I am tempted to apologize for posting Peter Greene so often, but I won’t. He is consistently on the mark.
In this post he wonders about a glaring inconsistency in the corporate reform project. The reformers love competition. They want students to compete. They want teachers to compete. They want schools to compete.
But when it come to the Common Core, they want all states to have the same standards. No competition. No laboratories of democracy.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The big money folks (BMF) wanted to privatize social security with its 2 trillion dollar total potential revenues. They lost.
Now they are targeting public education with its annual 600 billion dollar potential revenue stream. They are winning.
The BMF want monopoly for themselves and competition for those “below.”
It has always been thus.
We must stop their hostile takeover of public education.
Alternative acronym: BMF = Big Mutha F. . .as
I think one reason is that “portfolio” models fragment the public schools in any given geographical area, so that’s the local advantage to CC for “one app” cities, like New Orleans or any of the rest of the cities where they’re privatizing. Whatever the fragmented system of schools do, they all have to take the national test. They have that much in common.
Too, the CC testing allows them to “scale up” charter schools (the national chains) because there’s a standardized baseline, state to state. If I’m expanding my charter school management company into 9 states, I have to be able to assure those states my schools will meet the national baseline. Now I have one.
It also allows (further) deregulation. They can’t monitor thousands of charter schools at the state level, and they always move to end local oversight. They don’t have the regulatory resources to make site visits, etc. from a state education agency. You’ll find this out in NY now that you have state control of charter schools rather than local oversight, but we already know it in Ohio. There’s a reason public schools were set up with local boards and county auditors, etc. The regulator is close to the school.
This way, schools will be reporting the results of a national test. One number. They won’t even have to enter the school to evaluate it.
Its part of their robo-rhetoric. Even THEY don’t believe the crap they promote. They say teachers are ineffective, but support tfa. Right there, you have a concept oxymoron.
They cry “accountability” yet the charters are accountable only to their pockets.
They talk about choice, then they have the public schools closed so there really is no choice but the charter schools – New Orleans.
They state this is the current civil rights war, yet promote racial inequality everywhere they open up charters.
Worst, this is all done to other peoples’ kids; not their own; they would never do this to their own.
If the billionaires really were about excellent education, the kind the portend can’t be found in public schools, then they would open up private schools and run them as they see fit—but there is limited money in that.
They hate children, they hate teachers and unions because they stand in between “them” and the $$$$, and they hate women, because the majority of teachers in k-12 are women, who should be home, barefoot and pregnant, or working at walmart and mcdonalds, unless, of course, the women who grew up privileged and monied, or those who go through the ranks of TFA or Broad Supe school.
I often see this battle a gender attack. There are many unions to dismantle out there but the primarily (teachers & nursing ) female unions are the unions on the firing line.
In my town there is a private Montessori school, a private Waldorf school, and a private progressive school for the children of the relatively wealthy to attend. Do you think the children of the relatively poor might also benefit from this more specialized approach to education?
I think all children should have access to a good public education. If you want the flavor of the month, advocate for inclusion of that philosophy within the public schools. Public schools provide an opportunity to all children. It’s not perfect and it never will be. Certainly it can be improved. Diverting public dollars into publicly funded private schools that are not accountable to the public in no way strengthens public education.
Should only the relatively rich have access to a Montessori education? A progressive education?
Donna: with all due respect, I would add two modifiers to your first sentence so it would read—
“It’s part of their cynically hypocritical robo-rhetoric.” [I added an apostrophe.]
What you describe is what the leading charterites/privatizers of the self-proclaimed “new civil rights movement of our time” market, promote, and mandate for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN [aka the vast majority of students aka the undeserving rabble]. When it comes to THEIR OWN CHILDREN and those of the BBC and educrat enablers and edufraud spin doctors and edubully enforcers and accountably underlings, ah, that’s a, well, horse of a different color. Take CCSS for example…
A recent posting on this blog of 3-23-2014 entitled “Common Core for Commoners, Not My School!” The entire posting: “This is an unintentionally hilarious story about Common Core in Tennessee. Dr. Candace McQueen has been dean of Lipscomb College’s school of education and also the state’s’s chief cheerleader for Common Core. However, she was named headmistress of private Lipscomb Academy, and guess what? She will not have the school adopt the Common Core! Go figure.”
From a linked piece that includes a statement from this shameless hypocrite:
[start quote]
As with any change in leadership, questions and concerns often arise as a natural part of the transition process. Because of my role as the dean of the university’s College of Education some of you have expressed concerns about my appointment and the direction Lipscomb Academy will take as it relates to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). I want to take a moment to address some of these concerns and possible misinformation.
First, the Common Core State Standards have not been adopted by Lipscomb Academy. While the standards have been adopted by the state of Tennessee along with 44 other states, private schools have the freedom to determine if they will use all, some or none of the CCSS. To date, Lipscomb Academy administrators have not adopted the standards, but have encouraged the faculty to learn about the math and English/language arts Common Core State Standards that are changing the expectations of students not only in Tennessee but also across the nation.
Second, I have also not been in any discussions about formal adoption of the CCSS at Lipscomb Academy. Currently, Lipscomb Academy draws from a variety of quality national and state standards selected by the school leadership and faculty to set a vision for what content, instruction and curriculum will be used at each grade level. This has proven to be effective; thus, I don’t anticipate any changes to this process now or in the future. As is current practice, all standards available will be reviewed at set intervals by leadership and faculty to determine the direction of Lipscomb Academy.
Third, some of you have voiced concerns that the academy will adopt the PARCC test that will soon replace the current Tennessee standardized test or TCAP. Lipscomb Academy uses the ERB test, not the TCAP, and there are no plans to replace the ERB test with PARCC.
[end quote]
Link: http://nashvillepublicradio.org/blog/2014/02/10/lipscomb-academy-chief-advocates-for-common-core-but-not-at-her-school/
So yes, your second sentence is spot on: “Even THEY don’t believe the crap they promote.”
A very dead, very dead, and very famous old Greek guy nailed them long before this supposedly cage busting achievement gap crushing innovative 21st century:
“Hateful to me as are the gates of hell, Is he who, hiding one thing in his heart, Utters another.” [Homer]
😎
They put public school districts at a huge competitive disadvantage as far as administrative/management costs, too.
If I have a 9 state charter school management company I can take advantage of economies of scale and have one management/administrative hub. If I need more revenue I can expand into another state or city with that same management/administrative structure. Chicago Public Schools can’t do that. They can’t generate revenue in Milwaukee and Sacramento and run it out of Chicago with existing management/administrative staff.
I don’t see how public schools survive. They have fixed costs (at some level- there’s some baseline level they have to have even if they shrink dramatically) and no opportunity for growth to spread those costs over “more seats” outside of their geographical area. They’re set up to fail in this fake, constructed-by-lawmakers “market”.
I am not sure economies of scale are that important in education. Fixed costs are small relative to variable costs.
It’s fun to think about as a market, because they could end up with exactly the same situation they have now in public schools. In a state that does well now, say NJ, the reason they do well (“do well” as a comparison, given other factors, student mix, etc.) is they have higher per pupil funding. All the BS aside, I don’t think even an ed reformer would deny that there’s a CONNECTION between funding and quality. “You get what you pay for” hasn’t been repealed, as far as I know 🙂
So if you take public schools out and we end up with 50 or 25 or 9 charter school management companies (national) where are the high-quality charters going to locate? In the state that pays 20k per seat or the state that pays 7k per seat? A high-quality CMO could corner the market in eastern states. Why would they go into Mississippi where the funding is half and their “brand” could be damaged?
I think we saw it happen in Detroit. I think the high-quality charters turned the EAA down because MI only allocates 7200 (or so) per student and they can’t produce results with that level of revenue per student. High quality charters were solicited to locate in the EAA (I read the emails). They just declined.
In 20 years they could end up at the same place they are now, except wholly privatized.
“. . . the high-quality charters. . . ”
Seems to me to be an oxymoron right there.
Well, but if you look at Newark, where one person is rewriting the state code and creating a school system (itself extraordinary) Cami Anderson recognized the problem.
It wasn’t a market. Public schools were on an uneven footing. They could never “win”.
But she doesn’t actually have any authority over the contractors, so she has to request they join her “One App” program.
Some of them DECLINED her offer. “Thanks but no thanks, we’ll keep our competitive advantage and protect our brand”. They still qualify as “public schools” which amazes me.
It’s like this horrible mix of the worst parts of the public sector and the worst parts of the private sector.
And one can take it further. They’re pushing it up past the state level to the federal level. The Obama Administration and Congress are getting ready to fund 5,000 charter schools a year (that’s the Senator from Louisiana’s number).
The money won’t go to “charter schools”. It will go to certain selected CMOs – the management entity.
THEN we get into the whole corrupt congressional deal where certain contractors are favored over others, etc. and the end result will land locally, in a school district.
How is a local school district supposed to compete with that? Petition the US Congress? Say “hey, you can’t flood my market with 25 new charter schools! I won’t survive!”
This is a “market” about as much as I’m a ballerina 🙂
It’s absolutely extraordinary and REALLY radical.
Peter Greene, as usual, is on top of a very easy question to answer. Leaving aside the fact that not all reformers are the same (Gates supports Common Core but not vouchers; Walton supports vouchers but not Common Core), it is perfectly consistent for someone to support Common Core but want competition between schools.
Why?
Means vs. ends. (This is a useful concept in other areas of life, so pay attention Peter Greene).
An “end” is the ultimate goal. A “means” is the way of getting there.
Using track/field as an analogy, the Common Core would be like deciding that we’re all going to participate in common events — the 100m, the 200m, the 400m, the 1500m. But having decided on common events (and the common goal of running each event as fast as possible), we’re now going to have competition to see who can run the fastest, and by extension, who has better training and coaching programs that can develop the fastest runners. So we agree on the “ends” but then compete as to the “means” of getting there.
So too, being in favor of Common Core would suggest that you think everyone ought to agree on the substance of what’s in 5th grade math, for example. But having agreed on that end, let a thousand flowers bloom as to the “means” of teaching 5th grade math.
Anyone who thinks that is a contradiction or inconsistency hasn’t learned the concept of means vs. ends.
“Anyone who thinks that is a contradiction or inconsistency hasn’t learned the concept of means vs. ends.”
For some reason this morning my bullshit detector isn’t working properly. I can’t decide if that statement is bovine, equine or porcine excrement.
“But having agreed on that end,. . . ”
And that is where your thinking is not well thought out because there is no such agreement.
So in your example, the 1500m finish line is the ends and the means would include running, jumping, riding a Honda, and piloting a lear jet? Because otherwise, I’m thinking a 1500m foot race is not only dictating ends but means as well (on foot).
And since Common Core dictates not only a goal but a timetable in which to meet it, the variety of available means seems limited at best.
Your race analogy is a good one, because by setting ends, you’ve immediately limited all available choices for means. Everyone will race, and they’ll do it on the same path. There will be no competition to see what might be the best use of the field, or what events might attract the most participants, or how the resources can best meet the most needs of the people there.
The means-ends dichotomy is a bit juvenile, and doesn’t reveal a very nuanced or sophisticated understanding of how the world works. The distinction between the two is shadowy at best, and usually non-existent. Since we rarely arrive at ends, our means are what we have, and what define our moral and ethical positions in the universe.
For instance, while you might say that your end was to get me to understand how ends-vs-means applies to this issue, and your means was to address me as if I were five years old, the talking down to me part was the only thing you actually accomplished. You may think of it as a means, but it turned out to be the end.
Maybe the means-ends distinction doesn’t work for you.
I’m just saying there’s no contradiction, not even in theory, from thinking that some things in life ought to be somewhat standardized, but it’s still valuable to have competition and choice elsewhere.
Your point would equally apply as follows: “Look at how inconsistent liberals are with how they regulate business. When it comes to safety standards, discrimination law, minimum wage and overtime rules, labor law generally, etc., they want all businesses to be subject to the same regulations. Yet they’re fine having competition between Walmart, Target, and Costco! If they really wanted competition, they should let every locality set its own minimum wage and decide whether to be against racial discrimination.”
See why that’s a silly argument?
Anyway, your response is silly. The analogy is this: Common Core = deciding that runners are going to run 1500m on foot around a track. Competition between schools = having different runners choose which coach and which training philosophy they prefer (one coach might be like KIPP and say do lots of mileage every week; another coach might be like a progressive teacher who gives the runners more flexibility to pick the training program that they find most appealing).
The point remains: your attempt at a clever gotcha is neither clever nor a gotcha. There is nothing remotely inconsistent about supporting both Common Core and school choice. Those positions might be wrong for other reasons, but not because they’re inconsistent with each other.
WT: We’re going to have a race! The finish line is over there, and anything goes!
A boy named Peter: Cool! I’m going to go get my go-cart!
WT: Hold up, son, there are no go-carts allowed.
Peter: Bicycle?
WT: Nope.
Peter: Skateboard?
WT: Nope.
Peter: Can I wear my cleats?
WT: Good question! No. But you can run as fast as you can and wear any shirt and shorts combo that you’d like!
Peter: Oooookay. Hmm. The finish line is over there you say? Hmm. I think I’ll take the deer trail through the woods.
WT: *looks aghast* Oh, no, you can’t do that!
Peter: Bridge over the stream?
WT: Heaves no!
Peter: Hop the fence and cut through my best friend’s yard?
WT: *laughs* That’s a good one! No.
Peter: I thought you said this was “anything goes.”
WT: It is. You get to choose your coach (from a carefully selected and groomed pool of candidates) and training philosophy!
Peter: Yippee. But doesn’t the coach choose the training philosophy?
WT: You must be new around here. We don’t trust our coaches to do anything of the sort. They’ve all been expertly trained in all three acceptable philosophies (that you get to choose) at our 5 week long Coach To The Top university. Trust me, one coach is as good as the next.
Peter: I’ve lived here all my life, but now that you mention it, I’ve never seen you around here before. And what’s the point of me getting to choose my coach if one’s as good as another?
WT: Well, be that as it may, we offer you a choice of three carefully selected training philosophy packages. Let’s see, there’s, um, Pearson Standard, Pearson Deluxe, and Pearson Collector’s Edition.
Peter: A collector’s edition training philosophy?
WT: Oh, man, you should see the advert for it on Youtube. Pro job. The best Gates’ money can buy. Anyway, it lets you skip the first quarter of the race.
Peter: That hardly seems fair. And it sounds expensive…
WT: Well, training to be a champ isn’t free. *laughs* Oh, dear me, no.
Peter: I didn’t realize there’d be money involved. That must mean that there’s awesome prizes, though! What’s first place get? A new car?
WT: A new… No. There’s no new car.
Peter: A million dollars?
WT: *laughs* I like you, son, you’re funny. No, no cash prize.
Peter: Oh. Trip to Hawaii?
WT: No.
Peter: *thinks for a moment* An X-Box?
WT: No, no game systems of any kind.
Peter: I give up. What’s the prize?
WT: The best kind. If you are one of the lucky ones, I mean the gritty ones who is able to finish the race in a certain amount of time (to be determined at a later date), you get to move onto the next race!
Peter: That’s it? Another race?
WT: Oh, not just any race. It’ll be longer and harder. Think of the pride you’ll reap! And if you victoriously complete all of the races, college and workplace ratrace teams will come out of the woodwork trying to recruit you to their teams!
Peter: *hops the fence and walks towards a house*
WT: Hey, where are you going?
Peter: To a friend’s house to play Minecraft.
WT: But what about the race?
Peter: Yeah, I’ll get back to you on that.
WT: Well, don’t wait too long. You don’t want to get left behind!
WT
Mind if I try to poke a hole in your argument? Thanks.
CCSS (bastard son of of NCLB) is a package deal established through federal and state LAW. Standards + TESTS + Teacher and school district accountability based on said TESTS. What this 3-headed monster of reform does is to threaten and scare most everyone involved into bowing down and genuflecting to Pearson, the Almighty Creator of PARCC and SBAC computer exams. The TESTS become the standards, they become the curriculum, they become the textbooks, and they will become the pedagogy. The TESTS will define, and of course narrow, the competition that some think CC will foster. That’s why most of us refer to David Coleman and Arne Duncan and Bill Gates as nothing more than modern day snake oil salesmen.
Back to your race analogy. When everyone is disqualified from the race unless they skip to the beat of Cotton Eyed Joe, than the coaching and training techniques that you think will foster competition will be unnecessarily and ridiculously constrained. We will all be left wondering if this is worth the trillions of dollars it will take so all kids can skip to the beat of Cotton Eyed Joe while they attempt to reach the same finish line at the same time. Don’t forget WT, one size fits few.
Cheers.
Now for a real, real-world example that explains how and why the CC TESTS will become the one limiting factor in public education. In the landscape of learning, they are the one narrow path for all to follow.
At least in math and ELA (for now).
On June 3, all 9th (and accelerated 8th) grade math students in NYS took the new, CC aligned, Pearson algebra test for the first time. Required for graduation in NYS, this is one of the tests that reformers promise will have students college and career ready.
Here’s the take I got from students who took the test. One; it was really hard, significantly more challenging than the traditional Regents integrated algebra test that they just took on Friday. Two; the content tested was almost entirely focused on mathematical functions. Guess which math concept will become the focus of algebra instruction in NYS next year? Bingo. To the exclusion of almost all else that falls under the algebra umbrella.
Well said, NY teacher!
WT
I hope you didn’t hurt your head while pulling the concept of school choice out of your ass.
If you’re a real teacher (anyone can claim to be anything online), I hope you know how to treat your students with more civility and intelligence than your writings would indicate.
I mean, you wrote two long posts and all you managed to do was say that Common Core will be too intrusive, which isn’t remotely relevant to my point that there’s nothing inconsistent about someone who supports both Common Core and vouchers (people are feigning such confusion over that rather elementary point).
Project much?
“people are feigning such confusion over that rather elementary point”
They’re not feigning confusion about the compatibility or mutual exclusivity of CC and vouchers. They are confused as to why you would make it, since it is essentially irrelevant to the main arguments against the CCSS.
“you wrote two long posts and all you managed to do was say that Common Core will be too intrusive”
in·tru·sive
causing disruption or annoyance through being unwelcome or uninvited.
“that was an intrusive question”
synonyms: intruding, invasive, obtrusive, unwelcome, pushy; More
Intrusive? That’s your take on my comments. Seriously?
Intrusive is not a synonym for constraining, constricting, suffocating, restricting.
If you’re a real WT (anyone can claim to be anything online), I hope you know how to treat your peeps with more civility and intelligence than your writings would indicate.
“They’re not feigning confusion about the compatibility or mutual exclusivity of CC and vouchers. ”
Yes, they are. That’s what Peter Greene’s whole post was about, and what Dr. Ravitch highlighted in the post here. You don’t have the basic reading comprehension to realize that this whole debate has been about the compatibility of Common Core and school choice?
No wonder you’re so rude — you are so bereft of any understanding that you think everyone else is talking about irrelevant stuff, when you’re the one who never realized what the original blog post was about in the first place.
With all due respect, WT, it’s not about compatibility, it’s about competition. Specifically, if competition is a good thing for everything else, why not with standards? Why is it better to have one national set of standards rather than competing sets of state or even local standards? If competition produces the best results in these other areas, why not let it produce the best set of standards?
To some degree it is a question of what the label of a class means to those that were not in the class. For example, if a student gets an A in algebra, what mathematical skills does that student have? Without common knowledge of what constitutes beginning algebra, how can an outsider, say for example the downstream teacher, understand what that student knows about algebra?
TE,
How did we ever get by in the not too distant past world of pre-standards public education?
I can only speak for elementary ed, but generally speaking, the first unit was a review unit. It helped the teacher see where the students were, helped students, who had just been on summer break, remember where they were, and it gave those students who had been having difficulty with the material another chance to get it. In the upper grade levels where the first unit isn’t necessarily a review unit, it’s still designed in a manner that serves the same general purposes (to get the students back into the flow and to give teachers a chance to see where their students are at).
I addition, there was often a beginning of the year test. Back in the day, each teacher designed their own test which meant that it gave them information that was meaningful to them. Obviously, these were not for a grade, and since the students were not over-tested in those days, the students actually tried to do well on these tests.
These two practices haven’t gone away. Curriculum publishers still put in the intro/review unit, and there’s more beginning of the year testing than there ever was before. In any event, half-way decent teachers have their classes sized-up within the first few days of class. It’s never been a problem that’s cried out for a national solution.
I do think that local standards worked better when people were more local.
If you look at the CCSS for high school math, they don’ seem to me to be very different from the definition of the subject. The things included in algebra seem to be part of the definition of algebra.
You speak of a beginning of the year review unit. How do you know it is review if you don’t know what was taught to the students last year?
Bottom line, WT: The ONLY way the Common Core and competition support each other is in a way that has NOTHING to do with educating children or driving the effectiveness of public schools.
Using your own track and field analogy, I find that there is NO WAY two “competitors” will collaborate and share their methodologies. Bringing it closer to my world, I believe by helping teachers or students at School A in a district learn better, a mentor teacher from School B in that same district will cause School B, where he is employed, to be ranked LOWER in whatever competition the district is running (test scores, usually, but I’m optimistic enough to say they might use some other form of competition).
The very next step (or maybe a few budget meetings later and proposed charters from out-of-state companies) is that the district needs a reason to close a school so a charter operator can come in and take its place.
You talk about this like you have never talked with anyone who teaches, because they are actually trying hard to figure out how to teach the standards in the Common Core, because that’s what their school boards have told them to teach. We need to encourage collaboration between schools, between teachers, and even between states, so that all players have a better chance of reaching their potential. Bringing in competition will wipe out any hope of collaboration.
http://schoolsnapshots.org/blog/2013/11/21/on-rescuing-the-common-core-from-the-testing-machine/
That’s why I want to look at what happens to public schools in a pro-charter environment, in a given area. Politicians are manipulating the market, so it’s not really operating as a market, but one could at least look at it. Shutting down 50 public schools in Chicago and the opening charter replacements has nothing to do with “markets” -those parents had absolutely no “choice” when their school closed.
Are “quality” and “choice” the determining factors (quality does not appear to enter into it in Ohio, for example) or is it due to lawmaker-engineered competitive advantages built in?
I guess we won’t know until 10 years out in this experiment.
Since no one in power at the state or federal level seems to have any particular interest in what happens to public schools in these engineered “markets” we’d need a billionaire to fund our study 🙂
The irony is that while 1%ers push competition on everyone else, they lobby hard Big Gubbermint to eliminate competition and accountability for themselves. Whether an entitlement mentality, affluenza, or a general perversion of decency, the rich do not see themselves as living in the same America as the rest. When they say “competition is good”, they are envisioning gladiatorial slaves in a colosseum.
I’m so naive that when I first heard about CC I thought the standards would be the best from all of the different states. This seemed like a good idea at the time.
And don’t forget, the CCSS cannot be improved, revised, shifted, or changed. Never. CC = Cast in Concrete.
I think you are a real teacher NY teacher and for the record I am a real teacher too.
Only when I emerge from a phone booth.
Smarter than a ivy league TFAer, more powerful than the USDOE, able to best all trolls in a single post. I use my amazing powers in the never-ending battle against testing, VAM, and the Common Core.
Well, the answer, I think is that they want that national market. Plus, they want the public coffers to open wide and pay for their “new” standards. Remember the Emperor’s New Clothes? “Students aren’t writing persuasive essays anymore! They’re writing arguments! They don’t read nonfiction. They read informational texts! Now, here’s my itemized bill…”
Corporate reform is about making money. Murdoch and Gates have made it clear that the value of the education “market” is in the hundreds of billions, and they want that money for themselves.
How to do that? Convince the public that the private sector (read: they) can do the same or better job of educating (read: schooling) at a lower cost, including, of course, a just reward for them in the form of profit. Profit comes from lowering operating costs, which require computers and databases and cheap teachers. The private sector’s big advantage to distinguish it from a public service: “competition”. Competition to provide a fixed service. But the only way to define the service and get all of the public money for that service is to create a national “market”, which requires standards. And standards is something the computer industry knows well and abuses often.
Of course, once you’ve bought the idea they have you at their mercy. As we’ve seen wiht the charter schools, when they come in things either don’t change or even get worse. But the managers and financiers make their money. Mission accomplished.
It’s all about shouting “we’re number #1” to satisfy misguided politicians and corporate interests. We need to reset our moral compass.
Amusing. Mayor Emanuel must be very worried about hanging onto his job:
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/rahm-ally-forms-super-pac-viewed-vehicle-attack-opponents/fri-06202014-415pm
Is there an anti-public schools Democrat who is in GOOD shape with voters?
I recognize these people have other horrible policies, so we can’t credit their extreme unpopularity solely to their opposition to public schools, but where is the anti-public schools Democrat who is popular with, ya know, VOTERS?
Shouldn’t there be at least one?
Bill Clinton is stumping for Rahm Emanuel. Are there any further questions on Hillary’s education positions?
“Comparison to others is the mark of a fool.”
–Robert Fripp
Diane,
No need to apologize for posting Peter Greene. More people need to see his work. Thank you for highlighting it.