Online Edition: April 2005 Vol. XVI, No. VIII
|
ACTIONS FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST Modesto
Peace/Life Center Vigil for Peace: Please
call the Center for |
|
|
|
Rethinking a bad law: one scholar’s indictment of the No Child Left Behind Act
Norman Solomon - Media Beat
Around the Center:
Articles
LIVERMORE LAB: Will a biological weapons lab join nuclear weapons research?
News and information websites regarding war and the Middle East
Statement of Conscience Against War and Repression by the Board of the Peace/Life Center
Link: California Peace Action
Link: MoveOn--grassroots activism, electronically based
Link: Not In Our Name--Statements of Conscience Against War And Repression
Link: True Majority
COMMUNITY CALENDAR --CURRENT & COMING EVENTS
Opinion and Letters to Connections
When
government is shrouded in secrecy, we are less secure
By
PAUL MCMASTERS
Federal officials charged with protecting national
security too often lose sight of a raw reality: Most Americans believe that when
it comes right down to it, all security is local.
Neighborhoods and communities across the nation are
prime targets for attack or accident. That is why local officials, public
interest groups, citizen activists and the press must serve as the sentinels
posted to warn residents of danger to their families and homes. They collect and
share information vital to identifying local threats and putting pressure on
government officials to devise and implement solutions.
Their job has been made much more difficult in
recent years, however, by hastily installed information policies that emphasize
secrecy, place severe restrictions on access to massive amounts of unclassified
material and regard information-sharing as a one-way proposition.
As a result, Americans at their most vulnerable
level are left unnecessarily and dangerously exposed.
Addressing the threat from terrorism, of course, is
paramount.
Understandably, government officials responsible
for protecting national as well as local targets do not want the wrong
information to get in the wrong hands. But excessive secrecy not only creates a
firewall between security and accountability, it hides too many dangers.
Potential targets for those who want to do us harm
are everywhere. Millions of Americans live and work in the shadow of real
threats. Chemical and nuclear plants, gas pipelines, hazardous materials
traveling through our communities on trucks and trains, all are capable under
certain circumstances of spewing out a lethal plume that could kill and injure
thousands of people.
There are non-terrorist threats, too, including
poorly maintained or monitored dams and bridges as well as environmental and
other hazards.
Keeping watch on all those threats requires a
constant and reliable flow of government information. But local sentinels have
been stripped of their ability to spot and prepare for danger by information
policies that are a triumph of secrecy over a considered understanding of the
needs of Americans in their homes and at work.
In the 3 1/2 years since 9/11, this nation has
mourned its losses, begun to rebuild, fought two wars, created the most massive
restructuring of the federal government in half a century, and spent billions of
dollars attempting to secure the homeland against another such attack.
A substantial part of that effort was an immediate
and necessary examination of our information policies. All too soon, however,
that examination devolved into an exercise focused on bureaucratic process and
information control.
Perhaps that was inevitable.
Many officials in the Bush administration took
office firmly convinced that previous administrations had been weakened by too
much sharing of information with Congress and the public. In fact, one of the
administration's first actions was to eviscerate by executive order the
Presidential Records Act of 1978 and halt the public release of thousands of
Reagan administration records.
That was just the beginning. In a relatively short
time, federal officials - in the name of national security - have transformed
the two-way informational compact between this government and its citizenry.
The administration reversed the presumption of
openness in the Freedom of Information Act, expanded authority for classifying
information, increased the pace of secret-making four-fold (and growing by 25
percent a year), slowed the declassification of old secrets and began to
reclassify previously declassified material.
Entire government Web sites disappeared. Thousands
of pages were taken down from other sites. Government documents, reports and
CD-ROMs were recalled. New restrictions were placed on the distribution of
scientific and technical material as well as health and safety information.
Legal protections for government whistle-blowers were reduced.
Perhaps the most troubling shift in information
policy, however, was the creation of a new regime of shadow secrecy, putting
beyond the reach of Congress and the public massive stores of non-secrets,
material labeled as "sensitive but unclassified." Now, the decision to
disclose this information can be made by low-level employees, confused by vague
definitions and mindful of harsh penalties for wrongful disclosure.
At the same time citizens are being denied access
to government information, law enforcement and intelligence agencies have begun
to collect more information about them, using commercial data aggregators to
create millions of dossiers on American citizens.
Meanwhile, building on news management techniques
developed in previous administrations, the federal agencies have kept "on
message," screened access to news sources within the government, sent out
their own video news releases and paid press commentators to push their
policies. The White House has not hesitated to warn and punish journalists who
resisted news-management techniques.
All of this combines to produce information
policies without statutory grounding, meaningful congressional oversight, clear
boundaries or government-wide standards. They appear to have been put in place
more to control information than to harden potential targets. They invite a
situation where terrorists may probe our vulnerabilities while our protectors
collect and horde information about those vulnerabilities.
Under these policies, our government could well
wind up collecting more information than it can process; instituting more
procedures than it can support and forcing local, state and federal employees
into a network of secrecy that hobbles their ability to work with one another
and puts them in conflict with their own constituencies.
We are fast moving from the public's right to know
to government officials' right to control information, which raises the risk of
a government prone to manage, mislead and maneuver the citizenry.
This little-noted but significant shift in
information policies fails the democratic mandate and leaves a public
dangerously exposed to risk on many levels.
Eventually, these policies must be measured by
their distance from democratic principles. As they stand, they seem more
reflective of desperation than deliberation.
Paul McMasters is the First Amendment Ombudsman at
the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center. Contact him at pmcmasters@freedomforum.org.
From The Sacramento Bee, Sunday, March 13, 2005. Reprinted with permission of the author.
Final
film on the Middle East at MJC
By
DAN ONORATO
“America in the Middle East,” the
spring semester theme for Modesto Junior College’s Civic Engagement Film and
Speaker Series, concludes on Thursday April 7 at 7 p.m. in Forum 110, on the
East Campus with the film, Behind Enemy
Lines. A thoughtful discussion will follow. The series is free of charge and
open to the public.
Behind
Enemy Lines, a documentary, directed and produced by Dov Gil-Har from Israel,
offers two views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It tells the story of two
former friends and present-day enemies as they embark on an emotional journey
into Intifada-land in search of the origins of the bloodshed.
Benny Herness, an Israeli police
officer, and Palestinian journalist Adnan Joulani spend a week traveling
together through places that have become symbols of the dispute. They met over
four years earlier on a joint peace mission to Japan. While embracing the
“Tokyo Spirit” of understanding, the two vowed to take home a message of
peace. Soon after their return, the second Intifada erupted. Each has selected
locations to convince the other of his own truth, including the Jenin refugee
camp, terror-ridden Jerusalem, the disputed Temple Mount, and the family of a
suicide bomber. Behind Enemy Lines is
an emotional and dramatic quest through the milestones of the conflict. Despite
the huge gap in their perspectives, Herness and Joulani try to find ways to
communicate. Their success in present pessimistic times serves as a ray of hope.
The Yosemite Community College District
initiated the MJC Civic Engagement Series in recognition of the growing evidence
of disengagement of many college students from the democratic principles that
help our country grow and prosper. Its purpose is to encourage students and
members of the community to participate in respectful political discussions that
energize the audience to become fully engaged in our democracy.
BY SHELLY SCRIBNER
Jimmy Membreno from Nicaragua, long associated with the Merced-Somoto Sister City program, will visit the Central Valley in April to raise money for his group Learning in Community, a social- and eco-tourism program.
Jimmy will speak at Modesto’s College Avenue Congregational Church on Tuesday April 19th at 7:00 p.m. at Orangeburg and College Ave., and at 7:30 p.m., Friday, April 22 at Congregation Beth Shalom at 7:30 at 1705 Sherwood Ave. Modesto.
Learning and Community is a social- and eco-tourism program created by Nicaraguans with many years of experience providing encounters between communities from the North and South. Their mission is to contribute to the transformation of individuals and communities who struggle to understand injustice and, who together, wish to create alternative ways of living.
Jimmy has been a friend to many people here and to the people in the Merced-Somoto Sister City program. He has organized tours and transportation for the program and countless other groups. Jimmy has also co-written a book on tourism in Nicaragua and has taught English in his country. He also works for El Porvenir, a water project group.
ACTION: For further information, call Shelly Scribner, 521-6304.
Submitted by SHELLY SCRIBNER
We are at a crucial moment in the struggle for full human and labor rights to the millions of immigrants living and working in the US. Senators from both parties are working on a bi-partisan legalization proposal for the immigrant workers who work hard to contribute to the greatness of this country. President Bush is also pushing for a work visa program.
But groups in Congress are dedicated to stopping anything that would favor immigrants. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner has introduced a bill to build the biggest wall on the border with Mexico and eliminate driver license rights for immigrants. THIS IS THE TIME OUR VOICES NEED TO BE HEARD.
Immigrants and supporters are calling for a NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION IN WASHINGTON DC on Wednesday, April 27, 2005. Meet with Congressional representatives to demand permanent residency rights for immigrants who have been working hard and contributing to our country. Raise your voices against the racist attacks on immigrants.
ACTION: 1) Too get involved and/or endorse this action, email bmaya1@floc.com.
2) Come to Washington, D.C. or contact your representatives in Congress. (See address in box on this page.) Our reps in Congress need to hear from the voices of immigrants and non-immigrants alike that giving rights to immigrants will benefit all America, a nation of immigrants.
3) For more information, contact Beatriz Maya at the Farm Labor Organizing Committee-AFL-CIO (FLOC); 1221 Broadway, Toledo OH; ph 419-243-3456; fax 419-243-5655.
By SANDY SAMPLE
We
have a rare opportunity to participate in Tom Hunter’s musical magic in a
family concert on
Sunday, April 24, 6:30 p.m., College Avenue Congregational Church, corner of College and Orangeburg, Modesto.
Tom hasn’t been to the Modesto area for a while. Many years ago, Tom Hunter’s name brought lively smiles to the faces of hundreds of Modesto area children who sang along as he brought his musical magic to local schools assemblies and classroom visits, at concerts to benefit the Modesto Peace/Life Center, or local early childhood programs.
During Tom’s recent travels as a minstrel, educator, folksinger and songwriter, he has noted that as the arts are cut from school budgets.
“We don’t sing as much as people used to. There’s a lot of music around, but we listen more. We’re increasingly interested in performance, less in participation, so kids in cars are more likely to have headphones on than to be singing together . . . We need reminders of the power of song to connect us, to carry information and tradition, to help us mourn and celebrate, to tickle and touch our hearts.”
Tom Hunter’s music will delight young and old alike, and help you laugh, cry, remember, wonder, celebrate, and experience the power of the things that matter most in life. Hope to see you there!
ACTION: Suggested donations for this concert are family-friendly: $10 adults; $8 students/seniors; $5 kids 5-12; children 4 & under free. Call Sandy Sample at 523-8445 for advance tickets.
Rethinking
a bad law: one scholar’s indictment of the No Child Left Behind Act
By NEL NODDINGS
My thesis is simple: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bad law, and a bad law is not made better by fully funding it. Let’s see if I can make a convincing argument to support that thesis.
1. School people all over the country are involved in (or have authorized) studies to figure out what this federal law will cost. In some cases, the cost is thought to be so high that it would be better to reject federal funds than to accept them. This point, however, will not clinch my argument, because all laws require funds for implementation, interpretation, and revision. The question remains whether the likely results are worth the cost.
2. The law employs a view of motivation that many of us in education find objectionable. As educators, we would not use threats, punishments, and pernicious comparisons to “motivate” our students. But that is how the No Child Left Behind law treats the school establishment. This powerful objection is still not enough to carry my argument, because there are people—perhaps even a substantial number of educators—who accept the carrot-and-stick theory of motivation. How else, they ask, can you get the kids to master long division and the dates of all our wars? But I hereby register a complaint in the name of those educators who have successfully used more humane methods. As educators, we would not use threats, punishments, and pernicious comparisons to ‘motivate’ our students. But that is how this law treats the school establishment.
3. The high-stakes testing associated with the law seems to be demoralizing teachers, students, and administrators. We need more documentation on this but, in talking with people all over the country, I hear stories of sick and frightened children, dispirited teachers, and administrators disgusted with the strategies they must use to meet (or evade) AYP, the adequate-yearly-progress requirement. A good law does not demoralize good people.
4. The curriculum seems to be suffering. We need more evidence to state this as fact, but reports from many sources are suggestive. If the No Child Left Behind legislation was designed to provide better schooling, especially for poor and minority students, this result is deeply troubling. For it is the curriculum of these children that seems to have been gutted. Wealthier kids, in schools that don’t have to worry so much about test scores, may still enjoy arts, music, drama, projects, and critical conversation. But poor kids are spending far too much time bent over worksheets and test-prep materials. If this is happening on a wide scale, and if the “No Child” law is directly responsible, my argument is already solid. But there is more.
5. Our poor and minority students are hurt again by the high-stakes testing under No Child Left Behind. Disproportionately, they are the kids who are retained in grade, forced into summer school (for more test prep), beaten down by repeated failure, and deprived of a high school diploma. If we really wanted to help poor, inner-city kids, we would not try to do so by imposing a bad law on everyone. We would identify the problem and muster massive resources to solve it: provide money to renovate crumbling buildings, add clinics (especially dental and vision) to school campuses, provide day care for infants and small children, recruit the finest teachers with significantly higher pay, and even provide boarding facilities for homeless children and those caught in family emergencies. We would establish on-site research-and-development teams (in cooperation with universities) to experiment with, develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate promising practices. Understanding that schools and kids are not all alike, these would be long-term R&D projects serving particular schools—not research projects looking for “what works” universally. We could do these things if we had the will, and if we would stop wasting enormous sums on testing, compliance measures, and the host of activities associated with testing.
6. The law seems to be a corrupting influence. Again, we need more documentation. But reports suggest that cheating has increased at every level, and administrators are busily seeking loopholes, using triage techniques, moving kids around and reclassifying them, playing with data—all to meet the letter of a law whose actual requirements cannot reasonably be met. When a law makes matters worse instead of better, it is time to rethink it. We had to get rid of Prohibition, and we should probably get rid of many of our drug laws, which are obviously a corrupting influence, not a corrective one. If the No Child Left Behind Act is corrupting, we should get rid of it, too.
We should not waste more valuable resources—human
and monetary—tinkering with this law. It is a bad law and should be repealed.
Nel Noddings is the Lee Jacks professor of education emerita at Stanford University, and an adjunct professor of philosophy and education at Teachers College, Columbia University.
From Education Week, February 23, 2005, Vol. 24, Issue 24. Used with permission.
It is Spring, and
newspapers print school test scores.
Controversy continues to rage over the use of tests as measures of
proficiency, the amount of school time used practice test taking, demographics,
and the use of the carrot of more federal funding and threats of state takeovers
of “low-performing” schools,
etc. Please see the Op-Ed piece on page 6.
We welcome reader response on this issue.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Excerpted from
A School Leader’s Guide to Communicating about No Child Left Behind by the
Washington State School Directors Association
The overall goal of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is to have all students achieving state standards by 2014. Between now and 2014, states, districts and schools must take a series of specific steps toward that goal.
Under the new federal law, schools, districts and states must focus intensively on challenging academic standards in reading, mathematics and science and create tests based on them. The new law also requires accountability for the performance of every child and the guarantee of a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Although all public schools are subject to the NCLB goals and reporting requirements, only schools receiving federal funds under Title I (federal support for high-poverty schools) of the No Child Left Behind Act will be subject to specific requirements for corrective action.
Testing and Achievement
• By 2005-06, states will test every student annually in reading and mathematics from grades 3-8 and at least once in these subjects in grades 10-12
• By 2007-08, states must test students in science at least once during grades 3-5, grades 6-9 and grades 10-12.
• States set specific scores, known as “proficiency levels,” on their reading and mathematics tests that indicate performance against the standards.
• States next set student performance goals – the percentage of students overall and the percentage of students in specific groups expected to achieve proficiency – based on test results from previous years.
• Student performance goals will be raised on a regular schedule between now and 2014 so that by 2014, all students – and all subgroups of students – will be achieving state standards.
• Test scores must be publicly reported, not just for schools, but also for specific groups within schools, including low-income students, those belonging to racial or ethnic minorities, and students with disabilities or limited English proficiency.
• Schools and districts must demonstrate annually that all students – and all groups of students – are meeting state performance goals in order to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
• Schools and districts will not be counted as making AYP if any one (or more) of the specific student groups misses the performance goal in either reading or math. It doesn’t matter if the school misses the goal by a little or a lot, or by one group of students or many. All groups must meet the goals for a school to make AYP.
• If schools or districts do not make AYP in the same subject area for two years in a row, they are considered “schools in need of improvement.”
• If “schools in need of improvement” receive Title I funds special requirements apply to them. These requirements include both financial and technical assistance and the development and implementation of a school improvement plan. In addition, eligible parents will be able to transfer their children to other public schools that are not “in improvement” or get outside tutoring assistance for them.
• School improvement efforts must focus on programs and approaches that have research evidence demonstrating their effectiveness.
• If schools getting Title I funds continue to fall short of AYP, they will face more extensive changes over the course of several years, including options such as: possible restructuring, state takeover or management by private firms.
Teacher and Paraprofessional Quality
• In every school, all teachers of core academic subjects (i.e. English, language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history, geography and the arts) must be “highly qualified” by 2005-06. By the end of the 2005-06 school year: States must ensure that all teachers are highly qualified.
• “Highly qualified” teachers must have a bachelor’s degree and hold full state teacher certification. They must also either hold national board certification in the core academic subject(s) they are assigned to teach, OR be endorsed in the core academic subject(s) they are assigned to teach.
• Title I schools must notify parents annually that they can request information on their children’s teacher qualifications. Parents in these schools must also be notified if their child is taught for more than four weeks by a teacher who does not meet the federal law’s definition of “highly qualified.”
• Paraprofessionals newly hired after January 2002 must have at least two years of college or an associate’s degree. They must also demonstrate knowledge of and the ability to assist with reading, writing and mathematics through a formal state or local assessment. Currently employed paraprofessionals have until 2006 to meet these requirements.
Find this entire document at: www.wssda.org/wssda/WebForms/En-Us/HotTopics/ESEA/toolkit/nclbtoolkit.pdf
Tenth of each month. Submit peace, justice and environmentally friendly event notices to P.O. Box 134, Modesto, CA, 95353, or call 522-4967 or 575-4299, or email to Jim Costello. Free listings subject to space, availability and editing.
