You know, for all of the blustery promises made at these crazy Republican debates about how they will kill "Obamacare" with an executive order once elected, there aren't really that many times where an executive order will actually work that way. The best they could do with the ACA would be to give states waivers, which would allow them to opt out of exchanges but wouldn't change the consumer protections or statutory requirements insurers would have to abide by.

However, today is one time where an executive order is a terrific way to kill a bad law, and President Obama exercised that discretion today. Via CBS:

President Obama unveiled the most significant changes to U.S. education policy in a decade, using his executive authority to give states more flexibility to opt of some provisions of the controversial No Child Left Behind program that was a signature initiative of President George W. Bush.

"We can't let another generation of young people fall behind," Mr. Obama told an audience of education leaders in the East Room of the White House.

Mr. Obama expressed frustration with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who have bickered about the best way to improve the increasingly unpopular program championed 10 years ago by Bush and liberal Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Mr. Bush signed the law in early 2002 at an Ohio high school in the congressional district of House Speaker John Boehner, who was then chairman of the House panel overseeing responsible for education.

"Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. They cannot afford to wait any longer. So, given that Congress cannot act, I am acting," Mr. Obama said.

The Wall Street Journal has more details on the waiver requirements (Note: article behind a paywall):

To qualify, states must meet three tests. First is the rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals.

Second, they must set high achievement standards. Under existing law, states can set their own standards, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said many set the bar too low. Under the new waiver program, students who meet standards must be considered ready for college or a career.

Third, states must develop strategies targeted to the worst-performing schools. For the bottom 5% of schools, that means turnaround plans akin to those under the existing rules. Other interventions must be targeted to another 10% of schools deemed low-performing.

Obama's plan will basically throw out the requirement that every student pass state tests by the 2013-2014 school year, and let states draft their own plans to improve the performance of struggling students in troubled schools.

Schools will not necessarily get failing grades for missing particular goals on state achievement tests, and states will be eligible for more flexibility in how they spend federal money previously marked for special tutoring programs.

To me, this is a very big, very huge, BFD in a bittersweet kind of way. My youngest child will graduate in June of this year. She entered the school system the same year as NCLB, and she'll leave it in the last year these stupid idiotic test standards are required. Fortunately, she has been a terrific student with the ability to learn in spite of it, but it has sorely tested her ability to love learning, which is my ultimate goal.

Her school is an under-performing school, largely due to the number of non-English speaking students, the number of students who live in poverty and less-than-optimal conditions for learning, and the fact that her school is the one where they send the kids who aren't disruptive but face learning and life challenges causing them to underachieve. As a result, funds have diminished steadily year after year. When that happens, the school refocuses on their underachievers, not the students who achieve. The net result for my daughter has been an erosion of resources, instructors, and time for her classes.

It's true that she'll overcome it, and we hope she'll be able to go to the college of her choice (and that we can pay for it without loans). But it never had to be that way. There was no reason for it to be that way, and I can't see where any discernible benefit came from hammering on these kids year after year to step up and make a showing "for their school" on the standardized tests.

So thank you, Mr. President. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a true effort to reform education in meaningful ways, at least, after we win back the House in 2012 and keep the Senate.

[h/t Daily Kos]

DOWNLOADS: (629)

PLAYS: (2536)

Embed

In light of the ongoing debacle that is the Texas State Board of Education, Rick Perry's remarks about preparing students for "any job" is laughable. In this very serious interview with the very conservative Heritage Foundation, Perry brags about how he rejects Federal money for Texas schools.

Watch carefully as he very nearly says "private school system" when he means to say "public school system". He catches himself, but it's an interesting moment, to say the least.

In order to preserve their "unique curriculum", Perry rejects adherence to Federal standards for students, or any national curriculum plan. Of course he does, because that would mean they'd have to put Jefferson back in and change those references to "free market principles" back to "capitalism". Students might actually have an opportunity to study literature that's not propaganda disguised, and open their minds a little.

Keep in mind, this is a state that is tracking students with RFID chips and is struggling with how to pay for students' education to the point where they're even considering an amendment to their state constitution to raise property taxes. I wonder how many books those RFID chips and trackers might have bought. Gotta love that liberty-minded state.

Before you believe that pablum Perry served, I should remind you of two facts: First, just three weeks ago Texas schools received awards of $248 million in federal grants for teachers; and second, the Texas Attorney General, also a Republican, is suing the federal government to get a share of the funds allocated for teachers and firefighters in the recently-passed federal aid bill.

Continue reading »

I have a confession to make...

I am insane. I have to be. Yes, I did turn on the live stream of the Texas Board of Education curriculum standards meeting at 9AM Thursday morning and yes, I stayed with it until 6pm, live-tweeting the whole thing until I could stand it no more. Still not content with the assault on my sensibilities, I came back for more at around 8pm, until it finally adjourned at 10pm my time, 1am Texas time.

I did it for you, all for you...

Bless their hearts....

Here's my biggest takeaway, and I mean this with all sincerity and respect: These people should not be doing this. They just shouldn't be. Not because they're evil. They're not. Well, maybe some of them are just a little bit, but more fundamentally they don't have the first clue as to how absolutely screwed up these curriculum standards are getting. Forget the textbooks, no teacher -- not even one with a masters from Harvard or University of Texas or ANYWHERE -- could possibly teach what they've put together.

It's incoherent. It makes no sense. They've created something that I should be able to define without resorting to NSFW terms, especially a compound word that begins with the word "cluster" and ends with an additional four letters, but really, that's what they've made. A colossal one, even.

Some highs (or lows, or you'll wish you were high)

Don't acknowledge truth without a tinge of pettiness

While it was certainly big of them to include a standard acknowledging the 2008 election of the first black President of the United States, it was not without moments. One of the conservative members thought that would be fine as long as he was included as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama". There was a bit of a verbal tussle over this as the more reasonable members suggested that might be just a little bit petty. Ultimately, the Henry Cabot Lodge false equivalency failed, and they agreed to Barack H. Obama. Grudgingly.

What's a little eugenics between friends?

After tonight, there is an extra word nestled in the following standard:

analyze causes and effects of events and social issues such as immigration, Social Darwinism, race relations, nativism, the Red Scare, Prohibition, and the changing role of women; and...

It reads this way now:

analyze causes and effects of events and social issues such as immigration, eugenics, Social Darwinism, race relations, nativism, the Red Scare, Prohibition, and the changing role of women; and

That's right. Our kids in Texas will possibly learn about eugenics. Why do I say possibly? Because there are two ways to word a standard. One is to use the term including, which means everything may be on a standardized test and therefore must be covered. The other is to use the term "such as", which means the teacher must teach the concept but has the option to use some or all of the terms.

It sounds like a benign enough compromise until you begin to consider the insidious ways it was used to denigrate in some cases and slide references into the material in others. Like eugenics, for example. Or to downgrade the elevation of our first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, to a "such as" when the original list without her was an "include". But, they did manage to remove Phyllis Schlafly from that same list, so there's that, anyway.

Speaking of Phyllis Schlafly...

Continue reading »

Today was the first day of the Texas State Board of Education meeting to approve the modified curriculum standards for Social Studies. (See backstory here and here). Over 200 people have stepped up to testify before the final vote begins. Texas Freedom Network's live blog of the meeting has some interesting tidbits to share.

From LiveBlog 1:

• Former Bush education secretary Rod Paige urges a delay on the vote.

  9:27 – Paige: “We have allowed ideology to drive and define the standards of our curriculum in Texas. It has swung from liberal to conservative.” (We’re waiting for evidence that the Republican-dominated board and then-Gov. Bush’s education commissioner in 1998 adopted “liberal” curriculum standards.) The swing has been too broad, Paige says.

• Texas State Representatives Dan Flynn and Wayne Christian say "Take a vote."
  

  Flynn and Christian are still at the podium answering various questions from board members. They both continue to call on the board to adopt the standards on Friday and “respect the process.” Their argument is that the process so far has been just fine and that the board should finish its work on schedule. But the process hasn’t been fine. The board has essentially jettisoned the work of educators and scholars who spent a year carefully crafting the new standards. The question is whether standards should be based on the work of educators and academic experts or handful of politicians on the state board.

From LiveBlog #2:

• Accusations fly about "religious cleansing" in public schools.

  11:23 – Kelly Shackelford, head of the Liberty Institute/Free Market Foundation, the Texas affiliate of the far-right Focus on the Family, is up. Shackelford argues that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution. Neither, we might say, is “fair trial,” “separation of powers” “checks and balances” and other basic constitutional principles. Shackelford thinks “separation of church” is being used to “abuse” the freedom of students. He wants students to contrast the intent of the Founders (or what he believes was the intent of the Founders) who wrote the Constitution with the phrase “separation of church and state.”

  11:32 – Board member David Bradley calls separation of church and state a “myth.” He notes that the Ten Commandments adorn federal buildings like the Supreme Court.

  11:34 – Shackelford: There are people who want to engage in a “religious cleansing” in this country. He argues that students are being punished for expressing their faith in public schools.

  I ask myself, what do these claims have to do with teaching Social Studies in public schools?

• Promoting American "exceptionalism"
  

  Moore is arguing about the importance of promoting “American exceptionalism.” He claims that university professors earlier this year were testifying before the board in favor of socialism as the preferred “form of government” for America.

  Does it get any more paranoid than this?

Moving on to LiveBlog #3...

An interesting exchange between a University of Texas professor and Cynthia Dunbar, one of the most conservative members of the board:

5:08 – Prof. Julio Noboa, a social studies professor at the University of Texas at El Paso who served on the high school U.S. history curriculum writing team, is up. He’s very critical of the many changes board members made to the standards his team proposed. In fact, the American history standards have been among the most heavily revised by the board among all social studies classes. Prof. Noboa calls many of the changes a “whitewash” of problems and challenges in American history.

5:30 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar is challenging Prof. Noboa’s contention that the United States is a democracy. America has vastly expanded voting rights, making it far more democratic than in the nation’s early decades, Prof. Noboa says. He notes that Dunbar’s contention that the United States is a republic is too narrow — a republic is simply a nation without a hereditary monarchy and doesn’t truly describe what the United States is today.

From the live blogs, it appears that the number of public comments is definitely slowing things down a bit. According to TFN, about 10% of the people who appeared to testify have been heard. However, a good number of people made their voices heard during the lunch break today, when public education supporters held a "Don't White-Out our History" rally in front of the Texas Education Administration building.

I'll bring more as it rolls in....

Angry Bear: McCain's League of Democracies and the Washington bubble.

Your New Reality: Murdoch media uses online game art for war propaganda but claims it came from al Qaeda.

Economist's View: People in other nations used to look up to Americans, but that is changing.

Secrecy News: The White House has added a new classification for some press releases: "Controlled Unclassified Information," refers to information that does not meet the standards for classification but that is considered too sensitive for unrestricted public disclosure. Got that?

OurFuture: McCain's incoherence on global warming reaches new heights.

Nieman Watchdog: Everyone's talking in the Middle East -- but us.

In an op-ed piece for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution entitled "Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky", David Hazinski, a former NBC correspondent and associate professor of telecommunications at the University of Georgia, says that

...having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It's just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere....Journalism organizations should head that off. Citizen reports can be a valuable addition to news and information flow with some protections:

• Major news organizations must create standards to substantiate citizen-contributed information and video, and ensure its accuracy and authenticity.

• They should clarify and reinforce their own standards and work through trade organizations to enforce national standards so they have real meaning.

• Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified.

Um, Mister Hazinski sir? There are just a few bloggers who would like to have a word with you....

Daily Howler: "Inauthentic" is the new "traitor to his class."

A Tiny Revolution : It's always a comfort when our envoys "like this violence."

Shakesville: "This is not a “We told you so” piece. It’s a “Here we go again” piece."

Orcinus has several recent posts on "why it's vital that we begin putting a human, and real, face on the immigration debate."

Pay no attention to the situation in Iraq, the real problem is Harry Reid criticizing Generals Pace and Petraeus! Would Tony Snow steer you wrong? Glenn Greenwald explores conservatives' shifting standards for criticizing the military and vets. Dan Froomkin notes an article showing that Petraeus' "astonishing signs of normalcy" assessment of Iraq contradicts the Pentagon's own quarterly report. Meanwhile, Steve Benen asks, "Which is worse, a senator’s mild, one-sentence criticism of a general’s judgment, or the president firing that general in the midst of a war?"

Guest round up by Batocchio (batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com).

AP photo: Paul Wolfowitz is in deep trouble with the World Bank, but like most of the Bushies---he refuses to step down. Instead, he does a "Cheney" on them all.

Sounding more like a cast member of the Sopranos than an international leader, in testimony by one key witness Mr Wolfowitz declares: "If they f*&k with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to f*&k them too."--- "Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply."

A Cheney in this instance is telling someone to F*&k themselves and not shooting them in the face. As always, Bush supports his corrupt pals:

White House Spokesman Tony Snow says President Bush continues to stand by Wolfowitz."The fact is that he made mistakes. They are not in our view, firing offenses," he said.
What is a firing offense to this administration? Please, tell us! C&Ler "Liberty lover," reminds me to ask the nine US Attorney's what a firing offense is. ABC is reporting that the WH is showing signs of cracking:

On the second issue, the senior official told ABC News "it is an open question" whether Wolfowitz can remain an effective president of the World Bank.

While there's nothing as blockbuster as Gonzales's appearance, the Senate is clearly busy this week and there's some interesting things on the agenda, including:

S. 119, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, will likely make Dick Cheney come back to the Senate floor and tell Leahy to "go f***" himself again, because it sets penalties and standards for people like Cheney's buddies at Halliburton when it comes to profiteering and fraud in scamming money off the Iraq war.

Bob Geiger has the full schedule. Let us know if there are any hearings you think would be particularly clip-worthy for C&L.

Wow, this should thin the GOP presidential herd, shouldn't it?

PFAW:

Televangelist and Ohio "Patriot Pastor" leader Rod Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity is urging the revival of long-dormant laws against adultery in states such as Michigan, where adultery is technically a felony, although no one has been prosecuted for 36 years.

In an e-mail update to its supporters, the Center noted with approval the remark of an appeals court judge that a Michigan statute criminalizing sex involving commission of a felony, when combined with the law making adultery a felony, could lead to life in prison. "Lawmakers and judges in Michigan are holding married couples accountable for their vows of fidelity," touted CMC, adding that "The rest of the nation should take a look at the Michigan statute. Criminal laws are designed to force people to conform to certain acceptable standards of personal behavior. Most of society's code of conduct has its roots in the 10 Commandments."

"Adultery is a violation of biblical instruction as well as an offense against the other partner in what should be a sacred relationship," said Parsley. But given his history of involvement in Republican politics, where will that leave him in 2008, with frontrunning presidential candidates McCain and Giuliani, along with potential dark horse Gingrich, each allegedly carrying an adulterous past that, in Parsley's world, would put them behind bars?