What Education Can and Can't Do for Economic Inequality - Yahoo Finance

What Education Can and Can't Do for Economic Inequality - Yahoo Finance:

What Education Can and Can't Do for Economic Inequality

Would better education significantly reduce income inequality in America? No, says recent studyfrom the Brookings Institution.

But that doesn't mean that better education wouldn't help the overall economic picture.

The study suggests that improving education does in fact help the economic situations of poorer Americans, even though it does little to whittle away at overall inequality in the country.  

According to Melissa Kearney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, “Increasing education isn't going to do anything to bring down the wages of the real top—or address rising inequality focused on the 1 percent—but it is what's needed to increase the position of those at the bottom. Those are two different problems.”

To illustrate this point, Kearney, along with Brad Hershbein and Lawrence Summers, took a look at what a boost in education would and would not do when it came to improving incomes and the widening income gap. The study simulated what would happen to earnings and inequality if 10 percent of non-college educated, working-age men ages 25 to 64 were to obtain a bachelor’s degree. They chose to focus on men because male workers with low-skill levels have suffered a more severe downturn in employment and earnings during recent decades, according to the report. They also obtain college degrees at a lower rate than their female counterparts.

With the simulated increase in educational attainment, the report found that awarding a bachelor’s degree to one in 10 men between the ages of 25 through 64, who did not previously have one, would in fact increase their likelihood of being employed and boost their earnings. The increase in education resulted in significant changes for those at bottom half of the earnings spectrum, with inequality relative to those who fall into the 25th percentile of earners dropping by about one-third. “If we were to increase, B.A. attainment by 10 percent that would almost entirely wipe out the reduction in median wages that has been experienced from 1979 to 2013,” says Kearney. “That's tremendous.”

But it did not significantly change overall earnings inequality. That's because improved prospects for low and median earners doesn't erase the existence of runaway income growth for the very wealthiest. In fact the inequality between median earners and top earners fell by less than 10 percent.

The conclusion, Kearney says, is that for less-skilled workers and those who earn a lower wage, additional education can still be especially important. In this particular simulation, increasing the rate of B.A. attainment had the effect of reducing income inequality among median- and low-wage earners, boosting the lower end of the earnings distribution toward median incomes. But it’s not just about sending people to college. “More education could also mean that people graduating with a high-school degree have better skills, and that requires improvements in our K-to-12 system,” says Kearney. Greater availability of apprenticeships or job-training programs could also help enhance labor market outcomes for those who find themselves on the lower rungs of the skills and wage scale. Kearney cautions that looking at education in limited terms can be problematic when it comes to implementing solutions that really work. “We didn't want to cede the view that when people say we need more education that necessarily means a four-year bachelor's degree,” she says.

Read What Education Can and Can't Do for Economic Inequality on theatlantic.com

 What Education Can and Can't Do for Economic Inequality - Yahoo Finance:

Rand Paul wants to close the Education Department. Here's how that would work. - Vox

Rand Paul wants to close the Education Department. Here's how that would work. - Vox:

Rand Paul wants to close the Education Department. Here's how that would work.

Sen. Rand Paul, now running for president, wants to get rid of the US Education Department — a popular idea in the Republican Party that has now been proposed at least twice in this primary election. In February, Politico reported that Sen. Marco Rubio told donors that he too would like to shut the department down for good.

Calls to get rid of federal agencies can be a feature of Republican presidential primaries. But politicians don't always explain what they mean when they say they want to get rid of a Cabinet-level department.

It's a big deal, one that would entail figuring out what to do with billions of dollars in federal grants and other initiatives. And, for the Department of Education, what it can mean in practice ranges from a truly drastic change to a mostly cosmetic one.

Who wants to get rid of the Education Department

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst is one Republican who's called for getting rid of the Education Department. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Group via Getty Images)

The Education Department has been on Republican hit lists since it was created in 1979. President Ronald Reagan campaigned on getting rid of it in 1980 and tried to get kill it off while he was in office, but didn't succeed. Instead, in 1983,  a landmark federal report, A Nation At Risk, argued mediocre education was endangering the United States. That report made improving education a national priority, and the argument that there should be no federal role receded for more than a decade.

But by 1996, Bob Dole was again arguing in favor of eliminating the Education Department during his presidential campaign. George W. Bush, who expanded the federal role in education, had to fight to get eliminating the department out of the Republican Party platform in 2000. In the 2012 primaries, many candidates — most notably Rick Perry — argued that the department should be abolished.

The idea isn't limited to presidential races, either. In the 2014 Senate race, now-Sen. Joni Ernstcalled for getting rid of the department, as did now-Sen. David Perdue, from Georgia.

What the Education Department does

Education Secretary Arne Duncan in 2010. (Ryan Kelly/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

The Education Department is basically a giant grant-making agency. About 95 percent of the department's $67.3 billion budget is devoted to grant-making, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The department gives out K-12 grants to states for educating low-income children and children with disabilities and for training teachers. It makes K-12 grants to school districts for children who live on military bases and other federal land. Those federal funds make up about 12 percent of all education spending.

In higher education, the department doesn't give out massive grants but individual vouchers to students with financial need.

The Education Department also makes all new federal student loans and, through contracts with private companies, ensuring those loans are serviced and paid back.

States, districts, schools, and colleges that get federal money have to follow federal regulations. The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, in the news most often lately for investigating how colleges handle sexual harassment and assault, is responsible for ensuring that programs that receive federal funds don't discriminate based on gender or race.

How getting rid of the Education Department might work

It's not this simple. (Shutterstock)

Getting rid of the Education Department means different things. There are several options, ranging from extraordinary drastic to mostly cosmetic.

The "throw it all out" option: Not just abolishing the Education Department as a cabinet agency, but getting the federal government out of education entirely. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, wants to get rid of the Education Department and all of its programs, including federal aid for college. Paul introduced a bill in 2011 that approached this option. It would have cut the department's budget 83 percent and eliminating everything except for the Pell Grant program for college students.

The block grant option: In 2011, Rick Perry proposed turning federal aid for K-12 into a block grant for states, essentially letting states have the federal money without any strings attached. That would eliminate the Education Department's oversight and control while maintaining at least some of the federal funding.

The 'foundation' option: Reagan's first Education Secretary, who was meant to preside over the department's dismantling, proposed turning it into a grantmaking agency like the National Science Foundation, according to Education Week's 2010 history of attempts to get rid of the Education Department. It's not clear what exactly that would have looked like — Congress didn't support the proposal and Reagan himself eventually Rand Paul wants to close the Education Department. Here's how that would work. - Vox:

News Corp.'s $1 Billion Plan to Overhaul Education Is Riddled With Failures - Yahoo Finance

News Corp.'s $1 Billion Plan to Overhaul Education Is Riddled With Failures - Yahoo Finance:

News Corp.'s $1 Billion Plan to Overhaul Education Is Riddled With Failures

 Seventh-grader Kevin Warren hunched over his desk, struggling to log on to a new tablet computer that News Corp. leased to his school. It replaced an earlier gadget, which had overheated, generating a red warning bar across the screen.

A few desks away at their Greensboro, North Carolina, middle school, Krista Sturdivant wasn’t impressed with the tablet. “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t,” she said as her desk mate, Ayana Munoz, wearing sky-blue lipstick, nodded in agreement. “Sometimes it doesn’t connect to the Wi-Fi, and I can’t get my work done,” Ayana said.

The tablets were supposed to help revolutionize schools and upend a sector that News Corp.’s Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch said in 2010 was “waiting desperately to be transformed.” That hasn’t happened.

By the end of June, Murdoch’s News Corp. will have invested more than $1 billion in Amplify, its division that makes the tablets, sells an online curriculum and offers testing services. Amplify, which never set a timetable for turning a profit, has yet to do so. It reported a $193 million loss last year, and its annual revenue represented only about 1 percent of News Corp.’s sales of $8.6 billion.

The education effort has been riddled with technology failures, fragile equipment, a disconnect between tablet marketers and content developers, and an underestimation of how difficult it would be to win market share from entrenched rivals such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Co. in the kindergarten to high school education market.

“After all of these years of investment, it would really behoove them to show some wins,” said Tim Nollen, an analyst at Macquarie Capital USA in New York who has a “neutral” rating on News Corp. shares. “So far, I haven’t seen any.”

Joel Klein, Amplify’s chief executive officer, said he always considered the company a long-term bet. “I wish that things would move more quickly,” said Klein, the former New York City schools chancellor under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “But when these things move quickly, sometimes you wind up creating a lot more problems.” (Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, which competes with News Corp. in delivering financial news.) 

In what is by far Amplify’s largest contract to date, the Greensboro schools will pay the company $14.6 million over four years for about 19,000 tablets. Math teacher Leah Hampton said the tablet helps her tailor lessons to each child in her seventh grade class. “It shows me what each kid is working on, and allows me to identify what apps they are working on,” Hampton said.

Yet, even though teachers like Hampton found the technology useful, Amplify had such a rocky rollout in Greensboro in the fall of 2013 that the district scrapped the devices and went back to pencil and paper. The system started over again this past fall with a redesigned tablet — though only after Amplify offered financial incentives.

Amplify’s experience shows how even the most deep-pocketed new players find it challenging to change the way children are taught. Billionaires such as Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and real estate and insurance investor Eli Broad have expressed frustration their philanthropy hasn’t done more to improve student achievement. Murdoch is discovering his own challenges as he seeks to make a profit from overhauling education — as have other education entrepreneurs before him.

In February, Robert Thomson, News Corp.’s CEO, said the company would “review the situation at Amplify” after school districts have decided whether or not to purchase its products for the next school year. In an e-mailed statement, he said the company is still committed to the venture: “A digital revolution in education is coming, and Amplify is well-positioned to meet the demand for a world-class curriculum.”

Amplify faces plenty of competition. It is taking on a host of textbook publishers, such as Houghton Mifflin. Millions of U.S. students use Houghton Mifflin’s curriculum — and more than half of its sales are in digital format. As of early 2015, about 30,000 students in 20 schools used Amplify’s. While Amplify views its all-online offerings as an advantage, textbook publishers can achieve economies of scale by adapting printed material to the Web, according to Linda Zecher, CEO of Boston-based Houghton.

“There’s a pretty big moat around what you need to be competitive in this business,” Zecher said. 

Murdoch began moving into education with the November 2010 purchase of Wireless Generation, a News Corp.'s $1 Billion Plan to Overhaul Education Is Riddled With Failures - Yahoo Finance:

Common Core subtraction math controversy - Business Insider

Common Core subtraction math controversy - Business Insider:

Here’s the truth about Common Core's weird subtraction method

The Common Core method has many parents concerned. Complaints range from "it's too focused on understanding the steps instead of getting the right answer" to "it's too complicated, I can't even help my kids with their homework."

But the way math was taught before Common Core was not always the only way. When the so-called "New Math" was introduced in the 1960s it was met with much of the same criticism Common Core is facing today.

Produced by Alex Kuzoian and Sara Silverstein

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/common-core-subtraction-math-controversy-schools-children-education-2015-4#ixzz3WdiC0icN

Study: Charter schools get more money than school districts - News - providencejournal.com - Providence, RI

Study: Charter schools get more money than school districts - News - providencejournal.com - Providence, RI:

• Study: Charter schools get more money than school districts

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A House study committee looking into the financial impact of charter schools says that charters get disproportionately more money under the current school funding formula than their sending school districts. 

The committee, which will soon issue a report, did not recommend how the state's Fair Funding Formula should be revised to reflect an equitable share of the costs born by the traditional district versus the charter schools.      

Districts for years have argued that the state’s fair funding formula, in which tuition dollars follow students as they leave traditional public schools for charters, actually draws more money away from districts because the districts assume greater costs in the area of special needs and transportation.

The study committee, chaired by Rep. Jeremiah O’Grady, D-Lincoln, looked at whether the costs of educating each student are greater for traditional districts than they are for charters. About 7,000 students are enrolled in 25 charter schools in Rhode Island and public demand continues to rise.

The Special Legislative Committee to Study and Assess Rhode Island’s Fair Funding Formula began taking testimony from school superintendents and charter proponents in the fall. But the committee didn’t want to rely only on subjective information.

The board asked the state Department of Education if it had any data to support superintendents’ claims that charters were costing districts money.

“The study found that the funding formula disproportionately funds charter schools at the expense of the sending school districts,” O’Grady said.

Michael Magee, chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Mayoral Academies, which includes mayoral-run charters in Providence and northern Rhode Island, could not be reached for comment Monday.

"It is time for Rhode Islanders to understand that this is not an argument of charters versus traditional public schools," Rose Mary Grant, head of Highlander Charter School, in Providence, wrote in an opinion piece in the March 29 Journal. "All of Rhode Island loses if we cut funding to the very schools that are nationally recognized as outperforming their counterparts across the country."  

O’Grady, citing RIDE data, said charters under-serve special-education students.

In 2014, the state’s public schools spent a total of $480 million on special education, an average of $3,653 per student.  

Charter schools spent a total of $7.8 million on special education, or $1,332 per student.

Special education made up 9.1 percent of charter schools’ total costs, according to RIDE, but it Study: Charter schools get more money than school districts - News - providencejournal.com - Providence, RI:

There is no 'Common Core math' -- only good and bad teaching materials | MLive.com

There is no 'Common Core math' -- only good and bad teaching materials | MLive.com:

There is no 'Common Core math' -- only good and bad teaching materials

Lately it seems like I come across the term "Common Core Math" almost daily. I hear it in conversations: "I don't like Common Core Math."

I see it on Facebook: "Common Core Math - If you have 4 pencils and 7 apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof?"

I read about it in articles: A dad with a master's degree can't understand his second grade son's homework because of Common Core Math.

But is there such a thing as Common Core Math? Does it really exist?

Michigan, along with 44 other states, adopted theCommon Core State Standards in 2010. Once they were adopted, educators across the nation began the work of learning the standards and aligning their curriculum, resources and teaching methods to the standards.

As educators began the work of looking for Common Core aligned resources, publishers began the work of creating those resources. Several of the more popular publisher-created resources include Everyday Math, Go Math, Math Expressions, enVision, and Saxton Math.

Some publishers put "Common Core Aligned" stickers on resources they had previously sold, but did not change any of the content. Other publishers added a few extra lessons or handouts, did not take anything out, and called it Common Core aligned. This produced a problem, because a good, new resource actually takes years, not months, to create.

When a resource is created it needs to be researched, written, field tested in classrooms, and adjusted based on teacher feedback. When done correctly and thoroughly this process takes time. However, many publishers did not take the time needed to create good Common Core aligned materials, and as a result, there were bad resources created and bad resources purchased. This caused frustration for teachers, students, and families.

It's important to note that there have always been bad resources out there, and districts have purchased them, despite their best efforts. However in the past if a student was given a bad resource as an assignment the resource, or teacher, was blamed, not the standards.

It's almost laughable to think about a parent blaming the Grade Level Content Expectations (Michigan's old standards) for a bad assignment that their child was given prior to the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. However, that is what is happening.

Today when a bad resource is given as an assignment, the blame is placed on the Common Core State Standards, and not the resource. This shift is detrimental.
The Common Core State Standards are a set of standards. They are not a resource. A resource is a lesson plan, a worksheet, a homework assignment or a test.

The Common Core State Standards are a set of standards that say what a child should master by the end of a grade level, just like our old standards in Michigan used to say.
Districts choose how to teach the standards and what resource to use while teaching them. Sometimes districts choose a bad resource when that is the only option out there, There is no 'Common Core math' -- only good and bad teaching materials | MLive.com:

How the Obamas opted their children out of high-stakes standardized tests - The Washington Post

How the Obamas opted their children out of high-stakes standardized tests - The Washington Post:

How the Obamas opted their children out of high-stakes standardized tests

Thousands of public school parents around the country are opting their children out of taking high-stakes standardized tests this spring, tired of the emphasis on high-stakes testing and concerned about the validity of the assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards or similar standards. A growing number of principals and superintendents are supporting parents in this decision, though pushback is getting strongerfrom others. But, says educator Alan Singer, there is another way to opt out your child from standardized testing — send them, if you can afford it, to a private school that doesn’t give them.

The Obamas, for example, send their two daughters to the elite Sidwell Friends School, a private Quaker preK-12 school with campuses in Washington D.C., and Bethesda, Md. Sidwell, like other independent schools, does not bombard its students with high-stakes standardized tests. (It also doesn’t evaluate teachers by the test scores of their students, a policy promoted by the Obama administration.)

Here’s a piece from Singer on why parents have chosen to opt out their children from these tests, albeit in different ways. Singer is social studies educator in the Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York, and the editor of Social Science Docket (a joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies). He taught at a number of secondary schools in New York City, including Franklin K. Lane High School and Edward R. Murrow High School. He is also the author of several books.  A version of this originally appeared on his Huffington Post blog.

By Alan Singer

It was easy for Barack and Michelle Obama to opt-out. They send Sasha and Malia to the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington D.C. where tuition is about $35,000 a year and students do not take high-stakes Common Core-aligned tests. The Obamas chose this school in part because it offers children an enriched curriculum, not constant test prep. It was also easy for New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to opt-out her children. According to her 2013 tax returns, her children, ages 12 and 7, attend the private Capitol Hill Day School, where they do not have to take high-stakes standardized tests either.

Wealthy celebrities are unwittingly part of the opt-out movement because their children attend or attended expensive private schools where they do not have to take high-stakes state-mandated standardized tests. They include Tom Cruise (daughter Suri, Avenues school in New York) and the children of the Jolie-Pitt clan (Lycée Français de New York).

Now you can opt out your children from high-stakes tests too. It’s not hard. NYS Allies for Public Education has a sample “refusal” letter and video instructions on its website. All parents have to do is fill out the letter and deliver it to the school principal, either in person or via email. They also  How the Obamas opted their children out of high-stakes standardized tests - The Washington Post:

Working Families Party joins call to opt out of state standardized tests - School Zone

Working Families Party joins call to opt out of state standardized tests - School Zone:

Working Families Party joins call to opt out of state standardized tests

The Working Families Party has joined the fray over using standardized tests to evaluate teachers.

The political party was one of three organizations that sent out email blasts Monday urging their members to direct their children to “opt out” of the statewide English Language Arts tests that begin next week for elementary and middle school students.

“For parents concerned about the harm being caused by this increasing focus on testing, 'opting out' is a powerful option – a kind of civil disobedience in response to a testing regime imposed by politicians, many of whom haven't spent any significant time in a public school classroom,” Working Families Party State Director Bill Lipton said in an email blast sent to the party’s mailing list.

Two other organizations, Citizen Action of New York and the Alliance for Quality of Education, also sent mass email messages Monday telling parents how they could have their children refuse the exams.

“Last year, over 60,000 parents opted out of testing for their students. It’s one strong way to show Governor Cuomo, the legislature and the Board of Regents that it’s time to stop over testing students, demonizing teachers and undermining our public education system,” wrote Citizen Action Executive Director Karen Scharff in an email to its members. “It’s time for a teacher evaluation system that is based on sound research, not soundbites.”

The calls for more test refusals come a week after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers pushed through the framework for a new teacher evaluation system that continues to link student scores on standardized tests to teacher reviews.

Scharff said concern over the new teacher evaluation system led to the decision to send out the emails in support of the opt out movement Monday.

Last week, the head of the statewide teachers union, New York State United Teachers President Karen Magee, also urged parents to direct their children not to take the exams.

Organizers of a movement aimed at getting more children to opt out of the exams hope to increase the number of students who refuse the tests this year.Working Families Party joins call to opt out of state standardized tests - School Zone:

Is There a Third Way for ESEA? | Linda Darling-Hammond

Is There a Third Way for ESEA? | Linda Darling-Hammond:

Is There a Third Way for ESEA?

 Last month, a highly polarized debate waylaid a House vote on the federal government's most important education legislation: the LBJ-era Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Known since 2002 as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), it provides more than $13 billion annually to support education for disadvantaged children.

The law authorizing NCLB was set to expire in 2007, but Congress, unable to agree on amendments, has extended it year after year. Public schools in big cities and other beleaguered localities depend on the money from NCLB, so it can't be repealed. Nobody likes the way it works now, but agreement on something else is elusive. Senate Committee Chair and former Education SecretaryLamar Alexander announced an early deadline for a bill this year, but an effort at bipartisan discussions has slowed the process down. The Senate HELP committee is expected to see a draft for mark-up this coming week.

As members of very different "camps" on school reform, we think there is more common ground than has yet been evident in the political process. Last summer, we were part of two distinct groups of scholars and policy experts that met separately to rethink educational accountability -- both motivated by concerns that NCLB's approach has increasingly undermined school improvement and equity.

These groups came from what most would consider different ends of the political spectrum, and there was no reason to expect them to draw similar conclusions. So, when we read each other's reports (see here and here), we were surprised by the extent of agreement.

We agreed, for example, that, while tests are important as a way of keeping track of student learning, and identifying problems in a timely way, they are taking up too much time in many schools and when used alone can give a distorted picture of what children are learning and where improvement is needed.

We agreed that measures should focus on the skills needed for college and careers, including students' abilities to learn and solve problems independently, not just what is easiest to test. We also agreed that these measures need to be considered in the light of other information -- like completing high-quality courses of study and progressing toward graduation -- when schools and students are evaluated.

We agreed that, because a student's learning in any one year depends on what was learned previously and on the efforts of many professionals working together, the consequences of high and low performance should attach to whole schools, rather than to individual educators.

We agreed that public officials have a responsibility to intervene when a group of students are not learning what they need to successfully finish high school and connect to a productive future, but we also agreed that actions should be based on a thoughtful diagnosis of the school's resources, staffing, and practices, and of the alternatives available to children, rather than mechanically chosen from a pre-determined list of consequences.

Finally, we agreed that if schools are to be held accountable for results, their leaders must have sufficient authority, flexibility, and resources to make decisions on spending, staffing, and instructional methods. Meanwhile state and district officials have a responsibility to support the necessary capacity and resources to allow schools and students to succeed.

These agreements differ from current practice under NCLB, which doesn't consider how schools function or how students are progressing beyond test scores, ignores capacity-building, and often constrains improvement. 

Starting from these points of agreement, members of the two groups have produced a new report (available here and here) that addresses the design of accountability for the pending reauthorization of ESEA. Key factors include:

Support for innovation and improvement: An accountability system must include ways to measure results, make judgments about performance, and effect meaningful changes. At a time when many children are not learning all that they need, when knowledge is expanding and changing, and when none of the many ideas about how to improve schools is proven best under all circumstances, an accountability system must leave room for innovation and experimentation.

These goals cannot be achieved simply by labeling schools or insisting on higher performance. Public officials also need to do their part, eliminating regulations that hamstring problem solving, and encouraging improvement in teaching methods and supports for students. Though accountability can't wait until every school is ideally staffed and equally funded, officials need to fix policies that cause gross inequalities in school spending and educator capacity.

Appropriate Assessment: Regular assessment provides useful information about what individual students are learning, and how well different groups are doing. Parents and officials need this information to know what's working and what must be fixed. But as we have seen in the NCLB era, when bubble tests are overused or Is There a Third Way for ESEA? | Linda Darling-Hammond:

Battle for 'future of Chicago' decided in mayoral runoff Tuesday - CNN.com #‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

Battle for 'future of Chicago' decided in mayoral runoff Tuesday - CNN.com:

Battle for 'future of Chicago' decided in mayoral runoff Tuesday

 Washington (CNN)The toughest battle of Rahm Emanuel's career comes to a close on Tuesday as Chicago voters head to the polls to choose their next mayor.

And though President Barack Obama's notoriously hard-charging former chief of staff has weathered many difficult fights before, Emanuel's allies aren't predicting victory yet.

Public polls show the mayor leading challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia by double-digit margins, but the historic nature of the election — it's Chicago's first-ever runoff, sparked when Emanuel failed to top 50% in the first round of voting in February — and unusual timing has the city's political observers guessing.

"We're heading into spring break. There's two days after Easter. It's right in the middle of Passover. I mean, we've never had a runoff before in the city of Chicago for a citywide office," Election Board spokesman Jim Allen told reporters this weekend.

The race has seen a huge surge in early votes, with more than 142,000 Chicagoans submitting their ballots early, up from just about 90,000 before the February vote, which saw unusually low turnout to begin with. Turnout was particularly high in wards with contested aldermanic races, but it was low in Hispanic-majority wards, a less-than-ideal early signal for Garcia.

He dismissed the early results, however, as a result of inexperience among the city's Latino population.

"They're not as seasoned and experienced as other communities because they became citizens not that long ago," he said while voting early himself, according to the Sun Times. "I feel really positive about the early vote."

RELATED: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel faces divided Chicago in reelection fight

But the winner's reward is not necessarily an ideal prize — it's a Chicago beset by growing financial problems, including a $20 billion pension crisis and $300 million operating budget shortfall that have resulted in multiple downgrades in the city's bond rating. Those challenges have taken center stage in the final week of campaigning as Emanuel has sought to paint Garcia, a Cook County commissioner, as inexperienced and unfit for the job of fixing the city's financial mess.

He's aired a series of hard-hitting attack ads accusing Garcia of dodging questions and refusing to offer particulars on his policy proposals. And Garcia has given the incumbent ample fodder for such attacks — he's refused to name members of an expert panel he plans to appoint to craft those policies, won't put dollar amounts on the reforms he has proposed and significant chunks of his plan aren't even under the mayor's control.

But those financial woes are also part of what have made Emanuel so vulnerable to a challenge. Many of the city's residents believe he hasn't done enough to solve the city's sluggish economy, and critics say what steps he has taken — like closing public health clinics, 50 public schools and installing red light cameras to raise fees — have only made the problem worse for Chicago's low-income and minority communities.

The perception that Emanuel's forgotten about the disadvantaged pockets of the city has put Chicago's sizable African American vote into play, and the two candidates have spent the final weeks of the campaign vying for the black vote on Chicago's South and West sides.

Emanuel's rolled out the endorsements of a number of the city's most prominent African American state legislators, and campaigned with Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed on Saturday, before hitting a number of churches for Easter Sunday.

Garcia, meanwhile, has been playing up his affiliation to former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, the city's first African American mayor, and has touted endorsements from Emanuel's main black challenger during the first round of votes and Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

That perception also fueled a progressive backlash against Emanuel that parallels the broader debate within the Democratic Party, between its business-minded and working-class wings.Battle for 'future of Chicago' decided in mayoral runoff Tuesday - CNN.com:

Toward Fiscal Sustainability: A New Approach in Prudent Fiscal Management of Chicago

Click here to go to Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Mayor of Chicago Website

‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

With A Brooklyn Accent: Atlanta Cheating Scandals and Eva Moskowitz Success Academies 2 Sides of the same Coin

With A Brooklyn Accent: Atlanta Cheating Scandals and Eva Moskowitz Success Academies 2 Sides of the same Coin:

Atlanta Cheating Scandals and Eva Moskowitz Success Academies 2 Sides of the same Coin

If you think about it, the Atlanta Cheating Scandas ( which are just the tip of the Iceberg) and the rapid rise to prominence of Eva Moskowitz "Success Academies" (which have become the education model of NY Governor Andrew Cuomo) each represent logical responses to the insane pressure to raise test scores which followed in the wake of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

One way to deal with these pressures was to give policy makers the test scores they wanted by having teachers and administrators put in correct answers on the tests

Another was to adopt a routine of behavior modification and intimidation straight out of a Charles Dickens workhouse to get students to produce the right answers.

You decide which is worse- Cheating or Child Abuse.

That we have come to this is telling testimony of the absurdity of With A Brooklyn Accent: Atlanta Cheating Scandals and Eva Moskowitz Success Academies 2 Sides of the same Coin: