Archives for the month of: July, 2016

State officials in Michigan approved a new emergency plan to rescue Detroit public schools from its crushing debt, most of which was accumulated since the state took control of the district.

The Detroit Free Press reports:

Michigan’s Emergency Loan Board on Monday approved measures to implement a $617-million financial rescue and restructuring plan for Detroit’s public schools, over the vocal objections of elected school board members and others who attended the meeting in Lansing.

The board approved borrowing to retire or refinance debt, plus the transfer of assets from the old Detroit Public Schools to a new Detroit Public Schools Community District.

There were shouts of “Shame!,” “Jim Crow” and “Black lives matter” as the three board members left an auditorium at the Michigan Library and Historical Center through a back exit.

Critics say the plan treats Detroit public school students as second-class citizens because they would be the only Michigan public school students who could be taught by uncertified teachers. They also say much of the debt addressed by the plan was rung up while Detroit schools were under state control.

“We believe that the state owes the district considerably more, and we have asked continuously for an audit,” said Lamar Lemmons, president of the elected school board.

House Speaker Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, has called the legislation “an historic plan to save Detroit schools – and the rest of the state – from a disastrous and unprecedented bankruptcy,” adding “this incredible investment by Michigan taxpayers will erase decades of debt and set the new district up for success.”

Mike Petrilli, the CEO of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He worked in the George W. Bush administration. On school issues, he is a supporter of school choice; the TBF Institute sponsors charter schools in Ohio.

Yet Mike cannot vote for Donald Trump. He doesn’t like Hillary. Not one bit. But he is a #NeverTrump guy to the end.

He writes:

First, I would worry about the immediate impact of such an outcome on America’s growing non-White population, especially our Latino and Muslim fellow citizens.

While plenty of evidence indicates that not all Trump voters share his racist, Islamophobic views, that will be cold comfort to the communities he’s skewered on the campaign trail.

A Trump victory would make many feel attacked and rejected by their countrymen. Already his statements are making some racists feel comfortable spewing hatred in public.

Other Republicans, he knows, will hold their noses, vote for Trump, and hope for the best. Mike won’t take that chance.

Trump is a clear and present danger to our society.

Karen Francisco is the editorial page editor of the Fort Wayne (Indiana) Journal Gazette. I invited her to comment on Mike Pence’s his stewardship of the economy in Indiana. She did not touch on his abominable education policies, which are anti-public school and anti-teacher. Pence favors school choice, especially charter schools and vouchers. Anything but public schools.

She wrote:

Prepare to hear much in the coming days about the great state of Indiana. The Trump campaign, eager to claim any sort of connection to honest-to-goodness governing, will hold up Gov. Mike Pence as architect of a soaring Hoosier economy.

Consider Trump’s claims upon introducing his running mate – and the reality.

–Indiana’s unemployment rate was 5 percent in May, down from 8.4 percent when he took office in 2013.

Yes, the unemployment rate was 5 percent in May, but the figure was hardly noteworthy. Twenty-nine states had lower unemployment rates.

– – Indiana has a Triple A credit rating.

Yes, it does – along with more than a dozen other states. But the Indiana General Assembly has passed balanced budgets –which are required by the state constitution –while ignoring serious needs in social services, infrastructure and education.

— Private-sector jobs have increased by 147,000 since Pence took office.

That’s generally true, but Indiana’s rate of private-sector job growth isn’t exceptional. At just under 6 percent, it’s half as strong as job growth in Florida.

Trump’s embellishments mirror Pence’s own claims of strong economic leadership One of the governor’s current tall tales is that more Hoosiers are working than at any time in the state’s 200-year history.

That’s impressive only if you’ve never taken a statistics class. Adjusted for population growth, Indiana’s highest job participation mark was May of 2000, coming after more than a decade of Democratic control of the governor’s office and an eight-year boost from a Democratic administration in the White House.

About 80 percent of Hoosiers of working age were employed in May of 2000, compared to about 75 percent today.

What Trump and Pence don’t say about the Indiana economy, however, is the most important thing to know. Per-capita personal income in the state is abysmal. – 39th lowest in the nation. Hoosiers earned just 86 cents for every $1 the average American earned in 2015. That figure is down from the inflation-adjusted 93 cents Hoosiers earned on the dollar in 1995.

Real average weekly wages in Indiana grew by just 0.7 percent over the last six years, compared to a national increase of 2.6 percent.

If Indiana’s economy has any real strengths, one is its enduring manufacturing sector, particularly the automotive industry.

But as a congressman, Mike Pence voted against the Detroit bailout, stating that “we can’t borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy or a healthy domestic automotive industry.”

Thousands of GM and Chrysler workers in Indiana would disagree, of course. A Fort Wayne labor official called Pence out a year ago when the governor tried to claim credit for a $1.2 billion investment in the GM truck assembly plant in Fort Wayne.

“(Pence) considered it an affront to free-market ideology,” the UAW’s Randy Schmidt wrote in a column published on our op-ed pages, “He instead preferred a classic bankruptcy, one that would have liquidated GM’s assets, and sold the Fort Wayne plant in pieces to the highest bidder.

”

If Pence’s approach to the auto bailout as a congressman had carried, it would have proven disastrous to the Indiana economy. Likewise, his embrace of the state’s religious freedom law as governor last year would have landed a crushing blow to ur economic interests. It took the intervention of business and legislative leaders to clean up the mess the governor helped to create.

Pence might have convinced himself that he’s responsible for a booming Indiana economy. But as he and Donald Trump try to make a case their case in Cleveland this week, keep in mind that the Hoosier economy isn’t zooming ahead, and it would likely be in worse straits if he had been allowed full control of the steering wheel.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, one of the nation’s leading advocates for school choice, commissioned a study of Ohio’s voucher program. To what must have been their surprise and disappointment, the study concluded that students in voucher schools perform worse than students in public schools.

I was a founding member of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation–now the Fordham Institute–and I will affirm that TBF told unpleasant truths, even to its own disadvantage and the disadvantage of its causes. I left the board in 2009, after I fell away from choice, competition, and accountability as answers to the needs of America’s students.

This is a study that does TBF proud, even though it disproves its foundational belief in school choice.

Here are the key findings:

There are now some 18,000 students receiving publicly funded vouchers in Ohio.

The voucher students are overwhelmingly low-income and minority, but somewhat higher-achieving and less economically disadvantaged than students who were eligible for vouchers but chose not to use them.

The public school students improved their performance, and the study attributes their improvement to the voucher program that they did not enroll in.

The effects: “The students who used vouchers to attend private schools fared worse on state exams compared to their closely matched peers remaining in public schools. Only voucher students assigned to relatively high-performing EdChoice eligible public schools could be credibly studied.”

The study was led by Dr. David Figlio of Northwestern University.

This study adds to the mountain of evidence that public schools in Ohio outperform the charter sector and the voucher sector. Does anyone think that policymakers and legislators in Ohio will do anything to support their much-maligned public schools?

Ezra Klein watched Lesley Stahl interview Donald Trump and Mike Pence on “60 Minutes,” and the sheer incoherence of their answers left Klein wondering if Trump actually wants to be president.

He is going to get tough on ISIS, unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, by declaring war on ISIS. Stahl asks what then. Trump says he won’t send ground troops, he will rely on NATO and Turkey to do the fighting. He has previously said that we give NATO too much support.

When Stahl asked about Trump’s opposition to the war in Iraq, she pointed out that Mike Pence voted for the war (he was a co-sponsor of the resolution to go to war). Trump said he didn’t care, the vote was a long time ago.

But, she asked, why do you keep harping on Hillary Clinton’s vote but not your running mate.

Read how Trump slips around that question.

Anyone who appalled by the thought of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President must search for words to explain what a horrifying idea this is.

Trump is a snake oil salesman. Trump is a con man. Trump is a fraud. Trump is hoaxing working people into believing that he has a secret plan to bring back the jobs that were outsourced to low-wage countries (by people like Donald Trump) or that were lost to new technologies.

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post says quite simply that Trump is a charlatan. Ken Bernstein, a regular blogger for the Daily Kos, dissects that article here.

Should a First Lady go sleeveless? Should she show bare arms in public? These questions were raised in 2009 because First Lady Michelle Obama audaciously exposed her arms.

 

The conservative media went berserk!

 

Shocking! Inappropriate! How dare she! Utterly classless!

 

What does the conservative media say about Melania Trump? She bares her arms and her legs. Sometimes she packs heat, which should please the NRA.

 

Actually they don’t say anything at all.

 

Double standard, anyone?

This is funny. Peter Dreier teaches at Occidental College in California.  

Anthony Cody reports here on California’s new school evaluation rubric, using multiple measures.

He writes:

The new system being proposed for California schools was designed by technicians at West Ed, and it creates a matrix of color-coded squares that indicate both the absolute status and the direction of change for ten different categories of data. Thus we get a system with ten categories of information, and seventeen color coded boxes. The categories are:

ELA assessment (K-8) (scores on Common Core aligned SBAC tests)

Math assessment (K-8) (scores on Common Core aligned SBAC tests)

English learner proficiency (scores on CELDT tests)

Graduation rate (9-12)

Chronic absenteeism (K-8)

Suspension Rate & Local Climate Survey

College & Career Readiness (scores on 11th grade Common Core aligned SBAC tests, plus other indicators)

Basics (Teachers, Instructional Materials, Facilities)

Implementation of Academic Standards

Parent Engagement

Cody adds:

In thinking about this proposal, it is important to recall what it is going to replace, which was a single number that was assigned to each school, derived entirely from standardized test scores. We have long argued that education is far more complex, and here we have a system that attempts to grapple with some of that complexity. There are indicators for local climate – derived in part from surveys which measure student engagement – this should be a major focus for every school.

The category “Basics” is the one thing on the list that might be considered an input. How well resourced is the school? What is the level of education and experience of the faculty? These are critically important variables. If the new funding formula is effective at redirecting resources towards schools with the highest needs, we should see improvements in some aspects of this.

I wonder what we might want to include that is not here. What about an indicator of school stability? What is the level of staff and administrator turnover from year to year? Student success correlates positively with stability, so this would be a useful indicator.

I want to back up a bit though, and reflect about what was so problematic about the prior system we had in place. First of all it was only based on test scores, and performance on those scores was largely determined by the income and parental education level of the students that attended the school. Thus the API score was more an indicator of affluence than of school quality. In this proposed system, this will remain true for all the indicators associated with test scores.

He suggests that the new measures are not immune from Campbell’s Law, which holds:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

In other words, educators will be likely to game the system if their rating depends on the system.

Cody asks, do these measures promote the conditions that encourage student growth and love of learning?

I ask, why are we obsessed with measuring schools and giving them grades, whether one number, one letter, or many numbers and letters?

I know of no evidence that these rating systems improve schools, unless they are self-evaluation tools that help teachers and administrators review their strengths and weaknesses. But why rate and rank schools, other than to promote school choice?

From time to time, you learn something and think, “That’s impossible.”

Chew on this. After the national embarrassment caused by the revelation that the water supply in Flint, Michigan, had a lead content that was hazardous for human consumption, the state’s Director of Environmental Quality resigned. Now, get this: Governor Rick Snyder picked an executive from the oil company BP to take his place!

His choice, Heidi Grether, was put in charge of external relations for BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in 2010. Nice preparation for dealing with the environmental problems in Michigan.

Eclectablog asks, what message is Governor Snyder sending to the public?

First, Snyder is telling us he’s unrepentant about his austerity-driven, pro-business and privatization agenda. Despite the tragic outcome of his emergency management in Flint, the abhorrent results of his privatization of veteran care and prison food, and the havoc that his business tax cuts have wreaked on our state budget, he will continue relentlessly pursuing the ideology that business interests top everything.

Second, Snyder is telling Michiganders that he sides with the interests of Enbridge over the protection of our most precious natural resource. Michigan faces an urgent environmental threat right now from the aging pair of oil pipelines known as Line 5 running beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Line 5 has exceeded its life expectancy, would not be approved today, and is operated by the company responsible for the greatest inland oil spill in U.S. history — also right here in Michigan.

Researchers have shown that due to the currents in the Straits, a spill would be catastrophic for the Great Lakes, decimating up to 700 miles of shoreline. And to meet this threat, Snyder appointed a former BP lobbyist who was heavily involved in the company’s response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico — the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.

Not only was she involved, but she was proud to shield the company from consequences. In her LinkedIn bio, Grether boasts that she “Developed and implemented successful external relations strategies for the Gulf Coast in response to the DWH accident, thereby achieving no legislation adverse to BP being introduced in the Gulf states.”

A state study of Line 5, paid for by Enbridge, is underway, and the recommendations are expected in 2017. But before the results are made public, Enbridge will get at least five days to examine the results.

We can assume Grether has already been involved in the process, as the proposals for this study were assessed by an inter-agency team from Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office, the DEQ, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Michigan Agency for Energy, where Grether was deputy director immediately prior to her DEQ appointment.

It is impossible not to be suspicious that Grether will bow to pressure from Enbridge to water down the recommendations. It is equally impossible to believe that Grether would actually advocate against the interests of a powerful company in the industry to which her entire career belongs — and to which, if history is a guide, she will likely return after her stint in state government.

Finally, Snyder is telling Michiganders he just doesn’t care what they think. In the 24 hours since the announcement, a torrent of criticism from environmental groups, media commentators, elected officials and others has rained down on Snyder and Grether. Snyder spokeswoman Anna Heaton, quoted in the Detroit Free Press, said: “It’s unfortunate that people choose to publicly criticize her within hours of her appointment, rather than reach out to meet with her and discuss her plans for the department.”

Heaton’s indignation is laughable because as of this writing, Snyder has not made Grether available to the media, despite numerous requests.