Archives for the month of: November, 2018

Wired.com reports that the House Science Committee will no longer be controlled by science know-nothings.

FOR THE PAST eight years, climate science has been under a sort of spell in the House of Representatives. Instead of trying to understand it better or even acknowledging some of the field’s current uncertainties, House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) used his position to harass federal climate scientists with subpoenas while holding hearings on “Making the EPA Great Again” or whether “global warming theories are alarmist” and researchers are pursuing a “personal agenda.”

But Smith retired this year and Democrats won control of the House on Tuesday. Now some on Capitol Hill say that the anti-climate science spell may be broken.

“Hopefully we will no longer see the science committee used as a messaging tool for the fossil fuel industry,” says Rep. Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat and science committee member. “I look forward to hearings with a balance of witnesses that reflect mainstream scientific hearings instead of a small group of industry players.”

Foster, who was a particle physicist before being elected to Congress in 2008, said he also wants to see more appearances from cabinet members like Energy Secretary Rick Perry or EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to explain both their budget and their rulemaking on environmental and science issues. Neither agency head was called before Smith’s committee during his tenure, Foster says.

This is good news. The Trump administration is an embarrassment, but at least the House Science Committee will not be.

Good to have rationality and learning in one of the seats of power.

Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider talk here about school closings in Boston. Berkshire recently read sociologist Eve Ewing’s phenomenal book about school closings in Chicago, so the podcast approaches the Boston events from the perspective of the victims. If, like me, you seldom listen to podcasts, here is the transcript.

It is simply a matter of fact that corporate reformers never close schools in white communities, only in communities where parents are apparently powerless. The school closings serve the purposes of gentrification. The excuse is always “test scores,” but the effect is replacement of one group of people by another, more affluent group. It happened in Chicago, it will happen in Boston.

Boston plans to close schools serving some of the city’s most vulnerable students, so they can be redistributed to other schools. As the exchanges in the program show, these students will suffer from the changes and the displacement.

I urge you to listen or read this segment

The best book about education this year was written by a woman who is a poet, a playwright, a novelist, and soon to be the writer of a Marvel comic about “a black girl genius from Chicago.” Ewing has a doctorate in sociology from Harvard and is now on the faculty of the University of Chicago. In case you don’t know all this, I am referring to Eve L. Ewing and her new book about school closings in Chicago. The title is Ghosts in the Schoolyard: Racism and School Closings on Chicago’s South Side.

Eve Ewing was a teacher in one of the 50 public schools that Rahm Emanuel closed in a single day. Her book will help to memorialize Rahm Emanuel’s stigma as the only person in American history to close 50 public schools in one day.

Because she is a poet, the book is written beautifully. She has managed to overcome the burden of academic language, which can so often sound technical, bureaucratic, and dehumanizing. Her language goes to the heart of the experience of suffering at the hands of bureaucrats and technocrats.

She examines the school closings from the perspective of those who were its victims: students, families, communities.

The question at the heart of the book is this: Why do students and families fight to keep their schools open after the authorities declare they are “failing schools.”

She answers the question by listening to and recording the moving testimony of those who fought for the survival of their schools.

Ewing sketches the history of the Bronzeville community in Chicago, racially segregated by government action. What resulted was a community that was hemmed in but nonetheless developed strong traditions, ties, and communal bonds. One of those bonds was the one between families and schools.

She describes some of the schools that were closed, schools with long histories in the black community. Parents and students came out to testify in opposition to the closings. They spoke about why they loved their school, how their family members had proudly attended the school, only to be confronted by school officials who waved “data” and “facts” in their faces to justify closing their beloved school.

Ewing deftly contrasts the official pronouncements of Barbara Byrd-Bennett (now in prison for accepting kickbacks from vendors), who insisted that it was not “racist” to close the schools of Bronzeville with the emotional responses of the students and families, who saw racism in the decision.

Ewing writes powerfully about a concept she calls “institutional mourning.” Families experienced this mourning process as the city leaders killed the institutions that were part of their lives and their history. The school closings were “part of a broader pattern of disrespect for people of color in Chicago,” they were part of “a formula of destruction” intended to obliterate memory, history, and tradition. The act of closing schools was integral to gentrification. And indeed, Chicago has seen a mass exodus of a significant part of its black population, which may have been (likely was) the purpose of the school closings and the removal of black neighborhoods.

Institutional mourning, she writes, “is the social and emotional experience undergone by individuals and communities facing the loss of a shared institution they are affiliated with—-such as a school, church, residence, neighborhood, or business district–especially when those individuals or communities occupy a socially marginalized status that amplifies their reliance on the institution or its significance in their lives.

Ewing asks:

“What do school closures, and their disproportionate clustering in communities like Bronzeville, tell us about a fundamental devaluation of African American children, their families, and black life in general? Is there room for democracy and real grassroots participation in a school system that has been run like an oligarchy?”

Byrd-Bennett spoke about a “utilization crisis” that required the closure of schools in Bronzeville and the dispersion of their students. Ewing offers a counterpoint, seeing the schools in the black community “as a bastion of community pride” and a long-running war over “the future of a city and who gets to claim it. There is the need to consider that losing the school represents another assault in a long line of racist attacks against a people, part of a history of levying harmful policies against them, blaming them for the aftermath, then having the audacity to pretend none of it really happened. There is the way some of these policy decisions are camouflaged by pseudoscientific analysis that is both ethically and statistically questionable. There is our intensely segregated society to account for, in which those who attend the school experience a fundamentally different reality than those who have the power to steer its future. And finally, there is the intense emotional aftermath that follows school closure, which can have a profound, lasting effect on those who experience the closure even as it is rarely acknowledged with any seriousness by those who made the decision.”

One bright spot in her book is the story of the successful resistance to the closing of the Walter H. Dyett high school in Bronzeville. She explains who Walter H. Dyett was, why the school was important, and why the community fought to keep the school named for him open. Dyett was a musician and a beloved high school music teacher; he taught in Bronzeville for 38 years. The school bearing his name may be the only one ever named for a teacher. A dozen community members, led by Jitu Brown of the Journey for Justice Alliance, conducted a hunger strike that lasted for 32 days. Only by risking their lives were they able to persuade the Chicago Mayor and his hand-picked Board to invest in the school instead of closing it.

Why do parents fight to save their schools, a fight they usually lose? She writes, “They fight because losing them [their schools] can mean losing their very world.”

I have underlined and starred entire paragraphs. Certainly, the testimony of students at public hearings, which was very moving. Also Ewing’s commentary, which is insightful.

At the hearing concerning the proposed (and certain) closing of the Mayo elementary school, students talked about the shame they felt.

One student, a third grader, testified:

My whole class started breaking out crying, so did my teacher. We walked through the halls in shame because we didn’t want Mayo to close. When I’m in fourth grade, I was really thinking about going to the fiftieth year anniversary, but how can I when Mayo is closing?

The shame was on Rahm Emanuel and Barbara Byrd-Bennett, but the students somehow felt culpable for what was done to them.

Another student from Mayo said:

Every day I go to school, we sing the Mayo song, and we are proud to hear the song. We are proud to sing the song every…every day. All I want to know is, why close Mayo? This is one of the best schools we ever had.

The book reads like a novel.

Let me add that I have waited for this book for a long time, not knowing if it would ever be written. History told from the point of view of those who were acted on, rather than the point of view of those at the top of the pyramid. Whose story will be told and who will tell it? Eve Ewing has told it.

I found it difficult to put down.

Jan Resseger notes a few straws in the wind that suggest a lessening of enthusiasm for charter schools.

First, she says, is the close race between Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck in California. The usual charter-loving billionaires poured millions into Tuck’s campaign, who had twice as much money to spend as Thurmond. The polls predicted a romp for Tuck, given his name recognition (he ran for the same position four years ago, but especially his money in hand. Early returns showed Tuck winning. But then the results reversed, and Thurmond has been leading. Are Californians waking up to the threat posed by charter schools, where accountability is minimal?

Then there was the legislative elections in New York State. Governor Cuomo had a $35 million campaign chest, largely from the Wall Street-Hedge Fund crowd who want to privatize everything. Cuomo rewards his donors. But woe to the charter industry, Republicans and fake Democrats were booted out of the State Senate, and the New Democrats want to improve public schools, not charter schools.

Important straws in the wind.

Daniel Dale is a reporter for the Toronto Star. This article appeared in the New Zealand Herald. He is obsessed with fact-checking Trump. During the 2016 campaign, Trump said, “No one respects women more than me.” Recently he said, “No one is less racist than me.” He is a master at projecting his own faults on others. The classic example occcurred during one of the presidential debates when Hillary said, We don’t need a president who is a puppet of Putin,” and he immediately said, “you are the puppet,” and then they both again said, “you are the puppet,” like children in a schoolyard. Recently in Paris, at a meeting of European leaders, a photographer snapped a photograph of Putin approaching Trump, and Trump was uncharacteristically beaming. He usually scowls. For Putin, an unusual big smile.

Dale writes:


I’ve made it my mission to fact-check every word Donald Trump utters as president. That means trying to watch every speech, read every transcript, decipher every tweet. I’ve accidentally established a reputation for using Twitter to point out that he’s lying within seconds of him telling a lie.

People sometimes ask in response how I can blast out these corrections so quickly. But I have no special talent. My secret is that Trump tells the same lies over and over.

On his fifth day in office, Trump baselessly alleged widespread voter fraud. He did the same thing this past week. In his third month in office, Trump falsely claimed that the United States has a $500 billion trade deficit with China. He has said the same thing more than 80 times since.

Listen to this president long enough, and you can almost sense when a lie is coming. If Trump tells a story in which an unnamed person calls him “sir,” it’s probably invented. If Trump claims he has set a record, he probably hasn’t. If Trump cites any number at all, the real number is usually smaller.

Fact-checking Trump is kind of like fact-checking one of those talking dolls programmed to say the same phrases for eternity, except if none of those phrases were true. As any parent who owns a squealing Elmo can tell you, the phrases can get tiresome. I’m sure my Twitter followers get bored when I remind them that Trump wasn’t the president who got the Veterans Choice health-care program passed (Barack Obama signed it into law in 2014 ), that U.S. Steel is not building six, seven, eight or nine new plants (it has recently invested in two existing plants) and that foreign governments don’t force their unsavory citizens into the lottery for U.S. green cards (would-be immigrants enter of their own free will).

I keep saying that foreign governments don’t do this, though, because Trump keeps saying they do. I believe that journalists need to be just as tireless in combating the president’s lying as the president is in telling the lies, no matter how repetitive or pedantic it can sometimes make us seem.

I’m a Canadian reporter, the Washington bureau chief for the Toronto Star. I wasn’t sent here to cover the honesty beat. I do most of the fact-checking on my own time, spending weekday nights and painful Sundays staring at rally transcripts in my pajamas.

My American colleagues have done wonderful investigative and explanatory journalism on Trump. But with some notable exceptions, like The Washington Post’s terrific fact-checking team led by Glenn Kessler, I don’t think U.S. media outlets have been persistent enough in fighting a daily battle for truth itself.

I began making a comprehensive list of Trump’s false claims in September 2016, two years after a wild four years covering infamous Toronto Mayor Rob Ford . Having spent so much time contemplating a homegrown liar, it fast became clear to me that Trump’s serial dishonesty was a central feature of his campaign. But his avalanche of deception was being treated as a sideshow to the real news rather than as the news itself — relegated to reporters’ Twitter feeds rather than featured in the headlines where it belonged.

There has been some incremental improvement in the coverage. But I still see the same troubling failures two years later. Even the best of Trump’s interviewers seldom challenge him when he lies to their faces — despite the fact that almost all of the lies have been fact-checked before.

Trump regularly makes 20 to 30 false claims in his rally speeches. But if you watched a network news segment, read an Associated Press article or glanced at the front page of the newspaper in the city that hosted him, you’d typically have no idea that he was so wholly inaccurate.

If a car salesman told you 36 untrue things in 75 minutes, that would probably be the first thing you told your friends about your trip to the dealership. It should have been the first thing we all told our readers about Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

This issue is so urgent because Trump is getting worse and worse. In 2017, he averaged three false claims per day. In 2018, it is about nine per day. In the month leading up to the midterms: a staggering 26 per day. By my count, he’s now at 3,749 false claims since his inauguration. The Post, which tracks both false and misleading claims, has tallied up to 6,420.

Meanwhile, the press continues to blast out the lies unnoted. Two weeks ago, Axios and the AP uncritically tweeted his nonsense about the United States being the only nation to grant birthright citizenship. (They updated after they were criticized.) It happened again Monday, when Trump earned credulous tweets and headlines from ABC, NBC and others for his groundless assertion about “massively infected” ballots in Florida.

There’s nothing especially strategic about much of Trump’s lying; he does it because that is what he has always done. But the president also knows the lies will be broadcast unfiltered to tens of millions of people — by some of the very outlets he disparages as “fake news.”

Many of Trump’s false claims are so transparently wrong that I can fact-check them with a Google search. It’s the comically trivial ones that stand out. I’ll never forget when the Boy Scouts of America got back to me to say that the president of the United States had made up a nonexistent phone call in which the Scouts’ chief executive supposedly told him he had given “the greatest speech that was ever made” to a Scout Jamboree.

For reporting such things, I receive vitriolic emails from some of Trump’s fervent supporters. More interesting to me are the messages from well-meaning skeptics. Why waste your time, people ask, when facts obviously don’t matter anymore?

I disagree. There is a substantial constituency for accurate information about the claims of a president who is, polls suggest, seen as untrustworthy by two-thirds of voters. Even people who generally know that Trump isn’t honest might not know how he is misleading them, and they might want to. The media shouldn’t treat Trump’s devotees as America’s only relevant people.

We also shouldn’t write off every devotee. I’ve met Trump voters who insist that he’s honest, even Trump voters who say they like his lying because it bothers “elites” like me. But I’ve also spoken to Trump voters like Bruce Brown of rural Pennsylvania , who gets much of his information from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Soon after I interviewed Brown about last year’s Obamacare debate, he messaged to tell me he’d discovered my list of Trump’s false claims.

I braced for him to say I’d tricked him by sounding friendly, that I, too, was fake news. Instead, he wrote: “Wow . . . I kind of knew he wasn’t truthful much of the time, but not to the degree of hundreds of lies in such a short period of time. Thanks for opening my eyes.”

Investigative reporter David Sirota writes in The Guardian about the money spent by big oil and gas corporations to block efforts to protect the environment.

In the last election, the fossil fuel industry spent heavily to defeat referenda that would protect the environment.

In state after state, the industry attacked efforts to promote renewable energy.

He begins:

The world’s leading scientists issued a report warning of total planetary dystopia unless we take immediate steps to seriously reduce carbon emissions. Then, oil and gas corporations dumped millions of dollars into the 2018 elections to defeat the major initiatives that could have slightly reduced fossil fuel use.

Though you may not know it from the cable TV coverage, this was one of the most significant – and the most terrifying – stories of the midterms. For those who actually care about the survival of the human race, the key questions now should be obvious: is there any reason to hope that we will retreat from “drill baby drill” and enact a sane set of climate policies? Or is our country – and, by extension, our species – just going to give up?

Before answering, it is worth reviewing exactly what happened over these last few months, because the election illustrates how little the fossil fuel industry is willing to concede in the face of a genuine crisis. While the dominant media narrative has been about Democratic voters euphorically electing a House majority and yelling a primal scream at Donald Trump, the loudest shriek of defiance was the one bellowed by oil and gas CEOs. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that we have only 12 years to ward off an ecological disaster, those oil and gas executives’ message to Planet Earth was unequivocal: drop dead.

That message was most explicit in Colorado, where a drilling and fracking boom is happening in the middle of fast-growing suburbs. With oil and gas companies seeking to put noxious derricks and rigs near population centers, local activists backed a ballot measure called Proposition 112 that aimed to make sure new fossil fuel infrastructure is set a bit farther away from schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods and water sources.

“The initiative was an angry response to a state government so awash in fossil fuel campaign cash that it has blocked legislation to merely allow regulators to prioritize the health and safety of residents when those regulators issue permits for drilling and fracking.

“According to an industry analysis, Proposition 112 would have left much of the oil and gas reserves near Denver accessible for extraction, but yes, it is true – at a time when climate scientists say we must keep fossil fuel deposits in the ground, there was a chance the initiative would have stopped some extraction.

“The oil and gas industry could have looked across a Colorado ravaged by climate-intensified wildfires, droughts and floods and decided to accept the modest measure, knowing that the initiative is the absolute minimum that is required at this perilous moment. Instead, fossil fuel companies did the opposite: they poured $40m into opposing Proposition 112 and spreading insidious agitprop.

“Despite scientists warning that fracked natural gas threatens to worsen climate change, oil and gas operatives in the state promoted cartoonishly dishonest claims that burning fossil fuel “is cleaning our air and improving health”. As Colorado’s local media effectively erased the term “climate change” from its election coverage, the industry managed to defeat the measure by outspending its proponents 40-to-1. In the process, fossil fuel companies’ scorched-earth campaign was a clear statement that in the face of an environmental cataclysm, oil and gas moguls will not accept even a tiny reduction in their revenues.“

The largest charter chain in Utah is American Prepartory Academy. It is operated by a for-profit entity. The schools are very profitable. The owners keep their operations secret, as they probably assume that the public would not be happy to learn how much tax dollars go into their bank accounts, not the schools.

One of its founders and its Executive Director, Carolyn Sharette, is also the registered agent of a for-profit management company, American Preparatory Schools, Inc., which will charge the school $5,805,200 for the 2018-2019 school year. That’s a bump up from the $4.6 million the company got last year.

Where’s the money going?

State funding, your taxpayer dollars, comprise 88 percent of American Prep’s budget. But what do the students get with that money?

Sharette isn’t telling – and she doesn’t have to. The State Charter School Board does not demand accountability from contracted companies working for the school.
The Board told KUTV’s Beyond the Books that it monitors a charter school’s student performance and adherence to its charter and state and federal rules. But Sharette’s for-profit company is beyond its reach.

It’s also a family affair. Two of Sharette’s siblings, brother Howard Headlee and sister Laura Campbell, are co-founders of American Prep.

Sharette and Campbell sit on its executive board. Headlee registered three 501(c)3 companies that own the school’s property and buildings and lease them back to the schools. And at least two of Sharette’s children have been employed by the for-profit management company, American Preparatory Schools, Inc.

Where’s your tax money going, Utah citizens?

None of your business!

Once it goes to this charter chain, there is no accountability.

Satisfied?

Angie Sullivan teaches young children in a Title 1 school in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada. She writes an email blast to every legislator in the state.

Angie writes:

Folks in other states are banning for-profit charter management corporations.

With good reason.

Whole campaigns are built on banning for-profit scams in other states. We need folks in Nevada to notice this mess.

http://m.wtol.com/toledonewsnow/db_347256/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yQmm1LBE

Attendance should match testing.

In Nevada we have for-profits corporations claiming they have thousands enrolled but only a few test?

We cannot afford to give $18 Million to a corporation if they are only providing $1 million in educational type services. Note: I did not state learning – because providing a type of service is NOT learning if students do not graduate.

Meanwhile, we elect lawmakers who sit on for-profit charter boards, manage a for-profit branch, or work at a for-profit charter. They will sit in legislative session next year and have their hands on bills to line pockets. Note: I did not say teach kids, because that is NOT the bottom line or mission of a corporation. No wonder no one graduates.

Let’s not repeat mistakes of other states which expanded charters at an alarming rate and now the tax payer suffers. Nevada has a big enough mess already.

Nevada Charters are definitely not a remedy or an example. It is a travesty that a real public school in CCSD is threatened with being turned into a charter. Scary.

It is not fiscally responsible to allow Academica, Gulen Corals, or On-lines to run rampant without the same transparency and accountability required by all public schools.

Time for a for-profit charter moratorium and to clean up this $350 million mess.

CCSD Parents need to be demanding expansion of CCSD Magnets – which are the top schools in the nation – instead of these scammers. And we need funding to maintain quality in Magnets. That is what works. People need to demand what works.

The Teacher,
Angie

Indianapolis has been a major target for the privatization movement. A group called The Mind Trust, funded by billionaire foundations, has led the effort to destroy public education, while presenting its motives as benign and admirable.

The corporate reform attack on Indianapolis was described vividly in this post by Jim Scheurich and Gayle Crosby.

Tom Ultican wrote about the destructive role of The Mind Trust in Indianapolis, which claims to be allied with the Democratic Party.

Locals, lacking the resources of the privatizes, have fought to save their public schools.

Here is a report on the recent elections from Dountonia Batts, an active member of the Network for Public Education:

Sending a clear message that the community is fed up with corporate reform, voters in Indianapolis ousted two incumbents on the Indianapolis Public School (IPS) Board, replacing them with opponents of the district’s corporate reform agenda.

First-time candidates Taria Slack and Susan Collins were backed by the IPS Community Coalition (the Indianapolis AROS Chapter) and the local teachers union and ran against incumbents backed by Stand for Children and the Mind Trust, a corporate reform institute. Slack and Collins are vowing to pressure the IPS administration to improve transparency, genuine community collaboration and engagement, and hold the administration accountable.

Indianapolis schools have been under persistent attack by corporate reformers over the past decade, with increasing numbers of charters and public school closings. The district—under the tutelage of the Mind Trust—has also created so-called “Innovation Schools,” which are IPS schools that are handed over to a charter management organization. Innovation Schools have complete autonomy, a school board that is not elected by the public, and receive public funds. Additionally, this structure allows charters under the IPS umbrella to take advantage of district-provided services such as transportation and special education services at no cost. This victory is proof that ordinary citizens can defeat big money. People power trumps money power. IPS Community Coalition is organized, prepared, and ready to reclaim our schools

Sincerely,

Dountonia S. Batts, J.D., M.B.A., N.S.A.

Why is Betsy DeVos afraid? In her first year in office, some protestors in Washington, D.C., objected to her visit at a public school.

Since then, she has had a special detachment of U.S. Marshalls giving her round-the-clock protection.

Other cabinet secretaries have encountered protestors. None of them are guarded by U.S. Marshalls.

Of course, she is very special. She is a billionaire.

She doesn’t leave her office much. She has many days off.

She seldom visits schools, and in the few instances where she does, it is either a religious school or a charter school.

Her public schedule indicates that she doesn’t have much to do, perhaps a meeting once a day, perhaps not.

Others have commented on her many “unexcused absences.” A year ago, the media realized that she was absent from her job about 1/3 of the time and that she has poor work habits. Presumably she still has round-the-clock protection even when she skips work. A teacher who skipped work 1/3 of the time would be terminated.

Does she lack grit?

Does she have a guilty conscience about removing protection from transgender students, indebted college students, and sexual assault victims?

My guess is that she has led a sheltered life and wants to avoid public contact to the greatest extent possible.