre-existing
condition or illness.
Employee Free Choice Act: Obama is committed to
ensuring that workers can choose to gain a union voice
on the job and bargain with their employers for better
wages, benefits and working conditions—without
employer harassment or intimidation. He co-sponsored
and voted for the Employee Free Choice Act and
promises to sign it into law as president.
Fair Trade: Obama wants to end tax breaks for
companies that ship jobs overseas and will oppose new
trade agreements unless more steps are taken to
protect American jobs and the environment.
Fair Taxes: Obama's tax proposal would give families
making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year an average
tax cut of $1,042, compared with the $319 proposed by
rival John McCain.
Retirement Security: Obama opposes privatizing Social
Security and has a solid record of supporting Social
Security and Medicare, as well as opposing cuts in
benefits. He also has fought to lower the cost of
prescription drugs for seniors.
An Economy That Works for All: Obama says working
families' current economic hardships were not
"inevitable." They resulted from irresponsible
economic policies by the Bush administration that gave
tax breaks to the rich while cutting working family
priorities. Obama consistently has fought tax cuts for
the wealthy and program cuts for working families.
As president, Barack Obama can lead the change working
families need.
Find out more about Barack Obama and his positions on
key working family priorities at www.MeetObama08.org.
Then help us spread the word.
Paid for by the AFL-CIO Committee on Political
Education (COPE) Political Contributions Committee,
www.aflcio.org, and not authorized by any candidate or
candidate's committee.
Schools and budget cuts
Day of the Teacher sees budget cut rallies across state
From CTA.
By Mike Myslinski Like thousands of passionate educators across the state, Ashley Lucey celebrated California’s 26th annual Day of the Teacher on May 14 by carrying a picket sign to a boisterous protest rally to fight state budget cuts and teacher layoffs in public schools.
But for Lucey, 26, the protest was more personal, as the eighth-grade history teacher’s job is now history.
A first-year teacher in Redwood City in the Bay Area who comes from a family of educators, she is being laid off by the Redwood City School District. Still, she wanted to greet the CTA “Cuts Hurt” school bus at its stop at a shopping center in San Mateo County.
Parents, students and teachers greet the CTA bus in Redwood City.
“It was a great job,” she said of her Roy Cloud School position, “and a great way to make a difference in the lives of so many students. I wanted to come out and support my colleagues, and I wanted to send a message to the governor that the cuts to our schools are not fair.”
Her protest — part of a symbolic 40-mile picket line along El Camino Real in the Bay Area — was one of scores of Day of the Teacher demonstrations across the state that attracted media coverage and showed the power of union solidarity. The protests ranged from a “Rally in the Valley” in downtown Merced to a Burbank City Hall demonstration to huge gatherings and rallies in San Bernardino and San Diego. Everywhere, teachers mobilized against state budget cuts.
Along with Lucey at the bus tour stop in Redwood City were her mother, retired local teacher Jean Lucey, and her pregnant sister Taylor White, a teacher at Sequoia High School in Redwood City.
The bus was greeted by more than 200 teachers, students and parents as it arrived to great fanfare and waves of picket signs. CTA President David A. Sanchez disembarked to lead the crowd in a chant: “Cuts hurt! Stop the cuts!” He announced to the crowd the breaking news of the day — that the governor’s newly revised state budget plan would not require gutting Proposition 98, but that the plan still contained education cuts which total $4.3 billion.
“The governor’s decision to avoid suspension of Proposition 98, the minimum school funding law, is a step in the right direction,” Sanchez said later. “His proposed budget revision shows that the organizing by members, parents and community supporters since January is having an impact. But any cut to education hurts our students and schools — and let’s be clear, this revised budget proposal still cuts billions of dollars from public education.”
Sanchez criticized the governor’s May Revision spending plan for proposing to cut the state’s Class Size Reduction program, which means squeezing even more students into already overcrowded classrooms. It also cuts programs that target low-income students and those schools that need help the most. “With this budget plan, California continues to rank 46th in per-pupil funding and dead last in teachers, librarians and counselors per student,” said Sanchez.
From CTA.
By Mike Myslinski Like thousands of passionate educators across the state, Ashley Lucey celebrated California’s 26th annual Day of the Teacher on May 14 by carrying a picket sign to a boisterous protest rally to fight state budget cuts and teacher layoffs in public schools.
But for Lucey, 26, the protest was more personal, as the eighth-grade history teacher’s job is now history.
A first-year teacher in Redwood City in the Bay Area who comes from a family of educators, she is being laid off by the Redwood City School District. Still, she wanted to greet the CTA “Cuts Hurt” school bus at its stop at a shopping center in San Mateo County.
Parents, students and teachers greet the CTA bus in Redwood City.
“It was a great job,” she said of her Roy Cloud School position, “and a great way to make a difference in the lives of so many students. I wanted to come out and support my colleagues, and I wanted to send a message to the governor that the cuts to our schools are not fair.”
Her protest — part of a symbolic 40-mile picket line along El Camino Real in the Bay Area — was one of scores of Day of the Teacher demonstrations across the state that attracted media coverage and showed the power of union solidarity. The protests ranged from a “Rally in the Valley” in downtown Merced to a Burbank City Hall demonstration to huge gatherings and rallies in San Bernardino and San Diego. Everywhere, teachers mobilized against state budget cuts.
Along with Lucey at the bus tour stop in Redwood City were her mother, retired local teacher Jean Lucey, and her pregnant sister Taylor White, a teacher at Sequoia High School in Redwood City.
The bus was greeted by more than 200 teachers, students and parents as it arrived to great fanfare and waves of picket signs. CTA President David A. Sanchez disembarked to lead the crowd in a chant: “Cuts hurt! Stop the cuts!” He announced to the crowd the breaking news of the day — that the governor’s newly revised state budget plan would not require gutting Proposition 98, but that the plan still contained education cuts which total $4.3 billion.
“The governor’s decision to avoid suspension of Proposition 98, the minimum school funding law, is a step in the right direction,” Sanchez said later. “His proposed budget revision shows that the organizing by members, parents and community supporters since January is having an impact. But any cut to education hurts our students and schools — and let’s be clear, this revised budget proposal still cuts billions of dollars from public education.”
Sanchez criticized the governor’s May Revision spending plan for proposing to cut the state’s Class Size Reduction program, which means squeezing even more students into already overcrowded classrooms. It also cuts programs that target low-income students and those schools that need help the most. “With this budget plan, California continues to rank 46th in per-pupil funding and dead last in teachers, librarians and counselors per student,” said Sanchez.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Budgets and California schools
Recent articles celebrating the passage of Prop.13 deliberately avoid some of the basic issues. Since its passage, California’s schools have been destructively under funded. We have gone from one of the best school systems to 29th in per pupil expenditure. California students now score 47th out of the 50 states on the NAEP, a national test of reading and math. The NAEP Reading Scores for California give an average score of 209; we rank right along with Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia.
The NAEP results are important because schools and teachers can drill for the state tests, but NAEP measures against national standard of whether children can actually read (NAEP, 2007). California has remained with these poverty stricken states for the last 20 years. Remember when the ideologues all claimed that by switching to phonics reading scores were going to go up?
California schools have dramatically increased class sizes and have severely cut back on counselors thus promoting violence and drop outs. Over half of the schools are in crisis caused specifically by lack of sufficient funds.
It does not have to be this way. Voters could keep Prop.13 benefits for private home owners but use actual assessed valuation of property for corporate property- the split roll approach. This simple change would immediately solve our state budget crisis, and the one coming next year.
We need all of the children in the state well educated to have a prosperous economy. Unless we change Prop.13, adopt a split roll, our schools are sinking toward those of Alabama and Mississippi.
We cannot have sustained prosperity without decent schools, and we will not have decent schools unless we amend Prop. 13.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
School of Education
CSU-Sacramento
The NAEP results are important because schools and teachers can drill for the state tests, but NAEP measures against national standard of whether children can actually read (NAEP, 2007). California has remained with these poverty stricken states for the last 20 years. Remember when the ideologues all claimed that by switching to phonics reading scores were going to go up?
California schools have dramatically increased class sizes and have severely cut back on counselors thus promoting violence and drop outs. Over half of the schools are in crisis caused specifically by lack of sufficient funds.
It does not have to be this way. Voters could keep Prop.13 benefits for private home owners but use actual assessed valuation of property for corporate property- the split roll approach. This simple change would immediately solve our state budget crisis, and the one coming next year.
We need all of the children in the state well educated to have a prosperous economy. Unless we change Prop.13, adopt a split roll, our schools are sinking toward those of Alabama and Mississippi.
We cannot have sustained prosperity without decent schools, and we will not have decent schools unless we amend Prop. 13.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
School of Education
CSU-Sacramento
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A bolder approach to education reform
There's an interesting full-page ad in today's Washington Post and New York Times, entitled "A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education": http://www.boldapproach.org/bold_approach_full_statement.pdf. It's signed by a list of luminaries, including several Clinton Administration appointees, but also people like Deborah Meier, Diane Ravitch, and Richard Rothstein , Lawrence Mishel, William Julius Wilson, Ernesto Cortes and others.
While criticizing NCLB for focusing solely on school improvement, the statement calls for a greater emphasis on addressing out-of-school factors like children's health, as well as early-childhood education, and a saner approach to accountability. "Broad" it certainly is. Not very many specifics. But I suspect it will have a significant impact in reframing the debate over NCLB reauthorization -- from how to "fix NCLB" to a comprehensive discussion of the federal role in education. Assuming that the Democrats retain control of Congress (whether or not they win the White House), I expect that these will be the parameters of the debate next year.
This is a positive development, in my view, and it's consistent with other efforts now under way. One involves the Forum on Educational Accountability (http://edaccountability.org/), the coalition of 140-odd education and civil rights groups whose Joint Statement the Institute has endorsed. It's now working on more detailed papers.
Perhaps most important is work by the Forum on Education and Democracy, which released a paper a few weeks ago ("Democracy at Risk") that does offer quite a few specifics about the federal role: http://www.forumforeducation.org/foruminaction/index.php?page=31&item=430.
While criticizing NCLB for focusing solely on school improvement, the statement calls for a greater emphasis on addressing out-of-school factors like children's health, as well as early-childhood education, and a saner approach to accountability. "Broad" it certainly is. Not very many specifics. But I suspect it will have a significant impact in reframing the debate over NCLB reauthorization -- from how to "fix NCLB" to a comprehensive discussion of the federal role in education. Assuming that the Democrats retain control of Congress (whether or not they win the White House), I expect that these will be the parameters of the debate next year.
This is a positive development, in my view, and it's consistent with other efforts now under way. One involves the Forum on Educational Accountability (http://edaccountability.org/), the coalition of 140-odd education and civil rights groups whose Joint Statement the Institute has endorsed. It's now working on more detailed papers.
Perhaps most important is work by the Forum on Education and Democracy, which released a paper a few weeks ago ("Democracy at Risk") that does offer quite a few specifics about the federal role: http://www.forumforeducation.org/foruminaction/index.php?page=31&item=430.
Monday, June 09, 2008
NCLB and English Language Learners
School has 'tough dilemma'
Successful language program is a drag on campus' scores
By Kim Minugh - kminugh@sacbee.com
Last Updated 1:14 am PDT Monday, June 9, 2008
Nine buses lumber up to Will Rogers Middle School each morning, carrying sleepy-eyed children who have spent as much as an hour on the road.
They are the children of immigrant families from Argentina, South Korea, Mexico and Ukraine – enrolled at the Fair Oaks school for an opportunity to quickly learn the language of their new country.
Will Rogers is one of the San Juan Unified School District's language centers, offering specialized lessons to any seventh- or eighth-grader who isn't fluent in English.
This year, almost one-fourth of the school's English-language learners have become fluent enough to shift into mainstream classes – some after just a year.
But Will Rogers is failing under No Child Left Behind.
Because of its high concentration of non-English speakers, its scores on standardized English tests have come up short six years in a row, landing the school in the final stages of what the federal government calls "Program Improvement."
San Juan administrators find themselves in a quandary: Either continue a program they feel successfully serves English-language learners – and suffer the penalties of low test scores – or disband the program.
"It's a tough dilemma," said Vice Principal Karen Baum. "Technically, the district could get us out of Program Improvement by just not making us a (language) center. … Would that be the best thing for the kids? I don't know."
San Juan Unified officials will try to answer that question next year when they review the district's programs for English-language learners, including the language center model, said Tamra Taylor, the district's director of Program Improvement schools.
Taylor said the district will not "cower" from No Child Left Behind. The fate of the language center rests on what is best for English-language learners, she said, not pressure from the government.
"We pay attention to the law, we don't break the law, we try to make growth," she said. "But our impetus is not that there's a federal mandate called Program Improvement. Our impetus is there's an achievement gap, and we want to close it."
Schools are labeled Program Improvement when they fail to meet federal targets for two years in a row. Schools that continue to fall short of federal benchmarks for more than two years face additional sanctions and ultimately can be taken over by the state.
Culture of support
When Principal Monty Muller started at Will Rogers 18 years ago, the language center had only 40 students. Today, enrollment ranges from 160 to 280, and students speak 40 languages.
Grouping those students in language centers allows the district to save money on staffing, technology and other costs.
But perhaps the biggest advantage, administrators and teachers say, is a culture of support for students facing struggles in and out of the classroom.
Baum said many of her students are angry at their parents for bringing them to the United States against their will. Some act out.
Others have trouble focusing on school because their families are in turmoil while adjusting to a new country.
At the language center, teachers and administrators help students work through those emotional issues.
"I think it gives kids a feeling of comfort … and a feeling of safety," said teacher Michelle Bebout. "It gives them a million opportunities to relate to somebody."
Dariya Korzhuk, who came from Ukraine three years ago, appreciates being at a school full of other students like her – even if they don't share the same background.
"You already know how they feel because it's the same as you," the 13-year-old said.
Even after being in the United States two years, Korzhuk said she felt "shy to talk" when she came to Will Rogers.
"If I say something wrong, people would make fun," said the seventh-grader. "Now, I don't care. I know English."
Proper language required
During a recent lesson, Bebout asked her seventh-graders to write a letter to incoming students, giving them advice on how to succeed at Will Rogers and in her class.
She explained the instructions slowly, going over tough words and asking questions to make sure her students understood them.
Bebout paused when one student used the word "stuff" and talked to the class about the difference between slang and formal language.
"You are not employed by (Yo!) MTV Raps," she said, referring to the former hip-hop cable TV show. "What kind of language will you be avoiding?"
"Wazzup," the students shouted.
She wrote it on a whiteboard as students called out other forbidden words – "Cuz," "Shorty."
That language is OK for text-messaging, she told them. But Bebout wants her students to get in the habit of using proper language.
In a classroom across the hall, English teacher Laura Troppmann buzzed around the room in jeans and flats.
Her students were designing an imaginary camp for young children. The lesson was based on "The Acorn People," a book they'd read about physically disabled students who attended a camp without proper accommodations.
Troppmann has been at Will Rogers eight years, but this is her first year teaching English learners. She said there have been some unexpected challenges.
Her lesson about "The Acorn People" began with an explanation of what camp is; many of her students had never been.
When she asked them to design brochures for their imaginary camps, they stared back, blankly. No one knew what a brochure was.
"They're not dumb. They're brilliant," Troppmann said. "They just don't have the background."
Expectations unrealistic?
Critics of No Child Left Behind complain that the law's expectations for English learners are unrealistic and that punishing entire schools for those students' struggles is unfair.
The federal law holds schools accountable for their overall test scores as well as for the scores of groups of typically underperforming students – like non-English speakers or ethnic minorities. A whole school can be penalized if one group repeatedly falls short, like at Will Rogers.
As California's immigrant population grows, and the above scenario becomes more common, even No Child Left Behind advocates like Taylor question the law's deadline for all students to be proficient in math and English.
"Can all kids be proficient by 2014? Let's get real," she said. "Especially if someone just got to the country and doesn't speak the language."
Standardized test scores don't show everything, she said. Especially at schools like Will Rogers.
Since 2002, the school has grown according to the state's measures – its Academic Performance Index score jumped 77 points to 715 (the state's goal for schools is 800).
In California, non-English speakers are tested yearly, and their English fluency is scored on a scale of one to five. Some of Will Rogers' students are jumping as many as two or three levels in one year, Baum said.
"I don't consider them a school that is failing," Taylor said.
Eighth-grader Lucas Sugliano, who didn't know any English when his family arrived 3 1/2 years ago from Argentina, is now considered fluent.
He remembers greeting people by saying, "bye" instead of "hi."
"I mostly learned English here" at Will Rogers, he said. "Difficult English. Hard words and better phrases."
In the fall, Sugliano will enter high school as what one of his classmates calls a "regular student."
Successful language program is a drag on campus' scores
By Kim Minugh - kminugh@sacbee.com
Last Updated 1:14 am PDT Monday, June 9, 2008
Nine buses lumber up to Will Rogers Middle School each morning, carrying sleepy-eyed children who have spent as much as an hour on the road.
They are the children of immigrant families from Argentina, South Korea, Mexico and Ukraine – enrolled at the Fair Oaks school for an opportunity to quickly learn the language of their new country.
Will Rogers is one of the San Juan Unified School District's language centers, offering specialized lessons to any seventh- or eighth-grader who isn't fluent in English.
This year, almost one-fourth of the school's English-language learners have become fluent enough to shift into mainstream classes – some after just a year.
But Will Rogers is failing under No Child Left Behind.
Because of its high concentration of non-English speakers, its scores on standardized English tests have come up short six years in a row, landing the school in the final stages of what the federal government calls "Program Improvement."
San Juan administrators find themselves in a quandary: Either continue a program they feel successfully serves English-language learners – and suffer the penalties of low test scores – or disband the program.
"It's a tough dilemma," said Vice Principal Karen Baum. "Technically, the district could get us out of Program Improvement by just not making us a (language) center. … Would that be the best thing for the kids? I don't know."
San Juan Unified officials will try to answer that question next year when they review the district's programs for English-language learners, including the language center model, said Tamra Taylor, the district's director of Program Improvement schools.
Taylor said the district will not "cower" from No Child Left Behind. The fate of the language center rests on what is best for English-language learners, she said, not pressure from the government.
"We pay attention to the law, we don't break the law, we try to make growth," she said. "But our impetus is not that there's a federal mandate called Program Improvement. Our impetus is there's an achievement gap, and we want to close it."
Schools are labeled Program Improvement when they fail to meet federal targets for two years in a row. Schools that continue to fall short of federal benchmarks for more than two years face additional sanctions and ultimately can be taken over by the state.
Culture of support
When Principal Monty Muller started at Will Rogers 18 years ago, the language center had only 40 students. Today, enrollment ranges from 160 to 280, and students speak 40 languages.
Grouping those students in language centers allows the district to save money on staffing, technology and other costs.
But perhaps the biggest advantage, administrators and teachers say, is a culture of support for students facing struggles in and out of the classroom.
Baum said many of her students are angry at their parents for bringing them to the United States against their will. Some act out.
Others have trouble focusing on school because their families are in turmoil while adjusting to a new country.
At the language center, teachers and administrators help students work through those emotional issues.
"I think it gives kids a feeling of comfort … and a feeling of safety," said teacher Michelle Bebout. "It gives them a million opportunities to relate to somebody."
Dariya Korzhuk, who came from Ukraine three years ago, appreciates being at a school full of other students like her – even if they don't share the same background.
"You already know how they feel because it's the same as you," the 13-year-old said.
Even after being in the United States two years, Korzhuk said she felt "shy to talk" when she came to Will Rogers.
"If I say something wrong, people would make fun," said the seventh-grader. "Now, I don't care. I know English."
Proper language required
During a recent lesson, Bebout asked her seventh-graders to write a letter to incoming students, giving them advice on how to succeed at Will Rogers and in her class.
She explained the instructions slowly, going over tough words and asking questions to make sure her students understood them.
Bebout paused when one student used the word "stuff" and talked to the class about the difference between slang and formal language.
"You are not employed by (Yo!) MTV Raps," she said, referring to the former hip-hop cable TV show. "What kind of language will you be avoiding?"
"Wazzup," the students shouted.
She wrote it on a whiteboard as students called out other forbidden words – "Cuz," "Shorty."
That language is OK for text-messaging, she told them. But Bebout wants her students to get in the habit of using proper language.
In a classroom across the hall, English teacher Laura Troppmann buzzed around the room in jeans and flats.
Her students were designing an imaginary camp for young children. The lesson was based on "The Acorn People," a book they'd read about physically disabled students who attended a camp without proper accommodations.
Troppmann has been at Will Rogers eight years, but this is her first year teaching English learners. She said there have been some unexpected challenges.
Her lesson about "The Acorn People" began with an explanation of what camp is; many of her students had never been.
When she asked them to design brochures for their imaginary camps, they stared back, blankly. No one knew what a brochure was.
"They're not dumb. They're brilliant," Troppmann said. "They just don't have the background."
Expectations unrealistic?
Critics of No Child Left Behind complain that the law's expectations for English learners are unrealistic and that punishing entire schools for those students' struggles is unfair.
The federal law holds schools accountable for their overall test scores as well as for the scores of groups of typically underperforming students – like non-English speakers or ethnic minorities. A whole school can be penalized if one group repeatedly falls short, like at Will Rogers.
As California's immigrant population grows, and the above scenario becomes more common, even No Child Left Behind advocates like Taylor question the law's deadline for all students to be proficient in math and English.
"Can all kids be proficient by 2014? Let's get real," she said. "Especially if someone just got to the country and doesn't speak the language."
Standardized test scores don't show everything, she said. Especially at schools like Will Rogers.
Since 2002, the school has grown according to the state's measures – its Academic Performance Index score jumped 77 points to 715 (the state's goal for schools is 800).
In California, non-English speakers are tested yearly, and their English fluency is scored on a scale of one to five. Some of Will Rogers' students are jumping as many as two or three levels in one year, Baum said.
"I don't consider them a school that is failing," Taylor said.
Eighth-grader Lucas Sugliano, who didn't know any English when his family arrived 3 1/2 years ago from Argentina, is now considered fluent.
He remembers greeting people by saying, "bye" instead of "hi."
"I mostly learned English here" at Will Rogers, he said. "Difficult English. Hard words and better phrases."
In the fall, Sugliano will enter high school as what one of his classmates calls a "regular student."
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Bill Moyers, Media Democracy
Highly recommended. Bill Moyers on Democracy and the Media.
I am unable to copy the embeded script. Follow the link.
http://www.freepress.net/conference
I am unable to copy the embeded script. Follow the link.
http://www.freepress.net/conference
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Los Angeles teachers protest budget cuts
The Los Angeles Times
June 4, 2008
The Los Angeles Unified School District's attempt to stop teachers from protesting proposed state budget cuts by reporting to work one hour late this week was denied Tuesday.
The state Public Employee Relations Board declined to file for an injunction on the district's behalf, so the demonstration, organized by the United Teachers Los Angeles union, should take place as planned Friday.
Teachers are expected to spend the first hour of the day picketing outside their schools, which means classes will be delayed and students will be supervised by aides and administrators.
The teachers are protesting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest budget, which would result in a $353-million shortfall for L.A. Unified.
The school board is scheduled to vote on the budget next week, but district officials have said they will have to lay off teachers and cut programs to balance the books.
District officials asked the employee relations board last week to stop the protest, saying they were concerned about safety, especially at schools that have experienced student violence.
Police had to break up a brawl at Locke High School in South Los Angeles last month that involved 600 students.
"I'm concerned that we are going to have kids at school unsupervised for an hour or kids who choose not to go to school at all. Neither situation is a good one," board member Tamar Galatzan said.
Employee relations board members could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
David Holmquist, the district's chief operating officer, said that he was disappointed in the decision but that L.A. Unified still hoped to prevent the walkout and would file for a temporary restraining order this week.
"We are going to do everything we can to ensure student safety," he said.
Union President A.J. Duffy said the protest would not endanger students and was the best way to draw attention to the budget shortfall. Teachers will not be paid for the time they spend picketing, and "that's the strongest message we can send that these budget cuts will hurt our kids," he said.
Duffy said he expected as many as 40,000 teachers to participate. "Anyone who doesn't will be crossing a picket line," he said.
District officials and principals have started making contingency plans. At Hancock Park Elementary School, students will be divided among five campus locations, where they will be overseen by aides, parent volunteers and administrators, and will spend the time in reading activities and physical education, Principal Judith Perez said.
Perez said she expected all of her teachers to picket and that they would be welcomed back on campus after the demonstration.
"There's no hostility," Perez said. "I respect UTLA and their decisions."
jason.song@latimes.com
June 4, 2008
The Los Angeles Unified School District's attempt to stop teachers from protesting proposed state budget cuts by reporting to work one hour late this week was denied Tuesday.
The state Public Employee Relations Board declined to file for an injunction on the district's behalf, so the demonstration, organized by the United Teachers Los Angeles union, should take place as planned Friday.
Teachers are expected to spend the first hour of the day picketing outside their schools, which means classes will be delayed and students will be supervised by aides and administrators.
The teachers are protesting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest budget, which would result in a $353-million shortfall for L.A. Unified.
The school board is scheduled to vote on the budget next week, but district officials have said they will have to lay off teachers and cut programs to balance the books.
District officials asked the employee relations board last week to stop the protest, saying they were concerned about safety, especially at schools that have experienced student violence.
Police had to break up a brawl at Locke High School in South Los Angeles last month that involved 600 students.
"I'm concerned that we are going to have kids at school unsupervised for an hour or kids who choose not to go to school at all. Neither situation is a good one," board member Tamar Galatzan said.
Employee relations board members could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
David Holmquist, the district's chief operating officer, said that he was disappointed in the decision but that L.A. Unified still hoped to prevent the walkout and would file for a temporary restraining order this week.
"We are going to do everything we can to ensure student safety," he said.
Union President A.J. Duffy said the protest would not endanger students and was the best way to draw attention to the budget shortfall. Teachers will not be paid for the time they spend picketing, and "that's the strongest message we can send that these budget cuts will hurt our kids," he said.
Duffy said he expected as many as 40,000 teachers to participate. "Anyone who doesn't will be crossing a picket line," he said.
District officials and principals have started making contingency plans. At Hancock Park Elementary School, students will be divided among five campus locations, where they will be overseen by aides, parent volunteers and administrators, and will spend the time in reading activities and physical education, Principal Judith Perez said.
Perez said she expected all of her teachers to picket and that they would be welcomed back on campus after the demonstration.
"There's no hostility," Perez said. "I respect UTLA and their decisions."
jason.song@latimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
