Archives for category: Lies
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Steve Nelson: In War or Education, Beware of Propaganda

By dianeravitch
September 22, 2017 //
26

Steve Nelson, veteran educator and board member of the Network for Public Education, warns that we must protect outrselves against lies and propaganda. Ken Burns’ brilliant series on the Vietnam War shows how we blundered into a horrific war and picked to the burden of defending the French colonial empire.

There are other lies and propaganda that surround us every day. One is the lie that our public schools must be “saved” by privatization. Not true.

He writes:

“The war on public education, like the war in Vietnam, is being prosecuted on the basis of propaganda. In the 1960’s it was the myth of the threat of communism toppling one nation after another like dominos. It wasn’t true and it certainly wasn’t implicit or explicit in the conflict between South and North Vietnam.

“Now, in the 21st century, the war on education is being prosecuted in the name of another set of myths: that public schools are failing – they are not; that school choice gives families more opportunity – it does not; that teachers unions serve only to protect incompetence – a vile, unsupportable lie; and that competition and free markets can deliver everything, including education, with greater quality and efficiency – a heroically grandiose and inaccurate assertion.

“The other striking facet of the wars that bookend my adult life is the way in which the least advantaged among us are used as fodder for the ambitions of those most privileged.

“America’s casualties in Vietnam were disproportionately skewed toward young men of color and relatively poor, rural white men. The draft was ostensibly color blind, but privilege finds it way through the law. As most folks know, deferments for education and other dodges were easily sought and obtained for those with privilege. The cases of George W. Bush and Donald Trump are particularly vivid examples. But if you were poor and black, the choices were jail or service, not Yale or the podiatrist’s office.

“At least in 1967 no one claimed that the Vietnam War was being waged on behalf of the black men and boys who crawled through the jungle. But now, in the 21st century, the war on public education is being waged on the disgusting false propaganda that suggests education reform as a way of improving life for poor folks, particularly girls and boys of color. That is a bald-faced lie too.

“Education reform, particularly in urban charters, is touted as the salvation for communities of color when, in fact, education reform is furthering the decimation of poor communities of color. Education is a $700 billion “market.” As in the 60’s, there is money to be made.”

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Lies, Propaganda

A Teacher in Florida Reacts to the LAUSD Election

By dianeravitch
May 17, 2017 //
38

The good guys lost. The guys with the backing of the billionaires won. The public schools of Los Angeles will shrink in numbers as the charter industry takes charge of the district.

Although the charter candidates wrapped themselves in the banner of Obama and Duncan, their victory is indeed a victory for the Trump-DeVos agenda.

A teacher in Florida reacted:


I am sitting here at 6 am in So. Florida crying. I feel like I am living in a nightmare and can’t wake up. So many good teachers jumping ship and the new ones coming in are doing so with no intention of making this nearly impossible job a career. With the chaos of moving ESE behaviors into the gen ed popuation as it is “least restricitve” to “restorative justice” (time out for desk throwers and send ’em back to class), overworked and overwhelmed guidance counselors, shared psychologists with 3-4 schools and an IDIOT state legislature that loves “births”, hates “lives” and depises the poor. Does anyone else see this as the beginning of the end of a free society or am I catastrophizing? What is wrong with this country? Why can’t the public see what is happening? If they see, why don’t they care? The defeat in teacher’s eyes is palpable. It can’ t continue.

As devastating as the defeat in Los Angeles is, we cannot give up hope for the future. As the saying goes, it is always darkest just before the dawn. This darkness is deep right now, and the dawn is nowhere in sight.

But the only certainty of defeat is giving up. The loss in Los Angeles was due to money and lies, but also apathy.

The message is clear: if we don’t rally the people, the parents, the citizens who owe their education to public schools, we will lose. If we give up trying, we will lose. Those of us who believe in democratic control of public schools that take responsibility for all children, that are financially and academically accountantable, that hire only certified staff, must fight on.

We must not lose hope. Without hope, we are lost. Hard as it is to sustain hope, we must persist. To abandon the struggle is to abandon our belief in a basic democratic institution. We can’t and we won’t. The struggle is not over, nor is it lost. Consider the loss in L.A. to be a loud wake-up call to fight the free-market ideologues and entrepreneurs. Consider it a challenge to redouble our efforts to save public education and resist privatization.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Lies, Los Angeles, Privatization, Propaganda, Resistance

Los Angeles: The Scurrilous Smear Campaign Against Steve Zimmer

By dianeravitch
May 13, 2017 //
14

The run-off campaign in District 4 in Los Angeles for School Board has turned into a national issue. The race between Steve Zimmer, president of the Los Angeles school board, and his challenger, Nick Melvoin, has become an epic struggle between supporters of public schools and supporters of privatization.

Zimmer entered teaching through Teach for America but, unlike the typical TFA, he stayed in the classroom in Los Angeles for 17 years.

Blogger “Red Queen in L.A.,” a parent of children in LAUSD, says this is a dirty and disgraceful campaign, and almost all the dirt has come from Nick Melvoin’s camp. Melvoin is running a campaign based on lies, propaganda, and smears. He is smearing not only Zimmer, but public education. He doesn’t deserve to be elected.

Steve Zimmer understands the gravity of his responsibility as president of the school board. He is a man of honesty, candor, and dignity. Melvoin is a puppet of out-of-town billionaires.

She writes:


Negative Ads Undermine Democracy

Mostly, the fourth board district school board race has been one of incessant negativity and lies. Why do we permit this uncivilized behavior? I can tell you in walking my neighborhood I am met with deep weariness, wariness and hostility. This is the legacy of democracy abused. This race has been nothing if not about Big Lies and electoral abuse, and that’s a lesson being bought – and paid for – dearly.

Independent Committee expenditures (IECs, the new normal for “PAC”s) in favor of both candidates have been about the same, averaging $1.8 million dollars at the moment. Each. You read that right. Think of the children. (Think of the printers.)

What is not similar is IC expenditures in opposition to their candidate. Melvoin’s IC devotes half an order of magnitude more in slandering Zimmer than his IC spends to oppose Melvoin.

Thus quite apart from the overall total spent which is obscene, a dramatic distinction between candidates is evident from what’s being spent to smear the other guy. Zimmer’s adherents spent less than one-quarter, 25%, of that average toward denigrating their opposition ($441K). Melvoin’s buddies sunk 140% of that average spent in support of their candidate ($2.4 million) on negative ads.

In fact, the amount Zimmer’s IEC devoted to negative campaigning is so comparatively trivial, the negligible difference between both campaign’s positive expenditures, which is just 6% – this sum ($114K) is 25% of what Zimmer’s camp spent in negativity altogether. His challenger spent 5.5x as much as the incumbent in stuffing our mailboxes with scurrilous lies.

So the current overall total of IECs is $6.4 million, and the electorate has responded with a resounding: “Beat It”.
The blowback to our electoral democracy is fierce. When I try to speak with my own neighbors with whom I have worked side-by-side for over twenty years improving their neighborhood, my neighborhood, everyone’s lives, their doors stay shut and they make clear they are fortressed against hearing anything “political”.

What they have absorbed are buzz words: “bad”, “failing”, “violent”, “drop-out”, “waste”, “fraud”, “scandal” – and on and on and on.

What they have forgotten is that their littlest neighbors, my children, are part of that system being smeared. And I volunteer within that system improving it just like I work to improve our neighborhoods….

That is what is Trumpian about the might of the California Charter Schools Association’s money and their power in this battle for the school board. Intimidation, slander and ultimately electoral paralysis. They strive to overwhelm us with false equivalence such that even the stark consequence of ideological differences so riven as represented by these candidates, is obscured.

Please do not let all this money win your single democratic voice. You must turn out to the polls in order to use it. This is the one and only way to assert Resistance.

VOTE FOR STEVE ZIMMER ON MAY 16:

KEEP OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM PUBLIC

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Lies, Los Angeles, Privatization

Los Angeles Times: Trump’s War on Journalism

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
15

This is the fourth and last editorial published by the Los Angeles Times about Trump. It contains links to the preceding three. These are strange times we live in. We have a president who lies and doubles-down on his lies and is incapable of apologizing; a president who refuses to divest or even disclose his worldwide financial holdings, which may be affected by decisions he makes; a man who trusts his immediate family members more than his cabinet to carry out government functions; a man without honor or integrity or knowledge or decency or even a sense of irony (after declaring April to be Sexual Assault Awareness Month, he defended Fox News host Bill O’Reilly who has settled multiple sexual harassment complaints; Trump said O’Reilly had “done nothing wrong.”)

Here is the editorial:

PART VI
Friday
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

APRIL 5, 2017

In Donald Trump’s America, the mere act of reporting news unflattering to the president is held up as evidence of bias. Journalists are slandered as “enemies of the people.”

Facts that contradict Trump’s version of reality are dismissed as “fake news.” Reporters and their news organizations are “pathetic,” “very dishonest,” “failing,” and even, in one memorable turn of phrase, “a pile of garbage.”

Trump is, of course, not the first American president to whine about the news media or try to influence coverage. President George W. Bush saw the press as elitist and “slick.” President Obama’s press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined.

But Trump being Trump, he has escalated the traditionally adversarial relationship in demagogic and potentially dangerous ways.

Support our journalism
Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Most presidents, irritated as they may have been, have continued to acknowledge — at least publicly — that an independent press plays an essential role in American democracy. They’ve recognized that while no news organization is perfect, honest reporting holds leaders and institutions accountable; that’s why a free press was singled out for protection in the 1st Amendment and why outspoken, unfettered journalism is considered a hallmark of a free country.

Trump doesn’t seem to buy it. On his very first day in office, he called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”

Since then he has regularly condemned legitimate reporting as “fake news.” His administration has blocked mainstream news organizations, including The Times, from briefings and his secretary of State chose to travel to Asia without taking the press corps, breaking a longtime tradition.

He apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality.

This may seem like bizarre behavior from a man who consumes the news in print and on television so voraciously and who is in many ways a product of the media. He comes from reality TV, from talk radio with Howard Stern, from the gossip pages of the New York City tabloids, for whose columnists he was both a regular subject and a regular source.

But Trump’s strategy is pretty clear: By branding reporters as liars, he apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality. By undermining trust in news organizations and delegitimizing journalism and muddling the facts so that Americans no longer know who to believe, he can deny and distract and help push his administration’s far-fetched storyline.

It’s a cynical strategy, with some creepy overtones. For instance, when he calls journalists “enemies of the people,” Trump (whether he knows it or not) echoes Josef Stalin and other despots.

But it’s an effective strategy. Such attacks are politically expedient at a moment when trust in the news media is as low as it’s ever been, according to Gallup. And they’re especially resonant with Trump’s supporters, many of whom see journalists as part of the swamp that needs to be drained.

Of course, we’re not perfect. Some readers find news organizations too cynical; others say we’re too elitist. Some say we downplay important stories, or miss them altogether. Conservatives often perceive an unshakable liberal bias in the media (while critics on the left see big, corporate-owned media institutions like The Times as hopelessly centrist).

The news media remain an essential component in the democratic process and should not be undermined by the president.

To do the best possible job, and to hold the confidence of the public in turbulent times, requires constant self-examination and evolution. Soul-searching moments — such as those that occurred after the New York Times was criticized for its coverage of the Bush administration and the Iraq war or, more recently, when the media failed to take Trump’s candidacy seriously enough in the early days of his campaign — can help us do a better job for readers. Even if we are not faultless, the news media remain an essential component in the democratic process and should not be undermined by the president.

Some critics have argued that if Trump is going to treat the news media like the “opposition party” (a phrase his senior aide Steve Bannon has used), then journalists should start acting like opponents too. But that would be a mistake. The role of an institution like the Los Angeles Times (or the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or CNN) is to be independent and aggressive in pursuit of the truth — not to take sides. The editorial pages are the exception: Here we can and should express our opinions about Trump. But the news pages, which operate separately, should report intensively without prejudice, partiality or partisanship.

Given the very real dangers posed by this administration, we should be indefatigable in covering Trump, but shouldn’t let his bullying attitude persuade us to be anything other than objective, fair, open-minded and dogged.

The fundamentals of journalism are more important than ever. With the president of the United States launching a direct assault on the integrity of the mainstream media, news organizations, including The Times, must be courageous in our reporting and resolute in our pursuit of the truth.

Categories Freedom of the Press, Lies, Trump

Not the Onion: Campbell Brown Involved in Project to Protect Journalistic Integrity

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2017 //
17

Campbell Brown made her reputation calling public school teachers “perverts” and attacking teachers’ unions for “protecting” any member accused of a crime (even if the accusation was false). She then went on to attack teachers’ rights to due process in the courts of two states. She is a close friend of Betsy DeVos, who funds Campbell Brown’s “The 74.” Brown is contemptuous of public schools and advocates for privatization via charters and vouchers. Like DeVos, she never attended a public school and never sent her children to one.

After collecting $12 million from the Billionaire Boys Club to start the pro-privatization website “The 74,” Brown was hired by Facebook to manage its partnerships with other news organizations.

Now get this. CUNY Graduate Center is creating a “News Integrity Initiative” to protect the integrity of journalism. Brown is the Facebook representative.

The Initiative could begin with The 74, which was created to slime a democratic institution–the nation’s public schools–which enroll nearly 90% of the children in this country and which is a foundational part of our democratic society, welcoming all children, including those with profound disabilities and children who don’t speak English.

Categories Fake News, Lies, Media, Privatization

Los Angeles Times, Part 2: Why Trump Lies

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2017 //
10

This is the second in a series of four editorials by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times. It was published yesterday.

Donald Trump did not invent the lie and is not even its master. Lies have oozed out of the White House for more than two centuries and out of politicians’ mouths — out of all people’s mouths — likely as long as there has been human speech.

But amid all those lies, told to ourselves and to one another in order to amass power, woo lovers, hurt enemies and shield ourselves against the often glaring discomfort of reality, humanity has always had an abiding respect for truth.

In the United States, born and periodically reborn out of the repeated recognition and rejection of the age-old lie that some people are meant to take dominion over others, truth is as vital a part of the civic, social and intellectual culture as justice and liberty. Our civilization is premised on the conviction that such a thing as truth exists, that it is knowable, that it is verifiable, that it exists independently of authority or popularity and that at some point — and preferably sooner rather than later — it will prevail.

Even American leaders who lie generally know the difference between their statements and the truth. Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook” but by that point must have seen that he was. Bill Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” but knew that he did.

“
He targets the darkness, anger and insecurity that hide in each of us and harnesses them for his own purposes.
”

The insult that Donald Trump brings to the equation is an apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth.

His approach succeeds because of his preternaturally deft grasp of his audience. Though he is neither terribly articulate nor a seasoned politician, he has a remarkable instinct for discerning which conspiracy theories in which quasi-news source, or which of his own inner musings, will turn into ratings gold. He targets the darkness, anger and insecurity that hide in each of us and harnesses them for his own purposes. If one of his lies doesn’t work — well, then he lies about that.

If we harbor latent racism or if we fear terror attacks by Muslim extremists, then he elevates a rumor into a public debate: Was Barack Obama born in Kenya, and is he therefore not really president?

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama’s birth certificate is a fraud.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 6, 2012
Libya is being taken over by Islamic radicals—-with @BarackObama’s open support.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2011
If his own ego is threatened — if broadcast footage and photos show a smaller-sized crowd at his inauguration than he wanted — then he targets the news media, falsely charging outlets with disseminating “fake news” and insisting, against all evidence, that he has proved his case (“We caught them in a beauty,” he said).

If his attempt to limit the number of Muslim visitors to the U.S. degenerates into an absolute fiasco and a display of his administration’s incompetence, then he falsely asserts that terrorist attacks are underreported. (One case in point offered by the White House was the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, which in fact received intensive worldwide news coverage. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the subject).

If he detects that his audience may be wearying of his act, or if he worries about a probe into Russian meddling into the election that put him in office, he tweets in the middle of the night the astonishingly absurd claim that President Obama tapped his phones. And when evidence fails to support him he dispatches his aides to explain that by “phone tapping” he obviously didn’t mean phone tapping. Instead of backing down when confronted with reality, he insists that his rebutted assertions will be vindicated as true at some point in the future.

Trump’s easy embrace of untruth can sometimes be entertaining, in the vein of a Moammar Kadafi speech to the United Nations or the self-serving blathering of a 6-year-old.

“
He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.
”

But he is not merely amusing. He is dangerous. His choice of falsehoods and his method of spewing them — often in tweets, as if he spent his days and nights glued to his bedside radio and was periodically set off by some drivel uttered by a talk show host who repeated something he’d read on some fringe blog — are a clue to Trump’s thought processes and perhaps his lack of agency. He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.

He has made himself the stooge, the mark, for every crazy blogger, political quack, racial theorist, foreign leader or nutcase peddling a story that he might repackage to his benefit as a tweet, an appointment, an executive order or a policy. He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab — and that ought to prevail in the White House.

There have always been those who accept the intellectually bankrupt notion that people are entitled to invent their own facts — consider the “9/11 was an inside job” trope — but Trump’s ascent marks the first time that the culture of alternative reality has made its home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If Americans are unsure which Trump they have — the Machiavellian negotiator who lies to manipulate simpler minds, or one of those simpler minds himself — does it really matter? In either case he puts the nation in danger by undermining the role of truth in public discourse and policymaking, as well as the notion of truth being verifiable and mutually intelligible.

In the months ahead, Trump will bring his embrace of alternative facts on the nation’s behalf into talks with China, North Korea or any number of powers with interests counter to ours and that constitute an existential threat. At home, Trump now becomes the embodiment of the populist notion (with roots planted at least as deeply in the Left as the Right) that verifiable truth is merely a concept invented by fusty intellectuals, and that popular leaders can provide some equally valid substitute. We’ve seen people like that before, and we have a name for them: demagogues.

Our civilization is defined in part by the disciplines — science, law, journalism — that have developed systematic methods to arrive at the truth. Citizenship brings with it the obligation to engage in a similar process. Good citizens test assumptions, question leaders, argue details, research claims.

Investigate. Read. Write. Listen. Speak. Think. Be wary of those who disparage the investigators, the readers, the writers, the listeners, the speakers and the thinkers. Be suspicious of those who confuse reality with reality TV, and those who repeat falsehoods while insisting, against all evidence, that they are true. To defend freedom, demand fact.

This is the second in a series.

Categories Democracy, Fake News, Lies, Trump

Sara Stevenson, Librarian, Corrects Wall Street Journal Choice Zealots

By dianeravitch
April 3, 2017 //
14

If there is one issue where the WSJ is fanatical, it is school choice. It published an editorial this morning (behind a pay wall) declaring that all the recent negative studies of the effects of vouchers must be wrong, because the Milton Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice says so, and whatever the Friedman Foundation says on the subject of vouchers must be right. Right?

Wrong! The Friedman Foundation lobbies and advocates for vouchers. They are not an unbiased source.

Sara Stevenson, librarian at O. Henry Middle School in Austin, Texas, rides herd on the WSJ editorials and once again corrects them. She is on the honor roll of this blog for her determination and fearlessness as an advocate for a better education for all.

She writes:

“It’s no surprise that the Wall Street Journal accuses progressives of cherry-picking negative data about the effectiveness of private school vouchers. On the other hand, I can turn around and accuse the editorial board of doing the same thing with its positive data. Your bias is so transparent when you quote aggregated data by the Friedman Foundation, failing to report its full name: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, as in Milton Friedman, the father of school choice.

“Here is some additional data to the “cherry-picked” studies you attempt to refute in your editorial. You get objectivity points for admitting that the voucher experiment in Louisiana, the largest to date, is a failure.

“Please consider these. Full disclosure: I do not work for a think tank nor am I a lobbyist. I am a public middle school librarian who taught for ten years in a Catholic high school.

“According to a Brookings Institute Report by Mark Dynarski in May 2016, both Louisiana and Indiana students who received private school vouchers scored lower on reading and math tests compared to similar students who remained in public schools. As Mr. Dynarski wrote:

“In education as in medicine, ‘first, do no harm’ is a powerful guiding principle. A case to use taxpayer funds to send children of low-income parents to private schools is based on an expectation that the outcome will be positive. These recent findings point in the other direction.”

“Let’s look at some longer-term studies. In 1989, Milwaukee began its Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. That’s over 25 years ago. According to a Public Policy Report, in the years 2012 – 2014, students in Milwaukee public schools were more proficient than their private school choice counterparts in statewide reading and math tests at every grade level (3 – 10).

“Even the DC Opportunity Scholarship program shows no benefits in math, after three years, between students who applied and were selected for a voucher and those who applied and instead continued at public schools.

“Instead of pushing “market choices,” which means winners and losers, let’s work towards a quality education for every child.

Sara Stevenson
Austin, Texas”

Categories Lies, Vouchers

Los Angeles Editorial: “Our Dishonest President,” Part 1

By dianeravitch
April 3, 2017 //
29

The Los Angeles Times is publishing a series of editorials about Donald Trump. This is the first. It was published yesterday.


It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.

Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.

In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.

His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.

It is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.

These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.

Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.

In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling traits:

1. Trump’s shocking lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,” rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are palpable.

2. His utter lack of regard for truth. Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents, nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and rational compromise becomes impossible.

3. His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories, racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.

Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a new president. And that was before his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard.

On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration. Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.

But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from his cynical assaults.

The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a role to play in this drama.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Equity, Freedom, Freedom of the Press, Ignorance, Injustice, Lies, Trump

Fred Smith: The Pathetic Lies of the New York State Education Department, in Service of the Testing Regime

By dianeravitch
March 27, 2017 //
13

Fred Smith is a testing expert who worked for the New York City Board of Education for many years. In retirement, he volunteers for parent groups fighting to stop excessive and pointless standardized testing. The testing starts tomorrow across the state, and the State Education Department is pulling out all the stops to hinder, deter, and block the opt-out movement.

The New York State Education Department (SED) has been campaigning to dissuade more parents from abandoning the annual testing program.

Last year the parents and guardians of 220,000 children opted out of the English Language Arts (ELA) and math exams. They are given to 1.2 million children annually in grades 3 through 8. Their administration becomes the center of attention for six school days. They are due to begin on Tuesday.

The effort to keep parents onboard this year depends on repeating the same misleading information the state provided in 2016. It must be challenged. There are also important test-related matters SED fails to advise parents about.

Seeking to turn back the opt-out movement, misinformation about testing has been reduced to a few scripted points to help SED and education administrators convey the idea that the testing program has improved: The number of questions on the exams has been reduced; more teachers have been involved in developing them; and the tests are untimed.

On the surface these seem attractive. But, fewer items make less reliable tests. The teachers who were involved reviewed but didn’t write the questions, which were developed by test publisher Pearson. And the removal of time limits means the tests are no longer being conducted under standard conditions, thereby nullifying attempts to measure growth.

Effectively, the results of the 2017 exams cannot be used to make meaningful comparisons over time. This should end their already shaky use to assess student progress, or be factored into value-added formulas to judge teacher effectiveness, or enter into the evaluation of school performance. Ipso facto, the inability to make year-to-year comparisons of achievement is a sufficient reason for opting out.

Another selling point the state makes is that, while the tests will continue to be given, no teachers or principals will be affected by the results. This may lull people concerned about the misuse of the tests into accepting their administration because negative consequences have diminished.

My experience tells me something different. Whenever there is an investment in testing, a use for the scores will be found to justify the cost and to shield decision makers, who lean on the results, from taking direct responsibility for their actions.

There is a darker side to the propaganda. In announcing the improvements, an SED spokesperson said, “It’s up to parents to decide if their children should take the tests and we want them to have all the facts so they can make an informed decision.”

Then why does State Education Commissioner Elia withhold information on a parent’s right to opt out of the exams? And why has the state continued since 2012 to keep parents in the dark about the field testing of questions that allow publishers to develop future exams for free by trying out test questions on children?

Both omissions are most notable in a one-page document posted on SED’s Engageny , titled The 2017 Grades 3-8 New York State Assessments: What Parents Need to Know. Evidently, they must know the tests are untimed, shortened, reflective of teacher involvement and the fact that some districts will give them on computers. The ultimate goal is a transition to universal computer-based testing. No reason they should know about opting out or about the field tests.

This is pure arrogance. Presenting information in a need-to-know manner implies that parents are like soldiers told only those things that are essential to the discharge of their duties—in this case, an obligation to take the tests. This is how we “enage” parents?!

Here are some more facts about 2017’s field testing that parents don’t need to know:

There are two approaches publishers follow to develop questions and determine which should be kept for subsequent exams. The preferred way is to embed try-out material (reading passages and associated questions) in the test booklets that students are striving to complete. In theory, students can’t tell which questions are experimental and do not count in scoring their tests from the operational ones that count. Thus, they should be motivated to do well on the trial items.

This year, 22% of the ELA multiple-choice items that appear in Test Book 1 (March 28) are being field tested. In grade 3, 25% of the items are being tried out. That is, one reading passage and six out of the 24 items are developmental. They don’t count, but they require time and energy to complete and their inclusion on the tests can have an impact on the results.

In math, embedded items will make up 14% of the tests, interspersed among the operational items. They are contained in Test Books 1 and 2 (May 2 and 3). Statewide, 1.2 million children have been volunteered to participate. Parents haven’t been asked for their consent.

The less preferred way to try out items, known as stand-alone field testing, has also been taken by SED, because embedding has not yielded enough items to build new tests. So, separate field tests are used to generate sufficient material for the next round.

Here too, parents are not told about these tests. The state has targeted 3,073 schools for ELA or math stand-alone field testing on one grade level any day between May 22 and June 9. 973 of them are being tapped to participate in the computer-based testing part of this experiment.

What makes stand-alone field testing weak is that students are not motivated to do well on tests that are given late in the year consisting entirely of questions they know don’t count. Therefore, the information obtained about how the try-out items functioned is tenuous when publishers must choose which ones will become operational.

Stand-alone field testing has been discredited and criticized as contributing to poorly constructed Common Core exams. There are no negative consequences for rejecting this shoddy approach.

Clearly, not leveling with parents shows contempt. It is part of SED’s conspiracy of silence designed to keep mass testing in place. Parents and their children, the lifeblood of the public schools, should strongly consider opting out of the 2017 exams.

Categories Lies, Opt Out, Parents, Propaganda, Standardized Testing, Students

Jeff Bryant: The Big Lie Behind Trump’s Budget Proposals for Education

By dianeravitch
March 26, 2017 //
13

Jeff Bryant spells out the Big Lie embedded in Trump’s budget proposal for education. He plans to cut programs that directly aid poor kids while bolstering charters and vouchers, pretending they are equivalent. They are not. Yet much of the mainstream media has fallen for the Trump-DeVos bait-and-switch.

“Public school supporters are angry at President Trump’s budget proposal, which plans to cut funding to the Department of Education by 13 percent – taking that department’s outlay down to the level it was ten years ago. But the target for their anger should not be just the extent of the cuts but also how the cuts are being pitched to the public.

“Trump’s education budget cuts are aimed principally at federal programs that serve poor kids, especially their access to afterschool programs and high-quality teachers.

“At the same time, Trump’s spending blueprint calls for pouring $1.4 billion into school choice policies including a $168 million increase for charter schools, $250 million for a new school choice program focused on private schools, and a $1 billion increase for parents to send their kids to private schools at taxpayer expense.

“The way the Trump administration is spinning this combination of funding cuts and increases – and the way nearly every news outlet is reporting them – is that there is some sort of strategically important balance between funding programs for poor kids versus “school choice” schemes, as if the two are equivalents and just different means to the same ends. Nothing could be further from the truth….

“The message being spun out of Trump’s education budget is that it takes money away from those awful “adult interests” – like, you know, teachers to actually teach the students and buildings so students have somewhere to go after school to play sports, get tutored, or engage in music and art projects – in order to steer money to “the kids” who will get a meager sum of money to search for learning opportunities in an education system that is increasingly bereft of teachers and buildings.

“Even competent education reporters are falling for this spin, writing that education policy is experiencing a “sea change in focus from fixing the failing schools to helping the students in the failing schools.”

“However, there’s evidence that federally funded efforts like afterschool programs and class size reduction tend to lead to better academic results for low-income children, while the case for using school choice programs to address the education needs of poor kids is pretty weak.

“The Weak Case For Choice

“School voucher programs, like the ones Trump and DeVos seem intent on funding, are particularly ineffective ways to address the education problems of poor kids. Indeed, these programs seem to not serve the interests of poor kids at all.

“Studies of voucher programs In Wisconsin, Indiana, Arizona, and Nevada have found that most of the money from the programs goes to parents wealthy enough to already have their children enrolled in private schools.

“Voucher programs rarely provide enough money to enable poor minority children to get access to the best private schools. And a new comprehensive study of vouchers finds evidence that vouchers don’t significantly improve student achievement. What they do pose is greater likelihood that students who are the most costly and difficult to educate – low-income kids and children with special needs – will be turned away or pushed out by private schools that are not obligated to serve all students.

“Charter schools, another program the Trump budget wants to ramp up funding for, also don’t have a great track record for improving the education attainment of low-income students.

“Perhaps the best case made for using charter schools to target the needs of low-income students comes from a study on the impact of charters in urban school systems conducted by research outfit CREDO in 2015. The study indeed found evidence of some positive impact of charters in these communities. But as my colleague at The Progressive Julian Vasquez Heilig points out, the measures of improvement, in standard deviations, are .008 for Latino students and .05 for African American students in charter schools.

“These numbers are larger than zero,” Heilig writes on his personal blog, “but you need a magnifying glass to see them. Contrast that outcome with policies such as pre-K and class size reduction which are far more unequivocal measures of success than charter schools. They have 400 percent to 1000 percent more statistical impact than charters.”

“Indeed, choice programs in all their forms, at least in how they are being promoted by the Trump administration and its supporters, seem more interested in diverting money away from public schools than they are intent on delivering some sort of education relief to the struggles of poor families.”

School choice will actually harm children by diverting money from public schools that now enroll 90% of America’s students to provide choices for a few children. Most of those choices will be for schools with uncertified teachers and a Bible-based curriculum.

This may satisfy billionaire Betsy DeVos but it won’t be good for children.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Lies, Poverty, School Choice, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »