Archives for the month of: January, 2017

You are well aware that there are certain curse words I do not permit on the blog. This is my small way of fighting the coarsening of our culture. I know I stand against the tide, but standing against the tide is very often the right thing to do because it eventually goes out, and who knows, might never come back again.

Nonetheless, this was the best sign at any of the airport rallies against the ban on Muslims.

Leaders of the Badass Teachers Association met in DC with the education staff of Senator Sanders (VT) and Senator Hassan NH).

They spoke for all of us who care about children and fighting back against privatization and standardization.

Please read the summary of their meeting.

Thank you, BATS!

Minutes after I blogged that the mayor of a Hartford was set to name Harold Sparrow to the Hartford School Board, I learned that the candidate withdrew his name because of controversy that was distracting.

Who caused that controversy? Blogger Jonathan Pelto, who brought to light Sparrow’s history as a corporate reformer, founder of a charter school, trustee of elite private schools, etc.

http://jonathanpelto.com/2017/01/30/hartford-courant-reporting-harold-sparrow-withdraws-candidacy-hartford-school-board/

#bloggersmatter

Just in case you thought that no one on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee understood that Betsy DeVos is a threat to the future of public education, read Senator Tim Kaine’s letter.

 

kainemast

January 26, 2017

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education.  I appreciate hearing from you.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate on certain appointments made by the President, including cabinet secretaries.  The committee of jurisdiction for each nomination conducts hearings with respect to each candidate before they are considered by the full Senate.  Members of the Senate have a responsibility to ensure that nominees possess the qualifications, integrity, and independence that is necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the job on behalf of the American people.  I take my responsibility to scrutinize every nominee very seriously.

The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the DeVos nomination on January 17th, 2017.  As a member of the HELP Committee, I asked Mrs. DeVos questions regarding her education, experience, and policy positions.  While I appreciate Mrs. DeVos’s willingness to serve, I have decided to oppose her nomination.  Mrs. DeVos failed to show that she was a strong advocate for public schools, accountability, and civil rights. Commitment to these principles is essential to serving as Secretary of Education and carrying out the duties of this position in a manner that will benefit all of our nation’s students.

Over 90 percent of our nation’s children attend public schools.  But Mrs. DeVos has said that public schools are a ‘dead end’ and that ‘government really sucks’ when it comes to education.  This statement betrays the commitment of thousands of public school teachers who work hard every day in our public schools, many in tough working conditions, to ensure our children are educated.  I could support a nominee who is for expanded options and improvement for all schools, public and private, but I cannot support a nominee who has a reflexive and ideological bias against public schools.

I am also concerned that Mrs. DeVos does not recognize that accountability for all schools is essential to closing achievement gaps in our country.  Our efforts to enhance the national educational system must make student performance a priority, and any school receiving government funding should be held to the highest standards for its students.  During her confirmation hearing, I asked Mrs. DeVos whether all schools that receive taxpayer funding should be held equally accountable for outcomes, particularly because President Trump has proposed allocating $20 billion to private schools in a nationwide voucher program.  Mrs. DeVos repeatedly refused to say there should be equal accountability between public, public charter, and private schools receiving tax dollars.

Mrs. DeVos also left me in doubt about whether she understands or would uphold critical civil rights laws, including the rights of thousands of students with special needs.  She demonstrated little understanding of – or support for – the primary fundamental law regarding education of kids with disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which if confirmed as Secretary she would be in charge of enforcing.  Our Secretary of Education must be committed to upholding the principle of the federal IDEA to provide ‘a free and appropriate public education’ for all.  When I asked whether schools receiving taxpayer dollars should all be required to follow federal law, guaranteeing these students an education appropriately tailored to their abilities, she declared that was a decision for the states.

An appropriate candidate for Secretary of Education will champion our public schools, support equal accountability for all schools receiving taxpayer funding, and support the national consensus that kids with disabilities should have fair learning opportunities.  I am disappointed that President Trump failed to nominate such a champion, and I will be opposing the nomination of Betsy DeVos.

Please be assured that I will continue to make the education of our nation’s students a top priority.  Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

kanesig

Tim Kaine

 

Jonathan Pelto warns that the vote is likely to be today.

The mayor of Hartford, Connecticut, has named the founder of one of the lowest performing charter schools in Massachusetts to the public school board in Hartford. Harold Sparrow previously served as a trustee at two elite private schools. He also was instrumental in closing down a successful early literacy program at the YMCA in Hartford.

What qualifies him to serve on the Hartford Board of Education?

Jonathan Pelto’s blog is the most valuable education news in Connecticut. You can help keep his blog going by sending a contribution.

A friend tweeted this article to me.

It explains a term I never heard.

I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist or in any way qualified to reach a diagnosis about other people.

The New York Times published a powerful editorial denouncing Trump’s Muslim ban.

First, reflect on the cruelty of President Trump’s decision on Friday to indefinitely suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees and temporarily ban people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States. It took just hours to begin witnessing the injury and suffering this ban inflicts on families that had every reason to believe they had outrun carnage and despotism in their homelands to arrive in a singularly hopeful nation.

The first casualties of this bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy were detained early Saturday at American airports just hours after the executive order, ludicrously titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” went into effect. A federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday evening issued an emergency stay, ordering that those stuck at the airports not be returned to their home countries. But the future of all the others subject to the executive order is far from settled.

It must have felt like the worst trick of fate for these refugees to hit the wall of Donald Trump’s political posturing at the very last step of a yearslong, rigorous vetting process. This ban will also disrupt the lives and careers of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been cleared to live in America under visas. On Saturday, as mass protests against that ban were held in various cities, the White House scaled back the reach of the policy, though not by much, exempting legal permanent residents.

That the order, breathtaking in scope and inflammatory in tone, was issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day spoke of the president’s callousness and indifference to history, to America’s deepest lessons about its own values.

The order lacks any logic. It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11 as a rationale, while exempting the countries of origin of all the hijackers who carried out that plot and also, perhaps not coincidentally, several countries where the Trump family does business. The document does not explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths.
The order’s language makes clear that the xenophobia and Islamophobia that permeated Mr. Trump’s campaign are to stain his presidency as well. Un-American as they are, they are now American policy.

“The United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” the order says, conveying the spurious notion that all Muslims should be considered a threat. (It further claims to spare America from people who would commit acts of violence against women and those who persecute people on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. A president who bragged about sexually assaulting women and a vice president who has supported policies that discriminate against gay people might well fear that standard themselves.)

The unrighteousness of this new policy should be enough to prompt the courts, Congress and responsible members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet to reverse it immediately. But there is an even more compelling reason: It is extremely dangerous. Extremist groups will trumpet this order to spread the notion, today more credible than ever, that the United States is at war with Islam rather than targeting terrorists. They want nothing more than a fearful, recklessly belligerent America; so, if anything, this ban will heighten their efforts to strike at Americans, to provoke yet further overreaction from a volatile and inexperienced president.

American allies in the Middle East will reasonably question why they should cooperate with, and defer to, the United States while its top officials vilify their faith. Afghans and Iraqis supporting American military operations would be justified in reassessing the merits of taking enormous risks for a government that is bold enough to drop bombs on their homelands but too frightened to provide a haven to their most vulnerable compatriots, and perhaps to them as well. Republicans in Congress who remain quiet or tacitly supportive of the ban should recognize that history will remember them as cowards.

There may be no one better positioned to force a suspension of this policy than Mr. Trump’s secretary of defense, Jim Mattis. Mr. Mattis was clear-eyed about the dangers of a proposed Muslim ban during the election, saying that American allies were reasonably wondering if “we have lost faith in reason.” He added: “This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through this international system.”

His silence now is alarming to all who admire his commitment to American security. Mr. Mattis and other senior government officials who know better cannot lend their names to this travesty. Doing so would do more than tarnish their professional reputations. It would make them complicit in abdicating American values and endangering their fellow citizens.

Nicholas Kristof wrote a moving story about his father, prefaced by a frank admission of the New York Times’s own shoddy history in turning its back on immigrants and refugees in the past.


Yet if fear and obliviousness have led us periodically to target refugees, there’s also another thread that runs through American history. It’s reflected in the welcome received by somebody I deeply admire: Wladyslaw Krzysztofowicz. And this is personal.

Raised in what was then Romania and is now Ukraine, Krzysztofowicz was jailed by the Gestapo for assisting an anti-Nazi spy for the West. His aunt was murdered in Auschwitz for similar spying, but he was freed with a bribe. When World War II was ending, he fled his home as it fell into the hands of the Soviets.

After imprisonment in a Yugoslav concentration camp, he made it to Italy and then France, but he couldn’t get a work permit, and he thought that neither he nor any children he might later have would ever be fully accepted in France.

So he dreamed of traveling to America, which he had heard would be open to all. He explored a fake marriage to an American woman to get a visa, but that fell through. Finally he met an American woman working in Paris who convinced her family back in Portland, Ore., to sponsor him, along with their church, the First Presbyterian Church of Portland.

As Krzysztofowicz stood on the deck of the ship Marseille, approaching New York Harbor in 1952, a white-haired woman from Boston chatted with him and quoted the famous lines from the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ….” Krzysztofowicz spoke little English and didn’t understand, so she wrote them down for him and handed him the paper, saying, “Keep it as a souvenir, young man.”

Then as she was walking away, she corrected herself: “young American.”

Krzysztofowicz kept that scrap of paper and marveled that he — a refugee who had repeatedly faced death in the Old Country for not belonging — now somehow counted as an American even before he had set foot on American soil, even before he had learned English. It was an inclusiveness that dazzled him, that kindled a love for America that he passed on to his son.

That strand of hospitality represents the best of this country. The church sponsored Krzysztofowicz even though he wasn’t a Presbyterian, even though he was Eastern European at a time when the Communist bloc posed an existential threat to America. He could have been a spy or a terrorist.
But he wasn’t. After arriving in Oregon, he decided that the name Krzysztofowicz was unworkable for Americans, so he shortened it to Kristof. He was my dad.

Recently I returned to the First Presbyterian Church to thank the congregation for taking a risk and sponsoring my father, who died in 2010. And the church, I’m delighted to say, is moving to support a refugee family this year.

Mr. President, please remember: This is a country built by refugees and immigrants, your ancestors and mine. When we bar them and vilify them, we shame our own roots.

Arthur Camins, scientist and science educator, posted this message on his Facebook page:


There have always been two Americas. One is shameful and the other is admirable. Now, every citizen needs to decide: In which America do you want to live? For which will you take a stand?
We have been the America that stole land from and exterminated Native Americans.
We have been the America that limited the right to vote.
We have been the America that shackled and enslaved Africans, granted them freedom and then took those freedoms away.
We have been the America that has denigrated and excluded eastern and southern Europeans and Asians.
We have been the America that imprisoned innocent Japanese Americans.
We have been the America that turned its back on Jews who fled Nazi extermination, sending them back to their slaughter.
We have been the America that deported and detained dissenters.
We have been the America that has left people homeless and destitute.

We have been the America that threw off tyranny to establish freedom of the press, speech, and assembly.
We have been the America the expanded the right to vote.
We have been the America that was founded on the principles that prohibited the establishment of or interference with free exercise of religion.
We have been the America that took in refugees from around the world and welcomed dissent.
We have been the America that along with our allies liberated Hitler’s concentration camps.
We have been the America that takes care of one another.
Whatever, they say and whatever lies they may tell the disempowered, Trump and his empowered supporters are determined to bring back the former. People fought and died for the latter. The former brings us selfishness and hate. The latter brings us mutual responsibility and love.
Now, we are engaged is a fierce battle between two visions of America. You cannot be neutral. You have to take sides.

WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

Reince Priebus modified Trump’s executive order by saying that green card holders won’t be banned, but confusion reigned at major airports as crowds of protestors assembled to object to the religious-based test for entry.

Seems we are headed for four years of chaos, confusion, and instability with amateurs running the country. Steve Bannon as a full-fledged member of the National Security Council, while head of national intelligence and Joint Chiefs of Staff