F.A.C.E. to FACE   F.A.C.E. BULLETIN 7/25/07     July 25, 2007 Dear Friends, Thousands of New Scholarships Available for Low-Income K-12 Students New poll: Latinos focused on education, South Florida Sun-Sentinel. A survey finds that nearly nine of every 10 likely Latino voters identify education as a ``very important priority'' for the next president. Education top issue for Hispanic voters, Hispanic voters consider education a more important issue than the war in Iraq and healthcare, according to a poll released Monday, Miami Herald Media Company. "Step Up For Students" Helps Central Florida Graduate Succeed, Orlando Times. A five (5) year Students on the Step Up For Students recipient is featured in this article. Obama's speech to the NEA and choice advocate's response - please read through-interesting stuff. Thank you for Stepping Up For Students, Michael A. Benjamin Executive Director, F.A.C.E. Florida Alliance for Choices in Education New poll: Latinos focused on education Jul 23, 2007 10:23:03 AM Mark Hollis of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel just posted this item: TALLAHASSEE --- To woo Latino voters, a new national survey finds that presidential candidates would be wise to focus on education issues. A survey finds that nearly nine of every 10 likely Latino voters identify education as a ``very important priority'' for the next president. It also shows that a candidate's position on education issues will have a greater impact on Latino voters than the candidate's stance on any other issue, including immigration and health care. The findings are part of a poll to be released today at the National Council of La Raza convention in Miami Beach, which is being attended by several presidential contenders. The poll, conducted for the Strong American Schools Project, a bipartisan group aimed at turning up attention this campaign year in education issues, surveyed 1,026 registered Hispanic voters throughout the country, and was conducted July 18-20. Those surveyed includes voters born in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Central America, South America and the United States. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Other key findings in the poll include: Latino voters consider the high-school dropout rate among Latino students to be the greatest educational problem for the Latino community in this countr. Half of those surveyed said they considered the quality of public schools to be ``mediocre'' or ``poor.'' And while teachers are rated positively for their performance, more than 80 percent of those surveyed said that the best method for improving education would be to hire more teachers with expertise in the subjects they teach.   Posted on Tue, Jul. 24, 2007 Education top issue for Hispanic voters BY YAMICHE ALCINDOR Hispanic voters consider education a more important issue than the war in Iraq and healthcare, according to a poll released Monday. The poll, which interviewed more than 1,000 Hispanic voters in the United States, found that their top concerns are high dropout rates for Hispanic high school students and ``students not receiving enough support at school.'' Forty-one percent of those polled noted education as their top concern, followed by healthcare and the Iraq War, each garnering 26 percent of responses. Jobs and immigration also ranked among the top five concerns. About 60 percent of those polled said they were Democrats, 16 percent Republicans and another 24 percent were independent or other. Sergio Bendixen, who also conducts polls for the Democratic Party, presented the results Monday during a town hall meeting at the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach. Maria Elena Salinas, a news anchor for Noticiero Univisión, hosted the discussion that featured former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, and Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Rudy Crew as panelists. ''We cannot just sit back and say we have a problem,'' Salinas said. ``It's time that we begin making improvements.'' Strong American Schools, a nonpartisan educational awareness group, co-sponsored the poll along with the National Council of La Raza. It found that most Hispanic voters also blame educational problems on faulty school systems and unsupportive parents. Crew said getting parents involved is key to keeping students in school. ''It's a matter of getting parents to understand that they can do something at an elementary school level to get their kids into college,'' he said. ``What's broken is that the system does not elevate all children.'' "Step Up For Students" Helps Central Florida Graduate Succeed June 28--On May 18, Shamel Donawa of Kissimmee, 18, donned a cap and gown and proudly accepted her diploma from Heartland Christian Academy in Kissimmee-an achievement that seemed impossible just five years ago due to her wavering academics. Prior to being awarded the Step Up For Students Scholarship, locally administered by Children First Florida, Donawa struggled at her neighborhood public school where her grades were poor - mainly C's, D's and F's. The scholarship made it possible for her to attend Heartland Christian Academy where she developed into a shining star. Donawa's mother felt that the scholarship was an answered prayer for her daughter, whose self-confidence and desire to learn had plunged. "If I hadn't received the scholarship, I can say with confidence that I would have dropped out," Donawa said. "My problem areas weren't addressed because there were 30 to 40 students in each classroom. I would cry myself to sleep because I began believing my teachers who told me I was dumb." Heartland's teachers possessed a positive attitude about learning and encouraged Donawa to strive to be her best. Only two short months after entering Heartland, Donawa's grades increased drastically. "I can still remember walking through the doors of Heartland, and I was overwhelmed with smiling faces and warm greetings,'" Donawa said. "At Heartland, everyone has an equal opportunity and the teachers work with the students individually to give us the confidence to succeed." Donawa graduated with honors and plans to complete her education at Valencia Community College where she has been participated in their dual-enrollment courses for the past two years. "I will complete my associate's degree at the community college, and then transfer to the University of Central Florida to become a registered nurse, and pursue a career as a labor and delivery nurse," Donawa said. "I even received a college scholarship from Hospital Corporation of America, a Step Up For Students donor, to ensure my dreams do come true." Over 5,000 new Step Up For Students Scholarships are currently available for the Fall 2007 school year. Don't delay and join nearly 17,000 students on the scholarships that can be used at over 900 private K-12 schools in Florida. For more information, please visit www.stepupforstudents.com/parents.htm or call (866) 739-1197. Shamel Donawa Obama's speech to the NEA and choice advocate's response Whitney, I know that you are a supporter of Obama. He is a truly inspirational and electrifying figure. I know you can't expect a Democrat to go to the NEA and commit political suicide. But I can't help but feel great sadness and disappointment when I read these passages from his speech. Perhaps if he is elected he can provide a Nixon to China moment of parental choice for low income children. But these passages below make me wonder. "It's a promise .... we expanded after World War II, when we sent over two million returning heroes to college on the GI Bill." The GI bill is a voucher, used by returning servicemen and women to attend the public or private schools of their choice. They use it to attend faith based universities; they even use it to attend seminaries and rabbinical schools. Why is he OK with dollars following students to all providers after children leave high school, but not before? "And even when America fell short of this ideal and forced Linda Brown to walk miles to a dilapidated Topeka school because of the color of her skin; even then, ordinary people marched and bled, they took to the streets" Why do they take to the streets now? To demand the right to send their children to the school they choose, regardless of whether it is within a certain system. For evidence please see http://www.youtube.com/flacetampa "The ideal of a public education has always been at the heart of the American promise. It's why we are committed to fixing and improving our public schools instead of abandoning them and passing out vouchers." Is he committed to the idea of public education, or to a system? What is his definition of public education? Is it using an adequate amount of taxpayer dollars to educate children well, regardless of who is educating them? Or is his definition a closed system of schools that children cannot venture outside of? Miami Union Academy is a faith based school in a poor Dade County neighborhood that graduates 99% of its kids and sends 95% to college. Its tuition is $4,000 per year. It is a faith based school. Why does Barack not want a low income single mom to be able to send her child to that school with taxpayer help? How will her doing so be a negative thing? "We now live in a world where the most valuable skill you can sell is knowledge. Revolutions in technology and communication have created an entire economy of high-tech, high-wage jobs that can be located anywhere there's an internet connection. And today, a child in Philadelphia is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before. " Does he think it's wise in such a world to have a K-12 education system that is based on a planned economy model where children are assigned to a school based upon where they live? "In the 21st century, countries who out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, and America is already in danger of falling behind. We now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation." I wish he would have stated what those dropout rates actually are---about 30% overall and close to 50% for minority children. In Florida if you are a black male you have a 38% chance of graduating. It would be so powerful for him to deplore that situation given his own success. Is this a situation where we should be taking options for low income parents off the table? "the single most important factor in determining their achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it's not who their parents are or how much money they have." No, the most important factor is how much money you have. Those with enough money move to a neighborhood with good public schools or pay for tuition for a private school. Only those without enough money have no choices. Hillary did the right thing for her daughter and sent her to a school that worked for her-luckily she lived in the only public housing in D.C. at the time that had school choice. Where does Barack send his children to school? "What we need is a historic commitment to America's teachers," No, what we need is a historic commitment to America's children, particularly low income children. We need to empower their parents to choose the best school for their kids. Do that, and the best teachers will be rewarded. "Let's do this by finally raising salaries across the board, and making it possible for professionals in other fields to become teachers, not through easy shortcuts" How does an alumni of Teach For America feel about that comment? "In the coming weeks, I'll be laying out the specific details of my plan to invest billions of new dollars into the teaching profession" How will this help close the achievement gap if the structural issues aren't addressed? Has his education advisors studied the experience of the Abbott Districts in New Jersey? "It also goes for parents. There is no policy or program that can substitute for a parent who is deeply involved in their child's education from day one" How can you expect parents to be involved and engaged if they have no recourse when a school doesn't work for their child? Does he truly wish to empower them? Give them the power to make a choice, and don't restrict it. There are thousands of schools that are working in inner cities right now. Don't tell these parents that they have to wait until a charter school comes to their neighborhood. By then it will be too late and their children will be a statistic. Obama's speech to the NEA and choice advocate's response 1) Obama addressed the NEA yesterday (the full text of the speech is below and at http://www.philly.com/inquirer/education/20070705_Prepared_text_of_Obama_s_speech_to_the_NEA.html) -- what DFER ED Joe Williams correctly calls Pander-Palooza -- and, well, took some steps in the right direction. Given the audience and the politics around this issue in the Democratic Party, I'll applaud him for these steps, esp. differential pay, and hope that he uses this as a springboard for more boldness and specificity on this issue. Ditto for Hillary, who I commend for having the guts to at least briefly mention her support for charter schools in her speech earlier this week. I certainly appreciate the awful dilemma Hillary, Obama and the other Dems have: I think they get the joke and understand how tepid their "reform" plans are, but it's not reasonable of us to expect them to commit political suicide. The onus is on us to change the political dynamics in the Democratic Party to that it's not political suicide to say and do the right thing. Here's Joe's take on DFER's blog (http://www.dfer.org/2007/07/obama_breath_of.php) (full disclosure: I am supporting Obama's candidacy and see Joe's disclosure below): July 6, 2007 Obama: Breath of Fresh Air, Or Most Clever Panderer? Sample standardized test question of the week: Who is the least popular person in the Hillary Clinton campaign this morning? Answer: The poor soul who scheduled Hillary to speak BEFORE Barack Obama at the National Education Association pow-wow in Philly. I have a whole bunch of unrelated points to make, so hang tough, troopers. 1. Check out the You Tube speeches below to see how easy Hillary made it for Obama to present himself as the common sense education dude. (I'll get to the substance of his speech in a minute.) Hillary is worried that kids aren't taking field trips anymore because they are taking too many tests; Obama is worried about our growing achievement gap, equality, and international competitiveness. Hrumph. Compare and contrast. Which candidate brought more of a sense of urgency to the table? 2. I do want to post the clips from the speeches so you can see for yourself. This is important because I have an important disclosure issue here. While DFER has not endorsed a candidate, and our board members are individually backing several candidates for president, my wife and I both have maxed out on $2,300 contributions to the Obama campaign. This doesn't mean we won't max out to other candidates as well, and we very well might, but you should know that. 3. Even the Philadelphia Inquirer noted that Obama's appearance before the 9,000 NEA delegates was different from the rest of the field. "Obama's endorsement of merit pay for teachers was the first note deviating from the promise-anything tenor of visits by several presidential candidates to the union this week." That's why it is called Pander-Palooza, folks. 4. But yes, as Eduwonk notes, the real news is that Obama waded into the one place in America which for several days this week claimed the highest concentration per cubic inch of persons opposed to merit pay and called for something that sounded a little bit like... merit pay. This is not a small thing. Sure, he had to do a rhetorical kabuki dance of sorts (he wouldn't use test scores as sole determinant, he would let teachers decide how it would be crafted, etc.) but he went there. Previous candidates like John Kerry were taken to the woodshed by NEA President Reg Weaver and forced to stop all talk about merit pay, something I described in my book and Robert Gordon described in The New Republic. When you are running for president as a Democrat, you are supposed to play along with the idea that there are no teachers who are better than others - they are all great. Another Philadelphia Inquirer analysis called it a "faint endorsement of merit pay" but noted that not only did Obama not get boo'd or hissed, teachers were literally crawling on the ground to get a better viewing spot. 5. Nonetheless Jeff Berkowitz in Chicago wasn't impressed. And Mike Antonucci says it wasn't a Sister Souljah moment at all. And since the teacher delegates actually seemed to like the speech, one DFER friend emailed in a headline suggestion: "Rift Grows Between Union Head, Rest of Universe." 6. Some of my friends in the school choice world were tremendously disappointed that Obama made no mention of charter schools and went out of his way to badmouth vouchers. I wouldn't worry about the charter schools piece quite yet. He's out there on it already. You have to remember what the point of the speech was: to show the American public that he was a heck of a lot more interesting than Hillary on education issues. He did that. Nailed it. Now the key will be to see how the candidates react. Will Hillary get some attitude? Will someone like Bill Richardson have an opening to talk about kids and families? Will Obama convince himself that his speech was so good his work on education is now complete? There is still plenty of time to develop common sense strategies which will promote the fundamental reform of America's school systems. Will anyone go there? Check out video of some of Hillary's speech here. Obama speech footage is here. Here's Andy Rotherham's take (http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/07/dont-go-there-he-went-there.html): Don't Go There! He Went There... At the NEA convention Senator Obama called for something that sounds a lot like merit pay today in his speech...that'll be the headline. On Monday Senator Clinton said something nice about charter schools and that was the headline. The name of the game here is do no harm and they both did that and Obama likely helped himself in the process. But, I'd still really like to see someone make the true and courageous point that while hardly perfect, No Child Left Behind isn't nearly as horrific as it's made out to be. That's post-partisan in today's climate. Also, when Senator Kerry flirted with performance pay in 2004 the NEA went nuts, so keep an eye on the reax here especially if the press is really boffo. But, Obama is harder for them to demonize...Finally, some interesting goings on around ed policy. And Mike Antonucci's (http://www.eiaonline.com/2007/07/nea-convention-concludes.html): Because of all the presidential candidates, the NEA Representative Assembly ended much later than it has in recent years - 9:34 p.m., if you had that in your office pool. I'll have some video of Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Joseph Biden once I can edit it all together. I've resisted the great temptation to write about the candidates' appearances and speeches as they occurred, but I feel there's a lot to be said that you're not getting from the newspaper coverage. A prime example is the Philadelphia Inquirer's story about Barack Obama supporting merit pay. This was no Sister Souljah moment. Sen. Obama - who probably does support performance pay - merely misunderstood the inner workings of the union he was addressing. "I commend the work you've done in Minnesota with the governor there to craft an innovative pay system that not only values your performance in the classroom, but the performance of your students as well," he said. "You helped craft it and you and your students benefit from it." He was referring to Q-Comp, an alternative pay plan of Gov. Pawlenty's that was put together with plenty of input from Education Minnesota, NEA's and AFT's state affiliate. What Sen. Obama probably didn't know is: a) Education Minnesota's participation in Q-Comp has not been, shall we say, universally embraced within NEA and its other state affiliates; and b) it can't really be considered the pride and joy of Education Minnesota either. In short, by citing Minnesota, Obama had no reason to believe his statements on alternative pay would be all that controversial with his audience. Nevertheless, there was some murmuring in the hall. If he miscalculated, he would not be the first politician at the NEA convention to do so. Back in 1999, Hillary Clinton was greeted with a moment of silence when she expressed her great admiration for charter schools. But at the time, NEA had its own Charter School Initiative, and she cited it in her speech. Of course, the Charter School Initiative soon disappeared, and even if Q-Comp does not, there is virtually no chance that NEA desires it as a national model. I doubt Obama will have to back away from his statement, the way John Kerry had to do in 2004, because he spoke only of discussing such a system with NEA. But I strongly suspect in the future this particular plank in his education platform will see its way out of the woodshed only at more opportune times. I'll have a lot more on the candidates in Monday's communiqué. I would like to mention that I think I was wrong about Mike Huckabee's appearance here. After hearing him speak, I think he did himself some good, striking just the right humorous tone and avoiding the pitfalls. 2) Joe's blog post from a day or two ago on the presidential candidates and charter schools(http://www.dfer.org/2007/07/presidential_ca.php#more): Presidential Candidates And Charter Schools A friend emailed to ask why I wasn't making a bigger deal over the fact that many of the Democratic presidential hopefuls are supporters of public charter schools. Yes: -- Sen. Hillary Clinton has said many times (including during her speech at Pander-palooza '07 yesterday) that she is a strong supporter of charter schools and public school choice. -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson told a crowd at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials con-fab that he supports charter schools. -- Sen. Barack Obama frequently notes (including once at a fundraiser I attended for him at Steven Gluckstern's house in Manhattan) that he was one of the strongest supporters of charter schools when he was in the Illinois legislature. It is worth noting that the support from Clinton and Obama, for example, has been longstanding, and that the climate is generally becoming more hospitable for political support these days. (And note: please feel free to email in any other statements out there from the presidential field so I can keep this tally updated.) But here is the thing: It is important that these politicians are supportive of what should be a no-brainer of a public policy. I think they are even right to throw in qualifiers about how charter schools must be held accountable, etc. The reason I don't get all that excited is that charter schools are easy. Seriously, the only reason they are controversial is because the public education cartel decided they were controversial. As mechanisms for crearting good, accoutnable, innovative public schools there is no good reason that ANY Democratic politician should oppose good charter school laws. Duh. I am a charter school supporter, even though I get into trouble when I use phrases like "cute little charter schools." I just think that they are an important means to an end (a better system of publicly-accountable schools) than the end in and of themselves. So while I, and many of my DFER friends, applaud this common-sense support for charter schools, it doesn't even begin to touch the kind of changes that are going to be necessary to make all of our schools the kinds of places where GREAT teachers will want to work, where parents will want to send their kids, and where kids will be able to thrive academically. Necessary, but not sufficient, baby. 3) I'm sending out this absurd blog post, a real hatchet job opposing Randi's deal to bring Green Dot to NYC, for two reasons: A) It's critical for reformers to understand the thinking, strategies and tactics of members of the entrenched status quo -- how they lie, distort, make personal attacks, draw false connections and arrive at erroneous conclusions, all to defend their power, perks and privileges, children be damned; and B) when Randi gets attacked like this, it certainly makes me appreciate the incredibly delicate line she has to walk. As bad as she may appear to many on this email list, believe it or not, I think she's actually one of the best teacher union leaders in the country interms of understanding how bad things are, how her own union's contract bears significant responsibility for this sorry state of affairs, and being willing, on occasion, to experiment with reform -- which exposes her to all sorts of attacks from the militant, longshoreman's-union types within her ranks. ------------------------ Prepared text of Obama's speech to the NEA, 7/5/07 http://www.philly.com/inquirer/education/20070705_Prepared_text_of_Obama_s_speech_to_the_NEA.html Senator Barack Obama delivered the following remarks today to the National Education Association Annual Meeting at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. As prepared for delivery: Over the last few years, I've been traveling to different schools and meeting with all kinds of educators to hear about what's working, what's not, what makes the difference when it comes to educating children today. I've gained a lot of valuable insight from these visits, but one I'll always remember is my trip to Dodge Elementary School in my hometown of Chicago. I was talking to one of the young teachers there about the challenges they faced, and she mentioned what she called the "These Kids Syndrome" - the willingness of society to find a million excuses for why "these kids" can't learn. It's the idea that "these kids come from tough backgrounds" or that "these kids are too far behind." And after awhile, "these kids" become somebody else's problem. Then she said to me, "When I hear that term, it drives me nuts. They're not 'these kids.' They're our kids." Our kids are why all of you are in this room today. Our kids are why you wake up wondering how you'll make a difference and go to bed thinking about tomorrow's lesson plan. Our kids are why you walk into that classroom every day even when you're not getting the support, or the pay, or the respect that you deserve - because you believe that every child should have a chance to succeed; that every child can be taught. You've made our kids your life's work. And I believe it's time we put that work at the center of our politics once more. We have never been a "these kids" country. From the earliest days of our founding, we have believed in Thomas Jefferson's declaration that "... talent and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition." It is this belief that led our country to set up the first free public schools in small New England towns. It's a promise we kept as we moved from a nation of farms to factories and created a system of public high schools so that everyone had the chance to succeed in the new economy; one we expanded after World War II, when we sent over two million returning heroes to college on the GI Bill. And even when America fell short of this ideal and forced Linda Brown to walk miles to a dilapidated Topeka school because of the color of her skin; even then, ordinary people marched and bled, they took to the streets and fought in the courts until the arrival of nine little children at a Little Rock school made real the decision that in America, separate could never be equal. And no matter what the Supreme Court said last week, that's still true today. The ideal of a public education has always been at the heart of the American promise. It's why we are committed to fixing and improving our public schools instead of abandoning them and passing out vouchers. Because in America, it's the promise of a good education for all that makes it possible for any child to transcend the barriers of race or class or background and achieve their God-given potential. That's how America works. That's how we've met each challenge that has come our way. We rise together, as one people. And together is how teachers, education support professionals, students, and the American people will meet the challenges we face today. We now live in a world where the most valuable skill you can sell is knowledge. Revolutions in technology and communication have created an entire economy of high-tech, high-wage jobs that can be located anywhere there's an internet connection. And today, a child in Philadelphia is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before. In the 21st century, countries who out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, and America is already in danger of falling behind. We now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. By 12th grade, our children score lower on their math and science tests than most other kids in the developed world. Sixty percent of African-American fourth graders are unable to read at a basic level, and today only 9 percent of low-income students will graduate from college. Forty or fifty years ago, students who had trouble in school might have gone on to find a factory job that could pay the bills and support a family. But we no longer live in that world. Today, the average salary of a high school graduate is only $33,000 a year. For high school dropouts, it's even closer to the poverty line - just $25,000 a year. And sadly, some folks here aren't paid that much and that's wrong. This is not only morally unacceptable for our children; it is economically untenable for our nation. And it means that today, the work you do and the difference you make has never been more important to the future of this country. In fact, new evidence shows that from the moment our children step into a classroom, the single most important factor in determining their achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it's not who their parents are or how much money they have. It's who their teacher is. It's you. It's you who can reach the most challenging students. It's you who will stay past the last bell and spend your own money on books and supplies. It's you who will go beyond the call because you believe that's what makes the extra difference. And it does. But you can't do it alone, and it's about time that Washington realized that. For too long, our politics has been stuck in a cycle where we praise our educators in speeches and photo-ops, but then abandon them when it comes time to offer the resources and the support you need to do your jobs. There's no better example of this neglect than the law that has become one of the emptiest slogans in the history of politics - No Child Left Behind. Now, we all know that the goals of this law were the right ones. We know that making a promise to educate every child with an excellent teacher is right. We know that accountability and standards are right. We know that it's right to close the achievement gap that exists in too many cities and towns, and that it's right to focus on the inequitable distribution of resources and qualified teachers in our schools. We didn't need some words in a law to tell us this, we already knew it, and every one of us is still willing to do whatever it takes to make these goals a reality. But don't come up with this law called No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind. Don't tell us that you'll put high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leave the support and the pay for those teachers behind. Don't label a school as failing one day and then throw your hands up and walk away from it the next. And don't tell us that the only way to teach a child is to spend too much of the year preparing him to fill in a few bubbles on a standardized test. We know that's not true. You didn't devote your lives to testing, you devoted them to teaching, and teaching is what you should be allowed to do. This is what I'll be trying to leave behind when No Child Left Behind comes before the Senate for renewal, and if we don't fix the law then, I can assure you this - I will when I'm President. Let's leave behind that empty slogan. But I'll also say this - fixing the worst aspects of No Child Left Behind is just a starting point. The status quo is still unacceptable for teachers and students. In the face of a global economy where too many children start behind and stay behind, this country doesn't need more blame or inaction or half-measures on education. What we need is a historic commitment to America's teachers, and that's the kind of commitment I intend to make as President. We know that we have more than one million teachers who are set to retire and more kids entering school than ever before, and so we know that it's time to recruit a new generation of teachers and principals. Let's do this by finally raising salaries across the board, and making it possible for professionals in other fields to become teachers, not through easy shortcuts, but through programs that allow new teachers to learn from veteran professionals. And if you're willing to put yourself through college to make the sacrifice and commitment that teaching requires, we should be willing to help you pay off some of those college loans. In the coming weeks, I'll be laying out the specific details of my plan to invest billions of new dollars into the teaching profession and recruit an army of well-trained, well-qualified teachers who are willing to stand at the front of any classroom and give every student the chance to succeed. My view is this - if we truly believe that educators are the essential professionals that we know you are, then it's time we rewarded, and supported, and honored the professional excellence you show every day. We know what we need to do here. We also know that right now, we need the best teachers in the most challenging classrooms - those underserved, underachieving schools in parts of rural and urban America where we need to make "these kids" "our kids" again. I believe in collective bargaining, and I believe that any time you're talking about wages, workers have to be at the table. So let's make a promise right now that if you're a teacher or a principal doing the hard work of educating our children, we will reward that work with the salary increase that you deserve. If you're willing to teach in a high-need subject like math or science or special education, we'll pay you even more. If you're willing to take on more responsibilities like mentoring, we'll pay you more. And if you excel at helping your students achieve success, your success will be valued and rewarded as well. Here's the key: We can find new ways to increase pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them and not based on some arbitrary test score. That's how we're going to close the achievement gap that exists in this country and that's how we're going to start treating teachers like the professionals you are. I commend the work you've done in Minnesota with the governor there to craft an innovative pay system that not only values your performance in the classroom, but the performance of your students as well. You helped craft it and you and your students benefit from it. We also know that when it comes to struggling schools, it's not just how much you're getting paid that matters, but how much support you're getting to do your job. We know that when you pair experienced, mentor teachers with new teachers, those new teachers are much more likely to stay in the profession. So let's make sure we start developing more mentor teachers so we can start recruiting and keeping the new generation of teachers we need. And while we're at it, let's work with teachers and principals to finally develop assessments that teach our kids to become more than just good test-takers. The goal of educational testing should be the same as medical testing - to diagnose a student's needs so you can help address them. Tests should not be designed as punishment for teachers and students, they should be used as tools to help prepare our children to grow and compete in a knowledge economy. Tests should support learning, not just accounting. One last point. There's a lot of talk out there about accountability in education. I share that concern, and I've called for more accountability in our schools myself. But I also believe that before we can hold our teachers accountable for the results our schools need, we have to hold ourselves accountable for giving teachers the support that they need. That's where accountability starts -- with a government that puts its money where its mouth is, and parents and community members who instill the value of education in their students. I am tired of hearing teachers blamed for our collective failures. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to take a bus ride with a group of Iowa teachers and discuss their thoughts on education. Afterwards, one teacher said, "I don't think any teacher minds being accountable when the measuring tool is fair to educators and not about satisfying unrealistic goals." She's right. If we do all this - if we go into struggling schools and provide more pay and better support for our teachers; if we allow them to teach our children to their strengths instead of just a test - then the teachers I've met wouldn't mind some accountability. But we need to start doing our part first. When it comes to education in America, we need to start holding ourselves accountable. This goes for our government and our leaders. It also goes for parents. There is no policy or program that can substitute for a parent who is deeply involved in their child's education from day one - who is willing to turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child, or help with homework, or attend those parent/teacher conferences. As parents too, many of you know what I'm talking about here. A few years ago, a little girl at Earhart Elementary in Chicago was asked the secret to her academic success. She said, "I just study hard every night because I like learning. My teacher wants me to be a good student, and so does my mother. I don't want to let them down." We have quite a challenge ahead of us, but we've overcome great challenges before. Over the course of two centuries, we have continually upheld the promise of education for all as that which allows any child to transcend the barriers of race or class or background and achieve their God-given potential. And we have risen together as a result. It is teachers and education support professionals who have always made this possible - who have always reminded us that that little girl in Chicago is not 'these kids', she is our child. She doesn't want to let us down, and now it is our generation's turn to ensure that we won't let her down either. I know you'll be leading the way, and I look forward to standing with you in the fight. Thank you. --------------------- Thursday, June 28, 2007 Connecting the Green Dots http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/connecting-green-dots.html (Links to full articles posted on the Norm's Notes blog) Why Weingarten's deal with Green Dot dovetails with the general attack on public education Following up on her Screw ball toss at the Brooklyn Cyclones game, Randi Weingarten has taken the screwing metaphor to a new level in today's announced deal with Green Dot charters. It is not just teachers the deal screws, but with all other the news today about Charter schools, her actions aid and abet the screwing of public education. First we have a link to the LA Times version of the story where LA teacher's union president AJ Duffy rejected a deal with Green Dot. But not Randi. Watch the Leo Casey and crew at Edwize justify this one. As the NY Times version says "but their contract would be simpler than the citywide contract." Let's see how simple: "Rather than dictating the number of hours and minutes teachers must spend at the schools, it would just call for a "professional workday," they said. The contract could also eliminate tenure, but would set guidelines for when a teacher can be dismissed." Heard of fuzzy math? Child play compared to fuzzy contracts. NYC Educator goes into much greater detail on the contract so let's focus on other aspects. I won't even go into the issue of union democracy, where if the UFT weren't run like the Roman Empire under Augustus, there would actually be a serious discussion taking place. But the mandate given Weingarten by the 78% of working teachers who did not vote will have a long-lasting impact. By the way, has anyone seen a word mentioned about class size in this contract? "We have never been against increasing charters, but we were against the anti-union animus in some charter schools," Ms. Weingarten said. The Times says, "Green Dot is heavily financed by the billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad." If one looks at Broad's agenda in San Diego (and many other places) where Anthony Alvarado got to do his magic, which was almost totally replicated in NYC by Bloomberg and Klein, which Weingarten was supposedly so critical of - and you understand why I see her as such a duplicitous collaborator whose interests dovetail more with the BloomKleins, Broads, Gates, etc. When she criticizes them it is mere rhetoric. Always follow the mantra uncle Normie lays down: Watch what Weingarten does, not what she says. Pay attention to the very relevant David Herzenhorn piece "Patrons' Sway Leads to Friction in Charter School," also running in today's Times. This article points to the pitfalls of the benefactor model of charter schools. While the rich Reiches gave a lot of money to Beginnings With Children school, Pfizer (across the street) donated the building. But I bet most money still comes from the public sector. Should the Reiches have such total control? What about parent and teacher roles? Herzenhorn writes: "The clash has exposed fault lines of wealth and class that are perhaps inevitable as philanthropists, in New York and nationwide, increasingly invest in public education, providing new schools to children in poor neighborhoods while making communities dependent on their generosity. "And for those lucky to have such benefactors, the situation raises core questions: Who ultimately controls charter schools, which are financed by taxpayers but often rely heavily on charitable donations? Do the schools, which operate outside the control of the local school district, answer to parents, or to their wealthy founders? "At Beginning With Children, many parents and teachers say that the Reiches' main interest is to burnish their reputation as advocates for charter schools, and that the school's original purpose, of catering to each child's individual needs, is now secondary to drilling for exams in an effort to elevate scores and the Reichs' credibility. "The Reichs said the problem was that the board was "constituency-based"...... Among those told to quit were five parent and faculty representatives." Well, there you have it in a nutshell. We no want constituency-based input. Sound familiar? I have a little background with the school, which is located in District 14 in Williamsburg and was once a public school but not under control of the district (a good thing). But it did function under the UFT contract. The chapter leader used to attend the district CL meetings. I visited a couple of times and was impressed. They were adding a grade a year and had a very progressive model of education. But the Reich's have the same agenda as so many other"benefactors" like Broad - to take public schools away from the public - and the school became a charter school. In order to further their political agenda the school moves away from the progressive model and towards test prep. Note in the Herzenhorn piece how quietly we find out that the Courtney Sales Ross' charter school relocated at Tweed after they failed to force their way into the NEST school and has had 4 principals in a year. In the belly of the beast with all the Tweedles running around. We don't get any Tweed press releases telling us about that. Hey, I have an idea. Instead of running around the city telling everyone how to run schools, let Klein or Chris Cerf become the principal of the school and show how it should be done. Deck chairs on the Titanic, indeed. If we connect the Green Dots to Weingarten's deal with Steve Barr, she is treading in dangerous territory with the future of public education. When a major union spokesperson basically accepts the philanthropic model (Broad gave the UFT $1 million,) it seriously weakens the case calling for full funding of public education and gives enormous power and sway to people with a narrow agenda that goes beyond the interests of the kids. "If you really actually believe in kids and believe in their success, those of us in education, we really shouldn't be in the sandbox fighting with each other. We should be ... trying to figure out how to work together," Weingarten said. Does she really believe this stuff? People behind Green Dot have had so many negative effects (witness the DOE/Tweedles) and she wants to sit down in the sandbox with them? I'm sure that if she taught just a bit longer than 6 months she would have a slightly different perspective. Are they sitting down in the sandbox in Long Island schools or Scarsdale, where there are no charters but schools are fully funded, as NYC Educator has pointed out numerous times about the suburban school system his daughter attends? That Weingarten will soon be spouting this stuff nationally as AFT President is a scary prospect indeed for the future of public education. Luckily, at this point, the NEA has taken a stronger stand and this issue may pop up in merger talks when Weingarten will hope to one day lead the entire national teacher movement into oblivion. Though AFT member AJ Duffy in LA took a politically correct stand when commenting on Weingarten's deal with Green Dot, the hope is that the LA Teachers Union will lead some kind of national resistance to Weingarten's turning the AFT into a shill for the attack on public schools by wealthy benefactors with narrow agendas. As one of the first people in the UFT to advocate for Charters as a way for teachers to take over and run schools, I had conversations with Weingarten almost 10 years ago (Tom Pappas told me "You lost 50% of your support because you favor charters.") At one point in the conversation when I was pushing the idea from the point of view of teacher power, Weingarten made a rare, but revealing, slip, saying something like, "How can we trust these people" - meaning the teachers. Realizing what she said, she shut up and said no more. But it was a rare slip, my first inkling as to which side Weingarten is really on.   5,000 New Scholarships Available for Low-Income K-12 Students The Step Up For Students scholarship program, administered through Florida P.R.I.D.E. and Children First Florida--Florida Corporate Tax Credit (CTC) scholarship funding organizations, will award approximately 5,000 new scholarships for the 2007-2008 school year to Kindergarten through 12th grade students who qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Applicants must be currently enrolled in a public school, unless they are entering kindergarten or first grade. Those who qualify may receive up to a $3,750 scholarship for tuition at an eligible private school of their choice or a scholarship for up to $500 for travel expenses to an out-of-district public school. The scholarships provide a fresh start for students who are not succeeding in their current school setting. This year, $70 million in scholarships will be awarded to qualifying Florida students until funding is exhausted so applicants are encouraged to apply as soon as possible. Income limits for scholarship recipients are determined by household size. For example, a family of four can earn no more than $38,203 to qualify. To apply, log on to www.floridapride.org or call (813) 258-2700 for Florida Pride and www.scholarshipfunding.org or call (904) 247-6033 or (407) 702-2607 for a Children First Florida application. The Step Up For Students (Corporate Income Tax Credit) scholarship program provides K-12 scholarships that currently allow almost 17,000 low-income Florida students to attend an eligible private school or out-of-district public school. One hundred percent of corporate contributions go directly to funding scholarships – not a single penny can be used for administrative costs. Children First Florida - Serving Orlando, Central Florida, Jacksonville and Panhandle P.O. Box 54367 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (904) 247-6033 or (407) 702-2607 cforster@scholarshipfunding.org Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Brevard, Calhoun, Clay, Columbia, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Holmes, Indian River, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Martin, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Seminole, St. Lucie, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington   School Year 07 - 08 Income Eligibility Guidelines Persons in Household New & Add-Ons (185%) Renewals (200%) 2 $25,327 $27,380 3 $31,765 $34,340 4 $38,203 $41,300 5 $44,641 $48,260 6 $51,079 $55,220 7 $57,517 $62,140 8 $63,955 $69,140 9 $70,393 $76,100 10 $76,831 $83,060 11 $83,269 $90,020 12 $89,707 $96,980 13 $96,145 $103,940       For each additional person, add $6,438 $6,960       Effective from June 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008

 

Florida Alliance for Choices in Education (F.A.C.E)

If you no longer want to receive this mailing or you wish to unsubscribe from
F.A.C.E mailings, please send an e-mail with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line to mbenjamin@flace.org.