Plaintiff Blues

How can I retaliate? Let me count the ways!

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:40:00 +0000

As I indicated in my previous post, I've heard personal stories about many retaliatory actions against employees who dared to complain about discrimination. Most of them were less severe than "ultimate adverse employment actions," but nevertheless, extremely effective! The employer/supervisor writes negative evaluations, initiates surveillance on an employee, transfers employee to an undesirable job site, works with the union behind the employee's back, installs time clocks, threatens to counter sue, refuses leave requests, refuses to follow contractual grievance procedures, assigns permanent night-shift, ignores negotiated seniority rights, reassigns work space, cuts budget allocations, harasses or embarrasses employee in front of peers, refuses to return calls or emails in a timely manner, skips customary annual bonus, writes or gives negative recommendations to potential employers, withholds support of initiatives - the list is endless. It's limited only by the employer's imagination. Of course, any of the actions listed above may or may not be retaliatory in the legal, actionable sense of the term. It depends on the particular circumstances and how other comparable employees were treated. But the point is - beware! Retaliatory actions are most often subtle, covert, and insidious - which also makes them very difficult to prove - and very effective!

Chilling, isn't it?

Retaliation's Chilling Effects

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:55:00 +0000

Since publishing Plaintiff Blues: Job Discrimination and the Chilling Effects of Retaliation in 2007 and posting this blog, I've received numerous phone calls and emails from folks about discrimination and retaliation.The majority of these communications involve personal stories of discrimination and retaliation. These stories contained disturbing, common patterns.

"I didn't file a complaint because I'm afraid of retaliation," was the most frequent comment I received. This fear is the single most chilling effect of retaliation. It also answers the most common question asked about discrimination/retaliation in the workplace, "How can they get away with it?"

The EEOC manual on Retaliation reads, "Effective enforcement of the anti-discrimination statutes depends in large part on the initiative of individuals to oppose employment practices that they reasonably believe to be unlawful and to file charges of discrimination. If retaliation for such activities were permitted to go unremedied, it would have a chilling effect upon the willingness of individuals to speak out against employment discrimination."

So our state and federal governments have passed laws against job discrimination. But enforcement of these laws requires individuals to step up and file charges against their employer. To do so, employees risk retaliation. Any doubt why retaliation reigns as the number one defensive strategy of employers accused of discrimination?

Although protections against retaliation are included in most of the anti-discrimination statues and have been strengthened by recent Supreme Court decisions, for years most lower courts used very restrictive definitions of retaliation. These definitions or standards insisted that the challenged, retaliatory employer action qualify as an ultimate, adverse employment action such as hiring, firing, promoting, and compensating.

In the 2006 Burlington Northern v White decision, the Supreme Court broadened the protections to include less severe retaliatory actions. In this case the Court said that retaliation included employment actions that would have, "dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."

Yes, this is not a very precise standard or definition of what constitutes retaliation. However, any challenged act of retaliation depends on the particular circumstances. Context matters. For example, a simple schedule change may not matter to most workers, but may make a huge difference to a mother with school age children. A supervisor's excluding an employee from lunch may be just a trivial, nonactionable, and petty slight. But if that were a weekly training lunch that contributes to the employee's professional advancement, it may be an action that would deter a reasonable employee from complaining or supporting a complaint of discrimination.

Another pattern emerged from the contacts I've had. Several said they had filed the initial complaint but dropped it because they found themselves standing alone. Their co-workers were unwilling to support them or testify on their behalf because they were also afraid of retaliation. Another said, "I could have handled it myself, but I didn't want to put others - peers, co-workers, friends - in the bull's eye." Many said they knew what to expect if they complained about discrimination or retaliation because they had seen the treatment others got and wanted no part of it.

It's important to note that the same protections from retaliation that apply to the original complaining party also apply to anyone to participates in the investigation. However, those participants would have to stand up one additional time to initiate their own complaint if they experienced retaliatory actions.

Chilling, isn't it?

NCLB leaves kids, schools, and democracy BEHIND

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:30:00 +0000

How does NCLB leave kids behind? Let's be honest. We've always known intuitively that the goals of NCLB, while admirable, were impossible. Public schools simply cannot overcome the inequalities (from nature and/or nurture) that kids bring with them to school everyday, no matter how hard they teach or test. We've always known that every kid cannot become an Einstein and all the kids cannot go to school in Lake Woebegon (where all the kids are above average!) But the NCLB tests and standards mandates mean that every kid with a nature/nurture handicap will be labeled a failure (behind) every year. Wonder how that regular slap-in-the-face affects the drop-out rate?

Why does NCLB leave schools behind? Because that was the hidden agenda all along! Don't take my work for it, read what a former Bush official said. Claudia Wallis quoted Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education Susan Neuman in the June 8, 2008, Time magazine. Folks in the Bush Department of Education, "saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda - a way to expose the failure of public education and 'blow it up a bit.' There were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and privatization."

In a February 2009 survey of the principals of Minnesota's 1,920 public schools, 97% said that NCLB requirements were unattainable by 2014. FYI, the NCLB requirement is the by 2014, 100% of students must pass the test. That 97% of principals surveyed is not your average or typical NCLB opponent. That's a resounding rejection by the hands on, front-line professionals charged with implementing the unrealistic and unfunded mandates of NCLB. These principals are charged with directing more and more increasingly limited resources to the test, knowing all along that some students will never be able to pass the test and sooner or later, their school will also be labeled a failure.

How does NCLB leave democracy behind? A democracy depends on educated citizens and educated citizens depend on public schools (all citizens with equal access to a free and equitable public education). NCLB is the "Trojan horse" sent in to deliberately undermine confidence in our public schools and open the door to further deregulation and privatization of schools. That scenario puts our democracy at risk!

Fair Discrimination Timelines - Hurrah for Lilly Ledbetter!

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:43:00 +0000

Only when she prepared to retire in 1998, after 19 years as a supervisor for Goodyear Tire Company, did Lilly Ledbetter learn she had been paid much less than her male counterparts all those years. Even though a lower court found Goodyear guilty of pay discrimination, the Supreme Court threw out that decision by a 5 to 4 vote, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the first offense - 19 years before she discovered what was going on. She couldn't know what she didn't know before she knew it!

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. The law overturns the Supreme Court's illogical ruling and provides for the 180 day timeline to begin with the last offense, not the first. It's 11 years since Ledbetter retired and challenged the pay discrimination - and she won't receive a penny of backpay!

However, one more person stood up and one more legal loophole is plugged in the ongoing struggle for equal rights for all. Plaintiff Blues, published in 2007, is my story of 17 years of similar struggles with job discrimination and retaliation in NE Minnesota. In April 1991, a local newspaper reported that a man I had lost a Superintendent of Schools position to had gotten the job with mail-order PH. D.'s and forged letters of recommendation. At that time, the EEOC said I would have had to file the complaint within 180 days of the hiring decision in 1989. It was 18 months later that I first learned about his bogus credentials. You can't know what you don't know until you know it!

That's not logical and it's not fair. But thanks to Lilly - just one person, unwilling to accept discrimination - we have all moved one step closer to equal opportunity. Yes, it took an election that resulted in stronger majorities in the Congress and a President anxious to sign, not veto. But Lilly had to take the first step.

Civil rights is more than 'one person can make a difference.' One person must make the difference, because that's the only way the system works. Each person that challenges discrimination or retaliation has the potential to block one more avenue of oppression for everyone.

Gay Rights? Gay Marriage? It's Time!

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:45:00 +0000

I am a 64-year old wife of 42 years (to the same great guy), a mother of two and a grandmother. I served in public education for 34 years, as high school teacher, principal and superintendent. I have never understood the depth of bitterness and hatred directed at folks who are gay. Over the years, my husband and I have had gay friends, worked with gay peers (including other teachers), and taught gay students. I never experienced or heard of any "threat" to anyone from a gay person. No unwanted "come-ons," assaults, or sexual harasment. Too bad I can't say the same for my fellow straight folks!

So what's the big deal? Where does the hatred come from? How does someone else's sexual orientation threaten me, my family, or my way of life? How does a gay couple getting married threaten or diminish my marriage? Why not make the legal process and protections of civil union available to everyone and leave the religious sacrament of marriage up to individual denominations - under the First Amendment's freedom of religion?

Have we forgotten America's Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal?" How about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or prosperity, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?"

Obviously, it's the "tryanny of the majority" again, the same tyranny that enforced slavery, denied women the right to vote, etc. I think back to a poster in my high school office, "What's popular is not always right; what's right if not always popular." Thankfully, courageous leaders and decades of protest have out-lawed most American "tyrannies of the majority." It's way past time to outlaw this current "tyranny of the majority" against gays!

School Choice - Charters, Competition & Deregulation?

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Do we really want any further school initiatives that subject public education, our schools, our students, and ultimately the foundation of our democracy to the same market forces that produced our current economic crisis? What form will high risk speculation, mysterious financial instruments, derivatives, and credit swaps take in a deregulated public education sector? Or Ponzi schemes for that matter? Can there be any doubt that opening the huge K-12 education institution - and its tempting coffers - to the private sector will lead to the same kinds of abuses that got us into the mess we're in? If we study the history of deregulations gone bad - remember the S & L crisis, Enron, Worldcom, Merrill - perhaps we can keep the "greed is good" contagion from our children's education.

Test Score Mania

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:02:00 +0000

Once again in August, newspapers around the state and the country decried, "Our Failing Public Schools." This obsession with test scores has been drilled into our perception of schooling in America since A Nation at Risk in 1983. The pervasiveness and extent of this test score psychosis was evident in the last 2008 Presidential Debate between Senators McCain and Obama. Bob Schieffer asked the following question:

"The U. S. spends more per capita that any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries on the world. The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security. Do feel that way and what do you intend to do about it?"

Outrageous! Print journalists, national media, Schieffer, Obama and McCain should all be challenged vociferously for blindly accepting the basic premise of the question, "by every international measurement-we trail most of the countries of the world." Have we all abandoned our ability to think critically, to be skeptical of such broad assertions that are based solely on test scores? Have we forgotten Mark Twain's common sense about numbers, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure?"

Why are these dire pronouncements about America's test score results accepted to blindly, with no scrutiny, no questions asked, no challenges issued? This is not only true for the media and the general public, it is also true of educators. For decades, educators and their professional organizations have simple cowered and acquiesced to the onslaught of negative rhetoric about our failing schools. Is it just that bad news is more titillating than good news and always carries the day? Or is it that the implied precision of the test score data reported and the complexity of statistical analysis so intimidates us the we're afraid to question?

What kinds of questions and challenges am I referring to?

We need to ask about "by every international measurement" to make sure we are not comparing apples and oranges! Are we certain that these international tests are exactly the same in every country? Are they given in exactly the same way in every country? Are they given to the same exact group of students in every country? Are they scored in the same way in every country?

For example, are these tests different or modified in any way from one country to another? Do we know if students in one country are allowed more time on the test than in other countries, or if they are allowed to use calculators in one country and not another? Are the 4th grade or 8th grade tests given to comparable groups of students in every country or do some countries test older student or separated, "tracked" students? Are rich and poor students included comparably in all countries? Are public and private schools included comparably in all countries? Are the tests scored exactly the same in all countries or do some score by hand and others by computer? Who reports out the scores from each country? Are the scores reported out exactly the same way in each country or do some report the average score of all 13 year olds and while others report the average score of the just the 13 year olds that took the test?

At the very minimum, the same kinds of questions need to be asked about comparative test score date and the test score mania that has resulted from NCLB (No Child Left Behind). I have written and blogged before about my concerns with NCLB before, so I won't cover the same ground here. But there are several questions that need to be asked about NCLB in addition to those already raised about international test score comparisons.

Do we really want the very worth of a child to be summed up in a single score on a single test given on a single day? That's how it feels to that child who is told year after year that he/she failed the test again. Do we really believe that when a single sub-group of students fails a single test section on a single day that the entire school should be reported as failing to make AYP (adequate yearly progress)? Ask football players how fair it would be to compare players from different schools that get to design their own goal posts - and then move them from game to game? That's NCLB!

Have we forgotten the myriad of studies that demonstrate the correlation between SES (socio-economic status) and student achievement? One thing this obsession with testing has clearly identified is an achievement gap between rich and poor. It's no surprise that the achievement gap correlates directly with the income gap between rich and poor in our society?

Do we really believe that public schools should be held accountable - even punished - for an achievement gap they did not create and they cannot close?

Earlier I quoted Mark Twain's "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" adage. Yes, I was suggesting that NCLB and the incessant, accountability pounding our public schools have taken for decades originated from a less than forthright motivation. Here it is!

Former Assistant Secretary of Education Susan Nueman, one of the architects of NCLB,
admitted that some in the Bush Administration wanted to use NCLB to destroy the public educations system and replace it with a privatized system. According to Neuman, others in the Bush Education Department saw NCLB as a "Trojan Horse" for the choice agenda. "There were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and privatization," she said. How about comparing what the market forces, privitized and unregulated, have done to our financial system and economy lately? Do we really want our children's education vulnerable to these kinds of excesses?

With hidden agendas like this underlying the political rhetoric of such significant and high-stakes educational policies, shouldn't we be skeptical of the integrity of the data reported out in support of these policies? Couldn't even apparently precise test score data be manipulated for political purposes?

Newman now says she regrets the Administration's use of humiliation and shame as a lever for school reform. "Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to shame them was not the right approach." Neuman recently signed the Economic Policy Institute document entitled, A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education, which states that much of the achievement gap between rich and poor, "is rooted in what occurs outside of formal schooling." (Time Magazine, June 8, 2008).

I believe all children can learn! I do not believe that all children can be made, taught, or shamed into getting the same numbers of answers correct on a single test on a single day!

That's the NCLB mandate. Do we really want this concentration on reading and math, to the growing exclusion of science, social studies, the arts, phy ed, and extra-curricular programs? NCLB and this kind of test score mania destroys the morale of kids and teachers, the joy of learning itself. These hidden agendas - unchallenged - will also destroy the public schools, which are the bedrock of our democracy!

Who is Lilly Ledbetter?

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:48:00 +0000

After the Wednesday, October 15, last presidential debate between Senators Obama and McCain, one might ask - who is this Lilly Ledbetter anyway? Senator Obama referred to her in the debate discussion about the criteria for presidential nomination of judges to the U. S. Supreme Court.

I first blogged about Lilly Ledbetter on June 13, 2007.

Lilly Ledbetter began work at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in 1979. She retired in November 1998, after earning thousands of dollars less than male colleagues who were doing similar supervisory work. She did not know about the pay difference at the time or when it began. She had no way to learn about it because Goodyear kept salary information confidential.

When Ledbetter finally became aware of the pay discrimination, she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and in November 1998, she filed sit in Federal District Court. The jury found in her favor and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed and the Eleventh District Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision because she had not filed suit within the 180-day timeline in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Ledbetter requested a writ of certiorari and the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case. In May 2007, The Court ruled 5 to 4 against her in Ledbetter v.Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The five justices in the majority were Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy - all Republican appointees to the Court. Justice Alito delivered the court opinion, saying that Ledbetter should have sued when the pay decisions were made instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory limit.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent from the Court's opinion was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer and argued against the 180-day limit being applied to pay discrimination. Justice Ginsburg argued that pay discrimination often occurs in small increments over large periods of time and the pay information of fellow workers is typically confidential and unavailable for comparison.

Any wonder why the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court is so critical in this election?

Soon after the Court's decision, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. However, a similar bill in the U. S. Senate, sponsored by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and Republican Senator Olympia Snow, is opposed by the Bush Administration and has been effectively blocked by the Republicans in the Senate. They have enough votes to deny backers of the bill the 60 votes needed to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Senator Obama supports the bill; Senators McCain and Coleman are counted among the blockers!

The Times They Are NOT A-Changin'

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:44:00 +0000

The AP recently picked up a June 30, 2008, Duluth News Tribune story by Janna Goerdt about my experiences with job discrimination and retaliation in public school administration. These experiences and the litigation that followed are described in my book Plaintiff Blues. Goerdt's well balanced and professional article included an interview with Charlie Kyte, Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of School Adaministrators. However, Kyte's quoted comments and attitudes are reminiscent of the good ole boys back in the good ole days!

When asked about women in the school district superintendent's position, Kyte said, "It's a traditionally male role. One of the challenges they run into is trying to manage a family and manage the time needed to be a superintendent," Kyte said. "You put in so much time, it's hard to be in that traditional 'mom' role." Kyte also said parents in a few Minnesota communities "are still male-centric; they see themselves as being led by a male." If he knows of a female superintendent interested in applying at such a community, Kyte said, he tries to steer them elsewhere.

By all accounts, Kyte is a good leader and spokesman for education in Minnesota. So where do these remnants of past stereotypes come from? Are they so deeply ingrained they seep through our conscious filters? Regardless of the explanation, those comments are classic examples of the glass blocks used to construct the proverbial glass ceiling. After years of post-graduate degree work and thousands of dollars in tuition and books, any qualified woman who applies for the superintendency knows full well what kind of time the job entails. Imagine how it feels to put that kind of time and effort into your career, only to be "steered elsewhere" (however well-intentioned) because some folks don't want your kind - women - in leadership roles? It's no wonder only 14% of 2007-2008 Minnesota school superintendents are women.

And what a put-down to husbands and fathers! Throughout the years, with both of us working full time, I had the full support and encouragement of my husband to get the degrees and apply for the jobs. He had my full support and encouragement to start his own, success business. It's a partnership after all. We both worked, we both raised the kids, shopped for groceries, did the laundry, mowed the lawn, cooked the meals, washed the dishes, etc. Our two sons have wonderful wives and both families share in earning, parenting, cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. There's no longer such a thing as a traditional "mom" role! There hasn't been for a long time.

But these comments were made today, not the yesterday of 50 years ago. Worse yet, they were made by one of Minnesota's chief education spokesman and leaders.

We have a long way to go, baby!

Supreme Court Restores Habeas & Hope

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:48:00 +0000

When Congress passed (with both Republican and Democratic support) and President Bush signed the Military Commission Act of 2006, I despaired for civil liberties in our country. Two branches of our government had stripped away the most essential human right, the writ of habeas corpus. So fundamental that the founding fathers included it within the text of the U.S.Constitution itself. With the MCA, two branches of our government failed the basic test of civil liberties. That high-stakes test occurs whenever there are threatening or frightening events, when the balance between security and liberty is most fragile. 9/11 was such a test and we failed. As I wrote in July and November 2007, it's when we fail these tests of our fundamental principles that the terrorists win.

I remember a Phil Ochs tune we listened to in the 60s. Knock on the Door included timeless lyrics: "In many a time, in many a land, it all began with that knock on the door. Now there's many new words and many new names, the banners have changed but the knock is the same. And open your eyes and see what they do, when they knock over there, friend, they're knocking for you." John F. Kennedy said, "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." We better protect our liberty today. Who's to say what knocks tomorrow will bring - and for whom?

Finally, on Thursday, June 12, 2008, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled by a narrow, 5-4 margin, that the habeas corpus provision in the Military Commission Act is unconstitutional. Our precious system of check and balances proves up again. But by just one vote! No more cavalier attitudes toward appointments to the Supreme Court when the write of habeas corpus hangs by one vote!

However, Justice Scalia's dissent in the case sent shivers down my spine. He wrote, "It will most certainly cause more Americans to be killed." That has to be one of the most injudicious comments by a sitting Supreme Court Justice ever! Such fear mongering is the purview of politicians, whose rhetoric is directly related to their next election, not Supreme Court Justices appointed for life.

Concerns about School Choice

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:08:00 +0000

In my 34 years as a public educator, both teacher and administrator, my experiences with school choice were in smaller or rural public schools in NE Minnesota. However, my concerns about school choice relate to public education in general. I wrote Myths of Educational Choice (Praeger 1993) to fully describe the complex social, political, and economic issues related to school choice. My concerns apply to all the across-the-board, unrestricted Minnesota choice programs, including PSEO (Post Secondary Enrollment Options), open enrollment, and charter schools. The theory behind school choice is that competition will force public school to improve. By definition, competition means winners and losers. A brief look at the winners and losers in school choice highlights my concerns.

Who are the winners? Those students/parents who chose out of educational necessity win. They are gifted or talented students who have run out of the curricular choices in their home district. Those qualified few may benefit from the PSEO program or enrollment in a larger school district with more advanced curricular choices. Why not limit PSEO options to highly qualified students rather than open the floodgates for students/parents looking for two free years of college, whether they are ready and able or not! Why not limit open enrollment to educational need rather than introduce chaos into our entire public education system, which is the bedrock of our democracy?

Other winners may include troubled or failing students who just need a second chance or a different approach. However, there were many alternative programs prior to Minnesota's school choice legislation, so this is no justification for wholesale school choice programs.

Neighboring school districts win when students chose because the get the windfall profits as the state aids follow student enrollment. Schools now have to allocate precious resources to advertise and recruit for enrollments.

Taxpayer groups and politicians win with school choice because choice is cheap! They can proclaim choice as reform and a way to improve public schools, without providing adequate and equitable funding for public schools.

However, the losers in school choice are my primary concern. Too many students leave their resident school for reasons that have nothing to do with a better education. They go to college before they are ready and then fail to graduate with their class. When parents/students leave for casual or temporary reasons like romance, athletics, proximity to after school jobs, or parents daycare convenience, community commitment and connection is lost. Worse yet, many students lose educational progress when unregulated charter schools fail due to mismanagement.

But students who stay behind are the big losers. Many of these parents/students have no choice. Economics or geography keep them trapped in their losing local schools. These schools are forced to cut programs and increase class sizes to balance budgets decimated by lost foundation aids that follow the students leaving.

The losing school districts can't pass revenue referendums when voters' kids attend neighboring schools. For example, St. Louis County School District voters rejected the last two revenue referendums by 226 votes in 2006 and 402 votes in 2007. This is a geographically huge, consolidated district in NE Minnesota. It is bordered by 19 neighboring school districts and four post-secondary institutions. Could these failed referendums be due to the fact that over 600 resident students do not attend district schools? That number represents annual revenue losses of close to $4 million. Why vote to raise your school taxes when your kids are not attending their local public school?

In brief, while a few may benefit from school choice, their choices diminish the choices and quality of education for the majority who don't or can't choose. It's important to note here that neighboring districts or charter schools are not required to accept and educate all students as are resident districts. Thus, many handicapped or learning-disabled students have no choice.

The Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, states, "It is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools." There's nothing uniform happening to Minnesota's public schools with school choice! Choice means competition and competition means winners and losers. There should not be "losers" and inequity inherent in the laws governing Minnesota's public education system.

Minnesota Nursing Home Crisis Shameful

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:05:00 +0000

Hubert Humphrey said, "The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life - the sick, the needy and the handicapped." We're not doing especially well for those in the dawn or the shadows of life, with school programs being cut across the state, the number of uninsured rising every year, health insurance and medical cost skyrocketing, and the injured veterans struggling with an often incompetent bureaucracy to receive the timely care and benefits they deserve.

However, we're failing miserably with those in or approaching the twilight of life! All across the state, newspapers and media outlets are covering the crisis facing our nursing homes. The May 3, The Star Tribune editorial indicated that a third of the state's nursing homes might be at risk for closure in the very near future. The Bemidji Pioneer stated that the nursing home industry is on the verge of collapse. The years of little or no increases in state reimbursements for qualified Medicaid residents in nursing homes are the crux of the crisis.

In 2007, a rural NE Minnesota Hospital and Nursing Home received state reimbursements of $129 per Medicaid resident per day, but the costs for the state mandated level of service to these residents had risen to $178 per resident per day. That amounted to a $1.5 million shortfall for 2007. 2008 will be even worse. Costs go up, revenues don't. Yes, there were 2% increases for nursing home reimbursements in 2005 and 2006, but those minimal increases were far short of the increased costs and they followed 2 years of funding freezes in 2003 and 2004.

These kinds of minimal increases that are dependent every two years on the current political will are shortsighted and only delay the inevitable. Unfortunately, the planning horizons for most politicians seldom exceed their term of office. The consequence of these politically expedient freezes and/or miniscule increases is that the nursing home industry is now so far behind, it may too late for many. Where will our parents go when they need 24-7 skilled nursing care?

The fundamental problem is with the rebasing formula for nursing homes. Rebasing is the state process of regularly recalculating the actual costs of service for hospitals and other state-funded services. Reimbursements are then adjusted accordingly. However, rebasing has not been done for Minnesota nursing homes since 1994!

Where will Governor Pawlenty and the other short-sighted politicians, who have balanced the state budget on the backs of our elderly, be when the baby boomer tsunami strikes? Their terms of office will be over and they will have moved on to bigger and better opportunities. They will not be here to explain the lack of adequate long-term care facilities or to answer for their shortsightedness.

NCLB and the Dropout Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:05:00 +0000

Approximately 1 million American high school students should graduate each year. No one can be certain of the actual numbers - of graduates or dropouts - because no one is tracking that data. No reporting nationally, by state, district, gender, or ethnic group. For good reason! It's embarrassing - to the school, to the school district, to the state, and to the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Administration. Current estimates put the national graduation rate at best, at 70%. That's a conservative dropout rate of 30%. That's appalling! That's more than 300,000 students who enter adult life having failed the right-of-passage in our society.

The dropout rate is much higher in some states, localities, and ethnic groups than others. Where is that you ask? Poor is the operative term. Poor in material resources, poor in environmental resources, poor in health care, poor in SES (Socio-economic Status), poor in spirit. All the NCLB emphasis on high-stakes, test score accountability totally ignores this dropout crisis. The best analogy compares NCLB to the mile race. Test them rigorously every tenth of a mile - but pay no attention to who crosses the finish line.

Worse yet, NCLB is a major contributor to the dropout crisis. Poor performing students are hardly encouraged to stay in school under the high-stakes, consequence-laden NCLB testing regime - particularly when there are no NCLB graduation standards! Schools would rather lose those students than have their school fail to make AYP (Annual Yearly Progress). As for those students themselves, which students are going to come back year after year to be tested one more time and be told, one more time, they failed?

Tracking this crisis is the first step. Set graduation standards and require AYP. However, it's not as simple as one would think. As I explained in Plaintiff Blues, education data and statistics are not equal, district to district, state to state. As one example, if there are 100 students in a senior class and 96 graduate, that's a 96% graduation rate, right? What if that same senior class had 120 students back in 9th grade? Where did those other 24 students go?

There has to be an established reporting protocol and mandated reporting of graduation and dropout rates before we'll get a handle on the magnitude of this crisis - and find out who is really being left behind!

It's the Money, Stupid!

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:42:00 +0000

"Money is the root of all evil" is a concept that's been around forever. It's probably more accurate to quote the Bible, "For the love of money is the root of all evil." I Timothy 6:10. Just because it's an ancient concept does not mean that it has no currency today. It's not the money itself but what men do to get it that's at the root of it all.

Aside from the recent bailout of Bear Sternes, coupled with the decades-old S & L bailout we're still paying for, estimates are that we are stuck in $2-3 trillion dollar war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the good old economic analogy, "guns or butter," imagine the common good those trillions could have accomplished: social security fixed, medicare funded, energy independence implemented, inner city schools fixed, mortgages saved, etc.

But bailouts and wars are good for the economy - and vastly better for a few than for the many. Those same few take their billions and spend it to further insure and protect their interests. They lobby to block solutions to major problems and contribute obscene sums of money to political campaigns to make certain new policies and programs never interfere with their profits.

If you consider any of the major problems facing us, it is not difficult to figure one which of the few, big money interests will be working against any reasonable solution. If it's health care solutions, the drug companies, insurance companies and medical supply companies will be doubling timing to protect the status quo that is working so well for them. Energy independence, carbon emissions, global warming - count on the oil and power industries to spend billions and more to protect their present investments, including those in Middle Eastern oil.

Perhaps the worst and most comprehensive evil generated by the love of money is the selling of our democracy. Today only a billionaire can run for national office without the money from the few big money interests - whether corporate or PAC. And how naive to suppose that there's no quid pro quo with those huge contributions. The buying and selling of congresssmen is a relatively unregulated, open market. Until we get the money out of the political process, we should expect little in the way of real solutions to serious problems. It's the money, stupid!

Bush + Deregulation=Bailout for Big Guys

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:07:00 +0000

We must have forgotten the massive Savings $ Loan Bailout of 1989. Reagan and Bush 41 were the presidents who presided over the deregulation of those S & L's and the largest corporate bailout in our history - $32 billion for 30 years! By 2020, that will approach $1 trillion! That money keeps coming from taxpayers and goes to the people who bought those 30 year bonds. And the rich get richer!

FYI, another son of Bush 41, Neil Bush, was involved in that crisis, as director of the Silverado Savings and Loan. That one alone cast taxpayers $1.6 Million. The cause of the S & L crisis? Deregulation that opened the door to wild and speculative real estate investments.

However, the costs of that bailout were more far-reaching than even those staggering figures suggest. The real costs were felt yesterday, when the Federal Reserve Board bailed-out Bear Sterns for $30 million. Bear Sterns was one of the biggest cowboy investment banks plundering the sub-prime mortgage business - our current crisis. The S & L bailout of 1989 sent a clear message to the cowboys out there. It's green light for greedy, high-risk, speculative real estate investments. If you get in trouble, the government (that's us, the taxpayer) will bail you out. Don't worry, no one in this Bush administration is minding the store and there will be no heavy handed regulation - or any at all for that matter!

Meanwhile, once again, the John and Jane Doe's are losing their homes all across the country. Will we ever see a bailout for the average taxpayer?

Who Is Don Siegelman?

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:05:00 +0000

Don Siegelman is the former governor of Alabama. So what does that mean to me and the rest of the world? Siegelman is currently in jail and it is all of our interests to understand how and why that happened. On Sunday, February 24, the CBS program 60 Minutes told his story. He was selectively prosecuted for political reasons by the Bush Justice Department - with back channel coaching from none other than Karl Rove.

Over 50 former U. S. Attorneys (both Republicans and Democrats) have gotten involved in trying to undo this injustice. If this kind of abuse and misuse of the Justice Department is allowed to stand, the country and the rule of law are in serious trouble. I have written two previous posts about the aggregation and consolidation of power in this administration. The first, on May 24, is about Bush's politicization of the justice system. The second, on February 9, documents Bush's signing statements as his administration builds his Imperial Presidency.

Love to Hate Hillary?

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:18:00 +0000

The current and insidious mythomania building around Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for U. S. President is a relatively new phenomenon compared to the virulent, decades old, and vicious fabrications directed at Hillary Clinton. Just a cursory browse on the web can find over a million sources accusing her of murder, burglary, adultery, lying, blasphemy, criminal intimidation, harassment, killing cats - even of being a communist, a sociopath, and a witch!.

There's no reasoning with these Clintonphobes. There's no changing these paranoid, psychotic mindsets. There's just no basis in reality.

The media is almost as bad. If Hillary speaks assertively, she's too shrill or she's a bitch. The standard joke is that if Obama has benefited from Black History Month, too bad there's not a White Bitch Month for Hillary! If she speaks moderately or with emotion, she's too feminine, too weak, or she's faking it. If she dresses conservatively, she's too masculine. If she doesn't, she's too provocative.

Her laugh is called a "cackle," her voice "grating." She's had way too many plastic surgeries (none of course, but how else can she look so good at 60!) Her hairstyles are criticized and her eyes are analyzed. In fact, watching her "evil" eyes is a favorite sport with her most rabid adversaries.

Even for more reasonable folks, she has to walk a very thin line between strength and vulnerability, masculinity and femininity, constraints that simply don't apply to men. She is criticized by some for being a feminist, others for not being one. She's either an extreme lefty or a pro-war hawk, godless or fundamentalist, a victim of Bill's affairs or an enabler. She's an opportunist, cold and calculating. Other candidates have "well run" campaigns, her's is the "Clinton machine." Negative connotations abound and surround her media coverage daily.

Worst of all, in the minds of many, she's brilliant and ambitious! (Qualities that are expected and admired in the men running against her.) How dare she!

Where does this stuff come from? Men, of course! NOT SO FAST! That cursory browse of the web reveals as many women (particularly professional women) Hillary haters as men. Why is that? In what way is she so threatening to other women? Some say they can't support her because she is too polarizing, too divisive (reinforced of course, by the other campaigns.) Isn't this just a more sophisticated version of the age-old tactic used against women - blame the victim?

Is it simply because she is a woman? Or a Clinton? Is it sexism or misogyny? 17th century Salem reincarnated? Where's the reason or logic for this level of malicious, personal character assignation? Isn't there a level of subconscious enmity underlying this phenomenon that makes it unfathomable - and all the more frightening?

Answers anyone?

Obama Bashing

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:33:00 +0000

(According to Cheney, the book is the Bible!)

I just received an email that said in caps, URGENT! READ THIS AND FORWARD TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS! DO IT NOW!!! HEED THIS AND PRAY!!!

So I read it--and couldn't believe it! The variety of false, bogus, and totally fabricated attacks on Senator Obama are too numerous to list. Besides, just describing them one more time would risk perpetuating the mythomania that's rampant out there. This email concluded with, "The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!" UNBELIEVABLE.

The falsehood most emphasized in the email and in a myriad of similar mythology on the web is that Obama was sworn into the U. S. Senate on the Koran, not the Holy Bible. It would have been totally appropriate if Obama was a Muslim and was sworn in on the Koran and I gave Congressman Keith Ellison enormous credit for the courage of his convictions when he did so (on a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson!)

However, it is well documented that Obama joined a Christian Church long before he ever ran for office in Illinois. It is also officially documented that when he was sworn in to the United States Senate by Vice President Cheney, his hand was on the Holy Bible. Check the official picture of that swearing in ceremony above.

Is this kind of insidious attack anti-black? Anti-Muslim? Or just plain anti-American? The tactic does reveal some knowledge of history - wasn't it the Nazis that taught us if you tell a lie often enough, they'll believe it?

It's time for reasonable, rational citizens to stand up against these kinds of lies. This stuff goes way beyond, "All's fair in love, war, and campaigning!" Recall the old adage, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing." Better yet, since religion is part of this myth, recall Dante's warning, "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

Signing Statements - Unconstitutional???

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:16:00 +0000

Bush Ignores Congress, Courts, and the Constitution!

Fact: On January 30, 2008, President Bush issued the latest of his now famous signing statements. This signing statement was attached to the military budget bill, which had four provisions Bush indicated that he will enforce only if he wants to. According to Bush, these provisions impinge on his constitutional powers.

The current provisions he signed statements against:

1. Authorizes a commission to investigate fraud and waste by military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the commission given the power to compel government officials to testify.

2. Provides protection from reprisal for those who expose such waste, fraud and abuse in military contracts.

3. Requires that intelligence officials provide requested military documents to Congress within 45 days or explain why they are being withheld.

4. Prevents money authorized by Congress for military purposes to be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

Bush has issued these signing statements for over 750 laws, including affirmative action provisions, 'whistle-blower' protections, torture bans, requirements for detailed reports to Congress on the Patriot Act, and protections against political interference in federally funded research. His justifications have been either that the law is unconstitutional or it encroaches on presidential power.

Far more that any previous president, Bush is concentrating executive power at the expense of Congress and the Courts. What happened to the Founding Fathers' carefully crafted balance of power? Have the Framers' "checks and balances" simply been cancelled?

Doesn't U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3 - The President, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," - mean anything anymore?

Doesn't U.S Constitution, Article l, Section 8 - The Congress shall have the power, "to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," "to declare war," "to make rules concerning captures on land and water," "to raise and support armies," "to make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces," "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia," - mean anything anymore?

Doesn't Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court's decision establishing the principal of judicial review (power to determine the constitutionality of a government action) for the Court, not the President, - mean anything anymore?

Check out the depth and breadth of Bush's actions. We owe it to "ourselves and our Posterity." Google "signing statements" and read about the decline of democracy as we have known it. The most thoroughly researched article was by Charlie Savage in the April 30, 2006, Boston Globe.

Through his myriad of signing statements, Bush has asserted all three governmental powers: to make, execute, and judge the laws. Is Bush the President who would be King? Is President Bush now, effectively, above the law? Are we headed for an imperial presidency? Will the next president willingly give back power to Congress and the Court - or continue the concentration of power?

The crisis here is not this specific signing statement or this particular president. Those of you who think this post is anti-Bush, consider how you'd react if this concentration of power is in the hands of - say President Hillary Clinton? The crisis is the future of our Constitution and the Rule of Law! Will anyone - Congress or Court or Citizens - check or roll-back this imbalance of power?

How NOT to Support Our Troops!

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:15:00 +0000

It’s all about talking the talk, but not walking the walk!

The most strident in the administration and Congress, who talk the loudest about supporting our troops, are the very same politicians who have failed to take the most important steps to support our troops and veterans.

Oh, no doubt, they all wear their lapel pins, bumper stickers, and yellow ribbons front and center. And they never fail to argue that those who question or criticize the war or the Commander in Chief are un-American and do not support the troops.

But let’s not forget. These same talkers and flag wavers sent our troops to war in Iraq without the armor and equipment they needed, skimped on veteran’s health care and buried access to benefits in a maze of bureaucracy. Disabled veterans wait months, even years, to get the disability payments due them. No walking all the "support" talk here.

These are the same vociferous folks that pay minimum base salaries to our troops, but award huge, no-bid contracts to mercenaries who then work along side our troops at 4 or 5 times the soldier’s salary and who do not have to follow any rules of engagement or conventions! How supportive is that?

The list of our talkers’ failures seems endless. Reservists and National Guard troops come home to find their guaranteed jobs not so guaranteed. An appalling new report from the Homeless Research Institute found almost half a million vets on the streets or in shelters in 2006, including 400 from the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Shocking barely describes the current CBS News report on veteran’s suicides. With data reported from 45 states, the report documented 6,256 veteran suicides in 2005. That’s 120 suicides each and every week that year and it’s twice the national average for the same age group.

So let’s just put it in perspective. The loudest talkers in support of our troops, in the administration and the Congress, have failed to walk even the first mile in support of our troops and veterans.

Worst of all, these strident supporters of our troops, in the administration and the Congress, have put in jeopardy the very rights and liberties that our troops believe they are paying the ultimate sacrifice for, fighting and dying to defend. Extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, torture, hiding detainees from international human rights groups, elimination of the writ of habeas corpus, wiretapping without warrant, disappearances in the middle of the night. These are Taliban and Saddam style offenses our troops believe they went to war to stop.

How demoralizing to find your own government engaged in the same kinds of violations of fundamental liberties you are fighting to prevent!

We need to review our civics lessons and our history. Remember the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The term unalienable (or inalienable) refers to rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power and cannot be surrendered. They are often called human rights or natural rights. Bush, Cheney, and Congress must have skipped class the day the Declaration was discussed and the terms liberty and inalienable were defined. How else could they pass the Military Commission Act that suspends habeas corpus?

Speaking of habeas corpus, remember the Constitution? It’s a relatively short document, worth rereading every so often to keep a fresh appreciation of the brilliance of the founders who waded through all the conflicts and turmoil to construct the best democracy ever! It’s interesting to recall that the founders considered the writ of habeas corpus so important, it is the only liberty included within the text of the Constitution: Article I. Section 9. Many of our current leaders must have slept through that civics lesson as well!

Congress should reread the constitution every so often to remind themselves that they are supposed to be a co-equal branch of government, owning their loyalty to the people (of, by, and for the people) and not to a political party. They are supposed to stand their ground (for us and our posterity) when the executive grabs excessive power, not cave in along party lines.

How about the Bill of Rights? That’s some very interesting reading and only 10 sentences long! Old fashioned phrases like unreasonable searches, warrants only upon probable cause, no compelling an individual to witness against oneself, due process, speedy and public trials, informed of the charges against oneself, right to counsel, no cruel or unusual punishment seem especially passé in today’s political climate of fear and the moral cowardice it has produced in our elected leaders.

Remember Benjamin Franklin? He’s the founding father who warned,
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Did Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 wipe our civic memory clean or did he understand us all too well?

Let’s push our leaders or elect new ones to walk the talk, pay our soldiers what they are worth, fix the neglect and bureaucratic snafus for veterans, and restore the liberties our troops are sacrificing to protect.

Retaliation is "Fair Game?"

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:10:00 +0000

New book, Fair Game, by Valerie Plame Wilson is a must read for anyone who has experienced the malicious and insidious sting of retaliation. The book is her account of the retaliation she received after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece in July 2003, challenging the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

To strike back at Joe Wilson for challenging the administration's use (or misuse) of intelligence reports to rationalize the unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq, President Bush's closest adviser Karl Rove announced that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was "fair game." Shortly afterward, her name was "leaked" and columnist Robert Novak blew her cover. Her career as a CIA covert operative vaporized instantly!

Following Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby's trial and conviction on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements about this vindictive outing of Valerie Plame, the judge sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison. No worries though, within hours of sentencing, President Bush commuted his sentence!

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson filed a civil lawsuit against administration officials and lost the first round in summary judgment. Hopefully they will be successful in their appeal of that decision. It affects all of us because it's the only way we will learn the truth about who did what, when, and why. It's the only way to teach the lessons that have to be learned and heeded in the future.

I also experienced devastating retaliation after filing a claim of job discrimination. I've described my experiences in my 2007 book, Plaintiff Blues. There is no question that my experiences pale in comparison to Valerie Plame's. However, there are many parallels in the two stories: the impact on careers, the family disruption, the horrendous legal costs, and the frustration of losing in summary judgment and being denied your day in court. I could not afford to appeal, but I'm optimistic the Wilson's will prevail in their appeal.

The most frightening similarity in the two stories is the chilling effect such retaliation has on others who might speak out or take a stand. There is no doubt that retaliation is a powerful and terribly effective weapon to use against people who chose to exercise their rights and freedoms. Retaliation is not fair game. Read Fair Game and root for the Wilson's, for all our sakes!

Real Cause of 35W Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:26:00 +0000

Tax cut obsession is the underlying cause of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, as well as the massive and pervasive trouble with much of America's aging infrastructure. That same obsession could also be called the mother of all political sell-outs. Tax cuts are popular in both political parties. Tax cuts are effective; tax cuts get votes and win elections. However, those tax-cutting politicians never tell you about the real costs of all those popular tax cuts.

Our public schools, roads, bridges, water and sewer systems - all the infrastructure we take for granted everyday - are old and aging across the country and yet we get more talk of tax cuts. When will we learn that there's no free lunch! Unfortunately, we cannot count on our elected officials to have the vision and courage to step up and do what's necessary. Their vision extends only as far as their next election and the ear-marked, ribbon-cutting pork projects necessary to win it.

Instead of pork-built bridges to nowhere, we need to fix the bridges we have. But to invest in the unnoticeable and far less glamorous work of maintaining and repairing the infrastructure that drives our way of life, elected officials will have to raise taxes and risk losing their next elections.

Only government repairs bridges. The estimate of overdue work on our infrastructure is three trillion dollars! How can government - state or federal - hope to repair our bridges or the rest of our aging infrastructure when all we hear is no new taxes, no tax increases or promises of hefty new tax cuts?

The 35W bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis was deemed to have significant deficiencies in a 2005 inspection. It's two years later, yet no major structural repair or replacement has even been scheduled. We need to understand the bottom line behind the tax-cutting, anti-government rhetoric. There are some things only government can do.

Greatest Threat to American Way of Life

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:06:00 +0000

The greatest threat to our American values and way of life is not Osama Bin Laden or his terrorists. Unless they secure and deploy nuclear weapons, their threats are very limited in scope and impact. Yes, their attacks are tragic and we will never forget 9/11. However, those kinds of attacks pose no danger to our national security or our way of life.

Step back and think about it! It is not Osama that has taken away our right to privacy, our protection against warrant-less searches, our right to to counsel when accused, our right to face our accusers, our rights against self-incrimination (torture?), our rights to a trial by a jury of our peers, our protection against cruel and unusual punishment, or the writ of habeas corpus. We have taken these rights and liberties from ourselves - or allowed the administration to do it to us with hardly a wimper of protest. Don't the terrorists ultimately win the war when they produce in us such a gutless panic that we allow these fundamental rights to be eliminated?

Bush's Supreme Court Says OK to Pay Women Less

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:09:00 +0000

All an employer has to do to get away with paying women less for the same work done by men is keep it secret for 180 days! That's the effect of the recent Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. According to the May 29 NYT, Lilly Ledbetter's salary was initially the same as the men doing the same work. Over time, she received smaller raises than the men and by the time she realized the disparity and sued, her salary fell short by 40%. However, she was past the 180 day deadline (from the time her pay was set) in Title VII for filing a complaint.

A Federal District Court and the EEOC supported Ledbetter's claim of pay discrimination, but the Bush Administration disavowed the EEOC's position and filed a brief on the side of the employer, saying Ledbetter could not bring suit because she had past the 180 day deadline. Where have we heard this before? When has a Bush ever supported a victim of discrimination or taken a stand against discrimination in general? In this case, the two 43 appointees - Roberts and Alito, and Thomas - the 41 appointee, joined Scalia and Kennedy - both Reagan appointees, for the 5 to 4 majority. Isn't there a pattern here? The last three Republican presidents created this majority!

NCLB: A Huge Mistake

noreply@blogger.com (jp) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:16:00 +0000

NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was passed to close the achievement gap. That goal is laudable and long overdue. However, the high-stakes testing dictated by NCLB as the way to tackle the problem is a disaster. It stifles the imagination and inspiration of teachers, narrows the curriculum, drains sparse resources of public schools, and crushes the spirits of the very students it is intended to help.

Perhaps the biggest problem with NCLB is that it ignores the growing level of poverty in this country that is the underlying cause of the achievement gap. Testing doesn't provide jobs, living wages, health insurance and other basics that are the foundations of strong families and of hope. We can't test hungry or hurting kids into achievement anymore than we can bomb totalitarian societies into democracy.

I recommend 4 books that shed light on the issues surrounding the high stakes testing approach of NCLB and its failure to address the pervasive poverty that affects the achievement of too many of our children in too many of our public schools. David Berliner's books, The Manufactured Crisis and Collateral Damage reveal the costs of our over-reliance on and over-interpretation of testing. The costs are far greater that financial. Jonathan Kozol's books Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nation will take you inside these impoverished neighborhood schools and leave you wondering, "How can this be in America?" How can mandated, costly, high-stakes testing do anything but exacerbate these kinds of problems?