Choosing Democracy

Bee editor Pia Lopez gets it wrong about schools -again

2012-01-28T08:06:00.000-08:00

Associate Editor Pia Lopez wrote an interesting essay, “Canwe find common ground on schools?” on the ideas of Diane Ravitch in the Bee this morning- exceptfor one paragraph where Lopez is substantially wrong. She says, “ In the 1980’s she (Ravitch) helped write a history curriculumframework for California that still today is considered among the best in thecountry.”

Lets see. Shemust mean the California History Social Science Framework of 1987 – still inuse today- that almost completely ignores Mexican American History.

From my essay , “Why California Students Do not knowChicano/ Mexican American History. “

The 1987 Framework stillin use today expanded African American, Native American, and women’shistory coverage but remains totally inadequate in the coverage of Latinos andAsians. The only significant change between the 1985 and the 2005 adoptedFramework was the addition of a new cover, a cover letter, and additions ofphotos such as of Cesar Chavez . Latinos currently make up 48.1 percent ofCalifornia’s student population and Asians make up 8.1 %.

The dominant neoconservative view of history argues that textbooks and a commonhistory should provide the glue that unites our society.(Ravitch's view at the time) Historical themes andinterpretations are selected in books to create unity in a diverse and dividedsociety, a unity from the point of view of the dominant class. Thisviewpoint assigns to schools the task of creating a common culture. In reality,television and military service may do more to create a common culture than doschools and books.

Conservatives assign the task of cultural assimilation to schools, withparticular emphasis on the history, social science, and literature curricula.Historians advocating consensus write textbooks that downplay the roles ofslavery, class, racism, genocide, and imperialism in our history. They focus onethnicity and assimilation rather than race, on the success of achievingpolitical reform, representative government, and economic opportunity forEuropean American workers and immigrants. They decline to notice the highpoverty rate of U.S. children, the crisis of urban schooling, and thecontinuation of racial divisions in housing and the labor force. In Californiathey decline to notice that Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and Latinos as well asAsians contributed to the development of this society.

Atpresent California students are about 48% descendents of Mexican and otherLatino cultures yet they are not in the textbooks as a consequence of theRavitch History/Social Science Framework.

Thatis not “still considered among the best in the country,” except perhaps bypersons who know little about the issue, or care little about Mexican American students, their history and their success inschools.

Seemore on the Institute for Democracy and Education web site

https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/chicano-mexican-american-digital-history-project/why-california-students-do-not-know-chicano-history

Duane Campbell,

Professor Emeritus, Bilingual Multicultural Education.

Author, Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multiculturaleducation. 2010.

U.S. Schools Not Failing - data

2012-01-27T15:07:00.000-08:00

Richard Rothstein,

Education “reformers” have a common playbook. First, assert without evidence that regular public schools are “failing” and that large numbers of regular (unionized) public school teachers are incompetent. Provide no documentation for this claim other than that the test score gap between minority and white children remains large. Then propose so-called reforms to address the unproven problem – charter schools to escape teacher unionization and the mechanistic use of student scores on low-quality and corrupted tests to identify teachers who should be fired.

The mantra has been endlessly repeated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and by “reform” leaders like former Washington and New York schools chancellors Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein. Bill Gates’ foundation gives generous grants to school systems and private education advocates who adopt the analysis. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel makes the argument, and in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently sung the same tune.

And now, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has joined in. On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week, the governor cast attacks on unionized teachers as a defense of minority students against the adult bureaucracy. “It’s about the children,” Mr. Cuomo said. Because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.”

But this applause line about school failure is an “urban myth.” The governor, mayor and other policymakers have neglected to check facts they assume to be true. As a result, they may be obsessed with the wrong challenges, while exacerbating real, but overlooked problems.

Careful examination discloses that disadvantaged students have made spectacular progress in the last generation, in regular public schools, with ordinary teachers. Not only have regular public schools not been “the great discriminator” – they continue to make remarkable gains for minority children at a time when our increasingly unequal social and economic systems seem determined to abandon them.

We have only one accurate performance measure. The government administers periodic reading and math tests to samples of fourth, eighth and 12th graders. Called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, pronounced “nape”), it is less subject to corruption than standardized tests now legally required of all schoolchildren.

NAEP samples are only large enough to produce reliable national and (for fourth and eighth graders) state estimates, but not for classrooms or schools. Thus, principals or teachers suffer no consequences for poor NAEP scores, giving them no incentive to steal time from instruction to drill on NAEP-type questions.

Not every selected student gets identical NAEP questions. Scores aggregate answers from different students’ booklets, covering different topics from the math and reading curriculums. In contrast, state and city standardized tests change little each year; teachers can predict which of many topics will likely appear, and focus instruction on those.

Here’s what NAEP shows: Average black fourth graders’ math performance in regular public schools has improved so much that it now exceeds average white performance as recently as 1992. The improvement has been greatest for the lowest achievers, those in the bottom 10 percent. Eighth graders show similar, though less dramatic trends. The black-white gap has narrowed little because whites have also improved.

These irrefutable facts characterize both the nation as a whole, and New York State specifically. In fact, New York State’s black children made enormous gains in the 1990s, and much slower gains once the federal No Child Left Behind, and Mayor Bloomberg’s and Chancellor Klein’s test-based reforms kicked in. From 1992 to 2003, for example, black fourth graders’ math performance jumped 22 scale points (about two-thirds of a standard deviation). From 2003 to 2011, the gain was only 5 scale points.

There is something perverse about using Dr. King’s birthday as the occasion for an accusation that schools have been the “great discriminators” when those schools have been boosting the achievement of African Americans at a far more rapid rate than they’ve been able to boost the achievement of whites.

Overall, the national and New York State data are hard to reconcile with a story that schools are filled with teachers having low expectations, poor training, and complacency arising from excessive job security, and the way to fix public schools is more accountability for student test scores.

There are certainly ineffective teachers, and schools should do better at removing them. But data suggest that this problem, while real, is relatively small compared to others we ignore. Here are two: There has been substantial reading improvement at the fourth but not eighth grade; and no comparable improvement, even in math, for 12th graders.

Assuming systemic failure to justify a frenzy of ill-considered reforms, we’ve spent almost no time investigating what caused these trends. We can only speculate.

Plausibly, schools have more influence on math. Reading, especially for older children, results more from exposure to vocabulary and complex language at home, and to visiting museums, libraries, and zoos, to gain context for the written word.

We do know that the verbal gap between middle class and disadvantaged children is well established by age 3. We can improve reading scores for fourth graders by drilling basic skills, but not for older children whose reading depends more on relating text to the world beyond.

Popular reforms, holding schools and teachers accountable for test scores, are consistent with the facts only if we believe that most teachers work hard to teach math, but not reading. More plausible is that elementary schools do at least a passable job, and we should focus reform instead on establishing early childhood centers that give disadvantaged children greater verbal exposure and the breadth of experience that affluent children typically receive.

Rather than spending such energy imagining how schools have failed, so we can fix them, we might devote attention to investigating what schools have done well, so we can do more of it.

High schools’ apparent lack of improvement for disadvantaged youth remains puzzling. Here, too, we should consider some factors outside of schools, where racially isolated communities with concentrated poverty and few jobs can demoralize adolescents. We might get greater academic success by creating more after-school and summer programs that provide enriching experiences, competing with adverse neighborhood influences.

Systems cannot improve if prescriptions rely on flawed diagnoses. The governor and mayor should now step back, take a deep breath, and try to follow facts rather than ignore them.

Richard Rothstein. www.epi.org/blog

Rothstein is the author of Class and Schools. 2004.

Teachers and the escape from poverty

2012-01-27T10:21:00.000-08:00

AnthonyCody.

Lastnight in President Obama's State of the Union address, he repeated afamiliar refrain about the importance of teachers.

Agreat teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyondhis circumstance.

Butit seems that it is those in power who are actually using teachers to escapefrom the realities of poverty these days.

PresidentObama offered as evidence a citation from a recent Harvard report:

Weknow a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over$250,000.

Hewent on to say,

Teachersmatter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offerschools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, andreward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach withcreativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teacherswho just aren't helping kids learn.

Thereare several problems with this. As others have pointed out, if you take aclassroom of 25 students, and spread $250,000 over their 40 years of earnings,this amount comes to a grand total of $250 a year per student. This is unlikelyto represent an escape from poverty. (see more thorough responses to the Chettyreport here, and here.)

Thesecond problem is a glaring contradiction, a logical flaw so huge it has beenoverlooked by almost every journalist apparently too polite to challenge theadministration on it. If you do not wish teachers to teach to the test, if youwant them to be passionate and creative, then how can you insist that theirperformance be measured by the use of test scores?

Letus be crystal clear. The Obama administration has made the use of test scoresto evaluate principals and teachers a pre-condition for federal aid. Both Raceto the Top and the NCLB waivers require that states developevaluation processes that incorporate this data. Furthermore, the administrationproposes to continue to identify and target for closure or"turnaround" the bottom 5% of schools, once again based on these sametest scores we are told should not be taught to.

Youcannot have it both ways. You cannot tell teachers to be creative,you cannot pretend you are "flexible," when you mandate the use oftest scores for teacher and principal evaluations, and continue to use them asthe basis by which schools are condemned as failures.

Butthe biggest burn is this. Everyone now knows that many of thewealthy have abandoned any pretense of caring about the poor in this country.They use every device to cling not only to their privilege, but to obscenelevels of enrichment. The answer to poverty ought to be clear to us, as it wasto Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. more than fifty years ago. Poorpeople need a living wage. People need opportunities to work. We need a taxstructure that rewards people for working and producing, not investing billionsin tax havens overseas.

Ofcourse teachers make a difference. But the idea that teacherswill somehow elevate the one in four children in this country from poverty isnot only wrong, it is a distraction from the real sources of poverty andinequality. In short, it lets the billionaires off the hook.

To his credit,President Obama discussed a number of measures that could result in a fairertax structure, and encourage investment in our infrastructure and manufacturingbase. These things could create jobs and opportunities.

Teachers have alreadychosen to put our shoulders to the wheel of inequality. Those of us who workwith children in poverty are making tremendous sacrifices to meet their needs.The reason child poverty has expanded over the past two decades has nothing todo with "bad teachers," and everything to do with the hugeconcentration of wealth, and the devastation of America's manufacturing base,as millions of jobs have been shipped overseas in pursuit of higher profits.   Thedrive to get rid of bad teachers for the benefit of the poor is a phonycrusade. The use of test scores for this purpose ensures that students inhigh poverty schools will continue to wallow in year-round test preparation,even while Arne Duncan sails around telling everyone he is opposed to teachingto the test..   The only people who are escaping poverty as a result of thischarade are the wealthy. By making teachers the source of salvation, therest of society is off the hook. By claiming that "bad teachers" arethe reason our students lag, we can, as a society, ignore the enormousopportunity and resource gap that condemns millions of our children to poorfutures.

Enough.   

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/01/teachers_offer_the_wealthy_an.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS2

The True Cost of High School Dropouts

2012-01-26T19:22:00.000-08:00

By, Henry M. Levin and Cecilia E. Rouse

ONLY 21 states requirestudents to attend high school until they graduate or turn 18. The proposal President Obama announced on Tuesday night in his State of the Union address — to make suchattendance compulsory in every state — is a step in the right direction, but itwould not go far enough to reduce a dropout rate that imposes a heavy cost onthe entire economy, not just on those who fail to obtain a diploma.

In 1970, the United States had the world’shighest rate of high school and college graduation. Today, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,we’ve slipped to No. 21 in high school completion and No. 15 in collegecompletion, as other countries surpassed us in the quality of their primary andsecondary education.

Only 7 of 10 ninth graders today will get highschool diplomas. A decade after the No Child Left Behind law mandated efforts toreduce the racial gap, about 80 percent of white and Asian students graduatefrom high school, compared with only 55 percent of blacks and Hispanics.

Like President Obama, many reformers focus theirdropout prevention efforts on high schoolers; replacing large high schools withsmaller learning communities where poor students can get individualizedinstruction from dedicated teachers has been shown to be effective. Rigorousevidence gathered over decades suggests that some of the most promisingapproaches need to start even earlier: preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, whoare fed and taught in small groups, followed up with home visits by teachersand with group meetings of parents; reducing class size in the early grades;and increasing teacher salaries from kindergarten through 12th grade.

These programs sound expensive — some Americansprobably think that preventing 1.3 million students from dropping out of highschool each year can’t be done — but in fact the costs of inaction are fargreater.

High school completion is, of course, the mostsignificant requirement for entering college. While our economic competitorsare rapidly increasing graduation rates at both levels, we continue to fallbehind. Educated workers are the basis of economic growth — they are especiallycritical as sources of innovation and productivity given the pace and nature oftechnological progress.

If we could reduce the current number of dropoutsby just half, we would yield almost 700,000 new graduates a year, and it wouldmore than pay for itself. Studies show that the typical high school graduatewill obtain higher employment and earnings — an astonishing 50 percent to 100percent increase in lifetime income — and will be less likely to draw on publicmoney for health care and welfare and less likely to be involved in thecriminal justice system. Further, because of the increased income, the typicalgraduate will contribute more in tax revenues over his lifetime than if he’ddropped out.

When the costs of investment to produce a newgraduate are taken into account, there is a return of $1.45 to $3.55 for everydollar of investment, depending upon the educational intervention strategy.Under this estimate, each new graduate confers a net benefit to taxpayers ofabout $127,000 over the graduate’s lifetime. This is a benefit to the public ofnearly $90 billion for each year of success in reducing the number of highschool dropouts by 700,000 — or something close to $1 trillion after 11 years.That’s real money — and a reason both liberals and conservatives should rallybehind dropout prevention as an element of economic recovery, leaving aside theethical dimensions of educating our young people.

Some might argue that these estimates are toolarge, that the relationships among the time-tested interventions, high schoolgraduation rates and adult outcomes have not been proved yet on a large scale.Those are important considerations, but the evidence cannot be denied:increased education does, indeed, improve skill levels and help individuals tolead healthier and more productive lives. And despite the high unemploymentrate today, we have every reason to believe that many of these new graduateswould find work — our history is filled with sustained periods of economicgrowth when increasing numbers of young people obtained more schooling andreceived large economic benefits as a result.

Of course, there are other strategies forimproving educational attainment — researchers learn more every day about whichare effective and which are not. But even with what we know, a failure tosubstantially reduce the numbers of high school dropouts is demonstrablypenny-wise and pound-foolish.

Proven educational strategies to increase highschool completion, like high-quality preschool, provide returns to the taxpayerthat are as much as three and a half times their cost. Investing our publicdollars wisely to reduce the number of high school dropouts must be a centralpart of any strategy to raise long-run economic growth, reduce inequality andreturn fiscal health to our federal, state and local governments.

Henry M. Levin is a professor ofeconomics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Cecilia E. Rouse, a professor of economicsand public affairs at Princeton University, was a member of President Obama’sCouncil of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2011.

Op-ed in the New YorkTimes.

Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson protested for corporate agenda

2012-01-26T10:55:00.000-08:00

“Silent” protestors" with their mouths tapedshut confronted Sacramento MayorKevin Johnson and corporate education proponent Michelle Rhee as they entereda carefully promoted andcontrolled discussion abouteducation issues at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, 828 I St, in Sacramentoon Wednesday, January 25.

The demonstrators held a news briefing with local mediaoutlets. The Sacramento Bee didnot cover the demonstration. Thisprotests occurs as Wall Street corporations and foundations are funding not onlythe privatization of education. The protestors set up a ‘gauntlet” of protestors with their mouths tapedshut –something Rhee admitted to doing to her noisy students when she was ateacher. She later said some of the students were hurt when they removed thetape.

The “Town Hall” organized by Rhee and Johnsongained positive press coverage on local news channels. They covered Rhee’s views and theadvocacy group without describing her connections to right wing groups. In interviews Rhee did not support replacing the money for public schools lost in recent budget cuts.

Why do manyreporters not report on the realities of the corporate sponsorship of one group of “school reformers”? They too often rely uponthe wisdom of selected “spokespersons” such as Michelle Rhee. The media has been sold aframework of a corporate view ofaccountability. Corporate sponsored networks and think tanks such as the theThomas B. Fordham Institute, the Broad Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Olin Foundation provide“experts” prepared to give an opinion on short notice to meet a reportersdeadline. Most reporters assumethat these notables are telling the truth when in fact they are promoting aparticular viewpoint. Who do theynot talk with? They fail tointerview experienced teachers and professionals who have worked for decades toimprove the quality of inner city schools.

There were teachers in the protest that couldhave been interviewed. “Rhee,disgraced former-chancellor of the Washington D.C. public schools and wife ofJohnson, is the standard-bearer of corporate privateers, raising millions ofdollars through her organization, StudentsFirst, from the likes of the KochBros and Rupert Murdoch to advance an agenda of union-busting, school vouchersand public school give-aways to private interests,” according to Kate Lenox, anorganizer for the protest.

“The national headquarters of StudentsFirst happensto be located right here in Sacramento and will soon formally open its officesdowntown on K Street above the Rite Aid store,” Lenox explained.

The Sacramento Coalition to Save Public Education,along with Occupy and Sacramento teachers participated in the protest. Teacher Lori Jablonski explained, “Diane Ravitch’s important visit to Sacramento on Friday, Jan.20, left the 3000 people in attendance with a clear message of what thoseof us who care deeply about public education must do to stand up to and rejectthe privatization of our schools and the treatment of our children ascommodities whose value is measured by “bubble tests.” MichelleRhee, is the standard-bearer ofthe privateers. “

Seethe post below on Selling Out our Schools on corporate funding of the procharter anti teacher efforts of leading legislative advocates includingALEC. “Selling Schools Out” , by Lee Fang. http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/

For more information on the Sacramento Coalition, contact Kate Lenox,916-201-0225, or Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170. Report assembled with contributions from writer Dan Bacher.

Kevin Johnson and Students First ?

2012-01-23T20:52:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

“We need to say it's wrong, and if that doesn't work, engage in direct action, it's time to organize, demonstrate, and agitate…” ~ Diane Ravitch, in Sacramento 1/20/12

Diane Ravitch’s extraordinary visit to Sacramento on Friday, Jan. 20, left the 3000 people in attendance with a clear message of what those of us who care deeply about public education must do to stand up to and reject the privatization of our schools and the treatment of our children as commodities whose value is measured by “bubble tests.” Michelle Rhee, disgraced former-chancellor of the Washington D.C. public schools and wife of Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, is the standard-bearer of the privateers, raising millions of dollars through her organization, StudentsFirst, from the likes of the Koch Bros and Rupert Murdoch to advance an agenda of union-busting, school vouchers and public school give-aways to private interests. The national headquarters of StudentsFirst happens to be located right here in Sacramento.
See prior posts on Ravitch.

Tucson Arizona bans Mexican American Studies

2012-01-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

NYT editorial.
Rejected in Tucson. Published. Jan. 21, 2012,
The Tucson Unified School District has dismantled its Mexican-American studies program, packed away its offending books, shuttled its students into other classes. It was blackmailed into doing so: keeping the program would have meant losing more than $14 million in state funding. It was a blunt-force victory for the Arizona school superintendent, John Huppenthal, who has spent years crusading against ethnic-studies programs he claims are “brainwashing” children into thinking that Latinos have been victims of white oppression.
As a state legislator, he co-wrote a law cracking down on ethnic studies, and as superintendent he decided that Tucson’s district was violating it. School officials in Tucson and elsewhere strenuously disagree, saying he misunderstood and mischaracterized a program that brought much-needed attention to a neglected part of America’s history and culture. They say it engaged students, pushed them to excel, and led to better grades and attendance.
But their interpretation collided with that of Mr. Huppenthal, whose law prohibits programs that “promote the overthrow of the United States government,” “promote resentment toward a race or class of people” and “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Unless two students win a federal lawsuit arguing that the loss of the program violates their First Amendment rights, Tucson school officials and students are going to have to enrich their curriculum another way.

To say that Arizona’s Anglo and Hispanic populations have had multiple points of collision and misunderstanding is putting it mildly. Arizona (the state that also showed some of the most bitter resistance to a federal Martin Luther King holiday) enacted the first in a recent spate of extremist immigration laws and spawned the Minuteman border-vigilante movement.
If Mr. Huppenthal wanted to diminish resentment and treat Hispanic students as individuals, he picked a lousy way to do it. His action has Hispanic critics saying they feel their culture is under attack — and has students in a well-established, well-liked program feeling dejected.
For Tucson school officials, this should not mean the end of teaching texts like “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Rethinking Columbus.” It is a challenge to draft a new curriculum whose honesty and excellence all of Tucson’s teachers and students can be proud of.

Arizona School District Wipes Latino American History Off the Map | Common Dreams

2012-01-21T15:44:00.000-08:00

Arizona School District Wipes Latino American History Off the Map | Common Dreams

Good review of the issues on Democracy Now.

Diane Ravitch - NCLB

2012-01-20T11:53:00.001-08:00

Diane Ravitch is speaking in Sacramento this evening.

I know you are touring schools in Japan and soaking up lessons for us as you travel. Since you have Internet access, I'd like to share some thoughts about a momentous occasion: the 10th anniversary of No Child Left Behind, which occurred on January 8.
After 10 years of NCLB, we should have seen dramatic progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, but we have not. By now, we should be able to point to sharp reductions of the achievement gaps between children of different racial and ethnic groups and children from different income groups, but we cannot. As I said in a recent speech, many children continue to be left behind, and we know who those children are: They are the same children who were left behind 10 years ago.
In my travels over the past two years, I have seen the wreckage caused by NCLB. It has become the Death Star of American education. It is a law that inflicts damage on students, teachers, schools, and communities.
When I spoke at Stanford University, a teacher stood up in the question period and said: "I teach the lettuce-pickers' children in Salinas. They are closing our school because our scores are too low." She couldn't finish her question because she started crying.
When I spoke at UCLA, a group of about 20 young teachers approached me afterwards and told me that their school, Fremont High School, was slated for closure. They asked me to tell Ray Cortines, who was then chancellor of the Los Angeles Unified School District, not to close their school because they were working together as a community to improve it. I took their message to Ray, who is a good friend, but the school was closed anyway. The dispersed teachers of Fremont are still communicating with one another, still mourning the loss of their school.
When I spoke to Citizens for Public Schools in Boston, a young man who works as a chef at a local hotel got up to ask what he could do to stop "them" from closing his children's school. It was the neighborhood school, he said. It was the school he wanted his children to attend. And they were closing it.
In city after city, across the nation, I have heard similar stories from teachers and parents. Why are they closing our school? What can we do about it? How can we stop them? I wish I had better answers. I know that as long as NCLB stays on the books, there is no stopping the destruction of local community institutions. And now with the active support of the Obama administration, the NCLB wrecking ball has become a means of promoting privatization and community fragmentation.
I have often wondered whether there is any other national legislature that has passed a law that had the effect of stigmatizing the nation's public education system. Last year, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that 82 percent of our nation's schools would fail to make "adequate yearly progress." A few weeks ago, the Center for Education Policy reported that the secretary's estimate was overstated, and that it was "only" half the nation's schools that would be considered failing as of this year. Secretary Duncan's judgment may have been off the mark this year, but NCLB guarantees that the number of failing schools will grow every year. If the law remains intact, we can reasonably expect that nearly every public school in the United States will be labeled as a failing school by 2014.
If you take a closer look at the CEP study, you can see how absurd the law is. In Massachusetts, the nation's highest-performing state by far on NAEP, 81 percent of the schools failed to make AYP. But in lower-performing Louisiana, only 22 percent of the schools did not make AYP. Yet, when you compare the same two states on NAEP, 51 percent of 4th graders in Massachusetts are rated proficient, compared with 23 percent in Louisiana. In 8th grade, again, twice as many students in Massachusetts are proficient compared with Louisiana, yet Massachusetts has nearly four times as many allegedly "failing" schools! This is crazy.
More evidence of the invalidity of NCLB. The top-rated high school in the state of Illinois, New Trier High School, failed to make AYP. Its special education students did not make enough progress. When outstanding schools fail, you have to conclude that something is wrong with the measure.
The best round-up to date of the catastrophe that we call NCLB was published by FairTest in its report, "The Lost Decade." I know you have read it, as this is an organization dear to your heart. I recommend this report to our readers. It shows in clear detail that progress on NAEP was far more significant before the passage of NCLB.
Congress, in its wisdom, will eventually reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I hope that in doing so, they recognize the negative consequences of NCLB and abandon the strategies that have borne such bitter fruit for our nation's education system. NCLB cannot be fixed. It has failed. It has imposed a sterile and mean-spirited regime on the schools. It represents the dead hand of conformity and regulation from afar. It is time to abandon the status quo of test-based accountability and seek fresh and innovative thinking to support and strengthen our nation's schools.
Diane
- Diane Ravitch

Governor Brown continues austerity program and failure

2012-01-18T13:47:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Brown- furthercommitment to austerity.

Jerry Brown gavehis required State of the State address today and committed himself to continuingbudget cuts and austerity as an economic policy.

The first problem is-austerity programs do not work !

The Governor continues his poorlyinformed, misguided austerity program which proposes to reduce the budgets through cut backs in services,reductions in public education, cuts to public employment, and reduction inpublic pensions.

Budget cutting to balance the budget will not getus out of this hole. Look atIreland, Greece, or Spain or Michigan, Wisconsin, and Mississippi (each of these economies issmaller than California)? Budget cuts only start a downward spiral of pain. We can not simply cut our way out of thecrisis, budget cuts and lay offs make the recession worse. We have witnessed this for the last twoyears.

The currentbudget crisis was caused by the real estate crisis, the sub prime loan crisis,and the national economiccrisis. This crisis was created by finance capital and banking, mostly on WallStreet ,ie. Chase Banks, Bank of America, Washington Mutual, CountryWide, AIG, and others.

Brown says, Again, I propose cuts and temporarytaxes. Neither is popular but both must be done. In a world still reeling fromthe near collapse of the financial system, it makes no sense to spend more thanwe have. The financial downgrading of the United States, as well as of severalgovernments in Europe, should be warning enough. It is said that the road to hellis paved with good intentions and digging ourselves into a deep financialhole--to do good--is a bad idea. In this time of uncertainty, prudence andpaying down debt is the best policy.- This is the definition of an austerityprogram.

Brown’s proposals are modest- too modest. The High Speed Rail authority is astimulus plan, but California needs an educational stimulus plan and the fundsto pay for the needed investment.

The Governor’s proposals for a temporary taxincrease are too modest. The political“professionals’ argue that this is all that can win a majority vote. Perhaps. But they are looking at California through a rear viewmirror.

Oureconomy needs roads, bridges, telephone lines, communications systems, energyand quality education. Theseservices make freedom and prosperity possible. Conservative opposition to theseservices ignore the economy’s needfor infrastructure. Prosperitydepends upon having a viable educational system and a well functioninginfrastructure. Rather than investin the future, the Republicans and Brown have starved public education.

Pollingconsistently shows that the California voters are willing to pay for a qualitypublic education system. The Brownproposals avoid giving the voters a choice on this.

Weneed to tax the very rich to produce needed revenue to create jobs and to invest in the future. The CA Federation of Teachers andothers propose a Millionaire's Taxon the November ballot. The Millionaire's Tax would raise $6 billion forpublic education, safety, and infrastructure by raising additional taxes onthose making more than $1 million a year. It will be the only purelyprogressive income tax initiative on the ballot in November.

Anotheroption would be significant tax onthe sale of stocks, bonds, and financial instruments. This is the same source as proposed by the AFL-CIO. They argue for a 0.25 % tax on sales. California should propose a 2.5 % tax. This would fund public jobs, infrastructure rebuilding. Such a tax is called a financial transactiontax. Others call it a Robin Hoodtax. Most of Europe already hassuch a tax. We presently payaround 8% sales tax on most goods, but finance traders pay no tax when theysell stocks, bonds and derivatives.

TheGovernor’s proposal assumes that voters approve a measure that would be placedon the November 2012 ballot that would raise $6.9 billion in 2011-12 and2012-13. His proposed spending plan also includes $5.4 billion of additionalspending cuts that would be triggered on if voters fail to approve the proposedtax measure.

Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline

2012-01-17T16:13:00.000-08:00

Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline

by: Staff, Rethinking Schools [3] | News Analysis

“Every man in my family has been locked up. Most days I feel like it doesn’t matter what I do, how hard I try - that’s my fate, too.”
-11th-grade African American student, Berkeley, California
This young man isn’t being cynical or melodramatic; he’s articulating a terrifying reality for many of the children and youth sitting in our classrooms—a reality that is often invisible or misunderstood. Some have seen the growing numbers of security guards and police in our schools as unfortunate but necessary responses to the behavior of children from poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods. But what if something more ominous is happening? What if many of our students—particularly our African American, Latina/o, Native American, and Southeast Asian children—are being channeled toward prison and a lifetime of second-class status?
We believe that this is the case, and there is ample evidence to support that claim. What has come to be called the “school-to-prison pipeline” is turning too many schools into pathways to incarceration rather than opportunity. This trend has extraordinary implications for teachers and education activists. It affects everything from what we teach to how we build community in our classrooms, how we deal with conflicts with and among our students, how we build coalitions, and what demands we see as central to the fight for social justice education.
What Is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?

The school-to-prison pipeline begins in deep social and economic inequalities, and has taken root in the historic shortcomings of schooling in this country. The civil and human rights movements of the 1960s and ’70s spurred an effort to “rethink schools” to make them responsive to the needs of all students, their families, and communities. This rethinking included collaborative learning environments, multicultural curriculum, student-centered, experiential pedagogy—we were aiming for education as liberation. The back-to-basics backlash against that struggle has been more rigid enforcement of ever more alienating curriculum.
The “zero tolerance” policies that today are the most extreme form of this punishment paradigm were originally written for the war on drugs in the early 1980s, and later applied to schools. As Annette Fuentes [4] explains, the resulting extraordinary rates of suspension and expulsion are linked nationally to increasing police presence, checkpoints, and surveillance inside schools.
As police have set up shop in schools across the country, the definition of what is a crime as opposed to a teachable moment has changed in extraordinary ways. In one middle school we’re familiar with, a teacher routinely allowed her students to take single pieces of candy from a big container she kept on her desk. One day, several girls grabbed handfuls. The teacher promptly sent them to the police officer assigned to the school. What formerly would have been an opportunity to have a conversation about a minor transgression instead became a law enforcement issue.
Children are being branded as criminals at ever-younger ages. Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia, a recent report by Youth United for Change and the Advancement Project, offers an example:
Robert was an 11-year-old in 5th grade who, in his rush to get to school on time, put on a dirty pair of pants from the laundry basket. He did not notice that his Boy Scout pocketknife was in one of the pockets until he got to school. He also did not notice that it fell out when he was running in gym class. When the teacher found it and asked whom it belonged to, Robert volunteered that it was his, only to find himself in police custody minutes later. He was arrested, suspended, and transferred to a disciplinary school.
Early contact with police in schools often sets students on a path of alienation, suspension, expulsion, and arrests. George Galvis, an Oakland, Calif., prison activist and youth organizer, described his first experience with police at his school: “I was 11. There was a fight and I got called to the office. The cop punched me in the face. I looked at my principal and he was just standing there, not saying anything. That totally broke my trust in school as a place that was safe for me.”
Galvis added: “The more police there are in the school, walking the halls and looking at surveillance tapes, the more what constitutes a crime escalates. And what is seen as ‘how kids act’ vs. criminal behavior has a lot to do with race. I always think about the fistfights that break out between fraternities at the Cal campus, and how those fights are seen as opposed to what the police see as gang-related fights, even if the behavior is the same.”
Mass Incarceration: A Civil Rights Crisis
The growth of the school-to-prison pipeline is part of a larger crisis. Since 1970, the U.S. prison population has exploded from about 325,000 people to more than 2 million today. According to Michelle Alexander [5], author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness, this is a phenomenon that cannot be explained by crime rates or drug use. According to Human Rights Watch (Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, 2000) although whites are more likely to violate drug laws than people of color, in some states black men have been admitted to prison on drug charges at rates 20 to 50 times greater than those of white men. Latina/os, Native Americans, and other people of color are also imprisoned at rates far higher than their representation in the population. Once released, former prisoners are caught in a web of laws and regulations that make it difficult or impossible to secure jobs, education, housing, and public assistance—and often to vote or serve on juries. Alexander calls this permanent second-class citizenship a new form of segregation.
The impact of mass incarceration is devastating for children and youth. More than 7 million children have a family member incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. Many of these children live with enormous stress, emotional pain, and uncertainty. Luis Esparza describes the impact on his life in Project WHAT!’s Resource Guide for Teens with a Parent in Prison or Jail:
After [my dad] went to jail I kept to myself a lot—became the quiet kid that no one noticed and no one really cared about. At one point I didn’t even have any friends. No one talked to me, so I didn’t have to say anything about my life. . . . Inside I feel sad and angry. In this world, no one wants to see that, so I keep it all to myself. (See Haniyah's Story [6] and Sokolower [7].)
Revising the Curriculum
As we at Rethinking Schools began to study and discuss these issues, we realized the huge implications for curriculum. Many of us, as social justice educators, have developed strong class activities teaching the Civil Rights Movement. But few of us teach regularly about the racial realities of the current criminal justice system. Textbooks mostly ignore the subject. For example, Pearson Prentice Hall’s United States History is a hefty 1,264 pages long, but says nothing about the startling growth in the prison population in the past 40 years.
Mass incarceration and the school-to-prison pipeline are among the primary forms that racial oppression currently takes in the United States. As such, they deserve a central place in the curriculum. We need to bring this all-too-common experience out of the shadows and make it as visible in the curriculum as it is in so many students’ lives. As Alexander begins to explore in our interview [8], it is a challenge to engage students in these issues in ways that build critical thinking and determination rather than cynicism or despair, but a challenge we urgently need to take on. Aparna Lakshmi [9], a Boston high school teacher, offers an example.
‘Accountability’ and Criminalization
The school-to-prison pipeline is really a classroom-to-prison pipeline. A student’s trajectory to a criminalized life often begins with a curriculum that disrespects children’s lives and that does not center on things that matter.
Last spring Federal Policy, ESEA Reauthorization, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline, a collaborative study by research, education, civil rights, and juvenile justice organizations, linked the policies of No Child Left Behind and the “accountability” movement to the pipeline. According to George Wood, executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy:
By focusing accountability almost exclusively on test scores and attaching high stakes to them, NCLB has given schools a perverse incentive to allow or even encourage students to leave.
A FairTest factsheet cites findings that schools in Florida gave low-scoring students longer suspensions than high-scoring students for similar infractions, while in Ohio students with disabilities were twice as likely to be suspended out of school than their peers. A recent report from the Advancement Project noted that, since the passage of NCLB in 2002, 73 of the largest 100 districts in the United States “have seen their graduation rates decline—often precipitously. Of those 100 districts, which serve 40 percent of all students of color in the United States, 67 districts failed to graduate two-thirds of their students.”
The more that schools—and now individual teachers—are assessed, rewarded, and fired on the basis of student test scores, the more incentive there is to push out students who bring down those scores. And the more schools become test-prep academies as opposed to communities committed to everyone’s success, the more hostile and regimented the atmosphere becomes—the more like prison. (This school-as-prison culture is considerably more common in schools populated by children of color in poor communities as opposed to majority-white, middle-class schools, creating what Jonathan Kozol calls “educational apartheid.”) The rigid focus on test prep and scripted curriculum means that teachers need students to be compliant, quiet, in their seats, and willing to learn by rote for long periods of time. Security guards, cops in the hall, and score-conscious administrations suspend and expel “problem learners.”
Schools without compassion or understanding occupy communities instead of serve them. As our society accelerates punishment as a central paradigm—from death penalty executions to drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen—the regimentation and criminalization of our children, particularly children of color, can only be seen as training for the future.
Linda Christensen [10] describes the dangerous pull of high-stakes testing on even the most seasoned teachers, and the powerful role of student-centered curriculum as resistance.
Education Activists and the Pipeline
As teachers and education activists, many of us are active in the fight to save and transform public schools—building campaigns to end standardized testing, to protect our union rights, to prevent the privatization of the public school system. At education conferences, there are often well-attended workshops on the criminalization of youth or related topics.
But the movement to end the school-to-prison pipeline and the movement to defend and transform public education are too often separate. This must be one movement—for social justice education—that encompasses both an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the fight to save and transform public education. We cannot build safe, creative, nurturing schools and criminalize our children at the same time.
Teachers, students, parents, and administrators have begun to fight back against zero tolerance policies—pushing to get rid of zero tolerance laws, and creating alternative approaches to safe school communities that rely on restorative justice and community building instead of criminalization. (See Haga [11].) A critical piece of that struggle is defying the regimen of scripted curriculum and standardized tests, and building in its place creative, empowering school cultures centered on the lives and needs of our students and their families.
Some of the most exciting work with youth is being built around campaigns to stop police harassment in schools and on the streets, stop gang injunction legislation that criminalizes young people on the basis of what they wear or where they live, and increase budgets for education and social services instead of law and order. Youth provide leadership in these movements in ways that are different from what we often see in classrooms. Learning from these campaigns and making the critical connections to our own work will enable us to build a viable, principled movement for public education.
Our resistance grows from classrooms that are grounded in our students’ lives—academically rigorous and also participatory, critical, culturally sensitive, experiential, kind, and joyful. When combined with a determination to fight the school-to-prison pipeline at every level, that resistance has enormous capacity to build and sustain true social justice education.

What Did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Say About War Costs?

2012-01-16T20:49:00.000-08:00

Remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

2012-01-15T17:15:00.001-08:00

As a part of the King Holiday efforts, TavisSmiley moderated a conversation on solutions for restoring America'sprosperity. Topics included the white paper from Indiana University's School ofPublic and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), released the previous day, titled AtRisk: America's Poor During and After the Great Recession, which revealsthe "new poor" and how the face of poverty in America has changed.

"RemakingAmerica: From Poverty to Prosperity", was held at George WashingtonUniversity's Lisner Auditorium,.

2 hours, 37 minutes

Here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/remaking-america-panel-discussion-part-1/

Tumultuous Times for Democracy Compelled Moyers' Return to TV | Common Dreams

2012-01-15T17:10:00.000-08:00

Tumultuous Times for Democracy Compelled Moyers' Return to TV | Common Dreams

Who’s afraid of “The Tempest”?

2012-01-14T19:53:00.000-08:00

Who’s afraid of “The Tempest”?

Book Banning in Arizona as a part of the assault on Mexican American Studies

California Schools get D in achievement

2012-01-13T09:07:00.000-08:00

Education Week gives California schools a D for k-12achievement, and an F for school spending. The usually respected newspaper in its annual QualityCounts report gives the state an overall grade of a C. Youcan read their report here. http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/2012/16src.h31.html?intc=EW-QC12-LFTNAV

If youlook internally at the scores you can see that the Education Week editors, likeCalifornia school officials, place emphasis on having committees, reports, andstandards, all things that consultants and opinionators do, and less emphasis on school achievement-where California gets an F. Education Week has long been an advocate for “high standards” ,assessment and accountability. This is the mantra of one side of the “Education Reform” industry. California ranks high in these items. However, the data shows there has not been significant improvement instudent achievement.

That is California excels at writing reports and issuingstatements and promoting educational entrepreneurs , but lags behind in studentachievement. Diane Ravitch,speaking in Sacramento on January 20, is well informed on this trend she coversit in her book as the Billionaires Boys Club.

There is persistent, well supported evidence that theprimary contributor to low schoolachievement is childhood poverty. Poverty is increasing in the nation and in California. It is precisely schools in low incomeareas that are failing. There areseveral posts on this blog by Stephen Krashen referring to thisconnection. The relationship isextensively documented in my own book, Choosing Democracy: a practical guideto multicultural education (2010).

Researcher David Berliner in 2006 said,

“ The U.S. likes to be first, and when it comes to poorchildren, we maintain our remarkable status. No other wealthy nation in the world has a greater percentageof children living in poverty,except Mexico. …

And, surely, it is no surprise to hear poor children do worse in school...

Thousands of studies have linked poverty to academic achievement. Therelationship is every bit as strong as the connection between cigarettes andcancer. “

School budgets in California have been devastated by theeconomic crisis and the state budget crisis since 2008. Schools will have an additionalcut this year and probably next year. Until the voters rise up against the anti tax radicals, we are notlikely to move from our ( F )rating in school finance.

Education as an issue

2012-01-12T14:30:00.000-08:00

Diane Ravitch: The Death and Life of the American School System

2012-01-12T09:39:00.000-08:00

The Death and Life of the Great American School System

Educational historian Diane Ravitch willmake a presentation in Sacramento on Jan. 20, 2012 sponsored by local CTAaffiliates- that is good. Thepublic needs this conversation and teachers need this support. The Bee story on Jan 12 unfortunatelyuses a misleading headline- Testing Critic to address teachers. The issue istesting and more. And, the publicneeds to consider what is happening to their schools- not only teachers.

TheBee article by Melody Gutierrez isreasonable, while the general reporting on education in national newspapers,magazines and television leaves much to be desired. Ravitch’s book and her presentations will offer asmall but important counter story.

Whydo many reporters not report on the realities of school change?

They too often rely upon the wisdom of selected “spokespersons” and otherelites.

They have been sold aframework of a corporate view ofaccountability. Corporate sponsored networks and think tanks such as the theThomas B. Fordham Institute, the Broad Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Olin Foundation provide“experts” prepared to give an opinion on short notice to meet a reportersdeadline. Most reporters assumethat these notables are telling the truth when in fact they are promoting aparticular propaganda such as in the film “Waiting for Superman”. Who do they not talk with? They fail to interview experiencedteachers and professionals who have worked for decades to improve the qualityof inner city schools.

The Obama Administration’sappointment of Arne Duncan was symptomatic of the problem. He represents the kind of corporate/media approach toreform. So, reporters can goto the corporate funded foundations and provide “balance” by asking theappointees of the government- they get the same story. In particular recently they have beenturning to the Gates and Broad Foundations or the conservative Democrats for Education Reform.

Whatthe foundations and the Millionaires Boy’s Clubs are saying is fundamentallymisleading. They are deliberatelydistorting the story. Howeverreporters think that these foundations have smart people so they must know whatthey are talking about. See Diane Ravitch. The Death and Life of the Great American School System:How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. 2010.

There are layers of influence that tell reporters what isthe “correct” side of the story. Reporters seldom go to people who might provide an unsafe viewpoint-like people who have worked in the schools for years. For more on this see Mike Rose. Why School?

Reporters typically develop sources and they writer forthese sources. They don’t want to offend their sources or to indicate that they don’tunderstand the issues. Reportersalso know what the owners of the newspapers and journals think. And, except for professional journals,the news paper owners think very much like the Business Roundtable and theChamber of Commerce. In the last twenty years media ownership has become highlyconcentrated.

Now, reporters and editors are disturbed to learn that growing sectorsof the public do not trust their reporting. In particular teachers do not trust the reporting – it is sooften misinformed. This is an unconscious class bias of the media- looking upto the selected expertise of those funded by the foundations and looking downon everyday teachers and others actually working in the schools.

There is a well developed media structure focused on the think tanks andfoundations and revealed in the film which regularly repeats a series of misinformation. See my review ofWaiting for Superman. Theypersistently distribute misinformation.

In Waiting forSuperman, the film maker distorts the needed discussion of school reform byciting only one side of the debate- that of the Billionaire Boy’s Club and their well fundedspokespersons. The film decriesthe teachers unions as a special interest while reporting on Bill Gates, theOlin Foundation, the Bradley foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the entireraft of very conservative economic interests as if they were neutral. They are not. Their declared interest is the shrink the publicsector – as in public schools- and to spend less money on tax supportedinstitutions. A second goalof several of these foundations is to defeat the power of teachers unions andthe Democratic Party- that is the primary goal of Democrats for Education Reform. And, who do they represent ? See articles on this here. https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/

So, this blog along with several others has a viewpoint, and part of theeffort is to counter the opinions and perspectives of the Billionaire Boy’sClubs, the Democrats for Education reform, and similar foundation fundedefforts. The effort is to providea variety of views to counter the biased view of the general press. Diane Ravitch in her book, TheDeath and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice areUndermining Education, (2010) has written an excellent expose of the misguided,anti democratic corporate abuse ofpublic education.

There are, of course, others providing theseviews also including the journals of the professional organizations and a fewnotable bloggers such as the blog The Answer Sheet by Valerie Strauss at theWashington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/

Foryour information. Diane Ravitch isa moderate, centrist at best on school issues. In my books I have often criticized her role ineducation. Prior to about 2008 shewas a major advocate of conservative school reform, an opponent of feminism, and the architectof the negative and destructive exclusion of Mexican American and Chicano history from California public schools. See here.

https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/chicano-mexican-american-digital-history-project/why-california-students-do-not-know-chicano-latino-history

From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street and Beyond

2012-01-11T16:37:00.000-08:00

Oppose Bankster Fraud

2012-01-11T13:21:00.000-08:00

It’s time for the Big Banks to bear responsibility for the financialcrisis—and for fraud and abuse against homeowners across the country. The nation’s stateattorneys general are considering a settlement with the bankers, but there’s arisk they’ll let the people who tanked our economy off with a slap on thewrist. It’s urgent we tell them we need a settlement that holds banksaccountable for the damage they’ve done and helps homeowners. Will you write the White House to let them know?

Possible letter:

AStrong Settlement is Needed

YourLetter:

Foreclosuresand the abuses of the Big Banks are crippling our economy. In neighborhoodslike mine and across the state, we’ve seen people underwater on their mortgagesand even losing their homes. Even worse, in many cases the Big Banks brokerules, falsified paperwork or defrauded homebuyers—and gambled with our homesto enrich themselves. They have yet to be held responsible.

Familieslike mine are depending on you to stand up for us and put our needs ahead ofprotecting the banks. We can’t just let banks get bailed out and escapeconsequences for their irresponsibility and greed.

I urgeyou to fight for a strong settlement with the banks that really will hold themaccountable for their misconduct and the damage done to the economy. Anysettlement must reflect the harm done to homeowners and provide large-scalerelief for underwater homeowners. And before you agree to any settlement, theremust be a full investigation into misconduct and fraud by the banks.

Note: to date California Attorney General Kamella Harris has opposed the settlement.

Ten Years of No Child Left Behind

2012-01-10T14:22:00.000-08:00

Linda Darling-Hammond

After 10 years ofmissed opportunity under No Child Left Behind, we must learn from ourexperience to accelerate academic progress and improve the quality of learningin American schools.

Lesson #1: Don’toverreach. The federal role should not be to micromanageeducational decisions, but to enable strategic investments that will increaseopportunity. The quest for 100 percent proficiency has focused attention onboosting scores, but it has also narrowed the curriculum, encouraged exclusionsof struggling students, and undermined confidence in federal initiatives.

Meanwhile, federalefforts to prescribe top-down reforms have often wreaked havoc in the field.From the dismantling of many successful local reading programs under Reading Firstto more recent requirements for turnaround models that research has foundineffective, federal overreach can leave students further behind.

Lesson #2: Focus ongenuine equity. NCLB helped us understand the severityof achievement gaps between different student groups, but it has not providedsufficient resources in strategic ways to address the sources of those gaps.The small federal allocation makes hardly a dent in our huge state and localfunding disparities, and is not being spent in high-leverage ways. Nationaleducation policy must expect states to be transparent about the availability ofresources to students and to pursue funding equity.

Lesson #3: Investstrategically. The Title I formula should better targetlow-income states and communities and support investments known to improvestudent achievement: quality preschool, high-quality preparation andprofessional development for teachers and school leaders, wraparound servicesand community schools, and summer learning opportunities.

Finally, the federalgovernment should learn from high-achieving nations and encourage the use ofmore thoughtful performance-based assessments. Used to inform curriculumimprovements and teacher development, rather than to punish students, teachers,or schools, such assessments would support higher-quality instruction and moreengaged learning.

Linda Darling-Hammondis the Charles E. Ducommun professor of education at Stanford University. Sheis the author of The Flat World and Education: HowAmerica’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future (Teachers CollegePress, 2010).

Note: Linda Darling-Hammond is the Vice Chair of theCalifornia Commission on Teacher Credentialing. For an important video on corruption within this state agencysee the video below.

For more on her work with the CTC see

https://sites.google.com/site/assessingpact/

For additional viewson the NCLB see these essays.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/05/15nclb_perspectives.h31.html?tkn=XLTFjLB9deqCd53KQJhZBIJaXX2wAJ2bZ816&cmp=clp-edweek#hammond

California history textbooks ignore Mexican American History

2012-01-10T08:17:00.000-08:00

The Sacramento Bee this morning has an article by Diane Lambert saying that schools are slow to implement the new state law to teach an accurate view of Gay and Lesbian history.

Good luck on getting the history books revised. California is currently using a 1987 History/Social Science Framework to guide the books. That is before the fall of the Soviet Union. The current books and most teachers almost completely ignore Latino history. The children of Mexican American and Latino citizens now make up almost 48% of the children in schools.
See here: https://sites.google.com/site/democracyandeducationorg/chicano-mexican-american-digital-history-project/why-california-students-do-not-know-chicano-history

Relying upon the state, upon the legislature, and upon university departments of history is totally inadequate.

Corporations Sell Out Schools

2012-01-09T17:33:00.000-08:00

Selling Schools Out

By Lee Fang
Posted on November 17, 2011, Printed on January 9, 2012
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/

If the national movement to "reform" public education through vouchers, charters and privatization has a laboratory, it is Florida. It was one of the first states to undertake a program of "virtual schools" — charters operated online, with teachers instructing students over the Internet — as well as one of the first to use vouchers to channel taxpayer money to charter schools run by for-profits.

But as recently as last year, the radical change envisioned by school reformers still seemed far off, even there. With some of the movement's cherished ideas on the table, Florida Republicans, once known for championing extreme education laws, seemed to recoil from the fight. SB 2262, a bill to allow the creation of private virtual charters, vastly expanding the Florida Virtual School program, languished and died in committee. Charlie Crist, then the Republican governor, vetoed a bill to eliminate teacher tenure. The move, seen as a political offering to the teachers unions, disheartened privatization reform advocates. At one point, the GOP's budget proposal even suggested a cut for state aid going to virtual school programs

Lamenting this series of defeats, Patricia Levesque, a top adviser to former Governor Jeb Bush, spoke to fellow reformers at a retreat in October 2010. Levesque noted that reform efforts had failed because the opposition had time to organize. Next year, Levesque advised, reformers should "spread" the unions thin "by playing offense" with decoy legislation. Levesque said she planned to sponsor a series of statewide reforms, like allowing taxpayer dollars to go to religious schools by overturning the so-called Blaine Amendment, "even if it doesn't pass…to keep them busy on that front." She also advised paycheck protection, a unionbusting scheme, as well as a state-provided insurance program to encourage teachers to leave the union and a transparency law to force teachers unions to show additional information to the public. Needling the labor unions with all these bills, Levesque said, allows certain charter bills to fly "under the radar."

If Levesque's blunt advice sounds like that of a veteran lobbyist, that's because she is one. Levesque runs a Tallahassee-based firm called Meridian Strategies LLC, which lobbies on behalf of a number of education-technology companies. She is a leader of a coalition of government officials, academics and virtual school sector companies pushing new education laws that could benefit them.

But Levesque wasn't delivering her hardball advice to her lobbying clients. She was giving it to a group of education philanthropists at a conference sponsored by notable charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. Indeed, Levesque serves at the helm of two education charities, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a national organization, and the Foundation for Florida's Future, a state-specific nonprofit, both of which are chaired by Jeb Bush. A press release from her national group says that it fights to "advance policies that will create a high quality digital learning environment."

Despite the clear conflict of interest between her lobbying clients and her philanthropic goals, Levesque and her team have led a quiet but astonishing national transformation. Lobbyists like Levesque have made 2011 the year of virtual education reform, at last achieving sweeping legislative success by combining the financial firepower of their corporate clients with the seeming legitimacy of privatization-minded school-reform think tanks and foundations. Thanks to this synergistic pairing, policies designed to boost the bottom lines of education-technology companies are cast as mere attempts to improve education through technological enhancements, prompting little public debate or opposition. In addition to Florida, twelve states have expanded virtual school programs or online course requirements this year. This legislative juggernaut has coincided with a gold rush of investors clamoring to get a piece of the K-12 education market. It's big business, and getting bigger: One study estimated that revenues from the K-12 online learning industry will grow by 43 percent between 2010 and 2015, with revenues reaching $24.4 billion.

Click here for an interactive map.

In Florida, only fourteen months after Crist handed a major victory to teachers unions, a new governor, Rick Scott, signed a radical bill that could have the effect of replacing hundreds of teachers with computer avatars. Scott, a favorite of the Tea Party, appointed Levesque as one of his education advisers. His education law expanded the Florida Virtual School to grades K-5, authorized the spending of public funds on new for-profit virtual schools and created a requirement that all high school students take at least one online course before graduation.

"I've never seen it like this in ten years," remarked Ron Packard, CEO of virtual education powerhouse K12 Inc., on a conference call in February. "It's almost like someone flipped a switch overnight and so many states now are considering either allowing us to open private virtual schools" or lifting the cap on the number of students who can use vouchers to attend K12 Inc.'s schools. Listening to a K12 Inc. investor call, one could mistake it for a presidential campaign strategy session, as excited analysts read down a list of states and predict future victories.

Good for Business; Kids Not So Much

While most education reform advocates cloak their goals in the rhetoric of "putting children first," the conceit was less evident at a conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, earlier this year.

Standing at the lectern of Arizona State University's SkySong conference center in April, investment banker Michael Moe exuded confidence as he kicked off his second annual confab of education startup companies and venture capitalists. A press packet cited reports that rapid changes in education could unlock "immense potential for entrepreneurs." "This education issue," Moe declared, "there's not a bigger problem or bigger opportunity in my estimation."

Moe has worked for almost fifteen years at converting the K-12 education system into a cash cow for Wall Street. A veteran of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, he now leads an investment group that specializes in raising money for businesses looking to tap into more than $1 trillion in taxpayer money spent annually on primary education. His consortium of wealth management and consulting firms, called Global Silicon Valley Partners, helped K12 Inc. go public and has advised a number of other education companies in finding capital.

Moe's conference marked a watershed moment in school privatization. His first "Education Innovation Summit," held last year, attracted about 370 people and fifty-five presenting companies. This year, his conference hosted more than 560 people and 100 companies, and featured luminaries like former DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and former New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein, now an education executive at News Corporation, a recent high-powered entrant into the for-profit education field. Klein is just one of many former school officials to cash out. Fenty now consults for Rosetta Stone, a language company seeking to expand into the growing K-12 market.

As Moe ticked through the various reasons education is the next big "undercapitalized" sector of the economy, like healthcare in the 1990s, he also read through a list of notable venture investment firms that recently completed deals relating to the education-technology sector, including Sequoia and Benchmark Capital. Kleiner Perkins, a major venture capital firm and one of the first to back Amazon.com and Google, is now investing in education technology, Moe noted.

The press release for Moe's education summit promised attendees a chance to meet a set of experts who have "cracked the code" in overcoming "systemic resistance to change." Fenty, still recovering from his loss in the DC Democratic primary, urged attendees to stand up to the teachers union "bully." Jonathan Hage, CEO of Charter Schools USA, likened the conflict to war, according to a summary posted on the conference website. "There's an air game," said Hage, "but there's also a ground game going on." "Investors are going to have to support" candidates and "push back against the pushback." Carlos Watson, a former cable news host now working as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs specializing in for-profit education, guided a conversation dedicated simply to the politics of reform.

Sponsors of the event ranged from various education reform groups funded by hedge-fund managers, like the nonprofit Education Reform Now, to ABS Capital, a private equity firm with a stake in education-technology companies like Teachscape. At smaller breakout sessions, education enterprises made their pitches to potential investors.

Another sponsor, a group called School Choice Week, was launched last year as a public relations gimmick to take advantage of the opportunity for rapid education reforms. Although it is billed as a network of students and parents, School Choice Week is one of the many corporate-funded tactics to press virtual school reforms. The first School Choice Week campaign push earlier this year featured highly produced press packets, sample letters to the editor, a sign in Times Square and rallies for virtual and charter schools organized with help from the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity. The blitz got positive press coverage, providing "grassroots" cover for newly elected politicians who made school privatization their first priority.

A combination of factors has made this year what Moe calls an "inflection point" in the march toward public school privatization. For one thing, recession-induced fiscal crises and austerity have pressured states to cut spending. In some cases, as in Florida, where educating students at the Florida Virtual School costs nearly $2,500 less than at traditional schools, such reform has been sold as a budget fix. At the same time, the privatization push has gone hand in hand with the ratcheting up of attacks on teachers unions by partisan groups, like Karl Rove's American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity, seeking to weaken the union-backed Democrats in the 2012 election. All of this has set the stage for education industry lobbyists to achieve an unprecedented expansion in for-profit elementary through high school education.

From Idaho to Indiana to Florida, recently passed laws will radically reshape the face of education in America, shifting the responsibility of teaching generations of Americans to online education businesses, many of which have poor or nonexistent track records. The rush to privatize education will also turn tens of thousands of students into guinea pigs in a national experiment in virtual learning — a relatively new idea that allows for-profit companies to administer public schools completely online, with no brick-and-mortar classrooms or traditional teachers.

Like many "education entrepreneurs," Moe remains a player in the education reform movement, pushing policies that have the potential to benefit his clients. In addition to advising prominent politicians like Senator John McCain, Moe is a board member of the Center for Education Reform, a pro-privatization think tank that issues policy papers and ads to influence the debate. Earlier this year, the group dropped $70,000 on an ad campaign in Pennsylvania comparing those who oppose a new measure to expand vouchers to segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace, who blocked African-American children from entering white schools.

Moe isn't the only member of the Center for Education Reform with a profound conflict of interest. CER president Jeanne Allen doubles as the head of TAC Public Affairs, a government relations firm that has represented several top education for-profits. Allen, whose clients have included Kaplan Education and Charter Schools USA, served as transition adviser to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett on education reform.

Corbett, a Republican who rode the Tea Party election wave in 2010, supports a major voucher expansion that is working its way through the state legislature. The expansion would be a windfall for companies like K12 Inc., which currently operates one Pennsylvania school under the limited charter law on the books. According to disclosures reported in Business Week, Pennsylvania's Agora Cyber Charter School — K12 Inc.'s online school, which allows students to take all their courses at home using a computer — generated $31.6 million for K12 Inc. in the past academic year.

Thirteen other states have enacted laws to expand or initiate so-called school choice programs this year. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has pushed the hardest, enacting a law that removes the cap on the number of charter schools in his state, authorizes all universities to register charters and expands an existing voucher program in the state for students to attend private and charter schools (in some cases managed by for-profit companies). Critics note that Daniels's law allows public money to flow to religious institutions as well. Twenty-seven other states, in addition to Pennsylvania, have voucher expansion laws pending. And states like Florida are embracing tech-friendly education reform to require that students take online courses to graduate. In Idaho this November, the state board of education approved a controversial plan to require at least two online courses for graduation.

"We think that's so important because every student, regardless of what they do after high school, they'll be learning online," said Tom Vander Ark, a prominent online education advocate, on a recently distributed video urging the adoption of online course requirements. Vander Ark, a former executive director of education at the influential Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, now lobbies all over the country for the online course requirement. Like Moe, he keeps one foot in the philanthropic world and another in business. He sits on the board of advisors of Democrats for Education Reform and is partner to an education-tech venture capital company, Learn Capital. Learn Capital counts AdvancePath Academics, which offers online coursework for students at risk of dropping out, as part of its investment portfolio. When Vander Ark touts online course requirements, it is difficult to discern whether he is selling a product that could benefit his investments or genuinely believes in the virtue of the idea.

To be sure, some online programs have potential and are necessary in areas where traditional resources aren't available. For instance, online AP classes serve rural communities without access to qualified teachers, and there are promising efforts to create programs that adapt to the needs of students with special learning requirements. But by and large, there is no evidence that these technological innovations merit the public resources flowing their way. Indeed, many such programs appear to be failing the students they serve.

A recent study of virtual schools in Pennsylvania conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University revealed that students in online schools performed significantly worse than their traditional counterparts. Another study, from the University of Colorado in December 2010, found that only 30 percent of virtual schools run by for-profit organizations met the minimum progress standards outlined by No Child Left Behind, compared with 54.9 percent of brick-and-mortar schools. For White Hat Management, the politically connected Ohio for-profit operating both traditional and virtual charter schools, the success rate under NCLB was a mere 2 percent, while for schools run by K12 Inc., it was 25 percent. A major review by the Education Department found that policy reforms embracing online courses "lack scientific evidence" of their effectiveness.

"Why are our legislators rushing to jump off the cliff of cyber charter schools when the best available evidence produced by independent analysts show that such schools will be unsuccessful?" asked Ed Fuller, an education researcher at Pennsylvania State University, on his blog.

The frenzy to privatize America's K-12 education system, under the banner of high-tech progress and cost-saving efficiency, speaks to the stunning success of a public relations and lobbying campaign by industry, particularly tech companies. Because of their campaign spending, education-tech interests are major players in elections. In 2010, K12 Inc. spent lavishly in key races across the country, including a last-minute donation of $25,000 to Idahoans for Choice in Education, a political action committee supporting Tom Luna, a self-styled Tea Party school superintendent running for re-election. Since 2004, K12 Inc. alone has spent nearly $500,000 in state-level direct campaign contributions, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. David Brennan, Chairman of White Hat Management, became the second-biggest Ohio GOP donor, with more than $4.2 million in contributions in the past decade.

The Alliance for School Choice, a national education reform group, set up PACs in several states to elect state lawmakers. According to Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, American Federation for Children spent $500,000 in media in the lead-up to Wisconsin's recall elections. AFC shares leaders, donors, and a street address with ASC. Bill Oberndorf, one of the main donors to the group, had been associated with Voyager Learning, an online education company, for years. A few months ago, Cambium Learning, the parent company of Voyager, paid Oberndorf's investment firm $4.9 million to buy back Oberndorf's stock. Cambium currently offers a fleet of supplemental education tools for school districts. With the recent acquisition of Class.com, a smaller online learning business, the company announced its entry into the virtual charter school and online course market.

Allies of the Right

Lobbyists for virtual school companies have also embedded themselves in the conservative infrastructure. The International Association for Online Learning (iNACOL), the trade association for EdisonLearning, Connections Academy, K12 Inc., American Virtual Academy, Apex Learning and other leading virtual education companies, is a case in point. A former Bush appointee at the Education Department, iNACOL president Susan Patrick traverses right-leaning think tanks spreading the gospel of virtual schools. In the past year, she has addressed the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a group dedicated to setting up laissez-faire nonprofits all over the world, as well as the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Two pivotal conservative organizations have helped Patrick in her campaigns for virtual schools: the American Legislative Exchange Council and the State Policy Network. SPN nurtures and establishes state-based policy and communication nonprofits with a right-wing bent. ALEC, the thirty-eight-year-old conservative nonprofit, similarly coordinates a fifty-state strategy for right-wing policy. Special task forces composed of corporate lobbyists and state lawmakers write "template" legislation [see John Nichols, "ALEC Exposed," August 1/8]. Since 2005, ALEC has offered a template law called "The Virtual Public Schools Act" to introduce online education. Mickey Revenaugh, an executive at virtual-school powerhouse Connections Learning, co-chairs the education policy–writing department of ALEC.

At SPN's annual conference in Cleveland last year, held two months before the midterm elections, the think tank network adopted a new push for education reform, specifically embracing online technology and expanding vouchers. Patrick opened the event and led a session about virtual schools with Anthony Kim, president of the virtual-school business Education Elements.

SPN has faced accusations before that it is little more than a coin-operated front for corporations. For instance, SPN and its affiliates receive money from polluters, including infamous petrochemical giant Koch Industries, allegedly in exchange for aggressive promotion of climate denial theories. But SPN's conference had less to do with policy than with tactics. Kyle Olson, a Republican operative infamous in Michigan and other states for his confrontational attacks on unionized teachers, gave a presentation on labor reform in K-12 education. Stanford Swim, heir to a Utah-based investment fortune and head of a traditional-values foundation, ran a workshop at the conference on creating viral videos to advance the cause. He said policy papers wouldn't work. Tell your scholars, "Sorry, this isn't a white paper," Swim advised. "You gotta go there," he continued, "and it's because that's where the audience is." "If it's vulgar, so what?" he added.

Since the conference, SPN's state affiliates have taken a lead role in pushing virtual schools. Several of its state-based affiliates, like the Buckeye Institute in Ohio, set up websites claiming that unions — the only real opposition to ending collective bargaining and the expansion of charter school reforms — led to overpaid teachers and budget deficits. In Wisconsin, the MacIver Institute's "news crew" laid the groundwork for Governor Walker's assault on collective bargaining by creating news reports denouncing protesters and promoting the governor. In March, while busting the teachers unions in his state, Walker lifted the cap on virtual schools and removed the program's income requirements.

State Representative Robin Vos, the Wisconsin state chair for ALEC, sponsored the bill codifying Walker's radical expansion of online, for-profit schools. Vos's bill not only lifts the cap but also makes new, for-profit virtual charters easier to establish. As the Center for Media and Democracy, a Madison-based liberal watchdog, notes, the bill closely resembles legislative templates put forward by ALEC.

Although SPN's unique contribution to the debate has been clever web videos and online smear sites, the group's affiliates have also continued the traditional approach of policy papers. In Washington State, the Freedom Foundation published "Online Learning 101: A Guide to Virtual Public Education in Washington"; Nebraska's Platte Institute released "The Vital Need for Virtual Schools in Nebraska"; and the Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based SPN affiliate, equipped lawmakers with a guide called "Thinking Outside the Building: Online Education." SPN think tanks in Maine, Maryland and other states have pressed virtual school reforms. Patrick visited SPN state groups and gave pep talks about how to sell the issue to lawmakers.

Meanwhile, ALEC has continued to slip laws written by education-tech lobbyists onto the books. In Tennessee, Republican State Representative Harry Brooks didn't even bother changing the name of ALEC's Virtual Public Schools Act before introducing it as his own legislation. Asked by the Knoxville News Sentinel's Tom Humphrey where he got the idea for the bill, Brooks readily admitted that a K12 Inc. lobbyist helped him draft it. Governor Bill Haslam signed Brooks's bill into law in May. The statute allows parents to apply nearly every dollar the state typically spends per pupil, almost $6,000 in most areas, to virtual charter schools, as long as they are authorized by the state.

SPN's fall 2010 conference featured the man perhaps happiest with the explosion in virtual education: Jeb Bush. "I have a confession to make," he said with grin. "I am a real policy geek, and this is like the epicenter of geekdom." Bush shared his experiences initiating some of the nation's first for-profit and virtual charter school reforms as the governor of Florida, acknowledging his policy ideas came from some in the room. (The local SPN affiliate in Tallahassee is the James Madison Institute.)

Bush: Man Behind the Virtual Curtain

Jeb Bush campaigned vigorously in 2010 to expand such reforms, with tremendous success. About a month after the election, he unveiled his road map for implementing a far-reaching ten-point agenda for virtual schools and online coursework. Former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise, a Democrat, has barnstormed the country to encourage lawmakers to adopt Bush's plan, which calls for the permanent financing of education-technology reforms, among other changes. In one promotional video, Wise says it is "not only about the content" of the online courses but the "process" of students becoming acquainted with learning on the Internet.

The key pillar of Bush's plan is to make sure virtual education isn't just a new option for taxpayer money but a requirement. And several states, like Florida, have already adopted online course requirements. As Idaho Republicans faced a public referendum on their online course requirement rule last summer, Bush arrived in the state to show his support. "Implemented right, you're going to see rising student achievement," said Bush, praising Idaho Governor Butch Otter and school superintendent Tom Luna, who was elected with campaign donations from the online-education industry. Bush also claimed that making high school students take online classes would "put Idaho on the map" as a "digital revolution takes hold." Bush was in Michigan in June to testify for Governor Rick Snyder's suite of education reform ideas, which include uncapped expansion of virtual schools, and he was back in the state in July to continue to press for reforms.

In August, at ALEC's annual conference in New Orleans, the education task force officially adopted Bush's ten elements agenda. Mickey Revenaugh, the virtual school executive overseeing the committee, presided over the vote endorsing the measure. But when does Bush's advocacy, typically reported in the press as the work of a former governor with education experience advising the new crop of Republicans, cross the threshold into corporate lobbying?

The nonprofit behind this digital push, Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education, is funded by online learning companies: K12 Inc., Pearson (which recently bought Connections Education), Apex Learning (a for-profit online education company launched by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen), Microsoft and McGraw-Hill Education among others. The advisory board for Bush's ten digital elements agenda reads like a Who's Who of education-technology executives, reformers, bureaucrats and lobbyists, including Michael Stanton, senior vice president for corporate affairs at Blackboard; Karen Cator, director of technology for the Education Department; Jaime Casap, a Google executive in charge of business development for the company's K-12 division; Shafeen Charania, who until recently served as marketing director of Microsoft's education products department; and Bob Moore, a Dell executive in charge of "facilitating growth" of the computer company's K-12 education practice.

Like other digital reform advocates, the Bush nonprofit is also supported by Microsoft founder Bill Gates's foundation. The fact that a nonprofit that receives funding from both the Gates Foundation and Microsoft pressures states to adopt for-profit education reforms may raise red flags with some in the philanthropy community, as Microsoft, too, has moved into the education field. The company has tapped into the K-12 privatization expansion by supplying a range of products, from traditional Windows programs to servers and online coursework platforms. It also contracts with Florida Virtual School to provide cloud computer solutions. Similarly, Dell is seeking new opportunities in the K-12 market for its range of desktop products, while the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, the charitable nonprofit founded by Dell's CEO, promotes neoliberal education reforms.

Through Bush, education-technology companies have found a shortcut to encourage states to adopt e-learning reforms. Take his yearly National Summit on Education Reform, sponsored by the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

At the most recent summit, held in San Francisco in mid-October, a group of more than 200 state legislators and state education department officials huddled in a ballroom over education-technology strategy. Rich Crandall, a state senator from Arizona, said to hearty applause that he had developed a local think tank to support the virtual school reforms he helped usher into law. Toward the end of the discussion, Vander Ark, acting as an emcee, walked around the room acknowledging lawmakers who had recently passed pro–education tech laws this year. He handed the microphone to Kelli Stargel, a state representative from Florida, who stood up and boasted of creating "virtual charter schools, so we can have innovation in our state."

Throughout the day, lawmakers mingled with education-technology lobbyists from leading firms, like Apex Learning and K12 Inc. Some of the distance learning reforms were taught in breakout sessions, like one called "Don't Let a Financial Crisis Go to Waste," an hourlong event that encouraged lawmakers to use virtual schools as a budget-cutting measure. Mandy Clark, a staffer with Bush's foundation, walked around handing out business cards, offering to e-mail sample legislation to legislators.

The lobbying was evident to anyone there. But for some of those present, Bush didn't go far enough. David Byer, a senior manager with Apple in charge of developing education business for the company, groaned and leaned over to another attendee sitting at the edge of the room after a lunch session. "You have this many people together, why can't you say, 'Here are the ten elements, here are some sample bills'?" said Byer to David Stevenson, who nodded in agreement. Stevenson is a vice president of News Corporation's education subsidiary, Wireless Generation, an education-technology firm that specializes in assessment tools. It was just a year ago that News Corp. announced its intention to enter the for-profit K-12 education industry, which Rupert Murdoch called "a $500 billion sector in the US alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed."

As attendees stood up to leave the hall, the phalanx of lobbyists surrounding the room converged, buttonholing legislators and school officials. On a floor above the main hall, an expo center had been set up, with companies like McGraw-Hill, Connections Academy, K12 Inc., proud sponsors of the event, providing information on how to work with politicians to make education technology a reality.

Patricia Levesque, a Bush staffer speaking at the summit and the former governor's right hand when it comes to education reform, does not draw a direct salary from Bush's nonprofit despite the fact that she is listed as its executive director, and tax disclosures show that she spends about fifty hours a week at the organization. Instead, her lobbying firm, Meridian Strategies, supplies her income. The Foundation for Florida's Future, another Bush nonprofit, contracts with Meridian, as do online technology companies like IQ-ity Innovation, which paid her up to $20,000 for lobbying services at the beginning of this year. The unorthodox arrangement allows donors to Bush's group to avoid registering actual lobbyists while using operatives like Levesque to influence legislators and governors on education technology.

Levesque's contract with IQ-ity raises questions about Bush's foundation work. As Mother Jonesrecently reported, the founder of IQ-ity, William Lager, also founded an education company with a poor track record. Lager's other education firm, Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, is the largest provider of virtual schools in Ohio. ECOT schools have consistently underperformed; though the company serves more than 10,000 children, its graduation rate has never broken 40 percent. The company was fined for billing the state to serve more than 2,000 students in one month, when only seven children logged on during the same time period. Nevertheless, after Levesque spent at least two years as a registered lobbyist for Lager's firm, Bush traveled to Ohio to give the commencement speech for ECOT. "ECOT proves a glimpse into what's possible," Bush said with pride, "by harnessing the power of technology."

Levesque is no ordinary lobbyist. She is credited with encouraging the type of bare-knuckle politics now common in the wider education-reform movement. In an audio file obtained by The Nation, she and infamous anti-union consultant Richard Berman outlined a strategy in October 2010 for sweeping the nation with education reforms. The two spoke at the Philanthropy Roundtable, a get-together of major right-wing foundations. Lori Fey, a representative of the Michael Dell Foundation, moderated the panel discussion.

Rather than "intellectualize ourselves into the [education reform] debate…is there a way that we can get into it at an emotional level?" Berman asked. "Emotions will stay with people longer than concepts." He then answered his own question: "We need to hit on fear and anger. Because fear and anger stays with people longer. And how you get the fear and anger is by reframing the problem." Berman's glossy ads, which have run in Washington, DC, and New Jersey, portray teachers unions as schoolyard bullies. One spot even seems to compare teachers to child abusers. Although Berman does not reveal his donors, he made clear in his talk that the foundations in the room were supporting his campaign.

Levesque ended the strategy discussion with a larger strategic question. She pointed to the example of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg donating $100 million to Newark schools. She then asked the crowd to imagine instead raising $100 million for political races where we "could sway a couple of seats to have more education reform." "Just shifting a little bit of your focus," she added, noting that new politicians could have a greater impact.

Levesque's ask has become reality. According to author Steven Brill, ex–DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee's new group, StudentsFirst, raised $100 million within a few months of Levesque's remarks. Rhee's donors include Rupert Murdoch, philanthropist Eli Broad and Home Depot founder Ken Langone. Rhee's group has pledged to spend more than $1 billion to bring for-profit schools, including virtual education, to the entire country by electing reform-friendly candidates and hiring top-notch state lobbyists.

A day before he opened his education reform conference to the media recently, Bush hosted another education meeting. This event, a private affair in the Palace Hotel, was a reconvening of investors and strategists to plan the next leg of the privatization campaign. Michael Moe, Susan Patrick, Tom Vander Ark and other major players were invited. I waited outside the event, trying to get what information I could. I asked Mayor Fenty how I could get in. "Just crash in, come on in," he laughed, adding, "so what company are you with?" When he learned that I was a reporter, he shook his head. "Oh, nah, you're not welcome, then."

An invitation had billed the exclusive gathering as a chance for "philanthropists and venture capitalists" to figure out how to "leverage each other's strengths" — a concise way to describe how for-profit virtual school companies are using philanthropy as a Trojan horse.

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

© 2012 The Investigative Fund. All rights reserved.
View t

Obama's new Chief of Staff: lost millions at Citi, doesn't think de-regulation lead to crisis

2012-01-09T16:09:00.000-08:00

Obama's new Chief of Staff: lost millions at Citi, doesn't think de-regulation lead to crisis

Governor Brown promotes race to the bottom

2012-01-08T15:32:00.000-08:00

Governor Makes Deep Cuts tothe Safety Net

On Thursday, January 5,Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed 2012-13 spending plan, addressing a$9.2 billion projected shortfall for the remainder of 2011-12 and the upcoming2012-13 fiscal years. The Governor proposes $10.3 billion in “solutions” toclose the identified gap and provide a $1.1 billion budget reserve. The gapstems from a $4.1 billion shortfall in 2011-12 and a $5.1 billion projectedshortfall in 2012-13.

The Governorcontinues his poorly informed, misguided austerity program which proposes to reduce the budgets through cut backsin services, cuts to public employment, and reduction in public pensions.

Budget cutting to balance the budget will not getus out of this hole. Look atIreland, Greece, or Spain. Do we really want to follow the lead of Michigan, Wisconsin, or Mississippi (each of these economies is smaller thanCalifornia)? Budget cutsonly start a downward spiral of pain. We can not simply cut our way outof the crisis, budget cuts and lay offs make the recession worse. Budget cutsand lay offs lead only to more budget cuts and lay offs.

The current budget crisis was caused by the real estatecrisis, the sub prime loan crisis, and the national economic crisis. This crisis was created by finance capital andbanking, mostly on Wall Street ,ie. Chase Banks, Bank of America, Washington Mutual, Country Wide, AIG, andothers. Finance capital produced a $ 2 trillion bailout.

While their will be cuts, we on the left shouldexplain an alternative, an expansion of public jobs and fiscal stimulus. The money for such as stimulus isavailable.

Government must protect and empowerour citizens. To foster prosperity it must prepare the young for jobs, careers, and civic participation. Protection includes health care, education, social security, safe food,environmental protection, safe streets, job protection, etc.

Our economy needs roads, bridges,telephone lines, communications systems, energy and quality education. These services make freedom andprosperity possible. Conservative opposition to these services ignore theeconomy’s need for infrastructure. Prosperity depends upon having a viableeducational system and a well functioning infrastructure.

There should be asignificant tax on the sale of stocks, bonds, and financial instruments. This is the same source as proposed bythe AFL-CIO. They argue for a 0.25% tax on sales. We should proposea 2.5 % tax. This would fundpublic jobs, infrastructure rebuilding. Such a tax is called a financial transaction tax. Others call it a Robin Hood tax. Most of Europe already has such atax.

We need to tax the very richto produce needed revenue to create jobs and and to invest in the future. The Jerry Brown cut, cut, cut approachis a failure.

The Governor’s proposalassumes that voters approve a measure that would be placed on the November 2012ballot that would raise $6.9 billion in 2011-12 and 2012-13. His proposedspending plan also includes $5.4 billion of additional spending cuts that wouldbe triggered on if voters fail to approve the proposed tax measure.

Privatization & The War Against California Teachers-Fired CTC Attorney ...

2012-01-07T19:38:00.000-08:00

Governor Proposes Deep Budget Cuts

2012-01-07T15:46:00.001-08:00

Governor Makes Deep Cuts to the Safety Net and Assumes VotersApprove November Ballot Measure

On Thursday,January 5, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed 2012-13 spending plan,addressing a $9.2 billion projected shortfall for the remainder of 2011-12 andthe upcoming 2012-13 fiscal years. The Proposed Budget was released five daysearly after a staffer inadvertently posted budget documents to a publicwebsite. The Governor proposes $10.3 billion in “solutions” to close theidentified gap and provide a $1.1 billion budget reserve. The gap stems from a$4.1 billion shortfall in 2011-12 and a $5.1 billion projected shortfall in2012-13. The Governor’s proposal assumes that voters approve a measure thatwould be placed on the November 2012 ballot that would raise $6.9 billion in2011-12 and 2012-13. His proposed spending plan also includes $5.4 billion ofadditional spending cuts that would be triggered on if voters fail to approvethe proposed tax measure.

The Governor’s proposals includedeep cuts to health and human services programs, as well as to student aid andchild care. Health and human services and child care programs would be targetedfor $2.5 billion of the $4.2 billion in proposed spending reductions. The Governoralso proposes $301.7 million of cuts to the Cal Grant Program, which providesfinancial aid to lower-income students pursuing post-secondary education. TheGovernor’s Proposed Budget also includes a number of sweeping reorganizationsof state departments and agencies aimed at increasing efficiency of stateservices, major policy changes in health and human services programs, andsignificant changes to the formulas used to allocate funds among schooldistricts.

Read the California Budget ProjectReport. http://www.cbp.org/documents/110106_Gov_Budget_Release.pdf

The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal | Common Dreams

2012-01-07T14:53:00.000-08:00

The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal | Common Dreams

The Delusional Assumptions of Capitalism | Common Dreams

2012-01-07T14:51:00.000-08:00

The Delusional Assumptions of Capitalism | Common Dreams

Trampling out the Vintage ? a review of a book on Cesar Chavez

2011-12-31T15:26:00.000-08:00

Trampling Out the Vintage ?

A dissident’sview of the rise and the fall of the United Farm Workers union.

By Duane Campbell

Frank Bardacke’s Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez andthe Two Souls of the United Farm Workers. (2011, Verso). is the view of awell- informed observer who worked in the lettuce fields nearSalinas for six seasons, thenspent another 25 years teaching English to farm workers in the Watsonville, Cal. area. His views on the growth and decline of the United FarmWorkers union – some of which I do not share– offer importantpoints of history and reflection for unionists today, particularly those working with the Occupy WallStreet movement.

Trampling Out the Vintage, provides several insightsnot previously developed in well informed books on the UFW including important differences between grape workers and workers in row crops such as lettuce; the length of timeworkers were in the UFW, the moresettled family nature of grape workers, the strength of each type of ranch committees, the leadership of ranch crews ( and thus the potential differences increating democratic accountability), and the differing histories of workermilitancy in different crops. The author correctly argues that each of these led tosomewhat different organizing environment in building the union. He also details problems ofadministrative mismanagement in the hiring halls in the grape areas andalleged mismanagement of organizingwithin the union sponsored health care insurance and clinic systems .

Based upon his own experiences andthe histories of workers inthe Salinas valley, Bardacke makesthe case that farm workers- notCesar Chavez – created the union. They built their union on a long history of previous collective workstoppages and strikes. The unionwas created on the ground in Delano, Salinas, Watsonville, and surrounding towns- not in the unionheadquarters of La Paz. The author reveals his strong viewpointin the title apparentlyreferring to Chavez “Trampling outthe Vintage” where a union had been created.

In1962 Cesar Chavez made the decision to organize the settled mostly Mexican American workforce in and around Delano - a grape growing regionin California’s Central Valley. Based upon his prior work with CommunityServices Organization (CSO) [U1] andhis training by Fred Ross in the Saul Alinksy tradition, Chavez decided to organize entire familiesinto an association, not just the workers into a union. This required, for example,organizing women as family members and as workers. Most ofthe working families had settled in the area; they had roots, they stayed year- around rather thanmigrating from place to place. Chavez saw this population as a base forbuilding a permanent organization. The decision to focus on Delano and its semi-permanentgrape workers was a choice to notfocusing on recently arrived Mexican workers – those whom Bardacke worked amongin the Salinas valley. Bardackecriticizes the decision by Chavezand Dolores Huerta to organize themore family-established Mexican Americans rather than the more migrant Mexicanworkers in the vegetable and row crops.

Several of Bakrdacke’s central arguments are well established. Labor writer SteveEarly, for one, reviewing RandyShaw’s book, Beyond the Fields:Cesar Chavez, the UFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21^st.Century, writes:

Chávezwas not accountable to anyone within the UFW. Rank-and-file critics of his charismatic leadership werepurged, then black-listed, and driven from the fields in truly disgracefulfashion.

Overtime, Chávez further stifled "creative internal deliberation" byreplacing "experienced UFW leaders with a new, younger cadre, for whomloyalty was the essential qualification,” Shaw reports. The result was adysfunctional personality cult.” (Steve Early, http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/a-union-of-their-dreams-becomes-a-nightmarehas-ufw-history-been-replayed-in-seiu/)

Part of the problem in responding to Trampling Out theVintage, is that supporters ofthe Farmworkers Movement have spent so much time and energy defending the UFWand its members from growers, from capitalists, and from politicians. Recall that the UFW’s major growth occurred while Ronald Reagan wasgovernor of California. Inthis troubling times it was difficult to step back and examine internal uniondevelopment. Bardacke describes important union issues of the UFW failing to develop worker control overtheir own union, the lack of democratic leadership, and the failure to developnew worker leadership. He does notdeal with the highly contentious and controversial relevant issue of how theTeamsters maintained control of the racially stratified and anti democraticunions of mostly Mexican American workers in the canneries and packing sheds atthe same time.

Berdacke does provide details of authoritarian control of the union and the executive board,explaining them as a result ofindividual psychological manifestations of Cesar Chavez’ power. For evidence of this abuse and failure Bardacke , like Miriam Pawell in A Union of Their Dreams, usesthe board’s own recorded meeting minutes.

Bardacke claims of authoritariancontrol are supported by other sources. Marshall Ganz in his excellent book, Why David Sometimes Wins;Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement,(2009) says, “Between 1977 and 1981, Chavez undid the UFW’s strategiccapacity. The changes irrevocablyaltered the character of the UFW leadership. Instead of a diverse team withboth strong and weak ties to multiple constituencies, it became a narrow circleof people with strong ties, often Chavez family members or dependents.” ( p.247.)

We can agree that a consolidationof power occurred and that it led to a weakening of the union and harm to itsmembers. We need not agree to thepsychological interpretation Bardacke gives for why this consolidation wassuccessful. It’s here I think Bardacke’scase is weak.

The author tells the story of centralizing recognition and power in the person of Cesar Chavez. Like all authors, Bardacke selects what to tell todevelop his narrative. His selections in deciding what to report about in 1962 lead to his conclusionsabout what happened in 1984. Ifyou are going to create a historical record to argue your viewpoint, you needto present your evidence in the context of the historical period

In most cases Bardacke doesthis. At others, times, however, he argues for what could have been rather thanwhat actually existed. Forexample, he tells the story of Henry Anderson’sfocus in the 1962 onbuilding local leadership and union locals. He uses this to claim that centralized power got out of handin the nascent farm worker movement. That is he is telling the story backward afterarriving at his conclusions. Thereis nothing wrong with reasoning from history, but it does make the issue of union democracy or lackof democracy seem more determined that it necessarily was.

The author could have told other stories of other events toemphasize a different conclusion. For example the authormakes the case that Chavez and Huerta, among others, had a strong critique of the method other unions used, such as focusing only on the worker andnot on the family, or of MexicanAmerican workers always led byAnglo leaders, etc. That isan alternative and valid perspective on worker participation that is notdeveloped in Trampling Out the Vintage.

Among the more contested issuesraised by Barnacke is his view of the UFW’s relationships with undocumentedworkers in 1975 period, the so called “Wet Line”. Bardacke makes the case that the UFWused violence and terror against “Wet Backs.” This is the same argument being made today by various militia groups , Tea Party advocatesand posted on Wikipedia .

In truth we don’t know whatactually happened in the dessert near Yuma, Arizona in 1975. Was there violence? How much violence? Who was hurt? Barnacke takes one side, and the official UFW histories takethe other, saying the union was stopping strike breakers who happened to be undocumented.

Having worked up close withthe issue of immigration for decades I have a differentview. The one memo cited by Barnacke as evidence, a confidential one, is notdefinitive proof that violence wasunion policy. ( P. 492) Note, the other memo on the same page takes the opposite position. We can agree that Chavez madesome high handed, perhaps opportunistic mistakes, but where Bardacke cites the worst case reports of violence,knifings, even murder in Arizona, he admits these charges could not beindependently verified.

Rather than take Bardacke’s view onthe role of the Wet Line, I prefer Bert Corona’s. Bert was a leading voice on immigration issues and organized undocumentedworkers in the organization HemandadMexicana. He was also a friend ofmine, and we worked together on immigration issues. Although critical of the UFW policy, Bert never took the highly destructive view thatBardack promotes. There weredisputes over issues, and errors were made but remember the context, which Bert for one did. The UFW was losing the strike as strikers werereplaced by with undocumentedworkers crossing a border and a picket line to work in struck fields. Theseundocumented workers, who knew little or nothing about the UFW or the long,violent, bitter and costly strike they were breaking, were nonetheless breaking a strike on a movement forjustice and equality.

Ultimately in 1975 the UFW convention took a formal position to organize the undocumented and to allowthem to vote in elections as a part of the California Agricultural RelationsAct. That is the official UFWposition on the undocumented. Bardacke uses the recordsof who won union representation electionsand where to argue that the pro undocumented positionwas the better position, and that strike breakers should have been reasonedwith and treated with respect . UFW lost elections toTeamsters in the grape fields of Delano but split the votein Salinas. Bardacke argues that UFW won elections in the Salinas Valley because they had supported successful strikes inSalinas, had not imposed troublesome hiring halls, and had not campaigned against undocumented workers.

In addition to pages of fascinatinglocal histories on various campaigns and strikes, Trampling Out the Vintage makes a major contribution in arguing that theissues that defeated the UFW in elections and in the fields included the antidemocratic structures of the UFW created and honed by Cesar Chavez himself, along with no established locals andthe divisions that grew up betweenthe staff, veteran union members and new workers.

In the midst of several life and death struggles overpower against corporate agriculture and the political power of the state, theUFW executive committee did not develop democratic union structures . Theyoften responded to conspiracies with conspiracies weakening the union andpreventing it from organizing.

The author also spends a great deal of time on the purges of UFW activists,organizers, and volunteers in 1977-1981 period. While often presented as anticommunist decisions by Chavez, many of the dismissals were for lack of loyalty to Chavezand his decisions as the final arbiter of all issues in the union. Some of the “purges” were based upon left politics, and someof the dismissals were based upon other differences, including differing viewsof the best direction for the union. There were dismissals and staff leavings for a variety of reasons. Some of themost significant dismissals were not about left nor right, but were aboutissues of both policy differences and personal loyalties.

Inmy view Bardacke underanalyzes the nature of the racial state and the interaction of racial and economicoppression in the fields of California and in the U.S. .While he makes some brief references to a role of Chicano or Mexican nationalism withinthe UFW, these are not analyzed indepth. Specific incidents ofpolice and political repression are treated as abuses of power rather than a racially constructed system ofoppression. After all, theprevious attempts to organize farm workers were broken with violence alongracial lines.

Therole of racism, and the individual reactions to systemic structural racial oppression are complexand vary in part based upon thedifferences in experiences of the participants. As the Chicano movement argued at its core- the experiences of U.S. born and reared Mexican Americans and Chicanos weredifferent than the experiences and the perceptions of racism of Mexicanimmigrants, both documented and undocumented. There are a diversity of racisms and a diversity in themanner in which workers learn to respond to oppression. Chicanos and Mexican Americans grew up,were educated, and worked in an internal colony. Their schools, their unions, and their political experienceswere structured along racial lines. They learnedcolonized structures. Bardacke recognizes this structural oppressionin the lives of several UFW leaders including specific descriptions of theearly lives of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta , though he does not sufficiently acknowledge the struggle of the UFW and the ChicanoMovement in breaking this colonial legacy.

Mexicanmigrants had a difficult life under an oppressive one-party state at home, but usually did not suffer this internalized colonialism. Bardacke reports on these differences in his descriptions of the early lives of rank and file leaders Mario Bustamante, Hermilo Mojica, Marcos Munoz and others. Their struggle in the fields was initially primarily a workers struggle for economic justice.

As an example of the importance ofthis issue, Bardacke reports on the sharp differences in views those whothought that the struggles in Salinas could be won by strikes and workstoppages (paros) and the Chavez, Huerta, Executive Board position to dependmore upon building a boycott. These differences led to sharp divisions in the union. The two groups had learned differentlessons from their different experiences in the fields. The Chavez, Huerta group insistedupon the strength of the boycott. That is what their experiences had taught them. The Mario Bustamante, Mojica, side, andauthor Bardacke, wanted to push for extensive strikes and work stoppages,perhaps a general strike, including preventing strikebreakers from harvestingenough crops. This directworkplace action approach is what their experience had taught them. The two groups of union activists hadlearned different lessons from their different experiences of confrontingcorporate –grower and racist power.

Marshall Ganz inWhy David Sometimes Wins, does a better job than does Bardacke in describing some of the racialfault lines of farm worker organizing. Ganz was director of organizing for the UFW in Salinas and a long time member of the UFW executive board. He notes, the unions were organized along ethnic lines- as werethe growers and the political power of dominant Anglo politicalforces. ( Ganz P.161) Since theorganizations were structured along racial and ethnic lines, itis peculiar then to have Bardackedescribe conflicts between the UFWand its opponents as if theywere primarily economic in nature. Barnacke discusses the volatile issues of racism asprimarily about Chavez’sliberal supporters – by which he means largely white or Anglo supporters.

As the author chronicles, Chavezknew well some of the failings ofunions in the 1960’s, including the problems of a growing internalbureaucracy, but the UFW was not able to create a viable democratic alternative. Chavez’ ownhistory and personality structure, and his manipulation and dismissal ofactivists occurred in part becausethe executive board was unable to free itself from the dynamics of a groupunder constant siege.

Marshall Ganz also argues thatChavez deconstructed the organizational strength of the UFW in the 1979 -1981period in an effort to keep personal control of the union. (Ganz, p. 247 ) Today the UFW has about5,000 members and few contracts. The lack of unions in the fields and the declining strengths of unions nationwideindicate that we do not yet know how to build a progressive union movement. These problems are overwhelming-even more so when added to theproblems of trying to build a union for poor people in a racialized state suchas rural California in the 1970’s-1990’s.

The UFW was overwhelmed by the negative forces against it,including capitalists, growers, racist cops and politicians, liberal Democrats,union bureaucrats and more. Union democracy didnot grow and antidemocratic forces flourished. The UFW leadership failed to build a competent administrative structure to dealwith union contracts, and failed to expand the organizing structure andunion culture rapidly enough tobring in the thousands of new farm worker members to create anactive, democratic union life.

The failure to gain strength is notsurprising. Compare the periodof decline of 1977-1986 in the UFWto the complex battles of theReuther Brothers to gain control and to keep control of the United Auto Workers, including the UAW’srelationship with the AFL-CIO . (1949- 1970). The UAW went from 1.5 million members in 1979 to 390,000 in2010, and the United Steelworkers and other unions suffered similar declines. Is it any wonder that thesmaller, less established, less well funded UFW suffered dramatic declines from racial oppression and the brutal assault on the union in the fields of Texas, Arizona and California?

A shorthand for this debate is: how do working people combinethe strengths of civil rights movements with the institutionalization ofunions? How do organizingsocial movements differ from organizing in a union? What can organizers in each learn from one another ?

Did the UFW decline? Yes. Did farm workers lose the substantial gains in wages andworking conditions they had won in the 1970’s? Absolutely. How do unions builda movement when undocumented workers can replace strikers ? This issue has continued to divide anddefeat unions in the U.S.

We know that social movementsemerge, are organized, grow and then are institutionalized – or they decline. Fewunions have been able to create democratic internal culture. Few social movements have been able to maintaintheir momentum for more than a decade and they leave behind little ofinstitutional power except small advocacy groups. Where arethe examples of unions building a democratic process which fights for theirjobs? Certainly not therival Teamsters union in the canneries and packing houses of California.

How do we build an activist,democratic union with democratic leadership and locals ? How do we build a union thatcontributes to the liberation of a people? How do we build a union that educates its members on thepolitics of their own struggle and develops and promotes its members to become its future leaders ?

Trampling out the Vintagegives one view of how the UFW effort failed, but we have yet to learnhow to create a powerful democratic organizational vehicle. Bardacke, and other left critics of theUFW experience argue that the destruction of the UFW was a result of thepersonal control of Chavez and his allies and their failure to build ademocratic union. Well,Cesar Chavez has now been dead for over 17 years. Why has no vital, democratic union grown up in the fields tocontinue the effort to build a union for some of the most exploited workers inthe U.S.?

There are numerous other importantissues raised in this history including the role of Catholicism and Catholicsymbols, the importance of non violence, the problems of working with Jerry Brown and the DemocraticParty, including Bardacke’s sub title for the book, Cesar Chavez and the TwoSouls of the United Farm Workers. These issues are beyond the scope of this review.

I recommend the book for serious students of the Farmworker Movementwho wish to learn of the diverse perspectives of the struggles in thefields. I do not recommendit as a sole or primary source on UFW history or the history of CesarChavez. Rather it should beread in conjunction with othersources on the UFW including Marshal Ganz’s Why David Sometimes Wins:Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement, Randy Shaw’s Beyond the Fields; Cesar Chavez, theUFW, and the Struggle for Justice in the 21^st. Century and theextensive sources available on the Farmworker Movement Documentation Project http://www.farmworkermovement.us/

1. Duane Campbell, “Bert Corona, Labor Radical.” Socialist Review. 1989, p. 51. , See also. Randy Shaw, Beyond the Fields; Cesar Chavez, the UFW, andthe Struggle for Justice in the 21^st. Century, p. 196.

Duane Campbell , professor emeritusof Bilingual/Multicultural Education at California State University-Sacramento, worked with the UFW as a volunteer from1972-1976. He then collaborated with Bert Corona on immigrants-rights efforts.

His most recent book is ChoosingDemocracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. (2010) He is currently chair of Sacramento DemocraticSocialists of America and chair of the Chicano/Mexican American Digital HistoryProject for the Sacramento region For information on the projects, go HERE[]

I want to thank Mike Hirsch forhis comments on this review.

This is the 50^thAnniversary of the UFW. http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?menu=news&inc=_page.php?menu=news&inc=/50/anniversary.html

[U1]Spellthe name out in first rererence.

Romney touts dismantling of Bilingual Education

2011-12-30T15:44:00.000-08:00

by Leslie Maxell.

Romney Touts Role in Dismantling Bilingual Education in Mass.

The Iowa caucuses are just a few days away and Mitt Romney, at least as of this morning, appears to be the frontrunner in the first contest of the 2012 presidential nomination sweepstakes.

For those of you trying to make a decision about the GOP candidates based on their education policies and philosophy, you can get a lot of insight on Romney over at Politics K-12, where Alyson Klein details the candidate's thinking about schooling by parsing a chapter from his book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness."

Two pages in that chapter get into Romney's view on bilingual education vs. English immersion, which is interesting but not terribly surprising.

While he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney said he kept hearing that students were graduating from high schools in his state without being fluent in English. Those anecdotes were coming to him in the months after Massachusetts voters had passed a ballot initiative to curtail bilingual education in the state.

Astonished by this, the then-governor set about examining the state's bilingual education programs and asking questions about their effectiveness. He said the data were "scant" on whether bilingual programs produced better outcomes for students than English immersion programs. He picked up the phone and "called principals in California," where bilingual education had mostly been replaced with English immersion. The principals he talked to told him English immersion was better for students learning the language.

His conclusion? That bilingual education in Massachusetts had become little more than an employment program for bilingual teachers, who, he asserts, could not speak English well themselves.

When Romney sought the GOP nomination four years ago, he was upfront about his opposition to bilingual education and his support for ending it in Massachusetts. But pages 204-205 in his book's chapter on education tell us even more perhaps about the provenance of his stance.

He writes that during a visit to a Boston elementary school, he was stunned to discover that nearly all of the children enrolled in bilingual courses were American-born, not foreign-born:

At a student- body assembly, I asked how many youngsters were born outside the United States. Only a few hands went up. Surprised, I asked my next question: "How many of you are in bilingual education classes?" This time, the great majority of hands shot skyward, and the truth became obvious. Kids who were born in America, who watched television in America and played video games in America--thoroughly American kids--were being assigned to bilingual classes only to allow bilingual teachers to keep their jobs. The result that these students would be less fluent in English didn't seem to bother anybody!

Romney also says that immigrant parents he met favored English immersion for their children and that school officials often ignored their preference.

I don't anticipate that bilingual education vs. English immersion will become a marquee issue in this election cycle. But as the number of English-language learners in the United States continues to grow, it could become a matter that the president, whoever he or she may be, needs to weigh in on. And the best thing that could happen is for the debate to be stripped of the politics that continue to hang over it so that policymakers and educators could figure out what's truly best for teaching the language.

Greece, Ireland, Italy, California -Keynes was Right

2011-12-30T08:45:00.000-08:00

By Paul Krugman

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time forausterity at the Treasury.” Sodeclared John Maynard Keynes in 1937. Slashing government spending in adepressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until astrong recovery is well under way.

Unfortunately, in late 2010 and early 2011, politicians and policy makers in much of the Western world believed that they knew better, that we should focus on deficits, not jobs, even though our economies had barely begun to recover from the slump that followed the financial crisis. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again.

In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional wisdom. In Washington, in particular, the failure of the Obama stimulus package to produce an employment boom is generally seen as having proved that government spending can’t create jobs. But those of us who did the math realized, right from the beginning, that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (more than a third of which, by the way, took the relatively ineffective form of tax cuts) was much too small given the depth of the slump. And we also predicted the resulting political backlash.

So the real test of Keynesian economics hasn’t come from the half-hearted efforts of the U.S. federal government to boost the economy, which were largely offset by cuts at the state and local levels. It has, instead, come from European nations like Greece and Ireland that had to impose savage fiscal austerity as a condition for receiving emergency loans — and have suffered Depression-level economic slumps, with real G.D.P. in both countries down by double digits.

This wasn’t supposed to happen, according to the ideology that dominates much of our political discourse. In March 2011, the Republican staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee released a report titled “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.” It ridiculed concerns that cutting spending in a slump would worsen that slump, arguing that spending cuts would improve consumer and business confidence, and that this might well lead to faster, not slower, growth.

They should have known better even at the time: the alleged historical examples of “expansionary austerity” they used to make their case had already been thoroughly debunked. And there was also the embarrassing fact that many on the right had prematurely declared Ireland a success story, demonstrating the virtues of spending cuts, in mid-2010, only to see the Irish slump deepen and whatever confidence investors might have felt evaporate.

Amazingly, by the way, it happened all over again this year. There were widespread proclamations that Ireland had turned the corner, proving that austerity works — and then the numbers came in, and they were as dismal as before.

Yet the insistence on immediate spending cuts continued to dominate the political landscape, with malign effects on the U.S. economy. True, there weren’t major new austerity measures at the federal level, but there was a lot of “passive” austerity as the Obama stimulus faded out and cash-strapped state and local governments continued to cut.

Now, you could argue that Greece and Ireland had no choice about imposing austerity, or, at any rate, no choices other than defaulting on their debts and leaving the euro. But another lesson of 2011 was that America did and does have a choice; Washington may be obsessed with the deficit, but financial markets are, if anything, signaling that we should borrow more.

Again, this wasn’t supposed to happen. We entered 2011 amid dire warnings about a Greek-style debt crisis that would happen as soon as the Federal Reserve stopped buying bonds, or the rating agencies ended our triple-A status, or the superdupercommittee failed to reach a deal, or something. But the Fed ended its bond-purchase program in June; Standard & Poor’s downgraded America in August; the supercommittee deadlocked in November; and U.S. borrowing costs just kept falling. In fact, at this point, inflation-protected U.S. bonds pay negative interest: investors are willing to pay America to hold their money.

The bottom line is that 2011 was a year in which our political elite obsessed over short-term deficits that aren’t actually a problem and, in the process, made the real problem — a depressed economy and mass unemployment — worse.

The good news, such as it is, is that President Obama has finally gone back to fighting against premature austerity — and he seems to be winning the political battle. And one of these years we might actually end up taking Keynes’s advice, which is every bit as valid now as it was 75 years ago.

The Assault on Teachers' Unions

2011-12-29T15:33:00.001-08:00

The Assault on Teachers’ Unions

By Richard D. Kahlenberg

Teachers’ unions are under unprecedented bipartisan attack. Thedrumbeat is relentless, from governors in Wisconsin and Ohio to the filmdirectors of Waiting for “Superman” and The Lottery; from new lobbying groups

like MichelleRhee’s StudentsFirst and Wall Street’s Democrats for Education Reform topolitical columnists such as Jonathan Alter and George Will; from new bookslike political scientist Terry Moe’s Special Interest and entrepreneurialwriter Steven Brill’s Class Warfare to even, at times, members of the Obamaadministration. The consistent message is that teachers’ unions are the central impediment to educationalprogress in the United States. Part of the assault is unsurprising given itspartisan origins. Republicans have long been critical, going back to at least1996, when presidential candidate Bob Dole scolded teachers’ unions: “Ifeducation were a war, you would be losing it. If it were a business, you wouldbe driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying.” Ifyou’re a Republican who wants to win elections, going after teachers’ unionsmakes parochial sense.

According to Terry Moe, the National EducationAssociation (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) gave 95 percentof their contributions to Democrats in federal elections between 1989 and 2010.1 The nakedly partisan nature ofWisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attack on public sector collective bargainingwas exposed when he exempted from his legislation two unions that supported himpolitically: one representing police officers and the otherrepresenting firefighters. What’s new and particularly disturbing is thatpartisan Republicans are now joined by many liberals and Democrats in attackingteachers’ unions.

Read theentire piece at: http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter1112/Kahlenberg.pdf

Naomi Klein interview with Occupy Vancouver

2011-12-27T21:07:00.001-08:00

Brown Announces Some, Not All, Budget Trigger Cuts

2011-12-26T12:20:00.000-08:00

Brown Announces Some, Not All, Budget Trigger Cuts

California Progress Report

2011-12-26T12:15:00.000-08:00

California Progress Report

The Bank of America Settlement. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Corporations That Occupy Congress | Common Dreams

2011-12-25T14:41:00.000-08:00

The Corporations That Occupy Congress | Common Dreams

Robert Reich (The Defining Issue: Not Government's Size, but Who It's For)

2011-12-25T14:26:00.000-08:00

Robert Reich (The Defining Issue: Not Government's Size, but Who It's For)

Throw the bankers in jail !

2011-12-22T20:11:00.001-08:00

A problem with the Country Wide the WaMU settlements.

We have to consider the externalities of the fraud. While a $337 million dollar fine may be sufficient for theindividuals defrauded by Country Wide, the cost to the nation and the state wasmuch greater. These could becalled externalities or collateral damage. And the costs are truly astronomic. See posts below.

Remember what caused this crisis – it wasn’t thegovernment. First came the housing bubble and the selling of near fraudulenthome mortgages by corporations such as Country Wide and WaMU– thus thesettlements. To make a profit major banks and corporations looted theeconomy creating an international meltdown.

Now we have cuts in parks, in universities, innurses, libraries. School children did not create this crisis.  The majorbankers, finance capitalists in the U.S. robbed the bank last year – andthe federal treasury. They took hundreds of billions of dollars –Goldman Sachs alone took $10 Billion. For example, Ken Lewis ofBank of America received an $ 81 million dollar pension. They have noteven been punished. One thing we should do is arrest the top 100executives and CEO’s of these companies, give them a fair trial, and throw themin jail. Until we arrest some people there will be no real changes.

Note: House Concurrent Resolution 85.Dec. 2011.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the House ofRepresentatives that any action taken by the Department of Justice should beconsistent with the following goals:

(1) The mortgage servicers who engaged in fraudulent behavior shouldnot be granted criminal or civil immunity for potential wrongdoing related toillegal mortgage and foreclosure practices.

(2) The Federal Government and State attorneys general should proceedwith full investigations into claims of fraudulent behavior by mortgageservicers.

For more see:

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/12/21/7753/bank-america-pay-record-settlement-over-countrywide-abuses

Those who committed the fraud should pay for the externalcosts of the Great Recession.  Our financial system as a whole crashednot because of one bank. Goldman Sachs certainly played a major role as did JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and CitiCorp, along with the many corporatefinance institutions like Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers,WaMu.

While millions of working people have continued to lose their jobs, their homes, their healthcare, and their futures, it is return to business as usual for Wall streetfirms, return to casino capitalism.

We had a systemic breakdown because nearly all of ourpolicy makers, academics, politicians, and pundits promoted a failed,self serving ideology of self-correcting financial markets. Finance profiteers walked off with big bucks while contributing to the crash ofthe system.

Country Wide settles fraud complaint for $335 million

2011-12-21T20:30:00.000-08:00

Justice Department Reaches $335 Million Settlement to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination by Countrywide Financial Corporation

More than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic Borrowers who Qualified for Loans were Charged Higher Fees or Placed into Subprime Loans

The Department of Justice today filed its largest residential fair lending settlement in history to resolve allegations that Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in their mortgage lending from 2004 through 2008.

The settlement provides $335 million in compensation for victims of Countrywide’s discrimination during a period when Countrywide originated millions of residential mortgage loans as one of the nation’s largest single-family mortgage lenders.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in conjunction with the department’s complaint which alleges that Countrywide discriminated by charging more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers in both its retail and wholesale lending. The complaint alleges that these borrowers were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin, and not because of the borrowers’ creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk.

The United States also alleges that Countrywide discriminated by steering thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were discriminated against were qualified for Countrywide mortgage loans according to Countrywide’s own underwriting criteria.

“The department’s action against Countrywide makes clear that we will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable, including one of the nation’s largest, for lending discrimination,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “These institutions should make judgments based on applicants’ creditworthiness, not on the color of their skin. With today’s settlement, the federal government will ensure that the more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers who were discriminated against by Countrywide will be entitled to compensation.”

Note: House Concurrent Resolution 85. Dec. 2011.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that any action taken by the Department of Justice should be consistent with the following goals:

(1) The mortgage servicers who engaged in fraudulent behavior should not be granted criminal or civil immunity for potential wrongdoing related to illegal mortgage and foreclosure practices.

(2) The Federal Government and State attorneys general should proceed with full investigations into claims of fraudulent behavior by mortgage servicers.

(3) Any financial settlement reached with mortgage servicers should appropriately compensate for, and accurately reflect, the extent of harm to all victims, including homeowners and State pension beneficiaries, caused by the mortgage servicers’ fraudulent behavior.

For more see:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/12/21/7753/bank-america-pay-record-settlement-over-countrywide-abuses

Wa Mu collapsed, no prosecution of bankers

2011-12-18T20:53:00.000-08:00

Washington Mutual bank collapsed in 2008, the largest bank failure inU.S. history. It was the beginningof the banking failures that created the economic crisis.

Last week the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission agree to a 64.7Million settlement and no prosecution of Wa Mu executives.

WA Mu finally came crashing down on September 25, 2008. After onehundred-plus years of stable steady growth and expansion, ten years ofaggressive acquisitions and record profits and one tumultuous year of disaster,the US Office of Thrift Supervision seized Washington Mutual Bank from itsholding company after banking hours and placed it into Federal DepositInsurance Corporation receivership. With rumors of its potential demisespreading, depositors withdrew $16.7 billion in 9 days , crippling the company’sliquidity and ability to act as a going concern. JPMorgan subsequentlypurchased the bank’s assets and deposits for $1.9 billion, less than a third ofwhat was offered earlier in the year (in stock) and turned down by WaMu’s board.

Washington Mutual’s collapse wasthe largest bank failure in U.S. history; when large banks fail many otherstakeholders are affected, and many parties contributed to the problems thatbrought WaMu down. The class action complaint brought by Bernstein LitowitzBerger & Grossmann LLP on behalf of investors offers a tremendous array ofinsider testimony and inside information about WaMu’s operations during theperiod 2005-2008; it is of such high quality, breadth and scope that it will bethe primary source for this analysis. Defendants include top WaMu executives,directors, underwriters of securities offerings, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,a Big 4 accounting firm.

Deloitte is accused of violating Section 11 of theSecurities Act of 1934 by offering unqualified auditor’s reports attesting tothe accuracy of financial statements incorporated into securities offeringsmade in 2006 and 2007.

Deloitte failed WaMu, and WaMufailed the public. Direct investors in Wamu securities and related derivativeslost substantial sums, and have procedural avenues to claim relief from theselosses, whatever their worth. The public has yet another high-profile auditingfailure, loss of confidence in the market, and no directly effective remedy. Itcould be useful to examine the lessons from WaMu and Deloitte’s failure: thedecisions that brought them to collapse, the warnings ignored, the laws broken,and what this bank failure says about the audit industry.

WaMu’s “Whoo Hoo” Mortgage Business

According to many former employeesof WaMu, the culture and focus of the bank began to change in 2005 with theplacement of a new senior management regime. Stephen Rotella joined WaMu aspresident and COO and acted as president of the Home Loans Group until DavidSchneider took the position in mid-2005. WaMu also appointed a new ChiefEnterprise Risk Officer (Ronald Cathcart) and a new Controller (John Woods) atthis time . After 2000 and especially after the transition in leadership in2005 WaMu’s focus became residential lending and related products as a driverof asset accumulation and interest income. In 2006 and 2007 nearly 70% ofinterest income and 60% of overall average assets were generated by residentialreal estate loans either originated by WaMu and held or sold or loans andmortgage-backed securities purchased for investment . This was no accident;WaMu’s new management team had very clearly focused on aggressive tactics tocapture market share in residential real estate, offering a new 5 year plan inFebruary 2005 intent on “transforming the company's mortgage business andmaintaining a leading national position in mortgage lending…” .

WaMu focused sales efforts onsubprime lending and nontraditional products such as interest-only, 80/20,Option ARM and adjustable-rate loans. Mortgage lending had undergone somethingof a sea change since the last downturn in housing ended in the early 1990s.After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 low interest rates, stagnant real wages,population growth and rapid appreciation made housing an attractive investmentsector for quick cash and equity gains. Expanded markets in securitizing andtrading of loans meant that a bank like WaMu could be aggressive in originatingloans and earning origination fees without having to hold them in-house andtake the attendant risks; lenders could securitize the loans and sell them tothird parties as quickly as they could procure them. Highly potentiallyprofitable interest-only, teaser, and especially Option ARM loans overtook traditionalfixed-rate mortgages in the WaMu portfolio; Option ARMs themselves representedover 50% of WaMu’s portfolio from Q3 2005- Q2 2008 . Option ARM loans allowedthe borrower to make a “minimum” payment below the interest due; the differencewould negatively amortize into the principal until “recasted” into a newpayment structure after hitting a ceiling of 110-125% of origination amount.

Some WaMu employees interviewed forthe class action complaint described the residential mortgage operations as “crooked”and “underhanded” . According to numerous witnesses loan salespeople were oftenunqualified or uninterested in ensuring that borrowers understood the terms oftheir loans; Confidential Witness 5 believed that “the majority” of Option ARMborrowers did not understand that their rate and payments would go up after theteaser period (Complaint p. 38). Repeatedly in the complaint employees statedthat policy dictated from the highest levels encourage aggressive selling,wholesale noncompliance with company underwriting standards, fictitiousappraisals, and “tremendous pressure from the sales guys to approve loans” andthat, with the involvement of WaMu management, even questionable loans “usuallygot taken care of one way or another.” (Complaint p. 36).

Underwriting and risk managementstandards were materially weakened or ignored with increasing fervor during theperiod beginning in 2005. Confidential Witness 17, a former Senior VicePresident of Enterprise Risk Management, “explained that various Risk Reportswere delivered to WaMu’s senior management – including at least DefendantsRotella, Cathcart and Casey – during 2006 ‘specifically quantified the factthat the Company was exceeding certain risk parameters as dictated by [WaMu’s]risk guidelines’” (Complaint p. 44). CW 17 said the methodology that was beingused to analyze risk was inadequate and that pleas for corrective action “wereoverruled” (Complaint p. 44). CW 17 and other senior, experienced riskmanagement leaders chose to leave the company during the class period ratherthan be parties to the policies being directed by top-level executives. A memoissued by the Chief Compliance and Risk Oversight Officer in October 2005spelled out the new model, in case employees had failed to grasp it: from thenforward Risk Management would be a “customer-service, supporting function”rather that imposing a “regulatory burden” on other Company segments (emphasismine) (Complaint p. 45-46).

In 13 Banks: The Wall Street Takeover and the NextFinancial Meltdown, Johnsonand Kwak argue that in the crisisof 2007/2009, which the oligarchy created, the rich seized billions of dollars for themselves. They made massive profits from theeconomic disaster. The great Recession cost the homes, the jobs, and even the lives of working people.

In The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meldown, Johnson and Kwak describe in detail theself serving economic theories which the wealthy and the powerful promote, suchas those advanced most notably by the University of Chicago economists. These theories known at various timesas Free Market Capitalism, or the Washington Consensus, or the rational marketthesis serve the elite well. Allowing these theories todisguise market manipulation by the large banks is veryprofitable for the Oligarchy whileit impoverishes working people and assault unions.

Wall street’s actions, led by WaMu plunged the U.S. into the worst financial crisis since theGreat Depression, destroying jobs and lives. Despite receiving tax payer bailouts, leading banks havecontinued to not lend, they have used the bailouts for their personal benefitsthrough bank bonuses, and they have refused to modify home mortgages.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that any action taken by the Department of Justice should be consistent with the following goals:

(1) The mortgage servicers who engaged in fraudulent behavior should not be granted criminal or civil immunity for potential wrongdoing related to illegal mortgage and foreclosure practices.

(2) The Federal Government and State attorneys general should proceed with full investigations into claims of fraudulent behavior by mortgage servicers.

They are doling out record pay and bonusesto their executives.

The banks CEOs should be prosecuted for criminal fraud,and the banks should be made topay by a transaction tax on stocks, equities, and trade instruments such asderivatives. Perhaps most important is to understand that the system has notbeen fundamentally changed – it will all happen again. Johnson and Kwak note

“ In the darkdays of late 2008- when Lehman Brothers vanished, Merrill Lynch was acquired,AIG was taken over by the government, Washington Mutual and Wachovia collapsed,Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley fled for safety morphing into bank holdingcompanies, and Citigroup and Bank of America teetered on the edge of beingbailed out- the conventional wisdom was that the financial crisis spelled the end of an era of excessiverisk –taking and fabulous profits. Instead, we can now seethat the largest, most powerful banks came out of the crisis even larger andmore powerful. When Wall Streetwas on its knees, Washington came to its rescue- not because of personal favorsto a handful of powerful bankers, but because of a belief in a certain kind offinancial sector so strong that not even the ugly revelations of the financialcrisis could uproot it.” ( P.11)

To see more on this see, “The easiest way to rob a bank isto own one,” on a prior post.

A Nation's Education Left Behind | Common Dreams

2011-12-17T17:54:00.000-08:00

A Nation's Education Left Behind | Common Dreams

Diane Ravitch

The Incredible Shrinking State Dollars for K-12 Schools | California Progress Report

2011-12-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

The Incredible Shrinking State Dollars for K-12 Schools | California Progress Report

Trigger cuts are budget cuts

2011-12-15T10:47:00.001-08:00

Governor Brown, pulled thebudget "trigger" Tuesday on a series of "Tier 1" and some"Tier 2" cuts, for a total of around $1 billion additional cuts forthe year.

The CSU and the U.C. will each be cutby an additional $100 million after state revenue’s failed to reach projectionsincluded in the June budget deal. The Trigger cuts will cost $248 million additional instate aid for public school transportation, but avoided more severe cuts to k-12 educationincluding reduction in days of schooling.

The trigger cuts also include$100 million in services to the developmentally disabled, and $100 million tohome care, and $15 million in Medi-Cal provider rates.

Brown and the Democrats inthe Legislature had hoped for a $4 billion increase in tax revenue through thecurrent fiscal year. The budget they passed last summer, was based on acombination of spending cuts, fee hikes and optimistic revenue projections.

Republicans opposed any efforts to raisetaxes or other revenues and thus forced these mid year cuts. Inspite of their minority status in the legislature, the Republicans won the budget battle of 2011. They got a cut in the sales tax by 1 %,and a cut in the vehicle license fee. The result were furthercuts in the Univ. of California, further cuts in the California StateUniversity system, and further cuts ( called deferrals) in the K-12 schools. These cuts led to a increase in tuition at the CSU andthe U.C.

California is presently 47^th.out of the 50 states in per pupil expenditures, we are among the very poorest in funding our schools. In prior years, as described by theCalifornia Budget project, “Lawmakers cut theoverall annual funding level for K-12 public schools by $6.3 billion, from$50.3 billion in 2007-08 to $44.1 billion in 2009-10.3

Arewe broke? No. What we lack is the political will on the part of Congress andthe Legislature to solve our deficit problem by taxing those who havewealth rather than sacrificing thewell being of those who have not. That may be a kind of deficit but it is political, not financial. See the report on Corporate Tax dodges by Citizens for Tax Justice in the post below. http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2011/12/corporate_tax_dodging_in_the_fifty_states_2008-2010.php#.TuAQToTrfKc.blogger

These additional cut to the CSU and the U.C. comes on top of $650 million in cutsenacted earlier this year.

Following Tuesday’s announcement, CFAPresident Lillian Taiz issued the following statement:

“Today’s $100 million cut to the CaliforniaState University system is just the latest in a long series of blows to ourpublic colleges and universities and serves to further undermine the ability ofCSU faculty and staff to deliver the quality higher education so crucial to ourstate's economic recovery and global competitiveness.

Our state’s economic problems have taken aterrible toll on all of the services that are critical to a healthy andprosperous state. We believe the time has come for an honest and fair effort toput the state’s fiscal house in order. That effort must include new revenue.

Wewelcome serious efforts finally to address our state’s problems with revenues;as a state we must pay for the institutions and programs that make Californiagreat.”

Ratherthan continue this cuts only budgets, California needs to put teachers, firefighters, nurses, policeback to work and stop cutting these jobs. Then, they will buy groceries, gasoline, pay rent, buy houses, andcreate private sector jobs. It iscalled demand. You can’t cut yourway out of the recession. Cutting jobs makes the recession worse. Just look atthe current situation of Ireland, Greece, Italy and Great Britain. You can see what a budget cut approachproduces- stagnation.

The Few, the Proud, the Very Rich | California Progress Report

2011-12-12T09:17:00.000-08:00

The Few, the Proud, the Very Rich | California Progress Report

Further budget cuts are coming - Severe

2011-12-12T09:12:00.000-08:00

Additional state budget cuts to higher education, k-12, and other services are predicted for this week.
They are called Trigger Cuts.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/12/4116082/californias-financial-forecast.html

Jeffrey Sachs- Thats not a free market

2011-12-11T19:17:00.001-08:00

Current tests. Ludicrous, shallow thinking, dysfunctional

2011-12-09T12:40:00.001-08:00

Parents. Would you let them do this to your kids?
WHEN AN ADULT TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS FORCED ON KIDS
Washington Post "The Answer Sheet" Blog -- December 5, 2011
By Marion Brady

A longtime friend on the school board of one of the largest school
systems in America did something that few public servants are willing to
do. He took versions of his state’s high-stakes standardized math and
reading tests for 10th graders, and said he’d make his scores public.

By any reasonable measure, my friend is a success. His now-grown kids
are well-educated. He has a big house in a good part of town. Paid-for
condo in the Caribbean. Influential friends. Lots of frequent flyer
miles. Enough time of his own to give serious attention to his school
board responsibilities. The margins of his electoral wins and his good
relationships with administrators and teachers testify to his openness
to dialogue and willingness to listen.

He called me the morning he took the test to say he was sure he hadn’t
done well, but had to wait for the results. A couple of days ago,
realizing that local school board members don’t seem to be playing much
of a role in the current “reform” brouhaha, I asked him what he now
thought about the tests he’d taken.

“I won’t beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The math section had 60
questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but managed to guess ten
out of the 60 correctly. On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system,
that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block
of reading instruction.

He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a
bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours
toward a doctorate.

“I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion
operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data
related to those responsibilities.

“I have a wide circle of friends in various professions. Since taking
the test, I’ve detailed its contents as best I can to many of them,
particularly the math section, which does more than its share of shoving
students in our system out of school and on to the street. Not a single
one of them said that the math I described was necessary in their
profession.

“It might be argued that I’ve been out of school too long, that if I’d
actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material
would have been fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can
determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some
practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could
possibly be true of the test I took.”

Here’s the clincher in his post:

“If I’d been required to take those two tests when I was a 10th grader,
my life would almost certainly have been very different. I’d have been
told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would probably have believed it, and
looked for work appropriate for the level of ability that the test said
I had.

“It makes no sense to me that a test with the potential for shaping a
student’s entire future has so little apparent relevance to adult,
real-world functioning. Who decided the kind of questions and their
level of difficulty? Using what criteria? To whom did they have to
defend their decisions? As subject-matter specialists, how qualified
were they to make general judgments about the needs of this state’s
children in a future they can’t possibly predict? Who set the pass-fail
“cut score”? How?”

“I can’t escape the conclusion that decisions about the [state test] in
particular and standardized tests in general are being made by
individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.”

There you have it. In 13 words, a concise summary of what’s wrong with
present corporately driven education change: Decisions are being made by
individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.

Those decisions are shaped not by knowledge or understanding of
educating, but by ideology, politics, hubris, greed, ignorance, the
conventional wisdom, and various combinations thereof. And then they’re
sold to the public by the rich and powerful.

All that without so much as a pilot program to see if their simplistic,
worn-out ideas work, and without a single procedure in place that
imposes on them what they demand of teachers: accountability.

But maybe there’s hope. As I write, a New York Times story by Michael
Winerip makes my day. The stupidity of the current test-based thrust of
reform has triggered the first revolt of school principals.

Winerip writes: “As of last night, 658 principals around the state (New
York) had signed a letter — 488 of them from Long Island, where the
insurrection began — protesting the use of students’ test scores to
evaluate teachers’ and principals’ performance.”

One of those school principals, Winerip says, is Bernard Kaplan. Kaplan
runs one of the highest-achieving schools in the state, but is required
to attend 10 training sessions.

“It’s education by humiliation,” Kaplan said. “I’ve never seen teachers
and principals so degraded.”

Carol Burris, named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the School
Administrators Association of New York State, has to attend those 10
training sessions.

Katie Zahedi, another principal, said the session she attended was “two
days of total nonsense. I have a Ph.D., I’m in a school every day, and
some consultant is supposed to be teaching me to do evaluations.”

A fourth principal, Mario Fernandez, called the evaluation process a
product of “ludicrous, shallow thinking. They’re expecting a tornado to
go through a junkyard and have a brand new Mercedes pop up.”

My school board member-friend concluded his email with this: “I can’t
escape the conclusion that those of us who are expected to follow
through on decisions that have been made for us are doing something
ethically questionable.”

He’s wrong. What they’re being made to do isn’t ethically questionable.
It’s ethically unacceptable. Ethically reprehensible. Ethically
indefensible.

How many of the approximately 100,000 school principals in the U.S.
would join the revolt if their ethical principles trumped their fears of
retribution? Why haven’t they been asked?

President Obama makes economic sense

2011-12-08T19:15:00.000-08:00

Osawatamie, Kansas. Dec.6,2011.

Will an Incompetent European Central Bank be Allowed to Wreck the World Economy?

2011-12-07T19:45:00.000-08:00

Will an Incompetent European Central Bank be Allowed to Wreck the World Economy?

Dean Baker.

Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010

2011-12-07T17:18:00.000-08:00

Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010

Prosecute the bank CEOs and Wall Street

2011-12-05T20:31:00.001-08:00

Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” got tired of waiting for the JusticeDepartment to prosecute the big banks that caused the financial crisis. They asked the questions that the media has been avoiding.

Robert Scheer. You can arrest an idea. On TruthDig.

"For a confirmation of that point, Ialso intended to present the mayor with the transcript of U.S. District JudgeJed S. Rakoff’s ruling this week rejecting the sweetheart deal between the SECand Citigroup. The settlement, one of dozens like it offered to the banks,would have let Citigroup off the hook for a pittance in fines in return forclosing cases involving immense corruption on the part of the bankers, whowould not have to admit guilt for their crimes.

And crimes they clearly are, far beyondthe scope of pitching a tent in a public park. As Judge Rakoff stated, theSecurities and Exchange Commission has charged Citigroup with “a substantialsecurities fraud” in the sale of a billion dollars’ worth of toxic securitiesthat were designed to fail and which the bank had bet against. Rakoff, who hashandled a number of these cases, complained that Citigroup, like the othermajor banks, is a recidivist. Citigroup had already paid fines for four similarscams. The judge observed that “although this would appear tantamount to anallegation of knowing and fraudulent intent, the SEC, for reasons of its own,chose to charge Citigroup only with negligence” despite the far more seriouscharges called for in securities law.

The failure of the SEC or any othergovernment agency to hold the banks accountable provides the essentialjustification for citizen action of the sort the Occupy movement has offered.In his concluding summary, Rakoff stated: “Finally, in any case like this thattouches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have sodepressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding publicinterest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, andtruth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation,apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found.”

Why School Choice Fails

2011-12-05T15:59:00.001-08:00

Op.Ed. New York Times

Natalie Hopkinson.

IF you want to see the direction that education reform is taking the country, pay a visit to my leafy, majority-black neighborhood in Washington. While we have lived in the same house since our 11-year-old son was born, he’s been assigned to three different elementary schools as one after the other has been shuttered. Now it’s time for middle school, and there’s been no neighborhood option available.

Meanwhile, across Rock Creek Park in a wealthy, majority-white community, there is a sparkling new neighborhood middle school, with rugby, fencing, an international baccalaureate curriculum and all the other amenities that make people pay top dollar to live there.

Such inequities are the perverse result of a “reform” process intended to bring choice and accountability to the school system. Instead, it has destroyed community-based education for working-class families, even as it has funneled resources toward a few better-off, exclusive, institutions.

My neighborhood’s last free-standing middle school was closed in 2008, part of a round of closures by then Mayor Adrian Fenty and his schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee. The pride and gusto with which they dismantled those institutions was shameful, but I don’t blame them. The closures were the inevitable outcome of policies hatched years before.

In 1995 the Republican-led Congress, ignoring the objections of local leadership, put in motion one of the country’s strongest reform policies for Washington: if a school was deemed failing, students could transfer schools, opt to attend a charter school or receive a voucher to attend a private school.

The idea was to introduce competition; good schools would survive; bad ones would disappear. It effectively created a second education system, which now enrolls nearly half the city’s public school students. The charters consistently perform worse than the traditional schools, yet they are rarely closed.

Meanwhile, failing neighborhood schools, depleted of students, were shut down. Invariably, schools that served the poorest families got the ax — partly because those were the schools where students struggled the most, and partly because the parents of those students had the least power.

Competition produces winners and losers; I get that. Indeed, the rhetoric of school choice can be seductive to angst-filled middle-class parents like myself. We crunch the data and believe that, with enough elbow grease, we can make the system work for us. Naturally, I’ve only considered high-performing schools for my children, some of them public, some charter, some parochial, all outside our neighborhood.

But I’ve come to realize that this brand of school reform is a great deal only if you live in a wealthy neighborhood. You buy a house, and access to a good school comes with it. Whether you choose to enroll there or not, the public investment in neighborhood schools only helps your property values.

For the rest of us, it’s a cynical game. There aren’t enough slots in the best neighborhood and charter schools. So even for those of us lucky ones with cars and school-data spreadsheets, our options are mediocre at best.

In the meantime, the neighborhood schools are dying. After Ms. Rhee closed our first neighborhood school, the students were assigned to an elementary school connected to a homeless shelter. Then that closed, and I watched the children get shuffled again.

Earlier this year, when we were searching for a middle school for my son — 11 is a vulnerable age for anyone — our public options were even grimmer. I could have sent him to one of the newly consolidated kindergarten-to-eighth-grade campuses in my neighborhood, with low test scores and no algebra or foreign languages. We could enter a lottery for a spot in another charter or out-of-boundary middle school, competing against families all over the city.

The system recently floated a plan for yet another round of closings, with a proposal for new magnet middle school programs in my neighborhood, none of which would open in time for my son. These proposals, like much of reform in Washington, are aimed at some speculative future demographic, while doing nothing for the children already here. In the meantime, enrollment, and the best teachers, continue to go to the whitest, wealthiest communities.

The situation for Washington’s working- and middle-class families may be bleak, but we are hardly alone. Despite the lack of proof that school-choice policies work, they are gaining popularity in communities nationwide. Like us, those places will face a stark decision: Do they want equitable investment in community education, or do they want to hand it over to private schools and charters? Let’s stop pretending we can fairly do both. As long as we do, some will keep winning, but many of us will lose.

Natalie Hopkinson is the author of the forthcoming book “Go-Go Live: The Musical Life and Death of a Chocolate City.”

The Greatest Hoax in the History of Money: The Fed, the Banks, the Lies | California Progress Report

2011-12-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

The Greatest Hoax in the History of Money: The Fed, the Banks, the Lies | California Progress Report

Major unions said to back Brown's conservative corporate friendly tax plan

2011-12-05T12:09:00.000-08:00

California Progress Report

Unions seem to back Brown's tax plan rather than efforts to tax the rich.
See article by Randy Shaw

Beyond the Swindle of the Corporate University: Higher Education in the Service of Democracy | Truthout

2011-12-05T09:13:00.000-08:00

Beyond the Swindle of the Corporate University: Higher Education in the Service of Democracy | Truthout

Henry Giroux. this provides an important context for the decision by the College of Education at Sacramento State to dissolve the department of Bilingual/Multicultural Education.

The economic crisis continues

2011-12-04T19:41:00.001-08:00

As the video above illustrates, wecontinue to have an economic crisis in the nation. While Wall Street has recovered and returned toprofitability, working people continue to suffer 15 million unemployed with at least 10 million more underemployed. It is more than acrisis - the reality is that the financial class has looted the U.S.economy. They took 13 trilliondollars out of the economy andcaused 4 million people to lose their homes and another 4.5 million to fall into foreclosure. Millions have lost their unemployment benefits and theirhealth care. See the story below from Bloomberg news of how the banks borrowed7.7 $ Trillion dollars .

Weshould have recovered from the economic collapse by now, but Republicans blockall efforts to stimulate the economy. It is simply not true, not accurate, that we are broke. California remains the richest state inthe richest nation in the world. We have a crisis because the richest 0.1% are making enormous profits and they are not paying a fair share oftaxes. Many of the largestcorporations and the richest people pay no taxes at all. They are not paying taxes for schools,police, roads, bridges, fire protection and basic services. Responding to arecession by budget cuts is self defeating. All you have to do is to look at Ireland, Greece, and GreatBritain to see what follows. It is a cycle down. We learned thisduring the Great Depression – its called Keynesianism.

Weshould be investing in re building our crumbling infrastructure and putting teachers, cops, andchildrens protective workers back to work.

Richard Wolff: explains the U.S. and Euro zone crises

2011-12-03T21:06:00.000-08:00

Massachusetts Sues 5 Major Banks Over Foreclosure Practices

2011-12-03T15:34:00.001-08:00

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON. New York Times. Dec. 2, 2011.

Citing extensive abuses of troubled borrowers across Massachusetts, the state’s attorney general sued the nation’s five largest mortgage lenders on Thursday, seeking relief for consumers hurt by what she called unfair and deceptive business practices.

In addition to creating a new and significant legal headache for the banks named in the suit — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage — the Massachusetts action diminishes the likelihood of a comprehensive settlement between the banks and federal and state officials to resolve foreclosure improprieties...

The attorney general, Martha Coakley, and her investigators contend that the banks improperly foreclosed on troubled borrowers by relying on fraudulent legal documentation or by failing to modify loans for homeowners after promising to do so. The suit also contends that the banks’ use of MERS “corrupted” the state’s public land recording system by not registering legal transfers properly.

“There is no question that the deceptive and unlawful conduct by Wall Street and the large banks played a central role in this crisis through predatory lending and securitization of those loans,” Ms. Coakley said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. “The banks may think they are too big to fail or too big to care about the impact of their actions, but we believe they are not too big to have to obey the law.”

Ms. Coakley has been among the most aggressive state regulators in her pursuit of financial institutions involved in the credit crisis. In addition to her inquiry into foreclosure improprieties in Massachusetts, she has also conducted far-reaching investigations into predatory lending and securitization abuses.

Since 2009, Ms. Coakley has extracted more than $600 million in restitution and penalties from lawsuits against mortgage originators like Option One and Fremont Investment and Loan and Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which bundled loans into mortgage securities.

-----

This is a good start. the next step is to prosecute the CEO's of the major banks. Only 2 have been prosecuted for the fraud of $14 Trillion. Based upon the Savings and Loan fraud of the 1980's, at least 1,000 should be going to jail. Ask your Congressperson why no one is going to jail.
Robert Scheer. You can arrest an idea.

"For a confirmation of that point, I also intended to present the mayor with the transcript of U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s ruling this week rejecting the sweetheart deal between the SEC and Citigroup. The settlement, one of dozens like it offered to the banks, would have let Citigroup off the hook for a pittance in fines in return for closing cases involving immense corruption on the part of the bankers, who would not have to admit guilt for their crimes.

And crimes they clearly are, far beyond the scope of pitching a tent in a public park. As Judge Rakoff stated, the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Citigroup with “a substantial securities fraud” in the sale of a billion dollars’ worth of toxic securities that were designed to fail and which the bank had bet against. Rakoff, who has handled a number of these cases, complained that Citigroup, like the other major banks, is a recidivist. Citigroup had already paid fines for four similar scams. The judge observed that “although this would appear tantamount to an allegation of knowing and fraudulent intent, the SEC, for reasons of its own, chose to charge Citigroup only with negligence” despite the far more serious charges called for in securities law.

The failure of the SEC or any other government agency to hold the banks accountable provides the essential justification for citizen action of the sort the Occupy movement has offered. In his concluding summary, Rakoff stated: “Finally, in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth. In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers. Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found.”

"I'll Occupy" Recruitment Song: The 99 is Pissed and We Will Not Be Dism...

2011-12-01T11:27:00.000-08:00

US Fed Buys Europe Some Time

2011-11-30T21:57:00.000-08:00

US Fed Buys Europe Some Time

Welcome Fed’s Intervention in European Markets, But Say It is Not Enough

2011-11-30T21:11:00.000-08:00

CEPR Co-Directors Welcome Fed’s Intervention in European Markets, But Say It is Not Enough

Choosing Democracy

Bee editor Pia Lopez gets it wrong about schools -again

U.S. Schools Not Failing - data

Teachers and the escape from poverty

The True Cost of High School Dropouts

Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson protested for corporate agenda

Kevin Johnson and Students First ?

Tucson Arizona bans Mexican American Studies

Arizona School District Wipes Latino American History Off the Map | Common Dreams

Diane Ravitch - NCLB

Governor Brown continues austerity program and failure

Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline

What Did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Say About War Costs?

Remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Tumultuous Times for Democracy Compelled Moyers' Return to TV | Common Dreams

Who’s afraid of “The Tempest”?

California Schools get D in achievement

Education as an issue

Diane Ravitch: The Death and Life of the American School System

From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street and Beyond

Oppose Bankster Fraud

Ten Years of No Child Left Behind

California history textbooks ignore Mexican American History

Corporations Sell Out Schools

Selling Schools Out

By Lee FangPosted on November 17, 2011, Printed on January 9, 2012http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/

© 2012 The Investigative Fund. All rights reserved.View t

Obama's new Chief of Staff: lost millions at Citi, doesn't think de-regulation lead to crisis

Governor Brown promotes race to the bottom

Privatization & The War Against California Teachers-Fired CTC Attorney ...

Governor Proposes Deep Budget Cuts

The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal | Common Dreams

The Delusional Assumptions of Capitalism | Common Dreams

Trampling out the Vintage ? a review of a book on Cesar Chavez

Romney touts dismantling of Bilingual Education

Romney Touts Role in Dismantling Bilingual Education in Mass.

Greece, Ireland, Italy, California -Keynes was Right

The Assault on Teachers' Unions

Naomi Klein interview with Occupy Vancouver

Brown Announces Some, Not All, Budget Trigger Cuts

California Progress Report

The Corporations That Occupy Congress | Common Dreams

Robert Reich (The Defining Issue: Not Government's Size, but Who It's For)

Throw the bankers in jail !

Country Wide settles fraud complaint for $335 million

Wa Mu collapsed, no prosecution of bankers

A Nation's Education Left Behind | Common Dreams

The Incredible Shrinking State Dollars for K-12 Schools | California Progress Report

Trigger cuts are budget cuts

The Few, the Proud, the Very Rich | California Progress Report

Further budget cuts are coming - Severe

Jeffrey Sachs- Thats not a free market

Current tests. Ludicrous, shallow thinking, dysfunctional

President Obama makes economic sense

Will an Incompetent European Central Bank be Allowed to Wreck the World Economy?

Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010

Prosecute the bank CEOs and Wall Street

Why School Choice Fails

The Greatest Hoax in the History of Money: The Fed, the Banks, the Lies | California Progress Report

Major unions said to back Brown's conservative corporate friendly tax plan

Beyond the Swindle of the Corporate University: Higher Education in the Service of Democracy | Truthout

The economic crisis continues

Richard Wolff: explains the U.S. and Euro zone crises

Massachusetts Sues 5 Major Banks Over Foreclosure Practices

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON. New York Times. Dec. 2, 2011.

"I'll Occupy" Recruitment Song: The 99 is Pissed and We Will Not Be Dism...

US Fed Buys Europe Some Time

Welcome Fed’s Intervention in European Markets, But Say It is Not Enough

By Lee Fang
Posted on November 17, 2011, Printed on January 9, 2012
http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/

© 2012 The Investigative Fund. All rights reserved.
View t