[ProgressiveEd] Re: e-mail correspondence with D Lam

Jane Bedell [email protected]
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:20:21 -0500

Hi Bruce and all--
I had much, much lower expectations for my little conversation with Diana 
Lam, so I guess I am okay with her response at this point.  It seems that 
she, herself, read and answered her e-mail -- yea!  This means that if 
other folks e-mail her, she may actually read their correspondence.  She 
acknowledged CPE-2 as a place that can be identified as a "learning 
community," and for a brief moment she had to think about an issue or two 
related to these small schools and know that some parents are really 
concerned about this.  So, not much but something (better than no answer 
(Harwayne and Klein) or some perfunctory boilerplate response.  I am 
working to get more parents to e-mail/write to these folks now while things 
are still in motion and not as "tied down" as they will likely be in a few 
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:03 PM -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ProgressiveEd] my little correspondence with Diana Lam, FYI
Dear Jane,
I liked your letter when I read it the first time.  I'm glad you sent it to
Diana Lam and that she felt it warranted a reply.  I'm not happy with the
reply.  It sounds so condescending to me.  Yes, a core curriculum is a big
thing.  And, yes, I'm glad Ms. Lam has confirmed that there will be
latitude  in the infliction of this curriculum on children (and teachers).
(If that's  the case, then why would they use it as a lever for change?)
What I don't  hear in her letter is any recognition of CPE 2 as a learning
community; she  acknowledged that that's what you think it is.  There's no
commitment to  supporting schools that work, unless they "work" according
to the definition  of the DOE.  Maybe I'm missing something.  I'm glad you
wrote and that you  got a response.  And thanks for spreading the news.
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------