Archives for the month of: April, 2017

Joseph Batory, a retired superintendent in Pennsylvania, told me that he has tried everything to distract him from the events taking place in the nation: Walking in the woods, cutting down news consumption, exercise, mood music. It hasn’t worked. So he has finally given in and admitted all the ways in which America is “great” again (note the air quotes, as in “wiretapped”):

He writes:

America Is Now Great Again!

By Joseph Batory

It’s morning in America. America is great again. Below are the reasons why!

1. America’s supposed “man of the people” leader has surrounded himself with ideological corporate bosses and multi-millionaires determined to pollute our environment, ignore the needs of the poor, dramatically increase corporate welfare, and privatize public schools. What wonderful gifts for the people!

2. USA citizens no longer have any need to read…or think… or analyze. Bizarre hallucinatory tweets in the middle of the night provide all the “wisdom” anyone needs.

3. Constant lying and distorting reality is exemplary leadership. When caught in a lie, just tell a bigger one. False statements are now “truth.”

4. In the tradition of fascists and other totalitarians, the news media are now “the enemies of the people” in America.

5. Immigrants are likely to be rapists and criminals. So the Statue of Liberty should be dissembled and its copper sold to the highest bidder. And the phrase… “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” … is now considered to be anti-American.

6. Multiple bankruptcies and walking away from business failures and debts are the definition of a “great businessperson.”

7. Foul mouthed men can now walk up to women and grope their genitals because that is what women want.

8. Military prisoners of war past and present are to now be considered as weak and cowardly for being captured.

9. Mocking physically disabled persons is cool and amusing!

10. Promising to share “university” expertise in real estate seminars and delivering little or nothing of what was promised is an acceptable practice as long as you settle the lawsuit complaints with millions of dollars out of court.

11. The leadership (dictator) skills of Vladimir Putin, the former KGB agent who has imprisoned thousands, killed others, and illegally invaded countries as the dictator of Russia, are to be admired.

12. Insulting and bullying anyone who dares to disagree with you by calling them poisonous names has replaced courtesy and politeness which are signs of weakness.

13. It is perfectly acceptable to insult the parents of soldiers killed in action in service to their country.

14. It is OK to violate anti-trust laws as long as you pay the huge fines levied by the Federal Trade Commission.

15. It is OK to “short change” contractors, laborers and service workers who have done work for you. Just arrange for the settlement of lawsuits and have the courts seal the records.

16. Hiding your income tax returns is a great way to finally rid ourselves of transparency and honesty in government.

17. Cutting federal money to the National Institutes of Health for scientific research, for studying diseases, and for other medical issues is a wise idea. After all, science is “fake.”

18. Decreasing federal investment and support for public schools attended by 90% of our nation’s young people is the best way to improve education in the USA.

19. Drastic cuts in federal appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities will help to “dumb down” American society.

20. Health insurance is not important for poor people.

America is great again. How lucky we are!
_____________________________________

(Joseph Batory is a former award-winning public school superintendent who has been widely published on politics and education.)

I would add two important points to this list:

21. Conflicts of interest do not need to be avoided. They are okay now.

22. Family members should be included in the decision making process at the highest levels of government, even replacing the Secretary of State.

The public schools of Albuquerque, New Mexico, plan to save money by eliminating middle school sports teams.

Be it noted that Republican Governor Susanna Martinez has refused to raise taxes and has threatened to defund state universities.

The one potential cut that gets parents’ attention is sports teams.

New Mexico doesn’t want to pay for educating its children.

“Parents reacted with dismay to 3,400 students in Albuquerque Public Schools losing a traditional training ground for high school athletics. Basketball, volleyball and track and field teams in the district’s 28 middle schools are set to be disbanded next school year, leaving families to find private leagues for children in grades 6, 7 and 8.

“Some worry that low-income families in particular may be hard-pressed to find teams and facilities outside public school, while others say the opportunity to play sports is critical for students at such a formative age.

“Vanessa Petty, president of the parents association at Lyndon B. Johnson Middle School in Albuquerque, said her daughter was looking forward to playing volleyball next year.

“Their first introduction to sports for a majority of children is middle school,” Petty said. “It’s huge not just for their personal health but more for social aspects. They learn teamwork, they learn respect for others.”

“Under the athletic cuts, teachers would lose coaching stipends and short-term coaching contracts would go away. The changes will save $580,000 and help avoid classroom cuts, district spokeswoman Monica Armenta said.”

That is a small fraction of the $26 million in reductions that the district says may be needed as New Mexico wrestles with a downturn in tax income linked to oil prices, a sluggish economy and the highest U.S. unemployment rate. Public schools in New Mexico rely on the state for nearly all their operating budgets.

Republican Gov. Susana Martinez and the Democratic-led Legislature are in a standoff over how to fill a $156 million budget shortfall and protect the state’s credit rating. Martinez vetoed tax increases that she called reckless and plans to call lawmakers back to the Capitol to renegotiate.

Lawmakers are preparing to sue the governor to block vetoes that would defund all state universities, the Legislature and other core government services.

Michael Messer is a parent activist in Texas. He wrote this comment in response to Sara Stevenson’s post about the true cost of testing in Texas.


I am glad to see people writing about my bill. I am the original author of HB 1336 (aka, “Transparency in Testing”), and the person who Mrs. Stevenson saw speak at the Save Texas Schools rally. Representative Leach is the legislative sponsor. I am not a CPA, but I have been an accountant for the last seven years. During that time I have served as the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Organizer for Save Texas Schools.

It was through my public education advocacy work that I found out that nobody has any idea how much we are really spending on standardized testing. The commonly reported number is $90 million per year, but that accounts for little more than the state’s contract with ETS & Pearson to print the test, score the test, and send out a few roaming consultants. It fails to include the bulk of direct costs associated with testing (most notably the salaries of certified educators who are forced to proctor the tests) which are paid for by the districts.

Recent estimates have indicated a price tag closer to $13 BILLION per year. That is over 1/5th our entire public education budget every year, or in terms Texans can appreciate, up to 10 times what we spend on our athletic programs or even administrative salaries.

I wrote HB 1336 in December to address what I believe is a material lack of transparency in the yearly financial reports submitted by our school districts to the Texas Education Agency. It was written in consultation with education experts from both sides of the political spectrum, and it has gained public support from county parties, elected officials, and candidates from across the state. Representative Jeff Leach, a noted conservative Republican, sponsored the bill, and it was co-authored by Representative Lina Ortega, a Democrat out of El Paso.

In short, HB 1336 adds just a couple of lines to the Texas Education Code which would require the districts to include a total of testing-related expenses on the financial reports they already submit to the TEA every year. In my opinion, we cannot expect to engage in any substantive conversation regarding the finance of our public schools without a full picture of how the funds are being spent.

Here is a link to the text of the bill:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/HB01336I.pdf#navpanes=0

The draconian $5.4 billion cut imposed by the Texas Legislature in 2011 was devastating to our schools, and that was over a two year period. Every other year, the public has to fight over the scraps we are given for gifted, AP, disability, athletic, music, art, career & tech, and numerous other programs. Giving the public a view of exactly how much we are spending on standardized testing is the first step toward freeing up the $13 billion (and 45+ class days) per year we spend on the tests.

HB 1336 doesn’t eliminate standardized testing, but it sure as heck would change the dialogue about public education in Texas. For instance, I had one man ask me, “How much are you wasting on educating illegal immigrants?” Here is my response:

“While I’m not partial to calling anyone ‘illegal,’ nor do I consider education for anyone to be a ‘waste,’ I think I might actually be able to formulate a decent answer your question. First, let’s assume that you are asking about the total of all education-related expenditures on children of unauthorized immigrants who are also unauthorized themselves. Anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

According to a January 2016 report from the Migration Policy Institute, 834,000 children of unauthorized immigrants lived in Texas in 2013. Of those, 667,000 were U.S. citizens. That means that 167,000 were children who were at the time considered unauthorized immigrants.

Of the 834,000 children of unauthorized immigrants, 566,000 were of an age where they might have attended public school. Assuming the same ratio of roughly 80% U.S. citizens, the total number of unauthorized immigrant students in Texas in 2013 would have been approximately 113,200.

According to PEIMS statewide financial data which is publicly accessible on the Texas Education Agency’s website, we spent an average of $9,902.64 per student in 2013.

$9,902.64 x 113,200 = $1.1 billion

The acting assumption of most questions like yours tends to be that the parents of these children pay none of the associated taxes. While I could easily debate that with you, let’s assume that were true, and the entire $1.1 billion in funding associated with educating those children came out of the taxes paid by the rest of the children’s parents. That would mean that of the $9,902.64 schools get per student, $226.70 would be attributable to educating unauthorized immigrants.

If we were to presume instead that parents of unauthorized immigrant students pay sales and property taxes, then the only portion of the public education budget that this issue would apply to is federal funding. Of the $50 billion in total funding Texas public schools received in 2013, $5.6 billion came from the federal government. That’s approximately $1,101.27 per student.

$1,101.27 x 113,200 = $125 million (note the “m”)

Dividing that over the remaining student population would mean that $25.21 out of $9,902.64 would be attributable to educating unauthorized immigrants. So now we have a range we can agree is somewhere between $25.21 – $226.70.
By comparison, recent estimates indicate that we spend up to $13.4 billion per year on standardized testing. That’s around $2,700 per student. In light of all of this, wouldn’t it be more prudent to focus on how much we spend on standardized testing instead of blaming immigrant students for the scarce education resources our schools receive to teach our kids?”

It’s amazing how easy it is to put into perspective the scapegoats that have traditionally been used to justify minimal resources for public education when you’ve taken the time to research the numbers. Think about how conversations will change when the public has access to a full account of all expenses related to standardized testing. That is what HB 1336 (aka, “Transparency in Testing”) was written to accomplish. When we know better, we make better decisions.

If you would like to see a dramatic shift in the public discourse regarding public education in Texas, please visit my page, http://www.facebook.com/TransparencyinTesting, share the information, and ask your legislators to support HB 1336. Thank you!

From a correspondent in Pennsylvania:

“The latest charter reform farce is on its way to the House floor in Pennsylvania before lunch.

“Among all the poor elements, tied for the dumbest are:

“1. Families with multiple children enrolled in a cyber-charter may now opt not to receive a second or third computer. I mean really, what wouldthey do with them. They don’t really devote any time to learning. This saves money for the cyber charter. Two or three full state tuitions, and the corporations gives out only one computer.

“2. Charter Schools will now be compared to each other instead of public schools, thus assuring at least half will automatically be performing “above average,” instead of all PA Charters constantly being ranked as
“failing.”

On the day before the vote on Betsy DeVos’s nomination, billionaire Eli Broad announced that he opposed her nomination to be Secretary of Education. It was a joke. He knew that his statement was meaningless and that she would be confirmed, but he was pretending to be a Democrat. The reality is that Broad and DeVos are on the same page when it comes to privatization. He is trying to grab control of half the children in Los Angeles for privately-run charter schools, and she approves. No doubt, she wishes California also had vouchers, because in her view, you can never have too much school choice. She and Broad consider local school boards a hindrance to their plans. Results don’t matter either. Nor does segregation. Choice over all.

In response to the unfettered expansion of charters–and to the ongoing financial scandals that crop up in this unregulated sector–several bills were introduced in the legislature to rein in the charters. One of them said that local school districts should make the final decision about whether to authorize new charters. Under current law, if the local school board says no, their decision may be reversed by the county board of education. If the county board of education says no, their decision may be reversed by the state board of education. If the governor is charter-friendly as Jerry Brown is, the state board can be counted on to say yes to almost any charter, no matter how much local opposition there is, and no matter how badly the new charter will damage existing public schools, skimming its students and sucking away resources.

So a bill was written–SB808– to give the local school boards the authority to block new charters that are neither needed nor wanted. The bill was supported by the California Teachers Association. It was opposed by the California Charter School Association, the lobbyists for the billionaires who love privatization.

The bill’s author just pulled it; it will not be introduced to the Senate Education Committee. The bill’s author, Democrat Tony Mendoza, met with charter school supporters last week and had second thoughts.

No doubt, Betsy DeVos is thrilled.

How many millions or billions will Eli Broad and his friends in the CCSA spend before they admit that all they accomplished was to destroy public education?

This will be Eli Broad’s legacy: not his museum; not the buildings where he has carved his name. But his destruction of public education in Los Angeles and across the state of California.

News for those who stayed home on Election Day 2016 or voted third party because Hillary was “just as bad as Trump.” The first casualty of Trump’s election might be the state bans on vouchers for religious schools.

Politico reports today:

SUPREME COURT COULD CLEAR ROADBLOCKS TO SCHOOL VOUCHERS: The Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear a case that could have huge implications for school voucher programs. At issue is an 1875 provision of Missouri’s Constitution banning public money from going “directly or indirectly” to religious groups, including schools. Similar provisions, called Blaine Amendments, exist in roughly three dozen states and have been a major barrier to school vouchers. They’ve also proved resilient, surviving numerous state ballot repeal efforts – including an unsuccessful Michigan initiative pushed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos nearly two decades ago.

– Religious groups see this and a related Colorado case as their best shots at scrapping the amendments – and they believe Neil Gorsuch, who just took his seat on the high court, will take their side. They point to Gorsuch’s deference to religious rights in other cases. Most notably, while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he backed a religious challenge to the Affordable Care Act – joining the panel’s majority in the Hobby Lobby case to rule that the Obama administration could not require a closely-held business to offer contraceptive coverage if that interfered with the owners’ religious beliefs – a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court. In another case, he ruled that a Wyoming prison had to provide a sweat lodge to a Native American for his religious practices.

– Court watchers believe Gorsuch might cast a tie-breaking vote since the court had apparently delayed arguments in the Missouri case until they had a ninth justice. “The justices have likely seen this as a case on which they would have been divided four to four,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. “They must expect that Gorsuch will be the deciding fifth vote.” Benjamin Wermund has more on that here.

– There is a chance the case could get tossed out . The case hinges on the state’s denial of Trinity Lutheran Church’s request for a grant to reimburse the cost of resurfacing its preschool playground with recycled tires. State officials said the Blaine Amendment prevented it from aiding the church in any way. But late last week, Missouri’s newly elected Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, announced that he has directed the state agency to consider religious organizations for such grants. The parties on both sides must submit their views by noon today on whether the the announcement makes the legal dispute moot. Even if the justices dismiss this case, they could soon hear the same issues in a pending Colorado case in which the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State claim a school voucher program violates the state’s no-aid clause.

Rick Perlstein is a historian who has written about American conservatism. He says, “we got it wrong.”

In this very interesting and provocative article, he reflects on why American historians failed to understand the persistence of the radical fringe right or anticipate its rise from the fringe to the mainstream of American politics.

Since most historians are liberal, they tended to believe that America was steadily evolving towards an enlightened, progressive future. They saw conservatism either as the highly intellectual, principled ideology of William Buckley or as the discredited John Birch Society, Ku Klux Klan, and McCarthyism.

Perlstein argues that what they did not anticipate was the rise of the Alt Right, which encapsulated white nationalism and a sense that the country was overrun with Others who did not belong here.

This is well worth reading.

Edward F. Berger, retired educator now living in Arizona and fighting the good fight against the forces of reaction, writes here about screen addiction. Having reviewed the research, he questions whether addition to screens damages frontal lobe development.

Actually, the link will take you to his podcast, which is gaining international recognition.

Dear Senator Graham,

I hope someone on your staff sees this. If not, I hope that readers in South Carolina send it to you. This is an important message from one of your constituents.

She writes:

I had an opportunity to listen to Senator Lindsey Graham talk about how he lifted himself up and became the Senator from SC he is today. He said both his parents died before he began college.

But he failed to say his social security benefits (based on the death of his parents), at that time, continued through age 21 and that full-time tuition at a flagship state college in SC was roughly $287.00 per semester and $596.00 per semester, if you lived in a dorm (no food plan). This included University provide healthcare.

Back then it was easy to self-fund college on social security benefits and summer and part-time jobs. I know I did it, too. I earned $20.00- 30.00 per day waiting tables during the breakfast shift at Howard Johnson. My University even held my check for several weeks at that time. (My father was killed in Vietnam so I also had $330.00 per month VA but they paid really late during the semester). My husband also self-funded working a work study job and obtaining student loans. He left college as a chemical engineer with a $55.00 per month student loan.

He could not have done it today. Nor could I. Nor could my husband. It amazes me the disconnect of our politicians with the plight of our young people today. Comparing his experience of “lifting himself up by his bootstraps” with what our kids face today is ludicrous.

Gene V. Glass, one of our nation’s most eminent education researchers, writes here about the Big Lie embedded in Arizona’s voucher program.

http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-goes-around-comes-around-voucher.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+EducationInTwoWorlds+(Education+in+Two+Worlds)&m=1

The program began as vouchers for students with special needs (although we now know that students with disabilities abandon their rights when they leave the public system).

Glass writes:

“Originally intended only for special needs students, it was broadened to include children of military serving in Iraq & Afghanistan, and then children living on Indian reservations. The cynical intent is obvious.

“The latest incarnation of the program will expand the program by 5,000 students per year until a cap of 30,000 is reached.

“Even Republicans were reluctant to support the expansion, probably because of persistent non-support of vouchers among the voting public. The latest PDK Gallup poll continues to show more than 60% of parents opposed.

“Big lobby pressure to expand the program came from the local Goldwater Institute. When a compromise on the 5,000 per year expansion was reached, the reluctant Republicans fell in line.”

And then the scammers at the Goldwater Institute scammed their dupes in the Legislature. They immediately boasted that the cap would soon be abolished altogether, and everyone could get a voucher.

The Legislature proved itself to be lap dogs of the Goldwater Institute and Betsy DeVos. They betrayed public schools and their constituents by extending the privatization of a democratic institution.

Arizona is in a Race to the Bottom.

I am way too late in starting this new feature of the blog. It is called the Wall of Shame. The Arizona Legislature and Governor Ducey will be the first to receive this Badge of Shame.