z42\doc\web\2000\06\fairact.txt Monty-- Wow, what a reaction! Honestly, I did not mean to slander or misrepresent FairTest/CARE's position on the Education Reform Act of 1993. I've been on these lists for a year and a half, and I thought that you did support it. So apparently did the student new to CARE whose question I was responding to. If you recall, he wrote (5/17/00): "I am posting now because I would like to know the actual wording of the Educational Reform Act of 1993 and which corporate entities were behind it and how directly it relates to the creation of MCAS. Dave Stratman and the New Democracy has claimed that this Ed. Reform Act itself is part of a corporate strategy for dismantling our public schools. Experience tells me that this is very likely, but reading New Democracy literature has left me unconvinced about the Ed. Reform Act and still mostly in the dark about how the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, MassInsight, the Pioneer Institute and other corporate forces relate to each other and Ed. Reform. I am trying to figure out the history that led us to where we are today. According to what I've read at www.fairtest.org/care/Overview_of_MA_Ed_Reform.html, the Ed. Reform Act of '93 equitably provides over $2 billion additional dollars to schools, as well as mandating "a school council in every school, continuing education for educators, more authority for every principal, better defined roles for school committees, and clear, concise and measurable statewide standards for students and schools." Except for the standards on students, this sounds very good to me, but in also sounds like it has been highly interpreted. Thanks in advance to whomever is willing to tackle my question!" Why would someone get the impression that you do support the Act? (I can only speak for myself, of course, but I'd be very surprised if there aren't many supporters of CARE who have the same impression.) Some of the reasons might be these: 1) The Education Reform Act is ferociously anti-teacher, anti-student, anti-public education and anti-community in all the ways that I have described and more, yet nowhere in CARE's policy statement, "Statement on the MCAS and Education Reform," on your web page (www.f airtest.org) is there a negative word about it. Instead the statement seems to view MCAS as something that has derailed an otherwise positive Act:"The MCAS has redefined and damaged education reform in the Commonwealth--but, working together, the citizens of Massachusetts can put reform back on a path that will help all students and schools....CARE supports the notion of a comprehensive assessment of the state's public schools and students. We call for multiple assessments in the service of expanded learning opportunities and rigorous standards. The Massachusetts Education Reform Act calls for such measures, and the students of Massachusetts deserve no less." Neither does FairTest's "Overview of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993" have anything negative to say about the Act. Instead it presents what could only be taken as a positive description (indeed, the description is adapted from the Secretary of Education's Progess Report): "The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 called for dramatic changes in public education over a seven year period. Among the major provisions of the Act are greater and more equitable funding to schools, accountability for student learning, and statewide standards for students, educators, schools and districts. By the end of this decade, the Secretary of Education estimates that more than $2 billion new state Education Reform dollars will have been provided to Massachusetts public schools because of the Act's provisions. "Some of the major changes in accountability proposed in the Education Reform Act included these requirements: a school council in every school, continuing education for educators, more authority for every principal, better defined roles for school committees, and clear, concise and measurable statewide standards for students and schools. The capstone is a "high-stakes" test based on the new curriculum standards which every student needs to pass in order to receive a diploma...." To be fair, this is presented on your web page as a summary. But I think it's easy to see how someone might take it as an endorsement of those elements of the Act that you do not explicitly oppose--which as far as I can see are limited to MCAS. 2) Statements by CARE leaders and spokespeople seem to endorse the Act. In the several instances where I've heard presentations by CARE leaders or read their published remarks and articles, the distinct impression I've come away with is that the Education Reform Act was a positive thing hijacked by John Silber and James Peyser and the Pioneer Institute. (In an exchange about this on the CARE listserv with Deborah Meier [3/1/00], she commented that "a great many noncorporate and progressive folks supported, even helped write" the Education Reform Act.) 3) There has been a marked failure, even refusal, on the CARE list even to discuss the Act, much less to say anything negative about. I certainly have made many attempts to initiate critical discussion from my earliest entry on the listserv, beginning with posting my 1997 keynote speech to the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, "Education Reform and the Attack on Public Education." If the CARE leadership were in any respect critical of the Act, one would think that they would jump at the chance for discussion. 4) The recent (May 15) major Boston Globe op-ed piece by a member of the CARE Steering Committee--speaking, presumably, on behalf of the Committee--published on the day of CARE- and SCAM-organized statewide rallies against MCAS, gives one the distinct impression that CARE endorses the Education Reform Act and that it sees no conflict between the goals of the sponsors of MCAS and those who oppose it. The editorial declares: "...it is time to put this [MCAS] controversy behind us. In the last year I have debated a range of MCAS proponents and have come to the conclusion that there is much more common ground than many of us would think. "With a little flexibility on the part of the Board of Education and the Department of Education, we can get beyond the MCAS impasse and back to the business of education reform....This [compromise] ...is closer to the original mandate of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which called for a diagnostic system using multiple forms of assessment. "People on both sides of the MCAS controversy care passionately about the main goal of reform: ensuring a quality education for every child in the Commonwealth. Let's get beyond the MCAS impasse so we can make that goal a reality." These CARE Steering Committee remarks clearly envision MCAS not as the centerpiece of a very destructive piece of legislation but rather as an exception to an essentially positive effort for education reform. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood FairTest and CARE's position on the Act, but I hope you can see that this was in no way an intentional misrepresentation on my part. (I am glad to hear that you do not endorse it, though I would be far happier if you actually opposed it.) What now? I hope, Monty, that we can take this very sharp exchange as an opportunity to begin a more searching and fruitful dialogue on the real nature of education reform and the dangers it poses for our children and our society. Perhaps a good starting point would be a detailed examination of the Act. Dave Stratman Editor, New Democracy www.newdemocracyworld.org 5 Burr Street Boston, MA 02130 (617)524-4073 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU. We should, they are a good idea. In general, I support everything Mr. Stratman opposes for the same reason he opposes them. In other words, I HOPE these proposals will do what he FEARS they will do. > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Hu [mailto:arthurhu@halcyon.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:56 PM > To: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com > Subject: [wa-ed-deform] FW: Looking at the Massachusetts Education > Reform Act > > > See any similarities to Washington's 1993 act? We don't > have 3-tiers of diplomas. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Stratman [mailto:Newdem@AOL.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 12:29 PM > To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU > Subject: Looking at the Massachusetts Education Reform Act > > > Hi, everyone-- > > Last week a university student newly active in Massachusetts CARE wrote > asking for detailed discussion of the Mass. Education Reform Act, which > FairTest/CARE endorses and which New Democracy condemns as an example of > corporate-led education reform. It seems to me that this discussion has > national relevance, so I'm placing it on both lists. > > I was unable to respond last week, but here is an attempt to deal with his > questions: > ***** > Hi, Matthew: > > The Education Reform Act is an extensive piece of legislation. It > constitutes > Chapter 71 of the Acts & Resolves of Massachusetts, 1993. It > amends various > chapters of the General Laws, and runs from pp. 159-240 in the > 1993 Acts. I > expect if you call the DOE, they could put you onto a copy of the Act. > > I have copied below my brief critique of the Education Reform Act of 1993 > from my article, "Keeping Education Reform in Focus," along with > the precise > sections of the act wherein each program is authorized and the > page numbers > in the 1993 edition of the Acts & Resolves where it appears. (I'm > too poor a > typist to copy out long passages of the act.) I've also added some > discussion > of the particular sections. > > I assume that no one disputes that these programs are included in the Act. > The question is how to interpret them: are they good or bad for > the goals of > achieving a high quality public education for all children? As > you know, New > Democracy opposes the Education Reform Act of 1993, while CARE > and FairTest > applaud it. > > In my view, the Act reflects all that is bad about corporate-driven > education > reform. As I said in my article in New Democracy, "The 1993 > Education Reform > Act is calculated to fragment communities, intensify competition, increase > insecurity, centralize control over curriculum while decentralizing > budgetary > and personnel decisions, reorient education toward work, and cause massive > failure of students." It seems to me that the nature of the Act raises > important questions that ought to be discussed on this list. > > First a caution on legislative language. Legislation is typically > written in > attractive or at least innocuous language. For example, here is > the language > of SECTION 27, section 1: > > "It is hereby declared to be a paramount goal of the commonwealth > to provide > a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children > the > opportunity to reach their full potential and to lead lives as > participants > in the political and social life of the commonwealth and as > contributors to > the economy." > > It sounds great. Who wouldn't agree with this? The question often is not > what > legislation says but what it means in practice. > > Here's the annotation and discussion: > > 1) Privatization: Charter schools (SECTION 55, Section 89, p.214) and > "school > choice," (SECTION 61, Section 12 B (a)-(o) pp. 218-223)) another reform > program, substitute the idea of a public good shared by the whole > community > with the idea of the market. They encourage parents to compete to > get their > children into the "right" schools while they undermine teachers' power to > act > together. (These sections are too lengthy to quote, but I assume no one > doubts that they exist.) > > 2) Attacks on teachers: The Act treats teachers as the enemy of good > schools. > It establishes Site Based Management (SECTION 28, p. 168; SECTION 29, > Section > 1B, p. 169; SECTION 53, Sections 59 B, C, pp. 212-213), puts the right to > hire and fire in the hands of principals (as a consequence of SBM, subject > to > local bargaining agreements), undermines the tenure and seniority > rights of > teachers (SECTION 44, Section 42, pp. 208-9: "A principal may dismiss or > demote any teacher or other person assigned full-time to the > school, subject > to the approval of teh superintendent...." plus language relating to > seniority), takes away collective bargaining rights for > principals (SECTION > 43 p. 207: "School principals...shall not be represented in collective > bargaining."), and threatens state takeover of "underperforming" schools > (SECTION 29, Section 1J(1)-(2)). These measures dramatically weaken > teachers' > independence and make both teachers and principals very > vulnerable to state > efforts to remake public education in the corporate image. The threat of > state takeover forces schools to compete for survival in a system under > extreme top-down control. > > Again, I don't think anyone disputes that the Act does these things. The > question is whether putting schools into competition ni this way under the > threat of state takeover and mass firings is beneficial for > students or not. > > Regarding attacks on teachers: Corporate leaders and politicians > and others > for years have been arguing that "the problem in the schools is the > teachers," and have been attacking teachers' tenure and seniority > rights. I > think this is very wrong. While I can't go into this subject at > length here, > let me make just a few quick points: > > 1) The schools are designed in a multitude of ways to reproduce social > inequality--I mean, to make poor kids fail--for example, through > the "savage > inequalities" of school funding, and in less obvious ways involving social > expectations, biased tests, and others. Teachers (and kids and > parents) are > wrongly blamed when schools have their intended and absolutely predictable > effects of poor outcomes for poor kids. > > 2) The attacks on seniority are intended to replace seniority with > favoritism > and fear, to make teachers more thoroughly controlled and more > vulnerable to > teh corporatization of the schools. Note that seniority is being > attacked in > every industry in the country (the difference is that in the schools > seniority is attacked in the name of improving education, while in auto > plants, for example, it's justified as a way of "being competitive") for > similar reasons: to make people more insecure; to get rid of more > expensive, > more experienced workers; to break down solidarity between > generations; and > to destroy the memory of collective struggle which resides in > older workers. > (In the auto plants for example, it's the older workers who > experienced the > wildcat strikes of the 1960s and '70s and who understand how to > regulate the > pace of work and to fight the company on the shop floor. In the > schools, new > teachers have no experience of collective struggle; that > knowledge lies with > the older teachers being driven out. The new teachers are being > schooled in > the "New Unionism" preached by Bob Chase and Sandra Feldman.) > > 3) Teachers are under attack not because they have failed but because they > have succeeded at raising expectations which the corporate system cannot > fulfill. By this I don't meant that teachers are perfect; I mean that > teachers have better goals than the goals of the system and that corporate > leaders wouldn't be attacking them if teachers were lowering > young people's > expectations rather than raising them. > > School Based Management is a key component of the Act. It is described in > alluring terms as a "participatory management system involving all school > based professionals, parents, and on the secondary level, > students." But SBM > doesn't give any real power to parents and teachers; in fact, it tends to > weaken people as it encourages them to focus just on their school, and the > Act then puts that school in competition with others. SBM undermines > relationships among teachers of a whole district and parents of the whole > system while the Act forces them to compete with each other; the power at > the > top of the structure remains monolithic, while the power of the base is > fragmented. > > The Act also requires (SECTION 29) that "The board shall publish > profiles of > each public elementary and secondary school and school district in the > commonwealth, providing information concerning students achievement of > performance goals, school spending, special programs, curriculum > offerings, > qualifications of teaching staff, and other information....These > profiles...shall permit meaningful comparisons among individual > schools and > school districts...." > > The provisions for charter schools, school choice, and Site Based > Management > and pubilcly ranking schools and districts are designed to set up a > competitive scramble among schools and school districts for funds and > support > and, as I said, survival in the face of threatened state takeovers. > > To what end? I was with an autoworker from Ford over the weekend who > mentioned that, as part of the FPS (Ford Production System), plants and > "production teams" within plants are publicly ranked for their output, the > plants and teams competing for survival in the face of shutdown threats. > It's > all part of Total Quality Management, and it's all part of breaking down > solidarity, atomizing the workforce, and making people more controllable. > > As far as schools are concerned, encouraging competition in this way seems > designed to serve similar goals--that is, to break down solidarity among > people, to further atomize society, and to try to inculcate in > teachers and > parents and students a "survival of the fittest" mentality. In > other words, > to promote corporate values and corporate control. > > SBM is Total Quality Management taken to teh schools. It is meant > to foster > the illusion that the people in charge at the top of the system have the > same > goals for young people as the teachers, parents and > students--which is quite > false. > > 3) Tiered diplomas: The Act establishes three levels of certificate: > "competency," "mastery," and "occupational proficiency." (The language of > the > Act is admittedly ambiguous; it calls for three levels of "certificates." > The > difference between "certificates" for students and diplomas isn't clear to > me, but I take that to indicate that tiered diplomas are on the way.) > Tiered > diplomas structure greater inequality into public education.(Note: I have > called the Dept of Ed but have not yet received word on just where the > implementation of these three levels of certificate stands.) > > Here is the language that authorizes them: > > ((SECTION 29, Section 1D(i)-(iii), p. 173-4 "The [academic] > standards shall > also include criteria for three determinations or certificates as follows: > (i) The "competency determination" shall be based on the academic > standards > and curriculum frameworks for tenth graders in the areas of mathematics, > science and technology, history and social science, and > English....Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency > determination > shall be a condition for high school graduation.... > (ii) The "certificate of mastery" shall be based upon a determination that > the recipient has demonstrated mastery of a comprehensive body of skills, > competencies and knowledge comparable to that possessed by accomplished > graduates of high school or equivalent programs in the most advanced > education systems in the world. The criteria for a certificate of mastery > may > incorporate a number of factors which may include, but not be limited to, > any > of teh following: high school graduaiton standards, superior > performance on > advanced placement tests administered by educational testing service, and > demonstrated excellence in areas not reflected in the state's asssessment > instruments, such as artistic or literary achievement.... > (iii) The "certificate of occupational proficiency" shall be awarded to > students who successfully complete a comprehensive education and training > program in a particular trade or professional skill area and > shall reflect a > deternmination that the recipient has demonstrated mastery of a core of > skills, competencies and knowledge comparable to that possessed > by students > of equivalent age entering the particular trade or profession > from teh most > educationally advanced systems in the world....)) > > 4) "School to Work" programs (SECTION 98, pp. 237-238), school/business > "partnerships," (SECTION 28, p. 168) and a deluge of corporate logos and > programs in the schools tell students that the real purpose of > education is > to make themselves worthy of corporate Human Resource directors. > > One important matter that I did not touch on in my article is the question > of > standards. The Act calls for high standards for all students from "grades > kindergarten through twelve," in the language of all "Standardistos," as > Susan Ohanian calls them. Much of the destructive nature of the Act comes > from its setting of standards, irrespective of how students are tested > regarding the standards. (FairTest and CARE state repeatedly that they are > all for high standards.) > > But this section is really setting up just such a test as MCAS. > It (SECTION > 29, Section 1D) says that "The skills, competencies and knowledge > set forth > in the standards shall be expressed in terms which lend themselves to > objective measurement, define the performance outcomes expected of both > students directly entering the workforce and of students pursuing higher > education, and facilitate comparisons with students of other states and > other > nations." While it's true, as CARE points out, that the language > of the Act > calls for MCAS to use a "variety of assessments," the intent of the Act to > create just such a standardized test as MCAS is seems clear in > this section. > > Given the real nature of the Education Reform Act, it seems to me quite > misleading to suggest that all we need do is to strike some kind > of deal and > get rid of o rmodify MCAS. MCAS is the centerpiece of a thoroughly > destructive bit of legislation. Even if we get rid of the high > stakes test, > education reform in Massachusetts will have sharpened the inequality and > stratification imposed by public education, fragmented > communities, worsened > the attack on teachers, and diminished our children's chances for > fulfilling > lives. The fight against MCAS is the beginning, not the end, of the > struggle. > > I hope we can have a discussion on the ARN and CARE lists of what > education > reform like this really means. In my view it is dangerously close to the > "Chicagoization" of schools that George Schmidt and others have talked > about. > I also hope that spokespeople for CARE or FairTest will explain why they > support this legislation. > > Dave Stratman > Editor, New Democracy > www.newdemocracyworld.org > 5 Burr Street > Boston, MA 02130 > (617)524-4073 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Spending too much calling friends all over the world? Join beMANY! > and pay less each month. > http://click.egroups.com/1/4259/4/_/8573/_/959803087/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Paying too much for Long Distance is a global problem. Join BeMANY! and Long Distance rates fall automatically. http://click.egroups.com/1/4260/4/_/8573/_/959812735/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why does Dave Stratman assume FairTest endorses the ed reform act? FairTest has pointed to its call for multiple assessments as positive (tho what is in the Act is far too weak), and think the 4-6 page Mass common core of learning is reasonable, and think there was opportunity and space created at some points in ithe Act's implementation to use to try to make something better for kids whose schooling is not now very good. We never endorsed the Act and don't. We went down and battled against the proposed tests that became MCAS. That was long before CARE. Dave now seems to question whether CARE actually opposes the MCAS since language in the legislation does support creation of a test. This language we think needs revision in line with CARE's proposal for an alternative assessment and accountability program. FairTest also opposed the teacher testing provisions of that Act, in an effort to help stop the teacher bashing Dave points to. (Where was Dave on this? I don't know.) Much of the act is beyond the scope of FairTest's issues,;some of the rest is not, but we have not weighed in on it except on standards and tests. CARE explicitly condemned tiered diplomas when they were proposed as a stopgap measure to avoid non-diplomas for thousands of students. FairTest concurs in that. Dave says FairTest and CARE are for high standards, implying we are for what anyone happens to call high standards. CARE calls for going back to the Common Core, hence radically altering the existing standards; FairTest has often criticized actually existing standards while supporting the view that high quality standards can be a useful element of thinking about how to improve schools -- but we are not for any and all "standards" and have questioned whether "standards" often are high or obscure. Again, a mis-representation by Dave, deliberate or not I do not know. As for CARE, it is true that in one document we state that ed reform began with "high hopes." I think that is a position not all of us in CARE entirely endorse, but did not choose to make a central issue of that phrase. And some in CARE really believe it and say it. My personal view is the Act contains much that is not good, that represents the harmful "mainstream" of "ed reform" of the 1990s. It was not all bad, there were elements to work with, some plans for its implementation saw it as a chance to actually make a positive difference in education. Dave turns a phrase into an ideological position, making tendentious arguments from that. Others in CARE may weigh in on their interpretation of these issues. I cannot individually speak for CARE, only my understanding of what we have said and done. If Dave sees only black and white and does not believe people are capable of making progress in limited circumstances, I think he is wrong and we have a long history of such battle. He is entitled to his views, but not to misrepresent FairTest or CARE. But why does Dave, apparently unable to win people over to his positions in public discussion, now begin to mis-state positions of FairTest and of CARE? Rich debate yes, and Dave has raised issues worthy in my view of discussion (at times I have been among the very few who have in fact responded to his posts). But clear mis-representations of others views, distortions to push one's own views, should be discredited and ignored by all on these lists (ARN and CARE). Monty Neill -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.