Littleton 1994 article
wow. I didn't want to edit or summarize too much, because I think this is such a neat study in reality--in seeing, without "spin" a real piece of Littleton in 1994 long before the tragedy struck. Well, I didn't realize how truly long the piece was. So, I cut out a lot. If anyone just wants the "instant gratification" of seeing an obvious irony without reading all of it, skip down to the last three or four paragraphs. ~Kimberly UIBM 6/1/94 Education Week - Requiem For A Reform By Ann Bradley On the surface, the only thing that distinguishes Littleton, Colo., from thousands of other American suburbs is the spectacular view of the Rocky Mountains that rise to the west of town, above the shopping malls and streets of well-kept, middle-class homes. Beneath its placid facade, though, Littleton is a town torn apart by a raging argument over its schools. Once the pride of the community, the school system is now at the center of a fierce debate over how and what teachers should teach, what should be expected of students, what roles parents should play, how school board members should govern, and what schools should look like at the close of the 20th century. Seven months after a trio of candidates running on a back-to- basics slate took control of the five-member Littleton school board, the answers to most of these questions are far from clear. But many people with high hopes for improving American education are paying attention to the furor in the Denver suburb, because its voters appear to have rejected many of the central tenets of the school-reform movement. And Littleton residents, they know, are not alone in their disaffection with the call for higher standards for all students, new ways of measuring their progress, depth rather than breadth of knowledge, and greater attention to developing students' thinking and social skills. In tackling these emotional issues, Littleton has plunged into a remarkably sustained dialogue about its schools. A town that used to draw 10 people to its school board meetings has become accus- tomed to overflow crowds. Nearly every week's issue of the Lit- tleton Independent carries articles and editorials on the schools, which serve 16,000 students, 91 percent of whom are white. The major metropolitan newspapers in the area also have paid close attention. When the new board forced Superintendent Cile Chavez to resign in early February, large color photos of the crowds that showed up to support her--estimated at about 1,500 people--dominated the front pages of both The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News. "The silver lining is that there is greater awareness and partic- ipation than ever before,'' Chavez says. "There is no apathy in Littleton.'' Since her resignation at the special board meeting that has come to be called the "Sunday-afternoon massacre,'' Chavez has had plenty of time to ponder the transformation that is reshaping the district she led for 10 years. The image that comes to her mind is a kite. It was built, she explains, by Bill Cisney and Carol Brzeczek, two of the new school board members, out of their concerns about changing graduation requirements at Heritage High School. The framework of the kite was made up of their complaints that parents were not listened to, that the school was venturing into uncharted territory with performance assessments, and that the decisionmaking committee at the school was breaking state "sunshine'' laws by holding closed meetings. (skip) "What the election told us,'' Brzeczek says, "is that the schools really didn't know their parents and the community.'' One immediate and high-profile casualty of the political shift was Littleton High School's new graduation system, called Direc- tion 2000. All three of the district's high schools had been working to develop outcomes they wanted students to demonstrate in order to graduate, rather than just pass a list of required courses. But Littleton High was furthest along. The Littleton High faculty, under the direction of Principal Tim Westerberg, devoted countless hours over eight years to develop- ing the new system. Teachers put in the time not because their school wasn't doing well, but because they believed it could do much better. They had all heard--and many agreed with--the asser- tion that too many high school students were capable of much higher levels of academic achievement. They all knew students who would figure out the minimum required to pass a class, and then do only that. They also taught "good students'' who exerted themselves only to learn what they knew would be tested. The familiar lament about graduation being based on seat time, not real learning, stung. (skip) Now, after what many refer to as a grieving period marked by anger and tears, teachers are coming to grips
Re: A Digital Future for Kosovo?
Colin Stark forwarded: Campaign for Digital Democracy ... The wireless broadband digital internet communications web that would be created using cellular or related technologies would, in conjunction with a good, basic, Pentium III-based laptop computer, enable every resident to How ironic to propose the Pentium III -- the first "serial-numbered" PC processor, to enable total control a la Orwell 1984 -- for electronic democracy !! See http://www.bigbrotherinside.com/ Can you spell "Micro$oft Democracy" ?? (I bet the Kosovo idea is from Gates) I thought the "electronic democracy" fans were aware of this... they should! Wake up! Chris
KOSOVO 08/06/99 (fwd)
A very decent analysis in my opinion... Eva . Nato's New Lies by Alan Woods "It was a fumbling war, probably unnecessary, largely futile, certainly extravagant, yet rich in unintended consequences" (D. Thomson, Europe since Napoleon, on the Crimean War) History repeats itself, wrote Karl Marx. First as tragedy, then as farce. After the most inept military campaign since the Crimean War, we are now treated to the spectacle of the most ridiculous diplomatic bungling in history. From the beginning of this war we have consistently explained that NATO could not achieve its objectives by air power alone, and that, in the end, some kind of compromise would have to be stitched up, with the aid of Russia. Thus, on May 13 we wrote: "Faced with the threat of a bloody and protracted war, the US will be finally compelled to reach a compromise and sell it to world public opinion as best they can." (NATO looks for the nearest exit, p. 6) This is exactly what has happened. Of course, if we are to believe the press and television, NATO has won a famous victory. The Serbs have been defeated, and Milosevic is on the point of being overthrown by an angry people. However, a careful examination of the facts shows that any resemblance between this version of events and the truth is purely accidental. The bombardment of Yugoslavia has inflicted terrible damage on the economy. But it has not succeeded in its principal aim: the destruction of the Yugoslav army. This is admitted by all serious observers. The Economist (5th June) commented: "Serbia's forces could not indefinitely go on absorbing punishment at the rate NATO has recently been meting it out, with up to 400 air attacks per day by bombers now sweeping in from Hungary and Turkey as well as from Nato bases in Italy. But nor, it appeared, have Serb forces been reduced to the ruined shell that would force Mr Milosevic to sue for a humiliating peace" Propaganda is an arm of diplomacy, and diplomacy is an arm of war. The present barrage of propaganda was worked out a long time ago. Like all NATO's propaganda, it is designed to mislead public opinion as to the aims, strategy and conduct of the war, and to convince the public that everything is for the best in the best of all possible NATO worlds. NATO's original war aims were spelled out in the infamous Rambouillet agreement. As we have explained in previous documents, this amounted to the occupation, not of Kosovo, but of all Yugoslavia by NATO forces under the most humiliating terms. This aim has now had to be abandoned. There is no more talk of occupying Yugoslavia. The terms of the proposed settlement are limited exclusively to Kosovo. As far as Kosovo is concerned, the new deal completely abandons the idea of a referendum in three years' time to decide the future status of the province. The sub-text of this agreement was the possibility of independence for Kosovo. Let us recall that only on this basis did the Americans manage to pressurise the KLA into signing up to the Rambouillet agreement. Now this offer is off the agenda, and the KLA is muttering darkly about a NATO sell-out of the Kosovars. This we also predicted. On May 1 we wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable. The Kosovars will have to be sacrificed. These, in any case, were always expendable from the standpoint of imperialism. Milosevic could offer a return to the kind of autonomy they had before 1989." (One month into the bombing campaign, p. 10) What were the terms of the deal put together to end the war? Under the terms of the peace document agreed by the EU's envoy, Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, and Russia's Viktor Chernomyrdin, agreement should be reached on the following principles to move toward a resolution of the Kosovo crisis: Points one and two call for an "immediate and verifiable end of violence and repression in Kosovo." and a "verifiable withdrawal from Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces according to a rapid timetable." However, the document allows for the presence in Kosovo for an unspecified number of Yugoslav troops. Point three refers to the "deployment in Kosovo under UN auspices of effective international civil and security presences, acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the achievement of common objectives." The force, which is clearly referred to as a UN force, although with substantial Nato participation, must be deployed under unified command and control, and authorised to establish a safe environment for all people in Kosovo and to facilitate the safe return to their homes of all displaced persons and refugees." And it specifically states that Russian troops will not be under NATO command: "It is understood that Russia's position is that the Russian contingent will not be under Nato
Job Shortage Not Skill Shortage Causes Unemployment
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:54:52 From: Ivan Turok [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Research Continuing jobs shortage is key reason for unemployment in cities, says report Policy makers are today urged to acknowledge that a shortage of jobs, not poor skills or motivation, is the main reason why there are continuing high levels of unemployment in many of Britains major cities. The warning that many national policies wrongly diagnose the urban jobs gap comes in a study by researchers at the University of Glasgow, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Providing the first systematic analysis of urban employment trends for more than a decade, the report shows that there has been a net loss of 500,000 jobs in the 20 biggest cities since 1981, compared with a net gain in jobs of 1.7 million elsewhere. Other key findings are that: · The worst-affected areas have been core districts of the major conurbations especially Clydeside, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, where the loss of manufacturing jobs among men has been especially severe. · Service industries have grown more slowly in cities than elsewhere, including sectors that make up the emerging knowledge economy including financial, business and consumer services. · Employment growth among the cities, particularly in jobs taken by women, has been most marked in certain free-standing cities notably Edinburgh and Cardiff. · Better-performing cities in terms of male manual jobs are those that have invested in their physical fabric and infrastructure, and made land and premises available for inward investors and expanding businesses. Using the most recent data available to compare employment trends with peaks and troughs in the economic cycle, the study finds a steady and continuing divergence between the major cities and the rest of the country. Between 1981 and 1996, there was a net loss of 12 per cent in the core areas of major conurbations; although employment in their outer areas remained more stable. Another striking contrast over the same period was between the net loss of 212,000 jobs in Greater London and the net growth of 556,000 jobs in the rest of the South East. Ivan Turok and Nicola Edge, the reports co-authors, suggest that a period of overall employment expansion between 1993 and 1996 may have prompted speculation about revival in the great cities. But they argue that the improvement was a product of an upswing in the economic cycle rather than a reversal of previous trends. The cities share of national employment actually fell. Prof Turok said: A sizeable jobs gap continues to exist between the number of people who want work in our major cities and the number of jobs that are available. National economic growth cannot bridge that gap on its own. Nor can the New Deal and other policies that relate entirely to supply-side measures such as training, employment advice, stronger work incentives and more childcare. The urban jobs gap poses a threat to economic growth and social cohesion as well as the functioning of the labour market which policy makers would be foolish to ignore. There is a pressing need for economic, social and urban regeneration policies that give greater emphasis to expanding labour demand in the cities. Note to Editors The jobs gap in Britains cities: employment loss and labour market consequences by Ivan Turok and Nicola Edge is published in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press and available from Biblios Publishers Distribution Services, Star Road, Partridge Green, West Sussex, RH13 8LD, price £13.95, plus £2 pp.. A summary of findings is available, free of charge, from JRF at The Homestead, 40 Water End, York YO30 6WP or from the JRF Web site: www.jrf.org.uk Professor Ivan Turok Department of Urban Studies University of Glasgow 25 Bute Gardens Glasgow G12 8RS Scotland, UK tel: (+44) (0)141 330 6274 fax: (+44) (0)141 330 4983
Which way?
To: Friends, Innocents, and Lurkers. The DDotSQ already know what they want. Hi folks, In my previous note, Macro Micro Models of a Nation, III, Date: 99-06-05 17:40:48 EDT, speaking as an engineer, I wrote: The task ahead is to show the lurkers and innocents on these several lists just how well the Macro Model FIG4B.GIF and the Micro Model FIG8.GIF comprehends the financial structure of industrial economies A far more comprehensive and more fundimental description of the task ahead was given by Dr Louis G Reynolds in the following exchange of notes with Sheherzad Tsar on mail list [EMAIL PROTECTED]: begin exchange between Reynolds and Tsar Subj:Re: Wealth Date: 99-06-09 07:55:50 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Louis Reynolds) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) sheherzad tsar wrote: to my mind, the process of wealth generation will be different in the coming centuryit will transform from its infancy as of today to a more matured and sophisticated form of information related process...to support my theory, i have relied on a very crucial source.transformation of light rays particles into information or thinking particlesthese particles are then programmed to generate wealth without the involvement of humans or other life forms An interesting thought, and not as far off the mark as it seems. I think (s)he is referring to photosynthesis, the fundamental primary producer of wealth for us here on earth since the beginning of time. We need access to the products of photosynthesis for all our important needs-- including our clothes, the food we eat, the air we breathe, the disposal of our waste, our climate--without it we would all be dead. While we humans are not necessary for photosynthesis, photosynthesis is certainly essential for us. And this is not going to change in the coming century, or millennium, or ever. Other life forms, however, are necessary--together with sunlight. This primary process of wealth creation needs green life forms--essentially plants in all their diversity. The problem is that through our relentless and shortsighted pursuit of "wealth" (as defined by most mainstream economists), we are not only exceeding the capacity of this fundamental source and putting unsustainable demands on it, but also causing it harm from which it may never recover. We will not destoy it completely, we will destroy ourselves first. And then the cycle of photosynthesis and other life forms will carry on creating wealth without us. Louis *** Dr Louis G Reynolds Department of Paediatrics Child Health University of Cape Town Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital Rondebosch 7700 South Africa phone: +27 (0)21 658 5354 fax:+27 (0)21 689 1287 658 5111 End exchange between Reynolds and Tsar Quite obviously, the essential task ahead is to moderate "our relentless and shortsighted pursuit of "wealth" (as defined by most mainstream economists)," and replace it with an equally relentless but farsighted pursuit of happiness at a minimum cost to the eco-system. Now it seems a matter of common sense, before we devise grand plans to effect such a paradigm shift, that we inquire into the primary cause of our "our relentless and shortsighted pursuit of "wealth" (as defined by most mainstream economists)," and achieve a "sense of the meeting" as to just what that primary cause is. What makes us act the way we do? But the only way to arrive at a "sense of the meeting" is to have one or more definitions of the primary cause of our social disorder subjected to open public debate. We might start by selecting the one national economy, from the two-hundred reported in the World Bank ATLAS, which has done the best job of protecting its environment. According to my reading of the W. B. ATLAS data, on a per capita basis, Switzerland consumes only i/3rd. as much natural resources as the United States. My thirty year old opinion, that the Swiss know and practice methods of eco-efficiency of which Americans seem oblivious, has been confirmed by only one frequent poster to list [EMAIL PROTECTED], that is, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss). If the world public were given their choice of moving toward a global economy consisting of two-hundred larger Swiss ecomomies, or, moving toward a global economy consisting of two-hundred smaller U.S. economies, a great majority of the world public would vote for the Swiss model. But would the U.S. public vote with the world majority? Probably not yet, but soon! There is presently only one systemic defect of omission in the U.S. economy which defines the difference in eco-efficiency
Re: KOSOVO 08/06/99 (fwd)
Eva Durant wrote: A very decent analysis _in my opinion_... (edited) Which is _all_ you're entitled to. What's this self-serving propaganda doing on a Future Work listserv anyway? Anyone guess the political affiliation of its author? -- ___ http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
Re: ZPG Y6B
Nicholas wrote --- "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Y8B is now inevitable. Will Y10B and Y12B also be "milestones"? ZPG's slide into complacency has been scary, and also difficult to understand. What are the forces that caused this? Are sexually-transmitted viruses the "last best hope" for Gaia? A sad day if they are. Given that the Ecological Footprint of 5.9B is equal to 1.3 planets, and that 40% of the Net Primary Production of planetary photosynthesis is used for human purpose, and that our planetary impacts seem to be doubling every 25 years (i.e. a 3% planetary GDP rate), and given the Nett Unrecoverable Reserves that Jay Hansen speaks of, it makes a Y8B very unlikely. We may touch it and go under... For the Earth John === --- MEMBER OF"The age of nations is past. THE__The task before us, / \ /\ | /\ if we would not perish, | . /__\ | /__\ is to shake off our ancient prejudices \_/| /\ |/\and build the Earth" FOUNDATION Pierre Teilhard de Chardin _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
