Interesting. Can you be more specific Dr. Ravitch? “. . . reformers . . . do not understand the practical wisdom of those who must make decisions every day that respond to unique situations.”

Hmm. . . so people who actually work in and attend schools seem to have some knowledge about how those schools operate, both the good and the bad, and apparently should have a role to play in improving them. Who knew? You can read Dr. Ravitch’s full letter here (and read Deborah Meier's letter here).

Chester Finn of the American Enterprise Institute, who was another early and vocal supporter of throwing everything we know about child development out the window, hasn’t begun to look upon his gift to America’s children with quite the jaundiced eye that Ravitch has developed, but he does have some misgivings.

If fact, he and co-author Frederick Hess turned their misgivings into a book titled No Remedy Left Behind: Lessons from a Half-Decade of NCLB. In it Finn admits that “Since unrealistic goals make failure inevitable, they have the perverse effect of focusing employees on complying and on keeping out of trouble."

You don’t say. Make Test the king and everyone worships Test. Who could have predicted that? It seems Mr. Finn has come to the realization that top down proclamations aren’t the best way to improve schools after all. Still, he’s not ready to break off the relationship just yet. Along with his co-author Hess, he offers eight suggestions to make NCLB work. Suggestion number one is titled “Get Real” and offers the following insight: “Federal policymakers ought to be more realistic about what they cause to happen in K-12 education, acknowledging that Uncle Sam is not adept at finely calibrated, escalating sanctions of the kind that NCLB expects states and districts to execute.”

OK, so far so good. The federal government is not so good at punishing schools for not meeting “unrealistic goals.” It seems like a version of that whole top down thing again. But then, suggestion two is “Create a National Standard.” I’m sorry. Did I miss something? Isn’t that whole “Universal proficiency” by 2014 a national standard? Didn’t you just say “unrealistic goals make failure inevitable?”

Sounds like Mr. Finn may be the victim of an abusive relationship. I can just hear him telling the policy police when they come to his apartment for the third time in a week that he isn’t going to press charges because “NCLB isn’t so bad. As long as it’s not drinking.” You can read Finn and Hess’s article about their book here.

So, with some of its fans peeking around the edges of the Potemkin village that is NCLB you’d expect that the newly elected Democratic Congress would be in a real receptive mood to hear what folks who actually work with students would have to say about this Bill. But, then you’d have to remember that this is the Congress that caved on wireless surveillance, caved on funding the war, even caved on MoveOn.org, but sent a “sternly worded” letter when right wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh called soldiers who have been to Iraq “phony” if they didn’t still support the war. I guess hurting a General’s feelings requires a Senate response, but libeling front line soldiers who actually get shot at. . . eh. . . not so much.

The point is, even though the Democrats have majorities in both houses, and even though most people expect that majority to grow in 2008, we can take nothing for granted in how they might react. I urge you to click though the Critical Policy Resources section of this newsletter and use it to make your feelings known in Washington.

Making your feelings known should be our mantra, not only at the federal level, but at home in our states as well, which brings me to this issue’s First Person contributor, Mark Conley. Mark is the coordinator of literacy programs for Michigan State University, where he has worked for 21 years. He oversees a tutoring program involving 250 Michigan State University juniors as they prepare to become new teachers.

Mark’s story is about changing times and how we need to change with them. As he says, “We had assumed before that the Department of Education advocated for us, but this was clearly no longer the case.” So Mark created the Michigan Alliance of Reading Professors to make his and his colleagues' feelings known, and while there are still many battles to fight, and many ears to bend, he knows that “when legislators and others come to call again saying ‘What are you educators doing to solve the problems of literacy?,’ we will have quite a compelling response.”

And speaking of compelling responses, in this issue NCTE Executive Director Kent Williamson discusses the many leadership opportunities available to NCTE members, and, as always, Millie Davis reports on NCTE’s continuing response to those who would curtail students’ right to read and learn in open, honest and nurturing environments.

I think Mark summed it up best when he said, “. . . There is much work to do. I asked my own state senator. . . why she voted for the new reading course. She confessed that she, along with many of her colleagues simply did not understand what it meant.” Hmm. . . sounds like they could use a few good teachers. Know anyone?