The mayor of Los Angeles continues to make taking over of the public schools a priority even though he has not done the other things available to him to approve schools, such as limiting gang activity and securing adequate funding.
See other opinions on the takeover plans.
L.A. Mayor Grilled Over School Takeover Plan
400 residents and officials of smaller cities under Los Angeles Unified rule express their concerns at a public hearing.
By Howard Blume
Times Staff Writer
July 28, 2006
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school reform plan received its first and only local public vetting Thursday evening in a sometimes raucous hearing where Los Angeles residents addressed state lawmakers, who will have the final say.
Perhaps the most significant blow was landed by officials from neighboring cities, who announced their opposition to legislation that would give Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District. Parts or all of the cities fall within the boundaries of the Los Angeles school system.
The early evening gathering, convened by state Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), played out before an audience of more than 400 people, some of them recruited for the event, and undecided parents and community members at Washington Irving Middle School north of downtown.
The worst moment for Villaraigosa probably occurred before the hearing, at a news conference called by officials who said they represented the perspective of the cities other than Los Angeles that are within the boundaries of the L.A. school system.
A small retinue of council members and mayors announced, one after another, their view that Villaraigosa's plan gave the L.A. mayor authority at their expense.
"Mayor Villaraigosa is good for the city of Los Angeles, but not for the city of San Fernando," said San Fernando Councilwoman Maribel De La Torre.
Villaraigosa's plan would supplant key functions of the elected Board of Education with a council of mayors, but he would control 80% of the vote because 80% of L.A. Unified students live in Los Angeles. Earlier in the day, his aides had argued that the neighboring cities still would be getting a better deal than they currently have: The latest version of the legislation, unveiled today, offers cities in southeast Los Angeles County an opportunity to take direct control of some of their schools — an option that some of the city officials had not yet seen.
"We are just not going to have any meaningful say and we are not interested in that kind of plan," said Benjamin "Frank" Venti, a Monterey Park city councilman who is also president of the Independent Cities Assn.
"Not one of the 27 cities said they oppose our position" in opposition to Villaraigosa's legislation, said West Hollywood Councilman Jeffrey Prang, who also represents the California Contract Cities Assn. "It's unanimous."
At Irving Middle School, camera crews left the city officials when the telegenic Villaraigosa arrived, flanked by state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) and L.A. Unified school board member Monica Garcia. All support Villaraigosa's reform plan.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Economics: Grieder and Rubin
Grieder and Rubin on the economy.
Excellent, important article in the Nation. Click on the title for the full article.
The question is: Will convergence happen because their wages go up or because our wages go down?
That leads right to my next question. I'm asking, as you must know, from the critics' camp. If you go to the core of what reasonable, intelligent, rational people are trying to say from the labor-left-environmental camp, it goes like this: The world's global trading system needs labor standards and worker rights and some mechanism that requires the poorer developing countries to build a rising wage standard in their economy--a minimum wage relative to their prosperity or poverty--so you won't wind up with an endless convergence, in which the top comes down from middle-income wages in advanced countries and the bottom doesn't rise as fast as it might. Because the world is huge and full of poor people and producers, multinationals and otherwise can constantly, continuously move their production to the next cheaper country.
Labor would say: If you are not going to stop the process of convergence, you are at least going to moderate it. Because you've forced rising wages at the bottom, you have some chance of not completely decimating high-wage, blue-collar labor in America or elsewhere.
Well, I guess there are two pieces to that. If you are saying what you want to do is improve the distribution of income in low-income trading countries and that will have advantage to everybody concerned, low-income countries and to us, I think that is in everybody's interest. On the other hand, I've had exposure to people who make that argument and I think make it as a way to prevent trade liberalization.... But it is a complicated question. The one hope that some of these countries have to take people out of abject poverty is that their labor-cost advantage will result in a shift of production to their countries from the place that it's now taking place and, if you require them not to take advantage of their labor-cost advantage, then you really have condemned them to poverty. It's not so simple, I think.
What we have now in many parts of the world is manufacturers, multinational and domestic, moving their production to the next country. You go from Thailand to Shri Lanka or Cambodia because the textile workers in Thailand are organized and demanding higher wages. Our side would say that way is the "race to the bottom" for everybody, both for the workers in Thailand and for workers in advanced countries.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/greiderweb
Excellent, important article in the Nation. Click on the title for the full article.
The question is: Will convergence happen because their wages go up or because our wages go down?
That leads right to my next question. I'm asking, as you must know, from the critics' camp. If you go to the core of what reasonable, intelligent, rational people are trying to say from the labor-left-environmental camp, it goes like this: The world's global trading system needs labor standards and worker rights and some mechanism that requires the poorer developing countries to build a rising wage standard in their economy--a minimum wage relative to their prosperity or poverty--so you won't wind up with an endless convergence, in which the top comes down from middle-income wages in advanced countries and the bottom doesn't rise as fast as it might. Because the world is huge and full of poor people and producers, multinationals and otherwise can constantly, continuously move their production to the next cheaper country.
Labor would say: If you are not going to stop the process of convergence, you are at least going to moderate it. Because you've forced rising wages at the bottom, you have some chance of not completely decimating high-wage, blue-collar labor in America or elsewhere.
Well, I guess there are two pieces to that. If you are saying what you want to do is improve the distribution of income in low-income trading countries and that will have advantage to everybody concerned, low-income countries and to us, I think that is in everybody's interest. On the other hand, I've had exposure to people who make that argument and I think make it as a way to prevent trade liberalization.... But it is a complicated question. The one hope that some of these countries have to take people out of abject poverty is that their labor-cost advantage will result in a shift of production to their countries from the place that it's now taking place and, if you require them not to take advantage of their labor-cost advantage, then you really have condemned them to poverty. It's not so simple, I think.
What we have now in many parts of the world is manufacturers, multinational and domestic, moving their production to the next country. You go from Thailand to Shri Lanka or Cambodia because the textile workers in Thailand are organized and demanding higher wages. Our side would say that way is the "race to the bottom" for everybody, both for the workers in Thailand and for workers in advanced countries.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/greiderweb
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
In Bill Hauk we can't trust: The Business Roundtable
In Hauck we can’t trust
The general of ‘Arnie’s Army’—a CSU Trustee— is working for his cronies—not for the university
By Irv Muchnick
Contributing Editor
Point 10 of the California State University Trustees’ Code of Conduct, adopted in March 2004, prohibits a board member “from accepting duties, incurring obligations, accepting gifts or favors [or] engaging in private business or professional activities when there is, or would appear to be, a conflict or incompatibility between the Trustee’s private interests” and those of the CSU.
Strong words; “Caesar’s wife” standards, even. Yet just two years later CFA finds itself applying them, at high volume, to perhaps the best known of all the Trustees: William Hauck, a consummate Sacramento insider and main¬stream media go-to guy from his $300,600-a-year perch as president of the California Business Roundtable.
In early May some 250 CSU faculty, staff and students demonstrated out¬side Hauck’s office in Sacramento. They waved large red “F” signs alongside a huge puppet of the Trustee’s likeness, calling attention to the grade they thought he deserved for his failed representation of the public interest dur¬ing the fight to rebuild the nation’s largest public university system.
‘Bill Hauck is powerful and politically connected. When he speaks, people listen. But the question is, who is writing his script? The California Business Roundtable has an agenda. In our view that agenda isn’t shared by the 35 million Californians the CSU has a covenant to serve.’
Three weeks later, in Beverly Hills, another crowd of protestors, decked out in caps and gowns, and waving colorful signs, made more purposeful noise outside the exclusive hotel where Hauck was hosting a luncheon for Gov. SChwarzenegger and their fellow buig business Cronies. The problem, as CFA warned at the was hosting a luncheon for Gov. Arnold ments made the connections more than time, is that the Compact has proven Schwarzenegger and their fellow big-just obvious—
I am unable to copy the remainder of the article. For the full article and excellent photos go to www.calfac.org
This is in the summer issue of California Faculty.
www.calfac.org
The general of ‘Arnie’s Army’—a CSU Trustee— is working for his cronies—not for the university
By Irv Muchnick
Contributing Editor
Point 10 of the California State University Trustees’ Code of Conduct, adopted in March 2004, prohibits a board member “from accepting duties, incurring obligations, accepting gifts or favors [or] engaging in private business or professional activities when there is, or would appear to be, a conflict or incompatibility between the Trustee’s private interests” and those of the CSU.
Strong words; “Caesar’s wife” standards, even. Yet just two years later CFA finds itself applying them, at high volume, to perhaps the best known of all the Trustees: William Hauck, a consummate Sacramento insider and main¬stream media go-to guy from his $300,600-a-year perch as president of the California Business Roundtable.
In early May some 250 CSU faculty, staff and students demonstrated out¬side Hauck’s office in Sacramento. They waved large red “F” signs alongside a huge puppet of the Trustee’s likeness, calling attention to the grade they thought he deserved for his failed representation of the public interest dur¬ing the fight to rebuild the nation’s largest public university system.
‘Bill Hauck is powerful and politically connected. When he speaks, people listen. But the question is, who is writing his script? The California Business Roundtable has an agenda. In our view that agenda isn’t shared by the 35 million Californians the CSU has a covenant to serve.’
Three weeks later, in Beverly Hills, another crowd of protestors, decked out in caps and gowns, and waving colorful signs, made more purposeful noise outside the exclusive hotel where Hauck was hosting a luncheon for Gov. SChwarzenegger and their fellow buig business Cronies. The problem, as CFA warned at the was hosting a luncheon for Gov. Arnold ments made the connections more than time, is that the Compact has proven Schwarzenegger and their fellow big-just obvious—
I am unable to copy the remainder of the article. For the full article and excellent photos go to www.calfac.org
This is in the summer issue of California Faculty.
www.calfac.org
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Sen. Escutia: This isn't bilingual education
This isn't bilingual ed
Re "Latest from the school policy sausage machine," Peter Schrag, July 12: Schrag's article misinforms the public about the debate between the state Board of Education and the Legislature. What is being called for are textbooks, written in English, that give guidance to teachers on how to teach the state's standards to all students, regardless of a student's ability to understand English. It is a red herring to claim that this proposal has any association with bilingual education or lowering the state's academic standards.
For months, a broad coalition of education groups, including the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators and 40 school districts, have expressed to the state board the urgent need for textbooks that uphold the state's academic standards and also accelerate English acquisition. Senate Bill 1769 responds to their plea by providing a curriculum option that is aligned to the state's standards, systematically develops English fluency and is written to be useful for all levels of English speakers.
The aim of California's accountability system is to hold schools responsible for student performance. The state must support schools by providing multiple and rigorous textbook options so educators can choose the best tool to teach their students English and the academic content every student should know.
- Martha M. Escutia, Sacramento
State Senator, D-Whittier
Letters; Sacramento Bee. Monday
Re "Latest from the school policy sausage machine," Peter Schrag, July 12: Schrag's article misinforms the public about the debate between the state Board of Education and the Legislature. What is being called for are textbooks, written in English, that give guidance to teachers on how to teach the state's standards to all students, regardless of a student's ability to understand English. It is a red herring to claim that this proposal has any association with bilingual education or lowering the state's academic standards.
For months, a broad coalition of education groups, including the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators and 40 school districts, have expressed to the state board the urgent need for textbooks that uphold the state's academic standards and also accelerate English acquisition. Senate Bill 1769 responds to their plea by providing a curriculum option that is aligned to the state's standards, systematically develops English fluency and is written to be useful for all levels of English speakers.
The aim of California's accountability system is to hold schools responsible for student performance. The state must support schools by providing multiple and rigorous textbook options so educators can choose the best tool to teach their students English and the academic content every student should know.
- Martha M. Escutia, Sacramento
State Senator, D-Whittier
Letters; Sacramento Bee. Monday
Calif. School Board needs change
California School Board
The article “Budgetless, School Panel,” by Aurelio Rojas in the Sacramento Bee does a good job of explaining the conflict over the budget of the State Board of Education.
Only poorly educated monolinguals, like the partisan majority on the State Board, would cling to the notion that you can teach a child to read using materials in a language the child does not understand by simply repeating the lesson over and over. Anyone who speaks a second language knows that you must have comprehension.
Yes, the voters have imposed an English immersion program on the state. The latest test scores reveal that immersion has not improved English learning nor reading scores in California. But even when you insist on English immersion, the student must be provided with comprehension assistance while learning English.
The request by teachers was to enhance the reading books with specific instructions for students who need to learn English. The debate is over English materials.
The State Board in a high handed and ideological driven decision refused listen to teachers and refused to provide students with materials with appropriate English materials.
Thank you Sen. Escutia for taking a stand. I encourage all to support SB 1769.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education
CSU-Sacramento
Letter publshed in the Bee on July 15.
The article “Budgetless, School Panel,” by Aurelio Rojas in the Sacramento Bee does a good job of explaining the conflict over the budget of the State Board of Education.
Only poorly educated monolinguals, like the partisan majority on the State Board, would cling to the notion that you can teach a child to read using materials in a language the child does not understand by simply repeating the lesson over and over. Anyone who speaks a second language knows that you must have comprehension.
Yes, the voters have imposed an English immersion program on the state. The latest test scores reveal that immersion has not improved English learning nor reading scores in California. But even when you insist on English immersion, the student must be provided with comprehension assistance while learning English.
The request by teachers was to enhance the reading books with specific instructions for students who need to learn English. The debate is over English materials.
The State Board in a high handed and ideological driven decision refused listen to teachers and refused to provide students with materials with appropriate English materials.
Thank you Sen. Escutia for taking a stand. I encourage all to support SB 1769.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education
CSU-Sacramento
Letter publshed in the Bee on July 15.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Social Justice School offers history and activism
From the streets to the classroom
Social justice school offers summer course in history and activism. Austin, Texas
By Juan Castillo
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, July 10, 2006
On a sticky day in April at the University of Texas, Luis Orozco, a diminutive, fist-pumping dynamo from Lanier High School, lit a fire under a crowd more than 2,000 strong, the vast majority his elders.
At a rally with a parade of speakers, Orozco railed against a U.S. House bill retroactively making all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges.
"We are not going to stay quiet anymore," Orozco, who will be a junior in the fall, would say later.
Emboldened by their participation in this spring's eruption of protests over proposed crackdowns on illegal immigration, he and other high school students wondered what would come next. Orozco and about a dozen others are finding the answer in a classroom far from that emotionally pulsating scene at UT, a new Social Justice Summer School designed to provide insight into historical social struggles and to instill skills to organize for change.
The six-week school at Lanier, which ends this month, has a small, diverse group of U.S.- and foreign-born students spending weekday afternoons confronting topics rarely covered in depth, or at all, in high school: prejudice and racial hatred, and stains on American history such as slavery and segregation.
By the time it's over, the class will have explored heady topics: the civil rights movement, the United Farm Workers labor movement, assimilation and acculturation, poverty and barriers to economic success, to name a few.
Students, not all of whom participated in the demonstrations, are there on their own time, not for high school credit.
According to its lead sponsor, the nonprofit Austin Voices for Education and Youth, the school grew out of conversations with some of the hundreds of area middle school and high school students who protested proposals to clamp down on illegal immigration.
Though supported by many, student protesters came under much public criticism for missing classes. Others complained, too, that students weren't fully able to articulate their message.
"Oh, yeah, a lot of the kids were just going with the flow," said Alfredo Santos, the school's coordinator, who says he has been a community activist for 38 years.
Santos said that at the height of the protests, he and veterans of the Chicano movement noticed a need.
"We commented that this is all emotion here, but at some point it's going to have to make a switch to some basic social justice 101-type stuff," said Santos, who successfully pitched the idea of a school to Amy Averett, director of Austin Voices for Education and Youth.
The nonprofit group works with community members, students, parents and educators to improve schools and neighborhoods.In 2005, with the Austin school district, it was host of community forums to gather input on redesigning and improving Austin high schools.
Social justice school instructors, including visiting college professors, teach U.S. history with a focus on social issues. They don't espouse ideological views, instead encouraging students to think critically.
"We want to also encourage young people to be politically active and active in decision-making, and one of the quickest ways to turn them off of that is to tell them what to think," Averett said.
At its heart, the school is intended to keep alive the intellectual curiosity that drove student participation, said Tim Eubanks,a community organizer with Austin Voices and, with Santos, an instructor in the social justice school.
"One of the things we've always found is that when students are engaged and take action, that lifts all boats in their lives," Eubanks said.
A typical class meets for a total of about 7 1/2 hours a week and combines instruction, lots of questions and free-flowing, unyielding conversations.
On a recent afternoon, virtually the entire canvas of U.S. history and race relations framed the lesson, with Santos and Eubanks finding common threads in how social justice movements such as the fight for civil rights formed, why they were necessary and why change was slow. Students offered examples of racism they'd witnessed or seen on the news: an incident at a local grocery store, motives attributed to the government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina.
Many social movements were born when segments of society resisted change, said Santos, adding that similar experiences can be found in today's debate over illegal immigration.
"My opinion, it has to do with fear," he said. "The country is changing, and it's changing very quickly."
The next day, the instructional centerpiece, a documentary on 1970s efforts to desegregate schools in Boston, recalled an ugly era of racial violence, when the N-word was a commonly used weapon of hate. White residents strongly resisted court-ordered busing that sent black students into their schools. The courts later assumed oversight of Boston public schools.
Eubanks said the documentary captured how students and parents in black neighborhoods succeeded in improving the quality of their education.
"It showed that change happens when people help make change happen," Eubanks said.
Orozco is trying to make things happen at Lanier.
"He's a natural-born leader," said Principal Edmund Oropez, citing the 18-year-old's involvement in school discussions to energize the PTA and to end isolation of Spanish-speaking immigrants in separate classrooms.
Having emigrated four years ago from the Mexican state of Michoacán, Orozco led a few of his classmates, including twins Eduardo and German Sifuentes, in a March 30 immigration march and protest. The Sifuentes brothers also attend the social justice school.
With a genial smile and self-deprecating humor, as well as a penchant for stirring class conversations, Orozco also is making a mark in the social justice school. He said he was drawn there because he thought it was important to understand the historical contexts of social protest in the United States and why social movements began.
"What I'm seeing now with the movements led by Martin Luther King and César Chávez, they worked because they led them peacefully," Orozco said.
Proposals clamping down on illegal immigrants, which could separate families with members both legally and illegally in the country, awakened Orozco.
"I didn't agree, and as always, I raised my voice and I said it, and I did something about it," he said.
jcastillo@statesman.com; 445-3635
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/10justiceschool.html
Social justice school offers summer course in history and activism. Austin, Texas
By Juan Castillo
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, July 10, 2006
On a sticky day in April at the University of Texas, Luis Orozco, a diminutive, fist-pumping dynamo from Lanier High School, lit a fire under a crowd more than 2,000 strong, the vast majority his elders.
At a rally with a parade of speakers, Orozco railed against a U.S. House bill retroactively making all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges.
"We are not going to stay quiet anymore," Orozco, who will be a junior in the fall, would say later.
Emboldened by their participation in this spring's eruption of protests over proposed crackdowns on illegal immigration, he and other high school students wondered what would come next. Orozco and about a dozen others are finding the answer in a classroom far from that emotionally pulsating scene at UT, a new Social Justice Summer School designed to provide insight into historical social struggles and to instill skills to organize for change.
The six-week school at Lanier, which ends this month, has a small, diverse group of U.S.- and foreign-born students spending weekday afternoons confronting topics rarely covered in depth, or at all, in high school: prejudice and racial hatred, and stains on American history such as slavery and segregation.
By the time it's over, the class will have explored heady topics: the civil rights movement, the United Farm Workers labor movement, assimilation and acculturation, poverty and barriers to economic success, to name a few.
Students, not all of whom participated in the demonstrations, are there on their own time, not for high school credit.
According to its lead sponsor, the nonprofit Austin Voices for Education and Youth, the school grew out of conversations with some of the hundreds of area middle school and high school students who protested proposals to clamp down on illegal immigration.
Though supported by many, student protesters came under much public criticism for missing classes. Others complained, too, that students weren't fully able to articulate their message.
"Oh, yeah, a lot of the kids were just going with the flow," said Alfredo Santos, the school's coordinator, who says he has been a community activist for 38 years.
Santos said that at the height of the protests, he and veterans of the Chicano movement noticed a need.
"We commented that this is all emotion here, but at some point it's going to have to make a switch to some basic social justice 101-type stuff," said Santos, who successfully pitched the idea of a school to Amy Averett, director of Austin Voices for Education and Youth.
The nonprofit group works with community members, students, parents and educators to improve schools and neighborhoods.In 2005, with the Austin school district, it was host of community forums to gather input on redesigning and improving Austin high schools.
Social justice school instructors, including visiting college professors, teach U.S. history with a focus on social issues. They don't espouse ideological views, instead encouraging students to think critically.
"We want to also encourage young people to be politically active and active in decision-making, and one of the quickest ways to turn them off of that is to tell them what to think," Averett said.
At its heart, the school is intended to keep alive the intellectual curiosity that drove student participation, said Tim Eubanks,a community organizer with Austin Voices and, with Santos, an instructor in the social justice school.
"One of the things we've always found is that when students are engaged and take action, that lifts all boats in their lives," Eubanks said.
A typical class meets for a total of about 7 1/2 hours a week and combines instruction, lots of questions and free-flowing, unyielding conversations.
On a recent afternoon, virtually the entire canvas of U.S. history and race relations framed the lesson, with Santos and Eubanks finding common threads in how social justice movements such as the fight for civil rights formed, why they were necessary and why change was slow. Students offered examples of racism they'd witnessed or seen on the news: an incident at a local grocery store, motives attributed to the government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina.
Many social movements were born when segments of society resisted change, said Santos, adding that similar experiences can be found in today's debate over illegal immigration.
"My opinion, it has to do with fear," he said. "The country is changing, and it's changing very quickly."
The next day, the instructional centerpiece, a documentary on 1970s efforts to desegregate schools in Boston, recalled an ugly era of racial violence, when the N-word was a commonly used weapon of hate. White residents strongly resisted court-ordered busing that sent black students into their schools. The courts later assumed oversight of Boston public schools.
Eubanks said the documentary captured how students and parents in black neighborhoods succeeded in improving the quality of their education.
"It showed that change happens when people help make change happen," Eubanks said.
Orozco is trying to make things happen at Lanier.
"He's a natural-born leader," said Principal Edmund Oropez, citing the 18-year-old's involvement in school discussions to energize the PTA and to end isolation of Spanish-speaking immigrants in separate classrooms.
Having emigrated four years ago from the Mexican state of Michoacán, Orozco led a few of his classmates, including twins Eduardo and German Sifuentes, in a March 30 immigration march and protest. The Sifuentes brothers also attend the social justice school.
With a genial smile and self-deprecating humor, as well as a penchant for stirring class conversations, Orozco also is making a mark in the social justice school. He said he was drawn there because he thought it was important to understand the historical contexts of social protest in the United States and why social movements began.
"What I'm seeing now with the movements led by Martin Luther King and César Chávez, they worked because they led them peacefully," Orozco said.
Proposals clamping down on illegal immigrants, which could separate families with members both legally and illegally in the country, awakened Orozco.
"I didn't agree, and as always, I raised my voice and I said it, and I did something about it," he said.
jcastillo@statesman.com; 445-3635
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/10justiceschool.html
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Sen. Escutia takes a stand
California School Board
Recent letters by ex governors and recent letters to the Bee by ex staff members of the California Board of Education reveal one of the conflicts presently confronting the State Board.
Only poorly educated monolinguals, like the majority on the State Board, would cling to the notion that you can teach a child to read using materials in a language the child does not understand by simply repeating the lesson over and over. Anyone who speaks a second language knows that you must have comprehension.
Yes, the voters have imposed an English immersion program on the state. And current evidence is that it has not improved English learning nor reading scores in California. But even if you insist on English immersion, the student must be provided with comprehension assistance while learning English.
The request by teachers was to enhance the reading books with specific instructions for students who need to learn English. The debate is over English materials.
The State Board in a high handed and ideological driven decision refused to provide students with materials with these aids to comprehension.
Thank you Sen. Escutia for your willingness to take a stand.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education
CSU-Sacramento
Recent letters by ex governors and recent letters to the Bee by ex staff members of the California Board of Education reveal one of the conflicts presently confronting the State Board.
Only poorly educated monolinguals, like the majority on the State Board, would cling to the notion that you can teach a child to read using materials in a language the child does not understand by simply repeating the lesson over and over. Anyone who speaks a second language knows that you must have comprehension.
Yes, the voters have imposed an English immersion program on the state. And current evidence is that it has not improved English learning nor reading scores in California. But even if you insist on English immersion, the student must be provided with comprehension assistance while learning English.
The request by teachers was to enhance the reading books with specific instructions for students who need to learn English. The debate is over English materials.
The State Board in a high handed and ideological driven decision refused to provide students with materials with these aids to comprehension.
Thank you Sen. Escutia for your willingness to take a stand.
Dr. Duane E. Campbell
Professor of Education
CSU-Sacramento
School Board with no budget
Budgetless, school panel meets today
Its president has quit after squabble with Democrats.
By Aurelio Rojas -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The California Board of Education, which sets policy for the state's 6 million public school students, will meet today with no money in its budget, no president and feeling neglected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On June 30, the same day the Republican governor signed a budget that did not include any money for the board's staff, the panel's president, Glee Johnson, abruptly quit.
"I think she felt the Governor's Office was overlooking the significance of the board and what it does," said Roger Magyar, the board's executive director, adding the budget mess was a factor.
Johnson, who as an aide to Gov. Pete Wilson helped usher in school standards and accountability, did not give a reason for her resignation and was not available for comment Tuesday.
But during her six months as president, the 11-member board split on several matters, including how English learners should be taught -- a recurring issue that has divided Democratic lawmakers and the board.
In April, the board voted down a proposal for instructional materials designed to help English learners, angering members of the 27-member Latino Caucus. In response, Democrats stripped $1.6 million for the board's staff from the budget that Schwarzenegger signed -- despite appeals to the administration by board officials, Magyar said.
Sen. Martha Escutia, who is carrying legislation, Senate Bill 1769, to expand instructional materials for English learners, said she told the governor late last month that the board would not get funding in the state budget.
"I said it in front of his chief of staff (Susan Kennedy) and other people," said Escutia, D-Whittier. "Maybe they made the mistake of underestimating me."
The money for the board's staff is now in SB 1769, which also would provide the instructional materials Escutia asked the board to support.
Meanwhile, the board's civil service staff is being paid with money from the state Department of Education while other staffers are on the payroll of the Governor's Office, Magyar said.
"We want to work with the Legislature to restore the funding as quickly as possible," said Sabrina Lockhard, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger.
The budget, she said, contains two items for materials for English learners -- a $30 million, one-time appropriation and $20 million to research how best to teach such students.
Magyar said that because the overall education budget was not as contentious as in previous years, the board's funding "slipped through the cracks."
He said Johnson and other board officials alerted the administration about the issue, to no avail.
"There were some people who said, 'Governor, we think you ought to take action against the Legislature,' " Magyar said. But he said the governor's advisers told him it was too late to hold up the budget over the matter.
Schwarzenegger, who is running for re-election, had made a strong push to sign the budget before the fiscal year that began July 1. It was the first time since 2000 that the budget had been signed that soon.
Lockhard said the board is still carrying out its responsibilities -- and has Schwarzenegger's strong backing.
"The governor is proud of the board," she said. "He really supports them, he believes that they're doing an excellent job."
Rebecca Parker, a board consultant and civil service employee, said the staff remains committed to its jobs.
"We've chosen to continue to do business because the (school) districts in the state depend on us," she said.
On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger -- who has been courting Latino voters during his re-election campaign -- appointed David Lopez, president of National Hispanic University in San Jose, to replace Johnson on the board.
Today, the board is scheduled to select a new president. A possible candidate is Joe Nuñez, currently the only Latino on the board and an official of the California Teachers Association.
Lopez is expected to attend the board meeting, although his appointment to the four-year term requires Senate confirmation. Last year, a Senate panel rejected Schwarzenegger's bid to reappoint Reed Hastings to the board.
As head of the panel, the Silicon Valley businessman lost support of Latino lawmakers for bucking their efforts to expand instructional materials for English learners.
Lopez, who runs a school whose goal is to increase college attendance of Latino students, should meet less resistance, said Maria Quezada, director of the California Association for Bilingual Education.
Last week, former Govs. Wilson and Gray Davis, in a rare show of bipartisanship, sent a joint letter to Schwarzenegger urging him not to retreat from the curriculum standards and testing they pushed through while in office.
Escutia said the legislation she is exhorting Schwarzenegger to back would not change standards or expand bilingual education.
That issue, she said, was settled by Proposition 227, the 1998 ballot measure that largely eliminated bilingual education in California.
"What we're trying to do is provide the materials for these students to learn," she said. "This is not about bilingual education."
About the writer:
The Bee's Aurelio Rojas can be reached at (916) 326-5545 or arojas@sacbee.com.
Go to: Sacbee / Back to story
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000
Its president has quit after squabble with Democrats.
By Aurelio Rojas -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:01 am PDT Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The California Board of Education, which sets policy for the state's 6 million public school students, will meet today with no money in its budget, no president and feeling neglected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On June 30, the same day the Republican governor signed a budget that did not include any money for the board's staff, the panel's president, Glee Johnson, abruptly quit.
"I think she felt the Governor's Office was overlooking the significance of the board and what it does," said Roger Magyar, the board's executive director, adding the budget mess was a factor.
Johnson, who as an aide to Gov. Pete Wilson helped usher in school standards and accountability, did not give a reason for her resignation and was not available for comment Tuesday.
But during her six months as president, the 11-member board split on several matters, including how English learners should be taught -- a recurring issue that has divided Democratic lawmakers and the board.
In April, the board voted down a proposal for instructional materials designed to help English learners, angering members of the 27-member Latino Caucus. In response, Democrats stripped $1.6 million for the board's staff from the budget that Schwarzenegger signed -- despite appeals to the administration by board officials, Magyar said.
Sen. Martha Escutia, who is carrying legislation, Senate Bill 1769, to expand instructional materials for English learners, said she told the governor late last month that the board would not get funding in the state budget.
"I said it in front of his chief of staff (Susan Kennedy) and other people," said Escutia, D-Whittier. "Maybe they made the mistake of underestimating me."
The money for the board's staff is now in SB 1769, which also would provide the instructional materials Escutia asked the board to support.
Meanwhile, the board's civil service staff is being paid with money from the state Department of Education while other staffers are on the payroll of the Governor's Office, Magyar said.
"We want to work with the Legislature to restore the funding as quickly as possible," said Sabrina Lockhard, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger.
The budget, she said, contains two items for materials for English learners -- a $30 million, one-time appropriation and $20 million to research how best to teach such students.
Magyar said that because the overall education budget was not as contentious as in previous years, the board's funding "slipped through the cracks."
He said Johnson and other board officials alerted the administration about the issue, to no avail.
"There were some people who said, 'Governor, we think you ought to take action against the Legislature,' " Magyar said. But he said the governor's advisers told him it was too late to hold up the budget over the matter.
Schwarzenegger, who is running for re-election, had made a strong push to sign the budget before the fiscal year that began July 1. It was the first time since 2000 that the budget had been signed that soon.
Lockhard said the board is still carrying out its responsibilities -- and has Schwarzenegger's strong backing.
"The governor is proud of the board," she said. "He really supports them, he believes that they're doing an excellent job."
Rebecca Parker, a board consultant and civil service employee, said the staff remains committed to its jobs.
"We've chosen to continue to do business because the (school) districts in the state depend on us," she said.
On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger -- who has been courting Latino voters during his re-election campaign -- appointed David Lopez, president of National Hispanic University in San Jose, to replace Johnson on the board.
Today, the board is scheduled to select a new president. A possible candidate is Joe Nuñez, currently the only Latino on the board and an official of the California Teachers Association.
Lopez is expected to attend the board meeting, although his appointment to the four-year term requires Senate confirmation. Last year, a Senate panel rejected Schwarzenegger's bid to reappoint Reed Hastings to the board.
As head of the panel, the Silicon Valley businessman lost support of Latino lawmakers for bucking their efforts to expand instructional materials for English learners.
Lopez, who runs a school whose goal is to increase college attendance of Latino students, should meet less resistance, said Maria Quezada, director of the California Association for Bilingual Education.
Last week, former Govs. Wilson and Gray Davis, in a rare show of bipartisanship, sent a joint letter to Schwarzenegger urging him not to retreat from the curriculum standards and testing they pushed through while in office.
Escutia said the legislation she is exhorting Schwarzenegger to back would not change standards or expand bilingual education.
That issue, she said, was settled by Proposition 227, the 1998 ballot measure that largely eliminated bilingual education in California.
"What we're trying to do is provide the materials for these students to learn," she said. "This is not about bilingual education."
About the writer:
The Bee's Aurelio Rojas can be reached at (916) 326-5545 or arojas@sacbee.com.
Go to: Sacbee / Back to story
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Jill Stewart creeps in again:2
VCReporter.com, Issue of 3/16/06
Classroom quarrel
Too bad Jill Stewart didn't look at the 2005 test data and only listened to "one school reformer" before she vilified over 50 school and county administrators and hundreds of teachers who only want to upgrade the current English language arts textbooks. So what are the facts? (3/2/06, Capitol Punishment, "The education wars") The achievement gap between students who speak English and those who don't (English learners) has grown consistently since the passage of Prop. 227.
Last year's third grade test scores dropped for almost all students but even more dramatically for English learners. The worst part is that the numbers of students scoring at the lowest levels of achievement in the third grade increased, and especially for English Learners. These third graders began their reading experience under the one-size-fits-all program currently mandated by the California State Board of Education designed for native English speakers. Students who speak the least English do not understand the lessons contained in the current and proposed new textbooks, voted on by the State Board of Education on March 9.
The request is to enhance the new books with specific instruction for students who need to learn English and how to read English at the same time. The recommendations before the state board from a broad group of educators do not even mention bilingual education. This debate is over English materials.
So why would Ms. Stewart use all the hot button words to scare the public and intimidate the State Board of Education members? Maybe because she is only a political commentator and not an educator? She should stick to politics and let the State Board of Education do the right thing for 1.6 million English learners who need books to accelerate their learning of English and prepare them to compete in a dynamic, diverse and global economy.
Shelly Spiegel-Coleman
President, Californians Together
Long Beach
forgive this delayed posting. I just encountered this letter on the CABE web site. Regular readers will know that I try to keep taps on Jill Steward, the Ann Coulter of California.
Classroom quarrel
Too bad Jill Stewart didn't look at the 2005 test data and only listened to "one school reformer" before she vilified over 50 school and county administrators and hundreds of teachers who only want to upgrade the current English language arts textbooks. So what are the facts? (3/2/06, Capitol Punishment, "The education wars") The achievement gap between students who speak English and those who don't (English learners) has grown consistently since the passage of Prop. 227.
Last year's third grade test scores dropped for almost all students but even more dramatically for English learners. The worst part is that the numbers of students scoring at the lowest levels of achievement in the third grade increased, and especially for English Learners. These third graders began their reading experience under the one-size-fits-all program currently mandated by the California State Board of Education designed for native English speakers. Students who speak the least English do not understand the lessons contained in the current and proposed new textbooks, voted on by the State Board of Education on March 9.
The request is to enhance the new books with specific instruction for students who need to learn English and how to read English at the same time. The recommendations before the state board from a broad group of educators do not even mention bilingual education. This debate is over English materials.
So why would Ms. Stewart use all the hot button words to scare the public and intimidate the State Board of Education members? Maybe because she is only a political commentator and not an educator? She should stick to politics and let the State Board of Education do the right thing for 1.6 million English learners who need books to accelerate their learning of English and prepare them to compete in a dynamic, diverse and global economy.
Shelly Spiegel-Coleman
President, Californians Together
Long Beach
forgive this delayed posting. I just encountered this letter on the CABE web site. Regular readers will know that I try to keep taps on Jill Steward, the Ann Coulter of California.
Calif. Board of Education - failure
Ex-governors push school standards
By Aurelio Rojas -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, July 11, 2006
A week after Democratic lawmakers stripped funding for the state Board of Education, former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reaffirm his support for curriculum standards, testing and how English learners are taught.
In rare show of bipartisanship, Wilson, a Republican, and Davis, a Democrat, said "term limits have left Sacramento with little institutional memory of the goals and rationale" for the reforms they ushered through while in office.
"Standards provide a measure of excellence regardless of one's skin color, family income or ZIP code," the former governors wrote in a letter dated Friday. "We took a standards-based approach in California because we believe that it set expectations high."
Rancor has escalated in recent months between the Democrats who control the Legislature and the Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor and sets policy for California schools.
After the board voted down a proposal in April for instructional material designed to help English learners more quickly overcome their limitations, Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, turned to fellow Democrats in the Legislature.
The budget that lawmakers sent the governor last week for his signature contained no money for the board's staff; $1.6 million had been taken out.
"We tried to talk to (the board) and they just say 'no,' " said Suzanne Wierbinski, Escutia's chief of staff. "That's when we said, 'Fine. Here you go.' "
In their two-page letter to Schwarzenegger, Wilson and Davis do not refer to the budget skirmish. But they assert that the standards they fought for are under assault, without specifying the aggressors.
"Some have attacked the standards by arguing the process for creating them was politically manipulated or even hijacked by 'ideologically based scholars' such as 'fellows' at the conservative Hoover Institute," they wrote.
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said Democrats have no designs on changing standards.
"This is the same thing that gets said over and over and over -- and there's absolutely no one attacking the standards," Goldberg said.
She said the proposed legislation the ex-governors "are talking about says there is more than one road to meet those standards. That's all its says."
The legislation -- Senate Bill 1769 by Escutia -- would "integrate supplemental instruction into the core curriculum and maintain every state standard," Wierbinski said.
Sabrina Lockhard, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the administration received the letter Monday and the governor had not weighed in on the debate.
"(But) the governor believes that English learners do best when they're immersed in the language," she said. "When he came to this country, that's how he learned to speak English."
Lockhard added that the Republican governor "is working with the Legislature" to restore funding for the Board of Education.
Note: from Duane Campbell
The standards should be re-examined. The History/Social Science standards were a victory of traditionalist-conservative forces. And, they fail to help students to understand the present society. They are obsolete.
For more on this see Chapter 12 of my book, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Merrill/Prentice Hall. 2004)
Also note: Alan Bersin, the California Secretary of Education is on the California State School Board. see other posts in this blog about Bersin and his time in San Diego.
By Aurelio Rojas -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, July 11, 2006
A week after Democratic lawmakers stripped funding for the state Board of Education, former Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis have asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reaffirm his support for curriculum standards, testing and how English learners are taught.
In rare show of bipartisanship, Wilson, a Republican, and Davis, a Democrat, said "term limits have left Sacramento with little institutional memory of the goals and rationale" for the reforms they ushered through while in office.
"Standards provide a measure of excellence regardless of one's skin color, family income or ZIP code," the former governors wrote in a letter dated Friday. "We took a standards-based approach in California because we believe that it set expectations high."
Rancor has escalated in recent months between the Democrats who control the Legislature and the Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor and sets policy for California schools.
After the board voted down a proposal in April for instructional material designed to help English learners more quickly overcome their limitations, Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, turned to fellow Democrats in the Legislature.
The budget that lawmakers sent the governor last week for his signature contained no money for the board's staff; $1.6 million had been taken out.
"We tried to talk to (the board) and they just say 'no,' " said Suzanne Wierbinski, Escutia's chief of staff. "That's when we said, 'Fine. Here you go.' "
In their two-page letter to Schwarzenegger, Wilson and Davis do not refer to the budget skirmish. But they assert that the standards they fought for are under assault, without specifying the aggressors.
"Some have attacked the standards by arguing the process for creating them was politically manipulated or even hijacked by 'ideologically based scholars' such as 'fellows' at the conservative Hoover Institute," they wrote.
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said Democrats have no designs on changing standards.
"This is the same thing that gets said over and over and over -- and there's absolutely no one attacking the standards," Goldberg said.
She said the proposed legislation the ex-governors "are talking about says there is more than one road to meet those standards. That's all its says."
The legislation -- Senate Bill 1769 by Escutia -- would "integrate supplemental instruction into the core curriculum and maintain every state standard," Wierbinski said.
Sabrina Lockhard, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the administration received the letter Monday and the governor had not weighed in on the debate.
"(But) the governor believes that English learners do best when they're immersed in the language," she said. "When he came to this country, that's how he learned to speak English."
Lockhard added that the Republican governor "is working with the Legislature" to restore funding for the Board of Education.
Note: from Duane Campbell
The standards should be re-examined. The History/Social Science standards were a victory of traditionalist-conservative forces. And, they fail to help students to understand the present society. They are obsolete.
For more on this see Chapter 12 of my book, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Merrill/Prentice Hall. 2004)
Also note: Alan Bersin, the California Secretary of Education is on the California State School Board. see other posts in this blog about Bersin and his time in San Diego.
Bracey: Reading Educational Research
Reading Educational Research: How to Avoid Getting Statistically Snookered. For years Gerry Bracey has been challenging the conventional wisdom on educational research and statistics. If you follow his EDDRA listserve you saw this summer how he challenged the recent drop-out numbers from the Education Week study. Of course most people don't want to hear inconvenient truths, preferring to just listen to the numbers that make them justified in their own thinking. But if you want to get behind the numbers and not be fooled again, pick up this slim volume and then keep it handy on your desk for frequent reference.
2006. Hieneman.
2006. Hieneman.
Monday, July 10, 2006
LAO: Budget analysis
The Legislative Analyst Office has posted their description of the budget.
Note the allocations to k-12 education. In 2006-2007, their is a claim of a major increase in ADA. Does anyone have an analysis of this? Will we really make progress?
Duane Campbell
Note the allocations to k-12 education. In 2006-2007, their is a claim of a major increase in ADA. Does anyone have an analysis of this? Will we really make progress?
Duane Campbell
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Bush is not incompetent: Lakoff
A long post, but well worth reading.
Bush Is Not Incompetent
By George Lakoff, AlterNet
Posted on July 3, 2006, Printed on July 8, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader."
Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.
To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm -- it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities -- disregarding him as a complete idiot -- and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.
The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:
Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree
Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed
Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more
Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event
Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts
Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections
Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies
Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives
Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment -- "The Healthy Forests Act" and the "Clear Skies Initiative" -- to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies
Winning re-election and solidifying his party's grip on Congress
These aren't signs of incompetence. As should be painfully clear, the Bush administration has been overwhelmingly competent in advancing its conservative vision. It has been all too effective in achieving its goals by determinedly pursuing a conservative philosophy.
It's not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it's the conservative agenda.
The Conservative Agenda
Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government's positive role in people's lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.
The conservative vision for government is to shrink it - to "starve the beast" in Conservative Grover Norquist's words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that "you can spend your money better than the government can." Social programs are considered unnecessary or "discretionary" since the primary role of government is to defend the country's border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people's own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made -- conservation, healthcare for the poor -- charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.
Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn't there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn't have failed if he bore no responsibility.
The response to Hurricane Katrina -- rather, the lack of response -- was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen's lives. This response was not about Bush's incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.
Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes -- based on recognizing global warming -- were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.
Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?
In Iraq, we also see the impact of philosophy as much as a failure of execution.
The idea for the war itself was born out of deep conservative convictions about the nature and capacity of US military force. Among the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles (signed in 1997 by a who's who of the architects of the Iraq war -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby among others) are four critical points:
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.
It also indicates that the real motive behind the Iraq war wasn't to stop Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but was a test of neoconservative theory that the US military could reshape Middle East geo-politics. The manipulation and disregard of intelligence to sell the war was not incompetence, it was the product of a conservative agenda.
Unfortunately, this theory exalts a hubristic vision over the lessons of history. It neglects the realization that there is a limit to a foreign army's ability to shape foreign politics for the good. Our military involvement in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba (prior to Castro) and Panama, or European imperialist endeavors around the globe should have taught us this lesson. Democracy needs to be an organic, homegrown movement, as it was in this country. If we believe so deeply in our ideals, they will speak for themselves and inspire others.
During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President's military decisions "unpatriotic"; when Conservatives defend the executive branch's use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the "decider." "I support our President" was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.
Additionally, as the implementer of the neoconservative vision and an unquestioned moral authority, our President felt he had no burden to forge international consensus or listen to the critiques of our allies. "You're with us, or you're against us," he proclaimed after 9/11.
Much criticism continues to be launched against this administration for ineptitude in its reconstruction efforts. Tragically, it is here too that the administration's actions have been shaped less by ineptitude than by deeply held conservative convictions about the role of government.
As noted above, Conservatives believe that government's role is limited to security and maintaining a free market. Given this conviction, it's no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market -- the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Indeed, George Packer has recently reported that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is nearing its end ("The Lessons of Tal Affar," The New Yorker, April 10th, 2006). Iraqis must find ways to rebuild themselves, and the free market we have constructed for them is supposed to do this. This is not ineptitude. This is the result of deep convictions over the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of governments to their people.
Finally, many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration; environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society.
Is it any surprise that the systemic impacts of the Iraq invasion were not part of the conservative moral or strategic calculus used in pursuing the war?
The conservative war rhetoric focused narrowly on ousting Saddam -- he was an evil dictator, and evil cannot be tolerated, period. The moral implications of unleashing social chaos and collateral damage in addition to the lessons of history were not relevant concerns.
As a consequence, we expected to be greeted as liberators. The conservative plan failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation that would have called for broader contingency planning. It lacked an analysis of what else would happen in Iraq and the Middle East as a result of ousting the Hussein Government, such as an Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.
Joe Biden recently said, "if I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority [to go to war]." Had Bush actually been incompetent, he would have never been able to lead us to war in Iraq. Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Had Bush been incompetent, he would have been blocked from stacking the courts with right-wing judges. Incompetence, on reflection, might have actually been better for the country.
Hidden Successes
Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these "failures" -- Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit -- have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.
One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government's capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush's popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.
Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won't come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call "non-military, discretionary spending;" that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.
Both Iraq and Katrina have enriched the coffers of the conservative corporate elite, thus further advancing the conservative agenda. Halliburton, Lockhead Martin and US oil companies have enjoyed huge profit margins in the last six years. Taking Iraq's oil production off-line in the face of rising international demand meant prices would rise, making the oil inventories of Exxon and other firms that much more valuable, leading to record profits. The destruction wrought by Katrina and Iraq meant billions in reconstruction contracts. The war in Iraq (and the war in Afghanistan) meant billions in military equipment contracts. Was there any doubt where those contracts would go? Chalk up another success for Bush's conservative agenda.
Bush also used Katrina as an opportunity to suspend the environmental and labor protection laws that Conservatives despise so much. In the wake of Katrina, environmental standards for oil refineries were temporarily suspended to increase production. Labor laws are being thwarted to drive down the cost of reconstruction efforts. So, amidst these "disasters," Conservatives win again.
Where most Americans see failure in Iraq - George Miller recently called Iraq a "blunder of historic proportions" - conservative militarists are seeing many successes. Conservatives stress the importance of our military -- our national pride and worth is expressed through its power and influence. Permanent bases are being constructed as planned in Iraq, and America has shown the rest of the world that we can and will preemptively strike with little provocation. They succeeded in a mobilization of our military forces based on ideological pretenses to impact foreign policy. The war has struck fear in other nations with a hostile show of American power. The conservatives have succeeded in strengthening what they perceive to be the locus of the national interest --military power.
It's Not Incompetence
When Progressives shout "Incompetence!" it obscures the many conservative successes. The incompetence frame drastically misses the point, that the conservative vision is doing great harm to this country and the world. An understanding of this and an articulate progressive response is needed. Progressives know that government can and should have a positive role in our lives beyond simple, physical security. It had a positive impact during the progressive era, busting trusts, and establishing basic labor standards. It had a positive impact during the new deal, softening the blow of the depression by creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It had a positive role in advancing the civil rights movement, extending rights to previously disenfranchised groups. And the United States can have a positive role in world affairs without the use of its military and expressions of raw power. Progressives acknowledge that we are all in this together, with "we" meaning all people, across all spectrums of race, class, religion, sex, sexual preference and age. "We" also means across party lines, state lines and international borders.
The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.
Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush's conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.
Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.
George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Bush Is Not Incompetent
By George Lakoff, AlterNet
Posted on July 3, 2006, Printed on July 8, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush's plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush's "failures" and label him and his administration as incompetent. For example, Nancy Pelosi said "The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader."
Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush's disasters -- Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit -- are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault. Bush will not be running again, but other conservatives will. His governing philosophy is theirs as well. We should be putting the onus where it belongs, on all conservative office holders and candidates who would lead us off the same cliff.
To Bush's base, his bumbling folksiness is part of his charm -- it fosters conservative populism. Bush plays up this image by proudly stating his lack of interest in reading and current events, his fondness for naps and vacations and his self-deprecating jokes. This image causes the opposition to underestimate his capacities -- disregarding him as a complete idiot -- and deflects criticism of his conservative allies. If incompetence is the problem, it's all about Bush. But, if conservatism is the problem, it is about a set of ideas, a movement and its many adherents.
The idea that Bush is incompetent is a curious one. Consider the following (incomplete) list of major initiatives the Bush administration, with a loyal conservative Congress, has accomplished:
Centralizing power within the executive branch to an unprecedented degree
Starting two major wars, one started with questionable intelligence and in a manner with which the military disagreed
Placing on the Supreme Court two far-right justices, and stacking the lower federal courts with many more
Cutting taxes during wartime, an unprecedented event
Passing a number of controversial bills such as the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Medicare Drug bill, the Bankruptcy bill and a number of massive tax cuts
Rolling back and refusing to enforce a host of basic regulatory protections
Appointing industry officials to oversee regulatory agencies
Establishing a greater role for religion through faith-based initiatives
Passing Orwellian-titled legislation assaulting the environment -- "The Healthy Forests Act" and the "Clear Skies Initiative" -- to deforest public lands, and put more pollution in our skies
Winning re-election and solidifying his party's grip on Congress
These aren't signs of incompetence. As should be painfully clear, the Bush administration has been overwhelmingly competent in advancing its conservative vision. It has been all too effective in achieving its goals by determinedly pursuing a conservative philosophy.
It's not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it's the conservative agenda.
The Conservative Agenda
Conservative philosophy has three fundamental tenets: individual initiative, that is, government's positive role in people's lives outside of the military and police should be minimized; the President is the moral authority; and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity.
The conservative vision for government is to shrink it - to "starve the beast" in Conservative Grover Norquist's words. The conservative tagline for this rationale is that "you can spend your money better than the government can." Social programs are considered unnecessary or "discretionary" since the primary role of government is to defend the country's border and police its interior. Stewardship of the commons, such as allocation of healthcare or energy policy, is left to people's own initiative within the free market. Where profits cannot be made -- conservation, healthcare for the poor -- charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved.
Given this philosophy, then, is it any wonder that the government wasn't there for the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Conservative philosophy places emphasis on the individual acting alone, independent of anything the government could provide. Some conservative Sunday morning talk show guests suggested that those who chose to live in New Orleans accepted the risk of a devastating hurricane, the implication being that they thus forfeited any entitlement to government assistance. If the people of New Orleans suffered, it was because of their own actions, their own choices and their own lack of preparedness. Bush couldn't have failed if he bore no responsibility.
The response to Hurricane Katrina -- rather, the lack of response -- was what one should expect from a philosophy that espouses that the government can have no positive role in its citizen's lives. This response was not about Bush's incompetence, it was a conservative, shrink-government response to a natural disaster.
Another failure of this administration during the Katrina fiasco was its wholesale disregard of the numerous and serious hurricane warnings. But this failure was a natural outgrowth of the conservative insistence on denying the validity of global warming, not ineptitude. Conservatives continue to deny the validity of global warming, because it runs contrary to their moral system. Recognizing global warming would call for environmental regulation and governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation is a perceived interference with the free-market, Conservatives' golden calf. So, the predictions of imminent hurricanes -- based on recognizing global warming -- were not heeded. Conservative free market convictions trumped the hurricane warnings.
Our budget deficit is not the result of incompetent fiscal management. It too is an outgrowth of conservative philosophy. What better way than massive deficits to rid social programs of their funding?
In Iraq, we also see the impact of philosophy as much as a failure of execution.
The idea for the war itself was born out of deep conservative convictions about the nature and capacity of US military force. Among the Project for a New American Century's statement of principles (signed in 1997 by a who's who of the architects of the Iraq war -- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby among others) are four critical points:
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Implicit in these ideas is that the United States military can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Our military might and power can be a force for good.
It also indicates that the real motive behind the Iraq war wasn't to stop Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but was a test of neoconservative theory that the US military could reshape Middle East geo-politics. The manipulation and disregard of intelligence to sell the war was not incompetence, it was the product of a conservative agenda.
Unfortunately, this theory exalts a hubristic vision over the lessons of history. It neglects the realization that there is a limit to a foreign army's ability to shape foreign politics for the good. Our military involvement in Vietnam, Lebanon, the Philippines, Cuba (prior to Castro) and Panama, or European imperialist endeavors around the globe should have taught us this lesson. Democracy needs to be an organic, homegrown movement, as it was in this country. If we believe so deeply in our ideals, they will speak for themselves and inspire others.
During the debate over Iraq, the conservative belief in the unquestioned authority and moral leadership of the President helped shape public support. We see this deference to the President constantly: when Conservatives call those questioning the President's military decisions "unpatriotic"; when Conservatives defend the executive branch's use of domestic spying in the war on terror; when Bush simply refers to himself as the "decider." "I support our President" was a common justification of assent to the Iraq policy.
Additionally, as the implementer of the neoconservative vision and an unquestioned moral authority, our President felt he had no burden to forge international consensus or listen to the critiques of our allies. "You're with us, or you're against us," he proclaimed after 9/11.
Much criticism continues to be launched against this administration for ineptitude in its reconstruction efforts. Tragically, it is here too that the administration's actions have been shaped less by ineptitude than by deeply held conservative convictions about the role of government.
As noted above, Conservatives believe that government's role is limited to security and maintaining a free market. Given this conviction, it's no accident that administration policies have focused almost exclusively on the training of Iraqi police, and US access to the newly free Iraqi market -- the invisible hand of the market will take care of the rest. Indeed, George Packer has recently reported that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is nearing its end ("The Lessons of Tal Affar," The New Yorker, April 10th, 2006). Iraqis must find ways to rebuild themselves, and the free market we have constructed for them is supposed to do this. This is not ineptitude. This is the result of deep convictions over the nature of freedom and the responsibilities of governments to their people.
Finally, many of the miscalculations are the result of a conservative analytic focus on narrow causes and effects, rather than mere incompetence. Evidence for this focus can be seen in conservative domestic policies: Crime policy is based on punishing the criminals, independent of any effort to remedy the larger social issues that cause crime; immigration policy focuses on border issues and the immigrants, and ignores the effects of international and domestic economic policy on population migration; environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment; education policy, in the form of vouchers, ignores the devastating effects that dismantling the public school system will have on our whole society.
Is it any surprise that the systemic impacts of the Iraq invasion were not part of the conservative moral or strategic calculus used in pursuing the war?
The conservative war rhetoric focused narrowly on ousting Saddam -- he was an evil dictator, and evil cannot be tolerated, period. The moral implications of unleashing social chaos and collateral damage in addition to the lessons of history were not relevant concerns.
As a consequence, we expected to be greeted as liberators. The conservative plan failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation that would have called for broader contingency planning. It lacked an analysis of what else would happen in Iraq and the Middle East as a result of ousting the Hussein Government, such as an Iranian push to obtain nuclear weapons.
Joe Biden recently said, "if I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority [to go to war]." Had Bush actually been incompetent, he would have never been able to lead us to war in Iraq. Had Bush been incompetent, he would not have been able to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Had Bush been incompetent, he would have been blocked from stacking the courts with right-wing judges. Incompetence, on reflection, might have actually been better for the country.
Hidden Successes
Perhaps the biggest irony of the Bush-is-incompetent frame is that these "failures" -- Iraq, Katrina and the budget deficit -- have been successes in terms of advancing the conservative agenda.
One of the goals of Conservatives is to keep people from relying on the federal government. Under Bush, FEMA was reorganized to no longer be a first responder in major natural disasters, but to provide support for local agencies. This led to the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. Now citizens, as well as local and state governments, have become distrustful of the federal government's capacity to help ordinary citizens. Though Bush's popularity may have suffered, enhancing the perception of federal government as inept turned out to be a conservative victory.
Conservatives also strive to get rid of protective agencies and social programs. The deficit Bush created through irresponsible tax cuts and a costly war in Iraq will require drastic budget cuts to remedy. Those cuts, conservatives know, won't come from military spending, particularly when they raise the constant specter of war. Instead, the cuts will be from what Conservatives have begun to call "non-military, discretionary spending;" that is, the programs that contribute to the common good like the FDA, EPA, FCC, FEMA, OSHA and the NLRB. Yet another success for the conservative agenda.
Both Iraq and Katrina have enriched the coffers of the conservative corporate elite, thus further advancing the conservative agenda. Halliburton, Lockhead Martin and US oil companies have enjoyed huge profit margins in the last six years. Taking Iraq's oil production off-line in the face of rising international demand meant prices would rise, making the oil inventories of Exxon and other firms that much more valuable, leading to record profits. The destruction wrought by Katrina and Iraq meant billions in reconstruction contracts. The war in Iraq (and the war in Afghanistan) meant billions in military equipment contracts. Was there any doubt where those contracts would go? Chalk up another success for Bush's conservative agenda.
Bush also used Katrina as an opportunity to suspend the environmental and labor protection laws that Conservatives despise so much. In the wake of Katrina, environmental standards for oil refineries were temporarily suspended to increase production. Labor laws are being thwarted to drive down the cost of reconstruction efforts. So, amidst these "disasters," Conservatives win again.
Where most Americans see failure in Iraq - George Miller recently called Iraq a "blunder of historic proportions" - conservative militarists are seeing many successes. Conservatives stress the importance of our military -- our national pride and worth is expressed through its power and influence. Permanent bases are being constructed as planned in Iraq, and America has shown the rest of the world that we can and will preemptively strike with little provocation. They succeeded in a mobilization of our military forces based on ideological pretenses to impact foreign policy. The war has struck fear in other nations with a hostile show of American power. The conservatives have succeeded in strengthening what they perceive to be the locus of the national interest --military power.
It's Not Incompetence
When Progressives shout "Incompetence!" it obscures the many conservative successes. The incompetence frame drastically misses the point, that the conservative vision is doing great harm to this country and the world. An understanding of this and an articulate progressive response is needed. Progressives know that government can and should have a positive role in our lives beyond simple, physical security. It had a positive impact during the progressive era, busting trusts, and establishing basic labor standards. It had a positive impact during the new deal, softening the blow of the depression by creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It had a positive role in advancing the civil rights movement, extending rights to previously disenfranchised groups. And the United States can have a positive role in world affairs without the use of its military and expressions of raw power. Progressives acknowledge that we are all in this together, with "we" meaning all people, across all spectrums of race, class, religion, sex, sexual preference and age. "We" also means across party lines, state lines and international borders.
The mantra of incompetence has been an unfortunate one. The incompetence frame assumes that there was a sound plan, and that the trouble has been in the execution. It turns public debate into a referendum on Bush's management capabilities, and deflects a critique of the impact of his guiding philosophy. It also leaves open the possibility that voters will opt for another radically conservative president in 2008, so long as he or she can manage better. Bush will not be running again, so thinking, talking and joking about him being incompetent offers no lessons to draw from his presidency.
Incompetence obscures the real issue. Bush's conservative philosophy is what has damaged this country and it is his philosophy of conservatism that must be rejected, whoever endorses it.
Conservatism itself is the villain that is harming our people, destroying our environment, and weakening our nation. Conservatives are undermining American values through legislation almost every day. This message applies to every conservative bill proposed to Congress. The issue that arises every day is which philosophy of governing should shape our country. It is the issue of our times. Unless conservative philosophy itself is discredited, Conservatives will continue their domination of public discourse, and with it, will continue their domination of politics.
George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/
Friday, July 07, 2006
NEA Challenges NCLB
NEA TO CHALLENGE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
A majority of the 8,200 delegates gathered for the National Education Association’s annual convention overwhelmingly approved a plan that would push for aggressive changes to the federal No Child Left Behind law, which is up for reauthorization next year. The nation's largest union, whose leaders have often complained they were not allowed to participate in the crafting of the country's chief education law, approved a plan that calls on NEA members to lobby Congress for reforms to bring the law more in line with the views of the 2.8 million-member union. The changes proposed include establishing an accountability system that no longer relies only on testing as the measure of success or failure. Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures. The plan also calls for smaller class sizes, more funding for schools, and revisions to the definition of “highly qualified” teacher. The plan passed with just three delegates speaking publicly against it, reports Vaishali Honawar, because they argued that the union should take even more extreme measures and try to repeal the NCLB law in its entirety. At the Representative Assembly, the union also released a survey of 1,000 NEA members that showed nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/5220/66705/129/0/
A majority of the 8,200 delegates gathered for the National Education Association’s annual convention overwhelmingly approved a plan that would push for aggressive changes to the federal No Child Left Behind law, which is up for reauthorization next year. The nation's largest union, whose leaders have often complained they were not allowed to participate in the crafting of the country's chief education law, approved a plan that calls on NEA members to lobby Congress for reforms to bring the law more in line with the views of the 2.8 million-member union. The changes proposed include establishing an accountability system that no longer relies only on testing as the measure of success or failure. Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures. The plan also calls for smaller class sizes, more funding for schools, and revisions to the definition of “highly qualified” teacher. The plan passed with just three delegates speaking publicly against it, reports Vaishali Honawar, because they argued that the union should take even more extreme measures and try to repeal the NCLB law in its entirety. At the Representative Assembly, the union also released a survey of 1,000 NEA members that showed nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/5220/66705/129/0/
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Mayors and school ( cont.)
Mayor Antonio Villariagosa of Los Angeles is in the midst of seeking power to control the Los Angleses city schools. This effort continues a pattern of urban mayors trying to reform the schools. In considering this direction it is important to consider what mayors could do with their current powers.
Here is a brief from West Ed by Richard Rothstien from his recent book, Class and Schools: Using Social , Economic and Educational Reform to close the Black-White Achievement Gap. (2006)
Reforms that could help narrow the achievement Gap.
Policymakers almost universally conclude that persistent achievement gaps must result
from wrongly designed school policies — either expectations that are too low, teachers who are insufficiently qualified, curricula that are badly designed, classes that are too large, school climates that are too undisciplined, leadership that is too unfocused, or a combination of these. This exclusive focus on schooling is wrong. Without complementary investments in early childhood preparation, health care, housing, after-school and summer programs, and other social and economic supports, the achievement gap will never be closed.
Americans have concluded that the
achievement gap is the fault of “failing schools”
because it makes no common sense that
it could be otherwise. After all, how much
money a family has, or a child’s skin color,
should not influence how well that child learns
to read. If teachers know how to teach and if
schools permit no distractions, children should
be able to learn these subjects whatever their
family income or skin color.
This common sense perspective, however,
is misleading and dangerous. It ignores how
social class characteristics in a stratified society
like ours may actually influence learning in
school. It confuses social class, a concept which
Americans have historically been loathe to con-
sider, with two of its characteristics, income and,
in the United States, race. For it is true that low
income and skin color themselves don’t influ-
ence academic achievement, but the collection
of characteristics that define social class differ-
ences inevitably influences that achievement.
If as a society we choose to preserve big
social class differences, we must necessarily also
accept substantial gaps between the achieve-
ment of lower-class and middle-class children.
Closing those gaps requires not only better
schools, although those are certainly needed,
but also reform in the social and economic
institutions that prepare children to learn in
different ways. It will not be cheap.
What follows is a series of reforms, in addi-
tion to school improvement, that could help
narrow the achievement gap.
The contents of this issue of Policy Perspectives are excerpted from Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and
Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap, by Richard Rothstein, and published by Teachers College Press (2004). Class and Schools is available at booksellers and at http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1792.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Here is a brief from West Ed by Richard Rothstien from his recent book, Class and Schools: Using Social , Economic and Educational Reform to close the Black-White Achievement Gap. (2006)
Reforms that could help narrow the achievement Gap.
Policymakers almost universally conclude that persistent achievement gaps must result
from wrongly designed school policies — either expectations that are too low, teachers who are insufficiently qualified, curricula that are badly designed, classes that are too large, school climates that are too undisciplined, leadership that is too unfocused, or a combination of these. This exclusive focus on schooling is wrong. Without complementary investments in early childhood preparation, health care, housing, after-school and summer programs, and other social and economic supports, the achievement gap will never be closed.
Americans have concluded that the
achievement gap is the fault of “failing schools”
because it makes no common sense that
it could be otherwise. After all, how much
money a family has, or a child’s skin color,
should not influence how well that child learns
to read. If teachers know how to teach and if
schools permit no distractions, children should
be able to learn these subjects whatever their
family income or skin color.
This common sense perspective, however,
is misleading and dangerous. It ignores how
social class characteristics in a stratified society
like ours may actually influence learning in
school. It confuses social class, a concept which
Americans have historically been loathe to con-
sider, with two of its characteristics, income and,
in the United States, race. For it is true that low
income and skin color themselves don’t influ-
ence academic achievement, but the collection
of characteristics that define social class differ-
ences inevitably influences that achievement.
If as a society we choose to preserve big
social class differences, we must necessarily also
accept substantial gaps between the achieve-
ment of lower-class and middle-class children.
Closing those gaps requires not only better
schools, although those are certainly needed,
but also reform in the social and economic
institutions that prepare children to learn in
different ways. It will not be cheap.
What follows is a series of reforms, in addi-
tion to school improvement, that could help
narrow the achievement gap.
The contents of this issue of Policy Perspectives are excerpted from Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and
Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap, by Richard Rothstein, and published by Teachers College Press (2004). Class and Schools is available at booksellers and at http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1792.
THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP
Patriotism : Howard Zinn
July 3, 2006
Patriotism & The Fourth of July
By Howard Zinn
In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many
speeches about the young people who 'died for their
country.' Let's be honest about war. Those who gave
their lives did not die for their country, as they were
led to believe but for their government. The
distinction between country and government is at the
heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will
be referred to again and again on July 4, but without
attention to its meaning.
Click on the title for the full document.
Patriotism & The Fourth of July
By Howard Zinn
In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many
speeches about the young people who 'died for their
country.' Let's be honest about war. Those who gave
their lives did not die for their country, as they were
led to believe but for their government. The
distinction between country and government is at the
heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will
be referred to again and again on July 4, but without
attention to its meaning.
Click on the title for the full document.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The most important Senate race in the nation
The Most Important U.S. Senate Race in 2006
By: David Sirota, The Huffington Post
July 5th/2005
A lot of people have asked me which races in 2006 are going to be most crucial.
The disgusting Katherine Harris of Bush-Gore 2000 fame is running in Florida -
should defeating her be progressives’ biggest priority? Or what about taking
out wild-eyed right-wing lunatic Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania?
Both of these races, and many others, are definitely important. But if you are a
progressive who wants to start seeing some fundamental, long-term change (as
opposed to short term incrementalism), there’s one race in 2006 that stands
head and shoulders above the rest in terms of significance: The race to replace
retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords in Vermont.
Why do I say this? Because the leading candidate in that race is Vermont’s
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders - the longest-serving Independent in
Congress. This is not a man who is independent in the “between Democrats and
Republicans” way - this is one of the most committed progressives ever to hold
federal office, a man who is an independent because he has long believed the
current political system is bought by Big Money. Electing him to the U.S.
Senate transcends this election because it would elevate one of the strongest
voices progressives to the national stage - a stage that, beyond a handful of
courageous leaders like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone, has been sorely lacking
strong progressive voices for years.
You may have recently heard about Sanders after he managed to defy a veto threat
by President Bush and pass legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You might also
have heard about him when he was the first Member of Congress to take seniors to
Canada to highlight how the drug industry is ripping off Americans with the
highest prices in the world.
The Capitol BuildingBut if you don’t know much about Sanders and think I am
overblowing the case, do yourself a favor and read this new piece on him in
Vermont’s Rutland Herald - the newspaper that covers one of the more
conservative-leaning areas of the state. If you don’t want to read an article,
check out some video of Sanders’ angrily confronting people like Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan - people that most bought-off politicians are too afraid to
criticize in private, much less challenge in public.
Make no mistake about it - the GOP and its Big Business backers are going to do
everything they can to try to knock off Sanders. They have already recruited a
multi-millionaire corporate executive who has pledged to spend $5 million of
his own money to try to buy the election. And Sanders faces special challenges
because he refuses to accept corporate PAC money. That’s why you should join me
in heading over to his website and making a donation. No matter how small, it is
important - Sanders has always relied on small contributions from ordinary
people to fund his campaigns.
For far too long, the U.S. Senate has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Corporate America, taking orders from Big Business and conservative interest
groups. Electing someone like Sanders to the Senate would finally give The Rest
of Us a voice in an insitution we have been locked out of. That’s why Vermont’s
Senate race is the most important election of 2006: because it goes beyond the
short-term partisan makeup of Congress, and finally gives us a chance to power
someone who fights for real people into the most exclusive, elitist-dominated,
and important institutions in America.
__._,_.___
By: David Sirota, The Huffington Post
July 5th/2005
A lot of people have asked me which races in 2006 are going to be most crucial.
The disgusting Katherine Harris of Bush-Gore 2000 fame is running in Florida -
should defeating her be progressives’ biggest priority? Or what about taking
out wild-eyed right-wing lunatic Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania?
Both of these races, and many others, are definitely important. But if you are a
progressive who wants to start seeing some fundamental, long-term change (as
opposed to short term incrementalism), there’s one race in 2006 that stands
head and shoulders above the rest in terms of significance: The race to replace
retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords in Vermont.
Why do I say this? Because the leading candidate in that race is Vermont’s
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders - the longest-serving Independent in
Congress. This is not a man who is independent in the “between Democrats and
Republicans” way - this is one of the most committed progressives ever to hold
federal office, a man who is an independent because he has long believed the
current political system is bought by Big Money. Electing him to the U.S.
Senate transcends this election because it would elevate one of the strongest
voices progressives to the national stage - a stage that, beyond a handful of
courageous leaders like Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone, has been sorely lacking
strong progressive voices for years.
You may have recently heard about Sanders after he managed to defy a veto threat
by President Bush and pass legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You might also
have heard about him when he was the first Member of Congress to take seniors to
Canada to highlight how the drug industry is ripping off Americans with the
highest prices in the world.
The Capitol BuildingBut if you don’t know much about Sanders and think I am
overblowing the case, do yourself a favor and read this new piece on him in
Vermont’s Rutland Herald - the newspaper that covers one of the more
conservative-leaning areas of the state. If you don’t want to read an article,
check out some video of Sanders’ angrily confronting people like Fed Chairman
Alan Greenspan - people that most bought-off politicians are too afraid to
criticize in private, much less challenge in public.
Make no mistake about it - the GOP and its Big Business backers are going to do
everything they can to try to knock off Sanders. They have already recruited a
multi-millionaire corporate executive who has pledged to spend $5 million of
his own money to try to buy the election. And Sanders faces special challenges
because he refuses to accept corporate PAC money. That’s why you should join me
in heading over to his website and making a donation. No matter how small, it is
important - Sanders has always relied on small contributions from ordinary
people to fund his campaigns.
For far too long, the U.S. Senate has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Corporate America, taking orders from Big Business and conservative interest
groups. Electing someone like Sanders to the Senate would finally give The Rest
of Us a voice in an insitution we have been locked out of. That’s why Vermont’s
Senate race is the most important election of 2006: because it goes beyond the
short-term partisan makeup of Congress, and finally gives us a chance to power
someone who fights for real people into the most exclusive, elitist-dominated,
and important institutions in America.
__._,_.___
Monday, July 03, 2006
NCLB: little evidence of success
STUDY SHOWS NCLB LIMITS ON IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT & REDUCING GAPS
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) has released a new study that reports the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) hasn't improved reading and mathematical achievement or reduced achievement gaps. The study also revealed that the NCLB won't meet its goals of 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 if the trends of the first several years continue. The report compares the findings from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to state assessment results and concludes that high stakes testing and sanctions required by NCLB are not working as planned under the NCLB. The findings contradict claims of the Bush Administration and some previous studies that showed positive results under NCLB. "This report is depressing given the tremendous amount of pressure schools have been under and the damage that a lot of high poverty racial schools have undergone by being declared as failing schools," said Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project. "We have not focused on the kinds of serious long-term reforms that can actually produce gains and narrow the huge gaps in opportunity and achievement for minority students."
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4602/66705/60/0/
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) has released a new study that reports the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) hasn't improved reading and mathematical achievement or reduced achievement gaps. The study also revealed that the NCLB won't meet its goals of 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 if the trends of the first several years continue. The report compares the findings from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to state assessment results and concludes that high stakes testing and sanctions required by NCLB are not working as planned under the NCLB. The findings contradict claims of the Bush Administration and some previous studies that showed positive results under NCLB. "This report is depressing given the tremendous amount of pressure schools have been under and the damage that a lot of high poverty racial schools have undergone by being declared as failing schools," said Gary Orfield, director of the Civil Rights Project. "We have not focused on the kinds of serious long-term reforms that can actually produce gains and narrow the huge gaps in opportunity and achievement for minority students."
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4602/66705/60/0/
Military spending
From Oxfam Ireland,
" For every dollar spent in development aid, ten dollars is spent on military budgets. The amount that the rich countries spend on fighting Hiv/AIDS, a disease which claims 3 million lives a year, represents three days spending on military hardware."
In Somalia, " I could clearly see emaciated and sick children and aduilts in the streets. But there were others- boys as young as 8, I would guess, and young men who roam around with Kalishnikovs and M16s- that made them the rulers of their particular street corner."
" For every dollar spent in development aid, ten dollars is spent on military budgets. The amount that the rich countries spend on fighting Hiv/AIDS, a disease which claims 3 million lives a year, represents three days spending on military hardware."
In Somalia, " I could clearly see emaciated and sick children and aduilts in the streets. But there were others- boys as young as 8, I would guess, and young men who roam around with Kalishnikovs and M16s- that made them the rulers of their particular street corner."
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Alan Bersin : Calif. Superintendent opinion
BLUEPRINT FOR STUDENT SUCCESS: A THEORY OF ACTON FOR HIGH SCHOOL REFORM
Alan Bersin left the San Diego city Schools in June 2005 -- after seven tumultuous years as superintendent of the 141,000-student system. Formerly a U.S. Attorney, Bersin and his chief academic officer, Anthony Alvarado, in 2000 launched an ambitious reform effort aimed at strengthening instruction throughout the district. The effort, known as the Blueprint for Student Success, produced gains in student achievement, particularly in the elementary grades, but also attracted strong opposition from the local teachers’ union and its allies on the school board. In 2001, San Diego became one of seven cities to participate in the Schools for a New Society Initiative. Sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the initiative aims to redesign high schools using a working theory of action that involves forming community partnerships -- particularly with local education funds (LEFs) -- and enlisting the community’s help to expand learning opportunities for youth and demand educational excellence. In this publication, Bersin shares with Collaborative Communications Group his reflections on the purpose of high school reform, how he would change San Diego’s theory of action for high schools -- and the political and governance contexts in which the reforms occurred.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4842/66705/91/0/
Look at this interview. It reveals a great deal about the views of the the California Secretary of Education
Alan Bersin left the San Diego city Schools in June 2005 -- after seven tumultuous years as superintendent of the 141,000-student system. Formerly a U.S. Attorney, Bersin and his chief academic officer, Anthony Alvarado, in 2000 launched an ambitious reform effort aimed at strengthening instruction throughout the district. The effort, known as the Blueprint for Student Success, produced gains in student achievement, particularly in the elementary grades, but also attracted strong opposition from the local teachers’ union and its allies on the school board. In 2001, San Diego became one of seven cities to participate in the Schools for a New Society Initiative. Sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the initiative aims to redesign high schools using a working theory of action that involves forming community partnerships -- particularly with local education funds (LEFs) -- and enlisting the community’s help to expand learning opportunities for youth and demand educational excellence. In this publication, Bersin shares with Collaborative Communications Group his reflections on the purpose of high school reform, how he would change San Diego’s theory of action for high schools -- and the political and governance contexts in which the reforms occurred.
http://news.publiceducation.org/t/4842/66705/91/0/
Look at this interview. It reveals a great deal about the views of the the California Secretary of Education
Monday, June 12, 2006
The Democratic Party we should have: Borosage
The Turning?
by ROBERT L. BOROSAGE
[from the June 26, 2006 issue]
What comes next? The catastrophic conservatism of George W. Bush and the DeLay Congress is collapsing. Americans have turned against the signature Bush initiatives: the war in Iraq, privatization of Social Security, trickle-down economics, the Big Oil energy policy. The GOP coalition is splintering. The religious right's extremism--Schiavo, stem cell research, attacks on science--alienates most Americans. The cynical posturing on immigration and gay marriage grows more transparent. DeLay is gone. Bush has moved from swagger to sorry.
Democrats are roused by the possibility of taking back the House and perhaps even the Senate this fall. But the stark failure of the right opens a far broader possibility, creating the space for a bold progressive vision and movement to challenge the grip that conservatives have had on our politics and imaginations over the past quarter-century. In this context, it's worth taking a sober look at the possibilities and limits of the coming election.
The Debate We Will Have
With nearly two-thirds of the country now disapproving of the performance of Bush and the GOP Congress, Democrats are tempted to start scoping out their new offices. Nothing could be more pernicious. When Democrats believe they are sitting on a lead, they turn from cautious to catatonic.
In fact, while the conditions for a political tsunami this fall are gathering, Republicans may still be able to survive the storm. Congressional seats are like impregnable medieval castles, populated with loyal subjects and defended with all the hot oil ads and dedicated troops that money can buy. Challengers have neither the time nor the resources for a long siege. Republicans will flood any close race with big money in the final weeks. Even with voters looking for a change, taking out any of these barons is a heroic feat; on average, 94 percent of House incumbents win re-election. Moreover, Americans still tend to scorn Congress but like their legislator; they think Congress is corrupt but that their Representative is clean. Democrats need only fifteen seats to win a majority in the House, where the rules, and the seniority of liberals, would enable even a small majority to produce a dramatic change. But it will take an extraordinary mobilization to get it done.
Democrats may have difficulties navigating the storm as well. They have no consensus position on the fundamental issue driving opinion--the war in Iraq--and aren't particularly compelling on how to fix the economy. Democrats rail at Bush's failures in Iraq, but they are all over the map on what to do going forward. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has supported the old Marine Jack Murtha in calling for getting the troops out ("redeployment" is the euphemism du jour), while others--including pre-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner--argue that it is important to leave a stable government in place, although they are divided on how to achieve that. And some, like Joe Lieberman, act like they're part of the presidential glee club.
On the economy, Democrats have an open-throated critique of Bush's failures--the budget and trade deficits, the stagnant wages, the growing inequality and poverty--but no clear alternative growth agenda. They've made fiscal probity a priority but hesitate to argue for fair taxes. This tends to leave them tongue-tied about major public investment. So when Bush argues for tax cuts and growth, too often Democrats argue about deficits.
Despite this, Democrats are in much better shape than you'd know from the pundits prating about their lack of unity and absence of ideas. In reality, George Bush's extremism has forged greater Democratic unity than ever. That unity was critical in routing Bush's primary second-term domestic initiative--privatization of Social Security--and will help Democrats make the election a national referendum on conservative corruption and incompetence. (Newt Gingrich helpfully supplied the slogan: "Had Enough?")
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate not only have drummed on the Republican "culture of corruption" but have forged relatively widespread agreement on a positive issue agenda that helps dramatize the costs of that corruption to voters. They've called for a concerted drive for energy independence, as opposed to the Administration's Big Oil cronyism. They'd fix the prescription drug program--put it in Medicare and require Medicare to negotiate lower prices--as opposed to the Big Pharma giveaways DeLay forced through Congress. They would invest in education and cut student loan interest rates in half, as opposed to GOP cuts of billions from student aid. They'd raise the minimum wage, which Republicans, catering to the business lobby, have frozen since 1997. They would get serious about homeland security, in stark contrast to the cronyism revealed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And they would attack the incompetence and corruption in Iraq, where insider companies like Halliburton made off with billions in no-bid contracts, even while the Pentagon charges them with fraudulent billing.
Neither Democratic nor Republican incumbents have exactly been stalwarts when it comes to getting big money out of politics. But this agenda gives Democrats a populist theme, pitting the common good against the special interest, working people against corporate lobbies.
Thus far, the Republicans' response has been as fractured as their popularity. Many legislators are scrambling to go local--highlighting their independence from Bush and their effectiveness in serving their constituents. But the White House and the RNC argue that their best hope is to make the election a fear-driven choice, not a referendum on conservative performance. As Karl Rove put it to the RNC, the President knows we're at war, whereas Democrats want to "cut and run"; the President will do what is necessary to keep Americans safe, while Democrats worry about warrants and procedure, opposing the "terrorist surveillance program" and renewal of the Patriot Act; Republicans are for tax cuts and growth, while Democrats will raise taxes and sabotage growth; and Republicans defend traditional values--like marriage--while Democrats undermine them.
This replays tunes that were brutally effective in 2002 and 2004. But few voters may still be listening to the President on Iraq, and most Americans think Republicans are out of touch when they tout the supposedly good economy. Plus, Republican posturing on social issues is losing credibility even on the right.
The Debate We Need to Have
How do progressives use the moment to pose a far broader challenge to the right? Democrats suffer badly from the fact that no one has any clear sense of what they stand for. In response, progressives have begun to argue that Democrats need to embrace a big idea--not simply a parcel of issue proposals--to define their public philosophy.
In an elegant essay, Michael Tomasky, editor of The American Prospect, urges Democrats to return to their tradition of "civic republicanism," of arguing for the common good, for a sense that we're all in this together and that together we can build a more perfect union. In Being Right Is Not Enough, Paul Waldman of Media Matters details how this contrasts clearly with the right's "we're all on our own" hyper-individualism. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute lays out an economic argument along the same lines. All agree that a common-good politics is best expressed in universal rather than small-bore programs--Medicare for all, for example--that contrast clearly with the conservative vision, with its scorn for any collective enterprise beyond the military.
The scope of the challenges facing the country sets the stage for this politics. And the widespread understanding that conservatives in power have championed the interests of the few rather than the many provides a compelling backdrop. But what keeps Democrats from putting forth a clear governing philosophy--and laying out an agenda to give it substance? Tomasky suggests that the problem is grounded in the success of the movements of the 1960s, which shattered the hypocrisies and racism of cold war liberalism but left in their wake an interest-group pluralism focused on rights rather than common enterprise. With less venom, he echoes the arguments of the Democratic Leadership Council and Newt Gingrich that Democrats lost their way in the 1960s, as the antiwar, women's and civil rights movements produced, to use Richard Nixon's venomous formulation, a party of "acid, amnesty and abortion." (Reagan added the "welfare queen" and the politics of racial division.)
Tomasky is silent about the failure of military Keynesianism to deal with stagflation in the 1970s, and the corporate offensive that declared open warfare on liberal economics, unions and consumer and environmental groups. Corporations built not only the ideological arsenal of the right but also the money wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats found that, as the majority in Congress, they could fill their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. Liberal Atari Democrats and conservative New Democrats learned to scorn unions as a special interest, and to champion much of the corporate agenda--balanced budgets, free trade, deregulation, privatization, capital-gains tax cuts, opposition to the minimum wage, even the short-term stock options that gave CEOs a multimillion-dollar personal incentive to cook the books. Democrats stopped speaking to the common good less because they were mugged by women's or civil rights groups than because they found it literally paid to stop fighting for working people in the economy.
The misdiagnosis leads to the wrong prescriptions. Tomasky fantasizes about a Democratic presidential candidate announcing to the "single-issue groups arrayed around my party" that "I don't seek your endorsement, won't fill out your questionnaires" in order to convince Americans that he or she would put the "common interest over the particular interest." This might be called the Democrats' Sister Souljah temptation--after Clinton's staged insult to Jesse Jackson in 1992: the calculated, if symbolic, straight-arming of your own base to demonstrate independence.
The problem with this "politics of inoculation," as Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin call it in their essay "Politics of Definition," is that it not only demoralizes the most passionate activists at the base of the party but also contributes to the sense that Democrats won't even defend their own. And of course, pushing away the base has been generally used by Democrats to move to a more cautious corporate politics--as when President Clinton gained praise for his "courage" in standing with the Fortune 500, the bulk of editorialists and all of Wall Street to champion NAFTA against trade union opposition.
In fact, it is far less the supposed dominance of the movements in the Democratic Party than the influence of Wall Street and corporate money that impedes building a bold new governing strategy. It is not women, civil rights or union movements that lead Democrats to embrace a bipartisan corporate trade strategy serving multinationals but not the nation; or that cause Democrats to help pass top-end tax cuts, that make them vote to keep CEO stock options off the books or that make them wary about backing national healthcare. To revive a true politics of the public interest, Democrats will have to challenge the grip that corporate money and conservative economic ideology have on the party.
Similarly, on foreign policy, the bipartisan assumption that the United States should police the world comes, obviously, from the corporate establishment, not the peace movement. The current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin and jihadism for communism, and summon America to a new global struggle--claiming for Democrats a muscular tradition of collective security, in contrast to Bush's "conservative unilateralism." Neocons like Peter Beinart, fresh from cheering the country into the Iraq debacle, join New Dems like Al From in urging Democrats to prove their resolve by purging the left--the "MoveOn, Michael Moore wing"--from the Democratic Party. Members of the DLC call on the United States to increase its military spending, expand its expeditionary forces and "put the economy on a wartime footing." They pledge to "rally the American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupation in Iraq. And they urge the United States to intervene aggressively in the Middle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political and social reform." Since the DLC also pledges to reduce the budget deficits at the same time, Americans will have to tighten their belts to support such a mission.
This posture is deeply flawed. It distorts the threat and gets the response wrong. The problems of the Muslim world are not caused by the United States and the West having intervened too little. We need a policy on Islamist terrorists that isolates them rather than inflates them: alliances, intelligence cooperation, joint efforts to delegitimize their fanaticism, aggressive policing to bring them to justice. We need a strategy for America in a world very different from that of the end of World War II, when the dollar was literally as good as gold. This, once more, will require challenging the grip of multinational corporations and banks and their ideological fixation on building a global market protected from national regulation. Only then will we be able to define a "common good" politics that can help make the global economy work for the many and not the few.
If we are to reclaim a bold progressive politics, then the fantasy candidate will be one willing to tell a gathering of investment bankers that he or she doesn't need their money but would like their support to champion the public interest. This won't soon be the consensus position of the Democratic Party. It will require the building of an independent progressive movement willing to challenge entrenched interests and ideology, and able to support candidates and causes while building efforts to curb the influence of big money in politics.
This effort has only just begun, but surprising progress is possible in 2006. Forceful populists like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio could help transform the debate if elected to the Senate. Audacious challenges--like that of Ned Lamont in taking on Joe Lieberman for the US Senate nomination in Connecticut--will help sober sitting Democrats about the need to represent their voters. New capacity--from the insurgent activism of MoveOn.org and the brassy blogosphere to the AFL-CIO's new community affiliate Working America's reach into middle America--will provide a greater ability to define the future, not simply to decry it.
The MoveOn wing of the party isn't about to be purged by the folks who helped propel us into Iraq. The democratic wing of the Democratic Party, in Paul Wellstone's--and later Howard Dean's--phrase, is expanding in influence and number. In response to Bush's forceful but failed project, progressives across the country are developing a feisty, populist politics that just may drive Democrats toward a real politics of the common good.
by ROBERT L. BOROSAGE
[from the June 26, 2006 issue]
What comes next? The catastrophic conservatism of George W. Bush and the DeLay Congress is collapsing. Americans have turned against the signature Bush initiatives: the war in Iraq, privatization of Social Security, trickle-down economics, the Big Oil energy policy. The GOP coalition is splintering. The religious right's extremism--Schiavo, stem cell research, attacks on science--alienates most Americans. The cynical posturing on immigration and gay marriage grows more transparent. DeLay is gone. Bush has moved from swagger to sorry.
Democrats are roused by the possibility of taking back the House and perhaps even the Senate this fall. But the stark failure of the right opens a far broader possibility, creating the space for a bold progressive vision and movement to challenge the grip that conservatives have had on our politics and imaginations over the past quarter-century. In this context, it's worth taking a sober look at the possibilities and limits of the coming election.
The Debate We Will Have
With nearly two-thirds of the country now disapproving of the performance of Bush and the GOP Congress, Democrats are tempted to start scoping out their new offices. Nothing could be more pernicious. When Democrats believe they are sitting on a lead, they turn from cautious to catatonic.
In fact, while the conditions for a political tsunami this fall are gathering, Republicans may still be able to survive the storm. Congressional seats are like impregnable medieval castles, populated with loyal subjects and defended with all the hot oil ads and dedicated troops that money can buy. Challengers have neither the time nor the resources for a long siege. Republicans will flood any close race with big money in the final weeks. Even with voters looking for a change, taking out any of these barons is a heroic feat; on average, 94 percent of House incumbents win re-election. Moreover, Americans still tend to scorn Congress but like their legislator; they think Congress is corrupt but that their Representative is clean. Democrats need only fifteen seats to win a majority in the House, where the rules, and the seniority of liberals, would enable even a small majority to produce a dramatic change. But it will take an extraordinary mobilization to get it done.
Democrats may have difficulties navigating the storm as well. They have no consensus position on the fundamental issue driving opinion--the war in Iraq--and aren't particularly compelling on how to fix the economy. Democrats rail at Bush's failures in Iraq, but they are all over the map on what to do going forward. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has supported the old Marine Jack Murtha in calling for getting the troops out ("redeployment" is the euphemism du jour), while others--including pre-presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner--argue that it is important to leave a stable government in place, although they are divided on how to achieve that. And some, like Joe Lieberman, act like they're part of the presidential glee club.
On the economy, Democrats have an open-throated critique of Bush's failures--the budget and trade deficits, the stagnant wages, the growing inequality and poverty--but no clear alternative growth agenda. They've made fiscal probity a priority but hesitate to argue for fair taxes. This tends to leave them tongue-tied about major public investment. So when Bush argues for tax cuts and growth, too often Democrats argue about deficits.
Despite this, Democrats are in much better shape than you'd know from the pundits prating about their lack of unity and absence of ideas. In reality, George Bush's extremism has forged greater Democratic unity than ever. That unity was critical in routing Bush's primary second-term domestic initiative--privatization of Social Security--and will help Democrats make the election a national referendum on conservative corruption and incompetence. (Newt Gingrich helpfully supplied the slogan: "Had Enough?")
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate not only have drummed on the Republican "culture of corruption" but have forged relatively widespread agreement on a positive issue agenda that helps dramatize the costs of that corruption to voters. They've called for a concerted drive for energy independence, as opposed to the Administration's Big Oil cronyism. They'd fix the prescription drug program--put it in Medicare and require Medicare to negotiate lower prices--as opposed to the Big Pharma giveaways DeLay forced through Congress. They would invest in education and cut student loan interest rates in half, as opposed to GOP cuts of billions from student aid. They'd raise the minimum wage, which Republicans, catering to the business lobby, have frozen since 1997. They would get serious about homeland security, in stark contrast to the cronyism revealed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. And they would attack the incompetence and corruption in Iraq, where insider companies like Halliburton made off with billions in no-bid contracts, even while the Pentagon charges them with fraudulent billing.
Neither Democratic nor Republican incumbents have exactly been stalwarts when it comes to getting big money out of politics. But this agenda gives Democrats a populist theme, pitting the common good against the special interest, working people against corporate lobbies.
Thus far, the Republicans' response has been as fractured as their popularity. Many legislators are scrambling to go local--highlighting their independence from Bush and their effectiveness in serving their constituents. But the White House and the RNC argue that their best hope is to make the election a fear-driven choice, not a referendum on conservative performance. As Karl Rove put it to the RNC, the President knows we're at war, whereas Democrats want to "cut and run"; the President will do what is necessary to keep Americans safe, while Democrats worry about warrants and procedure, opposing the "terrorist surveillance program" and renewal of the Patriot Act; Republicans are for tax cuts and growth, while Democrats will raise taxes and sabotage growth; and Republicans defend traditional values--like marriage--while Democrats undermine them.
This replays tunes that were brutally effective in 2002 and 2004. But few voters may still be listening to the President on Iraq, and most Americans think Republicans are out of touch when they tout the supposedly good economy. Plus, Republican posturing on social issues is losing credibility even on the right.
The Debate We Need to Have
How do progressives use the moment to pose a far broader challenge to the right? Democrats suffer badly from the fact that no one has any clear sense of what they stand for. In response, progressives have begun to argue that Democrats need to embrace a big idea--not simply a parcel of issue proposals--to define their public philosophy.
In an elegant essay, Michael Tomasky, editor of The American Prospect, urges Democrats to return to their tradition of "civic republicanism," of arguing for the common good, for a sense that we're all in this together and that together we can build a more perfect union. In Being Right Is Not Enough, Paul Waldman of Media Matters details how this contrasts clearly with the right's "we're all on our own" hyper-individualism. In All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute lays out an economic argument along the same lines. All agree that a common-good politics is best expressed in universal rather than small-bore programs--Medicare for all, for example--that contrast clearly with the conservative vision, with its scorn for any collective enterprise beyond the military.
The scope of the challenges facing the country sets the stage for this politics. And the widespread understanding that conservatives in power have championed the interests of the few rather than the many provides a compelling backdrop. But what keeps Democrats from putting forth a clear governing philosophy--and laying out an agenda to give it substance? Tomasky suggests that the problem is grounded in the success of the movements of the 1960s, which shattered the hypocrisies and racism of cold war liberalism but left in their wake an interest-group pluralism focused on rights rather than common enterprise. With less venom, he echoes the arguments of the Democratic Leadership Council and Newt Gingrich that Democrats lost their way in the 1960s, as the antiwar, women's and civil rights movements produced, to use Richard Nixon's venomous formulation, a party of "acid, amnesty and abortion." (Reagan added the "welfare queen" and the politics of racial division.)
Tomasky is silent about the failure of military Keynesianism to deal with stagflation in the 1970s, and the corporate offensive that declared open warfare on liberal economics, unions and consumer and environmental groups. Corporations built not only the ideological arsenal of the right but also the money wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats found that, as the majority in Congress, they could fill their campaign coffers with corporate contributions. Liberal Atari Democrats and conservative New Democrats learned to scorn unions as a special interest, and to champion much of the corporate agenda--balanced budgets, free trade, deregulation, privatization, capital-gains tax cuts, opposition to the minimum wage, even the short-term stock options that gave CEOs a multimillion-dollar personal incentive to cook the books. Democrats stopped speaking to the common good less because they were mugged by women's or civil rights groups than because they found it literally paid to stop fighting for working people in the economy.
The misdiagnosis leads to the wrong prescriptions. Tomasky fantasizes about a Democratic presidential candidate announcing to the "single-issue groups arrayed around my party" that "I don't seek your endorsement, won't fill out your questionnaires" in order to convince Americans that he or she would put the "common interest over the particular interest." This might be called the Democrats' Sister Souljah temptation--after Clinton's staged insult to Jesse Jackson in 1992: the calculated, if symbolic, straight-arming of your own base to demonstrate independence.
The problem with this "politics of inoculation," as Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin call it in their essay "Politics of Definition," is that it not only demoralizes the most passionate activists at the base of the party but also contributes to the sense that Democrats won't even defend their own. And of course, pushing away the base has been generally used by Democrats to move to a more cautious corporate politics--as when President Clinton gained praise for his "courage" in standing with the Fortune 500, the bulk of editorialists and all of Wall Street to champion NAFTA against trade union opposition.
In fact, it is far less the supposed dominance of the movements in the Democratic Party than the influence of Wall Street and corporate money that impedes building a bold new governing strategy. It is not women, civil rights or union movements that lead Democrats to embrace a bipartisan corporate trade strategy serving multinationals but not the nation; or that cause Democrats to help pass top-end tax cuts, that make them vote to keep CEO stock options off the books or that make them wary about backing national healthcare. To revive a true politics of the public interest, Democrats will have to challenge the grip that corporate money and conservative economic ideology have on the party.
Similarly, on foreign policy, the bipartisan assumption that the United States should police the world comes, obviously, from the corporate establishment, not the peace movement. The current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin and jihadism for communism, and summon America to a new global struggle--claiming for Democrats a muscular tradition of collective security, in contrast to Bush's "conservative unilateralism." Neocons like Peter Beinart, fresh from cheering the country into the Iraq debacle, join New Dems like Al From in urging Democrats to prove their resolve by purging the left--the "MoveOn, Michael Moore wing"--from the Democratic Party. Members of the DLC call on the United States to increase its military spending, expand its expeditionary forces and "put the economy on a wartime footing." They pledge to "rally the American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupation in Iraq. And they urge the United States to intervene aggressively in the Middle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political and social reform." Since the DLC also pledges to reduce the budget deficits at the same time, Americans will have to tighten their belts to support such a mission.
This posture is deeply flawed. It distorts the threat and gets the response wrong. The problems of the Muslim world are not caused by the United States and the West having intervened too little. We need a policy on Islamist terrorists that isolates them rather than inflates them: alliances, intelligence cooperation, joint efforts to delegitimize their fanaticism, aggressive policing to bring them to justice. We need a strategy for America in a world very different from that of the end of World War II, when the dollar was literally as good as gold. This, once more, will require challenging the grip of multinational corporations and banks and their ideological fixation on building a global market protected from national regulation. Only then will we be able to define a "common good" politics that can help make the global economy work for the many and not the few.
If we are to reclaim a bold progressive politics, then the fantasy candidate will be one willing to tell a gathering of investment bankers that he or she doesn't need their money but would like their support to champion the public interest. This won't soon be the consensus position of the Democratic Party. It will require the building of an independent progressive movement willing to challenge entrenched interests and ideology, and able to support candidates and causes while building efforts to curb the influence of big money in politics.
This effort has only just begun, but surprising progress is possible in 2006. Forceful populists like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sherrod Brown of Ohio could help transform the debate if elected to the Senate. Audacious challenges--like that of Ned Lamont in taking on Joe Lieberman for the US Senate nomination in Connecticut--will help sober sitting Democrats about the need to represent their voters. New capacity--from the insurgent activism of MoveOn.org and the brassy blogosphere to the AFL-CIO's new community affiliate Working America's reach into middle America--will provide a greater ability to define the future, not simply to decry it.
The MoveOn wing of the party isn't about to be purged by the folks who helped propel us into Iraq. The democratic wing of the Democratic Party, in Paul Wellstone's--and later Howard Dean's--phrase, is expanding in influence and number. In response to Bush's forceful but failed project, progressives across the country are developing a feisty, populist politics that just may drive Democrats toward a real politics of the common good.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Union field staff position available
Staff Recruitment Announcement
California Faculty Association
Field Campaign Director
CFA is affiliated with: SEIU, AAUP and CTA/NEA
California Faculty Association seeks experienced union or political organizer to direct field component of labor friendly statewide independent expenditure campaign.
Work with progressive unions on issue oriented effort to re-elect incumbent. Strong communication, writing, organizational and supervisory skills are required.
Must be willing to get to worksites and leaflet voters and engage them directly on the issues while being able to manage staff in at least four major cities.
Sacramento-based contract position is available immediately through November, 2006. May lead to full-time employment. Salary commensurate with experience
Responsibilities:
• Develop a multiple city campaign plan that connects with targeted voters in pre-selected locations.
• Help hire and train staff to run the ground campaign in each target city.
• Work with staff to recruit volunteer leaders and campaign activists.
• Work with allies and volunteers to develop campaign infrastructure including leafleting, constituency meetings, rallies, etc.
• Write and develop field campaign materials when needed.
• Hold staff accountable to voter contact and voter identification program and compile data into reports for campaign director.
• Develop and implement GOTV plan.
Qualifications:
• Experience as a political or union organizer who can assess voters and count votes as well as lead and hold staff accountable to a program.
• A working knowledge of the California political processes and the State government.
• Demonstrated ability to analyze and explain relevant issues, legislative actions and political processes.
• Experience in developing all the elements of a political campaign.
• Computer literacy with data bases and Microsoft Office products (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) for the preparation of work related materials.
• Ability to work cooperatively with union members, staff, allies, and voters.
Contact: Sent resume via email to searchcommittee@calfac.org
or mail resume to:
Search Committee
California Faculty Association
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1590
Sacramento, CA 95814
CFA is an Affirmative Action Employer.
Women, people of color and people with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.
California Faculty Association
Field Campaign Director
CFA is affiliated with: SEIU, AAUP and CTA/NEA
California Faculty Association seeks experienced union or political organizer to direct field component of labor friendly statewide independent expenditure campaign.
Work with progressive unions on issue oriented effort to re-elect incumbent. Strong communication, writing, organizational and supervisory skills are required.
Must be willing to get to worksites and leaflet voters and engage them directly on the issues while being able to manage staff in at least four major cities.
Sacramento-based contract position is available immediately through November, 2006. May lead to full-time employment. Salary commensurate with experience
Responsibilities:
• Develop a multiple city campaign plan that connects with targeted voters in pre-selected locations.
• Help hire and train staff to run the ground campaign in each target city.
• Work with staff to recruit volunteer leaders and campaign activists.
• Work with allies and volunteers to develop campaign infrastructure including leafleting, constituency meetings, rallies, etc.
• Write and develop field campaign materials when needed.
• Hold staff accountable to voter contact and voter identification program and compile data into reports for campaign director.
• Develop and implement GOTV plan.
Qualifications:
• Experience as a political or union organizer who can assess voters and count votes as well as lead and hold staff accountable to a program.
• A working knowledge of the California political processes and the State government.
• Demonstrated ability to analyze and explain relevant issues, legislative actions and political processes.
• Experience in developing all the elements of a political campaign.
• Computer literacy with data bases and Microsoft Office products (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) for the preparation of work related materials.
• Ability to work cooperatively with union members, staff, allies, and voters.
Contact: Sent resume via email to searchcommittee@calfac.org
or mail resume to:
Search Committee
California Faculty Association
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1590
Sacramento, CA 95814
CFA is an Affirmative Action Employer.
Women, people of color and people with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Harold Meyerson on California election
Clarifying Issues in California
By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A23
LOS ANGELES -- Lord, but California is election-weary. America's mega-state
endured the dreariest of gubernatorial contests in 2002, followed by the most
surprising of gubernatorial recalls in 2003, the drama of the presidential race
in 2004 and, just last November, the who-asked-for-it special election in which
business and labor spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars fighting over Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's wildly unpopular ballot initiatives. No wonder
something like 70 percent of California's registered voters elected not to vote
in Tuesday's primary, which was essentially a sliming contest between the two
leading Democratic candidates for governor.
If the states are laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them, then
Californians have become guinea pigs in a vast failed experiment. Hold a major
election every year -- complete with a torrent of attack ads and mailings and
recorded phone messages from a startling array of personages attesting to the
virtues of your state assembly candidate -- and eventually nobody will vote.
The relation between permanent campaigns and voter participation, it turns out,
is inverse.
Still, a few hardy souls, steeled in their civic duty, stumbled to the polls
here on Tuesday and made the right selection. California Democrats chose state
Treasurer Phil Angelides to go up against Schwarzenegger in November's
gubernatorial contest. For some time the conventional wisdom has been that the
liberal Angelides would have a harder time beating Arnold than the centrist
state controller, Steve Westly -- the man Angelides defeated on Tuesday. But
Westly, despite the estimated $37 million of his own money that he put into the
race, never really established a distinct identity with state voters. His
achievements as controller were imperceptible, and polling showed that voters
imputed to him all manner of conflicting positions. California may be the land
of malleable identities, but Westly's lightness of being finally proved too
insubstantial even for Californians.
Angelides, by contrast, is a figure of hard-core beliefs and rough edges. The
Democratic nominee is an unabashed liberal. As treasurer, he responded to the
state's Enron-engendered energy crisis by proposing to establish a public power
company. The centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign has been his call to
raise taxes on the wealthiest Californians -- the only way, he argues, to boost
the state's chronically low level of per-pupil education spending.
If Angelides were facing off against a conventional right-wing California
Republican, his brand of liberalism would very likely prevail in this solidly
blue state. But Schwarzenegger is no conventional Republican, and since his
disastrous initiative campaigns last fall, he has scurried to the center in
every way possible. The Governator restocked his office with environmental
activists and a Democratic chief of staff. He joined with the Democrats in the
legislature to place on November's ballot several massive bond measures to
rebuild California's transportation and education systems. He now campaigns as
the neo-Pat Brown, master rebuilder of the Golden State.
The polling makes clear that Californians like the thought of the new roads and
schools, but it also turns up the same distemper and desire for change that
afflicts voters nationally. Schwarzenegger's approval rating has improved since
last year, but it still hovers under 50 percent, and the state's powerful labor
movement husbanded its resources in the primary -- unions helped Angelides, but
not all that much -- to better bash Arnold in the general. The state is in for
yet another megabucks battle this November, in which a serious liberal will
give a serious centrist a serious challenge.
In the other nationally watched contest out here, Republican Brian Bilbray eked
out a 4 percentage-point victory over Democrat Francine Busby in a special
election to succeed Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Jail) in a solidly Republican
district abutting San Diego. Each national party can take some solace in the
outcome -- the Republicans that Bilbray, hammering on the immigration issue in
this close-to-the-border district, didn't actually lose; the Democrats that
Busby, hammering on the incompetence and corruption of the administration and
the Republican Congress, came so close.
The themes of the coming election have emerged with crystalline clarity.
Democrats decry the debacles -- the war, the price of gas, the sleaze --
devised by the president and Congress. The best distillation of the Republican
campaign may be the radio ad for a North Carolina congressional challenger,
alleging that his Democratic opponent, Rep. Brad Miller, "sponsored a bill to
let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country
on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big
fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."
Republicans run against one big fiesta; Democrats run against one big disasta.
Fiesta, I think, lacks the punch of disasta; but that's just my hunch: I'm not
saying it hasta.
meyersonh@washpost.com
from the Washington Post
__._,_.___
By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, June 8, 2006; Page A23
LOS ANGELES -- Lord, but California is election-weary. America's mega-state
endured the dreariest of gubernatorial contests in 2002, followed by the most
surprising of gubernatorial recalls in 2003, the drama of the presidential race
in 2004 and, just last November, the who-asked-for-it special election in which
business and labor spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars fighting over Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's wildly unpopular ballot initiatives. No wonder
something like 70 percent of California's registered voters elected not to vote
in Tuesday's primary, which was essentially a sliming contest between the two
leading Democratic candidates for governor.
If the states are laboratories of democracy, as Louis Brandeis called them, then
Californians have become guinea pigs in a vast failed experiment. Hold a major
election every year -- complete with a torrent of attack ads and mailings and
recorded phone messages from a startling array of personages attesting to the
virtues of your state assembly candidate -- and eventually nobody will vote.
The relation between permanent campaigns and voter participation, it turns out,
is inverse.
Still, a few hardy souls, steeled in their civic duty, stumbled to the polls
here on Tuesday and made the right selection. California Democrats chose state
Treasurer Phil Angelides to go up against Schwarzenegger in November's
gubernatorial contest. For some time the conventional wisdom has been that the
liberal Angelides would have a harder time beating Arnold than the centrist
state controller, Steve Westly -- the man Angelides defeated on Tuesday. But
Westly, despite the estimated $37 million of his own money that he put into the
race, never really established a distinct identity with state voters. His
achievements as controller were imperceptible, and polling showed that voters
imputed to him all manner of conflicting positions. California may be the land
of malleable identities, but Westly's lightness of being finally proved too
insubstantial even for Californians.
Angelides, by contrast, is a figure of hard-core beliefs and rough edges. The
Democratic nominee is an unabashed liberal. As treasurer, he responded to the
state's Enron-engendered energy crisis by proposing to establish a public power
company. The centerpiece of his gubernatorial campaign has been his call to
raise taxes on the wealthiest Californians -- the only way, he argues, to boost
the state's chronically low level of per-pupil education spending.
If Angelides were facing off against a conventional right-wing California
Republican, his brand of liberalism would very likely prevail in this solidly
blue state. But Schwarzenegger is no conventional Republican, and since his
disastrous initiative campaigns last fall, he has scurried to the center in
every way possible. The Governator restocked his office with environmental
activists and a Democratic chief of staff. He joined with the Democrats in the
legislature to place on November's ballot several massive bond measures to
rebuild California's transportation and education systems. He now campaigns as
the neo-Pat Brown, master rebuilder of the Golden State.
The polling makes clear that Californians like the thought of the new roads and
schools, but it also turns up the same distemper and desire for change that
afflicts voters nationally. Schwarzenegger's approval rating has improved since
last year, but it still hovers under 50 percent, and the state's powerful labor
movement husbanded its resources in the primary -- unions helped Angelides, but
not all that much -- to better bash Arnold in the general. The state is in for
yet another megabucks battle this November, in which a serious liberal will
give a serious centrist a serious challenge.
In the other nationally watched contest out here, Republican Brian Bilbray eked
out a 4 percentage-point victory over Democrat Francine Busby in a special
election to succeed Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Jail) in a solidly Republican
district abutting San Diego. Each national party can take some solace in the
outcome -- the Republicans that Bilbray, hammering on the immigration issue in
this close-to-the-border district, didn't actually lose; the Democrats that
Busby, hammering on the incompetence and corruption of the administration and
the Republican Congress, came so close.
The themes of the coming election have emerged with crystalline clarity.
Democrats decry the debacles -- the war, the price of gas, the sleaze --
devised by the president and Congress. The best distillation of the Republican
campaign may be the radio ad for a North Carolina congressional challenger,
alleging that his Democratic opponent, Rep. Brad Miller, "sponsored a bill to
let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country
on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big
fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."
Republicans run against one big fiesta; Democrats run against one big disasta.
Fiesta, I think, lacks the punch of disasta; but that's just my hunch: I'm not
saying it hasta.
meyersonh@washpost.com
from the Washington Post
__._,_.___
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Barbara Ehrenreich on class
A Guided Tour of Class in America
Barbara Ehrenreich on the prey and the predators
by Tom Engelhardt
Mother Jones - June 05 , 2006
http://www.mojones.com/interview/2006/06/ehrenreich.html
You turn into a middle-class, suburban housing project
on the periphery of Charlottesville, Virginia, and at a
row of attached homes, you pull up in front of the one
with the yellow "for sale" sign on the tiny patch of
grass. Ushered inside, you take in an interior of paint
cans, a mop and pail, and cleaning liquids. On the
small porch that overlooks a communal backyard, workmen
are painting the weathered wood railings a nice, clean
white. Later, when they're gone, we step out for a
minute, on a balmy late spring afternoon, and she says,
"You know what I need out here? Flowers!" And it's
true, the nearest neighbor's small porch is a riot of
red, orange, and purple blooms, while hanging from her
railing are three plant holders with only dirt and the
scraps of dead vegetation in them.
Not surprising really. Barbara Ehrenreich, our foremost
journalist of, and dissector of class is regularly not
here. Practically a household name since she entered
the low-wage working class disguised as herself and, in
her already classic account, Nickel and Dimed, reported
back on just how difficult it is for so many hard-
working Americans to get by. Then, a few years later,
she repeated the process with the middle class, only to
find herself not in the workforce but among the
desperately unemployed who had fallen out of an ever
meaner corporate world. Her most recent book, Bait and
Switch, The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, was
the result. Now, she spends much time traveling the
country talking to audiences about her -- and their --
experiences. She has become a blogger, is involved in
launching a new group to help organize the middle-class
unemployed, and in her spare time she's even finished a
new book.
Barbara Ehrenreich on the prey and the predators
by Tom Engelhardt
Mother Jones - June 05 , 2006
http://www.mojones.com/interview/2006/06/ehrenreich.html
You turn into a middle-class, suburban housing project
on the periphery of Charlottesville, Virginia, and at a
row of attached homes, you pull up in front of the one
with the yellow "for sale" sign on the tiny patch of
grass. Ushered inside, you take in an interior of paint
cans, a mop and pail, and cleaning liquids. On the
small porch that overlooks a communal backyard, workmen
are painting the weathered wood railings a nice, clean
white. Later, when they're gone, we step out for a
minute, on a balmy late spring afternoon, and she says,
"You know what I need out here? Flowers!" And it's
true, the nearest neighbor's small porch is a riot of
red, orange, and purple blooms, while hanging from her
railing are three plant holders with only dirt and the
scraps of dead vegetation in them.
Not surprising really. Barbara Ehrenreich, our foremost
journalist of, and dissector of class is regularly not
here. Practically a household name since she entered
the low-wage working class disguised as herself and, in
her already classic account, Nickel and Dimed, reported
back on just how difficult it is for so many hard-
working Americans to get by. Then, a few years later,
she repeated the process with the middle class, only to
find herself not in the workforce but among the
desperately unemployed who had fallen out of an ever
meaner corporate world. Her most recent book, Bait and
Switch, The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, was
the result. Now, she spends much time traveling the
country talking to audiences about her -- and their --
experiences. She has become a blogger, is involved in
launching a new group to help organize the middle-class
unemployed, and in her spare time she's even finished a
new book.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
NCATE bows to pressure from the Right
Accreditor of Education Schools Drops Controversial 'Social Justice' Language
By PAULA WASLEY
.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education won a key endorsement on Monday in its quest for continued federal approval of its accrediting power after announcing that it would drop controversial language relating to "social justice" from its accrediting standards for teacher-preparation programs.
The council, which is the nation's largest teacher-education accrediting organization, has come under fire from conservative activists for the wording of standards that require that candidates in education programs "demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn."
The council, known as Ncate, had said that teacher candidates' "dispositions" should be "guided by beliefs and attitudes such as caring, fairness, honesty and responsibility, and social justice."
http://chronicle.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006060602n.htm
See more.
By PAULA WASLEY
.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education won a key endorsement on Monday in its quest for continued federal approval of its accrediting power after announcing that it would drop controversial language relating to "social justice" from its accrediting standards for teacher-preparation programs.
The council, which is the nation's largest teacher-education accrediting organization, has come under fire from conservative activists for the wording of standards that require that candidates in education programs "demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn."
The council, known as Ncate, had said that teacher candidates' "dispositions" should be "guided by beliefs and attitudes such as caring, fairness, honesty and responsibility, and social justice."
http://chronicle.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006060602n.htm
See more.
Friday, June 02, 2006
This dirty election campaign
This dirty election campaign
I have spent the last 34 years teaching young people to be social studies teachers. We start with the conception that schools are to teach reading, writing, math; and civic responsibility. Our schools were established to prepare young people for civic participation.
It is hard to teach this lesson. Young people say: they are all corrupt. The rich own the politicians. And, of course, they are substantially correct. All you have to do is look at the Enron story, or World Com., and their relationship with the Bush family and you will recognize that the rich have looted our nation’s democracy. [Recommend, see the video: Enron: The smartest guys in the room]
But now the California election is adding to the cynicism. The two major candidates on the Democratic Party side are spending up to $60 million to convince voters (and young people) that the other candidate is corrupt, purchased, and controlled by big money. Now, a $60 million media buy has an effect. It teaches people that our elections are corrupt, purchased, and dirty. After seeing the ads you could well conclude that they are all dirty.
I recognize that the campaign managers each think they must do this to compete. They know that negative ads work. But, they are also teaching cynicism, hopelessness and despair. No. This is not OK.
I am deeply offended by this campaign, the campaign managers, the media advisors, and the candidates. You have sullied our democracy in pursuit of a very narrow victory.
And, one of you will win. All of this negative campaigning will weaken you in the Fall against Schwarzenegger.
Duane Campbell
I have spent the last 34 years teaching young people to be social studies teachers. We start with the conception that schools are to teach reading, writing, math; and civic responsibility. Our schools were established to prepare young people for civic participation.
It is hard to teach this lesson. Young people say: they are all corrupt. The rich own the politicians. And, of course, they are substantially correct. All you have to do is look at the Enron story, or World Com., and their relationship with the Bush family and you will recognize that the rich have looted our nation’s democracy. [Recommend, see the video: Enron: The smartest guys in the room]
But now the California election is adding to the cynicism. The two major candidates on the Democratic Party side are spending up to $60 million to convince voters (and young people) that the other candidate is corrupt, purchased, and controlled by big money. Now, a $60 million media buy has an effect. It teaches people that our elections are corrupt, purchased, and dirty. After seeing the ads you could well conclude that they are all dirty.
I recognize that the campaign managers each think they must do this to compete. They know that negative ads work. But, they are also teaching cynicism, hopelessness and despair. No. This is not OK.
I am deeply offended by this campaign, the campaign managers, the media advisors, and the candidates. You have sullied our democracy in pursuit of a very narrow victory.
And, one of you will win. All of this negative campaigning will weaken you in the Fall against Schwarzenegger.
Duane Campbell
Organizational statement against NCLB
Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
October 21, 2004 (list of signers updated May, 2006)
The undersigned education, civil rights, children's, disability, and citizens' organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act's objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy.
While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised
during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive
corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.
Recommended Changes in NCLB
Progress Measurement
1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
2. Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.
3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.
4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.
5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children
Assessments
6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.
7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:
· Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
· Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable;
· Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
· Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act;
· Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and
· Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.
8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.
Building Capacity
9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement.
10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high student achievement.
Sanctions
11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.
Funding
13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs.
14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.
We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization's proposals.
Advancement Project
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA)
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
ASPIRA
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
Center for Community Change
for the entire list, go to Fair Test. Click on the title above.
October 21, 2004 (list of signers updated May, 2006)
The undersigned education, civil rights, children's, disability, and citizens' organizations are committed to the No Child Left Behind Act's objectives of strong academic achievement for all children and closing the achievement gap. We believe that the federal government has a critical role to play in attaining these goals. We endorse the use of an accountability system that helps ensure all children, including children of color, from low-income families, with disabilities, and of limited English proficiency, are prepared to be successful, participating members of our democracy.
While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised
during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive
corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.
Recommended Changes in NCLB
Progress Measurement
1. Replace the law's arbitrary proficiency targets with ambitious achievement targets based on rates of success actually achieved by the most effective public schools.
2. Allow states to measure progress by using students' growth in achievement as well as their performance in relation to pre-determined levels of academic proficiency.
3. Ensure that states and school districts regularly report to the government and the public their progress in implementing systemic changes to enhance educator, family, and community capacity to improve student learning.
4. Provide a comprehensive picture of students' and schools' performance by moving from an overwhelming reliance on standardized tests to using multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to these tests.
5. Fund research and development of more effective accountability systems that better meet the goal of high academic achievement for all children
Assessments
6. Help states develop assessment systems that include district and school-based measures in order to provide better, more timely information about student learning.
7. Strengthen enforcement of NCLB provisions requiring that assessments must:
· Be aligned with state content and achievement standards;
· Be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable;
· Be consistent with nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
· Be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the Act;
· Provide multiple, up-to-date measures of student performance including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; and
· Provide useful diagnostic information to improve teaching and learning.
8. Decrease the testing burden on states, schools and districts by allowing states to assess students annually in selected grades in elementary, middle schools, and high schools.
Building Capacity
9. Ensure changes in teacher and administrator preparation and continuing professional development that research evidence and experience indicate improve educational quality and student achievement.
10. Enhance state and local capacity to effectively implement the comprehensive changes required to increase the knowledge and skills of administrators, teachers, families, and communities to support high student achievement.
Sanctions
11. Ensure that improvement plans are allowed sufficient time to take hold before applying sanctions; sanctions should not be applied if they undermine existing effective reform efforts.
12. Replace sanctions that do not have a consistent record of success with interventions that enable schools to make changes that result in improved student achievement.
Funding
13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover a substantial percentage of the costs that states and districts will incur to carry out these recommendations, and fully fund the law at those levels without reducing expenditures for other education programs.
14. Fully fund Title I to ensure that 100 percent of eligible children are served.
We, the undersigned, will work for the adoption of these recommendations as central structural changes needed to NCLB at the same time that we advance our individual organization's proposals.
Advancement Project
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of School Librarians (AASL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA)
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
ASPIRA
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO)
Center for Community Change
for the entire list, go to Fair Test. Click on the title above.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Ravitch and Meire : a neo con finally sees part of reality
An important essay in Ed Week. Click on the title. It is a link.
"Almost all the usual intervening mediators—parent organizations, unions, and local community organizations—have either been co-opted, purchased, or weakened, or find themselves under siege if they question the dominant model of corporate-style “reform.” All the city’s major universities, foundations, and business elites are joined together as cheerleaders, if not actual participants, offering no support or encouragement to watchdogs and dissidents. This allows these elites the opportunity to carry out their experiments on a grand, and they hope uninterrupted, “apolitical” scale, where everything can, at last, be aligned, in each and every school, from prekindergarten to grade 12, under the watchful eye of a single leader. If they can remain in power long enough, it is assumed (although what actually is assumed is not easy to find out) that they can create a new paradigm that no future change in leadership can undo.
"Almost all the usual intervening mediators—parent organizations, unions, and local community organizations—have either been co-opted, purchased, or weakened, or find themselves under siege if they question the dominant model of corporate-style “reform.” All the city’s major universities, foundations, and business elites are joined together as cheerleaders, if not actual participants, offering no support or encouragement to watchdogs and dissidents. This allows these elites the opportunity to carry out their experiments on a grand, and they hope uninterrupted, “apolitical” scale, where everything can, at last, be aligned, in each and every school, from prekindergarten to grade 12, under the watchful eye of a single leader. If they can remain in power long enough, it is assumed (although what actually is assumed is not easy to find out) that they can create a new paradigm that no future change in leadership can undo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
