Meaning What You Say

When we talk about reading education in this country, there is a great emphasis on understanding the meaning of what is being read. Readers need to trust the veracity of material they're presented and part of that trust is faith that the virtue of the deeds match the expectations expressed by the words.

In McCain's acceptance speech for the Republican nomination to run for the office of President he says,

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him: that I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.

Fight for what's right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

The sad truth of the matter is that outside the convention, everyday citizens of this country already attempted to comfort the afflicted and defend the rights of the oppressed and more.

But these citizens were not treated like heroes and they weren't treated like Constitutionally protected Americans. Here is a description of the street scene from a Minnesota college student,

I am just one person, my story will not fully depict the absolute circus this convention has turned my state into. what brought me to St Paul today, a city that is normally extremely quiet and without event, was the Take Back Labor Day festival. I went to the city to see friends and hear music and stand up as a supporter for real worker's rights and further, most importantly, the freedom of our Republic.

What i saw was extreme...


There is no doubt in mind, from the limited exposure I did get of the whole RNC scene, that we are in fact under Martial Law. There is no walking through downtown St Paul without coming to the absolute realization that we are not safe and most certainly not free.


From Harriet Island, where the above-described music and awareness event was taking place, dozens of us saw, with our own civilian eyes, the true arsenal the federally-sponsored RNC had in store for us. "The department, awarded a $50,000,000 security grant from the federal government, will have at its disposal $330,000 in helmets, $1,000,000 in chemical masks and $1,900,000 in chemical irritants, according to plans approved by the [Saint Paul] City Council this month."

First hand, I saw at least 4 snipers on top of downtown buildings surrounding the RNC ground zero at any given time. In the river just ahead of our festival, there were coast guard boats with massive machine guns loaded and ready to fire, two per boat. Many boats patrolled the waters of the mighty [city-polluted] Mississippi throughout the day. Later on, about 10 boats were seen at once, all surrounding a non-violent sit-in on the banks of the Mississippi, along with various officials inland, their squad lights ablaze.

The very citizens McCain instructs to act like citizens became little more than tactical dummies to be roughed up, herded, goaded, intimidated, gassed, and profiled as targets for extermination in the event a signal is given.

You see, his words are lies. Big lies. He and everyone in the convention knew what was going on. Why not trump Obama's Denver spectacle by leaving the convention hall and embracing the marchers as just the people he was talking about and talking to?

Had McCain had the guts to do that he would have witnessed a scene out of mad max. Police and paramilitary armed to the teeth covered in more protective gear than the troops in Baghdad wear. One has to wonder to what end? Was the government expecting WW III?, an invasion of body snatchers from another dimension?, an alien invasion?, what??? What could justify the armaments in a sleepy American metropolis in the middle of nowhere?

Apparently moms and pops urging peace or food for pantries or waving an unauthorized sign is red alert these days.

Red and belligerent. The storm-troopers targeted media. Media with big security badges identifying themselves as observers of the events and not objects of them. The storm-troopers targeted watchdog groups first. The people who keep the government accountable.

True patriots would be proud of these reporters and lawyers whose dwellings were targeted for break-in by authorities armed to kill.

The rule of Constitutional American law was nowhere to be found in Minnesota last week in the flood of platitudes and self-serving sanctity. It was no accident. McCain's idea of reform and change includes more of this Orwellian stuff or he would have insisted on stopping it the minute Amy Goodman's story became the headline.

Teaching kids to look for meaning in speech is one lesson. The other is teaching them the difference between, words, intent, and moral culpability for words.

We need to be careful in encouraging children to question. Watch Amy Goodman ask a question here:

Carl Chew: American Hero

A few months ago an excellent LA Times editorial talked about the degradation of the concept of heroes. Rosa Brooks in a piece called Heroism and the Language of Fascism
laments...

...it's a big mistake to mix up the idea of service -- or the idea of sacrifice and suffering -- with the idea of heroism.

As most dictionaries explain, true heroism involves "extraordinary courage, fortitude or greatness of soul." So firefighters who take unusual risks to save others can legitimately be called heroes -- but just showing up for work and turning on a fire hose when required isn't quite enough. Similarly, suffering doesn't magically turn an ordinary person, however beloved, into a hero. Some of the office workers who died on 9/11 were truly heroic, sacrificing their own chance of escape to help others. But many of those who died never even got a chance to be heroic.

Distinguishing heroism from service and suffering is important for two reasons. First, it's always worth fighting the Lake Wobegon effect because, in a world where "all the children are above average," the truly special child gets no recognition, and genuine acts of exceptional courage are trivialized.

Take Jason Dunham, a 22-year-old Marine corporal who, in 2004, threw his helmet and then his body on top of an Iraqi insurgent's grenade, saving the lives of the Marines around him. Dunham died of his wounds and became one of only two soldiers in the Iraq war to be awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration in the United States. But in a world where every service member is a "hero," how many Americans have heard of Dunham's fatal courage?

There are plenty of other genuine heroes whose names will never be recorded, like the utility workers described by a Cornell University research team: On 9/11, "they went into the flooded Verizon building just north of World Trade Center 6, risking electrocution in chest-deep water and kerosene to shut off the building's massive circuit-breakers by hand." But when each of the thousands of stockbrokers and secretaries in the World Trade Center qualifies for the "everyone's a hero" award, why bother to identify those whose actions were unusually selfless?

But there's a deeper reason to be wary of the "everyone's a hero" rhetoric. Simply put, it fits neatly alongside other terms beloved of the powers that be, such as "warrior" and "the Homeland": It's part of the language of fascism.

For a chilling account of another society in which "the devaluation of the concept of heroism" was "proportional to the frequency of its use and abuse," check out Ilya Zemtsov's "The Encyclopedia of Soviet Life." In 1938, Zemtsov notes, the Soviet Union instituted "the title 'Hero of Socialist Labor'. . . . Thousands of those heroes emerged. . . . The hero was supposed to die in the name of Stalin during wartime [and] give his or her all in labor on communist constructions. . . . [But] a person upon whom the title 'hero' is bestowed has often performed no heroic deed whatsoever, but may receive the title . . . merely in return for displaying loyalty and/or diligence. . . . With time, the awarding of the title came to be used as a token to be disbursed or withheld according to political considerations. . . . "

In other words, comrades, whenever it seems as if they're handing out "hero" medals for free, look out: There's usually a hidden price.

I am a fan of Rosa's observations. Heroes are very special people usually acting on a higher plane of consciousness. In education its a rarity but I found one.

Carl Chew, a Seattle teacher refused to administer federally required standardized tests. His insubordination, an act of true heroism, cost him a nine day, unpaid suspension. ABC NEWS covered the story:

Chew, who is 60, said his act of civil disobedience will cost him about $1,000 over his nine-day absence. He knows it will go on his permanent record and he could ultimately be fired.

"It took me a few moments before I decided to do this," he said. "I did protesting around the Vietnam War and marched for civil rights in the '60s. But this was the first time I did something against a seemingly huge machine."

"I feel so strongly about this -- that it's bad for the kids and I have to do it," he said. "But I know from my own experience, I have to accept the consequences."

Good Lord, I thought everyone with a conscience and the courage to stand up to the government was dead. At Seattle PI Chew explained his reasoning:

"On April 15, I refused to give the Washington Assessment of Student Learning to my sixth-grade students at a Seattle Public Schools middle school. I performed this single act of civil disobedience based on personal moral and ethical grounds, as well as professional duty. I believe that the WASL is destructive to our children, teachers, schools, and parents.

"It is important for me to note that my disobedient action was not directed at any individual. I love being a teacher; my students are fantastic; my fellow teachers collaborate with and help me every day in numerous ways; and my school administration has always shown a willingness to listen to and support the teachers. I understand that my action has caused people pain, and I am truly sorry for that, but I could no longer stand idly by as something as wrong as the WASL is perpetrated on our children year after year.

"Though my act of civil disobedience was individual, I do not stand alone in my strong beliefs. Any Internet search for high-stakes testing will reveal highly regarded educators, distressed parents and sensitive teachers with a wealth of thoughtful writing and case studies supporting my views.

"The WASL is bad for kids.

"To my mind the measure of successful childhood is that each child learns about who she or he is and how the world works, gains an assertive and confident self image and feels safe, well fed, and happy. Schools, along with parents and communities, need to contribute wisely to this goal. Unfortunately, the WASL creates panic, insecurity, low self esteem and sadness for our children.

# It is written in the language of white, middle-and upper-class students, leaving all others behind.

# It is presented to children in a secretive, cold, sterile and inhumane fashion.

# There is no middle ground --children either pass or fail, which leaves them confused, guilty, and frustrated.

# Numerous questions on the test are unclear, misleading or lacking in creativity.

# It tests a very narrow definition of what educators know children need to become well-rounded human beings.

# The WASL is given at a prescribed time regardless of a child's emotional or physical health.

"The WASL is bad for teachers.

"For meager pay, teachers are asked to work in extremely challenging situations, keep absurdly long hours and, when it comes to the WASL, function in an atmosphere of fear.

# A majority of teachers loath the WASL but feel unable to speak out freely against it due to their fears of negative consequences for doing so.

# Because administrators are constantly pushing to meet federal guidelines for yearly score improvements, their relationships with teachers can become strained and unpleasant.

# Administrators and teachers suffer under the knowledge that if they do not achieve improvement goals (measured by WASL passage alone) they can be sent to retraining classes, lose their students to other schools, or have their "failing" school handed over to a private company.

# Before administering the WASL teachers mandatorily sign a "loyalty" oath promising they will not read any of the test questions.

# Teachers feel devalued by the amount of time most of them have to devote to test practice and proctoring --upwards of four weeks for actual testing and many more weeks for WASL prep in many cases.

# Teachers feel used and depressed when, half a year after the test is given, they are presented with dubious WASL results --amateurish and misleading Power Point charts and graphs telling them next to nothing about their students' real knowledge and talents.

# Teachers' relationships with parents are compromised because they cannot talk freely with them about opting their child out or other WASL concerns.

:The WASL is bad for parents and families.

# Parents have been shut out of this costly process.

# Most of them are misled by official statements about what the purpose of the WASL is.

# Many of them do not realize that they have the right to opt their children out of testing with no consequences, though in practice schools have illegally put inappropriate pressure on parents and children who have opted out.

# Many of them do not realize that teachers are, in many cases, not allowed to discuss any reasons why they might want to opt their child out. (Teachers in California went to court to secure the right to inform parents of their right to opt their children out of that state's testing.)

# Like children, parents suffer from the same feelings of guilt and unhappiness when their children fail.

# Parents are not informed that the test is biased, culturally insensitive and irrelevant and not a real measure of anything.

# The WASL graduation requirement has kept thousands of families from knowing whether or not their students will be allowed to take part in graduation ceremonies and celebrations -- the culminating reward for 13 years of public school attendance and achievement -- with friends and families.

"The WASL is bad for schools.

"Even in the best of times purse strings are rarely opened adequately to public education. Where a private school needs to charge $20,000-$30,000 to educate a child well, public schools are given a third or less of that for each student. Simply, schools are strapped for cash, many of them struggling each year to fund their needs with an ever- shrinking pot of money.

# While schools are generally underfunded, Washington will spend a projected $56 million in 2009 to have a private corporation grade WASL tests. These tax dollars are needed right in our schools providing more teachers, smaller classes, tutors, and diverse educational experiences for our students.

# While the federal government requires that school districts use high stakes testing to qualify for federal dollars, tests are not fully funded by the federal government.

# WASL is one of the most difficult tests used to fulfill the federal requirements, with one of the highest failure rates.

# Instead of safe, exciting and meaningful places for our children to spend half of their waking hours, schools have become WASL or test mills bent on churning out students who are trained to answer state-approved questions in a state-approved manner.

The WASL is just bad.

# Most, if not all, teachers will agree that assessment is vital. Wise teachers know that assessments which are also learning experiences for students and teachers are the best. The WASL categorically is not a learning experience.

# I believe that individual students are entitled to their own learning plans, tailored to their own needs, strengths and interests. Teachers know it is definitely possible to do this in the context of a public school. The WASL categorically treats all children alike and requires that they each fit into the same precise mold, and state-mandated learning plans based on WASL scores fail to recognize individual strengths of students.

# Passing the WASL does not guarantee success in college, placement in a job, a living wage or adequate health care.

# WASL will decrease the high school graduation rate. Thousands of students who have completed all other requirements and passed all required classes will be denied diplomas because of WASL failure.

# High-stakes testing has not proven beneficial to students, teachers, schools, or communities.

In the real lives of students, teachers, and parents the WASL is an ongoing disaster.

# When I was a teacher at Graham Hill Elementary in Seattle, a number of my students received their WASL scores to find that they had "failed". When I looked at the notices being sent to their parents I saw that each student had come to within just a few points of actually passing and that their scores were well within the gray area, or "margin of error," for the test. The "test scientists" aren't sure whether the student passed or failed, yet the school tells the student he or she failed. These students cried when they saw the results.

# When I first started teaching, Graham Hill could afford Americorps tutors, numerous classroom aides and had money for field-trip buses and ample supplies. By the time I stopped teaching there, Americorps was gone, there were no classroom aides except for parent volunteers, and everything else was in short supply.

# Teaching and testing during my last year at Graham Hill was challenging. I was on my own in a room with 29 students, 10 percent did not speak English, 50 percent of them spoke another language at home, several of them were homeless, and many of them had severe emotional challenges due to parental pre-natal drug use, violence and abuse.

# No one ever asked me or any of the teachers I know whether high-stakes testing was a good idea. In fact, we teachers are made to jump through seemingly endless hoops to prove our worthiness to be professional, certificated educators. Public school teachers are responsible for the educational lives of over a million students in Washington state, yet, in the end, no one actually wants to listen to what teachers have to say about what is best for the students in our care.

Wow! Professional ethics! Professional Duty to children and parents! Moral introspection!

I want to vote this guy to Head the Department of Education in Washington.

Hat tip: Schools Matter

The Seventh Ring of Hell in Norwich

Mary Landesman is beginning to realize, like so many of us, that the public has been lied to about Julie Amero.

But every time I think we've reached all time lows in judicial history, it happens to be little more than the latest rung our heads hit as we free fall into the depths of this trial.

Mary reports,

"It's a case of possible discrimination against an attorney with a debilitating medical condition, a semi-sleeping judge who allegedly ridiculed the attorney's symptoms, an improperly instructioned jury who acted upon what they were told, never realizing that what they were told may have been tainted. And it's a case of a negligent and manipulative school administration, the real culprits behind the events that led to Amero's downfall that fateful day."

Much of this we already have covered but let's roll back to "possible discrimination against an attorney with a disability"!

I can tell you for a fact that any teacher in this country would be asked to resign if they seriously ridiculed the disability of anyone on school grounds. It appears the ethical standards for teachers exceed those of the bench!

Lady Justice hides her tears behind her blindfold. It is the responsibility of the Norwich community to demand a clean-up of their system. Any American who has a brain has to wonder if the court system has become so corrupt and cynical as to presume anyone accused of morals crimes as though they were perverts unworthy of an honest trial in court.

The fact that evidence exonerating the defendant was disallowed by this judge implies that the game is fixed - that police can simply point an accusing finger and declare that magic evidence proves a defendant guilty and that a nod and wink judiciary enjoys the sport.

Today Julie Amero is being treated like a sexual predator despite the fact that no one in the technical community believes the assertions made in court about the behavior of the computer.

Having taught at Mohegan Community College for many years, I'm asking former students to start asking questions, you're being hoodwinked. And that's not fair either.

Can We Declare a War on Stupidity Please

Godfrey Daniels! What is the legislature thinking about? Today's Courant informs us that thanks to the ethical lapses of the Rowland/Rell administration, new ethical guidelines were developed to prevent the ethically challenged politicians from accepting gifts like jacuzzis for their cottages.

Thanks to the genius of our CT lawmakers this law seems to include the elimination of corporate technology gifts to schools. Where do these Homers come from? Honestly. Does anyone in the State House use their heads?

People, get out and vote on August 8.

Ethics Rules May Hurt Schools
State Agency Asked To Clarify Law Restricting Gifts
July 21, 2006
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

According to an opinion issued by the Office of State Ethics, the law bans all gifts to state agencies from donors or companies who pay for registered lobbyists or who seek to do business with the agencies. That includes many major corporations in the state.

The law does not apply to local school districts, but it does affect the technical high school system, for example, because of its status as a state institution.

The issue prompted a letter to the ethics office this week from State Board of Education Chairman Allan Taylor, who sought clarification on the new law.

Taylor cited the technical high school system as an example, saying it relies on gifts ranging from scholarships sponsored by Northeast Utilities to a recent $141,000 donation of heating and air-conditioning equipment from a group of companies including Carrier Corp.

Taylor also mentioned the $25,000 from financial services company ING that pays for the state's annual teacher of the year recognition ceremony and helps send the winning teacher to a national reception in Washington, D.C., and conferences in Texas and Alabama.

Although such gifts were acceptable in the past, state-operated schools and prospective donors can expect that future donations will be subject to a case-by-case review, said Meredith Trimble, director of education for the Office of State Ethics.

"Their concern is legitimate," she said.

"It's just pretty clear the way the statute is written. If they are a regulated donor and what they provide is a gift to the state - from a fax machine to cash to free training - it is no longer permissible."

The new rules could hinder efforts to forge ties between schools and businesses, some officials say.

"I don't think this was the intent" of the law, said Rachel Rubin, an expert on ethics who reviews compliance issues for the University of Connecticut. "We have a mandate to raise private money. It kind of puts us in a Catch-22."

Up by 40 Points, Time for the Full Court Press

My son plays summer league basketball and he and the rest of the EO Smith squad enjoy it for what it is - an opportunity to play together, get some exercise, and hopefully hone some skills as a team.

But last night only five players showed up meaning there were no substitutions available. Usually this is a good thing. The fellows who show up get the minutes they each want. And it's a great opportunity to show what you can do.

But last night Windsor's team showed up with ten players, enough to substitute every player so that the player was fresh every five minutes. Again, no big deal.

But by five minutes into the game Windsor pressed EO and by that time the lead was commanding and would do nothing but increase all game long. The final score was a fifty point differential.

By the end of the game I was curious as to the number of fouls each team had committed because Windsor had run the full court press against EO SMith the entire game even after a comfortable and insurmountable lead.

In my book this is unethical and unconscionable and quite frankly I think the coach should be removed. Here's why.

First, this is poor sportsmanship. No sportsman one plays any game to humiliate or to be humiliated. Period.

Secondly, this is a summer league activity. The gym is hot and the league has certain rules that are intended to prevent injuries. For example, you can't dunk. If you do it's a technical foul that awards the other team four points [if memory serves me correctly] and the ball.

Yet, no such rule is applied to overwhelming the other team by sheer numbers and force. This is not the first time I have watched opposing coaches press a full game against another team that is clearly overwhelmed for one reason or another. And I've seen this happen in very young leagues where small town teams play rabid bigger town teams. Often the kids are not natural athletes but that's beside my immediate argument.

My argument is not about the winning or losing because that is truly inconsequential in a pickup game. And a team that's short of players is not inferior to a team rich in bench strength so better and worse are not the issue either.

And EO Smith players are very well conditioned so that is not the issue - they played, took a humiliating loss, and walked away humbled but it didn't kill them so hopefully they got better.

I talked to one of the referees after the game questioning why with such an obvious mismatch they didn't call the game to control the action a bit more - one team's players playing every minute under continuous duress and the other freely substituting everybody every four minutes with the expressed intent of running the undermanned team ragged.

I was told that a.) "This is just summer league, B.) "Don't worry, we wouldn't foul out anyone from your team, C.) "What do you want me to do call the game differently?", and D.) "I can't let what happens on the sidelines effect my calling of the game."

I was put in a logical and ethical bind myself. Point D is true and self-evident. The ref can't weight bad coaching, undermanned teams and over-manned teams into consideration. They can't.

But my answer (after sleeping on it) to Point C is that I do expect referees to call a game differently in certain circumstances. These games are meaningless. Would Windsor have suffered winning by 40, 30, 20 instead of 50 because a referee slowed the game down a bit allowing a five man team a breather occasionally? I doubt it.

Besides, the referee already was using Point A to disarm my protest, "Who cares?" But with Point B, he already admitted that the game was being called "differently". By calling fewer fouls on both teams the five man team HAD to play the full game but the other team was also commiting fouls that were not being called. In reality this exascerbates the plight of the under-manned team. They have to play and they have to play without hope of getting a call to slow the tempo of the game.

And honestly, I listen to NBA games where the announcer says unapologetically, "the referees are taking control of this game early to keep it from getting out of hand". Are the NBA referees out of line? No.

Someday, I'll read that kid collapse on the court because a rogue summer league basketball coach "is just practicing the fast break" for a full game against an overwhelmed team. I'll remember that a player isn't allowed to dunk because he might get hurt but he can be run ragged by misguided coaches in a hot sweaty gym and nobody raises an eyebrow.