Below are the most egregious examples:
- The current platform, set to expire at the convention, addressed the issue of the place of standardized tests in education, particularly the MCAS. The MCAS is a rather arbitrary standardized test administered by a well-connected private company in New Hampshire — see here and here for more. The current platform opposes “high stakes testing, including the use of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests as the sole determinant for graduation from high school”. All of that is gone. Support for “comprehensive, authentic, and multiple means of assessment for students, schools, and districts” has also been axed from the platform. Rejection of MCAS-based scholarships? Vanished. This draft platform is completely, 100% silent on the conservative, privatized “test or fail” approach to education. This means that the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee has released a document that moves significantly further to embracing the model whereby a student’s success is measured by which bubbles s/he fills in.
- The current platform supports “amendments providing assistance to poorly performing schools rather than the sanctions imposed by the federal Elementary and Secondary School Education Act, known as the No Child Left Behind Act.” The draft platform is silent on George W. Bush’s power grab on behalf of federal bureaucrats.
- The draft platform ignores the issue of charter schools. Capping the number of these quasi-public schools, which have all the funding and protections of public education without many of their obligations, is mentioned in the old platform. This platform is silent on that issue.
- The draft platform refuses to support bilingual education. It also ignored testimony I organized from several dozen professors, parents and educators in support of a challenging education for gifted and talented students. Special education students are singled out as the only ones needing specific support in the draft platform.
- We have gone from “we support increased funding to our public higher education system” to “we support public higher education”. Same on public libraries. I gather the state committee supports delicious ice cream on a hot summer’s day as well.
- One beam in Jefferson’s “wall of separation“of church and state has been scrubbed as well: “We oppose any effort to change the state constitutional prohibition against public funding of private or religious schools, including the use of credits or vouchers.” has been replaced by…nothing.
In short, this is a coward’s platform, and I regret that I was out of state when this abomination was composed and passed at the state committee meeting. Perhaps the Massachusetts Democratic Party thinks its members will dumbly assent to this evisceration of liberal values in education. Maybe they think there is safety in gutlessly standing for puppy dogs, mom’s apple pie, and not much else. These people clearly have no interest in taking a stand on anything to do with education.
I think they are wrong. If you agree, please get in touch with me at 
so we can organize to defend real public education — a world-elite institution — in this state. Please use all, part, or a snippet of this as you see fit on your own blog or email. The state party is trying to wave the flag of surrender on education, and we can’t let them.
Below are side-by-side copies of full summary of the current and draft platforms.
| Current platform | Draft of new platform |
Massachusetts Democrats believe that a high quality, publicly funded education is the cornerstone of our society, our democracy, and our economy.
We oppose high stakes testing, including the use of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests as the sole determinant for graduation from high school. |
Massachusetts Democrats believe that everyone should have access to high-quality educational opportunities from birth through adulthood. We believe that our education system should successfully prepare our children for life and work. Massachusetts Democrats are com mitted to investing in public education because we know that it is the cornerstone of our society, our democracy, and our economic future. Massachusetts Democrats Support: a) High-quality, universal preschool and full-day kindergarten; b) Closing the achievement gap for poor and minority students; c) High school drop out prevention programs; d) Smaller class sizes; e) Professional development for public educators; f) High-quality after school and summer enrichment programs; Massachusetts Democratic Party Draft Platform 3 g) Expanded learning time; h) The preservation and enhancement of our school and public libraries; i) Civics education as an integral part of public school curriculum; j) Accessibility for special needs students and adequate funding; k) Closer relationship between parents, guardians, teachers and administrators; l) Innovative programs to encourage recruitment and retention of high quality teachers; m) Public higher education; n) College affordability and needs-based financial aid; o) In-state tuition for all resident students who are admitted to Massachusetts public colleges and universities; and p) Adult Basic Education and English for Speakers of Other Language programs. |
(Cross-posted on Blue Mass Group, and whoever else will post it.
Please share widely!
…the desire we heard from the DSC during the platform process to speak to overall values rather than specific policies. It would be interesting to know how topics other than education were treated in this regard.
I figured overall values would mean something though. Addressing education in this state without mentioning MCAS is like addressing foreign policy without mentioning Iraq. If this is how general the new regime wants to be, what then is the point of being a Democrat?
<
p>Seriously, you think the Republican Party isn’t going to say that it too supports “closing the achievement gap” or “closer relationship between parents, guardians, teachers and
administrators”? I’m for simplicity, I’m not for gutlessness.
…though I suspect you and I differ on the role of the MCAS, for example. Previous platforms have disparaged the idea of an objective test to make sure kids know certain basic things. In past cycles I have actually testified AGAINST opposition to the MCAS both because I very much favor it in principle (though want to make it work better) and because I was concerned that the GOP could easily turn it into “Democrats oppose high standards for our students and teachers.”
MCAS is, in any way, a test “to make sure kids know certain basic things?” If it were, and the index of “basic knowledge” could be reached by consensus, there’d be little opposition.
…is that I took a sample MCAS a few years back sponsored by Sen. Sue Tucker. I remembered which high school class I had learned each question’s material in. I did not find the expectations unreasonable for a graduation requirement (with the one caveat that it’s first given in grade 10 and some of the questions I would not have known as a sophomore, but did by the time I was really ready to graduate). I’m open to suggestions to tweaking and have ideas myself on that, but in principle there should be an objective way to make sure that everyone has a baseline of knowledge.
what’s easy for someone who’s first language is English and comes from a cultural history that not all people share is not easy for someone who comes from a different culture or who didn’t learn English as a first language. My mother used to know a nurse who was a doctor in a different country. She took the test to become a doctor more than once in the US and failed — not because she didn’t have the medical knowledge, but because she had to take the test in English.
<
p>Now, I will say that the state has gone to great lengths to reduce some of that selection bias by giving students as much extra time as needed to complete each section, but that can’t account for all selection bias. The fact is when it comes to the MCAS it was designed in a way that makes it easy for white suburban students to do well. The problem, when it comes to the MCAS, is that we all aren’t white suburban students. You say it was easy for you. It was easy for me. That doesn’t make it easy for everyone else — and it’s not because those people are less worthy or just too stupid.
<
p>Finally, I haven’t even addressed one of the biggest predictors in terms of scoring results: a student’s socioeconomics. I think I’ll leave the merits of this test as the sole means of testing worthiness to graduate at that.
If kids don’t have a command of English yet we can either exempt them or offer the test in other languages for those who really just moved here. I’ve thought for a long time that every high school graduate should be fluent in English and one other language, regardless of native language. Our European counterparts learn 4 or 5 so there’s no reason we can’t learn two.
<
p>As for socioeconomic status, I thought precisely the point of public education was to be the great leveler. We need to get to the point where that background doesn’t matter and commit ourselves to the resources necessary to make that happen. My schools were not extraordinary and I see no reason why the things I learned cannot be taught everywhere. Being white and suburban is no “excuse” in my book; there are enough people that defy the stereotype in both directions.
Do you really think the people of this state are tolerant enough to make that a serious issue? And while that solves one problem, it doesn’t solve all issues of selection bias. It’s impossible to do that. Standardized tests are almost by definition tests of selection bias.
<
p>
<
p>Amen! Are you going to deny someone a diploma in the meantime, because we’re not at that point yet?
<
p>
<
p>It’s very easy to say that, but we’ve never lived on that other side. We’ve always been on the side where the sample bias benefited us. This is a very old problem, it’s frustrating people can’t seem to get it.
That decision may have to be made somewhat ad hoc depending on whether the student does poorly in a school system that otherwise does well or if the system itself is doing poorly. I do absolutely believe that a high school diploma should mean something. I see it as kind of like a drivers license in that it is something you really do have to pass a test and show you have earned it, yet in practice I would expect the vast majority of adults to ultimately have. There will be those who will not earn it or will be delayed, not always through fault of their own, but frankly, that’s life.
<
p>Meanwhile we also need to end social promotion and delink age from determination of what class/grade you are in even at the elementary level. I was a substitute aide in a 4th grade classroom once and the teacher asked me to assist a couple of students with their reading because they were not as literate as 4th graders should be. If you have one distinct disability that’s one thing, but later that day the teacher asked me to assist those same two students with basic arithmatic. The question in my mind at that point was, “What the heck are these two doing in 4th grade?” There needs to be a sense that if you don’t master certain skills determined appropriate for a given grade, you don’t move on. We need to be more like Europe, I think in this regard while at the same time not denying anyone the opportunity to achieve as much as they are capable even if they probably won’t get a diploma.
<
p>I’ve still yet to hear a satisfactory example of inherent cultural/socio-economic bias. To suggest that certain people are incapable of learning certain concepts and skills to me itself smacks of prejudice. I would need to be given a sample question and have it explained why my background makes it easier for me to answer in a way that could not be taught to everybody.
Socioeconomics is one of the great correlatives. Some people buck the trend. Just because that’s a fact, though, doesn’t make it fair for those who can’t buck that trend. We need to improve education in this state, especially for those who we aren’t currently able to reach given their circumstances. You say the decision “may have to be made somewhat ad hoc.” That’s not the system that exists. Since that’s not the system that exists, would you perhaps agree that we should take a strong, quick look at it and perhaps create alternative means for students to prove their mettle? For example, a portfolio.
<
p>
<
p>Christopher, I linked you a book you can buy used for $5 bucks that’s interesting and informative. It would show you how this country has a long history of using biased tests in ways that hurt others. Go order it. You won’t regret it. Or get it free from the library, it’s probably there (or at least in your library’s network).
<
p>In the meantime, I don’t know how many times I’ve said similar things to you in the past — you have difficulty with this concept — but just because you think in a certain way doesn’t mean others think in that exact same way. What’s easy for you can be hard for someone, including people who are exceptionally intelligent. You need to be more open minded. You should start by getting that book.
I linked to the book and read the reviews and summaries. Suffice to say I certainly do not approve of how these boys were treated and I understand how such treatment can be detrimental. Remedying that situation would take a lot of resources and patience, but I’m not refering to the institutionalized population. When President Bush first ran in 2000, one of his planks I was sympathetic to was his idea that we need to fight “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. We need more people with the attitude of LouAnn Johnson, the protagonist of the movie “Dangerous Minds” who insists that her kids, innercity, cross-cultural, from broken families, etc. apply themselves, at one point declaring, “There are no victims in this classroom!” This movie, BTW, was based on Johnson’s memoirs of her real teaching experiences. Most people had given up on these kids, but they graduated at a higher rate than anyone expected.
<
p>I’m not asking for everyone to be geniuses. We all have our strong and weak subjects. What I do expect, for example, is that teenagers don’t panic behind a McDonalds counter because they’re incapable of calculating change if the register breaks down. We also need to remember that the point of these tests is to pass, not to get a perfect score. I do hope that all students, barring a diagnosed learning disability (and possibly despite that) graduate high school prepared to attend college if they so choose. I want our high schools to eventually get to the point where colleges are comfortable not requiring core courses because the high schools took care of it. This is one of those contexts where “can’t” should be considered a “four-letter-word”.
A lot of the book discusses how biased standardized tests were used to put those kids in those situations. There are consequences to the thousands of perfectly intelligent kids we’ll deny a high school diploma because of this ignorant attempt to “fix” education. Many of them, instead of ending up institutions, will end up in prison. Same result. Meanwhile, let’s not forget that these tests dumb down education for everyone else – teaching to the test has consequences of its own. There are classes my old high school no longer offers, for example, because they have to teach to the test.
…that I do not advocate using tests to institutionalize students? That’s counterproductive, not to mention just plain wrong. We also need to not let the test become more than it is. Just because one fails a test, does not make the person a failure, the former being an objective assessment of not passing and the latter sounding more like a moral judgement and label.
<
p>As for your last point, it does not have to be that way. The MCAS should be a floor, not a ceiling; if it’s being treated as a ceiling then that is something we need to work on. In my high school we took the basics (including Religion since it is a Catholic school) AND had plenty of additional offerings and electives from which to choose. No, our school day or school year wasn’t any longer than the public schools.
<
p>Nor does anybody have to “teach to the test”. I contend that if a subject matter is taught well, the test will take care of itself. In 11th grade my AP History teacher bragged about her track record of guessing which material would be covered by the essays. She insisted that there was no way the major essay would be after WWII. Turns out it was on the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, but the class still had the same passing rate as other years. If my teacher had taught to the test she might have been inclined to give the Civil Rights Movement cursory coverage, but she taught it as thoroughly as any other topic in US History, which as it turns out was quite fortunate.
<
p>It’s fine for the state to give general guidelines as to which concepts will be covered which years; in fact it should do so. However, teachers should not constantly be anxious about what is on “THE TEST”. Hopefully the test is broad and diverse enough that if there’s a particular concept your teacher doesn’t get around to covering then at worst you’ll miss a couple of questions. I might get those questions correct because my teacher did cover it, but there might be a couple of others that I miss but you get correct because your teacher covered it and mine did not. That’s perfectly fine; again, the point is to pass, not get a perfect score.
to see similarities with what we did back then with this whole new testing movement that’s going on today. While failing the MCAS won’t directly get ya institutionalized, it will dramatically impact one’s life for the worse should they not be able to pass it later.
<
p>
<
p>1) that’s easy for you to say, 2) whether it makes them a failure or not, it makes it infinitely harder for them to fully participate in society and earn a decent living. Like the exams of the past which institutionalized those society didn’t deem worthy to be in society, this is just another way to marginalize people and make the world a worse place.
<
p>
<
p>But they do — and, honestly, they have to. If they weren’t teaching to the test, more kids would fail. When you have such a high stakes test, the number one priority of any school must be to ensure that everyone passes that test. It ceases to be to create well rounded, creative adults who can participate at a high level in society.
<
p>
<
p>You contend, you suggest, you think… I deal with reality. This is the way things are now. Do teachers school systems teach to the test? Of course they do. You can contend all you want. That’s not reality — and this is a reality-based community.
<
p>Moreover, even if teachers didn’t “teach to the test,” the test then defines curriculum. You would agree that a student can’t pass an exam if they haven’t been taught the exact curriculum? This is how to turn our students into robots. Some students are far more interested in learning about ancient China, for example, than they are the French Revolution (for the 4th or 5th time). Some teachers are far more knowledgeable on Russian history than they are British. Some students are more interested in learning tech than they are world history of any kind — and yet Tech schools have to take the same tests as anyone else. Does it really matter what the frack they’re learning, at least to some degree, so long as they’re learning? In the land of the MCAS, yeah. It does. And that’s morally wrong.
<
p>So you can contend, you can make believe that things are different than they actually are… but they’re not. I’m sorry, but you’re just not living in the reality-based community at the moment. You keep mixing up how you think things should be with how they actually are.
I didn’t say teachers don’t teach to the test. I said they shouldn’t HAVE to. The anecdote I offered regarding 11th grade history IS reality for me. I’ve also never said the test is perfect; in fact I believe I have indeed said otherwise. I went through both private and public schools. I have substitute taught in public elementary school. I know from experience there is a way to find the appropriate balance. There is absolutely consciousness about the test, but the curriculum isn’t that much different than it was when I was an elementary student pre-MCAS. Please don’t be quite so dismissive of my grasp of reality. Yes, life is harder without a high school diploma, but if you just give one to everybody then it hardly has value. We need to work up to graduation all along, including retention in lower grades. If we just promote for the sake of promoting and only at the end tell the student he can’t graduate that does a great disservice.
<
p>I can certainly sympathize with your point about different interests. If I had my way I would load up on social studies and take no science, but to be well-rounded I understand the need for some basic science. One of the reforms I HAVE contemplated are different requirements for tech vs. academic high schools, though even there I think everyone should have some basic knowledge of history, civic, science, grammar, and arithmatic. A good world history survey class would include both ancient China and the French Revolution and if there’s room in the schedule or budget it’s great to have electives that go into more detail. It’s fine if different teachers focus on slightly different things; I’m sure I would do so, but I would also make sure my class is broad enough and manage my calendar such that requirements are met. We’ll see how that works when I start putting my recently-acquired MA history teaching license to use.
<
p>Finally, though, I do want to push back a bit on your comments regarding my beliefs. I thought the whole point of public policy discussion was to use your beliefs to change reality. So yes, there are certainly some things I believe which I would want to make reality. It reminds me of a quote which I think came from George Bernard Shaw and was often quoted by Robert Kennedy: “Some people see things as they are and ask why; I dream of things as they never were and ask why not.” I want students to succeed and I want the US to not be embarrassed when compared to other countries. I also agree with the consensus of our Founders that an educated citizenry is absolutely essential for the preservation of democracy, and we need to do everything we can to make that happen.
<
p>That’s not a solution. You say they shouldn’t have to. But they do. If it’s not perfect, shouldn’t it be fixed before we deny more people diplomas?
<
p>Where did I ever say people should just be given a diploma automatically? No one can graduate from high school without actually graduating from high school. They must still pass all their requisites and earn enough credits. But you say we have an imperfect test – and that imperfect test has denied people the right and ability to graduate from high school, even if they would have otherwise passed. That denial will potentially cost them hundreds of thousands over the course of their lifetimes, reducing them to a state of poverty. It’s society dismissing their worthiness to be fully contributing citizens, capable of earning a living. Many of those people will be forced into lives of desperation and isolation — just as these unfair tests have done to generations of people in the past.
<
p>
<
p>To be well rounded, someone needs to know stoichiometry? Who are you to decide what “well rounded” means, anyway? I served on the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education for the two years immediately proceeding the test actually “counting.” I sat on sessions deciding what “well rounded” means. I was on the executive committee; my only superior was actually on the Board of Education. The test goes well beyond “well rounded” thereby watering down the techs and aggies and stripping other students the opportunity to learn a more diverse and compelling curriculum.
<
p>Absolutely — and don’t get me wrong, you have a lot of good ideas. The problem, though, is you’ve been using your good ideas as a defense against the notion that we shouldn’t be making the mcas the sole automatic pass/fail for high school students, at least until we work out the kinks and make it a test (or tests) that work for all students. Otherwise, it really is like the tests of old… tests solely meant to reduce or eliminate the potentially of perfectly intelligent and capable human beings.
We do need to work on making the test an accurate assessment of acquired knowledge. I suppose I wouldn’t be completely opposed to a moratorium on the graduation requirement if it needs a great reworking, but I thought when ed. reform was first passed there were several years that students were given the MCAS, but not required to pass it so that the test itself could be tested and tweaked. From your vantage point on the Advisoty Council you mention do you know what happened to that idea? I’d also like you to elaborate on the notion of being “otherwise qualified” to graduate. If someone cannot pass a rather routine test on basic material, it leads me to seriously question the student’s being “otherwise qualified”. The district may say the student is qualified, but precisely the point, I thought, was to have some degree of standardization across the state.
<
p>You also state a tautology and a self-contradiction toward the top. You say, “No one can graduate from high school without actually graduating from high school. They must still pass all their requisites and earn enough credits.” This leaves too much to the chance of social promotion and possibly grade inflation. Different districts have different requirements and I want a more standard definition of what it means to graduate from high school. You begin that paragraph by denying that you want to give diplomae automatically, but four lines later you refer to the “right” to graduate from high school, which to me implies that you should get it regardless. This may be our fundamental philosophical difference – the degree to which a diploma is a right. I go back to my earlier analogy of a drivers license. A license derives from a state-mandated standardized test, which it is possible to fail (In fact, I did on my first try.), but is also claimed by the vast majority of adults. This is the status a diploma should have so let’s see if we can get it to that point.
<
p>As for well-roundedness, yes, I believe that is necessary. I have my own ideas on that as I’m sure do plenty of other people. As for who decides? That’s why we elect people who in turn will hopefully consult professionals. That doesn’t mean we’ll all agree, but at least we’ll have something to work from. As for your example, I have no idea what stoichiometry is, but over four years of high school, a year each of biology, chemistry, physics, and geology sounds reasonable to me. As for specifically what is covered, I have much stronger views on the social studies and am happy to leave science to others. Your experience with the Board of Ed. should put you in exactly the position to help us figure out what is necessary for every student to have a passing knowledge of before he goes out into the world. Once that is determined there needs to be an objective way to confirm that he does know it. As I’ve mentioned I want to get to the point where this is so well covered in high school that at the college level is where students can pursue their individual interests. They can go right into the major(s) of their choice without worrying about core requirements.
we offered students the ability to create a portfolio in each class that shows exactly what they learned, and have them give a presentation on it as an alternative, or in addition to, the test.
<
p>I also think that the test goes above and beyond asking basic questions HS students should know. The way the test (and most standardized tests) are created is by making a certain amount of questions that everyone is supposed to get right, then make questions get progressively harder, to the point where there are actually many questions that people aren’t supposed to get right at all. What I would suggest in help leveling the playing field and making the test is a true test of basic knowledge we expect students who pass HS to know is to get rid of some of the hardest questions. If it’s a basic test that ensures people have a fundamental grasp on english, math, basic science, etc… we shouldn’t be putting in large chunks of questions that test creators know in advance many or most people will get wrong.
I’d still have to know more about how a portfolio regime would work – logistics, requirements, etc. I absolutely agree that there shouldn’t be questions students are expected to get wrong. That’s just plain dumb in this context unless we were to go to a system of tiered diplomae whereby those students who do get a certain percentage of the harder questions right are awarded an advanced diploma of some sort. I will just say again, though, that the sample MCAS I took entirely included questions that were taught in high school. Full discloure, though – my score was not perfect and that’s fine; I passed comfortably which is the goal. One other thought I have had is to have a basic general test given to all students, both academic and tech, with academic students being required to pass any two subject tests (like SAT IIs), which will play to student strengths that you raised upthread. I’m not familiar enough with technical school curriculum to speak intelligently as to what might constitute the equivalent of the subject tests for tech students. If we adopted both the split academic/technical path and tiered diplomae I would recommend that the general test still remain basic while the advanced questions be reserved for the subject tests.
Do we really need a document saying that “we support public higher education?”
<
p>Seriously, DSC guys, how long did it take to come up with that one?
<
p>I think supporting “funding” is about as vague as you can get without slipping into “Why Mommy is a Democrat” territory.
I was just trying to offer an explanation and indicating I wasn’t surprised.
a party of dominance afraid to say much of anything specific if it might be objectionable to anyone anywhere. Gutless? Well, yeah. Why take any chances? Pretty soon, entropy sets in.
http://www.massdems.org/docs/P…
<
p>This document is 11 pages long. If this is the entire “draft platform” it is definitely a vanilla, fully homogenized document.
<
p>I do like a few things in it, but on the whole it is so “homogenized” as to not be aspirational or plug any holes.
<
p>There is no commitment to “access to justice” or an “independent judiciary” – only the prosecutorial function and “lets all be tough on crime” is contained in this document. There is nothing whatsoever about democracy itself, or due process, or protection from abuses of power. Nada. But then there was none of that in the old platform, either.
<
p>I find nothing to be excited or pleased about in this rather vacuous document.
I certainly agree with your sentiments, but to me they are obvious; the Bill of Rights, backed up by court decisions requiring than an attorney be provided if not affordable, already guarantee access to justice, do they not? Are we actively violating our Constitution which states (Part the First, Article XI): “Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.”? There are other references in the MA Bill of Rights which implicitly or explicity provide for judicial access.
<
p>Independent judiciary – again an obvious sine qua non of our system. In fact our state Constitution states more specifically than the federal (Part the First, Article XXX): “In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”
<
p>I guess I am asking whether there are examples of access being denied, for what reasons, and what specifically you propose to enforce them. I would also caution against projecting concerns we have had at the federal level over the past 8 years onto the state. Last I checked Massachusetts was not holding people indefinitely, preventing them from seeing evidence, etc.
If the judicial branch doesn’t get the funding to hold trials, then timely trials don’t happen. For example, in juvenile court, hearings that are ‘supposed’ to occur in 72 hours take months some of the time, too much of the time.
<
p>In many court houses and counties, there are neither enough judges nor enough court rooms to try cases in a timely fashion.
<
p>Interpreters, guardians ad litem, and transcripts can take years to be made available, denying access to justice – yes, in Massachusetts. Transcripts so that an appeal can go forward are especially problematic – but so are the absence of guardian ad litems to ensure that privileges are only properly waived, medications properly prescribed to minors and incompetents, and best interest investigations done.
<
p>Do you need more, Christopher? Only 25% of the legal needs of the indigent are currently being met in our state, by the way.
That’s a pleasant surprise. No financial help to parochial schools and charter schools and/or vouchers? This sounds suspiciously like Obama’s plan for the vouchers for the kids in D.C. God forbid that the kids should get the hell out of the DC school system so that they can and do actually learn something. The fact that the public schools in USA are failing miserably means nothing? You have some desire to throw the youth of America on the garbage heap of education —for what. Somebody running for elected office and need MTA $$$ and votes? That’s what it is all about in the final analysis: $$$ and votes. Screw the kids. They are just a means to an end.
Our resident reactionary think this platform is a big step forward. Is that what we want from the Massachusetts Democratic Party, a set of ideals that makes Republicans happy?
<
p>(No offense, MCRD — if I liked the new Mass GOP platform, you’d probably be worried about that in kind.)
kids in DC are entirely irrelevant to the discussion as are, with all due respect, you.
last time I checked, you got a far better education in the Massachusetts public school system than all but the most elite dormitory-styled private schools in the region… and there’s honestly no equal substitute for public K-8. Maybe in other states its different, but I don’t live in those other states.
Quoth David:
In the interest of transparency, David, it would probably be helpful if you could let us know what the committee was thinking. If you can help us understand how information from the hearings translated into the document before us, perhaps you can save us from a 14 hour convention as people offer amendments to include what was left out.
for the delegates to consider, amend if they wish, and ultimately approve (or reject, I guess) the platform as proposed? Why does it matter if something was left on the cutting room floor in the last round? That doesn’t preclude it from being re-introduced, does it?
but providing any insight on the decision making process might help we lowly delegates understand why the decision was made, which points were strongest, and how that decision fits into a broader context of decision making.
suppose I were to tell you (and I’m making this up) that points x, y, and z were considered, but were rejected because the almighty platform committee deemed them unworthy. Would that affect your decision as to whether to re-introduce x, y, or z at the convention?
<
p>I’m not being coy – I’m just trying to get a handle on how I can be helpful here.
Since I don’t know which of the oodles of possibilities is reality, I don’t know if it would be useful or not. You can be sure that I personally won’t be introducing something myself, but unlike many convention goers, do take my role in voting on the platform seriously, and welcome any additional information…
Why were they deemed unworthy? What testimony pursaded you?
Past experience with the party is that the platform is proposed by the Chair and his allies, and rammed through the state committee, the convention, and anyone else. Concerns from actual Democrats are ignored.
<
p>Given that word is starting to leak out that the pattern is so far holding, it would be nice to hear somebody indicate that this draft platform is different.
I’m assuming that the platform committee put together what they consider the best possible document. If we had some idea of why this of all possible platforms was the one you settled on, perhaps we might agree that you were right. And if not, we would at least know why you all as a committee thought so. Anyway, the platform process this year was the most open it’s ever been; it seems contrary to that spirit that you’d decline to comment on the sausage-making process.
<
p>I really don’t understand why you’re being so cagy unless
1) You were sworn to secrecy (unlikely because the platform committee meetings are open to the public)
2) You voted against large portions of the platform and don’t want to be seen as undermining the work of the committee.
3) You’d prefer to observe the platform process like a scientist and don’t want to introduce any bias in the data.
4) You’re worried about an appearance of a conflict of interest if you talked positively about the platform given your role in drafting it.
5) You just don’t think it’s that interesting.
<
p>These are all silly to varying degrees, but I can’t think of a reason why someone who has made a successful name for himself by commenting on things is suddenly silent.
David knows what happened, and is kind of embarrassed about what was done with the good-faith contributions of Democrats around the state.
And hundreds of volunteer hours, hundreds and even thousands of flyers [oh the poor dead trees!] and has it happened, lately? I mean a real grass roots platform change, or amendment at one of these issues conventions?
You may disagree with the opinion, but it clearly does “matter” insofar as it’s much harder to pass an amendment to a document than it is to pass the document itself. Moreover, it’s much harder to pass a specific version of an amendment when there are potentially dozens of competing versions, than the document itself.
<
p>Source (PDF)
I get that the party wanted a less-wonkish, shorter version of something that was a bit blander to appeal to a larger mass of people — something you could actually hand to people and say “this is what it means to be a Democrat in Massachusetts” and they’d actually read it.
<
p>However, I don’t think this document even accomplishes that goal (it’s 11 pages!). What I thought the direction was going to be was to create a short, 1-page-ish mission statement type document that could appeal to potential democrats, then follow that up with a more detailed, issue-by-issue look at the platform that was as specific as we’d like. That would have been amazing — not only would it have been easy to digest for the political layman, but it would have had specific and concrete information for anyone interested in particular issues if they wanted to follow it up.
<
p>Now, I guess that’s what they’re going to get, but only a whole lot more watered down. We shouldn’t be afraid of who we are as a party — that’s what attracts people to us. Our views on equality, education, the economy, and many other issues are pluses, not minuses. We shouldn’t run from them or water it down. That type of behavior is what took us out of the majority to begin with. We can paint with broad strokes and not be afraid to be specific at the same time (just look at Obama); as long as we emphasize we’re big tent and welcoming to all sorts of differing views, most won’t care if they disagree on one technocratic detail on the education platform or environmental policy. Indeed, the very fact that we’re willing to stand up and say we believe in something may just earn us more respect.
Even accepting that all that you say is true: So what? It’s the platform. The only time anyone ever thinks about the Massachusetts Democractic Party Platform is when they’re drafting it.
<
p>And then we all go out and campaign for State Reps and State Senators who summarily ignore it.
<
p>So, feel free to get yourself all worked up over this, but I think you’re wasting your time.
<
p>Respectfully.
I feel the same way about it.
<
p>The biggest piece of evidence is that the platform did not cause a big hullabaloo about taxation and government organization. Since these are the difficult issues that must be addressed, why no controversy?
<
p>This leads me to suggest that the platform is no more than an inert, platitudinous, self-congratulatory hunk of blandness.
This document really is rather worthless. The old one didn’t mean anything and the new version, improved with more pablum, won’t mean anything, either.
it doesn’t mean anything to you, or kbusch. To assume that it doesn’t mean something to others is a rather large – and I suggest flawed – assumption.
I wrote the following:
Only that’s not what I wrote. Maybe this rephrasing will help?
<
p>Facing the most important problem in state government, the platform chose avoidance.
Someday I swear I’ll become perfect — in the meantime, bear with me 😉
and by expressing my opinions, do not preclude the possibility that others will disagree.
<
p>I have to say your response to me seems unnecessary. Every opinion expressed on this site, as indicated by your own sig line, reflects the thoughts and values of the individual poster. Clearly the document means something to sabutai and the others here who have expressed agreement. It’s not necessary for us to include a disclaimer acknowledging that we a) are speaking as individuals and b)understand others may disagree in every comment, is it?
It seems to me the change in the platform represents a change in focusing on goals not means.
<
p>Take Education and Charter schools.
<
p>Goals
<
p>Means – no longer in the draft platform.
<
p>This structure makes sense to me.
<
p>At the end of the day I care about whether my child is getting a good education, whether that be a charter school or not, whether there be unions (provided there are fair wages and working conditions) in the school or not.
<
p>The real challenge is to take this document that a lot of good people have put their work into and turn it in to action in ways that empower individuals and groups to make a difference and work toward change/goals that are important to them. More on that later…
Vote for Democrats! We have excellent intentions!
It didn’t work that well for me.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but it feels as if we have two choices: Axelrodian magic or the Alliance of Brass Tacks. Either we say:
or
The platform seems to be a poor version of the first choice:
While I wholeheartedly endorse the cogent policy points made by Sabutai in his critique of the milktoast and vacuous draft education platform, my experience has been that the state legislative stakeholders involved in crafting education legislation pay scant attention to the Democratic state party platform.
<
p>When state education reform legislation passed in 1993, I don’t recall either Senate Chair Tom Birmingham or House Education Chair Mark Roosevelt referencing the State Democratic platform in their debates over statewide testing and assessment of students, changing education aid formulas to cities and towns, and improving teacher education and professional development.
<
p>I would venture that the state Democratic platform carries about as much weight with state legislators and that the Governor’s education circle as the political opinions of Howie Carr and Jeff Jacoby. The political views of the MTA (Massachusetts Teachers Association) and the significant, measurable improvements in K-12 achievement of other, competing states represent more influential factors on state legislators and executive branch officials than oft-ignored and rarely recalled articulations of education policy published in the Democratic state party platform.
smart, witty, insightful and most of all, on this dreary evening reading a tragedy of a budget and a gallant attempt to codify eithical behavior, really funny.
<
p>Thanks guys
and it takes away one more tool — however small — there is to talk to our democratic elected officials. I’d rather not give politicians another means in which to abdicate responsibility to actually represent the democratic party. While a platform may not be the most effective carrot and stick, there aren’t a whole lot of tools one has to try to get elected leaders to do the right thing. Passing the vacuous blandness of this document may not be end-of-the-world bad, but it’s still bad and we can do better.
It’s pretty clear to me that they wanted a platform that would please everybody. It wouldn’t upset anybody, and everybody could agree on it.
<
p>Problem is, that’s exactly what american cheese is. Bland, inoffensive, easy-to-swallow stuff that really doesn’t do you any good.
upon reading the past two posts, I couldn’t help myself. I got up, went to the fridge, and grabbed myself an imitation Kraft single of imitation cheese. My smile wasn’t an imitation though, it was the real thing.
<
p>Better living through chemistry and the power of suggestion, hand in hand.