It's All About the Corporate Benjamins, Baby: Education, a.k.a., My 2010 Year in Review Post

(This has been cross-posted at Rachel's Rants Raves & Recollections.)

During 2010, thanks to the work of Lawrence Lessig and Chris Hedges, I became much more aware of the unhealthy corporate influence in American democratic institutions. I put aside my creative writing to launch a series of posts on my more general blog on the topic. I wrote about corporate money in politics and government, after which I took a break to write about the VA-07 congressional election, writing, and journalism, and to start a blog dedicated to education. I've intended to regularly update my food blog, as well, but the best laid plans. . .

Right before the Christmas holiday, I completed a piece about Teach For America, which I am hoping will be published somewhere bigger (not likely, I know). In the meantime, I was going to use winter break and the grandparental child care that comes with it to write, blog, publish, write, blog, publish. However, as I tried to organize my thinking about the present and future of journalism, of writing as a profession, of teaching as a profession, of public education, and of efforts to reform education, the topics all swirled together to form a toxic sludge of anxiety that, helped along by my kids' germs, rendered me existentially and then physically ill. As miserable as it was, being sick forced me to take a step back and ignore all of it for a number of days. From this pause grew a less fevered end-of-year collection of thoughts about the confluence of corporate influence and public education.

I am vulnerable to conspiracy theorizing about what's currently happening in the name of education reform, and I understand why others are, too--I think, in fact, that democracy benefits from this type of push back. Are the reforms of wealthy and politically connected individuals harmful to the institution of public education? I have said on my education blog and continue to say: yes, that in many cases they are. But are those folks sitting around together and villainously hatching some grand scheme to bring down public education? No, that's way too simplistic of an explanation for what's going on. Furthermore, I'm doubtful that describing problems with their efforts in terms of a conspiracy is productive. The problem with talking like a conspiracy theorist, even if there's at least some truth to what's being said, is that you're likely to be dismissed by the very people you need to be taken seriously by. In that vein, it is equally hysterical and irresponsible to cast teachers and teachers unions as the villainous "deep-pocketed" (ha!) root of all of our nation's problems or even as the root of our education system's problems, or as sitting around conspiring to ruin children's lives because they only care about the "adults." Unfortunately, these seem to be prevailing narratives these days.

Teachers' unions may defend some people who don't deserve defending and they may make mistakes, and yes, there are educators out there who aren't doing their jobs and yes, teachers need fair and rigorous evaluations, but as a group, teachers and their unions are not responsible for how our society has failed us over the past year. Did teachers unions cause twenty-seven plus percent of America's children to live in poverty? No. Have teachers and their unions driven up heath care costs? Do they deny coverage and care to our the most vulnerable among us? Nope. Did teachers and their unions cause our economic system to melt down? No, that was another group of professionals. Did teachers and their unions go start costly and futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did teachers and their unions create a criminal justice system that disproportionately and often unjustly imprisons poor people and minorities? No, they aren't behind such travesties. Did teachers and their unions fail to recognize the impending dangers of climate change and then sabotage legislation meant to lessen the havoc it's going to reap? No. It's not been teachers or their unions that have done all of these things, but our political leaders, policies, and system. And who is now clearly behind those? Not a bunch of middle class educators, but business, financial, industrial, and corporate interests.

While I don't believe that there is some evil master plan being hatched by the likes of DFER (Democrats for Education Reform), Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and the Waltons, their influence is unhealthy, undemocratic, and dangerous. Teachers unions and organizations like the National Education Association at least are accountable to the systems and large numbers of people they represent, systems and people whose work and studies will be most affected by the reforms being brought. Whom do DFER, Gates, Broad, and the Waltons represent? To whom are they accountable? Were they elected? Since when should a handful of unelected, extraordinarily wealthy people be entrusted to represent the interests of millions of poor, working, and middle class people?

Two of the most egregious examples of corporate influence in education are in higher education. As there is less public funding of public universities, wealthy patrons such as the Koch brothers are stepping in to establish "institutes" that put out research and teachings that serve not the interests of citizens, but the interests of the industries they own. In medical schools and schools of public health, much research on drugs and treatments traditionally funded by public monies is now funded and supervised by the very pharmaceutical companies who stand to reap profits from their successful trials.

In K-12 education, there are not as many cases of such overt conflicts of interest, but I'm afraid we're moving in that direction.  Gates, Broad, and the Waltons support market-based reforms that would include mayoral takeovers, vast expansion of charter schools (which are public schools that can be run in some instances as private institutions), the de-professionalization of teaching, and CEO-like leadership of schools and school systems, and they are pouring money into the system to see such reforms actualized. Influential organizations with deceptively neutral-sounding names such as right-wing ideologue Jeanne Allen's Center for Education Reform directly promote privatizing our public education system. As they already have in New York City Public Schools, test prep companies such as Kaplan (which is owned by the pro-corporate education reform Washington Post) stand to make millions from the new education reformers' policies which rely heavily on standardized tests.

As public schools are being told by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to do "more with less" and as school budgets are being reduced and reduced and stimulus money runs out, with no enthusiasm for alternative means of raising revenues, the private sector is stepping to fill in the gaps often with strings attached, shaping our education system to their liking, whether its largesse benefits its supposed recipients or not. What's about to happen in Los Angeles Unified School District is only the tip of the iceberg.

An example of private takeover of public schools already in progress is in DC. The DC Public Education Fund is privately run on private donations with no public oversight, and very little of the money that's raised goes directly into the DC Public Schools' budget or is dispersed by those appointed to run the schools; yet, the fund directly influences outcomes in public schools. For example, the organization funded IMPACT, DC's controversial new evaluation system, teacher bonuses, as well as the infamous new contracts with teachers. During the negotiations, then-Chancellor Rhee stated that if she wasn't going to be around later, aka, if Adrian Fenty didn't get re-elected, that the money raised for the teacher contracts would go, too. That is a clear example of private interests using private money to influence public elections and public policy. When public money is used to fund public schools, such blackmail can't take place, at least not legally. Much more democratic would be for the wealthy individuals who are behind such efforts to be taxed appropriately with the tax revenues funding social and educational programs vetted by democratically elected and appointed officials.

The Gates Foundation and the DC Public Education Fund have their hands in many places, and surely, not all of them are harmful to public education, but when I read Gates's thoughts and ideas about education, for example in these interviews about teaching in Parade and Newsweek, I'm horrified. (I'm also horrified about what such coverage means about the state of education journalism, but that's another story.) Not only has Gates not been elected or appointed by an elected official, he speaks simplistically and ignorantly about education even just at the level of basic facts, and his ideas have not been shown to work or improve the systems they impact.

While Eli Broad is no right-wing ideologue, his private education foundation and school leadership training centers have profound impacts on the public systems they're meant to reform. This New Yorker article about Eli Broad's influence in the Los Angeles art world is very instructive on Broad's approach to philanthropy. Broad has good intentions and interesting ideas, enlarging the arts scene in LA and making art exhibitions more accessible, for example. But he doesn't simply give money directly to art institutions or entrust the experts with funding; rather, he has to own and control the institutions, even if that means promoting poor practices or destroying the institutions. I can only imagine that a similar dynamic occurs in the Broads' education philanthropies.

If Gates, Broad, the Waltons, and the hedge funders behind DFER weren't rich, would they be listened to? Why are they being listened to now? Why are such a small group of extraordinarily wealthy individuals allowed to wield so much power and control over education policy? This is at the expense of democracy. Obama has rightly stated grave concerns with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. Why is he not concerned with big money in our public education system? Why does he, in fact, welcome it? Is corporate influence any less problematic in the halls of our schools than it is in our halls of government?

One need not launch ad hominem attacks, speak of ethical dilemmas, or list the hypocrises of these education reformers. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation and educational ideology, can agree that our great nation was founded on the ideals of democracy. Corporate money and influence in our public democratic institutions, especially in our public schools, corrodes and corrupts our democracy. Anti-democratic forces are un-American. A healthy democracy requires a well and publicly financed, equitable public education system. Unfortunately, that's not what the Obama administration and the particular education reformers they throw their support behind are going to produce. Unchecked private and corporate influence in our public education system is as big a threat to our democracy as the unchecked corporate influence is to our political system. In fact, they are one in the same. Our public schools should no more belong to Gates, Broad, Bush, or any DFER member as they do to any taxpayer and any citizen; it is from them we must take our country, our democracy, and our schools back.


UPDATE 1/6/11: Too bad I didn't see this brilliant piece by writer Joanne Barkan before I posted this. I could have saved myself the trouble--it's a much better, more comprehensive piece on the problems with education philanthropy than anything I have ever written. Read it in Dissent Magazine or in truthout.

Christmas Cheer

This a very clever use of the iPad from Torchbox - a digital design, software development and social media company.



A Starry Night from Torchbox on Vimeo.

Happy Solstice

Today we read my favorite book about the first day of winter, called The Shortest Day:  Celebrating The Winter Solstice.  I love how it told of the different ways the world has celebrated and recorded this particular seasonal change.  The illustrations were beautiful, and there are actual experiments noted in the back, like measuring the length of a shadow like the Chinese did over 3,000 years ago.

We were lucky enough to have a dusting of snow, and a snowball fight!

We sang the Birthday Celebration song, with a twist ending for today.  If you have a candle and a globe, you can travel while you sing.  Be sure the child only travels 1/4 of the way around the sun, one trip around would be one year.

The Earth goes 'round the sun
The Earth goes 'round the sun


It takes twelve months, fifty-two weeks, three hundred sixty-five days.
And now it's winter (we ring a bell, our favorite from the Christmas Tree).

Here is a link to a wonderful site about this day:

www.candlegrove.com/solstice.html

Shaving Cream Fun

We love this!  Simply squeeze some while shaving cream (we like the pretty scents) onto a tray and add a few drops of gel food coloring.  A fun sensorial experience.  When the shaving cream dried out, it kept its shape, and made lovely colors on the paper.

src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4972834400_a736e62039_m.jpg" alt="Artists and Art" />
src="http:>

Our Environment (as it evolves)

I realized that I have not posted pictures of our little classroom yet.  We do not have all of the typical Montessori materials, yet we have what we need as this room is not our child's only school experience.  The collection will build over time, I'm making new things every week.  It is very different from school, as the classroom areas are mixed, yet ordered.  This is was is out every day, but I often pull out items for special occasions or unit studies. 

View from the child's level

view from my height

This is where we keep puzzles, and our sets basket

Under this couch we keep the movable alphabet (so the tots don't tear it apart).  I keep special books out, relative to the time of year on the ottoman.  Looks like I left my water on the floor...

Is Michelle Rhee Truly Putting Students First?

Last week, Michelle Rhee took the next logical step of a bona fide revolutionary: she announced her new position as a lobbyist on "Oprah" and in Newsweek magazine.  Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post, Trip Gabriel of The New York Times, and Alan Gottlieb of Education News Colorado summarize well Rhee's intentions, but in brief, Students First, a non-profit political organization of parents, students, and teachers, will advocate for:

• taking on special interests, such as teachers' unions,
• "smart" spending on instructional programs,
• encouraging parental involvement,
• "excellent" schools for every child,
• getting talented teachers in every classroom,
• dismantling teacher tenure and seniority-based incentives,
• merit pay for teachers,
• vouchers,
• using standardized tests to evaluate teachers, and
• firing the bottom five to ten percent of teachers.

These ideas are not novel ones and as I outline below, aren't likely to be successful in helping school children.

I should have known from her appearance on the "Colbert Report" the week before that Rhee was warming up for this blitz. I had rather hoped that she would fade into the woodwork of conservative think tanks and empty motivational speech giving, but no such luck. Rhee has always talked about how she wants what's best for children and how our current public education system is designed for what's best for the adults, but I don't see how her policies, which I detailed here and on The Washington Post website here, are best for school children. Also, don't fairly common instances of union ineptitude plus low pay and poor working conditions for many public school educators refute the claim that the system is currently working well for the adults?

One thing I neglected to add in my critique of her tenure at DCPS were the exceedingly high rates of teacher turnover and attrition, often caused by low morale, mass firings, and budget problems. For example, the RIF of October 2009 caused terrible disruptions and chaos. There were classrooms without teachers, students without necessary classes, and schools without counselors. Consolidating freshmen and seniors in the same English class, cancelling foreign language courses, and having elementary school students start over in October with a new or no teacher can hardly be good for those students or serve as an example of "smart" spending. Rhee was not known for her fiscal competence, to say the least.

Rhee claims that this is the first organization to advocate for children, but that's just not true, and saying as much is an insult to child advocates and parents everywhere. What about the work of organizations like Voices for America's Children and the Children's Defense Fund? And what of parents and parent groups? Does she think public school parents like me join the PTA to advocate for ourselves? Because we like to attend tedious meetings and peddle wrapping paper? Was Michelle Rhee active in the PTA at Harlem Park Elementary where she taught in Baltimore or at Oyster Elementary where her own children attend in DC?

Rhee says that she should have communicated and expressed herself better in DC, but as NYU education historian Diane Ravitch explains," it is hard to think of any figure in the world of American education who had as much media attention as she has had over the past three years. Certainly, she did not lack for opportunities to communicate." In fact, a famous Rhee-ism is that "collaboration and consensus are way over-rated." Her problem was not that she didn't communicate, but rather, that she does not collaborate. How can she engage parents in the process of education reform if she doesn't believe in collaborating with them?

When she talks about "excellent" schools for each child, what she is getting at is choice, which means charters and vouchers. I am still forming my opinions on charters, but for now I'll concede that while I prefer magnets, charters can be valuable, but only when they are community-based, feature rich and challenging curricula, are kept on a short leash, and don't supplant neighborhood-based options. More on this topic later, but for now these pieces in the New York Review of Books, Miller-McCune, and The Wall Street Journal show why charters are not the panacea Rhee thinks they are. As for vouchers, public money should not be funding religious and private schools. Period. Furthermore, the expansion of charters and vouchers will not be successful as a long-term strategy for reforming public education, especially if they move a public system in the direction of privatization. Why doesn't Rhee, instead, raise money to directly fund financial aid and scholarships for needy kids who want to attend private and religious schools? 

Michelle Rhee is a firm believer that talent and not practice makes the teacher. She stated that newly hired teachers are probably superior to veterans, because they'd be more innovative and creative. First of all, she's already stated that she doesn't value creativity; she once said, "Creativity is good and whatever. But if the children don’t know how to read, I don’t care how creative you are. You’re not doing your job." Second of all, studies have shown that teachers from TFA, and this could probably extend to NTP teachers as well, are not more effective and that they're costly, particularly because they leave the profession so quickly. Finally, firing the bottom five to ten percent of teachers would be risky. How would the bottom five to ten percent be determined? By test scores? I don't agree with that. Would doing this actually lead to higher quality teaching and education? After reading this, I'm dubious we can fire our way to educational greatness.

As for Rhee's emphasis on standardized tests and improved evaluations of teachers, while teachers do need a fair and rigorous evaluation system, standardized test scores shouldn't be part of the equation, and should only be used to glean information about students. Merit pay based on test scores isn't fair and it doesn't work. The use of value-added measures doesn't matter--those are equally problematic.  Her own evaluation system, IMPACT, is flawed and statistically faulty. Finally, while seniority-based lay-offs are problematic, the alternatives she advocates for don't seem to be any less so.

Isn't it ironic that in order to take on these "heavily funded special interests," Rhee is creating one herself? (And I'm sorry but, "textbook companies"? I don't disagree with this on some level, but what of other bigger and better funded actors in the education marketplace? Or do they not count as special interests when they're headed by Rhee's mentor or align with her interests?) Michelle Rhee and her initiatives have the backing of some of the wealthiest people in the country.  I find it troubling that she feels the need to spin her initiatives via a PR firm, the same one that she used as DC schools chancellor. She is her own heavily-funded special interest! The last thing our children, our public schools, and our besieged democracy needs is yet another corporate-backed lobbying organization headed by a politically inept it girl with a stated disdain for democratic principles and processes. And where would the money raised by Students First go? To politicians and political campaigns, not to schools and not to children. As I have written about here, more big money in our political system is a problem, not a solution.

To her credit, I do think that Michelle Rhee believes that she is doing what's best for children, that she has good intentions. The problem is that she is not actually doing what's best for children. More and more, Michelle Rhee, seems to be suffering from a blinding and pathological narcissism, the kind that develops from excessive media attention and intensive rationalizing. As I study and observe Rhee, I am reminded of other ideologically-driven political leaders who in the face of a crisis do great wrong in the name of right. Especially instructive in understanding Michelle Rhee's cult of personality is Jeffrey Toobin's recent profile in The New Yorker of Rachel Yould, an extraordinarily bright and talented young woman who in her quest for fame and socially useful significance manages to con even the smartest and most altruistic of actors, not to mention herself, securing funding and resources for herself that would be better and more justly spent on the causes of those more sincerely and urgently in need of them. 

If Michelle Rhee truly wants to put students first then she should put aside her bankrupt ideology, her failing policies, and her monstrous ego and let the real needs of America's public school children come first. She would be my hero if she would change course and, quite simply, raise money that would go directly to helping poor children. As a former public school student and teacher and one of the public school parents she is trying to engage, I'm asking her to truly put our children, and the future of the communities they so desperately need, first.

Fili-Bernie

I've officially given this blog over to Bernie Sanders. Well, not really. But I can't think of an issue more fundamental in defining who we are as Americans and more important to our nation's economic and educational future than what Bernie discussed in his old-school, non-filibuster filibuster on Friday. Economic justice -- along with sensible tax policy -- is something too few on Capitol Hill and too few Americans care to consider. But it's centrally related to the future educational outcomes of our people -- research shows that socioeconomic factors are more important even than teacher quality, a frequent topic of my posts and a central feature of my professional work.

I note that former Labor Secretary and current Berkeley professor Robert Reich, in his Twitter feed (@RBReich) today, backs up a point I made about these proposed tax cuts being a precursor to Republican efforts to launch an assault on domestic spending and entitlements -- using the federal budget deficit made so much worse by these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires as their rationale.

I said: "I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized."

Reich wrote: "$900 b tax cut w/ lion's share for rich explodes deficit and makes future domestic discretionary spending sitting duck for R cuts."

Yes, folks. This isn't just about tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is but a front in the war to reduce the size of government regardless of its collateral damage to Americans who need government the most.

Economic inequality is already at an all-time high in this country -- even higher than prior to the start of the Great Depression. Our educational system only has a finite amount of power to overcome such overwhelming inequities. If these forces are left unchecked, it may become an impossible job, especially as education programs themselves may fall victim to all-too-easily-predictable budget cuts.

The rich, on the the other hand, will continue to party like it's 1929. Only the party's even better this time 'round. So much for the national economy being a collective good.

Mama Stories: Following The Child

The one thing all Montessorians have in common is that they "Follow The Child" in their teaching and in their parenting.

Just recently, I was happy I listened to my instincts and followed my child.  One of my tots is terrified of man dressed as Santa.  Happy from a distance, a wave at the mall has her enchanted.  However, she snuggled in tight to Daddy when it was her turn.  I know many parents that would have her 'toughen up' and just sit for the picture.  I do not feel for my child that is was worth it.  Little Sarah was just as happy to wave from afar, and our listening to her request saved her the stress of being frightened for a simple photograph.  She is still talking about how amazing it was for Santa to wave to her!  That was one parenting moment where I followed my child.  On the way home, we were both thankful that we knew enough to let her be.  How about you?

Feel free to comment here and share your Follow The Child story.

Versatile Blogger Award!

Award Rules:
1. Thank the person who gave you this award.  Thank you, Leann at Montessori Tidbits!
2. Share 7 things about yourself.
3. Pass the award along to 10 bloggers who you have recently discovered and who you think are fantastic for whatever reason! (in no particular order…)
4. Contact the bloggers you’ve picked and let them know about the award.

7 things about myself

I love my new school so much I keep pinching myself, is this real?

If one more stranger asks me about my twins, I may pass them a pamphlet on zygosity.

I get so much stress relief from making new materials, there goes yoga!

I should probably get back into yoga.

My children are so different from one another, it is such a gift.

I want Santa to bring me a laminator, really- I've been good all year.

I'm thankful for my parents, the best babysitters in the world.

And now passing it on....

Twig And Toadstool 

The Adventures of Bear 

My Delicious Ambiguity 

Littlest Birds Studio 

Living Creatively 

Our Montessori Home 

The Work Plan 

Confessions Of A Montessori Mom 

Little Acorn Learning 

P.S. Montessori 

Cookie Decoration Party!

I feel that no words are necessary here :)

A Conversation About the Future of Public Education in Virginia

(This has been cross-posted at Blue Virginia.)

Upon prompting from the blog Blue Virginia, on Tuesday evening, December 7th, I journeyed to Richmond's Southside to attend a panel entitled, "A Conversation About the Future of Public Education" co-hosted by The Greater Jefferson Davis Community Association and Policy Diary and featuring Virginia politician George Allen and former Democratic Party of Virginia Chair Paul Goldman.

In his opening and later remarks, George Allen said the two most important services a state government can provide are law enforcement and education and he described his role in establishing the SOLs (Standards of Learning) in Virginia, which he emphasized go beyond the NCLB requirements of reading and math to include science, social studies, and writing. Allen mentioned the importance of innovation (charter schools!), of accountability (high-stakes standardized testing!), and of limiting federal intrusion into education (states' rights!).

Paul Goldman talked about the challenges facing the public education system in Virginia, and particularly in the city of Richmond, where he said the poverty rate is twice that of the state of Mississippi. He also talked about the need for an honest discussion about education, that even though most Virginia schools are accredited and the graduation rate is rising, that the standards have been dumbed down and that high school graduates are not prepared for jobs, for college, or for service in the military. He made reference to Richmond education reporter Chris Dovi's recent article in Richmond Magazine, which I discussed in a prior post. Finally, he railed against the for-profit higher education industry and praised the Obama administration's efforts to reign it in. He also hailed Obama as the strongest ever president on education reform.

Audience consensus didn't dispute the need for accountability and standardized tests, but was clearly troubled by the high-stakes piece. High stakes testing and the SOLs have lead to dumbed down, test-centered curricula, to a focus on testing and measuring at the expense of quality teaching and meaningful learning, causing the standards to become the default curricula and not the basis of them. There was some mention of charter schools, but it seemed to be more along the lines of, let's replicate what Geoffrey Canada is doing in our public schools, rather than let's wholesale replace neighborhood schools with charters.

I have lived and voted in central Virginia as a Democrat for almost eight of the past ten years. I was surprised and impressed with George Allen's ease, curiosity, and ability to listen (damn, that guy is likable!). Paul Goldman's commentary was refreshingly honest, encyclopedic, and astute. Neither of them, though, seemed to get how NCLB has negatively affected Virginia's curricula. Allen seemed genuinely baffled to hear of the community's critiques of the SOLs. While Goldman understood, and proffered even, that students weren't being adequately prepared, he seemed clueless about how the policies of NCLB, and now of the Obama administration, may have led to this.

I appreciated that Allen and Goldman did not fall prey to the politically expedient teacher and school bashing that is all the rage now, but like so many other politicians, Democrats, national journalists, and even citizens, they seemed to take for granted that George W. Bush and now Obama and Duncan were fixing K-12. There was no suggestion of questioning or examining their policies, no connecting of the dots between educational outcomes and the policies (NCLB) that have certainly played a role in producing them.

There was also talk, both from the panelists and audience members, about our not being able to "compete" with China and India. I'm sure this was in part in light of the recent PISA results. I won't comment too much on this as So Educated blogger Alice Ginsburg has already done so eloquently here. While I'm not one for chest thumping, I'll concede that we need to "compete" and "perform," and that there are certainly aspects of China's culture that are worth emulating, but their lack of a free and open society is not one of them. Although the attendees were articulate, passionate, and informed, the event was not that well attended and I, age thirty-seven, was among the younger attendees. Yes, we want our young citizens to go on to excel and innovate in math and science, but we also want them to have the desire to attend events such as these, to know the importance of debate and of being part of an active, informed, and articulate citizenry who holds our political leaders accountable and pushes them to advocate for the needs and rights of the people they represent. We want them to focus not simply on the solutions our politicians give us, but to be a critical part of the process of forming them. And while it may be challenging to test and measure that, it's downright un-American not to teach it. Our education policies must not emphasize testing and measuring at the expense of a vibrant democracy.

I thank the hosts for holding the event and I ask them for the sake of our democracy and of our public schools to keep 'em coming.

Print Shop Giveaway!

This is exciting.  Montesssori Print Shop is hosting a giveway at their site!  Simply comment at the link for a chance to get a pdf worth $300.

Click Here:  Montessori Print Shop Giveaway

Bernie Sanders

Vermont's U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is a hero for speaking truth to power, something he has been doing his entire life, regardless of whether it's been politically popular. He's one of the few public officials who has entered the U.S. Senate chamber and not become co-opted by it. Now, I may be biased as a former Vermonter who watched his rise from third-party also-ran to mayor of Burlington to U.S. congressman to U.S. senator. Bernie is genuine, he is forthright, perhaps a bit holier than thou at times. He is the real deal.

Check out his 13-minute speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate on November 30, 2010 providing a compelling and detailed analysis of historic economic inequality in America and the duplicity of Republicans talking woefully about the national debt and budget deficit one minute and pushing as their top priority tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires that would break the bank the next. Sanders is one of the few national leaders making any sense today and putting economic inequality and proposed tax breaks into historical context. It's probably because he is one of the few that actually cares.

On Saturday, we watched as Republicans voted in lockstep against two alternatives to extending the Bush-era tax cuts to all Americans regardless of income. One proposal would have extended tax cuts to all families first $250,000; another to all families' first million. Even millionaires and billionaires would have continued to enjoy lower taxes on some of their income. Alas, why should the rich settle for half a loaf?

Who else thinks that the current policy debate over tax policy in Washington is absolutely insane? Not enough of us. One who does is Noble Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who in the New York Times on December 3, 2010, laid much of the blame on President Obama:

It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right.

Sad, but true.

I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized. [UPDATE: The deal is a "budget buster." (The Atlantic)]

Now, there are would-be Democrats who are in denial and are not considering this likely outcome at all. Rather than reserving their scorn for Republican tax policy, they are attacking progressive Democrats and the likes of Bernie Sanders. Shame on them.

Over Thanksgiving weekend, the President suffered a split lip in a pick-up basketball game. How I wish he were as willing to put his body on the line for economic fairness as he was for a rebound!

I am encouraged that Senator Sanders has expressed a willingness to use the filibuster to put the breaks on extending tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. God knows that Republicans have used the filibuster -- or the threat of one -- for dozens of nefarious purposes, including preventing extensions of unemployment insurance, regulation of Wall Street, and recently more rationale tax cut extension proposals. Imagine! A progressive willing to stand up for what's right and not "punt on third down," to use the words of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.

At this time, I couldn't be more disappointed in President Obama. I have always been a political realist, voting for the "least bad" candidate when necessary, and a life-long Democrat. I honestly don't know what I might do in 2012. I literally couldn't sleep the other night, I was so angry. Maybe it's time to follow Robert Reich's lead and form a "Peoples' Party."

Rhetorically, President Obama is making the same mistake over and over again, putting bipartisanship ahead of smart public policy. I am not criticizing the President because I wrongly fancied him a liberal. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was one of his chief campaign pledges for Chrissakes! I'm criticizing him on the substance of the issue, for walking away from a campaign promise (without fighting for it), and for making the same tactical mistake he made during the health care battle: working feverishly to assemble a bipartisan coalition for health care reform when there was no real willingness among Republicans to meet in the middle. In the current case, he horse-traded away a key campaign plank and agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts for two years plus deeper estate tax cuts, while only receiving a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and one year of payroll tax cuts.

I'll give the New York Times the last word. In this morning's editorial, it writes:

President Obama’s deal with the Republicans to extend all the Bush-era income tax cuts is a win for the Republicans and their strategy of obstructionism and a disappointing retreat by the White House....

The Republicans gave up very little except for their unconscionable stance of holding up all other Congressional action until they ensured that the richest Americans keep their tax cuts.

Fantastic Friday

Update:  This post as been featured on Living Montessori Now!!

We were so excited to have some Christmas items on our shelves this week!  The first thing she did is ask for a photo with her shelf.  I love Friday afternoons, because big sis and I are alone (and snuggling) while the twins are napping.  The top is a baster transfer, with water.  Color wheel watercolor transfer, link below.  Montessori Pink level word work, with our new movable alphabet.  Such focused work!

The color wheel work is free!  Visit the blog,  Mama Jenn.

After naps, Bean showed the tots what was new.  We found snowflake transfer, water squeezing, and a new open and close activity- full of holiday cheer!!

Happy to be linked up with:

Metal Insets, Lesson and Suggested Order

 

Metal Insets

Area

General~ Language

Specific~ Motor Preparation

Materials

¶  Two trays of geometric shapes

¶  Ten metal insets and frames

¶  Tray

¶  Three pencils

¶  Metal Inset Paper

Aims

Direct~

Development of eye hand coordination

To gain mastery over control of small movements

Develop control of a pencil

Develop a geometric sense

Stimulate artistic sensibilities

Develop ability to a plan a design

Indirect~

Preparation for writing

Indirect preparation for geometry

Preparation

¶  Chalkboard activities

¶  Practical life and sensorial activities

 

Age

First year Montessori student

 

Presentation of Lesson

¶  Choose tray, three pencils, paper, and metal inset frame and bring to table

¶  1.  Trace the inset holding the inset with sub dominant hand, stopping at the point in which you began (2 o’clock)

¶  Use both sides of the paper

¶  2.  Draw lines inside top to bottom and then left to right

¶  3.  For Cursive preparation, start at the top and go to the bottom, tracing along the inset line before going back up again

Work of the Teacher

Points of Emphasis

¶  Begin with circular shapes

¶  Show a good pincer grip

¶  Start at 2 o’clock

¶  Hold inset or frame with sub dominant hand

¶  Reinforce top to bottom and left to right

 

Language

¶  Color of pencils

¶  Shape you choose

Points of Interest

¶  Shapes

¶  Tracing a shape

¶  Colors of pencils

¶  Making a design

Work of the Child

Points of Conscious

¶  Pressure of pencil

¶  Writing is a mechanical skill

 

Control of Error

¶  Frame and inset

¶  Teacher

Variations

¶  Change colors

Extensions

¶  Change shapes

¶  Use the blue inset to trace instead

¶  Turn the shape

¶  Make a book

¶  Sewing the design

¶  Embellishment