Joint Meeting of the California Practitioners Advisory Group and the State Board of Education Notice and Agenda, June 2017 - California Practitioners Advisory Group (CA Dept of Education)

CPAG Meeting Notice and Agenda, June 2017 - California Practitioners Advisory Group (CA Dept of Education):

Joint Meeting of the California Practitioners Advisory Group 
and the State Board of Education

AGENDA

June 1, 2017

California Practitioners Advisory Group Members

• Jo Ann Isken, Chair
• Ed Manansala, Vice Chair

• Melissa Agudelo
• Jorge Aguilar
• Mariana Astorga-Almanza
• Ulises Garcia
• Carolina Hernandez-Malone
• John-Damien Huntley
• Linda Kaminski
• Kimberly Kenne
• Tara Kini
• Nancy Lara
• L. Karen Monroe
• Marco Petruzzi
• Neva Rowden
• Susan Salcido
• Araceli Simeon

Liaisons to the State Board of Education

• Sue Burr
• Ilene Straus

Note: The State Board of Education (SBE) meeting is a study session and the SBE members in attendance will take no action on any items.

State Board Members

• Michael W. Kirst, President
• Ilene W. Straus, Vice President
• Sue Burr
• Bruce Holaday
• Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon
• Patricia A. Rucker
• Niki Sandoval
• Ting L. Sun
• Karen Valdes
• Trish Williams
• Olivia Sison, Student Member

Secretary & Executive Officer

• Hon. Tom Torlakson

Executive Director

• Karen Stapf Walters

Schedule of Meeting	Location
Thursday, June 1, 2017 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time ±	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101 Sacramento, California 95814  916-319-0843

Please see the detailed agenda for more information about the items to be considered and acted upon. The public is welcome.

ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY.

ALL ITEMS MAY BE RE-ORDERED TO BE HEARD AT ANY TIME OF THE NOTICED MEETING. A LIVE STREAM OF THE MEETING WILL BE PROVIDED; HOWEVER, THE VIDEO FEED AND PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE MEETING WILL BE PAUSED IF THE CPAG PARTICIPATES IN SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION/ACTIVITY.

The California Practitioners Advisory Group (CPAG) and the State Board of Education will hold a one-day meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2017, at the location indicated above. The meeting may include some activities involving the group as a whole and small group discussion involving one or more of the members. The following outline of activities is provided for convenience only. The actual order of business may be changed without notice to accommodate the needs of members, invited presenters, and key staff. Anyone interested in a particular matter should plan on being in attendance for the whole meeting on June 1, 2017. The timing and order of activities may change. The full CPAG will commence, recess, and reconvene as necessary throughout the one-day meeting.

GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC INPUT SESSIONS

Time is set aside for individuals desiring to speak on any topic not otherwise on the agenda. Please see the detailed public agenda for the Public Session. In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the right to impose time limits on presentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY

Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, any individual with a disability or any other individual who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in a meeting or function of the California Practitioners Advisory Group may request assistance by contacting the California Department of Education, Improvement and Accountability Division at 1430 N Street, Room 6208, Sacramento, CA, 95814, by telephone at 916-319-0843 or by email at cpag@cde.ca.gov.

Thursday, June 1, 20179:00 a.m. Pacific Time ±

• Call to Order
• Salute to the Flag
• Overview of Agenda
• Announcements
• Roll Call and Introductions
• Special Presentations
  Public notice is hereby given that special presentations for informational purposes may take place during this session.
• Agenda Items
• Adjournment

AGENDA ITEMS

Item 01

Subject: Feedback Regarding the State System of Support.

Type of Action: Action, Information

---

Item 02

Subject: Feedback Regarding the Draft California State Plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Type of Action: Action, Information

---

Item 03

Subject: Discussion Regarding the Every Student Succeeds Act Statute Concerning the Definition of “Ineffective” Teacher.

Type of Action: Action, Information

---

Item 04

Subject: Update on the School Conditions and Climate Work Group and the Ad Hoc Family Engagement Work Group.

Type of Action: Action, Information

---

Item 05

Subject: California Practitioners Advisory Group Priorities, Including, but Not Limited to, Agenda Items; Approval of Minutes; General Comments and Questions from CPAG Members; and Other Matters of Interest.

Type of Action: Action, Information

---

Item 06

Subject: General Public Comment Public. Comment is invited on any matter not included on the printed agenda. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to address the California Practitioners Advisory Group, the presiding officer may establish specific time limits on presentations.

Type of Action: Information

***ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING***

---

This agenda is posted on the California Practitioners Advisory Group’s Web site. For more information concerning this agenda, please contact the California Department of Education at 1430 N Street, Room 5111, Sacramento, CA, 95814; telephone 916-319-0787; facsimile 916-319-0972. Individuals desiring to speak on the items presented will be limited to two minutes each. A group of five speakers may sign up together and designate one speaker who will be allocated a total of three minutes for the group. Members of the public wishing to send written comments about an agenda item to the CPAG members are encouraged to send an electronic copy to cpag@cde.ca.gov, with the item number clearly marked in the subject line. In order to ensure that comments are received by CPAG members in advance of the meeting, please submit these and any related materials to our office by noon on May 26, 2017, the Friday prior to the meeting. For the June 2017 meeting, the agenda will also be posted on the State Board of Education’s Web site and all letters submitted to the CPAG members will also be distributed to the SBE members.

Last Reviewed: Monday, May 22, 2017

 CPAG Meeting Notice and Agenda, June 2017 - California Practitioners Advisory Group (CA Dept of Education):

What ‘school choice’ means in the era of Trump and DeVos - The Washington Post

What ‘school choice’ means in the era of Trump and DeVos - The Washington Post:

What ‘school choice’ means in the era of Trump and DeVos

If President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have made one thing clear when it comes to education policy, it is this: Their priority is expanding “school choice.” What is that, exactly?

This is a primer about the school choice movement, which supporters say seeks to expand alternatives to traditional public schools for children who have poor educational options in their neighborhoods and to give parents a choice in their children’s education.

Critics argue that using public funds to support choice schools is undermining the traditional public system, which educates the majority of America’s school-age children, and that it is ultimately aimed at privatizing the most important civic institution in the country.

Whatever the intent, the Trump administration is taking the movement into a new era, elevating it to the center of the national education policy debate after years, under presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, of school “accountability” taking center stage.

DeVos’s Education Department is planning to spend an unprecedented amount of public money — well over $1 billion — to expand school choice in the 2018 proposed budget, and it is said to be considering other ways to promote choice. The secretary has not been shy about expressing disdain for the traditional public school system by calling it a “dead end” and a “monopoly.”

Trump, too, has disparaged traditional public schools, calling them, in his inaugural speech, part of the “American carnage.” His pro-school-choice bent was clear when he welcomed a group of 10 teachers and parents to the White House in February: two invitees were from traditional public schools, one was from a public school that specializes in special What ‘school choice’ means in the era of Trump and DeVos - The Washington Post:

 

Mandatory Retention Laws Are Failing Students

Mandatory Retention Laws Are Failing Students:

Mandatory Retention Laws Are Failing Students

Any teacher could tell you that a good education inspires students’ natural curiosity, imagination, and desire to learn, and no bubble test can truly capture any one of these traits. Yet—and despite what many educators already know—more and more states are adopting laws that require students to repeat the third grade if they don’t score at or above the proficient level.

According to the Education Commission of the States, 16 states plus Washington, D.C. have laws that require retention for students not reading at a certain level by the end of third grade. Unless exceptions are made, students most likely to suffer from these laws are students of color, students living in poverty, English language learners, and students with special needs.

Eight other states (Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma and West Virginia) allow for retention, but does not mandate it.

Proponents of the law say students who don’t pass a reading proficiency test are more likely to struggle through school. Mississippi’s governor, Phil Bryant, for example, championed a third grade literacy retention law in 2013. The law was modeled after a similar law from Florida. Both laws have been promoted as a way to help students overcome literacy challenges early.

In a 2014 report, called “Opportunity Mississippi,” the governor wrote, “My ‘Third Grade Gate’ literacy measure … will improve literacy achievement by ending social promotion of third grade students who are not reading on grade level … As this policy is fully implemented, we will gain a better understanding of how many children are struggling with literacy, and we will in turn be able to prove the need for additional resources.”

Retaining a student should always be the last resort and should not be determined by a single test score. Other factors such as a students’ progress made during the school year, input from teachers and parents and the availability of student supports must be taken into account” – Shyrelle Eubanks, National Education Association

The retention law hits close to home for Bryant, who, according to news reports, was held back in the third grade. “Repeating the third grade was the best thing that could have happened to me,” he told The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson’s daily newspaper, in 2015.

But many parents and educators are frustrated with the law.

In 2015, Ztearreyo Amos’s nine-year-old daughter couldn’t make sense of the literacy test. “She told me, if she was studying and doing good work during the school year, then she shouldn’t have to pass a test to go the next grade level,” Amos told the Hechinger Report, an organization that covers U.S. education.

Other parents think better ways exist to give students the support they need. Brandie Correro, a parent from Mississippi’s Desoto County Public Schools, told WREG in 2015, “I just don’t think that Mandatory Retention Laws Are Failing Students:

Gov. Brown’s proposal delays $1 billion for schools until 2019 | EdSource

Gov. Brown’s proposal delays $1 billion for schools until 2019 | EdSource:

Gov. Brown's proposal delays $1 billion for schools until 2019

Regarding the $1 billion in one-time funding for K-12 schools that Gov. Jerry Brown proposed last week in his 2017-18 budget: The word is don’t count on it – at least not next year.

In what a school consultant is calling a “bait and switch,” the Department of Finance is saying that the money won’t be available until May 2019 at the earliest – and possibly only partially then. The department will release the funding after it’s sure that the revenue projections on which the budget is based came true.

“While we recognize that there may be some who would prefer that these one-time funds be released sooner, given the recent and demonstrated volatility of revenues, we believe that postponing the release of these funds in the manner we have proposed is a prudent policy in light of this uncertainty,” department spokesman H.D. Palmer wrote in an email.

Brown didn’t mention the delay in his May 11 press conference in which he released his revised state budget plan. He said that K-12 schools would get $2.8 billion more, a 5.4 percent increase to the current budget. But within hours, Department of Finance officials began telling district officials in meetings that more than a third of the new money – the one-time funding that districts could use however they want – would be withheld for nearly two years. The $1 billion would equal about $166 per student statewide.

The $1.4 billion increase to the Local Control Funding Formula – the primary source of districts’ general spending – that Brown also has proposed would not be delayed, Palmer said.

Brown’s budgeters predict that an economic recession, with a loss of state revenue, is right around the bend, and so are being extra cautious. They also want to avoid repeating what has occurred the past three years, in which actual revenues came in below the forecasts on which the budgets were based. Rather than lower next year’s Gov. Brown’s proposal delays $1 billion for schools until 2019 | EdSource:

U.S. Education Secretary to Roll Out Plan to Destroy Public Schools to Her Cult | Fox 59

U.S. Education Secretary to roll out school choice plan in Indy | Fox 59:

U.S. Education Secretary to Roll Out Plan to Destroy Public Schools to Her Cult In Indy

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – Before she was picked by President Trump to head up the U.S. Department of Education, Betsy DeVos was the chairwoman of the American Federal for Children, a pro-school choice lobbying group.

When she visits Indianapolis Monday night, Secretary DeVos will address a sea of friendly and familiar faces at the AFC’s National Policy Summit at the Weston Hotel.

It’s expected DeVos will roll out a Trump administration plan to provide tax credits to corporations and individuals who donate money to groups and schools that provide school choice scholarships to students and parents.

“We see that this is a really significant opportunity for her to lay out a vision for what she sees as educational choice going into the future for all fifty states,” said AFC Spokesman Tommy Schultz. “I think Indianapolis and Indiana are great places to do it where Indiana has one of the fastest growing choice programs in the entire country.”

More than 33,000 Hoosier students attend classes in a private or charter school under Indiana’s expanded choice program.

“So a federal tax credit scholarship program would be a really great way to facilitate getting more families educational options for their child. We expect something like that to be potentially rolled out later this year,” said Schultz. “It’s purely folks giving charitable contributions to education scholarship organizations and then therefore they’ll get a credit for that.”

Indiana’s public school teachers fear the DeVos speech will be one more attack on the system that educates a majority of America’s children, many of them in struggling urban school districts.

“We are concerned that her speech is going to be about changes to the proposed federal budget and how that’s going to impact our students,” said Theresa Merideth, president of the Indiana State Teachers Association. “What we have is a voucher system now that funds kids who are already going, by and large, to private schools anyway, and there is no data that is showing they are doing any better that public school counterparts.”

Meredith said before- and after-school programs, and services aimed at special education youngsters, will be at risk from proposed Trump administration cuts to the federal education budget.

Schultz said any federal tax credits for donations to choice scholarships will not impact the proposed budget of the U.S. Department of Education.U.S. Education Secretary to roll out school choice plan in Indy | Fox 59:

 

Head of Democrats For Education Reform blasts DeVos, calls push for vouchers a ‘sideshow’ | Chalkbeat

Head of Democrats For Education Reform blasts DeVos, calls push for vouchers a ‘sideshow’ | Chalkbeat:

Head of Democrats For Education Reform blasts DeVos, calls push for vouchers a ‘sideshow’

It’s a tough time to be a Democrat for education reform.

After eight years with one of the original DFER members, President Obama, in the White House, the well-financed organization is under siege from both the left and right.

On one side are fellow progressives critical of the expansion of charter schools and test-based school accountability — whose backlash was epitomized by the rejection of an initiative to expand charters in Massachusetts, which was backed by DFER’s chapter there. On the other side are Republicans who are most interested in pushing for public funding of private schools and are skeptical of testing and standards, including the Common Core. Add President Trump to that mix, whose support of charter schools may alienate Democrats otherwise open to supporting them.

With all that in mind, Chalkbeat sat down with DFER’s president Shavar Jeffries at the New Schools Venture Fund summit to ask, what now?

Fighting Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration at large, he said, arguing that their policies are likely to harm students inside and outside of schools. He also defended charter schools as effective options for kids, saying they have to comply “with the same civil rights law, the same accountability standard, [and] have to be transparent in terms of their finances.” (This point, it’s worth noting, isn’t true in many cases, and remains a point of significant controversy.)Head of Democrats For Education Reform blasts DeVos, calls push for vouchers a ‘sideshow’ | Chalkbeat:

 

Teacher licensing overhaul sent back for negotiations after veto. But for teachers in limbo, changes can’t come soon enough | MinnPost

Teacher licensing overhaul sent back for negotiations after veto. But for teachers in limbo, changes can’t come soon enough | MinnPost:

Teacher licensing overhaul sent back for negotiations after veto. But for teachers in limbo, changes can’t come soon enough 

Thursday morning, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a long-awaited bill to reform the state’s broken teacher licensing system. The bill made its way to his desk Tuesday, after passing the House and Senate that same day.

The bill encompassed the key recommendations offered by state auditors, who conducted an evaluation and reported their findings to legislators last spring in an effort to make the system more streamlined and transparent for applicants. That list of reforms includes a new governance structure — specifically, the creation of a Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board that would take over duties currently shared between the state Department of Education and the state Board of Teaching — and the establishment of a four-tiered system. Qualifications for each level of licensure are specified, along with any limitation on how many renewals are allowed.

A bipartisan legislative working group that met over the summer decided on using this framework. Given the state’s growing teacher shortage in hard-to-fill areas like special education, math, and the trades — combined with a need to diversity the teacher workforce — the overhaul has largely been characterized by a sense of urgency, that this is one effort that simply can’t be left unfinished this session.

As partisan tensions amped up during session, however, hammering out the details of the bill became contentious. Some Democrats, along with the state teachers union, Education Minnesota, have raised concerns that the lower licensure tiers make it too easy for people without professional training to get a teaching license. And state Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius pushed back on a lack of guaranteed funding needed to implement the new licensing system.

In his veto letter, Dayton cited both of these concerns as two of the main reasons he’s Teacher licensing overhaul sent back for negotiations after veto. But for teachers in limbo, changes can’t come soon enough | MinnPost:

Connecticut elected officials propose record budget cuts to public colleges and universities - Wait What?

Connecticut elected officials propose record budget cuts to public colleges and universities - Wait What?:

Connecticut elected officials propose record budget cuts to public colleges and universities

While remaining dedicated to coddling the rich by refusing to require them to pay their fair share in taxes, Governor Malloy and members of the Connecticut General Assembly have offered up state budget plans that that will decimate Connecticut’s public colleges and universities and lead to significantly higher tuition at UConn, CSU and the state’s community colleges.

Governor Malloy has already presided over the deepest cuts in state history to Connecticut’s public institutions of higher education but now he – and both parties in the legislature – are seeking truly unprecedented cuts in state funding levels for the University of Connecticut, Connecticut State Universities and Connecticut’s Community Colleges.

These cuts will lead to higher costs for Connecticut families and reduced offerings at Connecticut’s colleges and universities.  The proposals will lead to nothing more than students paying more and getting less.

Faced with a $5 billion projected budget shortfall, Malloy and the Democratic and Republican caucuses in the State Senate and State House of Representatives recently offered up revised budget proposals aimed at addressing Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis.

The new proposed budgets rely heavily on cuts to education and human services.

In February, Governor Malloy proposed a $38 million in budget cuts to the CSU/Community College budget, a cut that would come on top of Malloy’s massive cuts over the last few years.

Then this past week, Malloy and the Republicans both proposed nearly $25 million more in cuts to CSU and the Community Colleges, while the incredibly outrageous proposal from the Democrats would actually cut off Connecticut elected officials propose record budget cuts to public colleges and universities - Wait What?:

SB1 is a bad school funding bill and that’s not crazy talk. | Fred Klonsky

SB1 is a bad school funding bill and that’s not crazy talk. | Fred Klonsky:

SB1 is a bad school funding bill and that’s not crazy talk.

If I write about pension theft in Illinois someone inevitably will tell me that all I ever talk about is pensions and I’m selfish and I don’t care about the needs of others.

Of course,  the current attack on pensions is not directed at folks like me who are already retired, but at current active state employees.

Damn, I can be such a jerk.

If I write about Senate Bill 1, a school funding bill that eliminates direct funding for students with special needs in Illinois, I get accused of talking crazy and besides, I don’t personally have kids in Chicago schools anymore and this is the only chance to get money for CPS and I am being selfish.

See how that works, I am such a jerk.

I am told that opposing SB1/HB2808 is crazy talk.

The thing is that SB1, now being considered in the Illinois House as HB 2808, is a bad bill that increases funding for some Illinois school districts at the expense of support for children with special needs and for special education students.

There I go again, being selfish.

Senate Bill 1 would provide funds for just one position for every 141 Pre-K children with disabilities.

It would  provide for just one position for every 141 K-12 general education SB1 is a bad school funding bill and that’s not crazy talk. | Fred Klonsky:

Controversial Debate: “Choice is essential to improving education in the US” – Cloaking Inequity

Controversial Debate: “Choice is essential to improving education in the US” – Cloaking Inequity:

Controversial Debate: “Choice is essential to improving education in the US”

Did we win the school choice debate that I almost missed?

A Better Chicago, a foundation that seeks to “empower high performing nonprofits that are dramatically improving educational opportunities for low income Chicagoans” hosted a debate at its annual education summit on Thursday May 18, 2017 at Venue SIX10 610 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL.

The debate motion was: “Choice is essential to improving education in the US”

View image on Twitter

 Follow

JulianVasquezHeilig @ProfessorJVH

A selfie backstage w/ @brothajitu before the @_abetterchicago#EdSummit17 debate

9:20 PM - 19 May 2017 · Venue SIX10

 
•  11 Retweet
 
•  66 likes

Twitter Ads info & Privacy

Honestly, I almost missed the debate because I took a cab to the wrong address. I made it to the venue about 6 minutes before we went on stage. I thought my opening remarks were going fine until Macke stopped me dead in my tracks about 10 seconds before my time was up. Honestly, I was headed to an exciting crescendo!

I am really glad that I asked for Jitu to be my partner in the debate. He knows all of the communities needs in Chicago and was able to clearly articulate the stratification and purposeful inequalities that are being perpetrated in the Windy City. He is also an incredible orator and can really engage a room with his presence.

I found Mike P. to be quite restrained in this debate. I expected more of the Mike I saw in my debate prep when I watched the Intelligence Squared debate (see Embrace The Common Core)

Also, Shayne Evans arguments about income and resource inequality in Chicago were quite appealing. In fact, he seemed to spend more time discussing those issues than school choice in the debate— so I found myself nodding often in agreement with many of his comments.

I do apologize for the ending of the debate video. You really only missed me asking the audience if they thought Jitu and I could raise the Cub’s W flag for a debate win.

Do you think Jitu and I won the #EdSummit17 debate?

The debate was moderated by Margaret “Macke” Raymond, who has served as founder and director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University.

Julian Vasquez Heilig (against the motion) is an award-winning teacher, researcher, and blogger. He is currently a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and the Director of the Doctorate in Educational Leadership at California State University Sacramento.

Jitu Brown (against the motion), married father of one child, is the national director for the Journey for Justice Alliance (J4J).

Mike Petrilli (for the motion) is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, executive editor of Education Next, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Education Commission of the States.

Shayne Evans (for the motion) is a Founder and Managing Partner of The Academy Group.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Check out and follow my YouTube channel here.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

Controversial Debate: “Choice is essential to improving education in the US” – Cloaking Inequity:

Nick Melvoin Takes Up A Seat On The Board Of An Entity He Considers “Abstract” – redqueeninla

Nick Melvoin Takes Up A Seat On The Board Of An Entity He Considers “Abstract” – redqueeninla:

Nick Melvoin Takes Up A Seat On The Board Of An Entity He Considers “Abstract”

It never was very clear why someone who attended private primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools, and then attended law school on a scholarship intended for the disadvantaged – it never made a lot of sense why he would ally forces with an advocate for a school system that is independent of the district on whose board he ran for a seat – none of this made a lot of sense until reading that all along he considers this entity of which he is an incipient board member, to be “an abstract concept”.

If that’s not Trumpian I don’t know what is. Who else would campaign to be director of an institution with which he has no sympathy, no care, no respect and no intention of complying with its rules? True to his promise, he has systematically nominated one secretary after another whose raison d’etre is to violate department policy and indeed to dismantle it altogether.

Well here in his very first interview as LAUSD’s newest board member, Nick Melvoin betrays precisely this as a core principle of his all along: “…to protect the district at the expense of a parent’s right to choose or a kid’s right to a good education has never made sense to me….”

Mr. Melvoin has just articulated crystal clearly, that the LAUSD is not an institution to which he feels beholden. Just like Trump who was in substantial violation of the constitution on his first day in office, Melvoin has divulged here that he does not intend to uphold his legally imposed duties. It is the legal responsibility of a board member to uphold the “Duty of loyalty”, putting “the interests of the nonprofit before any personal or professional concerns”.

And Nick Melvoin is on record as disagreeing specifically with this particular responsibility.

Why did he seek to be caretaker of an institution with which he fundamentally disagrees?  Why is he permitted to  disingenuously assume the role of caretaker Nick Melvoin Takes Up A Seat On The Board Of An Entity He Considers “Abstract” – redqueeninla:

Vivid Dreams and Hard Work | The Jose Vilson

Vivid Dreams and Hard Work | The Jose Vilson:

Vivid Dreams and Hard Work

“My dreams is vivid, work hard to live it …” – Christopher “Biggie” Wallace on Shaq’s “You Can’t Stop The Reign”

My kids call Biggie old school. That floors me every time I hear it. I’ve heard that said for the last 12 years. Every so often, I catch myself rhyming a Biggie lyric aloud to them, which always astonishes them. I get nasal right around “You heard of us, the murderous, most shady …” while the horns get blaring underneath. The young eyeballs turn to me, but I barely notice because I’m simultaneously keeping up with Mr. Wallace and bleeping out his curses. I don’t use the b-word; he does. I’m not better than him. I exhale after the verse is over and wait for a student to put me onto something they’d like to karaoke. Upon request, I might do another depending on how far back they’d like to go. They’re playing the hype people, finishing off every line.

It’s those non-academic moments that keep me doing the arduous work of making the seemingly irrelevant (to them) doable and accessible.

When I was their age, I admired the boom-bap in Biggie’s intonations, the authority with which he grabbed the mic. Contrary to the sublime raps of today, it seemed like my favorite rappers of yesteryear had every intention of demolishing equipment with their voices. He didn’t allow for the beat to take over his voice. There was little symbiosis. He gave us two options: either listen to him on this beat or don’t listen at all. While I enjoy Biggie’s discography, my students point to songs like “Suicidal Thoughts” and “Juicy” in a way I only understood recently.

For a multitude of reasons, they look at Ready To Die as a direct ancestor to the everyman raps of Future, Drake, and J. Cole. It’s weird. 

What’s more, Biggie’s most memorable line starts with “Yeah, this album is dedicated to all the teachers who told me I’d never amount to nothin’.” As a straight-A student, I needed that sonic chip on my shoulder in the public and private schools I attended. As a teacher, I genuflected to the sentiment, especially when it was expressed less eloquently by some of my Vivid Dreams and Hard Work | The Jose Vilson:

Trip Down Memory Lane with Florida’s McKay Vouchers

Trip Down Memory Lane with Florida’s McKay Vouchers:

Trip Down Memory Lane with Florida’s McKay Vouchers

One more awful bill in Florida is being used to push public schools towards privatization and poor schooling for students. Said to be 55 bills in one, HB 7069 use words like “starvation” to reference funding for public schools. Charters are called “Schools of Hope” even though Florida’s charter school record is dismal.

Many Floridians are begging the Governor to veto HB 7069.

How does Florida come up with all these privatization goals? Don’t politicians and business leaders look at the bad ideas they’ve had in the past? It looks like many are beginning to understand this is about money and not the students.

Consider the McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities (scholarship sounds more elegant than vouchers), and how it got a foothold in the State of Florida.

Students with disabilities are vulnerable when it comes to vouchers and privatization. Desperate for public schools that fund beneficial programs, parents grow weary. They can’t afford to waste time on classes that don’t accommodate their students, or overtaxed teachers.

Politicians know this. Instead of funding good public school programs (special ed. has never been funded appropriately), they want parents to go to private schools even though few of those schools provide adequate special education.

Florida’s McKay voucher program was launched in 1999. McKay is a good example of a failed program. Many students wind up in virtual or religious schools where special Trip Down Memory Lane with Florida’s McKay Vouchers: