Education Reform - a Mixed Review (so far!)

I am so sick of writing about health care (goddam that Dennis Kucinich!) that I could spit. But, Obama has taken up another issue that has the potential to make my head explode, reassemble and explode again: education reform.

Disclosure: I am a public school teacher, teachers' union member and have been involved in one form or another of education reform for my entire career. I teach in a state that has among the highest academic standards, and toughest standards-based assessments in the nation; by most measures in the top three. My students take a very rigorous test in the spring to judge their learning, and my job performance.

I teach in a school that usually measures 80 - 85% poverty (based on qualification for free or reduced priced meals), has a high population of English as a second language students, and a 25% migrant student population. We are just under 50% white, just over Hispanic.

Based on that, you can probably guess that we score low on standardized tests. And we have. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) has been a disaster for my school, and the district I work in. NCLB has done one good thing - it has forced public schools, and frankly, members of my profession, to pay serious attention to the achievement gap separating white and non-white students. But it did so with an unfunded mandate, laden with draconian penalties, and with the intent of destroying public education and turning all that state money over to the private sector. The testing industry alone rose from under 300 million dollars per year before NCLB, to over one billion dollars per year now.

When I voted to elect President Obama, I had high hopes for positive reform to NCLB. However, Obama's first speeches on education left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I have blogged before about the Race to the Top grants, and how they punish teachers, weaken collective bargaining and resegragate the public schools. He seems so ready to throw my union under the school bus that I listened to the last few day's proposals with a grim face.

I must say though, I have a little bit of hope. Although his proposals still contain objectionable items that I will fight against, he had some good proposals too. And, I liked the way he framed the educational mission of America. He is bringing a 21st century vision to education with his recent statements.

Obama has called for a change in the goal of K-12 education. He stated that the goal should not be to "graduate," but to be prepared for college and career. The question for students changes from "are you going to graduate?" to "are you ready for a career, or for higher education?" Achieving credits for an end goal of a diploma, often based on state-mandated, rote recitation of facts disengages students. Careers and college as the stated goal, and focus of the system leads to much more student interest and choice, thus higher engagement with their academic progress.

He has also called for states to have more flexible, though not less rigorous, standards. And, he has called for judging progress by measuring growth, not rigid, standards-based tests on a given date. This is good for students, teachers and the school districts.

As a teacher of many migrant students, a fair number of my students miss chunks of the school year traveling back and forth to other states, or to Mexico. By the time they see me in middle school, this can add up to a year or more of missed instruction. Sometimes considerably more. To expect a 14 year old who enters 8th grade reading at fourth grade level to pass an 8th grade reading test in the spring is quite a stretch. Many will fall short of the standard. But, not too far short. With effort, we can regularly gain two and sometimes three years growth, and the students should be praised for that, not labeled by the school and the state as failures.

At my school, we have implemented more testing, but shorter assessments at regular intervals. We have also involved the students in monitoring their own growth, and setting their own academic goals. They take some ownership in the testing, and the results now. It is not some onerous thing dropped on them by state bureaucrats, but a measurement tool that is meaningful to them, as well as the school.

So, I like this direction. But, if this talk is not backed by cash money, it is all for naught.

We have state mandates, along with the federal ones. One mandate is how reading should be taught to students in various levels, based on testing. Our student population, according to the state's rules, and based on our students' test scores, should have three times the language arts teachers that we do. Our building would need at least four more classrooms too. And this is not ambiguous, the math is easy to do. And speaking of math, our test scores call for an additional seven math teachers - based on the states rules. But the state also gives us our money. We are definetly NOT funded for an additional 13 teachers. In fact, due to the poor economy, we will lose a teacher next year.

My state has researched best teaching practice, and determined what we need to do. But the state doesn't even come close to funding it. So, where does that leave us?

Unfortunately, it leaves us fighting or the dollars. And one proposal that Obama has not let go of is to go after the teachers unions. Teachers' unions are NOT the enemy of education. They are the mechanism by which teachers fight for a decent standard of living. Tight fiscal times is when we need our unions the most, and this is precisely when Obama is trying to weaken them.

Are there "bad" teachers? Sure. But this is like saying we can fix health care by getting rid of bad doctors. We know the problem is bigger, but it is easy to dump on people who are not powerful individually (in the political sense). Just ask the air traffic controllers. We only have power collectively, and that power is in danger of being taken away by a Democratic president.

And then we come to charter schools. They come up in every speech Obama makes on education. Can charter schools be innovative approaches to education? Of course they can. And they can be very effective at serving their students and families. So, what's the harm?

First, not every innovation works out. Some charter schools are a waste of time. But even if they are great, the real harm comes to the rest of the system. Charter schools cherry-pick supportive families and enthusiastic students from the rest of the buildings in a school district.

Those families who would be serving on PTA boards and other parent groups, who would be fundraising (yes, public schools do LOTS of fundraising) and volunteering their time in all the buildings across a school district become concentrated in one place. This leaves the struggling schools with even less community support when they need it the most.

But I could even live with that. Part of our job is to engage parents and the community. Public schools already compete with one another, where they can, for volunteers and community support. But what we can't do is say "no" to failing students. Every charter school I have ever researched does just that.

Charter schools that I have read about, visited, watched videos on or heard presentations from are opt-in programs. Students and parents sign a contract based on academic effort and behavior standards. Students who fail to do their work, or who disrupt class can be exited from the charter school. And since schools are judged on test scores, students who threaten this bottom line are kicked out.

And where do they go? To the school where I teach at. Because, even though we implement plenty of innovative programs, we do not have the charter school label. We are a public school, dammit, and don't say no to anyone! Of course, the law says we can't say no unless there is another free, public funded education program to send the student to.

So, one school gets to choose students and families based on their internal standards and ideals, and the other, by law, takes the community it serves without exception. And then, the two are judged side by side, based on a single annual assessment. Gee, I wonder which school looks more effective?

I say that schools should be freed up to try innovative programs, but ones that will help the communities they serve, not ones that attract already motivated students and families from around a school district. I am not against innovation, I am against the current charter school model. Obama does not make this distinction.

Let unions do what they are supposed to do - protect workers' rights, and let schools innovate on an equal playing field, and I'm in. I could gripe about other aspects, like grant-based funding, but hey, at least it's federal cash going where it is desperately needed.

C'mon Obama, don't "health care" education reform.

Obama, Democratic Loyalty, and Health Care

I have been rubbing my temples listening to so-called liberal talk radio. My fucking head hurts. Occasionally, someone gets through to slam Obama and the Democrats for the health care sellout, and then gets ripped to pieces. Markos of the Daily Kos ripped Denis Kucenich for not falling in line on the health care bill. I can't take it any more. Fuck this health care bill.

Fuck the Democrats. If they can't deliver, they are of no use. If you can't see that, then you are part of the problem, and doom our nation to financial ruin, and our political process and our Democracy to failure and obscurity. And fuck Obama too. If he is going to side so strongly with the corporate elite, like he has shown so far by his actions that he will, he is of no use to the average American. He hurts us, instead of representing our interests. As the CEO of America, he has, like the CEOs of the Wall Street banks, turned his back on us, the share-holders.

I will break down my rants into digestible segments, attacking the conventional wisdom:

Give Obama a Chance, he's only had a year - No, no, no no. Don't give ANY of these office holders a "chance." Watch what they do, and assess their actions. Jesus, Obama works for US. We judge his job performance, and levy criticism, even political punishment when his job performance is not up to snuff. By all means, praise him, but make the argument based on what he has accomplished. And, a year (now 14 months, actually) is a long time in politics. There are plenty of actions to judge, and plenty (in my opinion) to criticize.

But from the Democratic Party cheer squad of liberal talk radio, I don't hear substantive arguments based on policy actions. I hear how Republicans make things tough, how he was left a mess, and how much better he is than George Bush, so don't complain.

Is Obama 100 times better than Bush? Of course - no argument. But do the fucking math. What is 100 times zero? You got it. Being better than Bush is NOT a metric that progressives, or even "centrist" Democrats should use. Bush and the Republicans drove our country off a cliff, into the abyss. Getting half way out of the abyss doesn't help. We have to get at least to the edge, so we have a chance of climbing out.

We should support Democratic candidates and representatives IF they serve our interests. Otherwise they deserve NO LOYALTY. If you owned a restaurant, would you pay an employee to work at a dry cleaners around the corner? We should support Obama if he works for us, the people. If he doesn't, we should yell and scream, just like the boss does. If he works against us, which I say he has on occasion, we should demand change, or dismissal. It's reasonable, and it is the way it is supposed to work.

Obama has shown, with his three major policy initiatives so far: the banks, health care and Afghanistan, that he serves corporate interests above the interests of the people ( just like George Bush did, by the way). He deserves the harshest criticism for these actions.

We must pass health care, even though the bill sucks, because it will insure 30 million more people - That at least is an argument with some teeth. Progressives are put into a corner. I do want universal health care, and to kill this bill may doom Americans to death by lack of insurance. And it really sucks to be put in this position by people who don't give a shit, like Joe Lieberman.

But this health care bill sucks too bad to pass. And, if progressives stand strong, they can still force the issue and win.

The conventional wisdom is that if we fail to pass the Senate version, it's game over and there is no health care reform for another generation. Bullshit. If this version is killed by progressives, the government HAS to take it up again. The current system is UNSUSTAINABLE. Even the health insurance companies know this. That is why they want this bill so badly.

This bill is a preemptive bailout of the health insurance companies. They cannot keep up with medical costs, and keep raising profits without the support of the US treasury. And this bill stupidly feeds them hundreds of billions in subsidies and mandated customers over the next decade. This bill keeps the worst part of our health care system on life support for the distant future, and the health care companies LOVE it. And, they are doomed without it.

Progressives could hold the bill, and the 30 million uninsured (notice how nobody mentions the other 15 million Americans who STILL won't be insured?) hostage for a Medicare buy in. Also, for the end of the anti-trust exemption. It is still there for the taking.

There will be no going back to fix health care for another generation - This may be true. And, it pisses me off to no end! The argument is that this political battle was soooo bloody and hard-fought, that no politicians will have the stomach for it again.

Mother fuckers! You all get paid Senator and House of Rep money, along with perks and benefits. Talk to the returning Afghanistan vet about getting bloody doing your job. Talk to cops, or firemen, or school teachers about hard-fought days at work in public service with limited resources. Talk to the uninsured about how you don't have the stomach for another round.

Really? You wouldn't put up a new bill next month to fix the holes, and finish insuring Americans because it would be a hard job? Then you are all worthless bitches who deserve to be voted out of office.

Now, this is the meme of the press, mainly. But they just put it out there, and let it go. They act like this is conventional wisdom, and that it should not be challenged. Of course they won't fight the tough fight again, because...because they are afraid of not getting reelected.

But that is just the kind of cowardly asshole that we SHOULDN'T reelect.

Oh my god, the Democratic Party is a circular firing squad - This is a bad analogy. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of shooting, and it is not helping the "Party." But it is not a circle.

There are progressives on the left that are fighting, and shooting at the right. They are trying to fight hard against the far right policies left over from the Republicans. They are shooting to the right. The problem is that there are a hell of a lot of Democrats in the way. And most of them are in "duck and cover" mode.

But the only solution I hear is for progressives to unilaterally disarm. Then, the only shooting is coming from the Republican party, and we all just get mowed down. How about, at least once and a while, the Democrats in the middle pick up a rifle and join in the good fight.

But I guess that is out of the question when you are a DLC corporate whore.

No, the only Democratic circle I see is not a firing squad, but a corporate circle-jerk, with the Democratic leadership in the middle and corporate lobbyists spraying them with the pearl necklace of campaign contributions. They are all in the middle, elbowing with the Republicans for their share of the golden shower. It is a disgusting image, but one I can't avoid when I listen to the radio any more.

Ed Shultz & Stephanie Miller are Wrong - Kill Bill!

Ed Shultz has been a health care warrior. He has been holding politicians' feet to the fire on this issue as well as anyone in the media, until this week.

Ed came out yesterday with a hang-dog look on his face and claimed that we have to pass the Senate version of the health care bill or it will be decades before Congress attempts it again. He claims that politicians have become too bloodied to go back and fix things. Stephanie Miller has been claiming this for a couple of weeks now.

Bullshit.

First off, who's bloody? Republicans have been slapping any and every Democrat around that chooses to engage them. Blue dog Dems have been catered to like princes. So called progressives have been slapped around pretty good, but only because they don't know how to fight - and the rest of the political establishment doesn't care about them anyway, and won't until they make 'em. And the Democratic establishment, led by Obama and Rahm, have run this legislation like the Keystone Cops, and any blood or bruises are from running into doors or other movie-prop obstructions. Wounds in this case are self-inflicted. What they are is uncomfortable, because people care about this issue that so affects their lives. Results are expected, and they hate it because it means real work. That is not getting bloodied, that is doing your job.

And as for the argument that we have to take the deal now, or we will never get another chance - also bullshit.

If progressives were to kill this bill, Congress would have to take up some kind of health care legislation in the next couple of years at the latest. They HAVE TO! Our current system of providing health care through for-profit insurance companies is UNSUSTAINABLE.

Within five years we will begin to hit the peak of Baby Boom retirement. Within five years of double-digit rate increases, large portions of the middle class will no longer be able to afford insurance. Our government will HAVE TO ACT to buttress Medicare and provide medical access to the increased tens of millions of Americans who will no longer be able to afford insurance. Democratic leaders in Congress know this. Obama knows this. The insurance companies know this. And they all roll around naked in bed together.

This is why Obama is pounding the podium demanding an "up or down vote" on the Senate version of the health care package. This is how the feudal lords of the health insurance empire retain their wealth, and their place in the corporate oligarchy. The Senate version of the health care bill is a preemptive bailout of an industry that knows it is on borrowed time, at least as it is currently configured.

The Senate bill props up our dysfunctional health care delivery system with our Treasury, using the IRS to enforce the payment to large, for-profit corporations. Much more than any reforms that are in the bill, it retains the most corrupting and wasteful parts of the system, and nourishes them so that the corporate masters of our politicians don't have to face the "death panel" of economic reality. It is as bad as the bank bailouts.

It's not like we can't look around the world and see what works just fine. That our politicians have stooped to selling us this pile of shit shows how little they think of us. It is the corporations who own enough of our government to have them put on this charade, really, an embarrassing spectacle. They act as if the United States will burst into flames if they can't pass this turd of a corporate welfare bill.

If this bill dies, they try again. If they fail, they face our wrath. These sons o' bitches get good salaries, a nice office, good benefits and one hell of a vacation schedule. Yes their job is hard, but so is mine, and I get paid a lot less. Their job is to fight for their constituents. If we are not happy, they better keep fighting, or get the fuck out. C'mon Bernie, c'mon Russ...put a hold on this thing. C'mon Alan Grayson, let's see you act tough as well as talk tough. Kill this bill, and DARE Obama to do nothing. He won't, because he can't.

Health care HAS to be fixed. This current Senate bill is the fix that most benefits insurance corporations, hospital groups and pharmaceutical companies - and fucks the rest of us. Progressives can call Obama's bluff and kill it because he has to fix it. He has to or he is toast, and so are the rest of the Democrats.

Unless he is sooo weak, or suicidal, we can get a better bill.

Why People are Pissed

Americans are pissed. Polling shows that not only do people hate Congress, as they almost always do, they hate their congressional representative. They are ready to vote them out.

Why? - is the question posed by Norman Goldman, the radio host who is on during my commute home. Most people said it was because the Republicans were obstructionist, or because the Democrats were were weak. I disagree.

I think it is because Americans, in particular liberal/progressive Americans have lost hope.

Yes, hope. And not just "Hope" (TM - Obamacorp, along with "Change" TM - Obamacorp), but actual hope that the government with all its warts was still capable of fixing some problems that Americans face. Not all - we are used to taking care of ourselves to a degree - but some big ones that have come to a head in our time.

Hope is gone because Americans have seen both sides of the political spectrum sell out so thoroughly to multinational corporations that we question our own sovereignty. Hope is gone because our constitutionally protected media falls all over itself to abet this sellout. Hope is gone because our standard of living is being crushed by the elite of the global finance.

And with hope gone, we are left with a lot of anger.

We look at the past with rose colored glasses. The Republicans, and even Obama will refer to the late President Reagan in glowing terms. As if he was a demi-god who could do nothing wrong. I remember those days - we were outraged by the actions of the Reagan administration. Dealing with Iran, even as a campaign, and then selling them weapons. Laundering that money to start wars in central America. Sponsoring death squads, mining peaceful harbors - all against US law - and not being held accountable. And Lee Atwater? The political father of Carl Rove? Union busting? Reagan was a racist, far-right criminal that began the destruction of the American middle class, and the heeling of the Democratic Party.

And the Congress in the 1980s? Remember the S & L Bailout? The midnight vote taken by Tom Foley? This was a half-trillion dollar theft of taxpayer money given to real estate swindlers under the guise of saving banks. A criminal president and scumbag representatives...but we had hope.

Bush senior, was no dream, and continued the corporate looting, as did Clinton (can you say NAFTA?). But the mecca, at least we thought, was with the Bush Junior Administration. Tax cuts, wars, letting oil companies write energy policy, and, along with Clinton, deregulating the banks. Boy, the hope meter was on "low" during the dark Bush years, but then came Obama.

His campaign set us up for the serious gut punch. Hope had sprung! He struck the right cords - not too left, not too extreme - just the right amount of populism. He played on the Democratic fears that Hilary would be a corporate shill, just like her DLC cronies. Well played, he pounded her. He mopped the floor with McCain because it was not even a choice. If you were not solidly in the Republican bag, you chose the smart guy selling the thing you wanted: change!

Obama sold "change" so well, that we actually expected delivery. I think, based on no data whatsoever, that independents and non-crazy conservatives were actually expecting a change in the types of policies we would see, and the way things would be done. We all paid close attention, as we waited for the package. We stayed engaged as policy began to flow from the White House and Congress.

And we realized, with increasing surity as the months went by, that we got swindled. We got fucked - plain and simple. We got no "change," we got at least the corporate, conservative, DLC policies that we feared Hillary would bring.

Our jobs are leaving, and our wages are dropping - and the bankers take our money. Obama wouldn't even take their bonuses back. We can't afford health care, but Obama makes deals with Big Pharma and the Hospitals: no price checks on drugs, no public option. Basically, no price controls at all, and no reforms of any kind until 2014. But he and the Senate will mandate that we buy lousy, over-priced insurance from the corporations who have been killing us, literally, for years. Obama is pro-nuclear power (and nuclear weapons), anti-teacher, pro-war, anti-labor. Where is the goddam change?

What is even worse, is that he treats us like we are stupid. Obama KILLED the public option, he made sure as shit that the health insurance companies would have NO REAL COMPITITION! Then yesterday, he makes a speech where he appears to rip the insurance companies a new orifice. "Pass the health care bill now" he yells, to applause. But it is the corporate giveaway bonanza he is urging Congress to pass. He wants it passed before the Bennett letter gets 50 signatures. He wants to make sure that the heath care insurance corporations - totally needless middlemen - continue to suck up to 30% of the cash out of our health care system. He says he wants lower costs for the people, and then fights to protect the interests of the corporations. His actions betray his words.

Obama's split personality has split the so-called left. Stephanie Miller was cheering his lambasting of health care insurers this morning. Ed Shultz has caved in to what he sees as the inevitable - support the President and pass the bill. But it feels like a funeral to me, not an impending political victory. We know we are getting screwed. And we are angry about it.

The problem is, we are not so stupid that we don't see it. We were sold change, and didn't get shit! As a consumer fraud case, it is a no-brainer - we should all get our votes back. This is why Democrats are losing, but Republicans are nervous too - we see all of you sons o' bitches and the game is up. But you are all too bought to "change," including Obama, apparently.

When we bought "change," we thought we were buying the idea that government would curtail the help it gave corporate America in fucking us raw. We didn't expect every lobbyist to be thrown out of Washington, but we expected a direction change for the common good - a place where corporations could still profit, but a middle class could once again make some gains. We didn't expect a socialist paradise, but a country where government could maybe do a little regulation of the powerful, and give us affordable health care like most of the fucking modern world has! I don't think our expectations were too high.

But Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Rahm all failed to deliver even a little. They thought some great speeches would be enough. They think they can sell us out with their actions, and convince us how great the deal is with their words. They think we are stupid, and that is the final insult. They are treating us like shit, and expect us to support them in elections.

And this is why we are pissed - we are in a democracy with no choice, expected to settle on people who insult our intelligence, and have for decades. I can vote for a pro-corporate Republican who thinks that dinosaurs and men roamed the earth together, or a pro-corporate Democrat who thinks I am as stupid as that afore-mentioned Republican. And since corporate money funds the elections, there is little chance for a non-corporate aligned candidate to win.

Speaking of elections, the Democratic Party is in for a whuppin'. If health care reform fails, they will be seen as totally useless and pathetic, and not worth voting for. If the current version (the Senate version) passes, employer-based health care rates will skyrocket in the fall, before the election, and outraged voters will take it out on the Dems. Corporations will win either way.

Who's stupid now? Not me, but I am hopeless.