Archives for the month of: November, 2013

Today, voters in Douglas County, Colorado, will decide the future of public education for the children of their county. In response to an earlier post about the election battle for control of the schools in Douglas County, where the school board is eager to privatize the schools, this reader made the following comment:

We should be courageous and move in the opposite direction from the so-called corporate reformers, the for-profit charter schoolmasters, and the naysayers of American public education. Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, students and concerned citizens should follow what is happening to American education. It is a violent, destructive force against public education.

The landscape is changing; on the horizon, we do not see public schools or parish schools. We see a disproportionate number of for-profit charter schools and schools serving segregated populations. The closure of neighborhood public and parochial schools widen the gaps, decreasing opportunities to grow and prosper. The demise of neighborhood schools adversely impacts the community life and spirit.

We see the end of public school funding and with that, the end of the significant role public schools play in democratizing our young citizens. In this model, the for-profit schools control the market place and the market values.

Mark Zuckerberg dropped $100 million into Newark, which is being used to open more charter schools and facilitate the privatization of public education in that impoverished district. If there is one lesson we have learned from charter schools in New Jersey, it is that privatization works best when the charters are free to exclude students who might get low test scores and to kick out those who can’t get those high test scores. In other words, the Zuckerberg money will be used to establish a form dual school system–one for the achievers, and the other as a dumping ground.

But wait! There is a real need for Zuckerberg’s millions in New Jersey.

A photo exhibit just opened outside the New Jersey State House, showing schools in urban districts that are in terrible physical condition.

“Students at New Jersey’s most resource-starved public schools walk down hallways covered in mold, take tests in asbestos-filled classrooms and trod across floors peppered with rodent droppings. And when these students visit different districts for sports matches or debate club meets, the inequalities are thrown into sharp relief as the students come face-to-face with the basic cleanliness and safety offered by a majority of the state’s educational institutions.

Last Wednesday, a powerful photo exhibit stationed in front of the New Jersey State House displayed the ugly truth hiding inside some of the state’s most dilapidated schools, many of them located in urban areas. Titled “A Blind Eye: The Immorality Of Inaction” and organized by public school advocates at the New Jersey Healthy Schools Now coalition, the exhibit took place in protest of Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s administration, which state education advocates say has displayed a lack of commitment to the area’s most vulnerable students.”

Governor Christie halted all spending on repairs in these schools. He says the money has run out, so children should continue to go to schools in unhealthy conditions. His critics say the money has not run out, but that Governor Christie doesn’t want to change the conditions for the students or teachers in these schools.

Mark Zuckerberg! You could fix these buildings! You could repair the buildings that Governor Christie refuses to repair.

Here is a wonderful use of your millions! Think of the thousands of needy children who will thank you for changing their lives for the better.

Or you could continue to build a dual school system in Newark.

Please do the right thing. Spend your money where it is truly needed and will make a huge difference.

 

This appeared originally in Newsday on Long Island.

Long Island is becoming the epicenter of the Opt Out of Testing movement. Parents who are vocally opposed to standardized testing are running for school boards. Long Island parents are furious at the state’s deluge of tests, especially the most recent Common Core tests, which claimed that most of their children were “failing,” even students who were A students in school. Is everyone lying except the tests? Not likely. How did Commissioner King predict with great accuracy that 70% of the children would fail before they took the test?

 

Common Core Vs. Common Sense

I put a very worried and anxious girl to bed tonight. She’s 7 and in second grade. I am a worrier too, I guess she gets it from me. But in the mid 1980s I was worried about the Barbie outfit I misplaced and whether I’d be able to cartwheel as well as the other girls on the playground at recess. You see, she has her first Common Core math test tomorrow. We have spent the last 2 weeks learning her math work. I say we because I have had to learn it as well. I am a certified NYS teacher and have had to rely on a 7 year old to explain to me how to add 65+7. It’s not as easy as you think.

My heart breaks for her and her fellow students. I have a little girl who loves school. All I want is for her is to go to school happy and come home happy. As far as I am concerned the rest will fall into place. I know what my responsibilities as a parent are in supporting her education. I think if we all reflect back to our elementary school days the best days, and our treasured memories were those days when we did a fun art project on a Friday afternoon, or perhaps we got to play outside for extra recess or maybe we didn’t get to math one day because we were creating costumes for a Thanksgiving play and feast. Are our children going to have positive memories like these to reflect back on?

I feel for all the parents and caregivers who are dealing with tired, frustrated children at the end of a long day, . . . and that’s before homework has even begun. When I was teaching and presented at my Open School nights, I stressed the importance of the home school connection and I have heard the same sentiment from my child’s teachers each year. I want to sit with my child and help her when she needs it. I want her to know I value what she is learning. Now a totally new math curriculum has been thrust upon us. Hey, NYSED, the parents need classes on this stuff too! My daughter continually comes home and tells me “the state” wants the math work done a certain way. Other than naming the state we live in and others that we have visited, I do not think she even understands what “the state” is. She has been told that to do math the way parents have learned is wrong. I tell her that it is not wrong, but is simply a different way of reaching the right answer. I feel hamstringed and trapped, and this is public education! Why are we subjecting our children to this? I guess the next thing we’ll be teaching is a new way to sing the ABC song, starting with the letter m.

I also feel for the teachers who know in their hearts what is developmentally appropriate for a child to be learning. I feel for them because parents are frustrated and taking it out on the teachers. I feel for the principals and administrators who are asking even more from their staff. At my daughter’s open school night I appreciated that her teacher told us what a second grader can handle developmentally. However one week later, out went the math workbook and in came this common core module work using the very concepts the teacher said most second graders couldn’t and wouldn’t understand. Of course these teachers are stressed. I am sure it’s very hard when your job is on the line to not get overwhelmed and frustrated; but the children sense the teacher’s panic. My child doesn’t want to disappoint her teacher, she wants her teacher to be proud of her.

I do not claim to know all about the Common Core, its mission, its purpose or its evolution, but I do know something about common sense and it seems to have been thrust aside. I know that it has made my child doubtful of her abilities. I know it has brought unnecessary stress into her life and I’m mad about that. Does making something harder and more difficult make a child smarter? We want to keep up with the rest of the world but I think 200+ years of American ingenuity and creativity have served to prove that we are quite able to compete in the world around us.

My biggest question is what has changed? Many previous generations have learned without the Common Core. I loved school, and I fear my 3 daughters won’t have those memorable experiences that make school a happy and nurturing place of learning. I taught for over 6 years before staying home with my children. If you asked any of my former students what they came away with from my classroom and teaching, I would hope it is that I made them feel valued, intelligent, and capable. I wanted to instill in them a sense of pride and love of learning, hoping that it would put them on the path to a lifetime journey of learning and personal fulfillment.

Come on parents, we change our shoes if they are uncomfortable. We switch doctors and seek second opinions if we don’t like our course of treatment. Our grocery store loyalty is fickle if we don’t have a positive experience or they ran out of the brand of pasta we like. And here we are sitting back, watching our children suffer.

I prepared questions for this math test tomorrow for my child using the teacher’s study guide. As I sat there with my daughter, who understood the homework each night, I saw fear in her eyes. She blanked. She could not recall how to do any of the math her teacher has spent goodness knows how many hours on these past weeks. My daughter is on overload and her brain cannot filter and process all the information and methods she was inundated with these past few weeks. So, I made a call as a parent, I took the study sheet and questions I had prepared and put it away. She may fail, she may pass. I do not care. She knows her addition facts and we are working on subtraction facts. I am more proud that she thinks of others and is a kind child. And her cartwheels are amazing!!!!

 

 

In an earlier post today, Anthony Cody questioned just how independent our news media are. A reader from Srattle has a vivid demonstration of the way the Seattle Times plays the education issue.

Puget Sound Parent writes:

I’m still waiting for the Seattle Times to explain why they gave multiple pages of coverage to Michelle Rhee when she was here last February. (However, not one mention of the cheating scandal she was deeply embroiled in nor anything else that hinted at any controversy.)

In fact, the coverage of Rhee was bizarrely over the top; you would have thought that Jesus AND Elvis had both returned that night. The Seattle Times covered her visit extensively, including a straight news story, a long interview with the editorial board, and a feature piece.

But, unfortunately, it was exceedingly poor journalism. It resembled the “puff pieces” I normally associate with some mass market magazines, replete with full page, full color ads, targeted to a demographic obsessed with frivolous distractions such as celebrity, fashion and “lifestyle”.

In case there were any doubts about the poor quality of the Rhee coverage, this view was reinforced, right down to a jarring, pseudo-Saskia de Brauw “wannabe” photo image of Rhee attempting to appear “glamorous” while peering out over the city.

In contrast, when you came to town in September, the Seattle Times didn’t print one word about your visit. Not one word. Nothing. Nada. Two weeks earlier, on an “educational events” calendar, in very small print, they mentioned your upcoming appearance at the University of Washington. But when I went back to check it, just before your visit, it had vanished.

I’ve written to the Seattle Times since you were here, asking them why they never covered your visit, or reviewed your book, or anything else. I’m still waiting to hear from them.

Something tells me I’ll be waiting for a while.

I thought Randi wrote an excellent letter in response to Mercedes Schneider’s questions. I repeat, as i have in the past, that Randi is a personal friend. We disagree about the Common Core, but that does not diminish our friendship. The fact that Randi engaged in this dialogue shows her willingness to listen to criticism and to respond thoughtfully, as she did. This is a trait I admire. I too have been the subject of harsh attacks, and I usually ignore them. I don’t have enough years left to fight all my critics, so I try to look ahead, not let them pull me down. But Randi chose to engage, and I admire her for doing so.

Many commenters have continued to criticize Randi, and Leo Casey, who has worked with Randi for many years and is now director of the Albert Shanker Institute of the AFT, responds here to the critics:

Leo Casey writes:

Mercedes Schneider’s blog post repeats a false and malicious account of Randi Weingarten’s teaching and, on this basis, accuses Randi of misrepresenting her experience. Her post is a direct attack on Randi’s personal integrity.

It is one thing to criticize, even heatedly and vehemently, political positions; it is quite another matter to engage in unscrupulous personal attacks, as Schneider has done.

What makes this personal attack by Schneider especially offensive is that it is based on a smear mounted by the New York City Department of Education under Joel Klein in retaliation for Randi’s criticisms of its Children First corporate education reforms, a smear that has since been taken up by anti-union forces on the far right.

What makes this personal attack by Schneider inexcusable is that a simple Google search leads one to an open letter from Randi’s supervisors, colleagues and students at Clara Barton High School. The letter refutes this smear and provides insight into how those with direct knowledge of Randi’s teaching viewed it and her. (The full text of this open letter is included at the end of this post.)

I am one of the signatories on that open letter.

I first met Randi Weingarten in September 1987, on the steps of a New York City courthouse. She was counsel for the United Federation of Teachers, and I was a social studies teacher at Clara Barton High School in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In a saga I have recounted elsewhere in some detail, in 1984 the New York City Board of Education (as it was then called) had begun renovation on the Clara Barton school building—with us in it. After three years of disruption and dislocation, we had returned to our building a few days before it was to open for a new school year and found it filled with debris and a thick layer of dust. I enlisted the White Lung Association and a prominent law firm in our cause, and with their help, a court closed our building. The air and the dust were tested, and friable (loose) asbestos—a dangerous carcinogen when inhaled or ingested—was found. The school building remained closed for two months while a top-to-bottom cleanup and asbestos abatement were completed. I ended up working closely with Randi during a number of court hearings and as she negotiated, with our input, a protocol for the completion of the renovation of our school building. This protocol became the basis of protocols for all subsequent school construction work in New York City.

As we worked together, Randi and I became good friends. We discovered we had a common passion for teaching, and we shared notes on teaching students at Clara Barton and at the Cardozo School of Law, where she had taught. I was something of an evangelist for teaching in an inner-city high school, but Randi was in no need of conversion: She told me that she wanted to teach in a New York City high school, in part because she believed it was very important social justice work and in part because she felt the experience of “walking the walk” of New York City school teachers would make her a better advocate on their behalf. I told her that the Clara Barton staff was grateful for what she had done on behalf of our school, and that we would welcome her to our faculty if her work with the UFT allowed her to teach.

In 1991, Randi took up that invitation and started teaching at Clara Barton. Randi and I co-taught a class in political science, and she taught courses in American history and government, law, and ethical issues in medicine, a public policy course for Clara Barton’s nursing students. The essential facets of Randi’s teaching are addressed in the open letter from her supervisors, colleagues and students reproduced below.

Two accusations repeated by Schneider need to be put to rest. I speak from firsthand knowledge in both instances.

First, the only time during her teaching at Clara Barton that Randi and I discussed her future role in the leadership of the UFT was after Al Shanker became seriously ill with cancer and then passed away in early 1997. Sandy Feldman had taken on the job of AFT president as Al’s successor, and it was clear she could not also continue as UFT president for long. It was only when Sandy had asked Randi to consider standing for UFT president that Randi and I discussed for the first time what she should do. The notion that Randi taught at Clara Barton in order to become UFT president ignores the obvious fact that no one could possibly have known that Al Shanker would be taken from us well before his time.

Second, the “evidence” used to dispute Randi’s account of her teaching was the manufactured product of a personal attack on her mounted by City Hall and the New York City Department of Education. At the UFT’s 2003 spring conference, Randi announced the union’s opposition to the Children First corporate reforms of the Bloomberg-Klein Department of Education. The response from City Hall and Tweed was immediate. Rumors were circulated about Randi’s sexual orientation. Her personal finances were investigated. Neighbors reported that strange men were surveilling and photographing her house. Officials in the DOE passed word that they were being ordered to provide copies of Randi’s confidential personnel files over their objections. Then, two weeks after the UFT’s spring conference, Wayne Barrett published a story in the Village Voice that took up the Bloomberg-Klein cudgels. Barrett wrote that Randi had not taught real classes but was a day-to-day substitute teacher, and that she was absent three days for every day she was present. Using the passive voice, Barrett wrote that “records reviewed by the Voice” were the basis for these claims. We will probably never know what documents were shown to Barrett by the Bloomberg-Klein administration or what they actually reflected, but we do know that the conclusions he printed about Randi’s teaching were entirely false, and that they were part of a smear against Randi conducted in retaliation for the UFT’s opposition to the NYC DOE’s Children First policies.

It is passing strange that those who claim to be the strongest opponents of corporate education reform and who characterize everyone else as weak and vacillating would now be spreading these false and malicious charges. It is beyond odd that self-styled opponents of corporate education reform would be not be focusing on opposition to privatization and austerity, were we would all seem to have common cause, but in mounting personal attacks on Randi Weingarten. If nothing else, it shows their lack of confidence in their own arguments against the AFT’s principled support for the Common Core standards and its strong opposition to the destructive ways in which too many states and districts have implemented them that they have to resort to personal attacks. That’s pretty sad.

Leo Casey

OPEN LETTER
To whom it may concern,

We have learned of publications that challenge the teaching record and accomplishments of American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, disputing the account provided in her official AFT biography. The allegation is that Randi was a substitute teacher who did not teach regular Social Studies classes at Clara Barton High School from 1991 to 1997. Further, it is claimed that she was never observed or evaluated by the school’s Principal or Assistant Principals.

We were students, professional colleagues and supervisors of Randi Weingarten in the years she taught at Clara Barton High School. We have first-hand knowledge of her teaching, and know that these allegations are completely unfounded.

Those of us who were students of Randi know that she taught us in regular classes, from U.S. History and Government and Advanced Placement Political Science to Law and Ethical Issues in Medicine, and that she was in class virtually every day to teach us. A number of us had the privilege of studying with Randi when she prepared our Political Science class for participation in the national We The People civics competition, and our class won the New York State championship and placed high in the nationals. She gave countless hours, before and after school, on weekends and on holidays, to ensure that we would be able to do our very best. We know Randi to be an excellent teacher, completely dedicated to her students.

Those of us who were professional colleagues of Randi know that while teaching at Clara Barton, Randi taught the same regular classes that every teacher teaches, and that she was in her classes virtually every day. We know Randi to be a master teacher who was supportive of her colleagues. She was a welcome presence in our professional community.

Those of us who were supervisors of her know that like other Social Studies teachers at Clara Barton, Randi’s teaching was observed and she was evaluated by the Assistant Principal for Social Studies and the Principal. We know Randi to be a conscientious educator who was ever mindful of fulfilling her obligations to the young people she taught and committed to the mission of our school and the inner city community it served.

Marsha Boncy-Danticat§
Leo Casey§
Madison Cuffy*
Connie Cuttle§
Fania Denton*
Thomas Dillon¶
Tamika Lawrence Edwards*
Sean Edwards*
Jacqueline Foster¶
Zinga Fraser*
Judith Garcia¶
Karen Gazis§
Renne Gross§
Gail Lewis Jacobs*
Keith William Lee*
Joshua Medina*
Andrew Mirer§
Maurice Pahalan§
Joseph Picciano§
Elizabeth Ramos Mahon*
Judieann Spencer-McCall*
Tina Vurgaropulos§.

§: Was a Clara Barton teacher or guidance counselor colleague
*: Was a Clara Barton student
¶: Was a Clara Barton supervisor

During the Bloomberg years, the Department of Education has had a public relations staff that declared major successes whenever a new idea is launched, without waiting to see how things worked out. It is always good to be willing to try new ideas, but it is even better to withhold judgment until they have had time to prove themselves. But that has not been the New York City way these past dozen years.

One such well-heralded school is called the New American Academy, which opened in 2010, founded by Shimon Waronker, an Orthodox Jew who had studied at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and graduated from Mayor Bloomberg’s prized Leadership Academy. The school received extensive, often fawning press coverage. The big idea was to have 60 students in the same classroom with four teachers. It would be a new model of schooling, somewhat like the “bullpens” where Mayor Bloomberg’s employees work, in open cubicles rather than individual offices. It would replace the 19th century Prussian model of one teacher in one classroom with a large roomful of youngsters and four teachers. Its founder predicted that he would have 50 such schools open by 2012.

The press was intrigued. The New York Times heralded the opening of the school with its bold new concept, though with a hint of skepticism characteristic of the reporter Sharon Otterman, who was unimpressed by the noise and disorder. Nonetheless, she made clear that this was one of the models that education officials were excited about. The New York Post wrote an admiring article. David Brooks, always fast to see a big story in the making, called it “the relationship school,” and described it in glowing terms as akin to “the networked collaborative of today.” He hedged a bit at the end of his article, saying that it was too soon to say if it would work, but he made clear his admiration for the boldness of the scheme and its leader.

Alas, too soon the praise. Rachel Monahan of the New York Daily News reports that only 2 of its 22 students who took the Common Core tests in reading and math managed to pass. The city halted its plans to expand the school to a middle school. Worse, “more than half of the first class, which started with 40 first-graders three years ago, are no longer enrolled or weren’t promoted to the fourth grade, city stats show.” Although the city withdrew its plan to expand this school, two similar prototypes have already been approved. Undaunted by the test scores and the attrition rate, teachers and parents say they are enthusiastic about the new school.

 

According to the Providence Journal, Rhode Island won plaudits from the National Council on Teacher Quality. The newspaper, which is notorious for its inattention to background, describes NCTQ as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy group.”

This is not accurate. As I have described on this blog in detail, NCTQ was created in 2000 by the rightwing Thomas B. Fordham Foundation at a time when I was a member of the board. It was created specifically to harass teacher-education institutions and to advance an agenda in which untrained teachers could win certification by passing a test.

As I explained in this post, NCTQ floundered about, seeking a strategy and was rescued in 2001 when George W. Bush’s secretary of education Rod Paige gave NCTQ an unrestricted grant of $5 million to keep it alive. The teacher test it created, called the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, eventually was turned over to another company that sells online certification for only $1995.00. Is that a high-quality way to prepare teachers for the nation’s children?

The board of NCTQ is dominated by corporate reformers. It may have members from both parties, but it is certainly NOT non-partisan. It is hostile to teacher education and infatuated with the idea that test scores are both the measure and the outcome of education.

Mercedes Schneider analyzed the board and the political agenda of NCTQ at great length on her blog; her posts have been widely reposted.

Its recent, widely heralded report on the nation’s schools of education–which found all but four to be inadequate–was based on a review of their reading lists and syllabi, not on actual visits to the campuses. This was supposed to show the power of “Big Data,” that is, making judgments without any personal interactions, but it really demonstrated that the NCTQ review was a hit job on teacher education. I always have been a tough critic of teacher education, but I also believe that you can’t grade an institution without ever setting foot in its buildings or interviewing its professors and students.

The Providence Journal should have done a few minutes of research on the Internet before lauding the findings of the NCTQ report on Rhode Island. What they have done here is journalism by press release. That’s not journalism. That’s lazy.

Anthony Cody wrote a post in which he reviews how the newspapers have reacted to important issues.

First, there was the great editorial in a Vermont newspaper, patiently explaining that public schools belong to the public, “not hedge fund managers and entrepreneurs,” and they serve public purposes.

Then he points to the Lap Dog editorial in the Los Angeles Times, which defended embattled superintendent John Deasy, whose decisions may be costly and harmful, but who must ultimately prevail over those who were elected by the public to be Deasy’s employer. The L.A. Times, in other words, voices the anti-democratic views of its owner, who obviously cares very little for democratic niceties like elections. John Deasy is the darling of Eli Broad and Bill Gates, so his wrong-headed decisions must be defended, free from any judgment by no matter the elected board. In the eyes of this newspaper, Deasy is the boss and the elected board works for him.

And then there is the kid-glove treatment of New Jersey’s bully governor, whose sneering response to a teacher was not worthy of a mention. Luckily, his remarks as well as his sneer were recorded by others, and they are going viral even now.

I have always been a supporter of a free press, but at times like these, one misses the freedom of the press. The press should comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. But that’s hard to do when the comfortable own the press.

 

Back in the olden times, advocates claimed that charters would provide healthy competition and beneficial innovation. This would benefit the public schools and urban districts as well.

But it turned out to be a false promise.

By skimming off the best students in poor neighborhoods, charter schools leave the public schools in worse condition, overburdened with the neediest students that the charters don’t want and lacking the resources to educate them appropriately. Where the public school system is struggling to improve, charter schools may actually hasten their collapse.

Now Moody’s Investors’ Service has issued a bulletin warning that the proliferation of charters in economically weak cities damages those cities’ economic viability.

The report summary says:

The dramatic rise in charter school enrollments over the past decade is likely to create negative credit pressure on school districts in economically weak urban areas, says Moody’s Investors Service in a new report. Charter schools tend to proliferate in areas where school districts already show a degree of underlying economic and demographic stress, says Moody’s in the report “Charter Schools Pose Growing Risks for Urban Public Schools.”

“While the vast majority of traditional public districts are managing through the rise of charter schools without a negative credit impact, a small but growing number face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters,” says Michael D’Arcy, one of two authors of the report.
Charter schools can pull students and revenues away from districts faster than the districts can reduce their costs, says Moody’s. As some of these districts trim costs to balance out declining revenues, cuts in programs and services will further drive students to seek alternative institutions including charter schools.
Many older, urban areas that have experienced population and tax base losses, creating stress for their local school districts, have also been areas where charter schools have proliferated, says Moody’s. Among the cities where over a fifth of the students are enrolled in charter schools are Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Nationwide about one in 20 students is in a charter school.
One of the four risk factors Moody’s identifies as making a school district vulnerable to charter school growth is that the school district is already financially pressured and grappling with weak demographics.
A second factor is having a limited ability to adjust operations in response to a loss of enrolment to charter schools.
“Shifts in student enrollment from district schools to charters, while resulting in a transfer of a portion of district revenues to charter schools, do not typically result in a full shift of operating costs away from district public schools,” says Moody’s Tiphany Lee-Allen, the Moody’s Associate Analyst who co-authored the report. “Districts may face institutional barriers to cutting staff levels, capital footprints and benefit costs over the short term given the intricacies of collective bargaining contracts – leaving them with underutilized buildings and ongoing growth in personnel costs.”
A third risk factor for a school district is being in a state with a statutory framework promoting a high degree of educational choice and has a relatively liberal approval process for new charters and few limits on their growth, as well as generous funding.
For example in Michigan, the statutory framework emphasizes educational choice, and there are multiple charter authorizers to help promote charter school growth. In Michigan, Detroit Public Schools (B2 negative), Clintondale Community Schools (Ba3 negative), Mount Clemens Community School District (Ba3 negative) and Ypsilanti School District (Ba3) have all experienced significant fiscal strain related to charter enrollment growth, which has also been a contributing factor to their speculative grade status.

Mother Crusader writes that the confrontation between Governor Chris Christie and teacher Melissa Tomlinson called attention to the governor’s Achilles’ heel.

His education policies are “wildly unpopular.” He wants vouchers and charters, not public schools. And he has demonstrated contempt for teachers, especially women teachers, on several occasions.

One unscientific poll reported that 79% think his goal is to destroy public education.

Other polls, scientifically done, show that most of Barbara Buono’s voters choose her because of Christie’s arrogant treatment of the public schools and their teachers.

Will it matter in the election? Will women vote for Buono because Christie once again berated a woman in public? Will public school parents, who are the vast majority of voters, express their opposition to Christie’s contempt for their local public schools?

It’s a long shot, but an intriguing one.