If you take a look at the Final Report of the Chicago Annenburg Challence (link above)you will find their own self-evaluation of reasons for failure quite telling.

According to p. 36, "the Challenge promoted a reform agenda that often collided with specific system policies, which created tensions and dilemmas for principals and teachers." The report characterizes the relationship between the principals/teachers and Obama/Ayers/cronies as "tenuous at best, for the most part it was strained, and at times antagonistic."

The reason for the tension was that Obama/Ayers/cronies were trying to foist their leftist ideas on the schools who were simultaneously trying to implement more traditional (and proven) methods of improvement.

Here's how the tensions played out….

On page 36-27, "Nowhere was this (tension) more sharply pronounced than in the interaction between high stakes standardized testing and efforts to improve instruction." Pages 22 & 23 mentioned that system policies required students to take achievement tests, and to make reasonable progress in learning to read, do math, etc. before they could be promoted to the next grade level (if they didn't score high enough on the achievement test, they could attend summer school and then retake it); however, Ayers loony-tune "reform initiatives" disparaged achievement tests or any kind of grades for students because it "harms their self-esteem." He believes students should be "socially promoted" — continue to move up grade levels whether or not they have mastered the material — so in essence, a student could make it up to high school without knowing how to read or do basic addition or subtraction.

As a part of reform that the Chicago schools were taking on their own initiative (separate from the Chicago Annenburg Challenge), teachers began to develop curriculum and lesson plans specifically developed to enable students to achieve the measurable goals on the achievement tests — in other words, if the achievement test required students to know how to do long division, the teachers taught long division — duh!! But… the Obama-Ayers team wanted to shorten the time students spent in academic instruction so as to have enough time for the kids to go through African puberty rites or political activism seminar. If the students spent less time learning long division in order to learn how to form unions for welfare recipients, the end result was their ability to pass the achievement tests was compromised. This was the conflict the report admits to.

On their own, without the 150 million that Obama was handing out to his cronies, the Chicago schools began to form extra tutoring programs for students at risk, after-school programs and the like — all fairly inexpensive remedies to a lot of learning issues, but remedies that never seem to occur to the Annenburg crowd.

The end result, (if you look at the charts on page 55) was that students in the NON-Annenburg schools actually performed better on standardized testing than schools receiving interference from Obama and his cronies.
Obama chaired an ineffective and incompetent reform project, based on socialist agenda.

You try to fluff off Obama's dismal failure at school reform by asserting that the Annenburg schools were the poorly functioning schools to begin with, while the non-Annenburg schools were already functioning acceptably.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you want to know the truth, read the Final Report of the Chicago Annenburg Project, located here:

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/p62.pdf

The report states: "Overall, Annenburg schools resembled schools across the system…the average enrollment size, level of academic achievement, racial and ethnic composition, and percentage of low-income students in Annenburg elementary schools were virtually identical to the system as a whole." (p. 26)

Charts on page 55 reveal that in 7 out of 8 years (from 1994-2001) the 3rd grade students from NON-Annenberg did better on standardized Reading testing and in 6 out 8 years the non-Annenburg students did better in Math (the other two years they tied). The same held true for 6th grade reading (students NOT in Obama's program did better 6 out of 8 years in Reading and ALL years in Math).

Moreover, when the students IN the Annenberg schools were assessed for non-academic progress (bear in mind that a lot of Obama-Ayers philosophy had to so with building up self-esteem and working collectively): "Classroom behaviour, student's sense of self-efficacy, and social competence were weaker at the end of the project than before"

First, there is no reason to get aggressive with an opinion you don't share. The problem stems from a quote you didn't read with a critical eye. There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in terms of "rates" of achievement gain, not end results. So, it really doesn't matter what achievements these schools gained prior to the funding, but the percent of their improvement afterward. The Annenberg schools netted a gain in improvement, but their net gain was no different than schools that received no funding. This underscores the point that 140 million dollars were poured into schools that did not improve in ways that non-funded school improved. And since we are dealing with "rate" of improvement, and not overall quality of learning, your point is moot.

First, instead of explaining it slowly, why not reread what he wrote? He is not the author of the comment you quoted, but instead he cited it from source.

Second, the ends do not justify the means. ACORN is very political. That they help the poor and homeless does not justify their methods. If their true goal was to help, they would not have to terrorize people to get there. Likewise, even IF Ayers' intentions (and those of the groups you mentioned) were as pure as you seem to believe, then why did they have to kill people to prove their point?

Ok Aaron, lemme explain this slowly for you. No statistical difference between Annenberg schools, which were the poorly performing public schools and the non-Annenberg schools, which were performing at acceptable levels already. No statistical difference means that the achievement of the public schools comparatively equaled that of the non Annenberg schools. That right there says the Annenberg schools went up in standards and achievement.

ACORN – those are the guys that do the food banks and community food pantries. So do a little research before you open your mouth and insert your foot. Unless you are against, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.

I don't know what reality you are living in. Maybe it will take another 90 days for your economic reality to catch up with the majority in this country and then maybe you can go to the food bank too.

William Ayers and The Weatherman and the various chapters of SDS during the Vietnam Era brought an awareness to the corporatocracy that perverted this nation and the Republican party. It is what is my friend.

You, Aaron Rodriquez are part of the problem of what is wrong with the direction this nation has taken and you are not part of the solution.

When the playing field is leveled and you are standing amongst the masses and that will happen with McCain or Obama. How many hands do you think will be there to help you? You better pray that organizations like ACORN are still around at that time.

Lemme ask you a few questions.

Why was it so important that we had to spend time in SE Asia?

Why did we have to export large manufacturing contracts to China?

Why did we have to have troops on the ground in Iraq no later then April 2002? And what country called us on our treaty obligations in 1998?

What is peak oil and what are the effects generated by peak oil?

Aaron, we have been doing the same thing over and over for the last 45 years and expecting different results. The real question you need to ask is why?

Got one more question for you. What is more important an economic system that is a reflection of the people it represents or the people themselves?

http://www.waynesdrainsmontana.com