My Beauty Best Teacher

Yesterday The Mackinac Center hosted a panel discussion with John Fund, Frank Beckmann, Kathy Hoekstra, Ken Braun and Henry Payne on the topic of The Alternatives: “How New Media are Transforming the Political Landscape”.  You can watch it yourself by going to the Mackinac Center website, and I encourage you to do so, because each of their prepared remarks were very insightful as to how blogs, talk radio, and Fox are changing the way that the media affects the political system. I'm not going to repeat their remarks, but I would like to elaborate on and comment on some of the things that they said during their discussion.

As I tell my students, the media plays several important roles in the political process in our country, and one of the most important roles that it plays is to be the gatekeeper of the news. This means that there is news, information, analysis, and events occurring, but it is The Media that controls what is allowed through the gate into people's homes. In the past, traditional media controlled that gate and as such could pick and choose what it wanted people to hear, and frequently traditional media would pick and choose based not on the importance of the news event or the quality of analysis, but rather on the bias and prejudices of the gatekeeper. The new media, such as blogs, Fox, and talk radio, have broken down those gates and widened them, so now the public has considerably greater access to the news in our nation, and that means will be more able to stay in touch with events, read different points of view or analysis, and get direct access to the sources that the old traditional media used to have a monopoly on.

Frank Beckmann pointed out the impact that the changing of the gatekeeper role will have on our nation when he talked about how today, because of the new media and the ease of access to it, political power is now returning back to the people and allowing the citizens of our nation incredible access to information. This access to information and analysis has been a contributing factor in the Tea Party movement, where citizens are accessing and reading proposed legislation and discussing it and analyzing it and then attempting to communicate their opinions about that legislation to their Congressman. In the past that information and analysis was controlled and biased and not fully accessible and Congressman could pass a bill without reading it and never be called out by a citizen, but that was the past, and the new media is changing that landscape.

Another interesting tidbit that I heard from John Fund was about the important role and power that citizen journalists are playing in today's political system. In the past, you had to spend long years going through liberal Ivy League schools and learning both the trade and the slant before you could become a journalist, but with the advance of flip-phones, blogs, youtube, and the internet, anyone can be a journalist. Even a public school teacher like me has the potential to break important stories and bring the news to do you, reporting on events (like this one) that the traditional media ignores or doesn't know about. The power of information has flowed to us, the citizens, and it is up to us to seize it.

My blog is the new media, and I believe that it is within my power to change the political landscape for the better. All I need is readers, and that is where you come in. If you haven't already linked to my blog from yours, please do so. If you haven't made my blog one of your favorites or bookmarks, please do so. You don't have to read my blog every day (mom, I'm talking to you), but you should read it at least once a week, otherwise you are ceding back to the old media the gatekeeper and watchdog and information resource roles that the new media like me have struggled so hard to grasp. Let's change our habits and change the direction of our nation by changing the ways that we access the news and information and analysis of the world- let's all jump on the new media bandwagon.

John Fund is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy and How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections.

UPDATE: By the way, congratulations to fellow bloggers theblogprof and Michigan Taxes Too Much, both of whom were mentioned by name for the contributions they have made in changing the political landscape recently. We've got quite a powerful little group of bloggers here in Michigan, and we're lucky to have them!

UPDATE II: Thank you Grand Rants for your linking to this story! My only compliant is that you characterized me as " the great unwashed, those bloggers in their jammies who continue to kick against the pricks", and I do wash every now and then and the jammies have a flap in the back.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Liberty Junky for linking to this story too! This is a great site- if you haven't checked it out already, please do so.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Political Realities for linking to this story! Continue to do a great job in finding the news, publishing the news, framing the news, and opening wide the gates of the news!

This piece appeared in Gary Imhoff's Opposed In the Mail, dated August 17, 2008. I challenge all who drop by here to take a minute to consider: Should DC Teachers Swap Raises for Job Protections ? With the release of the AFT secured legal opinion- I ask if it were you - would you - sell your integrity for a bigger check that takes away ALL DC teachers due process rights on both tiers ? My goal here is to provide food for thought for those who make the argument, they desperately need more dolla' bills y'all- is it fair to the rest of DC teachers only to satisfy a small few ? I encourage my colleagues to request that AFT release the legal opinion to all WTU members so that our members can make an informed decision. Please join me by writing our AFT/WTU National Representative- Mr. George Bordenave @ gbordena@aft.org and our AFT President- Ms. Randi Weingarten @ rweingar@aft.org. In solidarity,
Posted By: Candi Peterson

Should DC Teachers Swap Raises for Job Protections ?

Written by: Candi Peterson

"WTU President George Parker caused a controversy by releasing an incomplete tentative agreement, which has caused many to weigh in and attempt to negotiate teacher contract talks on blogs, directly with Chancellor Rhee, and in the press. It is baffling that Mr. Parker demonstrates an unwillingness to heed the legal analysis of O’Donnell, Schwartz and Anderson, the DC law firm under contract to the WTU. He seems determined to release the Rhee/Parker Tentative Agreement by mid-September despite its many legal flaws.

On August 1, the American Federation of Teachers secured a six-page legal opinion at the direction of the WTU Executive Board. Attorney Jackson delivered the legal analysis to WTU Board members a week and a half ago. It refers to the WTU contract information packet, which was disseminated in recent informational sessions. This packet indicates that seniority would no longer play a role in hiring, excessing, or placement of DC teachers in both the Red or Green tiers (page 12). The legal analysis, titled “Seniority for Teachers,” specifically states, “this proposal replaces teachers rights with automatic termination in the Green system and eventual termination in the Red system.” The analysis notes “DC teachers would lose their ‘career status’ as tenured professionals and the characteristics of tenure” and concludes, “this proposal suggests a quick method to terminate teachers without due process.” Further, the legal analysis reveals that under the proposal, “excessing would seem almost always to lead to termination. Although excessed teachers could be placed in another position, this happens only if there is mutual consent between a teacher and a principal. If mutual consent cannot be reached what happens to the excessed teacher depends on whether he is in the Red system or Green system. If he is in the Red system, he has three options: early retirement with full benefits if he has more than twenty years of creditable service, a $25,000 buy out, a one-year grace period including salary benefits to secure another position. If the excessed teacher is in the Green system, however, he is automatically separated from the school system.” However, if the excessed teacher in the Red system does not find a job within one year, he will then be terminated.

Given that six hundred DC teachers were excessed this school year, many argue that we are headed down a very slippery slope should we choose to support this proposal. Should DC teachers swap pay raises for job protections? Whatever our members decide, it is imperative that teachers have as much information as possible before making an informed decision on whether to vote yes or no on a tentative agreement. "

Back in the hellish years of Republican domination of our nation, back when economic growth was a respectable number, unemployment was low, and things generally were happier, there was a period of time for several months when our nation debated rules regarding whether or not public lands should be developed and how that development should work. Columnists wrote about it, policy advisers debated it, talking heads discussed it, and a rousing public debate was held in an open and free society on the issue. Ultimately, in 2003 Bush decided to order the Bureau of Land Management to allow more forests and wilderness lands to be open to road building, so that firefighters could more easily fight deadly forest fires that destroyed these forests and wilderness lands, and to restore the power to manage wilderness areas and forests back to the states, which had held this power from 1866 to 1979.

Look back at the historical record- go to http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Bush', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2002 to 2004, and you'll see this debate, see the analysis, see all the time and effort and due thought that a guy like Bush put into this small but important change on federal policy.

Today, with no discussion, analysis, thought, regard, public debate, open forum, editorials, round-table discussions, or any real analysis, the Obama administration decided to suddenly announce that the federal government was claiming once again the sole power to decide how all lands in our nation should be managed, including lands that environmentalists and fanatics think about pretending to claim are 'wilderness' or 'forest land', and in doing so will result in lower economic development of these lands, less jobs, less prosperity, more forest fires, less access to these lands for citizens enjoyment, less ability to manage them, and a general worsening of society. As is usual with Obama, his attempts through this policy to make the world a better place will in the end result in the world a far worse place, and as is usual with Obama, his actions were conducted in a manner more fitting of a despot or dictator than the leader of a free nation.

By contrast, type in http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Obama', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2009 to 2010, and you'll see the lack of debate, the absence of analysis, no time and effort and due thought that a guy like Obama put into this small but important change on federal policy- par for the course for a despotic dictator, but not at all what a nation of free people should tolerate from our President. Of course, liberals and Democrats cheer this, but then again, they cheer and support and like it when unelected bureaucrats, life-time appoint judges, and dictators make choices for free people, usurp their authority, and violate their sovereignty.

Our nation slips bit by bit into tyranny, and the damage to our Republic is growing so great I fear that we will never again be able to recover from it. The damage comes in ways large and known, such as Obamacare or the Porkulus bills, and in ways small and hidden, such as the EPA unilaterally rejecting Congress' role in our system of government and deciding that it will install cap-and-tax on us, or the EPA violating the 10th amendment and attacking Texas, or the FCC seizing control of the internet in violation of a liberal Congress' will. Obama is a Democrat, his actions can not be checked because citizens of some states voted Democrat in the last election, and our only hope that actions such as these can be mitigated is because some residents of some states voted Republican. Republicans have their problems and commit their fair share of blunders and bad decisions to, but it is the Democratic Party and their elected officials who today represent the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Not sure if this was one of the decisions that made it in Bush's book- I still need to read Decision Points.

My love of graphs is legendary on my blog, and recently I came across an interesting graph on The Atlantic in an article called 8.6% Unemployment: The Good, the Bad, and the Mysterious in the Jobs Report. In it, there is a graph showing the current ratio between population and employment- that is, the relationship between the number of people in America who are around and the number of them who are gainfully employed. I believe it is a better and truer employment number than the phony 'unemployment' stat that is tossed around.

In order to get a better picture of what is going on, I colored coded the graph based on which political party controlled the various policy making institutions at the national level- yellow shading indicates that the GOP controlled the Presidency and Democrats the Congress, orange that control was GOP President/GOP Senate/Democrat House, red for GOP President/GOD Congress, dark blue for Democrat President/Democrat Congress, light blue for Democrat President/Democrat Senate/GOP House, and green for Democrat President/GOP Congress.

As you can see from the graph, the percentage of the population of citizens in our nation with a job has fluctuated in recent years from 56% to 65%. When more people have jobs, more goods and services are produced, more people have a sense of self-worth, and tax money to the government is higher, and these are all good things, so our goal is a higher percentage.

Based on this graph, there were previously considerable gains during earlier Democrat Presidents with Democrat Congresses- as bad as the Carter years were, 1976 to 1979 saw a sharp rise and so did 1993 to 1995. This sort of pattern should have predicted similar results from 2009 to 2011, but instead that time period saw the continued plunging of the line.

The worst drops came when Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled Congress, such as from 2007 to 2009 or 1991 to 1993 or 1975 to 1977. This would suggest divided government is bad, especially when the Democrats control Congress, although I would point out that during a period of Democrat President and GOP Congress seems to be the longest and steadiest rise in the number, but this is only one data point, so I would take it with caution.

What about period when a Republican controlled the White House and Congress? The time period to look at for this would be 2001-2007, and on a lesser scale 1981-1987, and in spite of the recessions during these periods, we can see that the number does go up and down a bit but ends up roughly in the same place.

How does this data help up in 2012? Again, the data is not terribly helpful because it is rather inconclusive, but we can draw some conclusions from it. First, President Obama is utterly and flatly wrong to suggest that Republican policies always fail- the data here does not demonstrate that at all. Second, Republicans who suggest that Democratic policies always fail are also wrong- the data does not seem to suggest that either.

The data best suggests the conclusion that Republicans should control Congress- both the House and the Senate- because it is during those time periods, regardless of who the President was, that the American people seemed to be best off. Even the recent introduction of a little bit of GOP control of Congress- the House from 2011 to today- seems to have steadied the rate. This analysis though is heavily influenced by how bad Democrat control of Congress was from 2007 to 2011 and the steep drop in the population employment ratio during that time.

The data is less clear on the suggestion of which party should be in control of the White House. Carter and Clinton both rate well, but Obama rates poorly. Reagan rates well, Nixon and HW Bush and the first 6 years of W Bush were static, but those last two years of W Bush were poor. Therefore, the data suggest that Democrats may be better in the White House, but not Obama, he just sucks as President.

As much as it pains me to say this, this data suggests that the best possible scenario for the American people is for Obama to drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton to win the White House, and the GOP to win large governing majorities in the House and Senate. Since this scenario is unlikely, the next best thing is for the Republicans to win the White House and Congress. Worse than that is for Obama to be re-elected and the GOP to win Congress. The worse possible situation, admittedly based on those really bad results form 2009-2011, would be for Obama to win re-election and the Democrats to win Congress.

How does this analysis fit with other analysis that I have done? Pretty well, I think.

In Graph: Non-Defense Spending Relative to GDP, Color-Coded by Party in Power, or the Obama Hockey Stick, I noted this:

The conclusion that I draw is that Republicans keep federal defense spending as a share of GDP near the historical average when they are in power, but Democrats are more inconsistent- there was Clinton on one side of the ledger, and Carter and Obama on the other. In particular, Democrat Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States when it comes to this measure.

The lesson here is more clear- under Democrats (control of Congress), non-defense spending increased at a greater percentage than GDP increased, and that giving Democrats total control of government (President and Congress) resulting in irresponsible explosions in non-defense spending and/or the collapse of the GDP. Putting Republicans in charge seems like the best bet- they keep this measure steady or decrease it, either by cutting spending or by increasing the GDP.

In Graph: U.S. Foreclosure Rates, Colored-Coded by Party in Power, I noted this:

My read of the graph is that the introduction of the variable of 'Democrat' in 2006 caused the situation to worsen, the bad situation was made worse by the election of Democratic President Obama, and it is still too soon to tell what sort of effect the GOP taking back 1/2 of Congress has had on the situation.

In Graph: Public Debt Over Time, Color-Coded by Party in Power, I wrote:

The conclusion that I have reached is that the party that controls Congress matters a lot more than the party that controls the Presidency in determining the amount of debt that our nation owes to the public. Under Republican Presidents, the debt went up and down by small amounts. Under Democrat Presidents, the debt decreased by a large amount and exploded by a large amount. But when you look at the party in control of Congress you see the largest changes in the amount of debt. Democrat control of Congress has been responsible for the most increases in the debt, while Republican control of Congress was responsible for the largest decreases and stability.

Based on this data, I suggest that next election you pay more attention to who you are voting for in Congress- we need to make sure that Republicans are in control of both the House and Senate by strong and sizable majorities. It is of lesser importance who controls the White House, although I would venture to guess that a Clinton Democrat is different enough than a radical Obama Democrat that in this upcoming election it does matter who is President, and it needs to be anyone other than Obama (a moderate Democrat or a Republican).

These analysis of recent data hopefully can better inform your choices in the coming election, and most importantly as is suggested in all four, President Barack Obama must not win re-election.

UPDATE: Loyal reader and subscriber Darryl emailed me and suggested that the reason for the increase in the population/employment ratio into the 1980's was the number of women entering the workforce during this time. He wrote about it further in his post Jobs, Prosperity, and Psychological Profiles. Check it out.

By Candi Peterson

In the midst of upcoming contract negotiations, there are big plans ahead to close our traditional public schools. Never in our history has been there been a greater need for teachers and school personnel to have an effective union. Our very future as educators and the future of our students will be determined by how vigorously we, alongside parents and community members are willing to fight to save our schools.

I invite all Washington Teachers' Union (WTU) members to come out and get involved in our WTU Representative Assembly to be held Tuesday, November 8 from 4:30-6:30 pm. at McKinley Technology Senior High School @ 151 T Street NE. Washington, DC. Let's do more than just give lip service to save our schools.

Earlier this week, The Washington Teacher blog featured an article about future plans to close additional public schools. Below for your perusal I have included an excerpt from the 21st Century School Fund newsletter which outlines the purpose of the Illinois Facility Fund (IFF) study which was commissioned by Deputy Mayor of Education, De'Shawn Wright and is expected to be completed at the end of November. As indicated in the 21st Century School Fund September/October newsletter (below), IFF's analysis is being conducted with plans to right size DC public schools and could lead to reconstitution of our public schools and/or replacement with school management operations. The loss of our public schools is a disinvestment in our school communities and may lead to fewer jobs, higher classrooms sizes, further declining enrollment and extinction of traditional public schools.

Independent public schools budget analyst, Mary Levy has applied IFF's  methods to DCPS and public charter school data. Ms. Levy's analysis has found that schools located in wards with higher socio- economic status are considered to be "performing" while schools in wards with lower socio-economic means are considered to be "non-performing". It is a no brainer, that schools in our poorest wards would likely be faced with closure of traditional public schools while schools in affluent wards like ward 3 would go unscathed. (see map below)

Empower DC, a grassroots community based organization is continuing to hold strategic planning meetings to fight school closures across the city and encourages all to become involved. Their next scheduled meeting will be held on Thursday, November 17 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. @ the Deanwood Recreation Center located at 1350 49th St., NE. For additional information, contact Daniel @ daniel@empowerdc.org or call 202-234-9119 ext. 104. Please encourage your school community to get involved now before it's too late. Additional meetings will be held throughout the city at later dates.

Study for "Right-Sizing" D.C. Schools Anticipated

"The Deputy Mayor for Education, with a 100,000 dollar grant from the Walton Family Foundation, engaged IFF (Illinois Facility Fund) to study the capacity and performance of DCPS and public charter schools. IFF has authored reports in Denver, Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis, using a defined method to determine what they term "performing" or "non-performing" seats.  This analysis is being done with an eye to "rightsizing" district schools which beyond consolidation could include reconstitution and replacement with school management organizations.  Mary Levy, independent public school analyst, applied IFF methods to DCPS and public charter school data and found that where "performing seats" are located correlates with household wealth and family income of students.  So that ALL schools in high wealth neighborhoods are "performing" and those in low wealth neighborhoods and with large numbers of children from low income families are "non-performing" with a very few exceptions, as illustrated in a map and data-tables.   The IFF findings are expected to be issued at the end of November.  There has been no public input or discussion solicited on the methods, criteria, or purpose of this study. *Click on the underlined word map to enlarge the DC Wards map.

by Candi Peterson

Let’s take a trip down memory lane. Remember back in 2008, OSSE (Office of the State Superintendent of Education in DC) requested that McGraw Hill Testing Company conduct an erasure analysis due to abnormally high (statistically improbable) proficiency rates on standardized tests conducted in Washington, DC during April 2008? This computerized analysis revealed some disturbing results that occurred when103 public schools in the District of Columbia and some charter schools were flagged for having statistically high rates of wrong answers that were erased and replaced by correct answers on standardized tests during years 2008 to 2010. Deborah Gist, former DC State Superintendent of Education, recommended an investigation into why DC Public Schools (DCPS) erasure rates were so high but her recommendation to investigate met a roadblock by the Rhee/Henderson administration. USA Today's – through the use of Freedom Of Information Access (FOIA) requests uncovered a five month exchange of memos from DCPS officials questioning the rationale for a further investigation at the time. (click link to see memos, emails and tables).

Fast forward to year 2011, when USA TODAY'S newspaper and their cast of thirteen staff writers conducted their own investigative probe into the extraordinarily high erasures on standardized tests in the District of Columbia Public Schools. This piece found that DCPS likely cheated under the Rhee/Henderson administration. Even when these findings came to light and a recommendation was proffered by Gist to investigate further, Michelle Rhee along with Deputy Mayor of Education, Victor Reinoso and Kerri Briggs – successor to Deborah Gist in 2008 - refused to investigate and swept its dirty little secret under the rug.

Again in 2009, there was a second round of questionable proficiency rates on standardized tests in DC Public Schools. The USA TODAY investigation revealed that 46 DC public schools were flagged for having high erasure rates of wrong answers corrected to right ones. Caveon Consulting Services eventually conducted limited investigations in 2009 into the process and training of eight DC public schools at the request of DCPS. However, DCPS did not request that Caveon Consulting Services conduct a data analysis of the questionable testing data.

Given that three years have now passed since the questionable results were first released, one has to wonder why Mayor Gray and other government officials aren’t irate and calling for an intensive federal investigation to determine if fraud occurred like the federal probe conducted by the state of Georgia in 2010 by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. A USA TODAY article reported that “… only 4% of Georgia’s schools were considered of “severe concern” after their 2009 standardized tests,” according to Kathleen Mathers of the Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. In contrast, more than 15% of DC’s public schools had so many classrooms flagged in 2008 that they would have raised severe concern."

Former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue (whose term ended in January 2011) ordered law enforcement to take over the Georgia investigation because he said he was dissatisfied with the failure of the districts in Atlanta and elsewhere to explain the erasures. Here in DC, It is important to note that a referral was only recently made by the Henderson administration to the DC Inspector General to investigate after the USA TODAY's newspaper investigation featured a number of articles on DC Public Schools' questionable testing gains at schools like Noyes Elementary School (Former Principal Wayne Ryan during 2001-10- now Instructional Superintendent for DCPS) and others. Even though Kwame Brown, Chairman of the DC City Council, announced that he would hold public hearings on high erasures, these hearings have now been cancelled.

Do DC politicians really care? Why aren’t government officials more alarmed? What are they afraid they will learn? Why were the DC City Council hearings cancelled? This scandal is full of many examples where unethical actions have had negative effects on the entire city of Washington, DC, our public schools, parents, community, school personnel and especially our students. The principles of accountability were sacrificed by Rhee’s administration. Besides obviously being disingenuous and dishonest, Rhee’s administration acted unethically.

According to a recent USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data, the number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession. Not gone up a bit, not grew at a reasonable and steady rate, but exploded. Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that doesn't even include overtime pay and bonuses, which for some reason count as pay for executives but don't count as pay for civil servants.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector. The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available. When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

The USA TODAY analysis doesn't lay any blame to any particular party for this explosion in government jobs and pay, but the start of this boom time for government employees was 2007... right after Democrats took control of Congress, and since Obama's election to President, the hiring and raising of pay for government workers has risen sharply.

The USA TODAY analysis also doesn't advance that there is any sort of relationship between the recession and the boom in government jobs and pay, but I will voice that- the recession in our nation is partly attributable to the growth in government pay and jobs. Talented employees are being lured into inefficient and non-productive jobs in the government, and instead of producing products of value for society are instead regulating and taxing productive produces of value for society at ever increasingly rates. In Michigan, we watched the size of government grow and grow and grow, and the recession get worse and worse and worse, and no one ever put the two together- now we see it nationally- if you grow the size of government, you shrink the size of the productive workforce. And to pay for all these government workers, the government borrows money, which soaks up available funds for investment in the private marketplace, further dragging down the nation.

Today we read about how the Democrats in the government are attacking the pay of executives and businessman across the nation, as unelected and unconfirmed bureaucrats arbitrarily decide who gets 'paid to much' according to their nebulous unaccountable judgement calls. And yet Democrats are dramatically increasing the pay of government employees, raising caps on top administrators pays and pushing for more and more pay for government employees. This type of behavior- hypocritical, unethical, and illegal- marks tyrannies and corrupt institutions around the world, and is exactly what the Democrats are advocating.

Democrats believe you should make nothing but their politically connected friends should make more and more pay, and the numbers prove it- in the midst of a recession made worse by Democrat policies, the only people who have dramatically increasing pay and work are government workers.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said it best- "There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous."

It is accepted as gospel among all teachers in Michigan that the reason why teachers are paid so low in Michigan is because of Republicans. Right now, the reason why teachers salaries are low is because of Michigan Governor Rick Sydner, who is a Republican. Before that, the reason why teacher salaries were low was because of US President George Bush, who was a Republican. Before that, the reason why teacher salaries were low was because of Michigan Governor John Engler, who is a Republican. Get into any conversation at all with any Michigan teacher, and they will at some point voice the opinion that it is because of Republicans that they are paid so low and that is why all Republicans must be opposed with all the power and strength and campaign donations that teachers can muster.

The only problem with this narrative is that it is flat wrong.

After confronting yet another liberal teacher espousing such views, I went to the Michigan Department of Education's Bulletin 1014, which tracks teachers salaries, and wrote them down for all years they had (2009-2010 to 1997-1998). Then I went to an online inflation calculator and recalculated those salaries based on 2011 inflation numbers. After that I created a column on my spreadsheet and recorded what political party the President of the United States was, and then did another column for the Governor of Michigan. Here is the data:

The single greatest year for average teacher salary in Michigan was under a Democrat President and a Republican Governor (2000). The second best year was under a Republican President and a Republican Governor (2001). The third best year was under a Republican President and a Republican Governor (2002).

The single worst year for average teacher salary in Michigan was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2006). The second worst year was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2005). The third worst year was under a Republican President and a Democrat Governor (2004).

The average salary for Michigan teachers from 1997 to 2009 under a Democrat US President was 65555. Under a Republican President it was 64354. The average salary for a Michigan teacher from 1997 to 2009 under a Democrat Michigan Governor was 64077. Under a Republican Governor it was 65678. My analysis of this is that it appears better for teachers to have a Democratic President, but it is even more of an advantage for teachers salary to have a Republican Governor.

Clearly, having a Democrat as Governor seems to be the single worst thing for teacher salaries in Michigan.

These numbers by themselves are instructive, but again, what prompted me to perform this data analysis was the fact that almost all Michigan teachers would bet quite a bit of money that the evidence is overwhelming that the single best thing for teacher salaries in Michigan is for there to be a Democrat Governor, and that it is absolutely vital that there also be a Democrat President. This narrative has been proven wrong, utterly and completely wrong, by this little data analysis that I performed today, and any teacher that espouses that 'it was Engler's fault that Michigan teachers were paid so little' or that 'it is Snyder's fault that Michigan teachers are paid so little' is ignoring the reality that under Engler teachers were paid well and that under Granholm they were not, and that the data proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When the numbers come up for the 2010-2011 year, it will be interesting, because I imagine we'll see some cuts that can be attributed to a Democratic President and Governor. I'll wait for that data though rather than being a typical liberal and just speculating without any logic, numbers, reason, or information.

Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner should be required reading for anyone going into or studying government or politics- his analysis of elections and voting patterns is the best. Here is a shortened version of his most recent analysis of the Wave Election of 2010- be sure to check out the full article here:

Gentry liberals: The tsunami swept from the George Washington Bridge to the Donner Pass, but didn't wash away affluent liberals to the east and west of these geographic markers. Also surviving were the cannibals -- the public employee unions that are threatening to bankrupt states like California and New York, a prospect that doesn't faze the left-leaning gentry.

Jacksonians: In 2008 Barack Obama ran weakly in lands settled by the Scots-Irish from the Appalachians southwest to Texas. In 2010 Democrats did even worse there.

Germano-Scandinavian America: The Upper Midwest, settled largely by German and Scandinavian immigrants, has long been the most pacifist, isolationist and dovish part of the United States. That's one reason Obama did well in caucuses and primaries and in the general election in 2008 in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. He even made it a close race in the Dakotas. But that appeal seems to have vanished this year.

Blacks and Hispanics. Black voters remained almost unanimously Democratic this year. Not so Hispanics, who voted Republican in Florida and only mildly Democratic in Texas, where Republicans captured two Hispanic-majority House seats on the Mexican border.

The Finnish vote: Around 100 years ago Finnish immigrants flocked to the mines and woods of the country around Lake Superior, where the topography and weather must have seemed familiar. They've been a mostly Democratic, sometimes even radical voting bloc ever since. No more, it seems.

Finns, Hispanics, Midwest pacifists/isolationists, and Jacksonians are all falling out of the modern-day Democratic Party. It appears that the election of Obama in 2008 is indeed going to destroy a modern-day party, but it isn't the Republican Party as expected- he is going to rip apart the Democratic Party into those who produce and those who are parasitic.

After a month of watching a revolution to overthrow an evil dictator stall and reverse and almost lose, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in disgust finally convinced US President Barack Obama (Democrat) to do something, even if it interrupted his busy vacation/goodwill trip in Brazil, where he is sunning on beaches and giving speeches to roaring crowds and still struggling to watch his NCAA bracket that he put so much time and thought into.

Although I'm no expert in this stuff (I've only got a tiny BA in International Relations from a major university), I have no problem blaming Obama for the ensuing humanitarian crisis that is going to unfold in Libya. It was okay to wait a bit, because the US shouldn't just jump willy-nilly into every conflict, but the minute the rebels stalled, the math was pretty simple- either jump in now in support and knock Muammar Qaddafi out while building goodwill with the rebels who would then march to power and restore order, or stay out of it and watch Qaddafi retake his nation and punish the rebels and build goodwill with him and his son. Either option would lead to a quick change in the power in Libya and either option would build goodwill between the US and Libya.

But President Paintywaist instead anguished about the decision and tried to hide and ran around yelling 'present' on the issue while issuing empty rhetoric and throwing pixie dust at the situation. I don't care how hard he tries to re-write history on this one- he sat around, watched the rebels get pushed back, watched them lose their best fighters and leaders and most dedicated freedom fighters, watched Qaddafi take back cities and kill and rape everyone who was against him in those areas, watched both Qaddafi and the rebels get weaker, and then when the French and British said 'screw you, we're doing something' he fled to Brazil and let Hillary make the call. Roger L Simon sums it up with his article Jets over Libya as H. Clinton Assumes Presidency.

Now the US is shooting expensive missiles into Libya, killing people and destroying things, but it still isn't clear that this will check the momentum that Qaddafi has built up or whether it will inspire a depleted and on the run rebellion. Oh, perhaps after greater effort and loss of life, the US will destroy extensive oil reserves and industry and kill enough people that Qaddafi leaves, but the end game now is less certain, as the surviving rebels will be weak and annoyed at the long delay in response by the US.

That's assuming the Commander-in-Chief has an endgame- his address is a lot of summary of news events that he was always behind combined with statements about how we're clearly not the leader of this humanitarian and leadership effort with several 'I'm aware of' statements thrown in to make it appear like he is actually meaningful in any way about world events. Don't swallow my analysis though- read it yourself by clicking here.

A clearly better and more thought out analysis comes from the Belmont Club- here are the best parts:

Yes, if it can impose a blockade lasting several months, is willing to risk to risk the destruction of Libyan oil, and can eventually deploy UAVs over Libya. But the the worst thing they can do is let the fighting drag on, because it will almost inevitably lead to a humanitarian crisis in Libya. The major problem facing NATO is that the rebels have been driven too far east to secure the facilities and the pipelines which take the product to the coast (see map below). To avoid permanently splitting the country along some kind of No-Man’s Land, it is not enough for the rebels to stop Khadaffi at the gates of Benghazi; they must drive west far enough to take the infrastructure from the Duck of Death. Only then can Libya be reconstituted as a single political entity....

Read the rest of that post to read what real analysis and leadership and decision and thought looks like. Watch Obama chant "da da da da" by following this link (at 55 seconds in).

Oh, one more point- remember how for the last decade liberals and Democrats have been so convinced that Bush had no authority to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the Congress gave him that authority- out of curiosity, what resolution or bill authorized Obama to do anything at all in Libya, and how come I don't hear all those hypocritical dishonest liberals and Democrats saying boo now?

Donald Kaberuka of the AFDB stated that "...In order to maximise efforts in research, policy analysis and information dissemination, Africans need to make more use of the skills of African academics and researchers, both within and outside the continent...for a long time, analysis of African economic conditions has been the domain of external institutions, which are external to the continent, rather than bringing African intellectuals together to exercise their voice..."

Don't buy the narrative that the main-stream media is selling regarding the Republican Primary- the truth of the matter is that Mitt Romney is not having trouble putting away a weak field of Republicans because he is unlikable and doesn't connect with voters, but rather he is doing pretty much exactly as good a job as other past non-incumbents did in close primary races and is doing a good job of winning over key voters and will soon with the nomination over a highly qualified and determined primary field. Although the liberals and progressives and elites in the media want you to think otherwise, analysis and data (as usual) destroys their uneducated arguments and shallow judgements.

Via Powerlineblog comes this excellent analysis from John Hinderaker called THE MORNING AFTER:

...So Romney has won 56% of all of the delegates that have been chosen so far. Normally that would be considered a strong performance, but Mitt struggles to get respect from the commentariat.... But by historic standards, there is no reason to scoff at Romney’s performance so far. After Super Tuesday in 2008, John McCain had won 740 of the 1,235 delegates that had been selected, or 60%. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama had a hair over 50% of the delegates, leading Hillary Clinton 965-951. Were reporters then talking about the Democratic contest “plodding on” as Obama “failed to land a knockout blow?” Of course not: they thought the contest was a thrilling one, because they liked both candidates.

Or consider 1992, when the Democratic presidential field was considered so weak that the candidates were called the “seven dwarves.” Bill Clinton, who we now know was a politician of genius, won that race. But as of early March 1992, Clinton was running behind “uncommitted” and, of the committed delegates, he had won just 57%. By early April, Clinton had 68% of the committed delegates (a much lower percentage if uncommitted delegates were counted) against some of the weakest competition ever: Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown....

...So by historic standards, Romney is within the ballpark of what one would expect from a non-incumbent candidate who goes on to win his party’s nomination.

The truth of the matter is that Mitt Romney is winning against a very good field of candidates- a two-term Senator who is a gifted speaker and has a solid person life named Rick Santorum (a resume that is superior to President Obama in 2008), a former Speaker of the House of Representatives named Newt Gingrich (a resume that is superior to President Obama in 2008), and a long-time Congressman who is a veteran and doctor and has a committed following (a resume that is superior to President Obama in 2008). And Romney has already knocked out of the race several other good candidates- the Governor of booming Texas named Rick Perry (who has a resume that was superior to President Obama in 2008) and a former Governor and Ambassador named John Huntsman (who has a resume that was superior to President Obama in 2008).

This is a strong field, especially at a time period when the Republican Party is transitioning away from the old guard liberal establishment of Bush and McCain and Dole towards the new conservative talent of Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindhal and Sarah Palin and others. The GOP is at an odd place where the Reagan and conservative revolution generation is too old or too discredited and the new tea party generation is too young and untested- and yet a guy like Mitt Romney has a strong resume and background and talents that has enabled him to ably bridge this gap.

Even in a rather down year, the GOP has a wealth of talent and ideas to offer to contrast to the tired and old partisanship and personal attacks that President Obama is offering, and Mitt Romney has connected with voters and fought a national and organized campaign to take a solid and commanding primary lead. This is the narrative, based on an analysis of the resumes of his opponents and the delegate math in comparison to other primaries, and this is the narrative that the media is refusing to tell because of its sloppy reporting, personal bias, and lack of quality research.

Mitt Romney is doing a great job of rising to the top of a group of able Republicans who would all do a better job of being President than Barack Obama. This is the true narrative of the Republican Primary race of 2012.

Full Disclosure: I endorsed Mitt Romney recently. See my post Endorsement: Vote for Mitt Romney for GOP Nominee.

101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men Cheap Wholesale

   Sale In Cheap Price !! Promotions Here For Buy 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men. This Store is the best place to buy cheap 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men. If you want to buy 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men in the best price, try to see specail offers or read the best customer reviews from this page. That can help you to make easy decision to buy this product. This product Shipped and Sold by Amazon Shopping Store. Usually ships in 1-2 business days This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Order The Best price From This Page - Read more Informations by Click at the Big Links.

» See More Images « 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men		101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men | Cheap Sale Discount Price By Amazon Helpful Reviews : ★★★★★  Product By : Amazon  Discount To : $14.95 » See Best Price !! Shipping : Usually ships in 1-2 business days In Stock. & FREE with Super Saver Shipping

Feature 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men

• ISBN13: 9781555838669
• Condition: New
• Notes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed

Overview 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men

Available : In Stock.

FREE with Super Saver Shipping Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Best Cheap 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men. Most comprehensive list of 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men, Cowmooflage pricing, specifications, accessories, and reviews.

Rick Perry may just be the next President of the United States.

Last month I ran into Matt Keelen, who is the founder and President of the government affairs firm the Keelen Group, is a widely known and highly regarded lobbyist and political strategist and a reputation for consistently delivering hard-earned victories to clients. He suggested that Obama is beatable and can be beaten by the Republican nominee. Right now the Republican nominee is Mr. Generic, Mitt Romney, who would be the next President and would be a pretty good one I think if he were to win.

But many on the right- conservatives, Tea Partiers, libertarians- are unhappy with the thought of Romney as the candidate, and so have been restlessly searching for someone else to support. They've given Ron Paul some wind, they've given Hermain Cain a straw poll win, and lately they've wandered over to Michelle Bachman. But none of these candidates are really where these groups want to be- they're just waiting for the right candidate to challenge Romney. And that candidate is Rick Perry.

Rick Perry has the experience to match Romney, is more personable and has a good story, passes the 'beer test' better, seems to be a more authentic conservative, and flashes a libertarian streak every now and then. His entry into the race will change the poll numbers for everyone- all that anti-Romney support will coalesce around Perry, forcing the marginal candidates like Bachman and Cain and Huntsman out of the race, creating a Romney and Perry matchup, which Perry will win.

This will set up an Obama vs Perry contest for the President, and it is here where Republicans will be glad they choose Perry. Unlike McCain, Perry is not going to pull punches when he is fighting for freedom and liberty and the office of the President- Keelen said "he'll keep punching hard the whole fight." Obama will of course try to attack him as a 'Bush guy', but the stunner is that Perry isn't a 'Bush guy'- he and Bush are politically opposed and have butted heads many times in the past, so this attack, like most of what Obama does, will only work if you don't know the truth and eat up his lies.

In a general election, expect at worst a repeat of 2000 or 2004, with the numbers tight and Rick Perry winning by a slim margin, helped by recent reapportionment and redistricting, or at best, expect a landslide win by Perry and a mandate for change and new hope in the future.

The biggest threat to the Republican winning the Presidency is that a third party candidate or independent candidate will enter the race to the right of a Perry or Romney, and suck off enough votes from the conservative or running-as-conservative candidate to enable the progressive leftist to win another term of office and destroy our nation.

This is a good analysis, and I hope after the recent troubles that our nation has faced that it brightens your day!

UPDATE: Via memeorandum, I see that Rick Perry has made his official announcement that he is in the running to be the next President of the United States. Good luck sir!

Rick Perry is an author- check out some of his books like Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for, or Hurricane Kitchen : How to Cook Healthy, Whole Foods for Large Groups and Institutions.

A reader emailed me a story from The Blaze on education reform that I'd like to comment on:

Terry Moe, one of the leading experts in education reform in the country, professor of political science at Stanford University, fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of the newly released Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, has a message for the teachers unions:

Rest In Peace, because your days are numbered...

...Moe argues that the incredibly massive revolution in information technology will deliver a death blow to teachers unions. In this profile of his life and impact on the education reform movement, Moe says:

“In the final analysis, what technology requires is a substitution of technology for human labor. Computers will do a lot of what teachers do now.” Jumping forward in his chair, he lights up: “Technology is cheap. Labor is really expensive. Education has always been very labor intensive, so if our education system can substitute technology for labor and still provide kids with high quality education, then great!”

Moe explains that technology will fundamentally change the politics of education. “In the future, we will have fewer teachers per student. This means fewer union members per student. Also, teachers don’t have to be concentrated in the same geographic place—because when students do their learning online, their teachers can be anywhere. This fragmentation and dispersion will make it harder for unions to organize.”...

After further analysis, I agree with some of what Mr. Moe argues but disagree about his fundamental point.

I agree that in the future, we will have fewer teachers and teachers will be geographically spread out, because skilled teachers will more aggressively use technology and cheap assistants to deliver higher quality instruction to more students at lower costs. In my vision of future teaching, rather than one-size-fits all bureaucratic statist-produced cookie-cutter teachers, you'll get expert lead teachers who produce the lessons and deliver the instruction via webcams and the internet to classrooms all over the nation, where cheaper and less trained and skilled teacher aids will support and assist in the instruction deliver by the lead teacher. Oh, I know there are some wrinkles still to iron out in the process like how to interact with all of these students, how to grade all the students the same, how to run activities and group projects and simulations, etc- but if Mr. Moe is correct and technology continues to advance as rapidly as it is, these wrinkles can be ironed out in time.

But having fewer teachers and having them geographically spread out will not necessarily mean that the unions will decrease in influence and authority- in fact, I imagine that the geographically-based lower paid teacher aides will become a powerful union of low-skilled labor who needs to continue to organize and collectively bargain while the high-skilled non-geographically based teacher leaders freelance and sell their skills to the highest bidder without collective bargaining or unions.

To read some of the books by Terry Moe, check out Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America's Public Schools and Politics, Markets and America's Schools.

It has been a struggle for me to write about the financial reform bill, and I haven't commented before on it yet. But yesterday I came across an excellent article in the Washington Independent called A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill which breaks down each important provision of the proposed financial reform bill and attempts to give a balanced analysis of it. I urge you all to read this article before making any further thoughts or opinions on the bill- whether you are Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, it is important to look at the world around you with good information and analysis, which this article provides.

Here are the best pieces (edited and shortened by me) of the article A Guide to the Tangled Financial Reform Bill:

Audit the Fed. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is more than double its size before the financial crisis — swollen with $1.1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities purchased from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plus toxic assets from failed companies like Bear Sterns — and a bipartisan group of senators want to force a thorough independent audit of the Fed’s books. A strong provision did not make it into the final Senate legislation.

End too big to fail by capping bank size. Dodd’s bill as currently written gives the Federal Reserve and other regulators the ability to seize and break up financial firms it deems systemically important and systemically dangerous. But that is meant only as a “last resort,” and members of both parties consider the language too wan. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) last week introduced the Safe Banking Act, which they plan to offer as an amendment to the Dodd bill. It mandates hard leverage and size caps on banks and other financial firms; limits commercial banks’ assets to 2 percent of GDP and non-banks’ assets to 3 percent; and imposes a 16-to-1 leverage cap, among other provisions.

Reinstitute Glass-Steagall provisions. Another popular way to effectively limit bank size is to return to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall rules. The Glass-Steagall Act, mostly repealed in 1999, prevented banks from having both commercial and investment banking arms — as, for instance, J.P. Morgan Chase does today. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plan to introduce an amendment reintroducing the rule and thus requiring big, diversified banks to split themselves up. Shelby, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) also support the measure.

An effectively similar, if functionally different, way of breaking up banks or limiting their size is by instituting the Volcker Rule — which bars banks from speculating with their own money by “prop trading” or investing in hedge funds. The current Dodd bill promises to institute something like the Volcker Rule, creating a commission to look at how to institute it down the road. But Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) have ready a measure introducing a more-stringent version immediately.

Fix the ratings agencies. The Dodd bill does little to fix the credit ratings agencies, whose profligate stamping of AAA ratings on collapsing subprime mortgage-backed securities helped to stoke the crisis. (The companies have a conflict of interest at the core of their business, in that they are paid by the companies whose securities they rate.) The Dodd bill creates a new office at the Securities and Exchange Commission to look closely at credit ratings agencies — but does little more to further reform them. Numerous Democratic senators have cited the issue as a major weakness in the bill, and Senate staffers say it is unlikely to go unchanged. Sanders has said he will introduce new language to strengthen oversight over and regulation of the agencies.

Guarantee no taxpayer money will go to bank bailouts. Republicans have derided the Dodd bill’s resolution authority fund — wherein the government will tax $50 billion from the banks, creating a pool of cash to be used by the Federal Reserve to shut down failing firms — as creating “permanent bailouts.” GOP politicians including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have cited it as a major point of contention. But Senate staffers say that rather than killing the resolution-authority fund, Republicans want language explicitly guaranteeing taxpayers will not be on the hook for future bailouts.

Keep the Fed the regulator of little banks. Under the Dodd bill, the Federal Reserve would have oversight only of banks with more than $50 billion in assets. But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) oppose this measure and want the Fed to have oversight of small banks as well — ensuring that the Fed does not become overly concerned with the business of big banks and ensuring that it keeps an eye on the small financial companies that can be the bellwether of bad economic times. Hutchison has said she plans to “certainly have an amendment that assures that state banks and community banks will be able to have access to be members of the Federal Reserve.”

Make the Consumer Financial Protection Agency truly independent. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) has promised to introduce amendment moving the Consumer Financial Protection Agency outside of the Fed.

Improve hedge fund reporting. Reed also plans to introduce an amendment closing a loophole in the Dodd bill that might let some private equity firms, venture capital firms, and hedge funds avoid registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is a reminder that whatever the original bill that the Democrats brought to the floor, what matters is the bill that is passed at the end (and I don't mean by 'the end' when it passes the House and Senate and is signed by the President- now that Democrats run things in DC, that outdated model of passing legislation isn't followed and instead they deem things passed and then our dear leader runs things, and that is what I men by 'the end').

One of my best teacher-friends is a secondary math teacher (and runs the Numbers Rule My World blog), and she is always looking for ways to incorporate technology into her math lessons. She tipped me off about this site that has virtual manipulatives, and I wanted to share it with you guys!

Although my friend uses this site with her secondary students, the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives has something for students PK-12!  It's so rare to find an educational resource that can cater to all ages...I guess that's part of why I think this website is so nice.

The National Library of Virtual Manipulatives is amazing! I love that it is free and easy to use; you don't even have to register before you start using!

The homepage is relatively simple:

Notice how you can view the site in a variety of languages (at the bottom)!

But looks can be deceiving. :)


As you can see, you can access math manipulatives based on the grade of your student(s) or the target skill. Since I'm a teensy bit obsessed with organizing, I particularly love this feature.

Although the homepage isn't anything particularly mind-blowing, once you start clicking on portions of the index, you'll see that the rest of the site is!

So what kinds of things does it have to offer? Unfortunately, I'm going to have to do more telling, rather than showing, because the manipulatives are used through pop-up screens that then start using Java... I'm not even able to take a screen shot of the manipulatives in action...sorry! I've never had an issue taking a screenshot before, so I can't explain this one! Anyway, I clicked on PK-2, and I was presented with the following list of sub-topics:

• Numbers and Operations
• Algebra
• Geometry
• Measurement
• Data Analysis and Probability

And each of those sub-titles had an average of 13 manipulative options underneath it, but you should be aware that that is an average... the "data analysis and probability" sub-topic only had 3 options. Although the graphics aren't anything particularly flashy or high-tech, I feel that they definitely could be used in the classroom. I saw some time-telling activities, graphing options, pattern blocks, etc. I know that most elementary classrooms don't have a 1:1 ratio of students:computers, but you could ask a few students at a time to practice certain math skills during centers!

As for the secondary side of it, I clicked on 9-12, and I was presented with the exact same sub-topic categories as the PK-2 side, but of course, the options underneath each category were drastically different. The sub-topics in 9-12 had an average of about 18 manipulative options underneath it. I saw some great ones in this category, as well. In particular, if I were teaching secondary math (big hypothetical here, folks), I could see myself using the rational numbers triangles, the Venn diagrams, and the geoboards.

If you're a math teacher, give the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives a chance in your class and let me know how it goes!