'Every Child Achieves' Won't Fix The Fed-Ed Farce

'Every Child Achieves' Won't Fix The Fed-Ed Farce:

‘Every Child Achieves’ Won’t Fix The Fed-Ed Farce

Bills to rewrite No Child Left Behind put Republicans in a bad political position and expand the federal role in education.

Tuesday, the House and Senate are scheduled to take up separate bills to replace No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While out here in the hinterlands normal people are calling for an end to know-nothing bureaucrats telling local schools how to train teachers despite zero scientifically valid evidence about what improves teaching, up in The Capitol our rulers still believe themselves uniquely qualified to forge boldly where research and common sense has never gone before.

To wit: Sen. Lamar Alexander attempting to slather the “bipartisan” (i.e. crappy as a county fair port-a-potty) Senate bill he’s coauthored with a whole lotta pig lipstick. At 792 pages, Alexander’s “Every Child Achieves Act” (ECAA) is 122 longer than NCLB. Apparently, coauthoring a bill that is a fifth longer than the law it’s intended to replace means “more state and local control” to Alexander.

Democrats are happy enough with the bill to give Alexander enough votes to pass it, so it’s conservative Republicans he’s got to woo to get this monstrosity to President Obama. So he’s hitting all the notes they want to hear—except they’re false notes. Here’s a big one: “The bill expressly prohibits the federal government from mandating or incentivizing any particular set of academic standards, such as Common Core.” While some portions of Alexander’s bill do technically prohibit the administrative state from pushing Common Core, in others it appears to give educrats precisely this authority, as a bill analysis from the American Principles Project details. That’s part of the problem with an 800-page bill: It’s easy for the thing to contradict itself.

Every Child Achieves What the National School Board Says

Alexander also claims his proposal will mean “fewer tests for our students.” That’s just plain false. (Also, please never tag my kids with the collective “our.” They’re not yours or anyone else’s, ever, no matter what Melissa Harris-Perry says.) He’s sidestepping here the truth that his bill erases not one currently mandated federal test, despite theunprecedented populist pressure for a massive reduction in federal test-twisting.

What it does do is reduce federal sanctions for state noncompliance, which Alexander extrapolates will mean less pressure at the local level, thus potentially translating into fewer pre-tests. In other words, while he apparently doesn’t believe in the negative unintended consequences of central planning, a well-established reality, he’s willing to tout potential, accidental positive consequences as a sure thing. Further, the thing he’s relying on to achieve this supposed reduction in testing insanity, Alexander’s promise that “the bill will remove the high stakes attached by Washington to those test results,” is a flat-out deception. As Jane Robbins and Heidi Huber write for Townhall.com:

ECAA also continues to mandate that results of high-stakes assessments be used in state accountability systems. For example, the bill requires states to use assessment scores, progress toward readiness for ‘college and the workforce,’ and high-school graduation rates as a ‘substantial’ portion of a school’s grade. So not only must states ensure 95% participation in the assessments, they must use the results to rate their schools.

Wow, sounds like those tests won’t matter much to schools at all, and that this bill “will 'Every Child Achieves' Won't Fix The Fed-Ed Farce:

Charter Schools Are Not Required To Provide Bus Transportation to Students, Judge Rules | FlaglerLive | FlaglerLive

Charter Schools Are Not Required To Provide Bus Transportation to Students, Judge Rules | FlaglerLive | FlaglerLive:

Charter Schools Are Not Required To Provide Bus Transportation to Students, Judge Rules

Pointing to choices made by parents, a state judge has ruled that a Southeast Florida school district cannot require a charter school to provide bus transportation to students.

Administrative Law Judge Darren Schwartz, in a 45-page order issued last week, sided with Renaissance Charter School at Tradition in a long-running dispute with the St. Lucie County School Board.

The case focused, in part, on a state law that effectively requires districts to provide bus transportation to students who live two miles or more from school. Also, St. Lucie County school officials argued that the charter school violated a contract by not providing transportation to students.

But Schwartz pointed to a state charter-school law that gives more leeway on transportation issues.

“(To) conclude that Renaissance Charter School at Tradition is required by the charter school statute to provide regular school bus transportation to all students residing more than two miles from the charter school would violate one of the fundamental principles of the charter school statute, which is to provide charter schools greater flexibility,” Schwartz wrote. “The Legislature specifically recognized that charter schools should have greater flexibility than traditional public schools. Parents choose to send their children to charter schools, knowing full-well that they may reside more than two miles from the charter school, and that their traditional public school may be located much closer to their residence than the charter school.”

Charter schools are public schools, though they are often run by private management companies. As part of a school-choice movement heavily backed by state Republican leaders, charter schools do not have to operate under all of the same requirements as more-traditional public schools.

The St. Lucie County School Board approved a contract in 2013 for Renaissance Charter School at Tradition. But later that year, the school board sent a notice alleging that the charter school was not complying with contract requirements for student transportation, according to documents filed in the case.

The charter school last year filed a petition at the state Division of Administrative Hearings to resolve the dispute. In part, the petition said that since its “inception, (the school) has had more students enrolled than it projected and the charter school currently has a waiting list of students hoping to matriculate there despite the fact that it does not offer regular busing to its students absent exceptional circumstances required by law (as is the case, upon information and belief, with most charter schools in Florida).”

But in response, the school board argued that a lack of transportation could prevent some students from attending the charter school.

“Tradition’s refusal to provide school bus transportation is a … ‘barrier to equal access for all students’ by excluding all students who cannot provide their own transportation,” the school board argued, quoting part of state law. “As a result, Tradition has breached the charter contract and has violated Florida statutes.”

Schwartz’s order alluded to student demand for the school. The order said the school opened for the 2013-14 academic year as a kindergarten- through sixth-grade school with 695 students. It grew to 890 Charter Schools Are Not Required To Provide Bus Transportation to Students, Judge Rules | FlaglerLive | FlaglerLive:

Battle Over Standardized Testing Exposes Deep Rifts in Education Reform Community | TakePart

Battle Over Standardized Testing Exposes Deep Rifts in Education Reform Community | TakePart:

Battle Over Standardized Testing Exposes Deep Rifts in Education Reform Community

One faction says the high-stakes exams hurt children of color, while the other side believes they help the fight for civil rights.

The words read like a familiar manifesto against standardized testing, condemning it as harmful to students, a drain on classroom instruction time that doesn’t accurately measure achievement, and an unwieldy tool that’s used for every purpose than the one intended: helping to improve education.

However, a harsh statement released by the advocacy group Network for Public Education is actually the latest salvo in a high-stakes battle between two education reform factions. They’re fighting each other while simultaneously battling the education establishment.

In the statement, released in late June on its website, the NPE says the tests, which are mandated by No Child Left Behind, are being used to “rank, sort, label, and punish” African American and Latino kids. Designed to “unveil the achievement gaps” with white students, the tests instead became a justification for a white-supremacist agenda: “Thousands of predominantly poor and minority neighborhood schools—the anchors of communities—have been closed,” according to the statement.

Robin Hiller, NPE’s executive director, said in an email interview that the statement is the organization’s pushback against education activists who want to squash the growing movement to boycott tests that are tied to the Common Core curriculum standards. Her organization, Hiller said, also wants Congress to end annual testing and “return the nation to grade span testing” in elementary, middle, and high school. 

She also confirmed the statement is directed at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a mainstream organization that opposes boycott efforts. The LCCHR says minority students and parents should buy in, not opt out, for the sake of racial and educational equality.
“These data are used to advocate for greater resource equity in schools and more fair treatment for students of color, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English learners,” the LCCHR continues. “Anti-testing efforts have resulted in statewide bills and local pressure on schools to discourage students from taking assessments, which would undermine the validity of this data.” “Data obtained through some standardized tests are particularly important to the civil rights community because they are the only available, consistent, and objective source of data about disparities in educational outcomes, even while vigilance is always required to ensure tests are not misused,” says an LCCHR statement. 

The dueling statements have exposed a rift between mainstream organizations like the LCCHR and assertive, more progressive ones like NPE over the future of standardized tests and what tactics to use to make sure students of color are treated equally. 

There’s no doubt the black-white student achievement gap has been stubborn to close, and Battle Over Standardized Testing Exposes Deep Rifts in Education Reform Community | TakePart:

5 Key Principles to Guide Consideration of any ESEA Title I Formula Change | Center for American Progress

5 Key Principles to Guide Consideration of any ESEA Title I Formula Change | Center for American Progress:

ESEA Reauthorization: 5 Key Principles to Guide Consideration of any ESEA Title I Formula Change

Last year, the federal government spent more than $14 billion to help educate low-income students as part of Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA. For schools, particularly low-income schools, these federal investments make a huge difference. If Title I was used to only fund teachers, for instance, it would support the jobs of more than 200,000 educators.

But while federal education dollars bring many benefits for students, they are distributed in a way that is deeply unfair both between and within states. This unfairness stems from the following flaws in the allocation formula.

• It is overly complex and opaque. Title I today is allocated based on four separate formulas with conflicting incentives. State and local legislators and education officials have almost no way to know how much their allocation will change from year to year due to changes in district or state policy, population, or distribution of students living in poverty. This lack of transparency severally limits the formula from serving as an incentive for policy change or from enabling states and districts to plan for the future.
• It sends more money to wealthier states. Wealthier states have historically invested more heavily in education, and those investments are favored by the current Title I formula. This results in a system that compounds existing inequities by giving more to the haves than to the have nots. Furthermore, the formula’s emphasis on the number of children who live in poverty means that more affluent districts that serve only a handful of such children receive Title I dollars. This dilutes the pool, leaving fewer resources for those places with more concentrated poverty.
• It shows clear bias against rural states and mid-sized cities. As a result of this distortion, the so-called small state minimum, which gives more money to smaller states for no other reason than their small population, “states with small populations and low concentrations of poor children receive radically larger grants on a per-poor-child basis than states with larger populations, including those with substantial rural poverty.” What’s more, the formula prioritizes larger districts. Detroit, for instance, gets much more per student than Flint, Michigan, and Los Angeles gets more than Sacramento, California, due to the formula’s heavy weighting of large communities over mid-sized and rural communities.

To be clear, there is no perfect school funding formula. By definition, formulas distribute limited pots of money among diverse schools and districts, and most districts, if not all, could benefit from more resources. Formula decisions, in other words, force difficult trade-offs. Should the formula spread the funding to more students or leverage it most heavily among the neediest? Should it reward states and communities for investing in education, or should it compensate for the fact that they have not made such investments, which has real and often dire consequences for the students living in those communities? Should the formula fund communities with large concentrations of poor students or fund poor students in more socioeconomically diverse communities? These are difficult questions without easy answers.

The goal for every member of Congress—when considering modifying the Title I formula—should be to maximize public utility or the public good and to find the trade-off point where the greatest number of students receive the maximum boost to their life prospects.

The Center for American Progress proposes the following five principles to guide lawmakers as they consider these vital decisions.

1. Make the Title I formula more fair and transparent

Today, Title I, Part A, funds are distributed through four complex formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Incentive Finance Grants, or EIFG. These formulas have different eligibility requirements, weighting systems, and purposes. For example, the Education Finance Incentive formula rewards states that spend equally on poor and non-poor students alike. Other formulas do not.

This complexity makes it nearly impossible for policymakers, school system leaders, and the public to understand how money is distributed. It also makes it hard for the federal law to incentivize thoughtful actions at the state and local level since the reward system is so opaque. In order to fix this problem, the formulas should be condensed into a single, straightforward method of allocating funds. In short, dollars should go to schools in a fair and easy to understand manner based on a few simple factors that are predictable. This policy fix would 5 Key Principles to Guide Consideration of any ESEA Title I Formula Change | Center for American Progress:

• Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF and Scribd versions.
• Download the report: 
  PDF
• Read it in your browser: 
  Scribd

Warren Buffett gifts record $2.84 billion to Gates Foundation, other charities - World - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Warren Buffett gifts record $2.84 billion to Gates Foundation, other charities - World - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News:

Warren Buffett gifts record $2.84 billion to Gates Foundation, other charities

Donation mark Buffett's largest annual philanthropic contribution, increasing his total charitable giving to over $21.5 billion; 'Oracle of Omaha' has pledged to give away nearly all of his wealth.

REUTERS - Warren Buffett on Monday donated about $2.84 billion of Berkshire Hathaway Inc stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and four family charities, as part of the billionaire's plan to give away nearly all of his wealth.

The 10th annual donation, Buffett's largest, comprised 20.64 million Class "B" shares of Berkshire, and increased Buffett's total contributions to the charities to more than $21.5 billion.

The Gates Foundation, which focuses on improving education and health and reducing poverty, receives the biggest share.

Also receiving donations are the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named for Buffett's late first wife, and the Howard G. Buffett, Sherwood and NoVo Foundations, respectively overseen by his children Howard, Susan and Peter.

Buffett, 84, still owns nearly 19 percent of Berkshire's stock. Forbes magazine on Monday estimated that would give him a net worth exceeding $64 billion, ranking fourth worldwide.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft Corp co-founder and Berkshire director, ranked first, at $78.8 billion.

Most of Buffett's holdings are in Class "A" stock, which gives him about one-third of Berkshire's voting power.

Buffett typically makes his donations in July, reducing the number of shares by 5 percent from the prior year. Dollar amounts often rise because of increases in Berkshire's stock price.

The charities typically sell donated shares to finance their activities, Warren Buffett gifts record $2.84 billion to Gates Foundation, other charities - World - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News:

Common Core Math Writer: “Too Busy with K-8″ to Adequately Develop High School Math Standards | deutsch29

Common Core Math Writer: “Too Busy with K-8″ to Adequately Develop High School Math Standards | deutsch29:

Common Core Math Writer: “Too Busy with K-8″ to Adequately Develop High School Math Standards

On July 06, 2015, Andrew Ujifusa of EdWeek posted a piece entitled, “Are Test Scores Proving Fears About Common-Core High School Math Correct?”

In his post, Ujifusa writes about the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) high school math scores from Idaho, Oregon, and Washington State. He notes that the results for high school math were below predictions– which were already lower than predictions for other SBAC tests– “suggesting that officials knew that high school math could prove particularly difficult for students.”

Now, here is the clincher: Ujifusa refers to another EdWeek piece written in February by Liana Heitin, entitled, “Common Core Seen Falling Short in High School Math.”

In Heitin’s February post, Common Core math work group member, University of California at Berkeley professor emeritus Hung-Hsi Wu– described by Heitin as “an adamant supporter of the standards”– told Heitin, “The amount of time given to the high school standards was definitely inadequate. We were so busy with K-8.”

Got that, America? This is one of the individuals on the inside of writing Common Core math standards, and in 2015, in the face of questionable SBAC high school math outcomes, he publicly admits that Common Core high school math was rushed.

Iceberg tip.

Anyone familiar with Common Core development knows that the anchor standards that were supposed to precede the full CC math– and provide the framework for full CC math– do not exist.

The math anchors were supposed to exist, but the development hit a snag, and the clock was ticking. The CCSS memorandum of understanding (MOU) set the timeline for standards completion to be December 2009, but the National Governors Association (NGA) announcement for the beginning of the development of the CCSS– which was supposed to follow the development of the full CC math standards– came out in November 2009.

The CCSS owners, NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), had a schedule to keep. No time to take time to address CC math anchor issues. Just move on to full-blown CC math.

I detail the info above in my book, Common Core Dilemma–Who Owns Our Schools?.

As the years pass and CC faces greater scrutiny, the fact that there are no CC math anchors becomes a problem for CC peddlers. Thus, there is a need to cover up– to make what is missing appear intended.

Consider the following:

This is the archived CC math web page from September 18, 2012. There is no Common Core Math Writer: “Too Busy with K-8″ to Adequately Develop High School Math Standards | deutsch29:

Not Business As Usual at the NEA (A Peek Into Institutional Racism) | The Jose Vilson

Not Business As Usual at the NEA (A Peek Into Institutional Racism) | The Jose Vilson:

Not Business As Usual at the NEA (A Peek Into Institutional Racism)

On Friday, the National Education Association’s Representative Assembly heard the names of the nine Charleston victims. They then attended to New Business Item B, which read in part:

We, the members of the National Education Association, acknowledge the existence in our country of institutional racism–the societal patterns and practices that have the net effect of imposing oppressive conditions and denying rights, opportunity, and equality based upon race. This inequity manifests itself in our schools and in the conditions our students face in their communities.

The rest of the NBI reads like a well-intentioned yet vague plan for what the NEA may or may not do to help teachers, schools, and local chapters on the path towards cultural competency. As proud and thankful as some of us were that the item was voted in unanimously, we also knew the history of working with said members on a daily basis. The sorts of comments we get on and offline for just mentioning the word race would shock the inattentive.

Yet, it still felt odd because institutional racism wasn’t just the edifices and direct policies that affect people of color, but also the actors within that system that perpetuate it. Thus, EduColor came out with its own statement which also made its way around the web. The work done to move the dialogue from “We can’t do this race thing” to “We need to pass this bill for the betterment of our organization” shouldn’t be overlooked, but we have to recognize that many of our colleagues aren’t ready to hear that they may be part of the problem, too.

Blogger and friend of the program Fred Klonsky reads NBI 11, calling for the removal of the Confederate battle flag and all symbols from public schools and spaces. This NBI came out the day after NBI B, and happened an hour after we released our statement. In some ways, it proved Not Business As Usual at the NEA (A Peek Into Institutional Racism) | The Jose Vilson:

Today’s Workplace » Teachers Say 17 Firings at Urban Prep Charter Schools Were Retaliation for Unionization

Today’s Workplace » Teachers Say 17 Firings at Urban Prep Charter Schools Were Retaliation for Unionization:

Teachers Say 17 Firings at Urban Prep Charter Schools Were Retaliation for Unionization

On June 19, during their biannual semester-end interviews, 17 teachers were informed by school staff that they would not be returning to Chicago’s Urban Prep Academy come fall. The terminations came just weeks after 61 percent of Urban Prep’s teachers voted to form a union; activists say the firings were a blatant act of anti-union retaliation.

Last Thursday, around 100 teachers, students, parents and supporters attended Urban Prep’s board meeting to protest the firings and accuse the board of harming their community and hindering student progress. They also accused the board of resisting transparency and accountability, and creating a high teacher-turnover rate through firings and policies that push teachers out of the school.

This is only the latest case of such allegedly unjust firings, as more and more charter schools in Chicago and across the country are organizing to unionize despite the legal hurdles, backlash, and the common belief—at least among school management—that charter teachers don’t need unions.

Matthias Muschal told Catalyst Chicago he was fired after working as a lead English teacher at Urban Prep’s Bronzeville campus for six years for “insubordination—specifically because he threw a pizza party for student-athletes and their families without notifying administration,” according to the administration. He says the real reason was his union activism—a huge disappointment because “I wouldn’t be able to teach my students anymore,” Muschal told In These Times.

Urban Prep CEO Evan Lewis wrote in a statement that “the suggestion that anyone was fired as a result of their organizing activity is both wrong and offensive. … “We respect and support the right of our teachers to choose a union as their exclusive representative. … Many of the teachers returning next year were active in the effort to organize, and we look forward to continuing our work with them.”

At the board meeting, 26 people signed up to speak, although roughly half were allowed to address the board. Parents also delivered over 200 letters in support of the fired teachers in an effort to influence the board’s decision. Not all board members, however, were present at Thursday’s meeting—even though, according to Samuel Adams, a former Urban Prep English teacher, they all live in Chicago. Those who did not attend the meeting called in—a gesture seen by some union supporters as disrespectful.

Teachers, parents and students who attended the meeting praised Urban Prep’s mission and success, but said the recent Today’s Workplace » Teachers Say 17 Firings at Urban Prep Charter Schools Were Retaliation for Unionization:

Growing Evidence that Charter Schools Are Failing | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Growing Evidence that Charter Schools Are Failing | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community:

Growing Evidence that Charter Schools Are Failing

In early 2015 Stanford University's updated CREDO Report concluded that "urban charter schools in the aggregate provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers." 

This single claim of success has a lot of people believing that charter schools really work. But there are good reasons to be skeptical. First of all, CREDO is funded and managed by reform advocates. It's part of the Hoover Institution, aconservative and pro-business think tank funded in part by the Walton Foundation, and in partnership with Pearson, a leading developer of standardized testing materials. CREDO director Margaret Raymond is pro-charter and a free-market advocate. 

The 2015 CREDO study received much of its input, according to a Louisiana source, from the New Orleans Recovery School District and charter promoter New Schools for New Orleans, who together had "embarked on a bold, five-year journey to standardize, validate and export the New Orleans charter restart model...addressing the problem of failing schools by restarting them with schools operated by charter operators." 

Regarding national findings, a review of the CREDO study by the National Education Policy Center questioned CREDO's statistical methods: for example, the study excluded public schools that do NOT send students to charters, thus "introducing a bias against the best urban public schools." 

Charters Are Underperforming 

The inadequacies of charter schools have been confirmed by other recent studies, one of them by CREDO itself, which found that in comparison to traditional public schools "students in Ohio charter schools perform worse in both reading and mathematics." Another recent CREDO study of California schools reached mixed results, with charters showing higher scores in reading but lower scores in math. 

In a study of Chicago's public schools, the University of Minnesota Law School determined that "Sadly the charter schools, which on average score lower that the Chicago public schools, have not improved the Chicago school system, but perhaps made it even weaker." 

In general, as concluded by the nonpartisan Spencer Foundation and Public Agenda, "There is very little evidence that charter and traditional public schools differ meaningfully in their average impact on students' standardized test performance." Another report from Data First, part of the Center for Public Education, stated that "the majority of charter schools do no better or worse than traditional public schools." 

But there's a lot of data that leans toward "worse" rather than "better." A Brookings report showed underperformance in Arizona's charter schools. An In the Public Interest group found that an analyst for the District of Columbia "could not provide a single instance in which its strategy of transferring a low-performing school to a charter management organization had resulted in academic gains for the students." The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that "Students in most Minnesota charter schools are failing to hit learning targets and are not achieving adequate academic growth." Over 85 percent of Ohio's charter students were in schools graded D or F in 2012–2013. In the much-heralded New Orleans charter experiment, the Investigative Fund found that "eight years after Hurricane Katrina...seventy-nine percent of RSD charters are still rated D or F by the Louisiana Department of Education." 

Charters Won't Tell Us What They're Doing 

Performance aside, charters have other serious issues. The Nation called them "stunningly Growing Evidence that Charter Schools Are Failing | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community:

US Presidential Democratic Hopeful, Bernie Sanders, Is Rapidly Gaining Popularity | deutsch29

US Presidential Democratic Hopeful, Bernie Sanders, Is Rapidly Gaining Popularity | deutsch29:

US Presidential Democratic Hopeful, Bernie Sanders, Is Rapidly Gaining Popularity

I just read on The Hill an article entitled, “Team Clinton ‘Worried’ about Bernie Sanders Campaign.” Sanders is quickly becoming serious competition for Clinton in the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “worried” about Bernie Sanders, whom a top Clinton aide described as a “serious force” in the 2016 battle.

“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“It’s to be expected that Sanders would do well in a Democratic primary, and he’s going to do well in Iowa in the Democratic caucus.”

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has emerged as Clinton’s main foil in the Democratic primary.

While he’s still more than 40 percentage points behind Clinton in virtually all national polls, he’s greatly improved his stock in the early primary states. 

A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week found he doubled his share of Democratic supporters in Iowa in just seven weeks. Some polls in New Hampshire show Sanders less than 10 points behind Clinton.

Indeed, in the last several hours, Huffington Post columnist H.A. Goodman posted a piece entitled, “‘Bernie Sanders Can Become President’ Has Replaced ‘I Like Him, But He Can’t Win'”:

How many time have you heard the phrase, “I like Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win,” uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that “Bernie Sanders can win” and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator’s latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that “Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less.” While Clinton’s team isn’t worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State’s lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8.

Goodman continues by noting that Sanders “snagged a key ally” in New Hampshire: Democratic activist Dudley Dudley. Why the rise in Sanders’ popularity? Well, a key reason seems to rest in the fact that the public can get a clear answer from him– on US Presidential Democratic Hopeful, Bernie Sanders, Is Rapidly Gaining Popularity | deutsch29:

Senator Bernie Sanders and K-12 Education: We’re Listening!

Senator Bernie Sanders and K-12 Education: We’re Listening!:

Senator Bernie Sanders and K-12 Education: We’re Listening!

Bernie fever is sweeping the Internet. I like Sen. Sanders. He says a lot of things that make me want to jump up and shout YES! You Go Bernie! But I, like many others, am still listening for the specifics when it comes to education and public schools.

On the issue of K-12 education he leaves me a bit high and dry. Something is missing. I think as parents and educators, we need to not be swept off our feet by Bernie Sanders, but we need to hold his feet to the fire. I think this is important because I am hopeful he is one candidate that might listen.

We should require more answers from him about his education agenda.

You might say, “Well who else is out there who will do any better for education and public schools?” Good question.

Still, while I am no fan of Jeb Bush, I can honestly say I know where he stands on education. This will make it simple for me not to vote or support him. The others, including Sen. Sanders, leave out a lot of issues.

The Pros

These are the positive reasons I like Sen. Sanders. Please let me know if I missed something and I will add it to the list.

• He recognizes many children in this country live in poverty. Poverty has always been an overriding issue in the struggle to have decent public schools. What more will Sen. Sanders advocate concerning poverty and public schools?
• Hr emphasizes good Pre-K programs. I’d like to hear more about what he means here since this is always one of the goals of politicians. But it should be addressed.
• He supports affordable public higher education for all students who are capable and wish to attend college. He seems to be fighting for the middle class here and transcends the usual “all students must go to college” hype. He focuses instead on the troubling reality many hard-working students face–especially student debt.
• He likes small class sizes! This is written in his educational platform and is one of those issues that makes me jump off my couch and cheer!
• He is against vouchers. He has Senator Bernie Sanders and K-12 Education: We’re Listening!:

Outgoing national PTA president on privatization of schools, funding and future | Get Schooled

Outgoing national PTA president on privatization of schools, funding and future | Get Schooled:

Outgoing national PTA president on privatization of schools, funding and future

My AJC colleague Ty Tagami interviewed outgoing national PTA President and Georgia native Otha Thornton, a retired Army Lt. Colonel who won a Bronze Star Medal in Iraq.

Thornton has to be a brave man to answer Tagami’s questions so frankly, given the political climate in Georgia.

By Ty Tagami

For the past two years, Otha Thornton represented parents across the country as president of the U.S. PTA. The native Georgian — he was born in Elberton and graduated from Elberton County High School – completes his two-year term Sunday.

The retired Army Lt. Colonel was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for exceptional performance in combat operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, worked as a communications officer in the White House under Presidents Bush and Obama and is back in Georgia as an analyst with General Dynamics in Fort Stewart. His two children graduated from high school in Maryland after attending elementary school in Richmond Hill near Fort Stewart.

Otha Thornton

Thornton is the first African-American man elected to lead the U.S. PTA in its 118-year history. He talks about the organization’s mission and about education in America — and Georgia.

Q: What do you see as the big challenges facing education?

A: We are almost infested with ALEC members — American Legislative Exchange Council. They’re for privatization of education. If you want to go to a private school, go to a private school. I have no issues with that. But 90 percent of our nation’s children go to public schools, so we need to make sure that our public schools are sound. Before I took this position, I was the Georgia PTA legislative chair, so I actually worked with some of those guys down there and some of the committee chairs at the time were ALEC members. [They wanted to give private school tuition vouchers to the children of military personnel.] If that military child goes to a private school — the government gives federal impact aid to public schools — so if … military kids get vouchers, the money will come out of the public school system. You’re going to lose federal impact funds that the government gives to states to compensate for those military kids going to public schools. In Columbus, Ga., alone, Fort Benning, Ga., they receive $1 million a year in impact aid funds, and [the lawmakers] didn’t know that.

Q: Next year, a constitutional amendment that allows the Georgia governor to take over “failing” schools will appear on the ballot. Will you tell people to vote for or against this Opportunity School District?

A: I’m speaking as a citizen of Georgia now: I would tell them to vote against it. It would impact most of your minority school systems, like Augusta, Atlanta, Columbus, and Athens. When you take a kid out, the school has to make up for the loss of students and the loss of state and federal funding for those students.

Q: What do you think is the biggest strength of our educational system?

A: Common Core is a great standard, but the Republican Party has politicized it. I remember back in 2009 when the National Governor’s Association, who were predominantly Republican and Sonny Perdue was the chair, brought Common Core forward. When President Obama came into office and he did Race to the Top [a federal grant program that encouraged adoption of the Common Core], people took that and they twisted it [into] ‘the federal government is trying to federalize education.’ That’s just not true. But if you continue to repeat something so much, people begin to believe it. In Georgia, the fact that we have implemented Common Core and it is still moving forward is a positive thing, and it’s going to help us move forward as a state.

Q: What do you think about the decision to create a local state test (the Georgia Milestones) rather than join other states in using the PARCC assessment to gauge mastery of the Common Core standards?

A: It doesn’t give a true reflection of how our kids stack up against other kids. I don’t know if xenophobic is the right word, or a parochial view of, ‘this is our state.’ It’s almost like we’re fighting the Civil War in some states again, and that’s unfortunate, particularly in the fast-moving world that we’re in, and competing with. I went to Outgoing national PTA president on privatization of schools, funding and future | Get Schooled:

Education Lessons From A Sparkly District: Newark Residents Should Select Their Next Superintendent

Education Lessons From A Sparkly District: Newark Residents Should Select Their Next Superintendent:

Newark Residents Should Select Their Next Superintendent

We believe that the people of Newark should be able to democratically govern their public schools.  

Fortunately, Mark Biedron, President of NJ’s State Board of Education, seems to agree.  Mr. Biedron recently told the Star Ledger that “the people of Newark having local control over the school district…is a good thing.”  

On Wednesday, Mr. Biedron will have an opportunity to act on this belief when the State Board votes on whether Chris Cerf should become Newark’s next Superintendent.  
If the State Board approves Mr. Cerf, it will be continuing a 20 year history of disenfranchisement for Newark’s nearly 300,000 residents, who have had no say in this decision.

If the Board rejects Mr. Cerf and instead approves a candidate selected by Newark’s popularly-elected Board of Education, it will be putting Mr. Biedron’s admirable philosophy into practice.

There is plenty of precedent for allowing Newark to select its own superintendent.
Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson are all state-controlled school districts.  Yet Jersey City’s popularly-elected Board of Education selected its Superintendent, Marcia Lyles.  Paterson’s Superintendent, Dr. Donnie Evans, was selected by a committee that included members of Paterson’s popularly-elected Board of Education, along with other community leaders.  In contrast, Newark’s popularly-elected Board of Education has had no voice in selecting Mr. Cerf, who was nominated for this position by Governor Christie.

Approving Mr. Cerf is also difficult to justify because Mr. Cerf lacks the qualifications necessary to run New Jersey’s largest school district.  Unlike Jersey City’s and Paterson’s leaders, Mr. Cerf has no prior experience as a superintendent.  

Nor is there a record of success in related public-education positions on which to base Mr. Cerf’s nomination.  In fact, Mr. Cerf’s tenure as New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education was marked by numerous poor decisions regarding Newark, including:

• Appointing and continuing to support Newark’s prior Superintendent, Cami Anderson, whose policies and behaviors generated broad-based rejection and rebellion from Newark residents;
• Improperly giving in to a demand from Ms. Anderson “to allow her to retain full control over 28 low-performing schools, which resulted in New Jersey failing to comply with federal requirements; and
• Forcibly maintaining State control of Newark's schools by dramatically lowering the district’s scores on the State’s monitoring system (QSAC) from the scores that Mr. Cerf had given the district less than a year earlier. 

The people of Newark deserve the right to select their next Superintendent.  They also deserve Education Lessons From A Sparkly District: Newark Residents Should Select Their Next Superintendent:

We Can and Must Do Better: A Personal Reflection on Wealth Inequality – The Anarres Project

We Can and Must Do Better: A Personal Reflection on Wealth Inequality – The Anarres Project:

We Can and Must Do Better: A Personal Reflection on Wealth Inequality

By Mark Naison   (July 6, 2015)

The greatest sustained period of economic growth in the US took place between 1941 and 1970 when tax rates on the wealthy were much higher than they are now, when business regulation, especially of the financial sector, was much more rigorous, and when trade unions were much stronger. There are options within the US constitutional framework that could be invoked that will produce far better results that the current social contract, which has concentrated wealth at the top to a greater degree than at any time since the 19th century.

Having grown up in that era in a family of modest means, and having had far greater opportunities that young people in comparable conditions have today, I would hardly call myself a product of a failed experiment. I grew up in Crown Heights, attended PS 91 and Winthrop Junior High School, then went on to Wingate and Erasmus High Schools before going on to Columbia, where I ended up being captain of the tennis team even though I learned my tennis in Lincoln Terrace Park where my instructor was a mailman named Phil Rubell.  My cousin Steven, may his soul rest in peace, had the same experience, playing basketball at Columbia after learning the game in public school night centers

Could that happen today? Highly doubtful, since the parks and public school programs that my cousin and I benefited from have long since been de- funded. We can look to our own history for alternatives to a social order where upward We Can and Must Do Better: A Personal Reflection on Wealth Inequality – The Anarres Project: