Real Educational Reform

The assault on teachers unions has historically driven educational reform in North America. The claim that our education system is failing due to bad teachers, bureaucratic public education etc. has led the move towards so called market reforms in education; merit pay and charter schools to name two favorite right wing bugaboos.

However the reality is that in North America public education is generalized unless you are destined to go to university. Graduating from High School gives you a generalized diploma, worth nothing to employers. If you qualify as a potential candidate for a university education you get put into that track. That high school diploma is not generalized, and allows you to enter university post secondary education, if you can afford it.

All other forms of post secondary education; college and trades education, which actually educate/train students for the world of work are not tracked. They are in Europe and Asia which is why they beat out our students. Its not a matter of knowing more math or science but of having access to educated embedded job learning, apprenticeship opportunities beginning in high school and transitioning to post-secondary technical schools.

What’s the problem? The fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized society that relies so heavily on its higher education system to help young people get from the end of compulsory schooling into the workforce with the knowledge and skills to be successful in today’s economy. Despite the fact that nearly all young people now say that they want to go to college and that increasing percentages of high school graduates are in fact enrolling in college, our college completion rate is stuck at about 40 percent. Many organizations are now focused on the challenge of how to increase our college completion rate and have set a very aggressive target of 55 percent by 2025.

But even if this very ambitious improvement goal were to be reached, what is our strategy for getting the other 45 percent of young people the skills and credentials they will need to get launched on a career path that can enable them to earn a family-supporting wage and lead a productive life? This is the big question our report raises, and that you barely acknowledge.

In our search for answers, we draw heavily on two recently published Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) studies that bring important international evidence and experience to bear on the problem we cite, but you never even acknowledge this major section of our report. We point out that throughout Northern Europe from the age of 16 between 40 and 70 percent of young people enroll in programs that combine classroom and workplace learning, have significant employer involvement, and prepare students for careers in a wide range of occupations, not just the traditional trades.

SEE

Obama Embraces Neo-Con Agenda

Losing the Future

President Obama wanted to be the Education President, with his State of the Union speech entitled Winning the Future. Where he said;"Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact."

Here is the sound of Air America crashing:

Rhode Island school district issues pink slips to nearly 2,000 teachers in effort to deal with massive budget deficit

Guess they missed the Presidents State of the Union speech when he said;

If we take these steps – if we raise expectations for every child, and
give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day
they’re born until the last job they take – we will reach the goal I
set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again
have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

See this is what happens when Republicans sweep local elections, grab governorships and state houses and legislatures, when they say spending cuts they mean attack on public sector workers and services, and in the final end union busting.

In his letter to the entire school department, republished in The Providence Journal, Brady wrote, "Since the full extent of the potential cuts to the school budget have yet to be determined, issuing a dismissal letter to all teachers was necessary to give the mayor, the School Board and the district maximum flexibility to consider every cost savings option."

Ah ha flexibility, that means instead of laying off the teachers, which would require rehiring based on union seniority rights, they have fired everyone giving themselves the option of rehiring whomever they like. In effect union busting.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) - Hundreds rallied on the steps of the State House in Providence Saturday as they stood behind their fellow protestors from Wisconsin.

The Rhode Island Teacher's Union marched to show support for their Wisconsin colleagues vying to keep their collective bargaining rights and to preserve the American dream.

"We're not gonna let them take away collective bargaining from us...it is time for every worker and every person in America to stand up and fight corporate greed," urged one protestor Saturday.

Mixed in among the crowds were Providence teachers who protested the recent firing of some 2,000 teachers in the district.

"Get down to city hall and tell Angel Taveras he has betrayed us...this is not just about a budget trying to bust our union," said Classical Teacher Anna Kuperman.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval has shown "contempt" for public school teachers by proposing to cut their pay by 12 percent to 20 percent, the state teachers union leader said Thursday.

Lynn Warne, president of the 28,000-member Nevada State Education Association, said the annual starting pay of teachers -- now about $35,000 -- would drop to the $30,800 range in Clark County through the Republican governor's budget-cutting proposals.

"We feel an assault on education in this state," Warne told a joint Senate-Assembly budget committee hearing. "There is an assault on state workers as well."

Warne later explained that besides a 5 percent pay cut, teachers also would pay a 1.125 percent additional premium for retirement benefits and Sandoval also wants them to kick in 5.9 percent to help cover Public Employees Retirement System costs. That would bring every teacher's pay reduction to 12 percent.

Jeff Weiler, chief financial officer of the Clark County School District, said his district will have to lay off 2,500 teachers and 700 support personnel if Sandoval's plan wins approval.

The average class size would be increased by eight students and laid-off teachers would go on unemployment, he said.

The right wing pundits like to talk about 'class war' whenever someone mentions taxing the rich. This is what real class war looks like, union busting by Republicans. And it won't stop with the public sector unions.

In Wisconsin, the governor wants to gut collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Not to be outdone, the governor of Indiana is pushing two bills that would end bargaining not just for public employees but also for the private sector on construction projects (House Bills 1585 and 1216). In Ohio, Senate Bill 5 would end collective bargaining for state employees and take the heart out of bargaining for local government workers.

Governor Walker’s cuts aren’t just about Wisconsin. These legislative attempts to limit workers’ rights are a coordinated effort by the GOP and corporate CEOs trying to push cuts in our wages, abolish our benefits and outsource our jobs.

Public officials in several other states like Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan are also set to consider eliminating collective bargaining (a worker’s ability to negotiate for wage increases, healthcare, job security, retirement plans, etc…) or drastically change employee pension and access to affordable health insurance.

In many states, public officials aren’t willing to negotiate with the unions that help protect the workers who keep states running—social and economic protections that help communities of color the most.

The Republican National Committee could not care less about the U.S. economy. A new RNC fundraising video (http://www.gop.com/obamasunionbosses/email/) demonstrates that it wants Americans to forget about our economic problems.

Instead the RNC has conjured up a new boogeyman to scare Americans enough to forget the past and open up their wallets: Union leaders.

“The RNC is trying to fool the public into thinking that they are defending the middle class against unions, and that is both outrageous and offensive,” said IAFF General President Harold A. Schaitberger. “Who do they think created the middle class? If they are successful in their efforts to destroy unions, there will be no middle class in America.”

The video seeks to paint middle class Americans – the teachers, sanitation workers, fire fighters and police in Wisconsin -- desperately trying to defend their collective bargaining rights as “jack-booted thugs.”

Unfortunately the firings in Providence this weekend were not a one off, nor should they have been unexpected as they had been done as early as last year, with support not only of Republicans but President Obama as well.

4 March 2010

Speaking before an audience of business executives at the US Chamber of Commerce on Monday, Obama hailed the decision to fire the entire teaching and support staff at Central Falls High after they rejected demands to work extra hours without pay.

He defended such measures as critical to implementing the national strategy of Education Secretary Arne Duncan to deal with 5,000 of the nation’s “lowest performing” schools, overwhelmingly located in the most impoverished areas of the country. In order to qualify for federal funding, school districts have the option of closing a school outright, handing it over to a charter school or school management company, imposing a longer school day and other attacks on teachers, or firing the staff and rehiring only half back.

Pointing to the 74 teachers and 19 other school employees in Central Falls, Obama insisted that teachers had to be held “accountable.”

The Rhode Island firings are meant to serve as an object lesson and warning to any teachers who dare oppose the destruction of their working conditions and wages and the government’s efforts to undermine and privatize the schools.

Obama's Bipartisanship

Missed by the American media pundits on the cable political talk shows was that Obama's bipartisanship has nothing to do with charming Republicans but about meeting with Conservative PM Stephen Harper.

"If Canadians were no fans of Mr. Bush, their conservative leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, found in him a kindred philosophical spirit . . . "

In personal terms, there should be excellent chemistry between these two guys. In generational terms, they belong to the same baby-boomer cohort. Harper was born in 1959, Obama in 1961. They both come from modest backgrounds, where their mothers were the most important influence in their lives. They both saw themselves as agents of change, both made audacious reaches for power at a young age, and both have grasped the brass ring.

Never mind that Obama is a liberal Democrat and Harper is a right-of-centre Conservative. Both have taken parties of chronic losers and made them winners. That's the starting point between them. And in any event, the left in the U.S. can be to the right of centre in Canada. Obama wants to double U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan, while Harper has promised to pull Canada out of the country by 2011. Obama would never support legislation or constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., while Harper called a free vote on it in Canada, and dropped his opposition when a parliamentary resolution backed the courts.

After all as I pointed out here on several occasions Obama is a classic liberal, that is a 'progressive' conservative. While Harper too is a classic liberal, though more influenced by American Republican interpretations of libertarianism equating it with Ayn Randism. Underneath their discourse was the common view that it was time to fortify the gates of fortress North America, which includes Mexico, over issues of common security, shared climate change policy and mutual stimulus packages.

Despite big differences in philosophy and style, Obama and Harper presented a common front on issues as varied as the war in Afghanistan, reversing the recession and pushing back the hot-button issue of trade protectionism.

Together, they announced a "clean energy dialogue" aimed at finding technological answers to the twin environmental dilemmas of Alberta oil sands and American coal.

For left wing Americans and Canadians who think Obama is left wing, their enthusiasm for Obama is simply their misunderstanding of his realpolitik, as Thomas Walkom notes.
His vision is that of Lincoln Republicanism, especially the radical Republicans who have nothing in common with the right wing evangelicals who took over the current party under Reagan, nor anything in common with the isolationists of the Republican Party of the FDR era.
In that he and Harper share a common understanding of the classical liberal politics of self improvement through self reliance and self responsibility, progress through merit, not class or status. These are the masonic values of the enlightments further espoused by the utilitarian philosophers.
Yes the visit to Canada was truly an expression of Obama's successful bi-partisan politics, the politics of radical republicanism.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:

Barack Obama, Barack, Obama,government, Conservatives, Harper,

America's Real Conservative Choice For President

Much has been made about Barack Obama being a socialist and a Marxist by the dwindling white power base that is the decrpit Republican Party. But the reality is that tommorow America will have a choice between a real conservative President and a Republican. That choice of course is Barack Obama.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.

His politics of unity; the third way, his appeal to Americans that they need to take personal responsibility for their families and their neighbours, his rise to power as an example of American meritocracy, his appeal to hard work, and a fair share for all, are traditional American conservative values, indeed they are the values of bourgoise enlightment exemplified by Freemasonry. His are the values of both Abraham Lincoln and FDR, not Ronald Reagan. After all prior to Regans unholy alliance of neo-cons, paleo-cons and evangelicals, conservatism was really just an outgrowth of 'classical liberalism'.

His endorsement by Colin Powell, as well as by other leading Republican's and conservatives such as Chris Buckley, shows that Obama's polics are more closely aligned to 'tradtional American values' than those of the evangelical right wing that hijacked the party of Goldwater.

And his promise to expand the war in Afghanistan means that he and Harper have something in comon despite the difference in their party labels. And Obama's Green Plan will coincide with the one that is still to be unvieled by the Harpocrites.


A Conservative For Obama
Ronald T. Wilcox
I'm a conservative. I've spent my money and my time in support of Republican candidates. I also support Barack Obama for president.
Modern conservatism is deeply rooted in ideas and political philosophy, in rational discourse and pragmatism. John Stuart Mill matters to conservatives.
Conservatives used to ask the tough questions and did not accept simplistic solutions. That is why it is deeply disappointing to me, both personally and professionally, that John McCain has run a campaign that is so antithetical to rational discourse about public policy. His campaign has been about glib answers to complex problems. His choice for vice president was political malpractice.
He has catered to a wing of the Republican Party that believes everything will be all right--if only the government gets out of the way. No matter the problem, that is the only acceptable solution. To suggest that research about or thoughtful analysis of a situation might, in some cases, point in a different direction is apostasy.
For these Republicans, simply the act of doing policy analysis must mean that you are a liberal. They know that real Republicans, and real men, don't need to think things through. I do not respect these people. They have dragged a proud movement that had much to offer our country down into the mud of ignorance.
And yet the reason I now support Obama is only partially due to McCain's decision to embrace this base form of populism. It also stems from a growing respect for Obama's thoughtfulness, which reveals itself when he's faced with difficult questions. I do not agree with all elements of Obama's tax policy, but I certainly get the impression he has thought about it a whole lot more than McCain.

The attraction of Obama to Sullivan and other conservatives is not surprising. In fact, their support is consistent with the constructive wing of the philosophy of conservatism. Those stuck in the world of divisional politics can be baffled by this. How, they ask, can people who admire Reagan and Thatcher also have time for Obama?Aside from his positive message of unity, there are a number of things concerning Obama which appeal to conservatives, not least his appreciative attitude towards traditions and his understanding of the importance of learning from history. In her ambitious New Yorker profile of Obama published last May, Larissa Macfarquhar writes that Obama was critical of his parents and grandparents for breaking up from their respective communities and moving to other towns and countries. They allowed themselves to be seduced by the American dream of individualism and mobility, something which to Obama seems "credulous and shallow." To Obama, the abandonment of their surroundings in Kenya and Kansas to start anew somewhere else seemed, writes Macfarquhar, "a destructive craving for weightlessness." Freedom has a price, and this is shattered communities and loneliness.

Many traditional conservatives (not the neo-con subspecies) are embarrassed by George Bush and are looking for a way out of the foreign and domestic policy nightmare that he has engineered. They also understand that John McCain would be more of the same or even worse. There is a lively discussion of Barack Obama that is taking place both in the blogosphere and in the media directed at a conservative audience, and much of the discourse is surprisingly receptive to the idea that Obama, though a liberal, could bring about genuine change that will benefit the country. A recent article by Boston University professor and former army officer Andrew Bacevich appeared in The American Conservative magazine and is available on the internet at www.amconmag.com. It is entitled "The Case for Obama" and makes the point that Obama is a candidate that is certainly no conservative, but he is the only real hope to get out of Iraq and also avoid wars of choice in the future. Bacevich rightly sees the Iraq war and its consequences as a truly existential issue for the United States, one that should be front and center for voters in November. Any more adventures of the Iraq type will surely bankrupt the country and destroy what remains of the constitution. Bacevich also notes that the election of John McCain, candidate of the neoconservatives and the war party, would guarantee an unending series of preemptive wars as U.S. security doctrine and would validate the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq and wage an interminable global war on "terrorists." Electing Obama instead would be as close as one could come to making a definitive judgment on the folly of Iraq and everything that it represents, a judgment that is long overdue. Many conservatives would agree that the Obama commitment to leave Iraq is the right way to go and long to return to the days when America only went to war when a vital interest was threatened.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Kenya, America, Indonesia, Senator, Chicago, Illinois, USA, politics, Democrat, President, Presidentialrace, 2008, Abraham L incoln,

Black Like Me

When Senator Biden made his gaff about Barack Obama he hit on the unsettling subtext in the American psyche; was Barack Obama really 'black'.

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Well of course he is. But what is really being said is that Obama is not the N word.

African Americans are openly asking whether the first-term Illinois senator is "black enough."

But in order to court the black vote he will need to win the Democratic nomination, he must be careful not to raise any flags among a white electorate, which so far feels unthreatened by him.

"When you hear about his background, you hear Hawaii, Kenya (where his father was born), or Kansas (his mother's home state). You don't hear Alabama," says Ronald Walters, president of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland. "It's not strange at all that blacks would view him with a little suspicion. When somebody presents themselves, you want to look them over and if they don't share your background you might withhold judgment."

Debra J. Dickerson, a black author and essayist, broke the "not black enough" debate into the open in salon.com, last month, arguing Obama would be the great black hope for president, except he isn't black.

She argues that "black" in U.S. culture means those descended from West African slaves.

Biden's choice of words clean, ( a slip of the tongue he probably meant to say clean cut) articulate, knowledgeable, mainstream etc. all could be referenced back to Americas popular culture of racism.

Obama is middle class he represents those class values regardless of race. Or because of it, since race politics in the United States has been dominated by the grievances of the ghetto.

The N word is the new iconography of pride of current hip-hop black gangsta rap culture which currently dominates the cultural self-image of blacks in the United States.

It is the same issue with Tiger Woods, who is Thai and Black. His blackness was questioned like Obama's is. But it wasn't really about his mixed race it was because he was light skinned he was not N enough. Until his father started making his presence seen.

You never saw his Thai mother of course, ostensibly because she was the little woman at home and not a golfer. You saw his father who was a golfer, but one who didn't make it in the white segregated golf world because he was 'black' an African-American, despite also being of mixed race.

Tigers dominance and race breakthrough in golf was his fathers goal and victory, and it was a victory for all black's whether grandchildren of slaves or newly arrived from the Caribbean. But his race was still used against him no matter how light his skin.

Like Tiger, Obama is also mixed race, so he is lighter skinned, and he was brought up in Hawaii and abroad. He is not N enough, for some American blacks. He has not suffered their ghetto life is the subtext of their comments.

Well neither has Rev. Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. But they speak for those folks, you see. That's their politics, the politics of the disposed, the politics of the ghetto. And the resentment of slavery deeply underlies that politics.

Like Quebec's Nationalism, the resentments run deep, and the old grievances of reparation underlie pre-Obama politics of blackness.

In reality Tiger and Obama are the beneficiaries of the Great Society, they are part of the rising black middle class that has benefited from affirmative action, equal rights, voting rights, civil rights.

They represent the new generation of middle class blacks seeking to assimilate into American culture. They are the post Colin Powell, Condi Rice generation, just as they are the post Jackson/Sharpton generation.

It was Oprah, the black multimillionaire media mogul and voice of the black middle class that pushed Obama to run. He speaks for her generation and class.For a different kind of blackness in America, one that leaves behind the grievances of the ghetto and looks towards integration into the American melting pot.

Tiger and Obama cannot say they fought to get where they are. But they can appreciate the fight that got them where they are. Hence Obama's announcement today from the hometown of Abraham Lincoln.

Republican Lincoln, emancipator of the slaves, in one fell swoop Obama takes out the Republicans, who no longer are the party of Lincoln, in Democrat country, felling the Dixiecrats and Tammany Hall Democrats, and uses the great iconography of the Great emancipator and the emancipation to launch his campaign.

Lincoln was not a conservative or a neo-con, he too was a an anti war activist and pro labour, a social democrat. This is often forgotten by the current crop of Republicans that refer to him as if their party is His party. It isn't.

And Obama can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans as he can independents with his message of a politics of hope. That is why the Democratic establishment is wary of him. As they are of his populist base and politics.

His campaign will coincide with the fortieth anniversary of Robert Kennedy's run for the presidency. His campaign is grassroots, being driven by a popular push to have him run just as Kennedy's was.

The younger Kennedy's presidential bid in 1968 was a wild, people-driven ride, and it is not surprising that reporters who cut their teeth on it now look back on that summer with awe.

On the surface, Obama's embryonic campaign has some qualities that Kennedy's had. He too has hesitated publicly before subjecting himself to the fray. He too attracts vast audiences, full of hope, because he promises the future not the past. He has an ease with the language that sets him apart. And, merely by joining the race, he is rewriting the odds.

The race echoes 1968 too. Then, as now, a failed war dominated an anguished national campaign. Then, as now, the war compelled candidates, not least Kennedy, to get off the fence and adapt to anti-war concerns. Back then, though, it was the Republicans who had the last laugh. The hopes of the Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy campaigns ended with the election of Richard Nixon.

As for his blackness, it has nothing to do with skin colour or race but more to do with how Democrat black politics has played out in the United States. No major black American candidate for the party's leadership has had such a broad base of public support.

To some it is disconcerting that he appeals to white voters, to women, to other ethnic minorities and yes to blacks.He appeals to the fictional self-identified American middle class and their myth of the American Dream. So did Robert Kennedy. The similarities are striking.

He truly is a black man running for President, as the cheering crowds in Kenya attested to. He is more African, than those who criticize him as an Uncle Tom.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
black, Oprah,Tiger Woods, Africa, African-American, US, presidential elections 2008, Barack Obama, Democrats, Robert Kennedy, Lincoln, Kenya,