A Worldwide Test for Higher Education?

Inside Higher Ed: A Worldwide Test for Higher Education?

For much of the last year or two, debate has raged among American higher education officials and state and federal policy makers about the wisdom and practicality of creating a system that would allow for public comparison of how successfully individual colleges and/or programs are educating their students. Many college leaders have rejected the push, which has emanated primarily from the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education and the U.S. Education Department, on the grounds that the nation’s colleges and universities — two-year and four-year, public and private, exclusive and open enrollment — and their students are far too varied to be responsibly and intelligently measured by any single, standardized measure (or even a suite of them).

But the thirst among politicians and others seeking to hold colleges and universities more accountable for their performance is powerful, and it is not merely an American phenomenon. Proof of that can be found in the fact that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has convened a small group of testing experts and higher education policy makers who have met quietly in recent months to discuss the possibility of creating a common international system to measure the learning outcomes of individual colleges and university systems, along the lines of the well-regarded test that OECD countries now administer to 15-year-olds, the Program for International Student Assessment.

Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour (A Film by Max Blumenthal)

Max Blumenthal’s latest takes us on a shocking and at times bizarre tour of right-wing Pastor John Hagee’s annual Washington-Israel Summit, blowing the cover off the Christian Zionist movement in the process. Starring Joe Lieberman, Tom DeLay, Pastor John Hagee, Ambassador Dore Gold and a host of rapture-ready evangelicals praying for Armaggedon.

LESSON AIM: Should the U.S. occupation of Iraq continue?

Here’s a lesson developed by Alan Singer, Hofstra U.

LESSON AIM: Should the U.S. occupation of Iraq continue?

Introduction: On September 12, 2007, President Bush spoke to the American people about the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and its efforts to create a modern, democratic, nation. In the speech President Bush promised a gradual, but slight, reduction, in the number of American troops stationed in Iraq during the next year. President Bush’s speech followed testimony to the U.S. Congress by General George Petraeus, who is in-charge of U.S. military operations in Iraq. General Petraeus argued that the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq during the past year had helped to stabilize the country and made eventual U.S. success more likely.

There is tremendous disagreement in the U.S. about the success of U.S. policy in Iraq. There is also sharp debate about the broader issues of whether U.S. military power can ever resolve deep-seated local divisions and whether is possible to impose democracy on another nation.

Assignment: Read the excerpts from the statement by President Bush and some of the supporters and critics of U.S. policy. President Bush makes a number of assertions in this speech that have been questioned by critics. As you read the speech, underline points that might be disputed and discuss them with team members. Working individually, answer the questions that follow the sections of this document package and complete the activity that follows all of the quotes.

A. Statement by President George W. Bush on the U.S. Occupation of Iraq (Source: The New York Times, September 14, 2007, p. A8)
“In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America.
This ally has placed its trust in the United States, and tonight our moral and strategic imperatives are one. We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours. Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress . . . The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it . . . Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with the Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations, and this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared. Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces . . . General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces . . .
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror, and that will make us safer here at home. Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.”

Questions
1. Why does President Bush believe it is vital that American troops continue to fight in Iraq?
2. What was the strategy that President Bush chose to increase the chance of success?
3. How does President Bush evaluate that strategy in this speech?

B. Comments by 2008 Presidential Candidates on the Report by General Petraeus to Congress (Source: The New York Times, September 14, 2007, p. A16)

Rudolph Giuliani (Republican): “General Petraeus provided the first look at a strategy that is getting results and an Iraq that is making progress.”

Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (Democrat): “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Senator John McCain (Republican): “General Petraeus and his troops ask just two things of us: the time to continue this strategy, and the support they need to carry out their mission. They must have both.”

John Edwards (Democrat): “General Petraeus may propose the withdrawal of a single brigade by the end of the year in exchange for keeping the failed surge going another six months. This is not the withdrawal the American people voted for.”

Fred Thompson (Republican): “General Petraeus’s report strengthens my conviction that we can achieve our objectives in Iraq and we must not withdraw precipitously.

Senator Barack Obama (Democrat): “This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake. At what point do we say, ‘Enough’?”

Questions
1. What pattern emerges when you read these statements?
2. Which candidate’s views come closest to your own? Why?
3. In your opinion, why are political leaders so sharply divided?

C. An opinion essay published in The New York Times written by seven U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq. None of the seven were officers (Source: “The War As We Saw It” by Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy, New York Times, August 19, 2007).

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere . . . This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense . . . We operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear . . . Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks . . . We need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Questions
1. According to the authors, what problems face American troops stationed in Iraq?
3. What do they believe will be the eventual outcome of the U.S. occupation of Iraq?
3. In your opinion, is it significant that the authors of this essay are regular soldiers and not officers? Explain.

Final Activity: Based on these quotes, your responses to the questions, and your knowledge about the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, write a letter to either your congressional representative or one of your U.S. Senators explaining your view on what is taking place there and what the United States should do now and in the future. Your letter should be a minimum of two hundred and fifty words. It will be shared with your classmates and discussed in class. It will be your decision whether you want to send it to your representatives.

Radical Teaching Now

Radical Teacher is soliciting articles for an issue “exploring the politics of pedagogy today.” Send manuscripts or proposals to Jackie Brady at jeblonde@aol.com and Richard Ohmann at richardohmann@earthlink.net

Radical Teaching Now

Radical Teacher solicits articles or proposals for an issue exploring the politics of pedagogy today.

This magazine was founded in1975, a time when ideas and projects from 1960s movements were taking root in universities and schools. Multicultural, feminist, and left theory challenged academic orthodoxies. New texts and voices challenged old exclusions and canons. And new pedagogies challenged traditional relations of authority in the classroom. Today we wonder to what extent radical pedagogy has survived. What has happened in 40 years to student centered teaching, teaching about race and racism, the democratic classroom, feminist pedagogies, “relevance,” collaborative methods, anti-“banking” pedagogies, and so on? What about newer radical pedagogies that focus on gender and sexuality and/or class in the classroom?

Are many radical approaches being pushed out of test-driven public schooling and commodified higher education? Are they being watered down or stripped of their political force by liberal educators fearful of maintaining neutrality? Where they persist, do they remain connected to new canons and progressive theories? Are they actually radical in the present context?

We invite contributions that address these large questions, either directly or by analysis of courses and teaching experiences that illuminate them. More specific questions include:

–Where does progressive pedagogy thrive? Primarily in K-12, and in a few college areas such as women’s studies and composition? Only in “teaching” (v. “research”) colleges?Elite schools and colleges, or does it have a broad class base?

–Is it a minor and semi-clandestine project in a few safe classrooms, or a still-lively movement?

–Where progressive teaching is firmly established, has it become routine–a set of techniques,drained of politics?

–Or is it drawing new energies from movements in and outside of education? Which movements?Is it tied to activism?

–How have progressive initiatives of 40 years ago been critiqued, modified, strengthened?

–What new approaches to radical teaching are coming forward, in K-12 or university education?

–How has radical teaching adjusted to or been changed by immigration and diasporas?

–What new obstacles loom? E.g., attacks from the right, resistance from career-oriented students, highstakes testing, No Child Left Behind…?

–What about old, durable professional structures and habits that drown out radicalism: the grading system, the teacher as cop the lecture method, the primacy of research…?

–What’s the future of radical pedagogy? How should we be trying to guide and test it? What can we expect from its enemies?

Send manuscripts or proposals to Jackie Brady at jeblonde@aol.com and
Richard Ohmann at richardohmann@earthlink.net

All eyes on DePaul

From the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia:

Friends and Colleagues,

As all of you are no doubt aware, students and faculty at DePaul have organized to support Dr. Norman Finkelstein. Last friday, they held a very successful protest at the university convocation (you can read about it at Chicago IndyMedia, which we link to on our homepage: http://defendcriticalthinking.org/).

Wednesday, September 5, will be the first day of classes at DePaul. Students will be holding a press conference and a protest on campus. Dr. Finkelstein is planning on holding his class which the University canceled. It is likely that Finkelstein and other students will be arrested.

The fact that the students, with some faculty support, are taking such a strong stand is a very good thing. They are already having a real impact on the situation. The administration, along with some allies, are increasing their efforts to demonize Finkelstein and intimidate his supporters. (Two examples: “leaking” memos for an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, which is basically a warning to students not to throw away their academic careers, and a disgusting hit-piece on Finkelstein by Andrew Sullivan. Both of these are available on Dr. Finkelstein’s website: http://normanfinkelstein.com/).

All who believe in justice need to use what means they have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those taking action at DePaul. Here are some concrete ways to help:

* Send statements of support to Dr. Finkelstein, with cc to the administration and the students. Finkelstein recently sent a very appreciative note to us saying how much strength he gets from such letters and other efforts on his behalf. Send these even if you have already sent letters already. Here are the pertinent email addresses:

Dr. Norman Finkelstein: normangf@hotmail.com
DePaul Academic Freedom Committee: info@academicfreedomchicago.org
DePaul University President, Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M. – president@depaul.edu
DePaul Provost, Dr. Helmut Epp – hepp@depaul.edu
DePaul Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dr. Charles Suchar – csuchar@depaul.edu

* Sign (if you have not already) our Open Letter to DePaul Faculty: A Battle for the Soul of DePaul, and for the Future of Academia. You can do this at our website: http://defendcriticalthinking.org/. The letter is pasted below this message.

* Call informal and formal faculty meetings at your school to discuss the issues in the case. There are a number of resources available on our website.

* Have a session of your class which discusses the importance of critical thinking and dissent, and how they are concentrated in this case. Students could read the piece by Bill Martin (text and pdf available at our website), as well as the statements by Dean
Suchar and President Holtschneider.

* Be attentive to the developments at DePaul on Wednesday and afterwards, and be prepared to shift gears to respond appropriately.

* Forward this email to colleagues and encourage them to help as well.

The DePaul administration must not be allowed to get away with this ugly capitulation in the face of power. At at a time when the “right to think at all is in dispute” (to quote Brecht in his play about “Galileo”), the stakes are tremendous.

Finally, our website has a link to make financial contributions to the National Project. We would like to retire our debt to the person who fronted the money for the full-page ad which was published in the New York Review of Books earlier this year. Doing so will
allow us to be in the position to do similar things in the future (for example, a full-page ad in the DePaul newspaper). Please consider making a donation.

For the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia,
Reggie Dylan
Greg Knehans

————————-

A Battle for the Soul of DePaul, and for the Future of Academia:
An Open Letter to DePaul Faculty

Over the last year, scholars around the country (and worldwide) have been looking to DePaul University with increasing alarm. The denial of tenure to Dr. Norman Finkelstein on June 8, after a mean-spirited campaign spearheaded by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, is widely seen, even by those who do not share Finkelstein’s political views, as a blatant violation of the fundamentals of academic freedom and procedural
guidelines. More, it is viewed as a fundamental threat to the intellectual ferment and critical thinking so desperately needed – in academia and in society – at this time in history.

From the beginning there have been faculty from DePaul who have recognized and responded to the gravity of the situation. Though few in number, they have stepped to the fore, often at genuine risk to their own careers. These scholars have investigated and exposed the facts of this case. Their work has laid bare how shameful and dangerous this decision is.

They have taken heart in the response of the students at DePaul, who protested the decision during exam week and at graduation. These students, organized in the DePaul Academic Freedom Committee (www.academicfreedomchicago.org), have continued their work, spending their summer vacation organizing, establishing their own university Without Walls to learn more about the political issues concentrated in
these decisions, and going to the US Social Forum in Atlanta to present a resolution to 10,000 activists.

Now the situation at DePaul has moved beyond egregious violations of academic freedom to vindictive and arbitrary punishment of kafkaesque dimensions. The administration has refused to let Dr. Finkelstein teach his terminal year (once again violating AAUP guidelines), and cancelled his classes (ironically, on “Equality and Social Justice,” and “Freedom and Empowerment”). It has effectively suspended him against his will and in violation of DePaul’s faculty handbook, locked him out of his office and is evidently even threatening to arrest him if he comes on campus.

In the face of this, the fact that Dr. Finkelstein has refused to back down is a very good thing. His resilience and determination is inspiring many others to stand with him, as well as with Dr. Mehrene Larudee, who many feel had her tenure denied because of her public support of Dr. Finkelstein.

On the first day of class (September 5th), Dr. Finkelstein will return to campus to teach his students. The DePaul AFC has organized a press conference and protest, along with an important conference on academic freedom on October 12 at the University of Chicago.

As a faculty member at DePaul, you have an opportunity to make a profound difference by standing with them, in spirit and in body. We encourage you to use whatever means at your disposal to help them reverse a dangerous precedent which is already sending a chilling message to faculty and scholars to self-censor their scholarship and their public roles, or risk their careers.

As DePaul philosophy professor Bill Martin has written (“The Urgent Need to Right Wrongs at DePaul,” available at www.defendcriticalthinking.org), if this injustice is not reversed, “DePaul will be destroyed as a place deserving of respect in the intellectual and academic worlds, and, if this happens, academic freedom will be under attack everywhere.”

We encourage you to join with others at DePaul who have said they will not allow this injustice to stand. Those of us who have been a part of the National Project to Defend Dissent and Critical Thinking in Academia are determined to support you in every way we can.

Selected Signatories (as of 09/03):

Elizabeth Aaronsohn, Ed.D., Central CT State University
Gil Anidjar, Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures, Columbia University.
William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Derrick Bell, Visiting Professor of Law, New York University School of Law.
Robert Brenner, History Department, UCLA.
George Caffentzis, Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine.
Rand Carter, Professor of the History of Art, Hamilton College.
Eric Cheyfitz, Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters, Cornell University.
Ward Churchill, Scholar at Large.
Dana Cloud, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
Drucilla Cornell, Professor in the Departments of Law and Political Science, Rutgers University.
Walter A Davis, Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University.
Richard Delgado, University Distinguished Professor of Law & Derrick Bell Fellow, University of Pittsburgh.
Haidar Eid, Department of English, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine.
Mahmoud Ahmed El Lozy, Professor of Drama and Theatre, The American University in Cairo.
Randa Farah, The University of Western Ontario.
Silvia Federici, Emeritus Professor, Hofstra University.
Irene Gendzier, Professor of Political Science, BostonUniversity.
William W. Hansen, International and Comparative Politics, American University of Nigeria.
Stanley Heller, Teacher, Chairperson Middle East Crisis Committee, Connecticut.
Ruth Hsu, Associate Professor of English, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Francis A. J. Ianni, Professor Emeritus, Columbia University.
Christine Karatnytsky, Scripts Librarian, Billy Rose Theatre Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts.
Charlotte Kates, co-chair, Middle East Subcommittee, National Lawyers Guild.
Mujeeb Khan, Former lecturer, Department of Political Science, DePaul University. (Doctoral Student, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley).
Peter N. Kirstein, Professor of History, Saint Xavier University.
Dennis Leach, Professor of Economic, University of Warwick.
Mark Lance, Professor of Philosophy, Professor of Justice and Peace, Georgetown University
Gary P. Leupp, Professor of History, Tufts University.
Andrew Levine, Research Professor (Philosophy), University of Maryland-College Park.
Peter McLaren, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bruce Malina, Department of Theology, Creighton University.
Bill Martin, Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University.
Chris Mato Nunpa, Southwest Minnesota State University.
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Tom Mayer, Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Matam P. Murthy, Professor Emeritus, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago.
Sadu Nanjundiah, Professor, Physics department, Central Connecticut State University.
Marcy Newman, Assistant Professor of English, Boise State University.
Sam Noumoff, Retired, McGill University.
Sam Peterson, Retired Professor, American University of Cairo, Arizona State University.
Peter Rachleff, Professor of History, Macalester College.
Joseph G. Ramsey, Assistant Professor of English, Fisher College.
Asghar Rastegar MD, Professor of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine.
Rush Rehm, Professor of Drama and Classics, Stanford University, Artistic Director, Stanford Summer Theater.
E. Wayne Ross, Professor of Education, Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia.
Ken Schubert, Swedish Association of Professional Translators.
Henry Silverman, Professor and Chairperson Emeritus, Department of History, Michigan State University.
Natsu Taylor Saito, Professor of Law, Georgia State University.
Paul Vieille, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
Michael Vocino, Professor, University of Rhode Island.
Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, Yale University.
Elana Wesley, Human rights and a just peace activist, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Israel.
David A. Wesley, Anthropologist, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Israel.
Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus, Boston University
(Affiliations for identification only)

Rouge Forum Update; Videos Gone Wild!

Dear Friends,

The Rouge Forum No Blood For Oil web page, used as a reference by teachers all over the world, is updated.

We’re supporting the call for mass direct actions in opposition to the imperial wars on the third Friday of each month as well as organizing teach-ins around the US. Please urge colleagues to join us!

Summer is gone. School is back. The wars expand. Inequality and segregation boom, underpinning the regimentation of what kids know, and how they come to know it, in schools; setting youth up for a future of meaningless jobs or the military, fighting the enemies of their real enemies, here at home. So, the Rouge Forum ratchets up the work.

Part of that project is the organizing tour Susan Harman, Bob Apter, and I will take around California, mainly to listen to educators, parents, and kids about what they see in school, seeking to better analyze concrete problems that connect to the social realities that surround all of schooling. We leave on September 8th, returning when we think we are done, or done in. If you would be willing to meet, please let me know.

The start of school in harsh times means we need to ask, once again, “why am I here, whose interests am I serving, why have school, or, How Do I Keep My Ideals and Still Teach?” Here’s a question and answer piece that may be challenging.

With the NCLB trailing only the empire’s wars on the Congressional agenda, we note that the leadership of NEA is supporting the NCLB by staying on the sidelines, while AFT’s top executives are lobbying hard for its re-adoption, with a few minor modifications. Quislings (mis-leaders) in our midst are part of our focus in this Update.

AFT and NEA executives are not going to fight the NCLB for us, nor will they act to end the wars, because their high salaries (nearing $500,000 at NEA) are drawn from the imperial trough. Their allies are not the rank and file of the unions, but the bosses at the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the others who joined NEA and AFT in writing the NCLB at the outset. That is one big reason we formed the Rouge Forum and said: Justice Demands Organization.

Here, for example, is the Chicago AFT’s boss, Ms Stewart, trying to fight her members who sought to vote NO on a tentative five year contract for the city’s teachers and again here
and yet again here.

If you go to Google Video and search for Chicago Teachers Union, there will probably be more videos up tomorrow. In addition, Substance News, based in Chicago, has instant coverage of this attack on whatever there is left of union democracy.

Proof of the Rouge Forum thesis that educators are uniquely positioned to fight for equality, democracy, and freedom, is the exemplary action of Tijuana teachers last week, fighting for pensions, but also on the side of their kids. They shut down the US border at San Ysidro with a mass demonstration. Here is one video of many.

We can learn to search out our own choke points of power in our own cities, learn how to do power analysis that give greater meaning to our actions. In San Diego, we have been working on that.

In San Diego, the superintendent of schools took a week and devoted it to a Support the Troops Surge in which teachers were directed to have even elementary kids fill out cards (carrying ads of war profiteers like Xerox) to mail to troops. Teachers were directed to lead demonstrations and ice cream socials in support of militarism, etc. Thousands of cards found their way to Rouge Forum members, but next time we will expand our activities. If you’re in an area where similar things are planned, please contact me and we can work on flyers, etc.

Jonathan Kozol was once seen as a resister. Now he’s asking school workers to be subversive. What that is, is not entirely clear, But we need to get beyond Kozol and seek a real plan of action in schools and communities. To that end, Indymedia recently published an analysis of Kozol’s work.

Remember, the Rouge Forum will have a considerable presence at the National Council for the Social Studies Conference in San Diego, November 28 to December 2nd. Of special interest is a Border Tour of San Diego. We will have limited seating for this tour, so please sign on early. It will be a good time to learn about the social relations that set up life in So-Cal, and to get together with like-minded people before the convention begins. This tour is going to be terrific.

And save the date for the Rouge Forum Conference in Louisville, March 14 to March 16, 2008.

Here is a link to our flyer on the REAL Labor Day

Wayne and I have a new book, Neoliberalism and Education Reform, just out from Hampton Press.

Check the Rouge Forum Art by Colin Ross.

Thanks to Gil, Amber, Erin, Beau, Ssg. Lloyd, Sean, Wayne, Bill and Marty, Greg and Katie, Ann W., Sally, Perry, Steve, Dave, Marc, Curry, Sandy, Suber, Bob, Melissa and Josh (how is the baby?), Justin, Richie G., Boots, Judy D, David, Sharon A, Lucille K and Lucy W., Alcorn, and Llona.

All the best in the new school year,

r

Renaissance 2010: From the Front Lines

Renaissance 2010: From the Front Lines is a documentary film about the threat to the Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union, stemming from privatization and charter school expansion. The film explores the motives and interests driving changes in the educational system by talking with teachers from both traditional and charter schools, students, educational experts and community members impacted by these decisions.

The best coverage of Renaissance 2010 and other educational reform atrocities in Chicago (and across North America) can be found in Substance News and the Substance News Blog.

Substance is a monthly investigative journal that reports on the public schools. Though based in Chicago for the past 30 years, Substance also reports on national education issues including No Child Left Behind. Substance is the only newspaper to combine teaching experience with the tenacity of reporting to tackle the problems facing the country’s education system.

Here’s a review of a film from the latest Z Magazine:
FILM REVIEW: Renaissance 2010: From the Front Lines

RIAA v. The People

The Chronicle News Blog: Antipiracy Lawsuits, Four Years Later

Next month will mark the fourth anniversary of the Recording Industry Association of America’s legal campaign against music piracy, an effort that has seen plenty of college students slapped with thousand-dollar lawsuits. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that has opposed the industry group in court and in public debate, is commemorating the occasion with a caustic report on that lengthy campaign.

“RIAA v. the People: Four Years Later” offers a detailed recap of the recording industry’s lawsuits, which now total nearly 30,000, according to the group’s calculations. The report also profiles the industry’s shifting legal tactics, which have familiarized campus technologists with John Doe subpoenas and pre-litigation notices.