MAY 13 - 18, 2005
Reviving Education
Grassroots advocates for public schools are raising their voices - and
getting heard
by ERIN AUBRY KAPLAN
Public education, the favorite whipping boy of the right and of
family-values enthusiasts of all stripes, has had a particularly bad first quarter in
2005….
That's the bad news. The good news - specifically, the countervailing news -
is that there is also an increasingly organized network of teachers,
students, parents and other interested parties who are demanding meaningful reforms of public education and, simultaneously, a place at the decision-making table.
Pushed to a breaking point by endless standardized testing, stagnant school
conditions and the hovering Damocles' sword of the No Child Left Behind Act,
groups like the Coalition for Educational Justice (CEJ), InnerCity Struggle
and Communities for Educational Equity (CEE) are taking the issues to the
politicians - and getting some traction. With the support of school-board member Jose Huizar, InnerCity Struggle and CEE are pushing for the passage of a board resolution that would make the full complement of college-prep courses,
known as A-G, requirements for graduation. The CEJ, along with a statewide organization called Campaign for Quality Education, is working with two state legislators to pass bills that would either delay or reform the controversial high school exit exam in California; passage of the exam is currently required for a diploma. State Senator Gloria Romero's bill, SB 517, would put off the "diploma penalty" until local county offices of education can show that they've
provided adequate resources, including certified teachers and reasonable student-teache ratios, to all students; Assemblywoman Karen Bass' AB 1531 would require school districts to develop more complex methods of student assessment, beyond the exit exam, so that the exam isn't the sole determinant of whether a student receives a diploma or not.
Luis Sanchez, an organizer with East L.A.-based InnerCity Struggle, says
That even though public-education advocates are increasingly fending off attacks,
they must also advance new ideas - now. New campuses are finally getting
built, and he says it's crucial that the curriculum and direction of the
schools be new, too. "We're gaining momentum exactly because of the growth of the 'choice' movement - vouchers, charter schools, privatization," says Sanchez, whose organization counts among its victories approval to build East L.A.'s first
new high school in 80 years. "This is an opportunity to start a movement, a big one. It's so easy to fight against stuff, but you can't just be against something. We need to make our own demands."
This kind of reformer energy is not new; activist groups like the CEJ and
InnerCity Struggle have been in the trenches on a number of issues for a
while.
What is new is that their brand of progressivism is moving incrementally
From the fringe to the center. The most compelling proof of that is the recent
election of officers in United Teachers Los Angeles, the 46,000-member
teacher union known much less for courage than for status quo complacency. Thanks to a progressive caucus within the union called United Action that has been gaining membership and influence the last couple of years, UTLA tossed out four incumbent officers and voted in new ones, a move unprecedented in its
history. Along with the usual pledges to protect and expand teacher wages and benefits, president-elect A.J. Duffy has been vowing to fight for the neediest schools - specifically by fighting No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which
counterintuitively withholds aid from schools it identifies as failing. "It's a horrendous law that's hurting kids," says Duffy, a special-education teacher. "We have inner-city schools with horrendous dropout rates, single families and other problems, which are reflected in test scores, and the feds punish us for that. We're going to fight to do away with NCLB, and we'll fight it with research and information." Duffy admits that the controversial federal legislation has
been a godsend in terms of galvanizing not only activists, but other union members who are far from radical but who have become sufficiently dissatisfied with the state of schools and with various attacks on their profession - notably a paltry 1 percent pay raise offered to teachers this year - to vote for a change in union leadership.
"The UTLA election was a huge, huge victory," says Alex Caputo-Pearl, an
organizer for CEJ, a key component of United Action. "It remains to be seen
what we'll do with it. But there was a perfect storm of problems that the old
leadership wasn't addressing that worked in our favor."
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
California Connected and the Governor's Viewpoint
It is good that California Connected is covering issues related to public schools, but your story for May 27, which I watched on May 30, 2005, on KVIE in Sacramento. uses an inappropriate and biased frame for the story. Your intro to the teachers said that there was a conflict between the Governor and the Teachers Union, and that teachers were caught in the middle. Your frame repeats the viewpoint of the governor’s press people which is far from objective. Notice that the teachers did not respond to your frame and instead commented on some of the current problems of schools.
Last week you gave the Governor the opportunity to tell his view. Now, you have selected three teachers to give their view. It would be appropriate to provide the union with the opportunity to respond. After all, they were able to turn out 20,000 teachers this week in Sacramento and some 10,000 in Los Angeles. They may well represent a significant viewpoint in this conflict.
In your framing of the story you have revealed an anti union bias. If you are unwilling to provide a fair and balanced approach, then I recommend that you at least contact Scott Plotkin of the California School Boards Association for a position independent of the Governor’s office. He is a well informed observor of these conflicts and he is not an advocate of the union position.
I posted an excerpt of the script from your prior show on my web log
www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot. com I will also be posting this response there. Feel free to respond to my criticism. This is a web log focusing on public education. I recommend that your producers do further reading in the field. The title of the log Choosing Democracy is the title of a book on education which I have written. ( 3rd. edition, 2004)
There is much to be said about public schooling. I encourage your program to provide a more balanced and more comprehensive coverage.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Sacramento
url. http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/?m=20050527
Last week you gave the Governor the opportunity to tell his view. Now, you have selected three teachers to give their view. It would be appropriate to provide the union with the opportunity to respond. After all, they were able to turn out 20,000 teachers this week in Sacramento and some 10,000 in Los Angeles. They may well represent a significant viewpoint in this conflict.
In your framing of the story you have revealed an anti union bias. If you are unwilling to provide a fair and balanced approach, then I recommend that you at least contact Scott Plotkin of the California School Boards Association for a position independent of the Governor’s office. He is a well informed observor of these conflicts and he is not an advocate of the union position.
I posted an excerpt of the script from your prior show on my web log
www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot. com I will also be posting this response there. Feel free to respond to my criticism. This is a web log focusing on public education. I recommend that your producers do further reading in the field. The title of the log Choosing Democracy is the title of a book on education which I have written. ( 3rd. edition, 2004)
There is much to be said about public schooling. I encourage your program to provide a more balanced and more comprehensive coverage.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Sacramento
url. http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/?m=20050527
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Governor's failures to improve schools: 2005
California has at least 1360 schools that are performing poorly. (Ed Source)
By next year there will be more. In the next two to three years over 1000 additional schools will be classified as “failing” under the accountability provisions of No child Left Behind. Classification as failing will produce a series of increasingly harsh sanctions.
The No child Left Behind system is based upon theories of incentives and accountability. The theory is that these schools fail because they lack the incentive to succeed. (the same theory as the Governor used in his proposal for ‘merit’ pay). Theories of incentives and accountability play well with the Business Roundtable and editorial writers- but they have failed in the schools. Things are getting worse, not better.
One reason is that incentive theories assume that the problem of poor achievement is a lack of incentives for teachers. It is not. Teachers have the incentive to improve schools- they lack the resources and knowledge of how to improve the schools.
Schools in California have failed to improve basically because the state has not provided sufficient resources and has not focused these resources on turning schools around. California currently ranks 44th in per pupil funding and 49th in class size. This is a failure of resources, not a failure of incentives.
The nation has a number of policy experts who offer advice on improving schools. They are paid well and have good offices, secretarial support, and adequate resources- the schools do not. The policy positions come from people who seldom work in classrooms. Few of the proposals- none of the proposals of the governor- cme from people who are informed about classroom reality.
How do you improve teacher performance and student performance? First step, schools need to begin with capacity building. Teachers need to time to plan, time to learn new systems, and time to work with their students. None of these are addressed by the Governor’s proposals.
The current accountability system is not capable of driving school improvement. It is based on the theory of incentives- and it provides few additional resources and little capacity building. The accountability system (API) and the tests will not improve student achievement.
Improving student achievement would require substantially more resources and skilled leadership. The governor’s budget does not provide the resources for change.
And, as for leadership, the governor has appointed Alan Bersin as Secretary of Education. Now, Alan Bersin is just now leaving the position as Superintendent of San Diego- where he failed to improve achievement. The chief policy advisor to the governor does not know how to imrpove school achievement- it is obvious. He failed to do so.
See: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring05/elmore.htm
By next year there will be more. In the next two to three years over 1000 additional schools will be classified as “failing” under the accountability provisions of No child Left Behind. Classification as failing will produce a series of increasingly harsh sanctions.
The No child Left Behind system is based upon theories of incentives and accountability. The theory is that these schools fail because they lack the incentive to succeed. (the same theory as the Governor used in his proposal for ‘merit’ pay). Theories of incentives and accountability play well with the Business Roundtable and editorial writers- but they have failed in the schools. Things are getting worse, not better.
One reason is that incentive theories assume that the problem of poor achievement is a lack of incentives for teachers. It is not. Teachers have the incentive to improve schools- they lack the resources and knowledge of how to improve the schools.
Schools in California have failed to improve basically because the state has not provided sufficient resources and has not focused these resources on turning schools around. California currently ranks 44th in per pupil funding and 49th in class size. This is a failure of resources, not a failure of incentives.
The nation has a number of policy experts who offer advice on improving schools. They are paid well and have good offices, secretarial support, and adequate resources- the schools do not. The policy positions come from people who seldom work in classrooms. Few of the proposals- none of the proposals of the governor- cme from people who are informed about classroom reality.
How do you improve teacher performance and student performance? First step, schools need to begin with capacity building. Teachers need to time to plan, time to learn new systems, and time to work with their students. None of these are addressed by the Governor’s proposals.
The current accountability system is not capable of driving school improvement. It is based on the theory of incentives- and it provides few additional resources and little capacity building. The accountability system (API) and the tests will not improve student achievement.
Improving student achievement would require substantially more resources and skilled leadership. The governor’s budget does not provide the resources for change.
And, as for leadership, the governor has appointed Alan Bersin as Secretary of Education. Now, Alan Bersin is just now leaving the position as Superintendent of San Diego- where he failed to improve achievement. The chief policy advisor to the governor does not know how to imrpove school achievement- it is obvious. He failed to do so.
See: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring05/elmore.htm
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Schwarzenegger's decline
Californians Aren't Wild About Schwarzenegger or His 'Reforms'
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
May 26, 2005
It's not working. Not any of it. Not the rallies. Not the talk radio. Not the photo ops. Not the TV ads.
Especially not the record fundraising.
Here's a governor trying to sell himself as a "reformer" and raising political pot loads from special interests, much of it out of state. It gives new meaning to the term "political outsider."
"People don't want him in Florida raising money. They want him here fixing problems," says Republican political analyst Tony Quinn. "It's something these politicians don't seem to understand. As he raises special interest money, his mystique with the voters drops. Gray Davis is the best example of that."
Ask pollster Mark Baldassare to describe the current attitude of Californians toward Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he replies without hesitation: "Disappointment."
People are disappointed in all of Sacramento, the pollster adds. They had been hopeful after the Davis recall. Now they're back being grouchy.
Baldassare, who polls for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released a new survey Wednesday. About the only good news for Schwarzenegger is that he hasn't fallen farther into the tank than he was a month ago. But he hasn't started to climb out either.
Some key findings:
• Only 40% of adults approve of how Schwarzenegger is handling his job, compared with 60% in January and 64% a year ago.
• The Legislature shouldn't gloat. Its approval rating is even lower, at 26%, the lowest since the 2003 recall campaign. A year ago, it was 40%.
So there's a cause-and-effect here that's easy to see: Schwarzenegger constantly ridicules the Legislature. Democrats continually attack him. Both sides are effective, in a murder-suicide sort of way. Schwarzenegger also picked a fight with teachers, nurses, firefighters and cop unions and got badly beaten up.
• The public mood is sour; 57% think California is headed in "the wrong direction," up 13 points from a year ago.
• Schwarzenegger's idea of a special election, costing $70-million-plus in tax money, is very unpopular. Only 33% support it, down 12 points since January. Another 61% want to wait until the next regular election in June 2006 to vote on the governor's "reforms."
But Schwarzenegger sees himself leading a people's rebellion to force government reform. He warned legislators in his State of the State speech that if they together didn't reform government, "the people will rise up and reform it themselves. And I will fight with them."
A new Schwarzenegger biography traces the governor's early fascination with charismatic leaders who move people. It may help explain why he has focused on trying to rally the masses rather than negotiate with a coequal branch of government, to his detriment.
The book, "Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger," is written by veteran biographer Laurence Leamer, who also wrote a Kennedy family trilogy.
"Arnold admired such leaders as Charlemagne and Napoleon, who could take the inert, passive masses and forge them into a force to make history," Leamer writes. "As an Austrian, he had learned how Hitler had mesmerized the Austrian and German peoples."
Leamer quotes Schwarzenegger from 1975 interviews for a bodybuilding movie, "Pumping Iron." " 'I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it.' "
The author writes: "Arnold had parsed Hitler down the middle, celebrating the messianic skills and energy that brought him to power and detesting his abuse of that power…. Arnold believed that what America needed was a great leader with all the messianic skills of Hitler, but for good, not evil."
But whatever messianic skills Schwarzenegger possesses have been failing him. And so has the TV ad campaign aimed at selling Schwarzenegger and his spending "reform." In fact, people are ambivalent about his whole reform agenda, the Baldassare poll finds.
Examples:
• People give him much lower marks today than in January for "reforming" government — 40% approval now, 58% then.
• There isn't much enthusiasm for the governor's spending cap proposal. Only 43% support it. People like the idea of a cap (60%). But, by 2 to 1, they oppose a feature that would allow a governor to cut spending without legislative approval. That is being attacked as a "power grab."
• Redistricting reform leaves people cold. Only 41% support Schwarzenegger's proposal to strip the Legislature of its power to redistrict legislative and congressional seats. In fact, 52% say the system needs only "minor changes" or is "fine the way it is."
This is a different Schwarzenegger than a year ago — less conciliatory and compromising, more caustic and combative.
"He's rallying people in a different way," Baldassare notes. "He's still rallying his own core supporters. But he's also rallying the Democrats against him. He's a rallying figure — but not in a way he intended."
What would work for him?
• Forget the special election, saving money for grateful taxpayers.
• Do a mea culpa and return the $3.1 billion he promised schools in a budget deal last year.
• Negotiate a bipartisan spending cap, with less of a power grab and a softer hit to schools.
• Place the cap and redistricting on next June's ballot.
• Cool the money-raising.
• Turn the charm back on.
The alternative: Keep sliding into the common pool of political mediocrity.
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap26may26,0,2927336.column?coll=la-home-headlines
GEORGE SKELTON CAPITOL JOURNAL
Reach the columnist at george.skelton@latimes.com.
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
May 26, 2005
It's not working. Not any of it. Not the rallies. Not the talk radio. Not the photo ops. Not the TV ads.
Especially not the record fundraising.
Here's a governor trying to sell himself as a "reformer" and raising political pot loads from special interests, much of it out of state. It gives new meaning to the term "political outsider."
"People don't want him in Florida raising money. They want him here fixing problems," says Republican political analyst Tony Quinn. "It's something these politicians don't seem to understand. As he raises special interest money, his mystique with the voters drops. Gray Davis is the best example of that."
Ask pollster Mark Baldassare to describe the current attitude of Californians toward Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he replies without hesitation: "Disappointment."
People are disappointed in all of Sacramento, the pollster adds. They had been hopeful after the Davis recall. Now they're back being grouchy.
Baldassare, who polls for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released a new survey Wednesday. About the only good news for Schwarzenegger is that he hasn't fallen farther into the tank than he was a month ago. But he hasn't started to climb out either.
Some key findings:
• Only 40% of adults approve of how Schwarzenegger is handling his job, compared with 60% in January and 64% a year ago.
• The Legislature shouldn't gloat. Its approval rating is even lower, at 26%, the lowest since the 2003 recall campaign. A year ago, it was 40%.
So there's a cause-and-effect here that's easy to see: Schwarzenegger constantly ridicules the Legislature. Democrats continually attack him. Both sides are effective, in a murder-suicide sort of way. Schwarzenegger also picked a fight with teachers, nurses, firefighters and cop unions and got badly beaten up.
• The public mood is sour; 57% think California is headed in "the wrong direction," up 13 points from a year ago.
• Schwarzenegger's idea of a special election, costing $70-million-plus in tax money, is very unpopular. Only 33% support it, down 12 points since January. Another 61% want to wait until the next regular election in June 2006 to vote on the governor's "reforms."
But Schwarzenegger sees himself leading a people's rebellion to force government reform. He warned legislators in his State of the State speech that if they together didn't reform government, "the people will rise up and reform it themselves. And I will fight with them."
A new Schwarzenegger biography traces the governor's early fascination with charismatic leaders who move people. It may help explain why he has focused on trying to rally the masses rather than negotiate with a coequal branch of government, to his detriment.
The book, "Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger," is written by veteran biographer Laurence Leamer, who also wrote a Kennedy family trilogy.
"Arnold admired such leaders as Charlemagne and Napoleon, who could take the inert, passive masses and forge them into a force to make history," Leamer writes. "As an Austrian, he had learned how Hitler had mesmerized the Austrian and German peoples."
Leamer quotes Schwarzenegger from 1975 interviews for a bodybuilding movie, "Pumping Iron." " 'I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and his way of getting to the people and so on. But I didn't admire him for what he did with it.' "
The author writes: "Arnold had parsed Hitler down the middle, celebrating the messianic skills and energy that brought him to power and detesting his abuse of that power…. Arnold believed that what America needed was a great leader with all the messianic skills of Hitler, but for good, not evil."
But whatever messianic skills Schwarzenegger possesses have been failing him. And so has the TV ad campaign aimed at selling Schwarzenegger and his spending "reform." In fact, people are ambivalent about his whole reform agenda, the Baldassare poll finds.
Examples:
• People give him much lower marks today than in January for "reforming" government — 40% approval now, 58% then.
• There isn't much enthusiasm for the governor's spending cap proposal. Only 43% support it. People like the idea of a cap (60%). But, by 2 to 1, they oppose a feature that would allow a governor to cut spending without legislative approval. That is being attacked as a "power grab."
• Redistricting reform leaves people cold. Only 41% support Schwarzenegger's proposal to strip the Legislature of its power to redistrict legislative and congressional seats. In fact, 52% say the system needs only "minor changes" or is "fine the way it is."
This is a different Schwarzenegger than a year ago — less conciliatory and compromising, more caustic and combative.
"He's rallying people in a different way," Baldassare notes. "He's still rallying his own core supporters. But he's also rallying the Democrats against him. He's a rallying figure — but not in a way he intended."
What would work for him?
• Forget the special election, saving money for grateful taxpayers.
• Do a mea culpa and return the $3.1 billion he promised schools in a budget deal last year.
• Negotiate a bipartisan spending cap, with less of a power grab and a softer hit to schools.
• Place the cap and redistricting on next June's ballot.
• Cool the money-raising.
• Turn the charm back on.
The alternative: Keep sliding into the common pool of political mediocrity.
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap26may26,0,2927336.column?coll=la-home-headlines
GEORGE SKELTON CAPITOL JOURNAL
Reach the columnist at george.skelton@latimes.com.
10,000 Protest, the Bee notices
Thousands protest governor's plans
A Capitol rally by teachers, nurses, other unions is among the largest in recent years.
By Alexa H. Bluth -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Bee got it right this time.
Thousands of protesters from across Northern California blanketed the south lawn of the state Capitol on Wednesday in a mammoth gathering to accuse Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of turning his back on middle-class workers with his budget and ballot initiatives.
The event drew busloads of teachers, nurses, firefighters, prison guards and other union members on a searing afternoon for a protest that ranked among the largest in recent years.
"It sends the message that there are a lot of people who are really concerned about what he is doing to the state," said Bill Jacks, a physical education teacher at Hemlock Elementary School in Vacaville.
Around him, protesters wearing union T-shirts and toting signs listened to union leaders speak and even sing out against the Republican governor. At times, the crowd chanted, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Schwarzenegger's got to go."
Organizers furiously handed out bottles of water and granola bars to the crowds of people jammed together in the 90-degree weather. Paramedics helped at least three people who were overcome by the heat.
A crowd of at least 10,000 - organizers claimed more than 20,000 - collected in Sacramento. Thousands also held a similar protest in Los Angeles on Wednesday.
A Capitol rally by teachers, nurses, other unions is among the largest in recent years.
By Alexa H. Bluth -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Bee got it right this time.
Thousands of protesters from across Northern California blanketed the south lawn of the state Capitol on Wednesday in a mammoth gathering to accuse Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of turning his back on middle-class workers with his budget and ballot initiatives.
The event drew busloads of teachers, nurses, firefighters, prison guards and other union members on a searing afternoon for a protest that ranked among the largest in recent years.
"It sends the message that there are a lot of people who are really concerned about what he is doing to the state," said Bill Jacks, a physical education teacher at Hemlock Elementary School in Vacaville.
Around him, protesters wearing union T-shirts and toting signs listened to union leaders speak and even sing out against the Republican governor. At times, the crowd chanted, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Schwarzenegger's got to go."
Organizers furiously handed out bottles of water and granola bars to the crowds of people jammed together in the 90-degree weather. Paramedics helped at least three people who were overcome by the heat.
A crowd of at least 10,000 - organizers claimed more than 20,000 - collected in Sacramento. Thousands also held a similar protest in Los Angeles on Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Weintraub's attention to San Diego
the Bee's Dan Weintraub is their current major editorial writer on both politics and education.
On his web log of May 25, he says,
San Diego schools
Bad news and good news from San Diego. The bad news: A huge achievement gap remains between African-American and white kids in the public schools. The good news: black parents and community leaders are demanding that the gap be closed.
Posted by dweintraub at 07:30 AM
What he did not say. The just released superintendent of San Diego, was Alan Bersin, who Schwarzenegger appointed as Secretary of Education. Arnold claimed that Bersin had improved the schools.
On his web log of May 25, he says,
San Diego schools
Bad news and good news from San Diego. The bad news: A huge achievement gap remains between African-American and white kids in the public schools. The good news: black parents and community leaders are demanding that the gap be closed.
Posted by dweintraub at 07:30 AM
What he did not say. The just released superintendent of San Diego, was Alan Bersin, who Schwarzenegger appointed as Secretary of Education. Arnold claimed that Bersin had improved the schools.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Graduation speech for new teachers
Graduation. Multilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Center. May, 21,2005.
California State University -Sacramento
Good afternoon.
Gracias, y muy buenas tardes.
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.
Congratulations to all on your graduation. I know that it has been a long, difficult journey.
We salute you. And, we congratulate you and your families.
This is a very important step forward.
Now, next year, as new teachers, it will be even more difficult.
Let me begin with a quote from a hero of mine; Cesar Chavez.
“When we are really honest with ourselves, We must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us. So, it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of people we are. It is my deepest conviction that only by giving our lives do we find life. I am convinced that the truest act of courage..is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally non violent struggle for justice. “
March, 1968.
Quiero compartir con ustedes una idea importante del lider sindicalista Cesar Chavez.
“Cuando somos realmente honestos con nosotros mismos debemos Admitire que nuestras vidas son todo lo que verdaderamente nos pertenecen. Por lo tanto, es como usamos nuestras vidas lo que determina que clase de hombres somos. Es mi creencia mas profunda que solamente con dar nuestra vida encontramos la vida. Estoy convencido de que el acto mas verdadero de valor .. es sacrificarnos por los demas en una lucha por la justicia totalmente no violenta.”
Now, Our center does not ask you to sacrifice yourself. But we do ask you to dedicate yourself to the struggle for justice for your kids.
And, that is what teaching is. It is a dedication to struggle so that your kids learn to read, to write, to prepare for life and the work world, and to prepare for democractic citizenship.
Since its beginning back in 1976, our centers have been dedicated to
the struggle for social justice, and to democracy.
That is what makes us different.
You may know that democracy is in danger today.
For example, look at the Governor’s refusal to adequately fund the schools.
The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income.
Last year the Governor took 2 Billion from the school budget to protect the tax breaks of the very rich.
Then, last week he gave back 200 Million.
As a result, California ranks about 37th. in readng and math, and we have a over 50% drop out rate for Latinos, Blacks, and Hmong.
To under fund the schools, to deprive the children, is a choice our legislature and our governor makes each year in the budget. And, they are making it again this month.
So, if you are not interested in politics, I guess then that you are not interested in your children having quality schools and teachers.
And then, after failing to provide the funds, the elected officials and the public expect you to work even harder to make up for their failure to adequately fund the schools.
As my friend Cornel West says so well in his book, Democracy Matters, the dangers in our democracy are directly connected to our empire. The war, and empire, will take the lives of some of the students which you teach.
In the last three years we have spent $300 Billion in Iraq. California’s schools are under funded by at least 3 Billion. You figure it out.
And, social justice.
It is not all kids who are failing. It is not all kids who are in a school with a scripted curriculum, bored, alienated. It is not 50% of all kids who will drop out and and end up in juvenile hall.
It is kids from poor families, working class families. Our goal has been to prepare you to change that. We want you to bring school success to all of these kids.
We must prepare our students to struggle for justice and to struggle for democracy.
It’s a tough world out there. They need to know how to read, write, and to respect. They need to know how to make democracy work for them. Teaching these things will require a great deal of change.
As you now know, teaching is hard work. You will have too many children, with too many problems, and too few resources to help them.
Some of you will have principals who are weak- or incompetent. And some will have superintendents and governors who are more interested in making a name for themselves than in improving the schools.
There will be future crises. There will be a budget crisis in California for at least the next decade. You will need to fight for the resources for your kids.
And, many of you will face personal crises in your lives and in your families.
When these things happen. We want you to take a deep breath, take a step back, and to stay focused on what is important. We want you to keep your eyes on the prize.
Justice for all.
AS the first step. The very first step. Is to join with thousands of other teachers this Wed. May 25th. for a march on the Capitol. Over 10,000 of us are going to visit the governor and talk with him about school funding. I hope to see you there. Bring your friends and families. Bring all of those who care about public schools.
And, just in case the governor decides to spend the day at his other home in Los Angeles, there will be another 20,000 teachers, nurses, fire fighters waiting for him there.
As you graduate, allow me to explain a very basic point.
You are our BMED strategy for change. You are our hope for the future.
Our hope is to prepare teachers like you. And to fill the schools with teachers who care, with teachers willing to fight for their kids, to fight for justice.
Good teachers make a difference in the lives of their kids.
So, you are our change strategy.
Important. First step when you get to your new school, Make an ally. You need allies. We all need allies. Change occurs when people work together. Almost nothing is accomplished alone.
Second, keep in touch with us. Come back to our conference.
You can follow the debates, participate in the debates and school battles on my blog. www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
With this graduation, You are now a teacher
Once you get your feet firmly on the ground, we hope that you come back. In a couple of years come back and get a Masters degree with us in Bilingual/Multicultural Education.
As you know your classes this last year have often been rushed, Now is the time to learn by doing. Then, with some experience, come back for a Masters and together we can design a program to help you become a change agents.
Today is a day of celebration. You have earned it.
Gracias, y buena suerte.
Si se puede!
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
California State University -Sacramento
Good afternoon.
Gracias, y muy buenas tardes.
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.
Congratulations to all on your graduation. I know that it has been a long, difficult journey.
We salute you. And, we congratulate you and your families.
This is a very important step forward.
Now, next year, as new teachers, it will be even more difficult.
Let me begin with a quote from a hero of mine; Cesar Chavez.
“When we are really honest with ourselves, We must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us. So, it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of people we are. It is my deepest conviction that only by giving our lives do we find life. I am convinced that the truest act of courage..is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally non violent struggle for justice. “
March, 1968.
Quiero compartir con ustedes una idea importante del lider sindicalista Cesar Chavez.
“Cuando somos realmente honestos con nosotros mismos debemos Admitire que nuestras vidas son todo lo que verdaderamente nos pertenecen. Por lo tanto, es como usamos nuestras vidas lo que determina que clase de hombres somos. Es mi creencia mas profunda que solamente con dar nuestra vida encontramos la vida. Estoy convencido de que el acto mas verdadero de valor .. es sacrificarnos por los demas en una lucha por la justicia totalmente no violenta.”
Now, Our center does not ask you to sacrifice yourself. But we do ask you to dedicate yourself to the struggle for justice for your kids.
And, that is what teaching is. It is a dedication to struggle so that your kids learn to read, to write, to prepare for life and the work world, and to prepare for democractic citizenship.
Since its beginning back in 1976, our centers have been dedicated to
the struggle for social justice, and to democracy.
That is what makes us different.
You may know that democracy is in danger today.
For example, look at the Governor’s refusal to adequately fund the schools.
The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income.
Last year the Governor took 2 Billion from the school budget to protect the tax breaks of the very rich.
Then, last week he gave back 200 Million.
As a result, California ranks about 37th. in readng and math, and we have a over 50% drop out rate for Latinos, Blacks, and Hmong.
To under fund the schools, to deprive the children, is a choice our legislature and our governor makes each year in the budget. And, they are making it again this month.
So, if you are not interested in politics, I guess then that you are not interested in your children having quality schools and teachers.
And then, after failing to provide the funds, the elected officials and the public expect you to work even harder to make up for their failure to adequately fund the schools.
As my friend Cornel West says so well in his book, Democracy Matters, the dangers in our democracy are directly connected to our empire. The war, and empire, will take the lives of some of the students which you teach.
In the last three years we have spent $300 Billion in Iraq. California’s schools are under funded by at least 3 Billion. You figure it out.
And, social justice.
It is not all kids who are failing. It is not all kids who are in a school with a scripted curriculum, bored, alienated. It is not 50% of all kids who will drop out and and end up in juvenile hall.
It is kids from poor families, working class families. Our goal has been to prepare you to change that. We want you to bring school success to all of these kids.
We must prepare our students to struggle for justice and to struggle for democracy.
It’s a tough world out there. They need to know how to read, write, and to respect. They need to know how to make democracy work for them. Teaching these things will require a great deal of change.
As you now know, teaching is hard work. You will have too many children, with too many problems, and too few resources to help them.
Some of you will have principals who are weak- or incompetent. And some will have superintendents and governors who are more interested in making a name for themselves than in improving the schools.
There will be future crises. There will be a budget crisis in California for at least the next decade. You will need to fight for the resources for your kids.
And, many of you will face personal crises in your lives and in your families.
When these things happen. We want you to take a deep breath, take a step back, and to stay focused on what is important. We want you to keep your eyes on the prize.
Justice for all.
AS the first step. The very first step. Is to join with thousands of other teachers this Wed. May 25th. for a march on the Capitol. Over 10,000 of us are going to visit the governor and talk with him about school funding. I hope to see you there. Bring your friends and families. Bring all of those who care about public schools.
And, just in case the governor decides to spend the day at his other home in Los Angeles, there will be another 20,000 teachers, nurses, fire fighters waiting for him there.
As you graduate, allow me to explain a very basic point.
You are our BMED strategy for change. You are our hope for the future.
Our hope is to prepare teachers like you. And to fill the schools with teachers who care, with teachers willing to fight for their kids, to fight for justice.
Good teachers make a difference in the lives of their kids.
So, you are our change strategy.
Important. First step when you get to your new school, Make an ally. You need allies. We all need allies. Change occurs when people work together. Almost nothing is accomplished alone.
Second, keep in touch with us. Come back to our conference.
You can follow the debates, participate in the debates and school battles on my blog. www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
With this graduation, You are now a teacher
Once you get your feet firmly on the ground, we hope that you come back. In a couple of years come back and get a Masters degree with us in Bilingual/Multicultural Education.
As you know your classes this last year have often been rushed, Now is the time to learn by doing. Then, with some experience, come back for a Masters and together we can design a program to help you become a change agents.
Today is a day of celebration. You have earned it.
Gracias, y buena suerte.
Si se puede!
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Governor fails the schools: again
Education Coalition Statement on Gov. Schwarzenegger's May Revised State Budget 2005-06
May 13, 2005
The governor's May Revision appears to acknowledge some of the funding problems facing our most challenged schools, but the Education Coalition is deeply disappointed that overall this budget revision cements the governor's broken promises to California's students and public schools and fails to provide any long term solutions.
Last year, students and public schools sacrificed $2 billion in ongoing cuts because the governor promised that our schools would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues and would be spared cuts in future years. The governor also promised during his campaign that he would protect Proposition 98, the voter approved measure that guarantees a minimum level of education funding.
With his May Revision and his flawed "Live Within Our Means" initiative, Gov. Schwarzenegger is breaking his word on both fronts and ignoring the will of the people.
In the short-term his budget proposal does little to help public schools and students and it fails to address the ongoing fiscal shortfalls in school districts throughout the state, guaranteeing more school closures, increases in class sizes, lay offs of teachers and support staff, and a devastating shortage of librarians, counselors and nurses. California's students deserve better.
In the long-term, his proposed budget initiative would exacerbate an already inadequate funding problem by eviscerating Prop. 98, eliminating the minimum funding protections for our schools at a time when they cannot afford to cut anymore.
The governor's budget plans and initiative proposals are in direct contrast to the priorities established by California voters. They cannot mask the fact the he has failed to offer any real solutions or plan to deal with the real problems facing our public schools.
The future of our state depends on giving our students access to a quality education. Our students and schools deserve better than broken promises.
Sandra Carsten, President, Association of California School Administrators
Pearl Iizuka, President, California Association of School Business Officials
Larry Reider, President, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers
Dr. Kerry Clegg, President, California School Boards Association
Clyde Rivers, President, California School Employees Association
Carla Niño, President, California State PTA
Barbara E. Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Annelle Grajeda, President, Service Employees International Union, California
May 13, 2005
The governor's May Revision appears to acknowledge some of the funding problems facing our most challenged schools, but the Education Coalition is deeply disappointed that overall this budget revision cements the governor's broken promises to California's students and public schools and fails to provide any long term solutions.
Last year, students and public schools sacrificed $2 billion in ongoing cuts because the governor promised that our schools would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues and would be spared cuts in future years. The governor also promised during his campaign that he would protect Proposition 98, the voter approved measure that guarantees a minimum level of education funding.
With his May Revision and his flawed "Live Within Our Means" initiative, Gov. Schwarzenegger is breaking his word on both fronts and ignoring the will of the people.
In the short-term his budget proposal does little to help public schools and students and it fails to address the ongoing fiscal shortfalls in school districts throughout the state, guaranteeing more school closures, increases in class sizes, lay offs of teachers and support staff, and a devastating shortage of librarians, counselors and nurses. California's students deserve better.
In the long-term, his proposed budget initiative would exacerbate an already inadequate funding problem by eviscerating Prop. 98, eliminating the minimum funding protections for our schools at a time when they cannot afford to cut anymore.
The governor's budget plans and initiative proposals are in direct contrast to the priorities established by California voters. They cannot mask the fact the he has failed to offer any real solutions or plan to deal with the real problems facing our public schools.
The future of our state depends on giving our students access to a quality education. Our students and schools deserve better than broken promises.
Sandra Carsten, President, Association of California School Administrators
Pearl Iizuka, President, California Association of School Business Officials
Larry Reider, President, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers
Dr. Kerry Clegg, President, California School Boards Association
Clyde Rivers, President, California School Employees Association
Carla Niño, President, California State PTA
Barbara E. Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Annelle Grajeda, President, Service Employees International Union, California
Monday, May 16, 2005
The Governor on education
The Governor on Education
When California Connected sat down to talk to Gov. Schwarzenegger about his ongoing efforts to transform California’s government, it was clear that education was very much on his mind.
In last week’s program, the Governor said that budget reform was impossible without changing Proposition 98 and that, in spite of the billions spent on educating the state’s children, there is little accountability within the school system.
This week, Gov. Schwarzenegger argues on behalf of his proposals to revise teacher tenure and salary. He also continues his rhetorical battle with the teachers union, defending his plans against their accusations while getting in a few jabs of his own.
“The unions are actually holding us back,” he says, “from making progress in education.”
Hear the interview or read more here.
http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/archives/224
Also, see the history of Alan Bersin
When California Connected sat down to talk to Gov. Schwarzenegger about his ongoing efforts to transform California’s government, it was clear that education was very much on his mind.
In last week’s program, the Governor said that budget reform was impossible without changing Proposition 98 and that, in spite of the billions spent on educating the state’s children, there is little accountability within the school system.
This week, Gov. Schwarzenegger argues on behalf of his proposals to revise teacher tenure and salary. He also continues his rhetorical battle with the teachers union, defending his plans against their accusations while getting in a few jabs of his own.
“The unions are actually holding us back,” he says, “from making progress in education.”
Hear the interview or read more here.
http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/archives/224
Also, see the history of Alan Bersin
The Governor fails schools: Again
Education Coalition Statement on Gov. Schwarzenegger's May Revised State Budget 2005-06
May 13, 2005
The governor's May Revision appears to acknowledge some of the funding problems facing our most challenged schools, but the Education Coalition is deeply disappointed that overall this budget revision cements the governor's broken promises to California's students and public schools and fails to provide any long term solutions.
Last year, students and public schools sacrificed $2 billion in ongoing cuts because the governor promised that our schools would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues and would be spared cuts in future years. The governor also promised during his campaign that he would protect Proposition 98, the voter approved measure that guarantees a minimum level of education funding.
With his May Revision and his flawed "Live Within Our Means" initiative, Gov. Schwarzenegger is breaking his word on both fronts and ignoring the will of the people.
In the short-term his budget proposal does little to help public schools and students and it fails to address the ongoing fiscal shortfalls in school districts throughout the state, guaranteeing more school closures, increases in class sizes, lay offs of teachers and support staff, and a devastating shortage of librarians, counselors and nurses. California's students deserve better.
In the long-term, his proposed budget initiative would exacerbate an already inadequate funding problem by eviscerating Prop. 98, eliminating the minimum funding protections for our schools at a time when they cannot afford to cut anymore.
The governor's budget plans and initiative proposals are in direct contrast to the priorities established by California voters. They cannot mask the fact the he has failed to offer any real solutions or plan to deal with the real problems facing our public schools.
The future of our state depends on giving our students access to a quality education. Our students and schools deserve better than broken promises.
Sandra Carsten, President, Association of California School Administrators
Pearl Iizuka, President, California Association of School Business Officials
Larry Reider, President, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers
Dr. Kerry Clegg, President, California School Boards Association
Clyde Rivers, President, California School Employees Association
Carla Niño, President, California State PTA
Barbara E. Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Annelle Grajeda, President, Service Employees International Union, California
May 13, 2005
The governor's May Revision appears to acknowledge some of the funding problems facing our most challenged schools, but the Education Coalition is deeply disappointed that overall this budget revision cements the governor's broken promises to California's students and public schools and fails to provide any long term solutions.
Last year, students and public schools sacrificed $2 billion in ongoing cuts because the governor promised that our schools would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues and would be spared cuts in future years. The governor also promised during his campaign that he would protect Proposition 98, the voter approved measure that guarantees a minimum level of education funding.
With his May Revision and his flawed "Live Within Our Means" initiative, Gov. Schwarzenegger is breaking his word on both fronts and ignoring the will of the people.
In the short-term his budget proposal does little to help public schools and students and it fails to address the ongoing fiscal shortfalls in school districts throughout the state, guaranteeing more school closures, increases in class sizes, lay offs of teachers and support staff, and a devastating shortage of librarians, counselors and nurses. California's students deserve better.
In the long-term, his proposed budget initiative would exacerbate an already inadequate funding problem by eviscerating Prop. 98, eliminating the minimum funding protections for our schools at a time when they cannot afford to cut anymore.
The governor's budget plans and initiative proposals are in direct contrast to the priorities established by California voters. They cannot mask the fact the he has failed to offer any real solutions or plan to deal with the real problems facing our public schools.
The future of our state depends on giving our students access to a quality education. Our students and schools deserve better than broken promises.
Sandra Carsten, President, Association of California School Administrators
Pearl Iizuka, President, California Association of School Business Officials
Larry Reider, President, California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers
Dr. Kerry Clegg, President, California School Boards Association
Clyde Rivers, President, California School Employees Association
Carla Niño, President, California State PTA
Barbara E. Kerr, President, California Teachers Association
Annelle Grajeda, President, Service Employees International Union, California
Gates Foundation and school reform
Gates Foundation Puts $2.3B Into Education
By PEGGY ANDERSEN
SEATTLE (AP) - Bill Gates raised some hackles with his withering assessment of American high schools, but at least the billionaire founder of Microsoft is putting his money where his mouth is. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested $2.3 billion since 2000 in new visions of education, with smaller schools and more personalized instruction to prepare young people for the working world and post-high school learning.
The foundation has programs in 42 states and the District of Columbia; it supports more than 1,500 high schools - about half totally new and the others redesigned. Its three scholarship programs, designed to fill tuition gaps left by other grants and aid, have assisted more than 10,000 students.
At one of its schools, the Truman Center in Federal Way, about 20 miles south of Seattle, 12 teacher/advisers tend 208 students - helping them figure out what they care about and how to pursue it. Two days a week are set aside for job-shadowing and internships in the real world.
Shawn Dube was going nowhere in 2001 when he transferred to Truman, one of 16 schools in the state being transformed with a five-year grant and scholarships from the Gates Foundation's Achiever program.
``It was kind of a last-resort thing that I was there,'' recalls Dube, now 18.
An internship at an upscale local restaurant put Dube on his path. He found a mentor, eagerly honed his skills and is now a first-year student at the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, N.Y. He plans a stint in France and dreams of a restaurant of his own.
Shawn's mom, Kim Dube, credits the Gates program with giving Shawn the confidence to chase his dream and scholarships to finance it.
``My husband and I didn't go to college,'' Kim says. ``It just got him past that fear.''
Since 2000, the education branch of the Gates Foundation has been working to upgrade the nation's high schools, which Gates characterized as ``obsolete'' in a February speech to the National Governors Association.
In that speech, he spelled out his ``new three R's'' for building better high schools:
Rigor: Making sure all students are given a challenging curriculum that prepares them for college or work.
Relevance: Making sure kids have courses and projects that relate to their lives and their goals.
Relationships: Making sure kids have adults who know them, look out for them, and push them to achieve.
``The idea is that every district should have a rigorous academic alternative for kids who do not succeed in the traditional high school setting,'' said Gates Foundation spokeswoman Marie Groark.
Such alternatives don't come cheap. And with states struggling to pay for basic education and keep up federal accountability requirements - what happens when the five-year grants expire?
``If you don't get a commitment from the school district to continue, it's just an exercise you go through,'' said Leon Horne, a middle-school teacher and former union leader in Tacoma.
The foundation's intent with the grants is to get the ball rolling by demonstrating alternatives that work, Groark said. ``Our goal for all our work is sustainability - that we can disappear.''
Followup and monitoring will be essential, said Shirley Malcom, head of education and human resources at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.
``The big question is the learning goals,'' Malcom said. ``What is it we want these children to know? ... Are they going to be job-ready, and are they going to be college-ready?''
New tests, mandated by federal law, are designed to help assess student progress.
The sustainability of the foundation's work will depend on whether it fosters innovation from inside or tries to impose it from outside, Malcom said. School districts will be more likely to support - and help spread - innovations developed within schools and communities.
That's a belief the foundation shares.
``When we give a grant, we give it because the community wants it and asks for it,'' Groark said. ``It's not the Gates Foundation telling the community to do something. It's the Gates Foundation supporting work that's already begun.''
There's no question that most high schools don't work, Malcom said. But the structure is very difficult to break down for various reasons, including the often massive size of the buildings themselves.
Creating small schools, usually schools within schools, has been a fundamental part of the foundation's approach.
The Truman Center, for example, has just six classrooms - crammed with projects, art, words of wisdom. ``Quiet rooms'' are set aside for those who need to concentrate. The only doors are on the bathrooms and to the outdoors.
``Our high schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age,'' Gates told the governors in February.
``Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting - even ruining - the lives of millions of Americans every year,'' said Gates, himself a product of the rigorous standards and hands-on instruction at Seattle's private Lakeside School.
``Only one-third of our students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and citizenship,'' he said. ``The other two-thirds, most of them low-income and minority students, are tracked into courses that won't ever get them ready for college or prepare them for a family-wage job, no matter how well the students learn or the teachers teach.''
Despite his position atop one of the world's biggest technology companies, high-tech education reforms have been a small part of the foundation's work. Online schools are the subject of just two grants, totaling less than $3 million.
The foundation's education wing has a staff of about three dozen, eight or nine of whom monitor grant recipients.
At Truman, school officials write frequent reports to keep the foundation up to date, and foundation officials make yearly visits, said Principal Judy Kraft.
The foundation gets points from educators and observers for its hands-on approach.
``Their staffers are engaged in ways other funders are not engaged, in part because their staff comes from the education field. They're not heavy-handed at all,'' says Patricia Sullivan at the Center for Education Policy in Washington, D.C., which receives some funding from the Gates Foundation.
That's not to say all goes smoothly on foundation projects. In Tacoma, teacher Horne said, it took three years to work out union concerns and get teachers set up for foundation programs at three of the city's five high schools, a year longer than the usual training phase.
``I don't think they'd really thought the whole thing through,'' said Horne, who suggested the program's test run in Tacoma might have been more effectively conducted at a single school.
He also noted that the foundation's vision - of one teacher/adviser overseeing a small class throughout high school while teaching most subjects - seems to clash with the federal No Child Left Behind law, which calls for teachers with high expertise in specific subjects.
Still, across Washington state, where the foundation is based, it is generally acknowledged as a positive force, said Charles Hasse, president of the teachers union, the Washington Education Association.
Although teachers sometimes bristle at guidance from outsiders, he said, ``the people at the foundation are seen as partners at improving education and essentially allies of classroom teachers.''
On the Net:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, www.gatesfoundation.org
By PEGGY ANDERSEN
SEATTLE (AP) - Bill Gates raised some hackles with his withering assessment of American high schools, but at least the billionaire founder of Microsoft is putting his money where his mouth is. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested $2.3 billion since 2000 in new visions of education, with smaller schools and more personalized instruction to prepare young people for the working world and post-high school learning.
The foundation has programs in 42 states and the District of Columbia; it supports more than 1,500 high schools - about half totally new and the others redesigned. Its three scholarship programs, designed to fill tuition gaps left by other grants and aid, have assisted more than 10,000 students.
At one of its schools, the Truman Center in Federal Way, about 20 miles south of Seattle, 12 teacher/advisers tend 208 students - helping them figure out what they care about and how to pursue it. Two days a week are set aside for job-shadowing and internships in the real world.
Shawn Dube was going nowhere in 2001 when he transferred to Truman, one of 16 schools in the state being transformed with a five-year grant and scholarships from the Gates Foundation's Achiever program.
``It was kind of a last-resort thing that I was there,'' recalls Dube, now 18.
An internship at an upscale local restaurant put Dube on his path. He found a mentor, eagerly honed his skills and is now a first-year student at the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, N.Y. He plans a stint in France and dreams of a restaurant of his own.
Shawn's mom, Kim Dube, credits the Gates program with giving Shawn the confidence to chase his dream and scholarships to finance it.
``My husband and I didn't go to college,'' Kim says. ``It just got him past that fear.''
Since 2000, the education branch of the Gates Foundation has been working to upgrade the nation's high schools, which Gates characterized as ``obsolete'' in a February speech to the National Governors Association.
In that speech, he spelled out his ``new three R's'' for building better high schools:
Rigor: Making sure all students are given a challenging curriculum that prepares them for college or work.
Relevance: Making sure kids have courses and projects that relate to their lives and their goals.
Relationships: Making sure kids have adults who know them, look out for them, and push them to achieve.
``The idea is that every district should have a rigorous academic alternative for kids who do not succeed in the traditional high school setting,'' said Gates Foundation spokeswoman Marie Groark.
Such alternatives don't come cheap. And with states struggling to pay for basic education and keep up federal accountability requirements - what happens when the five-year grants expire?
``If you don't get a commitment from the school district to continue, it's just an exercise you go through,'' said Leon Horne, a middle-school teacher and former union leader in Tacoma.
The foundation's intent with the grants is to get the ball rolling by demonstrating alternatives that work, Groark said. ``Our goal for all our work is sustainability - that we can disappear.''
Followup and monitoring will be essential, said Shirley Malcom, head of education and human resources at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.
``The big question is the learning goals,'' Malcom said. ``What is it we want these children to know? ... Are they going to be job-ready, and are they going to be college-ready?''
New tests, mandated by federal law, are designed to help assess student progress.
The sustainability of the foundation's work will depend on whether it fosters innovation from inside or tries to impose it from outside, Malcom said. School districts will be more likely to support - and help spread - innovations developed within schools and communities.
That's a belief the foundation shares.
``When we give a grant, we give it because the community wants it and asks for it,'' Groark said. ``It's not the Gates Foundation telling the community to do something. It's the Gates Foundation supporting work that's already begun.''
There's no question that most high schools don't work, Malcom said. But the structure is very difficult to break down for various reasons, including the often massive size of the buildings themselves.
Creating small schools, usually schools within schools, has been a fundamental part of the foundation's approach.
The Truman Center, for example, has just six classrooms - crammed with projects, art, words of wisdom. ``Quiet rooms'' are set aside for those who need to concentrate. The only doors are on the bathrooms and to the outdoors.
``Our high schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age,'' Gates told the governors in February.
``Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting - even ruining - the lives of millions of Americans every year,'' said Gates, himself a product of the rigorous standards and hands-on instruction at Seattle's private Lakeside School.
``Only one-third of our students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and citizenship,'' he said. ``The other two-thirds, most of them low-income and minority students, are tracked into courses that won't ever get them ready for college or prepare them for a family-wage job, no matter how well the students learn or the teachers teach.''
Despite his position atop one of the world's biggest technology companies, high-tech education reforms have been a small part of the foundation's work. Online schools are the subject of just two grants, totaling less than $3 million.
The foundation's education wing has a staff of about three dozen, eight or nine of whom monitor grant recipients.
At Truman, school officials write frequent reports to keep the foundation up to date, and foundation officials make yearly visits, said Principal Judy Kraft.
The foundation gets points from educators and observers for its hands-on approach.
``Their staffers are engaged in ways other funders are not engaged, in part because their staff comes from the education field. They're not heavy-handed at all,'' says Patricia Sullivan at the Center for Education Policy in Washington, D.C., which receives some funding from the Gates Foundation.
That's not to say all goes smoothly on foundation projects. In Tacoma, teacher Horne said, it took three years to work out union concerns and get teachers set up for foundation programs at three of the city's five high schools, a year longer than the usual training phase.
``I don't think they'd really thought the whole thing through,'' said Horne, who suggested the program's test run in Tacoma might have been more effectively conducted at a single school.
He also noted that the foundation's vision - of one teacher/adviser overseeing a small class throughout high school while teaching most subjects - seems to clash with the federal No Child Left Behind law, which calls for teachers with high expertise in specific subjects.
Still, across Washington state, where the foundation is based, it is generally acknowledged as a positive force, said Charles Hasse, president of the teachers union, the Washington Education Association.
Although teachers sometimes bristle at guidance from outsiders, he said, ``the people at the foundation are seen as partners at improving education and essentially allies of classroom teachers.''
On the Net:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, www.gatesfoundation.org
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Walters: If Schwarzenegger can't do it ?
In today’s Bee conservative columnist Dan Walters offers some speculation on “If Schwarzenegger can’t do it, A Democrat’s luck might be no better. May 11, 2005.
Regular readers of the Bee know Walters to be the more conservative of the two major columnists. Weintraub – conservative,corporate view; Walters- more conservative.
However, Walters is worth reading because he usually does an honest and open analysis of data and demographics.
Today’s essay posits 1) perhaps Arnold may not run for re-election,
2) if a Democrat were governor things would be equally incoherent.
The basis for the Walter’s assertion is analyzing the failed term of former Governor Gray Davis, not looking at prior Republican governors.
The argument is well made as far as it goes. But, it is important to consider what is not said.
Walters describes the failures of the Davis Administration and its defeat. He chronicles the ways that the Democratic majority in the Assembly and Senate forced a liberal agenda on the usually moderate Davis.
What he does not describe is how Davis was brought down by two Tsunamis.
First, the collapse of the dot come economy brought an economic crisis to the state. In the crisis liberals refused to cut social services and conservatives refused to raise taxes. Thus, the state fiscal crisis.
Second, Walters forgets about the energy crisis, when a few corporations led by Enron looted the state treasury and caused energy blackouts.
Beyond these two major issues, Walters presents an intriguing way to analyze the success or failure of administrations. I, for one, have never been able to understand why the Schwarzenegger Administration was willing to settle the Williams case (school funding) while the Davis Administration fought it using state resources.
Regular readers of the Bee know Walters to be the more conservative of the two major columnists. Weintraub – conservative,corporate view; Walters- more conservative.
However, Walters is worth reading because he usually does an honest and open analysis of data and demographics.
Today’s essay posits 1) perhaps Arnold may not run for re-election,
2) if a Democrat were governor things would be equally incoherent.
The basis for the Walter’s assertion is analyzing the failed term of former Governor Gray Davis, not looking at prior Republican governors.
The argument is well made as far as it goes. But, it is important to consider what is not said.
Walters describes the failures of the Davis Administration and its defeat. He chronicles the ways that the Democratic majority in the Assembly and Senate forced a liberal agenda on the usually moderate Davis.
What he does not describe is how Davis was brought down by two Tsunamis.
First, the collapse of the dot come economy brought an economic crisis to the state. In the crisis liberals refused to cut social services and conservatives refused to raise taxes. Thus, the state fiscal crisis.
Second, Walters forgets about the energy crisis, when a few corporations led by Enron looted the state treasury and caused energy blackouts.
Beyond these two major issues, Walters presents an intriguing way to analyze the success or failure of administrations. I, for one, have never been able to understand why the Schwarzenegger Administration was willing to settle the Williams case (school funding) while the Davis Administration fought it using state resources.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
High School Reform: LAO
High school reform idea focuses on preparation
State legislative analyst says college, work should be focus.
By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Evidence continues to mount that California's high schools are not preparing graduates well for college or work, but few comprehensive solutions have materialized.
Monday the Legislative Analyst's Office unveiled a potential framework for improving high schools that taps into state and federal school programs already under way.
Elizabeth Hill, the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst, said she commissioned the report because she was frustrated that significant gains had not been made in high school student achievement or reducing dropout rates.
Paul Warren, the researcher who conducted the study, said he concluded that high schools would improve if they focused existing reform efforts on better preparing students for college and work. "We think high schools need to be more accountable for the transition of students to adult life," Warren said.
The report is available at www.lao.ca.gov
The California State University system has a program that gives high school students an early indication of whether they are performing well enough and taking classes to prepare for college. The report recommends a similar approach in community colleges, with high schools coaching students earlier about career and community college paths.
"There's a very high dropout rate in community colleges. Kids aren't exactly sure why they're there," Warren said.
The California community college chancellor's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The ideas mirror those proposed two years ago by Michael Kirst, a Stanford education professor who is a co-director of Policy Analysis for California Education. Kirst and the legislative analyst argued that community colleges should use the existing California high school standards tests to place students in college. This would better integrate high school and postsecondary programs and bolster the significance of the standardized tests, which currently have little consequence for individual students.
"High school students don't think the California Standards Test matters for anything. If they really understood it was a predictor of higher education success they might try harder on it," Kirst said Monday.
There is broad consensus that high schools need to improve. President Bush is seeking to include high schools in the strict sanctions of the No Child Left Behind education law, which currently applies only to elementary and middle schools.
California already applies those sanctions to high schools, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has made high school reform a priority.
Warren acknowledged that the legislative analyst's proposal likely would not receive serious consideration in the Legislature until next term. He said much could be accomplished through reallocation of existing programs, although the schools might need an additional $150 million for better counseling programs.
####
Commentary :
A positive contribution of this report is that it recognizes that most high school students will not graduate from a 4 year college, I believe the number is 16%, it is in the report. Thus, if most will not graduate from college, a high school experience should prepare the students for entrance into the skilled job market. This recognition is an improvement over the mantra of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
It is not surprising that the Legislative Analyst's Office proposes more accountability. And, in the view of the Bee writer, has the same recommendations as Michael Kirst of PACE.
I wonder why they focus on accountability? Perhaps it is because they are accountants.
They have asked few teachers. They don't have a clue on how to fix the problem because they have not talked to the teachers.
So, they turn to prior reports, also by policy people, and they conclude there is a need for more accounting.
If they were dentists I think they would conclude that students need more dentists.
Having spent 30 + years in the schools, here are some basics.
1. Develop decent school to work transition programs. This report by the Master Plan working group was ignored.
2. Have sufficient counselors in schools. California ranks 49 out of 50 states in Counselors per student. So, students do not know why they are in school.
3. Develop smaller, village high schools.
Each of the above is verifiable by data. The state should start collecting real data about real programs. That will, of course, require the researchers to leave their offices and interact with teachers.
The Murakami letter on this blog of two days ago offers some additional practical responses.
" The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income."
That is, adequately fund the schools. We have failing high schools in large part because we fail to adequately fund the high schools and to consult with the teachers in those schools on school improvement.
The legislature and the governor will repeat this process of inadequately funding the schools in June and July.
Where is the accountability for elected representatives?
Duane Campbell
campd227@pacbell.net
State legislative analyst says college, work should be focus.
By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Evidence continues to mount that California's high schools are not preparing graduates well for college or work, but few comprehensive solutions have materialized.
Monday the Legislative Analyst's Office unveiled a potential framework for improving high schools that taps into state and federal school programs already under way.
Elizabeth Hill, the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst, said she commissioned the report because she was frustrated that significant gains had not been made in high school student achievement or reducing dropout rates.
Paul Warren, the researcher who conducted the study, said he concluded that high schools would improve if they focused existing reform efforts on better preparing students for college and work. "We think high schools need to be more accountable for the transition of students to adult life," Warren said.
The report is available at www.lao.ca.gov
The California State University system has a program that gives high school students an early indication of whether they are performing well enough and taking classes to prepare for college. The report recommends a similar approach in community colleges, with high schools coaching students earlier about career and community college paths.
"There's a very high dropout rate in community colleges. Kids aren't exactly sure why they're there," Warren said.
The California community college chancellor's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The ideas mirror those proposed two years ago by Michael Kirst, a Stanford education professor who is a co-director of Policy Analysis for California Education. Kirst and the legislative analyst argued that community colleges should use the existing California high school standards tests to place students in college. This would better integrate high school and postsecondary programs and bolster the significance of the standardized tests, which currently have little consequence for individual students.
"High school students don't think the California Standards Test matters for anything. If they really understood it was a predictor of higher education success they might try harder on it," Kirst said Monday.
There is broad consensus that high schools need to improve. President Bush is seeking to include high schools in the strict sanctions of the No Child Left Behind education law, which currently applies only to elementary and middle schools.
California already applies those sanctions to high schools, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has made high school reform a priority.
Warren acknowledged that the legislative analyst's proposal likely would not receive serious consideration in the Legislature until next term. He said much could be accomplished through reallocation of existing programs, although the schools might need an additional $150 million for better counseling programs.
####
Commentary :
A positive contribution of this report is that it recognizes that most high school students will not graduate from a 4 year college, I believe the number is 16%, it is in the report. Thus, if most will not graduate from college, a high school experience should prepare the students for entrance into the skilled job market. This recognition is an improvement over the mantra of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
It is not surprising that the Legislative Analyst's Office proposes more accountability. And, in the view of the Bee writer, has the same recommendations as Michael Kirst of PACE.
I wonder why they focus on accountability? Perhaps it is because they are accountants.
They have asked few teachers. They don't have a clue on how to fix the problem because they have not talked to the teachers.
So, they turn to prior reports, also by policy people, and they conclude there is a need for more accounting.
If they were dentists I think they would conclude that students need more dentists.
Having spent 30 + years in the schools, here are some basics.
1. Develop decent school to work transition programs. This report by the Master Plan working group was ignored.
2. Have sufficient counselors in schools. California ranks 49 out of 50 states in Counselors per student. So, students do not know why they are in school.
3. Develop smaller, village high schools.
Each of the above is verifiable by data. The state should start collecting real data about real programs. That will, of course, require the researchers to leave their offices and interact with teachers.
The Murakami letter on this blog of two days ago offers some additional practical responses.
" The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income."
That is, adequately fund the schools. We have failing high schools in large part because we fail to adequately fund the high schools and to consult with the teachers in those schools on school improvement.
The legislature and the governor will repeat this process of inadequately funding the schools in June and July.
Where is the accountability for elected representatives?
Duane Campbell
campd227@pacbell.net
Monday, May 09, 2005
Corporate control of schools vrs. Democracy
While we fight Arnold,
some corporate leaders think that democracy is the problem.
So.Cal's 4-billion-dollar big business education 'reformer' Eli Broad and his Broad Foundation is moving hard right now on wiping out democratically elected school boards in LA/SF/Oakland and Fresno.
Broad and his big business allies apparently want mayor's of the big cities to choose school boards [following the big business reform models in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit,Philly, etc. ]
Broad has worked with former LA Mayor Richard Riordan [currently Schwartenegger's head of the Education] to raise $2 million per election for their board of education slates and to eliminate independent, pro-labor and
grassroots candidates on LA's board of education.
Broad Foundation est. 1999
This is the $400 million philanthropic vehicle for Los Angeles housing development and
investments billionaire, Eli Broad (& wife Edythe), to take on K-12 education issues and develop a future standardized workforce of “knowledge workers.” The Foundation supports reforming urban public schools through entrepreneurial CEO-trained leadership, mayoral takeovers. Like many reactionary think tanks (Pioneer Institute, American Diploma Project, et al.), Broad Fdtn sees the main value of education in its output of skilled workers, hence the focus on standardized testing.
The Fdtn’s three flagship initiatives are The Broad Prize for Urban Education, The Broad Center for Superintendents (nonprofit executive development center established by the Fdtn and former Michigan Governor, John Engler), and The Broad Institute for School boards.(1) Noelia Rodriguez, previously Laura Bush’s press secretary, has become Chief of Staff to Broad and will serve as Director of External Affairs for the Broad Foundation.(2)
Broad is the son of Lithuanian immigrants. co-founder of two S&P 500 corporations—the enormously successful KB Homes and AIG SunAmerica Inc. Broad has bankrolled the Eli Broad College of Business & Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University, the Walt Disney Concert Hall for the LA Philharmonic (recruited by Mayor Dick Riordan and completed 10/03), Broad Art Foundation (international art “lending library”) and Broad
Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA (in works).(3) Broad was appointed to Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial transition team.(4) Broad is currently fundraising for Democratic Presidential candidate Wes Clark (previously Broad chose Clark to run LA Unified).
BROAD & the OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001
• Broad Institute for School boards pays for OUSD school board field trip to the Museum of Tolerance to learn tolerance for each other.(6)
2003
• Dr. Randolph Ward was selected for Urban Superintendents Academy by the Broad Center for Superintendents,
• Eli Broad advises SPI Jack O’Connell and Mayor Jerry Brown on appointing an
administrator for OUSD.(5)
• SPI Jack O’Connell appoints Ward as the OUSD administrator
• Ward appoints Arnold “Woody” Carter as his Chief of Staff. Carter is one of Ward’s
Broad Academy cohort.(6)
• Monique Epps is hired for OUSD finance office; Broad Foundation covers 75% of her salary.(5)
Eli Broad on OUSD takeover:
“We’ll be observing from a distance, but we won’t be running the district in any way shape or form.” (5)
(1) www.broadfoundation.org; (2) “Career Track: the First Noelia” The Hotline, 10/7/03; (3) Eli Broad
http://www.bus.msu.edu/information/about/elibroad.html; (4) “California transition: Schwarzenneger’s team” SF
Chronicle 10/10/03; (5) Alex Katz “executives trained by turnaround nonprofit” Alameda Times-Star 8/11/2003; (6) “School
district names chief of staff” Contra Costa Times 8/8/2003& Broad Center for Superintendents Alumni profiles
source: The Data Center. 1904 Franklin St. Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612. tel: 510.835.4692 fax: 510.835.3017 www.datacenter.org
some corporate leaders think that democracy is the problem.
So.Cal's 4-billion-dollar big business education 'reformer' Eli Broad and his Broad Foundation is moving hard right now on wiping out democratically elected school boards in LA/SF/Oakland and Fresno.
Broad and his big business allies apparently want mayor's of the big cities to choose school boards [following the big business reform models in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit,Philly, etc. ]
Broad has worked with former LA Mayor Richard Riordan [currently Schwartenegger's head of the Education] to raise $2 million per election for their board of education slates and to eliminate independent, pro-labor and
grassroots candidates on LA's board of education.
Broad Foundation est. 1999
This is the $400 million philanthropic vehicle for Los Angeles housing development and
investments billionaire, Eli Broad (& wife Edythe), to take on K-12 education issues and develop a future standardized workforce of “knowledge workers.” The Foundation supports reforming urban public schools through entrepreneurial CEO-trained leadership, mayoral takeovers. Like many reactionary think tanks (Pioneer Institute, American Diploma Project, et al.), Broad Fdtn sees the main value of education in its output of skilled workers, hence the focus on standardized testing.
The Fdtn’s three flagship initiatives are The Broad Prize for Urban Education, The Broad Center for Superintendents (nonprofit executive development center established by the Fdtn and former Michigan Governor, John Engler), and The Broad Institute for School boards.(1) Noelia Rodriguez, previously Laura Bush’s press secretary, has become Chief of Staff to Broad and will serve as Director of External Affairs for the Broad Foundation.(2)
Broad is the son of Lithuanian immigrants. co-founder of two S&P 500 corporations—the enormously successful KB Homes and AIG SunAmerica Inc. Broad has bankrolled the Eli Broad College of Business & Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University, the Walt Disney Concert Hall for the LA Philharmonic (recruited by Mayor Dick Riordan and completed 10/03), Broad Art Foundation (international art “lending library”) and Broad
Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA (in works).(3) Broad was appointed to Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial transition team.(4) Broad is currently fundraising for Democratic Presidential candidate Wes Clark (previously Broad chose Clark to run LA Unified).
BROAD & the OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001
• Broad Institute for School boards pays for OUSD school board field trip to the Museum of Tolerance to learn tolerance for each other.(6)
2003
• Dr. Randolph Ward was selected for Urban Superintendents Academy by the Broad Center for Superintendents,
• Eli Broad advises SPI Jack O’Connell and Mayor Jerry Brown on appointing an
administrator for OUSD.(5)
• SPI Jack O’Connell appoints Ward as the OUSD administrator
• Ward appoints Arnold “Woody” Carter as his Chief of Staff. Carter is one of Ward’s
Broad Academy cohort.(6)
• Monique Epps is hired for OUSD finance office; Broad Foundation covers 75% of her salary.(5)
Eli Broad on OUSD takeover:
“We’ll be observing from a distance, but we won’t be running the district in any way shape or form.” (5)
(1) www.broadfoundation.org; (2) “Career Track: the First Noelia” The Hotline, 10/7/03; (3) Eli Broad
http://www.bus.msu.edu/information/about/elibroad.html; (4) “California transition: Schwarzenneger’s team” SF
Chronicle 10/10/03; (5) Alex Katz “executives trained by turnaround nonprofit” Alameda Times-Star 8/11/2003; (6) “School
district names chief of staff” Contra Costa Times 8/8/2003& Broad Center for Superintendents Alumni profiles
source: The Data Center. 1904 Franklin St. Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612. tel: 510.835.4692 fax: 510.835.3017 www.datacenter.org
The Governor's Failed Education Policy
Failed education policy.
Daniel Weintraub’s commentaries [in the Sacramento Bee] on April 28 and May 1 illustrate a fundamental misconception abouot education that is shared by the governor.
The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income.
Since 1998 state revenues have grown by 31 percent, while education spending has increased by only 24 percent, and non-education spending by 44 percent.
For the governor and Weintraub to blame education and Proposition 98 for the budget deficit is clearly off the mark.
The teachers’ organizations showed their social conscience by negotiating a temporary $2 billion budget decrease to help other vital social programs. Instead of renegotiating with them this year, the governor shut his doors and proposes not to pay back the money while making deeper cuts in education, permanently altering Proposition 98, privatizing teacher retirement, instituting merit pay and delaying tenure review. And the governor and Weintraub wonder why the unions and the PTA are so upset.
Schwarzenegger hasn’t “failed to communicate” his educational policy. He has communicated a failed education policy.
Dean Murakami,
Sacramento President.
Los Rios College Federation of Teachers.
Daniel Weintraub’s commentaries [in the Sacramento Bee] on April 28 and May 1 illustrate a fundamental misconception abouot education that is shared by the governor.
The fiscal reality is that California ranks 44 in per-pupil spending, 46th in pupil teacher ratio, 32 in teacher salaries and 29th. in education spending as a percentage of personal income.
Since 1998 state revenues have grown by 31 percent, while education spending has increased by only 24 percent, and non-education spending by 44 percent.
For the governor and Weintraub to blame education and Proposition 98 for the budget deficit is clearly off the mark.
The teachers’ organizations showed their social conscience by negotiating a temporary $2 billion budget decrease to help other vital social programs. Instead of renegotiating with them this year, the governor shut his doors and proposes not to pay back the money while making deeper cuts in education, permanently altering Proposition 98, privatizing teacher retirement, instituting merit pay and delaying tenure review. And the governor and Weintraub wonder why the unions and the PTA are so upset.
Schwarzenegger hasn’t “failed to communicate” his educational policy. He has communicated a failed education policy.
Dean Murakami,
Sacramento President.
Los Rios College Federation of Teachers.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Another flawed initiative
Why have we heard little about the Governor’s “Merit Pay” initiative?
According to Sacramento Bee on line web log of today by columnist Dan Weintraub, the Governor’s advisors may have stumbled again.
“The labor coalition opposing his measures and the California Teachers Assn. are circulating a legal analysis that says Schwarzenegger’s measure would inadvertently gut current provisions that prohibit school districts from hiring convicted felons, sex offenders, drug users or teachers who have yet to pass a minimum competency exam.’ www.sacbee.com/ (5/5/05)
The Merit Pay proposal is a constitutional amendment. As such it supercedes existing laws.
CTA says the initiative is unecessary:
“Existing law already gives every local school district an evaluation process to use to fire teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, criminal acts or other inappropriate conduct. Therefore, this initiative is unnecessary.” www.cta.org
So, in his haste to respond to the far right, the governor has again proposed an initiative that would make things worse.
Why does he do these things?
Well, CTA seems to have it right when they argue:
“This initiative is simply a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that the governor broke his promise to students and schools about fully funding education and that he wants to gut Proposition 98, the law approved by California voters to guarantee minimum funding to our schools. His budget proposals cut school funding by $25,000 per classroom.”
WE in California then will have an election, costing some $60 million dollars, in order to divert attention from the real school crises in this state; under funding and lack of leadership.
This blog was initiated to keep track of such nonsense and to help organize broad support for public schools. Public support is most needed under this current, irresponsible administration. I encourage readers to write letters to the editors about this and to join in with one of the campaigns. Comments are welcome.
See www.cta.org
http://www.allianceforabetterca.org/
Prepare for the demonstrations in Sacramento and Los Angeles on May 25, 2005.
According to Sacramento Bee on line web log of today by columnist Dan Weintraub, the Governor’s advisors may have stumbled again.
“The labor coalition opposing his measures and the California Teachers Assn. are circulating a legal analysis that says Schwarzenegger’s measure would inadvertently gut current provisions that prohibit school districts from hiring convicted felons, sex offenders, drug users or teachers who have yet to pass a minimum competency exam.’ www.sacbee.com/ (5/5/05)
The Merit Pay proposal is a constitutional amendment. As such it supercedes existing laws.
CTA says the initiative is unecessary:
“Existing law already gives every local school district an evaluation process to use to fire teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, criminal acts or other inappropriate conduct. Therefore, this initiative is unnecessary.” www.cta.org
So, in his haste to respond to the far right, the governor has again proposed an initiative that would make things worse.
Why does he do these things?
Well, CTA seems to have it right when they argue:
“This initiative is simply a smokescreen to divert attention from the fact that the governor broke his promise to students and schools about fully funding education and that he wants to gut Proposition 98, the law approved by California voters to guarantee minimum funding to our schools. His budget proposals cut school funding by $25,000 per classroom.”
WE in California then will have an election, costing some $60 million dollars, in order to divert attention from the real school crises in this state; under funding and lack of leadership.
This blog was initiated to keep track of such nonsense and to help organize broad support for public schools. Public support is most needed under this current, irresponsible administration. I encourage readers to write letters to the editors about this and to join in with one of the campaigns. Comments are welcome.
See www.cta.org
http://www.allianceforabetterca.org/
Prepare for the demonstrations in Sacramento and Los Angeles on May 25, 2005.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Arnold appoints Bersin to Secretary of Education
All I can say is "Oh, my God!"
As most of you know, I lived in San Diego for 13 years, during which time I worked closely with San Diego City Schools. Bersin and all that he ushered in is one reason I left San Diego and tell people not to go there until he is gone.
At one point at the end of his first reign of terror, the teachers voted a 96% vote of no confidence in him. Yet, the Business Roundtable that was responsible for getting him into the position, managed to get the Board to give him another term.
Bersin is not just a lawyer, he is an immigration lawyer with all the wrong values. He has never been an educator, nor do I think he is interested in being one. Most people who interact with him feel that he is using his superintency as merely a stepping stone in his career. He does not go out of his way to learning about teaching and learning, and his style is autocratic and abrupt, if not harsh.
During his first two weeks in the superintendency, he fired over 100 principals. Hundreds of the best teachers in SDUSD left teaching, and the wonderful union president, Mark Knapp, fought him for several years, and then resided and went back to the classroom. During the first years of his tenure, he arranged for Tony Alvarado to commute from New York to San Diego. He did not want to move, so they alloted him a $100,000 per year travel allowance. Tony has his own reputation and history. Although he is noted for major improvements in NYC District 2, it turns out that district two is bimodel with very high income residents as well as poor residents. The school improvements were only in the high-income schools, but his reputation is built on the myth of reforming district 2. Tony left his wife, and eventually settled in San Diego, but no longer works with the district.
At one point while I was teaching at SDSU, we invited Tony to come and discuss his NYC "successes" and the blueprint for SDCS. He sent someone else. At that meeting, we learned that Bersin had given back a $16 million NSF grant because SDCS would not be teaching science until the reading scores were up. Literally all science classes were cancelled for two years at least (I had left by then.)
Bersin is a political animal at his best. He has managed to get some Gates funding. He has some alliances with Linda Darling-Hammond's graduate students who report that all these changes took place without administrators resigning or leaving (AERA 2003). The man is scarey not only for what he stands for, but for the number of outstanding educators whose careers he has hurt, and all the arbitrary decisions he has made which hurt students.
This news is just absolutely awful. It was bad enough that he wangled onto CTC. ENOUGH! Let's launch a campaign to make him Senator of Arizona or something and get him want he wants so he stops ruining education.
Ann L. Wood
As most of you know, I lived in San Diego for 13 years, during which time I worked closely with San Diego City Schools. Bersin and all that he ushered in is one reason I left San Diego and tell people not to go there until he is gone.
At one point at the end of his first reign of terror, the teachers voted a 96% vote of no confidence in him. Yet, the Business Roundtable that was responsible for getting him into the position, managed to get the Board to give him another term.
Bersin is not just a lawyer, he is an immigration lawyer with all the wrong values. He has never been an educator, nor do I think he is interested in being one. Most people who interact with him feel that he is using his superintency as merely a stepping stone in his career. He does not go out of his way to learning about teaching and learning, and his style is autocratic and abrupt, if not harsh.
During his first two weeks in the superintendency, he fired over 100 principals. Hundreds of the best teachers in SDUSD left teaching, and the wonderful union president, Mark Knapp, fought him for several years, and then resided and went back to the classroom. During the first years of his tenure, he arranged for Tony Alvarado to commute from New York to San Diego. He did not want to move, so they alloted him a $100,000 per year travel allowance. Tony has his own reputation and history. Although he is noted for major improvements in NYC District 2, it turns out that district two is bimodel with very high income residents as well as poor residents. The school improvements were only in the high-income schools, but his reputation is built on the myth of reforming district 2. Tony left his wife, and eventually settled in San Diego, but no longer works with the district.
At one point while I was teaching at SDSU, we invited Tony to come and discuss his NYC "successes" and the blueprint for SDCS. He sent someone else. At that meeting, we learned that Bersin had given back a $16 million NSF grant because SDCS would not be teaching science until the reading scores were up. Literally all science classes were cancelled for two years at least (I had left by then.)
Bersin is a political animal at his best. He has managed to get some Gates funding. He has some alliances with Linda Darling-Hammond's graduate students who report that all these changes took place without administrators resigning or leaving (AERA 2003). The man is scarey not only for what he stands for, but for the number of outstanding educators whose careers he has hurt, and all the arbitrary decisions he has made which hurt students.
This news is just absolutely awful. It was bad enough that he wangled onto CTC. ENOUGH! Let's launch a campaign to make him Senator of Arizona or something and get him want he wants so he stops ruining education.
Ann L. Wood
Monday, May 02, 2005
Book club
Important political reading to understand the current battle over school funding in California.
David Brock, The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy. (2004)
David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everybody Else. 2003.
Thomas Frank. What’s the Matter with Kansas? : How conservatives won the heart of America. 2004.
Molly Ivans and Lou Dubous, Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America, 2003.
Duane Campbell, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. 2004.
Kathryn Emery, Why Corporate America is Bashing our Public Schools.
Gerald W. Bracey, On the Death of Childhood and the Destruction of Public Schools. 2003
David Brock, The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy. (2004)
David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich- and Cheat Everybody Else. 2003.
Thomas Frank. What’s the Matter with Kansas? : How conservatives won the heart of America. 2004.
Molly Ivans and Lou Dubous, Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America, 2003.
Duane Campbell, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. 2004.
Kathryn Emery, Why Corporate America is Bashing our Public Schools.
Gerald W. Bracey, On the Death of Childhood and the Destruction of Public Schools. 2003
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Protect the Students
www.protectstudents.org
SACRAMENTO – The California Education Coalition today launched their new website to educate Californians about the impact of Governor Schwarzenegger's broken promises on education.
The website, www.protectstudents.org, highlights the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger has broken his word to California's students and schools on two fronts, by withholding $2 billion in this year's budget and by proposing changes to the voter approved Proposition 98 – changes which would eliminate the minimum funding protections for schools via his flawed "Living Within Our Means" initiative proposal.
"Protectstudents.org is designed to be another tool in the fight against the continued attack on education funding," explained Education Coalition spokesman Roger Salazar. "It will help California parents, teachers, and students, as well as other concerned citizens, learn about the devastating impact of the Governor's broken promises on education and what we are doing to convince the Governor that our students and schools deserve better."
Governor Schwarzenegger's budget proposal underfunds Prop. 98; it reneges on his promise to our schools and students by withholding $2 billion; and will only lead to more school closures, larger class sizes, additional layoffs of teachers and school support personnel, and the elimination of key student programs.
SACRAMENTO – The California Education Coalition today launched their new website to educate Californians about the impact of Governor Schwarzenegger's broken promises on education.
The website, www.protectstudents.org, highlights the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger has broken his word to California's students and schools on two fronts, by withholding $2 billion in this year's budget and by proposing changes to the voter approved Proposition 98 – changes which would eliminate the minimum funding protections for schools via his flawed "Living Within Our Means" initiative proposal.
"Protectstudents.org is designed to be another tool in the fight against the continued attack on education funding," explained Education Coalition spokesman Roger Salazar. "It will help California parents, teachers, and students, as well as other concerned citizens, learn about the devastating impact of the Governor's broken promises on education and what we are doing to convince the Governor that our students and schools deserve better."
Governor Schwarzenegger's budget proposal underfunds Prop. 98; it reneges on his promise to our schools and students by withholding $2 billion; and will only lead to more school closures, larger class sizes, additional layoffs of teachers and school support personnel, and the elimination of key student programs.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
The public and public education
PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Education, April 2005
Mark Baldassare
April 2005, 40 pp.
Some findings of the current survey
• The vast majority of Californians (82%) believe that the quality of education in the state’s K-12 public schools is at least somewhat of a problem.
• 59% of public school parents say that their local public schools do not receive enough state funding.
• Most Californians are more likely to say that private schools (60%) rather than public schools (24%) provide the best education.
• 78% of Californians say parents who fail to pay attention to how their children are doing is a big problem in K-12 public education.
• Parental hopes for their children’s future education are stunning. Nine in 10 aspire to college graduation for their children, and 41 percent hope that their children will earn a postgraduate degree.
This special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey—a survey on education—is the first in a three-year PPIC survey series made possible with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this special series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers; encourage discussion; and raise public awareness about a variety of education, environment, and population issues facing the state.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=597
Mark Baldassare
April 2005, 40 pp.
Some findings of the current survey
• The vast majority of Californians (82%) believe that the quality of education in the state’s K-12 public schools is at least somewhat of a problem.
• 59% of public school parents say that their local public schools do not receive enough state funding.
• Most Californians are more likely to say that private schools (60%) rather than public schools (24%) provide the best education.
• 78% of Californians say parents who fail to pay attention to how their children are doing is a big problem in K-12 public education.
• Parental hopes for their children’s future education are stunning. Nine in 10 aspire to college graduation for their children, and 41 percent hope that their children will earn a postgraduate degree.
This special edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey—a survey on education—is the first in a three-year PPIC survey series made possible with funding from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The intent of this special series is to inform state, local, and federal policymakers; encourage discussion; and raise public awareness about a variety of education, environment, and population issues facing the state.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=597
Arnold drops in the polls
Schwarzenegger's rating drops sharply
Since January, his popularity has plunged 20 points.
By Gary Delsohn -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, April 28, 2005 www.sacbee.com
Just as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to sell a reduced "reform" agenda to voters, a newly released statewide poll shows the Republican governor's popularity has plummeted.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that only 40 percent of adults now approve of the way Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor, a whopping 20 percentage point drop since January.
Among "likely voters," his approval rating was a higher 45 percent, but that fell from 63 percent at the start of the year.
Schwarzenegger aides dismissed the results as little more than a temporary slide after months of attacks from public employee labor unions and other critics of his policies.
But while Republican voters are still solidly behind Schwarzenegger, pollster Mark Baldassare said the numbers make it clear Democrats and independent voters don't like him as much as they once did.
"Since January, the governor has been less able to communicate effectively with the people, particularly outside of his party, that he's representing their interests," Baldassare said. "People on the other side have been more effective in communicating that he's not.
"Whether it's a temporary drop or a trend, it's too early to say. I think the next few months are going to be crucial."
The poll was released at a pivotal point for the governor, who must decide soon whether to submit signatures to put initiatives that many Democrats oppose on a statewide ballot.
Since January, his popularity has plunged 20 points.
By Gary Delsohn -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, April 28, 2005 www.sacbee.com
Just as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to sell a reduced "reform" agenda to voters, a newly released statewide poll shows the Republican governor's popularity has plummeted.
The poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that only 40 percent of adults now approve of the way Schwarzenegger is handling his job as governor, a whopping 20 percentage point drop since January.
Among "likely voters," his approval rating was a higher 45 percent, but that fell from 63 percent at the start of the year.
Schwarzenegger aides dismissed the results as little more than a temporary slide after months of attacks from public employee labor unions and other critics of his policies.
But while Republican voters are still solidly behind Schwarzenegger, pollster Mark Baldassare said the numbers make it clear Democrats and independent voters don't like him as much as they once did.
"Since January, the governor has been less able to communicate effectively with the people, particularly outside of his party, that he's representing their interests," Baldassare said. "People on the other side have been more effective in communicating that he's not.
"Whether it's a temporary drop or a trend, it's too early to say. I think the next few months are going to be crucial."
The poll was released at a pivotal point for the governor, who must decide soon whether to submit signatures to put initiatives that many Democrats oppose on a statewide ballot.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Funding War not Schools
Fiddling While Crucial Programs Starve
Similarly, with roughly 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, we could make up the $27-billion federal funding shortfall in paying for Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which tells public schools that they will be all but scrapped if they don't improve — yet it doesn't provide the means to do so. This number comes from a lawsuit filed by school districts in Texas, Michigan and Vermont and the National Education Assn., the nation's largest teachers organization.
Sadly, these domestic failures provide a far greater long-term threat to our nation's security than the hyped-up claims surrounding our foreign adventures. Abroad, we must "support our troops" at all costs — even if the cost is their lives — while at home, the nation's leaders are all about tough love.
Has the U.S. become like ancient Rome, in love with costly conquest?
Robert Scheer
April 26, 2005
Notice the price of gasoline lately? Isn't it great that we have secured Iraq's oil? And as Congress signs off on yet another huge supplementary grant to supposedly protect U.S. interests in the Mideast, our president pathetically begs his Saudi buddies for a price break. As the fall of Rome showed, imperialism never pays.
Of course, back in 2003, conquering Iraq looked like a great package deal, what with all that oil — second only to Saudi Arabia — and the manufactured photo ops of cheering Iraqis. So what if those pesky weapons of mass destruction weren't really there? So what if no solid links to Al Qaeda are ever found? This was a win-win, as the corporate guys like to say: Not only would we be able to conduct this operation for next to nothing, we would be welcomed with flowers.
"There is a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money," then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress days before the war, in testimony on the potential costs of invading Iraq. "We are talking about a country that can finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." In the real world, however, this turned out to be utter nonsense.
With approval of the latest spending bill, taxpayers will have been forced to cough up more than $300 billion for the war to date — above and beyond the annual $400-billion Pentagon budget — and tens of billions for a bungled reconstruction. Even if the United States can lower its troop commitment to 40,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, as some Pentagon strategists optimistically anticipate, the war could still end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $646 billion by 2015, according to Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. If insurgency, corruption and incompetence continue to plague the U.S. occupation as they have steadily for the last two years, however, the number could surge to a trillion dollars or more.
We need to put such gargantuan numbers in some perspective. The emergency funding that the Senate passed 99 to 0 last week gives the military roughly $80 billion and pays for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan only through September. That is twice what President Bush insists he needs to cut from the federal support for Medicaid over the next decade.
Already the red state of Missouri is set to end its Medicaid program entirely within the next three years because of a lack of funds. As the Los Angeles Times reported, that will save the state $5 billion, but at the cost of ending healthcare for the more than 1 million Missourians enrolled in the program. That sum is less than half of what Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, alone has been paid for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without much to show for it in terms of improving the Iraqis' quality of life.
Similarly, with roughly 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, we could make up the $27-billion federal funding shortfall in paying for Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which tells public schools that they will be all but scrapped if they don't improve — yet it doesn't provide the means to do so. This number comes from a lawsuit filed by school districts in Texas, Michigan and Vermont and the National Education Assn., the nation's largest teachers organization.
Sadly, these domestic failures provide a far greater long-term threat to our nation's security than the hyped-up claims surrounding our foreign adventures. Abroad, we must "support our troops" at all costs — even if the cost is their lives — while at home, the nation's leaders are all about tough love.
"Government is not here to do everything for everybody," admonished Missouri state Rep. Jodi Stefanick, a Republican representing suburban St. Louis. "We have to draw the line somewhere." Just not in Iraq, apparently.
Welcome to late-era Rome, where mindless militaristic expansion is considered patriotic and where demagogues who recklessly waste taxes and young lives in empire-building are deemed valorous. Wolfowitz, for example, has been rewarded for his ignorance and arrogance with the top job at the World Bank.
It is not too late, however, for us to wake up and recall that, in the end, once militarism trumped republicanism, the glory that was Rome proved to be a hollow boast.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Similarly, with roughly 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, we could make up the $27-billion federal funding shortfall in paying for Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which tells public schools that they will be all but scrapped if they don't improve — yet it doesn't provide the means to do so. This number comes from a lawsuit filed by school districts in Texas, Michigan and Vermont and the National Education Assn., the nation's largest teachers organization.
Sadly, these domestic failures provide a far greater long-term threat to our nation's security than the hyped-up claims surrounding our foreign adventures. Abroad, we must "support our troops" at all costs — even if the cost is their lives — while at home, the nation's leaders are all about tough love.
Has the U.S. become like ancient Rome, in love with costly conquest?
Robert Scheer
April 26, 2005
Notice the price of gasoline lately? Isn't it great that we have secured Iraq's oil? And as Congress signs off on yet another huge supplementary grant to supposedly protect U.S. interests in the Mideast, our president pathetically begs his Saudi buddies for a price break. As the fall of Rome showed, imperialism never pays.
Of course, back in 2003, conquering Iraq looked like a great package deal, what with all that oil — second only to Saudi Arabia — and the manufactured photo ops of cheering Iraqis. So what if those pesky weapons of mass destruction weren't really there? So what if no solid links to Al Qaeda are ever found? This was a win-win, as the corporate guys like to say: Not only would we be able to conduct this operation for next to nothing, we would be welcomed with flowers.
"There is a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money," then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress days before the war, in testimony on the potential costs of invading Iraq. "We are talking about a country that can finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." In the real world, however, this turned out to be utter nonsense.
With approval of the latest spending bill, taxpayers will have been forced to cough up more than $300 billion for the war to date — above and beyond the annual $400-billion Pentagon budget — and tens of billions for a bungled reconstruction. Even if the United States can lower its troop commitment to 40,000 troops in Iraq by 2010, as some Pentagon strategists optimistically anticipate, the war could still end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $646 billion by 2015, according to Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. If insurgency, corruption and incompetence continue to plague the U.S. occupation as they have steadily for the last two years, however, the number could surge to a trillion dollars or more.
We need to put such gargantuan numbers in some perspective. The emergency funding that the Senate passed 99 to 0 last week gives the military roughly $80 billion and pays for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan only through September. That is twice what President Bush insists he needs to cut from the federal support for Medicaid over the next decade.
Already the red state of Missouri is set to end its Medicaid program entirely within the next three years because of a lack of funds. As the Los Angeles Times reported, that will save the state $5 billion, but at the cost of ending healthcare for the more than 1 million Missourians enrolled in the program. That sum is less than half of what Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, alone has been paid for reconstruction efforts in Iraq, without much to show for it in terms of improving the Iraqis' quality of life.
Similarly, with roughly 10% of what we've spent in Iraq, we could make up the $27-billion federal funding shortfall in paying for Bush's controversial No Child Left Behind Act, which tells public schools that they will be all but scrapped if they don't improve — yet it doesn't provide the means to do so. This number comes from a lawsuit filed by school districts in Texas, Michigan and Vermont and the National Education Assn., the nation's largest teachers organization.
Sadly, these domestic failures provide a far greater long-term threat to our nation's security than the hyped-up claims surrounding our foreign adventures. Abroad, we must "support our troops" at all costs — even if the cost is their lives — while at home, the nation's leaders are all about tough love.
"Government is not here to do everything for everybody," admonished Missouri state Rep. Jodi Stefanick, a Republican representing suburban St. Louis. "We have to draw the line somewhere." Just not in Iraq, apparently.
Welcome to late-era Rome, where mindless militaristic expansion is considered patriotic and where demagogues who recklessly waste taxes and young lives in empire-building are deemed valorous. Wolfowitz, for example, has been rewarded for his ignorance and arrogance with the top job at the World Bank.
It is not too late, however, for us to wake up and recall that, in the end, once militarism trumped republicanism, the glory that was Rome proved to be a hollow boast.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Do not sign Arnold's petitions
Local Education Coalition Members Urge Californians Not to Sign Governor's Budget Initiative Petitions
Measure Would Weaken Prop. 98 Protections
April 19, 2005
CHICO – Local members of the California Education Coalition today discussed the impact of Governor Schwarzenegger's broken promises to education and urged Californians not to sign the Governor's flawed budget measure petitions during a press conference at Jay Partridge Elementary School in Chico.
Local parents, teachers, school employees and administrators highlighted the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger has broken his word to California's students and schools on two fronts, by withholding $2 billion in this year's budget and by proposing changes to the voter approved Proposition 98 via his so-called "Live Within Our Means" (LWOM) budget initiative that would eliminate the minimum funding protections for schools.
"In the past four years, California's schools have lost more than 9.8 billion in state funding cuts," said Tamara Conry, a math teacher at Paradise Intermediate School. "As a parent and a classroom teacher I see how these cuts impact our local schools every day. Now the Governor wants us to sign petitions for an initiative that would destroy Prop.98, the law voters approved to make sure our schools receive minimum funding. Like the rest of the Governor's so-called reforms, this initiative will not help our schools one bit. We strongly urge Californians NOT to sign the Governor's petition."
Governor Schwarzenegger's budget proposal underfunds Proposition 98 and will only lead to more school closures, larger class sizes, additional layoffs of teachers and school support personnel, and the elimination of key student programs.
The Governor's LWOM Act exacerbates the problem by allowing him to make across-the-board cuts, including to education, during fiscal emergencies and eliminating the Prop. 98 provisions that require the state to repay the amounts owed to our schools and our students. Current provisions allow the legislature to make temporary cuts in funding without threatening the long-term funding level of education.
"Last year at this time, the one million members of the California State PTA worked with this Governor on a solution for the state's budget problem – a problem that was not created by our kids," said Ann Hayes, 13th District PTA. "This Governor promised that $2 billion in funding for our schools would be restored and that our kids would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues. He has broken his promise and once again our kids and our schools will suffer."
During his campaign for Governor, Schwarzenegger promised to protect Proposition 98, a law passed by voters that guarantees minimum funding for our schools, saying "Not over my dead body." Now, the Governor is proposing changes via the LWOM Act that would eliminate the funding protections the voters put into place with the initiative.
The California Education Coalition is comprised of organizations representing more than 1.5 million parents, teachers, school board members, school employees, and administrators, including:
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) representing nearly 15,500 school administrators
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) representing more than 4,000 school finance and administrative managers
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) representing all 58 county superintendents throughout California
California Federation of Teachers (CFT-AFL-CIO) representing nearly 90,000 education employees
California School Boards Association (CSBA) representing more than 1,000 K-12 school districts and county offices of education throughout California
California School Employees Association (CSEA) representing more than 230,000 classified school employees
California State PTA representing more than one million parents, teachers, and students in California
California Teachers Association (CTA) representing over 330,000 educators
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representing more than 50,000 school employees in California
###
Measure Would Weaken Prop. 98 Protections
April 19, 2005
CHICO – Local members of the California Education Coalition today discussed the impact of Governor Schwarzenegger's broken promises to education and urged Californians not to sign the Governor's flawed budget measure petitions during a press conference at Jay Partridge Elementary School in Chico.
Local parents, teachers, school employees and administrators highlighted the fact that Governor Schwarzenegger has broken his word to California's students and schools on two fronts, by withholding $2 billion in this year's budget and by proposing changes to the voter approved Proposition 98 via his so-called "Live Within Our Means" (LWOM) budget initiative that would eliminate the minimum funding protections for schools.
"In the past four years, California's schools have lost more than 9.8 billion in state funding cuts," said Tamara Conry, a math teacher at Paradise Intermediate School. "As a parent and a classroom teacher I see how these cuts impact our local schools every day. Now the Governor wants us to sign petitions for an initiative that would destroy Prop.98, the law voters approved to make sure our schools receive minimum funding. Like the rest of the Governor's so-called reforms, this initiative will not help our schools one bit. We strongly urge Californians NOT to sign the Governor's petition."
Governor Schwarzenegger's budget proposal underfunds Proposition 98 and will only lead to more school closures, larger class sizes, additional layoffs of teachers and school support personnel, and the elimination of key student programs.
The Governor's LWOM Act exacerbates the problem by allowing him to make across-the-board cuts, including to education, during fiscal emergencies and eliminating the Prop. 98 provisions that require the state to repay the amounts owed to our schools and our students. Current provisions allow the legislature to make temporary cuts in funding without threatening the long-term funding level of education.
"Last year at this time, the one million members of the California State PTA worked with this Governor on a solution for the state's budget problem – a problem that was not created by our kids," said Ann Hayes, 13th District PTA. "This Governor promised that $2 billion in funding for our schools would be restored and that our kids would receive their fair share of any additional state revenues. He has broken his promise and once again our kids and our schools will suffer."
During his campaign for Governor, Schwarzenegger promised to protect Proposition 98, a law passed by voters that guarantees minimum funding for our schools, saying "Not over my dead body." Now, the Governor is proposing changes via the LWOM Act that would eliminate the funding protections the voters put into place with the initiative.
The California Education Coalition is comprised of organizations representing more than 1.5 million parents, teachers, school board members, school employees, and administrators, including:
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) representing nearly 15,500 school administrators
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO) representing more than 4,000 school finance and administrative managers
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) representing all 58 county superintendents throughout California
California Federation of Teachers (CFT-AFL-CIO) representing nearly 90,000 education employees
California School Boards Association (CSBA) representing more than 1,000 K-12 school districts and county offices of education throughout California
California School Employees Association (CSEA) representing more than 230,000 classified school employees
California State PTA representing more than one million parents, teachers, and students in California
California Teachers Association (CTA) representing over 330,000 educators
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representing more than 50,000 school employees in California
###
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Gov. owes an apology--and $2Billion : L.A. Times
The Governor Owes Schools an Apology -- and $2 Billion
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
Los Angeles Times
April 14, 2005
It's like they're shouting at each other in different languages - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the angry school folks.
They're debating the proverbial apples and oranges. Both are right, rhetorically.
Schwarzenegger is wrong politically - and many say morally.
Schwarzenegger insists everywhere he goes - on talk radio and at initiative campaign rallies - that his proposed budget includes a $2.9-billion funding increase for schools: kindergarten through community college.
When the "special interests" claim that school funds are being cut, he says, "They are lying."
"The [teacher] unions spread propaganda that I'm taking money away from education, which is totally incorrect, because I'm adding…. I am a pro-education governor."
The governor is correct. He is adding money. But what he leaves out - and the ed lobby is hollering about in TV ads and at protest rallies - is that he promised schools roughly $2 billion more and reneged.
He pledged that extra money in a face-to-face, handshake deal shortly after taking office. It was the schools' condition for passively surrendering $2 billion they were rightly owed under Proposition 98. The governor needed the $2 billion from schools to avoid raising taxes.
So there's a TV ad now running in California's largest urban areas that shows parents proclaiming: "I'm upset about Gov. Schwarzenegger breaking his promises on education. He said he'd never shortchange Prop. 98…. That would only happen, quote, 'over my dead body.' But then he borrowed $2 billion from the education budget and now refuses to pay it back."
The broken promise is at the heart of a bitter battle between Schwarzenegger and an education coalition led by the powerful, 335,000-member California Teachers Assn.
Breaking his word to the CTA and other school groups probably is the single most damaging error Schwarzenegger has committed as governor. It soiled his image as a straight shooter.
I don't know about Hollywood and moviemaking, but in Sacramento and politics, breaking your word is probably the worst sin. The term "double-cross" comes to mind.
"I'm out of the deal-making business with this governor," says Barbara Kerr, the CTA president.
"He owes us a bit of money and seems to be trying to make the lenders into the bad guys."
The governor's rationale for withholding money from schools was that it would spare other state programs from deep cuts, particularly healthcare for the poor and disabled.
H.D. Palmer, the governor's budget spokesman, offers this example: 190,000 children would have been forced off the Healthy Families medical care program for the working poor.
"The governor said that wasn't a trade-off he was willing to do," Palmer recalls. "So he stuck with what he believed was a reasonable balance."
As it was, Schwarzenegger still had to cut deeply into many health and welfare programs.
Of course, he also could have raised taxes. He'd have broken a different promise, but not one as signed and sealed as the school deal.
Here's what happened:
Schwarzenegger was desperate for money, and school officials wanted to cozy up to the charismatic, larger-than-life new governor. Also, they feared a worse result if there was no cooperation. So they agreed not to fight for the $2 billion on the condition that it be returned - that is, returned to their guaranteed annual funding base. It hasn't been.
The governor assured schools that if tax revenues increased this year, he'd give them their normal cut under Prop. 98. Revenues did, but he didn't.
The final paragraph of the statement Schwarzenegger released at the deal's announcement read: "This Prop. 98 funding will be restored as required by law and our agreement. Today, I am making that promise to our teachers and students."
Schwarzenegger didn't just renege on the deal. He's pushing a budget "reform" to amend Prop. 98 so that repayment of back money owed schools - roughly $4 billion - is stretched out over 15 years and not added to the guaranteed base.
There is logic in tinkering with Prop. 98. Under the current system, if the state gives schools a fat bonus during boom times, it's on the hook for that payment year after year, even when the economy sours. Of the $50 billion in state and local tax revenues Schwarzenegger is proposing for schools, nearly $10 billion is because of funding bonuses - called "over-appropriations" - between 1999 and 2002.
Schwarzenegger's budget control plan would allow the state to give schools a one-time bonus without it becoming part of the guaranteed base.
Senate leader Don Perata (D-Alameda) has said he's willing to tinker with Prop. 98. But not Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles).
"When we're in the top five states in per-pupil funding," Nuñez says, "then perhaps we can talk about reforming Prop. 98." California currently is closer to the bottom five.
Anyway, Nuñez says, "the governor has to decide how long is a deal good for. He needs to clear the air and reestablish a certain level of trust."
Veteran Republican strategist Ken Khachigian thinks Schwarzenegger should take the statesman's route and address a joint session of the Legislature.
"Lay it out," Khachigian advises. "Say, 'This is not a problem I invented. It's a mutual problem…. Let's focus on the budget and avoid a ballot fight.'
"He's got a lot of maneuvering room. He's got great communication skills. He can be visionary, philosophical and assertive. He doesn't have to look like a wimp."
In the speech, Schwarzenegger could apologize for repeatedly referring to former negotiating partners as greedy special interests. And he could give the schools back their promised money.
George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.
News | Inside CTA | Membership | Member Benefits | Politics and Legislation | California Educator | Family Involvement | Higher Education | Student CTA | Who We Are | Contact CTA | Site Map
George Skelton
Capitol Journal
Los Angeles Times
April 14, 2005
It's like they're shouting at each other in different languages - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the angry school folks.
They're debating the proverbial apples and oranges. Both are right, rhetorically.
Schwarzenegger is wrong politically - and many say morally.
Schwarzenegger insists everywhere he goes - on talk radio and at initiative campaign rallies - that his proposed budget includes a $2.9-billion funding increase for schools: kindergarten through community college.
When the "special interests" claim that school funds are being cut, he says, "They are lying."
"The [teacher] unions spread propaganda that I'm taking money away from education, which is totally incorrect, because I'm adding…. I am a pro-education governor."
The governor is correct. He is adding money. But what he leaves out - and the ed lobby is hollering about in TV ads and at protest rallies - is that he promised schools roughly $2 billion more and reneged.
He pledged that extra money in a face-to-face, handshake deal shortly after taking office. It was the schools' condition for passively surrendering $2 billion they were rightly owed under Proposition 98. The governor needed the $2 billion from schools to avoid raising taxes.
So there's a TV ad now running in California's largest urban areas that shows parents proclaiming: "I'm upset about Gov. Schwarzenegger breaking his promises on education. He said he'd never shortchange Prop. 98…. That would only happen, quote, 'over my dead body.' But then he borrowed $2 billion from the education budget and now refuses to pay it back."
The broken promise is at the heart of a bitter battle between Schwarzenegger and an education coalition led by the powerful, 335,000-member California Teachers Assn.
Breaking his word to the CTA and other school groups probably is the single most damaging error Schwarzenegger has committed as governor. It soiled his image as a straight shooter.
I don't know about Hollywood and moviemaking, but in Sacramento and politics, breaking your word is probably the worst sin. The term "double-cross" comes to mind.
"I'm out of the deal-making business with this governor," says Barbara Kerr, the CTA president.
"He owes us a bit of money and seems to be trying to make the lenders into the bad guys."
The governor's rationale for withholding money from schools was that it would spare other state programs from deep cuts, particularly healthcare for the poor and disabled.
H.D. Palmer, the governor's budget spokesman, offers this example: 190,000 children would have been forced off the Healthy Families medical care program for the working poor.
"The governor said that wasn't a trade-off he was willing to do," Palmer recalls. "So he stuck with what he believed was a reasonable balance."
As it was, Schwarzenegger still had to cut deeply into many health and welfare programs.
Of course, he also could have raised taxes. He'd have broken a different promise, but not one as signed and sealed as the school deal.
Here's what happened:
Schwarzenegger was desperate for money, and school officials wanted to cozy up to the charismatic, larger-than-life new governor. Also, they feared a worse result if there was no cooperation. So they agreed not to fight for the $2 billion on the condition that it be returned - that is, returned to their guaranteed annual funding base. It hasn't been.
The governor assured schools that if tax revenues increased this year, he'd give them their normal cut under Prop. 98. Revenues did, but he didn't.
The final paragraph of the statement Schwarzenegger released at the deal's announcement read: "This Prop. 98 funding will be restored as required by law and our agreement. Today, I am making that promise to our teachers and students."
Schwarzenegger didn't just renege on the deal. He's pushing a budget "reform" to amend Prop. 98 so that repayment of back money owed schools - roughly $4 billion - is stretched out over 15 years and not added to the guaranteed base.
There is logic in tinkering with Prop. 98. Under the current system, if the state gives schools a fat bonus during boom times, it's on the hook for that payment year after year, even when the economy sours. Of the $50 billion in state and local tax revenues Schwarzenegger is proposing for schools, nearly $10 billion is because of funding bonuses - called "over-appropriations" - between 1999 and 2002.
Schwarzenegger's budget control plan would allow the state to give schools a one-time bonus without it becoming part of the guaranteed base.
Senate leader Don Perata (D-Alameda) has said he's willing to tinker with Prop. 98. But not Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles).
"When we're in the top five states in per-pupil funding," Nuñez says, "then perhaps we can talk about reforming Prop. 98." California currently is closer to the bottom five.
Anyway, Nuñez says, "the governor has to decide how long is a deal good for. He needs to clear the air and reestablish a certain level of trust."
Veteran Republican strategist Ken Khachigian thinks Schwarzenegger should take the statesman's route and address a joint session of the Legislature.
"Lay it out," Khachigian advises. "Say, 'This is not a problem I invented. It's a mutual problem…. Let's focus on the budget and avoid a ballot fight.'
"He's got a lot of maneuvering room. He's got great communication skills. He can be visionary, philosophical and assertive. He doesn't have to look like a wimp."
In the speech, Schwarzenegger could apologize for repeatedly referring to former negotiating partners as greedy special interests. And he could give the schools back their promised money.
George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.
News | Inside CTA | Membership | Member Benefits | Politics and Legislation | California Educator | Family Involvement | Higher Education | Student CTA | Who We Are | Contact CTA | Site Map
Who funds Arnold, more
Editor -
I assume that Dan Walters wrote his article about public employee unions and their political power, before he read Ballot Watch by Dan Smith, in Saturday’s Bee.
Smith’s article listed Who’s Writing Checks – top contributors through Friday (4/9).
Contributions from Businesses, Corporations and Associations - $15.1 million
Citizens to Save California – Business groups supporting Schwarzenegger measures - $3.6 million
PhRMA – Pharmaceutical Industry – restrictions on union dues, opposing drug price caps - $9.7 million
Californians for Fair Districting – supporting the Governor’s proposal - $760,000
Californians for Fair Elections – supporting redistricting measures - $300,000
Californians to Stop Higher Taxes – opposing tax measures, including closing tax loopholes - $400,000
Coalition for Employee Rights – restrict public employee unions from using dues for politics - $375,000
Contributions from Unions - $2.9 million
Alliance for a Better California – opposing the Governor’s initiatives, re-regulation of energy, etc. - $2.6 million
Californians for Tax Fairness – supports measure to increase non-residential property taxes - $250,000
Examination of this report on money and politics, dramatically documents the power of the business and corporate sectors in trying to influence public policy.
The tragedy is that these contributions are transparent - they are published.
The fundamental problem is the corruption of the political process, and the proliferation of ballot initiatives is designed to subvert the legislative process. The initiatives are efforts to bamboozle Californians, under the guise of democracy in action.
There is only one solution, at every level of government – public financing of elections.
Emanuel Gale
I assume that Dan Walters wrote his article about public employee unions and their political power, before he read Ballot Watch by Dan Smith, in Saturday’s Bee.
Smith’s article listed Who’s Writing Checks – top contributors through Friday (4/9).
Contributions from Businesses, Corporations and Associations - $15.1 million
Citizens to Save California – Business groups supporting Schwarzenegger measures - $3.6 million
PhRMA – Pharmaceutical Industry – restrictions on union dues, opposing drug price caps - $9.7 million
Californians for Fair Districting – supporting the Governor’s proposal - $760,000
Californians for Fair Elections – supporting redistricting measures - $300,000
Californians to Stop Higher Taxes – opposing tax measures, including closing tax loopholes - $400,000
Coalition for Employee Rights – restrict public employee unions from using dues for politics - $375,000
Contributions from Unions - $2.9 million
Alliance for a Better California – opposing the Governor’s initiatives, re-regulation of energy, etc. - $2.6 million
Californians for Tax Fairness – supports measure to increase non-residential property taxes - $250,000
Examination of this report on money and politics, dramatically documents the power of the business and corporate sectors in trying to influence public policy.
The tragedy is that these contributions are transparent - they are published.
The fundamental problem is the corruption of the political process, and the proliferation of ballot initiatives is designed to subvert the legislative process. The initiatives are efforts to bamboozle Californians, under the guise of democracy in action.
There is only one solution, at every level of government – public financing of elections.
Emanuel Gale
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Dear Arnold
In California our unfair tax system damages our schools. We rank about 37 in the nation in per pupil expenditures. And, the recent study by the Harvard Civil Rights Project reveals once again that our schools are failing Latinos, Blacks, and low income Whites. We grossly under fund our schools, and we get reading and math results appropriate to our funding levels. This inadequate funding is confirmed each year in the state budgets.
I have written a book, now in its third edition, called Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2004). In Choosing Democracy I describe and define several of California’s choices to under fund their schools. Then, when the students fail, the Governor blames the teachers. In truth this is a political failure and the cause lies directly in the legislature and the governor’s office.
In the next edition I will update this report. I will report whether or not you supported tax reform to help the working people and the middle class, or did you continue the present practices of support for an unfair tax system that benefits the rich. I will also report on school progress or lack thereof in my on-line web log. http:www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
I request a response from your office on how you are working to adequately fund our schools. The initiatives which you are promoting on schools are a deception.
Dr. Duane Campbell
I have written a book, now in its third edition, called Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2004). In Choosing Democracy I describe and define several of California’s choices to under fund their schools. Then, when the students fail, the Governor blames the teachers. In truth this is a political failure and the cause lies directly in the legislature and the governor’s office.
In the next edition I will update this report. I will report whether or not you supported tax reform to help the working people and the middle class, or did you continue the present practices of support for an unfair tax system that benefits the rich. I will also report on school progress or lack thereof in my on-line web log. http:www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
I request a response from your office on how you are working to adequately fund our schools. The initiatives which you are promoting on schools are a deception.
Dr. Duane Campbell
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
NCLB Study: Academic growth slowed
April 13, 2005
Study Finds Shortcoming in New Law on Education
By GREG WINTER
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
That finding casts doubt on whether schools can meet the law's mandate that all students be academically proficient by 2014. In fact, to realize the goal of universal proficiency, the study said, students will have to make as much as three times the progress they are currently making.
The study was conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association, which develops tests for about 1,500 school districts in 43 states. To complete it, the group drew upon its test data for more than 320,000 students in 23 states, a sample that it calls "broad but not nationally representative," in part because the biggest cities, not being Northwest clients, were not included.
One of the more ominous findings, the researchers said, is that the achievement gap between white and nonwhite students could soon widen. Closing the gap is one of the driving principles of the law, and so far states say they have made strides toward shrinking it.
But minority students with the same test scores as their white counterparts at the beginning of the school year ended up falling behind by the end of it, the study found. Both groups made academic progress, but the minority students did not make as much, it concluded, an outcome suggesting that the gaps in achievement will worsen.
"Right now it's kind of a hidden effect that we would expect to see expressed in the next couple of years," said Gage Kingsbury, Northwest's director of research. "At that point, I think people will be disappointed with what N.C.L.B. has done."
The findings diverge from those of other recent studies, including a survey last month by the Center on Education Policy, a research group. It found that a significant majority of state education officials reported widespread academic progress and a narrowing of the achievement gap.
"This new study should give everybody pause before they run off and say, 'We're marching to victory,' " said Jack Jennings, the center's president. "Maybe we're not."
Kerri Briggs, a senior policy analyst at the Education Department, said the Northwest study had both encouraging and worrisome aspects, but added that she would have to examine it more closely before passing judgment.
Some critics speculated that because the study lacked data from big cities, which have large populations of minority students and have posted significant gains on test scores in recent years, it might have overstated or mischaracterized what was happening with the achievement gap.
"It's hard to know how much you can extrapolate from this study," said Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, which released its own report in January showing mixed results on student performance and achievement gaps. "I don't think you want to make generalizations about what's going on nationwide."
Still, the Northwest study tracked student performance at a level that others did not, a factor that may help explain why some of its findings appear unorthodox. Rather than relying on test scores at just one point in the year, the Northwest study looked at how students fared in the fall and then again in the spring, in an effort to see how much they had learned during the year.
With this approach, Northwest found that test scores on its exams did, in fact, go up from one year to the next under No Child Left Behind, typically by less than a point. The reason successive classes appear to do a little better than those before them may stem from the fact that younger students have grown up during a time of more regular testing than their immediate predecessors, the researchers said, and are therefore higher achievers.
But rising test scores tend to mask how much progress individual students make as they travel through school, the researchers found. Since No Child Left Behind, that individual growth has slowed, possibly because teachers feel compelled to spend the bulk of their time making sure students who are near proficiency make it over the hurdle.
The practice may leave teachers with less time to focus on students who are either far below or far above the proficiency mark, the researchers said, making it less likely for the whole class to move forward as rapidly as before No Child Left Behind set the agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/national/13child.html?
Study Finds Shortcoming in New Law on Education
By GREG WINTER
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
That finding casts doubt on whether schools can meet the law's mandate that all students be academically proficient by 2014. In fact, to realize the goal of universal proficiency, the study said, students will have to make as much as three times the progress they are currently making.
The study was conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association, which develops tests for about 1,500 school districts in 43 states. To complete it, the group drew upon its test data for more than 320,000 students in 23 states, a sample that it calls "broad but not nationally representative," in part because the biggest cities, not being Northwest clients, were not included.
One of the more ominous findings, the researchers said, is that the achievement gap between white and nonwhite students could soon widen. Closing the gap is one of the driving principles of the law, and so far states say they have made strides toward shrinking it.
But minority students with the same test scores as their white counterparts at the beginning of the school year ended up falling behind by the end of it, the study found. Both groups made academic progress, but the minority students did not make as much, it concluded, an outcome suggesting that the gaps in achievement will worsen.
"Right now it's kind of a hidden effect that we would expect to see expressed in the next couple of years," said Gage Kingsbury, Northwest's director of research. "At that point, I think people will be disappointed with what N.C.L.B. has done."
The findings diverge from those of other recent studies, including a survey last month by the Center on Education Policy, a research group. It found that a significant majority of state education officials reported widespread academic progress and a narrowing of the achievement gap.
"This new study should give everybody pause before they run off and say, 'We're marching to victory,' " said Jack Jennings, the center's president. "Maybe we're not."
Kerri Briggs, a senior policy analyst at the Education Department, said the Northwest study had both encouraging and worrisome aspects, but added that she would have to examine it more closely before passing judgment.
Some critics speculated that because the study lacked data from big cities, which have large populations of minority students and have posted significant gains on test scores in recent years, it might have overstated or mischaracterized what was happening with the achievement gap.
"It's hard to know how much you can extrapolate from this study," said Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, which released its own report in January showing mixed results on student performance and achievement gaps. "I don't think you want to make generalizations about what's going on nationwide."
Still, the Northwest study tracked student performance at a level that others did not, a factor that may help explain why some of its findings appear unorthodox. Rather than relying on test scores at just one point in the year, the Northwest study looked at how students fared in the fall and then again in the spring, in an effort to see how much they had learned during the year.
With this approach, Northwest found that test scores on its exams did, in fact, go up from one year to the next under No Child Left Behind, typically by less than a point. The reason successive classes appear to do a little better than those before them may stem from the fact that younger students have grown up during a time of more regular testing than their immediate predecessors, the researchers said, and are therefore higher achievers.
But rising test scores tend to mask how much progress individual students make as they travel through school, the researchers found. Since No Child Left Behind, that individual growth has slowed, possibly because teachers feel compelled to spend the bulk of their time making sure students who are near proficiency make it over the hurdle.
The practice may leave teachers with less time to focus on students who are either far below or far above the proficiency mark, the researchers said, making it less likely for the whole class to move forward as rapidly as before No Child Left Behind set the agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/national/13child.html?
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
NCLB; A Progressive Critique
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: A PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE
New Politics (NP) journal has published the contributions of researchers
and activists who were invited by NP to analyze the origins and impact of
NCLB, as well as the contours of a genuinely progressive response. All of
the contributors identify critical problems with NCLB, but they differ on
whether progressives should press to eliminate or reform the legislation.
Michael Charney and Michele Brooks advance the perspective of many
activists in the American Federation of Teachers and parent advocacy
groups that would like to reform NCLB and fund it at higher levels. Stan
Karp, Carlos Torres, and Lois Weiner each describes the legislation in
more starkly critical terms. Torres and Weiner (a member of the NP
editorial board) argue that public education can only serve the needs of
students, parents, and teachers if the neoliberal agenda that NCLB
represents is comprehensively defeated.
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue38/edintro38.htm
New Politics (NP) journal has published the contributions of researchers
and activists who were invited by NP to analyze the origins and impact of
NCLB, as well as the contours of a genuinely progressive response. All of
the contributors identify critical problems with NCLB, but they differ on
whether progressives should press to eliminate or reform the legislation.
Michael Charney and Michele Brooks advance the perspective of many
activists in the American Federation of Teachers and parent advocacy
groups that would like to reform NCLB and fund it at higher levels. Stan
Karp, Carlos Torres, and Lois Weiner each describes the legislation in
more starkly critical terms. Torres and Weiner (a member of the NP
editorial board) argue that public education can only serve the needs of
students, parents, and teachers if the neoliberal agenda that NCLB
represents is comprehensively defeated.
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue38/edintro38.htm
Monday, April 11, 2005
Who is paying for Arnold's war on teachers?
This story is taken from Politics at sacbee.com.
Ballot watch
WHO'S WRITING CHECKS?
Top contributors through Friday:
Citizens to Save California
(Business groups supporting Schwarzenegger measures):
A Jerrold Perenchio (Univision owner), $1.5 million
John A. Gunn, president, Dodge & Cox (mutual fund manager), $500,000
William Lyon Homes, $250,000
Security National Servicing Corp. (distressed mortgage buyer), $250,000
Carl H. Lindner, chairman, American Financial Group (Chiquita bananas), $200,000
Capital Pacific Holdings Inc. (real estate), $150,000
Lawrence K. Doyle Trust, American Sterling Corp. (financial services), $130,000
American Sterling Corp. (financial services), $120,000
Ameriquest Capital Corp. (mortgages), $100,000
Henry Segerstrom Trust (mall owner), $100,000
California Retailers Association, $100,000
Target Corp. (retailer), $100,000
The New Majority PAC (Republican activists), $95,000
Alliance for a Better California
(Unions, Democrats opposed to Schwarzenegger measures; pushing re-regulation of electricity, lower drug prices, protections for car buyers):
California State Council of Service Employees Political Actions Issues Account, $700,000
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees International Union, $500,000
SEIU Local 1000 - California State Employees Association Issues PAC, $450,000
California Teachers Association, $617,000
Association of California School Administrators Issues PAC, $150,000
California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee, $100,000
PACE of California School Employees Association, $100,000
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America CA Initiative Fund
(Supporting restrictions on union dues, opposing drug price caps):
Merck & Co. Inc., $1.3 million
Johnson & Johnson, $1.3 million
Pfizer Inc., $1.3 million
GlaxoSmithKline, $1.3 million
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., $650,000
Amgen Inc., $650,000
Wyeth, $650,000
Eli Lilly and Co., $650,000
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., $650,000
Abbott Laboratories, $650,000
AstraZeneca LP, $650,000
Californians for Fair Redistricting
(Supporting Schwarzenegger redistricting measure):
Round One Investments (venture capital firm), $385,000
David Lack General Contractor Inc., $100,000
William A. Mundell, CEO, Vidyah Inc. (marketing training firm), $100,000
AOS Technologies (computer product developer), $100,000
Lawrence B. Abramson, producer/investor, $75,000
Californians for Fair Elections
(Supporting all redistricting measures)
John Walton (Wal-mart heir), $100,000
Small Business Action Committee (business groups, anti-tax groups), $100,000
William E. Bloomfield, retired businessman, $100,000
Californians to Stop Higher Taxes
(Business and anti-tax groups opposing a variety of tax measures, including those to close so-called tax loopholes)
Ameriquest Capital Corp. (mortgages), $250,000
California Business Properties Association Issue PAC, $50,000
Chevron/Texaco, $100,000
Coalition for Employee Rights
(Supporting measure to restrict public employee unions from spending dues money on political campaigns)
Small Business Action Committee (business groups, anti-tax groups), $375,000
Californians for Tax Fairness
(Supports measure to increase non-residential property taxes)
California Teachers Association, $250,000
Q: When is the election?
A: That's up to Schwarzenegger. Election law allows the governor to call a special statewide election after a measure has qualified for the ballot. But the election can be called no later than 148 days before it is to be held. One scenario from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office has determined that if Schwarzenegger wants a Nov. 8 election, he must issue the proclamation no later than June 13. California has had four statewide special elections since 1973. Voter turnout exceeded 47 percent only once, in the 2003 gubernatorial recall in which 61.2 percent of registered voters cast ballots.
About the writer:
The Bee's Dan Smith can be reached at (916) 321-5249 or smith@sacbee.com.
Ballot watch
WHO'S WRITING CHECKS?
Top contributors through Friday:
Citizens to Save California
(Business groups supporting Schwarzenegger measures):
A Jerrold Perenchio (Univision owner), $1.5 million
John A. Gunn, president, Dodge & Cox (mutual fund manager), $500,000
William Lyon Homes, $250,000
Security National Servicing Corp. (distressed mortgage buyer), $250,000
Carl H. Lindner, chairman, American Financial Group (Chiquita bananas), $200,000
Capital Pacific Holdings Inc. (real estate), $150,000
Lawrence K. Doyle Trust, American Sterling Corp. (financial services), $130,000
American Sterling Corp. (financial services), $120,000
Ameriquest Capital Corp. (mortgages), $100,000
Henry Segerstrom Trust (mall owner), $100,000
California Retailers Association, $100,000
Target Corp. (retailer), $100,000
The New Majority PAC (Republican activists), $95,000
Alliance for a Better California
(Unions, Democrats opposed to Schwarzenegger measures; pushing re-regulation of electricity, lower drug prices, protections for car buyers):
California State Council of Service Employees Political Actions Issues Account, $700,000
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees International Union, $500,000
SEIU Local 1000 - California State Employees Association Issues PAC, $450,000
California Teachers Association, $617,000
Association of California School Administrators Issues PAC, $150,000
California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee, $100,000
PACE of California School Employees Association, $100,000
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America CA Initiative Fund
(Supporting restrictions on union dues, opposing drug price caps):
Merck & Co. Inc., $1.3 million
Johnson & Johnson, $1.3 million
Pfizer Inc., $1.3 million
GlaxoSmithKline, $1.3 million
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., $650,000
Amgen Inc., $650,000
Wyeth, $650,000
Eli Lilly and Co., $650,000
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., $650,000
Abbott Laboratories, $650,000
AstraZeneca LP, $650,000
Californians for Fair Redistricting
(Supporting Schwarzenegger redistricting measure):
Round One Investments (venture capital firm), $385,000
David Lack General Contractor Inc., $100,000
William A. Mundell, CEO, Vidyah Inc. (marketing training firm), $100,000
AOS Technologies (computer product developer), $100,000
Lawrence B. Abramson, producer/investor, $75,000
Californians for Fair Elections
(Supporting all redistricting measures)
John Walton (Wal-mart heir), $100,000
Small Business Action Committee (business groups, anti-tax groups), $100,000
William E. Bloomfield, retired businessman, $100,000
Californians to Stop Higher Taxes
(Business and anti-tax groups opposing a variety of tax measures, including those to close so-called tax loopholes)
Ameriquest Capital Corp. (mortgages), $250,000
California Business Properties Association Issue PAC, $50,000
Chevron/Texaco, $100,000
Coalition for Employee Rights
(Supporting measure to restrict public employee unions from spending dues money on political campaigns)
Small Business Action Committee (business groups, anti-tax groups), $375,000
Californians for Tax Fairness
(Supports measure to increase non-residential property taxes)
California Teachers Association, $250,000
Q: When is the election?
A: That's up to Schwarzenegger. Election law allows the governor to call a special statewide election after a measure has qualified for the ballot. But the election can be called no later than 148 days before it is to be held. One scenario from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office has determined that if Schwarzenegger wants a Nov. 8 election, he must issue the proclamation no later than June 13. California has had four statewide special elections since 1973. Voter turnout exceeded 47 percent only once, in the 2003 gubernatorial recall in which 61.2 percent of registered voters cast ballots.
About the writer:
The Bee's Dan Smith can be reached at (916) 321-5249 or smith@sacbee.com.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Teachers and Nurses 1 Schwarzenegger 0
Schwarzenegger backs off pension plan
By John Hill -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:06 pm PDT Thursday, April 7, 2005
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday backed off his plan to overhaul the public pension system this year.
The Republican governor, whose plan to shift public pensions to a 401(k)-style plan for employees hired in 2007 and beyond, had been battered by critics, said he would try again next year barring a legislative agreement.
"Let's pull it back and do it better," the governor said in a surprise news conference at the Capitol.
The move represents a huge political defeat for Schwarzenegger that illustrates the perils of governing by initiative. Unions and Democrats said the governor's retreat would help open the way for discussions of problems they said were more pressing to most Californians.
The governor said he had listened to the concerns of survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and others who claimed the initiative would end death and disability payments. While the governor said the initiative was never intended to end the special benefits, he acknowledged that the criticism had clouded the issue.
He denied that he was swayed by public pressure.
"The protestors or poll numbers have absolutely no impact on what I do," he said.
The pension overhaul was one of five proposals the governor has proposed for a special election ballot this year, along with plans to change the way political districts are drawn, give more budget-cutting power to governors, eliminate teacher tenure and institute merit pay for teachers.
Teachers and Nurses 1: Arnold 0. but, we are still in the first quarter of the game.
And>>>
As you may have heard, Arnold has withdrawn the pension initiatives because they contained a error which would have made them defeatable. He promises to return in June 06.
There are still two anti teacher initiatives headed for the ballot.
The first issue,
Should teachers unions, or CSEA, be able to use members money to fight the Scwarzenegger project.
He can raise $50 million from his corporate buddies. Can teachers fight back?
Second,
Should teachers have tenure. Or, should they be subject to Principal's whims. Sort of like working for Civil Service or working as a political appointee.
This attack on teacher tenure is motivated by the Republican’s failure at school reform. See articles below.
Duane Campbell
By John Hill -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:06 pm PDT Thursday, April 7, 2005
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday backed off his plan to overhaul the public pension system this year.
The Republican governor, whose plan to shift public pensions to a 401(k)-style plan for employees hired in 2007 and beyond, had been battered by critics, said he would try again next year barring a legislative agreement.
"Let's pull it back and do it better," the governor said in a surprise news conference at the Capitol.
The move represents a huge political defeat for Schwarzenegger that illustrates the perils of governing by initiative. Unions and Democrats said the governor's retreat would help open the way for discussions of problems they said were more pressing to most Californians.
The governor said he had listened to the concerns of survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and others who claimed the initiative would end death and disability payments. While the governor said the initiative was never intended to end the special benefits, he acknowledged that the criticism had clouded the issue.
He denied that he was swayed by public pressure.
"The protestors or poll numbers have absolutely no impact on what I do," he said.
The pension overhaul was one of five proposals the governor has proposed for a special election ballot this year, along with plans to change the way political districts are drawn, give more budget-cutting power to governors, eliminate teacher tenure and institute merit pay for teachers.
Teachers and Nurses 1: Arnold 0. but, we are still in the first quarter of the game.
And>>>
As you may have heard, Arnold has withdrawn the pension initiatives because they contained a error which would have made them defeatable. He promises to return in June 06.
There are still two anti teacher initiatives headed for the ballot.
The first issue,
Should teachers unions, or CSEA, be able to use members money to fight the Scwarzenegger project.
He can raise $50 million from his corporate buddies. Can teachers fight back?
Second,
Should teachers have tenure. Or, should they be subject to Principal's whims. Sort of like working for Civil Service or working as a political appointee.
This attack on teacher tenure is motivated by the Republican’s failure at school reform. See articles below.
Duane Campbell
Assemblywoman Bass on Exit Exams
Opposing view: Make the exit exam one among several measures of skills
By Karen Bass
Thursday, April 7, 2005
Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, is responding to The Bee's editorial "Retain exit exam / Diploma should mean something," which appeared March 21.
The Sacramento Bee mischaracterized legislation I am proposing. AB 1531 would not eliminate the high school exit exam; the bill simply calls for the exam to be one of several measures used to determine if a student has mastered high-school level course work. With so many attempts under way to improve California's educational system, we have to ask ourselves what the goal of the exit exam really is.
If it is to ensure students demonstrate competency in basic high school curriculum, then there should be more than a single test to measure skills.
According to the Stanford school of education, 25 states have passed legislation requiring a high school exit exam. But only eight of those states do not consider other performance information for a diploma. In some cases, districts use a combination of state exams and local performance assessments - along with grades, portfolios and teacher recommendations. School districts in Maine, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania combine results from local performance assessments with state assessments for graduation decisions.
Research is divided about the impact of the high school exit exam on the dropout rate. But even the study The Bee cited notes that school districts in Massachusetts, Texas and New York - under pressure to improve test scores as required by the "No Child Left Behind Act" - encouraged low-performing students to leave school and pursue a GED. A Harvard study released last month found that devastating numbers of African American (43 percent) and Latino (40 percent) children do not finish high school.
We cannot afford to drive more students out of school. Nor should we put districts and administrators under pressure that could result in even more students leaving our high schools without a diploma and the skills required to achieve their best.
If our goal in California is to measure competency in basic skills and curriculum, then we should take advantage of the research and experience of other states and adopt a comprehensive approach that includes multiple methods of assessing competency. This would result in a higher standard and greater accountability than that afforded by a single exam.
this op ed piece provided by the office of Assemblywoman Bass.
By Karen Bass
Thursday, April 7, 2005
Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, is responding to The Bee's editorial "Retain exit exam / Diploma should mean something," which appeared March 21.
The Sacramento Bee mischaracterized legislation I am proposing. AB 1531 would not eliminate the high school exit exam; the bill simply calls for the exam to be one of several measures used to determine if a student has mastered high-school level course work. With so many attempts under way to improve California's educational system, we have to ask ourselves what the goal of the exit exam really is.
If it is to ensure students demonstrate competency in basic high school curriculum, then there should be more than a single test to measure skills.
According to the Stanford school of education, 25 states have passed legislation requiring a high school exit exam. But only eight of those states do not consider other performance information for a diploma. In some cases, districts use a combination of state exams and local performance assessments - along with grades, portfolios and teacher recommendations. School districts in Maine, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania combine results from local performance assessments with state assessments for graduation decisions.
Research is divided about the impact of the high school exit exam on the dropout rate. But even the study The Bee cited notes that school districts in Massachusetts, Texas and New York - under pressure to improve test scores as required by the "No Child Left Behind Act" - encouraged low-performing students to leave school and pursue a GED. A Harvard study released last month found that devastating numbers of African American (43 percent) and Latino (40 percent) children do not finish high school.
We cannot afford to drive more students out of school. Nor should we put districts and administrators under pressure that could result in even more students leaving our high schools without a diploma and the skills required to achieve their best.
If our goal in California is to measure competency in basic skills and curriculum, then we should take advantage of the research and experience of other states and adopt a comprehensive approach that includes multiple methods of assessing competency. This would result in a higher standard and greater accountability than that afforded by a single exam.
this op ed piece provided by the office of Assemblywoman Bass.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Leaving Children Behind in Texas
Angela Valenzuela
The alleged “Texas Miracle” in education (Haney, 2000, 2001), combined
with the 2002 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (popularly known as the “No Child Left Behind
Act” [NCLB]), has shifted what was once an intrastate debate over educational
accountability to a national-level issue. Supporters of accountability
claim that it promotes equity by making schools teach poor
and minority children who have been historically neglected by our public
school system (see Scheurich & Skrla, 2001; Scheurich, Skrla, &
Johnson, 2000; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000a, 2000b). Opponents,
including the contributors to this volume, argue that the Texas
system of educational accountability has failed—and will continue to
fail—Latina/o and other minority youth and their communities.1 We interpret
Texas-style accountability as exacerbating historic inequities,
mainly through the collateral effects of state policy, but also through a
systemwide failure to accommodate the needs and abilities of Englishlanguage
learners (see the chapters by Alamillo, Palmer, Viramontes, &
García; and by Ruiz de Velasco). Moreover, as McNeil points out (see
chapter 3), the dramatic educational improvement attributed to Texas’
system of accountability is itself questionable. The state’s methods of
collecting and reporting educational data, including the critically important
high-stakes test scores, hide as much as they reveal. When the
focus is shifted to Texas’ students’ performance on nationwide tests
such as the American College Test (ACT) and Scholastic Assessment
Test (SAT) 1, or when skyrocketing dropout and projected retention
rates are factored in (see McNeil and Valencia & Villarreal), the state’s
“miracle” looks more like a mirage.
1
That schools should be held accountable is indisputable. This volume
does not suggest otherwise. Rather, what we question is the Texas
model of accountability. Specifically, the authors reject high-stakes testing,
the system’s centerpiece. We further contend that the Texas approach
is deeply flawed, for three interrelated reasons: for attaching high-stakes
consequences—in the areas of retention, promotion, and graduation—to
a single measure of students’ academic abilities; for attaching high-stakes
consequences to schools and districts and thereby encouraging a reductionist,
test-driven curriculum; and for promoting a uniform and objectivist
way of knowing, to the detriment of other cultures, languages, and
approaches to knowledge.
Our collective admonition to the nation is that policies supporting
high-stakes testing are harmful to all children, especially for children
from poor, minority, or non-English-speaking families.2 Indeed, these
policies curtail or compromise the very achievement the public seeks.
Moreover, state policies that attach high-stakes consequences to children’s
test scores are inherently invalid, undemocratic, and unjust
(Heubert & Hauser, 1999). They distort the process of schooling, as well,
through the creation of perverse incentives to “lose” children or limit curriculum,
or both (see the chapters by Alamillo, Palmer, Viramontes, &
García; Hampton; McNeil; Sloan; and Valencia & Villarreal). Finally,
when the test is the sole or primary arbiter in decisions with such longlasting
consequences for children, we insist that students have a right to
be assessed in a complete and fair manner, using as many criteria as may
reasonably indicate children’s cognitive abilities and potential.3
We would like to see the terms of the current debate over educational
accountability overhauled. At issue is not whether schools and districts
should be accountable, but what means should be used to
accomplish the widely shared goal of ensuring that all children receive a
high-quality education. When we allow the state to equate academic excellence
with a single test score, when we agree to tie our children’s performance
on one test to their classroom teachers’ jobs and school
administrators’ bonuses, we implicitly validate the host of values, presuppositions,
and attitudes that underlie a flawed version of accountability.
Recasting the debate, we hope, will draw necessary attention to the
questionable nature of such typically unexamined assumptions.
In calling for a new approach to the ongoing conversation about accountability,
we seek to create a larger public space for a Latina/o, researchbased
perspective and epistemology (see Padilla) in the development of a
more just assessment system.
From:
Leaving Children Behind: How Texas Style Accountability Fails Latino Youth,
(SUNY press, 2004) Angela Valenzuela, ed.
The alleged “Texas Miracle” in education (Haney, 2000, 2001), combined
with the 2002 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (popularly known as the “No Child Left Behind
Act” [NCLB]), has shifted what was once an intrastate debate over educational
accountability to a national-level issue. Supporters of accountability
claim that it promotes equity by making schools teach poor
and minority children who have been historically neglected by our public
school system (see Scheurich & Skrla, 2001; Scheurich, Skrla, &
Johnson, 2000; Skrla, Scheurich, & Johnson, 2000a, 2000b). Opponents,
including the contributors to this volume, argue that the Texas
system of educational accountability has failed—and will continue to
fail—Latina/o and other minority youth and their communities.1 We interpret
Texas-style accountability as exacerbating historic inequities,
mainly through the collateral effects of state policy, but also through a
systemwide failure to accommodate the needs and abilities of Englishlanguage
learners (see the chapters by Alamillo, Palmer, Viramontes, &
García; and by Ruiz de Velasco). Moreover, as McNeil points out (see
chapter 3), the dramatic educational improvement attributed to Texas’
system of accountability is itself questionable. The state’s methods of
collecting and reporting educational data, including the critically important
high-stakes test scores, hide as much as they reveal. When the
focus is shifted to Texas’ students’ performance on nationwide tests
such as the American College Test (ACT) and Scholastic Assessment
Test (SAT) 1, or when skyrocketing dropout and projected retention
rates are factored in (see McNeil and Valencia & Villarreal), the state’s
“miracle” looks more like a mirage.
1
That schools should be held accountable is indisputable. This volume
does not suggest otherwise. Rather, what we question is the Texas
model of accountability. Specifically, the authors reject high-stakes testing,
the system’s centerpiece. We further contend that the Texas approach
is deeply flawed, for three interrelated reasons: for attaching high-stakes
consequences—in the areas of retention, promotion, and graduation—to
a single measure of students’ academic abilities; for attaching high-stakes
consequences to schools and districts and thereby encouraging a reductionist,
test-driven curriculum; and for promoting a uniform and objectivist
way of knowing, to the detriment of other cultures, languages, and
approaches to knowledge.
Our collective admonition to the nation is that policies supporting
high-stakes testing are harmful to all children, especially for children
from poor, minority, or non-English-speaking families.2 Indeed, these
policies curtail or compromise the very achievement the public seeks.
Moreover, state policies that attach high-stakes consequences to children’s
test scores are inherently invalid, undemocratic, and unjust
(Heubert & Hauser, 1999). They distort the process of schooling, as well,
through the creation of perverse incentives to “lose” children or limit curriculum,
or both (see the chapters by Alamillo, Palmer, Viramontes, &
García; Hampton; McNeil; Sloan; and Valencia & Villarreal). Finally,
when the test is the sole or primary arbiter in decisions with such longlasting
consequences for children, we insist that students have a right to
be assessed in a complete and fair manner, using as many criteria as may
reasonably indicate children’s cognitive abilities and potential.3
We would like to see the terms of the current debate over educational
accountability overhauled. At issue is not whether schools and districts
should be accountable, but what means should be used to
accomplish the widely shared goal of ensuring that all children receive a
high-quality education. When we allow the state to equate academic excellence
with a single test score, when we agree to tie our children’s performance
on one test to their classroom teachers’ jobs and school
administrators’ bonuses, we implicitly validate the host of values, presuppositions,
and attitudes that underlie a flawed version of accountability.
Recasting the debate, we hope, will draw necessary attention to the
questionable nature of such typically unexamined assumptions.
In calling for a new approach to the ongoing conversation about accountability,
we seek to create a larger public space for a Latina/o, researchbased
perspective and epistemology (see Padilla) in the development of a
more just assessment system.
From:
Leaving Children Behind: How Texas Style Accountability Fails Latino Youth,
(SUNY press, 2004) Angela Valenzuela, ed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
