Latest News and Comment from Education

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Bipartisan Bill to Repeal Common Core is Proposed in Washington State - Living in Dialogue

Bipartisan Bill to Repeal Common Core is Proposed in Washington State - Living in Dialogue:

Bipartisan Bill to Repeal Common Core is Proposed in Washington State

 By David Spring and Elizabeth Hansen.

Yesterday, several hundred Washington parents, teachers and students rallied at the state capital in Olympia to protest high stakes tests. Some of the leaders of this rally later met with legislators ready to act to change the direction of the state educational system. We already see the result. At noon today, February 17, 2015, State Senator Maralyn Chase, a Democrat from Shoreline and State Senator Pam Roach, a Republican from Enumclaw, proposed Senate Bill 6030 in the Washington State Senate to repeal Common Core and SBAC and return to the prior Washington State Standards and Washington State test called the Measurement of Student Progress or MSP. 
Washington state is not only the home of Bill Gates and Common Core, it is also the home of the notorious S-BAC Common Core test – a high stakes high failure rate test that has already announced that it will label two out of every three children who take it this spring to be “failures.” Despite these obstacles, in May 2014, the Washington State Republican Party passed a resolution to repeal Common Core and the SBAC test. Then in January 2015, the Washington State Democratic Party became the first State Democratic Party in the nation to pass a resolution opposing Common Core. 
Cosponsoring this bill are Democratic Senators John McCoy from Marysville and Bob Hasegawa from Renton and Republican Senators Mark Miloscia from Federal Way, Mike Padden from Spokane and Brian Dansel from Republic. State Representative Elizabeth Scott announced that she will also file a Common Core repeal bill in the Washington State House of Representatives. 
Here is the text of the first part of the bill. The entire bill is available at this link:
State of Washington 64th Legislature 2015 Regular Session 
By Senators Chase, Roach, McCoy, Hasegawa, Miloscia, Padden and Dansel. AN ACT Relating to assessments in public schools; amending RCW 28A.655.061, 28A.655.066, 28A.655.068, 28A.655.070, 28A.305.130, 28A.655.185, 28B.105.010, 28B.105.030, and 28B.105.060; amending 2013 2nd sp.s. c 22 s 1 (uncodified); adding a new section to chapter 28A.320 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 28A.655 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 28A.655 RCW; and declaring an emergency.
Sec. 1: 2013 2nd sp.s. c 22 s 1 (uncodified) is amended to read as follows: (1) Common core state standards have serious drawbacks including:
(a) Being copyrighted by a private trade group and therefore not subject to change or improvement as needed by Washington state legislators, teachers, and parents in the best interest of students in our state;
(b) Being developmentally inappropriate for students in elementary school;
(c) Missing numerous essential academic skills that were present in the prior Washington state essential academic learning requirements; and
Bipartisan Bill to Repeal Common Core is Proposed in Washington State - Living in Dialogue:

LIVE: Newark student activists 'occupy' district offices |

LIVE: Newark student activists 'occupy' district offices |

LIVE: Newark student activists 'occupy' district offices


NEWARK — A handful of Newark youth have staged a sit-in of Newark Public Schools' headquarters in protest of Newark schools superintendent Cami Anderson's leadership.
The sit-in, organized by the Newark Student Union, started around 8:30 p.m. during a Newark Public Schools Advisory Board business meeting when the students ascended to the 8th floor where Anderson's and other administrators' offices are located, said activists and board members.
"We are asking for her resignation," Rutgers student and NSU co-founder Thais Marques. said in an phone interview. "We are going to stay until she resigns."
The activists, which are broadcasting their sit-in through live video, contend that Anderson has not engaged with students and parents about the district's controversial reforms.
The union is also opposed to the district's One Newark plan, which they argue is untested and hurts neighborhood schools.
"The 'One Newark plan is not what we want," Marques said.
In addition to the periodic live stream, the students have organized a twitter campaign to support the protest with the hashtag #OccupyNPS.

Embedded image permalink

It's not the first time the student group has organized a sit-in. Last May about a dozen student activists forced the Newark Public School Advisory Board to end its business meeting early this evening after staging a protest.
But this protest is timed days before the deadline when the state has to decide if it will renew Anderson's contract in the state-operated district.
Newark Student Union President Kristin Towkaniuk said the students plan to stay for the long haul.
"We refuse to move until Cami Anderson comes and faces us students," she said.
Newark public schools did not immediately respond to comment.

“My child is not college and career ready, because he is a CHILD.” | Reclaim Reform

“My child is not college and career ready, because he is a CHILD.” | Reclaim Reform:

“My child is not college and career ready, because he is a CHILD.”

When the governor and legislators in Indiana talk corporate education reform crazy talk, Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer knew how to respond during a rally at the State House. She is a mom who knows how to speak in real terms about her child and her child’s essence.
One line in particular stood out and caused quite a stir. In order to understand the laser focus of her remark, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s often repeated comment about the purpose of high stakes testing and Race to the Top needs repeating.
Arne Duncan 7 year olds
What was this mom’s honest remark in response to Duncan’s irrational expectation?
“My child is not college and career ready, because he is a CHILD.”
– Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer
cathy fuentes-rohwer
She has much more to say. Watch her deliver on this rally VIDEO posted via Facebook.
(By the way, Diane Ravitch recently posted a blog that refers to Duncan talk as “empty PR.” I respectfully disagree. Duncan’s magic-speak leads people to believe, with constant media repetition, that what he says is somehow viable. Crazy talk spoken as reality is “My child is not college and career ready, because he is a CHILD.” | Reclaim Reform:

The “Achievement Gap”: Banning the Language of Deficit | educarenow

The “Achievement Gap”: Banning the Language of Deficit | educarenow:

The “Achievement Gap”: Banning the Language of Deficit

George W. Bush famously pushed through NCLB with his hyperbolic rally against, “The soft bigotry of low expectations.”  His argument was that minority students were performing poorly, as measured by “the achievement gap,” because expectations for them were low, or “soft.”  His answer? To raise standards and test to hold schools accountable to these standards.
Time has predictably shown that Bush’s stance has only served to reinforce a racialized world dominated by Whiteness.  What standards are we asking students of color to rise to?  Standards determined by dominant culture that are reinforced through a biased testing system that rewards those who benefit from privilege, and continues to punish those who lack it.
I assume that Bush would argue that success is determined by this dominant culture, and thus, it is this culture that our students must learn to navigate in order to be what our culture deems “successful.”  (Though he probably would word it differently.)
If only it were so simple.
It seems that the game that determines the winners and losers against our standards of success is rigged.
In What’s Race Got To Do With It?, Wayne Au explains,
One of the key assumptions undergirding the use of standardized tests to measure, sort and rank students is the idea that these tests are measuring students objectively and accurately- for if the tests are objective, then they truly are assessing the individual  merits of students.  In turn the individual students who have worked the hardest and who have the most merit will rise to the top compared to their peers.
So far it kind of sounds like Bush was right, right?
Except he’s not.

Why Philly should reject charter school coercion :: Blogs :: The Naked City :: Philadelphia City Paper

Why Philly should reject charter school coercion :: Blogs :: The Naked City :: Philadelphia City Paper:

Why Philly should reject charter school coercion

 The Philadelphia School Partnership wants the School Reform Commission to accept $25 million in exchange for approving thousands of new charter school seats. It's a really bad deal that the School District of Philadelphia can't afford and the SRC should reject it.

On Wednesday, the SRC will vote on applications for dozens of new charter schools. The only reason they are entertaining the proposals is because the Republican-controlled state legislature is forcing them to: The provision was attached to legislation allowing Philadelphia to raise its own cigarette tax to fund schools.
The problem is that the new seats could cost the beleaguered District an enormous amount of money. That's in part because new charters draw students from private schools and in part because the District must pay for each new student who enrolls in a charter and also for the "stranded costs," including staffing and building costs, that they leave behind in traditional public schools.
It is gratifying that PSP acknowledges that there are costs, which it pegs at about $2,000 for each new student who enrolls in a charter. But the Boston Consulting Group, in a report for the District, put the cost at $7,000 per student.
That's a big difference, but as far the SRC's decision-making goes there should be no real distinction.
Either way, the District can't afford it. PSP is looking for as many as 15,000 new charter school seats to be approved. Using even their more conservative estimate, their cash wouldn't cover a first year of charter-school-expansion costs — let alone the costs that would accrue in following years.
The offer is classic PSP, a group backed by wealthy benefactors that has quickly become a powerful force in local education politics: It is superficially beneficent, but is in reality both misleading and coercive.
Let's start with "misleading," the coin of the realm in many public debates purportedly about "school reform." Most recently, PSP and other charter advocates have contended that there is a 40,000-student waiting list for charter schools. But the District has questioned that figure. PSP has refused to explain or substantiate it.
And then there's "coercive." PSP's offer is take it or leave it, a naked attempt to use private dollars to foist fiscally damaging policy changes on a cash-poor school system. This might be galling. But it is not surprising.
In 2013, City Paper revealed that PennCAN, a pro-charter and "reform" lobbying outfit that initially operated out of PSP's office, issued a secret report calling on then-Gov. Tom Corbett to use an orchestrated attack on the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers as an election-season ploy to distract voter attention from unpopular and draconian budget cuts.
Later that year, PSP reportedly lobbied Corbett to condition $45 million in federal aid to Philly schools on massive teachers' union concessions. Corbett only relented after City Paperrevealed that a sixth-grader had died of an apparent asthma attack after falling ill at a city school where, thanks to underfunding, no nurse was on duty.
Which brings us to the latest push for charter expansion. Last year, the state lawmakers finally approved a measure allowing Philly to raise its own cigarette tax. But they did so on the Why Philly should reject charter school coercion :: Blogs :: The Naked City :: Philadelphia City Paper: 

Q&A: Exit Interview With A Nationally Known School Leader : NPR Ed : NPR

Q&A: Exit Interview With A Nationally Known School Leader : NPR Ed : NPR:

Q&A: Exit Interview With A Nationally Known School Leader

Joshua Starr

Joshua Starr, a nationally prominent superintendent with the Montgomery County schools in Rockville, Md., this month was granted early release from his contract after 3 1/2 years.
Starr, 45, a father of three, is the former superintendent of the Stamford, Conn., schools and director of accountability for the New York City public schools. He is known as a bit of a maverick. As the head of the 154,000 student district in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, he gained notoriety in 2012 by calling for a three-year moratorium on standardized testing. And he's incorporated measures of student and employee engagement and well-being into school report cards.
But Starr lost the confidence of his board. Opinions differed as to why: because of his rising national profile, or stubborn achievement problems in the district; questions about the administrative handling of some school sex abuse cases, or a controversial debate over whether to change school start times. We caught up with him for an exit interview.
What are you most proud of from your time as superintendent?
Well, I'm proud of our results. Graduation rates are up across the board, and we've also narrowed the gap in graduation. SAT and AP scores continue to be high. I'm proud of that. We also reduced suspensions pretty significantly.
The second thing is the way that we've redefined what public education should look like, to include creative problem solving and social and emotional well-being to be as important as academic success.
We saw the biggest one-year increase in graduation rates at Wheaton High School, where we reframed what teaching and learning looks like by focusing on project-based learning.
How did you become convinced of the importance of these "squishier" concepts like creativity or even emotional well-being — that these are central to the mission of a public school?
I like to say the problem we are trying to solve in public education today is the democratization of information.
I ask teachers all the time, if you can Google it, why teach it? Because we have so much information today. How do you help kids navigate that? That's critical thinking and creative problem solving.
And when I talk to the business community, they always talk about the fact that they want kids who have good academics, of course, but more importantly they want kids who can solve problems and think critically.
And what about the social and emotional stuff?
When it comes to social and emotional well-being, we mean that kids should value and respect diversity, make healthy good personal decisions, and build resilience. We believe kids should be good people.
Hard work is the most important thing in life. That means learning from failure, setting goals, having a vision of your future, a sense of hope those things are really Q&A: Exit Interview With A Nationally Known School Leader : NPR Ed : NPR:

Policy kicking out students with low grades comes under scrutiny | 89.3 KPCC

Policy kicking out students with low grades comes under scrutiny | 89.3 KPCC:

Policy kicking out students with low grades comes under scrutiny

 To enroll in the Public Safety Academy in San Bernardino, students had to submit satisfactory scores from California standardized English and math tests and, to stay in, maintain a 2.0 grade point average.

Both policies violate state law because the academy is a public charter school, according to lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Charter schools are exempt from most laws in the Education Code, but the laws that apply say they have to admit all students,” said ACLU lawyer Jessica Price, and they must “serve all students who wish to attend.”
The admission policies of the school, which prepares students for public safety careers such as police work, are found in the student handbook. Efforts to dismiss students with low grades were evident in school documents obtained by the ACLU.
The school did not immediately respond when asked how many students had been dismissed since its founding in 2000. But in 2013, the school said it sent letters to families of 23 students whose grade-point average had fallen below 2.0 for one semester. The letters advised students to enroll in another school and turn in their books.
However, after the ACLU brought the violation to the school's attention, those letters were rescinded, according to Principal Jennifer Stickel.
The school “wants all of its students to succeed academically so they can graduate from high school and build a bright future. To that end, PSA has in place many supports to assist students who are struggling academically,” Stickel wrote in a December 2014 letter to the ACLU.
“It is important to note that PSA does not expel students for unsatisfactory academics. This means that students removed and remanded to their home school district for failure to make academic improvement may immediately enroll in another public school, with no delay in their education,” Stickel wrote.
Soon after that correspondence, both sides met and the school agreed to remove the minimum grade and Policy kicking out students with low grades comes under scrutiny | 89.3 KPCC:

Petrilli’s Common Core “North Star” for Atheistic, “Choice” Moms | deutsch29

Petrilli’s Common Core “North Star” for Atheistic, “Choice” Moms | deutsch29:

Petrilli’s Common Core “North Star” for Atheistic, “Choice” Moms

Fordham Institute President Michael Petrilli sells the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for a living.
Petrilli has a bachelors degree in political science. He is not a teacher. He is a guy who landed on the soft fluffery of a think tank living.
He has testified in CCSS’ favor before lawmakers in TennesseeWisconsinOhioIndianaMissouri, and Arkansas.
His Fordham Institute associate, Kathleen Porter-Magee, testified in their favor in Wisconsin, and Fordham Institute founder Chester Finn has testified in their favor in Michigan.
Fordham Institute even has a webpage, Common Core Watch, which might be more accurately named, Common Core Defense and Promotion.
The bottom line for Fordham Institute is that it views itself as standards-grading experts. In their formal testimony in favor of CCSS, their “evidence” centers on their own skewed standards-grading “findings.” And even there, Fordham Institute did not “grade” CCSS as superior to all state standards. Nevertheless, Fordham Institute adamantly sells CCSS as though CCSS has been empirically tested and proven to deliver on some miracle promise of American Global Competitiveness brought about by nothing more than “standards sameness”– or, as Fordham Institute gravy trainBill Gates pushes, the “unleashing” of “powerful market forces” to produce “an large base of customers eager to buy products.”
Petrilli’s testimony in Indiana is particularly telling. I have cited it before.
In true Fordham Institute form, Petrilli urges Indiana to keep CCSS– even though Fordham Institute did not “grade” CCSS as “superior” to Indiana state standards:
First, you have already invested time and money into implementing the new standards. They have momentum. Calling for a do-over would waste the millions of man hours already invested — and potentially cost the state of Indiana more money than proceeding with the Common Core.
Second, it’s not clear that returning to your old standards would put Indiana on a path toward higher student achievement. For while you had some of the best standards in the country for over a decade, you also had one of the worst student achievement records on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Indiana was a classic case of good standards not actually having an impact in the classroom. You need a different way forward.
Third, if you decide to opt out of the Common Core, you will be opting Indiana’s teachers and students out of an opportunity to participate in the incredible wave of innovation that these standards are unleashing. It’s as if the whole world is moving to smart phones and tablets while you’re sticking with a rotary. [Emphasis added.]
Sure, says Petrilli, Indiana had great standards, “some of the best in the country,” but Petrilli’s Common Core “North Star” for Atheistic, “Choice” Moms | deutsch29:

ESEA at 50: AFT, Shanker Institute Hold ESEA Panel with Civil Rights Leaders | Shanker Institute

ESEA at 50: The Federal Government and Equity in American Education | Shanker Institute:

AFT, Shanker Institute Hold ESEA Panel with Civil Rights Leaders
Big Education Ape: Twitter Call to Action! Tweet your trouble with NCLB rewrite! The Network For Public Education |

WASHINGTON—The transformation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from an integral part of the War on Poverty to No Child Left Behind’s test-and-punish strategy is now taking a new turn on Capitol Hill.

The American Federation of Teachers and the Albert Shanker Institute are sponsoring a conversation on Wednesday, Feb. 18, about the stakes involved in a reauthorized ESEA bill and what it will mean for students. Joining AFT President Randi Weingarten are two of the nation’s top civil rights leaders.

Lunch will be served for those who attend. The conversation will be live-streamed here.

WHAT:      ESEA at 50: The Federal Government and Equity in American Education

WHEN:     Wednesday, Feb. 18, noon-2 p.m.

WHERE:   AFT Headquarters, 555 New Jersey Ave. N.W., 4th-floor conference room

WHO:        Randi Weingarten, president, American Federation of Teachers
                   Wade Henderson, president & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
                   Judith Browne Dianis, co-director, Advancement Project

The panel will be moderated by Michelle Ringuette, assistant to the AFT president for labor, government relations and political affairs.

Wednesday, Feb 18, 2015 | 12:00pm

Reclaiming the Promise of Education Conversation Series
555 New Jersey Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20001
Fifty years ago, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first enacted into law as part of the “war against poverty,” bringing the federal government into American education as a force for equity and educational opportunity. Today, thirteen years after its transformation into No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the debates over the reauthorization of ESEA have posed questions that go to the heart of federal government’s role as a force for educational equity. Will Title One funds be diverted from high poverty students and public schools? Will those funds end up in vouchers and other privatization schemes that undermine the public schools serving the students with the greatest needs? Will the failed NCLB accountability regime be replaced with an approach that supports and improves public schools serving students with the greatest needs? Our panel will discuss these questions and more. Panelists:
Judith Browne Dianis, co-director, Advancement Project
Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA (invited)
Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers and Albert Shanker Institute.
Sponsored by the Albert Shanker Institute and the American Federation of Teachers, this conversation series is designed to engender lively and informative discussions on important educational issues. We deliberately invite speakers with diverse perspectives, including views other than those of the AFT and the Albert Shanker Institute. What is important is that these participants are committed to genuine engagement with each other.

Arizona Has No Concept of a "Conflict of Interest" Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds:

Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds:

Arizona Has No Concept of a "Conflict of Interest"

Last Friday, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber resigned from office because of allegations that he used his influence to get employment for his fiancee. In Arizona, such conflicts of interest would not even raise an eyebrow. A few years back, Arizonans saw the Chairperson of the State Charter School Board award a charter to a non-profit foundation (which was really K12 Inc., the online school provider), then be hired by the foundation to head the Arizona Virtual Academy, and then be hired by K12 Inc. as a vice-president for something-or-other. She continues to occupy the latter two posts.
Arizona simply doesn't recognize things called conflicts of interest. I could list dozens concerning public education. A staff member the Board of Regents once told me that in Arizona if you declare your connections, then you can no longer be accused of having a conflict of interest. Perhaps this qualifies as some minimal level of ethical behavior.
A new flagrant conflict of interest has just become apparent to me. A man named Greg Miller is president of the Arizona State Board of Education. There is also a man named Greg Miller who is CEO of Challenge Charter School in Glendale, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. Matching up photos of the Board president and the charter CEO leaves no doubt that these two individuals are one in the same Greg Miller. Mr. Miller, a civil engineer for 25 years, founded Challenge Charter School in the late 1990s and for a while served as principal. His current title is CEO. Mrs. Pam Miller, his wife, once served on a school board; the Challenge Charter Schools website lists no current duties for Mrs. Miller. But daughter Wendy Miller was appointed Principal of Challenge Charter School the same year in which she earned her MBA.
Challenge Charter School Inc. is registered as a non-profit organization so it must file an IRS 990 form, which is publicly available. Here's what that form shows as salaries of the top management for 2013.
Greg Miller, the CEO of a school "system" with about 650 students, is being compensated to the tune of $145,000 annually. His wife receives the same salary, though her duties are never enumerated at the website and her position is only described as "Executive Director/Vice-PR," whatever Vice-PR is. The Miller's daughter Wendy, who has degrees in Public Administration and Business, receives a salary of more than $120,000 for acting as Principal/Secretary. Basically, the Miller family, while working assiduously 60 hours a week each as reported on their IRS form, is taking about $425,000 a Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds:

How Hard It Is To Translate Policy into Practice: The Broad Superintendency Academy (Part 1) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

How Hard It Is To Translate Policy into Practice: The Broad Superintendency Academy (Part 1) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:

How Hard It Is To Translate Policy into Practice: The Broad Superintendency Academy (Part 1)

One would think that top decision-makers and philanthropists would learn a few lessons after these many years they have struggled in negotiating the pot-holed strewn road from adopting policies to changes in school and classroom practice. Perhaps a touch of humility in face of the complexity they face in improving urban schools. Or more consideration of the professional expertise that practitioners have. Not yet. Consider the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation’s Broad Superintendents Academy (BSA).
Eli Broad made it clear that he knew how to run successful businesses. He wanted customer-driven knowledge to be applied to urban public schools. At one conference, he said, “We don’t know anything about how to teach or reading curriculum or any of that, but what we do know about is management and governance.” What Broad did not say was that managing and governing are not the same as converting key policies into classroom lessons.[i]
The BSA was created to prepare a new breed of market-aware district leaders to raise student academic achievement and reduce the test score gap between minorities and whites. BSA, however, has quietly struggled with the trip from policy to practice. It is an 18-month program of extended weekends and internships for educators and non-educators (for example, ex-military officers, business leaders, and government officials). But determining how many graduates have become urban superintendents and how long they have served is difficult because of fragmentary and biased data salted liberally with conflicting accounts from Broad and its critics.[ii]
In attracting fresh recruits from the military, businesses, and government to enter urban education posts, the Academy has, to a small degree, altered the administrative workforce in urban settings. But whether Broad graduates stay longer or perform better as school chiefs than those trained in traditional university administration programs, I do not know. I do not know because since 2002 when BSA began, none of its nearly 200 graduates have stayed in a district superintendency for over seven years—a term that some observers believe is sufficient to show signs of student success. Broad officials say five years is the minimum, but I could still only find two BSA graduates who served that long: How Hard It Is To Translate Policy into Practice: The Broad Superintendency Academy (Part 1) | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice:
Be sure to check out this Great blog:


Same People Better Uniforms

Pelto Challenges Connecticut’s Corporate Education Reform Industry Leaders to debate - Wait What?

Pelto Challenges Connecticut’s Corporate Education Reform Industry Leaders to debate - Wait What?:

Pelto Challenges Connecticut’s Corporate Education Reform Industry Leaders to debate

Pelto Challenges Connecticut’s Corporate Education Reform Industry Leaders to debate
After spending record amounts of money lobbying for Governor Dannel Malloy’s Corporate Education Reform Industry Initiatives, Connecticut’s corporate funded education reform advocacy groups continue to spend millions of dollars misleading parents and policy makers, denigrating teachers and the teaching profession and promoting the discriminatory, inappropriate and unfair Common Core and Common Core Testing Scheme.
Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now, Inc. (ConnCAN) and the Connecticut Council for Education Reform Inc. (CCER) are two of the leading entities behind the wholesale assault on public education in Connecticut.
As the paid ambassadors for those seeking to profit off of our children and our public schools, these so-called “education reformers” have constantly and consistently resorted to misleading statements and outright lies to back up their anti-public education agenda and rhetoric.
Unfortunately for Connecticut’s students, parents, teachers, public schools and taxpayers, these apologists for Governor Malloy and his corporate education reform agenda have gone unchallenged.
That situation has got to stop.
Today I am asking WNPR’s Where We Live, WFSB’s Face the State, FOXCT’s The Real Story, CT Report with Steve Kotchko and other appropriate news forums to host a debate between myself and any one of the leaders of these corporate advocacy fronts such as Jeffrey Villar, the Executive Director of Connecticut Council for Education Reform and Jennifer Alexander, the Chief Executive Officer of ConnCAN.
The people of Connecticut deserves the truth and a discussion on television or radio about the truth behind the corporate education reform industry’s efforts will provide Connecticut’s citizens with the information they need to tell fact from fiction.
Jonathan Pelto
Education Advocate