This response to this post is pretty funny. The new line of argument at the AFT’s rabidly and unabashedly pro-NCLB blog is apparently either (a) “everybody’s doing it…” or (b) count us with the Fordham Foundation and the Bush Administration! If it’s the latter then good thing they kept a lid on that prior to this affiliation deal with the NEA!
Background on the “word” in question here and here. And, just because the Bush Administration and Fordham says “sanctions,” does that make it an accurate descriptor or better than a neutral word like “consequence”? (Joe Williams offers his view here.)*
But, just to be safe and head off any possibly destructive behavior going forward: John and One-L, if Mike Petrilli, Checker Finn, Rod Paige, and Margaret Spellings were jumping off a very tall bridge would you?
*BTW–per an earlier conversation today, worth pointing out that describing NCLB’s provisions in completely pro-parent terms would also be taking a perspective or side in the debate. Everyone should just use more neutral language. Even the new role models like Fordham and Rod Paige.
*Also, don’t worry that we won’t hear more about this…the AFTies reassuringly tell us:
We’ll be discussing the sanctions or interventions or consequences of NCLB on this site many times in the months ahead, and, whatever we term we use, we’ll judge them on whether they help kids learn.
Oh good, can’t wait! But the suspense is almost too much since it’s so unpredictable over there…Whatever will they say?