Thursday, July 12, 2007

Health care Terror: Krugman


Health Care Terror

By Paul Krugman

New York Times July 9, 2007

These days terrorism is the first refuge of scoundrels.
So when British authorities announced that a ring of
Muslim doctors working for the National Health Service
was behind the recent failed bomb plot, we should have
known what was coming.

"National healthcare: Breeding ground for terror?" read
the on-screen headline, as the Fox News host Neil
Cavuto and the commentator Jerry Bowyer solemnly
discussed how universal health care promotes terrorism.

While this was crass even by the standards of Bush-era
political discourse, Fox was following in a long
tradition. For more than 60 years, the medical-
industrial complex and its political allies have used
scare tactics to prevent America from following its
conscience and making access to health care a right for
all its citizens.

I say conscience, because the health care issue is,
most of all, about morality.

That's what we learn from the overwhelming response to
Michael Moore's "Sicko." Health care reformers should,
by all means, address the anxieties of middle-class
Americans, their growing and justified fear of finding
themselves uninsured or having their insurers deny
coverage when they need it most. But reformers
shouldn't focus only on self-interest. They should also
appeal to Americans' sense of decency and humanity.

What outrages people who see "Sicko" is the sheer
cruelty and injustice of the American health care
system - sick people who can't pay their hospital bills
literally dumped on the sidewalk, a child who dies
because an emergency room that isn't a participant in
her mother's health plan won't treat her, hard-working
Americans driven into humiliating poverty by medical
bills.

"Sicko" is a powerful call to action - but don't count
the defenders of the status quo out. History shows that
they're very good at fending off reform by finding new
ways to scare us.

These scare tactics have often included over-the-top
claims about the dangers of government insurance.
"Sicko" plays part of a recording Ronald Reagan once
made for the American Medical Association, warning that
a proposed program of health insurance for the elderly
- the program now known as Medicare - would lead to
totalitarianism.

Right now, by the way, Medicare - which did enormous
good, without leading to a dictatorship - is being
undermined by privatization.

Mainly, though, the big-money interests with a stake in
the present system want you to believe that universal
health care would lead to a crushing tax burden and
lousy medical care.

Now, every wealthy country except the United States
already has some form of universal care. Citizens of
these countries pay extra taxes as a result - but they
make up for that through savings on insurance premiums
and out-of-pocket medical costs. The overall cost of
health care in countries with universal coverage is
much lower than it is here.

Meanwhile, every available indicator says that in terms
of quality, access to needed care and health outcomes,
the U.S. health care system does worse, not better,
than other advanced countries - even Britain, which
spends only about 40 percent as much per person as we
do.

Yes, Canadians wait longer than insured Americans for
elective surgery. But over all, the average Canadian's
access to health care is as good as that of the average
insured American - and much better than that of
uninsured Americans, many of whom never receive needed
care at all.

And the French manage to provide arguably the best
health care in the world, without significant waiting
lists of any kind. There's a scene in "Sicko" in which
expatriate Americans in Paris praise the French system.
According to the hard data they're not romanticizing.
It really is that good.

All of which raises the question Mr. Moore asks at the
beginning of "Sicko": who are we?

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was
bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics." So
declared F.D.R. in 1937, in words that apply perfectly
to health care today. This isn't one of those cases
where we face painful tradeoffs - here, doing the right
thing is also cost-efficient. Universal health care
would save thousands of American lives each year, while
actually saving money.

So this is a test. The only things standing in the way
of universal health care are the fear-mongering and
influence-buying of interest groups. If we can't
overcome those forces here, there's not much hope for
America's future.

-------

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 education issues vital to a democracy. 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. 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.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Bush/ World Bank and corruption


Published on openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net)
The world’s World Bank problem

By Robert Wade
Created 2007-07-10 14:52
The fight between the Americans and the Europeans over the fate of Paul Wolfowitz obscured the bigger question of whether the world still needs the World Bank. The immediate contest may be over and Robert Zoellick installed as the new president (nominated by the White House / United States treasury), but the question looms over everything the bank does.

Before addressing this question, however, two points should be made about the Wolfowitz affair [0]. First, the blame for the scandal that brought him down was not entirely on his side, and on its own it would not have led to his departure. In particular, the bank's ethics committee gave him muddled advice when he approached it about a conflict of interest between him being president and his then romantic partner being a bank employee.


But in any case, the ethics issue became the lightning-rod for much broader anger over the way he was running the bank [1]. He had brought in a small group of lieutenants from the Pentagon and United States vice-president's office who set about administering the bank in a brutal and highly ideological [1] way. He and they showed undisguised contempt for the senior managers (advised to run an important speech about the bank's role in governance reform past the relevant vice-presidents to get their buy-in, Wolfowitz replied: "Not past this lot. That would be like casting pearls before swine.")


Robert Wade is professor [2] of political economy at the London School of Economics. He worked as a World Bank economist in the 1980s.

He is the author of Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asia's Industrialization (Princeton University Press, 1990 [3]) and of "Is globalization reducing poverty and inequality?", in John Ravenhill, ed., Global Political EconomyOxford University Press, 2005 [4])

Also by Robert Wade in openDemocracy:

"Inequality of world incomes: what should be done? [4]" (14 November 2001)

"The invisible hand of the American empire [4]" (13 March 2003)

"Globalisation: emancipating or reinforcing? [4]" (29 January 2007The senior managers became cowed, and spent their time trying to figure out how to minimise their vulnerability, rather than exercise their professional judgment. Those who pushed back were invited to seek employment elsewhere. The lieutenants systematically corrupted the bank's checks and balances, especially in staff recruitment and promotion (though this process was already well advanced under James Wolfensohn [5]).

The second point relates to Wolfowitz's declaration (which he made with a straight face, and he highlighted as his biggest regret about resigning) that pushing forward the corruption agenda was his signature issue. It is true that in some countries and in some sectors corruption is a big problem, substantially lowering the productivity of investment and the legitimacy of the state. But Wolfowitz and his lieutenants defined the agenda in narrow and punitive terms, as though the bank should punish a country (refuse new loan proposals, for example) wherever corruption is uncovered.

But corruption is endemic in developing countries because they are developing countries. The corruption agenda has to be broad enough to include civil-service reform, and legal and judicial reform - yet the bank is hardly staffed up with experts in these areas. Moreover, the board and the staff also saw Wolfowitz as wanting to apply the corruption agenda selectively, as a cover for advancing United States-centric political objectives.

For example, two months after the United States was obliged to comply with an Uzbek government demand [6] that the US should withdraw its military forces in the country, the bank announced in March 2006 that new loan proposals for Uzbekistan were suspended [7], ostensibly for reasons of corruption in bank projects. The bank now does have a more sensible corruption agenda, which board and staff have endorsed. But it will take some time to recover momentum because of the way corruption has been discredited by the Wolfowitz team.

The challenge of reform

The new president, Robert Zoellick [8], is a good choice - if the choice had to be restricted to someone in the Bush circle.

Apart from the day-to-day challenges, the biggest challenge for the new team is to find a way out of the bank's crisis of relevance. Its market has changed fundamentally in the past decade, but the bank continues to operate in much the same way and with much the same products as a decade ago and more. The challenge to reposition itself is almost as big as that faced by the March of Dimes when a cure for polio was found.

The change in the bank's market was dramatically symbolised in May 2007 when the African Development Bank [9] held its annual meeting not in Africa but in Shanghai - an event which will be looked back on as a milestone in the history of the early decades of the 21st century.

In its traditional products - aid projects and economic policy advice to governments of developing countries - the bank faces an array of new competitors [10]. These include China and Korea, which have become big sources of financial assistance to poorer countries; private consulting firms; private investment banks; and private foundations, like the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation [11]. But the bank retains a sizeable competitive advantage over these other entities based on three elements: its governmental guarantees, its own revenue base, and its global reach.

The bank can and should shift more of its activity into genuinely global problems, where private-capital markets are less likely to lend, especially for global-problem-reducing investments in low-income countries. For example, it can and should take a much bigger role in tackling one of the biggest questions of our time: how to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions. The bank has much experience of translating economic policies into investment plans and investment plans into investments on the ground. It should use this experience to take the general conclusions of the Stern report [12] (October 2006) and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports [13] (2007); spell out what the general conclusions mean for specific countries, like China, Russia, India, Bangladesh, and Brazil; and then work with these governments to formulate concrete plans of action.

The bank would have to develop new financing instruments to accelerate the uptake of climate-friendly technologies [14]. For example, a carbon fund - or since the fund should not be tied only to carbon, a "climate stabilising and adaptation" fund. Such a fund could be used to encourage a developing country government to borrow from the bank for a power station and choose a state-of-the-art minimum carbon-emission technology even though more expensive than the standard one, with the fund rather than the government bearing the incremental cost. The fund could be used to accelerate climate-friendly technologies in power, transportation (eg railways in Africa), forestry, land use, and still more.

Some of the finance could come straight from World Bank reserves [15]. The reserves are currently $36 billion, while only $25 bn is needed to maintain the all-important triple-A credit rating. The fund would also receive grants from OECD governments and private foundations.



Also in openDemocracy on Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank:

Alex Wilks, "US bank or World Bank? [15]" (26 March 2005)

Sidney Blumenthal, "Paul Wolfowitz's tomb [15]" (1 June If the world says no


To advance in this direction the bank [16] has to address another looming question: how to decouple itself from White House/treasury control. At a dinner party a few years ago Laurence Summers - then president of Harvard, and former US deputy treasury secretary, then treasury secretary - exclaimed enthusiastically that until he entered the treasury he had not realised just how useful were the bank and the International Monetary Fund [17] (IMF) for US foreign-policy objectives. His remark is all the more striking because he had earlier been vice-president for economics and research at the bank - so he was scarcely an outsider.

Certainly the US executive branch thinks that "we" still need the World Bank (though the Congress does not always appear to agree); and that we need the bank with its present governance arrangements, which give the US its dominance [18]. But as some developing countries gradually become more self-confident (China, Brazil and India for example) the hope is that their governments will in one way or another assert themselves more in the governance of both the World Bank and the IMF, and ease the organisations out of the heartland of the American empire [19].

Any shift may be galvanised by desperation. The Americans basically run both the World Bank and the IMF (the Europeans may appoint [20] the fund's managing director, but the Americans have a lock on the fund's number-two position, whose incumbent is often more powerful than the managing director). How long will it be before the bank's middle-income borrowers - seeing the organisation as US-dominated and concerned to impose upon them free-market policies advantageous to the US (or protective policies advantageous to the US, like intellectual-property protection [21] of the US type) - walk away, and deprive the bank of the interest revenue which is the main component of its revenue base?

How long will it be before the developing-country executive directors on the board of the bank and fund insist - as they could if their governments were not afraid of upsetting the Americans and Europeans - it is high time that an Asian, or a Latin American, or an African or a Canadian could lead one of these organisations? How long before they say (to echo Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz): "we are not in 1944 anymore"?

At least the board of the bank had the gumption to call Zoellick to something like an "interview" before agreeing to support [22] his nomination (even though their agreement was guaranteed just about whatever he said). A dedicated optimist might say that they were acting in the spirit of the Chinese proverb, "cross the river one stone at a time". Let's see whether Rodrigo de Rato [23]'s successor at the IMF is nominated after a search which includes non-European (and non-American) candidates.

Average rating





(2 votes)
Rate this:

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/trackback/33967
Source URL:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalisation/institutions_government/world_bank_problem
Links:
[1] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EXTPRESIDENT2007/EXTPASTPRESIDENTS/EXTOFFICEPRESIDENT/0,,enableDHL:TRUE%7EmenuPK:51175739%7EpagePK:64260331%7EpiPK:51174219%7EtheSitePK:1014541,00.html
[2] http://www.lse.ac.uk/people/r.wade@lse.ac.uk/
[3] http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4724.html
[4] http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/InternationalStudies/InternationalPoliticalEconomy/?view=usa&ci=9780199265848
[5] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/EXTARCHIVES/0,,contentMDK:20475199%7EpagePK:36726%7EpiPK:36092%7EtheSitePK:29506,00.html
[6] http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp073105.shtml
[7] http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/9cad79b2-b46f-4241-a165-6f279119f167.html
[8] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EXTPRESIDENT2007/0,,enableDHL:TRUE%7EmenuPK:64822279%7EpagePK:64821908%7EpiPK:64822015%7EtheSitePK:3916065,00.html
[9] http://www.afdb.org/portal/page?_pageid=293,174339&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&press_item=18954344&press_lang=us
[10] http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4364
[11] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
[12] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
[13] http://www.ipcc.ch/calendar.htm
[14] http://www.wri.org/climate/pubs_description.cfm?pid=4292
[15] http://treasury.worldbank.org/
[16] http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521029018
[17] http://www.imf.org/external/about.htm
[18] http://www.bicusa.org/en/Issue.10.aspx
[19] http://newleftreview.org/?view=2305
[20] http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2750528.ece
[21] http://www.computing.co.uk/vnunet/news/2188919/singles-top-piracy-offenders
[22] http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21385723%7EmenuPK:34463%7EpagePK:34370%7EpiPK:34424%7EtheSitePK:4607,00.html
[23] http://www.imf.org/external/np/omd/bios/rrf.htm


Copyright © Robert Wade . Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial use only. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Contact us if you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Barak Obama in Oakland, California

Another world is possible; U.S. Social forum

Another U.S. is starting to happen

The slogan of the USSF was 'Another world is possible,
another U.S. is necessary.' It was interpreted both as
another U.S. and another 'us,' meaning the left has to
reinvent itself.

http://rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=679f516f9630455d845939e77f95e3a9&rXn=1&

by Judy Rebick July 9, 2007

After spending five weeks in Bolivia this summer, I was
convinced that the new paths out of this destructive,
hateful morass we call neo-liberalism would come from
those most marginalized by its greed and violence.
Little did I imagine that one of the strongest signs of
this direction would come from the belly of the beast
itself.

Ten thousand people, overwhelmingly poor and working
class, the majority people of colour, at least half
women, and a massive number of youth gathered in
Atlanta, Ga. at the end of June for the U.S. Social
Forum (USSF) signaling what could be the birth of the
most powerful social movement the U.S. has ever seen.

"Never in my wildest imagination, did I think I would
ever see something like this in the United States,"
Carlos Torres, a Chilean refugee now living in Canada,
told me halfway through the forum. The sentiment was
repeated again and again by Latin American visitors who
were there as emissaries from the World Social Forum
(WSF). It was radical, it was militant, it was
feminist, it was anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist,
it was queer, it was loud and lively and it was
brimming with love, kindness and a deep sense of
solidarity.

The slogan of the USSF was "Another world is possible,
another U.S. is necessary." It was interpreted both as
another U.S. and another "us," meaning the left has to
reinvent itself.

And it was a major step forward for the World Social
Forum movement. The idea of a U.S. social forum came
from a couple of people who went to the 2001 WSF in
Brazil and then brought a few more with them in 2002.
They formed a group called Grassroots Global Justice
and began the process of organizing a U.S. social
forum, firmly in the WSF spirit.

One of them, Fred Azcarate, then with Jobs with
Justice, now with the AFL-CIO, explained to the opening
plenary that "it took this long because we wanted to do
it right by building the necessary relationships among
the grassroots organizations and ensuring the right
outcomes."

And the right outcomes were to create the conditions to
unite the disparate grassroots people's movements
around the U.S. across race, age, sector and region.

They got the idea from the WSF but they took it beyond
where anyone else has managed to go, except perhaps in
Mumbai. In Nairobi, poor people demanded a significant
place in the WSF planning process and in Atlanta, they
had one. The national planning committee represented
what they call national and regional "base-building"
groups, whose base is mostly poor and working class
people. It seemed to this observer that the forum
shifted the balance of power on the American left to
the poor and oppressed from the middle class. Time will
tell what impact this will have.

Every plenary focused on building alliances among the
myriad of grassroots movement across the United States.
Most emphasis was on a "black-brown" alliance to combat
the racism that divides African Americans from their
Latino and immigrant brothers and sisters. But there
was also a lot of focus on student/labour alliances and
environmental issues were completely linked to social
justice issues. Support for gays, lesbians and
transgendered people who have been major targets of the
Bush administration seemed universal.

The forum ended in a People's Movements Assembly, where
various regional and issue caucuses presented their
resolutions. Several new national networks were formed
and the bonds of solidarity were deeply forged among
those who are usually divided. People left with the
commitment to organize social forums in their regions,
cities and neighbourhoods. Over the course of the week,
the social forum became a synonym for creating a
movement of movements everywhere.

"People are asking me when Atlanta has ever seen
something like this," Jerome Scott of Project South and
veteran Atlanta activist speaking of the opening march.
"I've been reflecting on that and my answer is Atlanta
has never seen anything like this. The Civil Rights
movement was mostly African American and last year's
May 1st (immigration rights) demo was mostly Latinos
but this march was the most multi-national action I
have ever seen. It was beautiful."

Almost every one of the 900 workshops over four days
was filled to the brim with activists who were sharing
strategies in everything from food security to
community/labour alliances to a new taking back our
cities movement against gentrification. The plenary
speakers were majority women, people of colour, and
young people. There was not a single left-wing star
among them. In a culture obsessed with celebrity, the
organizing committee decided they didn't need any, even
the good ones.

None of the big NGOs in the United States were on the
planning committee. The idea that foundation-funded,
majority white, centrist and Washington dominated NGOs
and think tanks have hijacked the left was present
throughout the forum. These groups were welcome to
participate, but not in a leadership capacity.

Another extraordinary feature of the forum was the role
of indigenous people who led the opening march and
participated on several panels as well as had their own
plenary.

Much of the vision came from them. After talking about
the melting of the glaciers, Faith Gemmill from the
REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on
Indigenous Land) in Alaska said, "Our people have a
prophesy that there will come a time in the history of
humanity when people are in danger of destroying
ourselves. When that time comes, a voice will arise
from the North to warn us. That time is now. I was sent
here to give you part of our burden to speak up now
against the greed."

And Tom Goldtooth who represents the Indigenous
Environmental Network on the national planning
committee said, "We must talk from the heart and shake
hands with one another. A prayer has taken place that
this spirit is going to grow. No matter who we are we
must demand not reform of a broken system but
transformation. We need to organize from the
grassroots."

And many did speak from the heart.

The plenary on Katrina was stunning to me. While I
certainly followed the immediate aftermath, I had no
idea of the continuing efforts to whitewash New
Orleans. Dr. Beverley Wright speaking from the floor
said, "Our parents and our grandparents fought to buy a
house to pass on to their family and they are trying to
take that away from us when they talk about turning the
place we lived in East New Orleans into a green space.
They're not talking about turning the place rich white
folks live into green space."

Another community leader said, "Katrina is both a
reality and a symbol. If you work in justice, if you
work in health care, if your work in housing, you are
in Katrina."

One of the most powerful speeches was from Javier
Gallardo from the New Orleans Workers Center. A guest
worker from Peru, he explained that when African
Americans were displaced, hundreds of workers like him
had been brought in from Latin America for Gulf Coast
reconstruction and their employers names are on their
passports.

Their ability to stay in the U.S. is dependent on the
employer. Gallardo said that there is now a practice
that when the employer is finished with the workers, he
sells them to another employer for $2,000 each. "What
is that?," he asked.

"We call it modern day slavery. They want to divide us
but the old slaves and the new slaves can join together
and together we can defeat them," he continued to
thunderous applause. The old slaves/new slaves metaphor
wove its way through the rest of the forum in the
powerful idea of a black-brown alliance, that veteran
activists said would transform left-wing politics in
the United States and especially in the South where the
vast majority of the working class is now black and
brown.

Another impressive feature of the forum was the
handling of conflict. When the Palestinian contingent
objected that they were the only group not permitted to
speak for themselves in the anti-war plenary, the
organizers read their letter of protest to the next
plenary. When the report of the indigenous caucus was
stopped at the end of their allotted time by the
moderator of the People's Movement Assembly by removing
their microphone, they took grave offense and felt
silenced.

Within 10 minutes, most of the indigenous people in the
room were on the stage with the consent of the
organizers. What could have been an explosive divisive
moment with a lot of anger and hurt was handled with
incredible skill by both permitting the protest and
making sure it was interpreted in a way that created
unity rather than division. I had the feeling that a
new culture of solidarity was being born, one we tried
for in the feminist movement but never quite
accomplished.

Of course there were weaknesses in the forum. While
strongly rooted in the traditions of the civil rights
movement by the symbolic location in Atlanta and the
presence of veteran civil rights activists, there was
less discussion of working class or even feminist
history.

Yet the impact of those movements were strongly felt in
the powerful female leadership present everywhere and
the strong emphasis on workers' issues and organizing.
None of the big environmental groups was present. While
the issue of the war and U.S. imperialism had pride of
place, the mainstream anti-war movement had little
presence. The forum organizers bent the stick quite far
towards poor, working class, indigenous, queer and
people of colour groups and perhaps this was necessary
to create the kind of movement really capable of making
change in the United States.

In her famous speech at the 2002 World Social Forum in
Brazil, Arundhati Roy famously said, "Remember this: We
be many and they be few. They need us more than we need
them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her
way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."

It wasn't a quiet day in Atlanta but I could hear her
shouting there, "What do we want? Justice. How will we
get it? People Power."

Judy Rebick holds the Sam Gindin Chair in Social
Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto.
She is a founder and former publisher of rabble.ca. Her
most recent book is Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a
Feminist Revolution.

Democrats on NCLB.

Comments from last week's conference of the National Education Association, lifted from EdWeek and the NEA web site: www.nea.org, where video clips are also available. All the Democrats running for president seem to have figured out that testing isn't too popular these days. They offer some nice sound-bites. Of course, what they would do about NCLB remains a little vague.
Senator Hillary Clinton:
“We need a new approach, one that is balanced—that puts learning, not memorizing and testing, front and center in American education again. … It’s time that we start supporting educators and quit pointing fingers. We should reward teachers when schools show achievement gains. We can’t do this unless we finally fix what is wrong with No Child Left Behind.”

“Our children are getting good at filling in those little bubbles. But how much creativity is being left behind? How much passion for learning is being left behind? … The test is becoming the curriculum when it should be the other way around.”

Senator Barack Obama:
No Child Left Behind is “one of the emptiest slogans in the history of American politics. Left the money behind when they passed No Child Left Behind. Left the common sense behind.”

Senator John Edwards:
“A test does not tell us what we need to do help our children to learn. A test does not prepare our teachers, a test does not give us the information we need to make our public schools better. … How long is it going to take us to figure out you can’t educate kids by testing them to death?”

Senator Chris Dodd:
“Learning is not filling in the bubbles. It is about connecting the dots.”

Gov. Bill Richardson:
“This is unfair and this is crazy. It’s got to stop. [NCLB] can be improved, it must be improved and when I’m elected it will be improved or it will be abolished. … If a school isn’t doing well, we should help that school, not hurt it.”

“Our nation’s school reform has made our schools look more like reform schools with all the mindless testing and bureaucratic regulations.”

Senator Joe Biden:
“You cannot build a new economy by having our children constantly fill out bubbles. You have to free [students’] minds.”

Dennis Kucinich:
“Yes, we need to make sure children can read, but we do not want to defeat the learning experience and make it all about testing, because then all you have is a generation of test takers, not a generation of visionaries ready to lead the nation forward.”

Monday, July 09, 2007

Friday, July 06, 2007

Joe Wilson, Libby, on Democracy Now

An important show. I encourage you to read or watch the entire session.

JUAN GONZALEZ: While Libby won’t see a day of jail time, he will still have to pay a $250,000 fine. But now there’s a question of whether he will even have to serve the two years of supervised probation imposed by the trial judge. US District Judge Reggie Walton said Tuesday that under federal law, the probation period may be called into question with the commutation of the sentence.

In an ironic twist to the story, now the only person to serve jail time in the CIA leak case turns out to be a journalist. Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for contempt of court in July 2005 for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the leak. Miller refused to violate her oath of confidentiality to Libby and spent eighty-five days in prison. Libby was the only person charged in the federal investigation. No one was charged with the leak itself.

AMY GOODMAN: The whole story dates back over four years ago and centers around the invasion of Iraq. In July 2003, veteran diplomat Joseph Wilson published an op-ed in the New York Times, four years ago tomorrow, refuting Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Wilson had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate those claims and found them to be false. The article forced the Bush administration to admit a key justification for the invasion was false. Within a few days of its publication, the White House leaked the name of Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame and her CIA identity.

Joe Wilson joins us today to talk about the case. A veteran diplomat, Joe Wilson was the acting US ambassador to Iraq before the ’91 Gulf War and was the last US official to meet with Saddam Hussein before the war began. He is the author of The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity. Ambassador Wilson joins us from Santa Fe, New Mexico, where he lives with Valerie Plame and their two children now. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Ambassador Wilson.

JOSEPH WILSON: Nice to be back with you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to be with you. First, your overall reaction: were you surprised to the erasing of Scooter Libby's prison sentence by President Bush?

JOSEPH WILSON: There is very little that this administration does these days that surprises me. I believe that the President is corrupt to the core, and his administration is corrupt from top to bottom. I think, in doing this, he has actively subverted the rule of law and the system of justice in our country, which has undergirded our democracy for 231 years. It's a disgrace. I believe that it casts a pall over him and his office and begs a question of what was the quid pro quo and whether or not he is now an active participant in an ongoing obstruction of justice in the cover up of the lies that they used to justify our invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq in the first place.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And why do you say a quid pro quo? Your perspective on why you think the President is engaged still in a cover-up?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, clearly, at the time of Mr. Libby's conviction by a jury of his peers on four counts of lying, perjury and obstruction of justice, the special prosecutor in this case, representing the US government, said that Libby had blatantly and repeatedly lied, and as a consequence, sand had been thrown in the eyes of the umpire, by which he meant he was unable to get to the facts surrounding the underlying crime, the betrayal of the national security of our country. And Mr. Fitzgerald said that there remained a cloud over the Vice President and over his office.

Now, with his sentence commuted, Mr. Libby now no longer has any incentive whatsoever to begin to tell the truth to the special prosecutor, to wipe that sand from the umpire’s eyes, and to either lift that cloud over the Vice President or let it rain on him. So this is much more than just a commutation of Mr. Libby's sentence. This is a cover-up of the Vice President's role in this matter and quite possibly the role of the President and/or some of his senior White House advisers.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let's go through what this commutation of the sentence, the erasing, of the sentence means: taking away the incentive for Scooter Libby to speak to the prosecutor, cooperate with the prosecutor, since he won't be going to jail, but at the same time, since he wasn't pardoned at this point, if he’s called to testify before Congress, he can plead the Fifth Amendment, because he's still in the midst of his case. Is this accurate, Ambassador Wilson?

JOSEPH WILSON: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding, from what I've read, is that that’s correct, that since he’s still in the appeals process, that he can still exercise his Fifth Amendment rights. I believe that can be overcome by offering him immunity from prosecution, which may be the only course that the Congress or this prosecutor now has in order to compel his testimony.

AMY GOODMAN: It also means -- I mean, President Bush has said now for years that he, Vice President Cheney won't comment on this case while it's in litigation, and without doing the pardon right now -- perhaps it's to come, since President Bush has left that open -- Bush and Cheney continue not to have to comment on the case, the issue of President Bush having said that anyone in the White House who leaked your wife's name would be fired, would be out.

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, I think that that would be a patently absurd assertion. The President of the United States, in his statement, actually recognized the validity of the verdict, so for all intents and purposes the investigation on the facts is over. Anything to do with the appeal would be on matters of law. The President, I think, owes the American people a full explanation of his role and of the role of the Vice President in this betrayal of the national security of our country. And he should begin by instructing Mr. Fitzgerald to release the transcript of his interview with the special prosecutor and the interview of the Vice President, as well as other interviews of senior government officials. In fact, I would go further, I would argue that he should call on the special prosecutor to release the transcripts and all evidence that he has gathered in this investigation, so that the American people can assess for themselves what it is that is this cloud over the Vice President that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has talked about repeatedly.

AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Joe Wilson is staying with us for the hour. We’re going to go to break now. When we come back, we'll go back in time to President H. W. Bush, the President’s father, and his relationship with Ambassador Wilson when Ambassador Wilson was the acting ambassador in Iraq in the first Gulf War. Stay with us.

[break]

JUAN GONZALEZ: Ambassador, I'd like to ask you, the defenders of President Bush’s actions say that the presidential pardon power doesn't have any limits to it, and obviously whether it's in the Clinton administration or prior administrations, there’s been a lot of political operation in terms of the use of the pardon power. What's your response to that?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, I think that's probably right. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think it does beg the question as to whether the President, in so doing, became an active participant in an ongoing cover-up and obstruction of justice and thereby brought himself into violation of the law. And clearly the appropriate remedy for that would be impeachment. This issue was discussed by the founding fathers. James Madison, I believe it was, and I think George Mason were the two who discussed this at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Clearly, the hearing next week chaired by Chairman John Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee, I suspect, will want to get into these matters. I hope that they have constitutional lawyers amongst their witnesses.

AMY GOODMAN: How does this affect your lawsuit, you and your wife Valerie Plame's lawsuit against -- well, explain exactly who it is against?

JOSEPH WILSON: Sure, the American justice system provides us with an opportunity to seek civil justice, as well as criminal justice. Indeed, the state is the one who sought criminal justice in this matter. And so, we have filed suit against Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage. Those are the ones that we know were actively leaking, betraying Valerie’s identity to members of the press. There are a number of charges that we have made. People who want to know more about the charges and read the complaint can go to www.wilsonsupport.org.

It's pretty clear to us now that with the President's machinations to try and avoid accountability and responsibility for the actions of his administration, that the only venue left for the American people to get the truth in this matter and the only venue left for ensuring some accountability of those who would abuse their public office and to deter future generations of public servants from engaging in similar behavior is a civil suit.

So, again, people can go to www.wilsonsupport.org to hear all the details about it, but essentially we are charging the Vice President, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Mr. Armitage with having abused our rights -- rights of privacy, rights of employment, constitutional rights of protected free speech -- and we want to hold them to account for what they’ve done, not in our names, but in the names of those who actually believe that this should remain a democracy and the values, which have held us in such good stead since the passage of the Constitution, should continue to be respected.

AMY GOODMAN: Your wife, Valerie Plame, testified before Congress for the first time in March. She spoke about the case during a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This is some of what she had to say.

Democracy Now.org

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC: on Bush

"For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign."
Keith Olbermann. MSNBC. July 3, 2007.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/07/resign_keith_ol.html

US Social Forum

Report from the blog Facing South:
U.S. Social Forum: Another politics is possible
A driving message coming from the 10,000+ activists assembled at the U.S. Social Forum is that our country needs a new kind of politics.

Not politics in the traditional sense. Most of the grassroots activists, non-profit leaders, progressive journalists, socially-engaged scholars and others here in Atlanta aren't the kind that would go to, say, the Take Back America confab of progressive electoral leaders that happened in D.C. earlier this month.

The Social Forum goes beyond "politics as usual." The issues being discussed -- from profit-driven health care to U.S. imperial wars -- are those routinely ignored by Big Media. The voices given a platform -- people of color, poor and working-class activists -- are those typically locked out of the debate. The strategies are more aimed at challenging the imbalances of wealth and power in our society than how to impact the 2008 elections.

As a result, it's no accident that the make-up of conference attendees is so different from most progressive events (and more closely resembles the realities of our country): my quick and unscientific estimate is that about half the participants are people of color, and judging from last night's excellent plenary on immigrant rights, a sizable number are new immigrants -- just like the U.S.

My friend John Nichols, who's covering the Forum for The Nation and also covers establishment politics in Washington, gives his take of the political spirit here:
Instead of imagining what might be, contemporary politicians spend most of their time talking, at best, about treating existing wounds to the body politic and, at worst, about "threats" that no longer exist. In the former category, place all the Democratic and Republican politicians who promise a "new direction" with regard to the Iraq quagmire but never get around to rejecting the neo-conservative -- or more precisely, neo-colonial -- policies that got us into the mess in the first place. In the latter category, place all the partisans who suggest that the problem with our health-care system is too much government involvement -- which is a little like claiming that the problem with a headache is too much aspirin.

At a certain point, you just want to say: "Get over it! At a point when only one in five Americans think the country is headed in the right direction, isn't it time we changed course?"

That's the message of the thousands of Americans who have gathered in Atlanta in recent days for the U.S. Social Forum.
I think it would be interesting if the people who came to the U.S. Social Forum were put in the same room -- or mega-convention center -- with people more closely involved in progressive electoral politics. In 1972, Julian Bond -- the civil rights veteran (and co-founder of the Institute for Southern Studies) -- argued in his book "A Time to Speak, A Time to Act" that it was imperative for 1960s activists to "transform our movement into an electoral instrument," to translate the era's grassroots base-building into political power.

The disconnect between the amazing display of activist energy here in Atlanta, and the decisions being made in Washington, make clear that this is also an issue today.

But it's also clear that our political establishment needs shaking up -- and that, as always, there's a need for powerful movements outside conventional politics that tackle the hard questions, and force new issues and ideas into the national consciousness (and in the process, help us realize that ideas now dismissed as the fringe -- like universal health care -- are actually mainstream).

As Nichols at The Nation says:
There is no question of the need for such a movement. Our electoral processes are a shambles, as evidenced by the dubious results of the last two presidential elections. Our campaign finance system is a crime. Our media aids and abets all that afflicts the nation. And working families find it harder and harder to make their voices heard on the job, in the school or in the community. The crisis is clear. What's exciting about the U.S. Social Forum is that the solutions -- fundamental structural and policy changes in foreign and domestic policies, rather than tinkers around the edges -- are coming into focus.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

NCLB and Democrats

Democrats: No child law needs overhaul

By Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press Writer | July 2, 2007
PHILADELPHIA --They all voted for it, but that was then. Democratic presidential candidates came out swinging Monday, not at each other but at the No Child Left Behind law. They spoke at the annual convention of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union.

While the candidates received a warm response in the City of Brotherly Love, mere mention of President Bush's signature education law elicited loud hisses and boos from the thousands of teachers on hand.

The law, passed with broad Democratic support in 2001, requires public school students to be tested annually in reading and math in third- through eighth-grade and once in high school. It is up for renewal this year in Congress.

An NEA criticism of the law is that it forces teachers to spend too much time on test preparation instead of other forms of instruction, and many teachers wore buttons or stickers reading, "A child is more than a test score."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., sported the sticker on his own lapel as he called for the law to be overhauled. "It's time that we get this law right," Dodd said, saying it needed higher funding levels, among other things.

Dodd and John Edwards, a former vice presidential candidate and North Carolina senator, both stressed that they have school-age children and therefore have personal as well as political insight into what's happening in the nation's schools.

"These tests do not tell us what we need to know about our children," Edwards said.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she has heard stories about teachers shaping their lesson plans to ensure their students do well on the reading and math tests at the expense of other subjects.

"The test is becoming the curriculum when it should be the other way around," Clinton said.

Clinton's call for universal preschool for 4-year-olds and smaller class sizes won cheers, as did Edwards' comments about improving low-income students' access to college.

Other Democratic candidates, including Sen. Barrack Obama, are slated to appear before the convention this week.

The only Republican candidate in the speakers' lineup is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The NEA has only backed Democratic presidential candidates in the past. About 85 percent of the union's members end up voting for the union's recommended candidate in the general election.
At the NEA convention

Monday, July 02, 2007

NCLB Overstated Claims

REPORT TOUTING NCLB SUCCESS CANNOT SUPPORT OVERSTATED CLAIMS

Methodology is too weak to support finding that student achievement has increased since passage of NCLB

Contact: Teri Battaglieri (248) 444-7071 (email) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org
John T. Yun (805) 893-2342 (email) jyun@education.ucsb.edu
Kevin Welner (303) 492-8370 (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com
;
EAST LANSING, Mich.— A report released last month by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) is being used to argue that student achievement has increased since the implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind law. A review of this report finds that it suffers from important weaknesses and that the wording of numerous findings and key conclusions imply a much stronger connection between NCLB and increased achievement than can be substantiated by the data.

The report, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by John T.Yun, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

The CEP’s report has already received widespread attention from the news media, including front-page coverage in the Washington Post. The U.S. Secretary of Education immediately pointed to the report as confirming NCLB’s success. As reviewer Yun notes, the report “is likely to be cited often in the upcoming debate on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).”

While Yun credits the report with attempting “to carefully analyze the complex issue of test score improvement before and after the implementation of NCLB in 2002,” he describes how shortcomings in the data and analyses may have “resulted in a much more optimistic picture of the impact of the legislation than the data warrant.” Additionally, Yun says, while the report’s title may convey the impression that it seeks to examine the direct impact of NCLB on student achievement, the report itself acknowledges that an analysis accomplishing this goal may be impossible. The possible effects of NCLB cannot be disentangled from the possible effects of the large number of other state and local policies aimed at raising achievement during the same period of time.

The review from Professor Yun contends that the most useful and important finding in the new report is its explanation of current weaknesses in state data availability. The authors had great difficulty in obtaining and analyzing state-level achievement data that should be readily available; until this situation is improved, researchers such as those at CEP will be faced with many of the same obstacles encountered here. But Yun stresses that this finding was given far too little attention and should not have been overshadowed by the problematic analyses of student achievement.

Regarding the student achievement analyses, Yun does credit the report with offering thoughtful approaches and concludes that the report does represent progress toward more comprehensive examination of the outcomes of the law. He also commends the report for cautionary notes that help readers understand some of its limitations—yet not the three that he identifies as most serious:


The report’s look at whether achievement scores have increased since 2002 (its ‘trend analysis’) used an approach that had a likely unintended effect of analyzing a sub-sample of states that was biased toward those that were most likely to have inflated test scores.

The report’s finding of narrowing achievement gaps between groups of students suffered from the same weaknesses as its trend analysis, and also suffered from the problem of small sample sizes among some of the studied racial and ethnic groups, meaning that each of the percent-proficient estimates were effectively unreliable.

Selection bias is also likely to have “seriously damaged” the value of the report’s analysis of pre- and post-NCLB outcomes, which found yearly gains in test scores greater after NCLB took effect rather than before. In fact, Yun points out that the authors selected for “exactly the wrong group” of states to consider if the goal of the analysis was to examine the impact of NCLB, because the approach used had the effect of screening out those states that changed their approaches following NCLB’s passage.

These limitations seem particularly salient given the report’s prompt interjection into the public debate. U.S. Secretary of Education of Education Margaret Spellings, for instance, used the report to argue for NCLB reauthorization. Her official statement said, “This study confirms that [NCLB] has struck a chord of success with our nation’s schools and students. … We know the law is working, so now is the time to reauthorize [it].”

Commenting on this new review in light of such reaction the report, Professor Kevin Welner of the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-director of the Think Twice project, focused on the issue of publicity. “The methodological problems pointed out by Professor Yun are important and should be carefully considered by any policy maker or researcher who makes use of the study. But the bigger problem here seems to be in the packaging and subsequent publicity. Neither the data nor the analyses in the report are anywhere near strong enough to meaningfully support the report’s title, ‘Answering the question that matters most,’ nor can the report support the sort of puffery we see from Secretary Spellings.”

Find the complete review by John Yun as well as a link to the Center on Education
Policy report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.

About Think Twice
The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

Bush and friends




By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 3, 2007; A01

President Bush limited his deliberations over commuting the jail term of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to a few close aides, opting not to consult with the Justice Department and rebuffing efforts by close friends to lobby on Libby's behalf, administration officials and people close to Bush said yesterday.

"We were all told to stay away from it," said an old Bush friend from Texas who is close to Libby and would not speak for attribution. "When we called over there, they said the president is well aware of the situation, so don't raise it. None of us lobbied him because they told us not to."

For the first time in his presidency, Bush made a decision to commute a sentence without going through a process of running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney.

"Executive clemency is the president's exclusive power under the Constitution, and there are precedents for exercising that power without going through the pardon attorney process," said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto.

And then, of course, there was Elliot Abrams.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Secret trade deal delayed

From David Sirota's blog


“Democratic leaders in Congress put off a vote on trade agreements with Peru and Panama until those countries revamp their laws to comply with new labor and environment standards in the accords. The demand is a blow to the Bush administration, which pressed the Democratic majority in Congress to have the Peru agreement approved next month…Two other agreements, with South Korea and Colombia, face further hurdles before Congress will consider them, the Democrats said. Even though Pelosi and Rangel worked out an agreement with the administration last month to revamp the four pending free-trade agreements, they aren’t assured passage in Congress. Many Democrats say they won’t support those or any other agreements reached by the Bush administration. ‘We need to play defense against all these agreements,’ Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said yesterday.”

In the same story, though, we see exactly why we have to keep the pressure on - namely because they still intend to ultimately try to ram the deal through, even though it delegates all power to enforce the much-touted new labor and environmental provisions to the Bush White House. This delay represents fear - a fear by the handful of Democrats who agreed to this deal, by the Bush White House and by corporate lobbyists that if they try to pass this deal into law right now, it will be defeated. That we’ve created that fear is an incredible step forward - but you can bet the forces pushing this deal will be spending the next few months doing whatever they can to steamroll the opposition:

“Representative Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will lead a delegation oflawmakers to those countries in August to help them work through those changes, Democrats said in a statement. ‘We are hopeful that this trip will lead to the swift passage this fall in Peru and Panama of the necessary legislation to change laws and implement fully the respective agreements,'’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rangel and other Democratic leaders said in a joint statement today.”

Friday, June 29, 2007

Siko opens today

More on Supreme Court and school integration

There is an important debate about this decision. However, the educational debate is somewhat different than the court debate. See prior post.

It is important to select and fight current battles based upon the reality of our cities, not based upon how segregation worked prior to 1954.
I am not certain how this decision will impact mega cities like New York, Boston, etc. In mid sized cities like Sacramento, Seattle, Louisville, all of the high schools are integrated. In Sacramento they range from 25% Latino, 23 % African American, 26% Asian, 24% Anglo. Each category ranges up and down 10- 15 %. Elementary schools are far more diverse. So, each school will have a minority population of at least 45%. The argument is that an Anglo student should not be allowed to transfer out of a school if it impacts the demographics of the school. So, the debate is should a student be restricted if he chooses to move from a school that is 20% Anglo to a school that is 40% Anglo. Unlike prior to Brown: there are no all white schools in the cities. There are overwhelmingly white schools in the suburbs, but since these are in separate districts, the court long ago decided that governments could not mandate across district integration.
The Brown decision said that separate and equal was never equal, and it mandated forms of integration. What we have now is integrated and unequal- and the urban schools have a series of crises. Until we begin to provide quality schooling in our urban schools, until we act upon the unequal part of the Brown decision, we really are not making much progress.

Duane Campbell,
Author. Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicutural education. ( 2004)

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Supreme court decision on school integration

Today’s Supreme Court decision on school integration plans.

Lets be honest: The Supreme court decision was a victory for conservatives. It reflects the Bush Supreme Court. Our opponents, such as the Linda Chavez Equal Opportunity Commission, Ward Connerly and others, oppose the sue of racial and ethnic measures to make school assignments. But, they do nothing to improve the quality of schooling in the poverty schools. They want to fight about racial categories but not work to improve schools. It is important to not ask the oppressor to design the remedies for past discrimination.

But, our moderate allies and elected officials share the responsibility for this defeat.
The school integration policies of cities have not worked, they have not produced high levels of school achievement for all. So, parents fight sending their children to integrated schools because many of these schools are dysfunctional. ( See Choosing Democracy, 2004)
School districts in Seattle and Louisville were defeated ( as will be Sacramento, Los Angeles and others) because they relied upon the lawyers approach and refused to listen to or to change the educators approach.
Since the 1990’s, we have had a school reform plans usually based upon writing standards and standardized testing, placing pressure on teachers to follow a specific curriculum and a focus on testing. The data on this process is in- it has not significantly improved most schools.
While there are exciting examples of improved achievement, in general, school achievement has remained stagnant. (NAEP) There is only limited evidence that this process actually improves schools , student achievement, or improves student opportunity. (Rothstein)
There has been limited improvement in most schools because the interventions used do not deal with basic causes of low achievement, unequal funding of schools, high teacher turn over, family disruption, un safe schools, crime, safety, unemployment have not changed—and therefore the local school is unlikely to change.
We need to improve the schools. The current dominant school leadership and legislative leadership has not improved the schools. The refuse to make the necessary changes to improve schools. The lawyers approach of integration- without school improvement, has failed.
In most cities, including Sacramento, Los Angeles, S.F., Oakland, etc, we have legal integration, but we also have extreme inequality of opportunity. The goal is not diversity, the goal is equal educational opportunity. These lawyers- these school administrators- have not worked for equal opportunity.
Now, in response to the Supreme Court decision, it is time to improve the schools. It is time to stop using lawyers as a substitute for school reform.
Our opponents, such as the Linda Chavez Equal Opportunity Commission, Ward Connerly and others, oppose the sue of racial and ethnic measures to make school assignments. But, they do nothing to improve the quality of schooling in the poverty schools. They want to fight about racial categories but not work to improve schools. It is important to not ask the oppressor to design the remedies for past discrimination.


Duane Campbell
author, Choosing Democracy, a practical guide to multicultural education. (2004)

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Media ownership and control

It's a big problem: More and more news outlets are owned by fewer and fewer corporate conglomerates that spend less and less time on real, hard-hitting news coverage. We know what happens as a result: Iraq intelligence goes unquestioned, secret spying programs go unscrutinized, corporate power goes unchallenged, and our ability to function as a democracy takes a big hit.

The Bush administration is now pushing to allow even MORE media consolidation—and we need to fight back.1 To kick off the fight, our friends at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights are holding a unique online forum to prepare us all with the facts and arguments we'll need to win. It'll include luminaries like talk show host Tavis Smiley and media diversity hero FCC Commissioner Michael Copps—plus questions from people watching online.

Can you participate in this Friday's online forum on media diversity?

What: Online forum—"Why Media Diversity Matters."
When: This Friday, June 29, at 12 p.m. Eastern
Where: On the web
RSVP: To see event details, and sign up for an email reminder, click here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2686&id=10618-2956400-G9QkbK&t=1
The media will be covering this event—and other FCC Commissioners will be watching to see what comes of it—so it's important that there is a large turnout and lots of great questions.

Also participating will be Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, LCCR President Wade Henderson, NOW President Kim Gandy, and others. Live audiences will also gather in Denver and Washington, D.C. to watch and take part.

We wanted to make sure you knew about this event because of your previous activism on media issues. Thanks for all you do as we fight for a better media landscape.
–Adam Green, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Wednesday, June 27th, 2007


Sources:

"The Next Big Fight Over Media Ownership," The Nation, June 20, 2006
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=93919

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Elections, public policy and the War on Drugs

An interesting essay on Truth Dig with Dr. Troy Duster:

The Forgotten War on Drugs and Election ’08

http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20070620_war_drugs_election08/

Reading First: FEW Gains

The Bush Regime and many educational pundits, including Peter Schrag of the Sacramento Bee regularly claim that reading scores have improved in the last few years as a result of the demands of NCLB and accountability.
Here is a letter with evidence to the contrary;

Some Useful Data from NCLB Testing
Sent to Rethinking Schools, June 23, 2007

In his insightful paper “Exit Strategy,” (Summer,
2007), Stan Karp argues that that tests mandated by
NCLB have not provided useful data that will result in
better instruction. Actually, they have: They have
shown that NCLB and Reading First have not resulted in
improved reading.

Reading First provides an extra 100 minutes a week of
instruction, approximately an extra semester every two
years. If Reading First is at all effective, the
impact should obvious. It isn’t.

On the basis of data released in April, The Department
of Education claimed that between 2004 and 2006, the
percentage of third graders in Reading First meeting
or exceeding the proficient level increased 12% on
tests of reading comprehension and 15% on tests of
fluency. Re-analysis revealed, however, that the gain
in reading comprehension was only 6% and in fluency it
was 9%. Also, these gains mask the fact that some
states did poorly: Pennsylvania declined 10% in
reading comprehension.

It also needs to be pointed out that the test used in
most states to measure fluency, Dibels, has serious
problems and is also easily available on the internet,
which means any teacher or parent can drill their
children on the actual test items.

In addition, the Department of Education violated a
fundamental scientific principle: There was no
comparison group. Any increases could have been due to
factors other than Reading First.

The most recent report, from the Center on Education
Policy, was also interpreted by the administration as
showing that NCLB-related programs have been a
success. Again, no comparison group was included, but
the Center’s report included data on elementary school
gains for the two years before and two years after
NCLB was implemented in 12 states. Before NCLB, the
yearly rate of improvement in these states was 1.93
percent, that is, 1.93 percent more students were
classified as proficient. After NCLB, it was 2.25
percent, a difference of less than one-third of one
percent.

In other words, reading scores were going up before
NCLB and NCLB did little or nothing to improve the
rate of improvement.

Before these two reports, the Department of Education
had claimed that NCLB had improved fourth grade NAEP
reading scores. Several analyses showed, however,
that the gains came before NAEP was implemented.

There is, so far, no evidence that this expensive and
time-consuming experiment has improved the reading
ability of American children.

Stephen Krashen

For those interested in the details:

Re-analysis:
“Reading First: ‘Impressive’ Gains?” by Stephen
Krashen (see also posted comments)
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18974

Problems with Dibels:
“A critical review of Dibels.” by Kenneth Goodman. In
K.Goodman (Ed.) The Truth about Dibels. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.

Gains on national tests?
1. “The 16th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public
Education,” by Gerald W. Bracey, published in the
October 2006 Phi Delta Kappan.
2. “Selling NCLB: Would You Buy a Used Law From This
Woman?,” by James Crawford, available at
www.elladvocates.org/nclb/spellings2.html.
3. “Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The
Reliability of How States Track Achievement,” by Bruce
Fuller, Kathryn Gesicki, Erin Kang, and Joseph Wright,
published in 2006 by Policy Analysis for California
Education, at the University of California, Berkeley.
4. “Did Reading First Work?,” by Stephen Krashen,
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=17349
5. “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,” by
Jaekyung Lee, published in 2006 by the Civil Rights
Project at Harvard University.


Also see: Collateral Damage: How High Stakes Testing Corrupts America's Schools. (2007)
by Nichols and Berliner

Monday, June 25, 2007

Choosing a candidate

Deciding on a candidate.
After watching the presentations of leading Democratic Party candidates at the Take Back America Conference,

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/progressives_have_mojo_now

I was prepared to decide on a candidate for the California Democratic Primary in February. I have a preference.
However, I am frustrated. Each of the major candidates are taking and are relying upon corporate money. They are passing on public financing. I understand that each feels a need to be competitive. But, I can’t get past the influence of corporate money in our elections. I have no reason to support a corporate candidate. I resent that our democracy has been reduced to a place where the corporations through money decide which of the candidates we choose between.
Al Gore, in his new book, Appeal to Reason, describes well the way money influences media buys and candidate selection. So, I am stuck. Advice is welcome.
I am also reading and writing for the revision of my book, Choosing Democracy. I am working on the role of democracy and schools. More on this in future posts.
Also, see the prior post on a Fall conference.
Duane Campbell

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Crisis in Democracy: October Conference

The Crisis in our Democracy:
First annual : Sacramento Progressive Forum

Fall October 4, 2007. CSU-Sacramento. University Union

All of us together know more than any one of us alone.

Progressive Forum

Join us for a dialogue on current issues facing the progressive movements and their allies in our region. The Progressive Forum seeks to bring together scholars, students, social justice and union activists, and policy makers. The forum is created to nuture new kind of conversation from within the campus and the social movements. We seek to move beyond the overly fragmented movements each competing with each other to find ways to cooperate and support each others work.
This gathering aims to enhance personal and organizational ties between those engaged in ongoing workplace and community organizing efforts, issues organizing and students and scholars.. The forum should become a place where the diverse movements gathers their energies and where activists learn from internal dialogue. This is an initial step toward elaborating, discussing and debating our visions and ours strategies.
The key thematic areas for the Fall 2007 Forum will include:
Immigration
The War
Democratic Party
Media and democracy
Crisis in public education
Race/ ethnicity and the political organizing .
Corporatization of University/ decline of public universities
Women’s work: Women’s issues
Working class life and culture
The state of our unions

Speakers.
Break out rooms . dialogue

Sponsors:
Bilingual/multicultural education. CSU-Sacramento
Democratic Socialists of America
Sacramento Progressive Alliance
Teach Peace Foundation
Labor Studies: CSU-Sacramento

For more information: campd227@pacbell.net
Note: travel in Australia has kept me from recent posts. It was cold.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

U.S. takes lousy care of our children

The nation, not schools, takes lousy care of our children


From the beginning of the educational “accountability” movement in the mid-1990s, the demand that schools “close the achievement gap” has set educators’ teeth on edge. The “gap” refers to the wide discrepancy between the test scores of middle-class white children and those who are low-income and non-white.

Educators know first hand that less-privileged students — an ever-growing number, seemingly — enter school at a significant disadvantage compared to their more privileged peers. That gap opened up long before the school bell tolled. Even in schools where the low-income children have made strong gains, the gap persists. Schools have little impact on poverty or the lack of good health care, decent jobs for parents, affordable housing and other social factors that contribute to a child’s readiness to learn.

Educators who voiced these concerns were often chastised as racist, class-biased or indulging in the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

And it’s true that the schools that educate most urban and poor children have become enmeshed in political power struggles unrelated to helping students. They can’t in good conscience point to their work and say: See? We’ve given these students the very best, and we’ve made gains, but the gap will continue to persist until conditions improve in their home lives and neighborhoods.

In his most recent book, Richard Rothstein, former education columnist for The New York Times, catalogs an array of social conditions that contribute to the achievement gap in exhaustive and fascinating detail. Class and Schools — Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap does not let the schools off the hook. But it does argue that with all the negative social forces at work, we are kidding ourselves if we think that schools are going to do this job by themselves.

Here are three of Rothstein’s examples illustrating the profoundly different backgrounds of high-, middle- and low-income children:

Researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley “found that, on average, professional parents spoke more than 2,000 words per hour to their children, working class parents spoke about 1,300, and welfare mothers spoke about 600. So by age 3, the children of professionals had vocabularies that were nearly 50 percent greater than those of working-class children and twice as large as those of welfare children.”

In a school’s regular day and year, teachers cannot contribute enough to low-income children’s education that would allow the students to catch up to their middle-class peers. Middle-class kids are also learning during that same day and year, as well as attending after-school enrichment activities.

Second, consider the cultural difference between professional and working-class jobs. Parents who are working professionals have authority and responsibility, so they are used to exploring alternatives and negotiating compromises. At home they talk their kids through solving problems and give reasons for their decisions or actions. Their children learn to negotiate what they want and feel entitled to do so.

“But parents whose jobs entail following orders or doing routine tasks show less sense of efficacy. They are less likely to encourage their children to negotiate over clothing or food and more likely to instruct them by giving directions without extended discussion. Following orders, after all, is how they themselves behave at work.”

Many people, including me, believe that learning good negotiation skills more positively affects later academic, career and personal success than the learning that gets good test scores.

The best schools explicitly teach manners, negotiation skills and how to handle feelings in acceptable ways — called a social-emotional curriculum. This ensures that all children learn these important skills, but it still can not make up for the practice the middle-class child has at home, reasoning with elders and being encouraged to solve problems.

Lastly, affordable housing has become increasingly scarce, exacerbating the extent to which low-income people have to move. Changing residences often affects a family’s ability to function well and changing schools disrupts the continuity of a child’s education.

This relatively minor example illustrates the extent to which public policy makes a bad situation worse. A child recently uprooted from home and school often cannot pay attention to lessons in the new school. So the child falls further behind, exacerbating the achievement gap. Cities could pay for transportation to keep the child in his old school, with friends and teachers, if the residential move is local. The cost would be modest, but cash-strapped cities face an endless menu of hard choices.

Rothstein says, “The connection between social and economic disadvantage and an academic achievement gap has long been well known.... Calling attention to this link is not to make excuses for poor school performance. It is only to be honest about the social support schools require if they are to fulfill the public’s expectations that the achievement gap will disappear.”

Rothstein’s book unpacks for us the specifics of such supports as access to health care, housing, after-school and summer enrichment programs and preschool.

But Rothstein’s book begs the question as to whether the American public really wants to close this achievement gap. With calm rhetoric and rich data, he lays out the problems, solutions and choices in front of us.

Schools may exacerbate the achievement gap, but they didn’t create it in the first place. As a nation, we are shockingly content to tolerate widespread poverty among our fellow citizens. We are the richest country in the world, but one in five children is brought up in a family living at the federal poverty line. The quintile above them is not much better off.

In short, we take lousy care of our kids, but find it convenient to blame the schools.

Julia Steiny is a former member of the Providence School Board; she now consults and writes for a number of education, government and private enterprises. She welcomes your questions and comments on education. She can be reached by e-mail at juliasteiny@cox.net or c/o EdWatch, Education and Employment, Providence Journal, 75 Fountain St., Providence, R.I. 02902.

Myths on the war




Also: see the following:

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

NCLB and Civil Rights


COMMENTARY
A Diminished Vision of Civil Rights:
No Child Left Behind and the Growing Divide in How Educational Equity Is Understood

By James Crawford
At the core of today’s debates over school accountability lies a contentious question: Does the federal No Child Left Behind Act represent a historic advance for civil rights, or a giant step backward for the children it purports to help?

This argument has divided the civil rights community itself, along with its traditional allies in Congress. One side supports stern measures designed to force educators to pay attention to long-neglected students and enable all children to reach “proficiency” in key subjects. The other side argues that the law’s tools of choice—high-stakes testing, unrealistic achievement targets, and punitive sanctions—have not only proved ineffective in holding schools accountable, they also are pushing “left behind” groups even further behind.

Disagreement is especially acute among advocates for English-language learners, known in the shorthand of K-12 education as “ELLs.” These students pose a fundamental challenge for the No Child Left Behind accountability scheme, owing to the near-total absence of valid and reliable assessments of their academic achievement. Usually tested in English, a language they have yet to master, ELLs tend to perform poorly in both reading and math. Indeed, the law defines them as students who have difficulty meeting state standards because of the language barrier. Nevertheless, under every state NCLB plan, English-language learners’ scores on invalid tests must be included in “adequate yearly progress” calculations, and, where they fall short of AYP targets, schools must undergo “corrective action.”

In other words, high-stakes decisions about the education of these students are being made on the basis of data generally acknowledged to be inaccurate. Schools with an ELL “subgroup” are being labeled and punished for failure—not because of the quality of instruction they provide, but because existing tests are unable to measure what ELLs have learned.

While acknowledging this reality, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Council of La Raza have emerged as uncompromising defenders of the No Child Left Behind law. They oppose exempting English-language learners from standardized tests, regardless of the tests’ validity, for more than the one year that is currently allowed by federal regulations. In the words of a MALDEF lobbyist, leaving English-language learners out of No Child Left Behind’s accountability system would mean “removing the incentive to teach them.” The two organizations favor increased funding to develop appropriate assessments, hardly a controversial idea. In the meantime, however, they insist on the continued use of flawed assessments to judge schools and, by implication, to make flawed decisions about educational programs.

Critics of NCLB-style accountability—who now include a substantial majority of educators working with English-language learners—cannot see how such a blunt instrument could produce academic benefits. More importantly, they point to the law’s harmful impact on minority students generally and on ELLs in particular. The perverse effects are well-documented: excessive class time devoted to test preparation, a curriculum narrowed to the two tested subjects, neglect of critical thinking in favor of basic skills, pressure to reduce or eliminate native-language instruction, demoralization of teachers whose students fall short of unrealistic cut scores, demoralization of children who are forced to take tests they can’t understand, and, perhaps worst of all, practices that encourage low-scoring students to drop out before test day.

No one questions that, because of the No Child Left Behind law, English-language learners are receiving more “attention” than ever before. But, as many educational researchers and practitioners can testify, results in the classroom have been far more negative than positive. Supporters of the law have generally declined to respond to what educators are reporting, and instead have accused the law’s critics of opposing accountability or believing that minority children “can’t learn.”

How could civil rights advocates disagree over such fundamental issues? The only plausible answer is that there is a growing divide in how educational equity is understood. Some clues can be found in the changing terminology used to discuss school reform.

Once upon a time, civil rights advocates were united in pursuing the goal of equal educational opportunity. They fought against racial segregation in public schools and demanded equitable resources for all students. Their focus was on “inputs,” pushing state and local officials to provide adequate school facilities, well-designed instructional programs, effective teachers, and attention to the effects of poverty—such as parental illiteracy, poor health, and malnutrition—that pose obstacles to learning. In those days, the enemy was clear: a two-tier system that provided an inferior education to many children on the basis of skin color, language background, class status, and place of residence.

But in the No Child Left Behind era, the words equal educational opportunity have largely faded from the public discourse. In their place, there is talk of eliminating the “achievement gaps” between various groups of students.

The latter term was seldom heard in the 1980s or 1990s, as is shown by a quick archive search of major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Education Week. Then, around 1999, “achievement gap”suddenly burst into the popular lexicon. The credit is largely due to then-Gov. George W. Bush of Texas and his political guru, Karl Rove, who were planning a presidential campaign in which school reform would figure prominently.

Their strategy—which ultimately proved successful—was to seize an issue traditionally “owned” by Democrats and give it a “compassionate conservative” spin. By stressing the achievement gap, candidate Bush redefined civil rights in the field of school reform: “Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less—the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Retiring the Republican theme of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, he called instead for an enhanced federal role based on the Texas model of high-stakes testing.

In 2001, key Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Rep. George Miller, encouraged by certain liberal advocacy groups, joined forces with the Bush administration and with Republican leaders in Congress. The result was bipartisan passage of the No Child Left Behind Act late that year.

Eliminating achievement gaps is paramount among the law’s goals; equal educational opportunity is not. In fact, the latter term—which had been prominent in previous versions of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act—appears nowhere in NCLB. (No doubt an anonymous congressional staffer performed a search-and-delete operation on the bill, just as one did with the word “bilingual,” which was also expunged.)

What’s the significance of this shift in terminology? Achievement gap is all about measurable “outputs”—standardized-test scores—and not about equalizing resources, addressing poverty, combating segregation, or guaranteeing children an opportunity to learn. The No Child Left Behind Act is silent on such matters. Dropping equal educational opportunity, which highlights the role of inputs, has a subtle but powerful effect on how we think about accountability. It shifts the entire burden of reform from legislators and policymakers to teachers and kids and schools.

By implication, educators are the obstacle to change. Every mandate of No Child Left Behind—and there are hundreds—is designed to force the people who run our schools to shape up, work harder, raise expectations, and stop “making excuses” for low test scores, or face the consequences. Despite the law’s oft-stated reverence for “scientifically based research,” this narrow approach is contradicted by numerous studies documenting the importance of social and economic factors in children’s academic progress. Yet it has the advantage of enabling politicians to ignore the difficult issues and avoid costly remedies. If educators are the obstacle, there’s no need to address what Jonathan Kozol calls the “savage inequalities” of our educational system and our society.

In other words, despite its stated goals, the No Child Left Behind law represents a diminished vision of civil rights. Educational equity is reduced to equalizing test scores. The effect has been to impoverish the educational experience of minority students—that is, to reinforce the two-tier system of public schools that civil rights advocates once challenged.

English-language learners, for example, are being fed a steady diet of test-prep, worksheets, and other “skill building” exercises from a menu mostly reduced to reading and math. Their language-learning needs are increasingly neglected by the marginalization of bilingual and even English-as-a-second-language instruction to make time for English language arts items likely to be on the test. Meanwhile, more-advantaged students are studying music, art, foreign languages, physical education, science, history, and civics, getting to read literature rather than endure phonics drills, and participating in field trips, plays, chess clubs, and debate tournaments—all “frills” that are routinely denied to children whose test scores have become life-or-death matters for educators’ careers.

Ironically, in numerous ways, No Child Left Behind is increasing the achievement gap, if academic achievement is understood as getting an all-round education and, with it, an equal chance to succeed in life. True civil rights advocates cannot and must not ignore the reality behind the rhetoric.

James Crawford is the president of the Institute for Language and Education Policy (www.elladvocates.org), a nonprofit advocacy group in Takoma Park, Md. He can be reached at bilingualed@starpower.net.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Is it incompetence or fraud in student loan scandal?



June 2, 2007
U.S. Puts Limits on Lenders’ Ties to Universities

By JONATHAN D. GLATER
The Education Department, criticized for lax oversight of student loans, released proposed rules yesterday that would set new standards for universities and ban lenders’ marketing practices that have resulted, in some cases, in loan company payoffs to university officials.

The 225-page package represents a change in direction by the department, which for years had ignored calls by its inspector general, Democratic lawmakers and even some loan-industry officials for it to be more aggressive in policing the $85 billion student loan industry.

The rules would for the first time require universities to include at least three loan companies on any list of lenders they recommend to students and would ban many of the gifts and payments to financial aid officials that lenders have been offering to win student loan volume. The rules would bar everything from travel and entertainment expenses to providing staffing for college aid offices.

They would modify the existing framework, which applies only to federally guaranteed loans, “to strengthen and improve the administration of the loan programs,” the proposal states. The agency said the rules had been sent to the Federal Register for a 60-day comment period. If approved, they would take effect next summer.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings created a task force in April to draw up the rules after an effort to win consensus on a similar package among representatives of students, lenders and academic institutions in a process known as “negotiated rule making” collapsed.

In the past few months, investigations in Congress and in the states, led by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, turned up an array of undisclosed relationships between universities and lenders, and conflicts of interest on the part of aid administrators. Some university officials who were promoting particular lenders had received stock on favorable terms, consulting payments or gifts from loan companies.

Just this week, the Education Department’s own inspector general reported to Congress that the department had made “minimal” progress in dealing with complaints about abuse in the nation’s government-backed student loan program.

Lenders by law have long been barred from offering inducements to gain loan applications. But what is an inducement is not entirely clear. In 2003, an assistant inspector general criticized the department for not giving any updated opinions about what kinds of incentives were barred since 1995, even though competition for loan business had escalated sharply since then.

Department officials have said in the past that they did not have the authority to oversee many of these practices because they involved private loans — those not guaranteed by the government. They had said they wanted aid administrators and the loan industry to police themselves.

The proposed regulations would still cover only federally guaranteed loans. They identify specific practices that would be barred, including “offering, directly or indirectly, any points, premiums, payments or other benefits to any school or other party to secure” student loan volume. Lenders who offer inducements run the risk of losing the federal guarantee on affected loans, under the proposal.

The rules would also ban a college’s “access to a lender’s other financial products, computer hardware, and payment of the cost of printing and distribution of college catalogs and other materials at less than market rate.” They also make clear that lenders cannot try to get around them by offering benefits to “school-affiliated” groups, like alumni organizations.

In addition, they would require that a university’s list of recommended or “preferred” lenders exclude any that provided incentives. Perhaps most importantly for students, universities would be required to explain how and why they recommend specific lenders and to ensure that all students, not just a few, receive the benefits offered by a lender on a preferred list.

In explaining the need for the regulations on inducements, the department stated that “this guidance, and the general requirements of the law, may no longer be generally known and understood by lenders and other participants” in the federally guaranteed loan program, because the last guidance was provided in 1995.

The rules appeared to be unlikely to meet much resistance. The Consumer Bankers Association indicated that it would seek minimal changes, particularly since Congress is already moving to enact even tougher restrictions.

John Dean, special counsel to the Consumer Bankers Association, said, “I think that you’ll have a series of largely technical comments.”

Lenders, he said, “have come to embrace the inevitability of reform and in many cases welcome it.”

And on Thursday the trade group representing college financial aid officers agreed to bar its members from accepting most gifts and to stop allowing lenders to sponsor its conferences.

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate who have championed legislation on the student loan industry offered cautious support but also criticized the Education Department for not acting more quickly. So did Mr. Cuomo.

“It has taken far too long for the Department of Education to act,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. He noted that the proposed rules would not require preferred lenders to be selected solely on the basis of the best interests of student borrowers. “This seems to be a gaping hole in the regulations,” Mr. Cuomo said.

Robert Shireman, a higher education policy adviser in the Clinton administration who is executive director of the Institute for College Access and Success, said that the rules could still allow philanthropic gifts by lenders to universities that might not be explicitly linked to loan volume.

“There can be the same kind of wink and a nod that occurs around campaign contributions,” Mr. Shireman said, adding that some of the proposals in Congress are stricter.

Separately, the Education Department announced Friday that Ms. Spellings had named Lawrence Warder as acting chief operating officer of the office of Federal Student Aid, previously overseen by Theresa S. Shaw, who stepped down.

Mr. Warder, who has been chief financial officer of the education agency since July 2006, previously worked for years as a management consultant at Deloitte Consulting.

Investigations of conduct in the student loan industry are not over. Yesterday, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the Banking Committee, announced plans for a hearing on Wednesday to explore ties between lenders and colleges and universities.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy
 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.