Archives for the month of: September, 2018

Jim Miller, professor at the San Diego City College, has posed exactly the right question: Who will save us from “our billionaire saviors?” The question was inspired by Andrea Gabor’s excellent new book After the Education Wars, and by the possibility that billionaire Michael Bloomberg will run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

In New York City, we remember him as a data-driven, test-loving, top-down Reformer, who hired non-educator Joel Klein to terrorize teachers and principals and introduce choice and charters. The result was a public relations success and an education failure. Much boasting, vast disruption, constant reorganization. Change for the sake of change. Bloomberg is one of the billionaires identified in the NPE report about the super-rich who fund anti-public education candidates in state and local elections.

Miller writes:

After failing to prop-up Antonio Villaraigosa’s flagging gubernatorial campaign last June, Michael Bloomberg apparently spent the summer pondering whether it would be wiser for him to personally save the United States rather than waste his time trying to rescue California by proxy. Last week the New York Times reported that Bloomberg was mulling a run for the Presidency as a Democrat because that represented the most viable path to victory. As the Times story observed, while Bloomberg has engaged in some good work on guns and the environment, many of his other positions might not be very likely to win over the liberal base of the Democratic Party…

As Andrea Gabor, (ironically) the Bloomberg chair of business journalism at Baruch College/CUNY, writes in her excellent new book After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform, Bloomberg’s reign in New York hardly represented a golden era for education: “to be an educator in Bloomberg’s New York was a little like being a Trotskyite in Bolshevik Russia—never fully trusted and ultimately sidelined…”

The business reformers came to the education table with their truths: a belief in market competition and quantitative measures. They came with their prejudices—favoring ideas and expertise forged in corporate boardrooms over knowledge and experience gleaned in the messy trenches of inner-city classrooms. They came with distrust of an education culture that values social justice over more practical considerations like wealth and position. They came with the arrogance that elevated polished, but often mediocre (or worse), technocrats over scruffy but knowledgeable educators. And most of all, they came with their suspicion—even their hatred—of organized labor and their contempt for ordinary public school teachers.

What this has resulted in, according to Gabor, is that the corporate reformers “adopted all the wrong lessons from American business.” Rather than innovating by harnessing “the energy and the knowledge of ordinary employees,” who are the most “knowledgeable about problems—and solutions” because they know the process, the billionaire boys club has favored a punitive, hierarchical, undemocratic, one-size fits all approach that has hurt students more than it has helped them.

Wedded to a factory-style approach to education, corporate reformers “focused on a Taylorite effort to standardize teaching so that teachers can be easily substituted like widgets on an assembly line. This despite the fact that, on average, ‘unions have a positive effect on student achievement’ and the best charter schools are often the independent charters that give teachers voice, often via union contracts.” All of this reflects the fact, Gabor reminds us, that “the corporate education-reform movement has deeply undemocratic roots.”

What this movement has brought us is not pretty. We have systematically devalued the “art” of teaching in favor of a dumbed-down, accountability regimen that prefers standardization and over-testing to empowering educators and students to think more creatively and independently. It has assailed teachers and attacked educational culture to such a degree that it should be no surprise that our society has become increasingly anti-intellectual and hostile to fact-based analysis. As Gabor observes of the Trump era:

[T]he election of this larger-than-life Chucky demagogue, with his multiple bankruptcies and divorces, his sexual predations and business malfeasance, his hate-filled speeches and tweets, also represented a failure of corporate-style education reform as it has taken shape over more than twenty years. Among an electorate that often favors “ordinary” people they can identify with, Trump, the consummate philistine—unread and uninterested, crude, unthinking, and disdainful of facts and any attempt at rational truth—holds up a dystopian mirror of the electorate…

It may not have been the intended outcome of those who simply wished to produce a more useful workforce, but it does show the profound limits of their debased instrumentalism. Hence Gabor again observes: “Corporate education reformers cannot be directly blamed for the ascendance of Trump. However, over two decades of an ed-reform apparatus that has emphasized the production of math and ELA test scores over civics and learning for learning’s sake has helped produce an electorate that is ignorant of constitutional democracy and thus more vulnerable to demagoguery.”

Gabor’s thorough study does more than just criticize the failures of corporate education reform. She outlines how multiple examples of innovative educational practices across the country have defied the technocratic dictates of the well-heeled and focused instead on “bottom-up” strategies that have relied heavily on “a participative, collaborative, deeply democratic approach to continuous improvement, drawing on diverse constituencies—including students, teachers, and local business leaders—in their effort.”

Thus, there are some insights to be found in approaches that rely on “local democracy” that can help do right for our children and the society at large. Following these examples, rather than the lead of self-important billionaires, is where we can find hope for a better education system and a more democratic society.

As for Bloomberg, maybe he should just go away and let the people lead. We’ve had too much “reform” from self-declared rich saviors and philanthrocapitalists already. In fact, it’s long past time that we save ourselves from them.

Don’t miss the chance to attend the Network for Public Education’s fifth annual conference in Indianapolis on October 20-21.

This will be the best one yet.

Register now!

Amazing keynote speakers! Amazing panels!

Meet your friends and allies!

Here is the link for registration.
https://events.bizzabo.com/NPE18INDY

Here is the link that shows all of the panels–they are wonderful this year!
https://events.bizzabo.com/NPE18INDY/agenda

Join us in the belly of the beast, Mike Pence country!

Meet the parents and teachers who are fighting to reclaim their public schools from the privatizers!

This story appeared in the Washington Post, by Haben Girma, a disability rights lawyer, author and public speaker.


I am Deaf-blind, and I almost missed my first lesson about Helen Keller. In second-grade U.S. history, my teacher scheduled Helen Keller’s story after a lesson in square-dancing. I remember my heart racing as I danced a do-si-do with my not-so-secret crush. So when our teacher told us about Keller, I was not-so-secretly distracted.

But throughout my schooling, snippets of Keller’s story would come back to me. I would turn to the nearest computer wondering: How did she . . . ? In high school, I finally read her books and marveled that she excelled in college before the Americans With Disabilities Act, before digital Braille and before, of course, the Internet. She pioneered through the world’s unknowns in a way that inspired me as I carved a path for myself. If my school hadn’t taught us about Keller, I might have do-si-do’d a different direction entirely. When I tell people about the path I did take — law studies at Harvard University and work as a disability rights advocate — they think back to their own lessons on Keller. Learning her story sparks something students carry with them into adulthood.

Last week, the Texas Board of Education took a step to remove Keller from the state’s social studies curriculum. The board preliminarily voted to update the K-12 curriculum by eliminating several historical figures, including Keller. Proponents said dropping the Keller lesson would save teachers 40 minutes. The board will make a final decision in November.

Spending 40 minutes annually to teach children about Keller is not just worthwhile but also imperative. The story serves as a gateway to conversations about disability and virtue. It introduces students to Braille, a tactile reading method that blind people have used since 1824. Children also learn about American Sign Language, a visual language developed by the Deaf community. Keller held her hand over another person’s to feel each letter as it was signed, then finger-spelled or voiced her response. She spent her life teaching people about the abilities of people with disabilities. She also advocated for women’s rights, racial equality and workers’ advancement. Keller wanted to make the world better for all of us.

Keller’s story provides an irreplaceable lifelong lesson of optimism, hard work and community inclusion. She labored over her studies, learning to read and write in multiple languages. She set high expectations for herself, gaining admission to Radcliffe College, the sister school to Harvard. Her teachers and friends converted books from print to Braille. She developed a community of friends and colleagues who welcomed her, finger-spelling and all. Successful people with disabilities such as Keller foster these inclusive communities. Disability itself is often not a barrier; the biggest barriers exist in the social, physical and digital environments.

People are dying waiting for disability. What’s taking so long?

In the last two years, nearly 19,000 Americans died waiting for disability. The wait has soared from around 350 days in 2012 to nearly 600 in 2017. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
The techniques a Deaf-blind person uses to navigate those barriers in a sighted-hearing world fascinate students. Whenever I do presentations at schools, students express boundless curiosity about Keller’s story. How could she climb a tree? How did she read if she couldn’t see?

If Texas removes Keller’s story from the curriculum, when will non-disabled children learn about disability? Her story is too often the only disability story. Deleting Keller from the curriculum can mean deleting disability from the curriculum.

Of course, relying on a single story to represent the disability community is in itself a problem. The disability community is diverse, full of rich stories of talented people improving their communities. Students need to learn more about disability, not less. It touches all of our lives. Our bodies change as we age. Anyone can develop a disability at any point or witness a family member or friend do so. More than 57 million Americans have a disability. We number 1.3 billion worldwide — the largest minority group.

Teaching students about disability through the stories of people such as Keller prepares them to be better citizens, better friends and better family members. Keller’s optimism, hard work and commitment to justice inspire them to the same virtues.

Texas will make a final decision in November. We have time to educate the state’s Board of Education on the importance of keeping Keller in the curriculum. Keller herself would urge people to stay optimistic: “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement; nothing can be done without hope.”

Keller’s words have sparked movements in the past. Why not now?

The United Teachers of Los Angeles has already authorized a strik if necessary.

The proposal by Superintendent Austin Beutner brings a strike closer. He is a former equity investor, briefly publisher of the LA Times, and board member of the company that owns the National Enquirer. He grew up in Holland, Michigan, where his father was a top executive in the DeVos empire. He has no experience in dictation.

The UTLA reacted to his propsal.

Attached is UTLA’s response to Beutner’s latest (proposed two days prior to the first meeting of UTLA with a govt-appointed mediator.)

Breaking: Beutner Offers Insulting Bargaining Proposal

After refusing to negotiate for 56 days and two days before mediation, Supt. Austin Beutner today announced a bargaining proposal through the LA Times before giving it to UTLA and the 33,000 educators we represent.

In a stunning example of disrespect to LAUSD educators and students, his so-called proposal offers a 3 percent salary increase with another 3 percent contingent on district finances, increased workload and cuts to salary point opportunities, while also making it more difficult to qualify for secure healthcare in retirement. The proposal on class size is unacceptable, and makes no improvements for 90% of our schools. He made no movement on Section 1.5, which allows the district to increase class size at anytime, rendering his proposal useless.

“Beutner’s proposal does nothing to make our schools better. This is an insult to our members, to our students and to our parents,” said Arlene Inouye, Chair of the Bargaining Team. “This stunt reveals he is more interested in fighting against educators at any cost than saving our school district.”

This proposal was sent to the LA Times and various special interest blogs like Speak Up before it was sent to the UTLA bargaining team.

Beutner continues to refuse to use the $1.86 billion in reserves. His proposal does not provide relief from toxic over-testing, does nothing to address the undermining of our schools by privatization and makes no investment in community schools, counselors, nurses, or other critical staff. It does nothing to reinvest in special education, early education, adult and bilingual education.

“Our 98% strike vote and our growing parent and community support are a powerful affirmation of our bargaining proposals, which call for a better future in LAUSD. Our vote is also an indictment of Beutner, an out-of-touch millionaire whose grand plan is to starve our schools of resources rather than reinvest in them,” said UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl. “Beutner’s proposal attempts to buy us off with a modest salary increase. But we can see through it. This is the beginning of the war on healthcare and an acceleration of a downsizing that will drive students and families away rather than attract them to the district.”

Read Beutner’s full proposal here, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Since I began work as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, I’ve visited about 50 schools and listened to the stories of many students. One young man — I’ll call him Sam — has faced a lot of adversity: an abusive and incarcerated father, learning challenges, placement in foster care and taking responsibility for his younger siblings. Yet he is still at school every day, aiming for a career as an aeronautical engineer.

Sam’s courage and resilience are inspiring. We need to demonstrate that same kind of courage and resilience to improve Los Angeles schools. District data show that out of 100 students entering high school, 12 will drop out, 79 will graduate and only 12 will earn a college degree. The status quo is not good enough. We have work to do and the kids are counting on us.

At every school I’ve visited, I have also met caring, dedicated, hardworking teachers who are doing everything they can to help students like Sam — engaging them in the classroom, overseeing after-school clubs, working evenings and weekends to develop lesson plans, and finding time to work one-on-one with youngsters who need specific help. There are great teachers in all of our schools. Los Angeles Unified needs to pay them better, and provide them with more support and more professional development.

There are great teachers in all of our schools. Los Angeles Unified needs to pay them better.

That is why Los Angeles Unified made a contract offer today to United Teachers of Los Angeles that provides for a fair pay raise for teachers, additional teachers in high-needs schools, teacher pay aligned with student needs, and increased transparency in our labor contracts.

Los Angeles Unified proposes to add teachers and reduce class size at 15 middle schools and 75 elementary schools in communities that have the highest needs. The offer includes additional pay for teachers who take courses in STEAM curriculum (science, technology, engineering, arts and math), in dual language instruction, in early literacy intervention and other areas that help teachers better support their students. It provides for a 6% pay raise for all teachers, which would match agreements we’ve already reached with our administrators, cafeteria workers, bus drivers and office workers, who represent more than 60% of the district’s workforce. And we’ll create a “plain language” version of the UTLA contract to help students, families and communities to have a voice in all of the issues the contract covers.

We are eager to discuss these proposals with UTLA when we begin mediation on Sept. 27, as part of the state-mandated negotiation process. Our offer creates a pathway for the district and the union to avoid a strike that would hurt L.A.’s most vulnerable students and families. Los Angeles Unified is committed to the lawful bargaining process, but we also remain open to any other way to resolve the issues fairly and transparently.
Los Angeles Unified and UTLA want many of the same things — smaller class sizes, better pay for teachers, and additional teachers, counselors, librarians and support staff in every school. But we need more money to pay for those things; we can only spend what we have. UTLA’s “last, best and final” offer would bankrupt L.A. Unified and lead to the unprecedented layoffs of about 12,000 employees, including teachers. Los Angeles Unified simply cannot agree to do that.

I share the teachers’ frustration that in just a generation, California has gone from top of the charts in education funding and student achievement to near the bottom. That is not acceptable; something must be done. The question is what?

Teacher strikes across the country in the last year have been statewide, not local actions. That’s because state legislatures control education funding. Los Angeles Unified gets about 90% of its funding from Sacramento. Instead of L.A. Unified and UTLA fighting each other, we should, together with our other labor partners, students, families and communities, jump on our yellow school buses and head to the Capitol to start working to increase funding for public education. The current per student amount of $16,000 is simply not enough.

I’m the son of an immigrant and a schoolteacher and the proud product of public education. I would not have the privilege of leading Los Angeles Unified without the strong foundation my public education provided. It is my singular goal to help rebuild public education and make sure all Los Angeles Unified students get the great education they deserve.

Austin Beutner is superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Since some people belittle the significance of sexual assault and shrug off its consequences, this letter by Andrea Constand bears reading. It was written as a “victim impact statement” and printed in the Washington Post. She was the first woman to accuse Bill Cosby of sexual assault in 2004, and no one believed her. Since her trials, 60 women have come forward with similar charges. Cosby was sent to prison today for a sentence of at least three years.

Constand wrote:

To truly understand the impact that sexual assault has had on my life, you have to understand the person that I was before it happened.

At the time of the assault, I was 30 years old, and a fit, confident athlete. I was strong, and skilled, with great reflexes, agility and speed. When I graduated from high school in Toronto, I was one of the top three female high school basketball players in Canada. Dozens of American colleges lined up to offer me basketball scholarships, and I chose the University of Arizona.

For four years, I was a shooting guard on the women’s basketball team, scoring up to 30 points a game. It was an amazing time in my life, and I learned a lot, developed a circle of really good friends, many of them teammates, and travelled around the US to compete.

The only downside was that I missed my family, and developed severe homesickness. When it started to affect my studies and my training, my Dad came up with the idea to move his own father and mother to Tucson.

My grandparents were in their late 60s when they gamely agreed to move more than 2,000 miles to help me adjust to life away from home. They were retired after selling their Toronto restaurant business, and figured the warm, dry climate would suit them anyway. I had always enjoyed a special relationship with my grandparents. Not only had I grown up in their home, but I spoke Greek before I spoke English. They got an apartment close to mine, and I was there most days, talking and laughing over my favourite home-cooked meals. The homesickness quickly evaporated.

After I graduated from the University of Arizona with a degree in Communications, I signed a two-year contract to play professional basketball for Italy. Going pro took my athletic training to a whole new level. Once again, I thrived in the team atmosphere, and enjoyed travelling Europe although we rarely saw more than the basketball venues and the hotel rooms where we slept.

When my contract ended, my former coach from the University of Arizona encouraged me to apply for a job as Director of Operations for the women’s basketball team at Temple University in Philadelphia. It was a busy, challenging position that required me to manage a lot of logistical details so that others could focus on training the team for competition. I also made all the travel arrangements and went to tournaments with the team and support staff.

It was a great job but after a few years, I knew I wanted to pursue a career in the healing arts, my other passion. I also wanted to work closer to home, where I would be reunited with my large, extended family, and many friends.

I knew who I was and I liked who I was. I was at the top of my game, certain that the groundwork provided by my education and athletic training would stand me in good stead whatever challenges lay ahead.

How wrong I was. In fact, nothing could have prepared me for an evening of January 2004, when life as I knew it came to an abrupt halt.

I had just given my two-month notice at Temple when the man I had come to know as a mentor and friend drugged and sexually assaulted me. Instead of being able to run, jump and pretty much do anything I wanted physically, during the assault I was paralyzed and completely helpless. I could not move my arms or legs. I couldn’t speak or even remain conscious. I was completely vulnerable, and powerless to protect myself.

After the assault, I wasn’t sure what had actually happened but the pain spoke volumes. The shame was overwhelming. Self-doubt and confusion kept me from turning to my family or friends as I normally did. I felt completely alone, unable to trust anyone, including myself.

I made it through the next few weeks by focusing on work. The women’s basketball team was in the middle of the Atlantic 10 tournament, and was travelling a lot. It was an extremely busy time for me, and the distraction helped take my mind off what had happened.

When the team wasn’t on the road, however, I was in the basketball office at Temple, and was required to interact with Mr. Cosby, who was on the Board of Trustees. The sound of his voice over the phone felt like a knife going through my guts. The sight of the man who drugged and sexually assaulted me coming into the basketball office filled me with dread. I did everything my job required of me but kept my head down, counting the days until I could return to Canada. I trusted that once I left, things would get back to normal.

Instead, the pain and anguish came with me. At my parents’ house, where I was staying until I got settled, I couldn’t talk, eat, sleep or socialize. Instead of feeling less alone because I was back home with my family, I felt more isolated than ever. Instead of my legendary big appetite and “hollow leg” — a running joke in my family — I picked at my food, looking more like a scarecrow with each passing week. I was always a sound sleeper but now I couldn’t sleep for more than two or three hours. I felt exhausted all the time.

I used the demands of my new courses to opt out of family gatherings and events, and to avoid going out with friends. As far as anyone could tell, I was preoccupied with my studies. But the terrible truth about what had happened to me — at the hands of a man my family and friends admired and respected — was swirling around inside me.

Then the nightmares started. I dreamed that another woman was being assaulted right in front of me and it was all my fault. In the dream, I was consumed with guilt, and pretty soon, that agonizing feeling spilled over into my waking hours too. I became more and more anxious that what had happened to me was going to happen to someone else. I grew terrified that it might already be too late, that the sexual assaults were continuing because I didn’t speak out.

Then one morning I called my mother on the telephone to tell her what had happened to me. She had heard me cry out in my sleep. She wouldn’t let me put her off, and insisted that I tell her what was wrong. She wouldn’t settle for anything less than a complete and truthful explanation.

Reporting the assault to the Durham Regional police in Toronto only intensified the fear and pain, making me feel more vulnerable and ashamed than ever. When the Montgomery County District Attorney outside Philadelphia decided not to prosecute for lack of evidence, we were left with no sense of validation or justice. After we launched civil claims, the response from Mr Cosby’s legal team was swift and furious. It was meant to frighten and intimidate and it worked.

The psychological, emotional and financial bullying included a slander campaign in the media that left my entire family reeling in shock and disbelief. Instead of being praised as a straight shooter, I was called a gold-digger, a con artist, and a pathological liar. My hard-working middle-class parents were accused of trying to get money from a rich and famous man.

At the deposition during the civil trial, I had to relive every moment of the sexual assault in horrifying detail in front of Mr Cosby and his lawyers. I felt traumatized all over again and was often in tears. I had to watch Cosby make jokes and attempt to degrade and diminish me, while his lawyers belittled and sneered at me. It deepened my sense of shame and helplessness, and at the end of each day, I left emotionally drained and exhausted.

When the case closed with a settlement, sealed testimony and a non-disclosure agreement, I thought that finally — finally — I could get on with my life, that this awful chapter in my life was over at last. These exact same feelings followed me throughout both criminal trials. The attacks on my character continued, spilling over outside the courtroom steps attempting to discredit me, and cast me in false light. These character assassinations have caused me to suffer insurmountable stress and anxiety, which I still experience today.

I still didn’t know that my sexual assault was just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, more than 60 other women have self-identified as sexual assault victims of Bill Cosby. We may never know the full extent of his double life as a sexual predator but his decades-long reign of terror as a serial rapist is over.

I have often asked myself why the burden of being the sole witness in two criminal trials had to fall to me. The pressure was enormous. I knew that how my testimony was perceived — that how I was perceived — would have an impact on every member of the jury and on the future mental and emotional well-being of every sexual assault victim who came before me. But I had to testify. It was the right thing to do, and I wanted to the right thing, even if it was the most difficult thing I’ve ever done. When the first trial ended in a mistrial, I didn’t hesitate to step up again.

I know now that I am one of the lucky ones. But still, when the sexual assault happened, I was a young woman brimming with confidence and looking forward to a future bright with possibilities. Now, almost 15 years later, I’m a middle-aged woman who’s stuck in a holding pattern for most of her adult life, unable to heal fully or to move forward.

Bill Cosby took my beautiful, healthy young spirit and crushed it. He robbed me of my health and vitality, my open nature, and my trust in myself and others.

I’ve never married and I have no partner. I live alone. My dogs are my constant companions, and the members of my immediate family are my closest friends.

My life revolves around my work as a therapeutic massage practitioner. Many of my clients need help reducing the effects of accumulated stress. But I’ve also trained in medical massage at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and often help cancer patients manage the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. I help many others too — people with Parkinson’s, arthritis, diabetes, and so on. Some of my clients are in their 90s. I help them cope with the ravages of old age, reducing stiffness, aches and pains.

I like my work. I like knowing that I can help relieve pain and suffering in others. I know that it helps heal me too.

I no longer play basketball but I try to stay fit. Mostly, I practice yoga and meditation, and when the weather is warm, I like to pedal my bike up long steep hills.

It all feels like a step in the right direction: away from a very dark and lonely place, toward the person I was before all this happened.

Instead of looking back, I am looking forward to looking forward. I want to get to the place where the person I was meant to be gets a second chance.

I know that I still have room to grow.

[‘Taste the wine’: What prosecutors say Bill Cosby did, in graphic detail]

I would like to acknowledge some of the people who have helped me get here today. I will always be grateful for their counsel, friendship and support.

First of all, my lawyers Dolores Troiani and Bebe Kivitz. These two smart, courageous women have been there for me since the beginning. Without them, I would never have been able to navigate this legal and emotional minefield.

I will also be eternally grateful to Kevin Steele, the District Attorney of Montgomery County, who had the guts to believe in me, in the truth, and for trusting that the justice system could get things right — even if the process had to be repeated.

I also want to thank Mr Steele’s incredible team of professionals, including assistant district attorneys Kristen Feden and Stewart Ryan, detectives Richard Shchaffer, Mike Shade, Harry Hall, Jim Reape, Erin Slight, Kiersten McDonald, victims services, and many others, for their passion for justice, their skill, and their hard work and perseverance despite the odds.

Thank you to the jurors for their civic duty and great sacrifices.

Thank you to all of the friends, old and new, who have stood by me. You know who you are, and each and every one of you has made a huge difference. Please know that.

Last but not least, I want to thank my incredible family: my mother, Gianna, and my father, Andrew, my sister Diana, her husband Stuart, and their beautiful daughters — my nieces Andrea and Melanie. Thank you for proving over and over again that if there’s one thing in life you can always count on, it’s family.

The Washington Post reports that world leaders laughed at Trump’s usual lies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/25/world-leaders-stumble-upon-potent-response-trumps-claims-laughter/

President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims since being inaugurated. The question journalists often ask themselves is whether he even realizes it. On the rare occasion when he puts himself in a position to answer for his falsehoods, he has declined to defend them and blamed it on something he had heard. Trump’s aides have privately vented that he does not seem to be moored by real-world facts, even when they are explained to him repeatedly.


But on Tuesday, Trump got subtly called out for a whopper he often tells — and by his fellow world leaders, no less.
Appearing at the United Nations, Trump recycled a bogus claim he often makes at partisan rallies, in Fox News interviews and in formal settings: that he has accomplished more to this point in his presidency than his predecessors. The problem is this time he said it in front of an audience that might actually question it.


“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” Trump said.


The assembled world leaders gave a bit of an audible response, and Trump was caught off-guard.


“America’s — so true,” he said with a smile.
The buzz at that point became audible laughter.
Trump chuckled and said, “Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay.


Then more laughter, accompanied by some applause.


The laughter was not 100 percent at Trump’s expense. Some in the audience seemed to genuinely appreciate his quip about being surprised at the response. But the whole thing clearly started with audibly expressed skepticism about one of Trump’s more hyperbolic and fabulist claims. It was, at its core, about Trump making a ridiculous claim.




Trump’s response was telling, too. Just as he seemed genuinely taken aback when NBC’s Peter Alexander called out his electoral college number-fudging last year, he did not seem to anticipate anybody questioning his claims of nearly unprecedented success as a president. It was as if he never even countenanced it.


“Later in the speech, Trump made another overzealous claim: that Germany is becoming “totally dependent” upon Russian energy — which is similar to claims he made at a NATO summit a few months back.
The German delegation’s response: more laughter.”

The story goes on to cite a tweet by Trump saying that Obama made America an international laughing stock.

Haha. Look who is the international laughing stock now. On videotape.

Bill Phillis writes:


State Inspector General holding up a report of an investigation into a multi-million contract that the state steered to IQ Innovations, a company owned by the ECOT Man

The ECOT Man’s donations to political campaigns and political party organizations opened up several spigots connected to state revenue streams. IQ Innovations, created by the ECOT Man, received millions via a contract steered to it by state officials. The Ohio State University was a section of the pipe through which the funds flowed. The chancellor of the Board of Regents was an operative in turning on the spigot.

The attached news release provides yet another sordid piece of the ECOT scandal.

Why the corruption? Because some state officials not only allow it to happen but helped it happen.

“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
– John Adams, September 10, 1785

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

What Kavanaugh remembers about his high school years is in conflict with what he and others wrote in his high school yearbook, where he boasted about being a member of the “100 Keg” club and the “Renate Alumnius.” After his yearbook boasting came to light, some of the women who publicly supported him withdrew their names, including one who made a national television endorsement of his character. The woman identified as “Renate” was appalled to see what the members of the football team, including Kavanaugh, said about her.

“A few women who signaled support for Kavanaugh have pulled back that support. First there were the two Kavanaugh classmates who withdrew from a statement his lawyers issued disputing the claims of the second woman to come forward, Deborah Ramirez. Louisa Garry — who taped a commercial for Kavanaugh that was getting widespread TV airplay — and Dino Ewing contacted The New Yorker and requested that their names be removed, saying they do not “wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.”

“And now there’s Renate Schroeder Dolphin, one of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school and signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying “he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.” At least, that’s what she believed until she found out a few days ago that Kavanaugh and his high school football buddies boasted of sexual conquests with her, mentioning her name at least 14 times in their yearbook, calling themselves “Renate Alumni.”

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, told The New York Times. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.” Dolphin has changed her tune: “I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.”

The virtual charter industry is booming in Michigan, despite its abysmal performance.

Michigan, DeVos’s home state, has outsourced its education system as much as possible to for-profit entrepreneurs. Michigan is the only state where 80% of charters are operated by for-profit corporations.

http://www.wkar.org/post/study-virtual-schools-growing-mi-despite-poor-outcomes#stream/0

According to this report, one-quarter of the 101,000 students attending virtual charters did not pass a single class.

The graduation rate is far below that of public schools.

Michigan’s standing on NAEP has fallen to the bottom 10 since the widespread adoption of school choice.

Michigan is an exemplar of PROFITS MATTER, NOT EDUCATION.

Brad Miller is a lawyer in North Carolina who served in the State Legislature. This article appeared in “Verdicts,” a publication of legal analysis.

Miller writes:

The Trump administration’s “school choice” plan is destined for court, and maybe not with just the usual suspects as plaintiffs.

The administration’s budget proposes deep cuts to programs to help low-income and other disadvantaged students at traditional public schools, which Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her allies call “government schools” and regard as sinister institutions somewhere on the socialism spectrum. But the budget proposes an additional $1.4 billion to expand charter schools and to provide vouchers for religious and other private schools. The proposal would allow, and perhaps require, “portability” of local and state funds. When a child enrolls in a charter or private school, funds would “follow the child.”

School choice is the New Coke of education policy. The supposed superiority of charters and private schools is based on dogma, not objective research. Students in public schools perform every bit as well when the circumstances of the students are taken into account.

Charters have become a separate school system in many districts, and separate is inherently unequal now just as it was in 1954, even if the basis for separation is more subtle. Charters recruit kids who do not have special needs, will not be discipline problems, and are likely to perform well in any school. Charters often expel other kids for pretextual disciplinary reasons, who then enroll in traditional public schools. Civil and disability rights organizations have already successfully challenged some of the discriminatory policies that make traditional public schools the high-risk pool in some districts. More such challenges are certain.

But there may also be an unexpected legal challenge.

Moody’s Investors Service published research in 2013 that found that charter schools were a growing credit risk for public schools. The risk was largely the result of “state policy frameworks that support charter school growth,” such as permissive rules for the authorization of new charters and increased enrollment in existing charters, as well as per-pupil or other funding formulas based upon enrollment. According to Moody’s, public schools that lost enrollment to charters “often cut academic and other programs, reducing service levels and thereby driving students to seek educational alternatives, including charter schools,” which “can exacerbate the loss of state and local revenues, as portions of both will follow those students to charter schools.”

Some analysts say the cycle that Moody’s described became a “death spiral” for some public school systems, such as Detroit’s. At the end of 2011, Michigan’s governor signed legislation to remove the statutory cap on university-approved charter schools. Charter schools in Detroit increased from 52 to 64 the next year, and the explosive growth continued. For the 2005-2006 school year there were 130,719 students enrolled in Detroit Public Schools and 25,802 enrolled in charters. For the 2013-2014 school year, there were 48,511 students enrolled in DPS and 58,612 enrolled in charters. State per-pupil funding for 2013-2014 was $7,246 for charter schools and DPS alike. Charters are not responsible for any part of DPS’s debt.

Moody’s reduced the Detroit Public Schools’ credit rating from B3 to Caa1, two notches above imminent default, on March 24, 2015. Moody’s specifically cited the “growing charter school presence” as a cause for the system’s financial difficulty.

Charter-Friendly Legislation May Violate the Contract Clause

Investors in public school bonds may have a claim that such charter-friendly state legislation impairs their contracts with public school districts in violation of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The courts have been sympathetic to challenges to state legislation under the Contract Clause where the contract impaired is the state’s or a political subdivision’s own, especially where the contract is a debt instrument sold on financial markets, and most especially where the legislation is a change in taxes or spending, as opposed to new public health and safety protections.
Enrollment-based funding formulas in Michigan and elsewhere resulted in the loss to public schools of far more funds than the incremental cost of educating children enrolled in charters. Public schools lost funds for fixed costs, including debt service for bonds to pay for school construction, renovation, and equipment to serve the expected enrollment.

The powers of the purse are core legislative functions. State legislatures have discretion to set tax and spending priorities, the Supreme Court said in 1977 in United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, but “complete policy deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate where the State’s self-interest is at stake. A government entity can always find a use for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised.” The Court cautioned that state legislatures may change spending priorities, but “the obligations of its own contracts” are not simply one priority for legislatures to consider “on a par with other policy alternatives….”

State legislation to encourage the growth of charters has detrimentally affected the financial framework of public schools. Investors relied on the existing framework when they decided to purchase schools bonds. And states that enacted legislation to encourage the growth of charter schools have generally provided no alternative revenue to pay public schools’ debt.

Most states that have created parallel systems of traditional public school and tax-funded charter schools have not paid for the additional costs with additional taxes. Instead, most states have paid for charters from traditional public schools’ funds and thus lowered the priority of the obligations of their own contracts with investors in public school debt. The Contract Clause forbids that policy alternative.

Any Remedy Would Be a VictoryW

It is unlikely that a successful Contract Clause challenge would result in the elimination of funding for existing charters. A court would more likely enjoin new charters or the expansion of existing charters, or perhaps limit the future diversion of funds to the incremental costs of educating children who enroll in charters to protect the contract rights of bondholders. Any remedy a court might fashion, however, would be an enormous victory for traditional public schools.

A legal challenge by bondholders would be more than defensible to the public. DeVos’s clueless testimony at her confirmation hearing was an embarrassment to billionaire dilettantes everywhere, but “alternatives” to public schools remain wildly popular with what Bernie Sanders calls “the billionaire class.” Most Americans are more skeptical. Americans don’t regard public schools as creeping socialism or public school teachers as union thugs, and don’t support looting public schools to pay for charters or private schools.

It is a fight that supporters of traditional public schools should welcome.