Posted by Deborah Meier at 4/17/07 6:00 AM
Tags: Education Policy
Some people wake up with great ideas. But I’m a night person. Right before I fall asleep I think I’ve finally found just the right way to say what it is I’m thinking. Often when I wake up I've either forgotten it or it seems banal.
But here are two ideas that keep reoccurring, and it is morning now so I’m going to try to capture them.
Great Idea 1:
The whole point of public education (vs job training or even some forms of private education) is to prepare a public for its responsibilities which, in a nutshell come down to exercising careful, thoughtful and reasonable judgment in the face of complex evidence. In the two tasks that confront 18 year olds--voting and serving on juries--these are the presumptions that lie behind the privilege. Our best judgment is what in the end we bring to the table. Note there are neither admissions tests, nor licensure requirements for either voting or serving on a jury. It's the unspoken and awesomely heavy presumption and also the most irrational facing governance by democratic principles and practices. It makes no sense, except (as Churchill said) it's better than any of the alternatives. But for every problem confronting this absurd idea--that everyone has a "right" to such power--there is a solution. Better education.
Not just formal K-12 schooling, surely not just or even college—which comes too late for many voters and jurors and is not open to everyone. But, as the slogans say, our aim is “lifelong” learning, on-going adult education. Newspapers are one of these educating forces, as are all the new technologies. Public access to books, libraries full of resources for getting at "the truth", public spaces for communicating one’s ideas, and for demonstrating on behalf of them, etc, etc. I’m enamored even of the idea of subsidizing adults for going back for a liberal arts education later on, when they are more likely to appreciate its usefulness. But the one and only institution we set aside for this and only this purpose--with no obligation to make a buck in return--is our K-12 system of schooling.
I challenge any of us to spend a day with a kid in an average school and try to connect the dots between what is being learned there--formally ad informally--and what a citizen of a democracy requires (in contrast to citizens perhaps of countries that don't even pretend to be democratic). The world is full of virtues. And economic necessities. But what are the explicitly democratic predispositions, skills, habits of mind and heart that we are not born with, but could learn in a setting devoted to such a purpose?
Great Idea 2:
Then, one night it occurred to me, that for all my ranting and raving against the term accountability, in fact the idea of being accountable lies at the heart of democracy. Democracy is a form of accountability--a concept intended to hold the powerful’s feet to the fire. Naturally as our schools have moved further and further away from being attached to their publics, it has become more and more important for us to invent other non-democratic, bureaucratic, “mandarin” forms of accountability. When there were 200,000 school boards serving a population less than half the size of today’s, a lot of people knew who was making judgments about their schools. Today with as few as 10,000 school boards, and with some of them having almost no realistic power over anything but floating bonds, well.... No wonder! There ought to be a half million school boards or more, if--big if--we really believe in democracy as our most special and effective form of accountability.
Given that I'm not a fan of many of the decisions reached by democratic decision making bodies--including many school boards as well as state legislatures and Presidents--this is a leap of faith. I make it because I still agree with Churchill about the alternative to holding on to this often counter-intuitive and even counter-reasonable faith. Neither various forms of benign dictatorship or market-place utopias seem more reasonable . Although if I got to choose the dictator it does some nights appear to be the solution. But by morning I have to face the fact that it’s unlikely to be someone of my choice; and if it were I’d probably be in the opposition the day after—coercion just has its limits when it comes to the important stuff—the stuff inside our hearts and minds.
These two ideas have become more than nighttime fantasies, but daytime ones too. I long for a more robust discussion. We confront the increasing daily power of BOTH my dystopias-- increased centralization of public schools in the hands of the few, and increased “selling off” of our schools to private interest groups. And yet we confront a very thin response to both.
What, Forum readers, would we have to do to make these issues part of the conversation about K-12 schooling among our friends, parents of our children’s friends, colleagues, fellow citizens?
copyright © 2007 The Forum for Education and Democracy
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Reading first: Another Bush failure
Has Reading First Helped?
USA Today (“Textbook scandal reaches Congress,” April
16 ) notes that a Center for Education Policy report
found that Reading First has helped schools. This
report only asked officials in states and districts
that improved in reading whether they thought Reading
First had helped. There was no discussion of cases in
which Reading First was used and there was no
improvement.
Reports from Harvard and Berkeley have found that
Reading First has not resulted in gains on national
tests. Also, the achievement gap between high- and
low-income students is the same as it was before
Reading First.
The President and the Secretary of Education continue
to insist that reading scores on national tests have
increased, but recent gains all occurred before
Reading First went into effect.
The Reading First hearings, in addition to
investigating potential conflicts of interests, should
also probe the unsupported claims that the program has
been a success.
Stephen Krashen
Analysis of Center for Education Report
Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
No improvement in national test scores:
1. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
2. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
Textbook scandal reaches Congress
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
A slow-motion scandal surrounding a federal
multibillion-dollar reading program has its first
congressional hearing this week, but it remains to be
seen whether the scrutiny will shed any new light on a
complex, contradictory tale of textbooks, tests and
allegations of federal arm-twisting.
A key part of President Bush's efforts to remake
public education, Reading First was launched in 2002,
giving schools $1 billion a year to improve reading in
early elementary grades. Five years later, early
evidence suggests that it may be helping. But
investigators say a handful of advisers have
railroaded schools into buying textbooks and other
materials that they and associates developed.
The result: a conflict-of-interest case that took two
years to jell as investigators in the Education
Department connected the dots. To date, no criminal
charges have been filed, but Democrats, now in control
of Congress, promise to give the case a full airing.
"The purpose of Reading First is to help
schoolchildren learn to read, not feather the nests of
a select group of well-connected individuals and
organizations," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who
chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Miller and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are
conducting probes. Kennedy plans hearings later this
spring.
Miller will preside at the first hearing Friday, which
brings together Chris Doherty, the program's former
director, and three top advisers.
Atop the witness list: John Higgins, the Education
Department's inspector general, who has issued six
reports detailing how Reading First leaders and
contractors looked the other way at possible conflicts
of interest among advisers and others — several of
whom authored textbooks. He also found that Doherty
and others strong-armed states and school districts
into choosing from a small selection of materials that
stress phonics.
In one e-mail Higgins cited, Doherty said of a
publisher whose books downplayed phonics, "They are
trying to crash our party, and we need to beat the
(expletive) out of them in front of all the other
would-be party crashers who are standing on the front
lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags."
Doherty quit in September after the report's release.
Higgins also found that a 2002 conference for
educators focused too exclusively on a few programs,
creating what investigators said was a perception that
there was an "approved list" of texts.
A related probe last month by the Government
Accountability Office found that officials from 10
states complained that the Education Department told
them to eliminate reading programs or tests that they
didn't endorse. Federal rules prohibit the department
from endorsing any curriculum.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who until 2005
was a White House domestic policy adviser, says the
troubles occurred before her move to the Education
Department. But Mike Petrilli, a former associate
deputy secretary under Spellings' predecessor, Rod
Paige, says Spellings "micromanaged the implementation
of Reading First from her West Wing office." She
already has told lawmakers she is beefing up oversight
of the program.
But even a few critics cautiously concede that the
program has been a boon to schools. The Center on
Education Policy, a Washington think tank that has
criticized Bush's education programs, in September
said Reading First is having "a significant impact" in
schools.
A five-year, $30.5 million evaluation, begun in 2003,
should produce complete results next year.
Cindy Cupp, a Savannah, Ga., educator, was among the
first to complain in 2005, after Reading First schools
in Georgia passed over her homegrown phonics program.
Cupp compiled a huge dossier outlining the links
between publishers, federal advisers, universities and
the Bush administration. In findings issued last
January, Higgins largely upheld her complaint.
She says it's irrelevant whether Reading First works:
"To rationalize breaking the law by saying the program
has been effective is just that — a rationalization."
She also notes that part of the evaluation bid went to
RMC Research Corp., which Higgins cited for turning a
blind eye to conflicts of interest among three top
advisers it hired. All three are scheduled to testify
Friday.
USA Today (“Textbook scandal reaches Congress,” April
16 ) notes that a Center for Education Policy report
found that Reading First has helped schools. This
report only asked officials in states and districts
that improved in reading whether they thought Reading
First had helped. There was no discussion of cases in
which Reading First was used and there was no
improvement.
Reports from Harvard and Berkeley have found that
Reading First has not resulted in gains on national
tests. Also, the achievement gap between high- and
low-income students is the same as it was before
Reading First.
The President and the Secretary of Education continue
to insist that reading scores on national tests have
increased, but recent gains all occurred before
Reading First went into effect.
The Reading First hearings, in addition to
investigating potential conflicts of interests, should
also probe the unsupported claims that the program has
been a success.
Stephen Krashen
Analysis of Center for Education Report
Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
No improvement in national test scores:
1. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
2. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
Textbook scandal reaches Congress
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
A slow-motion scandal surrounding a federal
multibillion-dollar reading program has its first
congressional hearing this week, but it remains to be
seen whether the scrutiny will shed any new light on a
complex, contradictory tale of textbooks, tests and
allegations of federal arm-twisting.
A key part of President Bush's efforts to remake
public education, Reading First was launched in 2002,
giving schools $1 billion a year to improve reading in
early elementary grades. Five years later, early
evidence suggests that it may be helping. But
investigators say a handful of advisers have
railroaded schools into buying textbooks and other
materials that they and associates developed.
The result: a conflict-of-interest case that took two
years to jell as investigators in the Education
Department connected the dots. To date, no criminal
charges have been filed, but Democrats, now in control
of Congress, promise to give the case a full airing.
"The purpose of Reading First is to help
schoolchildren learn to read, not feather the nests of
a select group of well-connected individuals and
organizations," says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who
chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Miller and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., are
conducting probes. Kennedy plans hearings later this
spring.
Miller will preside at the first hearing Friday, which
brings together Chris Doherty, the program's former
director, and three top advisers.
Atop the witness list: John Higgins, the Education
Department's inspector general, who has issued six
reports detailing how Reading First leaders and
contractors looked the other way at possible conflicts
of interest among advisers and others — several of
whom authored textbooks. He also found that Doherty
and others strong-armed states and school districts
into choosing from a small selection of materials that
stress phonics.
In one e-mail Higgins cited, Doherty said of a
publisher whose books downplayed phonics, "They are
trying to crash our party, and we need to beat the
(expletive) out of them in front of all the other
would-be party crashers who are standing on the front
lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags."
Doherty quit in September after the report's release.
Higgins also found that a 2002 conference for
educators focused too exclusively on a few programs,
creating what investigators said was a perception that
there was an "approved list" of texts.
A related probe last month by the Government
Accountability Office found that officials from 10
states complained that the Education Department told
them to eliminate reading programs or tests that they
didn't endorse. Federal rules prohibit the department
from endorsing any curriculum.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who until 2005
was a White House domestic policy adviser, says the
troubles occurred before her move to the Education
Department. But Mike Petrilli, a former associate
deputy secretary under Spellings' predecessor, Rod
Paige, says Spellings "micromanaged the implementation
of Reading First from her West Wing office." She
already has told lawmakers she is beefing up oversight
of the program.
But even a few critics cautiously concede that the
program has been a boon to schools. The Center on
Education Policy, a Washington think tank that has
criticized Bush's education programs, in September
said Reading First is having "a significant impact" in
schools.
A five-year, $30.5 million evaluation, begun in 2003,
should produce complete results next year.
Cindy Cupp, a Savannah, Ga., educator, was among the
first to complain in 2005, after Reading First schools
in Georgia passed over her homegrown phonics program.
Cupp compiled a huge dossier outlining the links
between publishers, federal advisers, universities and
the Bush administration. In findings issued last
January, Higgins largely upheld her complaint.
She says it's irrelevant whether Reading First works:
"To rationalize breaking the law by saying the program
has been effective is just that — a rationalization."
She also notes that part of the evaluation bid went to
RMC Research Corp., which Higgins cited for turning a
blind eye to conflicts of interest among three top
advisers it hired. All three are scheduled to testify
Friday.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Oppose new, unfunded mandates on teachers
Regular readers will recognize that last Spring I posted several items on SB 1209, an Omnibus Education Bill in the California legislature, and how it was meddling and pandering rather than improving teacher preparation.
With the help of CFA, we have now prepared to repeal one part of the mandate.
April 12, 2007
Members, Assembly Education Committee
Fr: Susan Meisenhelder, Chair, Political Action and Legislative Committee
David Balla-Hawkins, Legislative Director
Re: AB 750 (Carter) – SPONSOR
Removal of CSU Teacher Assessment Unfunded Mandate
On behalf of the 23,000 faculty, counselors, coaches and librarians who teach at the California State University system, the California Faculty Association is the SPONSOR of AB 750 to eliminate an unfunded mandate affecting teacher credential students.
In lieu of this change, institutions such as the CSU will be required to pay for these teacher assessments – or will simply pass the estimated $400 per assessment costs onto students – when adequate state funding is not provided.
The Need for AB 750
Along with an array of important K-12 teacher credential reforms, a small change resulting from last year’s SB 1209 (Scott) also created an unfunded mandate that – unaddressed – will adversely impact CSU students seeking a teaching credential. Beginning July 1, 2008, CSU teaching candidates will be required to complete teacher assessments as part of their graduation requirement. Unfortunately, SB 1209 changed existing law that made these assessments contingent on the availability of state funding, thus creating a new CSU unfunded mandate.
At the CSU, where over half of all K-12 teachers are taught, student enrollment fees have already nearly doubled in just five years. Having the state require a new assessment of credential students, without providing the necessary funding, would discourage students from seeking a teaching credential by making it more cost-prohibitive – or simply more difficult – by forcing CSU teacher credential students to pay $400 more in higher fees, or eliminating other essential student services and/or classes to pay for these assessments.
AB 750 will simply reinstate existing language that was deleted by SB 1209, thus making teacher assessments contingent on the availability of state funding. Unaddressed, these assessment costs – if continued as an unfunded mandate – will further deplete limited CSU funds or restrict the financial ability of students to obtain a K-12 teaching credential.
It is for these reasons that CFA respectfully requests you vote “AYE” on AB 750.
What you can do.
Write letters of support to your Senators and Assemblypersons. Support AB 750.
For a detailed description of the complex problem and the strategy see
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
Duane Campbell
With the help of CFA, we have now prepared to repeal one part of the mandate.
April 12, 2007
Members, Assembly Education Committee
Fr: Susan Meisenhelder, Chair, Political Action and Legislative Committee
David Balla-Hawkins, Legislative Director
Re: AB 750 (Carter) – SPONSOR
Removal of CSU Teacher Assessment Unfunded Mandate
On behalf of the 23,000 faculty, counselors, coaches and librarians who teach at the California State University system, the California Faculty Association is the SPONSOR of AB 750 to eliminate an unfunded mandate affecting teacher credential students.
In lieu of this change, institutions such as the CSU will be required to pay for these teacher assessments – or will simply pass the estimated $400 per assessment costs onto students – when adequate state funding is not provided.
The Need for AB 750
Along with an array of important K-12 teacher credential reforms, a small change resulting from last year’s SB 1209 (Scott) also created an unfunded mandate that – unaddressed – will adversely impact CSU students seeking a teaching credential. Beginning July 1, 2008, CSU teaching candidates will be required to complete teacher assessments as part of their graduation requirement. Unfortunately, SB 1209 changed existing law that made these assessments contingent on the availability of state funding, thus creating a new CSU unfunded mandate.
At the CSU, where over half of all K-12 teachers are taught, student enrollment fees have already nearly doubled in just five years. Having the state require a new assessment of credential students, without providing the necessary funding, would discourage students from seeking a teaching credential by making it more cost-prohibitive – or simply more difficult – by forcing CSU teacher credential students to pay $400 more in higher fees, or eliminating other essential student services and/or classes to pay for these assessments.
AB 750 will simply reinstate existing language that was deleted by SB 1209, thus making teacher assessments contingent on the availability of state funding. Unaddressed, these assessment costs – if continued as an unfunded mandate – will further deplete limited CSU funds or restrict the financial ability of students to obtain a K-12 teaching credential.
It is for these reasons that CFA respectfully requests you vote “AYE” on AB 750.
What you can do.
Write letters of support to your Senators and Assemblypersons. Support AB 750.
For a detailed description of the complex problem and the strategy see
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
Duane Campbell
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
NCLB: What you can do
Overhauling NCLB: What You Can Do
Rethinking Schools.org, Spring 2007
Illustration: Toles
© 2007 The Washington Post
By Monty Neill
The most important thing progressive educators can do at this time, aside from teaching well, is to help ensure that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not reproduce the destructive components of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Make no mistake: if the act is reauthorized without significant changes, progressive education initiatives will remain on the defensive, squeezed out by NCLB's focus on standardized tests and punitive sanctions.
The first step in overhauling NCLB is to block its rapid reauthorization, and then to press for positive alternatives. This process could move quickly in 2007 or, if progressives are successful in blocking a status-quo reauthorization, continue into 2009.
The main multi-organizational organizing effort to press for positive changes involves The Joint Statement on No Child Left Behind, now signed by over 100 education, civil rights, religious, disability, and civic organizations.
Many signers of the Joint Statement, such as the National Education Association, are also organizing among their members to transform NCLB.
Here are things you can do to prevent a rapid reauthorization that largely leaves NCLB intact:
Get school boards and other groups to endorse the Joint Statement and other progressive proposals to overhaul the NCLB.
Set up meetings with members of Congress and their staff. Bring a diverse delegation to the meeting, then follow up repeatedly.
Lobby your state legislators to pass resolutions in line with the Joint Statement and other progressive alternatives.
Hold public forums on problems with the current NCLB and on much-needed information on the NCLB, including various actions you can take to help prevent the law's status-quo reauthorization.
Use the list of Joint Statement signers to reach out to their local and state affiliates.
Write letters to the editor of your local paper.
In short, get active, organize and mobilize.
Websites on NCLB
Following is a list of websites with alternatives:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/index.shtml
Includes special sections on NCLB, vouchers, privatization.
http://www.fairtest.org
Leading advocate for progressive assessment practices, information on NCLB.
http://susanohanian.org/nclb.html
Large collection of NCLB information, stories, research.
http://nochildleft.com/
NCLB site of education writer Jamie McKenzie.
http://www.nea.org/esea/
National Education Association NCLB site.
http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/index.htm
American Federation of Teachers on NCLB.
http://www.educatorroundtable.org/
Educator Roundtable and its petition against NCLB.
http://www.publiceducation.org/nclb_actionbriefs.asp
Public Education Network NCLB site.
Monty Neill is executive director of the Boston based FairTest (http://www.fairtest.org) and chair of the Forum on Educational Accountability (http://www.edaccountability.org), which is spearheading the Joint Statement.
Spring 2007
Rethinking Schools.org, Spring 2007
Illustration: Toles
© 2007 The Washington Post
By Monty Neill
The most important thing progressive educators can do at this time, aside from teaching well, is to help ensure that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not reproduce the destructive components of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Make no mistake: if the act is reauthorized without significant changes, progressive education initiatives will remain on the defensive, squeezed out by NCLB's focus on standardized tests and punitive sanctions.
The first step in overhauling NCLB is to block its rapid reauthorization, and then to press for positive alternatives. This process could move quickly in 2007 or, if progressives are successful in blocking a status-quo reauthorization, continue into 2009.
The main multi-organizational organizing effort to press for positive changes involves The Joint Statement on No Child Left Behind, now signed by over 100 education, civil rights, religious, disability, and civic organizations.
Many signers of the Joint Statement, such as the National Education Association, are also organizing among their members to transform NCLB.
Here are things you can do to prevent a rapid reauthorization that largely leaves NCLB intact:
Get school boards and other groups to endorse the Joint Statement and other progressive proposals to overhaul the NCLB.
Set up meetings with members of Congress and their staff. Bring a diverse delegation to the meeting, then follow up repeatedly.
Lobby your state legislators to pass resolutions in line with the Joint Statement and other progressive alternatives.
Hold public forums on problems with the current NCLB and on much-needed information on the NCLB, including various actions you can take to help prevent the law's status-quo reauthorization.
Use the list of Joint Statement signers to reach out to their local and state affiliates.
Write letters to the editor of your local paper.
In short, get active, organize and mobilize.
Websites on NCLB
Following is a list of websites with alternatives:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/index.shtml
Includes special sections on NCLB, vouchers, privatization.
http://www.fairtest.org
Leading advocate for progressive assessment practices, information on NCLB.
http://susanohanian.org/nclb.html
Large collection of NCLB information, stories, research.
http://nochildleft.com/
NCLB site of education writer Jamie McKenzie.
http://www.nea.org/esea/
National Education Association NCLB site.
http://www.aft.org/topics/nclb/index.htm
American Federation of Teachers on NCLB.
http://www.educatorroundtable.org/
Educator Roundtable and its petition against NCLB.
http://www.publiceducation.org/nclb_actionbriefs.asp
Public Education Network NCLB site.
Monty Neill is executive director of the Boston based FairTest (http://www.fairtest.org) and chair of the Forum on Educational Accountability (http://www.edaccountability.org), which is spearheading the Joint Statement.
Spring 2007
Monday, April 09, 2007
NCLB: Classroom Cast System
Classroom Caste System
By David Keyes
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A13
Washington POst
Written five years ago to reduce the "achievement gap," the No Child Left Behind Act has in fact created a gap in American education. Its pressure to raise test scores has caused many schools to give poor and minority students an impoverished education that focuses primarily on basic skills.
As it comes up for reauthorization, members of Congress should consider the unintended consequence of the act: a new gap between poor and minority students, who are being taught to seek simple answers, and largely wealthy and white students, who are learning to ask complex questions. In my work as an elementary school teacher, I have seen this new gap and I worry about its impact on my students' future prospects.
Although supporters and critics of No Child Left Behind agree on little, both would acknowledge that testing lies at the heart of the law. Schools approach the act's testing requirements differently, depending on the students they serve.
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, American schools remain largely segregated. Schools serving mostly wealthy and white students have a distinct advantage when it comes to testing. Their students are far more likely to be raised in an environment that gives them the necessary tools to succeed on tests. They grow up with the intellectual abundance their wealth provides: books, educational videos and Baby Einstein games, to name a few. Having these resources may not make children smarter, but it does educate them in many of the skills -- such as letter sounds and addition facts -- that are covered on standardized tests. Knowing their students are likely to succeed on tests gives these schools freedom to teach higher-level thinking skills.
Poor and minority children also come to school with rich backgrounds. They speak foreign languages, make music, tell vivid stories and have other skills not typical of their peers. Their backgrounds, however, often do not provide them with the academic skills needed to succeed on standardized tests. Fearful of poor test scores that can bring punitive measures, schools spend an inordinate amount of time preparing their students for the tests.
Schools often use test-prep programs to try to raise test scores. The problem with these programs is that they teach the skills covered on tests, and only these skills. Poor and minority students spend hours repeating "B buh ball" and two plus two equals four. Every hour spent drilling basic skills is an hour not spent developing the higher-level thinking skills that are emphasized in wealthier school districts.
I have worked in both types of schools. Currently, I teach in an almost exclusively minority, high-poverty elementary school. Administrators require teachers to strictly adhere to a months-long test-prep program. My students recoil at the sight of their test-prep books. Last year, some of my students cried, wracked with anxiety over the tests.
My students are 7 and 8 years old.
I did my student teaching in an almost exclusively white and wealthy school. There, the students studied the role of quilts on the Underground Railroad, brainstormed plans to save wolves from extinction and performed dances based on retellings of Cinderella. The children learned to think and they loved it.
At the end of the year, test results will come out for these two schools. Educators and politicians will trumpet any reduction of the so-called achievement gap. This misses the point. Students will leave these two schools and schools like them with a widely varying set of skills. As the achievement gap is being reduced, another gap is being created. Students in largely wealthy and white schools are learning to ask larger questions; students in poor and minority schools are only being taught to answer smaller ones.
The effect of this gap will be long-lasting. Students taught higher-level thinking skills will be able to compete for jobs at the upper echelon of the 21st-century economy. Students who receive an impoverished education focused on basic skills will be stuck at the bottom.
The No Child Left Behind Act is creating a caste-like system in which students' future prospects are likely to be similar to those of their parents. This undemocratic development is at odds with a society that prides itself on being a meritocracy. As Congress debates the renewal of the law, members should consider not only whether the act is reducing the achievement gap but also the skills gap it is creating.
The writer is a second-grade teacher at Bel Pre Elementary School in Silver Spring.
By David Keyes
Monday, April 9, 2007; Page A13
Washington POst
Written five years ago to reduce the "achievement gap," the No Child Left Behind Act has in fact created a gap in American education. Its pressure to raise test scores has caused many schools to give poor and minority students an impoverished education that focuses primarily on basic skills.
As it comes up for reauthorization, members of Congress should consider the unintended consequence of the act: a new gap between poor and minority students, who are being taught to seek simple answers, and largely wealthy and white students, who are learning to ask complex questions. In my work as an elementary school teacher, I have seen this new gap and I worry about its impact on my students' future prospects.
Although supporters and critics of No Child Left Behind agree on little, both would acknowledge that testing lies at the heart of the law. Schools approach the act's testing requirements differently, depending on the students they serve.
Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, American schools remain largely segregated. Schools serving mostly wealthy and white students have a distinct advantage when it comes to testing. Their students are far more likely to be raised in an environment that gives them the necessary tools to succeed on tests. They grow up with the intellectual abundance their wealth provides: books, educational videos and Baby Einstein games, to name a few. Having these resources may not make children smarter, but it does educate them in many of the skills -- such as letter sounds and addition facts -- that are covered on standardized tests. Knowing their students are likely to succeed on tests gives these schools freedom to teach higher-level thinking skills.
Poor and minority children also come to school with rich backgrounds. They speak foreign languages, make music, tell vivid stories and have other skills not typical of their peers. Their backgrounds, however, often do not provide them with the academic skills needed to succeed on standardized tests. Fearful of poor test scores that can bring punitive measures, schools spend an inordinate amount of time preparing their students for the tests.
Schools often use test-prep programs to try to raise test scores. The problem with these programs is that they teach the skills covered on tests, and only these skills. Poor and minority students spend hours repeating "B buh ball" and two plus two equals four. Every hour spent drilling basic skills is an hour not spent developing the higher-level thinking skills that are emphasized in wealthier school districts.
I have worked in both types of schools. Currently, I teach in an almost exclusively minority, high-poverty elementary school. Administrators require teachers to strictly adhere to a months-long test-prep program. My students recoil at the sight of their test-prep books. Last year, some of my students cried, wracked with anxiety over the tests.
My students are 7 and 8 years old.
I did my student teaching in an almost exclusively white and wealthy school. There, the students studied the role of quilts on the Underground Railroad, brainstormed plans to save wolves from extinction and performed dances based on retellings of Cinderella. The children learned to think and they loved it.
At the end of the year, test results will come out for these two schools. Educators and politicians will trumpet any reduction of the so-called achievement gap. This misses the point. Students will leave these two schools and schools like them with a widely varying set of skills. As the achievement gap is being reduced, another gap is being created. Students in largely wealthy and white schools are learning to ask larger questions; students in poor and minority schools are only being taught to answer smaller ones.
The effect of this gap will be long-lasting. Students taught higher-level thinking skills will be able to compete for jobs at the upper echelon of the 21st-century economy. Students who receive an impoverished education focused on basic skills will be stuck at the bottom.
The No Child Left Behind Act is creating a caste-like system in which students' future prospects are likely to be similar to those of their parents. This undemocratic development is at odds with a society that prides itself on being a meritocracy. As Congress debates the renewal of the law, members should consider not only whether the act is reducing the achievement gap but also the skills gap it is creating.
The writer is a second-grade teacher at Bel Pre Elementary School in Silver Spring.
NCLB: Lacks evidence
Deputy Secretary of Education Raymond Simon feels that
“Testing critics ignore [NCLB’s] ‘positive record”
(April 4). Not so. It is Secretary Simon who appears
to have ignored the record.
Simon claims that since NCLB (No Child Left Behind)
was passed, “reading and math scores have risen
sharply and achievement gaps have narrowed to record
lows.”
Several recent reports have concluded that the
increase in reading on national tests occurred before
NCLB went into effect, not after. There has been no
improvement in reading on national tests for fourth or
eighth graders since NCLB went into effect. In math,
the rate of improvement after NCLB is the same as it
was before NCLB. The research also shows that the gaps
among racial groups and between high and low poverty
groups are mostly unchanged.
Just in case Simon and his colleagues at the
department of Education have missed this research,
here is a reading list:
1. Bracey, Gerald. 2006. The 16th Bracey report on
the condition of public education, Phi Delta Kappan,
October.
2. Crawford, James. 2007. Selling NCLB: Would you buy
a used law from this woman?
http://www.elladvocates.org/index.htm#selling.
3. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
4. Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
“Testing critics ignore [NCLB’s] ‘positive record”
(April 4). Not so. It is Secretary Simon who appears
to have ignored the record.
Simon claims that since NCLB (No Child Left Behind)
was passed, “reading and math scores have risen
sharply and achievement gaps have narrowed to record
lows.”
Several recent reports have concluded that the
increase in reading on national tests occurred before
NCLB went into effect, not after. There has been no
improvement in reading on national tests for fourth or
eighth graders since NCLB went into effect. In math,
the rate of improvement after NCLB is the same as it
was before NCLB. The research also shows that the gaps
among racial groups and between high and low poverty
groups are mostly unchanged.
Just in case Simon and his colleagues at the
department of Education have missed this research,
here is a reading list:
1. Bracey, Gerald. 2006. The 16th Bracey report on
the condition of public education, Phi Delta Kappan,
October.
2. Crawford, James. 2007. Selling NCLB: Would you buy
a used law from this woman?
http://www.elladvocates.org/index.htm#selling.
3. Fuller, Bruce, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin, and
Wright, Joseph. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind
Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track
Achievement. University of California, Berkeley:
Policy Analysis for California Education
4. Krashen, Stephen. 2006, Did reading first work?
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. Lee, Jaekyung. 2006. Tracking achievement gaps and
assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth
look into national and state reading and math outcome
trends.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University.
Stephen Krashen
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Moratorium on Commissions on Education
Time for a Moratorium on Commissions on Education in California
By Peter Schrag
We've had a bumper crop of new education reports from the eminent and powerful of late, all with one basic message: American public schools are lousy and urgently need reform, if not replacement.
One came in December from the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, which included California State University Chancellor Charles Reed, a couple of former U.S. secretaries of education, a couple of former secretaries of labor, some business executives, as well as other fancy people. It says the whole system is obsolete and should be privatized. The report is available online.
Another, a joint report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the liberal Center for American Progress, concludes that "the measures of our educational shortcomings are stark indeed." In their rating of the states, California gets an F.
Most American fourth- and eighth-graders, they say, "are not proficient in either reading or mathematics. Only about two-thirds of all ninth-graders graduate from high school within four years. And those students who do receive diplomas are too often unprepared for college or the modern workplace." Details of the report are available at www.uschamber.com.
Sound familiar? Prophecies of educational disaster seem to peak at least once every generation. The early 1950s produced books like "Educational Wastelands" and "Why Johnny Can't Read" and articles from Adm. Hyman Rickover, "father of the atomic submarine," that the Soviets were killing us in the education of scientists and engineers.
Those warnings were reinforced when the Russians launched the first Earth-orbiting satellite in October 1957: The education system, it was said, was dangerously flabby; this was a matter of national security. While Russian kids were doing their calculus, Americans were planning the high school dance. Unless the schools (and the kids) shaped up, the Soviets would beat our brains out.
In 1983 came the federal report "A Nation at Risk" with its warning that if we didn't reverse the "rising tide of (educational) mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation," the Germans and Japanese would beat our economic brains out. (When the report was released, President Reagan promised to fix things by working for tuition tax credits, vouchers, voluntary school prayer and the abolition of the Department of Education.)
Now the mis-educated products of those crummy schools of the 1950s and 1980s are sounding the alarm (once again) that if we don't shape up the schools, all the good high-tech jobs will flow to China, India and elsewhere.
"Tough Choices or Tough Times," the report of the Skills Commission isn't quite clear how better training will keep tech jobs from going to places where the same work can be done for as little as one-fifth of U.S. wages. It merely suggests that better schools will produce the creative, innovative people who will keep America competitive.
This isn't to say that American schools are great, or that there's not a lot riding on their success.
It's a call to reality to all those fancy folks, few of whom have ever had to deal with a classroom of 30-plus kids of varying abilities and disabilities, temperaments and backgrounds -- often with little support -- and haven't a clue what the job entails.
Published on the California Progress Report.
........
Schrag gets it mostly correct. What further needs explaining is how scores on California tests improve by over 100 points while scores of the same kids on the national NAEP exams remain stagnant.
Its amusing to read Schrag on this. The last paragraph on this excerpt is precisely how I often feel after reading Schrag, he doesn't have a clue on what the job entails. Although his son did complete teacher preparation so perhaps he is listening to a teacher during vacation visits. I hope so.
Duane Campbell
By Peter Schrag
We've had a bumper crop of new education reports from the eminent and powerful of late, all with one basic message: American public schools are lousy and urgently need reform, if not replacement.
One came in December from the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, which included California State University Chancellor Charles Reed, a couple of former U.S. secretaries of education, a couple of former secretaries of labor, some business executives, as well as other fancy people. It says the whole system is obsolete and should be privatized. The report is available online.
Another, a joint report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the liberal Center for American Progress, concludes that "the measures of our educational shortcomings are stark indeed." In their rating of the states, California gets an F.
Most American fourth- and eighth-graders, they say, "are not proficient in either reading or mathematics. Only about two-thirds of all ninth-graders graduate from high school within four years. And those students who do receive diplomas are too often unprepared for college or the modern workplace." Details of the report are available at www.uschamber.com.
Sound familiar? Prophecies of educational disaster seem to peak at least once every generation. The early 1950s produced books like "Educational Wastelands" and "Why Johnny Can't Read" and articles from Adm. Hyman Rickover, "father of the atomic submarine," that the Soviets were killing us in the education of scientists and engineers.
Those warnings were reinforced when the Russians launched the first Earth-orbiting satellite in October 1957: The education system, it was said, was dangerously flabby; this was a matter of national security. While Russian kids were doing their calculus, Americans were planning the high school dance. Unless the schools (and the kids) shaped up, the Soviets would beat our brains out.
In 1983 came the federal report "A Nation at Risk" with its warning that if we didn't reverse the "rising tide of (educational) mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation," the Germans and Japanese would beat our economic brains out. (When the report was released, President Reagan promised to fix things by working for tuition tax credits, vouchers, voluntary school prayer and the abolition of the Department of Education.)
Now the mis-educated products of those crummy schools of the 1950s and 1980s are sounding the alarm (once again) that if we don't shape up the schools, all the good high-tech jobs will flow to China, India and elsewhere.
"Tough Choices or Tough Times," the report of the Skills Commission isn't quite clear how better training will keep tech jobs from going to places where the same work can be done for as little as one-fifth of U.S. wages. It merely suggests that better schools will produce the creative, innovative people who will keep America competitive.
This isn't to say that American schools are great, or that there's not a lot riding on their success.
It's a call to reality to all those fancy folks, few of whom have ever had to deal with a classroom of 30-plus kids of varying abilities and disabilities, temperaments and backgrounds -- often with little support -- and haven't a clue what the job entails.
Published on the California Progress Report.
........
Schrag gets it mostly correct. What further needs explaining is how scores on California tests improve by over 100 points while scores of the same kids on the national NAEP exams remain stagnant.
Its amusing to read Schrag on this. The last paragraph on this excerpt is precisely how I often feel after reading Schrag, he doesn't have a clue on what the job entails. Although his son did complete teacher preparation so perhaps he is listening to a teacher during vacation visits. I hope so.
Duane Campbell
George Bush's Lawyers
THE OTHER SHOE....Ever since Monica Goodling, a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University, made news by invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify about Purgegate, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop regarding those 150 graduates of Regent that are now populating the executive branch. Via David Kurtz, the Boston Globe doesn't really drop the shoe, but certainly gets it dangling a little further:
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.
"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section — the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.
The graduate from Regent — which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place — was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.
And how did all those Regent grads get hired at DOJ? Easy. Bush hired one of Regent's deans to be director of the Office of Personnel Management and John Ashcroft changed DOJ rules to end the practice of having veteran lawyers screen applicants. It seems to have worked well.
—Kevin Drum 3:07 PM Permalink |
From the Washington Monthly
Monday, April 02, 2007
Bill of Rights for Test Takers
Bill of Rights for Test Takers: a Family and Student Testing Protection Act
Purpose: To protect students, families and local communities from abusive assessment practices, violations of due process and civil rights.
Problem I:
Students are being denied promotion, access to programs and schools, or barred from receiving high school diplomas or graduation certificates based solely on standardized test scores. These students are disproportionately poor, African American, and from immigrant families whose home language is not English. There are also large numbers of students, including the very talented, and students with disabilities who do not perform well on conventional standardized tests.
Remedies:
1. The use of standardized tests as the sole or primary basis for determining promotion, student access to advanced programs, schools, and awarding of certificates or diplomas is prohibited. Non-standardized, qualitative modes of assessment should be available to students or particular groups of students whose education is served by alternatives to standardized tests.
2. An Educational Impact Report is required prior to imposition of a system of assessment or particular method of assessment by a governing authority. This report would seek to determine immediate and longer term effects on students, schools, and local communities (disaggregated by race, gender and family income), and to assess the human and material resources required to fulfill the assessment requirements. Assessment goals or standards may not be raised or changed if the resources required for meeting these standards are not provided.
3. Parents have the right to exempt their children from tests and assessments that they deem as harmful or inappropriate. No punitive consequences may be applied by governments to students or schools if parents choose to exercise their right to exempt a child from taking a particular test or set of tests.
Problem II
Among the more destructive provisions of NCLB and state testing regulations is that schools that fail to meet certain numerical targets set by standardized tests scores face being ‘restructured’ or dismantled. The are numerous documented cases of exemplary schools that have closed or are under threat of closure.
Remedy:
No school or program within a school may be disestablished or restructured based solely or primarily on rankings of students on standardized tests.
Problem: III
The pressures on schools to raise standardized test scores, particularly those that serve poor and children of color, narrows the curriculum, ignoring crucial areas of children’s and adolescents’ development and growth. Among the casualties are music, the arts, bilingual education, community internships, civic education, fitness and health education.
Remedy:
State and federal governments have the authority to set general guidelines and standards under this Act. However, governments are forbidden to mandate local school priorities, or specify curriculum content and pedagogy.
Problem IV
The federal government using power it claims under the NCLB Reading First program is dictating to states and school districts how reading should be taught. The US Department of Education currently approve funding for materials that meets the federal government’s interpretation of the NCLB Reading First provisions
Remedy:
The determination of good and appropriate practice resides with the teachers and local educational authorities. A legal requirement for ‘scientifically based’ materials and approaches may not be construed as granting government the authority to dictate to schools’ personnel policies, teaching methods, and expenditures for texts and curriculum resources.
Problem V
Parents and students are rarely informed by schools of their rights with respect to testing and assessment. Information about test content, technical specifications and methods of analyzing and reporting test results are often kept secret and withheld from students, parents and the public.
Remedy:
Student and family testing and assessment rights including those specified in this Act must be prominently broadcast and displayed. Teachers and school officials have both the right and the obligation to inform families, and students of their rights. These rights include the right to be fully informed about of a test’s technical details, such as standard error of measurement , on whom and how was the test normed or scaled, how cut scores or proficiency levels were determined, and what content, skills, or competencies are being measured and evaluated by the test.
May be reproduced
March 28, 2007 v 1.3
hberlak@yahoo.com
Purpose: To protect students, families and local communities from abusive assessment practices, violations of due process and civil rights.
Problem I:
Students are being denied promotion, access to programs and schools, or barred from receiving high school diplomas or graduation certificates based solely on standardized test scores. These students are disproportionately poor, African American, and from immigrant families whose home language is not English. There are also large numbers of students, including the very talented, and students with disabilities who do not perform well on conventional standardized tests.
Remedies:
1. The use of standardized tests as the sole or primary basis for determining promotion, student access to advanced programs, schools, and awarding of certificates or diplomas is prohibited. Non-standardized, qualitative modes of assessment should be available to students or particular groups of students whose education is served by alternatives to standardized tests.
2. An Educational Impact Report is required prior to imposition of a system of assessment or particular method of assessment by a governing authority. This report would seek to determine immediate and longer term effects on students, schools, and local communities (disaggregated by race, gender and family income), and to assess the human and material resources required to fulfill the assessment requirements. Assessment goals or standards may not be raised or changed if the resources required for meeting these standards are not provided.
3. Parents have the right to exempt their children from tests and assessments that they deem as harmful or inappropriate. No punitive consequences may be applied by governments to students or schools if parents choose to exercise their right to exempt a child from taking a particular test or set of tests.
Problem II
Among the more destructive provisions of NCLB and state testing regulations is that schools that fail to meet certain numerical targets set by standardized tests scores face being ‘restructured’ or dismantled. The are numerous documented cases of exemplary schools that have closed or are under threat of closure.
Remedy:
No school or program within a school may be disestablished or restructured based solely or primarily on rankings of students on standardized tests.
Problem: III
The pressures on schools to raise standardized test scores, particularly those that serve poor and children of color, narrows the curriculum, ignoring crucial areas of children’s and adolescents’ development and growth. Among the casualties are music, the arts, bilingual education, community internships, civic education, fitness and health education.
Remedy:
State and federal governments have the authority to set general guidelines and standards under this Act. However, governments are forbidden to mandate local school priorities, or specify curriculum content and pedagogy.
Problem IV
The federal government using power it claims under the NCLB Reading First program is dictating to states and school districts how reading should be taught. The US Department of Education currently approve funding for materials that meets the federal government’s interpretation of the NCLB Reading First provisions
Remedy:
The determination of good and appropriate practice resides with the teachers and local educational authorities. A legal requirement for ‘scientifically based’ materials and approaches may not be construed as granting government the authority to dictate to schools’ personnel policies, teaching methods, and expenditures for texts and curriculum resources.
Problem V
Parents and students are rarely informed by schools of their rights with respect to testing and assessment. Information about test content, technical specifications and methods of analyzing and reporting test results are often kept secret and withheld from students, parents and the public.
Remedy:
Student and family testing and assessment rights including those specified in this Act must be prominently broadcast and displayed. Teachers and school officials have both the right and the obligation to inform families, and students of their rights. These rights include the right to be fully informed about of a test’s technical details, such as standard error of measurement , on whom and how was the test normed or scaled, how cut scores or proficiency levels were determined, and what content, skills, or competencies are being measured and evaluated by the test.
May be reproduced
March 28, 2007 v 1.3
hberlak@yahoo.com
Right Wing Media : A great little racket
The Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by inside-the-
Beltway heavyweights James Baker and former Rep. Lee
Hamilton (D-IN), seemed to represent the “adult supervi-
sion” so desperately lacking in the blind idealism—or, as
others see it, fervid ideology—behind the Bush adminis-
tration’s misadventures in the Middle East. While
President George W. Bush reportedly called the ISG
report a “flaming turd,” some observers have held on to
the hope that at the very least one cornerstone of the
current political scene, the neoconservatives, at long last
are being pushed out the door, and along with them their
radical ideas about reshaping the Middle East. “Like Mr.
Bush, [the neoconservatives] look to the long span of his-
tory for vindication. It will indeed be eons before anyone
trusts them again,” wrote Financial Timescolumnist
Jacob Weisberg in March 2007, after recounting his dis-
appointment at the lack of contrition or regret expressed
by neoconservatives for the bungled war in Iraq.
Although many of the core Bush neocons, including
Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, have been
pushed out of the administration, and recent weeks
have witnessed the emergence of a more conciliato-
ry posture toward America’s “enemies” that is the
antithesis of neoconservative policy proposals, neo-
conservatism remains a force to contend with. This
fact is highlighted by the influence of American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) ideologues in shaping the
“surge” plan announced by the president in early
January (see, for example, Jim Lobe and Michael
Flynn, “The Push Behind the Surge,” Right Web,
January 11, 2007).
So how do they do it?
One partial answer to this puzzle is the continued
strength of neoconservatism and its standard-bearers in
the nation’s media, a point made recently by Gideon
Rachman in the Financial Times. Wrote Rachman: “The
neocons stand accused of many errors: imperialism,
Leninism, Trotskyism (New York school), militarism.
Some believe that the real problem is that so many of
them are Jewish—this is an alarmingly popular theme, to
judge by my e-mails. But the problem with the neocons
is not that so many of them are Jews. The problem is
that so many of them are journalists.”
Calling neoconservative media pundits “journalists” is a
stretch—the fact is, most don’t report, they spin—but
Rachman’s point is a good one. From top to bottom,
from tabloid TV like FoxNews to powerhouse newspapers
like the New York Timesand Washington Post, neoconser-
vatives have extraordinary presence in the nation’s
media. And Washington always seems to be listening.
A case in point has been the fate of the ISG. Even before
the release of the ISG report the neoconservative media
outlets and pundits began a campaign of discrediting the
Baker-Hamilton group and describing its policy recom-
mendations as a blueprint for defeat in Iraq and the war
on terror.
In a late November Weekly Standardeditorial, one week
before the ISG report was to be released, former
Republican House Speaker and AEI fellow Newt Gingrich
warned that any proposal to ask Iran and Syria for assis-
tance in stabilizing Iraq was a sign of “defeat” and
“appeasement.”
Right Web Analysis
“A Great Little Racket”:
The Neocon Media Machine
By Eli Clifton | March 20, 2007
With the United States bogged down in an increasingly ugly war in Iraq, tensions rising between
Tehran and Washington, and public sentiment—which has turned en masse against deeper U.S. com-
mitment in the Middle East—often seeming a non-factor in White House decisionmaking, it is hard to
believe that in the past few months some pundits and politicos have been optimistically predicting a
dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy that could, like a deus ex machina, resolve the country’s overseas
debacles.
Three days later, in a Washington Posteditorial, Iraq War
hawk Charles Krauthammer ridiculed the ISG’s sugges-
tion that engaging regional actors in the Middle East
might help to secure stability in Iraq. He opined:
“Perhaps in some long-term future they will want a stable
Iraq as a tame client state of the Syria-Iran axis. For now
they want chaos. What in God’s name will a negotiation
with them yield?”
Several days after the release of the ISG report, perhaps
even further emboldened by the Bush administration’s
declaration that it was not prepared to follow the ISG
advice to engage with Syria and Iran, Robert Kagan and
William Kristol wrote: “The Iraq Study Group, aided by
supportive American media, has successfully conveyed
the impression to everyone at home and abroad that the
United States is about to withdraw from Iraq.”
The ISG report was quickly sidelined and in its place the
nation was presented with a new plan for “victory,” one
apparently inspired in part by the AEI and vociferously
promoted by the entire neocon media infrastructure. The
president announced his surge plan on national televi-
sion, in front of an audience that, in large part, wanted
nothing to do with it. Part of the success of the surge
push no doubt lies with the president and his own ideas.
But there is little doubt that the neocon promotion
machine weighed heavily.
To understand the media network of the neoconserva-
tives, it is helpful to examine the origins of the move-
ment and how the packaging—and repackaging—of neo-
conservative ideas has evolved over the past several
decades.
Irving Kristol, widely regarded as a founder of neoconser-
vatism and a self-described “liberal who was mugged by
reality,” made his early mark largely in the areas of jour-
nalism and publishing in the 1950s and 1960s. But the
early intellectualism of his various journals like
Commentarygave short shrift to things like policy imple-
mentation. Rather, under Kristol’s stewardship, early neo-
conservatism tended to the philosophical, debate, and
thoughtful—if increasingly ideological—critiques of the
trajectory of the nation and its domestic and foreign poli-
cies.
Together with the likes of Norman Podhoretz, who took
over Commentaryafter Kristol departed, and a host of
like-minded “public intellectuals,” early neoconservatism
was more an intellectual conversation among a small
“band of brothers”—as George Weigel once put it—than
a Washington political faction. Kristol also founded the
culture journal Public Interestin 1965, and in 1985 the
foreign affairs journal National Interest. Both Interests
have had overlapping contributors; they were also both
bully pulpits for neoconservative heavyweights such as
Francis Fukuyama, Richard Pipes, and Krauthammer. The
origins of the neoconservatives’ stances on Social
Security, the “culture wars,” Generation X, crime and
punishment, and post-Cold War thought can be traced
back to articles published in these journals.
Irving Kristol played an important role in creating the
space for sharing ideas and ideology crucial to the evolu-
tion of the neoconservative vision. His publications were
widely read among academic and intellectual sympathiz-
ers of the movement; however, their distribution and
reach were not comparable to mainstream periodicals.
But even at this early stage in its development, there
were signs of what neoconservatism would evolve into
by the 1990s. Not long after Podhoretz took over the edi-
torship of Commentaryin 1960, the style of the magazine
turned sharply bellicose, in line with Podhoretz’s own
evolving left-to-right political trajectory. As Andrew
Bacevich writes in his 2005 book The New American
Militarism: “Podhoretz did much to create and refine the
fiercely combative neoconservative style. That style
emphasized not balance (viewed as evidence of timidity)
or the careful sifting of evidence (suggesting scholasti-
cism) but the ruthless demolition of any point of view
inconsistent with the neoconservative version of truth,
typically portrayed as self-evident and beyond dispute.”
However, it wasn’t until the 1995 founding of the Weekly
Standardby Irving Kristol’s son William that a definitive
shift in the media presence of neoconservatism truly
took hold, and the impact of the political group inside
Washington began to shift. Unlike Commentaryand other
early neoconservative journals, the Weekly Standard,
owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomer-
ate of Rupert Murdoch, was not targeted at intellectual
elites. Rather, it was targeted at conservative power bro-
kers. Under the editorship of William Kristol and Fred
Barnes, the Standardundertook an explicit mission to
affect immediate changes in policy and to serve as a
reflection of neoconservative policy campaigns on cur-
rent affairs. The pretense of intellectualism disappeared.
The influence of the Weekly Standardruns all the way to
the top of the U.S. government. Vice President Dick
Cheney’s office at one time reportedly received 30 issues
per week, apparently in order to remain on top of any
policy recommendations advocated by AEI (where
Cheney and his wife have both held positions) and the
rightweb.irc-online.org
Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our worldp. 2
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), two neo-
conservative groups with close ties to the management
of the Weekly Standard.
The Weekly Standardhas served a pivotal role in what
could be considered the neoconservative “echo cham-
ber”—a collection of think tanks, media outlets, and
advocacy groups that strengthen and repeat neoconserv-
ative policies and ideology through constant media expo-
sure and reinforcement within organizations populated
by influential policymakers. Only with this system in
place have the neoconservatives, a group with no grass-
roots support base, been successful in influencing U.S.
foreign policy as well as public opinion.
A significant component of the neoconservative echo
chamber is its use of mainstream media outlets to dis-
seminate ideas. Neither the academic journals nor neo-
conservative periodicals have the readership and crucial
role in public opinion of the mainstream media. Both the
editorial pages of major newspapers and the Fox News
cable channel have played pivotal roles in selling neocon-
servative policies to a more mainstream, conservative,
and Republican audience. Max Boot at the Los Angeles
Times, David Brooks at the New York Times, Charles
Krauthammer and Robert Kagan at the Washington Post,
and numerous members of the Wall Street Journal editori-
al board, including Irving Kristol since 1972, have served
as liaisons between neoconservative writers and main-
stream America.
Fox News, launched in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation, has served as one of the media outlets of
choice for Bush administration rhetoric as well as high-
profile neoconservatives. For personalities such as Bill
Kristol, Fox News has served as a springboard from
which to launch himself into mainstream media circles.
The outrage and patriotic rhetoric and images employed
by Fox News cast neoconservative ideas and policy in
consumable and marketable packaging. Never before had
the neoconservatives gained such a mainstream audi-
ence. The views of the Bush administration, as well as
PNAC and various other neoconservative groups, were
regularly publicized through Fox News and regional news-
paper editorial pages during the lead up to the war in
Iraq. The sprinkling of neoconservative writers and pun-
dits throughout the U.S. mainstream media served an
invaluable role in pushing for neoconservative-crafted
Mideast policy.
The impact and influence of the neoconservative echo
chamber was felt when accusations of an Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction program and charges that Saddam
Hussein’s regime was harboring al-Qaida members flood-
ed the mainstream media during the buildup to the inva-
sion of Iraq. Despite the factual inaccuracy of nearly all
the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq,
the media and policy lobbying wings of the neoconserva-
tive camp successfully disseminated their message and
promoted their vision of a democratized, U.S.-friendly
Iraq.
To argue that neoconservative influence is truly on the
wane, as Fukuyama and others have claimed, is to ignore
the continued impact of this echo chamber. Unlike the
early years of the movement, today’s neoconservatives
enjoy a serious—and powerful—presence within the
mainstream media. Though this level does not generate
the political faction’s ideas and policies, it does generate
influence. Access to the gates of mainstream media has
enabled the movement to actually implement and mar-
ket its objectives to America.
The attainment of this power owes a great deal to the
early neocons who saw value in becoming “gatekeepers”
of information and ideas. Starting with Irving Kristol’s
early days at Commentary, the movement gained a voice,
but one largely aimed at intellectual and academic elites.
In fact, the evolution of the neocon movement parallels
the growth of its founders as publishers and media fig-
ures. Later, when Bill Kristol founded the Weekly
Standard, the neoconservatives could present specific pol-
icy objectives to Washington elites.
Not by any accident, the neoconservatives’ time of great-
est influence on U.S. foreign policy coincided with the
explosive growth of mass media outlets from which they
could promote their policies. The omnipresent fluttering
American flag on Fox News exemplifies the new über-
patriotic packaging through which the invasion of
Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the escalation of
tensions with Iran are marketed packages.
When asked why the Weekly Standardand Fox News
have increased in popularity over the past few years,
Matt Labash, a senior writer at the Weekly Standard
responded that it was “because they feed the rage. We
bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly,
but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of
view and people like point of view journalism. While all
these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about
objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal
media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve cre-
ated this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objec-
tive. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a
great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other
rightweb.irc-online.org
Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our worldp. 3
people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you
want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actual-
ly.”
If Irving Kristol intended to start a revolution with his
writing on the culture wars and U.S. Cold-War foreign
policy, he certainly laid the groundwork in academic jour-
nals and periodicals. What may never have entered his
imagination at the time was the degree of success the
second generation of neoconservatives would experience
in marketing neoconservative ideas to a mainstream
audience. The original network of journals and think
tanks has been amplified by a powerful, streamlined
media machine. The neoconservative revolution has,
quite literally, been televised.
Eli Clifton is a writer based in Washington, DC, and a
contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).
SOURCES
Gideon Rachman, “The Neo-Cons’ Route to Disaster,”
Financial Times, January 15, 2007,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/709d908e-a4d8-11db-b0ef-
0000779e2340.html.
Jacob Weisberg, “Are Neo-cons History?” Financial
Times, March 14, 2007,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dc14fd96-d25c-11db-a7c0-
000b5df10621.html.
Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” New York
Times, February 19, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?
ei=5090&en=4126fa38fefd80de&ex=1298005200&page-
wanted=print.
Newt Gingrich, “Searching for Victory in Iraq: Why the
Baker-Hamilton Commission Ought to Visit Mount
Vernon,” Daily Standard, November 28, 2006,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25195/pub
_detail.asp.
Charles Krauthammer, “This is Realism? Iraq and Syria
Won’t Be Riding to Our Rescue,” Washington Post,
December 1, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001159.html.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “APerfect Failure:
The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus,”
Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/013/021jenri.asp?pg=1.
William Kristol, “The Democrats ‘Slow-Bleed’ Strategy: A
Disgraceful Moment in Congress,” Weekly Standard,
February 26, 2007,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_pre-
view.asp?idArticle=13292&R=1124FCF29.
Matthias Küntzel, “Iran’s Obsession with the Jews:
Denying the Holocaust, Desiring another One,” Weekly
Standard, February 19, 2007, http://www.weeklystan-
dard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd
.asp?pg=1.
“Interview with Matt Labash,” JournalismJobs.com, May
2003, http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm.
Published by the Right Web of the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org). ©Creative Commons - some rights
reserved.
The Right Web
“Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our world”
Recommended citation:
Eli Clifton, "'A Great Little Racket': The Neocon Media Machine," Right Web Analysis (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, March 20, 2007).
Beltway heavyweights James Baker and former Rep. Lee
Hamilton (D-IN), seemed to represent the “adult supervi-
sion” so desperately lacking in the blind idealism—or, as
others see it, fervid ideology—behind the Bush adminis-
tration’s misadventures in the Middle East. While
President George W. Bush reportedly called the ISG
report a “flaming turd,” some observers have held on to
the hope that at the very least one cornerstone of the
current political scene, the neoconservatives, at long last
are being pushed out the door, and along with them their
radical ideas about reshaping the Middle East. “Like Mr.
Bush, [the neoconservatives] look to the long span of his-
tory for vindication. It will indeed be eons before anyone
trusts them again,” wrote Financial Timescolumnist
Jacob Weisberg in March 2007, after recounting his dis-
appointment at the lack of contrition or regret expressed
by neoconservatives for the bungled war in Iraq.
Although many of the core Bush neocons, including
Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, have been
pushed out of the administration, and recent weeks
have witnessed the emergence of a more conciliato-
ry posture toward America’s “enemies” that is the
antithesis of neoconservative policy proposals, neo-
conservatism remains a force to contend with. This
fact is highlighted by the influence of American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) ideologues in shaping the
“surge” plan announced by the president in early
January (see, for example, Jim Lobe and Michael
Flynn, “The Push Behind the Surge,” Right Web,
January 11, 2007).
So how do they do it?
One partial answer to this puzzle is the continued
strength of neoconservatism and its standard-bearers in
the nation’s media, a point made recently by Gideon
Rachman in the Financial Times. Wrote Rachman: “The
neocons stand accused of many errors: imperialism,
Leninism, Trotskyism (New York school), militarism.
Some believe that the real problem is that so many of
them are Jewish—this is an alarmingly popular theme, to
judge by my e-mails. But the problem with the neocons
is not that so many of them are Jews. The problem is
that so many of them are journalists.”
Calling neoconservative media pundits “journalists” is a
stretch—the fact is, most don’t report, they spin—but
Rachman’s point is a good one. From top to bottom,
from tabloid TV like FoxNews to powerhouse newspapers
like the New York Timesand Washington Post, neoconser-
vatives have extraordinary presence in the nation’s
media. And Washington always seems to be listening.
A case in point has been the fate of the ISG. Even before
the release of the ISG report the neoconservative media
outlets and pundits began a campaign of discrediting the
Baker-Hamilton group and describing its policy recom-
mendations as a blueprint for defeat in Iraq and the war
on terror.
In a late November Weekly Standardeditorial, one week
before the ISG report was to be released, former
Republican House Speaker and AEI fellow Newt Gingrich
warned that any proposal to ask Iran and Syria for assis-
tance in stabilizing Iraq was a sign of “defeat” and
“appeasement.”
Right Web Analysis
“A Great Little Racket”:
The Neocon Media Machine
By Eli Clifton | March 20, 2007
With the United States bogged down in an increasingly ugly war in Iraq, tensions rising between
Tehran and Washington, and public sentiment—which has turned en masse against deeper U.S. com-
mitment in the Middle East—often seeming a non-factor in White House decisionmaking, it is hard to
believe that in the past few months some pundits and politicos have been optimistically predicting a
dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy that could, like a deus ex machina, resolve the country’s overseas
debacles.
Three days later, in a Washington Posteditorial, Iraq War
hawk Charles Krauthammer ridiculed the ISG’s sugges-
tion that engaging regional actors in the Middle East
might help to secure stability in Iraq. He opined:
“Perhaps in some long-term future they will want a stable
Iraq as a tame client state of the Syria-Iran axis. For now
they want chaos. What in God’s name will a negotiation
with them yield?”
Several days after the release of the ISG report, perhaps
even further emboldened by the Bush administration’s
declaration that it was not prepared to follow the ISG
advice to engage with Syria and Iran, Robert Kagan and
William Kristol wrote: “The Iraq Study Group, aided by
supportive American media, has successfully conveyed
the impression to everyone at home and abroad that the
United States is about to withdraw from Iraq.”
The ISG report was quickly sidelined and in its place the
nation was presented with a new plan for “victory,” one
apparently inspired in part by the AEI and vociferously
promoted by the entire neocon media infrastructure. The
president announced his surge plan on national televi-
sion, in front of an audience that, in large part, wanted
nothing to do with it. Part of the success of the surge
push no doubt lies with the president and his own ideas.
But there is little doubt that the neocon promotion
machine weighed heavily.
To understand the media network of the neoconserva-
tives, it is helpful to examine the origins of the move-
ment and how the packaging—and repackaging—of neo-
conservative ideas has evolved over the past several
decades.
Irving Kristol, widely regarded as a founder of neoconser-
vatism and a self-described “liberal who was mugged by
reality,” made his early mark largely in the areas of jour-
nalism and publishing in the 1950s and 1960s. But the
early intellectualism of his various journals like
Commentarygave short shrift to things like policy imple-
mentation. Rather, under Kristol’s stewardship, early neo-
conservatism tended to the philosophical, debate, and
thoughtful—if increasingly ideological—critiques of the
trajectory of the nation and its domestic and foreign poli-
cies.
Together with the likes of Norman Podhoretz, who took
over Commentaryafter Kristol departed, and a host of
like-minded “public intellectuals,” early neoconservatism
was more an intellectual conversation among a small
“band of brothers”—as George Weigel once put it—than
a Washington political faction. Kristol also founded the
culture journal Public Interestin 1965, and in 1985 the
foreign affairs journal National Interest. Both Interests
have had overlapping contributors; they were also both
bully pulpits for neoconservative heavyweights such as
Francis Fukuyama, Richard Pipes, and Krauthammer. The
origins of the neoconservatives’ stances on Social
Security, the “culture wars,” Generation X, crime and
punishment, and post-Cold War thought can be traced
back to articles published in these journals.
Irving Kristol played an important role in creating the
space for sharing ideas and ideology crucial to the evolu-
tion of the neoconservative vision. His publications were
widely read among academic and intellectual sympathiz-
ers of the movement; however, their distribution and
reach were not comparable to mainstream periodicals.
But even at this early stage in its development, there
were signs of what neoconservatism would evolve into
by the 1990s. Not long after Podhoretz took over the edi-
torship of Commentaryin 1960, the style of the magazine
turned sharply bellicose, in line with Podhoretz’s own
evolving left-to-right political trajectory. As Andrew
Bacevich writes in his 2005 book The New American
Militarism: “Podhoretz did much to create and refine the
fiercely combative neoconservative style. That style
emphasized not balance (viewed as evidence of timidity)
or the careful sifting of evidence (suggesting scholasti-
cism) but the ruthless demolition of any point of view
inconsistent with the neoconservative version of truth,
typically portrayed as self-evident and beyond dispute.”
However, it wasn’t until the 1995 founding of the Weekly
Standardby Irving Kristol’s son William that a definitive
shift in the media presence of neoconservatism truly
took hold, and the impact of the political group inside
Washington began to shift. Unlike Commentaryand other
early neoconservative journals, the Weekly Standard,
owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomer-
ate of Rupert Murdoch, was not targeted at intellectual
elites. Rather, it was targeted at conservative power bro-
kers. Under the editorship of William Kristol and Fred
Barnes, the Standardundertook an explicit mission to
affect immediate changes in policy and to serve as a
reflection of neoconservative policy campaigns on cur-
rent affairs. The pretense of intellectualism disappeared.
The influence of the Weekly Standardruns all the way to
the top of the U.S. government. Vice President Dick
Cheney’s office at one time reportedly received 30 issues
per week, apparently in order to remain on top of any
policy recommendations advocated by AEI (where
Cheney and his wife have both held positions) and the
rightweb.irc-online.org
Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our worldp. 2
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), two neo-
conservative groups with close ties to the management
of the Weekly Standard.
The Weekly Standardhas served a pivotal role in what
could be considered the neoconservative “echo cham-
ber”—a collection of think tanks, media outlets, and
advocacy groups that strengthen and repeat neoconserv-
ative policies and ideology through constant media expo-
sure and reinforcement within organizations populated
by influential policymakers. Only with this system in
place have the neoconservatives, a group with no grass-
roots support base, been successful in influencing U.S.
foreign policy as well as public opinion.
A significant component of the neoconservative echo
chamber is its use of mainstream media outlets to dis-
seminate ideas. Neither the academic journals nor neo-
conservative periodicals have the readership and crucial
role in public opinion of the mainstream media. Both the
editorial pages of major newspapers and the Fox News
cable channel have played pivotal roles in selling neocon-
servative policies to a more mainstream, conservative,
and Republican audience. Max Boot at the Los Angeles
Times, David Brooks at the New York Times, Charles
Krauthammer and Robert Kagan at the Washington Post,
and numerous members of the Wall Street Journal editori-
al board, including Irving Kristol since 1972, have served
as liaisons between neoconservative writers and main-
stream America.
Fox News, launched in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation, has served as one of the media outlets of
choice for Bush administration rhetoric as well as high-
profile neoconservatives. For personalities such as Bill
Kristol, Fox News has served as a springboard from
which to launch himself into mainstream media circles.
The outrage and patriotic rhetoric and images employed
by Fox News cast neoconservative ideas and policy in
consumable and marketable packaging. Never before had
the neoconservatives gained such a mainstream audi-
ence. The views of the Bush administration, as well as
PNAC and various other neoconservative groups, were
regularly publicized through Fox News and regional news-
paper editorial pages during the lead up to the war in
Iraq. The sprinkling of neoconservative writers and pun-
dits throughout the U.S. mainstream media served an
invaluable role in pushing for neoconservative-crafted
Mideast policy.
The impact and influence of the neoconservative echo
chamber was felt when accusations of an Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction program and charges that Saddam
Hussein’s regime was harboring al-Qaida members flood-
ed the mainstream media during the buildup to the inva-
sion of Iraq. Despite the factual inaccuracy of nearly all
the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq,
the media and policy lobbying wings of the neoconserva-
tive camp successfully disseminated their message and
promoted their vision of a democratized, U.S.-friendly
Iraq.
To argue that neoconservative influence is truly on the
wane, as Fukuyama and others have claimed, is to ignore
the continued impact of this echo chamber. Unlike the
early years of the movement, today’s neoconservatives
enjoy a serious—and powerful—presence within the
mainstream media. Though this level does not generate
the political faction’s ideas and policies, it does generate
influence. Access to the gates of mainstream media has
enabled the movement to actually implement and mar-
ket its objectives to America.
The attainment of this power owes a great deal to the
early neocons who saw value in becoming “gatekeepers”
of information and ideas. Starting with Irving Kristol’s
early days at Commentary, the movement gained a voice,
but one largely aimed at intellectual and academic elites.
In fact, the evolution of the neocon movement parallels
the growth of its founders as publishers and media fig-
ures. Later, when Bill Kristol founded the Weekly
Standard, the neoconservatives could present specific pol-
icy objectives to Washington elites.
Not by any accident, the neoconservatives’ time of great-
est influence on U.S. foreign policy coincided with the
explosive growth of mass media outlets from which they
could promote their policies. The omnipresent fluttering
American flag on Fox News exemplifies the new über-
patriotic packaging through which the invasion of
Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the escalation of
tensions with Iran are marketed packages.
When asked why the Weekly Standardand Fox News
have increased in popularity over the past few years,
Matt Labash, a senior writer at the Weekly Standard
responded that it was “because they feed the rage. We
bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly,
but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of
view and people like point of view journalism. While all
these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about
objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal
media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve cre-
ated this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objec-
tive. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a
great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other
rightweb.irc-online.org
Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our worldp. 3
people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you
want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actual-
ly.”
If Irving Kristol intended to start a revolution with his
writing on the culture wars and U.S. Cold-War foreign
policy, he certainly laid the groundwork in academic jour-
nals and periodicals. What may never have entered his
imagination at the time was the degree of success the
second generation of neoconservatives would experience
in marketing neoconservative ideas to a mainstream
audience. The original network of journals and think
tanks has been amplified by a powerful, streamlined
media machine. The neoconservative revolution has,
quite literally, been televised.
Eli Clifton is a writer based in Washington, DC, and a
contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org).
SOURCES
Gideon Rachman, “The Neo-Cons’ Route to Disaster,”
Financial Times, January 15, 2007,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/709d908e-a4d8-11db-b0ef-
0000779e2340.html.
Jacob Weisberg, “Are Neo-cons History?” Financial
Times, March 14, 2007,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dc14fd96-d25c-11db-a7c0-
000b5df10621.html.
Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” New York
Times, February 19, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?
ei=5090&en=4126fa38fefd80de&ex=1298005200&page-
wanted=print.
Newt Gingrich, “Searching for Victory in Iraq: Why the
Baker-Hamilton Commission Ought to Visit Mount
Vernon,” Daily Standard, November 28, 2006,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25195/pub
_detail.asp.
Charles Krauthammer, “This is Realism? Iraq and Syria
Won’t Be Riding to Our Rescue,” Washington Post,
December 1, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001159.html.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “APerfect Failure:
The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus,”
Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/013/021jenri.asp?pg=1.
William Kristol, “The Democrats ‘Slow-Bleed’ Strategy: A
Disgraceful Moment in Congress,” Weekly Standard,
February 26, 2007,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_pre-
view.asp?idArticle=13292&R=1124FCF29.
Matthias Küntzel, “Iran’s Obsession with the Jews:
Denying the Holocaust, Desiring another One,” Weekly
Standard, February 19, 2007, http://www.weeklystan-
dard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd
.asp?pg=1.
“Interview with Matt Labash,” JournalismJobs.com, May
2003, http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm.
Published by the Right Web of the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org). ©Creative Commons - some rights
reserved.
The Right Web
“Exposing the architecture of power that’s changing our world”
Recommended citation:
Eli Clifton, "'A Great Little Racket': The Neocon Media Machine," Right Web Analysis (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, March 20, 2007).
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Newt Gingrich is wrong on bilingual education
Re: Gingrich critical of bilingual education (April 1)
Newt Gingrich is wrong and Peter Zamora is right:
Bilingual education does a better job of helping
children acquire English than English “immersion.”
Bilingual programs use the child’s first language in
ways that accelerate English language development.
In the last two years, four major reviews (including
one from the US government) have been published
confirming that children in bilingual programs do
better on tests of English reading than those in
all-English programs, including one report from the US
government.
Stephen Krashen
The four major reviews:
1. Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. 2005. A synthesis of
research of reading instruction for English language
learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2):
247-284.
2. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. 2005. The big
picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners. Educational
Policy 19(4): 572-594.
3. Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and
Christian, D. 2005. English Language Learners in U.S.
Schools: An Overview of Research. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
4. Francis, D., Lesaux, N., & August, D. 2006.
Language of instruction, In D. August & T. Shanahan,
(Eds.) Developing literacy in second-language
learners, pp. 365-413. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newt Gingrich is wrong and Peter Zamora is right:
Bilingual education does a better job of helping
children acquire English than English “immersion.”
Bilingual programs use the child’s first language in
ways that accelerate English language development.
In the last two years, four major reviews (including
one from the US government) have been published
confirming that children in bilingual programs do
better on tests of English reading than those in
all-English programs, including one report from the US
government.
Stephen Krashen
The four major reviews:
1. Slavin, R. and Cheung, A. 2005. A synthesis of
research of reading instruction for English language
learners, Review of Educational Research 75(2):
247-284.
2. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. 2005. The big
picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners. Educational
Policy 19(4): 572-594.
3. Genesse, F., Lindolm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., and
Christian, D. 2005. English Language Learners in U.S.
Schools: An Overview of Research. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363–385.
4. Francis, D., Lesaux, N., & August, D. 2006.
Language of instruction, In D. August & T. Shanahan,
(Eds.) Developing literacy in second-language
learners, pp. 365-413. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reading First: Bush Fraud
Published: March 21, 2007
LETTER
In Reading, a Scandal Without Consequences
To the Editor:
It seems that in Washington there are scandals, and
then there are scandals.
In February, The Washington Post ran a series of
articles on the neglect and mistreatment of wounded
soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. Generals have been fired and
heads have rolled. And that’s as it should be.
We’ve now had a series of reports from the U.S.
Department of Education’s inspector general on the
implementation of the multibillion-dollar Reading
First program, part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Not one congressional hearing has yet been held.
Despite the recommendations of the inspector general’s
reports, only one scapegoat has been permitted to
resign. No investigations of violations of the law
have been initiated by the attorney general. No grand
juries have been convened. And the national press and
media have virtually ignored the whole scandal.
When Education Week went through the mountain of
e-mails released by the Education Department under the
Freedom of Information Act ("E-Mails Reveal Federal
Reach Over Reading?" Feb. 21, 2007), it found numerous
messages that seem to involve conspiracies by
Education Department and Nation Institute of Child
Health and Human Development functionaries and their
paid consultants to violate and misrepresent the law.
And yet those very violations were excused by ranking
authorities as being necessary to force teachers and
administrators to use reading programs and tests
labeled “scientific” by their own authors, with no
supporting evidence for the particular programs and
tests.
We need to insist that those responsible for
mistreating our returning servicemen and -women be
punished. And we must also insist that those abusing
the children of these returning servicepeople—and the
rest of the children in American schools—also be
punished.
We need to fully air the impact of Reading First, and
NCLB as a whole, before the No Child Left Behind Act
is reauthorized for another, even more disastrous five
years. Thanks to Education Week for its full reporting
of the Reading First scandals.
Kenneth S. Goodman
Professor Emeritus
Department of Language,
Reading, and Culture
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Ariz.
LETTER
In Reading, a Scandal Without Consequences
To the Editor:
It seems that in Washington there are scandals, and
then there are scandals.
In February, The Washington Post ran a series of
articles on the neglect and mistreatment of wounded
soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter
Reed Army Medical Center. Generals have been fired and
heads have rolled. And that’s as it should be.
We’ve now had a series of reports from the U.S.
Department of Education’s inspector general on the
implementation of the multibillion-dollar Reading
First program, part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Not one congressional hearing has yet been held.
Despite the recommendations of the inspector general’s
reports, only one scapegoat has been permitted to
resign. No investigations of violations of the law
have been initiated by the attorney general. No grand
juries have been convened. And the national press and
media have virtually ignored the whole scandal.
When Education Week went through the mountain of
e-mails released by the Education Department under the
Freedom of Information Act ("E-Mails Reveal Federal
Reach Over Reading?" Feb. 21, 2007), it found numerous
messages that seem to involve conspiracies by
Education Department and Nation Institute of Child
Health and Human Development functionaries and their
paid consultants to violate and misrepresent the law.
And yet those very violations were excused by ranking
authorities as being necessary to force teachers and
administrators to use reading programs and tests
labeled “scientific” by their own authors, with no
supporting evidence for the particular programs and
tests.
We need to insist that those responsible for
mistreating our returning servicemen and -women be
punished. And we must also insist that those abusing
the children of these returning servicepeople—and the
rest of the children in American schools—also be
punished.
We need to fully air the impact of Reading First, and
NCLB as a whole, before the No Child Left Behind Act
is reauthorized for another, even more disastrous five
years. Thanks to Education Week for its full reporting
of the Reading First scandals.
Kenneth S. Goodman
Professor Emeritus
Department of Language,
Reading, and Culture
College of Education
University of Arizona
Tucson, Ariz.
Fair Use
FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN OUR EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML. IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE,' YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.
All other material is covered by a Commons Copyright.
All other material is covered by a Commons Copyright.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Remembering Cesar Chavez
César Chávez: "Presente"
By Duane E. Campbell
The spirit of Cesar Chavez lives on in the struggle for union rights and justice in the fields of California. Along with Dolores Huerta, Philip Vera Cruz, and others, César created the United Farm Workers (UFW) the first successful union of farm workers in U.S. history. There had been more than ten prior attempts to build a farm workers union.
The United Cannery and Packinghouse Workers (UCAPAWA) organized in the 1930's, the National Farm Workers Union (NFW) led by Ernesto Galarza tried to organize Farm workers in the 40's and 50's. In 1959, the AFL-CIO tried to organize again with the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC). AWOC had several weaknesses, including a top down leadership selected by AFL-CIO leaders, not by farm workers, and a strategy of working cooperatively with labor contractors. AWOC continued the prior efforts of Ernesto Galarza and the NFW in struggling against "braceros" or guest workers, contract workers imported from Mexico, from breaking strikes. A renewed "guest worker" bill is presently before Congress.
Each of the prior attempts to organize farm worker unions were destroyed by racism and corporate power. Chávez chose to build a union that incorporated the strategies of social movements and allied itself with the churches, students, and organized labor. The successful creation of the UFW changed the nature of labor organizing in the Southwest and contributed significantly to the birth of Latino politics in the U.S.
Today, under the leadership of UFW president Arturo Rodriguez, over 28,000 farm workers enjoy benefits on the job. They are incorporated into California's educational, health and civic communities. The UFW has shown the AFL-CIO that immigrants can and must be organized. In 2002 we won significant victories in the legislature and numerous elections.
César Chavez, Dolores Huerta, Philip Vera Cruz, and others deliberately created a multiracial organization, Mexican, Mexican American, Filipino, African-American, Dominican, Puerto Rican and Arab workers, among others, have been part of the UFW. This cross racial organizing was necessary in order to combat the prior divisions and exploitations of workers based upon race and language. Dividing the workers on racial and language lines always left the corporations the winners.
In the 60's Chávez became the pre-eminent civil rights leader for the Mexican and Chicano workers, helping with local union struggles throughout the nation. He worked tirelessly to make people aware of the struggles of farm workers for better pay and safer working conditions. It is a testament to Cesar Chavez's skills and courage that the UFW even survived. They were opposed by major interests in corporate agriculture including the Bruce Church and Gallo Corporations as well as the leadership of the Republican Party then led by Ronald Reagan. Workers were fired, beaten, threatened and even killed in pursuit of union benefits . Non union farm workers today continue to live on sub-poverty wages while producing the abundant crops in the richest valley, in the richest state in the richest nation in the world.
In response to corporate power, Cesar developed new strategies, such as the boycott, based upon his personal commitment to non-violence in the tradition of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. César Chavez died in his sleep on April 23, 1993 near Yuma, Arizona.
Today Mexican, Mexican American and Puerto Rican union leadership is common in our major cities and in several industries. For myself and others, the UFW was a school for organizing. Hundreds of activists in labor and community organizations owe their skills to UFW training and experience. Along with improved working conditions, salaries, and benefits, training this cadre of organizers remains a major legacy of the UFW.
César taught us that all organizations have problems, that all organizations are imperfect. But, if you wait for the perfect organization, nothing gets done. Building popular organizations builds people's power, and democracy. Chavez' legacy to popular struggles, to Chicano/Mexicano self determination and to unions for the immigrant workers is beyond measure. He is present in all of our work. I plan to march on March March 31,2007 in memory of Cesar Chavez' contributions building a more democratic society for working people. You can find our more about this remarkable leader at www.ufw.org
And, www.cesarchavezfoundation.org
See lesson plans below.
Duane Campbell is a Professor of Bilingual/Multicultural Education at Calif. State University-Sacramento and the author of Choosing Democracy; a practical guide to multicultural education. (Merrill/Pren Hall.2004)
Sacramento March. 10 Am. South Side Park.
California Education Code 37220
On March 31 or on the day determined by the governing board, public schools and educational institutions throughout the state may include exercises, funded through existing resources, commemorating
and directing attention to the history of the farm labor movement in the United States and particularly the role therein of Cesar Chavez.
The State Board of Education shall adopt a model curriculum guide to be available for use by public schools for exercises related to Cesar Chavez Day.
37220.6. (a) There is hereby created the Cesar Chavez Day of Service and Learning program to promote service to the communities of California in honor of the life and work of Cesar Chavez. The program shall be administered by the Governor's Office on Service and
Volunteerism, in collaboration with the California Conservation Corps.
Lessons; k-3. Sample lessons here.
http://chavez.cde.ca.gov/ModelCurriculum/Teachers/Lessons_K-3.aspx
http://chavez.cde.ca.gov/ModelCurriculum/Teachers/Lessons_4-6.aspx
www.cesarchavezfoundation.org
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Governor : You need a Secretary of Education
"The Office of the Secretary of Education is the primary education advisor to the Governor and is committed to creating, promoting and supporting the Governor’s policies that ensure access to quality education for all Californians."
Gov. Schwarzenegger has yet to appoint a new Secretary of Education. Scott Himelstein is Acting Secretary.
This failure to appoint says a great deal about the Governor's lack of attention to ensuring access to quality education for all Californians.
Duane Campbell
Gov. Schwarzenegger has yet to appoint a new Secretary of Education. Scott Himelstein is Acting Secretary.
This failure to appoint says a great deal about the Governor's lack of attention to ensuring access to quality education for all Californians.
Duane Campbell
Marshall Ganz, on organizing
Marshall Ganz, one of the United Farmworkers leading organizers, and now a Professor at Harvard, is discussing politics and organizing this week on Talking Points Memo.
Well worth reading. Here are some excerpts.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/27/organizing_for_democratic_renewal
…A University of Chicago student of criminology deeply skeptical of social work, Alinsky was greatly impressed by the organizing successes of the CIO, led by John L. Lewis. Although labor had begun to win a seat at the table at which urban interests were negotiated, others had not – especially those who lived in lower income communities, did not have unions to represent them, or had no other way to get in on the deal making. One answer, he concluded, was to build community organizations modeled on the CIO. They would bring people together, create a venue in which they could discover common interests, and mobilize collective resources to get the power to win their own seat at the table. Unlike the CIO, these associations were organizations of organizations, not individuals, to leverage existing community leaders and their networks.
This approach contrasted sharply with two others: that of social workers and that of socialists. Traditional social work ignored the power disparity most often responsible for poverty, and treated its victims as clients seeking public patronage, rather than citizens able to act together to make their voices heard and thus do something about the power disparity responsible for the problem in the first place. And unlike the socialists, Alinsky eschewed any ideological orientation other than that of populist democracy, coupled with a pragmatic interest based approach to program.
One institutional leader for whom this approach held real promise was Chicago Bishop Bernard Sheil, soon Alinsky’s partner. Alinsky’s approach to social justice offered an alternative to socialists with which the Church was in conflict and contributed tools for citizen participation less well established in the Roman Catholic tradition than among Protestants…..
Second, the promise of “connectedness” via the Internet is an invitation to a dance that has yet to begin. The Internet is a market place, not an organization. As such it offers motivated participants an opportunity to give money, exchange information, and market causes. Organizations, however, as Alinsky organizers know, are built of interpersonal commitments people make to each other of their time, money, and energy. With skilled leaders, organizations have the capacity to strategize, motivate, and engage in purposeful effective action – and develop more skilled leaders. But in the last election, opportunity created by the Internet was only intermittently translated into action because there were few organizers. This time, perhaps it will be different.
Third, the recommitment to organizing by the labor movement during the 1990s, especially by SEIU and its associates, afforded thousands of young people an opportunity to learn organizing skills, acquire experience, and make a real difference. This is true not only of young people recruited from colleges, but also new immigrants, one of the most energized constituencies in America and which has only begun to develop its political potential. Similarly, some campaigns offered unique training grounds for organizers, such as the New Hampshire Dean campaign, the Iowa Kerry campaign, and others.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/27/organizing_for_democratic_renewal
Well worth reading. Here are some excerpts.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/27/organizing_for_democratic_renewal
…A University of Chicago student of criminology deeply skeptical of social work, Alinsky was greatly impressed by the organizing successes of the CIO, led by John L. Lewis. Although labor had begun to win a seat at the table at which urban interests were negotiated, others had not – especially those who lived in lower income communities, did not have unions to represent them, or had no other way to get in on the deal making. One answer, he concluded, was to build community organizations modeled on the CIO. They would bring people together, create a venue in which they could discover common interests, and mobilize collective resources to get the power to win their own seat at the table. Unlike the CIO, these associations were organizations of organizations, not individuals, to leverage existing community leaders and their networks.
This approach contrasted sharply with two others: that of social workers and that of socialists. Traditional social work ignored the power disparity most often responsible for poverty, and treated its victims as clients seeking public patronage, rather than citizens able to act together to make their voices heard and thus do something about the power disparity responsible for the problem in the first place. And unlike the socialists, Alinsky eschewed any ideological orientation other than that of populist democracy, coupled with a pragmatic interest based approach to program.
One institutional leader for whom this approach held real promise was Chicago Bishop Bernard Sheil, soon Alinsky’s partner. Alinsky’s approach to social justice offered an alternative to socialists with which the Church was in conflict and contributed tools for citizen participation less well established in the Roman Catholic tradition than among Protestants…..
Second, the promise of “connectedness” via the Internet is an invitation to a dance that has yet to begin. The Internet is a market place, not an organization. As such it offers motivated participants an opportunity to give money, exchange information, and market causes. Organizations, however, as Alinsky organizers know, are built of interpersonal commitments people make to each other of their time, money, and energy. With skilled leaders, organizations have the capacity to strategize, motivate, and engage in purposeful effective action – and develop more skilled leaders. But in the last election, opportunity created by the Internet was only intermittently translated into action because there were few organizers. This time, perhaps it will be different.
Third, the recommitment to organizing by the labor movement during the 1990s, especially by SEIU and its associates, afforded thousands of young people an opportunity to learn organizing skills, acquire experience, and make a real difference. This is true not only of young people recruited from colleges, but also new immigrants, one of the most energized constituencies in America and which has only begun to develop its political potential. Similarly, some campaigns offered unique training grounds for organizers, such as the New Hampshire Dean campaign, the Iowa Kerry campaign, and others.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/27/organizing_for_democratic_renewal
Monday, March 26, 2007
No improvement from NCLB
Re: “Impact of NCLB position,” Letters, March 18
There is one embarrassing fact left out of Christopher
Wright’s defense of No Child Left Behind (NCLB): There
is no evidence that it has worked. The President and
the Secretary of Education continue to insist that
reading scores have gone up, but research says
otherwise: Reports from Harvard and Berkeley both
conclude that there has been no improvement on
national tests of reading since NCLB was passed, and,
also contrary to pronouncements from the government,
the achievement gap between high- and low-income
students remains the same as it was before NCLB.
Mr. Wright claims that the impact of NCLB has been a
positive one, but the only ones who appear to have
profited are the companies that develop and sell the
tests.
Stephen Krashen
There is one embarrassing fact left out of Christopher
Wright’s defense of No Child Left Behind (NCLB): There
is no evidence that it has worked. The President and
the Secretary of Education continue to insist that
reading scores have gone up, but research says
otherwise: Reports from Harvard and Berkeley both
conclude that there has been no improvement on
national tests of reading since NCLB was passed, and,
also contrary to pronouncements from the government,
the achievement gap between high- and low-income
students remains the same as it was before NCLB.
Mr. Wright claims that the impact of NCLB has been a
positive one, but the only ones who appear to have
profited are the companies that develop and sell the
tests.
Stephen Krashen
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Bush and friends loot federal reading program
The Bush administration has demonstrated its incompetence in its response to Hurricane Katrina, and in the administration of reconstruction in Iraq ("Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, )2006.
Now, they have once again demonstrated their incompetence and venal ways.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/04/
In the Reading First initiative they looted the federal treasury and money directed toward school improvement to hire young, inexperienced, political operatives and to pass money on to their family friends and associates .
Duane Campbell
Report finds Education Department improperly backed aspects of reading program
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Education Department officials and their contractors appear to have improperly backed certain types of instruction in administering a $1 billion-a-year reading program, congressional investigators found.
The Government Accountability Office report supports assertions by the inspector general of the Education Department, who has released several reports in recent months into the Reading First program.
The program is a key part of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law. It offers intensive reading help for low-income and struggling schools.
The GAO, Congress' investigative and auditing arm, surveyed states to get their views on the program.
In a report due out Friday and obtained by The Associated Press, the GAO states that some states said they received suggestions from federal officials or contractors to adopt or eliminate certain programs or tests.
Federal law prohibits the department from requiring certain curricula or directing states to use specific programs.
Now, they have once again demonstrated their incompetence and venal ways.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/04/
In the Reading First initiative they looted the federal treasury and money directed toward school improvement to hire young, inexperienced, political operatives and to pass money on to their family friends and associates .
Duane Campbell
Report finds Education Department improperly backed aspects of reading program
By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Education Department officials and their contractors appear to have improperly backed certain types of instruction in administering a $1 billion-a-year reading program, congressional investigators found.
The Government Accountability Office report supports assertions by the inspector general of the Education Department, who has released several reports in recent months into the Reading First program.
The program is a key part of the 2002 No Child Left Behind law. It offers intensive reading help for low-income and struggling schools.
The GAO, Congress' investigative and auditing arm, surveyed states to get their views on the program.
In a report due out Friday and obtained by The Associated Press, the GAO states that some states said they received suggestions from federal officials or contractors to adopt or eliminate certain programs or tests.
Federal law prohibits the department from requiring certain curricula or directing states to use specific programs.
CFA agrees to 10 day pause on strike plans at CSU
CFA & CSU ADMINISTRATION AGREE TO A TEN DAY CONTRACT EXTENSION; FACT-FINDING REPORT TO BE ‘FRAMEWORK’ FOR POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT
Today the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Board of Trustees agreed to discussions which would use the fact-finder's report as the basis for a possible settlement. The parties have extended the contract by ten days to allow for the talks.
On the campuses, CFA will continue the work of organizing for a strike. "We are cautiously optimistic," said CFA President John Travis. "We hope that we can reach a settlement but if we do not we are fully prepared to move forward with the strike."
The administration will now have until April 6 to hammer out a settlement with CFA before faculty begin two-day rolling walkouts. CFA has agreed to not initiate possible job actions until the bargaining extension expires.
Cal State University faculty agrees to 10-day contract extension
From the Associated Press
Faculty and administrators locked in a nearly two-year contract dispute at the nation's largest four-year public university system agreed today to a temporary contract extension that could ward off a threatened strike.
The 10-day extension gives both sides time to hammer out an agreement under guidelines in an independent report recommending a nearly 25 percent pay raise for California State University's 23,000-member faculty, officials said.
"I'm optimistic that a settlement can be reached during these 10 days," CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said. California Faculty Association president John Travis called the extension a "positive sign," though the union has not dropped its threat of a strike authorized by faculty voters last week.
The third-party fact finder's report cited a double-digit lag in salary between CSU's faculty and their peers at comparable institutions when recommending the pay hike. The independent investigator's recommendations were "close enough" to the union's proposals to merit the faculty's broad support, Travis said.
In comments attached to the report, CSU vice chancellor for human resources Jackie R. McClain wrote that the recommended salary hike "goes beyond the fiscal priority" of the university.
"We have no idea whether the recommendations can be funded within the money available," McClain wrote.
During a news conference Sunday, Reed would not discuss specific details regarding faculty salaries but said he was committed to using the report as a "framework" for an agreement.
"The fact-finder tried to be fair to both sides and kind of split the difference," Reed said.
The administration's own proposal to increase wages by nearly 25 percent over the next three years has been criticized by union leaders who question whether most faculty would receive the promised raises.
Faculty voted last week to authorize a spring labor strike that could start as early as next month.
Union officials said that despite the extension, faculty continued to prepare for a series of two-day strikes in April in case a settlement was not reached.
The rolling strikes would move from campus to campus to avoid disrupting the education of more than 400,000 CSU students, though a systemwide walkout remained an option, union leaders said.
"We're going to do what it takes to get a contract," Travis said.
Today the Collective Bargaining Committee of the Board of Trustees agreed to discussions which would use the fact-finder's report as the basis for a possible settlement. The parties have extended the contract by ten days to allow for the talks.
On the campuses, CFA will continue the work of organizing for a strike. "We are cautiously optimistic," said CFA President John Travis. "We hope that we can reach a settlement but if we do not we are fully prepared to move forward with the strike."
The administration will now have until April 6 to hammer out a settlement with CFA before faculty begin two-day rolling walkouts. CFA has agreed to not initiate possible job actions until the bargaining extension expires.
Cal State University faculty agrees to 10-day contract extension
From the Associated Press
Faculty and administrators locked in a nearly two-year contract dispute at the nation's largest four-year public university system agreed today to a temporary contract extension that could ward off a threatened strike.
The 10-day extension gives both sides time to hammer out an agreement under guidelines in an independent report recommending a nearly 25 percent pay raise for California State University's 23,000-member faculty, officials said.
"I'm optimistic that a settlement can be reached during these 10 days," CSU Chancellor Charles Reed said. California Faculty Association president John Travis called the extension a "positive sign," though the union has not dropped its threat of a strike authorized by faculty voters last week.
The third-party fact finder's report cited a double-digit lag in salary between CSU's faculty and their peers at comparable institutions when recommending the pay hike. The independent investigator's recommendations were "close enough" to the union's proposals to merit the faculty's broad support, Travis said.
In comments attached to the report, CSU vice chancellor for human resources Jackie R. McClain wrote that the recommended salary hike "goes beyond the fiscal priority" of the university.
"We have no idea whether the recommendations can be funded within the money available," McClain wrote.
During a news conference Sunday, Reed would not discuss specific details regarding faculty salaries but said he was committed to using the report as a "framework" for an agreement.
"The fact-finder tried to be fair to both sides and kind of split the difference," Reed said.
The administration's own proposal to increase wages by nearly 25 percent over the next three years has been criticized by union leaders who question whether most faculty would receive the promised raises.
Faculty voted last week to authorize a spring labor strike that could start as early as next month.
Union officials said that despite the extension, faculty continued to prepare for a series of two-day strikes in April in case a settlement was not reached.
The rolling strikes would move from campus to campus to avoid disrupting the education of more than 400,000 CSU students, though a systemwide walkout remained an option, union leaders said.
"We're going to do what it takes to get a contract," Travis said.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Labor Leaders support CFA Strike preparation
NATIONAL LABOR LEADERS SPEAK OUT FOR CSU FACULTY
As you have seen reported in the news and as we have been saying for months, faculty in the CSU are making history. We are making history as a higher education union and as an issue around which the larger labor movement has rallied.
On March 21 we announced the stunning results of a system-wide strike vote in which 81% of our members participated and in which 94% voted YES in support of job actions. Now, although we don’t want to strike, if the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees do not come to their senses, we will move forward to historic two day rolling strike actions.
What we are doing is momentous in other ways as well. As many of you know, in recent years the labor unions like SEIU, UNITE HERE and others split from the AFL-CIO to form another umbrella organization, Change to Win.
Today, we are making history because CFA’s struggle with the Chancellor and our fight for quality higher education for the working people of California has become an issue around which all parts of the labor movement have coalesced.
On our website are posted two documents. The first is a letter signed by the presidents of some of the largest and most important unions and academic organizations in the nation NEA, SEIU, CTA and AAUP (click here to view: http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/bargaining/resolutions%20of%20support/Ldrs_Mar07.pdf ).
The second is signed by John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO. All of them indicate that the fight we are involved in is critical to working people all over the country (click here to view: http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/bargaining/resolutions%20of%20support/AFL-CIO_032007.pdf ).
Although we always hope for a settlement, we should move forward toward job actions with the confidence that the nation’s largest labor organizations stand ready to support our fight.
* * *
As you have seen reported in the news and as we have been saying for months, faculty in the CSU are making history. We are making history as a higher education union and as an issue around which the larger labor movement has rallied.
On March 21 we announced the stunning results of a system-wide strike vote in which 81% of our members participated and in which 94% voted YES in support of job actions. Now, although we don’t want to strike, if the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees do not come to their senses, we will move forward to historic two day rolling strike actions.
What we are doing is momentous in other ways as well. As many of you know, in recent years the labor unions like SEIU, UNITE HERE and others split from the AFL-CIO to form another umbrella organization, Change to Win.
Today, we are making history because CFA’s struggle with the Chancellor and our fight for quality higher education for the working people of California has become an issue around which all parts of the labor movement have coalesced.
On our website are posted two documents. The first is a letter signed by the presidents of some of the largest and most important unions and academic organizations in the nation NEA, SEIU, CTA and AAUP (click here to view: http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/bargaining/resolutions%20of%20support/Ldrs_Mar07.pdf ).
The second is signed by John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO. All of them indicate that the fight we are involved in is critical to working people all over the country (click here to view: http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/bargaining/resolutions%20of%20support/AFL-CIO_032007.pdf ).
Although we always hope for a settlement, we should move forward toward job actions with the confidence that the nation’s largest labor organizations stand ready to support our fight.
* * *
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Unexamined assumptions in Getting Down to Facts
The educational pundits who seldom spend time in a classroom ( like the Bee’s Daniel Weintraub) have quickly focused in on the recommendation from Getting Down to Facts, to give Principals the power to dismiss teachers who they regard as failing.
A problem with this recommendation is that it carries a number of unstated, and unwarranted, assumptions.
The recommendation assumes that principals are better prepared and more professional than teachers and that they have the interests of students are their first priority. I know of no research evidence to support these assumptions.
In over 34 years of working in schools and working with principals all that I can assume from the data is that principals want a different job. In teacher preparation I frequently encounter people who have not even taught yet, but they plan to become principals. They want the shortest route to the top. They do not want a job working with children and youth. They want a job that is primarily management of resources. And, where they can manage teachers. And where they can get paid much more. During their first years of training most principals spend far more time expelling students and punishing students than time spent educating students.
If any readers have evidence that principals have more professionalism and/or more concern for children than teachers, please let me know. My first hand experience contradicts this assumption.
The argument that to promote quality education principals need to be able to dismiss a few incompetent teachers. Well perhaps.
Again from decades of working in schools and participating in teacher and administrator preparation I then offer a parallel argument. I could accept the process of principals having the power to dismiss a few less than competent teachers – if- and only if- teachers had the power to dismiss incompetent principals and superintendents. There is no evidence that the percentage of incompetent teachers is higher or lower than the percentage of incompetent principals- and I suggest superintendents.
Also, as suggested by author Kathy Emory in an excellent post on edjustice.blogspot.com, we should have a process for measuring the quality of researchers who reside in universities and who write reports – Like Getting Down to Facts.
Duane Campbell
A problem with this recommendation is that it carries a number of unstated, and unwarranted, assumptions.
The recommendation assumes that principals are better prepared and more professional than teachers and that they have the interests of students are their first priority. I know of no research evidence to support these assumptions.
In over 34 years of working in schools and working with principals all that I can assume from the data is that principals want a different job. In teacher preparation I frequently encounter people who have not even taught yet, but they plan to become principals. They want the shortest route to the top. They do not want a job working with children and youth. They want a job that is primarily management of resources. And, where they can manage teachers. And where they can get paid much more. During their first years of training most principals spend far more time expelling students and punishing students than time spent educating students.
If any readers have evidence that principals have more professionalism and/or more concern for children than teachers, please let me know. My first hand experience contradicts this assumption.
The argument that to promote quality education principals need to be able to dismiss a few incompetent teachers. Well perhaps.
Again from decades of working in schools and participating in teacher and administrator preparation I then offer a parallel argument. I could accept the process of principals having the power to dismiss a few less than competent teachers – if- and only if- teachers had the power to dismiss incompetent principals and superintendents. There is no evidence that the percentage of incompetent teachers is higher or lower than the percentage of incompetent principals- and I suggest superintendents.
Also, as suggested by author Kathy Emory in an excellent post on edjustice.blogspot.com, we should have a process for measuring the quality of researchers who reside in universities and who write reports – Like Getting Down to Facts.
Duane Campbell
Its the budet: Stupid!
The Sacramento Bee published my letter to the editor today, althought they changed the proposed title.
See, its the budget: Stupid! below.
Duane Campbell
See, its the budget: Stupid! below.
Duane Campbell
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Getting down to the corporate agenda
More on the Getting Down to Facts report.
An interesting analysis by Kathy Emory on the Ed. Justice blog. click on the link to the right.
An interesting analysis by Kathy Emory on the Ed. Justice blog. click on the link to the right.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Welfare program for Scholars?
There is some interesting analysis of the just published studies of school funding in California on the Educational Justice blog.
One argument is that it nice work for high priced, elite scholars without contributing any thing real to schooling.
click on the EdJustice link to the right.
Duane Campbell
One argument is that it nice work for high priced, elite scholars without contributing any thing real to schooling.
click on the EdJustice link to the right.
Duane Campbell
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Its the budget-Stupid! Part 2
It’s the budget: Stupid!
The opening sentence of the just published report on California education says, “California’s students are far behind those in other states on many measures of achievement. On the 2005 National Assessment of Education Progress, for example, California ranked 7th lowest in eighth grade math in comparison to the 49 other states and the District of Columbia. The story is at least as bad in other subjects. California performed 3rd lowest in reading, ahead of only Hawaii and the District of Columbia, and 2nd lowest in science, ahead of only Mississippi.” www.sacbee.com/links
Why is that?
The legislature and governors have meddled and muddled in education, but they have not done their job. Their job is to decide upon a reasonable, fair tax system and to raise the money needed for schools. They have failed at this task for over 20 years while California’s public schools have been forced into a steep decline in quality.
Rather than facing the inadequate funding issue , they have mandated school reforms stressing standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. The testing mania has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The current low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. (Rothstein, 2004)
There is always some new advocate who has a solution to failing schools; phonics, exit exams, etc. rather than to face the fundamental political issue of grossly inadequate funding. The Governor, with a two month advance view of the study, is already trying shift the discussion
In fairness, the failure is not the total legislature. The Democratic majority has usually been willing to spend more on schools, but they can not pass a budget without the votes of the Republican minority. Thus, a small group of Republican legislators have prevented adequate school funding. And the Governor’s budget continues that pattern.
The politicians – not the teachers- deserve an F for failure.
Duane Campbell
The opening sentence of the just published report on California education says, “California’s students are far behind those in other states on many measures of achievement. On the 2005 National Assessment of Education Progress, for example, California ranked 7th lowest in eighth grade math in comparison to the 49 other states and the District of Columbia. The story is at least as bad in other subjects. California performed 3rd lowest in reading, ahead of only Hawaii and the District of Columbia, and 2nd lowest in science, ahead of only Mississippi.” www.sacbee.com/links
Why is that?
The legislature and governors have meddled and muddled in education, but they have not done their job. Their job is to decide upon a reasonable, fair tax system and to raise the money needed for schools. They have failed at this task for over 20 years while California’s public schools have been forced into a steep decline in quality.
Rather than facing the inadequate funding issue , they have mandated school reforms stressing standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. The testing mania has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The current low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. (Rothstein, 2004)
There is always some new advocate who has a solution to failing schools; phonics, exit exams, etc. rather than to face the fundamental political issue of grossly inadequate funding. The Governor, with a two month advance view of the study, is already trying shift the discussion
In fairness, the failure is not the total legislature. The Democratic majority has usually been willing to spend more on schools, but they can not pass a budget without the votes of the Republican minority. Thus, a small group of Republican legislators have prevented adequate school funding. And the Governor’s budget continues that pattern.
The politicians – not the teachers- deserve an F for failure.
Duane Campbell
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Another "secret" war
Tomgram: The Seymour Hersh Mystery
A Journalist Writing Bloody Murder…
And No One Notices
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me see if I've got this straight. Perhaps two years ago, an "informal" meeting of "veterans" of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal -- holding positions in the Bush administration -- was convened by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. Discussed were the "lessons learned" from that labyrinthine, secret, and illegal arms-for-money-for-arms deal involving the Israelis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Contras of Nicaragua, among others -- and meant to evade the Boland Amendment, a congressionally passed attempt to outlaw Reagan administration assistance to the anti-communist Contras. In terms of getting around Congress, the Iran-Contra vets concluded, the complex operation had been a success -- and would have worked far better if the CIA and the military had been kept out of the loop and the whole thing had been run out of the Vice President's office.
Subsequently, some of those conspirators, once again with the financial support and help of the Saudis (and probably the Israelis and the Brits), began running a similar operation, aimed at avoiding congressional scrutiny or public accountability of any sort, out of Vice President Cheney's office. They dipped into "black pools of money," possibly stolen from the billions of Iraqi oil dollars that have never been accounted for since the American occupation began. Some of these funds, as well as Saudi ones, were evidently funneled through the embattled, Sunni-dominated Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to the sort of Sunni jihadi groups ("some sympathetic to al-Qaeda") whose members might normally fear ending up in Guantanamo and to a group, or groups, associated with the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
A Journalist Writing Bloody Murder…
And No One Notices
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me see if I've got this straight. Perhaps two years ago, an "informal" meeting of "veterans" of the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal -- holding positions in the Bush administration -- was convened by Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. Discussed were the "lessons learned" from that labyrinthine, secret, and illegal arms-for-money-for-arms deal involving the Israelis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Contras of Nicaragua, among others -- and meant to evade the Boland Amendment, a congressionally passed attempt to outlaw Reagan administration assistance to the anti-communist Contras. In terms of getting around Congress, the Iran-Contra vets concluded, the complex operation had been a success -- and would have worked far better if the CIA and the military had been kept out of the loop and the whole thing had been run out of the Vice President's office.
Subsequently, some of those conspirators, once again with the financial support and help of the Saudis (and probably the Israelis and the Brits), began running a similar operation, aimed at avoiding congressional scrutiny or public accountability of any sort, out of Vice President Cheney's office. They dipped into "black pools of money," possibly stolen from the billions of Iraqi oil dollars that have never been accounted for since the American occupation began. Some of these funds, as well as Saudi ones, were evidently funneled through the embattled, Sunni-dominated Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to the sort of Sunni jihadi groups ("some sympathetic to al-Qaeda") whose members might normally fear ending up in Guantanamo and to a group, or groups, associated with the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Its the budget- Stupid!
It’s the budget : Stupid!
Later this week a report will be released which concludes that California schools are woefully under-funded--one estimate of the shortage was nearly $1 trillion.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1320
Anthony York.
The document, a collection several reports, is the most recent comprehensive evaluation of California’s school system.
The reports should be considered with care.
After all, the legislature and governors have tried everything else.
They have listened to the corporate over seers.
They have tried Immediate Intervention in underperforming schools. (IIUSP)
They have mandated phonics.
They have created API and High School Exit exams.
They have mandated assessment driven reform.
They have encouraged an A-G (college prep) curriculum.
They have imposed tests of teacher knowledge and skills.
They have mandated an unproven process of teacher performance assessment. (SB1209)
And more.
The legislature and governors have meddled and muddled, but they have not done their job. Their job is to decide upon a reasonable, fair tax system and to raise the money needed for schools. They have failed at this task for over 20 years while California’s public schools have been forced into a steep decline in quality.
Rather than facing the inadequate funding issue , major school reform efforts stress standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. There is always some new advocate who has a solution to failing schools; phonics, exit exams, etc. rather than to face the real issue of grossly inadequate funding.
The testing mania has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The current low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. (Rothstein, 2004)
In fairness, it is not the total legislature. The Democratic majority has usually been willing to spend more on schools, but they can not pass a budget without the votes of the Republican minority. Thus, a small group of Republican legislators have prevented adequate school funding.
Why has this avoidance of responsibility occurred? Because the legislatures and the Governors do not have their children in these schools. There children and grand children go to relatively well off suburban schools. So, they can easily conclude that the problem is that these poor Black and Brown kids just need to work harder, to take another test.
Duane Campbell
Later this week a report will be released which concludes that California schools are woefully under-funded--one estimate of the shortage was nearly $1 trillion.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1320
Anthony York.
The document, a collection several reports, is the most recent comprehensive evaluation of California’s school system.
The reports should be considered with care.
After all, the legislature and governors have tried everything else.
They have listened to the corporate over seers.
They have tried Immediate Intervention in underperforming schools. (IIUSP)
They have mandated phonics.
They have created API and High School Exit exams.
They have mandated assessment driven reform.
They have encouraged an A-G (college prep) curriculum.
They have imposed tests of teacher knowledge and skills.
They have mandated an unproven process of teacher performance assessment. (SB1209)
And more.
The legislature and governors have meddled and muddled, but they have not done their job. Their job is to decide upon a reasonable, fair tax system and to raise the money needed for schools. They have failed at this task for over 20 years while California’s public schools have been forced into a steep decline in quality.
Rather than facing the inadequate funding issue , major school reform efforts stress standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. There is always some new advocate who has a solution to failing schools; phonics, exit exams, etc. rather than to face the real issue of grossly inadequate funding.
The testing mania has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The current low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. (Rothstein, 2004)
In fairness, it is not the total legislature. The Democratic majority has usually been willing to spend more on schools, but they can not pass a budget without the votes of the Republican minority. Thus, a small group of Republican legislators have prevented adequate school funding.
Why has this avoidance of responsibility occurred? Because the legislatures and the Governors do not have their children in these schools. There children and grand children go to relatively well off suburban schools. So, they can easily conclude that the problem is that these poor Black and Brown kids just need to work harder, to take another test.
Duane Campbell
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Free education conference: Sacramento
The Bilingual Multicultural Education Department at CSU-Sacramento is sponsoring its 13th annual Multicultural Education Conference to provide an opportunity for Sac State faculty and other educators to join forces in their efforts to promote multicultural education in K-12 public schools in the Sacramento region. The conference is part of an ongoing process of developing and maintaining a professional support network for the College of Education faculty, alumni, pre-service teachers, and inservice cooperating teachers who are committed to the goals of multicultural education.
The official MCE Conference Program is now posted on the Sac State College of Education website: http://edweb.csus.edu/bmed/conference/2007/conference0309.pdf
The keynote speaker is Dr. Sonia Nieto.
Duane Campbell will present a workshop on teaching about Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers movement.
The conference is free and open to the public
For those who wish to develop an informed opinion about school reform:
The official MCE Conference Program is now posted on the Sac State College of Education website: http://edweb.csus.edu/bmed/conference/2007/conference0309.pdf
The keynote speaker is Dr. Sonia Nieto.
Duane Campbell will present a workshop on teaching about Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers movement.
The conference is free and open to the public
For those who wish to develop an informed opinion about school reform:
Friday, March 09, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
California school restructuring
Number of California Schools Facing “Restructuring” – No Child Left Behind’s Controversial Last Consequence – Increases Sharply
California Struggles to Find Effective Remedies
WASHINGTON – February 28, 2007 – California educators face an uphill battle to improve schools in restructuring – the No Child Left Behind Act’s ultimate sanction for struggling schools – according to a new study from the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Education Policy. The number of California schools facing the sanction nearly doubled in the last year, increasing from 401 schools in 2005-06 to 701 in 2006-07, or roughly 8 percent of California schools.
The study, Beyond the Mountains: An Early Look at Restructuring Results in California, examined the restructuring process in California. Schools are placed in restructuring when they have missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for five or more consecutive years; these schools must undertake reform strategies intended to boost their performance. More than 60 percent of California’s restructuring schools are in urban areas and one-third are in suburban areas – a higher share of suburban schools than in the previous year.
California has more schools facing this mandated reform than most other states not only because it is a large state, but also because it began implementing test-based accountability systems sooner than most states. California started calculating AYP under the federal law that preceded No Child Left Behind.
Of those schools in restructuring’s implementation phase, 207 have failed to make AYP for seven consecutive years, and 10 have failed to make AYP for eight consecutive years. Meanwhile, only 10 schools that were in any phase of restructuring made achievement gains that were sufficient to allow them to exit school improvement in the last year.
Contrary to the assumption behind the U.S. Department of Education’s recent call for disallowing “minor” restructuring strategies in favor of replacing staff or reconstituting the school’s governance structure, CEP’s study finds that California schools that replaced staff were no more likely to increase the percentages of proficient students on state tests than restructuring schools in general. Instead, officials at schools that improved student achievement attributed their success to analyzing school data and tailoring interventions to the needs of the particular school.
The report also finds that few California schools in restructuring converted into charter schools (2 percent) or turned their operation over to an outside entity (10 percent). Instead, 30 percent replaced staff and 89 percent of schools implemented the “undertake any other major restructuring of the school’s governance that produces fundamental reform” option. In California this approach has taken a variety of forms, including designating a district-level coordinator, changing school schedules, hiring coaches to improve instruction, and adding instructional programs to improve achievement for English language learners. The percentages of schools choosing various options do not total 100 percent since some schools used more than one restructuring strategy.
Center on Education Policy..
California Struggles to Find Effective Remedies
WASHINGTON – February 28, 2007 – California educators face an uphill battle to improve schools in restructuring – the No Child Left Behind Act’s ultimate sanction for struggling schools – according to a new study from the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Education Policy. The number of California schools facing the sanction nearly doubled in the last year, increasing from 401 schools in 2005-06 to 701 in 2006-07, or roughly 8 percent of California schools.
The study, Beyond the Mountains: An Early Look at Restructuring Results in California, examined the restructuring process in California. Schools are placed in restructuring when they have missed adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for five or more consecutive years; these schools must undertake reform strategies intended to boost their performance. More than 60 percent of California’s restructuring schools are in urban areas and one-third are in suburban areas – a higher share of suburban schools than in the previous year.
California has more schools facing this mandated reform than most other states not only because it is a large state, but also because it began implementing test-based accountability systems sooner than most states. California started calculating AYP under the federal law that preceded No Child Left Behind.
Of those schools in restructuring’s implementation phase, 207 have failed to make AYP for seven consecutive years, and 10 have failed to make AYP for eight consecutive years. Meanwhile, only 10 schools that were in any phase of restructuring made achievement gains that were sufficient to allow them to exit school improvement in the last year.
Contrary to the assumption behind the U.S. Department of Education’s recent call for disallowing “minor” restructuring strategies in favor of replacing staff or reconstituting the school’s governance structure, CEP’s study finds that California schools that replaced staff were no more likely to increase the percentages of proficient students on state tests than restructuring schools in general. Instead, officials at schools that improved student achievement attributed their success to analyzing school data and tailoring interventions to the needs of the particular school.
The report also finds that few California schools in restructuring converted into charter schools (2 percent) or turned their operation over to an outside entity (10 percent). Instead, 30 percent replaced staff and 89 percent of schools implemented the “undertake any other major restructuring of the school’s governance that produces fundamental reform” option. In California this approach has taken a variety of forms, including designating a district-level coordinator, changing school schedules, hiring coaches to improve instruction, and adding instructional programs to improve achievement for English language learners. The percentages of schools choosing various options do not total 100 percent since some schools used more than one restructuring strategy.
Center on Education Policy..
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Baby bonuses and teacher preparation fees
As a blogger I certainly rely upon the mainstream press for some good comedy material.
Frequent readers will know that I have been working on and criticizing the legislature for passing SB 1209 an Omnibus Education bill last year.
The bill, and its predecessor SB 2042 have created havoc in teacher preparation programs and have not improved the preparation of teachers- but they allowed Legislators to appear to be doing something. The detailed story of what is wrong with SB 1209 and 2042 is here:
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
Read the link entitled Problems with California Legislation on Teacher Performance Assessment and PACT.
“There are two things you don’t want to see made-sausage and legislation.”
Former German Chancellor Otto Von Bismark.
A major reason for SB 2042 was to create and institutionalize BITSA, and alternative teacher preparation program which directs significant funds to school districts rather than to universities and which created whole new promotion possibilities for school districts.
Well, more has become available. The Sacramento Bee on Friday had an editorial on Schmoozing for Dollars; and featured former legislator Marian Bergeson; the major advocate for BITSA. I encourage you to read the editorial and see how money gets allocated in California.
here: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/131209.html
And, second, in my earlier reports I frequently mentioned that I was seeking the help of a legislator to introduce a piece of legislation to undue the harm of SB 1209, including a process that will cost each future teacher $300 – $500, to take a test to find out what we already know. ( But test creators are happy)
Well, the Saturday Bee was helpful. On page A 3 was a column by Steve Wiegand and a news story on the bill to provide a Baby Bonus. Whacky project.
Except you see, the bill to provide a baby bonus that has many at the capitol shaking their heads was authored by my Senator Darrell Steinberg. You guessed it- the same Senator that did not have enough room in his list of bills to include the proposed bill to fix last year’s problems created by the Legislature in SB 1209.
Now Darrell is a good guy. I have worked for him in a number of elections through my union and individually. I respect him and usually respect his decisions.
But, my Senator did not have time for a bill to save future teachers $500 each, and thus encourage people to become teachers, but he did have time for the moon beam proposal for baby bonuses. Go figure.
Duane Campbell
Frequent readers will know that I have been working on and criticizing the legislature for passing SB 1209 an Omnibus Education bill last year.
The bill, and its predecessor SB 2042 have created havoc in teacher preparation programs and have not improved the preparation of teachers- but they allowed Legislators to appear to be doing something. The detailed story of what is wrong with SB 1209 and 2042 is here:
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
Read the link entitled Problems with California Legislation on Teacher Performance Assessment and PACT.
“There are two things you don’t want to see made-sausage and legislation.”
Former German Chancellor Otto Von Bismark.
A major reason for SB 2042 was to create and institutionalize BITSA, and alternative teacher preparation program which directs significant funds to school districts rather than to universities and which created whole new promotion possibilities for school districts.
Well, more has become available. The Sacramento Bee on Friday had an editorial on Schmoozing for Dollars; and featured former legislator Marian Bergeson; the major advocate for BITSA. I encourage you to read the editorial and see how money gets allocated in California.
here: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/131209.html
And, second, in my earlier reports I frequently mentioned that I was seeking the help of a legislator to introduce a piece of legislation to undue the harm of SB 1209, including a process that will cost each future teacher $300 – $500, to take a test to find out what we already know. ( But test creators are happy)
Well, the Saturday Bee was helpful. On page A 3 was a column by Steve Wiegand and a news story on the bill to provide a Baby Bonus. Whacky project.
Except you see, the bill to provide a baby bonus that has many at the capitol shaking their heads was authored by my Senator Darrell Steinberg. You guessed it- the same Senator that did not have enough room in his list of bills to include the proposed bill to fix last year’s problems created by the Legislature in SB 1209.
Now Darrell is a good guy. I have worked for him in a number of elections through my union and individually. I respect him and usually respect his decisions.
But, my Senator did not have time for a bill to save future teachers $500 each, and thus encourage people to become teachers, but he did have time for the moon beam proposal for baby bonuses. Go figure.
Duane Campbell
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Legislation seeks to take back the CSU
Capitol bid to rein in CSU execs
Legislation would add oversight of the state university system
Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007
State lawmakers have introduced legislation calling for more governmental oversight of the California State University system, which has come under criticism after reports that some of its top executives were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra compensation without public disclosure.
The oversight plan, which includes adding two legislators or their appointees to the CSU Board of Trustees and requires that executive contracts be approved in public session, comes in response to The Chronicle's reports on special compensation packages for current and former executives of the nation's largest university system.
"This is an effort to earn back the public's trust," said state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge (Los Angeles County), during a news conference Wednesday at the Capitol in Sacramento. "The general public must have trust in the institutions of higher learning where we put our children."
Portantino, the bill's author, cited the newspaper's two-day series in July as the genesis of his legislation. The stories revealed that as much as $4 million in special perks and extra compensation has been paid to departing CSU officials during the past decade without public disclosure by the chancellor or Board of Trustees.
Beneficiaries included those who remain on the payroll while taking jobs elsewhere and others who receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting contracts from the CSU after their retirement. For example, former executives Peter P. Smith of CSU Monterey Bay and CSU Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence took paid transitional leaves in 2005, a perk that enabled them to receive most of their six-figure salaries for a year after they left office and took six-figure jobs elsewhere.
The legislation, introduced last week as The California State University Reform, Trust and Responsibility Act, would authorize the appointment of two state legislators or their designees to the CSU Board of Trustees. The additional two members would be appointed by the state Senate and Assembly.
Clara Potes-Fellow, a CSU spokeswoman, said the university system has not yet taken a position on the bill.
Portantino, who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, said the bill would restore confidence in the CSU by "giving the Legislature a voice on the Board of Trustees, open up future meetings on executive compensation and eliminate any suggestion of impropriety ..."
It would also give the governor and lieutenant governor -- who hold ex officio positions on the 25-member board -- seats on the board. Each could designate someone to attend CSU meetings on their behalf.
The bill calls for the trustees to approve all executive contracts in public session and reveal all benefits, not just salaries and housing. It also requires CSU executives who are paid for professorships to actually teach classes, and that their compensation could not exceed the amount a full-time professor in the CSU system would be paid for similar teaching duties.
"The priorities are upside down when a handful of top executives are receiving record raises at the same time that faculty are struggling to negotiate fair contracts and students are being hit with tuition increases," said Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, a co-author of the bill. Brownley, who chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education, served 12 years on a school board.
State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, the majority leader and a CSU professor on leave, called the legislation a "very direct and clear message to the chancellor of this university ... the students, and the citizens who share their outrage. Quality education begins in the classroom, not the upper echelons of the ivory tower. The days of trustees operating in the dark of night, giving away additional perks to executives, are over. This is a sunshine bill."
Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill last month that also aims to compel CSU trustees to meet in public when discussing and deciding executive compensation issues.
Susan Meisenhelder, a CSU professor and statewide political action chairwoman of the California Faculty Association, said the university system's faculty union supports the bill because it will make it more difficult for CSU executives "to further pad their compensation."
She cited a provision of the bill that would require the California Post-Secondary Education Commission to track certain data and report regularly on state funds going toward instruction compared to administration in the CSU system. She said the faculty union has tracked some of these dollars and found that in recent years the percentage of state funds used to pay for CSU instruction has declined while the percentage for CSU administration has increased.
"This is a bill about good government. It's not a partisan bill," Portantino said.
E-mail Jim Doyle at jdoyle@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/01/BAGO7ODAAF1.DTL
Legislation would add oversight of the state university system
Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007
State lawmakers have introduced legislation calling for more governmental oversight of the California State University system, which has come under criticism after reports that some of its top executives were receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra compensation without public disclosure.
The oversight plan, which includes adding two legislators or their appointees to the CSU Board of Trustees and requires that executive contracts be approved in public session, comes in response to The Chronicle's reports on special compensation packages for current and former executives of the nation's largest university system.
"This is an effort to earn back the public's trust," said state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge (Los Angeles County), during a news conference Wednesday at the Capitol in Sacramento. "The general public must have trust in the institutions of higher learning where we put our children."
Portantino, the bill's author, cited the newspaper's two-day series in July as the genesis of his legislation. The stories revealed that as much as $4 million in special perks and extra compensation has been paid to departing CSU officials during the past decade without public disclosure by the chancellor or Board of Trustees.
Beneficiaries included those who remain on the payroll while taking jobs elsewhere and others who receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting contracts from the CSU after their retirement. For example, former executives Peter P. Smith of CSU Monterey Bay and CSU Executive Vice Chancellor David Spence took paid transitional leaves in 2005, a perk that enabled them to receive most of their six-figure salaries for a year after they left office and took six-figure jobs elsewhere.
The legislation, introduced last week as The California State University Reform, Trust and Responsibility Act, would authorize the appointment of two state legislators or their designees to the CSU Board of Trustees. The additional two members would be appointed by the state Senate and Assembly.
Clara Potes-Fellow, a CSU spokeswoman, said the university system has not yet taken a position on the bill.
Portantino, who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, said the bill would restore confidence in the CSU by "giving the Legislature a voice on the Board of Trustees, open up future meetings on executive compensation and eliminate any suggestion of impropriety ..."
It would also give the governor and lieutenant governor -- who hold ex officio positions on the 25-member board -- seats on the board. Each could designate someone to attend CSU meetings on their behalf.
The bill calls for the trustees to approve all executive contracts in public session and reveal all benefits, not just salaries and housing. It also requires CSU executives who are paid for professorships to actually teach classes, and that their compensation could not exceed the amount a full-time professor in the CSU system would be paid for similar teaching duties.
"The priorities are upside down when a handful of top executives are receiving record raises at the same time that faculty are struggling to negotiate fair contracts and students are being hit with tuition increases," said Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, a co-author of the bill. Brownley, who chairs the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education, served 12 years on a school board.
State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, the majority leader and a CSU professor on leave, called the legislation a "very direct and clear message to the chancellor of this university ... the students, and the citizens who share their outrage. Quality education begins in the classroom, not the upper echelons of the ivory tower. The days of trustees operating in the dark of night, giving away additional perks to executives, are over. This is a sunshine bill."
Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, introduced a bill last month that also aims to compel CSU trustees to meet in public when discussing and deciding executive compensation issues.
Susan Meisenhelder, a CSU professor and statewide political action chairwoman of the California Faculty Association, said the university system's faculty union supports the bill because it will make it more difficult for CSU executives "to further pad their compensation."
She cited a provision of the bill that would require the California Post-Secondary Education Commission to track certain data and report regularly on state funds going toward instruction compared to administration in the CSU system. She said the faculty union has tracked some of these dollars and found that in recent years the percentage of state funds used to pay for CSU instruction has declined while the percentage for CSU administration has increased.
"This is a bill about good government. It's not a partisan bill," Portantino said.
E-mail Jim Doyle at jdoyle@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/01/BAGO7ODAAF1.DTL
Political meddling in California teacher preparation
In several prior posts I have described the process of legislative meddling in California teacher preparation.
The excerpts were from a longer paper.
The entire paper is at my campus home page
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
See the link; Problems with the California legislation on Teacher Performance Assessment, Pact, and some suggestions.
Feedback is welcome.
Duane Campbell
The excerpts were from a longer paper.
The entire paper is at my campus home page
http://coefaculty.csus.edu/campd/index.html
See the link; Problems with the California legislation on Teacher Performance Assessment, Pact, and some suggestions.
Feedback is welcome.
Duane Campbell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
