-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:53 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Testing one two three
On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> And boycotting testing, even if collectively organized, would remain for
> each individual student a solitary individualist act, threatening his/her
> future while not affecting anything in the world.
How is an organized boycott - part of a movement with explicit goals - a solitary individualist act? Are you just being contrary again?
My phrasing should perhaps have been more tentative. But notice. If you boycott a store, pickets can see you go in, and you can be among the pickets. We tried boycotting some coffee brands during Centrall-America support activities, and while it led us to discover a few better brands than the ones we were boycotting, it never seemed to do much. It was impossible to police it in any way. That's the kernel of my suggestion. And remember the standardized tests are given nationally: how do students at one school know with any confidence that most students are honoring the boycott. Most national actions begin in just a few localities and grow. What happens if for a year students in just 20 or so high schools start boycotting tests while at all the other high schools it is business as usual. And if it's public schools, you have to persuade a huge number of _both_ parents and students to boycott. What happens if at the first high school where students try it, the boycotters are summarily kicked out of school. You don't have cheering support around you as did the students who were pepper-sprayed, or the household servants who walked to work in Montgomery.
Do you know of any successful boycott in which there was no way of witnessing who boycotted and who didn't -- and where the penalties as severe as they could be for isolated individuals boycotting the tests.
Carrol