Archives for the month of: August, 2018

The Florida League of Women Voters filed the lawsuit against the effort to destroy public schools in Florida by altering the part of the state constitution that mandates them.

Today, the League won in court. They are heroes of public education and the common good!

LWV has been a steadfast ally of public schools. Its report on charters and conflicts of interest was powerful.

Here is their statement:

“Amendment 8 to the Florida Constitution is off the November ballot. The Tallahassee judge ruled today that the League was correct in its claim that Amendment 8 was misleading to voters. The amendment did not specify that local school boards would lose the right to authorize charter schools. It also bundled that proposal with two others…term limits for school boards and a civics requirement for students. Civics is already required for students; it just is not in the constitution.

“Amendment 8 was championed by Erica Donalds, a school board member from Collier County who started her own separate school board association. Her backers include a number of prominent conservatives who support school privatization. The League of Women Voters filed the complaint against Amendment 8. Here is the ruling.

“No doubt there will be an appeal.”

In a huge victory for the Florida League of Women Voters and the public, a Florida Judge struck down a proposed amendment to the state constitution that was written by privatizers and intended to confuse and deceive voters.

“A judge in Tallahassee this morning struck Amendment 8 from Florida’s November ballot, saying the three-pronged measure about schools was “misleading” and failed to inform voters about its purpose.

“The ruling was a victory for the League of Women Voters of Florida, which last month filed a lawsuit seeking to block it from the ballot, saying voters should not be asked to change Florida’s Constitution based on unclear and deceptive language.

“Amendment 8 includes three proposed changes to the state constitution, unrelated except that they all deal with public schools. The most controversial deals with charter schools and the other two with term limits for school board members and the teaching of civic literacy.

“The lawsuit focused on the section of Amendment 8 that would add a phrase that says local school boards could control only the public schools they established. It was proposed as a way to make it easier for charter schools — publicly funded privately run schools — or other new educational options to flourish. Now, charter schools need local school board approval to open, but that requirement would vanish if the proposal passed.”

In another report from Florida:

A circuit judge threw out a proposed constitutional amendment intended to advance the privatization of public schools. The amendment contained several topics including one to eliminate the state’s responsibility to provide a uniform system of public schools. Patricia Levesque, leader of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, was a member of the Constitutional Revision Commission. It is telling that the commission dared not put the question honestly to the public but concealed it.

“A Florida judge is throwing a proposed amendment dealing with charter schools off the November ballot.

“Circuit Judge John Cooper ruled Monday that the amendment proposed by the Constitution Revision Commission is misleading and does not tell voters what it really does.

“Amendment 8 combines several ideas into one amendment including term limits for school board members. But the amendment also makes it easier for charter schools to get set up around the state. Charter schools receive public money, but are run privately.”

“Cooper pointed out that the amendment does not even use the words charter schools but would affect their creation.”

This is an interesting story. Actually, I thought it was fascinating. A New York City School teacher and his wife retire to a tiny town in New Mexico. After their deaths, their possessions are sold off for small amounts of money. One of them turns out to be a de Kooning stolen from the University of Arizona Museum of Art in Tucson in 1985. Its current value is $160 million. Did they steal it? A famous stolen painting can’t be sold or displayed. Was it for their own private pleasure? Their relatives don’t believe it.

To see a photo of the painting, open the link.


Jerry and Rita Alter kept to themselves. They were a lovely couple, neighbors in the small New Mexico town of Cliff would later tell reporters. But no one knew much about them.

They may have been hiding a decades-old secret, pieces of which are now just emerging.

Among them:

After the couple died, a stolen Willem de Kooning painting with an estimated worth of $160 million was discovered in their bedroom.

More than 30 years ago, that same painting disappeared the day after Thanksgiving from the University of Arizona Museum of Art in Tucson.

And Wednesday, the Arizona Republic reported that a family photo had surfaced, showing that the day before the painting vanished, the couple was, in fact, in Tucson.

The next morning, a man and a woman would walk into the museum and then leave 15 minutes later. A security guard had unlocked the museum’s front door to let a staff member into the lobby, curator Olivia Miller told NPR. The couple followed. Since the museum was about to open for the day, the guard let them in.

The man walked up to the museum’s second floor while the woman struck up a conversation with the guard. A few minutes later, he came back downstairs, and the two abruptly left, according to the NPR interview and other media reports.

Sensing that something wasn’t right, the guard walked upstairs. There, he saw an empty frame where de Kooning’s “Woman-Ochre” had hung.

At the time, the museum had no surveillance cameras. Police found no fingerprints. One witness described seeing a rust-color sports car drive away but didn’t get the license plate number. For 31 years, the frame remained empty.

In 2012, Jerry Alter passed away. His widow, Rita Alter, died five years later at 81.

After their deaths, the painting was returned to the museum. The FBI is investigating the theft.

Did the quiet couple who lived in a three-bedroom ranch on Mesa Road steal “Woman-Ochre” and get away with it?

De Kooning, who died in 1997, was one of the most prominent painters of the midcentury abstract expressionist movement. “Woman III,” another painting in the same series as “Woman-Ochre,” sold for $137.5 million in 2006. The works of de Kooning remain among the most marketable in the world.

The Alters had moved to Cliff (population 293) in the late 1970s or early 1980s, according to the Silver City Daily Press. H. Jerome Alter, who went by Jerry, had been a professional musician and a teacher in New York City schools before retiring to New Mexico, he wrote under “About the author” in “Aesop’s Fables Set in Verse,” a book he published in 2011.

“His primary avocation has been adventure travel,” the biographical sketch says, noting that he had visited “over 140 countries on all continents, including both polar regions.”

Rita Alter, who died in 2017 at the age of 81, had worked as a speech pathologist at the local school district after the couple moved to New Mexico, the Daily Press reported. Her former co-workers remembered her as “pleasant but quiet,” a friendly woman who was good with children but didn’t volunteer much information about her life.

In 2011, a year before his death, also at the age of 81, Jerry published a book of short stories, “The Cup and the Lip: Exotic Tales.” The stories were “an amalgamation of actuality and fantasy,” he wrote in the preface. Though none were literary masterpieces, one stands out in the wake of the de Kooning discovery.

“The Eye of the Jaguar,” concerns itself with Lou, a security guard at an art museum. One day, a middle-aged woman and her 14-year-old granddaughter show up. The older woman asks Lou about the history of a prized emerald on display. Six months later, she and her granddaughter return, then leave in a rush.

“Wow, those two seem to be in a hurry, most unusual for visitors to a place such a this,” Lou thinks. He reinspects the room and realizes the emerald is gone. Running to the door, he sees the pair speeding away and runs out to stop them. The older woman floors the accelerator, crashing into Lou and killing him. Then the two speed off, leaving behind “absolutely no clues which police could use to even begin a search for them!”

Jerry Alter’s fictional tale ends with a description of the emerald sitting in an empty room. “And two pairs of eyes, exclusively, are there to see!” it concludes.

He could just as easily have been describing the de Kooning. But nobody thought of that until the painting was discovered in the Alters’ bedroom, where it had been positioned in such a way that you couldn’t see it unless you were inside with the door shut.

After Rita Alter died, her nephew, Ron Roseman, was named executor of the estate. He put the house on the market and began liquidating its contents. On Aug. 1, 2017, antique dealers from the neighboring town of Silver City came to see what was left.

One of the men, David Van Auker, would later recall at a news conference that he spotted “a great, cool midcentury painting.” They bought it, along with the rest of the Alters’ estate, for $2,000.

Silver City, an old mining town near the Gila National Forest, has a high concentration of artists. So it didn’t take long for someone who recognized the painting’s significance to wander into Manzanita Ridge Furniture and Antiques.

“It probably had not been in the store an hour before the first person came in and walked up to it and looked at it and said, ‘I think this is a real de Kooning,’ ” Van Auker told KOB 4, a TV station in Albuquerque. “Of course, we just brushed that off.”

Then another customer said the same thing. And another.

It was becoming evident that the painting might be worth more than they had originally thought. Van Auker and his partners, Buck Burns and Rick Johnson, hid it in the bathroom.

Once the painting had been secured, Van Auker did a Google search for de Kooning. That’s when he spotted an article about the theft of “Woman — Ochre” and called the museum.

“I got a student receptionist, and I said to her, ‘I think I have a piece of art that was stolen from you guys,’ ” he told Dallas-based news station WFAA. “And she said, ‘What piece?’ And I said, ‘The de Kooning.’ And she said, ‘Hold, please.’ ”

Miller, the museum’s curator, told WFAA that what made her pause was when Van Auker described how the painting had cracked, as if it had been rolled up. It was a detail that no one could have invented. The dimensions were an inch off from “Woman — Ochre,” which corresponded with it being cut out of the frame.

Van Auker took the painting home and stayed up all night with his guns, he told Tucson Weekly, getting startled every time he heard a branch scrape against the side of the house.

The next night, a delegation from the museum arrived. When Miller walked in, Van Auker told the Daily Press, the room turned silent.

“She walked up to the painting, dropped down on her knees and looked. You could just feel the electricity,” he recalled.

Authentication would later confirm that it was a perfect match for the missing de Kooning.

Over the past year, a handful of clues potentially linking the Alters to the theft have surfaced.

Several people told the New York Times that they had a red sports car, similar to the one spotted leaving the museum. The car also appears in home movies obtained by WFAA.

Some of the couple’s photos show Rita in a red coat like the one that the woman at the museum had been wearing, KOB 4 reported. And Ruth Seawolf, the real estate agent who put the Alters’ house on the market, told the Silver City Sun News that she had taken home a luggage set and, inside, found glasses and a scarf that match the police description.

“In the Alters’ day planner from 1985, they took meticulous notes about what they ate, where they went, and the medications they had,” KOB 4 points out. “On Thanksgiving 1985, they mysteriously left it blank.”

And now there’s the family photo showing they were in Tucson the night before the painting was stolen.

The investigation has been underway for a year now. The FBI has declined to comment until the case is closed.

A composite sketch of the thieves. (Courtesy of the University of Arizona)
People who knew the Alters find it hard to think of them as criminal masterminds. And opinions are mixed about whether a sketch of the suspects resembles the couple.

“Composite sketches, in hindsight, resemble the faces in the Thanksgiving photo, down to their position side by side,” the Arizona Republic wrote.

The New York Times, on the other hand, theorized: “The sketch of the female suspect — described at the time of the theft as being between 55 and 60 years old — bears a resemblance to Mr. Alter, who was known as Jerry and was then 54. And the sketch of the young man — described at the time as between 25 and 30 years old — bears a resemblance to his son, Joseph M. Alter, who was then 23.”

The Alters had two children, Joseph and Barbara. Reporters from multiple news outlets, including The Washington Post, have been unable to locate either child. Several of the couple’s acquaintances told the Times that Joseph Alter has severe psychological problems, and has been institutionalized on and off since the 1980s.

Jerry Alter’s sister, Carole Sklar, told the New York Times that the idea that her brother, his wife, or their son could have stolen the painting was “absurd,” as was the theory that her brother disguised himself in women’s clothing.

“I can’t believe Rita would be involved in anything like that,” Mark Shay, one of her former co-workers, told the Daily Press. “I could see them buying a painting not knowing where it originally came from, maybe.”

Museum officials, however, told the Arizona Republic that the painting only appears to have been reframed once during the 31 years it was missing, suggesting it had only had one owner during that time.

Something else doesn’t add up. Jerry and Rita Alter worked in public schools for most of their careers. Yet they somehow managed to travel to 140 countries and all seven continents, documenting their trips with tens of thousands of photos.

And yet, when they died, they had more than a million dollars in their bank account, according to the Sun News.

“I guess I figured they were very frugal,” their nephew, Ron Roseman, told WFAA.

Roseman couldn’t be reached for comment on Thursday evening. But not long after “Woman — Ochre” resurfaced, he told ABC13 that he couldn’t imagine that his aunt and uncle had stolen the painting.

“They were just nice people,” he said.

Arthur Camins has been a lifelong student and teacher of science and innovation.

Here is his proposal for disruptive innovation.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/18/1789193/-Want-Innovation-Disrupt-Inequity

He writes:


Let’s all answer what teachers call an essential question. The answer reveals core moral values and political judgments.

Should every child in the United States have access to the same level of high-quality education resources?

“Yes,” means bringing every public school up to the standards of class size, teaching effectiveness, curriculum and support resources, breadth of learning, and professional development for teachers that upper-middle-class families take for granted.

If you answer, “Yes,” without reservation, keep reading. If your answer is, “No,” and you want to continue to ration education resources to keep rewarding the already privileged, you can stop reading because your values will lead you in a different political direction. But I’d suggest that you develop an honest answer that you can both live with and defend when someone on the short end of resources asks you, “Why not?” to your, “No.”

Now, the follow-up question:

Is education equitable, now?

Maybe that is rhetorical because by almost anyone’s measure the answer is, “No.”

Now, some people answer, “Yes,” to the first should question, but when what they advocate for or accept is analyzed it is clear in practice they meant, “No.”

Advocates for charter schools and vouchers say, “Yes,” to the equitable should but meant, “No,” because at best those efforts help only some children and drain limited resources from the schools that other children attend.

Anyone who defends the patently inequitable practice of funding public education through widely divergent local property taxes may say, “Yes,” to the equitable should but meant, “No.”

Anyone who makes the case that turning the education of the nation’s children over to the market forces may say, “Yes,” to the equitable should but meant, “No,” because there is no arena in which competitive private enterprise has produced equity.

People who want to curb or end teachers unions may say, “Yes,” to the equitable should but meant, “No,” because states with unions have stronger education systems with better results than those without unions.

At best, there is a gap between intent and action. At worst there is dishonesty or unwillingness to define and explore the first principles that frame solutions.

What are your first principles?

Read the rest of the article.

I hope you will buy and read Andrea Gabor’s After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform.

It is ironic that Gabor is the Bloomberg chair of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York, because her book stands in opposition to almost everything Mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he had control of the New York City public schools. Bloomberg and his chancellor Joel Klein believed in carrots and sticks. They believed in stack ranking. They believed that test scores were the be-all and end-all of education. They believed that teachers and principals would be motivated to work harder if their jobs and careers were on the line every day. They created a climate of fear, where people were terminated suddenly and replaced by inexperienced newcomers. If they had brought in W. Edwards Deming—Gabor’s guiding star— as an advisor, their strategies would have been very different.

Gabor is a proponent of the philosophy of management of Deming, the management guru who is widely credited with reviving Japanese industry after World War II, by changing its culture and making it a world leader. If Bloomberg had hired Deming as his lead adviser, his strategies would have been lastting, and he might have really transformed the nation’s largest school system and had a national impact.

I first learned about Deming’s work by reading Gabor’s book about Deming titled The Man Who Discovered Quality. I read the book in 2012. I have repeatedly gone back to re-read chapter 9, the chapter where she explains Deming’s hostility to merit pay and performance rankings and his emphasis on collaboration and teamwork.

Describing his views, she wrote:

“The merit rating nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics…It is unfair as it ascribes to the people in a group differences that may be totally caused by the system that they work in.”

She wrote, citing Deming, that performance pay (educators call it merit pay) undermines the corporate culture; it gets everyone thinking only about himself and not about the good of the corporation. Everyone focuses on short-term goals, not long-term goals. If the corporation is unsuccessful, Deming said, it is the fault of the system, not the workers in it. It is management’s job to recruit the best workers, to train them well, to support them, and create an environment in which they can take joy in their work.

Deming understood that the carrot-and-stick philosophy was early twentieth century behaviorism. He understood that threats and rewards do not produce genuine improvement in the workplace. He anticipated what twenty-first century psychologists like Edward Deci and Dan Ariely have demonstrated with their social experiments: People are motivated not by incentives and fear, but by idealism, by a sense of purpose, and by professional autonomy, the freedom to do one’s job well.

In After the Education Wars, Gabor takes her Demingite perspective and writes case studies of districts that have figured out how to embed his principles.

She writes about the “small schools movement” in New York City, the one led by Ann Cook and Deborah Meier, which relied on performance assessment, not standardized tests; the remarkable revival of Brockton High School in Massachusetts, a school with more than 4,000 students; the Leander school district in central Texas, which embraced Deming principles; and the charter takeover of New Orleans.

The chapter on New Orleans is the best account that I have read of what happened in that city. It is not about numbers, test scores, graduation rates, and other data, but about what happened to the students and families who live in New Orleans. She describes a hostile corporate takeover of a city’s public schools and a deliberate, calculated, smug effort to destroy democracy. Her overall view is that the free-market reforms were “done to black people, not with black people.” She spends ample time in the schools and describes the best (and the worst) of them. She follows students as they progress through charter schools to college or prison. She pays close attention to the students in need of special education who don’t get it and who suffer the consequences. She takes a close look at the outside money fueling the free-market makeover. She explains the role of the Gates Foundation, New Schools for New Orleans, and other elements of what was essentially hijacking of the entire school system by venture capitalists and foundations who were eager to make a point about their own success as “gatekeepers” of reform. She finds that New Schools for New Orleans “functions more like a cartel than an open-source project.” It prefers “no-excuses” charter schools like KIPP. Gabor is critical of the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University for ignoring the “no-excuses” discipline policies, saying “ignoring no-excuses discipline practices at New Orleans charters is like covering the New England Patriots and ignoring Deflategate…[Douglas] Harris bristles at the suggesting that his research organization is anything but neutral in its assessments of the city’s charters. Yet ERA’s job must be especially difficult given its co-location with NSNO and the Cowen Institute on the seventh floor of 1555 Poydras Street.”

She writes wistfully of a New Orleans story that never was: “a post-Katrina rebuilding–even one premised on a sizable charter sector, albeit with better oversight and coordination of vital services like those for special-needs students–that sought to engage the community in a way that would have helped preserve, even enhance, its stake in their children’s education. What if, instead of raising the performance scores so as to lasso the vast majority of New Orleans charters into the RSD, the city had taken control of the worst schools while encouraging community groups…to lead by example. What if it had made a concerted effort to enlists dedicated, respected educators and involved citizens and parents…in the school-design and chartering process?”

Gabor’s chapter on New Orleans is a masterpiece of journalism and investigative reporting.

She concludes that “Contrary to education-reform dogma, the examples in this book suggest that restoring democracy, participative decision making, and the training needed to make both more effective can be a key to school improvement and to imbuing children–especially poor and minority children–with the possibilities of citizenship and power in a democracy.”

The LAUSD school board has an empty seat due to the resignation of charter founder Ref Rodriguez’s resignation following his conviction for money laundering.

The board will decide Tuesday whether to fill that seat.

It has the opportunity to appoint a uniquely qualified person: the legendary Jackie Goldberg.

“Perhaps you’ve heard that Jackie Goldberg is being considered for appointment to Ref Rodriguez’ vacant District 5 School board seat?

“The deal is, she won’t run for either a special election or the regular election in 2020 if the LAUSD board will appoint her to Rodriguez’ vacant seat.

“If you’re familiar with Jackie Goldberg, you may know her as a 7-times-elected official to LAUSD’s school board, the City of Los Angeles City Council and State of California Assembly.

“It’s also possible you’re familiar with her no-holds-barred rebukes at the School Board. This is a person who speaks Truth To Power and is comfortable with it.

“Because while frank, she’s not dogmatic and in truth weaves a conciliatory road of compromise and practicality even while seemingly unfazed by belting out that Truth.

“You may have heard she is “against” Charters yet that is not true. She is on record supporting Charter Schools, over and over again; yet she also fights for them to be held accountable in the same way as regular public District Schools, to have the same requirements for transparency and the equity that anchors the very foundation of our democracy: Public Education for one and all.

“When our current school board members act shocked at accusations of Trumpism among the LAUSD board and snuggling up with plutocrats, even while tacitly condoning or even protecting Rodriguez’ tenure in the midst of accumulating legal corruption charges, there is a rank disconnect with this whole sordid Ref-affair that really doesn’t wash.

“Ref Rodriguez withheld disclosure that he was under investigation for felony fraud when he accepted the Chair of LAUSD’s board; he withheld resignation from the board long enough to cast its deciding vote in favor of the controversial selection of a non-Educator as Superintendent. And he hefted this standard for Poor Governance all the while that his fellow board members and local politicos protested the flood of Poor Governance at a national level.

“To make good on their protestations of clean politics and an Ideology of Equity, Nick Melvoin, Monica Garcia, Dick Vladovic and Kelly Gonez must come together to appoint Jackie Goldberg to the LAUSD board on Tuesday, August 21.

“This will insulate the board from the next utterly bruising campaign for LAUSD5, whether as a special or regular election. For a sitting board member to be involved in the sorts of shenanigans that characterize the new normal board election, would distract and deflect from the Good Governance critical at this moment to our beleaguered school board. On their docket is the threat of strike from our teachers and the dilemma of accounting for future employee benefits, managing equity within a beleaguered system and protecting our students from social winds of change operating at a national-level.

“We are amazingly lucky to have a public servant of Jackie Goldberg’s caliber, character and integrity available to serve LAUSD5 in this moment of acute need. She is an actual exemplar of Good Governance who can provide that voice which would Represent and truly Protect LA’s children of all stripes, independent of whatever public school they happen to attend, or the theories, fears or ideology suffusing the adults surrounding them in charge of choosing where it is that they attend.

To read the rest of the post and open the many links, read the full article.

For those of us concerned about the future of public education in America, one of the most important elections this fall is the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction between Marshall Tuck and Tony Thurmond. They are both Democrats, on paper. Thurmond won the overwhelming endorsement of the Democrats, like 89% to 5% at the party’s state convention. The grassroots know who the real Democrat is and who is the puppet of the charter billionaires.

I support Tony Thurmond, a former social worker and current legislator. His first commitment is to children. I will write more about him as the election nears. California needs a State Superintendent whose first priority is meeting the needs of students, not the whims of Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, the Walton family, and Michael Bloomberg.

Marshall Tuck is a former investment banker who went into education via management of charter schools. He has won the hearts and minds of the Uber-rich.

The Republican Party has sent out fliers endorsing Tuck. No surprise. He has received campaign contributions from the Walmart family and the usual array of charter-loving billionaires who want to disrupt public schools.

He is, whether he likes it or not, the candidate of the right.

He pledged not to take money from PACs, but when the Walton heirs bundled money for him, he took it. When a notorious homophobe funded his campaign, he was sufficiently embarrassed to return the money. The rightwingers see him as the Betsy DeVos of California, but his billionaire funders will portray him as a fresh face with innovative ideas, like more charter schools.

As Jim Miller of San Diego wrote,

“The hope of Tuck’s supporters is that perhaps no one will notice. Maybe, they think, the big money will push him over the finish line this time despite the sleazy rightwing connections that would seem an anathema to voters here on the Left Coast. We can only trust that the vast majority California’s Democratic voters will join those Democrats at the state convention last week who rejected Tuck’s second bid to open California schools to the kinds of right-wing privatization schemes that have wreaked havoc elsewhere in the country.”

The #RedForEd movement in Arizona succeeded in getting an initiative on the Arizona ballot to tax the highest income people to pay for education. Arizona is one of the lowest-spending states in the nation for education.

A judge has slapped down efforts by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to block people from voting whether to hike income taxes on the rich to generate $690 million a year for education.

In an extensive ruling Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Smith acknowledged that, strictly speaking, hiking the top income tax rate from 4.54 percent to 8 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year actually increases the tax rate on those earnings by 76 percent. Similarly, taking the tax rate for earnings above $500,000 for individuals to 9 percent is a 98 percent increase over the current rate.

But Smith said that did not make it inherently misleading for organizers of the Invest in Ed initiative to describe the tax hikes as 3.46 percent and 4.46 percent, the absolute difference between the current rate and the proposed new ones.

It is true, Smith said, that technically speaking, the 100-word description of the key provisions of the measure, required by state law, should probably have said it was raising the tax rate by 3.46 and 4.46 “percentage points,” respectively.

“While that likely would be more precise, the existing summaries are not fatally misleading without that verbiage,” the judge wrote, meaning the use of the smaller numbers is not enough to block a vote.

Attorneys for the chamber had argued the use of 3.46 and 4.46 percent was misleading, causing some people to sign the petition to put the issue on the November ballot who would have balked at a measure described as hiking tax rates by 76 and 98 percent, even just for the rich.

Smith conceded that initiative organizers crafted the description “undoubtedly … to appeal to potential voters.” But he said that does not make it inaccurate or misleading.

Anyway, the judge pointed out that the full text of the initiative — including the current and proposed tax rates — were attached to the petitions, so those who might have been confused could check for themselves before signing.

Jeb Bush has been promoting school choice and disparaging public s hoops for years. Betsy DeVos was a member of the board of his Foundation for Excellence in Education until Trump chose her as Secretary of Education.

Jeb Bush invented the nutty notion of giving a letter grade to schools.

Jeb Bush zealously believes in high-stakes standardized testing and VAM. In Jeb’s Odel, Testing and letter grades are mechanisms to promote privatization.

Who funds his foundation?

See the list here.

The biggest donors in 2017 were Gates, Bloomberg, and Walton, each having given Jeb more than $1 Million for his privatization campaigns.

Aaron Regunberg is running for Lt. Governor of Rhode Island. He is 28, and he is part of the new wave of progressive Democrats trying to remake the party.

If you live in Rhode Island, please vote for him. If you don’t, please send him $5 or $10 or whatever.

Aaron was a co-founder of the Providence Student Union in 2010, which has been a remarkable activist organization that has fought for school funding, against high-stakes testing, and for student voice.

He has served for two terms in the state House of Representatives, where he has introduced and passed important legislation to protect the environment and support workers’ rights. He supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. He has been endorsed by the Working Families Party.

Having watched him lead the student movement in Providence, I know him as a strong and effective fighter for the right stuff.