Archives for category: Education Reform

Martin Levine keeps an eye on education philanthropy on behalf of the online journal Nonprofit Quarterly.

In this post, he recapitulates the speculation about the latest Gates’ initiative.

At least one observer thinks that Gates has learned his lesson and is now avoiding a “top down” approach.

Megan Tompkins-Stange, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told Education Week “she was somewhat surprised that Gates said the foundation should serve more as a “catalyst of good ideas than an inventor of ideas.”

This would be a remarkable change for the man with $80 billion.

Is he capable of listening?

The voucher advocates tried to pull a fast one in Pennsylvania earlier this week. They brought their voucher bill to a fast vote in cipommittee, without public hearings. They knew that public hearings would not go well because the basic problem in the Keystone State is inequitable funding, not school choice. The state is already overrun by charters and cybercharters (two of the state’s leaders of the cybercharter industry were charged with corruption).

But as Peter Greene reports, the voucher pushers didn’t have the votes in committee.

For the moment, the Trump-DeVos agenda is stalled in Pennsylvania.

The Network for Public Education alerted its 19,000 supporters in Pennsylvania to help our allies in the state.

But because of perfidious Democrats, the voucher forces will be back, hoping to extract public money for religious schools.

Here is a thought: hold a public referendum. Let the people decide.

I celebrated Jeff Flake’s denunciation of Trump. Some readers said we should not compliment Flake because he is a conservative, he voted for almost every Republican Proposal, his policies are no better than Trump’s.

Then I read this article that articulated what I believe and said it better than I did. Democracy establishes ground rules for discussion, debate, and disagreement. Democracy means battling for your ideas in the marketplace of public opinion. Democracies do not threaten to jail the candidates who lose. Presidents (in the past) do not sneer at those with whom they disagree, do not belittle them, do not demean them, do not taunt and smear those who do not grovel at their feet.

“It’s easy to roll your eyes at Republicans. Besides their run-of-the-mill odious policies which would starve the poor and oppress anyone who isn’t straight and white and male, they nominated Donald Trump. Then, when he continually proved himself unfit for office, they either remained silent or defended him. Many still do.

“But now a few brave souls are speaking up, and whether those of us in the resistance like it or not, we need them.

“The latest Republican to speak out is Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who, in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, announced he would not be seeking re-election in 2018.

“Politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity,” Flake said. “I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr President, I will not be complicit.”

“Hear. Bloody. Hear…

“Democracy is a contest of ideas, but that contest only works if we agree on the rules beforehand. Trump violates the basic norms of American democracy, degrading them to a point of no return.

“He threatens the media, questioning whether networks critical of him should have their licences revoked. He embraces fringe elements (such as neo-Nazis) and normalises their attacks on our multicultural society. He defines patriotism not as a defence of the ideals our country aspires to, but as a racial and cultural purity test. He freely threatens nuclear war on social media. And don’t forget, he campaigned on locking his political opponent up.

“These aren’t American ideals. They’re authoritarian tactics.

“The danger of Trump isn’t that he’ll cut taxes for the wealthy, or fail to pass gun control, or roll back some civil rights protections for LGBT people. Any Republican president would do the same, and that’s something the American left would have to fight no matter which GOP candidate had won the White House.

“Even if Trump is defeated in 2020, we’ll have to fight these same battles the next time we have a Republican president. That sucks, but it’s not the same as having a proto-fascist as president. After all, if Trump succeeds in destroying our democracy, we’ll have no chance of winning any future progressive battles. That’s the whole point of fascism.

“Trump presents a unique risk to our country, to civil discourse, to the American experiment, which has existed since 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. We’re not fighting for a progressive agenda right now. We’re fighting for the soul of America and the continued existence of democracy on these shores.”

I disagree with Jeff Flake on every issue, every policy. But I admire him for standing up to Trump and denouncing his attack on democracy itself.

Read on.

I earlier posted a list of candidates for the Virginia Legislature.
Here is another: Danica Roem.

http://mobile.dudasite.com/site/danicafordelegate#2919

As a reminder: here are the others.

Debra Rodman: http://rodmanfordelegate.com

Schuyler VanValkenburg: https://bluevirginia.us/2017/09/schuyler-vanvalkenburg-vows-to-keep-right-wing-assault-from-gutting-virginias-public-education-system; https://www.vanvalkenburg4va.com

Jennifer Carroll Foy: https://www.jennifercarrollfoy.org

Elizabeth Guzman: http://elizabethguzmanforvirginia.com

Hala Ayala: https://ayalafordelegate.com

Shelley Simonds: https://www.simondsfordelegate.com

Morgan Goodman: https://goodmanfordelegate.com

Kelly Fowler: https://www.voteforfowler.com

Please vote. Every vote counts.

Vote for delegates who will improve our public schools.

Your vote could be the single vote that wins the election!

Karen Wolfe is baffled: why did Betsy DeVos just give $12.6 million to Rocketship charter chain, which has a dismal record? Rocketship puts poor kids in front of computers and employs teacher aides to save money.

“Silicon Valley-based Rocketship is a charter school chain with a bevy of star backers that’s reported sky-high student achievement and recently landed a $12.6 million grant from Betsy DeVos’ Department of Education. But beyond the hype is a galaxy of problems, including plummeting test scores, litigation and allegations of student mistreatment.

Co-founded by the brain behind Yahoo’s first advertising platform, John Danner and Teach For America alum, Preston Smith, Rocketship has attracted the support of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists whose fortunes were made disrupting industries with tech: Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg and early Apple investor Arthur Rock, among others.

“Rocketship has grown over the last decade into a network of thirteen schools around the country, serving nearly 8,000 kindergarten through fifth-grade students who are overwhelmingly poor and Latino. The venture proclaims it is “dedicated to eliminating the achievement gap” with a business model which, Education Week explains, “replace[s] one credentialed teacher per grade with software and an hourly-wage aide, freeing up $500,000 yearly per school.”

“Rocketship’s initial results were promising. But the charter chain’s sky-high student outcomes have not held up: A 2014 analysis by the California Department of Education found that in the previous five years the number of Rocketship students scoring at the “proficient” level or above on California state tests fell by 30 percentage points in English and 14 percentage points in math…

“For years education activists and district officials have been raising alarms about Rocketship’s negative effect on student well-being. Students just five to ten years old sit in front of computers for 80 to100 minutes per day. The schools track, to the minute, the time that each elementary school child spends online, and their percentage of “goals” reached. That screen time is so valued by Rocketship that there’s almost no time for art or play. Students are even discouraged from taking bathroom breaks. One former teacher told NPR, “I’ve never had second-graders pee their pants except for at Rocketship.”

“A family physician in Santa Clara County with patients in Rocketship schools wrote the school board a letter noting a pattern of urinary tract infections and extreme stress.

“Parents and former employees have also raised concerns about safety due to a student to teacher ratio around thirty-seven to one, and about the school’s extreme no-talking policy called “Zone Zero” they claim “amounted to hours of enforced silence.”

Why? Replicating failing charters is not good for children, but it helps advance the DeVos agenda of privatization and union-busting.

Maurice Cunningham, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, is an expert on the infusion of Dark Money into education.

He wrote several articles about the millions of dollars that poured into Massachusetts to promote the referendum to increase the number of charter schools in November 2016.

This article is about a Dark Money passthrough called Stand for Children, which began its life as a pro-public school group but turned into a pro-Privatization, anti-union, anti-teacher organization. It highlights the role of Stand for Children in Massachusetts. It does not explore its national activities, where it plays a pernicious part in the attack on public schools, unions, and teachers.

http://blogs.wgbh.org/masspoliticsprofs/2017/10/6/your-dark-money-reader-special-edition-stand-children/

Those who remember the early days of SFC now call it “Stand ON Children.”

It has funneled money to corporate reform candidates in cities from Nashville to Denver. It tried to squelch the Chicago Teachers Union by buying up all the top lobbyists in Illinois. It has funded anti-union, anti-teacher campaigns.

It pretends to be a “civil rights” organization. It is not.

National attention has rightly focused on the gubernatorial race between Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, a moderate Democrat, and Ed Gillespie, a Trump Republican. Northam is a military veteran, a physician, and an experienced government official who will defend the rights of all Virginians to justice, healthcare, public education, and a safe environment. Gillespie is a former chair of the Republican National Committee and GOP hack who will protect Confederate statues, privatize public schools, and enact the Trump-DeVos agenda.

If Northam is elected, he needs allies in the state legislature. If he is not elected, Gillespie needs a legislature to block him when he tries to transfer public funds to religious, private, and for-profit schools, as he has promised to do.

Here are candidates for the legislature who will fight for Virginia’s public schools. Please vote for them, volunteer for them, donate to their campaigns:

Debra Rodman: http://rodmanfordelegate.com

Schuyler VanValkenburg: https://bluevirginia.us/2017/09/schuyler-vanvalkenburg-vows-to-keep-right-wing-assault-from-gutting-virginias-public-education-system; https://www.vanvalkenburg4va.com

Jennifer Carroll Foy: https://www.jennifercarrollfoy.org

Elizabeth Guzman: http://elizabethguzmanforvirginia.com

Hala Ayala: https://ayalafordelegate.com

Shelley Simonds: https://www.simondsfordelegate.com

Morgan Goodman: https://goodmanfordelegate.com

Kelly Fowler: https://www.voteforfowler.com

Please vote. Every vote counts.

Vote for delegates who will improve our public schools.

Your vote could be the single vote that wins the election!

Once in a while, an elected official stands up and speaks truth to power.

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona did that today when he announced he would not run again.

Please read his remarks.

If you want the Cliff Notes version, it is here.

It was a powerful speech, which accurately captured the damage that Trump has done to our politics, our alliances, our policies, the very tone of government.

Trump, through his surrogate Steve Bannon, has declared war on the Republican Party. Bannon, using the funding of the arch-reactiomary Mercer Family, is purging the party of moderates. Who will be next? As Flake said, we must not normalize Trump’s coarseness, vindictiveness, and incoherence.

Here is Senator Flake’s speech:

______
JEFF FLAKE, Senator from Arizona: At a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than by our own values and principles, let me begin by noting the somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office and there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles. Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion. Regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics. Regret because of the indecency of our discourse. Regret because of the coarseness of our leadership.

Regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our, I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end. In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order, that phrase being the new normal.

But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set up at the top. We must never regard as normal the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country. The personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms and institution, the flagrant disregard for truth and decency.

The reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have been elected to serve. None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that that is just the way things are now.

If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that it is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as telling it like it is when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness. It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, ‘Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up?’ What are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes the normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it.

We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that. Here today I stand to say that we would be better served — we would better serve the country — by better fulfilling our obligations under the Constitution by adhering to our Article 1 — “old normal,” Mr. Madison’s doctrine of separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary — and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract with each other, if necessary.

“Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote. But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, we Republicans — would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats?

Of course, we wouldn’t, and we would be wrong if we did. When we remain silent and fail to act, when we know that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseam, when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of our institutions and our liberty, we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I’m aware that more politically savvy people than I will caution against such talk. I’m aware that there’s a segment of my party that believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect. If I have been critical, it is not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States.

If I have been critical, it is because I believe it is my obligation to do so. And as a matter and duty of conscience, the notion that one should stay silent — and as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters — the notion that we should say or do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A president, a Republican president named Roosevelt, had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office: “The president is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the nation as a whole.”

He continued: “Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be — that there should be a full liberty to tell the truth about his acts and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by a president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Acting on conscience and principle in a manner — is the manner — in which we express our moral selves and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in this regard. I am holier than none.

But too often we rush to salvage principle — not to salvage principle, but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing until the accommodation itself becomes our principle. In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice any principle. I am afraid that this is where we now find ourselves.

When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country, and instead of addressing it, goes to look for someone to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops.

Humility helps, character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly or debased appetites in us. Leadership lives by the American creed, “E pluribus unum.” From many one. American leadership looks to the world and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have been at our most principled, and when we do well, the rest of the world does well.

These articles of civic faith have been critical to the American identity for as long as we have been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership and to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.

Now the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II, we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance keeping those countries who had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward.

We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it. The implications of this abandonment are profound and the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum and our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal.

And what do we, as United States senators, have to say about it? The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics because politics can make us silent when we should speak and silence can equal complicity. I have children and grandchildren to answer to.

And so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit or silent. I’ve decided that I would be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself of the political consideration that consumed far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I’m announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019. It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative, who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party, the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things.

It is also clear to me for the moment that we have given in or given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess that we’ve created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal by mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle — the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican Party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging in or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorifying in the things that divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because we have a healthy government, we must also have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good.
Until that day comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it, because it does. I plan to spend the remaining 14 months of my Senate term doing just that.

Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women. None of us here is indispensable nor were even the great figures of history who toiled at these very desks, in this very chamber, to shape the country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free.

What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career does not mean much if we are complicit in undermining these values. I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today.

I will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healthy enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time and are now no less in ours.

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break the bonds of our affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely as they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

A Cub Scout was thrown out of his pack after he asked a state legislator why she supported gun legislation that allowed a wife-beater to own a gun. The brave little boy then asked why owning a gun was a right but having health coverage was a privilege.

Shame on his pack leader!

Exercising free speech is a right too!

No wonder membership in the Boy Scouts is declining and they opened membership to girls. Let’s hope they are as outspoken as Ames Mayfield.

The New York Times reports:

“When a group of Cub Scouts met with a Colorado state senator this month, they asked her about some of the most controversial topics in the nation: gun control, the environment, race and the proposed border wall between the United States and Mexico.

“But questions from one Cub Scout, Ames Mayfield, 11, got him kicked out of his den in Broomfield, Colo., according to his mother, Lori Mayfield. At the meeting on Oct. 9, for which the scouts were told to prepare questions for State Senator Vicki Marble, Ms. Mayfield recorded her son asking the senator why she would not support “common-sense gun laws.”

“I was shocked that you co-sponsored a bill to allow domestic violence offenders to continue to own a gun,” Ames said in a question that took more than two minutes. He continued, “Why on earth would you want somebody who beats their wife to have access to a gun?”

“The event took place not long after the Las Vegas shooting. As part of her answer, Ms. Marble, a Republican from Fort Collins, defended her position on gun ownership, saying that shootings in Las Vegas and Aurora, Colo., happened in so-called gun-free zones, and that “the more guns a society has, the less crime or murders are committed.”

“On Oct. 14, five days after the event with Ms. Marble, Ms. Mayfield was asked to meet the leader of the Cub Scout pack who oversees a number of dens in Broomfield, including the one Ames belonged to.

“Ms. Mayfield and the pack leader, whom she did not identify, sat down at a Chipotle restaurant that afternoon. “He let me know in so many words that the den leader was upset about the topic of gun control,” Ms. Mayfield said in an interview on Saturday. “It was too politically charged.”

“He communicated that my son was no longer welcome back to the den,” she said.

“Ms. Mayfield said the den leader’s response might have been fueled by her decision to post the videos of the senator’s interaction with the scouts online, where they were picked up by the local news media.

“She also said she was told the den leader had been upset by other references in Ames’s long question, such as pointing out that the senator was a Republican and that gun ownership was considered a right while health care was seen as a privilege.”

Ames has a bright future ahead of him.

Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency were scheduled to speak at a conference about the condition and future of Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island.

At the last minute, the agency told them they were not allowed to speak, presumably because the conference and their testimony involved climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/23/let-us-do-our-job-anger-erupts-over-epas-muzzling-of-scientists/

EPA administrator believes there is no such thing as climate change. Apparently there is also no such thing as science. “Science” is what he and industry lobbyists say it is.

EPA should be called the Environmental (Non)Protection Administration so long as Pruitt and his ilk are in charge.