My Beauty Best Teacher

4/8/08 quote from Chancellor Rhee's City Council testimony "Sixty of our schools are either in corrective action or restructuring status for failure to consistently meet AYP. The only humane response to such a number includes a significant financial investment to find out what is going wrong in these schools, and correct it. By adding (increased aid) 4 million to create a school improvement cluster and 7 million increase to support reconstituted schools FY 09 funding will help us identify and correct problems that are blocking student achievement in these schools."

On Saturday, the WaPo featured a story- "Study Questions Disparities in Funding Among Some Schools" by reporter Bill Turque." This article was based on a study of 112 DC public schools conducted by Mary Levy, Education Finance Specialist from the Wash. Lawyers Comm. on Civil Rights. Turque's story featured several elementary schools and middle schools to make the illustrations of financial disparities that existed in DC schools '08-09 budget. Shaw middle school at Garnett Patterson received $12, 383 in tax dollars for each of its 257 students while Hart middle school only received $7,128 per pupil for its 619 students. It was noted that both schools have high concentrations of children from low-income families.Typically funding is provided to DC schools based on a per pupil rate between $8,700 and $10,000. Of course some of the funds go to the central office functions and the rest typically get distributed to local schools.

What is significant about Levy's study which by the way came out at the end of last school year is that it revealed that "gaps in support grew substantially over last year.... 31 schools ended up with less money than they were due." It was reported that this funding disparity is due to a failure to adhere to a new funding formula initiated by Rhee at the end of last school year which promised art teachers, librarians, school social workers, etc.

Unfortunately in schools where there are high needs, financial inequities such as those noted in the article adversely impact student achievement. Without the needed funding, schools like Hart faced teacher and staff shortages and over sized classrooms amongst a host of other ills. Of course the ripple effect as we have read about in the news and watched on television are school-wide safety issues, student discipline problems, students being taught by uncertified substitutes, and assaults on teachers. The news about financial disparities is too little too late for this school year. Noah Wepman, DC Schools CFO promises us that these anomalies will now be corrected in the proposed school budget before next school year. You tell me what is wrong with this picture. (Posted by The Washington Teacher). Story courtesy of www.washingtonpost.com , picture courtesy of flicker.com.

The Mayor Is Out Of Control !

Norm at Ed Notes on Line has an excellent piece on mayoral control titled: Barron, Klein, Spellings, Sharpton Confrontation: New Video by Angel Gonzalez. I wanted to share this with my readers here in Washington, DC. I believe Norm's piece deserves front page billing. Even though the subject of Angel Gonzalez's video is about NY public schools - it sounds eerily familiar to what is happening right here in the District of Columbia Public Schools . I can't say that that NY parents and teachers didn't warn us before DC Mayor Adrian Fenty started down this very slippery slope of mayoral control of our public school system. I encourage you to watch closely this must see video.

There are many similarities of mayoral control of public schools gone bad in NYC and DC. They include: waiving public school superintendent's credentials, pitting charter schools against public schools, blaming teachers, failing to be transparent as promised, disenfranchising parents and other critical stakeholders, dumbing down the curriculum, teaching to the test/creating test taking mills, and blaming schools when they fail after they have not received required funding , etc. For example, when 31 of DC Public Schools did not receive the funding they were due in SY '08-09, DC Schools Chief Financial Officer , Noah Wepman said that it won't happen AGAIN next school year. Oh Really? It's hard to believe this especially when a plan was not immediately developed by Fenty, Rhee or Wepman over 1 year ago and only some adjustments were made. It wasn't until 1 year later after the release of the study by Mary Levy on DC public school funding was featured in the March 28th WaPO article by Bill Turque titled, "Study Questions Disparities in Funding Among Some Schools"did the general public learn that there was such a problem with funding. This is just not acceptable from an 'administration that vowed transparency' to the DC community.

Courtesy of Ed Notes on Line & Angel Gonzalez: "In a brilliant new video, Angel Gonzalez of ICE and the Grassroots Education Movement exposes the hypocrisy of mayoral control and the phony mantra that their critics are all about adults and they are all about children." Here's Angel's introduction :

4-3-09 "Sharpton-Klein National Action Network / Education Equality Project Forum with pro-mayoral control and pro-charter school panelists from across the US. NYC Councilman Charles Barron condemned their privatization of public schools agenda. After protests from the NO Mayoral Control Coalition, Sharpton conceded Barron's address prior to the speeches of the panelists. Barron condemns the profiteering & the educational devastation promulgated by the Bloomberg/Klein Dictatorial Control of public education in NYC. "- Angel Gonzalez (Posted by The Washington Teacher)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntbFiTXD4Og

In article that appeared in the DC Wire on April 3, 2009- the title says it all "No Dough for Teachers in Funding Formula." Just like DC students, DC teachers have been pawns in Rhee's political game and are still being mislead by Chancellor Rhee and her company spokesperson- Dena Iverson. I also blame the Washington Teachers' Union President George Parker, the Chief Negotiator for the predicament DC teachers are presently in as well. Parker created a controversy when he allowed Rhee to present a pay proposal to DC teachers last summer that was not legally feasible and encouraged teachers to believe that they did not have seniority rights. Both Rhee and Parker have all of us "Going In Circles" for these last 20 months like lyrics to the song,

In the latest saga of DC schools- here comes Mayor Adrian Fenty's latest dastardly deed. Fenty has eliminated funding for an independent evaluator assigned to assess the progress of school reform under Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. Are you surprised ? Well I'm not. Isn't this typical of life under Fenty ? So it seems that General Greenhorn (AKA Adrian Fenty) is afraid of a little accountability. Well afterall accounability is reserved only for us peons (i.e. teachers, principals, vice principals & central office workers). Right ?

General Greenhorn is the title bestowed upon Adrian Fenty by certain journalists early on in his mayoral career.

My email is all ablaze this morning about what should we do next in this latest 'mayhem madness' we call DCPS. You tell me ! Here's the story in its entirety as reported by Wash. Post Staff Writer, Bill Turque and might I add buried back on page B 4.

Latest Fenty Budget Cuts Funds for Schools Evaluation

"Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has eliminated funding for an independent evaluator assigned to assess the progress of public school reform under Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, according to the revised 2010 budget he submitted to the D.C. Council late Friday.

Fenty (D) also reversed a series of other budget measures, approved by the council in May, that sought to divert some of the mayor's control of education to other agencies. They include the shift of staff and funds from Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso to the D.C. State Board of Education, which would be established as an independent agency. The board would house the office of the ombudsman for public education, which is responsible for investigating complaints and answering questions from parents.

The proposed moves reflect the council's discontent with what some members see as a lack of transparency and accountability in the mayor's efforts to transform the District's struggling public school system. The ombudsman's office, for example, is supposed to file monthly reports but has not done so since March. The ombudsman, Tonya Vidal Kinlow, resigned in December and has yet to be permanently replaced.

Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) and the council are free to restore the funding cut when they vote on the revised budget July 31. But speaking to the council Monday at a hearing on Fenty's plan to close a two-year, $666 million revenue shortfall, city administrator Neil Albert urged that the governance structure established in 2007 remain intact.

"Our education reform efforts are demonstrating real results," Albert said, "and we strongly believe that, rather than changing course with the established structure, we should maintain momentum forward." Albert did not directly address the school evaluation, which Fenty is required to submit annually under the law that established mayoral control. He also has the option to skip the yearly reports and deliver a five-year independent assessment by September 2012.

In May 2008, Reinoso recommended two prominent education scholars for the project, Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute and Kenneth Wong of Brown University. But the plan stalled when Gray raised questions about their independence. Hess wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post in 2007 praising Rhee. Wong testified in favor of the mayoral takeover.

When Reinoso didn't offer other candidates, Gray decided to move on his own. This past May, he included $325,000 to hire the National Research Council, one of four nonprofit organizations that operate under the National Academies umbrella, to conduct the evaluation. The money would cover about 20 percent of the total cost, with the NRC raising the rest from private sources. Fenty spokeswoman Mafara Hobson said Monday that the mayor was still committed to an independent evaluation but did not elaborate.

The council also has attempted to bolster the power of the state board, which does not run school operations but formulates standards for academic programs and teacher qualifications and oversees the school system's standardized tests. Although state board members are elected, the panel is under the control of the state superintendent, who reports to Reinoso.

"We don't believe a set of elected officials should report to a set of appointed officials," Gray said Monday. When Fenty's original budget cut the board's $1 million in funding in half this spring, the council restored the money and added money for two staff members who would answer directly to the panel. D.C. State Board President Lisa Raymond said the group is simply trying to do its job. "We understand this is a very tough time for the entire city, and if we have to reduce our budget to help the city, we are willing to do that," she said. "Cutting it in half is not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable three months ago, and it's not acceptable now."

Posted by The Washington Teacher, story courtesy of The WaPo

Via memeorandum (and here too) I read this report from The Hill: White House to offer 10 states waivers on No Child Left Behind:

President Obama on Thursday will offer waivers to 10 states that applied for exclusion from some aspects of the No Child Left Behind Law, according to a report in The Associated Press that cited an anonymous White House official...

...The George W. Bush-era legislation requires that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014, and would penalize those schools where the children failed to reach required standards...

...There is broad support among both parties to reform the legislation, which Obama has called admirable but flawed. However, Congress has been gridlocked over how to do so since it came up for renewal in 2007....

President Obama once more done the wrong thing. As I wrote in my post Obama's Change to NCLB Policy: Violation of Nation's Principles?:

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further....

...President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough...

It is time that we change directions as a nation- and thankfully in one short year we can do so. The Republican Party will eventually nominate someone who isn't Obama, and this Republican will not support the 'go it alone', unconstitutional, 'slush fund' methods of Chicago-style gangster-in-chief Barack Obama. Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee have recently released two pieces of draft legislation to overhaul No Child Left Behind, with provisions in them that support state-developed accountability systems and a smaller federal footprint in education. These resolutions will be debated in our legislative branch- our law making branch of government- and funded there, and once the details have been figured out, compromises made, and hearing and testimony taken on the powers of the unintended consequences of the law, then it will become law and be executed by our President.

THAT'S HOW WE DO IT IN AMERICA- this isn't Kenya or Indonesia, where the dictator who runs our nation can just jam through his way, hopefully get Congress to approve it, and fund it all through giant slush funds that were designed to stimulate the economy or bail out failing banks back in 2009.

The ends do not justify the means in this nation- and our President is not smarter than the American public and their elected Representatives and Senators. He is not a King, ordering his advisers and czars and secretaries to implement policies and rules and waiver plans without any Congressional authority to do so simply because HE believes it to be the right policies- our President acts (especially on domestic policies) only with Congressional approval and direction. Imagine how the liberals would have howled had President Bush just decided to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan without any Congressional direction, using funds designed to pay for healthcare or education, and then laughed off any sort of oversight of his efforts. It would not be right for Bush to do that then, and it is not right for Obama to grant waivers to states for NCLB now.

Race to the Top should have been opposed, and changes to NCLB should be opposed- in America, laws must come from the legislative branch, not the White House, and President Obama's attempt to ignore the separation of powers in our nation in the hopes of jamming his views on the sovereign people of America must be opposed. Vote Republican in 2012 and throw him out of office.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades has a great post up on this subject, and says something that I have been saying to the liberals and progressives who are cheering the Presidents unilateral actions recently:

I don't even want to think like this, but if we're playing Lord of the Flies like this, I can see a Republican president waiving compliance with the National Labor Relations Board too. And the EPA. And unilaterally offering a "waiver" permitting a company to drill in ANWR.

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me.

Probably a lot of you didn't read this story, but it is the kind of backstabbing that is becoming familiar to those who follow Obama's policy actions. Obama is going to release a budget proposal Monday for NASA that will cancel the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020, cancel the Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, cancel the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon, cancel any hope for lunar landers or moon bases, and cancel any near future for Americans to explore and conquer outer space.

Instead, Obama will have NASA focus on studies and reports and analysis for future plans- in other words, do nothing and change nothing about our world and our future in it. Furthermore, NASA will be instructed to change its mission away from exploration of outer space to research and monitoring of climate change. That's right- Obama is turning NASA into yet another agency whose resources will be devoted to that failed religion of climate change.

These changes to policy are bad changes. NASA is not being instructed to do more with less, as Bush told NASA to do. NASA is being told to do nothing, or worse, spend its money and energy and expertise trying to reinforce failed theories. It isn't getting leaner and meaner it its quest to take humanity to the stars, but instead is being beaten down and embarrassed in a quest to make humanity less prosperous and happy.

And these changes are not what Obama promised while on the campaign. On the campaign, he lied through his teeth, told people what they want to hear, and was deceitful about his future intentions. In August of last year, then-Senator Barack Obama detailed a comprehensive space plan that included $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president. Since then, he has made NASA a low priority, not even bothering to name a director for NASA for several months, and instead of increasing funding by $2 billion, NASA's budget is going to be slashed.

This is why I call him the Bizzarro President- whatever he says, you can take to the bank that he is going to do the opposite of what he says. He is a serial liar, a deceitful snake, and an untrustworthy person. His word is meaningless, and his promises worth less.

Speaking to potential voters in Florida last year, who bought his lies and promises and voted for him, Obama said:

We cannot cede our leadership in space... (we need to keep) supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle's successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired.

Count the broken promises- I count 4 out of 4 statements. Once President, he is going to cede leadership in space, turning us away from exploration and development of the moon to work on reports, studies, and global warming. He is going to do the opposite of 'speed the development of the Shuttle successor'- instead, he is going to totally stop all development on it. And he isn't going to make sure that those good union folks who supported him so much have a job any more- by slashing funding and cancelling the building of new shuttles and rockets, it is projected that as many as 7,000 highly trained workers will lose their jobs after Obama's policies take effect.

For Obama, the rhetoric never matches the reality, and it doesn't with space policy either. In order to convince people that he was a real fan of space exploration and had a vision to take American forward in outer space, Obama said “I grew up on Star Trek!” I don't doubt that, but I think that what he learned from Star Trek was not a love of exploration, a sense of adventure, or the desire to conquer the stars, but rather I think he learned to love the communist-military government in that show. Obama does not want to take man boldly where he has never been before- he instead wants to make NASA into a government-run institution to prove global warming in order to realize the visions and dreams of Karl Marx and Mussolini.

President Obama has broke many promises, lied through his teeth often, and backstabbed supporters without the slightest hesitation. His latest policy decisions with regard to NASA are just another example of this.

Democrats Host Union-Bashers
by Candi Peterson
published in Labor Notes Magazine , No. 355 October 2008

Here in Washington, DC schools chief Michelle Rhee contends that her education reform plan will be done either with teachers - or to teachers. She argues that urban schools do poorly due to union contracts that prevent schools from firing bad teachers. Teachers' seniority rights, she says, stand in the way of the best education for our children.

Odd Bedfellows
Rhee and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty were invited to a forum before the Democratic National Convention in Denver last August to sell their management scam. They appeared with N.Y. Chancellor Joel Klein and Reverend Al Sharpton for a panel discussion that bashed teachers unions.

These self-styled education reformers can't document a case where slashing teacher seniority and tenure has led to higher student achievement. The platform presented at the Denver forum clashes with the Democrats' historical alliance with teachers union and stated commitment to workers' rights.

In Rhee's typical style, she vowed to impose her educational reform if contract talks with the union continue to stall. This doesn't fit the Democrats, which claim support for teachers unions and public education.

These anti-union plans support more privatization and outsourcing of public education while gutting hard-earned job protections. In exchange, teachers would be bought off with hefty raises and bonuses.

Fight Under-Funding, Not Teachers
Rhee and the people who invited her to speak before a crowd of Democrats, whose convention delegates were 25 percent union members, need to refocus. If half of the energy they spend fighting teachers went to fighting the under-funding of public education and budget cuts, our children would be much better off.

The nationwide assault on teachers unions from corporations and conservatives has intensified in recent years. N.Y. public schools have doled out millions of dollars to private contractors. DC is following suit, and millions more will be spent on hefty contracts with groups such as Teach for America and New Teacher Project - an approach that encourages a teaching force that will have a high turnover rate and an equally high number of novice teachers.

Without teachers unions and experienced teachers who are willing to speak out against budget cuts, understaffed schools, high-stakes testing and unsound educational practices, schools may become the personal plantations of principals beholden to corporate forces.

Our union allows us to pool our resources, knowledge and lobbying power to ensure better working conditions and better schools, and fight off attacks like the one we face in DC.

A Political Battle
The major party alternative to the Denver forum is certainly no better. Senator McCain regularly bashes teachers and public education. He supports private vouchers with no proven track record for raising student achievement. Obama meanwhile supports a compensation package developed with teachers, not imposed on them, and has said he would close failing charter schools. Rather than blaming teachers for the ills of our education system, he pledges more funding for public education.

For a long time, the obstacle to school reform has been political. We know how to make schools better. But we simply have not had political backing to separate education funding from local property taxes, which guarantees abundance for some schools and poverty for others. Seeing Rhee's deeply misguided ideas trumpeted in front of Democratic audiences makes one wonder which direction the party is heading. Posted by The Washington Teacher.

In 2001, George W. Bush proposed a major change to education law called The No Child Left Behind Act. This piece of legislation was supported with extensive bipartisan support in Congress and leading up to its implementation and passage there was extensive debate regarding this bill- people were given an opportunity to discuss it, come to grips with it, and properly weight its merits and problems.

NCLB at its heart was a deal- education would be reformed by putting in place at the federal level higher standards and the establishment of measurable educational goals, and in return Congress would dramatically increase the amount of amount of federal funding for education, increasing it from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. In return for states developing assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, the federal would expand funding for reading programs and Title I programs which benefit disadvantaged children, and would considerably expand funding for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education) to support education. That was the bargain made, after considerable discussion and debate- money in exchange for accountability.

And now, with no debate and discussion, President Obama has decided without any support from either party in Congress to go ahead and change the deal, and we can only pray that he does not alter it further.

Via The Heritage Group:

“Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will.” With this bold statement, President Obama announced last Friday that he would unilaterally replace the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) with conditions-based waivers. Obama’s waiver strategy is an alarming misuse of executive power that undermines the separation of powers.

In and of itself, the use of waivers is not unconstitutional. Congress has the authority to create laws with provisions that allow the President to grant exceptions in certain circumstances. NCLB does, for instance, authorize the Secretary of Education to grant waivers to applicants that meet certain criteria. However, waivers are not written as blank checks of authority for the President to bypass Congress and enact new policy.

In this case, the President is using waivers to rewrite the law. The Obama waivers go far beyond the measures allowed by NCLB. To receive a waiver, states must agree to implement a new set of goals and programs determined not by Congress, but by the White House.

For months, President Obama and Congressional Republicans have disagreed on how to reform NCLB. There are major problems with the law’s intrusive regulations. But the Obama administration decided that the “do-nothing Congress” could not be trusted to act and so the President is acting without them.

But co-opting the waiver power to craft a new laws designed in and implemented by the White House is a departure from the constitutional separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to craft the nation’s laws and to reform those laws when they do not work as planned. The executive is authorized to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But this can be quite bothersome for a President if Congress doesn’t see things his way.

The President does have a proper constitutional role to play in the legislative process. The President has the power to veto or sign a bill. Furthermore, as permitted by the recommendation clause of Article 1, Section 3, the President may recommend legislation to Congress. This is does not mean that the President can unilaterally create law as if by royal edict. To become law, legislation (even when recommended by the President) must first pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President. This process ensures that any law will be subject to deliberation by both the nationally elected President and the Congressmen who are more attuned to the particular interests and concerns of the local communities they represent.

Both congressional Republicans and president Obama acknowledge that NCLB is a flawed law. While it may be tempting to seek a quick fix to this sprawling and unpopular program that avoids a partisan battle, misusing waivers to enact new policy without the consent of the elected representatives in Congress is not the way to address the issue.

President Obama is once again demonstrating his unfitness for office by changing the deal, and this is a bad thing- education will continue to receive funding, but now will no longer have to meet the deal that Congress put in place- rather, they will have to meet the deal that Obama puts in place, conditions that he will establish without legislative authority or approval. This sort of action should be causing libertarians and liberals and conservatives to howl, because it is a slap in the face to democracy, elected government, separation of powers, and our Constitution. His time in office can not come to an end quickly enough.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

African Review interviews Mukoma wa Ngugi.Answering a question on the funding of culture he states:

National cultures cannot be undergirded by foreign funding. The problem with the African elite is that they have no sense of culture and no ambition beyond the stomach. Western capitalists understood that a nation with culture makes better business decisions – the Rockefellers and Carnegies. A nation with a sense of culture has a sense of what it is worth. It can take pride in what is locally manufactured and at same time be weary of outside exploitation.The African elite, and they are the ones with the money have no notion of legacy building, or being remembered through endowments – it’s the politics of the stomach, of immediate money-making and spending, usually abroad.

More here

Over at First Thoughts I saw this post that is an interest to anyone who is following the attempts by the Democrats to nationalize 1/6 of the US economy- Senate Version of Obamacare May Require Public Option to Cover Assisted Suicide.

That's right boys and girls, in addition to your tax money going to support abortion (likely in Senate version) and supporting panels that will consul seniors to just die instead of costing the system more (Death Panels Are in the Healthcare Bill ), your tax money is also going to be funding people who kill other people.

Check out section 1323 of the bill creating the public option (p. 183), beginning at page 186:
(F) PROTECTING ACCESS TO END OF LIFE CARE.—A community health insurance option offered under this section shall be prohibited from limiting access to end of life care.

If assisted suicide, or even euthanasia, are legally considered forms of “end of life care” in a particular state–as it is now the case in Oregon, Washington, and Montana–it seems to me that the community health insurance option would be required to provide “access” to assisted suicide under this clause.

This 'healthcare bill' has to be one of the most morbid bills ever- a bill that gives money and support and funding to killing people in many different ways. It is not shocking that people who value human life oppose its passage. What is stunning to me is that people who value human life support its passage. IT GIVES MONEY TO KILL PEOPLE. Abortion, death panels, assisted suicide- they're all in the bill. What kind of a country pays to kill people?

New contract for D.C. teachers won't be certified - wtop.com

If the national government wants to save education in America, I have become increasingly convinced that it needs to let it go, and for that matter, if the states want to save education in America, they have to let it go to. The education of children needs to be shoved as hard as it can be shoved to the lowest local level of our governmental system so that parents, local community leaders, and stakeholders in the educational system can regain the power and control over the education of their children's lives. What made our nation great was decentralization, local control, and personal responsibility, and by moving more and more control to the state and national levels we have lessened the very things that made us great.

America is not China, nor is it Finland, nor is it Germany, nor is it Singapore- those nations, although perhaps doing well lately, didn't conquer a continent, win two major world wars, and in recent years become the world's sole superpower. So we should not look to them for solutions on how to build and design and run an educational system for our nation- we should instead take those things that made America great and helped it to become what it is and modernize them and improve them and build on them, and that means not adopting statist models built on communistic principles designed to suck massive amounts of wealth from the system and funnel it through large bureaucracies to favored politically connected groups within societies. That's not our model to follow- our model is to return power over education back to the local level, which will then experiment with public policy solutions and funding models in order to achieve a democratic solution to providing high quality education at minimum cost to society with little loss of efficiency.

Rules regarding what is taught in each district need to be returned back to the district. Funding for each district needs to be returned to the district. Rules regarding discipline need to be returned back to the district. Control over hiring and regulations over hiring and rules regarding hiring need to be returned to the district. School districts at the local level must once again be where the education of children is designed, set up, and practiced, and this power and money and decisions should no longer to sent off to far-away places where faceless bureaucrats who don't know your kids make decisions that are very important to your children and their futures.

Democrats and Republicans alike make the mistake of trying to fix education by moving more and more power to the national or state levels, killing any innovation that local districts may experiment with to build better educational systems in favor of trying to adopt one-size-fits-all models that not everyone wants and so no one adopts. Creativity, growth, and great ideas come from people who actually work in education and manage education professionals and whose children go through the education system, and yet in our nation, more and more of decisions, funding, and power is flowing rapidly away from those people to unelected bureaucrats, childless professors, and scheming politicians. Republicans and Democrats alike need to reject this siren song of government power fixing everything, and take a deep breath and a leap of trust and once more empower the people of our great nation to do what needs to be done to fix and improve education by returning powers and funds that once were at the local level- once when America was great- back to the local level.

Hart middle school in S.E. Washington is being reconstituted and as many of you know has been in the news throughout this school year with stories about DC teachers being assaulted, teachers teaching outside of their certification area, substitutes covering classes, overcrowded classes, unruly students, possession of handguns, violence and a lack of supports promised by Rhee's office. The Washington Teacher covered what was happening at Hart back in November 2008. Hart is a school which merged with P.R. Harris Educational Center this school year against the advice of parents and community activists. Hart's problems have been complicated by not having adequate funding to run the school. When these complaints surfaced in the news, Hart's principal was fired by Chancellor Rhee instead of being given the supports the school desperately needed. It should also be noted that Hart was not given the financial support that it was entitled and this was revealed after the Levy report documented that approximately 31 schools did not receive the funding they were entitled based on their student enrollment. How does one run a school without adequate funding is beyond me ?

I am posting a copy of an email that I received from a teacher at Hart middle school so that you can see based on this insider's experiences that Chancellor Rhee is following through with her promises to rid our school system of a significant core of our DC teaching force as revealed in her 5 year educational plan. No credible school system seeks to rid a significant majority of its workforce. Who really cares about our students and the chaos Rhee's actions and 5 year plan of mass terminations and buyouts will create? Certainly not Rhee and company.

I also have my doubts that certain elected teacher members of our Washington Teachers' Union (WTU) Executive Board care about what's happening on our educational landscape either. One such board member who ironically happens to teach at Hart middle school along with a group of board members fails to 'adequately represent' the teachers they are elected to serve. In some board meetings, certain board members read cook books and magazines while others consistently nod off to sleep. Some do not attend board meetings regularly and one board member makes it a point to prematurely motion to adjourn most board meetings in the midst of our trying to conduct business because she would rather go home than address hard core issues.

At last week's Thursday's executive board meeting, a core group of board members ignored the pleas of teacher colleagues' complaints from the trenches. Even in the face of allegations of discriminatory practices by the Rhee administration which surfaced, our union members' cries went unheard and this motley crew of disengaged board members refused to take any action on these complaints. This same group of board members failed to insist that our union president hear the questions/comments raised from a teacher visitor about the 90 day plan. They also are usually on the DL (down low) and don't vocalize any concerns to WTU President Parker on most issues of merit. In the matter involving our WTU General Vice President, Nathan A. Saunders' leave of absence - this group of board members were missing in action (MIA) even while community activists, parents, teachers and the media expressed their outrage at Parker for taking his blessed time to resolve this matter expeditiously.

I hope you, like me take these violations of due process more seriously than some of our lackadaisical executive board members, union president and Chancellor Rhee. Here's the email from my teacher colleague working in the trenches. Even though some members of our union, are falling asleep on the job, The Washington Teacher is listening . Keep sending me your emails c/o saveourcounselors@gmail.com The teacher's name has been removed in order to protect confidentiality.

A DC Teacher Speaks Out ....
"Hey Candi, I am a teacher at Hart middle school, and I read your blog. As you know, we were told at Hart that we had to either reapply for our jobs or become excess employees. I was placed on the excess list as well as many of my colleagues who either didn't reapply or opted out. The majority of teachers from the old regime at Hart (with the exception of two) are not coming back.

Anyway, I was just wondering if you had heard the news about all the other teachers being excessed. This week, the teachers at Kramer middle school , Kelly Miller Junior High, and Johnson Junior High were all excessed! These schools were not even on the list to be reconstituted. Then, Rhee allegedly went to Kelly Miller and told the teachers that, if the City Council did not get her 27.5 million back, then all the excessed teachers would be fired! I wonder why more people are not talking about this, because it is absolutely ridiculous!

When we go to these teacher fairs and tell them we are from Hart middle school, they look right past us as if we are invisible. A colleague of mine even told me that a school told him they were primarily only interested in teachers who were from "outside of DCPS". At Hart, the principal is walking around interviewing prospective teachers right in front of us for jobs for next year. The funny thing is, every single person he's interviewed (at least the ones that I know of) are from OUTSIDE of DCPS.

It is almost as if Michelle Rhee is purposely excessing all the teachers from restructured schools, replacing them with teachers from outside of the system, making it next to impossible for them to get jobs within the system, and then trying to use the 27.5 million as an excuse to terminate them. Meanwhile, students from at least 10 schools next year (and probably more that we don't even know about next year) will have to come back next year to buildings where they practically won't know a single adult working there! It will be absolute chaos!

Anyway, you are probably already aware of most of this, but I just wanted to give you a point of view from someone who works in one of the schools that's being reconstituted. I really hope that whatever scheme Rhee is pulling (as well as all of her other schemes) becomes exposed because this is absolute insanity!" (Posted by The Washington Teacher).

"Today is a sad day in the lives of students and parents of Anacostia High School, when you Mrs. Rhee want to turn over our school to people like Mr. Donald Hense of Friendship Edison. When the founder of Friendship Edison says that the reason the students of Anacostia can’t learn is because their mother’s are on crack cocaine this is a sad day. He made this statement at the Anacostia construction meeting. Again as a parent why would someone say this about our children’s parents this way? Is this the way you Mr. Lew, The Mayor, The Gates Foundation and members of your staff think about our students at Anacostia who belong to us ?

I attended a meeting today at Anacostia . I thought that we were going to talk about the construction of Anacostia, but it was not the case. For the first half or more it was about Friendship's programs and their history and not about Anacostia’s building. I talked to the staff of Mr. Lew’s shop before the meeting and Mr. Robinson told me they would have a few words in the beginning and that did not happen. Friendship took over the meeting. Again the lies that people tell us to get us in a room so that they can say they had a meeting with parents of Anacostia, so that they can get paid by The Gates Foundation. Friendship told the Gates Foundation that they had met their obligation as it relates to the DC Education Compact and the community, parents and students, when in fact they never met with the parent body and they gave out false information along with Mr. Justin Cohen a member of your staff . I have heard back from Andrea at the Gates Foundation and she has let me know that she has spoken both with Friendship Charter Schools folks and with Justin at DCPS regarding our concerns. At this point she feels that the project is on target as described in the plans as they have documented opportunities for parent and community engagement – among benchmarks they are responsible for. The parents of Anacostia did not know any of this and the cover up grows.

When people say things about our children I have problems with it, here is a statement made by a member of your staff:, Mr. Justin C. Cohen of the Office of Portfolio Management:

"The Chancellor asked me to respond to your last email. The DC Education Compact serves as the fiscal intermediary for grant funding to DCPS from the Bill and Belinda Gates Foundation. Acting in this capacity sometimes requires them to disburse funding to organizations that support our work, and such is the case with the Friendship Schools. DCPS does not pay the DCEC any funds; rather they disperse grant funding on our behalf. To your other point, the No Child Left Behind act establishes targets for standardized test scores and attendance at individual schools. While it is one indicator of school performance, it is an imperfect and incomplete measure. Friendship's high school - the Collegiate Academy - has consistently outperformed every DCPS high school, except for our selective admission magnet schools. In addition, the Chancellor does not have control over the charter schools in DC, as those are overseen by the DC Public Charter School Board, a completely separate independent entity. We appreciate your concerns, and I encourage you to come to us with questions about these arrangements, as we want to make sure you have the appropriate facts. "

A member of Mr. Lew’s staff told us Mr. Lew did not care about this meeting, so writing him gets us nothing. He is not going to look at it any way. (He will just delete it). Mrs. Rhee the parents at Anacostia did not know about this meeting but the parent and staff of Friendship knew, and they came to a school that they do not teach at or their children did not go to. This tells me that this is about money not about making the city schools better. Mr. Cohen said it best in his e-mail that the test is an imperfect and incomplete measure, so why do we take the test and why did you change Anacostia school staff if it does not mean anything ? Our children are in trouble at Anacostia when Mr. Beck of Friendship follows the young ladies of Anacostia to the rest rooms with a video camera and films them going in and coming out. He told the young men of the building he was taking their pictures so when he took over he would put them out. What happened to the investigation on him because Mr. John Davis of your staff knew about it and did not turn it over to your security force unit? All these things have been going on since you made the move at Anacostia. It is time to remove Friendship Edison from Anacostia. If you don’t, you are looking at a war on your hands. I hope you can take care of this matter before it gets bad." - Signed an Anacostia SHS parent

visit: http://www.nclb.osse.dc.gov/aypreports.asp

*Anacostia SHS made Safe Harbor in reading in 2008 for Black/Non-Hispanic groupings. They went from 6.28% proficient in 2007 to 21.15% proficient in 2008. As a result of having 95% students tested and reducing those non-proficient students by 10% earned them safe harbor in this category.

Posted by The Washington Teacher

Parker Dumps On DC Teachers