Archives for the month of: March, 2014

Think of it: the richest man in the world poured over $2 billion into the creation of national standards, and he is out on the media-power trail, fighting for their survival. Gates is worried about the pushback against the standards and the testing in a score of states. In some states, the very term “Common Core” has become so toxic that they are called something else, rebranded.

And don’t forget that Gates said not long ago that it would take at least ten years to know whether “this stuff” works. Some people wonder if it is a good idea to turn the nation’s schools upside down while we wait those ten years.

Susan Ohanian here tracks his efforts to save his foundering pet project of the moment. She notes his numerous media appearances and joins it with a speech in which he raised doubts about raising the minimum wage. Why raise the minimum wage when we could have CCSS to solve all problems? Why, once everyone is on the same page, thanks to Bill Gates, everyone will learn the same things at the same rate, and the achievement gap will close. And think of the savings when everyone takes the same tests, online of course, and teachers’ evaluations are firmly anchored to student test scores. That is when schools can fire the weakest teachers, raise the salaries of those that remain, increase class sizes, repeat again next year and every year, and watch for wondrous improvements.

Imagine that: having bought off the U.S. Department of Education, having given millions to almost every “think tank” and advocacy group in DC, he is now on the defensive about his big bet. Why? Because he didn’t buy everyone. He can’t understand why the nation is not singing his praises. Certainly the media fights for his time and presence. And on March 13, he dined with 80 of 100 Senators. Is there anyone other than a head of state who would get this reception? Certainly not a Nobel-prize winner or a celebrated poet.

Gates can’t understand why parents and locals are not fawning over him like everyone else. Why the pushback? He and Arne think it must be the Tea Party. They can’t understand why people like Anthony Cody, Carol Burris, Stephen Krashen, and Susan Ohanian are not on board. He ignores them.

Gates knows he can count on Arne and the President. He knows he can count on Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Rick Scott, and the other hard-right governors. They are on his side. He can count on the media to repeat his claim that only the Tea Party opposes CCSS, without wondering why so many hard-right governors are fighting for them. He can count on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. Who knew these corporate titans cared so much about children when they have outsourced so many of their parents’ jobs overseas. Oh, yes, they want the children to be global competitors. Can they really be global competitors with countries that pay workers $5 a day? $20 a day?

Maybe the pushback comes from people who don’t understand that the Common Core is like a standardized electric plug, as Bill Gates told the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards last week. Maybe those parents (they are not billionaires, why does anyone listen to them?) don’t see their children as “human capital” that must be standardized and upgraded. Maybe the opposition comes from people who don’t understand how the federal government took charge of state and local education, thanks to Bush and Obama. Maybe it comes from teachers who think that fiction is no less valuable than informational text. Maybe from kindergarten teachers who think children need play more than math.

Whatever.

Susan Ohanian thinks he is running scared. He is. This is still a democracy. Gates can buy the governors. He can buy organizations. He can buy the Beltway crowd. But he can’t buy the people.

By now, there is a sizable literature about the connection between “choice” and segregation. We should never forget that choice was the favorite school policy of George Wallace and other segregationists.

Hoboken, New Jersey, is Governor Chris Christie’s little Petri dish for segregated schools. The best way to keep gentrification going is to kep expanding charter schools, so that young white families don’t have to patronize public schools. Those public schools are for poor black and brown kids.

Read Salon’s interview with the president of the embattled Hoboken public schools.

The Vergara trial in California is a calculated effort to remove due process protections from teachers. The plaintiffs claim that the superintendent must be able to dismiss teachers at will, without the bother of a hearing. The billionaires sponsoring this attack on teachers’ job protection insist that any protections for teachers in the workplace violates the civil rights of students. They gathered a group of students who were willing to blame their teachers for their low test scores, hired a team of crack lawyers, and sued. Los Angeles Superintendent John Deasy, whose district is being sued, testified for the plaintiffs; he wants the power to fire more teachers without delay.

Win or lose, the billionaires hope to create a template for similar attacks on teachers in other states.

An observer at the trial distributed this account of the proceedings last week.

“On Friday, two teachers pegged as “grossly incompetent” by the Plaintiffs took the stand: Anthony Mize and Dawna Watty.

“Mize was the eighth grade English teacher of the case’s namesake, Elizabeth Vergara. He worked at Maclay Middle School for five years. He started at Maclay as an intern teacher in 2008, was laid off due to reduction in force in 2010 and was then hired back as a long-term substitute for the following three years. He was never hired back on tenure-track, nor did he ever achieve tenure.

“Mize was a good teacher. He took on leadership roles in the school. He was creative and caring in the classroom. He never was disciplined. He never received negative evaluations or observations. His evaluations all had positive comments. He testified that he believed Vergara learned in his class – in which he followed an instructional guide with a lesson-by-lesson layout provided by LAUSD, and used a textbook to supplement.

“Watty taught Brandon DeBose in her fifth grade class at Ruby Bridges Elementary. She has taught more than 900 fifth graders over her 28 year career. Despite having opportunities to transfer to more affluent schools in Alameda Unified School District, Watty chose to stay put because she loves the students and because the school has a strong community feel. She said, “It’s a diverse population. I learn from them. They learn from me. We’re a family. We’re a community. We have students with some severe needs, and we try to meet the needs of all of our students…coming to school is the one thing that they have that is constant in their life…”

“Like Mize, Watty has never received a negative evaluation. She has never received a complaint from a parent about her teaching. She has received much positive feedback, including parents of her students asking to have their younger children assigned to her. She often receives visits from former students.

“Both Mize and Watty testified that neither Vergara nor DeBose nor their parents ever complained or asked for additional help.”

So, neither teacher ever received a negative evaluation.neither was ever disciplined. One never had tenure or tenure rights (why hasn’t John Deasy already fired him, since he was Vergara’s teacher?) should teachers be fired whenever a student doesn’t like them?

Who will want to teach when any teacher can be fired for any reason or no reason at all?

Here are some readings about the trial.

Thirty years ago, the governor of New York addressed the Democratic National Convention, held in New York City. His name was Mario Cuomo. His theme was “A Tale of Two Cities,” ironically, the same campaign theme as Bill de Blasio in 2013. He denounced tax breaks for the rich. He spoke of caring for the family of America. This is not the same Cuomo who is now governor of New York, who wants to be known as the business-friendly Democrat who didn’t raise taxes and who puts the needs of the 3% of children in charter schools funded by his campaign contributors over the needs of the 97% of children in public schools.

This is what Mario Cuomo said. Remember when Democrats talked like this?

Mario Cuomo: “A Tale of Two Cities”
delivered 16 July 1984 to at Democratic National Convention, San Francisco

On behalf of the Empire State and the family of New York, I thank you for the great privilege of being able to address this convention. Please allow me to skip the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric. Let me instead use this valuable opportunity to deal immediately with questions that should determine this election and that we all know are vital to the American people.

Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families and their futures. The president said that he didn’t understand that fear. He said, “Why, this country is a shining city on a hill.” And the president is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.

But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city’s splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there’s another city; there’s another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can’t pay their mortgages, and most young people can’t afford one, where students can’t afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can’t find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn’t show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don’t see, in the places that you don’t visit in your shining city.

In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation –. Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a “Tale of Two Cities” than it is just a “Shining City on a Hill.”

Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places. Maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds, maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn’t afford to use.

Maybe, maybe, Mr. President. But I’m afraid not.

Because, the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from very the beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. “Government can’t do everything,” we were told. “So it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer — and what falls from their table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.”

You know, the Republicans called it trickle-down when Hoover tried it. Now they call it supply side. But it’s the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded — for the people who are locked out — all they can do is to stare from a distance at that city’s glimmering towers.

It’s an old story. It’s as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. The strong, the strong they tell us will inherit the land.

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact. And, we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees — wagon train after wagon train — to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans — all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America.

For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that.

So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again — this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust.

That’s not going to be easy. Mo Udall is exactly right, it’s not going to be easy. In order to succeed, we must answer our opponent’s polished and appealing rhetoric with a more telling reasonableness and rationality.

We must win this case on the merits. We must get the American public to look past the glitter, beyond the showmanship – to reality, to the hard substance of things. And we will do that not so much with speeches that sound good as with speeches that are good and sound. Not so much with speeches that will bring people to their feet as with speeches that bring people to their senses. We must make the American people hear our “Tale of Two Cities.” We must convince them that we don’t have to settle for two cities, that we can have one city, indivisible, shining for all of its people.

Now we will have no chance to do that if what comes out of this convention is a babel of arguing voices. If that’s what’s heard throughout the campaign – dissident voices from all sides – we will have no chance to tell our message. To succeed we will have to surrender small parts of our individual interests, to build a platform we can all stand on, at once, comfortably – proudly singing out the truth for the nation to hear, in chorus, its logic so clear and commanding that no slick commercial, no amount of geniality, no martial music will be able to muffle the sound of the truth. We Democrats must unite.

We Democrats must unite so that the entire nation can unite because surely the Republicans won’t bring this country together. Their policies divide the nation – into the lucky and the left-out, into the royalty and the rabble. The Republicans are willing to treat that division as victory. They would cut this nation in half, into those temporarily better off and those worse off than before, and they would call that division recovery.

We should not, we should not be embarrassed or dismayed or chagrined if the process of unifying is difficult, even wrenching at times. Remember that, unlike any other party, we embrace men and women of every color, every creed, every orientation, every economic class. In our family are gathered everyone from the abject poor of Essex County in New York, to the enlightened affluent of the gold coasts at both ends of the nation. And in between is the heart of our constituency. The middle class — the people not rich enough to be worry-free, but not poor enough to be on welfare. The middle class, those people who work for a living because they have to, not because some psychiatrist told them it was a convenient way to fill the interval between birth and eternity. White collar and blue collar. Young professionals. Men and women in small business desperate for the capital and contracts that they need to prove their worth.

We speak for the minorities who have not yet entered the mainstream. We speak for ethnics who want to add their culture to the magnificent mosaic that is America. We speak, we speak for women who are indignant that this nation refuses to etch into its governmental commandments the simple rule “thou shalt not sin against equality,” a rule so simple — I was going to say, and I perhaps dare not but I will, it’s a commandment so simple it can be spelled in three letters — E.R.A.!

We speak for young people demanding an education and a future. We speak for senior citizens who are terrorized by the idea that their only security – their Social Security – is being threatened. We speak for millions of reasoning people fighting to preserve our environment from greed and from stupidity. And we speak for reasonable people who are fighting to preserve our very existence from a macho intransigence that refuses to make intelligent attempts to discuss the possibility of nuclear holocaust with our enemy. They refuse. They refuse, because they believe we can pile missiles so high that they will pierce the clouds and the sight of them will frighten our enemies into submission.

Now we’re proud of this diversity as Democrats. We’re grateful for it. We don’t have to manufacture it the way the Republicans will next month in Dallas, by propping up mannequin delegates on the convention floor. But while we’re proud of this diversity as Democrats, we pay a price for it. The different people that we represent have different points of view. And sometimes they compete and even debate, and even argue. That’s what our primaries were all about. But now the primaries are over and it is time when we pick our candidates and our platform here to lock arms and move into this campaign together. If you need any more inspiration to put some small part of your own differences aside to create this consensus, all you need to do is to reflect on what the Republican policy of divide and cajole has done to this land since 1980.

Now the president has asked us to judge him on whether or not he’s fulfilled the promise he made four years ago. I believe that as Democrats, we ought to accept that challenge. And, just for a moment let us consider what he has said and what he’s done. Inflation is down since 1980. But not because of the supply- side miracle promised to us by the president. Inflation was reduced the old-fashioned way, with a recession, the worst since 1932. We could have brought inflation down that way. How did he do it? Fifty-five thousand bankruptcies. Two years of massive unemployment. Two hundred thousand farmers and ranchers forced off the land. More homeless than at any time since the Great Depression in 1932. More hungry, in this nation of enormous affluence, the United States of America, more hungry. More poor – most of them women – and he paid one more thing, a nearly $200 billion deficit threatening our future.

Now we must make the American people understand this deficit because they don’t. The president’s deficit is a direct and dramatic repudiation of his promise to balance our budget by 1983. How large is it? The deficit is the largest in the history of this universe; President Carter’s last budget had a deficit of less than one-third of this deficit. It is a deficit that, according to the president’s own fiscal adviser, may grow as high as $300 billion a year for “as far as the eye can see.”

And, ladies and gentlemen, it is a debt so large that as much as one-half of our revenue from the income tax goes just to pay the interest. It is a mortgage on our children’s future that can be paid only in pain and that could bring this nation to its knees.

Now don’t take my word for it – I’m a Democrat.

Ask the Republican investment bankers on Wall Street what they think the chances of this recovery being permanent are. You see, if they’re not too embarrassed to tell you the truth, they’ll say that they are appalled and frightened by the president’s deficit. Ask them what they think of our economy, now that it has been driven by the distorted value of the dollar back to its colonial condition – now we’re exporting agricultural products and importing manufactured ones. Ask those Republican investment bankers what they expect the rate of interest to be a year from now. And ask them, if they dare tell you the truth you will hear from them, what they predict for the inflation rate a year from now, because of the deficit.

Now, how important is this question of the deficit.

Think about it practically: What chance would the Republican candidate have had in 1980 if he had told the American people that he intended to pay for his so-called economic recovery with bankruptcies, unemployment, more homeless, more hungry and the largest government debt known to humankind? Would American voters have signed the loan certificate for him on Election Day? Of course not! That was an election won under false pretenses. It was won with smoke and mirrors and illusions. And that’s the kind of recovery we have now as well.

And what about foreign policy? They said that they would make us and the whole world safer. They say they have. By creating the largest defense budget in history, one that even they now admit is excessive. By escalating to a frenzy the nuclear arms race. By incendiary rhetoric. By refusing to discuss peace with our enemies. By the loss of 279 young Americans in Lebanon in pursuit of a plan and a policy that no one can find or describe.

We give money to Latin American governments that murder nuns, and then we lie about it. We have been less than zealous in support of our only real friend, it seems to me, we have in the Middle East, the one democracy there, our flesh and blood ally, the state of Israel. Our foreign policy drifts with no real direction, other than an hysterical commitment to an arms race that leads nowhere – if we’re lucky. And if we’re not, it could lead us into bankruptcy or war.

Of course we must have a strong defense!

Of course Democrats are for a strong defense. Of course Democrats believe that there are times when we must stand and fight. And we have. Thousands of us have paid for freedom with our lives. But always – when this country has been at its best – our purposes were clear. Now they’re not. Now our allies are as confused as our enemies. Now we have no real commitment to our friends or to our ideals – not to human rights, not to the refuseniks, not to Sakharov, not to Bishop Tutu and the others struggling for freedom in South Africa.

We have in the last few years spent more than we can afford. We have pounded our chests and made bold speeches. But we lost 279 young Americans in Lebanon and we live behind sand bags in Washington. How can anyone say that we are stronger, safer, or better?

That is the Republican record.

That its disastrous quality is not more fully understood by the American people I can only attribute to the president’s amiability and the failure by some to separate the salesman from the product.

And, now it’s up to us. Now it’s now up to you and me to make the case to America. And to remind Americans that if they are not happy with all the president has done so far, they should consider how much worse it will be if he is left to his radical proclivities for another four years unrestrained. Unrestrained.

If July brings back Ann Gorsuch Burford – what can we expect of December? Where would another four years take us? Where would four years more take us? How much larger will the deficit be? How much deeper the cuts in programs for the struggling middle class and the poor to limit that deficit? How high will the interest rates be? How much more acid rain killing our forests and fouling our lakes? And, ladies and gentlemen, the nation must think of this: What kind of Supreme Court will we have? We must ask ourselves what kind of court and country will be fashioned by the man who believes in having government mandate people’s religion and morality?

The man who believes that trees pollute the environment, the man that believes that the laws against discrimination against people go too far. The man who threatens Social Security and Medicaid and help for the disabled. How high will we pile the missiles? How much deeper will the gulf be between us and our enemies? And, ladies and gentlemen, will four years more make meaner the spirit of the American people?

This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.

We Democrats still have a dream. We still believe in this nation’s future. And this is our answer to the question, this is our credo:

We believe in only the government we need but we insist on all the government we need. We believe in a government that is characterized by fairness and reasonableness, a reasonableness that goes beyond labels, that doesn’t distort or promise things that we know we can’t do.We believe in a government strong enough to use the words “love” and “compassion” and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities. We believe in encouraging the talented, but we believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.

Our government should be able to rise to the level to where it can fill the gaps left by chance or a wisdom we don’t fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the “world’s most sincere Democrat” – St. Francis of Assisi – than laws written by Darwin.

We believe, we believe as Democrats, that a society as blessed as ours, the most affluent democracy in the world’s history, one that can spend trillions on instruments of destruction, ought to be able to help the middle class in its struggle, ought to be able to find work for all who can do it, room at the table, shelter for the homeless, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute. And we proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze, if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death.

We believe in firm but fair law and order. We believe proudly in the union movement. We believe in privacy for people, openness by government, we believe in civil rights, and we believe in human rights. We believe in a single fundamental idea that describes better than most textbooks and any speech that I could write what a proper government should be. The idea of family. Mutuality. The sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all. Feeling one another’s pain. Sharing one another’s blessings. Reasonably, honestly, fairly – without respect to race, or sex, or geography or political affiliation.

We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems. That the future of the child in Buffalo is our future. That the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive, and live decently, is our struggle. That the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger. That the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.

Now for 50 years, for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt’s alphabet programs; Truman’s NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy’s intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson’s civil rights; Carter’s human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.

Democrats did it, Democrats did it – and Democrats can do it again. We can build a future that deals with our deficit. Remember this, that 50 years of progress under our principles never cost us what the last four years of stagnation have. And, we can deal with the deficit intelligently, by shared sacrifice, with all parts of the nation’s family contributing, building partnerships with the private sector, providing a sound defense without depriving ourselves of what we need to feed our children and care for our people.

We can have a future that provides for all the young of the present, by marrying common sense and compassion. We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980.

And we can do it again. If we do not forget. If we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles. That they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher: gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.

That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it’s a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn’t read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it, and lived it. Like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And, I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children and they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation’s government did that for them.

And that they were able to build a family and live in dignity and see one of their children go from behind their little grocery store in South Jamaica on the other side of the tracks where he was born, to occupy the highest seat in the greatest state of the greatest nation in the only world we know, is an ineffably beautiful tribute to the democratic process.

And, ladies and gentlemen, on January 20, 1985, it will happen again. Only on a much, much grander scale. We will have a new president of the United States, a Democrat born not to the blood of kings but to the blood of pioneers and immigrants. And we will have America’s first woman vice president, the child of immigrants, and she, she, she will open with one magnificent stroke, a whole new frontier for the United States. Now, it will happen.

It will happen – if we make it happen; if you and I can make it happen.

And I ask you now – ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters – for the good of all of us – for the love of this great nation, for the family of America – for the love of God. Please, make this nation remember how futures are built.

Thank you and God bless you.

David Safier writes a terrific blog about education and politics in Arizona.

He made the trip to Austin to the first annual conference of the Network for Public Education and found he was in an alternate universe, where people care passionately about the preservation of public education.

He attended along with several other Tucson residents, including Robin Hiller, not only executive director of NPE, but director of the parent group called “Voices for Education” in Tucson.

Safier wrote:

“The term “education reform” was disparaged at the conference—not because the attendees are anti-reform, but because the term has been co-opted by the conservative-led school privatization movement.

“We’re not against reform,” said Julian Vasquez Heilig, an associate professor of educational policy and planning at the University of Texas, during his talk that opened the conference. “We want to reform the ‘reformers.'”

“Hiller sat on a panel looking into the “opt out” movement, where parents refuse to let their children take high-stakes tests and teachers defy their districts by refusing to administer the tests. TUSD’s Sanchez participated in a panel with other superintendents discussing the challenges of “leading schools and districts in an era of high-stakes accountability.” (I was on of a panel that looked into charter schools, virtual schools and vouchers.)

“Though a major thrust of the conference was the fight against the “education reform/school choice” agenda, the atmosphere was more upbeat than negative. It felt like a gathering of the progressive education tribes. K-12 teachers and administrators, university scholars and parents from around the country who had heard of one another’s efforts and had read each other’s news articles and blog posts met face to face for the first time. The overriding feeling at the conference was, “We’re not alone.”

This spring, the five-year terms of four members of the New York Board of Regents expired. Many parent groups mounted a campaign to persuade the State Assembly to replace all four of them, since they refused to listen to parent complaints about the Common Core and the fiasco associated with the Common Core implementation and testing.

The Assembly responded by selecting someone with no experience in education and apparently no knowledge of the Common Core or the controversies surrounding it. Presumably, Commissioner John King–a target of parent anger–will bring the new Regent up to date.

Here is a description of the process by Tim Farley, an elementary-middle school principal in the Hudson Valley of New York:

Something is seriously awry in the state of New York. This year, four Regents positions were open. All four incumbents were seeking re-appointment. The appointment of Regents has historically been an Assembly-Democrat controlled process, and most years the Republican legislators don’t even bother showing up for the vote because they feel they really don’t have much of a say in the process (and they don’t). However, this year has been unique on many levels.

Since the Regents oversee Commissioner John King, the selection of Regents cannot be more critical than they are at this juncture. Much attention was focused on the interviews of the 20-plus candidates (including the incumbents). Regents candidates were required to apply by January 31, 2014. Applicants were informed that they would be interviewed in February. The four successful applicants would have their nominations voted on by a joint session on March 11. On Friday, March 7, several Assembly members were notified that a new set of interviews would occur on Monday, March 10. The newest candidate was Josephine Finn, a lawyer from Monticello, Sullivan County, NY. Regent Jackson is the incumbent Regent for this District (III) and he abruptly resigned with no public comments made to date.

According to a Times Union article (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/207983/regents-candidate-has-an-entrepreneurialspiritual-side/ ), Finn “admitted to legislators that she wasn’t steeped in details of the Common Core controversy but said she was a quick study”. Ms. Finn also has some unique websites. For example, her website: “Josephinefinn.com” was quoted in the article as being dedicated to “applying spiritual principle to business practices as well as to everyday life.” Another one of Finn’s sites, “Mommashands.com” is dedicated to “spiritual growth.”

Finn, who was called in at the 11th hour, was interviewed and quickly nominated and won a seat on the Board of Regents, starting ironically enough on April 1. The Legislature rushed the nomination and appointment of a non-educator who has not “steeped” herself “in the details of the Common Core controversy”. It begs the question: Why was Finn allowed to even apply to be a Regent when she didn’t meet any of the deadlines to be a candidate? Why couldn’t the Assembly members nominate someone from the 20-plus candidates that they had already interviewed and several with substantially more educational experience than Finn? This is clearly a demonstration of the Legislature’s abdication of their duties. Their role in appointing Regents who oversee our children’s educational programming could not be more critical, and this is the person they appointed. Here is a link to her entire March 10 Regent interview (http://youtu.be/AWj4SshfaEU ).

Ms. Finn may be an excellent lawyer. She may be a really nice person. But what qualifies her for a Regent position more so than several other candidates with excellent credentials? Perhaps it is her past affiliation with the Casino Advisory Board (http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9510051112/naacp-lawyer-joins-oneida-indian-casino-gambling-advisory-board ). According to this recent report (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Cuomo-names-gaming-commission-chairman-for-casino-5126092.php ), it appears that Cuomo is on a fast track to establish Casinos in New York, and in particular, Sullivan County. Perhaps it is just a coincidence. Perhaps there was some “horse trading” going on. If I were a betting man, I would bet on a trifecta – Silver/Casinos/Cuomo. They seem like a sure bet to me.

Addendum: Valerie Strauss wrote about the newest member of the New York Board of Regents here.

Bruce Baker, Mark Weber, and Joseph Oluwole completed another study of Cami Anderson’s “One Newark,” which will hand over about one-third of Newark’s public schools to private charter operators. This will result in the layoff of hundreds of teachers. Because the lowest performing schools are largely racially segregated, and because most of their teachers are black, the authors predict that “One Newark” will lead to a disparate impact on black teachers. The outcome: a significant whitening of the teacher force in Newark.

They write:

“This brief adds a new consideration to the shift from traditional public schools to charters: if the CMOs maintain their current teaching corps’ profile in an expansion, Newark’s teachers are likely to become more white and less experienced overall. Given the importance of teacher experience, particular in the first few years of work, Newark’s students would likely face a decline in teacher quality as more students enroll in charters.

“The potential change in the racial composition of the Newark teaching corps under One Newark – to a staff that has a smaller proportion of teachers of color – would occur within a historical context of established patterns of discrimination against black teachers. “Choice” plans in education have previously been found to disproportionately impact the employment of black teachers; One Newark continues in this tradition. NPS may be vulnerable to a disparate impact legal challenge on the grounds that black teachers will disproportionately face employment consequences under a plan that arbitrarily targets their schools.”

The Network for Public Education needs your help tomorrow!!!

As you know, The Network for Public Education’s first Conference culminated with a major announcement by the NPE Board about the board’s press release to call for formal Congressional hearings “to investigate the over-emphasis, misapplication, costs, and poor implementation of high-stakes standardized testing in the nation’s K-12 public schools.”

We can put public pressure on Congress by using technology – thanks, Bill Gates – to fight corporate reforms! The board at NPE decided to launch a Twitter Storm to reach the public and Congress.

Why NPE is doing this Twitter Storm:

We are taking our message to Twitter because while we lack access to paid media, we have thousands of passionate educators, students, parents and citizens across the country who care deeply about our schools, and are deeply concerned about the colossal waste of resources now being directed to standardized tests. We hope to raise awareness among the public, media and elected representatives around our call for Congressional hearings into the abuse of standardized tests.

Our first NPE Twitter Storm has been scheduled for Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 from 5-7 pm PDST. Our NPE Twitter Storm Facebook Event has this information available and updates that you will want to follow:

Get ready for a giant NPE Twitter Storm on Wednesday | 3-19-14 | 5-7 pm PDST

Network for Public Education is demanding Congressional Hearings on Standardized TESTING abuse.

Join us on Twitter that evening and look for future events to include a phone campaign and letter writing campaign.

Please SEE NPE TOOL KIT here!

Grassroots Toolkit: Time for Congressional Hearings into the Abuse of Standardized Testing http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2014/03/grassroots-toolkit-time-for-congressional-hearings-into-the-abuse-of-standardized-testing/

But what is a Twitter Storm and how does one participate? I thought perhaps some of your readers will join in to create this public pressure on Congress.

First of all, you will need a Twitter account and some basic Twitter skills. A tutorial for Twitter basic skills can be found here. I did not create this one, but hopefully it will get you started.

Many people wonder, “What is a Twitter Storm?”

A Twitter Storm is an organized activist event that includes a large number of individuals working in unison to send out tweets at the same time for a sustained amount of time on the same topic in order to create a trending topic. Everyone joining the Twitter Storm uses the SAME hash tag. It is different from a chat which is more conversational, does not have the same goal of trending, nor is the pace as fast in a chat, typically.

What happens when a topic is trending? #NPEconference was a trending topic for the 2 days of the NPE conference, over and above the crisis in Kiev and above the major protest over the KXL pipeline protests in DC. As a result of this, others engaged in our conversation that may not have engaged and it led to several mainstream media opportunities in print, radio, and television formats.

Thus, by creating a trending topic, the chances of spreading the message to people who did not have awareness of the topic are much higher. In addition, the likelihood of mainstream press coverage increases dramatically for trending topics. In this case, our hope are – that with enough public pressure and news media coverage – we could hope to create enough public pressure that Congress would in fact begin to hold formal investigative hearings on standardized testing.

How does a hash tag work? The hash tag on Twitter can be thought of like a “file in a file drawer” that holds every tweet that anyone puts in that file. We will be sharing the hash tag with you all on Tuesday night! Watch for it, but please do not use it until the event begins on Wednesday at 5 pm PDST.

How do I participate in the Twitter Storm?

We will be sending out tweets very quickly with the hash tag about the topic of the call for Congress to hold formal hearings on standardized testing and the effects of standardized testing on all students – including people of color, special needs students, and ELL students – as well as teachers, schools, communities, , and democracy.

· Be prepared by looking at your search bar on Twitter and typing in the hash tag. You will see two choices: “Top Tweets” and “All” – choose “All”.

· Click on “All” and from there you can cut and paste other people’s tweets into your feed, which is more effective in trying to get a topic trending than simply retweeting.

· Trick to use the tweets multiple times: You can change a few characters or a word to be able to tweet these multiple times.

· Tweet through the entire two hours or until you are in “Twitter Jail” for sending out too many tweets. It helps to have multiple Twitter accounts so that you can continue tweeting once you are in Twitter Jail.

· Some people use Tweet Deck to be able to access multiple Twitter accounts at one time and this works great! Access here https://tweetdeck.twitter.com/ and practice prior to the Twitter Storm, but do not use our hash tag until the event, please.

· You can reply to others, but always include the hash tag and a message that is on topic in each and every tweet.

· Tweets that include the hash tag, memes, links, and videos must always comply with the 140 character limit.

· The Twitter Storm is very fast moving. Be ready with a fully charged phone, laptop, or PC.

· You may want to tweet to your US legislators. You can find them by entering your zip code here. (Remember to include the hash tag in every tweet.)

· Please target the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee via the following Twitter handles: @EdWorkforce and @EdWorkforceDems (Remember to include the hash tag in every tweet.)

· Please send tweets to media as well: @ChrisLHayes @EdShow @ValerieStrauss @Salon @Politico @HuffPostEd @DailyKos @DemocracyNow (Remember to include the hash tag in every tweet.)

What other tools can we use to improve our reach via social media?

One way that we can improve our reach through social media is through a site that is called Thunderclap.

What is a Thunderclap?

“Thunderclap is a tool that lets a message be heard when you and your friends say it together. Join a Thunderclap, and you and others will share the same message at the same time, spreading an idea through Facebook and Twitter that cannot be ignored.

If a tweet falls in the forest…

Social media is an easy way to say something, but it’s a difficult way to be heard. Thunderclap is the first-ever crowdspeaking platform that helps people be heard by saying something together. It allows a single message to be mass-shared, flash mob-style, so it rises above the noise of your social networks. By boosting the signal at the same time, Thunderclap helps a single person create action and change like never before.

You don’t need a huge following for a successful Thunderclap.

A user with 200 Facebook friends could amplify her message better than someone with 3,000 friends. It all depends on your cause’s voice and shareability—and how much your friends are engaged. Thunderclap has already reached millions of people. Check out some of the successful projects on our homepage!

The tipping point

The beauty of Thunderclap is that it sets the goalposts: one message, one number, one date. It’s a common threshold you and your supporters work toward together. It’s a tangible way to measure awareness.” – from Thunderclap

Readers, please join our Thunderclap using this link: http://thndr.it/1m7RmMC

In order for social media to work, you need to share this link on Twitter, on Facebook in groups you belong to, on pages you have liked, and on your wall to invite people to join us. You can also share it on other forms of social media such as Tumbler, Linkedin, etc.

We have also created a Facebook Event which you can join here to stay updated with the latest news about our Twitter Storm. Join the NPE Twitter Storm via our FB Event (to be held on Twitter on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 from 5-7 pm PDST) via the link above.

We will be following up the Twitter Campaign with more activism opportunities through a phone calling campaign and a letter writing campaign.

If you haven’t already, be sure to sign up as a member of The Network for Public Education!

Thank you for joining our NPE Twitter Storm and please let me know if you have any questions! Follow us on Twitter: @NetworkPublicEd @DianeRavitch @AnthonyCody

Now, get ready! Join the FB event, sign up for the Thunderclap, and by all means join us on Twitter for this amazing opportunity to call on Congress to hold Congressional hearings to investigate standardized testing misuse!

This just in. On Saturday, the Texas Democratic Party passed the following resolution:

WHEREAS Houston billionaire John Arnold, a hedge-fund manager and former Enron trader, is bankrolling an effort to transform all of the Dallas Independent School District into a so-called “home-rule charter district” that would not be subject to essential safeguards in state law for students, parents, teachers, and citizens of the district;

WHEREAS John Arnold is notorious for funding a nationwide attack on public employees’ pension funds, including state pension funds for school employees, and for funding various efforts to privatize the operation of public schools, including substantial financing of organizations that promote private-school vouchers;

WHEREAS the “home-rule charter district” idea that Arnold wants to impose on Dallas ISD is the brainchild of former Republican state Rep. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington, who managed to insert this option into state law in 1995 as a vehicle for nullifying many educational quality standards and safeguards in the Education Code and for facilitating private takeover of public schools;

WHEREAS a “home-rule district charter” in Dallas ISD would be a Trojan horse allowing John Arnold and his allies, in the name of local control, to kill state class-size limits for most K-4 classrooms, eliminate teachers’ professional contracts, wipe out parents’ and students’ and teachers’ rights to due process in student-discipline matters, nullify the entire parental-rights chapter in the Education Code, and eliminate accountability to the community through an elected school board;

WHEREAS the wholesale “charterization” of Dallas ISD through a “home-rule district charter” designed to suit the likes of John Arnold would actually be the very opposite of local control, transferring power from the parents and citizens in the neighborhoods of Dallas ISD–especially predominantly minority and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods–to special-interest elites and private operators likely to double down on top-down policies that already have disproportionately hurt those communities within Dallas ISD, like recent controversial school closures and layoffs of school personnel;

WHEREAS the “home-rule district charter” scheme in Dallas ISD would undermine genuinely democratic, grass-roots efforts to improve struggling schools, such as (1) community-initiated school turnarounds that provide wraparound community health and social services at school to students and their families, thereby building up rather than tearing down neighborhoods and (2) in-district “campus charters” initiated by teachers and parents at a campus working together with community partners to provide innovative educational programs while preserving important state safeguards such as class-size limits, due process in student discipline, and teachers’ contract rights;

WHEREAS the “home-rule district charter” initiative in Dallas is part of a national campaign by self-styled “education reformers” like John Arnold that is ultimately about profits, not about kids, employing a clear strategy to underfund our public schools, declare them a failure, contract out those schools to private operators, disenfranchise parents and community stakeholders, and deprofessionalize teaching;

WHEREAS the state Democratic Party has a duty to help ensure that all Texas Democrats and all supporters of public education see through the false rhetoric of “home rule” and “local control” that masks the real agenda described above;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Texas Democratic Party stands in opposition to the “home-rule district charter” proposal now being promoted in Dallas ISD and rejects its underlying agenda of privatization of control over public schools and destruction of democratic school governance.

The Rochester Teachers Association is suing the state over its teacher evaluation system, alleging that it does not take into account the impact of poverty on classroom performance.

RTA says the evaluations are “junk science.”

“ALBANY, N.Y. March 10, 2014 – The Rochester Teachers Association today filed a lawsuit alleging that the Regents and State Education Department failed to adequately account for the effects of severe poverty and, as a result, unfairly penalized Rochester teachers on their APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review) evaluations.

“The suit, filed in state Supreme Court in Albany by New York State United Teachers on behalf of the RTA and more than 100 Rochester teachers, argues the State Education Department did not adequately account for student poverty in setting student growth scores on state tests in grades 4-8 math and English language arts. In addition, SED imposed rules for Student Learning Objectives and implemented evaluations in a way that made it more difficult for teachers of economically disadvantaged students to achieve a score of “effective” or better. As a result, the lawsuit alleges the Regents and SED violated teachers’ rights to fair evaluations and equal protection under the law.

“SED computes a growth score based on student performance on state standardized tests, which is then used in teacher evaluations.

“Nearly 90 percent of Rochester students live in poverty. The lawsuit says SED’s failure to appropriately compensate for student poverty when calculating student growth scores resulted in about one-third of Rochester’s teachers receiving overall ratings of “developing” or “ineffective” in 2012-13, even though 98 percent were rated “highly effective” or “effective” by their principals on the 60 points tied to their instructional classroom practices. Statewide, just 5 percent of teachers received “developing” or “ineffective” ratings.

“The State Education Department’s failure to properly factor in the devastating impact of Rochester’s poverty in setting growth scores and providing guidance for developing SLOs resulted in city teachers being unfairly rated in their evaluations,” Iannuzzi said. “Rochester teachers work with some of the most disadvantaged students in the state. They should not face stigmatizing labels based on discredited tests and the state’s inability to adequately account for the impact of extreme poverty when measuring growth.”

“RTA President Adam Urbanski said an analysis of Rochester teachers’ evaluations for 2012-13 demonstrated clearly the effects of poverty and student attendance, for example, were not properly factored in for teachers’ evaluations. As a result, “dedicated and effective teachers received unfair ratings based on student outcomes that were beyond their control. The way the State Education Department implemented the state testing portion of APPR adds up to nothing more than junk science.”