From A Murderer's Mouth To A Neo-Nazi's Ears

This was written back in 2009. A fellow blogger linked to it, so I figure I should let you see it.

_______________________________________________________________________

I am only posting this because I find it revealing and prescriptive.

I also have a rather intimate connection with the place this man shot up and murdered and injured people--people I know.

However, it is a warning of sorts from a man who seems to know what he did. I am glad he is in jail, and he needs to stay there forever. His letter to teabaggers and right-wing fanatics/terrorists seems pertinent in light of the right's desire to spread fear, hate, and soon maybe even lead.

For those who don't know or don't remember, Buford shot up the North Valley Jewish Community Center back in August of 1999. He killed a postal worker and wounded three children and the receptionist. I know the receptionist. I used to work there. I went there as a kid. My niece was there when it happened.

I present this letter from Buford to my right-wing visitors as a reminder of what racism, anti-semitism and hate will bring you (jail and a ruined life). Be careful, haters.

Convicted murderer Furrow says his mind was full of sickness

Los Angeles Daily News

Attn: Kevin Modesti

21860 Burbank Blvd., Suite 200

Woodland, CA 91367

Mr. Modesti,

Hello, I was sorry to hear that we couldn't speak during your earlier interview request. Today, I received the paperwork of the denial of that request. I have filed an administrative remedy in response to this unconstitutional refusal of your visit.

I did want to speak to you for the simple reason that I feel deep remorse for my crime. About 5 yrs. ago I threw away my racist books, literature, etc. and took up a new leaf. I now publicly renounce all bias toward anyone based on race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. and am a much happier person. I feel a life based on hate is no life at all.

Those people I hurt, and the man I killed that day in 1999 will probably never forgive me, but I am truely (sic) sorry and deeply regret the pain I caused. My mind was filled with sickness and unfortunately I acted on it. But, I am now a "model" inmate who has shunned criminal activity and spend my day with exercise, art, and learning prison civil law. I can't change the past, but I can damn sure change the future, and my future will never include Neo-Nazi activity again. That is all I can do. [emphasis mine]

(Unrelated paragraph removed)

Well, if you wish you may reprint or distribute this letter to anyone. I'd hope to have you write about my change of heart and the evils of hate but I guess it's not meant to be. Thanks for your interest though, write me if you wish at this address.

Sincerely,

Buford Ocq Furrow

Who knows if Buford has really reformed? Personally I don't give a shit. But his point ought to be taken by the KKK wing of the Republican soldiers of fortune haters who may just end up Buford's bunk mate.

h/t DWT

Mario Nguyen Would Like To "Support The Needs Of Standardized Tests"

I get unsolicited emails pretty frequently. This one takes the cake, though.

Good morning Frustrated Teachers,

My name is Mario Nguyen and I represent Applied Practice, an education company. In a few weeks we will launch our blog, which will cover various topics concerning K-12 academia. Applied Practice is a company, founded by two teachers, whose goal is to support educators in developing curriculum designed to meet the needs of standardized tests.

I noticed that your blog, The Frustrated Teacher, is already very active in this sphere. So, I just wanted to say, “Hello!” and possibly establish a relationship. I appreciate your perspective and the work you’re doing in the education system. We firmly believe that communications channels like yours and ours are the best way to spread new and innovative practices, and we’re committed to helping promote your ideas. I plan to interact with your posts, share them, and follow you on all social media channels. I hope you can do the same for Applied Practice on Facebook and Twitter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

-- Mario Nguyen

How thoughtful of Mario. I responded to his kind offer:

Mario,

Thanks for your email.

You are the enemy of children and public schools if your goal is to teach people how to "meet the needs of standardized tests." Tests don't have needs; animate things do, like children have needs, and birds have needs, as well a viruses, which have needs. Tests? They don't have needs, nor do paper clips.

I will do all I can to destroy you, legally.

Go away. Shut down. Close up shop.

I am going to publish this email exchange on my blog for all to read.

--TFT

Welcome, Townhall Folks!

Nice to see you here! Let's get going with Kyle Olson's tweets that he thinks you don't need to see over at your right wing rag (read from bottom to top--start at the bottom):

Kyle thinks he gets to choose how his tax dollars are used. And in a way he can, by voting. But he doesn't get to pick and choose on a daily basis or on a whim, that's not how economies of scale work, and that is the purpose of a "tax base" to spread the cost over many payers.

What you folks on the rabid right hate is the left, who you identify as commies, latte drinkers, teachers and other folks who care for others and who, in your simple minds teach your kids to be pussies, or something. We don't. We help them learn to think, unlike their right-wing, indoctrinated, ignorant parents who think the left is a cabal organizing to turn Americans into sniveling pussies, or something. Not really true. Pussies tend not to kill people, and we on the left, who are in control of government right now, seem to kill really well, so relax; we kill too, just like you Nugent folks.

Kyle would like to think he is an adult. As you can see from these lame tweets, he is not; he's sort of juvenile and simple, and frightened of a real discussion on public airwaves. He also thinks Click, Clack, Moo is a subversive union tesxt meant to indoctirnate young children. Yeah, right. Ever been in a classroom with little kids and read to them? They don't think of it that way. They think it's funny cows can type. It's you and Glenn Beck who find subversive nonsense in a cute little children's book.

So silly.

Come on Kyle, do my radio show, or FOX business news with me or Pete. Don't be afraid. We won't make you gay or Jewish. And, given the attention you're giving me, it seems you want to engage with me. Let's go! I am ready! Are you?

Feel free to comment here, folks, since you can't at Kyle's (who's the pussy?).

Wednesday Bonus Cartoon Fun: Raise Your Gun Edition

A Taste Of What We Face, Updated Again

Cindy represents the tortured logic of many Americans when talking about the economy, education, or anything, really.

Update:

In this part of the thread Cindy says,

"Warren Buffet - what about him...and he said clearly, "We are winning." In reference to a perceived war on rich."

Buffet's whole quote was, "There’s class warfare, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

Then this:

Update II: I neglected to link to the thread.

How Education Got Screwed Up: (It Didn't!): Repost

I am reposting this because the President will resurrect it tonight during the SOTU speech. Remember this post as you listen to him tell us the same thing. Again.

Go read Gerald Bracey's 17th Education Report (pdf). Here is the how the whole education disaster started: our wrong-headed reaction to Sputnik (snippet):

U.S. News & World Report ran an interview with Bestor in late 1956 under the title “We Are Less Educated than 50 Years Ago.” After Sputnik, it brought him back for “What Went Wrong with U.S. Schools.” Bestor eschewed two common descriptors of life adjustment education — “flapdoodle” and “gobbledygook” — and said simply that, “in the light of Sputnik, ‘lifeadjustment education’ turns out to have been something perilously close to ‘death adjustment’ for our nation and our children. . . . We have wasted an appalling part of the time of our young people on trivialities. The Russians have had sense enough not to do so. That’s why the first satellite bears the label ‘Made in Russia.’”

No doubt Bestor believed what he said. Many people believed it. But it was utter nonsense. The U.S. could have beaten the Russians by over a year. Dwight David Eisenhower chose not to.

Update: PBS has a program on this very issue:

TV Program Description
Original PBS Broadcast Date: November 6, 2007

On October 4, 1957, the Space Age dawned with the red hue of the Communist flag when the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite. Sputnik I stunned the world and spurred a surge in science education and innovation that changed our world forever. But was Sputnik I really a shock to America's leaders, and how close was the U.S. to getting into space first? NOVA draws on previously classified documents to tell the real story behind the opening chapter in the space race. (For more on the space race, see a time line.)

"Sputnik Declassified" counters the popular view that President Dwight Eisenhower and the American science and defense establishments were caught completely off guard; and that Eisenhower was so behind the times that even after the success of Sputnik I, he still failed to recognize the importance of space.

Interviewed on the program are noted historians such as Roger Launius and Michael Neufeld of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, and R. Cargill Hall, historian emeritus at the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that operates U.S. spy satellites.

As NOVA shows, historians are beginning to realize that an elaborate strategic game was unfolding behind the scenes, with Eisenhower following a policy of divining Soviet military capabilities at all costs. By the early 1950s, the Russians were armed with nuclear weapons, and U.S. defense officials feared a Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack.

Espionage inside Soviet territory was nearly impossible, and reconnaissance overflights were vulnerable and also forbidden by international law, which left Eisenhower with only one technically feasible but as-yet unproven alternative: to spy on the Soviets from the seemingly fantastic realm of space.

Ironically, the administration's concerted efforts to conceal this long-range project may have allowed the Russians to get into space first. Eisenhower approved a civilian venture to launch a scientific satellite and insisted that a non-military rocket carry the payload. This rocket, called Vanguard, had to be designed virtually from scratch.

In "Sputnik Declassified," NOVA probes the prehistory of the Space Age, examining what makes Earth orbit so difficult to achieve; why the superpower rivalry in the wake of World War II made spaceflight attainable for the first time in history; and how a worldwide civilian science effort called the International Geophysical Year served as the occasion for both Sputnik I and the American response.

One of the key U.S. pioneers of the early Space Age is also one of the most controversial. As the rocket program leader for Nazi Germany, Wernher von Braun developed the V-2 rocket, which was built with slave labor and rained destruction on England, Belgium, and France in the final year of World War II. (See more on Von Braun's tainted legacy.)

Brought to the U.S. with most of his staff after the war, von Braun spearheaded the development of long-range missiles for the U.S. Army. On September 20, 1956—more than a year before Sputnik I—the first of his Jupiter C missiles reached an altitude of 682 miles, from which its fourth stage could have easily boosted a payload into orbit. But the Department of Defense had already passed over the Army team in favor of Vanguard and had forbidden von Braun from developing any kind of orbital spacecraft.

Eight weeks after Sputnik I, Vanguard was finally ready—and exploded spectacularly on the launchpad. Now the tables were turned. Von Braun was given the go-ahead to get a satellite into orbit as soon as possible, which he achieved on January 31, 1958, with Explorer I, launched by a Jupiter C missile.

Von Braun's ultimate success and America's hurt pride and alarm over Sputnik I led to the founding of NASA and eventually to the triumphs of the Apollo program. Thanks to the space race that Sputnik I initiated, Eisenhower's secret spy satellites and von Braun's childhood dream of human travel to the moon both became reality.

Although many experts foresaw Sputnik I, few could have predicted that the simple metal sphere with a crude radio and two batteries heralded a fundamental rethinking of America's priorities, and ultimately helped create the world we live in today. Spaceflight, GPS, cell phones, satellite TV, even the personal computer and the Internet—all owe a debt to Sputnik I. (For more on Sputnik's legacy, go to What Satellites See.)

To All Those EduExperts Out There (AKA Ignoramus's)...

This may be the best take-down of "the business model of education" that has ever been written.

Mike Jacobson says:
01/15/2011 at 10:55 am

To all of those experts out there:

The business world is always trying to hold the world of education to their standards. As educators we believe that it is time to hold businesses to the same standards that we are responsible for upholding.

So from this moment on, this is what we expect from the business world! We would like your business to be held accountable for the success of other businesses that purchase your product.

When you are selling your product to other businesses we demand that you are accommodating the needs of your customers so that you can meet the demands that each of your customers have. We would like you to design your sales presentations to fit the needs of nonreaders, visual buyers, auditory buyers, kinesthetic buyers, deaf people, blind people, people in wheel chairs, people with all physical and mental handicaps, people that speak every other language other than English.

We would like to base your pay and your compensation on how successful the people that use your product are! It is your job to prove your success with real sales data and numbers.

We would like you to find a way to sell your product to all customers regardless of their income, their intelligence, and how successful they are in using your product. And we are mandating that you must do this for all of the above mentioned people and make it against the law if you do not fulfill these conditions.

We would also like to hold you accountable for selling your product to people that have no use for your product, and that have told you right up front that they have no use for your product. And we mandate that you must make up your sales presentation to all customers that do not show up to your sales meeting regardless of the excuse such as family emergencies, personal health issues, or any other reason even including that they just didn’t feel like it!

We demand that you must try to sell your product to other companies even if the boss of their company thinks that you are a complete joke and have no value to anyone! We also demand that you try to sell your product to customers that have unrealistic expectations as to how your product should work or actually does work.

We demand that you must consider the input of your customers even if they tell you how to run your company and you know their ideas are bad ideas!
We demand that you have no choice who you can sell your product to.

We say that it will be OK if the public distorts the truth about how your company works and that it is OK to put these distortions all over the media in anyway that the public chooses and they may release these opinions for every one to see. There shall be no connection to reality when it comes to spreading opinions and it should make no difference how inaccurate these opinions are because that is the freedom of speech and it is exactly what our forefathers would have wanted!

If someone with no knowledge of how your product actually works or is produced, you must let their opinion take priority over what you know as an expert on your product even if you have been building and selling your product for more than 20 years!

We demand that you must try to sell your product to customers that are not even having their basic needs met. You must try to sell your product to starving people, people with no shelter, and to people living in horrific living conditions. We demand that you sell your product to people that are abusive, that are criminals, that could care less about anything but drugs and alcohol!

Your performance rating on all of the above conditions will depend on how you well you meet all of the above stated conditions! And lastly your pay will be determined by your success! In addition, any additional costs that may be incurred meeting these conditions shall not be reimbursed, you must take it out of the company budget!

This is the world as an educator sees it and maybe people would have compassion for educators if they could see the world through the eyes of a teacher!

A concerned teacher in 2011!

Michelle Rhee's Policy Agenda Translated

The above is part of the introduction page to Students First's "Pretty Policy Agenda."  I have no idea why the file has such a silly name.  Perhaps "pretty" is all the good they could claim it contains?  Weird.

I will translate the bullet points for you:

1.  Value is a euphemism for (or did she just shorten) evaluating teachers based on the test scores of students.

2.  Real choices means vouchers.

3.  Spending taxpayer's money wisely means make states change laws to allow for more charters, which have been shown to be no better, and often worse than traditional public schools.

Her job is to privatize education for her benefactors.

I Can't Let It Go (*Updated)

*Thanks to H.Hertzberg

Last Friday night I was in a debate on The Total Tutor's radio show along with a fellow liberal and a couple conservatives. I want to talk about one of the conservatives, A Conservative Teacher, and what I see on his blog as well as on some other right-wing blogs. U.S. passport applications have substituted "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" for "mother" and "father" to the consternation of the religious right, and A Conservative Teacher:

People who voted for Obama and the Democrats did indeed vote for a change in America- they voted for a brave new world where it is 'old' to have a mother and father, and where it is an 'improvement' to instead have 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'. The attack on the traditional family continues, and rather than a family structure built as God intended with a mother and a father parenting children who honor them we are having the government (provided for by taxpayers like you) push for a family structure where parent 1 and parent 2 have children who call them impersonal names like parent 1 and parent 2.

Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I ran a small summer day camp for a local temple. It was considered (and still is) one of the premier day camps in town. It was a temple camp, so it was affiliated with the congregation, but it was not a religious camp experience. Not at all, especially during my time there, as the Jewish atheist director.

Anyhoo, the applications had a space for the names of the parents--mother and father. The problem was that I knew of more than a couple gay families where there were two fathers or two mothers. I knew these people, liked them, respected them, and felt it was a rather silly thing to have an application where an assumption was made that was wrong--that a particular child had a mother and a father raising them.

So, without fanfare (or committee approval) I changed the wording on the application to Parent 1 and Parent 2. Nobody seemed to care--until one of the gay families came to me to say thank you for my sensitivity, to tell me it was unnecessary, but very much appreciated. That was the end of it, and it remains to this day, 20 years later.

A Conservative Teacher is clearly a right-wing religious fanatic, and he teaches children. Let's hope his intolerance doesn't seep into his instruction (you know it does).

In another post, and on a different topic, ConTeach (as I will now call him) is up in arms about Obama's lack of "natural grace, dignity, and energy" that apparently was on display during the Bush administration.

Is this guy for real?  He is a union buster.  He is a right-to-lifer.  He is intolerant.  He teaches children.

Wednesday Bonus Cartoon Fun: Waste, Fraud, Or Abuse Edition

Thursday Bonus Cartoon Fun: F#ck John McCain Edition

Straight Outta Compton

COMPTON, Calif. (AP) -- Chanting "yes we can!" and "si se puede!", a busload of parents on Tuesday became the first in California to try to force reforms at their children's failing school using the state's new "parent-trigger" law.

The group of Latino and African-American parents delivered a petition signed by 62 percent of parents at McKinley Elementary School to Compton Unified Acting Superintendent Karen Frison.

HuffPo

Fisrt, who paid for the bus? Second, a guy named Ben Austin, executive director of Parent Revolution, an organization with ties to Green Dot Charter Schools among others, spearheaded the law in California. With the law on their side, these "shock doctrine" abusers can organize 51% of parents in a school and get the district to create a charter school. And guess what, a CMO will make money from it.

These parents have no idea what they will reap by sowing such a damaged process.  Surely you all know where Compton is, right?  Compton's school district was once taken over by the state.  I think the Crips and Bloods started in Compton.  Ever heard of Gangsta Rap?  Ever heard of a song called Straight Outta Compton?

This is what the rich and powerful do--they find a vulnerable population, scare them, then use the fear to promise safety from the fear, and then they make their profit.  It is pure Shock Doctrine.  It's sickening, abusive, and usurious.

Stuart Rhoden Is A Moron

You need to watch your mouth. I have repeatedly warned you. Keep it up with your personal attacks and they will be deleted.

Your silly self thinks poverty is a recent invention? It's been around for centuries and yet people have still prevailed, still been educated and still become productive members of society. What was the avg family income in 1950 compared to 2000? Your insistence on using poverty as a crutch is a weak excuse.

Above we have Stuart Rhoden, a confused know-it-all. He chastises a member for personal attacks by personally attacking him.  Oh, the irony.  And he is getting a doctorate in something.  Amazing.  Here is his blog.  It's also lame.

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Donating To Dems: Updated Again, And, He's Back

Huffington Post is reporting that Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay for donating $2400 each to 3 Democrats--Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway.

The MSNBC rules state that on-air folks must get prior approval to donate money before an interview with the recipient. Some are saying that the donation was made post-interview (Grijalva was interviewed on Thursday, October 28).

I like Keith, though he has been less seen by me the last year or so because Rachel is so much better. But Keith paved the way for Rachel. Hell, he insisted she get her own show! He paved the way for Ed Schultz and now Lawrence O'Donnell.

Keith made a statement:

"One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky...I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

I think suspending him is ridiculous, especially given Citizens United and Fox have perverted our elections in ways Keith's donations never could. This is stupid.

Michael Moore has a petition up. Sign it if you feel like it.

Update:  Bernie Sanders chimes in:

WASHINGTON - November 5 - “It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.

“We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between.

“At a time when the ownership of Fox news contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country.

“Is Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz next? Is this simply a ‘personality conflict’ within MSNBC or is one of America’s major corporations cracking down on a viewpoint they may not like? Whatever the answer may be, Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view."

Update II:

Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring "Countdown." Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.

Politico

Update III:

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Schools Are Not Businesses. Stop With The Stupid Analogy!

Anthony Cody received an email from a reader, Elizabeth Knox, who shared some thoughts in response to last week's post, A Declaration of Professional Conscience for Teachers. I have decided to take her piece point by point and show why she should be ignored.

E.K.  What you outlined in your opening comments is what successful businesses have realized they must do to keep and attract the best associates and to keep and attract clients.

I am tired of people saying education is not a business or cannot learn from the business community on how to do things better. Look around at successful businesses in your community...ask them what they do to be successful and to stay successful...you will find they do exactly what you outlined. How many teachers will take this upon yourself and do this?

Education is not a business because businesses exist to make money and schools don't. They are dissimilar. What they have in common is the fact that they are run by humans. The similarities stop there.

E.K.  Successful businesses listen to their associates, their clients and their shareholders. Education has all three of these groups. Can you identify which is which? Do you truly ask for feedback, value suggestions and act upon them?

Schools don't really have these groups. Yes, they have associates (teachers) and shareholders (Americans) but they don't really have clients (students). Students are not clients because there is a law that says kids must go to school and America has chosen to publicly educate its kids. Therefore students are simply citizens taking advantage of one of the greatest things America provides its citizens--a free education.

E.K.  Successful businesses act on what their associates, clients and shareholders say and the results show. Do all things get acted upon? No, but everyone knows their voice has been heard and appreciated. Does this happen in education? Rarely if ever have I truly seen it.

The reason this is nonsense is that schools are not in operation to make money which is what shareholders want from the companies they own shares of. And remember, very few Americans own shares in public companies. It is the rich and powerful that own most of the shares and make most of the business decisions. And you see how they fucked us, right?

E.K.  Successful businesses regularly survey their associates, clients and shareholders to see how they are doing and what they need to do better. Then they act on those results and every associate has a role. This is not done in education.

First you must decide what you want education to be for in America, then you can check to see how things are going. We can't even agree on what education is! Is it a good test score? Acceptance to college? Getting a job? Keeping the job? Being happy and informed? What is it?

E.K.  If you want to be treated as professionals you need to look around you and see what other successful organizations are doing and see what you can incorporate. Educators think they are special, that they are unique, that no one understands their plight. In my opinion that cannot be further from the truth. Educators have an incredible job to do...they are educating the future of the country...but you are not unique in the challenges you face to be treated as professionals or be the best your can be.

Educators think they are special? Really? How do you know this? Have you asked all the educators? No, you haven't. So shut up. Your comment here exposes the fact that you think too many teachers suck and have a life-long job due to tenure--which is plainly untrue.

E.K.  Business clients have real choice. If the product is not up to snuff, the value not in line with the price, they can leave. This is a big problem with government schools...the students and families are stuck and educators know it...it is the biggest weakness to true reform in education. What if you had to work to attract every student? I am so waiting for total choice to come to government schools...are you ready?

Can you quit your police department? Your fire department? Your garbage collection? No, you can't, because they aren't businesses either. Besides, the product (an educated student, I assume you mean) is subject to the vagaries of the market (things like poverty, ill health, hunger...) in ways unlike product-based businesses.

E.K.  Come out from your self imposed isolation and monopoly and you will be astounded. Remember you are given every dime you have to operate your schools and systems...the money is literally taken from the people by law. This is not reality...successful businesses earn every dime of revenue, the value the client...if this attitude could be adopted in education...watch out...the revolution would be mind blowing...

You make it sound as if teachers/schools should be thankful they are "given" the money to do their work. The money is not so much given to us as it is spent by America on something America has decided is important to provide for its citizens. Just like America has decided having a huge military is good.

E.K.  My approach is more for educators to look around to what they consider to be successful organizations and ask what makes them successful and the other ideas I threw out. I have no clue how to break up the monopoly with closing down the DOE and returning the responsibility of education to the states. I think it is too late for that. The Feds only provide 10% of education funding. If states weren't totally dependent on those dollars this would a whole different conversation. Now that ten percent has basically give the Feds majority control. What am I missing?

Your approach seems incredibly vapid. You want educators to look at what they think are successful organizations--regardless of the actual success of those organizations, and without defining that success--and model schools after said organizations? Am I the only one confused about this one?

E.K.  Real change to education needs to come from within but not in a vacuum. Educators have historically told me if you are not a teacher or educator you don't have a voice in change. I may not know how to manage 30 kids in a classroom but I and others have perfectly good, successful solutions for other parts of the school that could help that teacher be more effective and have a much more manageable classroom Why are educators fearful/reluctant to look around and see what others (outside of education) do to be successful and adopt/modify those practices for their classroom, school, etc?
Elizabeth Knox

Your solutions are not solutions, and they do nothing to illuminate problems. They are the same tired nonsense that emanates from those who think they know, but actually don't know.

Please, stop making suggestions. Why don't you fight for more teachers to be involved in education reform? We know a little something about it, yet we are maligned, marginalized, and belittled. Don't you think we deserve a shot before those with no experience get theirs?

Sunday Cartoon Fun: 14th Amendment Edition

Monday Bonus Cartoon Fun: Certifiably Oxymoronic Edition

Monday Cartoon Fun: The Mayans Edition

Friday Cartoon Fun: Tombs of the Unknown Soldiers Edition

How Michelle Rhee Ruined People's Livelihoods

You know that controversy over Michelle Rhee's firing of all those DCPS teachers recently using the new IMPACT evaluation system? Oh, it was statistically unsound. Like, insanely unsound:

...Subtracting one score from another only makes sense if the two scores are on the same scale. We wouldn’t, for example, subtract 448 apples from 535 oranges and expect an interpretable result. But that’s exactly what the DC value-added approach is doing: Subtracting values from scales that aren’t comparable...

...Did DCPS completely botch the calculation of value-added scores for teachers, and then use these erroneous scores to justify firing 26 teachers and lay the groundwork for firing hundreds more next year?

According to the only published account of how these scores were calculated, the answer, shockingly, is yes.

The Answer Sheet