More Chris Matthews Foolishness On Education

Last night,  Chris "Tweety" Matthews (it's what his staff calls him) made a series of riduculous statements about education during MSNBC's coverage of the Republican convention. Here's the video (it's not embeddable, so I can show it here). I urge you to watch the entire thing, because - despite Matthews's embarrassing performance - I actually find it highly encouraging.

But before I say why, let me finish debunking Matthews. I've already dealt with his cluelessness about our educational standing in the world and its relationship to poverty. Bashing America's schools and students - and, yes, that's exactly what this is - is a favored trope of ignorant pundits; however, what they really love is beating down on unions:

How we deal with the teachers union is a problem - especially a problem for the Democratic party. I live in Washington, D.C., I have to say: Randi Weingarten has not done a good job for our city. We have got a mayor who is got [?] a good mayor, we lost the best superintendent we ever had of education, and I think the school teachers have to explain that.

How does one man pack so much illogic and ignorance into such a short statement?

Michelle Rhee was, of course, the superintendent Matthews was talking about. As Matt DiCarlo points out, Rhee's claims that her performance bonuses helped raise student achievement are contradicted by the fact that test score gains following the implementation of the bonuses were mostly flat.

Rhee has claimed many times that it is important to close the "achievement gap," but it actually widened during her tenure in Washington. And any gains in test scores are highly suspect anyway, as the district has been embroiled in a cheating scandal that hasn't been properly investigated.

None of that matters to pundits like Matthews. Rhee may be a phony and her group, StudentFirst, may be an astroturfering front for the corporate takeover of education. But that doesn't matter: she's a celebrity - like Chris!

It's how these people view the world; it's how they judge credibility. Screw actual performance; all you need is to do is get yourself on the cover of the right magazine, and you can count on Chris Matthews believing any fool thing that comes out of your yap.

Now, why would I be encouraged by all this? It's because of what happened next: Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Chris Hayes managed to rebut Matthews with a series of arguments that come directly from the education blogosphere. Someone is listening to us.

Schultz is right that Scott Walker's attack on teachers in Wisconsin is typical of the Republican party. Matthews attempted to give back the tired answer that everyone loves teachers and wants to see them make more. Schultz, correctly, called that rhetoric; none of the Republican governors who were elected in 2010 have any plan to raise teacher pay.

I'd only add that this isn't just a Republican malady: Arne Duncan, current Secretary of Education, likes to make lots of noise about paying teachers more but has never proposed a serious plan to make it happen. Schultz is dead on when he says this professed love of teachers is nothing more than rhetoric.

Next, Sharpton made a statement I have to correct: he said that Randi Weingarten negotiated the tenure reform bill with Chris Christie. Look, I am a big supporter of AFT, both nationally and in New Jersey. But AFT's presence here is limited to Newark and a few other distrcits; the fact is that NJEA led the tenure reform debate over the last year. The final law is closer to NJEA's initial proposal than any other plan that was out there.

That's not to say AFT wasn't closely involved - they were. AFTNJ is a good group: they've been the only adults in the room during the Perth Amboy mess. But Christie's war has always been with NJEA first, and teachers unions in general second. The fact that NJEA got most of what they want in the tenure law shows that they still wield considerable power. And yet NJ is the #2 state in the nation for student achievement; gosh, could it be that maybe unions aren't the problem with education today?

Where Sharpton gets it right is to point out that the real agenda of the reformy movement is the privatization of public education and union busting. When Matthews pushed back with the next tired reformy point - that we have to give parents options so they can "save" their children - Sharpton made a great point:

Why do we have to select some children and leave others? Why don't we build a system that all children... government's job is not for some children to get out; it's to lift everybody up.

At this point, the evidence is clear: the charter/voucher movement cannot and will not serve all children. Diane Ravitch made a challenge point blank to the darlings of charterism, KIPP, to take on an entire district; they refused, and admitted they can't do it. If that's the case, people like Matthews have an obligation to be honest in their cheerleading for "choice" - it's only a choice for some students.

But, for me, the best moment in all this was Chris Hayes, who does as good a job succinctly encapsulating the education reform debate as I've heard:

What striking to me is this equality of opportunity rhetoric is what we hear about this, right? America offers equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. As equality of outcome expands massively - in America, right, inequality is growing - we put more and more pressure... we say the only institution in American life that is supposed to fix the inequality is the education system. And the inequality grows and grows and grows and we say to the education system: "Do more and more and more to fix it."  

If you are committed to equality of opportunity as Jeb Bush and the Republican party say they are, then how does cutting SCHIP, cutting Medicaid, cutting food stamps for kids, cutting the entire universe of redistributive services for those kids provide equality of opportunity?

It's a great point, brilliantly made - but it did not grow in a vacuum. Schultz and Sharpton and Hayes are making a case that has been built up on blogs and internet radio shows and even tweets for years.

Let me speak to my fellow education bloggers for a second. Folks, I know you, like me, often feel like you are out in the wildness, howling at the wind. It's easy to believe that we are simply talking to each other, and we're not breaking through to the larger discussion.

We must understand that this is a long, slow grind. Conservatives took years to build up a right-wing echo chamber that now serves to put the kookiest, craziest nonsense into the mainstream.  That echo chamber is perhaps the most potent force in American politics, and it's all based on conservatives talking to each other. When an idea gains resonance in the chamber, it can't help but spring out and dominate the conversation.

We have begun to build our own anti-reformy echo chamber. It is starting to project ideas out into the ears of Schultz and Sharpton and Hayes and others ready to listen. This is a good thing; this segment is proof that we are making some headway.

This will not be an easy slog, but we have one advantage over the reformy right: the truth. Charters are not replicable. Unions are not antithetical to student success. Teachers are important, but only one part of a much larger picture. Evidence for vouchers is weak. Test-based teacher evaluation is a train wreck. There are many who openly admit they want to make lots of money off of public education.

These are truths. We need to keep stating them over and over and over again. If we do, it will break through; we will be heard.

All hands on deck.


ADDING: There's only one cure for Matthews's cluelessness: Diane Ravitch needs to go on Hardball. Anyone up for a campaign?

ADDING MORE: I don't want to be misconstrued, so I'll say this again: yes, AFT was a player in the tenure law negotiations. But it was really NJEA's proposal that wound up becoming the final bill; I think that's critically important to understand now that Christie is running around the country claiming he was the one who drove the negotiations. He wasn't; the bill happened in spite of him, not because of him.

I'm an NJEA member, but AFTNJ is, again, a very good organization; I don't want anything I say to be misconstrued here as being critical of their role or of Randi Weingarten's in the tenure bill negotiations. I may not agree with everything AFT does (or the NJEA, for that matter), but I am a pro-union teacher, no matter which union we're talking about.

Chris Matthews: A Fool On Education

Tonight, Chris Matthews revealed himself to be a total ignoramus on education. So much nonsense came out of his big, yellow head that I can't address it all in one post. But I won't be able to sleep tonight until I get this first thing on the record (no embeddable video yet; watch here):

"It is an amazing challenge down here in Florida, Rachel. I've never seen such diversity. The classroom I was in had 200 kids from all over the world: South Asia, Latin America, everywhere. An amazing challenge... 

"I think it's where the left and the right can agree - and Condi Rice certainly rang the bell last night, I thought rather well - education is the civil rights issue of the future. We have to win this fight. The fact that we're so far down on the totem pole right now worldwide in terms of math and science and general education is the challenge I think. "

Wait a minute Chris: you were just in an American classroom where there were kids from all over the world. Even though you say we are at the bottom.

Are people immigrating to America to send their kids to our bad schools?

Or might it be that part of our challenge is to educate the most socially, racially, ethnically, and economically diverse student population in the developed world?

Which explains why, when you account for poverty, America is actually at the top of the world in education?

Matthews goes on to tell us that Michelle Rhee is the best superintendent Washington D.C. ever had. No, really, he did.

I'll take this nonsense on tomorrow. And I'll tell you why I think this segment may, in fact, be the best news I've seen about the fight against reforminess in a long, long time.

I tawt I taw Michelle Rhee!

"No Excuses": Race, Class, & Education

Last night, Condoleezza Rice stood in front of the Republican National Convention and declared that education was the "civil rights issue of our day." Diane Ravitch points out that it never occurs to these people that poverty should be the real civil rights issue, as poverty is the best predictor of school performance, health, longevity, happiness, and so on.

I'd add that we should also consider that "civil rights" might be the civil rights issue of our time, what with the massive, conservative-driven voter disenfranchisement that's going on in the country. That's closely linked to the destruction of local control of schools in the cities; and it begs a question of those, like Rice, who insist that education reforminess is the answer to endemic poverty:

Why are the corporate reformers creating schools for poor and/or minority children that engage in practices that affluent parents would never accept for their own kids?

Yes, this starts with the governance of schools: suburban parents demand a say in their district's supervision, and would never accept mayoral or state control at the expense of their ability to influence local education decision making. One of the reasons parents in the suburbs of New Jersey pushed back so hard against the expansion of charter schools was that they would have no say over how those schools were run; it would be, essentially, taxation without representation. Yet autocrats regularly insist - usually in coded language - that urban parents and taxpayers are incapable of running their own schools or their own districts, even when state or mayoral control has been a failure.

This notion of "separate but equal" also extends into the curriculum and culture of the urban charter schools that have become the standard-bearers of the reformy movement. This is, until now, a story that has been told by very few (Jonathan Kozol most prominently). But there is increasing evidence that the way children are being taught in a "no excuses" environment of the cities is radically different from the way affluent parents demand their children learn.

Which is why this post from Paul Thomas is so important. I urge you to read the entire thing, but here's a taste:

• Students are nearly silent in class (to quote this teacher) "mostly because they've been trained like dogs [emphasis added] to never speak -- I had to repeatedly tell one class that it was ok to talk to their group during GROUP discussion -- foreign concept for them." ["No excuses" schools confuse "training" with "learning."]

• The students have primarily been taught to be compliant; again to quote the teacher:

"They [the students] can't think for themselves, they have no concept of style and author's craft (they're skill drilled their 9th grade year), and they have a very prescriptive method for annotating texts to the point where the students are annotating in the margins so they won't get in trouble [emphasis added], but they're not making any meaning with the text. One student today asked me how many annotations per paragraph they needed, and when I told her she needed to note where she saw fit, she looked so confused and upset."

• Ironically, teachers have a great deal of support and autonomy, and are primarily themselves treated with respect and as professionals, but, as this teacher notes, that allows TFA recruits (without experience or expertise) to function with little supervision. [Note that increasingly charter schools are afforded autonomy while public schools suffer under impossible mandates.]

This is a description of urban "no excuses" education I'm hearing again and again and again, and you know what? No one in the affluent 'burbs would accept it for their own kids.

Yes, suburban parents demand discipline - but age-appropriate discipline that teaches children, rather than indoctrinates them. Yes, suburban parents want their children to learn when to be silent - but not all of the time; they understand a child must be given the chance to express her opinion if she is to grow. Yes, suburban parents want their children to be fluent in the mechanics of language and mathematical computation - but they want their children to be able to write creative and engaging essays and apply math skills to complex problems.

I've been going off for quite some time now about the predilection of reformyists like Bill Gates and Barack Obama and Chris Christie to play up destructive education policies in public schools that their own children won't have to endure, because these folks send their kids to private schools. Shame on them for their hypocrisy.

But this is worse. It is fundamentally anti-American to espouse one type of education for poor urban children and another type for affluent suburban children. If we really, truly cared about these most-neglected and most-deserving kids, we'd be working to make their lives as much like those of their suburban peers as possible - both in and out of the classroom.

That's the real civil rights issue of our time.

ADDING: Via Diane Ravitch, here's Michael Paul Goldenberg:

But perhaps at least as important is the TYPE of education KIPP provides, the kind of teaching TFA promotes, and what that means for students. On my view, KIPP is a very regressive philosophy. It’s “work hard, be nice” mantra sounds wonderful to many people, but to me, given that KIPP is working mostly with poor students of color, it sounds very much like “get back in your place. Don’t complain. Do what you’re told.” And given that there is so much emphasis on chanting, rote, and in general the sort of bunch o’ facts education that none of its wealthy backers and cheerleaders would EVER accept for themselves or their children, it feels racist, classist, and reactionary: designed to ensure that inner-city students of color and poverty are pacified with marginal and minimal skills that will not lead them to satisfying, challenging lives with competitive salaries. Frankly, I would scream if my son were in a KIPP-style school, and so would most educated parents. [emphasis mine]

Amen. Once again, here's George Carlin preaching the truth:

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want -- they want MORE for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They DON'T want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that, that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting ****** by system that threw them overboard 30 ******' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want OBEDIENT WORKERS. OBEDIENT WORKERS. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly ******** jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. 

1940s Hide a Bang Hairstyle

My new middy haircut is great except that my bangs are not long enough! Here's how I cheat with my bangs to get that classic 1940s look.

Ember is Now Available on B&N and Amazon!

Hey everyone!

I’ve added a few things to the Show the Ember the Love Giveaway. I’m going to be giving a signed bookmark to anyone who shares the link too Ember on Amazon and/ or B&N (only one bookmark per person).

Okay, now for the fun part! Here are the links to Ember on Amazon! (If you haven’t found them already). I’ll post the B&N when I have it :)

B&N: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ember-jessica-sorensen/1112696829?ean=2940015167726

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Ember-Death-Collectors-Book-ebook/dp/B0093DI6UQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346225208&sr=8-1&keywords=%28+b0093di6uq

Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ember-Death-Collectors-Book-ebook/dp/B0093DI6UQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346225588&sr=8-1

 

 

What if you knew when someone was going to die?

For seventeen-year-old Ember, life is death. With a simple touch, she knows when someone will die. It’s her curse and the reason she secludes herself from the world. The only person who knows her secret is her best friend Raven.

Then she meets Asher Morgan. He’s gorgeous, mysterious, and is the only person Ember can't sense death from. So when he pushes into her life, she doesn’t mind.

But when unexplained deaths start to haunt her town, Ember starts questioning why she can’t sense Asher's death and what he may be hiding.

Dean and Deluca

Tried Dean and Deluca at Central on a weekday. The queue is insane on weekends. Though I must say that the food is very underwhelming and I was not impressed at all by my bagel cos it was hard and dry and the cream cheese was spread so thinly that I could hardly taste it. The scrambled eggs were a bit too runny but tasted creamy enough.

The pancakes fared much better.
I definitely wont be queuing here. I'm feeling that the local food has been very uninspiring lately and it's extremely expensive for something u could easily make at home. Oh well.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Joy and Gift of the Law

Twenty Second Ordinary Sunday Year B

Last week, I broached the topic of Catholics leaving the Church, some having opted for a watered down version of Christianity served with just the ideal cocktail of humanistic ideology with a brisk and relevant motivational message stirred right in. In other words, a sort of self-improvement programme that leaves it’s dotting fans with a ‘feel-good,’ ‘I’m OK You’re OK’, ‘I want more of this!’ experience every Sunday. This week, the readings deliberately lead us further down another slippery slope to confront a yet more explosive cocktail, this time made up of laws, legalism and religion.

Many would claim that legalism is the Church’s death of a thousand cuts (I believe that this form of execution which is of Chinese origin is vividly self-explanatory). When critics speak of ‘Legalism’ in the context of the Church, they are referring to the Church’s seemingly obsessive preoccupation with laws. In spite of this criticism, many Catholics do often seem to be preoccupied with matter of laws. “Father, can we eat meat on Friday?” “Father, how many times can you receive communion on Sunday?” Critics would, of course, explain this behaviour as the result of relentless conditioning by the Church. They complain that the Catholic Church has too many rules and restrictions which have resulted in its members being weighed down by heavy shackles. The basis for this accusation is the belief that the Church and Laws, or to be more specific Jesus and Laws are antithetical. If Jesus was the personification of Love which liberates and includes, the Pharisees, his antonymous counterparts, personified the Law which enslaves and excludes. The oft quoted argument is that if Jesus were alive to do, he would abolish the regime of law in favour of a kingdom based on love. But would Jesus really do this?

A careful reading of today’s scriptural passages would reveal an entirely different picture.  To understand the first reading which is taken from the Book of Deuteronomy, which literally means, the ‘Second Law’, it is helpful to remember the very positive view of God’s Law adopted by the Israelites and later the Jews. The Law was considered a gift from God that set Israel apart from other nations. Whereas the law codes of other nations functioned as necessary safeguards of individual rights and as a means to redress wrong, Israel understood the Law as a communication from God which imparted favor and blessings. Far from feeling constricted or inhibited by the Law, they felt that it illumined their path in life.

Although the Law was described by the Jews as a fence or wall around the Torah, designed to preserve and protect, it had become a virtual barrier and a burden which obscured God’s gift of the law and weighed heavily upon the hearts of the people. By the time of Jesus’ ministry the Law or at least the rabbinical extrapolations of it had become so detailed and cumbersome that ordinary people could not comprehend its complexities; their only recourse was to consult the scribes, experts in the law, who were able to guide others through the legal labyrinth. 

Jesus, for his part, cut through the legalism of his critics and spoke to the very heart of the matter. Purity or holiness would no longer be a matter of soap and water but of a lived faith which responds to God’s word and cooperates with God’s forgiving, cleansing grace. Jesus called his contemporaries (and us) to move beyond that hypocrisy which pays lip service but hides a sinful, devious heart behind impeccably washed hands. He rejected human legalism that had scarred the spirit of the Law, waylaid its purpose, and entrapped those subject to it under the heavy burden of senseless practices.

But was Jesus advocating anarchy, a state where we would not need laws? Is lawlessness part of the original ethos of Christianity proposed by Him? I do not believe that any scripture scholar worth his salt would dare to make this claim. If we define "legalistic" as the exhortation of others to obey and live by a set of rules or a rule of law, then anyone, especially Jesus could be seen as a "legalist". Notice the words with which Jesus prefaced his new teaching, “Hear me”. This is reminiscent of the fundamental commandment given to Israel who is called to hear and obey the law of God. In Deuteronomy 6:4 God prefaces the Law with these words, “Hear O Israel…” If you're going to argue that the Church is "legalistic", then you also need to accuse Christ of being "legalistic", and yet you follow his law without complaint? Are Christ's instructions in today’s gospel not also "law"?

So, having laws isn’t the issue at all. In fact, St. James in the second reading speaks of the law of God as “all that is good, everything that is perfect, which is given to us from above.” It is given to us in order that we become the “first fruits of all that he had created”. Without God’s law to guide us, we will be lost in the confusion created by our own pride and selfishness. Therefore, the laws of God and his church are meant to help us become free from our own selfish motives and intentions. We know that laws are established to create boundaries and help guide our moral compasses, therefore serving our best interests. Without laws, we will descend into the muddy mire of relativism, where Truth is no longer objectively accessible. Moral relativism is the ethical approach asserting that what is important is the sincerity of our decision, nothing else. As long as you mean well it’s ok. But the goal of moral judging is not just to make a sincere judgment. It is also and even more ultimately, to do the truly right, truly helpful, constructive, life-giving thing. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the moral law is the work of divine wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy… It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.” (CCC 1950)

On the other hand, we must also avoid the other extreme. There are many who slavishly follow the letter of the Law without understanding its Spirit, or its intent. We find these people often very judgmental of others. They see themselves as the perfect guardians of the Law and take it upon themselves to be the watchdogs of morality. Others are contented with performing the basic minimum requirements of the Law, for example, abstaining from meat on Fridays, but then gorge themselves silly on seafood, thus neglecting the spirit of the Law which is self-discipline and sacrifice in order that we may enter into solidarity with those who suffer. This is the legalism which Jesus condemns.

Legalism asserts that what is really central to moral living is obedience to the law. But morality is not an enterprise of obedience, it is an enterprise of wise and caring action. Sometimes we follow laws blindly. We do it only because we fear retribution. We must note that the Catholic’s tradition’s involvement in moral questions is not essentially a matter of rules, but of teachings. It is a matter of wisdom acquired, wisdom claimed, about how human persons can best serve one another. And it is a matter of sharing that wisdom, out of care for and commitment to the persons who are involved. Such wisdom is never satisfied with the minimum standards set by the Law. The wisdom of the Church’s teachings ultimately lead us to aim much higher, to aspire heavenly virtues, to reach for the sky, to surrender all and to even offer our lives in humble sacrifice for the grand prize of eternal life. Morality is never just about blind obedience but about firm conviction that comes from conversion.

Pursuing a moral life in accord with God’s grace does not depend simply on one’s own subjective feelings and judgment but on a conscience informed by the preaching and laws of Christ and the Church, sound religious education; a conscience guided by scripture, spiritual direction, and the witness and example of other believers. Catholics understand, therefore, that there are external resources that may guide a person to strive for an upright, holy life. All of these external resources combine over a lifetime to help form Christian character, whose goal is to imitate the Lord. These laws are never meant to kill joy and deprive us of our freedom. Laws do not render faith dull and love passionless. On the contrary, the laws serve as milestones and hedges to mark the certain path to freedom and glory. Laws when oriented to the ultimate good which is God himself, ultimately leads us to love. When we truly love, we realise that obeying laws is never just a matter of fulfilling an obligation. We do so freely and joyfully. The famous English convert to Catholicism at the turn of the 20^th century, G.K. Chesterton wrote (and while he was still Anglican, 14 years before he became a Catholic): “Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.”

Inspiration: 1940s Post-War Fashions

Recently, I shared some early 40s fashion inspiration, but now it's time to look at the other end of the spectrum.

After the war, Dior came out with his New Look collection and while the average woman didn't jump on these fashions right away,  this style dominated the fashion world throughout the 1950s.

Luxuries like yards and yards of fabric were available again and everyone had more time for frivolities.

In my brain, the 1940s feminine ideal is this young, fresh girl while the 1950s ideal is a confident, sexy woman. That's an over generalization, of course, but that's my impression of the two decades.

There's something so mature and sophisticated about the New Look.

I love late 40s patterns for capturing a blending of the 40s and 50s look. I feel another inspiration post coming on!

America, Now You Know What NJ Is Stuck With

So last night was the big debut on the national stage for Chris Christie. I'm actually surprised at the number of poor reviews - and not just from liberals:

Fox News host Chris Wallace had nothing but nice words for Ann Romney's speech at the GOP convention on Tuesday night, saying that it was "effective" and that "everyone afterward was buzzing" about it.

But New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) convention speech? Not so much.

"I have to say, personally, I thought it was one of the most off-key keynote speeches I ever heard," Wallace said.

He noted that Christie said the word "I" 37 times, "Romney" seven times, and "jobs" one time.

"[I]t seemed sometimes as if he was promoting his own candidacy more than he was Mitt Romney's," Wallce added. "People liked the speech, but not nearly the kind of intense reaction to it and intense listening to it that there was for Ann Romney.

Understand this about Chris Christie, folks: he is an egomaniac of the highest order. It's always about him and his "courage." Those of us stuck with him weren't surprised in the least that last night's speech was so self-congratulatory.

But aside from the politics of the speech (here's a transcript), there are a few things to note:

They said it was impossible to cut taxes in a state where taxes were raised 115 times in eight years. That it was impossible to balance a budget at the same time, with an $11 billion deficit. Three years later, we have three balanced budgets with lower taxes.

We did it.

Uh, no. You only balanced the budget because you skipped pension payments, and you pushed through a law (with plenty of Christiecrats in tow) that allows you to skip full payments for seven years. You also effectively raised taxes on the poor by slashing tax credit programs. And by shifting more of the burden away from the state and toward localities, Christie has overseen a huge hike in property taxes. 

They said it was impossible to touch the third rail of politics. To take on the public sector unions and to reform a pension and health benefit system that was headed to bankruptcy.

With bipartisan leadership we saved taxpayers $132 billion over 30 years and saved retirees their pension.

We did it.

Uh, no. You, Governor, were a blatant liar in the 2009 campaign when you told teachers you wouldn't touch their pensions. You remain a blatant liar when you deny what you knew about the impending pension crisis back in 2009. And you haven't saved the pension system at all: it's still a mess.

They said it was impossible to speak the truth to the teachers union. They were just too powerful. Real teacher tenure reform that demands accountability and ends the guarantee of a job for life regardless of performance would never happen.  

For the first time in 100 years with bipartisan support, we did it.

Uh, no. The tenure bill was closer to the proposal of the NJEA than any other draft plan out there - including yours. In fact, most of the proposals you floated over the last two years were removed from the final law.   

We believe that the majority of teachers in America know our system must be reformed to put students first so that America can compete. Teachers don't teach to become rich or famous. They teach because they love children.

We believe that we should honor and reward the good ones while doing what's best for our nation's future — demanding accountability, higher standards and the best teacher in every classroom.

Uh, no. You have misused the good will of teachers to create an argument in favor of cutting teacher compensation. Personally, I think it's probably one of the most damaging things you've done to education.

They believe the educational establishment will always put themselves ahead of children. That self-interest trumps common sense. They believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, and lobbyists against children.

They believe in teacher's unions.

We believe in teachers.

Uh, no - you clearly hate teachers. That's why you have insulted them - not teachers unions, but teachers - over and over again.

Egomaniac, liar, promise breaker, incompetent... no wonder the GOP picked him to be their standard bearer last night. Remember:

Reformy Alert! Booker Presents Dem Platform

This is not a good sign:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker will speak at the Democratic National Convention next month in Charlotte, N.C., President Obama’s campaign announced late Thursday night.

Booker, one of a dozen speakers the Obama campaign announced, will present the party platform to convention delegates on Sept. 4. He will be joined by Retired Army Lt. General Claudia Kennedy and Rep. Barbara Lee of California.

It is unclear what time Booker will speak, but so far, he is the only New Jersey Democrat who has been given a speaking role at the convention, which will be held Sept. 3-6. Booker co-chaired the party platform committee and his speech is an extension of that leadership role.

"We have a platform that will excite not just Democrats but the nation ... and ensure that Barack Obama will be re-elected," Booker said during a C-SPAN broadcast of committee deliberations.

Teachers, parents, and advocates for public education: we are in big trouble. We know the Republicans want to dismantle public schools; however, if Cory Booker is going to present the education plank of the Democratic Platform, it's a sign that the two parties aren't very far apart. As I wrote before:

Yes, folks, Supermayor will be helping to write the planks on education.

The guy who wants to do away with seniority for teachers.

The guy who welcomed Eli Broad's money into Newark to remake the public schools with a minimum of local input.

The guy who wants more charters and more vouchers, even if they lead to segregation by income, disability, or even race.

The guy who turned Zuck's bucks into a gravy train for his friends.

The guy who said of gutting tenure: "There is no greater urgency in my city," apparently unaware of his city's soaring murder rate.

The guy who got a paid consultant in his first mayoral campaign hired as the superintendent of schools; the same superintendent who overrides the will of the citizens elected by the people to ensure a system of charters replaces public schools in Newark.

The guy who endorsed a report that threw the teachers who serve the most difficult students to educate under a bus.

Yes, folks, that Cory Booker will be helping to write the planks on education. How do you think it will turn out?

Now he's more than just writing the platform; he's the face of Democratic policy. And he's massively funded by Andrew Tisch, one of the biggest corporate education privatizers in America.

I'll say it again: I'm not throwing my vote away. Romney can't be allowed to gain the White House under any circumstances.

But when folks like "Reformy" Cory Booker are guiding Democratic policy on education, we clearly have a lot of work to do after the election.

I'm here to save you teachers and parents from yourselves!

Currytime

A rather new restaurant by the founders of old Chang kee - relive yesteryear with those tin plates, marble tables, tiffin carriers, cheong sams and old style music at Currytimes.


I had the lunch set ($8.90 nett) which was their signature chicken and potato curry, choice of prata or bread or rice, side dish of the day and drink. The curry is supposed to be very wholesome and indeed it was so thick and rich it's hard not to believe that no coconut milk was used. Though the curry was not bad, the prata was an immense disappointment and simply unsatisfactory. Chap Chye was bleagh.
Fortunately, I had foresight that it would be inadequate to fill my growling stomach and ordered their signature curry bun ($1.50) whih was spectacular! Think old Chang kee curry puff filling in a soft fluffy toasted bun. Salivating as I type this...
Btw I was so famished I also ordered the Chendol ($3.90) which was another disappointment. Thin stringy Chendol and clumpy coconut milk. The attap chee was one of the best quality ones I've eaten - translucent fat and juicy. Mmmm!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Rosie Perez Embarrasses Herself Badly

So the stars of Won't Back Down are starting their press junkets. Let the embarrassment commence, starting with Rosie Perez on Good Morning, America (no embed code; you'll have to click through to watch).

Perez says, "We have the worst education system, K through 12." Leave aside how such a sweeping statement is absurd on its face; not once in her little TV visit does Perez bother to mention that we have almost the worst childhood poverty in the developed world. It's probably too much to expect Perez to know that when you control for poverty, American children are at the top of the world.

We get a clip of WBD next, with Perez's character complaining about another teacher's poor work. Obviously, the primary difference between the educational outcomes of students in and out of poverty is their teachers, right?

Perez then says teachers "should be paid so much money," and the audience and the hosts all applaud and cheer - whoo-hoo! Uh, where you gonna get the money, Rosie? Do you think that Philip Anschutz, Walden Media's owner and producer of WBD, is hot to see his taxes raised to pay teachers more?

Though deeply unfortunate, it is also unsurprising that “Won’t Back Down” is such a false and misleading depiction of teachers and unions. Anschutz’s business partner is on record saying that he intends to use Walden Media (which also produced the equally misleading “Waiting for ‘Superman’”), as way for him to promote their values.
 
A look at the organizations in which Anschutz invests makes those values crystal clear. He has funded 20 organizations, including ALEC, Americans for Prosperity and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. All of these groups operate against the public interest in favor of corporate interests, and all of them actively oppose collective bargaining rights and other benefits for workers. Anschutz has also invested millions in anti-gay and extreme religious-right organizations such as the Promise Keepers, whose founder declared that “homosexuality is an abomination against almighty God,” and organizations affiliated with Focus on the Family. [emphasis mine]  

Wow - I wonder what Perez thinks about that?



So, Perez makes videos supporting marriage equity at the same time she takes money to appear in movies bankrolled by notorious anti-gay activists. Nice.

Perez wraps up her appearance by juggling bananas and talking about being naked on stage.

Your American education discourse, ladies and gentlemen. There's no doubt we are in for quite a bit more of this idiocy over the next month - hold tight.