Archives for category: Education Reform

If you plan to come to the Network for Public Education annual conference in Indianapolis, please be assured that the Marriott is not on strike there.

Several people have written to ask about this.

None of us want to cross a picket line.

I asked Randi Weingarten and this was her advice:

“Good news, they aren’t on strike at the one in Indianapolis so there is no picket line. That’s good.

“There are several things the NPE folks can do, however. The first is to not accept Marriott’s so called “Green Choice” program. Marriott asks guests if they want to be “green” by not having housekeeping attend to a guest’s room – meaning no cleaning and no clean towels. This is a huge issue for UNITE HERE. It makes doing the laundry more difficult and unsafe, reduces steady work and makes cleaning at the end of a guest’s stay much more difficult. So NPE can either tell the hotel not to offer it to their conference participants or tell those coming to the conference not to accept the Green Choice option.”

We will make clear to the hotel that we support striking workers. As a guest, please make sure that you do not accept the offer to “go green” for the reasons stated above.

I will be in Louisville Thursday night for a rally against state takeover of the schools.

See you in Indianapolis for the best conference ever!

2018 National Conference

John Merrow hammers away at the folly of placing standardized testing at the center of all education.

The evidence of this folly, he says, is the latest ACT reports.

What can we learn from them?

Our seniors are not getting smarter as a result of the testing regime imposed on them.

“These seniors have had 12 or 13 years of test-centric education, and the kids coming up behind them have also endured what the ‘school reformers’ designed. How much more evidence do we need of the folly of “No Child Left Behind” and Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s “Race to the Top” before we take back our schools?

“People who have consistently been ‘half right’ have been in charge of public education for too long. Now some are changing their tune (“Perhaps we have been testing too much,” they say) and asking for another chance. Others, however, are doubling down, calling for more charter schools, vouchers and other aid for private schools, and more anti-union initiatives. I say a plague on both their houses.”

Now that Common Core or its look-alike math standards have been implemented in almost every state, the signs of failure are ominous.

Math scores on the ACT fell this year.

From Education Week:

The newest batch of ACT scores shows troubling long-term declines in performance, with students’ math achievement reaching a 20-year low, according to results released Wednesday.

The average math score for the graduating class of 2018 was 20.5, marking a steady decline from 20.9 five years ago, and virtually no progress since 1998, when it was 20.6. Each of the four sections of the college-entrance exam is graded on a 36-point scale.

“We’re at a very dangerous point. And if we do nothing, it will keep on declining,” ACT’s chief executive officer, Marten Roorda, said in an interview.

The pattern in math scores is particularly worrisome at a time when strong math skills are important for the science, engineering, and technology jobs that play powerful roles in the U.S. economy, he said.
Matt Larson, the immediate past president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, said the math scores “are extremely disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.”

Please review the outrageous claims of advocates for the Common Core. It was supposed to raise achievement across the board for all students; it was supposed to close achievement gaps.

This is an enlightening article for those in California who don’t know the difference between Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck, who are running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Simply put, Tony Thurmond has the overwhelming support of the state Democratic party and the state’s teachers, while Tuck is the candidate of the billionaires who want to privatize the state’s public schools.

Tony Butka explains who Tony Thurmond is:

The reason we Angelenos know not of Mr. Thurmond is that he is a Bay Area kind of guy. Born in Fort Ord with a Detroit military father and a Panamanian immigrant mother who became a teacher, he was mostly raised by his single mom in San Jose.

As an ex social worker myself, I like the fact that he was a social worker, the real deal kind with a MSW (Masters in Social Work) degree, working for non-profit agencies who dealt with young people — for example dealing with providing services to foster youth and job training for at-risk youth in the East Bay. That’s the real deal.

Before he got into the Assembly, he paid his dues on the Richmond City Council, and worked as liaison with the West Contra Costa County USD. He got directly involved in education as a member of the West Contra Costa County School Board from 2008-12. For those who know anything about the Bay Area, these are not country club schools. They are a very good learning experience for something like the LAUSD.

Anyhow, starting in 2014 Tony was elected to the California Assembly in AD15, where he has served two terms. Without being too effusive, Tony helped in the legislature to get funding for:

– keeping kids in school and out of the criminal justice system;

– helping fund foster kids being able to go to college;

– getting increased funding for early education programs;

– working to shift funding from the criminal justice system to early education and afterschool programs.

He then describes Marshall Tuck’s record, which you can read if you open the link.

He doesn’t dig into the obscene amount of money that is pouring into Tuck’s campaign, which has already raised three to four times more than Thurmond’s campaign. $4 million in new contributions just last week. Is the office for sale? The billionaire are used to buying whatever they want.

He concludes:

I am frankly worried that the lack of name recognition in Southern California will hurt Tony Thurmond, and that would be a shame. This is really a race between two totally different views of education: one view champions educating our kids wherever they live and no matter their economic/social class. That’s Tony Thurmond.

The other vision is a semi-photogenic front from the billionaire boys club of Eli Broad and the like. If you think they actually give a rat’s ass about our children, particularly in the LAUSD, you don’t know how they got to be billionaires. Wanna bet their kids go to LAUSD or the equivalent? Oh sure. That’s who Marshall Tuck is, zillions of dollars in backing or not.

We know two things for certain about the Charter School crowd. First, they’re all about siphoning money (ADA, or average daily attendance money to you and me) out of the publicly financed school system, leaving all the mandatory bureaucratic overhead of a school system to be funded out of what’s left after their take, as the School Boards try to educate the bulk of the children out of quickly dwindling funds.

The second thing we know for sure is that the Charter School folks simply don’t care if a lot of the Charter schools are run by crooks and are subject to bankruptcy and/or indictments during the school year, leaving their students on the street with nowhere to go.

He reminds readers that the charter school lobby kept charter school founder Ref Rodriguez on the Los Angeles school board just long enough to vote entrepreneur Austin Beutner into the superintendency, then resigned and was convicted of multiple felonies.

This crowd of unethical privatization-pushers should not be allowed to choose the state’s next education leader.

He doesn’t dig into the obscene amount of money that is pouring into Tuck’s campaign, which has already raised three to four times more than Thurmond’s campaign. $4 million in new contributions just last week. Is the office for sale? The billionaire are used to buying whatever they want. Only voters can stop them now.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump mocked Elizabeth Warren for saying she was of Native American ancestry. He challenged her to take a DNA test and pledged to give $1 million to the charity of her choice if she was right. She did, she is, Will he pay? Don’t hold your breath.

From the Boston Globe:

While you were sleeping: US Senator Elizabeth Warren released DNA results to the Globe that show that she does, indeed, have some Native American heritage. One of the leading DNA analysts in the world, Professor Carlos D. Bustamante of Stanford, said Warren’s DNA test provides “strong evidence” that she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations. That comports with her family lore from her childhood in Oklahoma that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. Presumably Warren is picking out a charity to which Trump has said he will donate $1 million of his own money. Or should we say of his father’s and taxpayers’ money.

Warren has chosen the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, which works to stop domestic violence against Native American women and children.

Warren also released what sure feels like a presidential campaign video. If you recall, the Globe’s Annie Linsky thoroughly debunked Republican charges that Warren used her claim of Native American heritage to get into law school and advance her career.

The Globe reported:

“WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides “strong evidence’’ she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

“Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.

“The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as a genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.”

Answer: They both visited rapper Pitbull’s charter school in Miami.

Pitbull, I have heard, is a misogynistic, foul mouthed rapper who has made a lot of money being crude while singing.

According to Wikipedia:

He attended South Miami Senior High School before graduating from Miami Coral Park High School, where he focused his career on rapping.

Who knew that “rapping” was in the curriculum. Well, it worked for him. Bigly.

Of course, he had to have his own charter school.

His school is part of the for-profit Academica chain.

Happily for Academica, it has close relationships with certain state legislators, so accountability is light to non-existent. Today, he calls himself (according to the NPR story linked below) “Mr. Education.” The National Charter School Conference invited him to be its keynote speaker.

Pitbull’s SLAM Academy has the full support of the national charter leadership. He is a celebrity, so they don’t mind his profanity or his history as a drug dealer. Nor do they care that he never went to college. He has fame, and how he got it doesn’t matter.

Nina Rees, who heads the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, says she’s not about to apologize for supporting the rapper’s school.

“Whether it’s Pitbull or Meryl Streep in Rhode Island or Sandra Bullock in Louisiana,” she says, “charters do benefit from celebrities because public schools, they do have to market themselves to families because these are schools of choice.”

Rees says she has no problem with Pitbull’s music, either.

“We’re not endorsing his music, but welcoming him as an investor,” Rees says. Besides, she adds, everybody is entitled to their own tastes. “I admit that I’m a fan of his music.”

Three of Pitbull’s six children attend charter schools.

“I’m not just a charter school advocate. … I’m a charter school parent,” Pitbull said when talking at this year’s National Charter School Conference in D.C. “And that makes me one of you.”

Indeed.

I wonder if children in his charter study his lyrics.

More news about Pitbull, AKA “Mr. Education.”

He plans to open another charter school in Arizona.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2018/10/12/pitbull-plans-slam-charter-school-sports-management-arizona-wozu/1578767002/

Thus ends American education, washed up on the rocks of capitalism and vainglorious egotism, turned into an international joke, as rappers, sports stars, celebrities, grifters, and entrepreneurs claim public money to open their own school. No experience needed.

Kevin McDermott, editorial writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, asked this question. And he wondered what kind of people cheer for him and believe his steady stream of boasts, cruel taunts, and lies.

Open it for the many links.

He writes:

It was always just a matter of time before Donald Trump stood in front of an audience of his bellowing fans and mocked an alleged sexual assault survivor.

It’s always been the kind of man he is.

“ ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ ‘Upstairs? Downstairs? Where was it?’ ” Trump said to a Mississippi crowd last week, mimicking Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, sexually assaulted her while they were in high school.

“ ‘I don’t know. But I had one beer,’ ” said Trump, to howls. “ ‘That’s the only thing I remember.’ ”

In fact, sexual assault allegations are often full of holes, the details driven out by trauma. We’ll probably never know exactly what happened 36 years ago.

What’s certain is that a private citizen telling her story shouldn’t have to endure being called a liar by the president of the United States. Even Kavanaugh’s more serious defenders understood that baseline of decency.

But Trump didn’t. Because there is something wrong with this man.

Not that it was surprising. This is a man who has denigrated the service of a tortured prisoner of war; whose grotesque, flailing impersonation of a disabled reporter would have been shocking coming from a sixth-grader; who trashed the parents of a dead young soldier; mocked the physical appearance of a female primary opponent; and put Nazis and anti-Nazis on the same moral plane after Charlottesville.

Normal adults don’t act like this. Not even politicians.

Especially not politicians, in fact. Not because they’re more conscience-driven than the rest of us (please) but because they usually know enough to tamp down whatever antisocial impulses they might have.

But not Trump. It’s striking how often, how predictably, his outbursts of cruelty hurt him politically. You could almost hear foreheads banging on West Wing desks when Trump launched his attack on Ford, complicating the 11th-hour push to confirm Kavanaugh.

Some believe Trump’s cruelty is a tool he wields for political ends. I don’t. It’s been too counterproductive for him. I think the truth is worse: Once he’s in front of some hooting red-hatted crowd, he just can’t help himself. His cruelty isn’t calculated; it’s a genuine, uncontrollable impulse that he’ll embrace even to his own detriment. Because there’s something wrong with the man.

Trump likes to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s mantra was, “With malice toward none, with charity toward all.” Trump is malice personified, a man who cheats his own charities. Lincoln annoyed his generals with frequent clemency for condemned deserters. Trump has proposed killing drug dealers not accused of murder, teenagers falsely accused of rape and the children of terrorists.

This man isn’t in the same ethical galaxy as Lincoln. There is something wrong with this man.

It’s not just that Trump is less empathetic than a normal president. He’s less empathetic than a normal person. Think about the people in your life: How many of them delight in deliberate cruelty toward those less powerful? How many of them love punching down?

Is our president a clinical sociopath? That legitimate question has prompted serious debate among psychiatrists. But early on, many assumed the presidency would normalize him. No one imagined the extent to which he would abnormalize the presidency.

Trump’s psychosis has become policy. His administration has admitted (between denials) that the large-scale separation of migrant families at the Texas border was meant as a deterrent — that they psychologically tortured children, including babies, as a warning to other migrants to stay away. Trump himself has said (in contradiction to administration legal arguments) that the travel ban on certain Middle Eastern countries was about cracking down on an entire religion. Ponder the last century’s global precedent for that.

The State Department last week announced it is yanking the visas of unmarried same-sex partners of foreign diplomats, based on the Supreme Court’s 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage. Get married if you want to stay here together, says the administration — knowing full well that’s illegal in some of their home countries. There are reasonable legal arguments for the new State Department policy, but given the demonstrated impulses of this administration, would anyone really discount the possibility that the primary motivation here is cruelty?

Trump is just one man, but what’s wrong with him isn’t confined to him. He has unleashed and empowered others like himself. His mockery of Ford in Mississippi last week drew shouts of “Lock her up!” — the phrase Trump’s fans usually reserve for the woman who beat him by 2.8 million votes in 2016.

So now they’re moving on to alleged sexual assault victims. Who’s next, I wonder?

That’s the scariest part. After Trump is gone from the scene, the loyalists he has energized will still be here. And there’s something wrong with these people.

Kevin McDermott is a member of the Post-Dispatch Editorial Board.

Kmcdermott@post-dispatch.com

Save

Pete Tucker, a writer in Washington, D.C., writes about a peculiar phenomenon: Opinion polls consistently underrate candidates who are progressive and who are black or Hispanic.

Predicting the winner (falsely) and underreporting the support for a candidate is a form of voter suppression, he writes.

Ayanna Pressley, a progressive African American congressional candidate from Boston, was predicted to lose by 13 points in the Democratic primary, but she won by 18 points. In the primary for a New York congressional seat, the final poll showed Latina socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trailing the Democratic incumbent by 36 points; she won by 15 points. In Georgia, polls showed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, the African American former minority leader of the State House of Representatives, well ahead in the Democratic primary, but nowhere near the 53 points she won by.

In Florida, the nation’s third largest state, polls for the Democratic gubernatorial primary showed Andrew Gillum, the progressive African American mayor of Tallahassee, finishing fourth, with around 12 percent of the vote. But Gillum won 34 percent of the vote, nearly three times what most polls had him at, and captured the nomination.

Then there’s Maryland, where the Democratic gubernatorial primary was supposed to be neck-and-neck, but the more progressive candidate, Ben Jealous, walked away with it, beating his chief challenger by over 10 points and taking all but two counties.

While primaries are difficult to predict, today’s polls are not just failing, they seem to be doing so in a way that makes progressive candidates of color appear to have less support than they do.

These polling errors are far from harmless. Faulty polls can turn into real losses by suppressing both votes and funding. It’s not hard to see why: Who is excited to back a sure-loser? This applies to potential voters, who are more likely to stay home on election day if their preferred candidate has no shot, as well as to potential donors, who would rather support a winner.

Trump spoke in Ohio.

LEBANON, Ohio — President Trump praised the Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while asking African American voters to “honor us” by voting Republican at an Ohio rally that featured an unexpected and provocative monologue on America’s Civil War history.

Addressing an open-air rally of around 4,000 supporters, Trump appeared buoyant as he declared that Lee was a “true great fighter” and “great general.” He also said President Abraham Lincoln once had a “phobia” of the Southern general, whose support of slavery has made his legacy a heavily contested and divisive issue.

The comments came during an anecdote about Ohio-born President Ulysses S. Grant’s alleged drinking problems. “So Robert E. Lee was a great general. And Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia. He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee,” Trump said. “Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle.”

“And Abraham Lincoln came home, he said, ‘I can’t beat Robert E. Lee,’ ” Trump said. “They said to Lincoln, ‘You can’t use him anymore, he’s an alcoholic.’ And Lincoln said, ‘I don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, frankly, give me six or seven more just like him.’ He started to win.”

Minutes earlier, Trump had hailed African American unemployment numbers and asked black voters to “honor us” by voting Republican in November. “Get away from the Democrats,” he told them. “Think of it: We have the best numbers in history. . . . I think we’re going to get the African American vote, and it’s true.” He also celebrated hip-hop artist Kanye West’s visit to the Oval Office on Thursday, adding: “What he did was pretty amazing.”

Trump’s speech threatened to reignite a highly divisive debate over America’s racial history with just weeks to go until the midterms. Trump has previously defended statues commemorating Confederate leaders, tweeting last year: “Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.” Critics say such statues glorify historical advocates of slavery.

Grant was not the only Ohio-native whom Trump deployed as a foil in his interventions on sensitive cultural issues. He also referenced astronaut Neil Armstrong, telling crowds: “He’s the man that planted the flag on the face of the moon. . . . There was no kneeling, there was no nothing, there was no games, boom,” in a reference to NFL athletes kneeling in protest during the national anthem.

Trump was in Lebanon to boost the campaign of Rep. Steve Chabot, the incumbent whose 1st Congressional District encompasses the county and who had distanced himself from the president ahead of the event. “We didn’t ask him to come. . . . He wasn’t my first choice or my second or my third,” he told one newspaper, apparently fearful Trump’s rhetoric could prove costly in the competitive race. On the night, however, Chabot appeared content to revel in the president’s support. “God bless the president. And, I never thought I’d say this, but God bless Kanye West,” he said.

Kristen Blair writes that classics are disappearing from the English classroom, and the single biggest reason is the Common Core, which emphasizes “informational text.”

Her source: a report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. TBF bears big responsility for the widespread adoption of those deeply flawed standards. It was paid millions by the Gates Foundation to evaluate them, and found them to be terrific. Then it was paid millions to promote them. Mike Petrilli testified on behalf of the CC before state legislatures.

Blame the Thomas B. Fordham Institute if you are upset about the loss of classic literature.