May 15, 2014

Parent tells why she is opting-out her son with brain damage from testing.

She shouldn't even have to take a step like this. She should not have to explain that while her son is recuperating from serious brain surgery, he learns in a different manner. She should not have to feel that opting out her son will hurt the school's grade just as if she did not do so.

It should be a matter of common sense, that a child with severe brain damage should not be required to take a test with such high stakes. A parent should not be put in such a position. The education powers that be should be intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know better.

Opting Out: Why My Son Will Never Take State Tests

Ian does not learn the way other children learn. When he was four years old, we discovered Ian had a cancerous brain tumor. He had it surgically removed, which was followed by radiation and chemotherapy.

The treatments were successful, but it came at a price: A void was left where the tumor was, and brain cells were damaged from the treatments. His brain has had to make new neurological connections. I am confident that Ian's brain will eventually make those connections and learning new things will become easier for him, but it will take time.

She points out that he is "functioning well physically, visually, and verbally", but the biggest problem is his memory.

She makes this very valid point.

I know this about him. His teachers know this about him. If the government wants to know this about him, they could immediately get the information by asking his school; they don't need to collect data on him in the spring, just so they can share their evaluation of him in the fall.

....This time could be spent on teaching children to think for themselves instead of how to "perform" properly for the government and the big businesses making these tests. The actual time spent taking the tests does the same thing. If people are wondering why our students are falling behind other countries, they need to look no further than the hours spent every year on preparing and testing our students for these standardized tests.

May 13, 2014

Chicago principals told they will only speak what is in line with school board's agenda.

They were in effect told to watch what they say.

Here are the words of a Chicago principal.

Under Emanuel, principals have no voice


Blaine Elementary School Principal Troy LaRaviere with teacher Tiffany Tafe. | Sun-Times files

I am the son of a black father from the South Side and a white mother from the North Side. I grew up in Bronzeville and now live in Beverly. I attended five Chicago Public Schools and I’ve taught in every corner of Chicago, in schools that were predominately African-American, Latino-American and European-American. I have served students who were homeless, and students whose families owned multiple homes. I was an assistant principal in a turnaround school, and I am currently the principal of Blaine Elementary, one of the city’s highest-performing neighborhood schools. Finally, I am a CPS parent with a son at our neighborhood public school.

I am fortunate to have experienced public schooling from such diverse viewpoints. However, nothing I’ve seen can compare to what I’ve witnessed as a CPS principal under the administration of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

They were told to have "elevator speeches" ready in support of Rahm and the school board's agenda and be ready to provide that speech at any time.

The administration’s interaction with principals is often insulting. During the debate over the longer school day, some principals questioned its merits. CPS officials were then dispatched to tell the principals their opinions didn’t matter. “You are Board employees,” a central office official told a room full of principals at a meeting, “and when you speak, your comments must be in line with the Board’s agenda.” He instructed us to have an “elevator speech” supporting the longer day ready at a moment’s notice. We were told that if Emanuel and the press walked into our schools, we’d better be prepared to list the benefits of his longer day. In a move that further humiliated principals, they were called on at random to give their elevator speeches at subsequent principal meetings.

.....Several months later, I spoke about overcrowded schools on WYCC television. A few hours before filming, I emailed CPS officials to inform them. Later that afternoon — unaware the show had already been taped — those officials told me not to appear because I did not have permission. On the subject of whether I had the right to speak as a private citizen, CPS said I should wait to receive clarity. After more than two months I’m still waiting for “clarity” from CPS on my right to speak.

My one comment. We can not expect principals, teachers, and other educators to be treated with due respect unless the powers that be in both major parties treat them that way publicly.

May 12, 2014

A frustrated parent responds on a Common Core assignment. Looks like it's back to the old New Math.

I had to teach that a few years. It was pretty awful to get across. It made the parents angry that they had to help their kids unlearn a simple quick method to get across understanding of a complicated way.

Frustrated Mom's answers on Common Core assignment.



Long page with interesting comments.

May 11, 2014

Is Indiana Arne Duncan's next target? Will he label all the state's schools as failing for not..

following his demands?

He just did that to Washington state. A school board member there spoke out against Duncan, told him he would NOT declare all schools failures because they were not.

WA state educator to Arne Duncan: Stop saying our schools are failing.

Why is Arne Duncan calling the schools there failing? They refused to grade teachers by student test scores, they refused to raise the cap on the number of charter schools.

Dear Secretary Duncan,

Last week you revoked Washington State’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver, resulting in nearly every school in Washington being considered failing by your Department of Education. This summer, as a School Board Director in Lake Stevens, WA, you’re requiring I send a “failure letter” to parents of any school that receives your funding.

Your reason for revoking our waiver: we didn’t pass legislation you wanted. More precisely, we passed legislation, but it didn’t have the wording (actually, one specific word) you wanted.

Since you’re so distant from us – nearly 3,000 miles by one measure – let me tell you about this other Washington: We have strong leadership in our board rooms, schools, and classrooms; we have professional and effective educators; and our students are capable, confident, and work extremely hard. But don’t take my word for it – our SAT scores, among other measures, speak for us.

Finally he tells Arne Duncan that "You can keep the waiver. And regarding your failure letter – I have little interest in using our Lake Stevens letterhead to tell our students and educators they’re failures, because they are not."

Now Duncan has his officials in Indiana watching to see if they follow his commands.

Arne Duncan wants updates from Indiana on No Child Left Behind concerns

Duncan made the request in phone calls this week with Gov. Mike Pence and state schools Superintendent Glenda Ritz, who detailed her call in an email obtained Friday by The Associated Press. Ritz wrote the email to members of the State Board of Education and staff for the new education agency Pence created last year.

Indiana was one of 10 states to receive a waiver from the landmark education law in 2012. But the U.S. Education Department alerted the state last week that its waiver was at risk following an August 2013 monitoring session that revealed concerns with how the state was working with low-performing schools.

Federal officials also expressed concerns about the state's teacher evaluation system and its decision to withdraw from the Common Core national education standards.

Losing the waiver could cost Indiana control of more than $200 million in Title I education funds. Both Ritz and Pence have said they are committed to keeping the waiver.

One interesting aside note: guess who wrote Indiana's standards on this issue? It was Tony Bennett who failed there and moved to Florida where he resigned.

Why did he resign?

Florida education chief Tony Bennett resigns over how a C became an A

Less than a year into his tenure as Florida’s education commissioner, Tony Bennett resigned Thursday amid a controversy over adjustments he made to school grades last year as Indiana’s school chief.

The Associated Press published e-mails this week suggesting Mr. Bennett tweaked a new A-F grading system in Indiana to favor a charter school run by a major Republican donor – giving it an A instead of the initial C. Bennett said in a press conference that the accusation was “malicious and unfounded” and that he hoped there would be an investigation, but that he was resigning to avoid distraction to Gov. Rick Scott’s education reform efforts in Florida.

Bennett has been a prominent member of Chiefs for Change, a coalition of reform-minded state school chiefs backed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, which put out statements of support for him this week. As an outspoken promoter of a certain brand of accountability, Bennett’s supporters see him under attack by politically motivated opponents.

Bennett fails in his moves from state to state, Arne Duncan has the power given to him by the president to declare all the schools in a given state to be failures.

So I have been right all along. Accountability is only for public school teachers.

May 10, 2014

When FL charter schools close, taxpayer money remains in private hands.

It doesn't get returned to the public schools. There are so many inequities like that in this state.

The worst lately is the spin of oh goody they are giving more money to education this year....well, no, not public education.

From the Bradenton Herald:

Legislature's political game with public schools

Florida's Legislature and governor boast about blessing K-12 education with an additional $547.8 million in the coming fiscal year, bringing total spending on public schools to a record $18.9 billion.

On the surface, the infusion of a half billion dollars certainly looks like a banner year for public schools. Dig deeper, though, and another perspective comes to light. Two phrases -- truth in advertising and follow the money -- come into play.

.....The upshot of this year's education budget: The burden of paying for public schools is increasing for local property taxpayers, continuing a legislative shift that began in the 1990s with a pause during the recession as property values fell.

The article points out that the PR spin fails to tell us that for two long years public schools got no money for building and maintenance. None.

Yet $200 million was allocated for charter schools to be built and maintained.

There are 2.7 million public school students versus about 230,000 students in charters. Vastly unfair.

But one of the worst parts is that even though charter schools get the per pupil funding, there's a catch. If the student is sent back to public schools or if the charter school closes....the money stays with the charter school companies.

Charter schools, often operated by for-profit management and real estate development companies, spend far less money on instruction than public schools, and they expend large amounts on management fees and leases.

When charter schools close, those capital assets don't revert to the taxpaying public that paid those costs but remain in private hands -- expanding on the inequity.

May 9, 2014

Repost from March. Greenwald defends himself from those who say he supported Bush and Iraq.

Since there are so many assaults today on the character of Glenn Greenwald, it is time to repost his own words. He deserves to have his own words heard. Give him that much.

Before 2004, I had been politically indifferent. Believed govt insulated from real abuse.

Those are not my words. But that just about describes how I was politically before the Iraq invasion. So I understand someone who claims they were apathetic politically at the time.

What is interesting is that these are the words of Glenn Greenwald when he defended himself from so many of the attacks on him. Here are his words from the preface of his 2006 book "How Would a Patriot Act?"

Every time his name is mentioned here it is said he supported the Iraq invasion. Just like many other once respected lefty bloggers he is now condemned.

Our country is at a profound crossroads. We must decide whether we want to adhere to the values and principles that have made our country free, strong, and great for the 217 years since our Constitution was ratified, or whether we will relinquish those values and fundamentally change who we are, all in the name of seeking protection from terrorism. I genuinely believe that we are extremely lucky to be the beneficiaries of a system of government that uniquely protects our individual liberties and allows us a life free of tyranny and oppression. It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is.

I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary.

....I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . .

I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created.

There was a post last year at Daily Kos which referenced a blog post in which Greenwald defended himself on many positions. I had been searching for that post, but that blog site apparently is defunct.

Here are some quotes of his from the DKos post.

Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him

These claim are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..

The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates.

.....When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind.

I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

You really should read the rest of the very long DKos post. It covers many areas in which he defends himself.

There is not any one single author or reporter who gets it right every time. I do not ever agree with any one person all the time.

But now it is hard to post any work of any writer who is or has been critical of President Obama's policies. I really never thought about that happening on Democratic forums.

May 4, 2014

Every Dem in TN state Senate, 21 Dems in state House voted to jail women for outcomes

of pregnancy.

I had read about this awful bill, but I had not realized that Democrats were so much in favor of it. I am having trouble understanding why. If anyone says to me that's how you get elected in TN, I will scream so don't say it. We heard that too much for decades from the DLC and Third Way.

It's not a good thing to do that anywhere in any state.

The vote that was taken on March 6 of this year. This is the House vote, and I counted 21 Democrats who supported it.

March 6, 2014 House vote on SB 1391

Here is the Senate vote. Not as many Democrats, I see 7. But only Republicans voted against it.

Senate Vote on SB 1391 (Apr 7, 2014)

Salon has an article about this bill.

Tennessee just became the first state that will jail women for their pregnancy outcomes

Against the advice of doctors, addiction experts and reproductive health groups, Gov. Bill Haslam signed SB 1391

Tennessee has become the first state in the nation to pass a law criminalizing women for their pregnancy outcomes. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam took the 10 days allotted to him to consider the advice of doctors, addiction experts and reproductive health groups urging him to veto the punitive and dangerous measure that allows prosecutors to charge a woman with criminal assault if she uses illegal drugs during her pregnancy and her fetus or newborn is considered harmed as a result. Haslam ignored these recommendations — and the recommendations of nearly every major medical association, including the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy — and signed the measure anyway.

Opponents of the new law share a concern that a lack of access to health care and treatment facilities will result in the disproportionate targeting and jailing of poor mothers and mothers of color, particularly in rural districts throughout the state.

Republican state Sen. Mike Bell, one of the seven Republicans in the state Senate to vote against the measure (every Democrat in the state Senate voted in favor), recently told Salon that this lack of access is a problem he thinks will hurt the women of his district and their families. “I represent a rural district,” he said. “There’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.”

Only two of the state’s 177 addiction treatment facilities that provide on-site prenatal care allow older children to stay with their mothers while they are undergoing treatment. And only 19 of these facilities offer any addiction care specifically oriented toward pregnant women. Tennessee has also refused the Medicaid expansion, leaving many women without reliable access to basic medical or prenatal care, much less drug treatment.

This seems like total party role reversal to me.

May 3, 2014

"Tom Wheeler tries, and fails, to justify his execution of net neutrality." From Slate

Slate is most definitely not a liberal activism site. They are even weighing in on this.

The FCC Chairman’s Many Excuses

Today, millions of Americans from every sector are up in arms over Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to end network neutrality and authorize cable and phone companies to discriminate among websites and charge Web giants for “fast lanes” while keeping the rest of us in a “slow lane.”

Despite the outcry, Wheeler isn’t changing sides, he’s making excuses. In the past week, the chairman has published two blog posts and given one speech (at the cable lobbying association he used to head), while two law school professors, Kevin Werbach and Phil Weiser, have taken to the Huffington Post to defend him.

Wheeler’s posts attempt to placate critics, but let’s get one thing straight: He is not backing off his plan to hand the keys to the Internet over to the cable and phone industries. The chairman told the cable industry to “put away the party hats” because he’s not actually going to kill network neutrality. But his proposal is the same plan offered by the largest cable and phone companies, which have tried to kill network neutrality for almost a decade. Since 2006, the phone and cable industries have proposed a world where they won’t “block” any websites, but they will simply create a lane for all websites and then charge anyone who wants better service for a fast lane. They have fought a nondiscrimination rule for at least eight years, using tens of millions of dollars. The tolls for the fast lane may be tied to bandwidth or a company’s revenue. Finally, the cable and phone giants want this world to have no clear rules—just vague principles about what might be “commercially reasonable,” which is an invitation for small companies to sue the giants if they’re unhappy. Since the cable and telephone companies have more FCC lawyers than most companies have employees, they will scare off most potential companies suing and then beat the rest in “FCC court.”

That’s basically what the chairman is backing—the often proposed AT&T/Verizon plan. It’s the plan that President Obama repeatedly opposed, beginning in 2006. It’s the plan that network neutrality advocates have fought against for eight years. He is emphasizing what AT&T always conceded: that carriers would be unable to “block,” that a provider will not “degrade” whatever is today’s existing service (and tomorrow’s “slow lane”), and therefore the Internet will remain an “open pathway.” But as Wheeler, Werbach, and Weiser concede, he will permit paid fast lanes. He will even permit cable and phone companies to offer fast lanes exclusively to one competitor and not to others. The only real restriction is that fast lanes can’t be offered exclusively to a company also owned by the cable or phone company. So Comcast wouldn’t be able to offer a fast lane only to NBC.com—which it owns—but could offer it only to Netflix or only to Apple, and nobody else, under the terms of his proposed rule.

President Obama appointed him, appears to be standing by him. That makes it the president's policy. It's really a very large elephant that won't go away just because we pretend it is not there.

May 3, 2014

The murder of net neutrality....

Most are ignoring the really big elephant in the room....that a president's appointees indicate his mindset, are a reflection of the changes he wants to make. I would like to see that differently, and my mind is open to be convinced.

Before posting this I did a search, and I found it was posted by n2doc here on April 29. It was basically ignored. How could something that important by such a reporter as Michael Hiltzik just disappear that quickly?

As Hiltzik points out, Tom Wheeler is blowing smoke when he says he does not want to do away with net neutrality.

This needs to be reposted if for no other reason than the hearty laugh Wheeler seems to be having at our expense.

Your complete guide to the murder of net neutrality


The beginning of the end of net neutrality? President Obama announces the appointment of Tom Wheeler as FCC Chairman last May. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / May 1, 2013)

You couldn't say the crime is being committed by stealth. Quite the contrary: Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is aiming to slay net neutrality in broad daylight. The murder weapon is a proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge content companies more for faster access to their subscribers.

Wheeler's proposal, which is scheduled for a preliminary vote by the full FCC on May 15, has been assailed as a full-scale retreat from the open-Internet principle traditionally upheld by the commission, and explicitly supported by President Obama. Wheeler claims he's not backing away from net neutrality at all, and that assertions to the contrary are the product of "a great deal of misinformation."

He's blowing smoke. The critics are right. Wheeler's proposal will turn the Internet as we know it into the private preserve of a handful of rich and powerful companies. It will make them richer and more powerful. And you'll be getting the bill. If the commission votes for the proposal, it will then be subject to months of public comments. But the risk is it could become law by the end of this year.

First, some background. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers can't discriminate among content providers trying to reach you online -- they can't block websites or services, or degrade their signal, slow their traffic or, conversely, provide a better traffic lane for some rather than others.

Hiltzik points that "Wheeler proposes to let that happen. His proposal would forbid ISPs to block any legal websites or services, but allow them to favor some traffic under "commercially reasonable" arrangements, to be reviewed by the FCC on a case-by-case basis."

When people like Wheeler, like Arne Duncan, are appointed to lead aspects of our nation....then someone needs to convince me that the president does not agree with their goals.

May 2, 2014

Here's how politics work in Florida. Call Dem candidate persona non grata, then run an indy...

who doesn't live in the county. This is the district just lost by Alex Sink and won by Tea Party candidate David Jolly.

I do not know the candidates involved at all, I don't know whether it's a good decision or not. But it seems the party has decided for us....again as they have in the past so often.

DCCC says it is backing NPA candidate Ed Jany in CD 13

Unable to find a candidate registered long enough to run as a Democrat in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced this afternoon that it is supporting Colonel Ed Jany.

Jany will have to run as an NPA candidate, with the support of the Democratic Party, because a recently-enacted election law requires candidates for all offices to be registered with the party they are running under 365 days prior to qualifying.

Steve Israel, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says the Democratic party is throwing its full weight behind Jany.

“An American hero, Colonel Jany’s service, independence and proven ability to bring people together to get results is exactly what’s missing from the broken politics of Washington,” said Israel. “Democrats are proud to support Colonel Jany and confident he will run an aggressive, successful campaign.”

Jany is a Republican turned Democrat recently. However it has not been a full year as required by the district. So he is not actually running as a Democrat in name, but as No Party Affiliation.

But there was a candidate available and willing, just not acceptable to the party leaders. So they chose Jany over him. I believe that would be the Colonel Ed Jany found on this page as he was born in Brazil.



Pinellas Democratic chairman tells pastor he's 'persona non grata' if he runs for Congress

This is the candidate told to get out of the race.


The Rev. Manuel Sykes

Pinellas County's Democratic chairman left a bluntly worded voicemail telling well-known St. Petersburg pastor Manuel Sykes he would be "persona non grata" if he followed through with plans to run for Congress.

In the voicemail, Mark Hanisee said party officials had spoken to the offices of two key Democrats, former congressional candidate Alex Sink and St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman.

"Neither one of them are endorsing you, nor is the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). They have another candidate," Hanisee said. He added, "You better hold off, or, like I told you Sunday night, you are going to be persona non grata. Take that to the bank. That's telling you the gospel truth. You're going to be getting a call from Rick Kriseman, if you haven't already, telling you to back off. Have a nice weekend."

More on this:

Mitch Perry Report 5.1.14: So long, Manuel Sykes, we hardly knew ya

This was apparently written before Jany was chosen.

At the moment there is not a single Democrat who has decided to announce his or her candidacy, though that could change by the time you read this. Nevertheless it's troubling to hear that Sykes is stepping down before he ever really got up. Yes, as has been reported elsewhere, he's hardly the ideal candidate. Why is that?

Well, there's the reality that he's a black candidate in a majority white senior district. Hanisee "goes there" in explaining to Kruger why Sykes is not a "credible candidate." A previous incident in Sykes's private life could be a factor. But why not let the Democratic voters decide that?

Hanissee goes on to say that another negative is that Sykes has never run for office, but that's lame. Neither had Jessica Ehrlich before 2012. Neither had David Jolly until earlier this year. And neither might the candidate who ultimately gets in the race.

Jany may be a dream candidate, but why take the power to decide out of the hands of the voters?

See you at Twitter