e:\doc\web\2003\01\eep.txt Dave: The "School Reform" agenda is a teacher-bashing agenda. It is teacher-bashing in its assumptions, in its implications, in its purposes, in its propaganda, and in its alliances. In its shortest and simplest form, it declares that teachers are at fault for all the real and imagined failures of public schools, and that if only teachers can be subjected to the lash of accountability the schools will improve. It accuses teachers of "low expectations." It declares teachers untrustworthy: Our assessments of students cannot be trusted; we cannot even be trusted to see the exams we dole out to students. It is an agenda that aims at de-skilling teachers, which is why the topic of scripted curriculum keeps coming up on this list. It is an agenda that includes top-down imposition of standards, tests, and programs, with demands from superintendents that teachers reference state standards at the beginning of each lesson, or even that teachers in each room say the same (scientifically-based) words at the same time. When the Chicago Tribune denounced "Chicago's Schools--America's Worst," who was it denouncing but teachers? Not the mayor and aldermen. Not the governor and legislature. Who lost their jobs? Teachers. When the California Teachers Association moved last year to expand collective bargaining to issues of curriculum and instruction, the opposition was the very same groups and individuals that promote the "School Reform" agenda--from the Sacramento Bee to the Business Roundtable. They couched their opposition in terms of the need to defend reform against selfish, lazy, ignorant and arrogant teachers. The teacher-bashing agenda is primarily a union-bashing agenda, because teachers' unions are among the largest and most powerful organizations representing working people. Again, the fear and hatred of teacher unions was evident in the response to AB 2160 (CTA's collective bargaining bill), with union leaders portrayed as uncouth thugs masquerading as teachers. Stating these facts and conclusions is not "defensiveness." As for "boosterism," I am only aware of one participant on this list who deserves that charge, and he has not posted anything for quite a while. I have frequently posted messages about actions and statements of CTA and NEA because I believe these actions, limited and tardy as they may be, are important steps in organizing democratic resistance to the "School Reform" agenda. I hope that some of them have been useful to other resisters. No one is pretending that teacher unions have consistently led a principled fight against this agenda. The unions have been slow even to recognize their own interest. The national leaders of AFT and NEA, it seems to me, were cowed by the propaganda about failing schools and low standards Perceiving the struggle as a matter of public relations, they wanted to be seen as on the side of high standards. Unions have secured some benefits from liberal Democratic politicians, so they tried to cooperate with those politicians in enacting "reforms." If you want to examine "the role that the NEA and AFT have played in the corporate attack on teachers and students and public education that has taken place in the past two decades" and the reasons why unions "often act in ways that militate against the best values of the members," that's fine. If you can propose credible answers to your questions, "What are the dynamics of this situation? What has caused this situation and how can we act to change it?" that's great. As always, I'm hoping for accuracy. Is it really true that "Many hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers and parents in Chicago and across the country came to George [Schmidt]'s defense before the union that was supposed to represent him did"? In any case, the fact that the Chicago Teachers Union has taken a stand for George, for the Curie teachers, and against the tests, is potentially very important. When one of the props supporting testocracy is removed, we come closer to dismantling the edifice. While looking at the flaws in the unions, I think it is important to remember that there are few institutions (perhaps none of comparable size) in America that are as democratic. I don't mean that unions are perfectly democratic. But they are democratic in principle and they are sufficiently democratic in policy and practice that it is possible to organize democratically within them. At 12:43 PM 1/13/2003 -0500, Dave Stratman wrote: >In a message dated 1/10/2003 6:41:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, >Csubstance@aol.com writes: > > > The teacher bashing corporate "school reform" agenda that we critique here > > on > > ARN requires union busting and an end to academic freedom for teachers if > > the > > dictatorial control of schools is to succeed. It is very short sighted for > > people to ignore the unions in this fight. > >I was delighted to see that the Chicago Teachers Union has at long last >passed a resolution in defense of one of its members, George Schmidt, who had >come under attack by the authorities for defending students and teachers from >the CASE tests. Is it not instructive though that many hundreds, if not >thousands, of teachers and parents in Chicago and across the country came to >George's defense before the union that was supposed to represent him did? > >Unfortunately the picture that George suggests here--corporate school reform >vs. the unions--is not really accurate. The fact is that the unions have >cooperated in the corporate attack on public education to a very large >extent, both by refusing to alert their members to why they are under attack >and by whom, and by actively promoting the "higher standards" case and some >of the worst of the corporate reforms. > >Both the NEA and AFT have been in a formal alliance with the Business >Roundtable and the National Alliance for Business since 1989 in the Education >Excellence Partnership to promote "higher standards" and all the most >destructive elements of state-based reform legislation and the No Child Left >Behind Act. For years before that the NEA leadership was trying mightily to >persuade its members to accede to such destructive measures as merit pay; >demonstrations against the leadership's proposal broke out on the floor of >the 1984 NEA-RA in Philadelphia, led by Masachusetts Teachers Association >(MTA) members, chanting "Merit Pay--No Way." (Before I addressed the NEA >state presidents and vice-presidents at the annual NEA leadership conference >later that summer on education reform, Sharon Robinson, who was then the NEA >Director of Professional Development, strongly cautioned me not to say >anything critical of merit pay. Sharon is now a VP of ETS, I believe.) At the >summer, 2000 RA NEA leadership again promoted and was defeated in its quest, >now dressed up as "performance-based pay." > >The MTA itself cooperated with the Mass Business Alliance in developing the >1993 Education Reform Act, with its ferociously anti-teacher, anti-child, >punitive and destructive measures, and has given the Mass Business Roundtable >and Mass Business Alliance considerable protective cover from the very >beginning of the corporate attacks. In 1999, even after its Annual Meeting >(the highest authority in the MTA) passed by overwhelming majorities >resolutions strictly defining the appropriate uses of standardized testing >and condemning the use of MCAS as a graduation requirement, the MTA sponsored >a hugely expensive ($500,000?) radio and TV campaign praising standardized >tests. In 2001, after its Annual Meeting passed nearly unanimously New >Business Items requiring the MTA to oppose MCAS at every level, not simply as >a graduation requirement; to withdraw legislative proposals which did not >reflect this position; and to promote legislation which would abolish MCAS >entirely, the MTA in essence did nothing to carry out the will of its >members. (In a conversation in September, 2001, when I objected to the MTA's >failure to carry our the new business items, then-MTA president Steve Gorry >said to me, "That [the NBIs] was just the delegates speaking.") This spring >the MTA and Mass Federation of Teachers (the state AFT affiliate) endorsed >for Governor state senator Tom Birmingham, who with representative Mark >Roosevelt was the author of the 1993 Act. (It is further evidence of the >bankruptcy of the unions that they couldn't even manage to get their man >nominated as Democratic candidate, much less to get the nominee--an ardent >supporter of MCAS--elected the .) > >We need to make a serious examination of the role that the NEA and AFT have >played in the corporate attack on teachers and students and public education >that has taken place in the past two decades. The corporate attack on public >education would never have succeeded to the extent that it has had not the >unions disarmed and demobilized their members. Phrases like "union-bashing" >are not really descriptive here. > >The teacher unions have some great people in them at every level, staff and >leadership; and yet they often act in ways that militate against the best >values of the members. What are the dynamics of this situation? What has >caused this situation and how can we act to change it? > >We need to have a serious discussion of these complicated and profound >issues, and not the boosterism and defensiveness that has passed for >discussion so far. > >I have posted below a link from the Business Rountable/Education Excellence >Partnership for your edification. > >Dave Stratman >Editor, New Democracy >newdemocracyworld.org >5 Burr Street >Boston, MA 02130 >617-524-4073 >*********** >Education & the Workforce > > >The Education Excellence Partnership (EEP) is a group of our nation's leading >business, government and education organizations dedicated to creating >awareness of the urgency of the need for education reform and to encouraging >Americans to take action in their states and communities to improve >education. The EEP sponsors a public service advertising campaign through the >Ad Council. > >With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, the landmark study of >declining academic standards and student performance in U.S. schools, >business and policy leaders began to take notice of the need to improve our >education system. Realizing that too few schools were preparing students to >meet world standards in core academic subjects and that too many students >were graduating unprepared for work and effective citizenship, in 1989, >President George Bush called for corporate CEOs to make a personal commitment >to reforming education. > >The Business Roundtable answered that call by committing to a 50-state >initiative to improve the quality of our schools. And in 1992 the Roundtable >formed the Education Excellence Partnership (EEP). The EEP fulfilled a >critical need - to clearly communicate the need to reform education to the >general public. In order to communicate the complex messages of education >reform, the EEP turned to the Ad Council, which agreed to partner with the >group to produce public service announcements (PSAs). The goal of the PSAs is >to inspire parents, grandparents, teachers, students and others to support >higher academic standards, and take action to improve education in their >community. > >The members of the Education Excellence Partnership include our nation's >leading business, government and education organizations: > >The Business Roundtable >U.S. Department of Education >Achieve >American Federation of Teachers >National Alliance of Business >National Education Association >National Governors' Association >U.S. Chamber of Commerce > ************* >Parents; teachers; students; and leaders of business, government and >community organizations all agree: We should expect more from American >students. Here's why: > >Students should be learning more >and achieving at higher levels. >Schools should ensure students >graduate with the skills and knowledge they >need to be successful — regardless of whether they are going to college or >the workplace. > >The public wants to see higher >standards and greater accountability in public >schools — and students say they'd work harder to meet higher >expectations. > >Schools are successful when they >focus efforts on ensuring all students meet >high expectations. > >http://www.edex.org/ >http://www.brtable.org/issue.cfm/3/0/0/85 > > > George Sheridan Northside School Cool, California 95614