Personal Opinion Paper: Exterminating Public Education
(http://www.ncte.org/about/issues/slate/126874.htm)
Personal Opinion Paper
Exterminating Public Education
Jack Gerson and Steven Miller, Oakland Public Schools, California
“The merits of a marketplace model for public education have been among the most prominent themes in education policy discussions over the last two decades. The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, popularly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has accelerated the trend toward private, for-profit activities in public education.”
--Alex Molnar, “For-Profit K–12 Education: Through the Glass Darkly,” Chapter 5, Educational Entrepreneurship, Frederick M. Hess, editor. Harvard Education Press, 2006.
The corporate campaign to privatize public education entered a new phase on December 14, 2006 when the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce released its book-length report, Tough Choices or Tough Times, published by the National Center on Education and the Economy. (The executive summary is available at http://www.skillcommission.org.) This is the definitive corporate statement on public education. It is a statement of intent.
Tough Choices or Tough Times calls for, among other things: making all public schools into something beyond charter schools, something called “Contract Schools”; ending high school for many students after the 10th grade; ending teacher pension plans and cutting back on teacher health benefits; introducing merit pay and other pay differentials for teachers; eliminating the powers of local school boards (with the “public” schools to be owned by private companies and all regulation done by the states).
These measures would cut the heart out of public education, would severely penalize students, and would deal a heavy blow to teacher unions. No one should take the report lightly:
• It was funded by some of the world’s richest and most powerful entities (most notably, Bill Gates and his GatesFoundation). It represents their interests and, indeed, puts forward the current consensus
recommendations of U.S. corporations and politicians.
• It was issued by a group with a track record: the last report issued by the Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce helped lay the groundwork for No Child Left Behind.
Gates
Bill Gates has apparently decided to take charge of public education in the U.S., whether we like it or not. NYU professor Diane Ravitch, writing in the July 3, Los Angeles Times, explains that:
“With the ability to hand out more than $1 billion or more every year to U.S. educators without any external review, the Gates Foundation looms larger in the eyes of school leaders than even the U.S. Department of Education, which, by comparison, has only about $20 million in truly discretionary funds. The Department may have sticks, but the Foundation has almost all the carrots.
“In light of the size of the Foundation's endowment, Bill Gates is now the nation's superintendent of schools. He can support whatever he wants, based on any theory or philosophy that appeals to him. We must all watch for signs and portents to decipher what lies in store for American education.”
Ravitch calls Gates “The Nation’s Superintendent of Schools.” But the nation didn’t elect Gates to run our schools, much less to convert public schools to contract schools, to kick millions of kids out of school after 10th grade, or to undermine teacher unions.
The Commission
In 1990 the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce issued the influential report titled America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! This report argued that the U.S. could compete in the global capital and jobs markets only if American public education adopted a strongly standards-based approach that used standardized tests to enforce accountability of students and teachers. That report too was a statement of intent. In its wake followed No Child Left Behind with its emphasis on high stakes testing (with ridiculously unrealistic and statistically meaningless targets for student reading and math scores). NCLB is an unfunded mandate that strangles public schools and leads to school closures and privatizations.
The standards-based, high stakes testing approach espoused by the 1990 Commission report and executed by NCLB has failed miserably—so miserably that it is finally losing much of its support (NEA and AFT have grown increasingly critical; Democratic and Republican politicians are expressing their doubts). In fact, NCLB is up for renewal this year by the now Democratically controlled Congress. But rather than fade quietly into the night, the folks who brought us the 1990 report are back with a new plan for public education.
The so-called Skills Commission is not a public body. The report is not the result of testimony and analysis presented democratically in open meetings, nor is it the synthesis of a public analysis of our schools. It is a corporate vision of what corporations want. It is an attempt to seize the debate about public education and channel it in very specific directions.
The report is bipartisan in the sense that it represents a broad consensus of the U.S. corporate elite. It was funded by Bill Gates (the world’s richest man) and his Gates Foundation; the Hewlett (as in Hewlett-Packard) Foundation; the Casey Foundation; the Lumina Foundation. The Commission includes two former U.S. Secretaries of Education--Rod Paige (Bush Jr.'s) and Richard Riley (Clinton's); a former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Ray Marshall (LBJ’s); the heads of the NYC and Washington D.C. public schools (respectively, Joel Klein and Clifford Janey); the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education (David Driscoll); the former head of the Boston schools (Thomas Payzant); the head of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (Harry Spence); the "President Emeritus" of the Communications Workers of America (Morton Bahr); the head of the Urban League (Marc Morial); the head of the National Association of Manufacturers (John Engler, formerly governor of Michigan); major corporate players (e.g., Henry Schatz, former CEO of Lucent); and a few other prominent politicians and academics.
What’s their rationale?
"We" (U.S. capital) need a highly skilled and highly creative work force to compete in the world market. The report admits that the 1990 report’s program of emphasis on standards-based learning discouraged creativity in favor of rote learning. And, the new report says the 1990 report’s emphasis on educating for high skills is inadequate for the current global economy, where the only way to thrive will be to always be the first to come up with new technological breakthroughs.
This vision of a dog-eat-dog world is, unfortunately, an accurate portrayal of the dynamics of global capital. And, as the new report admits (and even explains), automation and digitization have made it possible for U.S. companies to export almost all manufacturing and many service jobs, skilled and unskilled alike: anything that can be routinized will be digitized, automated, and outsourced. But the folks behind the report—Gates, Engler, now head of the National Association of Manufacturers, et al.— are the very folks who shift capital around the globe, to wherever labor is cheapest and profits are highest. And that’s the real source of tough times.
Tough Choices or Tough Times
Schools
The Commission writes:
"First, the role of school boards would change. Schools would no longer be owned by local school districts. Instead, schools would be operated by independent contractors, many of them limited-liability corporations owned and run by teachers. The primary role of school district central offices would be to write performance contracts with the operators of these schools, monitor their operations, cancel or decide not to renew the contracts of those providers that did not perform well, and find others that could do better….The contract schools would be public schools, subject to all of the safety, curriculum, testing, and other accountability of public schools".
(“Executive Summary,” p. 16, emphasis added)
This is exactly the same language of de-regulation and “letting the free market decide” that gave us ENRON, the rape of California by energy companies and the trillion dollar Savings & Loan scandals of the early 1990's. Re-stating that contract schools are public schools is an attempt to obfuscate the real intent. If simple “regulation and accountability” mean public power, then Exxon is a public corporation too!
Basically, the Commission wants to change state education codes to accommodate the kinds of exceptions and practices currently being piloted by charter schools. In effect, all public schools would be run like today's charter schools—run by private companies, with "flexible" hours, longer school days, longer school years, no teacher seniority rights, no pensions, limited health benefits, etc. Or, to put it another way: ALL public schools would be charter schools—only the charters would no longer be needed, because the charter exceptions would be written right into the state education codes. The report calls their proposed schools “contract schools,” but it’s clear that these are basically charter schools writ large.
This is so clear that the two labor members of the commission, Morton Bahr and Dal Lawrence (past president of the Toledo Federation of Teachers), wrote a short statement registering “concern” that “The design for contract schools can become an open door for profiteers,” citing the example of Ohio, “where charter school legislation has resulted in almost universal poor student achievement, minimal accountability, and yet considerable profits for charter operators, many with peculiar political agendas.”
The Commission claims it will save $60 billion on K–12 education. It does not mention that corporations today already feast on a trillion dollar a year market based on privatizing public schools and their services. This is the corporate plan to expand that market. It is a vision of schools as “profit centers,” run by “entrepreneurs,” where children are commodities. The role of the public is reduced from having the final power over schools to being consumers. Let the buyer beware.
Students
Students would face severe tracking that would end high school for millions of children by the 10th grade, by the ages of 15 or 16. This would be enforced by "benchmark" high school exit exams to be administered in the 10th grade, created at the state level. The report explicitly calls for these tests to assess high school grade level skills, not the middle school skills that are typically “measured” by routine high school exit exams. In other words, the Commission demands tests pitched well beyond the current level in many states.
(1) Students who do poorly get tossed out of school. The "Commissioners" argue that students can retake the tests any number of times, so if they're really motivated they may eventually pass, albeit years later, and, essentially, on their own.
(2) Students who do OK go to community college or technical school. The door is left ajar for the possibility of letting some students stick around high school for another couple of years to prepare for university. Is this an escape clause for mediocre but rich suburban students?
(3) Students who do well can go on to university.
The "Commissioners" predict that 95% of students will pass the exams because they will be motivated, and because they will be taught by better teachers. [Right. And No Child is Left Behind.] In fact, things will be so splendid that remediation won't be needed—you see, students will be taught right in the lower grades and will get it right the first time. In practice, corporations want to dump special education and intervention programs, just like they dumped bilingual education.
The report argues that students must become proficient in ALL areas: math, science, humanities, social sciences. And it says that education must emphasize concepts and creativity, not just rote learning. The Commission explicitly criticizes current standardized tests in that regard. (So high stakes testing may go down in flames. It was always just a means to an end—the end being the demolition of public education with the victimization of poor children.) The new goal of all students being polymaths is absurd. As we all know, everyone has different strengths and abilities. When exactly did we abandon the decades-long vision of public education? This vision guaranteed everyone an equal, quality public education precisely so that they could be all that they could be!
Teachers
States supposedly will increase teacher pay at expense of pensions and health benefits. The report argues that teacher compensation is "backloaded" (heavy on benefits, light on salary) which favors veteran teachers over new teachers. They want to turn this on its head and propose "frontloading" (increase salary, eliminate pensions, and cut health benefits).
This will victimize veteran teachers and generally eliminate traditional defined-benefit pensions. The result will be to accelerate the already unacceptably high teacher turnover rate, which is especially destabilizing to inner city schools and communities. The report's rationale that this will improve instruction rings hollow for at least two reasons: a) studies show high correlation between teacher's experience and student's achievement, so chasing out veterans will hurt students and learning; and (b) corporations are trying to eliminate pensions and health benefits everywhere—not just in education.
2006
The underlying assumptions in the report reveal the typical “bait and switch” public policies that have ruined public access to health care, created NAFTA, and have led to the war in Iraq. The report notes (page 5) that corporations everywhere now have access to a worldwide workforce. It states, “Today, Indian engineers make $7500 a year against $45,000 for an American engineer with the same qualifications…why would the world’s employers pay us more than they have to pay the Indians to do their work?” Unfortunately, they have no real answer for this question.
The significance of the report is that the march towards the privatization of public schools came completely out of the closet in 2006. No longer is it a hidden agenda. Now the open campaigning will begin, the lobbying and bribery will ensue, and laws will be debated to change public schools in the corporate direction.
There was plenty of evidence for this in 2006. The public schools of New Orleans were almost completely privatized, charter schools are appearing everywhere, the Mayor of Los Angeles is trying to take over the public schools to facilitate charter school corporations, and Joel Klein, Chancellor of New York City Public Schools (a public office and public trust), sits as a commissioner on the (private) “Skills Commission.”
Meanwhile, the Broad Foundation—with an openly corporate agenda—has its fingers in a hundred public school systems. Eli Broad joins with fellow billionaires like Gates and Donald Fisher of The Gap as “philanthropists” who have suddenly become civic-minded and want the best for the nation’s children. During 2006 individual billionaires put billions of dollars into foundations to control social policy in our country.
Few people are aware that the great state university systems, including publicly funded institutions like the University of Illinois, the University of California, Michigan State, etc., were essentially privatized by corporations in the ‘90s. Virtually all of them now receive the majority of their funding from “partnerships” with corporations. Now corporations are drawing a bead on the country’s school system for children, for people under 18 years old.
Engineering the Future
How we reckon with the report’s impact, how we learn the lessons, will help bring to pass one kind of future or another. The implications for our country are obvious. Teachers, and everyone, must begin speaking in the name of all society. Corporations have no problem saying this is how things should go. Why should they have the predominant voice?
One thing is certain. The very richest Americans, all based in hugely powerful and influential corporations, are proposing that the United States, the first country to develop free, universal public education, now abandon it.
Isn’t this worthy of some public discussion and debate? Call it what you want, when corporations meet privately to determine what to do with a public institution, one that mainly serves the people who must work for said corporations, this smells a lot like class warfare. You can bet the campaign to implement contract schools will soon be pushed by the corporate media to turn this into public policy. We will be sold on it with minimal public discussion, without letting the people whose lives will be most altered by this public choice have much say over it. Then suddenly the laws will have changed.
Let’s accept the challenge. Let’s open up the discussion of what kind of society the majority of people need and put it on the table. Let’s make it as open and as public as possible. If we fail in this, we will pay a bitter price. If corporations can openly call for re-engineering society, then it is appropriate to discuss what kind of changes shall be made, whose interests they will be made in, and who shall benefit.
Since the corporate attack is openly against the public nature of education, there is no way to protect our hard-won gains towards equal and public education without defending and expanding the very nature of what “the public” means. It’s not just corporations who have the right to put the reorganization of society on the table. Let’s look behind the hype and see who are the winners and the losers here. It’s not hard to do.
The privatization of public education already results in the transfer of tens of millions of dollars in public assets into corporate hands without a discussion of compensation or, still more fundamentally, whether society should allow public education to fall into private, corporate hands.
Public schools originally arose in opposition to the child labor of the 1830's, where the only children who attended school were those whose families could afford it. What will happen when schools are completely privatized and only the rich can afford to give their children an education?
As high technology inevitably replaces jobs, corporations that profit from human exploitation will simply no longer have a need for an educated workforce, or even much of a workforce at all. Public education must be guaranteed as a human right, just as are the rights to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and culture.
Many people confuse the Apocalypse with Armageddon. Armageddon is the final battle between good and evil, but it is the end of the process. The Apocalypse arises first and plays a formative role in the events that follow. The Apocalypse means, in Greek, “the raising of the veil.” This is when fog lifts, the moment when things finally become clear, indicating the path ahead.
As always in human affairs, it’s up to us and to what we do. There can be no question that the world is being rapidly transformed. That transformation is not the property of corporations. Let’s make our future into our property—public property.
Sources
Tough Choices or Tough Times. The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. http://skillscommission.org/executive.htm
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Unions endorse Obama
WASHINGTON (February 21, 2008 AP) -- The new Change to Win labor federation gave its first presidential endorsement to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday, saying its 6 million members could help push him over the top and into the general election as the Democratic nominee.
"We think we can make a difference," chair Anna Burger said. "We think it's time to bring this nomination to a close."
The endorsement came after a teleconference between Change to Win's leaders and the heads of the seven unions that make up the federation. The federation's members will now head to the crucial election states of Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island for the upcoming March 4 primaries, as well as Pennsylvania on April 22.
Change to Win has 175,000 members in Ohio, 60,000 in Texas and 25,000 in Rhode Island, Burger said. Besides leafletting, knocking on doors and advocating for Obama at workplaces, Burger said she expected more than 100,000 Change to Win voters to participate in the Ohio primary alone.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost the last 11 presidential contests to Obama.
"There is certainly a movement building here," Burger said. "The winds of change are blowing and they're blowing for Barack Obama."
The federation's endorsement was more about approving of Obama than disapproving of Clinton, Burger said, but she did note that NAFTA was passed while Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, was in office. Unions have been highly critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it disproportionally hurt working-class voters. Clinton has become a NAFTA critic even though she has previously helped champion the measure as a product of her husband's presidency.
"Barack Obama has a history of standing up for working-class families," said Burger, who called him the strongest candidate for Democrats in the general election.
Four of Change to Win's unions already had endorsed Obama, with the Teamsters endorsing him Wednesday. UNITE HERE, the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers also have endorsed Obama.
The federation's endorsement now means those unions will coordinate their efforts for Obama and have access to Change to Win resources. "We think we can make a huge difference for him," Burger said.
The vote was unanimous although the United Farm Workers, the Laborers' International Union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners had abstained. The farmworkers already had endorsed Clinton; the Carpenters originally endorsed John Edwards, who has dropped out, and the Laborers have yet to make an endorsement. The three unions released the federation to work for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.
"Everybody agreed it was time for us to move forward," Burger said. She noted that none of the abstaining unions objected to the endorsement and the United Farm Workers is based mostly in California, which voted on Feb. 5.
The Laborers union will survey its members next week to see if either candidate has support of 60 percent of the union, said Terence M. O'Sullivan, the union's president.
The unions in the Change to Win federation broke from the AFL-CIO in 2005 over internal disagreements on how best to build organized labor's membership and political clout.
The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, has not endorsed any candidate in the Democratic primary, although it has allowed its 56 member unions to make individual endorsements. The AFL-CIO's executive council will meet in San Diego March 3-5, and a decision could be announced about whether the 10.5-million member federation will endorse.
Clinton has been endorsed by 12 AFL-CIO unions, as well as the United Farm Workers. Obama has been endorsed by three AFL-CIO unions: the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Transport Workers Union and the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters. He also has the backing of the independent National Weather Service Employees Organization.
"We think we can make a difference," chair Anna Burger said. "We think it's time to bring this nomination to a close."
The endorsement came after a teleconference between Change to Win's leaders and the heads of the seven unions that make up the federation. The federation's members will now head to the crucial election states of Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island for the upcoming March 4 primaries, as well as Pennsylvania on April 22.
Change to Win has 175,000 members in Ohio, 60,000 in Texas and 25,000 in Rhode Island, Burger said. Besides leafletting, knocking on doors and advocating for Obama at workplaces, Burger said she expected more than 100,000 Change to Win voters to participate in the Ohio primary alone.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost the last 11 presidential contests to Obama.
"There is certainly a movement building here," Burger said. "The winds of change are blowing and they're blowing for Barack Obama."
The federation's endorsement was more about approving of Obama than disapproving of Clinton, Burger said, but she did note that NAFTA was passed while Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, was in office. Unions have been highly critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it disproportionally hurt working-class voters. Clinton has become a NAFTA critic even though she has previously helped champion the measure as a product of her husband's presidency.
"Barack Obama has a history of standing up for working-class families," said Burger, who called him the strongest candidate for Democrats in the general election.
Four of Change to Win's unions already had endorsed Obama, with the Teamsters endorsing him Wednesday. UNITE HERE, the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers also have endorsed Obama.
The federation's endorsement now means those unions will coordinate their efforts for Obama and have access to Change to Win resources. "We think we can make a huge difference for him," Burger said.
The vote was unanimous although the United Farm Workers, the Laborers' International Union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners had abstained. The farmworkers already had endorsed Clinton; the Carpenters originally endorsed John Edwards, who has dropped out, and the Laborers have yet to make an endorsement. The three unions released the federation to work for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.
"Everybody agreed it was time for us to move forward," Burger said. She noted that none of the abstaining unions objected to the endorsement and the United Farm Workers is based mostly in California, which voted on Feb. 5.
The Laborers union will survey its members next week to see if either candidate has support of 60 percent of the union, said Terence M. O'Sullivan, the union's president.
The unions in the Change to Win federation broke from the AFL-CIO in 2005 over internal disagreements on how best to build organized labor's membership and political clout.
The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, has not endorsed any candidate in the Democratic primary, although it has allowed its 56 member unions to make individual endorsements. The AFL-CIO's executive council will meet in San Diego March 3-5, and a decision could be announced about whether the 10.5-million member federation will endorse.
Clinton has been endorsed by 12 AFL-CIO unions, as well as the United Farm Workers. Obama has been endorsed by three AFL-CIO unions: the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the Transport Workers Union and the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters. He also has the backing of the independent National Weather Service Employees Organization.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
California budget crisis
GROWING-ECONOMY
Dos and Dont's of Coping With State Budget Crises
The budget news is grim in some states. Twenty states face a combined budget shortfall of at least $35 billion for 2009, according to analysis by the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities (see CBPP graph below). Another 8 states will likely have budget problems next year or the year after.
The impulse by some state leaders is to slash state spending, but that could be disastrous for the economy if multiple states lay off state workers and cut-off help to those in need just as private spending is falling.
In fact, the right kind of revenue increases may be just what is needed for economic recovery. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orzag, now the director of the Congressional Budget Office, have emphasized, budget cuts during a recession will usually hurt state economies far more than tax increases, since cuts come dollar-for-dollar out of the economy, while tax increases, especially if targeted at the wealthy, often "reduce saving rather than consumption, lessening its impact on the economy in the short run."
This Dispatch is designed to be a primer on what states can do to ease the burden on working families in distress, while asking wealthier taxpayers and corporations to shoulder their fair share during tough times.
Read More
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/dos_and_donts_o.html
Dos and Dont's of Coping With State Budget Crises
The budget news is grim in some states. Twenty states face a combined budget shortfall of at least $35 billion for 2009, according to analysis by the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities (see CBPP graph below). Another 8 states will likely have budget problems next year or the year after.
The impulse by some state leaders is to slash state spending, but that could be disastrous for the economy if multiple states lay off state workers and cut-off help to those in need just as private spending is falling.
In fact, the right kind of revenue increases may be just what is needed for economic recovery. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orzag, now the director of the Congressional Budget Office, have emphasized, budget cuts during a recession will usually hurt state economies far more than tax increases, since cuts come dollar-for-dollar out of the economy, while tax increases, especially if targeted at the wealthy, often "reduce saving rather than consumption, lessening its impact on the economy in the short run."
This Dispatch is designed to be a primer on what states can do to ease the burden on working families in distress, while asking wealthier taxpayers and corporations to shoulder their fair share during tough times.
Read More
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/dos_and_donts_o.html
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
School restructuring not working in California
Restructuring Gains Scant in California, Study Finds
By Linda Jacobson
In a report that raises questions about school restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act, a national research and advocacy group says that few of the hundreds of failing California schools that enter restructuring each year pull their test scores up enough to exit the process.
The Washington-based Center on Education Policy found that in the 2006-07 school year, only 33 schools—or 5 percent of the more than 700 schools that were in restructuring that year—made enough progress to leave what is known as “program improvement.”
The center, which has followed the restructuring process in California since 2004, is also monitoring such efforts in Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio.
California, however, provides especially “useful lessons” on restructuring, the authors of the report say, because it has such a large number of schools in that phase—1,013 this school year. It also started implementing its standards-based accountability system earlier than most other states, and it even identified schools for improvement before the NCLB act became law six years ago.
“Federal restructuring strategies have very rarely helped schools improve student achievement enough to make [adequate yearly progress] or exit restructuring,” says the report, released Feb. 8. “Our findings in California point to the need to rethink restructuring across the nation.”
Titled “Managing More Than a Thousand Remodeling Projects,” the report comes as California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell prepares to present the state board of education with more details of a plan to intervene in 98 school districts that are facing sanctions under the law because they have not met student-achievement targets for at least five years.
During his State of the State address in January, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, announced that California would be “the first state to use its powers given to us under this No Child Left Behind Act to turn these districts around.”
He has laid out a “differentiated” approach that ranges from simply revising local-education-agency plans in some districts that came close to meeting their goals to what he called “abolishing” districts in the most extreme cases.
Menu of Options
The federal law seeks to hold schools and districts accountable for their performance by requiring annual student progress on tests of reading and mathematics and providing for a range of consequences for failure to meet achievement targets.
Under the law, schools that enter the restructuring phase have several options available to them, including contracting with an outside organization to run the school, becoming a charter school, replacing the staff, turning operation of the school over to the state, or following “any other major restructuring effort” that is likely to produce significant changes. The remedies for districts are similar.
California schools overwhelmingly are opting for that last choice, the Center on Education Policy study shows. During the 2006-07 school year, 90 percent of the schools in restructuring chose the option of “any other” effort. Such options might include adopting a new curriculum, having teachers reapply for their jobs, or beefing up technology.
At the state school board meeting next month, Mr. O’Connell is expected to provide more details of what he is calling “a system of triage,” which includes first assigning technical-assistance teams to the lowest-performing of the 98 districts.
The state’s involvement would build on some pilot intervention projects already taking place in districts across the state.
Questions about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to step up the restructuring process are numerous, though. Some districts wonder why they are even among those on the list, and others doubt that money will be available to make the plan work when the state is facing a $14 billion deficit for fiscal 2009.
Turnaround Progress
Between the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years, the number of schools in restructuring in California increased to 1,013 from 701.
The percentage of suburban schools in restructuring is rising ‐ 35 percent this school year, compared with 26 percent during the 2005-06 school year.
The percentage of schools that leave restructuring is rising slowly‐ from 3 percent in 2005-06 to 5 percent in 2006-07.
No single federal restructuring strategy seems to be more effective than any other at raising student achievement.
Source: Center on Education Policy
“Who is going to do something, what is it, and who is going to pay for it?” said Merrill Vargo, the executive director of Springboard Schools, a San Francisco-based school improvement organization that has worked with some of the districts on the list.
The governor has said he plans to release $29 million in federal Title I money to help the districts—but until the legislature, which is in a special session, decides how to address the fiscal crisis, lawmakers can’t take action on other issues.
Local educators are hoping the paths chosen by the state for their districts don’t ignore progress already being made.
“We’ve gotten schools out of [program improvement] and we’ve kept schools out of [program improvement],” said Roger Gallizzi, the superintendent of the 22,500-student Palmdale Elementary School District in northern Los Angeles County. “We’ve seen marked improvements in instruction.”
Mr. Gallizzi was one of many superintendents from the 98 districts that recently had the chance to give state board members more of what he termed “qualitative” information about their districts in a series of forums held earlier this month.
His district, he said, has had significant turnover in both administration and the teaching staff. He said he appreciates that the governor’s approach is “not a one-size-fits-all” plan.
“We’re not all in program improvement for the same reasons,” Mr. Gallizzi said.
Hoping for Results
Interviews with district and school administrators conducted for the CEP study showed that most people believed their schools would eventually make their targets for adequate yearly progress, or AYP, a key measure of success under the federal law. Others said that they were using practices that had been successful in similar schools, and that they expected those strategies to help their students as well.
While state officials in California are focusing on restructuring districts, the CEP report offers a few recommendations for how the state could further help schools that have long been at that stage, including providing them with “more guidance on how to actually raise achievement.”
Ms. Vargo said she has found that school officials and teachers have become skilled at analyzing data, but tend to fall down on carrying out their plans.
“The question we ought to worry about,” she said, “is: Does somebody have a plan to help these schools better serve the kids who got up this morning and went to school there?”
Vol. 27 : Education Week. online. Feb. 14, 2008.
By Linda Jacobson
In a report that raises questions about school restructuring under the No Child Left Behind Act, a national research and advocacy group says that few of the hundreds of failing California schools that enter restructuring each year pull their test scores up enough to exit the process.
The Washington-based Center on Education Policy found that in the 2006-07 school year, only 33 schools—or 5 percent of the more than 700 schools that were in restructuring that year—made enough progress to leave what is known as “program improvement.”
The center, which has followed the restructuring process in California since 2004, is also monitoring such efforts in Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio.
California, however, provides especially “useful lessons” on restructuring, the authors of the report say, because it has such a large number of schools in that phase—1,013 this school year. It also started implementing its standards-based accountability system earlier than most other states, and it even identified schools for improvement before the NCLB act became law six years ago.
“Federal restructuring strategies have very rarely helped schools improve student achievement enough to make [adequate yearly progress] or exit restructuring,” says the report, released Feb. 8. “Our findings in California point to the need to rethink restructuring across the nation.”
Titled “Managing More Than a Thousand Remodeling Projects,” the report comes as California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell prepares to present the state board of education with more details of a plan to intervene in 98 school districts that are facing sanctions under the law because they have not met student-achievement targets for at least five years.
During his State of the State address in January, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, announced that California would be “the first state to use its powers given to us under this No Child Left Behind Act to turn these districts around.”
He has laid out a “differentiated” approach that ranges from simply revising local-education-agency plans in some districts that came close to meeting their goals to what he called “abolishing” districts in the most extreme cases.
Menu of Options
The federal law seeks to hold schools and districts accountable for their performance by requiring annual student progress on tests of reading and mathematics and providing for a range of consequences for failure to meet achievement targets.
Under the law, schools that enter the restructuring phase have several options available to them, including contracting with an outside organization to run the school, becoming a charter school, replacing the staff, turning operation of the school over to the state, or following “any other major restructuring effort” that is likely to produce significant changes. The remedies for districts are similar.
California schools overwhelmingly are opting for that last choice, the Center on Education Policy study shows. During the 2006-07 school year, 90 percent of the schools in restructuring chose the option of “any other” effort. Such options might include adopting a new curriculum, having teachers reapply for their jobs, or beefing up technology.
At the state school board meeting next month, Mr. O’Connell is expected to provide more details of what he is calling “a system of triage,” which includes first assigning technical-assistance teams to the lowest-performing of the 98 districts.
The state’s involvement would build on some pilot intervention projects already taking place in districts across the state.
Questions about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to step up the restructuring process are numerous, though. Some districts wonder why they are even among those on the list, and others doubt that money will be available to make the plan work when the state is facing a $14 billion deficit for fiscal 2009.
Turnaround Progress
Between the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years, the number of schools in restructuring in California increased to 1,013 from 701.
The percentage of suburban schools in restructuring is rising ‐ 35 percent this school year, compared with 26 percent during the 2005-06 school year.
The percentage of schools that leave restructuring is rising slowly‐ from 3 percent in 2005-06 to 5 percent in 2006-07.
No single federal restructuring strategy seems to be more effective than any other at raising student achievement.
Source: Center on Education Policy
“Who is going to do something, what is it, and who is going to pay for it?” said Merrill Vargo, the executive director of Springboard Schools, a San Francisco-based school improvement organization that has worked with some of the districts on the list.
The governor has said he plans to release $29 million in federal Title I money to help the districts—but until the legislature, which is in a special session, decides how to address the fiscal crisis, lawmakers can’t take action on other issues.
Local educators are hoping the paths chosen by the state for their districts don’t ignore progress already being made.
“We’ve gotten schools out of [program improvement] and we’ve kept schools out of [program improvement],” said Roger Gallizzi, the superintendent of the 22,500-student Palmdale Elementary School District in northern Los Angeles County. “We’ve seen marked improvements in instruction.”
Mr. Gallizzi was one of many superintendents from the 98 districts that recently had the chance to give state board members more of what he termed “qualitative” information about their districts in a series of forums held earlier this month.
His district, he said, has had significant turnover in both administration and the teaching staff. He said he appreciates that the governor’s approach is “not a one-size-fits-all” plan.
“We’re not all in program improvement for the same reasons,” Mr. Gallizzi said.
Hoping for Results
Interviews with district and school administrators conducted for the CEP study showed that most people believed their schools would eventually make their targets for adequate yearly progress, or AYP, a key measure of success under the federal law. Others said that they were using practices that had been successful in similar schools, and that they expected those strategies to help their students as well.
While state officials in California are focusing on restructuring districts, the CEP report offers a few recommendations for how the state could further help schools that have long been at that stage, including providing them with “more guidance on how to actually raise achievement.”
Ms. Vargo said she has found that school officials and teachers have become skilled at analyzing data, but tend to fall down on carrying out their plans.
“The question we ought to worry about,” she said, “is: Does somebody have a plan to help these schools better serve the kids who got up this morning and went to school there?”
Vol. 27 : Education Week. online. Feb. 14, 2008.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Unstoppable Obama?
Unstoppable Obama
Barbara Ehrenreich
February 14, 2008
When did you begin to think that Obama might be
unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter
started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New
Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a
state still littered with Confederate monuments and
memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two
Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to
report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the
general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is
mysterious and irrational: He's a "rock star," all flash
and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the
New York Times' Paul Krugman, to a "cult of
personality." At best, he's seen as another vague
Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like
optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated
valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he
supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be
promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
And, another view:
The attack of the liberals:
Interesting views on academic cultural myopia.
What's the Matter with Paul Krugman?
Scott Kurashige
Posted February 14, 2008 | 02:56 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
On February 11, Paul Krugman touched off a mini
firestorm with his New York Times column, "Hate Springs
Eternal," which asserted that Obama supporters had been
infected with the disease of Clinton-hating spawned by
the right wing. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness
here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters
of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," wrote
Krugman. Then, came the real fireworks: "I'm not the
first to point out that the Obama campaign seems
dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
While Krugman may not have been the first to compare the
Obama campaign to a cult (see this insightful piece by
Jonathan Tilove of Newhouse News), being the first to do
so in the pages of the New York Times raises eyebrows.
This came on top of his assertion that it was not the
Clinton camp, but the Obama camp that was playing the
"race card."
Barbara Ehrenreich
February 14, 2008
When did you begin to think that Obama might be
unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter
started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New
Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a
state still littered with Confederate monuments and
memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two
Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to
report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the
general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is
mysterious and irrational: He's a "rock star," all flash
and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the
New York Times' Paul Krugman, to a "cult of
personality." At best, he's seen as another vague
Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like
optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated
valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he
supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be
promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
And, another view:
The attack of the liberals:
Interesting views on academic cultural myopia.
What's the Matter with Paul Krugman?
Scott Kurashige
Posted February 14, 2008 | 02:56 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
On February 11, Paul Krugman touched off a mini
firestorm with his New York Times column, "Hate Springs
Eternal," which asserted that Obama supporters had been
infected with the disease of Clinton-hating spawned by
the right wing. "I won't try for fake evenhandedness
here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters
of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," wrote
Krugman. Then, came the real fireworks: "I'm not the
first to point out that the Obama campaign seems
dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
While Krugman may not have been the first to compare the
Obama campaign to a cult (see this insightful piece by
Jonathan Tilove of Newhouse News), being the first to do
so in the pages of the New York Times raises eyebrows.
This came on top of his assertion that it was not the
Clinton camp, but the Obama camp that was playing the
"race card."
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama adopts populism on trade deals
February 13, 2008 8:22 AM
Smart Move: Barack Obama Goes Populist In the Home Stretch
In my nationally syndicated newspaper column last week, I outlined some of the difficult terrain Barack Obama faces in trying to both court working-class voters and avoid the media's racist characterization of power-challenging African-American leaders as race-centric radicals. This is a very, very difficult thing to do, and I sympathize with Obama in moving carefully up to this point.
But with the next round of states overrepresenting for the constituencies Obama has done most poorly among - working-class whites and Latinos - he knows he has to try to thread the needle. He has to try to offer up more full-throated, class-based populism. And indeed, that's what he's doing.
In his victory speech last night, Obama hammered the North American Free Trade Agreement, previewing a major economic speech today. Here are some excerpts:
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...
It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
This is really terrific stuff, and I say that as someone who has been critical of Obama in the past for his timidity on issues like trade - issues that make the Establishment particularly uncomfortable.
Politically, the benefits to Obama of voicing a populist message on trade are obvious. Recent polls in the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to America's current lobbyist-written trade policy. While this trade policy may be popular on K Street, it ain't popular on Main Street. And as it relates to Obama's message of reconfiguring the political map and attracting Republican voters, a populist line on trade is perhaps the single most powerful tool to do just that. A post-2006 election poll for the Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future showed that among Republican voters who considered voting Democratic that year, the GOP's support for unfair trade deals was the top reason they considered switching. While Clinton insultingly says many "red states" Obama won are unimportant because they supposedly can't be won by a Democrat on election day, these numbers suggest a populist message on trade against a "free" trader like John McCain (R) could profoundly change the map.
Substantively, Obama certainly hasn't been as aggressive as many would like on trade, and my reservations about him on this issue will persist. However, this is undoubtedly an encouraging step and it's fair to say he understands the real-world impact of this issue. This is a person who represents Illinois and who talks about working in the shadows of shuttered steel mills. With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful. And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.
True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade.
Sure, there's some opportunism here as well. Obama is likely trying to walk down the path John Edwards first courageously blazed in this race. He is looking out at the next cluster of primary states and knows that these are the ones that have been hit hard by NAFTA and other rigged trade deals. He looks at Ohio and sees Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - a man who was elected in 2006 based largely on his opposition to our current trade policy. He also sees the New York Times report that former President Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning in Ohio - and knows that the best way to make that boomerang against his opponent is to remind Ohio voters that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the Buckeye State's throat.
But opportunism isn't bad. If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. For the progressive movement, that's what success looks like.
Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy. From Joe Klein to David Broder to David Brooks, questioning the economic elite is seen as the ultimate blasphemy. As Sherrod Brown told the Nation this week, when he ran in 2006, "I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers." Most opposed him because he dared to challenge the economic orthodoxy that says we must have trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields.
But Brown didn't cater to elite opinion - he was talking directly to voters. If Obama can withstand the inevitable onslaught of scorn from the Punditburo, his new populism may deliver him the presidency.
Posted by David Sirota
Smart Move: Barack Obama Goes Populist In the Home Stretch
In my nationally syndicated newspaper column last week, I outlined some of the difficult terrain Barack Obama faces in trying to both court working-class voters and avoid the media's racist characterization of power-challenging African-American leaders as race-centric radicals. This is a very, very difficult thing to do, and I sympathize with Obama in moving carefully up to this point.
But with the next round of states overrepresenting for the constituencies Obama has done most poorly among - working-class whites and Latinos - he knows he has to try to thread the needle. He has to try to offer up more full-throated, class-based populism. And indeed, that's what he's doing.
In his victory speech last night, Obama hammered the North American Free Trade Agreement, previewing a major economic speech today. Here are some excerpts:
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...
It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
This is really terrific stuff, and I say that as someone who has been critical of Obama in the past for his timidity on issues like trade - issues that make the Establishment particularly uncomfortable.
Politically, the benefits to Obama of voicing a populist message on trade are obvious. Recent polls in the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to America's current lobbyist-written trade policy. While this trade policy may be popular on K Street, it ain't popular on Main Street. And as it relates to Obama's message of reconfiguring the political map and attracting Republican voters, a populist line on trade is perhaps the single most powerful tool to do just that. A post-2006 election poll for the Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future showed that among Republican voters who considered voting Democratic that year, the GOP's support for unfair trade deals was the top reason they considered switching. While Clinton insultingly says many "red states" Obama won are unimportant because they supposedly can't be won by a Democrat on election day, these numbers suggest a populist message on trade against a "free" trader like John McCain (R) could profoundly change the map.
Substantively, Obama certainly hasn't been as aggressive as many would like on trade, and my reservations about him on this issue will persist. However, this is undoubtedly an encouraging step and it's fair to say he understands the real-world impact of this issue. This is a person who represents Illinois and who talks about working in the shadows of shuttered steel mills. With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful. And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.
True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade.
Sure, there's some opportunism here as well. Obama is likely trying to walk down the path John Edwards first courageously blazed in this race. He is looking out at the next cluster of primary states and knows that these are the ones that have been hit hard by NAFTA and other rigged trade deals. He looks at Ohio and sees Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - a man who was elected in 2006 based largely on his opposition to our current trade policy. He also sees the New York Times report that former President Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning in Ohio - and knows that the best way to make that boomerang against his opponent is to remind Ohio voters that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the Buckeye State's throat.
But opportunism isn't bad. If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. For the progressive movement, that's what success looks like.
Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy. From Joe Klein to David Broder to David Brooks, questioning the economic elite is seen as the ultimate blasphemy. As Sherrod Brown told the Nation this week, when he ran in 2006, "I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers." Most opposed him because he dared to challenge the economic orthodoxy that says we must have trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields.
But Brown didn't cater to elite opinion - he was talking directly to voters. If Obama can withstand the inevitable onslaught of scorn from the Punditburo, his new populism may deliver him the presidency.
Posted by David Sirota
94,000 missing votes in Los Angeles
About Those 94,000 Votes Missing in L.A. County’s Democratic Presidential Primary Totals
By Paul Hogarth
While Hillary Clinton won last week’s California primary, the gap would be narrower if we counted every vote. But in Los Angeles County, the Registrar of Voters disqualified 94,500 ballots from “decline to state” (DTS) voters – because most did not fill an extra bubble to say they were voting in the Democratic primary. These voters requested a Democratic ballot, were given a ballot with only Democratic candidates listed, and a manual re-count would clearly indicate who they meant to vote for. But if they didn’t check the extra bubble, the machine did not pick up their vote – a fatal design flaw beyond any voter’s control. To not count these votes would violate state law, as well as the California Constitution – which requires every vote to be counted. With the close delegate count at stake – along with overwhelming proof that non-partisan voters favored Barack Obama – it is incumbent on L.A. County to count every vote, and to do it now.
Last week, 189,000 “decline-to-state” (DTS) voters in California’s largest County participated in the presidential primary – a 20% increase in turnout over 2006. Each party can choose whether to allow DTS voters in their primary, but only two have done so: (a) the Democratic Party, and (b) the American Independent Party – an ultra-right, nativist party. For a DTS voter to participate, they had to request a ballot in one of these two parties. An overwhelming number picked the Democratic ballot, as poll workers were required to keep track by marking it in the voter rolls.
But here’s where it got tricky. As the sample ballot shows below, DTS voters who got a Democratic ballot were given a list of the presidential candidates. But directly above (and in smaller font), they were also told to mark a bubble that they were voting in the Democratic primary. According to the election machines, 94,500 DTS voters who asked for such a ballot did not pick a candidate. While some may have abstained, it’s clear that a solid majority were disqualified simply because they did not fill in that extra bubble.
Was filling the bubble necessary to prevent DTS folks from voting in more than one primary? No. If you asked for a Democratic ballot, you only got a list of Democratic candidates – and so could not possibly vote in the American Independent primary. From the voter’s mindset, taking that extra step appeared redundant – assuming that they even noticed the fine print in the first place. Given the circumstances, most probably did not see it at all.
It turns out the bubble was there for mechanical reasons – due to a fatal design flaw in the voting machines that was beyond any voter’s control. The optical scanners were only set up to read your choice if you filled in the bubble, because each candidate was then boiled down to a number. If, for example, a DTS voter picked candidate #10 without filling in the bubble, the machine wouldn’t know whether to count Democrat Hillary Clinton – or Diane Beall Templin of the American Independent Party. So they would just say that the voter picked no candidate.
Machines are not humans, so it’s easy to see how they couldn’t catch that problem. But a hand count could determine what the machines did not – basic voter intent. When we learned in 2000 about Palm Beach’s infamous “butterfly ballot,” everyone was sure that Holocaust survivors did not vote for Pat Buchanan – including Buchanan himself. But there was no way to definitively prove that they meant to vote for Al Gore – and the remedies under law were not clear. Here, it’s just a question of getting enough human beings to sort through the 94,500 ballots – and determine which candidate they picked.
So far, the L.A. County Registrar of Voters only agreed to do a sample hand count of 1% of the “unmarked” ballots. But that's illegal, because the State Constitution requires them to count them all. Proposition 43, which passed in 2002, gave each California voter the constitutional right to have their vote counted. And California Elections Code Section 15701 says that even if it takes longer than a statutory deadline, the county can ask for an extension.
“It’s not good enough to do a 1% count,” said Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign. “The statute is very clear – all votes have to be counted.” The Courage Campaign, a political non-profit based out of Los Angeles, alerted the Registrar of Voters about this ballot problem on the eve of the primary – and have hired attorneys to enforce the law if necessary. 20,000 people have signed their online petition since Thursday, and State Senator Dean Florez has demanded hearings in Sacramento.
These votes must be counted – for legal reasons, moral reasons, and (yes) political reasons. Barack Obama has wide appeal from unaffiliated voters who joined the Democratic Party to vote for him in the primary, so it’s fair to assume that the bulk of these voters are his. Counting these votes won’t change who won California, or even Los Angeles – as Hillary Clinton won the County by almost 170,000 votes. But in the critical delegate race that may go down to the wire, these 94,500 votes could make a real difference in several Congressional Districts.
“It is a basic issue of trust,” said Jacobs. “Are we going to tell people that their votes didn’t count – when an unprecedented number of independents turned out to participate in the presidential primary? It’s simply a question of voter rights.”
Voters were outraged in 2000 that Florida couldn’t get its act together in the general election – besides the blatant chicanery that the President’s cronies were involved in. But the “butterfly ballot” in Palm Beach County only affected 19,000 voters. Here we have a fatal flaw in L.A. County that disenfranchised 94,000 people. And with the delegate count as close as it is, like Florida it could prove decisive in picking the next President.
It’s not a question of introducing legislation to prevent this matter from happening again -- the law already requires it. These votes are just sitting here – and the Registrar must do a hand re-count to determine what voters really meant. It isn’t rocket science, or even brain surgery. It's democracy.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, an alternative online daily newspaper, with whose permission this article is republished.
Posted on February 12, 2008
On California Progress Report
By Paul Hogarth
While Hillary Clinton won last week’s California primary, the gap would be narrower if we counted every vote. But in Los Angeles County, the Registrar of Voters disqualified 94,500 ballots from “decline to state” (DTS) voters – because most did not fill an extra bubble to say they were voting in the Democratic primary. These voters requested a Democratic ballot, were given a ballot with only Democratic candidates listed, and a manual re-count would clearly indicate who they meant to vote for. But if they didn’t check the extra bubble, the machine did not pick up their vote – a fatal design flaw beyond any voter’s control. To not count these votes would violate state law, as well as the California Constitution – which requires every vote to be counted. With the close delegate count at stake – along with overwhelming proof that non-partisan voters favored Barack Obama – it is incumbent on L.A. County to count every vote, and to do it now.
Last week, 189,000 “decline-to-state” (DTS) voters in California’s largest County participated in the presidential primary – a 20% increase in turnout over 2006. Each party can choose whether to allow DTS voters in their primary, but only two have done so: (a) the Democratic Party, and (b) the American Independent Party – an ultra-right, nativist party. For a DTS voter to participate, they had to request a ballot in one of these two parties. An overwhelming number picked the Democratic ballot, as poll workers were required to keep track by marking it in the voter rolls.
But here’s where it got tricky. As the sample ballot shows below, DTS voters who got a Democratic ballot were given a list of the presidential candidates. But directly above (and in smaller font), they were also told to mark a bubble that they were voting in the Democratic primary. According to the election machines, 94,500 DTS voters who asked for such a ballot did not pick a candidate. While some may have abstained, it’s clear that a solid majority were disqualified simply because they did not fill in that extra bubble.
Was filling the bubble necessary to prevent DTS folks from voting in more than one primary? No. If you asked for a Democratic ballot, you only got a list of Democratic candidates – and so could not possibly vote in the American Independent primary. From the voter’s mindset, taking that extra step appeared redundant – assuming that they even noticed the fine print in the first place. Given the circumstances, most probably did not see it at all.
It turns out the bubble was there for mechanical reasons – due to a fatal design flaw in the voting machines that was beyond any voter’s control. The optical scanners were only set up to read your choice if you filled in the bubble, because each candidate was then boiled down to a number. If, for example, a DTS voter picked candidate #10 without filling in the bubble, the machine wouldn’t know whether to count Democrat Hillary Clinton – or Diane Beall Templin of the American Independent Party. So they would just say that the voter picked no candidate.
Machines are not humans, so it’s easy to see how they couldn’t catch that problem. But a hand count could determine what the machines did not – basic voter intent. When we learned in 2000 about Palm Beach’s infamous “butterfly ballot,” everyone was sure that Holocaust survivors did not vote for Pat Buchanan – including Buchanan himself. But there was no way to definitively prove that they meant to vote for Al Gore – and the remedies under law were not clear. Here, it’s just a question of getting enough human beings to sort through the 94,500 ballots – and determine which candidate they picked.
So far, the L.A. County Registrar of Voters only agreed to do a sample hand count of 1% of the “unmarked” ballots. But that's illegal, because the State Constitution requires them to count them all. Proposition 43, which passed in 2002, gave each California voter the constitutional right to have their vote counted. And California Elections Code Section 15701 says that even if it takes longer than a statutory deadline, the county can ask for an extension.
“It’s not good enough to do a 1% count,” said Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign. “The statute is very clear – all votes have to be counted.” The Courage Campaign, a political non-profit based out of Los Angeles, alerted the Registrar of Voters about this ballot problem on the eve of the primary – and have hired attorneys to enforce the law if necessary. 20,000 people have signed their online petition since Thursday, and State Senator Dean Florez has demanded hearings in Sacramento.
These votes must be counted – for legal reasons, moral reasons, and (yes) political reasons. Barack Obama has wide appeal from unaffiliated voters who joined the Democratic Party to vote for him in the primary, so it’s fair to assume that the bulk of these voters are his. Counting these votes won’t change who won California, or even Los Angeles – as Hillary Clinton won the County by almost 170,000 votes. But in the critical delegate race that may go down to the wire, these 94,500 votes could make a real difference in several Congressional Districts.
“It is a basic issue of trust,” said Jacobs. “Are we going to tell people that their votes didn’t count – when an unprecedented number of independents turned out to participate in the presidential primary? It’s simply a question of voter rights.”
Voters were outraged in 2000 that Florida couldn’t get its act together in the general election – besides the blatant chicanery that the President’s cronies were involved in. But the “butterfly ballot” in Palm Beach County only affected 19,000 voters. Here we have a fatal flaw in L.A. County that disenfranchised 94,000 people. And with the delegate count as close as it is, like Florida it could prove decisive in picking the next President.
It’s not a question of introducing legislation to prevent this matter from happening again -- the law already requires it. These votes are just sitting here – and the Registrar must do a hand re-count to determine what voters really meant. It isn’t rocket science, or even brain surgery. It's democracy.
Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, an alternative online daily newspaper, with whose permission this article is republished.
Posted on February 12, 2008
On California Progress Report
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Time for the Peace Movement
After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines
by Tom Hayden
With Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn’t it time for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged? Shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March 4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.
On one side it appears that the pro-Democratic groups with millions of dollars are sitting out the primaries, saving their energy for the coming battle with John McCain. That plan just got delayed for many weeks as the primaries go on. On the other side are the grass-roots peace coalitions that generally forsake political engagement and busy themselves with plans for civil disobedience while 13 more states are voting.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:
Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.
Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.
Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.
It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of “residual” American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.
But Obama’s position is clearly better than Clinton’s, and both candidates should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes. The primaries are probably the last opportunity to push for a tougher stance, before the debate shifts to criticizing McCain/Lieberman/Podhoretz/Petraeus and whomever else in the general election. If one is a Clinton supporter, she should be pressured to keep catching up with Obama’s positions. Instead, she is floating a demand to make Bush bring any Washington-Baghdad military pact before Congress, which is a fine idea but avoids whether and when to end the occupation. If you are an Obama supporter, he should be pressured to connect the drain of the Iraq War on our economy and any possibilities for funding national health care. The point is to push the peace position forward on the promise of winning close primaries.
If nothing is done now by the peace movement, consider this scenario: with Bush promising to withdraw 25,000 troops this summer, Gen. Petraeus comes to Washington in March or April to announce “progress” in Iraq with lavish media attention. If MoveOn, perhaps understandably, avoids direct engagement with the general, which peace advocates will step in? Will Obama or Clinton or the Out of Iraq Caucus be prepared to confront him with an educational counter-offensive, or will McCain obtain a polished halo for being the Petraeus candidate? These are deadly serious questions. Is anyone discussing them?
In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio, Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners asking “Peace By When?” might be seen at rallies and media events.
The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].
From Common Dreams
by Tom Hayden
With Iraq a key issue and the Democratic primaries unresolved, isn’t it time for the peace movement to get off the sidelines and become more engaged? Shouldn’t we be doing everything possible to make the candidates compete for the peace vote? Think of the battlegrounds ahead where the peace vote is up for grabs: Washington on February 9, Maryland and the District of Columbia February 12, Wisconsin February 19, Rhode Island, Vermont and Ohio on March 4, and other states like Oregon and Pennsylvania through May.
On one side it appears that the pro-Democratic groups with millions of dollars are sitting out the primaries, saving their energy for the coming battle with John McCain. That plan just got delayed for many weeks as the primaries go on. On the other side are the grass-roots peace coalitions that generally forsake political engagement and busy themselves with plans for civil disobedience while 13 more states are voting.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:
Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing US combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down US troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.
Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.
Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.
It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of “residual” American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a US commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.
But Obama’s position is clearly better than Clinton’s, and both candidates should be encouraged to see that the strongest anti-war position wins votes. The primaries are probably the last opportunity to push for a tougher stance, before the debate shifts to criticizing McCain/Lieberman/Podhoretz/Petraeus and whomever else in the general election. If one is a Clinton supporter, she should be pressured to keep catching up with Obama’s positions. Instead, she is floating a demand to make Bush bring any Washington-Baghdad military pact before Congress, which is a fine idea but avoids whether and when to end the occupation. If you are an Obama supporter, he should be pressured to connect the drain of the Iraq War on our economy and any possibilities for funding national health care. The point is to push the peace position forward on the promise of winning close primaries.
If nothing is done now by the peace movement, consider this scenario: with Bush promising to withdraw 25,000 troops this summer, Gen. Petraeus comes to Washington in March or April to announce “progress” in Iraq with lavish media attention. If MoveOn, perhaps understandably, avoids direct engagement with the general, which peace advocates will step in? Will Obama or Clinton or the Out of Iraq Caucus be prepared to confront him with an educational counter-offensive, or will McCain obtain a polished halo for being the Petraeus candidate? These are deadly serious questions. Is anyone discussing them?
In the immediate context, it seems to me that a group like MoveOn has to consider whether its endorsement of Obama now deserves a blast of anti-war energy in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Madison, Vermont, suburban Ohio, Providence, and Portland. Television, radio and media advertising still can be purchased for peace voices. Progressive Democrats at the grass-roots level might flood these decisive areas with questions to the campaigns and informational leaflets designed to educate swing voters. Signs and banners asking “Peace By When?” might be seen at rallies and media events.
The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].
From Common Dreams
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Obama: Ready to rumble
I was writing a note to you about the state of the race after Super Tuesday when we got some startling news.
The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.
This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.
Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.
We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.
To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.
The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.
Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.
We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $100 right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Feb5results
Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.
This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.
We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.
And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.
Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change -- and that you are the force to make that change happen.
But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.
We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.
Please make a donation
https://donate.barackobama.com/Feb5results
Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:
Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November
Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender -- including 64% of women in Georgia
We scored wins in every region of the country -- New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West
Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.
Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago.
This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.
Barack Obama won the most states and the most delegates on February 5th.
We have gotten to this point thanks to an unprecedented outpouring of support from ordinary Americans.
To date, more than 650,000 people like you have taken ownership of this campaign, giving whatever they can afford.
The Clinton infusion of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.
Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.
We're going to do it the right way, with small donations from people like you. It's never been more urgent that you make a donation of $100 right now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/Feb5results
Just two weeks ago we were behind by double-digits in many of the states that voted yesterday, but Barack won 13 states to 8 states for Hillary Clinton, with one state (New Mexico) still counting votes.
This is an enormous victory, and it's all thanks to you.
We won yesterday because thousands upon thousands of individual supporters canvassed their neighborhoods, talked to their neighbors and friends, and made phone calls to remind their fellow supporters to get out the vote.
And we accomplished all of this with a campaign funded by ordinary people giving only what they can afford.
Yesterday was proof that America is ready for change -- and that you are the force to make that change happen.
But there's still a long way to go before Barack becomes the Democratic nominee. In the next week alone, six more states will hold their primaries and caucuses.
We need to match this $5 million personal contribution from the Clintons immediately and put these resources to work in the states that will vote next.
Please make a donation
https://donate.barackobama.com/Feb5results
Here are some details about yesterday's historic victory. According to official results and exit polls:
Barack won 2-to-1 in traditionally conservative states where Democrats are hungry for a nominee who can change the map and help Democrats up and down the ticket win in November
Our winning coalition included Americans of every race, background, and gender -- including 64% of women in Georgia
We scored wins in every region of the country -- New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Midwest, the Rocky Mountain states, and the West
Americans had a clear choice to make yesterday, and they chose Barack Obama.
Now let's match this $5 million and take this campaign into the next stage.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Large Latino Vote gave Clinton the victory
Clinton Win in California Larger Than Polls Predicted Because of Huge Latino Turnout
By Frank D. Russo
The California Field Poll released on Super Bowl Sunday before Super Tuesday’s presidential primary had a 2 point spread between Hillary Clinton at 38% of the vote and Barack Obama at 36%, with a pretty large 18% of likely voters being undecided. The actual results being tabulated right now, with 96.7% of the precinct votes counted and perhaps as many as 2 million vote by mail votes and other not yet tabulated, have a 9.5% spread with Clinton getting 51.9% of the vote and 42.4% voting for Barack Obama.
...The single biggest difference in the makeup of the electorate was the 20% share of voters Field expected to be Latino and the 29% share reflected in exit polls. Major news organizations use the same data in these exit polls on California and you can read them on CNN’s site.
Latinos in California voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and accounted for a greater segment of the vote. Also, if you look at the exit poll data and compare it with the Field Poll, blacks which were expected to be 12% of the vote in the Democratic primary (a reasonable assumption since although they are 6% of the state’s population, they are mostly Democrat) only turned out at a 6% share of the vote.
Read the entire article at California Progress Report.
By Frank D. Russo
The California Field Poll released on Super Bowl Sunday before Super Tuesday’s presidential primary had a 2 point spread between Hillary Clinton at 38% of the vote and Barack Obama at 36%, with a pretty large 18% of likely voters being undecided. The actual results being tabulated right now, with 96.7% of the precinct votes counted and perhaps as many as 2 million vote by mail votes and other not yet tabulated, have a 9.5% spread with Clinton getting 51.9% of the vote and 42.4% voting for Barack Obama.
...The single biggest difference in the makeup of the electorate was the 20% share of voters Field expected to be Latino and the 29% share reflected in exit polls. Major news organizations use the same data in these exit polls on California and you can read them on CNN’s site.
Latinos in California voted overwhelmingly for Clinton and accounted for a greater segment of the vote. Also, if you look at the exit poll data and compare it with the Field Poll, blacks which were expected to be 12% of the vote in the Democratic primary (a reasonable assumption since although they are 6% of the state’s population, they are mostly Democrat) only turned out at a 6% share of the vote.
Read the entire article at California Progress Report.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
State budget cuts hurt children
Lets see. Today the state legislators wanted me to vote Yes on Prop. 93 on term limits.
Here is what the Governor is proposing for a budget. Will the legislature stand up to him?
Cuts Hurt Our Local Schools »
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting nearly $4.8 billion from our schools. This would be disastrous for California’s students – the equivalent of laying off more than 107,000 teachers, reducing per-pupil spending by more than $800 per student, and cutting more than $24,000 from every classroom.
The fact is, students and schools did not create the current budget problem, and their progress shouldn’t be undermined because of it. California’s Education Coalition rejects the Governor’s budget because these cuts are fundamentally inconsistent with the state’s goal of improving student achievement.
According to a recent report from Education Week, California spends $1,900 less per student than the national average, dropping our state from 43rd to 46th in the nation in just a few short years. The report gave California an abysmal D+ in per-pupil spending!
We can do better for California’s students
Here is what the Governor is proposing for a budget. Will the legislature stand up to him?
Cuts Hurt Our Local Schools »
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting nearly $4.8 billion from our schools. This would be disastrous for California’s students – the equivalent of laying off more than 107,000 teachers, reducing per-pupil spending by more than $800 per student, and cutting more than $24,000 from every classroom.
The fact is, students and schools did not create the current budget problem, and their progress shouldn’t be undermined because of it. California’s Education Coalition rejects the Governor’s budget because these cuts are fundamentally inconsistent with the state’s goal of improving student achievement.
According to a recent report from Education Week, California spends $1,900 less per student than the national average, dropping our state from 43rd to 46th in the nation in just a few short years. The report gave California an abysmal D+ in per-pupil spending!
We can do better for California’s students
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Obama closes in on California
By Frank D. Russo
You can see it in the late breaking polls, feel it out on the street, and in conversations with neighbors, relatives, and political insiders, and even the last minute endorsement of elected officials and the state’s newspapers. There’s some serious shaking going on in California and once firm predictions that Hillary Clinton will win the primary in this state have become a lot more tentative.
Polls only get you so far with predicting state primaries, as we have learned in recent days. Elections are determined by those who come out to vote and as this race tightens in the golden state, field operations, ground level enthusiasm, and excitement matter. Polls can’t explain what causes volunteers to stand in the drizzle in the early morning traffic rush, such as those pictured above just a few minutes ago in Oakland. They sure did get quite a few honks as cars streamed by.
The well respected California based polls, the Field Poll and Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll, have shown Clinton to be ahead by 12% and 15%, but tracked opinions of what they considered to be likely voters for the week ending January 20 and are now 11 days out of date.
Even here, there were signs of movement as Clinton’s advantage in the Field Poll dropped from 30 points in August to 25 in October, 18% in December, and 12% where they left off. The same is true in the PPIC’s survey which showed a 24 point Clinton lead in December which had shrunk to 15 points when they stopped polling.
The latest poll from Rasmussen released yesterday showed Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Obama, 43% to 40%. The survey was conducted two days ago, Tuesday, January 29, 2008, in the hours immediately following Florida's Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race. It was of 807 likely Democratic primary voters and Obama is actually within the 4% margin of error of the poll.
And there is more evidence from tracking polls that the race may be even tighter as San Francisco Chronicle political reporters Matier and Ross wrote yesterday: Two surveys of 400 likely Democratic voters each—Sunday and Monday—by the No on 94-97 proposition campaign had Obama leading Clinton 35% to 32%. As they report, however, these numbers must be interpreted with caution: “A prominent political consultant following the numbers emphasizes that while a single night's tracking isn't considered statistically reliable, it does show movement and direction.”
The Chronicle also has a story about the race on the front page this morning “And then there were two—Edwards bows out,” where Mark DiCamillo, the head of the Field Poll , tells us that the data indicates Edwards’ withdrawal gives Obama another 2% advantage on Clinton.
Early on in California, with the “inevitability” argument being made, Clinton wrapped up an impressive list of endorsements amongst California’s Democratic elected officials, many of whom wanted to back a winner. But in the month of January, in addition to the blockbuster endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and other national figures, there has been a surge of California elected Democrats supporting Obama.
Endorsements do not generally win elections, certainly by themselves, but one can see the swing here towards Obama.
Obama clearly has the edge in grass roots support. He has 18 field offices in California, double the 9 offices opened by the Clinton campaign. Obama’s offices have that energy with many young volunteers who are organized in all 53 California Congressional Districts. The campaign also has a network of over 50,000 Californians who have signed up online. Well over a million phone calls have been made by volunteers to registered voters this month including an early focus on decline-to-state votes who are not registered with a party but may vote in the California Democratic primary.
Obama also has, for whatever it is worth, the lion’s share of endorsements by newspapers in the state—at least across the state from the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily News, San Jose Mercury News to the Sacramento Bee. You can’t even find on the Clinton California campaign site a list of newspapers in the state who have endorsed her.
The candidates are now in the state, preparing for tonight’s debate—which itself could be very important to Californians and gives us and the nation the opportunity to focus on just the two of them and see what appeals to the 20% or so who can vote in the Democratic primary who are undecided—and those who may even switch in this fluid race.
Five days out, this part of Super Tuesday is turning into an interesting battle between parts of the establishment within the Democratic Party and fresh enthusiasm from an insurgency. What matters is that voters here care about the Democratic nomination and hopefully this stew of excitement will bring out a large vote, whoever wins the primary and whatever share of our delegates. We matter and that counts as well.
Posted on January 31, 2008
From California Progress report
You can see it in the late breaking polls, feel it out on the street, and in conversations with neighbors, relatives, and political insiders, and even the last minute endorsement of elected officials and the state’s newspapers. There’s some serious shaking going on in California and once firm predictions that Hillary Clinton will win the primary in this state have become a lot more tentative.
Polls only get you so far with predicting state primaries, as we have learned in recent days. Elections are determined by those who come out to vote and as this race tightens in the golden state, field operations, ground level enthusiasm, and excitement matter. Polls can’t explain what causes volunteers to stand in the drizzle in the early morning traffic rush, such as those pictured above just a few minutes ago in Oakland. They sure did get quite a few honks as cars streamed by.
The well respected California based polls, the Field Poll and Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll, have shown Clinton to be ahead by 12% and 15%, but tracked opinions of what they considered to be likely voters for the week ending January 20 and are now 11 days out of date.
Even here, there were signs of movement as Clinton’s advantage in the Field Poll dropped from 30 points in August to 25 in October, 18% in December, and 12% where they left off. The same is true in the PPIC’s survey which showed a 24 point Clinton lead in December which had shrunk to 15 points when they stopped polling.
The latest poll from Rasmussen released yesterday showed Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Obama, 43% to 40%. The survey was conducted two days ago, Tuesday, January 29, 2008, in the hours immediately following Florida's Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race. It was of 807 likely Democratic primary voters and Obama is actually within the 4% margin of error of the poll.
And there is more evidence from tracking polls that the race may be even tighter as San Francisco Chronicle political reporters Matier and Ross wrote yesterday: Two surveys of 400 likely Democratic voters each—Sunday and Monday—by the No on 94-97 proposition campaign had Obama leading Clinton 35% to 32%. As they report, however, these numbers must be interpreted with caution: “A prominent political consultant following the numbers emphasizes that while a single night's tracking isn't considered statistically reliable, it does show movement and direction.”
The Chronicle also has a story about the race on the front page this morning “And then there were two—Edwards bows out,” where Mark DiCamillo, the head of the Field Poll , tells us that the data indicates Edwards’ withdrawal gives Obama another 2% advantage on Clinton.
Early on in California, with the “inevitability” argument being made, Clinton wrapped up an impressive list of endorsements amongst California’s Democratic elected officials, many of whom wanted to back a winner. But in the month of January, in addition to the blockbuster endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and other national figures, there has been a surge of California elected Democrats supporting Obama.
Endorsements do not generally win elections, certainly by themselves, but one can see the swing here towards Obama.
Obama clearly has the edge in grass roots support. He has 18 field offices in California, double the 9 offices opened by the Clinton campaign. Obama’s offices have that energy with many young volunteers who are organized in all 53 California Congressional Districts. The campaign also has a network of over 50,000 Californians who have signed up online. Well over a million phone calls have been made by volunteers to registered voters this month including an early focus on decline-to-state votes who are not registered with a party but may vote in the California Democratic primary.
Obama also has, for whatever it is worth, the lion’s share of endorsements by newspapers in the state—at least across the state from the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily News, San Jose Mercury News to the Sacramento Bee. You can’t even find on the Clinton California campaign site a list of newspapers in the state who have endorsed her.
The candidates are now in the state, preparing for tonight’s debate—which itself could be very important to Californians and gives us and the nation the opportunity to focus on just the two of them and see what appeals to the 20% or so who can vote in the Democratic primary who are undecided—and those who may even switch in this fluid race.
Five days out, this part of Super Tuesday is turning into an interesting battle between parts of the establishment within the Democratic Party and fresh enthusiasm from an insurgency. What matters is that voters here care about the Democratic nomination and hopefully this stew of excitement will bring out a large vote, whoever wins the primary and whatever share of our delegates. We matter and that counts as well.
Posted on January 31, 2008
From California Progress report
Monday, January 28, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
California: the State of Education
Interesting. Apparently Supt. O'Connell does not know that the Colleges of Education have been requiring courses on culturally responsive education, previously called multicultural education, since about 1976. They were strengthened in the 90's. Then, since 2000, they have been weakened in response to legislative mandated reforms of teacher preparation.
One of the important elements of culturally responsive preparation is to have members of the appropriate groups at the table. Few teacher preparation programs have improved on this. We are getting worse- not better.
One exception. My own department of Bilingual Multicultural Education at CSU-Sacramento.
If you follow the links to the State Dept. of Education web site, the Superintendent's P-16 council report on closing the Achievement Gap has some reasonably concrete steps to take:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/pc/index.asp#sum
State Of Education 2008: State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell
Lays Out Ambitious Plan For Closing Achievement Gap
SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today delivered his fifth annual State of Education Address and unveiled an ambitious, comprehensive plan aimed at closing California's pernicious achievement gap that exists between students who are white and students of color, as well as with English learners, students in poverty, and students with disabilities.
O'Connell also released a new report by his statewide P-16 Council that outlines what the state can do to create the conditions necessary to close the gap. O'Connell's new initiatives are based on his P-16 Council's recommendations.
"Closing the achievement gap is the key to ensuring California will have a well-qualified workforce that will secure a healthy economy in the future," O'Connell said.
Holding Schools Accountable for Closing the Achievement Gap
O'Connell announced the development of a set of Achievement Gap Intervention Benchmarks, which will contain key indicators that research shows are highly correlated with closing gaps in student achievement.
"To help me identify these benchmarks and ensure they measure what works best, Christopher Edley, Jr., a national leader in civil rights law and Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall), has agreed to co-chair a Superintendent's advisory committee to develop such a system," O'Connell said. "I've also directed my staff to ensure that, starting in 2009, to earn the California Distinguished School award, schools will have to not only meet the current criteria but they will also have to narrow their achievement gap."
Other new initiatives O'Connell announced include a plan to increase quality preschool in California, offer increased flexibility to districts as part of a pilot partnership between the K-12 community, higher education, and the business community to better ensure high school graduates are ready for college or the world of work, plans to enhance the state's data system to improve student achievement, and plans to develop culturally responsive professional development.
Streamlining and Improving Prekindergarten in California
"I am sponsoring legislation that will consolidate all of the current Title 5 programs serving preschool-aged children to create the largest state-funded pre-Kindergarten program in the nation," O'Connell said. "This will make our pre-K delivery programs more streamlined and efficient and within this new streamlined program, I'm going to focus on delivering preschool of the highest quality."
To measure the quality and effectiveness of preschool providers, O'Connell released new "Preschool Foundations." These foundations are grounded in the best research on socially and developmentally appropriate benchmarks for learning as well as on how to reach English learners. They will provide the framework to guide the state's early childhood educators in providing the playful, enriching early learning experiences that create both kindergarten readiness and a love of learning.
Pilot Partnership for School District Success
In talking about the need for greater flexibility so schools and districts are able to raise student achievement and close the achievement gap, O'Connell stated: "The time for action is now; we needn't wait for further study or legislation. I intend to bring before the State Board of Education a pilot program allowing Long Beach and Fresno unified school districts — the third and fourth largest districts in the state — significant new flexibility in how they allocate their resources. This flexibility will allow them to be more innovative in designing programs to close the achievement gap. In exchange for the increased flexibility, the two districts have agreed to form a partnership to learn together, model, and replicate effective practices. Long Beach, which has been a national model for successful urban district management, will receive more flexibility, while Fresno, a district that greatly has improved but is still in transition, will receive a little less. Both districts, however, will commit to specific benchmark progress goals as a result of their partnership and increased flexibility."
Aligning Systems
"At my request and with the agreement of the Governor, all four systems of public education in California — K-12, community colleges, California State University, and the University of California, joined by private colleges, the business community, and career technical education community — have agreed to join 30 other states in the American Diploma Project. This endeavor will help to ensure that when a student graduates from a California high school, they will be fully prepared with the necessary skills to enter the world of work or higher education."
Using Data and Building a Continuous Learning Environment
The California Department of Education (CDE) is in the process of building an information system to track student achievement over time. But there is additional data the state can and should be collecting that would help educators make more informed decisions about effective programs and interventions. In his speech, O'Connell said that collecting and using such data effectively are key to creating a continuous learning system that leads to improved student performance.
"I am pleased to announce today we've been awarded a generous grant of more than $2 million from the Gates and Hewlett foundations to help create a vision and roadmap for the kind of data our state needs to truly improve teaching and learning as well as decision making at both the state and local level. I also pleased to be joined by Governor Schwarzenegger as a full partner in this process. The grant we have received will allow us to partner with highly regarded strategic management advisors, McKinsey and Company, to help guide this project. Together we will create a document by this summer that clearly lays out what additional information the State of California needs to collect and how much it will cost us to do it. This roadmap will then serve as the basis for the data commission I'm serving on with Governor Schwarzenegger, a commission that has the charge of turning our work into a reality."
Creating Culturally Responsive School Environments
O'Connell announced he has directed the CDE to include evaluations of racial and cultural issues within the existing California School Climate Survey or the California Healthy Kids Survey. This will cost schools no additional money or time, but it will provide valuable information to guide them in the important dialogue that must occur.
"Over the next year, I'm going to bring together experts from around the country to help develop world-class professional development on what it means to be culturally responsive in the classroom, principal's office, and administration building," O'Connell said. "This curriculum will help our educators provide a school climate in which students from all cultures and races feel equally supported in learning to high expectations.
"I also will be collaborating with the deans of California's schools of education to work to imbed culturally responsive instruction in California's teacher pre-service and professional development programs."
For a complete text of O'Connell's 2008 State of Education Address and accompanying materials, please visit State of Education Address - January 22, 2008 - State of Education.
# # # #
One of the important elements of culturally responsive preparation is to have members of the appropriate groups at the table. Few teacher preparation programs have improved on this. We are getting worse- not better.
One exception. My own department of Bilingual Multicultural Education at CSU-Sacramento.
If you follow the links to the State Dept. of Education web site, the Superintendent's P-16 council report on closing the Achievement Gap has some reasonably concrete steps to take:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/pc/index.asp#sum
State Of Education 2008: State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell
Lays Out Ambitious Plan For Closing Achievement Gap
SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today delivered his fifth annual State of Education Address and unveiled an ambitious, comprehensive plan aimed at closing California's pernicious achievement gap that exists between students who are white and students of color, as well as with English learners, students in poverty, and students with disabilities.
O'Connell also released a new report by his statewide P-16 Council that outlines what the state can do to create the conditions necessary to close the gap. O'Connell's new initiatives are based on his P-16 Council's recommendations.
"Closing the achievement gap is the key to ensuring California will have a well-qualified workforce that will secure a healthy economy in the future," O'Connell said.
Holding Schools Accountable for Closing the Achievement Gap
O'Connell announced the development of a set of Achievement Gap Intervention Benchmarks, which will contain key indicators that research shows are highly correlated with closing gaps in student achievement.
"To help me identify these benchmarks and ensure they measure what works best, Christopher Edley, Jr., a national leader in civil rights law and Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall), has agreed to co-chair a Superintendent's advisory committee to develop such a system," O'Connell said. "I've also directed my staff to ensure that, starting in 2009, to earn the California Distinguished School award, schools will have to not only meet the current criteria but they will also have to narrow their achievement gap."
Other new initiatives O'Connell announced include a plan to increase quality preschool in California, offer increased flexibility to districts as part of a pilot partnership between the K-12 community, higher education, and the business community to better ensure high school graduates are ready for college or the world of work, plans to enhance the state's data system to improve student achievement, and plans to develop culturally responsive professional development.
Streamlining and Improving Prekindergarten in California
"I am sponsoring legislation that will consolidate all of the current Title 5 programs serving preschool-aged children to create the largest state-funded pre-Kindergarten program in the nation," O'Connell said. "This will make our pre-K delivery programs more streamlined and efficient and within this new streamlined program, I'm going to focus on delivering preschool of the highest quality."
To measure the quality and effectiveness of preschool providers, O'Connell released new "Preschool Foundations." These foundations are grounded in the best research on socially and developmentally appropriate benchmarks for learning as well as on how to reach English learners. They will provide the framework to guide the state's early childhood educators in providing the playful, enriching early learning experiences that create both kindergarten readiness and a love of learning.
Pilot Partnership for School District Success
In talking about the need for greater flexibility so schools and districts are able to raise student achievement and close the achievement gap, O'Connell stated: "The time for action is now; we needn't wait for further study or legislation. I intend to bring before the State Board of Education a pilot program allowing Long Beach and Fresno unified school districts — the third and fourth largest districts in the state — significant new flexibility in how they allocate their resources. This flexibility will allow them to be more innovative in designing programs to close the achievement gap. In exchange for the increased flexibility, the two districts have agreed to form a partnership to learn together, model, and replicate effective practices. Long Beach, which has been a national model for successful urban district management, will receive more flexibility, while Fresno, a district that greatly has improved but is still in transition, will receive a little less. Both districts, however, will commit to specific benchmark progress goals as a result of their partnership and increased flexibility."
Aligning Systems
"At my request and with the agreement of the Governor, all four systems of public education in California — K-12, community colleges, California State University, and the University of California, joined by private colleges, the business community, and career technical education community — have agreed to join 30 other states in the American Diploma Project. This endeavor will help to ensure that when a student graduates from a California high school, they will be fully prepared with the necessary skills to enter the world of work or higher education."
Using Data and Building a Continuous Learning Environment
The California Department of Education (CDE) is in the process of building an information system to track student achievement over time. But there is additional data the state can and should be collecting that would help educators make more informed decisions about effective programs and interventions. In his speech, O'Connell said that collecting and using such data effectively are key to creating a continuous learning system that leads to improved student performance.
"I am pleased to announce today we've been awarded a generous grant of more than $2 million from the Gates and Hewlett foundations to help create a vision and roadmap for the kind of data our state needs to truly improve teaching and learning as well as decision making at both the state and local level. I also pleased to be joined by Governor Schwarzenegger as a full partner in this process. The grant we have received will allow us to partner with highly regarded strategic management advisors, McKinsey and Company, to help guide this project. Together we will create a document by this summer that clearly lays out what additional information the State of California needs to collect and how much it will cost us to do it. This roadmap will then serve as the basis for the data commission I'm serving on with Governor Schwarzenegger, a commission that has the charge of turning our work into a reality."
Creating Culturally Responsive School Environments
O'Connell announced he has directed the CDE to include evaluations of racial and cultural issues within the existing California School Climate Survey or the California Healthy Kids Survey. This will cost schools no additional money or time, but it will provide valuable information to guide them in the important dialogue that must occur.
"Over the next year, I'm going to bring together experts from around the country to help develop world-class professional development on what it means to be culturally responsive in the classroom, principal's office, and administration building," O'Connell said. "This curriculum will help our educators provide a school climate in which students from all cultures and races feel equally supported in learning to high expectations.
"I also will be collaborating with the deans of California's schools of education to work to imbed culturally responsive instruction in California's teacher pre-service and professional development programs."
For a complete text of O'Connell's 2008 State of Education Address and accompanying materials, please visit State of Education Address - January 22, 2008 - State of Education.
# # # #
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
California budget troubles
California
Budget analyst’s bleak outlook
By Capitol Staff (published Thursday, January 17, 2008)
Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, who examines budget issues for the Legislature, has offered an assessment of California’s economic outlook. Hill, although hired by a Legislature controlled by Democrats, is a nonpartisan analyst who each February compiles a detailed assessment of the governor’s proposed state budget. Her study serves as the linchpin of the Capitol’s budget negotiations. In addition to her budget analysis, Hill provided her view of the state’s economic outlook. What follows was taken from Hill’s report on California’s economic climate, which offers an overarching view of business conditions, employment, and fiscal and population growth.
California’s economic situation and outlook are generally similar to the nation as a whole, although the turmoil in the state’s housing and mortgage markets has been more pronounced than nationally, making its outlook a bit more sluggish.
Economic growth in 2008 is expected to be slow, especially in the first half of the year, with recovery beginning later in the year and continuing into 2009. After healthy gains in 2004 through 2006, economic indicators suggest that economic growth slowed for the state as 2007 progressed. For example, growth in both wage and salary employment and taxable sales declined, the unemployment rate rose, and new residential building permits dropped.
The key forces behind the economic slowdown that is being experienced in California are the same as for the nation. Those are sharply declining real estate markets and, to a somewhat lesser degree, high energy and gasoline prices. In fact, the adverse effects of these negative forces tend to be even greater in California than for the rest of the country because of the state’s volatile real estate sector and its higher-than-average gasoline prices and gasoline consumption.
While both of these factors are expected to negatively impact California’s economic performance in 2008 and 2009, this is especially true for the real estate sector. A major real estate correction is currently under way that is expected to get worse before it runs its full course. Although its initial major adverse effects appear to be primarily falling on homeowners, housing-related industries and financial institutions directly involved, there will undoubtedly also be various eventual negative spillover effects on the economy at large.
For more: Capital Weekly
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wu333bf78zkdi3
Defeating NCLB and the campaign of Movement Conservatives
Defeating NCLB and the Campaign of Movement Conservatives which produced it (NCLB)
Kenneth Goodman
In Saving Our Schools (2004, RDR Books), I outlined how movement conservatism is organized with the methods and morality of a long range political campaign. NCLB is the key result of such a campaign. Its long range goal is. to privatize education. Those in control of the campaign have been able to strongly influence the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats. NCLB was presented as a major educational reform by newly elected George W. Bush on September 11, 2001. The Reading Excellence Act which preceded NCLB and mandated the narrow reading focus carried forward in NCLB was passed under the Clinton administration. Andy Rotherham who presents himself as a neo-liberal was the author of the Kerry education platform which strongly supported NCLB. The money and political clout of the campaign comes from the National Business Roundtable and various conservative foundations. Their political power makes it possible to use NICHD, and various scientific groups as covers for the National Reading panel and the Snow Group reports and to control the press treatment of NCLB and related aspects of the campaign. There is no difference between neo-liberals and neo-cons in their attitudes about public education. David Berliner in his new book with Sharon Nichols, Collatoral Damage, How High Stakes Tesiting Corrupts America's Schools (Harvard Education Press, 2007), has documented a remarkable switch in the press focus on education that happened abruptly in the '90s. Up to a particular point, press reports dealt primarily with failures of government to provide equal access and equal educational opportunities for the nation's children and paricularly minorities. Suddenly the coverage shifted to concern about outcomes and failures of the schools to achieve universal success in learning. This reached its peak in the passage of NCLB with its impossible goal of reaching excellence for all in math, reaidng, and science by 2014 through punishing states, districts and schools that are not successful. Only a very powerful campaign could have so controlled the press across the nation. The key thing to understand is that in movement conservatism a small, well-connected, highly funded, totally amoral and very intelligent group orchestrate and control a campaign which uses many disparate groups who don't even know they are being used by the campaign- in fact they are led to believe that they are using the campaign.
See more of this important piece:
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=48987
Kenneth Goodman
In Saving Our Schools (2004, RDR Books), I outlined how movement conservatism is organized with the methods and morality of a long range political campaign. NCLB is the key result of such a campaign. Its long range goal is. to privatize education. Those in control of the campaign have been able to strongly influence the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats. NCLB was presented as a major educational reform by newly elected George W. Bush on September 11, 2001. The Reading Excellence Act which preceded NCLB and mandated the narrow reading focus carried forward in NCLB was passed under the Clinton administration. Andy Rotherham who presents himself as a neo-liberal was the author of the Kerry education platform which strongly supported NCLB. The money and political clout of the campaign comes from the National Business Roundtable and various conservative foundations. Their political power makes it possible to use NICHD, and various scientific groups as covers for the National Reading panel and the Snow Group reports and to control the press treatment of NCLB and related aspects of the campaign. There is no difference between neo-liberals and neo-cons in their attitudes about public education. David Berliner in his new book with Sharon Nichols, Collatoral Damage, How High Stakes Tesiting Corrupts America's Schools (Harvard Education Press, 2007), has documented a remarkable switch in the press focus on education that happened abruptly in the '90s. Up to a particular point, press reports dealt primarily with failures of government to provide equal access and equal educational opportunities for the nation's children and paricularly minorities. Suddenly the coverage shifted to concern about outcomes and failures of the schools to achieve universal success in learning. This reached its peak in the passage of NCLB with its impossible goal of reaching excellence for all in math, reaidng, and science by 2014 through punishing states, districts and schools that are not successful. Only a very powerful campaign could have so controlled the press across the nation. The key thing to understand is that in movement conservatism a small, well-connected, highly funded, totally amoral and very intelligent group orchestrate and control a campaign which uses many disparate groups who don't even know they are being used by the campaign- in fact they are led to believe that they are using the campaign.
See more of this important piece:
http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=48987
Open licensing of textbooks ?
Bringing open resources to textbooks and teaching
Jimmy Wales,Rich Baraniuk
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
As the founders of two of the world's largest open-source media platforms - Wikipedia and Connexions - we have both been accused of being dreamers. Independently, we became infected with the idea of creating a Web platform that would enable anyone to contribute their knowledge to free and open learning resources. Jimmy started with his popularly generated encyclopedia. Rich developed a platform for authors, teachers and students to create, remix and share courses and textbooks.
Just about everybody dismissed these dreams. Now, with the support of untold legions of people from Nobel laureates to junior high school kids sitting in the back rows of classrooms, from East Timor the long way around to East Los Angeles, Wikipedia and Connexions have spread around the globe and today are organic, growing, information bases used by hundreds of millions of people.
We want to infect you with the dream that anyone can become part of a new movement with the potential to change the world of education: A movement that can redefine forever how knowledge is created and used. Imagine a world where textbooks and other learning materials are available to everyone for free over the Web and at low-cost in print. (Today, some community college students have to drop out because their textbooks cost more than their tuition; and today, some third-graders have to share math texts because there aren't enough to go around.)
Imagine textbooks adapted to many learning styles and translated into myriad languages. (Today, language barriers prevent many immigrant parents from helping their children with their homework because the texts are only in English.) Imagine textbooks that are continually updated and corrected by a legion of contributors. (Today, Pluto remains in the list of planets in the nation's science textbooks, and who knows how long it will take for it to be removed.)
This world was just a dream a decade ago.
But the puzzle pieces of the Open Education movement have now come together so that anyone, anywhere, can author, assemble, customize and publish their own open course or textbook. Open licenses make the materials legal to use and remix. Technical innovations like XML and print-on-demand make delivering the output technically feasible and inexpensive.
The new development and distribution models promoted by the Open Education movement represent a natural and inevitable evolution of the educational publishing industry in a way that parallels the evolution of the software industry (toward Linux and other open source software); the music industry (recall the band Radiohead's recent "pay what you like" digital download); and the scholarly publishing industry (recall the government's recent decision to mandate online public access to all research funded by the National Institutes of Health - some $28.9 billion in federal funding this year).
The exciting thing about Open Education is that free access is just the beginning. Open Education promises to turn the textbook production pipeline into a vast dynamic knowledge ecosystem that is in a constant state of creation, use, reuse and improvement. Open Education promises to provide children with learning materials tailored to their individual needs in contrast to today's "off the rack" materials. Open Education promises quicker feedback loops that couple student learning outcomes more directly into content development and improvement. And Open Education promises new approaches to collaborative learning that leverage social interaction among students and teachers worldwide.
An interesting opinion piece. What do readers think?
Jimmy Wales,Rich Baraniuk
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
As the founders of two of the world's largest open-source media platforms - Wikipedia and Connexions - we have both been accused of being dreamers. Independently, we became infected with the idea of creating a Web platform that would enable anyone to contribute their knowledge to free and open learning resources. Jimmy started with his popularly generated encyclopedia. Rich developed a platform for authors, teachers and students to create, remix and share courses and textbooks.
Just about everybody dismissed these dreams. Now, with the support of untold legions of people from Nobel laureates to junior high school kids sitting in the back rows of classrooms, from East Timor the long way around to East Los Angeles, Wikipedia and Connexions have spread around the globe and today are organic, growing, information bases used by hundreds of millions of people.
We want to infect you with the dream that anyone can become part of a new movement with the potential to change the world of education: A movement that can redefine forever how knowledge is created and used. Imagine a world where textbooks and other learning materials are available to everyone for free over the Web and at low-cost in print. (Today, some community college students have to drop out because their textbooks cost more than their tuition; and today, some third-graders have to share math texts because there aren't enough to go around.)
Imagine textbooks adapted to many learning styles and translated into myriad languages. (Today, language barriers prevent many immigrant parents from helping their children with their homework because the texts are only in English.) Imagine textbooks that are continually updated and corrected by a legion of contributors. (Today, Pluto remains in the list of planets in the nation's science textbooks, and who knows how long it will take for it to be removed.)
This world was just a dream a decade ago.
But the puzzle pieces of the Open Education movement have now come together so that anyone, anywhere, can author, assemble, customize and publish their own open course or textbook. Open licenses make the materials legal to use and remix. Technical innovations like XML and print-on-demand make delivering the output technically feasible and inexpensive.
The new development and distribution models promoted by the Open Education movement represent a natural and inevitable evolution of the educational publishing industry in a way that parallels the evolution of the software industry (toward Linux and other open source software); the music industry (recall the band Radiohead's recent "pay what you like" digital download); and the scholarly publishing industry (recall the government's recent decision to mandate online public access to all research funded by the National Institutes of Health - some $28.9 billion in federal funding this year).
The exciting thing about Open Education is that free access is just the beginning. Open Education promises to turn the textbook production pipeline into a vast dynamic knowledge ecosystem that is in a constant state of creation, use, reuse and improvement. Open Education promises to provide children with learning materials tailored to their individual needs in contrast to today's "off the rack" materials. Open Education promises quicker feedback loops that couple student learning outcomes more directly into content development and improvement. And Open Education promises new approaches to collaborative learning that leverage social interaction among students and teachers worldwide.
An interesting opinion piece. What do readers think?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Registered to vote?
If you want to participate in the California Democratic primary on February 5th, you must register to vote by this Tuesday, January 22nd.
Make sure you are registered, and then forward this email to your friends, family, and neighbors. Remind them that they need to be registered if they want to support Barack.
Remember, you do not need to be a Democrat to participate in the primary. Republicans and unaffiliated voters who choose "Decline to State" as their party preference can vote for Senator Obama.
Once someone is registered as "Decline to State," here's how it works:
Unaffiliated voters must specifically request a Democratic ballot. If they are voting in person, they can request the ballot at the polling place.
If they are voting by mail, they must contact their County Elections Officer and request a Democratic ballot by January 29th: http://my.barackobama.com/CAVoteByMail
Our campaign wants as many Californians as possible to participate in the Democratic primary -- to support Barack, but also to reconnect with the political process.
For the full rules on registering to vote, visit the website of the California Secretary of State:
http://my.barackobama.com/CASecretaryofState
Make sure you are registered and spread the word,
Mitchell
Mitchell Schwartz
California State Director
Obama for America
Make sure you are registered, and then forward this email to your friends, family, and neighbors. Remind them that they need to be registered if they want to support Barack.
Remember, you do not need to be a Democrat to participate in the primary. Republicans and unaffiliated voters who choose "Decline to State" as their party preference can vote for Senator Obama.
Once someone is registered as "Decline to State," here's how it works:
Unaffiliated voters must specifically request a Democratic ballot. If they are voting in person, they can request the ballot at the polling place.
If they are voting by mail, they must contact their County Elections Officer and request a Democratic ballot by January 29th: http://my.barackobama.com/CAVoteByMail
Our campaign wants as many Californians as possible to participate in the Democratic primary -- to support Barack, but also to reconnect with the political process.
For the full rules on registering to vote, visit the website of the California Secretary of State:
http://my.barackobama.com/CASecretaryofState
Make sure you are registered and spread the word,
Mitchell
Mitchell Schwartz
California State Director
Obama for America
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Is NCLB Dead ? Should it be?
Is NCLB dead? Should it be?
Duane Campbell , Sacramento
Both major teachers’ unions, the National Educational Association and the American Federation of Teachers have made changing or amending the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 as a top priority in this election year. (http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html)
(http://www.aft.org/news/2008/nclb_test_of_time.htm)
Each of the major Democratic Party candidates call for substantive change – and this debate will be an important part of the Fall election. And the NEA has a major law suite against the Bush Administration for imposing the mandates of NCLB without providing the necessary funding.
(http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/nr050420.html)
After over a decade of corporate and conservative assaults on public schools, focused primarily in the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind act of 2001, according to the data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress there has been no improvement in students reading scores and only a small improvement in math scores. In California, with its large English Language Learner population, there has been no measured improvement in scores by ELL students. At the same time The U.S. has one of the highest rates of high school drop outs in the industrialized world as well as one of the highest rates of incarceration for young people, particularly African American and Latino males.
That is to say, we do not have a general education crisis in the nation, we have a crisis for Black, Latino, Asian and working class white kids. We have an unjust and unequal society. While the rich get richer the working people barely hold on to their jobs and housing. Rich kids get good schools, poor kids get poorly funded schools including teachers with limited preparation in subjects such as math and science.
Rather than facing the inequality issue , major corporate sponsored school reform efforts and politicians stress standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. The testing measures small bits of memorized information. It can not measure critical thinking skills nor commitment to a building a just and democratic community.
Teachers unions ague that the testing has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. The schools do not usually make up for the inequality in our society.
Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute describes the problems of the NCLB act and its current status here:
“The next president has a unique opportunity to start from scratch in education policy, without the deadweight of a failed, inherited No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. The new president and Congress can recapture the "small d" democratic mantle by restoring local control of education, while initiating policies for which the federal government is uniquely suited -- providing better achievement data and equalizing the states' fiscal capacity to provide for all children.
This opportunity exists because NCLB is dead. It will not be reauthorized -- not this year, not ever. The coalition that promoted the 2001 bipartisan law has hopelessly splintered, although NCLB's advocates in the administration and the Congress continue to imagine (at least publicly) that tinkering can put it back together.
NCLB, requiring annual reading and math tests in grades 3 through 8 (and one such test in high school), represents an unprecedented federal takeover of education. It punishes schools not making "adequate yearly progress" toward having all students proficient at "challenging" standards by 2014, regardless of students' socioeconomic disadvantages or even of their cognitive disabilities.”
For the full article go to:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=leaving_nclb_behind
Duane Campbell is the author of Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Prentice Hall, 2004) A new edition is presently being written.
Duane Campbell , Sacramento
Both major teachers’ unions, the National Educational Association and the American Federation of Teachers have made changing or amending the No Child Left Behind act of 2001 as a top priority in this election year. (http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html)
(http://www.aft.org/news/2008/nclb_test_of_time.htm)
Each of the major Democratic Party candidates call for substantive change – and this debate will be an important part of the Fall election. And the NEA has a major law suite against the Bush Administration for imposing the mandates of NCLB without providing the necessary funding.
(http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/nr050420.html)
After over a decade of corporate and conservative assaults on public schools, focused primarily in the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind act of 2001, according to the data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress there has been no improvement in students reading scores and only a small improvement in math scores. In California, with its large English Language Learner population, there has been no measured improvement in scores by ELL students. At the same time The U.S. has one of the highest rates of high school drop outs in the industrialized world as well as one of the highest rates of incarceration for young people, particularly African American and Latino males.
That is to say, we do not have a general education crisis in the nation, we have a crisis for Black, Latino, Asian and working class white kids. We have an unjust and unequal society. While the rich get richer the working people barely hold on to their jobs and housing. Rich kids get good schools, poor kids get poorly funded schools including teachers with limited preparation in subjects such as math and science.
Rather than facing the inequality issue , major corporate sponsored school reform efforts and politicians stress standardized testing as the driving force behind schooling at the k-12 level, particularly in low income districts. The testing measures small bits of memorized information. It can not measure critical thinking skills nor commitment to a building a just and democratic community.
Teachers unions ague that the testing has not improved schools, improved school funding, nor improved teaching. The low level testing tells us what we already know, students in low income schools do poorly. The schools do not usually make up for the inequality in our society.
Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute describes the problems of the NCLB act and its current status here:
“The next president has a unique opportunity to start from scratch in education policy, without the deadweight of a failed, inherited No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. The new president and Congress can recapture the "small d" democratic mantle by restoring local control of education, while initiating policies for which the federal government is uniquely suited -- providing better achievement data and equalizing the states' fiscal capacity to provide for all children.
This opportunity exists because NCLB is dead. It will not be reauthorized -- not this year, not ever. The coalition that promoted the 2001 bipartisan law has hopelessly splintered, although NCLB's advocates in the administration and the Congress continue to imagine (at least publicly) that tinkering can put it back together.
NCLB, requiring annual reading and math tests in grades 3 through 8 (and one such test in high school), represents an unprecedented federal takeover of education. It punishes schools not making "adequate yearly progress" toward having all students proficient at "challenging" standards by 2014, regardless of students' socioeconomic disadvantages or even of their cognitive disabilities.”
For the full article go to:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=leaving_nclb_behind
Duane Campbell is the author of Choosing Democracy: a practical guide to multicultural education. ( Prentice Hall, 2004) A new edition is presently being written.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Why I Support Barack Obama
Why I’m Supporting Barack Obama for President
By Darrell Steinberg
California State Senate
On February 5th, California Democrats will play a major role in electing our next President.
For this good fortune, we face a difficult choice between talented and qualified candidates. While every one of them would be an improvement over George W. Bush, Sen. Barack Obama is Democrats' best choice in 2008.
Up until last week I supported former Sen. John Edwards, a passionate advocate for improving the lives of the millions of Americans living in poverty. Whatever happens this year, I hope John Edwards remains in public life – the country needs his important voice.
But I switched to Obama because he's the only candidate who can awaken a significant number of Americans – the apathetic and disengaged – who have turned away from an unresponsive government and, in turn, our civic life.
Just look at Iowa, where younger voters and independents boosted Democratic Caucus turnout from 124,000 in 2004 to 239,000 in 2008. These voters, who do not normally participate in elections in these kinds of numbers, responded to Obama's call for Americans to “build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”
With a resume unique among American presidential candidates (he was a paid community organizer before he was a politician), Obama recognizes that increasing public participation in our Democracy is the only way to build a consensus for change to take on our most intractable challenges – like passing universal health care and lessening America’s dependence on oil.
While Obama is a consensus-builder at heart, he’s not afraid to stand on principle, even when it’s not politically expedient – he was alone among the leading Democratic presidential candidates in coming out against the Iraq War from the start.
There’s much more to Barack Obama than I can write about here. Go to BarackObama.com to find out more about the man and how you can join his fight for change, either as a precinct captain in your neighborhood or even as a contributor to his campaign.
No matter which candidate wins the California primary, I believe that a Democrat will occupy the White House in 2009, riding a message of change and leadership to improve our country's standing in the world.
In my view, only Barack Obama can turn that message into a mandate.
Darrell Steinberg represents Sacramento in the California State Senate.
Posted on January 14, 2008
From: California Progress Report
By Darrell Steinberg
California State Senate
On February 5th, California Democrats will play a major role in electing our next President.
For this good fortune, we face a difficult choice between talented and qualified candidates. While every one of them would be an improvement over George W. Bush, Sen. Barack Obama is Democrats' best choice in 2008.
Up until last week I supported former Sen. John Edwards, a passionate advocate for improving the lives of the millions of Americans living in poverty. Whatever happens this year, I hope John Edwards remains in public life – the country needs his important voice.
But I switched to Obama because he's the only candidate who can awaken a significant number of Americans – the apathetic and disengaged – who have turned away from an unresponsive government and, in turn, our civic life.
Just look at Iowa, where younger voters and independents boosted Democratic Caucus turnout from 124,000 in 2004 to 239,000 in 2008. These voters, who do not normally participate in elections in these kinds of numbers, responded to Obama's call for Americans to “build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”
With a resume unique among American presidential candidates (he was a paid community organizer before he was a politician), Obama recognizes that increasing public participation in our Democracy is the only way to build a consensus for change to take on our most intractable challenges – like passing universal health care and lessening America’s dependence on oil.
While Obama is a consensus-builder at heart, he’s not afraid to stand on principle, even when it’s not politically expedient – he was alone among the leading Democratic presidential candidates in coming out against the Iraq War from the start.
There’s much more to Barack Obama than I can write about here. Go to BarackObama.com to find out more about the man and how you can join his fight for change, either as a precinct captain in your neighborhood or even as a contributor to his campaign.
No matter which candidate wins the California primary, I believe that a Democrat will occupy the White House in 2009, riding a message of change and leadership to improve our country's standing in the world.
In my view, only Barack Obama can turn that message into a mandate.
Darrell Steinberg represents Sacramento in the California State Senate.
Posted on January 14, 2008
From: California Progress Report
Monday, January 14, 2008
Liberal Fascists ?
“The quintessential liberal fascist,” says the cover blurb on Liberal Fascism, the new book of National Review writer and right wing blogger Jonah Goldberg, “is not an SS storm trooper. It is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.”*
And they’re worried about how WE teach history?
From Edwize.
And they’re worried about how WE teach history?
From Edwize.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
School Budgets
I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, but at least they are talking about real dollars. Note, they do not propose raising taxes to adequately fund the schools.
Finding right mix for school funding
By Michael Kirst and Goodwin Liu - Special to The Bee Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, January 13, 2008
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared 2008 the Year of Education, he didn't expect to be facing a $14 billion deficit. In his State of the State speech, the governor acknowledged the need to reform K-12 education and to "fund those reforms" but said "this is not the year to talk about money."
Grim as this year's budget may be, a better fiscal picture lies ahead for K-12 education. State revenues will eventually rebound, as they historically have, and declining enrollment will make more money available per pupil over the next five years.
Additional dollars won't make a difference, however, if we don't act now to change how California funds its public schools.
California's school finance system is deeply flawed. The state allocates revenue to districts through complex formulas that few people can understand. Revenue allocations bear no relation to what it costs to educate children to state standards. The proliferation of revenue programs, each for a specific purpose, generates costly compliance burdens and onerous paperwork. And program restrictions limit the ability of school officials to shift dollars to meet local needs.
In a forthcoming report, the governor's own blue-ribbon education advisory committee will call for a major overhaul of the finance system. Now is the time to create a more rational, simple and fair system that can be phased in as new money becomes available.
We propose a new approach based on four principles. First, revenue allocations should be guided by student needs. If all students are to meet state learning standards, then the finance system must systematically provide greater resources to districts with more disadvantaged students.
Second, revenue allocations should be adjusted for regional wage differences so that education dollars have similar purchasing power across the state.
Third, the system should be simple, transparent and easily understood.
Fourth, to promote stability and political feasibility, reforms should apply only to new money without reducing any district's current revenue, and Proposition 98 should be left intact.
To implement these principles, we envision a system with three parts:
• Base funding: Each district should receive a base funding level to buy textbooks and materials, maintain safe and clean facilities and employ qualified teachers and other personnel. Base funding should enable an "average" child to meet state learning standards.
• Special education: The finance system should maintain its current approach to special education, with a goal of equalizing funding across the state within five years.
• Targeted funding: We propose a single program of targeted funding to meet the additional needs of low-income students and English learners. Funding should be based on the concentration, not just the number, of those students in a given district because the challenges faced by disadvantaged students intensify as more of their peers are similarly disadvantaged.
Cut short to respect copyright provisions asserted by the Sacramento Bee. See earlier posts on Fair Use.
See the entire piece at:
http://www.sacbee.com/325/v-print/story/628541.html
Finding right mix for school funding
By Michael Kirst and Goodwin Liu - Special to The Bee Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, January 13, 2008
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared 2008 the Year of Education, he didn't expect to be facing a $14 billion deficit. In his State of the State speech, the governor acknowledged the need to reform K-12 education and to "fund those reforms" but said "this is not the year to talk about money."
Grim as this year's budget may be, a better fiscal picture lies ahead for K-12 education. State revenues will eventually rebound, as they historically have, and declining enrollment will make more money available per pupil over the next five years.
Additional dollars won't make a difference, however, if we don't act now to change how California funds its public schools.
California's school finance system is deeply flawed. The state allocates revenue to districts through complex formulas that few people can understand. Revenue allocations bear no relation to what it costs to educate children to state standards. The proliferation of revenue programs, each for a specific purpose, generates costly compliance burdens and onerous paperwork. And program restrictions limit the ability of school officials to shift dollars to meet local needs.
In a forthcoming report, the governor's own blue-ribbon education advisory committee will call for a major overhaul of the finance system. Now is the time to create a more rational, simple and fair system that can be phased in as new money becomes available.
We propose a new approach based on four principles. First, revenue allocations should be guided by student needs. If all students are to meet state learning standards, then the finance system must systematically provide greater resources to districts with more disadvantaged students.
Second, revenue allocations should be adjusted for regional wage differences so that education dollars have similar purchasing power across the state.
Third, the system should be simple, transparent and easily understood.
Fourth, to promote stability and political feasibility, reforms should apply only to new money without reducing any district's current revenue, and Proposition 98 should be left intact.
To implement these principles, we envision a system with three parts:
• Base funding: Each district should receive a base funding level to buy textbooks and materials, maintain safe and clean facilities and employ qualified teachers and other personnel. Base funding should enable an "average" child to meet state learning standards.
• Special education: The finance system should maintain its current approach to special education, with a goal of equalizing funding across the state within five years.
• Targeted funding: We propose a single program of targeted funding to meet the additional needs of low-income students and English learners. Funding should be based on the concentration, not just the number, of those students in a given district because the challenges faced by disadvantaged students intensify as more of their peers are similarly disadvantaged.
Cut short to respect copyright provisions asserted by the Sacramento Bee. See earlier posts on Fair Use.
See the entire piece at:
http://www.sacbee.com/325/v-print/story/628541.html
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Governor proposes cutting school funds
Governor: Slash school aid
He'll reportedly propose suspension of Prop. 98
By Judy Lin - jlin@sacbee.com Published 12:16 am PST Thursday, January 10, 2008
In a politically charged move to help whittle down the state's $14 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today will propose billions in cuts to public education and a suspension of schools' constitutional funding guarantee under Proposition 98.
Schwarzenegger will ask the Democratic-led Legislature to waive Proposition 98's minimum funding requirement for K-14 education programs when he releases his state spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1 and declares a fiscal emergency, according to three sources who have seen the proposal. The sources demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to speak.
The suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote of lawmakers, has been done only once before – during the fiscal crisis of 2004 – and ultimately left Schwarzenegger reeling from accusations that he broke a promise to restore education funding in subsequent years.
The Governor's Office declined to comment on a proposal certain to draw fierce opposition from teachers unions and other education advocacy groups.
"We would enlist all of labor to resist the cuts and to resist the suspension of Prop. 98," said Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, which represents over 120,000 education employees. "We would consider it an assault on working families."
Hittelman said 90 percent of education funding is dedicated to salaries, much of which is protected by contracts. A 10 percent cut would leave no money for basic school operational needs such as water and electricity, he said.
"He's going to have a fight on his hands," said Kevin Gordon, a school funding expert and consultant. "Proposition 98 isn't some mechanism to try to get decent funding for public schools; it is a minimum level."
Proposition 98, passed in 1988, provides a minimum guarantee for K-12 school districts, community colleges and instructional activities at state agencies. Under a complex calculation established by the initiative, the state dedicates the lion's share of its general fund spending plan to supplement property taxes for education programs. This year, $41 billion of the state's $100 billion general fund budget goes to schools.
Schools also get smaller amounts of money from the federal budget and state lottery proceeds, neither of which is counted in the Proposition 98 calculation.
It's unclear how much the governor will seek in savings from education, although Schwarzenegger has indicated that he will seek an average of 10 percent cuts from all agencies.
For education, that could range from $4 billion to $6 billion, depending on the source of funding, Gordon said.
While labor leaders vowed to call on Democrats to oppose education reductions, many Republicans in the Legislature would responded favorably to the governor's proposal.
In recent weeks, the governor has met privately with school unions, and associations of administrators and school boards – known around the Capitol as the Education Coalition. Participants said Schwarzenegger has told them education cuts will have to be a part of closing the deficit.
The coalition and Schwarzenegger have a politically turbulent history:
When he first arrived in office, Schwarzenegger struck a deal with education leaders for a $2 billion reduction in school financing to deal with a fiscal crisis in the 2004-05 budget.
Coalition leaders said the governor made a verbal pledge to repay the money as state revenues improved, and ultimately they accused him of reneging on the deal.
The California Teachers Association and other groups spent more than $100 million to defeat Schwarzenegger's 2005 ballot measures, including one to change Proposition 98's minimum funding requirements.
CTA President David Sanchez said it was too early to speculate how teachers would respond to a suspension of Proposition 98.
"Our students are not the ones that created this budget crisis," Sanchez said. "Their education shouldn't be ransomed to solve it. If there has to be any kind of budget cut, it should be kept as far away from the classroom as possible."
Education advocates said the proposal, if passed, would create a bad precedent for school funding in the future. The last thing education advocates want is for the Legislature and governor to develop a habit of suspending Proposition 98, Gordon said.
Advocates grew more anxious after Schwarzenegger's State of the State address. In his speech, the governor did not say what they wanted to hear.
"No self-respecting politician would miss the opportunity to say I'm not raising taxes and preserving Prop. 98," Gordon said.
He'll reportedly propose suspension of Prop. 98
By Judy Lin - jlin@sacbee.com Published 12:16 am PST Thursday, January 10, 2008
In a politically charged move to help whittle down the state's $14 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today will propose billions in cuts to public education and a suspension of schools' constitutional funding guarantee under Proposition 98.
Schwarzenegger will ask the Democratic-led Legislature to waive Proposition 98's minimum funding requirement for K-14 education programs when he releases his state spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1 and declares a fiscal emergency, according to three sources who have seen the proposal. The sources demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to speak.
The suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote of lawmakers, has been done only once before – during the fiscal crisis of 2004 – and ultimately left Schwarzenegger reeling from accusations that he broke a promise to restore education funding in subsequent years.
The Governor's Office declined to comment on a proposal certain to draw fierce opposition from teachers unions and other education advocacy groups.
"We would enlist all of labor to resist the cuts and to resist the suspension of Prop. 98," said Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers, which represents over 120,000 education employees. "We would consider it an assault on working families."
Hittelman said 90 percent of education funding is dedicated to salaries, much of which is protected by contracts. A 10 percent cut would leave no money for basic school operational needs such as water and electricity, he said.
"He's going to have a fight on his hands," said Kevin Gordon, a school funding expert and consultant. "Proposition 98 isn't some mechanism to try to get decent funding for public schools; it is a minimum level."
Proposition 98, passed in 1988, provides a minimum guarantee for K-12 school districts, community colleges and instructional activities at state agencies. Under a complex calculation established by the initiative, the state dedicates the lion's share of its general fund spending plan to supplement property taxes for education programs. This year, $41 billion of the state's $100 billion general fund budget goes to schools.
Schools also get smaller amounts of money from the federal budget and state lottery proceeds, neither of which is counted in the Proposition 98 calculation.
It's unclear how much the governor will seek in savings from education, although Schwarzenegger has indicated that he will seek an average of 10 percent cuts from all agencies.
For education, that could range from $4 billion to $6 billion, depending on the source of funding, Gordon said.
While labor leaders vowed to call on Democrats to oppose education reductions, many Republicans in the Legislature would responded favorably to the governor's proposal.
In recent weeks, the governor has met privately with school unions, and associations of administrators and school boards – known around the Capitol as the Education Coalition. Participants said Schwarzenegger has told them education cuts will have to be a part of closing the deficit.
The coalition and Schwarzenegger have a politically turbulent history:
When he first arrived in office, Schwarzenegger struck a deal with education leaders for a $2 billion reduction in school financing to deal with a fiscal crisis in the 2004-05 budget.
Coalition leaders said the governor made a verbal pledge to repay the money as state revenues improved, and ultimately they accused him of reneging on the deal.
The California Teachers Association and other groups spent more than $100 million to defeat Schwarzenegger's 2005 ballot measures, including one to change Proposition 98's minimum funding requirements.
CTA President David Sanchez said it was too early to speculate how teachers would respond to a suspension of Proposition 98.
"Our students are not the ones that created this budget crisis," Sanchez said. "Their education shouldn't be ransomed to solve it. If there has to be any kind of budget cut, it should be kept as far away from the classroom as possible."
Education advocates said the proposal, if passed, would create a bad precedent for school funding in the future. The last thing education advocates want is for the Legislature and governor to develop a habit of suspending Proposition 98, Gordon said.
Advocates grew more anxious after Schwarzenegger's State of the State address. In his speech, the governor did not say what they wanted to hear.
"No self-respecting politician would miss the opportunity to say I'm not raising taxes and preserving Prop. 98," Gordon said.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Obama wins in Iowa
If Barack Obama can win in Iowa (my home state), he can win in the U.S. ( I left Iowa a long time ago)
Barack Obama is the runaway winner of the Iowa Caucuses. What began as a virtual tie between the major candidates on election night quickly turned into a decisive victory for Obama. Hillary Clinton, who has frequently touted her electability, came in a close third behind John Edwards.
With 76 percent of precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 36 percent of voters, compared to 31 percent for Edwards and 30 percent for Clinton.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Obama campaign
So far, I have read on a number of comments on the Obama campaign that consist of little more than veiled references and feigned insider knowledge. I have not read much substantive analysis, mostly name calling.
For a good essay by a seasoned antiracism activist from the Jackson campaign, see Http:///www.edjustice.blogspot.com
I have previously posted a comparison of the candidates as developed here in Sacramento for our electoral group the Progressive alliance. You can find arguments for Edwards and Obama on our blog at
http://www.sacramentopa.blogspot.com
Here I would like to take up two of the most frequent characterizations of the Obama campaign which I find lacking.
The argument that Obama is an example of color blindness offered by Angela Davis in The Nation is not consistent with the campaign. While I respect the opinion of Angela Davis on many issues, there is a problem here. We should look at the actual campaign and the actual programs. Also see Shelby Steele, of all people, on this topic in Time Magazine along with an essay by Joe Klein. Rather than dismissing Obama, or relying upon others views, I urge readers to look at what he is actually saying. His campaign, for example, is far from color blind. It is not “beyond race” at all.
You can read his positions at http://www.barackobama.com
If you wish to see more see the article on the South Carolina “Black” primary.
On this issue I think it is important to recall a little history. Most African Americans did not support Martin Luther King Jr. while he was active and organizing. Particularly, most “militants”, and many leftists did not.
They found MLK, too accomodationist. Not militant enough.
Of course now writers all claim to have been active supporters of SCLC and King, but if you read history, and his own speeches, you will find how often he was criticized and even denounced as too integrationist.
Now I think there are real issues in the case of Obama and Oprah. What is this role of an African American from the post civil rights generation?
I am not saying that Obama is a new M.L. King. He is an elected official, not a movement leader. However, a fair and accurate analysis of the role of this campaign is in order.
A second major critique, one which I am of two minds about, is the critique of his post partisanship talk. According to the Des Moines Register poll of today, Barack is leading in Iowa --- and his strong support is among independents who will vote in the Democratic primary.
Here is the problem as I understand it.
Bill Clinton etal ( and Hillary) created the DLC arguing that the old politics, the old party structure was obsolete. His critics claim that Sen. Obama is repeating this refrain.
It was different in the DLC era. Their primary argument was that the Democratic Party looked as if it were captured by “special interests” and critics meant Blacks. The DLC was after the Reagan Democrat voter, an older White Male.
Well, obviously with Obama as the candidate, he is not repeating that argument. He is, however, like Clinton, not kneeling to each special interest (such as the NEA, etc.)
I, and many others cringe at this. We tend to see this as an argument against party politics, the sort of beyond ideology stuff. Yes, this is a problem.
At the same time, there is another side. If you think of the actual Democratic Party, of the really existing Democratic Party, that is a corrupt, incompetent, disorganized mass that usually ends up supporting corporate capitalism (see Robert Reich’s new book, supercapitalism),
Given the real nature of the really existing D.P. , then the Obama line of reaching out beyond the existing partisan dueling in the capitol, which is really about who gets the most corporate money for their campaign chests is a reasonable approach. Given this party, then I am less certain of my own position on Barack’s line on the post partisan debate.
How many of us try to recruit people into the D.P.? Why? Then, if Barack argues to move beyond partisanship, why is there such criticism.
So, these are two of the items that concern me about the criticism of the Obama campaign. And they are two items that concern me about the campaign itself. I do not have a clear answer on these. However, in electoral time lines, we do have to make some choices.
Inside the Black Primary, Bob Moser.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/moser
Reflections on Black Group Identity in the 21st. Century,
Dr. Milton Kilson
http://www.blackcommentator.com/258/258_black_group_will_kilson_ed_bd.html
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
For a good essay by a seasoned antiracism activist from the Jackson campaign, see Http:///www.edjustice.blogspot.com
I have previously posted a comparison of the candidates as developed here in Sacramento for our electoral group the Progressive alliance. You can find arguments for Edwards and Obama on our blog at
http://www.sacramentopa.blogspot.com
Here I would like to take up two of the most frequent characterizations of the Obama campaign which I find lacking.
The argument that Obama is an example of color blindness offered by Angela Davis in The Nation is not consistent with the campaign. While I respect the opinion of Angela Davis on many issues, there is a problem here. We should look at the actual campaign and the actual programs. Also see Shelby Steele, of all people, on this topic in Time Magazine along with an essay by Joe Klein. Rather than dismissing Obama, or relying upon others views, I urge readers to look at what he is actually saying. His campaign, for example, is far from color blind. It is not “beyond race” at all.
You can read his positions at http://www.barackobama.com
If you wish to see more see the article on the South Carolina “Black” primary.
On this issue I think it is important to recall a little history. Most African Americans did not support Martin Luther King Jr. while he was active and organizing. Particularly, most “militants”, and many leftists did not.
They found MLK, too accomodationist. Not militant enough.
Of course now writers all claim to have been active supporters of SCLC and King, but if you read history, and his own speeches, you will find how often he was criticized and even denounced as too integrationist.
Now I think there are real issues in the case of Obama and Oprah. What is this role of an African American from the post civil rights generation?
I am not saying that Obama is a new M.L. King. He is an elected official, not a movement leader. However, a fair and accurate analysis of the role of this campaign is in order.
A second major critique, one which I am of two minds about, is the critique of his post partisanship talk. According to the Des Moines Register poll of today, Barack is leading in Iowa --- and his strong support is among independents who will vote in the Democratic primary.
Here is the problem as I understand it.
Bill Clinton etal ( and Hillary) created the DLC arguing that the old politics, the old party structure was obsolete. His critics claim that Sen. Obama is repeating this refrain.
It was different in the DLC era. Their primary argument was that the Democratic Party looked as if it were captured by “special interests” and critics meant Blacks. The DLC was after the Reagan Democrat voter, an older White Male.
Well, obviously with Obama as the candidate, he is not repeating that argument. He is, however, like Clinton, not kneeling to each special interest (such as the NEA, etc.)
I, and many others cringe at this. We tend to see this as an argument against party politics, the sort of beyond ideology stuff. Yes, this is a problem.
At the same time, there is another side. If you think of the actual Democratic Party, of the really existing Democratic Party, that is a corrupt, incompetent, disorganized mass that usually ends up supporting corporate capitalism (see Robert Reich’s new book, supercapitalism),
Given the real nature of the really existing D.P. , then the Obama line of reaching out beyond the existing partisan dueling in the capitol, which is really about who gets the most corporate money for their campaign chests is a reasonable approach. Given this party, then I am less certain of my own position on Barack’s line on the post partisan debate.
How many of us try to recruit people into the D.P.? Why? Then, if Barack argues to move beyond partisanship, why is there such criticism.
So, these are two of the items that concern me about the criticism of the Obama campaign. And they are two items that concern me about the campaign itself. I do not have a clear answer on these. However, in electoral time lines, we do have to make some choices.
Inside the Black Primary, Bob Moser.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/moser
Reflections on Black Group Identity in the 21st. Century,
Dr. Milton Kilson
http://www.blackcommentator.com/258/258_black_group_will_kilson_ed_bd.html
Duane Campbell
Sacramento
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
