Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:29:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: Deborah.Meier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Since ARN Digest don't arrive in my mailboxes for weeks, and then arrive in a bunch, I have just now seen the cluster of emails on this subject.May I start by recommending that people actually read Randi's speech, rather than going off a summary by an AP stringer who clearly does not understand the issues very well. The actual speech is easily available on the web:http://www.aft.org/presscenter/speeches-columns/speeches/downloads/npc_171108/NPCSpeech_Written.pdfSecond, I would point out that the speech follows a distinction the AFT has made between differentiated pay and performance pay. We support paying individual teachers more for doing additional, special work [such as being a lead teacher or a mentor], obtaining special knowledge [such as becoming National Board certified] or taking on difficult assignments [such as going to high needs, hard to staff schools]. While some think that there should be no differentiation for pay among teachers other than seniority and educati
onal credentials, we do not believe that there is some special merit in such an industrial, proletarian view of teaching, and are quite willing to support the development of a teaching profession that allows for the development of different roles with special expertise, and provide additional financial remuneration for them. We distinguish that sort of differentiation from individual merit pay, where teachers' salaries are differentiated based either on supervisory evaluation or student performance.Third, a lot of what has been reported about the school-wide bonuses in New York City here has been inaccurate. They are clearly neither _individual_ [the bonus goes to the entire school] nor _performance pay_ [it is a bonus, reserved for staff working in high needs school, and was adopted only after the UFT had obtained 43% increase in the base teacher pay over 5 years, with a maximum salary above $100K]. They are not based only on test scores: they are based on the DoE's school
progress reports, which for elementary and middle schools are 85% based on state test scores, while high schools are much more heavily weighted around high school graduation and credit accumulation [students passing class and progressing through the grades 9-12].As Ken Bernstein comments have indicated, there is a very serious push, much of it coming from liberal Democrats, toward some sort of performance pay in Washington DC. The NYC school-wide bonuses were specifically conceived as an alternative to individual performance pay schemes. We have had rather substantive critiques of the school progress reports and on their overreliance on test scores, but we are also political realists who take stock of developments in the real political world, and not just our ideal positions. Maximalist positions of opposition to any differentiated pay and bonuses can only postpone what would eventually be forms of individual performance pay schemes which are most objectionable. Far better,
I would argue, to find some ground in what an Obama has proposed that would do little, if any, harm -- along the lines of the differentiated pay and school wide bonuses described above. What should trouble educators is not the relatively mild forms of differentiated pay he has spoken favorably of, but his seeming endorsement of Michelle Rhee. That is really serious, and one can only hope that he does not really understand what she is about -- which is now rather open, overt efforts to destroy the Washington DC teacher union.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:23:57 -0500
From: Susan Kotansky
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: Deborah.Meier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
I would just like to make an observation as a teacher of a school
closed because of an "F" grade on our "report card" from the DOE. At
the same time that we were supposedly failing we also received a
school-wide bonus (ie each teacher and paraprofessional received
$3,000) because we had made so much "progress". This is patently
absurd and I challenge anyone to help me understand how this is
possible unless different political factions have different agendas
and are unaware of what the others are doing. Consequently I am
suspect of all these proposals which try to single out teachers for
doing their best, as all of us should be doing. Those who tend to be
acknowledged in our profession are those that "move up the ladder" ie
by leaving the classroom. We classroom teachers have by far the most
important, critical, difficult tasks and tend to be treated with the
least respect. For me a reward would be more like the request for
input on curriculum or the power to make my own decisions about what
occurs in my classroom. I prefer to not jump through hoops for a
dangling carrot. It is just another form of control.
Susan K.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:39:33 -0500
From: "James Horn"
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Randi Weingarten made a deal with the devil on bonus pay for test scores
that she will come to regret. Her act of appeasement, yes, bought her the
support of the Bloomberg/Klein machine, which ultimately made her
installation as AFT President a shoo-in. And it did not take any time at
all for edu-entrepreneurial movement headed by Gates and Broad to
acknowledge the good sense that she showed in allowing them the leverage
they needed to begin a new thrust, spearheaded by a new $3 billion by Bill
and Melinda, to control American K-12 education by first replacing the
teaching profession, in urban schools first, with a permanent supply of
teaching temps who think that reading from a script is teaching.
The pathetic nature of the unions' responses to what amounts to Stage 1 in
the new movement toward pedagogical piece work simply serves to underscore
the short-sighted and self-serving nature of NEA and AFT, both having
forgotten the ethical codes upon which the profession was founded and one
time flourished. The future of organizations that advocate for teacher
rights and teacher pay will be organizations that advocate for the rights of
children first to claim real educations with real teachers rather than the
perpetuation of miseducative testing camps that the AFT and the NEA find
innocuous as long the current power structure is not challenged.
If NEA and AFT were willing to use just some of their resources to marshall
the wealth of research that shows the counterproductive stupidity of our
present "reform" course that damages our children and the future of the
Nation, then they may begin to regain some of the respectability they lost
when Randi sold her membership down the river.
Jim Horn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:50:31 -0500
From: aburke5054@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID: <8cb1f98f0b835b0-e40-4ff@webmail-dd01.sysops.aol.com>
Grab the hip boots because it's getting pretty deep when a union spokesman says that paying teachers for their performance reflects an "industrial, proletarian view of teaching."
Art
-----Original Message-----
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:44:05 -0800
From: Peter Campbell
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: Deborah.Meier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID: <69f0742e-81ce-4c7e-bb0e-687ada6e8c02@mail.montclair.edu>
On Nov 27, 2008, at 4:29 PM, leoecasey@optonline.net wrote:
> They are not based only on test scores: they are based on the DoE's
> school progress reports, which for elementary and middle schools
> are 85% based on state test scores,
Huh??
Leo - you can't have it both ways!
Peter C.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:38:02 -0800
From: Kelley
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID: <49302c7a.4090707@bendbroadband.com>
Reading your post, this is what stands out:
"They are not based only on test scores: they are based on the DoE's
school progress reports, which for elementary and middle schools are 85%
based on state test scores, while high schools are much more heavily
weighted around high school graduation and credit accumulation [students
passing class and progressing through the grades 9-12]."
The word ONLY, and the 85%. Take out the word "only," so that salary is not differentiated on test scores, period. Then, perhaps, your arguments for salary differentiation might have some merit.
You seem to have contradicted yourself, first claiming that the school-wide bonuses in NYC are not "performance pay," and then pointing out that they are based mostly on test scores for elementary and middle schools. That's performance pay.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:25:15 EST
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
In a message dated 11/29/2008 4:17:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
leoecasey@optonline.net writes:
Unions that have played King Canute, pronouncing that the waves will not
roll in as you would have us do, have quickly been submerged by the waves. The
unions that have been successful have worked to shape the form and use of the
technology, as we are doing here.
Maybe if you were a classroom teacher who faced the prospect of such
developments as individual performance pay and the use of test score
data for tenure and evaluation decisions you might be less likely to
indulge such rhetoric.
Leo & Jim:
We are on the same side here. If there is to be a solution, ANY solution,
the unions have to be a part of it, and being a part of it means having the
ability to make a mistake and still learn from it. Finger pointing is not the
way to get to consensus; it is even much less effective for us to be able to
hear each other once we cast blame. After eight years of that "unity"
babble, we truly need to see how we can move together from seeing where our
perspectives differ. Just because the common enemy of ignorance and intolerance is
ready to exit the WH does not mean that we can afford to become ignorant and
intolerant.
Quan
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:29:35 EST
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
In a message dated 11/29/2008 2:24:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
skotansky@aol.com writes:
Consequently I am
suspect of all these proposals which try to single out teachers for
doing their best, as all of us should be doing. Those who tend to be
acknowledged in our profession are those that "move up the ladder" ie
by leaving the classroom. We classroom teachers have by far the most
important, critical, difficult tasks and tend to be treated with the
least respect. For me a reward would be more like the request for
input on curriculum or the power to make my own decisions about what
occurs in my classroom. I prefer to not jump through hoops for a
dangling carrot. It is just another form of control.
Thanks, Susan. Why is it that most Secretaries of Education, State
Commissioners of Education and School Superintendents do not understand or even see
this? Do they realize how powerful they would become when they reach out and
ask teachers and parents to become a part of their community ?
May be our gift to each of them this Christmas should be Carnegie's "How to
Win friends and Influence people". May be we should move over this hurdle
and compose the next tome: "How to be A friend and change our view of our
world".
Quan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:34:02 +0000
From: MONICALUCIDO@comcast.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID: <113020082134.9690.493306ca000ccd8f000025da2215575114b1bbb7bcaab4bebcb7b2b1b3@comcast.net>
Mr. Casey,
I have read you and Jim's exchanges and you continually seem to berate his position, which is the opinion of some of us on this list. As for myself, I am a teacher and co-founder of Educators and Parents Against Test Abuse here in the central valley of California. We were created because of the frustration of not getting the support from our local OR national unions in fighting the blaze created by NCLB's insane focus on test scores. The reality is that in the classroom, kids are in pain and misery from the continual focus on raising their "proficiency" (whatever that means). As teachers, many are sick and tired of being bullied around by idiot administrators who portend to know our children and profession better than we do. I do not want to compromise on allowing test scores to be used as part of teacher merit pay AT ALL ( "they are based on the DoE's school progress reports, which for elementary and middle
schools are 85% based on state test scores."---are you kidding me?) There has never been any research that concludes that standardized testing increases learning. There is more likely evidence that it damages learning that anything else. This is the issue that is simply not being discussed by the unions. What teachers want is good working CONDITIONS and the freedom to use our professionalism to make the best choices for our classes. Whether it's the NEA, AFT, or Cal. T.A. there shouldn't be ANY compromising on what we have been sworn to do, and that is to educate all to the best of our ability without causing harm. These unions HAVE sold out by not speaking out in the media. They have not protected kids, but their own power structure. The message I get from you is that we should adjust and settle with this new concept because it's going to happen anyway. I totally disagree. Nothing has to happen if those of us who really care about what's happening to our students fight it. U
nfortu
nately, we'll have to do it by ourselves because union leadership is looking out for numero uno.
Joseph Lucido
Educators and Parents Against Test Abuse/CalCARE
Fresno, CA
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
> Jim:Apparently you don't believe that the readers of ARN are smart enough to
> know that you are quoting a post discussing a topic other than the school-wide
> bonuses.The passage in question refers to a letter jointly signed by Randi
> Weingarten and Joel Klein on the appropriate use of student test data. The
> reason why Randi signed it was because it put Klein and the DoE on record, in a
> contractually enforceable way, as prohibiting the use of that data for tenure
> decisions and annual evaluations. Moreover, it had Klein agree, for the very
> first time, that such data is not a true reflection of teacher performance. The
> letter says that data should be used only to inform instruction, not for any
> evaluation, and that the data for individual teachers will not be made
> public.What is remarkable about your extravagant hyperbolic talk of teacher
> union sellout is that New York State was the very first state in the US to pass
> legislation prohibiting the use of test score data in tenure decisions, and it
> acquired that status because of a full-pitched battle the UFT fought with Klein.
> [It is my understanding that since then, California adopted similar legislation,
> so there now are two states.] The UFT has thus managed to hold the line of
> individual performance pay and the use of test score data for tenure and
> evaluation, while both are being put into place across the rest of the country,
> and you are talking about sell-outs. The reason for the school-wide bonuses was
> to create a "do no harm" firewall that prevented the adoption of individual
> performance pay, and created an alternative on the national level to the
> adoption of individual merit pay in a new ESEA/NCLB. If the bonuses do anything
> to encourage collaboration in a school, since all must receive it for one to
> receive it, that is all gravy.The history of trade unionism, in the US and
> worldwide, is full of lessons of unions facing the challenges of new technology,
> such as that is emerging around test score data. Unions that have played King
> Canute, pronouncing that the waves will not roll in as you would have us do,
> have quickly been submerged by the waves. The unions that have been successful
> have worked to shape the form and use of the technology, as we are doing here.
> Maybe if you were a classroom teacher who faced the prospect of such
> developments as individual performance pay and the use of test score
> data for tenure and evaluation decisions you might be less likely to
> indulge such rhetoric.Leo----- Original Message -----> Leo,
> > It is common knowledge that the deal cut by Weingarten and the
> > Bloomberg-Klein machine on bonus pay for test scores in NYC gave Randi an
> > exposure boost in the corporate media as someone that the Business> Roundtable
> can do business with. With all the news of Randi, the
> > conciliator in the New York Times, no less, who is going to run against her?
> > Especially in this recycled era of the Post-Partisan Technocrat.
>
> > You, in fact, played up the "Klein-Weingarten" deal in a post at EdWize that
> > has obviously slipped your mind. Here's a couple of your own factual graphs
> > in which you notably share some reservations on using test scores for bonus
> > pay, reservations that will doubtless be forgotten as this new "compromise"
> > becomes much more widely implemented without the benefit of well-crafted
> > warnings issued by those who signed on to it:
>
> > The Klein-Weingarten letter correctly concludes that even the most complete
> > data from standardized tests "can never perfectly represent an individual
> > teacher's contribution to student learning." Data from standardized tests
> > needs to be used with these limitations in mind.
>
> > Even if standardized tests were better and more reliable measures of actual
> > student learning, it is essential to remember that, again in the words of
> > the Klein-Weingarten letter, "a broad array of factors, many outside of an
> > educator's direct control, influence student learning." Teachers embrace
> > accountability for our professional work, but like all professionals, we> want
> to be accountable for – and evaluated on – that which we control. We
> > should be responsible for our teaching, for our instruction in our
> > classrooms, and for basing that teaching on the best processional practices.
> > This agreement supports those best practices, and the education of New York
> > City public school children will benefit. (EdWize October 1, retrieved
> > from,
> http://edwize.org/doe-and-uft-reach-agreement-on-appropriate-use-of-standardized
> -test-data
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:25:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Art:
I see you still have that reading disorder: what I described as "industrial" and "proletarian" was the view that there should be no differentiation at all in teacher pay. That view is in contrast to the AFT stance that differentiation for what teachers do and know [mentoring, lead teacher, National Board certification, etc.] is perfectly acceptable. Your misreading translates my statement into nonsense.
Art Burke wrote:
> Grab the hip boots because it's getting pretty deep when a union
>spokesman says that paying teachers for their performance reflects an
>"industrial, proletarian view of teaching.
Jim:
To be effective, a torrent of invective like yours needs have at least a fact or two to give the appearance of some connection to reality. The claims that Joel Klein is a supporter of Randi and that this entirely mythical support was the basis for her election as AFT President just demonstrate a shocking ignorance of what has taken place in New York City the last six years and what teacher unionists look for in national leadership.
James Horn wrote:
> Randi Weingarten made a deal with the devil on bonus pay for test scores
> that she will come to regret. Her act of appeasement, yes, bought her the
> support of the Bloomberg/Klein machine, which ultimately made her
> installation as AFT President a shoo-in. And it did not take any time at
> all for edu-entrepreneurial movement headed by Gates and Broad to
> acknowledge the good sense that she showed in allowing them the leverage
> they needed to begin a new thrust, spearheaded by a new $3 billion by Bill
> and Melinda, to control American K-12 education by first replacing the
> teaching profession, in urban schools first, with a permanent supply of
> teaching temps who think that reading from a script is teaching.
> The pathetic nature of the unions' responses to what amounts to Stage 1 in
> the new movement toward pedagogical piece work simply serves to underscore
> the short-sighted and self-serving nature of NEA and AFT, both having
> forgotten the ethical codes upon which the profession was founded and one
> time flourished. The future of organizations that advocate for teacher
> rights and teacher pay will be organizations that advocate for the rights of
> children first to claim real educations with real teachers rather than the
> perpetuation of miseducative testing camps that the AFT and the NEA find
> innocuous as long the current power structure is not challenged.
> If NEA and AFT were willing to use just some of their resources to marshall
> the wealth of research that shows the counterproductive stupidity of our
> present "reform" course that damages our children and the future of the
> Nation, then they may begin to regain some of the respectability they lost
> when Randi sold her membership down the river.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:17:16 -0500
From: "James Horn"
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM,
>
> Jim:
>
> To be effective, a torrent of invective like yours needs have at least a
> fact or two to give the appearance of some connection to reality. The claims
> that Joel Klein is a supporter of Randi and that this entirely mythical
> support was the basis for her election as AFT President just demonstrate a
> shocking ignorance of what has taken place in New York City the last six
> years and what teacher unionists look for in national leadership.
>
Leo,
It is common knowledge that the deal cut by Weingarten and the
Bloomberg-Klein machine on bonus pay for test scores in NYC gave Randi an
exposure boost in the corporate media as someone that the Business
Roundtable can do business with. With all the news of Randi, the
conciliator in the New York Times, no less, who is going to run against her?
Especially in this recycled era of the Post-Partisan Technocrat.
You, in fact, played up the "Klein-Weingarten" deal in a post at EdWize that
has obviously slipped your mind. Here's a couple of your own factual graphs
in which you notably share some reservations on using test scores for bonus
pay, reservations that will doubtless be forgotten as this new "compromise"
becomes much more widely implemented without the benefit of well-crafted
warnings issued by those who signed on to it:
The Klein-Weingarten letter correctly concludes that even the most complete
data from standardized tests "can never perfectly represent an individual
teacher's contribution to student learning." Data from standardized tests
needs to be used with these limitations in mind.
Even if standardized tests were better and more reliable measures of actual
student learning, it is essential to remember that, again in the words of
the Klein-Weingarten letter, "a broad array of factors, many outside of an
educator's direct control, influence student learning." Teachers embrace
accountability for our professional work, but like all professionals, we
want to be accountable for – and evaluated on – that which we control. We
should be responsible for our teaching, for our instruction in our
classrooms, and for basing that teaching on the best processional practices.
This agreement supports those best practices, and the education of New York
City public school children will benefit. (EdWize October 1, retrieved
from,
http://edwize.org/doe-and-uft-reach-agreement-on-appropriate-use-of-standardized-test-data
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:17:35 +0000 (GMT)
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Jim:Apparently you don't believe that the readers of ARN are smart enough to know that you are quoting a post discussing a topic other than the school-wide bonuses.The passage in question refers to a letter jointly signed by Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein on the appropriate use of student test data. The reason why Randi signed it was because it put Klein and the DoE on record, in a contractually enforceable way, as prohibiting the use of that data for tenure decisions and annual evaluations. Moreover, it had Klein agree, for the very first time, that such data is not a true reflection of teacher performance. The letter says that data should be used only to inform instruction, not for any evaluation, and that the data for individual teachers will not be made public.What is remarkable about your extravagant hyperbolic talk of teacher union sellout is that New York State was the very first state in the US to pass legislation prohibiting the use of test score data in tenure deci
sions, and it acquired that status because of a full-pitched battle the UFT fought with Klein. [It is my understanding that since then, California adopted similar legislation, so there now are two states.] The UFT has thus managed to hold the line of individual performance pay and the use of test score data for tenure and evaluation, while both are being put into place across the rest of the country, and you are talking about sell-outs. The reason for the school-wide bonuses was to create a "do no harm" firewall that prevented the adoption of individual performance pay, and created an alternative on the national level to the adoption of individual merit pay in a new ESEA/NCLB. If the bonuses do anything to encourage collaboration in a school, since all must receive it for one to receive it, that is all gravy.The history of trade unionism, in the US and worldwide, is full of lessons of unions facing the challenges of new technology, such as that is emerging around test score
data. Unions that have played King Canute, pronouncing that the waves will not roll in as you would have us do, have quickly been submerged by the waves. The unions that have been successful have worked to shape the form and use of the technology, as we are doing here.
Maybe if you were a classroom teacher who faced the prospect of such
developments as individual performance pay and the use of test score
data for tenure and evaluation decisions you might be less likely to
indulge such rhetoric.Leo----- Original Message -----> Leo,
> It is common knowledge that the deal cut by Weingarten and the
> Bloomberg-Klein machine on bonus pay for test scores in NYC gave Randi an
> exposure boost in the corporate media as someone that the Business> Roundtable can do business with. With all the news of Randi, the
> conciliator in the New York Times, no less, who is going to run against her?
> Especially in this recycled era of the Post-Partisan Technocrat.
> You, in fact, played up the "Klein-Weingarten" deal in a post at EdWize that
> has obviously slipped your mind. Here's a couple of your own factual graphs
> in which you notably share some reservations on using test scores for bonus
> pay, reservations that will doubtless be forgotten as this new "compromise"
> becomes much more widely implemented without the benefit of well-crafted
> warnings issued by those who signed on to it:
> The Klein-Weingarten letter correctly concludes that even the most complete
> data from standardized tests "can never perfectly represent an individual
> teacher's contribution to student learning." Data from standardized tests
> needs to be used with these limitations in mind.
> Even if standardized tests were better and more reliable measures of actual
> student learning, it is essential to remember that, again in the words of
> the Klein-Weingarten letter, "a broad array of factors, many outside of an
> educator's direct control, influence student learning." Teachers embrace
> accountability for our professional work, but like all professionals, we> want to be accountable for – and evaluated on – that which we control. We
> should be responsible for our teaching, for our instruction in our
> classrooms, and for basing that teaching on the best processional practices.
> This agreement supports those best practices, and the education of New York
> City public school children will benefit. (EdWize October 1, retrieved
> from,
http://edwize.org/doe-and-uft-reach-agreement-on-appropriate-use-of-standardized-test-data
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:34:59 -0500
From: "James Horn"
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Leo,I am glad you can offer that classroom teacher's perspective that I no
longer have. My first year as a K-12 teacher was way back 1971, and the
last was 1996, so it has been a while since I lived in the trenches. Since
1996, I have been teaching teachers and future teachers about the history,
politics, and theories of education. So forgive me for not having that
ground level view afforded to AFT VPs who seem largely preoccupied these
days in beating out public relations brushfires lit by President Weingarten.
As a student of educational history, however, I will remind you that your
and your President's embrace of the national testing mania would have made
you cutting edge 90 years ago, but it hardly serves to inspire those of us
who see the present rendition of "technology emerging around test score
data" as just another silver bullet fired from the same revolver into the
heaving body of public education. The only thing inevitable about the
present testing hysteria is its inevitable passing, whether brought about by
unforeseen conflagrations as during the Great Depression and WW II, by the
American people wising up, or by the media accepting their responsibility to
inform the public of the charade that now includes the AFT as an eager
player. I wouldn't put money on the last one.
In defending your union's embrace of bonus pay for test scores, you make a
rather tremulous case for getting ahead of the steamroller in order to alter
its course. Neville Chamberlain had the similar idea that didn't turn out so
well. Plus you seem to think there is some virtue in having the whole
school rewarded for higher test scores, rather than having individuals
rewarded for higher test scores. Your preferred variety of collective
incentives seems more ugly to me than the individual ones that you and Randi
oppose. At least with a system of individual bonus pay for test scores, the
possibility of opting out remains to those who would rather teach than
drill, whereas your uninspiring neo-Bolshevik incentivizing offers the
likelihood of the kind of ugly peer pressure rising up that most will find
difficult to ignore.
Lastly, I would argue that the future of trade unionism may be dependent
upon the same requirements that will be applicable to the future the
capitalism: accountability, oversight, hard work, transparency, and ethical
conduct. Where do think the AFT or NEA leadership might start?
It's been fun chatting with you, but now I'd better get back to work.
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:09:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
Joseph:If you want to construct your politics around a world where you never compromise and only fight for maximalist positions, that is your right. The only penalty you pay for that politics of moral purity and symbolic gesture is political marginality and ineffectuality. If teacher unions took a similar posture, there would be an extraordinarily heavy price paid by teachers and students across the country. In the real political world, there is a major effort to include mandates for the use of test score data on performance pay, as Ken Bernstein correctly pointed out. If we adopted the posture you advocate, we would have that imposed on us in a political nanno-second.The simple fact is that in national political debates teacher unions are understood by all the main actors as the most important critics and opponents of NCLB. The fact that you consider us to be sell outs on that count says more about your political analysis, I am afraid, than it does about our actions.Leo-----
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:14:27 +0000 (GMT)
From: leoecasey@optonline.net
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: school-based bonuses and Weingarten
Message-ID:
So now Randi and I are Neville Chamberlain, and George Miller and Ted Kennedy are Adolph Hitler?I think it is time to invoke Goodwin's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law], and end this exchange.----- Original Message -----From: Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:17 pmSubject: Re: school-based bonuses and WeingartenCc: arn-l@interversity.org,> Leo,I am glad you can offer that classroom teacher's perspective that I no
> longer have. My first year as a K-12 teacher was way back 1971, and the
> last was 1996, so it has been a while since I lived in the trenches. Since
> 1996, I have been teaching teachers and future teachers about the history,
> politics, and theories of education. So forgive me for not having that
> ground level view afforded to AFT VPs who seem largely preoccupied these
> days in beating out public relations brushfires lit by President Weingarten.
> As a student of educational history, however, I will remind you that your
> and your President's embrace of the national testing mania would have made
> you cutting edge 90 years ago, but it hardly serves to inspire those of us
> who see the present rendition of "technology emerging around test score
> data" as just another silver bullet fired from the same revolver into the
> heaving body of public education. The only thing inevitable about the
> present testing hysteria is its inevitable passing, whether brought about by
> unforeseen conflagrations as during the Great Depression and WW II, by the
> American people wising up, or by the media accepting their responsibility to
> inform the public of the charade that now includes the AFT as an eager
> player. I wouldn't put money on the last one.
> In defending your union's embrace of bonus pay for test scores, you make a
> rather tremulous case for getting ahead of the steamroller in order to alter
> its course. Neville Chamberlain had the similar idea that didn't turn out so> well. Plus you seem to think there is some virtue in having the whole
> school rewarded for higher test scores, rather than having individuals
> rewarded for higher test scores. Your preferred variety of collective
> incentives seems more ugly to me than the individual ones that you and Randi
> oppose. At least with a system of individual bonus pay for test scores, the
> possibility of opting out remains to those who would rather teach than
> drill, whereas your uninspiring neo-Bolshevik incentivizing offers the
> likelihood of the kind of ugly peer pressure rising up that most will find
> difficult to ignore.
> Lastly, I would argue that the future of trade unionism may be dependent
> upon the same requirements that will be applicable to the future the
> capitalism: accountability, oversight, hard work, transparency, and ethical> conduct. Where do think the AFT or NEA leadership might start?
> It's been fun chatting with you, but now I'd better get back to work.
> Jim:Apparently you don't believe that the readers of ARN are > smart enough to know that you are quoting a post discussing a > topic other than the school-wide bonuses.The passage in question > refers to a letter jointly signed by Randi Weingarten and Joel > Klein on the appropriate use of student test data. The reason > why Randi signed it was because it put Klein and the DoE on > record, in a contractually enforceable way, as prohibiting the > use of that data for tenure decisions and annual evaluations. > Moreover, it had Klein agree, for the very first time, that such > data is not a true reflection of teacher performance. The letter > says that data should be used only to inform instruction, not > for any evaluation, and that the data for individual teachers > will not be made public.What is remarkable about your > extravagant hyperbolic talk of teacher union sellout is that New > York State was the very first state in the US to pass > legislation prohibiting the use o
f test score data in tenure > decisions, and it acquired that status because of a full-pitched > battle the UFT fought with Klein. [It is my understanding that > since then, California adopted similar legislation, so there now > are two states.] The UFT has thus managed to hold the line of > individual performance pay and the use of test score data for > tenure and evaluation, while both are being put into place > across the rest of the country, and you are talking about sell-> outs. The reason for the school-wide bonuses was to create a "do > no harm" firewall that prevented the adoption of individual > performance pay, and created an alternative on the national > level to the adoption of individual merit pay in a new > ESEA/NCLB. If the bonuses do anything to encourage collaboration > in a school, since all must receive it for one to receive it, > that is all gravy.The history of trade unionism, in the US and > worldwide, is full of lessons of unions facing the challenges
of > new technology, such as that is emerging around test score data. > Unions that have played King Canute, pronouncing that the waves > will not roll in as you would have us do, have quickly been > submerged by the waves. The unions that have been successful > have worked to shape the form and use of the technology, as we > are doing here.> Maybe if you were a classroom teacher who faced the prospect of such> developments as individual performance pay and the use of test score> data for tenure and evaluation decisions you might be less > likely to> indulge such rhetoric.Leo----- Original Message -----> Leo,> > It is common knowledge that the deal cut by Weingarten and the> > Bloomberg-Klein machine on bonus pay for test scores in NYC > gave Randi an> > exposure boost in the corporate media as someone that the > Business> Roundtable can do business with. With all the news of > Randi, the> > conciliator in the New York Times, no less, who is going to > run against her?> >
Especially in this recycled era of the Post-Partisan Technocrat.> > > You, in fact, played up the "Klein-Weingarten" deal in a post > at EdWize that> > has obviously slipped your mind. Here's a couple of your own > factual graphs> > in which you notably share some reservations on using test > scores for bonus> > pay, reservations that will doubtless be forgotten as this new > "compromise"> becomes much more widely implemented without the > benefit of well-crafted> > warnings issued by those who signed on to it:> > > The Klein-Weingarten letter correctly concludes that even the > most complete> > data from standardized tests "can never perfectly represent an > individual> teacher's contribution to student learning." Data > from standardized tests> > needs to be used with these limitations in mind.> > > Even if standardized tests were better and more reliable > measures of actual> > student learning, it is essential to remember that, again in > the words of> > the Klein-Weing
arten letter, "a broad array of factors, many > outside of an> > educator's direct control, influence student learning." > Teachers embrace> > accountability for our professional work, but like all > professionals, we> want to be accountable for – and evaluated on > – that which we control. We> > should be responsible for our teaching, for our instruction in our> > classrooms, and for basing that teaching on the best > processional practices.> > This agreement supports those best practices, and the > education of New York> > City public school children will benefit. (EdWize October 1, > retrieved> from,> http://edwize.org/doe-and-uft-reach-agreement-on-appropriate-use-> of-standardized-test-data> >
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:51:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Gerald Bracey
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: brian_cambourne@uow.edu.au
Subject: Fwd: How Joel Klein is being "framed" by
Australian neo-con community
Message-ID: <20081128195127.bsw04206@ms10.lnh.mail.rcn.net>
Here is a note from Brian Cambourne down under. I have already pointed out that since the oldest of his young charges is now in 9th grade, it would be hard to claim an impact on college performance.
I'm sure some on this list can name names and studies. I'm just drawing a blank at the moment. I seem to recollect that not many studies do the kind of tracking Klein is claiming, largely because they're afraid of what they'll find.
Jerry
Hi Jerry,
Hope this is still your email address.
In todays issue of " The Australian" there are three feature
articles of what a terrific bloke Joel Klein is and how supportive he
is of the poor kids in NY. At the core of these articles is the claim
that Joel has clearly shown that increasing high-stake test scores
in lower grades correlate with success at HS graduation, Uni
performance, and retention rates of high schools. In their praise for
him they slip over the line which separates "causation" form
"correlation" and after reading these pieces one is let with the
belief that getting test scores up in the lower grades is the "cause"
of these achievements. The average reader is left with the impression
that fixing our education problems is simple. Get the test scores up.
Can you advise me of any USA studies or feature articles etc which
either confirm and/or contest these claims ?
Sincerely,
Brian Cambourne
Assoc. Prof. ( Dr) Brian Cambourne
Principal Fellow
Faculty of Education
University of Wollongong
Northfields Rd Wollongong
AUSTRALIA
Phone: Overseas callers
Home 61-244-416182
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:58:39 -0800
From: Harold Berlak
To: listserve ARN
Cc: north north dakota
Subject: [ndsgroup] Letter to President Obama
Message-ID: <66e565f3-0789-4eb0-9786-280773879a7f@yahoo.com>
My letter to Obama (below) is part of a set written and soon to be
released by the Fellows affiliated with EPIC (Education and the
Public Interest Center, Univ. of Colorado ) and EPRU (Educational
Policy Unit, Arizona State Univ.)
Dear President Obama
You are certainly aware that there are sharp differences on both
sides of the aisle over what ought to be done with the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB / ESEA). There are those who are convinced that NCLB
may need some tweaking, but it is fundamentally on the right track,
and others who buy into its goals but see serious flaws that can be
repaired. There are still others including myself who believe that
the national testing requirements and federal sanctions added to the
2001 ESEA/NCLB reauthorization were a mistake and should be
repealed. The debates over the specifics of federal policies will no
doubt continue and a set of compromises will be forged for
reauthorizing NCLB (ESEA) and getting it through Congress. I have
had many years of experience as a teacher, teacher of teachers, and
educational researcher and hold strong opinions on what’s wrong and
right with US public education and how ESEA should be shaped.
However, the purpose of this letter is not to expound these views.
Rather it is to bring to your attention a concern that I believe is
central to the future of American public education yet is likely to
be largely ignored as the process of building a working political
consensus on the immediate future of ESEA proceeds.
My concern is not over whether there should be testing, assessment,
and accountability. I take this as a given. The concern I have is
that the technology we are using is wholly inadequate, unjust, and
hopelessly dated. This is not hyperbole. The technology of
standardized testing is a product of another era. Its roots are in
early 20th century field of psychometrics at a time when the
mechanical hole punch and manual sorting with pins was state of the
art information processing technology. The multiple-choice format is
a product of that technology. Since the advent of the mainframe
computer, the statistical manipulations and reporting of results have
become increasingly elaborate, but the basic data gathering
technology (multiple choice test items and protocols for standardized
scoring and reporting data) have not changed.
The limitations of standardized testing technology are well known and
I will not catalogue them here. As you know, with all their problems
standardized academic achievement testing scores remain at the center
of our current system of educational assessment. They drive the
educational system and are seen by the public and the press as the
single most important index of school success and educational growth.
This heavy reliance on ranking by test scores is built into NCLB and
state assessment regulations and this is unlikely to change in the
near term. There are many reasons for this including that many
individuals and organizations are heavily invested financially,
politically, and psychologically in the technology of standardized
testing; it’s the system we all grew up with and know, or think we
know. There are also many in the publishing industry, in government,
universities and independent research agencies whose livelihood rests
on the continuing use of standardized assessment technology.
While immediate change is unlikely, we as a nation must look ahead to
a future where we abandon and replace our current reliance on 19th
century information technologies and fully embrace the exciting
possibilities afforded by 21st century information and communication
technologies. These new technologies could be used in the service of
centralizing more power in the hands of federal and state
authorities, and/or panels of experts selected by government
authorities, or they can be used in the service of furthering
democracy and equality in education.
Democracy and equality are of course complicated subjects. I view
democracy as a particular form of accountability, one that assures
that concerns and interests of all people, rich and poor, are heard
directly, or indirectly though elected representatives. The
possibilities are almost limitless for exploring the ways the
emerging 21st century information and communication technologies can
help build a system of democratic assessment, one that promotes
equality of opportunity; enhances and enriches student learning;
supports teachers and students; encourages dissent and dialogue among
parents, teachers and students; and also provides the public and
elected officials with dependable information needed to make informed
decisions that serve our children, our communities, and the wider
public interest.
I urge you and your Secretary of Education to initiate an exploration
of the uses of the newly emerging digital information and
communication technologies for building responsive systems of
democratic assessment. The effort requires moral leadership and
government funding. Though investment of resources is required, the
costs relative to other areas of need are modest. Careful
consideration must be given to how this inquiry should be conducted
and organized. It is critical that this inquiry not be given over to
those who have vested interests in preserving and updating the
current standardized testing technology or to experts schooled in
psychometrics and educational testing science.
While new approaches to assessment are under development,
standardized testing technology will continue to be widely used at
federal, state, and local levels. Many students will continue to be
denied promotion, access to programs and schools, and barred from
receiving high school diplomas or graduation certificates based
solely or primarily on their standardized test scores. These students
are disproportionately poor, of color and from immigrant families
whose home language is not English. There are also large numbers of
competent students, including some who are exceptionally talented or
creative, some with learning disabilities, who cannot be fairly or
reliably assessed with standardized tests. If the federal
government, state, or local jurisdiction mandates tests and ties high
stakes decisions to test performance, individuals, groups of
individuals, and families must be afforded legal protection and
redress. I propose that there be added to the upcoming ESEA
reauthorization provisions protecting children and their families
from unfair and unreasonable use of government mandated tests.
There is precedent for legislative protection of students and
families from abuse and misuse of standardized testing. Senator Paul
Wellstone in April, 2000, introduced The Fairness and Accuracy in
Student Testing Act,[1] that if adopted would have prohibited the use
of standardized tests as the single determinant in making decisions
about graduation, promotion, tracking or ability grouping of
students. Test producers would have had the burden of proof to show
that a test is valid and reliable for the purposes for which it was
being used and that tests fairly assessed what student were taught in
school. Students would have been guaranteed multiple opportunities
to demonstrate proficiency and appropriate accommodations were
required for students with limited English proficiency or
disabilities. His unfortunate untimely death put an end to
consideration of this bill.
Democracy is unrealized without public schools that serve all the
nation’s children. The suggestions I have made: (1) significant
investment in new digital information and communication technologies
to advance democratic accountability and assessment (2) a bill of
rights for test-takers are places to begin.
Sincerely yours
Harold Berlak
hberlak@yahoo.com
[1] http://www.senate.gov/~wellstone/highstakes2.htm
Harold Berlak is an independent researcher residing in Oakland,
California and a Fellow at EPIC (Education and the Public Interest
Center, Univ. of Colorado ) and EPRU (Educational Policy Research
Unit ,Arizona State Univ.) He holds a master of arts in teaching and
doctorate in educational research from Harvard University. He is a
former teacher, teacher of teachers and former professor at
Washington University in St. Louis, He writes on curriculum,
learning, and assessment. He is coauthor and editor of Toward a New
Science of Educational Testing and Assessment, SUNY Press.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:49:10 EST
From: Csubstance@aol.com
To: leoecasey@optonline.net
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Happy holidays. My gift: "ABURKE = DELETE" + SUTM
Message-ID:
11/30/08
The best of the season to all. Thanksgiving, etc., etc. as is your blessing
and wont.
My gift to all has two parts:
1. ABURKE = DELETE. He's there to waste your time.
2. A penny stock tip. SUTM. It's the Chicago Tribune that is likely to go
bankrupt during the next 18 months, not the Sun-Times. Now that Harbinger
Partners is making its move against SUTM (and, by the way, NYT), there will be blood
(to quote the movies).
Same games. Same greedy plutocratic pigs.
Same results.
Happy holidays, to all,
George N. Schmidt
Editor, Substance
www.substancenews.net
**************
Life should be easier. So should your
homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:40:19 -0500
From: "James Horn"
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: New Charter School Study: Will the Obama Team Read It?
Message-ID:
Speaking of short-sighted notions promoted by the present and former brain
trusts of the AFT, how about charter schools!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Subject: [Schools Matter] New Charter School Study: Will the Obama Team Read
It?
To:
Minnesota has been doing charter schools for a long time. They were first in
the nation to pass a charter school law in 1991. So the new study by the
University of Minnesota's Institute on Race and Poverty carries with it some
weight. It cannot be dismissed by the edu-entrepreneurs and charter
corporations as a swipe at a new phenomenon that has not had time to mature.
This study was conducted at ground zero of the charter movement, where
nearly two decades of experimentation with an idea and an institution offer
compelling reasons to stop digging, come back to ground level, and try to
fill in the hole.
The study, "Failed Promises: Assessing Charter Schools in Twin Cities,"
offers compelling data to cause the Obama folks to rethink their rationale
for supporting charters, i. e., they will make public schools stronger
through competition:
The study finds that rather than encouraging a race to the top, charter
school competition in fact promotes a race to the bottom in the traditional
public school system.
And charters achieve this feat while "intensifying racial and economic
segregation" and underperforming the regular public schools on test scores.
Here is the link to the pdf for Failed Promises: Assessing Charter Schools
in the Twin Cities.
And here is the summary from
IRP
:
After two decades of experience, most charter schools in the Twin Cities
still underperform comparable traditional public schools and intensify
racial and economic segregation in the Twin Cities schools. This is the
conclusion of a new report issued today by the Institute on Race and Poverty
at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Entitled "Failed Promises: Assessing Charter Schools in Twin Cities," the
new study evaluates the record of charter schools in terms of academic
achievement, racial and economic segregation, and their competitive impact
on traditional public schools. The study finds that rather than encouraging
a race to the top, charter school competition in fact promotes a race to the
bottom in the traditional public school system.
"The Twin Cities is the birthplace of charter schools. Education reformers
look up to Minnesota as the state with the longest track record with charter
schools. But before they rush into expanding the charter sector in their
states, they should take a closer look at the Twin Cities experience," said
Myron Orfield, Director of the Institute on Race and Poverty. "Rather than
being a solution to the educational problems faced by low-income students
and students of color, charter schools are deepening these problems."
This reexamination of charter schools is timely. It comes as the next
administration considers charter schools among the many alternatives to
reform K-12 education. The study is one of very few to evaluate the academic
performance of charter schools and their competitive impact on traditional
public school systems within the context of racial and economic segregation.
"Research shows that students in segregated poor schools do worse than
students in low-poverty schools," said Tom Luce, one of the authors of the
study and Research Director at the Institute. "Because of this, the way
charter schools sort students racially and economically is likely to affect
how students perform academically. This is why the report is careful to
account for school characteristics when comparing achievement rates in
traditional and charter schools."
The study shows that although a few charter schools perform well on
standardized tests, most offer low income parents and parents of color an
inferior choice—a choice between low-performing traditional public schools
and charter schools that perform even worse. The Institute's analysis of
proficiency rates in elementary schools finds that in both reading and math,
a lower percentage of charter school students reached proficiency compared
to students who attended comparable traditional public schools. For reading
proficiency, the average difference is nearly 9 percentage points and for
math it is nearly 10 percentage points.
Charter schools also perform worse than the schools participating in another
public school choice program—The Choice is Yours Program. The program is
based on the principle of moving low-income students to effective
middle-class public schools in the suburbs. The report shows that, all else
equal, suburban schools participating in the Choice is Yours Program
outperform other comparable traditional public schools as well as charter
schools. The clear implication is that the Choice is Yours Program provides
better alternative schools than the charter system does.
"The poor performance of charter schools should not come as a surprise given
how segregated they are," said Baris Gűműş-Dawes, one of the authors of the
study and a Research Fellow at the Institute. "Racially segregated schools
have high concentrations of poverty. The average poverty rate in segregated
schools in the Twin Cities metro is 81 percent, compared to 14 percent in
predominantly white schools. Research shows that high-poverty schools are
associated with a wide range of negative educational and life outcomes. Low
test scores is only one of these negative outcomes. Racially-segregated
schools with high student poverty rates lead to high dropout rates, low
college attendance rates, low earnings later in life, and greater risk of
being poor as adults."
Racial and economic segregation in charter schools intensifies these
problems in the Twin Cities. Students of color are much more likely to be in
segregated settings in charter schools than in traditional schools. In 2008,
89 percent of black charter students attend school in segregated settings
compared to just 38 percent of black traditional public school students in
the Twin Cities metro. Similarly, Hispanics and other students of color are
more than twice as likely to be in segregated settings in charter schools as
in traditional public schools. Charter schools also have higher poverty
rates than traditional schools—50 percent versus 22 percent in 2008; and
they are more likely to be intensely poor—60 percent of them have poverty
rates above 40 percent, compared to 31 percent of traditional public
schools.
Even when compared to the highly segregated traditional public schools in
the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts, charter schools are still
more segregated than their traditional public school counterparts. In
Minneapolis, for instance, 96 percent of all students of color who attended
charter schools did so in segregated settings compared to 80 percent in
traditional public schools in 2008.
In St. Paul, 88 percent of all students of color in charter schools attended
segregated schools in 2008 compared to 73 percent of students of color in
traditional public schools.
The presence of predominantly white charter schools with low poverty rates
in St. Paul's racially diverse school district also suggests the possibility
that charter schools are facilitating white flight. Eleven percent of the
district's white students attend predominantly white charter schools in a
district where there are no predominantly white traditional schools.
Charter schools in the Twin Cities metro perform worse than comparable
public schools academically—measured by test scores— and socially—measured
by segregation rates. "But the problem is not only with the academic and
social performance of charter schools;" said Orfield "charter schools also
hurt traditional public schools by triggering further segregation in the
traditional public school system."
Charter schools can compete with public schools in many ways, including
areas of interest, ethnicity, risk factors or other characteristics.
However, many charter schools in the Twin Cities choose to compete in ethnic
niches by offering "ethno-centric" or "culture-specific" programs to their
students. "We find that some school districts, in turn, are creating
'ethno-centric' schools and programs of their own to compete with these
charter programs and to protect their 'market share,'" said Orfield. "This
is a real problem because when the niche that schools choose to compete in
is an ethnic niche, it deepens segregation in the overall public school
system."
The study finds that charter school competition has deepened segregation in
the traditional public school system in two important ways. First, school
districts have responded to charter competition by sponsoring racially
segregated and in some cases "ethno-centric" charter schools of their own.
Second, districts have initiated "ethno-centric" programs within traditional
public schools and have promoted "ethno-centric" magnet schools in their
districts. The study concludes that "Overall, charter school competition in
ethnic niches has been particularly detrimental for students of color and
low-income students because this type of competition intensifies racial and
economic segregation in metro schools and exiles these students to
low-performing schools."
For more information about the report, contact Barış Gűműş-Dawes:
(612) 625 2872 or bdawes@umn.edu
--
Posted By Jim Horn to Schools
Matter
11/29/2008 08:48:00 AM
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:15:42 EST
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: Happy holidays.
Message-ID:
In a message dated 11/30/2008 5:49:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Csubstance@aol.com writes:
1. ABURKE = DELETE. He's there to waste your time.
2. A penny stock tip. SUTM. It's the Chicago Tribune that is likely to go
bankrupt during the next 18 months, not the Sun-Times. Now that Harbinger
Partners is making its move against SUTM (and, by the way, NYT), there will
be blood
(to quote the movies).
OK, Santa George !!! There are always consequences to our own actions.
Only new listservers get sucked into Arty's one line monotonous monologues; Art
has made sure of that without any help from us.
And what happens to the Chicago Tribune will likely happen to most print
media sources in this country as well. As we get adjusted to this "change", the
one thing that escapes the keen eyesight and attention of our brethren in
the business community is how they have failed miserably in taking over the
media. Time waits for noone and the nouveau riche will serve itself well to
remember that buying artifacts of the once rich, famous and powerful doesn't
make you so. Japan found this out, so did Germany and now China. In this
seismic shift of the planet, it has served a young President-elect well not to
overrreach, to quietly observe and make his move. It remains to be seen whether
he's capable of keeping the spirit of a community organizer, start with
what's known and familiar, i.e. Chicago and the DNC, but start reaching out to
tap into the diversity of the country and the world and start turning the ship
of this nation around. It would bode the next Secretary of Education well to
remember two very extreme opposite guideposts: one, that local control and
local decision-making is the hallmark of the American education experience,
two, that change can be controlled and managed much more quickly in a
centralized system which is not our strength. Knowing that, boldness and trust are
essential keys to any "reform" attempt. Any leadership attempt will only
succeed if the people follows, and the people can only follow when they believe
and are willing to sacrifice what is precious and dear.
We intuit it and we understand that in the classroom. President Obama and
the next Secretary of Education will need to be guided by that spirit. Happy
Holidays, everyone, and yes, we don't need to spend time at the malls to show
we love America. We need to spend more time with each other. What a
brilliant and novel concept !!! Thanks, George and all the teachers of arn.
Quan
No comments:
Post a Comment