Archives for the month of: May, 2020

Parent advocates in Dallas are concerned about the fiscal impact of new charter schools at a time when the budget of the public schools are stretched thin.

Lori Kirkpatrick wrote here about the dangers of introducing new and unwanted charters.

Public education advocates don’t understand how it makes sense to introduce new charters when existing public schools are in fiscal trouble.

They expressed concern that all available state funds should be focused on helping existing district and charter schools meet the challenges of COVID-19, not on opening new charter schools. Public funds for education should be targeted where they are needed the most.

Trustee Joyce Foreman stated, “DISD is experiencing unbudgeted and unanticipated costs to ensure that DISD students have equal access to technology for virtual learning, and meals for continued health and wellness. This is not the time for reduced resources to our public school district that serves the vast majority of students who also have the greatest needs.”

Advocates also raised specific issues about the proposed new campuses including:

Waxahachie Faith Family Academy (FFA) – an alternative education accountability campus (AEA) with significantly lower accountability standards than most Dallas ISD schools and the district. For example, 4th graders at FFA scored significantly lower that 4th grade students at a Dallas Elementary school that is only 2.2 miles (4 minutes) from the FFA campus but has similar student demographics:

– 27% on state tests for reading (23 points lower) and 26% for math (32 points lower) than the Dallas ISD elementary school.

Uplift Education Wisdom Prep – the proposed Uplift campuses would result in an estimated revenue loss of up to $100 million to Dallas ISD over 10 years, using projected estimates of full enrollment.

Both proposed charter campuses are located in close proximity to academically acceptable Dallas ISD schools. The new FFA site at 200 W. Wheatland Road is located only 2.1 miles (5 minutes) from DISD’s academically acceptable David W. Carter High School (C rated). The expansion of Uplift Wisdom Prep at 301 W. Camp Wisdom Road is located 1.4 miles (< 5 minutes) from B rated DISD campus Umphrey Lee Elementary School, 0.4 miles (1 minute) from DISD’s Terry Elementary School (C rated), and 2.7 miles from DISD’s David W. Carter High School. Wisdom Prep is C rated and was Improvement Required the prior year under the name Pinnacle.

These new campuses are proposed through the charter amendment process which allows an existing charter to open a new campus anywhere in Texas once they meet certain TEA requirements. The approval is at the sole discretion of the TEA Commissioner of Education. There is no public notice about the amendment requests to open new campuses, and little opportunity for public input. Most parents and community members are unaware that these charters are proposed to open new campuses in their neighborhoods.

Foreman stated, “This lack of public notice and input in the charter expansion process goes against our need for more not less transparency in how decisions are made about the use of public funds. Parents spoke out against the FFA expansion in 2018 – and they are still against any such expansions.”

Lori Kirkpatrick issued the following alert for parent advocates for public schools in Dallas:

CHARTER ACTION ALERT: DALLAS

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: NEW CHARTER CAMPUS – WAXAHACHIE FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY

Waxahachie Faith Family Academy (FFA) has asked the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for approval to open a new charter campus in Dallas at 200 W. Wheatland Road to serve grades 9 – 12. FFA currently operates charter campuses in Dallas (Oak Cliff) and Ellis counties.

Please send an email to Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, if you are concerned about the expansion of Faith Family Academy in Dallas. If possible, please post this information on social media to inform other parents and community members. The TEA decision had not been made as of May 5, 2020, but it is expected soon, so please act now.(mike.morath@tea.texas.gov)

Here are critical concerns about Waxahachie Faith Family Academy:

• All available state funds should be used to help existing public schools respond to the on-going challenges of COVID-19. Districts are facing unbudgeted and unanticipated expenses needed to support students and their families. In this dire budget situation, we should focus state funds where they are needed most.

• The proposed Waxahachie FFA campus will be located in close proximity to a Dallas ISD High School rated academically acceptable. The new FFA site at 200 W. Wheatland Road is located only 2.1 miles (5-minute drive) from DISD’s David W. Carter High School which is rated academically acceptable for the last three years.

• Waxahachie FFA does not inform parents on its website that it is evaluated under alternative education accountability (AEA) provisions. Campuses and districts registered under AEA provisions meet significantly lower accountability standards than most Dallas ISD schools and the district. Yet FFA does not include this critical information on its website to fully inform parents about FFA’s accountability standards. In fact, FFA states that: “Faith Family Academy is an A-rated district by the Texas Education Agency – higher than every public school district in our service area!”

• Waxahachie Faith Family Academy does not budget to adequately meet critical needs of its students. FFA spends zero dollars on guidance and counseling services, compared to a per student expenditure of $436 by Dallas ISD for counseling. Students in grades 9 – 12 especially require counseling services to help them with class schedules, academic advising, and college access.

• Waxahachie Faith Family Academy spends less on instruction and more on administration. FFA is an alternative education accountability school with lower accountability standards than most Dallas ISD schools and serves students at risk of dropping out. Yet, it spends $563 less per student on instruction than Dallas ISD schools, and more than double per student on general administration expenses.

• Waxahachie underserves students with special needs, enrolling only 5.7 percent compared to the state average of 9.6 percent. It’s a serious concern that a charter school should be allowed to expand unless it serves close to the state average of students with special needs. In addition, Waxahachie’s 2019 Special Education Determination Status is “Needs Intervention” which raises additional concerns about the services it delivers to this student population.

Civil rights groups are suing to block the use of charter schools to desegregate public schools in North Carolina.

About Us News
Facebook ‌ Twitter ‌

May 18, 2020

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES NORTH CAROLINA LAW ALLOWING BREAKAWAY, SEGREGATED CHARTER SCHOOLS

By Wendy Lecker

Parents and civil rights groups in North Carolina have sued the State challenging a law passed in 2018 authorizing predominately white, wealthy towns in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district to break away and form town-run, separate charter school districts that could exclude non-town residents. In the lawsuit filed in Wake County Superior Court on April 30, plaintiffs charge that the law violates North Carolina’s state constitutional guarantees of a uniform public school system and equal protection and will exacerbate persistent racial and socio-economic segregation in the county district.

The plaintiffs in the case, North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. State, are the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Branch of the NAACP and two parents with children in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. They are represented by Mark Dorosin, Elizabeth Haddix and Genevieve Bondaies Torres of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the law firm of Tin, Fulton, Walker and Owen, P.L.L.C.

History of School Segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) has a long history of school segregation. The district was the subject of a major desegregation case in the 1960’s, Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Board of Education. In that case, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court placed CMS under federal supervision to ensure school desegregation. In 1999, white parents succeeded in ending the desegregation order, and CMS was removed from federal court oversight.

CMS then implemented a voluntary, “neighborhood” school assignment plan which, over time, resulted in school resegregation within the district. By 2010, CMS was almost as de facto segregated as it was before Swann was filed to end de jure segregation.

In 2016, the CMS school board developed a plan to increase diversity and reduce the number of schools with high concentrations of poor students. The plan met with strong opposition by elected officials and parents in the mostly white and affluent towns of Cornelius, Huntersville, Matthews, and Mint Hill – all towns within the CMS district.

The Charter Breakaway Law

Desegregation opponents pushed the introduction of HB 514 in 2017 in the North Carolina legislature. The bill would allow the towns of Matthews and Mint Hill to establish municipal, and predominately white, charter schools with admissions preferences that would authorize by law the exclusion of non-resident, low-income students and students of color.

In an effort to appease legislators supporting the bill, the CMS board drastically scaled back its desegregation plan, limiting its effect to only 5% of the district’s students.

At the same time HB 514 was introduced, a State legislative committee studied the viability of breaking up large school districts in the state. That report concluded, in 2018, that breaking up large districts would exacerbate disparities in resources between high- and low-wealth schools and would provide no educational benefit.

In reaction, desegregation opponents dug in their heels and amended the municipal charter legislation to include the CMS towns of Cornelius and Huntersville. The bill passed in June 2018, and because it was considered local legislation, it did not require the governor’s signature under North Carolina law. In vetoing companion legislation to allow teachers in the new charter school district to participate in the state retirement and insurance programs, Governor Roy Cooper made clear that “municipal charter schools set a dangerous precedent that could lead to taxpayer funded resegregation.”

A companion funding bill was passed to facilitate the municipal charters under HB 514 by allowing towns to spend local property taxes to fund charter schools without requiring a voter referendum, as previously required by North Carolina law.

The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit charge that these new laws will drain resources from CMS, increase segregation in CMS, create segregated town charter schools, and deny low-income, non-white students equal access to higher-funded schools.

The Role of Charter Schools in School Segregation

This lawsuit is the latest in an emerging trend of litigation under education guarantees in state constitutions challenging states’ use of charter schools to foster segregation. In 2018, the Minnesota Supreme Court allowed a challenge to school segregation in Minneapolis-St. Paul to proceed to trial, noting that segregated schools cannot be “uniform” under that state’s constitution. Plaintiffs in that case charge that the formation of segregated charter schools in those cities and their exemption from desegregation plans play a major role in school segregation.

In February 2020, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted Education Law Center’s petition to review the Commissioner of Education’s approval of the expansion of charter schools in Newark without evaluating the charters’ segregative impact on the district or their negative impact on the educational resources available to students in Newark district schools.

Given the growing body of research documenting the lasting negative effects of segregation on the academic and life outcomes of public school students and a history of lax or almost no regulation by states over their charter school programs, these lawsuits seek to hold states accountable to ensure charter schools authorized by their laws do not undermine or jeopardize students’ rights to education under state constitutions.

Wendy Lecker is a Senior Attorney at Education Law Center

Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Director
Education Law Center
60 Park Place, Suite 300
Newark, NJ 07102
973-624-1815, ext. 24
skrengel@edlawcenter.org

TIME magazine has a depressing expose about the $160 billion in tax breaks that the CARES Act awards to the real estate industry, including the family business of Jared Kushner.

The CARES Act is the coronavirus relief package of $2 trillion intended to save mom-and-pop businesses and other small businesses at risk of failing due to the prolonged shutdown.

When Democrats realized that the real estate moguls had pulled a fast one, they wrote repeal legislation that has no chance of passing in the Senate.

TIME’s analysis of drafts of the bills and lobbying disclosures, along with interviews with half a dozen staffers and lobbyists, show that the provisions originated with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office, which was working with other Republicans on the committee, and were lobbied for heavily by the real estate industry, including a prominent real estate trade group, of which Jared Kushner’s family’s company is a member…

Jared Kushner’s family’s company, Kushner Companies, is a member of NMHC’s advisory committee, according to the organization’s website. That membership appears to be the lowest level of membership and requires an annual fee of $5,000. The NMHC website also lists Avi Lebor, Kushner Companies’ director of acquisitions, as the contact for the company on the membership directory. Lebor was in prison with Kushner’s father and joined Kushner Companies after they were both released, according to Bloomberg. The Trump Organization, which will also benefit from the tax provisions, is not publicly listed as a member of NMHC.

War profiteers.

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post criticizes the New York Times for not allowing its reporters to tell the unvarnished truth. The Times suffers from “both side-ism.” The Times’s pretense of neutrality ends up falsifying the truth and distorting reality. The reality is that the president of the United States is an ignorant and malicious tyrant who endangers our democracy, our future, and the world.

There’s a provision in the New York Times ethics guidelines that limits what a news-side reporter may say during a television interview. “Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times,” note the guidelines.

Donald G. McNeil Jr. is a science and health reporter at the New York Times. He’s been analyzing the coronavirus story ever since the pandemic started roaring. His latest stop on that tour was an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN, where, well, let’s just say that McNeil said things that could not appear under his Times byline:

“We completely blew it for the first two months of our response. We were in a headless-chicken phase, and yes, it’s the president’s fault, it is not China’s fault. The head of the Chinese CDC was on the phone to Robert Redfield on Jan. 1, again on Jan. 8, and the two agencies were talking on Jan. 19. The Chinese had a test on Jan. 13; the Germans had a test on Jan. 16. We fiddled around for two months, we had a test on March 5 and it didn’t work. We didn’t have 10,000 people tested until March 15. So we lost two months there, and that was because of incompetent leadership at the CDC, I’m sorry to say — it’s a great agency, but it’s incompetently led, and I think Dr. Redfield should resign. And suppression from the top: I mean, the real coverup was the person in this country who was saying, you know, ‘This is not an important virus, the flu is worse, it’s all going to go away, it’s nothing.’ And that encouraged everybody around him to say, ‘It’s nothing, it’s nothing, it’s nothing.’ I had the same problem at the Times — I was trying to convince my editors, ‘This is really bad; this is a pandemic.’ It took a while to get them, it took a while to get anybody to believe this. … Getting rid of Alex Azar was a mistake — he was actually leading a dramatic response and then … in February he was replaced with Mike Pence, who’s a sycophant.”

Later in the interview, McNeil alighted on Trump’s briefing-room riffs about disinfectant and light as treatments for coronavirus. “This is not somebody whose grasp of the science is even third-grade-level,” said McNeil.

Had McNeil attempted to write in a New York Times story that “we blew it,” his editors might have inserted: “As coronavirus wended its way around the world, the Trump administration missed several critical opportunities to blunt its impact in America, according to interviews with 56 experts and current and former administration officials.”

Had McNeil attempted to write that the CDC was “incompetently led,” his editors would have inserted: “Decisions reached by Dr. Redfield over several weeks in January and February have drawn criticism from public health experts, who point to a slow-footed response that resulted in unnecessary deaths across the country.


“

Had McNeil attempted to write that Pence is a “sycophant,” his editors would have inserted: “The White House swapped Azar for Pence, a leader more attuned to the president’s preferences and sensibilities, not to mention his taste for official praise.”


Then again, we don’t necessarily need to resort to make-believe New York Times writing voice. There’s actual news copy from the newspaper on Redfield’s shortcomings. On March 28, the newspaper published an investigation by six bylined reporters on how the administration lost month stumbling over itself in pursuit of a workable coronavirus test. “Dr. Robert R. Redfield, 68, a former military doctor and prominent AIDS researcher who directs the C.D.C., trusted his veteran scientists to create the world’s most precise test for the coronavirus and share it with state laboratories. When flaws in the test became apparent in February, he promised a quick fix, though it took weeks to settle on a solution,” reads the story, which goes on to note Redfield’s consensus approach and “deliberative” temperament.


In a statement to the Erik Wemple Blog, Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said, “In an interview with Christiane Amanpour today, Donald McNeil, Jr. went too far in expressing his personal views. His editors have discussed the issue with him to reiterate that his job is to report the facts and not to offer his own opinions. We are confident that his reporting on science and medicine for The Times has been scrupulously fair and accurate.”


That mild brushback seems appropriate in this case, though a specific mention of McNeil’s call for Redfield’s resignation might have been worthwhile. Such activism, after all, is extreme even for a veteran newsman exercising his analytical muscles in a freewheeling cable-news interview.


The mainstream media’s stated goal of neutral and officious-sounding analysis from reporters has been challenged repeatedly under President Trump. That’s because when it comes to Trump, sheer recitations of fact often double as condemnations.

“Good morning, presidential candidate Donald Trump last night told CNN that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever,” a news anchor might have told her audience in August 2015.




The same dynamic emerges in a famous 2016 letter that the New York Times wrote after then-candidate Trump threatened a lawsuit against the paper for its coverage of Trump’s treatment of women. The letter from New York Times lawyer David McCraw read, in part:


“Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”


Facts, all of them — though they’re such terrible facts that they sound like biased denunciations.
Such is the coronavirus backdrop — unfathomable pronouncements of incompetence, indifference and cluelessness from the president in public appearance after public appearance. What’s an experienced health reporter to say?

Andrea Gabor spells out what many educators and parents fear: the collapse of state revenues will endanger our most vulnerable children. After 20 years of pouring billions into testing and consultants, let’s see how many “reformers” demand smaller classes and insist on protecting school funding.

How many state leaders will have the will and the courage to protect the children?

She begins:

The New York State budget recently signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo delivered a one-two punch to public schools. It wiped out the benefits of $716.9 million in federal stimulus aid and hit poor school districts hardest.

New York’s double-whammy could be replayed in states nationwide as the coronavirus pandemic devastates state and local finances. In Massachusetts, business groups are recommending that the state delay meeting the obligations of last year’s ground-breaking school-funding law, which called for $1.5 billion in extra spending over seven years, much of it for poor districts. And this week, when California is expected to release a revised version of the state budget, schools could see as much as 15 percent, or $1,700 per student, slashed in 2020-2021 — more than the worst year of the Great Recession.

It might seem unreasonable to focus on school-financing inequities in the middle of the pandemic, which is crushing economic activity across the board and pulverizing government budgets. However, lessons from the 2008 recession suggest that unless states start planning soon both for extra education funding and a more equal distribution of the money, the damage to poor districts will be long-lasting.

That’s why states should resist the temptation to follow New York’s lead. Cuomo’s cuts shredded the part of the budget that provides extra funding to districts with comparatively low tax bases. Thus, poor New York districts will receive, on average, $230 less per student than they would have gotten under January’s budget proposal, compared to $30 less per student in affluent districts — even taking into account the federal stimulus — according to an analysis for Chalkbeat by Drew Atchison, an education economist.

Instead, states should lessen the damage to the poorest districts, which suffered the brunt of Great Recession cuts. In 2008, high-poverty districts lost more than three times the $500-per-pupil funding loss of affluent districts. Test scores and graduation rates suffered. Although school funding increased after recent nationwide teacher protests, at least a dozen states still fund schools well below pre-2008 levels.

With state and local tax revenues, which account for most education spending, expected to fall sharply, the federal government will have to play a much larger role in supplementing education budgets. That means that Education Secretary Betsy Devos should shelve her plan to finance pet programs of dubious value, like vouchers and virtual schools, with the $13.5 billion school-aid package passed by Congress in the wake of the pandemic.

Future federal aid should require states to protect funding for the poorest districts, which can make a huge difference to disadvantaged students.

I hope the rest of the article is not behind a pay wall. You should read it in full, along with the kinks to sources.

Steven Singer digs into Betsy DeVos’s decision to eliminate federally mandated standardized tests this year.

And he goes farther to predict that the tests might be canceled again next year.

The real danger (to the tests, not the students), he says, is that they would not be secure if they were offered online. Under ordinary circumstances, security during testing time is tight. Everyone–students and teachers–is watched to make sure no one copies down the questions. In the past, the testing corporations have even monitored social media accounts to make sure that the test questions are not revealed by teachers or students.

But if the tests were given online to students at home, parents would see how bad the tests really are, and worse, there would be no test security.

The testing corporations go to great length to ensure that their intellectual property is not copied or distributed.

He writes:

As a classroom teacher, I get to see these infernal tests. I get to see the questions.

They are not good. They are not well-written, well considered, developmentally appropriate or even good at evaluating student understanding of the knowledge they claim to be assessing.

But up to this point, anyone who gets to see the tests is sworn to secrecy including the students.

The kids taking these exams – regardless of age – are no longer treated as children. They are clients entering into a contract.

At the start of these tests, they are warned of the legal consequences of violating the terms of this agreement.

There are legal consequences to breaking the rules.

He adds:

If students were allowed to take these tests unsupervised at home, all of this legal protection would disappear.

The corporations would be much more exposed and defenseless.

THAT’S why the tests were cancelled this year.

It wasn’t because anyone rethought the value of high stakes tests – though they should have. It wasn’t because anyone had considered standardized testing’s history in the eugenics movement – which they should have. It wasn’t because anyone was worried that giving these tests would take away precious academic time – though they should have.

It was to protect the business interests that would be at risk otherwise.

Singer explains that the testing industry is already preparing for the post-pandemic future. He thinks we should plan too and plan a future that does not include the testing industry.

I have one good reason to support Joe Biden. It can be summed up in one five-letter word: Trump.

Reader Randy Abraham offers more reasons:

The twittersphere has recently been aflame over Bernie Sanders’ decision to suspend his presidential campaign, and then his recent endorsement of frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden.

His most fervent supporters contend that Biden offers them nothing beyond a “not-Trump” candidacy.

This is what I say to them.

How about a sane immigration policy that does not separate families in crisis or lock children in cages?

How about health care policy that would boost subsidies for struggling families, lower the eligibility age for Medicare, provide a public option, and negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical firms?

How about forgiving student debts for low income students that were incurred at state and community colleges and historically black colleges and universities?

How about raising the minimum wage?

How about an end to trade wars that has led to closures of factories and job losses among exporting industries?

How about an end to reckless foreign policies that are bringing us to the brink of war?

That’s nothing?

Regardless, we don’t have the luxury of demanding enthusiasm, and pointing out a lack of enthusiasm can depress moral and voter turnout.

Fortunately, we don’t have to hold our noses to campaign, support, and vote for Biden.

This country is facing probably the most monumental challenge in its history. Our economy is on life support and a disease outbreak is rampaging through the country.

Our relations with our allies is in crisis, and in that vacuum of leadership authoritarians are on the march.

This is a time for tough, proven leadership that knows how to exercise the levers of power.

During the eight years that followed the debacle of the Bush-Cheney years, the Obama-Biden administration brought the economy back to almost full employment, reformed the healthcare industry and provided coverage for 20 million people, enacted banking reform to curb the worst abuses of the financial sector, rescued two iconic automakers from insolvency, made massive investments in renewable energy, restored our strained alliances and standing in the world community, and honorably ended an ill-conceived and ruinous war.

And Biden’s considerable talents and abilities were pressed into service on Day One.

In 2009 this nation was in the throes of what was then the worst economic and financial collapse of our lifetimes, and President Obama entrusted Vice President Biden to oversee the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – better known as the stimulus.

And despite the controversy over the historic size of the stimulus package, the Obama administration met every spending deadline, and it kept costs so far under budget that it was able to finance over 3,000 additional projects with the savings.

And unlike the current coronavirus stimulus program, in 2009 we put active monitoring and oversight systems to avoid waste, mismanagement and fraud.

And VP Biden was able to convince three Republican Senators – Snowe, Collins and Specter – to break the logjam, cross the partisan aisle, and vote for the stimulus package.

A year later, he convinced Specter to switch parties and provide us with the deciding 60th vote for the Affordable Care Act.

His role in contentious negotiations with obstructionist Republicans also helped reauthorize unemployment insurance during the Great Recession, resolve a taxation deadlock, avoid a fiscal cliff, and diffuse the debt ceiling crisis.

Biden is also a recognized expert on international relations and a former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his stature and relationships with world leaders will be vitally needed as we try to repair the frayed relations that were a result of Trump’s misguided hyper-nationalist misadventures.

As a Senator, Joe Biden also chaired the Judiciary Committee and led efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included the Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women Act.

As Vice President, he was integral in President Obama’s attempt to uphold our values and America’s leadership role.

As part of that effort, President Obama wisely enlisted Biden’s talents in the use of diplomacy to solve problems and bring people of various nations together.

When we convened the US-Africa Leaders Summit — and brought along 500 business men and women to forge greater economic ties with one of the world’s fastest growing regions — we reached out to these nations as equals, and that effort culminated in the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allowed sub-Saharan countries to sell their goods in the United States duty-free and forge stronger ties with American interests.

An historic agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions provided the potential to prevent a nuclear arms buildup in an already unstable Middle East and ease regional tensions, and also possibly free up Iranian oil and gas for the European market, with the potential to undercut Russia’s ability to use its own oil and gas supplies as a geopolitical weapon to counter economic sanctions imposed by America and an energy-dependent Europe in response to Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and its illegal annexation of the Crimea.

Through years of negotiations and diplomacy, we managed to enlist the world’s great powers in the effort, overcame criticism that we would fail to engage the hostile and untrustworthy Iranians, and countered accusations that he was ensuring an Iranian doomsday bomb and exacerbating an existential threat to our ally Israel.

And finally, an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful purposes — unprecedented in the scope and aggressive intrusiveness of its inspections and enforcement regime – had been passed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council and upheld by Congress.

And due to Biden’s mastery of diplomacy and his effective use of personal relationships, this historic effort was not derailed by China’s and Russia’s habitual use of their veto powers in the UN Security Council.

In addition, easing travel restrictions and normalizing relations with Cuba marked the end of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere and promised to relieve isolation for Cuban citizens, marginalize hardliners, strengthen the hand of reformers, and undercut attempts by Russia and Venezuela to forge wider hemispheric links.

We also reached an agreement with China, the world’s largest carbon polluter, to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions — a first for China — and provide 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030; we secured an understanding with India on greenhouse gas emissions; and enlisted 190 countries, including China, to reach a historic agreement, the Paris Accord, to address climate change.

Also under President Obama and VP Biden, we also assembled a 65-nation coalition of allies — and adversaries — to combat the ISIS terrorist group, and overcame ethnic and regional rivalries in order to stand up a regional fighting force that also had the potential to serve as the model for wider regional cooperation, including eventually transitioning into an ongoing regional peacekeeping force and a regional economic development and trade partnership.

We beat back the H1N1, zika and ebola virus, and proactively placed scientists and health professionals in medical hot-spots around the world — including in China — to monitor the emergence or spread of dangerous contagious diseases.

Our attempts to broker a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine, our success in rallying Western Europe to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, our success in getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons without a fight, our determination to assemble a coalition to combat the terrorist group ISIS on their home turf, and ongoing attempts to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy marked a renewed attempt to organize a world community around something besides war and an attempt to dominate other peoples:

Under President Obama and VP Biden, we strove to reaffirm and uphold the principles that inspired us to save the world from fascism and authoritarianism, and strengthen a community of nations with the capacity to coexist and resolve problems peacefully.

Free trade agreements under negotiation with European and Asia-Pacific powers promised to establish enforceable worker and environmental protections — standards that typically are not championed by the free trade advocates and have not been enforced in past agreements – and blunt the efforts of the investor classes and financial elite to outsource jobs and factories, exploit impoverished citizens in developing countries, pit countries against each other in competition for jobs and investment, and escape the labor and environmental regulations of developed Western nations.

But all that progress is now at risk under an administration that has overturned or undermined consumer protections and regulations designed to protect the public from predatory business practices and the environment from pollution and profiteering, and has alienated longtime allies and security and trading partners.

And so now here we are, facing a restive and anxious set of allies around the world who are now as uncertain of our commitments to them as we now are of our own place in the world — and in an international order which we ourselves largely created and have led for over 70 years.

And our adversaries are increasingly becoming emboldened, more adventurous, and eager to exploit those doubts that we have engendered by our lack of clarity and direction.

And in this rapidly changing state of affairs the world is being forced to call into question our previous assumptions and position of moral authority, status, and fitness for leadership.

And because of Trump’s moves to upend and withdraw from existing agreements and alliances, and because of the ambivalence he has displayed toward allies and security and trade partners, the world is now undergoing a realignment that threatens to leave the U.S. increasingly isolated diplomatically, economically, culturally, and militarily.

In just three years under Trump, the U.S. has gone from the recognized, respected, and undisputed Leader of the Free World to something akin to rogue superpower status.

And in the event of a miscalculation or ill-conceived policy that leads to a general economic reversal or collapse, a widespread outbreak of war, pandemic, or humanitarian crisis, the U.S. could find itself a pariah nation.

We now face a choice between two competing visions and sets of values.

One calls for us to work within and strengthen a hard-fought community of nations and shared values, and to coexist and resolve problems peacefully without a desire to dominate and exploit other peoples.

The other calls for us to look to other nations with suspicion, to enact policies that provide additional benefits and privileges to the richest and most powerful, that limit redress and representation among the most marginalized and powerless, and that act as the ‘muscle’ behind a new global colonialism driven by moneyed interests and unaccountable dealmakers loyal to no country’s flag and which do not enjoy the consent of its people.

For the past 70 years, we have led the way in making the world more free, more safe, and more prosperous, because the rest of the world was convinced of the strength, not just of our economy or military, but also of our principles.

We led because of our commitment to freedom, liberty and justice.

And today, if we are to regain our stature as the leader of the free world, that indispensable nation, and first among equals, we need to restore our moral leadership, and for that we need a man of honor.

And that man is Joe Biden.

Thomas Ultican investigated CREDO, the Stanford-Hoover organization that specializes in the study of charter school performance.

Ultican reviews the origin and history of CREDO and concludes that its long association with conservative and libertarian funders and groups influence its conclusions. He maintains that its methodology is flawed and biased to favor charter schools. He argues that its findings are meant to support privatization of public schools.

This entry in today’s “Writer’s Almanac” astounded me.

On this day in 1902, archaeologist Valerios Stais discovered the Antikythera mechanism, an ancient analog computer from the first or second century B.C., that was used to calculate the position of the sun, moon, and stars in relationship to the observer’s position on the surface of the earth. For many decades, archaeologists did not recognize the mechanism’s degree of mechanical sophistication, which is comparable to a 19th-century Swiss clock. To date, the only other artifacts with that degree of mechanical sophistication have come from the 14th century or later.

Stais uncovered the mechanism while exploring the Anitkythera shipwreck off the northwest coast of Crete. Today the mechanism is on display at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.

Nancy Bailey is well aware of the dangers to public education today, especially the threats of privatization, data mining, and technological takeover. She saw that the campaigns of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders created an education unity group and she wondered who was included and who was not included.

Here is her analysis.

She begins with who was left out:

Many want to say good riddance to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her boss. But educators and parents fighting for public education, and the ninety percent of students who attend public schools, deserve a more inclusive group of people to push back on harmful school reform. The Biden/Sanders Unity Education Task Force leaves much to be desired.

For example, parents of children with disabilities struggle to teach their children during Covid-19. Classes for their children were never fully funded before the disease. Sen. Bernie Sanders promised better in his Thurgood Marshall Plan. Searching with a magnifying glass, I see no representation for students with disabilities on this panel.

Black and brown parent advocates have started a petition to make the education task force more inclusive.

Where are the scholars from the: National Education Policy Center? Network for Public Education? Defending the Early Years? Economic Policy Center? Where are teachers from the Badass Teachers Association, or representation by those who organized and marched in the Red for Ed rallies? What about parents and school board members who fight for children?