Jan Resseger writes that the New York Times has done a great disservice to the public by its incoherent reporting on the recent court decision in Connecticut.
https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/ny-times-muddles-education-debate/
In its “Room for Debate” feature, the Times continued its practice of citing people who had not read the decision and just repeated their talking points. This does not inform the public.
The Times has decided that this decision has national implications. It does but some of them are muddled. The judge says the legislature should fix the funding formula because the property tax-base of funding disadvantages poor children. He goes on to say that the teacher evaluation system is broken and teachers should be judged by student performance, which reveals his ignorance of the flaws and repeated failures of this method. He says that money spent on profoundly disabled children is wasted, which ignores federal law.
Let’s hope the New York Times soon finds the education editor it has advertised for, and that the editor is deeply knowledgable about research and the learned experience of the past 15 years of failed federal policies.
Diane: Why don’t you take the job for a year or two and get the message right? Peggy
Thanks, Peggy. Wish I could. If they asked me, I would love to. They won’t. They will find an experienced journalist without a point of view. Maybe someone who now edits national news. Not a bad choice but not a person steeped in education.
You mean someone like Soupy Brown?
The NYT is not muddled or confused. It knows exactly what it is doing. It knows exactly whom it serves. It’s just that its goals are not our goals.
Warning – this lawsuit is a red light issue. You need to intervene ASAP, please.
This is an article that came out in Law.com this morning. They are paywalled. Do NOT use the link, you will (usually) never see the entire article. If you search for the headline, you will (usually) get the article. If you can’t get it, email me at CPSdocumentary@gmail.com and I’ll send the copied article.
Law Profs See Michigan Case as Potential ‘Brown v. Board’
http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/09/14/law-profs-see-michigan-case-as-potential-brown-v-board/
Chemerinsky is alligned left. He is well known in legal circles for being ‘in the public interest’. However, this article doesn’t give enough information to find out what he means by funding. Is he ‘pro-public schools’ or pro-DFER-privatization.
If Chemerinsky thinks this is the next-gen Brown v. Board of Ed, it is.
This is the centerpiece to organize around.
Good luck,
CPSdoc
Smoke screens and shell games. This is which has kept an invasively punitive school reform going in our large inner city district. No one knows what’s truly going on; no one can see through all of that endlessly “wandering” smoke.
The new education editor will be a hard-core TFA recruit who bought the TFA swill hook line and sinker or a Broad Academy brainwashed minion.
Cross posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Jan-Resseger-The-New-York-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Education_Evaluation_Policies-160915-369.html#comment618275
WHAT THE HECK IS THE MATTER WITH THE NY TIMES?
Are they so in the hands of the oligarchs that they cannot even put out the truth about THE WAR ON PUBLIC EDUCATION using our tax money to fund private schools that do not educate ALL out kids.
yeah Lloyd. Like the La Times which Broad owns, the media is a parasite on the body politic.
http://www.perdaily.com/2014/03/have-reporters-become-poli-ticks–the-media-parasites-of-the-body-politic.html