Archives for the month of: September, 2016

Wow! I have seen billionaires put money into elections on behalf of charter schools around the country, but this one takes the cake.

Alice Walton and Jim Walton of Arkansas really want Massachusetts to have more charter schools. They must be very unhappy that the public schools of the Bay State are #1 in the nation. Clearly, the state needs disruption and market forces to shake up its highly successful school system.

Mercedes Schneider writes that the two Waltons gave $1.828,770 to the campaign in Massachusetts to increase the number of charters in the state by a dozen a year in perpetuity.

Mercedes writes:


According to the September 09, 2016, filing of the Massachusetts ballot committee, Yes on 2, billionaire Arkansas resident Alice Walton is one of two individuals providing the $710,100 in funding to promote MA Question 2, raising the charter school cap.

Alice Walton provided $710,000.

A second contributor, Massachusetts resident Frank Perullo provided $100 in order to establish the committee.

And then, the Alice Walton cash was moved to another Question 2 ballot committee: $703,770.29 of Alice Walton’s Yes on 2 committee money was expended to fund Question 2 ballot committee, Campaign for Fair Access to Quality Public Schools, where it was combined with billionaire Arkansas resident Jim Walton’s contribution of $1,125,000, thus making the total Walton contribution to the two committees $1,835,000 (and total Walton contribution to the latter committee, $1,828,770.29).

The Campaign for Fair Access total on its Sept 09, 2016, filing was $2,292,183 for 43 contributors– with 79 percent of that money ($1,828,770 / $2,292,183) arriving from two out-of-state billionaires.

In other words, 95 percent of contributors (41 out of 43) provided only 21 percent of the total funding on the Campaign for Fair Access Sept 2016 report.

I can almost hear the conversation between Alice and Jim:

“You buy this Massachusetts ballot committee, and I’ll buy that one.”

“Done.”

The Waltons are not the only out-of-state billionaires using their wealth to influence the charter cap in a state in which they do not reside. According to the September 09, 2016, filing of the Question 2 ballot committee, Great Schools Massachusetts, other out-of-state billionaire/lobbying nonprofit contributors include the following:

John Arnold (Texas), $250,000

Michael Bloomberg (New York), $240,000

Education Reform Now (ERN) Advocacy (New York), $250,000

Families for Excellent Schools (FES) Advocacy (New York), $5,750,000

She points out that the lobbying groups need not report their donors, so no one will know which billionaires chipped in to the campaign to privatize the public schools of Massachusetts.

This is a disgusting display of oligarchs undermining not only public education but democracy.

People of Massachusetts, send the Waltons and their ill-gotten gains, squeezed out of the wages of underpaid employees at Walmart, back to Arkansas. Let them fix their own state’s low-performing schools. Tell them to go away by voting NO on Proposition 2 on November 8.

The AFT analyzed Trump’s education plan, the centerpiece of which is a block grant to the states of $20 billion. This is not new spending. This is a redirection of existing federal funding. As you might expect, it is a sham meant to privatize public schools, with no controls or accountability.

Randi Weingarten released this statement:

Want to know what Donald Trump’s plan to take away $20 billion meant for public school children really means? Since he didn’t do his homework, we did it for him. Trump’s $20 billion cut could:

Strip funding from up to 56,000 public schools—putting at risk the educations of nearly 21 million children;

End Title I funding—the most important funding source for high-poverty schools—and cut $5 billion used for other crucial resources, potentially hurting more than 8 million higher education students who rely on Pell Grants, 5 million English language learners in public schools, and millions of others;

Take away $12.7 billion that 5 million students with disabilities count on to fund their educations; and

Eliminate as many as 300,000 teacher jobs—leaving millions of students in larger classes with less support.

And what would he fund with all these budget cuts? Vouchers for 1.4 million or fewer students—up to the states’ discretion, because Trump would hand the money over as a block grant—leaving at the very least 10.5 million other low-income students in the cold, depriving them of vital services they need.

Trump’s plan would gut nearly 30 percent of the federal education budget and turn it into private school vouchers. News flash, Mr. Trump: There’s been a lot of research on this.

Private school voucher programs don’t work—not for the students who get them, and not for the students in public schools whose schools have been drained of funds. Private schools do not enforce all federal civil rights laws, do not adhere to religious freedom protections provided under the U.S. Constitution, and do not face the same public accountability standards that all public schools must meet, including those in Title IX, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—the very law that Congress just reauthorized in 2016.

Trump has no research or evidence to back up his ideas—just his ideology and zeal to destabilize public schools.

Help us push back against Donald Trump and his flawed ideology by becoming an AFT rapid responder today.

Trump’s speech on education this week repeats the same message the anti-public education zealots have been shilling for years. As far as we can tell, Trump never bothered talking to educators to find out what support they need in order to give every kid a great education. His rhetoric today was just one more sound bite from a reality TV star turned presidential nominee.

None of this comes as a surprise: Donald Trump has never shown any inclination to help our schools serve students. In the years I spent working in New York City, I never once saw him at a civic event, never saw him engaged in an effort to lift up public education. Now he wants to hand our public schools over to private businesses so they can make a profit—no surprise, from a man whose idea of education can best be summed up in Trump University, a fraudulent enterprise built to rip off hardworking students. As far as I’m concerned, his ideas on public education don’t earn a passing grade.

Help me send him that message.

In unity,

Randi Weingarten

AFT President

The press strains to show “balance.” They do not differentiate between a conventional candidate with experience and knowledge and a candidate who lacks experience, is woefully uninformed, and uses his speaking skills to appeal to the mob’s basest instincts.

Many people, especially Bernie supporters, dislike Clinton’s policies, but she is not a menace and a threat to the future of the nation and the world. Trump is. He makes outrageous statements every day, which the press no longer finds novel.

She dares to say that “half” his supporters are “Deplorables,” and the press blows it up into a media firestorm. But was she right? David Duke tweeted last night, “We are the Deplorables.”

Do you want to see the faces of the Deplorables? Read and watch this article that appeared in the New York Times a. On the ago. The NY Times has published other articles about the neo-Nazism, white nationalism, and race hatred that Trump’s rallies bring out.

CNN and MSNBC have reported on Trump’s avid interest in and support for the Birther movement. He claimed repeatedly that he needed to see President Obama’s birth certificate. He claimed he sent a team of investigators to Hawaii and what they were finding was “unbelievable.” True, it was unbelievable. They found nothing. Now Trump surrogates like Rudy Guiliani and his campaign manager now say that Trump acknowledges that the President was born in America, but Trump has never said it. He thus manages to signal the paranoid right that he is on their side without saying anything more. He owes the President an apology but it will never happen.

Thanks to the media’s lust for trivia, scandal, headlines, and false equivalence, this unhinged conspiracy theorist could be elected president. Those who facilitate the ascendancy of this dangerous know-nothing are the Deplorables.

I exempt the Huffington Post from this generalization because it states at the end of every article about Trump:

“Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

This image was tweeted last night by David Duke (@Drdavidduke). Here are the Deplorables, the men and woman who are inciting racism, sexism, xenophobia, nativism, homophobia, etc.

image-1

Nancy Carlsson-Paige was able to view the Success Academy video of a teacher teaching reading to a small group of very young children, probably five- or six-year-olds. It is called “Circle Time Reading.” Gary Rubinstein posted the video a few days ago, before it was taken down by Success Academy. I saw the video before it was removed. The teacher speaks in a very loud voice and constantly interrupts the reading to correct children’s posture or their failure to “track” her with their eyes. Maybe it will be reposted. If it is, I will let you know.

Carlsson-Paige, an expert on early childhood education, wrote the following critique of the video:


Review of the Success Academy Video: Teacher Reading to Young Children

This is a very poor example of a literacy experience for young children. Caps for Sale is a classic story loved by young chldren. This teacher interrupts the story constantly to reinforce a behaviorist method of classroom management. She repeats how the children should sit; she praises, corrects, and warns them. The children are distracted from the flow of the story and their own ability to make meaning of it.

Meaning is the driving force in learning to read. Sometimes a skilled teacher will interrupt a story once or twice in order to make sure children understand it, but never to distract children from the story. This teacher’s interruptions take children out of the story, preventing them from experiencing a deep interest in it and the great joy that can be found in reading good literature. The kinds of interruptions the teacher makes also distance her emotionally from the children. For young kids, learning and relationships are intertwined; they thrive and learn best when their relationships with teachers are based in trust and caring. There is no evidence in the video of a caring connection between this teacher and the children.

This teacher seems to lack knowledge about how children learn, how they make meaning of print and learn to read. Her apparent goal is behavioral control and compliance. Her lesson is teacher-centered and has little to do with what concepts might be building in the minds of the children.

Reading books to children is one important component of an early literacy program. The repetition in the story helps build a foundation for reading. The flow of language contributes to the capacity to predict print. But this teacher undermines the potential value of this as a literacy experience by constantly interrupting the story, focusing children on irrelevant behaviors such as folding their hands, and preventing them from getting the full benefit of a read-out-loud story experience.

Nancy Carlsson-Paige
Professor Emerita, Early Childhood Education
Lesley University
Defending the Early Years (www.deyproject.org)

Wendy Lecker, a veteran civil rights attorney, here analyzes the Connecticut funding decision that was lavishly (and erroneously) praised by the New York Times. Lecker explains why in this and forthcoming articles.


On Sept. 7, Judge Thomas Moukawsher issued his post-trial decision in Connecticut’s school funding case, CCJEF v. Rell. His sweeping decision covered funding, which I will address here, and education policy, which I will address in my next column.

On the funding front, the outcome was mixed. While the judge did declare Connecticut’s system of distributing school aid unconstitutional, he found that the state was providing adequate funding. In doing so, he redefined constitutional adequacy and ignored the plaintiffs’ overwhelming evidence of resource deficiencies in the CCJEF districts.

At trial, the CCJEF plaintiffs put forth overwhelming evidence of severe resource deficiencies of inputs such as: academic and social intervention for at-risk students and students with special needs; guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, services for English Language Learners, music art and other subjects; and reasonable class size.

Judge Moukawsher’s charge was to examine the resources in the districts at issue in the case and determine whether those resources were so inadequate as to violate Connecticut’s constitution.

However, nowhere in the opinion does the judge systematically look the actual resources present or absent in each district.

Rather, the judge focused only on three types of resources: facilities, instrumentalities of learning, and teachers. He declared that since, in his view, the state provides the “bare minimum,” in these three areas, the plaintiffs did not prove that state funding is constitutionally inadequate.

Moukawsher claimed to base his ruling on the 2010 Connecticut Supreme Court plurality decision allowing the CCJEF case to proceed to trial. He claimed to rely specifically on Justice Richard Palmer’s concurring opinion, which is seen as the controlling opinion.

Moukawsher stated that Palmer limited his focus to those three narrow resources. This is untrue. Palmer acknowledged a much wider range of potential resource deficits, including class size, language instruction, technology, intervention for at-risk students, and a safe and secure learning environment.

Judge Moukawsher’s decision ignored the wide range of essential educational resources absent in the CCJEF districts. In fact, the judge actually claimed that intervention for at-risk children was an “extra.”

As a result, his ruling does an injustice to the children suffering in those districts.

Moukawsher also attempted to claim Palmer’s definition of a “minimally adequate” education was narrower than the plurality opinion, and that it required only the “bare minimum” of resources.

However, Palmer actually declared that “I perceive no difference between an educational opportunity that is minimally adequate and an educational opportunity that the plurality characterizes as ‘soundly basic.’”

Moukawsher created a bare-bones definition of constitutional adequacy that the Connecticut Supreme Court clearly did not envision.

The one ray of light in this funding decision is Moukawsher’s finding that the state’s system for distributing school aid is unconstitutional. He ruled that “(b)eyond a reasonable doubt, Connecticut is defaulting on its constitutional duty to provide adequate public school opportunities because it has no rational, substantial and verifiable plan to distribute money for education aid and school construction.”

To illustrate Connecticut’s irrational system, Moukawsher cited the legislature’s decision last session to cut school aid for poor districts while providing more aid for wealthy districts. Here, the judge finally acknowledged the severe resource deficits caused by these cuts: of administrators, guidance counselors, kindergarten and special education paraprofessionals, music and athletics, a shortened school year and classes of “29 children per room — rooms where teachers might have a class with one third requiring special education, many of them speaking limited English, and almost all of them working considerably below grade level.”

The judge declared that a system that “allows rich towns to raid money desperately needed by poor towns makes a mockery of the state’s constitutional duty.”

Stephen Dyer said that the for-profit charter school in Cleveland where Donald Trump spoke is a failing school, based on its letter grades. The conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which is an official authorizer of charters in Ohio (though not this one), said that Dyer was wrong. As you may know, the A-F report card idea was invented by Jeb Bush in Florida and has spread to accountability-obsessed states like Ohio. It tends to be an accurate measure of family income. Dyer points out that Fordham was gung-ho to adopt the A-F grades, but doesn’t like them so much now. Ron Packard, the owner of the charter in Cleveland, was previously CEO at the online charter corporation K12, where he was paid $5 million annually. His background is McKinsey and Goldman Sachs. K12 Inc. gets bad reviews for its terrible education record, even from charter advocates.

Dyer responds here:

As you know, Donald Trump came to Cleveland to visit a charter school and announce a massive federal infusion of dollars for school choice programs. Regardless of the wisdom of that plan, I found it curious that he would visit a school with an F grade from the state on student growth — considered the most important metric by many charter school advocates. So I called the grade “failing” in several news accounts.

The Fordham Insitute took me to task for that today. So I felt I needed to respond bceause I actually agree that school performance needs more nuanced measures than the simple test regime we have today. But I found it amazing that Fordham, which pushed for Ohio to go to an A-F report card system because it would give parenhts more transparency about how their schools performed so they could then choose whether a charter would be a better option, is now saying that the F grade at the Cleveland Arts and Social Sciences Academy doesn’t actually mean it’s failing. Especially given that Fordham said the drop in grades this year (due to PARCC and Common Core) gave Ohioans a more accurate assessment of how kids are “actually doing.”

Here’s my response: http://bit.ly/2cJ7PpM

Best Regards,

Stephen Dyer
Education Policy Fellow
Innovation Ohio
35 E. Gay St.
Columbus, Ohio 43215
330-338-1486
http://www.innovationohio.org

Fifteen years ago today, our nation was subject to a horrific terrorist attack. Four civilian airliners were hijacked, two smashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, one struck the Pentagon, and a fourth was forced down into a field as a result of the bravery of the passengers who sacrificed their lives to prevent further loss of lives.

If you were alive and cognizant, you will never forget that day. I remember the day President Kennedy was assassinated. I will never forget 9/11/2001.

I can never forget that day because I lived right across the harbor from the World Trade Center, in Brooklyn Heights. It was as gorgeous, cloudless day, as beautiful as it ever gets in the fall. I was sitting at my breakfast table when I heard a thunderous sound, which I wrongly assumed was either a sonic boom or a crash on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, a highway that abuts New York Harbor. My partner called from work and told me to turn on the television; something terrible had happened at the World Trade Center. I did, and I saw one of the tall buildings on fire at the top. What happened? Did an airplane hit it by accident? I ran down to the waterfront, a two-block jaunt, and as I looked up, I saw the second airplane hit the second tower. I stood there with half a dozen people. We didn’t speak. We all took a deep breath. We knew it was no accident. I watched the plumes of thick black smoke and the flames, and I knew that people were being incinerated. I could see what was happening but at the same time, I didn’t know what was happening ran home to watch television to find out what was going on. After 15 minutes watching and listening, I ran back to the waterfront. Then the wind shifted, and the dense cloud of smoke turned towards east, where I was standing. I could no longer see anything. Small bits of debris and ash were falling everywhere. The cars were coated with ash. Later, in my backyard, I found a charred piece of paper that had been on someone’s desk, and except for some burn holes, it was intact. It had floated gently from his or her desk across the river to my yard. After my partner came home, we went to the nearest hospital to see if we could give blood. They turned us away. They said no blood was needed. We walked to the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge and watched hundreds of people trudging slowly across the bridge, from Manhattan to Brooklyn. They were dazed. Some were shoeless. All of them were coated in ashes. We went back to the house. We were glued to the television, filled with apprehension and sorrow. We watched the buildings collapse, one after the other, knowing that many people were still inside. We stayed inside, because outside, the air was thick with the dust from the burning towers. There was a peculiar smell in the air, an acrid smell of burning plastic. That smell remained for weeks. We watched television, we were glued to the screen. The city ground to a halt. No subway service, no bus service, nothing flying overhead except fighter jets. It became very quiet, except for the sound of sirens. The sound of sirens continued for days. Gasoline stations quickly ran out of gasoline, so not many people were driving. After some days, when we were able to walk across the bridge, we saw the photographs, posted everywhere, on every empty wall: have you seen this man? have you seen this woman? Missing. Help. For months afterwards, I could not stop thinking of the people who were trapped in the towers, especially at night. I traveled to a family wedding in November in Texas, and people were surprised that I was so obsessed with what had happened. To them, it was a news story, but it was over. For me, and for everyone else who had a personal connection with that day, it will never be over. I don’t have nightmares anymore, but the vivid memories will be with me always.

Let us never forget. I won’t.

So Hillary spoke ill of half of Trump’s supporters. 

Did she mean the delegates who chanted, “Lock her up!” at the GOP convention?

Or was she thinking of these gentlemen?

So Hillary spoke ill of half of Trump’s supporters. 
Did she mean the delegates who chanted, “Lock her up!” at the GOP convention. 
Or was she thinking of these gentlemen?