Alexei Navalny, Leading Opponent of Putin, Dies in Russian Prison. He Was a Hero and a Patriot.

By dianeravitch
February 16, 2024 //
48

Putin has finally gotten rid of his chief opponent, Alexei Navalny. Officials announced that he died after taking a “walk” in the remote prison where he was confined.

Navalny was a strapping handsome man of 47 who bravely stood up to Putin. He previously survived an attempt to poison him, a near-death experience. Navalny recovered in a German hospital.

He could have stayed in the West and remained a free man, risking the possibility that Putin’s agents would kill him.

Instead, after his recovery, he returned to Moscow to lead the struggle against Putin. He was arrested the instant he stepped off the plane.

Navalny was repeatedly moved into solitary confinement and suffered harsh conditions. While imprisoned, his jail term was increased again and again.

From today’s New York Times:

Mr. Navalny was given a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence in February 2021 after returning to Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from being poisoned with a nerve agent the previous August. In March 2022, he received a nine-year sentence for embezzlement and fraud in a trial that international observers denounced as “politically motivated” and a “sham.” And in August 2023, he was sentenced to 19 years in prison for “extremism.” 

Mr. Navalny had effectively returned from the dead after his 2020 poisoning and had conducted multiple hunger strikes to improve his treatment, with many of his supporters believing him to be all but invincible. 

During his detention, Mr. Navalny was repeatedly placed in solitary confinement, and complained about severe illnesses. In December, he disappeared for three weeks during his transfer to a penal colony 40 miles north of the Arctic Circle.

Navalny was interviewed by the New York Times in 2021.

An excerpt:

What is the likelihood you will be killed in prison?

In interviews, at points like this, there’s usually a remark in parentheses (laughter). You cannot see me right now, but I assure you, I’m laughing.

For many years, I was forced to make excuses in response to questions like: “Why haven’t you been killed yet?” and “Why haven’t you been jailed?” Now that I have both these boxes checked (the one about murder with a side note: “Well, almost”), I’m asked to gauge the probability of my own death while in prison.

Well, the answer, obviously, can be taken from a joke: 50 percent. I’ll either be killed or not be killed.

Let’s not forget that we clearly have to deal with a person who has lost his mind, Putin. A pathological liar with megalomania and persecutory delusion. Twenty-two years in power would do that to anyone, and what we’re witnessing is a classic situation of a half-mad czar.

Putin is at last free of the one man who led a movement to oust him.

Please Google and watch the documentary “Navalny.” The world has lost a man of courage and principle.

Putin killed Navalny, but he never broke his spirit.

Categories Courage, Cruelty, International

Tune in Tonight at 7 PM EST for My Talk About Privatization and Attacks on Public Schools

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
52

I will be in conversation with Todd Scholl of the Center for Educator Wellness & Learning in South Carolina tonight February 15 at 7 pm EST.

We will talk about privatization of public schools and the attacks on public schools.

The conversation will be livestreamed on Facebook.

Tonight February 15 at 7 pm.

Categories Bigotry, Billionaires, Dark Money, Disruption, Education Industry, Privatization, Religion, South Carolina, Virtual Charter Schools, Vouchers

Colorado: Gun Control Law Introduced

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
46

Colorado has been the site of some high-profile mass murders. One thinks of the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999, which involved 15 deaths plus the two shooters. The massacre at a movie theatre in 2012 in Aurora, which involved 12 deaths. The massacre at a supermarket in Boulder, where 10 people died. Five people died at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2023. Curtailing access to guns may be one way to limit future killers.

The Denver Post reports:

Colorado would ban the sale, transfer and importation of so-called assault weaponsunder a bill introduced Tuesday in the state House.

The measure, HB24-1292, is similar to legislation that a House committee killed last spring in its first hearing, but this year’s version may have better chances. The new bill would define assault weapons as including semi-automatic rifles and pistols with fixed large-capacity magazines or the ability to accept detachable magazines, along with several other types of high-powered firearms.

It would not ban the possession of the weapons but would prohibit the “manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell or transferring” of them, with exemptions for police and the military. It also would prohibit the possession of rapid-fire trigger activators, Seth Klamann reports.

Categories Colorado, Guns, Safety

Which NATO Countries Did Trump Offer to Putin as Targets for Invasion?

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
26

At a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, Donald Trump said that he met with “the president of a big country,” who asked him, “Well sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia – will you protect us?”

Trump said he responded:.

“I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said: ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay.”

European leaders were shocked by Trump’s casual dismissal of Article 5 of NATO, which binds every member nation to defend any other nation that is attacked. Since NATO was created in 1949, in response to the Soviet threat, Article 5 has been invoked only once, in aid of the United States on September 11, 2001. NATO has kept the peace, as it was meant to do. The USSR has never invaded a NATO nation, which may explain why so many former Soviet satellites weee eager to join NATO.

Thirty-one nations now belong to NATO.

Trump doesn’t understand how it works, so The Washington Post tried to explain it, in hopes that he reads it.

NATO member nations all make payments to cover the operating expenses of the organization, which was founded in the aftermath of World War II to help Western Europe counter the Soviet Union with help from Canada and the United States. But they don’t pay membership fees to remain in the alliance, so there’s no delinquency to speak of.

Countries do, however, commit to spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense each year, with the goal of ensuring the alliance’s military readiness and deterring any potential attacks. The commitment is a guideline, not a requirement, that has been in place for nearly two decades.

Last year, 11 countries met or exceeded that target, according to NATO statistics. The rest spent smaller portions of their GDP on defense. (Iceland, the only member state with no armed forces, is omitted from the data set.)

The nation that spent the most on military readiness was Poland, perhaps because of the years it was subjugated by the USSR.

Second was the United States.

The other nine that met the goal of at least 2% were: Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Latvia, Hungary, the United Kingdom, Slovakia.

The nations that Trump is offering up to Putin as targets for invasion are: France, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Czech Republic, Portugal, Italy, Canada, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. None of these countries met their 2% of GDP goal for military spending.

If you have been thinking of vacationing in any of the unprotected nations, like France, Germany, or Spain, it would be best to plan your trip in 2024. Should Trump be elected, those nations might be battlefields or Russian satellites.

Categories Elections, International, Trump

Irish Times: Why Does the Media Normalize a Wannabe Dictator? $$$

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
62

A friend sent me this editorial from The Irish Times to show how our Presidential campaign is viewed in a normal country.

The Irish Times titled it:

Trump’s flaming chainsaw circus act is back. And so is the media gravy train

The candidate with openly violent dictatorship ambitions is being allowed to campaign as a normal politician

The point: the media is treating Trump with kid gloves because he’s good for their bottom line. Biden is boring.

Way back in 2016 TV network chiefs knew the destruction they were wreaking with their 24/7 razzle-dazzle Trump coverage. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” said the network’s chairman Les Moonves. “The money’s rolling in and this is fun . . .Bring it on, Donald.”

Now we know that Trump was gifted around $2 billion in free media plus substantially more coverage than his opponents.

Fast forward to 2021, a few months after president Joe Biden was sworn in. US journalist and author Julie Ioffe asked some reporters how life had been since the Trump circus left town.

“Trump has been good for many journalists professionally, myself included,” said one.

“I mean, it wasn’t just the fact that Trump was a gravy train,” said another. “It’s also juxtaposed (against) the most boring administration in modern history. You go from a circus with flaming chainsaws to… what? An old man watching his dog?”

That “old man” was just a year older than Trump is now.

Since then the old man’s economy has added a record number of jobs and sees stocks – a Trump fixation during his presidency – at a record high.

Trump, meanwhile, is facing 91 criminal indictments, some relating to attempts to overthrow the government. In October alone he said that shoplifters should be shot and suggested an army general should be executed for treason. He promises a mass deportation programme with internment camps near the border, and plans to use the military to crush street protests via the Insurrection Act, while being a dictator on day one. At a global level he is happy to throw small sovereign countries like Estonia under Putin’s tanks.

Yet this man, with all the mental acuity of a howling dog, is ahead in the polls. The flaming chainsaw circus act is back with a vengeance, and for some in the media so is that sweet gravy train.

Might the two be linked?

The ceaseless drumbeat about Biden’s age and decline – reminiscent of the saturation 2016 coverage of Hillary Clinton’s emails – is once again enabling the candidate with openly violent dictatorship ambitions to campaign as a normal politician, as if this was the Kentucky Derby.

In a speech to the National Rifle Association last Friday, Trump lied dozens of times, slurred his words and confused basic facts, according to a furious Biden campaign adviser. “But you won’t hear about any of it if you watch cable news, read this weekend’s papers, or watch the Sunday shows,” raged TJ Ducklo, accusing beltway reporters of being numb to Trump’s horrifying candidacy. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Yet in the weekend’s New York Times Biden’s age and memory were addressed negatively by no fewer than three prominent columnists plus the paper’s editorial board, along with multiple news stories. On a Sunday current affairs show a CNN chyron asked, “Is Biden’s age now a bigger problem than Trump’s indictments?” It was the classic circular question which could have begun with the media itself asking about its own role in the growing “problem”.

An outlier was a Washington Post feature describing Biden’s work schedule around the special counsel interviews he sat down for on the two days following the appalling October 7th Hamas atrocity. He was brain-shifting between calls with world leaders about a threatened Middle East conflagration and 2½-hour sessions of questions about decades-old events.

Given that Biden was exonerated on several counts while others were deemed no longer sensitive or not provable, the special counsel’s scathing commentary on his memory was remarkable in terms of timing.

Trump was back again in a federal courthouse in a criminal case involving classified documents and obstruction of FBI efforts. “I’m in court. Again!” boasted his campaign message.

Still, the growing consensus is that Biden is the one with the problem and must bow out.

There are reasons why this is barely feasible, a big one being that the deadline for candidates’ primary ballot submissions, involving a hefty fee and many thousands of voter signatures, has already passed in most states. If, having won enough delegates to be unsurpassable, Biden then withdraws, the nomination could be decided on the floor of the Democratic National Convention in August, where delegates could choose a saviour candidate instead. Not many ambitious big names, timing their run, want to pit themselves against a sitting president. Plus Biden has the funds and has already proven himself against Trump.

So the more pressing question is how a responsible media weighs up the declining memory of a mostly successful pro-democracy incumbent versus the threat of a vile, vengeful, authoritarian alternative.

Most people have no idea how dangerously deranged an unfiltered Trump looks on his own platform. So there is a balance to be struck: how to cover Trump as a candidate while printing the unvarnished truth of what he actually says. What most people see instead is the text-heavy, sanitised, balanced – as opposed to objective – headlines of the mainstream media and/or the polarised call-and-response of a social media that rewards hate and ignorance.

Maybe the mainstream solution involves in-your-face tactics such as replacing the big front page images several times a day with unfiltered Trump social statements in a size and font readable at 50m….

Imagine bold-faced headlines in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, USA Today, the Miami Herald, etc., stating “TRUMP LIES AGAIN ABOUT…..”

That would mean reporting facts, not “what he said.”

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Media, Trump

New York City: End Mayoral Control of the Schools!

By dianeravitch
February 15, 2024 //
21

Politico reported recently that Mayor Eric Adams is pulling out all the stops in his campaign to persuade the legislature to extend mayoral control of New York Ciry’s public schools.

That’s understandable. Every mayor wants as much power as he can gather. Guiliani wanted mayoral control. The legislature turned him down. Michael Bloomberg got it after he won the mayoralty in 2001, pledging to make the schools run efficiently and successfully after years of political squabbling and disappointing academic results.

A historical note: the last time that the independent Board of Education was abolished was in 1871, when Boss Tweed pushed through state legislation to create a Department of Education, in charge of the schools. The new Department immediately banned purchase of any textbooks published by Harper Bros., to retaliate for the publication of Thomas Nast cartoons ridiculing the Tweed Ring in Harper’s magazine. The new Department steered lucrative contracts to Tweed cronies, for furniture and all supplies for the schools.

Two years later, the corruption of the Tweed Ring was exposed, and criminal prosecutions ensued. In short order, the Department of Education was dissolved and the independent Board of Education was revived.

In the 2001 race for Mayor, billionaire Mike Bloomberg campaigned on promises to rebuild the city’s economy after the devastating attacks of 9/11/2001. He also promised to take over the school system, make it more efficient, improve student performance, and able to live within its budget of $12 billion plus. He won, and many people were excited by the prospect of a successful businessman taking over the city and the schools.

In 2002, the State Legislature gave Mayor Bloomberg control of the schools in New York City. It replaced the independent Board of Education, whose seven members were appointed by the five borough presidents and the mayor. Bloomberg had complete control of the school system, with its more than 1,000 schools and more than one million students. The new law allowed him to appoint the majority of “the Panel on Education Policy,” a sham substitute for the old Board of Education.

The new law still referred to “the Board of Education,” but the new PEP was a shell of its former self. It was toothless, as Bloomberg wanted. He picked the Chancellor, and he had the policymaking powers. Early on, in 2004, he decided that third graders should be held back based on their reading scores. Some of his appointees on the PEP opposed the idea and he fired them before the vote was taken. He wanted all his appointees to know that he appointed them to carry out his decisions, not to question them. The retention policy was later expanded through eighth grade but quietly abandoned in 2014 because it failed.

I won’t go into all the missteps of the Bloomberg regime, which lasted 12 years, but will offer a few generalizations:

1. The mayor should not control the schools because they will never be his first priority. The mayor juggles a large portfolio: public safety, the economy, transportation, infrastructure, public health, sanitation, and much more. On any given day, he/she might have 30 minutes to think about the schools; more some days, none at all on others.

2. Mayoral control concentrates too much power in the hands of one person. One person, especially a non-educator, gets an idea into his head and imposes it, no need to talk to experienced educators or review research.

3. Mayoral control marginalizes parents and community members, whose concerns deserve to be heard. At public hearings of the PEP, parents testified but rightly thought that no one listened to them. In the “bad old days,” they could speak to someone in their borough president’s office; now the borough presidents have no power. No one does, Except the mayor.

4. The Mayor picked three non-educators as Chancellor. Joel Klein disdained educators and public schools, even though he was a graduate of the NYC public schools. He created a “Leadership Academy” to train non-educators and teachers to bypass the usual path to becoming a principal by serving for years as an assistant principal. Klein surrounded himself with B-school graduates and looked to Eli Broad, Bill Gates, and Jack Welch for advice. Large numbers of experienced teachers and principals retired.

5. Bloomberg loved churn and disruption. He closed scores of schools and replaced them with many more small schools. Some high schools that had programs for ELLs, special education, career paths for different fields, were closed and replaced by schools for 300/400 students, too small to offer specialized programs or advanced classes.

6. New initiatives were announced with great fanfare (like merit pay), thanks to a vastly enlarged public relations staff, then quietly collapsed and disappeared.

7. Bloomberg and Klein imposed a new choice system. But all high schools and middle schools became schools of choice. A dozen students of the age living in the same building might attend a dozen different schools, some distant from their homes. One retired executive told me that this dispersal was intended to obstruct the creation of grassroots uprisings against the new dictates.

8. Bloomberg and Klein favored charter schools. In short order, more than 100 opened. The charters were supported financially and politically by some of the wealthiest Wall Street titans. When there was any threat to charters, their wealthy patrons quickly assembled multi-millions dollar TV campaigns to defend them. Because of the deep pockets of the charter patrons, the charter lobby gave generous contributions to legislators in Albany. The legislature passed laws favoring the charters, including one that required the public schools to provide free space for them or, if no suitable space was available, to pay their rent in private facilities.

9. Bloomberg and Klein made testing, accountability and choice the central themes of their reforms. Their approach mirrored President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind law, which began at the same time. Raising test scores became the goal of the school system. Schools were graded A-F, depending primarily on their ability to raise test scores. Eventually, teachers were graded by the rise or fall of their students’ scores. NYC faithfully mirrored the tenets of the national corporate reform movement.

10. NYC test scores improved on NAEP during the Bloomberg years, but not as much as in other cities that did not have mayoral control.

11. To get a great overview of “The Failure of Mayoral Control in New York City,” read this great summary by Leonie Haimson, which includes links to other sources. See, especially, the recent article in Education Week on the decline of mayoral control. Chicago had mayoral control similar to that in New York City, which allowed Mayor Rahm Emanuel to close 50 schools in black and brown communities in one day, completely ignoring the views of parents. It was an ignominious example of the danger of one-man control.

12. There is no perfect mechanism to govern schools, but any kind of oversight should allow parent voices to count. 95% of the nation’s school districts have elected school boards. Sometimes a small faction gains control and does damage. That’s the risk of democracy. Whatever the mechanism, there must be an opportunity for the public, especially parents, to make their voices heard and to have a role. The mayor controls the budget: that’s as much power as he should have.

History is an excellent overview of New York City school governance—history and myths. Again, by Leonie Haimson. (Note: her history leaves out the two years of mayoral control from 1871-1873.)

Categories Billionaires, Bloomberg, Michael, Democracy, Education Reform, Elections, Failure, New York, New York City

New York State Wins $750,000 from College Board for Selling Student Data

By dianeravitch
February 14, 2024 //
10

For years, parent advocates for student privacy have been pushing the state to stop the College Board from selling student data to colleges. See Reuters story here. The state Attorney General Letitia James and Board of Regents Chair Betty Rosa sued the College Board and won.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    
February 13, 2024

Attorney General’s Press Office/212-416-8060nyag.pressoffice@ag.ny.gov

Attorney General James and NYSED Commissioner Rosa
Secure $750,000 from College Board for Violating Students’ Privacy

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York State Education Department (NYSED) Commissioner Betty A. Rosa announced a $750,000 settlement with College Board for violating students’ privacy and unlawfully selling their personal data. For years, College Board collected students’ personal information when they took the PSAT, SAT, and AP exams in school, and then licensed this data to colleges, scholarship programs, and other customers who used it to solicit students to participate in their programs. In 2019 alone, College Board improperly licensed the information of more than 237,000 New York students who took their exams. In addition, College Board improperly sent promotional materials to students who signed up for College Board accounts in connection with exams or AP courses. As a result of today’s agreement, College Board must pay $750,000 in penalties and will be prohibited from monetizing New York students’ data that it acquires through its contracts with New York schools and school districts.

“Students have more than enough to be stressed about when they take college entrance exams, and shouldn’t have to worry about their personal information being bought and sold,” said Attorney General James. “New York law requires organizations like College Board to protect the data they collect from students when they take their exams in school, not sell it to customers for a profit. I want to thank Commissioner Rosa for her work on this investigation to ensure we hold College Board accountable and protect New York students’ privacy.”  

“When the organizations we trust to provide meaningful services to our students exploit student information for profit, it violates privacy laws as well as the public trust,” said Commissioner Betty A. Rosa. “We will continue to ensure that every student’s information is appropriately utilized and protected. We are grateful to the Attorney General for her collaboration in protecting the interests of the students and families of New York.”

College Board is a New York-based non-profit institution that develops and administers standardized tests, primarily to high school students who take them as part of the college admissions process. It also develops other college readiness programs, such as AP courses, and has a contract with NYSED to subsidize AP exam fees for low-income students. In addition, College Board operates the Student Search Service (Search), in which it licenses data it collects from students — including their names, contact information, ethnicity, GPAs, and test scores — to customers like colleges and scholarship programs to use for recruiting students. 

Beginning in 2010, College Board contracted with New York schools and school districts to allow schools to offer the PSAT and SAT exams during the school day and to pay for the students’ exam fees. In the past five years, approximately 20 New York schools or school districts, including the New York City Department of Education, which operates more than 500 high schools, have entered into such contracts. Schools across New York have also consistently signed agreements with College Board to offer AP courses and exams.

An investigation led by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) revealed that prior to June 2022, College Board solicited students to provide information, such as their GPA, anticipated course of study, interest in a religiously affiliated college and religious activities, and parents’ level of income, during the administration of PSAT, SAT, and AP exams, as well as when students signed up for a College Board online account. Although providing this data for participation in Search was optional, students were solicited to participate in the urgent context of an important exam and were encouraged to sign up because it would connect them with scholarship and college opportunities. From 2018-2022, College Board licensed New York student data to over 1,000 institutions through Search and received significant revenue from data related to New York students who took PSAT, SAT, or AP exams during the school day.    

The investigation further found that College Board improperly used student data for its own marketing. Until fall 2022, College Board used student data collected in connection with PSAT and SAT exams administered during the school day to send marketing communications. In addition, until 2023, when New York students registered for the AP program, they were solicited to opt in to receiving College Board marketing materials. 

Under New York law, it is illegal to use student data obtained under a contract with a New York educational agency for commercial or marketing purposes. The investigation found College Board improperly used student data obtained in connection with PSAT and SAT exams administered during the school day and the AP program by licensing student data to Search clients and using student data to send its own marketing materials.  

Under the settlement announced today, College Board must pay $750,000 in penalties, disgorgement, and costs to the state. College Board is also prohibited from using New York student data it collects or receives in connection with a contract with a New York educational agency for any marketing or commercial purposes. This includes data obtained from administering PSAT, SAT, or AP exams during the school day. In addition, College Board cannot solicit students to participate in Search or similar programs during these exams.

This matter was handled for OAG by Assistant Attorneys General Laura Mumm, Jina John, and Hanna Baek of the Bureau of Internet and Technology, under the supervision of Bureau Chief Kim Berger and Deputy Bureau Chief Clark Russell, with special assistance from former Special Advisor and Senior Counsel for Economic Justice Zephyr Teachout. The Bureau of Internet and Technology is part of the Division for Economic Justice, which is overseen by Chief Deputy Attorney General Chris D’Angelo and First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

This matter was handled for NYSED by Chief Privacy Officer Louise De Candia and Counsel & Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs Daniel Morton-Bentley.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, For-Profit, New York, Privacy and Privacy Rights

Los Angeles School Board Passes Policy Limiting Charter Co-Locations

By dianeravitch
February 14, 2024 //
9

By a vote of 4-3, the Los Angeles Unified Schiol District Board adopted a policy barring charter schools from co-locating in public schools with high-needs students. The charter lobby immediately threatened to sue the district. Currently one of every five students in the LAUSD district attends a charter school. For years, billionaires such as Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, Bill Bloomfield, the Walton family, and Michael Bloomberg have poured millions into school board races on behalf of privatization. But for the moment, the anti-privatization supporters of public schools have a slim majority.

The seats of two of the four-person majority—Scott Schmerelson and George McKenna—are up for election next month. Both are veteran educators and pro-public schools. Schmerelson is running for re-election; McKenna is retiring and has endorsed veteran educator Sherlett Hendy Newbill. I endorsed both Scott Schmerelson and Sherlett Hendy Newbill.

The new policy could be ditched by pro-charter replacements or by a legal challenge from the charter lobby.

Howard Blume wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

The struggle between traditional and charter schools intensified Tuesday when a narrow Los Angeles school board majority passed a sweeping policy that will limit when charters can operate on district-owned campuses. 

Access to public school campuses for charter schools is guaranteed under state law — and charter advocates immediately threatened to sue over the new restrictions.

The policy, passed 4 to 3, prohibits the new location of charters at an unspecified number of campuses with special space needs or programs. One early staff estimate put the number close to 350, but there’s uncertainty over how the policy will be interpreted. The school system has about 850 campuses, but advocates are concerned that charters could be pushed out of areas where they currently operate, making it difficult for them to remain viable.

Under the policy, district-operated campuses are exempt from new space-sharing arrangements when a school has a designatedprogram to help Black students or when a school is among the most “fragile” because of low student achievement. Also exempt would be community schools — which incorporate services for the broader health, counseling and other needs of students and their families. 

The district argued these programs need space beyond the normal allotments for classrooms, counselors, health staff and administrators — for example, rooms for tutoring, enrichment or parent centers. Such spaces had frequently been tabulated as unused or underutilized — and then made available to charters…

In the current school year 52 independent charters operate on 50 campuses, according to L.A. Unified. The number is expected to be smaller for next year and down significantly from a peak of more than 100. But even 50 schools would make for one of the larger school systems in California.

In all, there are 221 district-authorized charters and 25 other local charters approved by the county or state, serving about 1 in 5 public school students within the boundaries of L.A. Unified — about 535,000 students total. Most charters operate in their own or leased private buildings.

The L.A. school system has more charters than any other district in the nation. Most were approved under charter-friendly school boards and under state laws — since changed — that made it difficult for school districts to reject charters.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Elections, Los Angeles

Heather Cox Richardson: History Is Watching!

By dianeravitch
February 14, 2024 //
20

Heather Cox Richardson writes about the supine behavior of Republicans in the House of Representatives, as they worship at the shrine of Trump. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill to fund Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel: 22 Republican Senators voted for it, openly defying the Orange Menace. But in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson says he won’t allow the bill to come to a vote because it is likely to pass. Johnson is collaborating with Trump who is collaborating with the enemies of freedom (aka Putin).

She writes:

History is watching,” President Joe Biden said this afternoon. He warned “Republicans in Congress who think they can oppose funding for Ukraine and not be held accountable” that “[f]ailure to support Ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten.”

At about 5:00 this morning, the Senate passed a $95 billion national security supplemental bill, providing funding for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and humanitarian aid to Gaza. Most of the money in the measure will stay in the United States, paying defense contractors to restock the matériel the U.S. sends to Ukraine. 

The vote was 70–29 and was strongly bipartisan. Twenty-two Republicans joined Democrats in support of the bill, overcoming the opposition of far-right Republicans.

The measure went to the House of Representatives, where House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he will not take it up, even though his far-right supporters acknowledged that a majority of the representatives supported it and that if it did come to the floor, it would pass. 

Yesterday, House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Turner (R-OH)—who had just returned from his third trip to Ukraine, where he told President Volodymyr Zelensky that reinforcements were coming—told Politico’sRachel Bade: “We have to get this done…. This is no longer an issue of, ‘When do we support Ukraine?’ If we do not move, this will be abandoning Ukraine.” 

“The speaker will need to bring it to the floor,” Turner said. “You’re either for or against the authoritarian governments invading democratic countries.… You’re either for or against the killing of innocent civilians. You’re either for or against Russia reconstituting the Soviet Union.”

Today, Biden spoke to the press to “call on the Speaker to let the full House speak its mind and not allow a minority of the most extreme voices in the House to block this bill even from being voted on—even from being voted on. This is a critical act for the House to move. It needs to move.”

Bipartisan support for Ukraine “sends a clear message to Ukrainians and to our partners and to our allies around the world: America can be trusted, America can be relied upon, and America stands up for freedom,” he said. “We stand strong for our allies. We never bow down to anyone, and certainly not to Vladimir Putin.”

“Supporting this bill is standing up to Putin. Opposing it is playing into Putin’s hands.”

“The stakes were already high for American security before this bill was passed in the Senate last night,” Biden said. “But in recent days, those stakes have risen. And that’s because the former President has sent a dangerous and shockingly, frankly, un-American signal to the world” Biden said, referring to Trump’s statement on Saturday night that he would “encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—the 75-year-old collective security organization that spans North America and Europe—but are not devoting 2% of the gross domestic product to their militaries. 

Trump’s invitation to Putin to invade our NATO allies was “dumb,…shameful,…dangerous, [and] un-American,” Biden said. “When America gives its word, it means something. When we make a commitment, we keep it. And NATO is a sacred commitment.” NATO, Biden said, is “the alliance that protects America and the world.”

“[O]ur adversaries have long sought to create cracks in the Alliance. The greatest hope of all those who wish America harm is for NATO to fall apart. And you can be sure that they all cheered when they heard [what] Donald Trump…said.”

“Our nation stands at…an inflection point in history…where the decisions we make now are going to determine the course of our future for decades to come. This is one of those moments.

And I say to the House members, House Republicans: You’ve got to decide. Are you going to stand up for freedom, or are you going to side with terror and tyranny? Are you going to stand with Ukraine, or are you going to stand with Putin? Will we stand with America or…with Trump?”

“Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together to send a message of unity to the world. It’s time for the House Republicans to do the same thing: to pass this bill immediately, to stand for decency, stand for democracy, to stand up to a so-called leader hellbent on weakening American security,” Biden said. 

“And I mean this sincerely: History is watching. History is watching.”

But instead of taking up the supplemental national security bill tonight, House speaker Johnson took advantage of the fact that Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) has returned to Washington after a stem cell transplant to battle his multiple myeloma and that Judy Chu (D-CA) is absent because she has Covid to make a second attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for “high crimes and misdemeanors” for his oversight of the southern border of the United States. 

Republicans voted to impeach Mayorkas by a vote of 214 to 213. The vote catered to far-right Republicans, but impeachment will go nowhere in the Senate.

“History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games,” Biden said in a statement. He called on the House to pass the border security measure Republicans killed last week on Trump’s orders, and to pass the national security supplemental bill.

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has said he will use every possible tool to force a vote on the national security supplemental bill. In contrast, as Biden noted, House Republicans are taking their cue from former president Trump, who does not want aid to Ukraine to pass and who last night demonstrated that he is trying to consolidate his power over the party by installing hand-picked loyalists, including his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, who is married to his son Eric, at the head of the Republican National Committee (RNC). 

This move is likely due in part to outgoing RNC chair Ronna McDaniel’s having said the RNC could not pay Trump’s legal bills once he declared himself a presidential candidate. After his political action committees dropped $50 million on legal fees last year, he could likely use another pipeline, and even closer loyalists might give him one. 

In addition, Trump probably recognizes that he might well lose the protective legal bulwark of the Trump Organization when Judge Arthur Engoron hands down his verdict in Trump’s $370 million civil fraud trial. New York attorney general Letitia James is seeking not only monetary penalties but also a ban on Trump’s ability to conduct business in the New York real estate industry. In that event, the RNC could become a base of operations for Trump if he succeeds in taking it over entirely. 

But it is not clear that all Republican lawmakers will follow him into that takeover, as his demands from the party not only put it out of step with the majority of the American people but also now clearly threaten to blow up global security. “Our base cannot possibly know what’s at stake at the level that any well-briefed U.S. senator should know about what’s at stake if Putin wins,” Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) told his colleagues as he urged them to vote for the national security supplemental bill.

Politicians should recognize that Trump’s determination to win doesn’t help them much: it is all about him and does not extend to any down-ballot races. 

Indeed, the attempt of a Republican minority to impose its will on the majority of Americans appears to be sparking a backlash. In today’s election in New York’s Third Congressional District to replace indicted serial liar George Santos, a loyal Trump Republican, voters chose Democrat Tom Suozzi by about 8 points. CNN’s Dana Bash tonight said voters had told her they voted against the Republican candidate because Republicans, on Trump’s orders, killed the bipartisan border deal. The shift both cuts down the Republican majority in the House and suggests that going into 2024, suburban swing voters are breaking for Democrats. 

As Trump tries to complete his takeover of the formerly grand old Republican Party, its members have to decide whether to capitulate.

History is watching.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Failure, Fascism, Freedom, Funding, Republicans, Trump

Open Secrets Reports: Trump Network Paid More Than $60 Million in Legal Fees

By dianeravitch
February 14, 2024 //
3

Open Secrets is a website that tracks and reports on political spending and donors. Its latest report says that the Trump political network paid more than $60 million for legal fees, which was unprecedented for him, possibly for any presidential candidate ever. The money comes not from his pockets but from his fundraising appeals. It’s surprising but true that small donors would send $10 or $25 to a man who claims to be worth $10 billion.

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Funding, Politics, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »