Check Out Our All-Star Lineup!

May 9, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

We couldn’t land Troy McClure, but the manifesto we released today opposing nationalization of K-12 education, Closing the Door on Innovation, did land a lot of big stars – Abby and Stephan Thernstrom, Shelby Steele and Richard Epstein among them. Big names in the education world include Blouke Carus, John Chubb, and Herb Walberg – on top of our very own Bill Evers, Jay Greene, and Sandra Stotsky, of course.

Moments ago, we added our first new batch of additional signers, bringing the total to 144. Among the new signers: Princeton’s Robert George.

In his coverage of the manifesto, titled Now It Gets Interesting, Rick Hess runs down some of the rest of the original lineup:

Signatories include legislators who chair or vice-chair of education committees in Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona, and Texas; state board members from Colorado and Alabama; two former general counsels at the U.S. Department of Ed; and a grab-bag of Republicans like former California governor Pete Wilson, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, former U.S. House member Pete Hoekstra, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, and Spellings Commission chair Charles Miller. They also include William Estrada of the Home School Legal Defense Association; Bob Enlow, president of the Foundation for Educational Choice; the heads of a number of state-level conservative think tanks; and academics including Shelby Steele, U. Chicago’s Richard Epstein, Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom, and, intriguingly, progressive icon Joel Spring.

Shout out to Bob Enlow for being big enough to make the marquee!

1 Comment | instructional reform, politics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

There Is No End Zone

May 4, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

I hate to be a pest, but the war’s not over.

In this joyful moment when some people selfishly focus on trying to pull together as Americans and be glad the good guys won for once, thank goodness there’s Jimmy Carter to remind us of just how badly the world still sucks.

He chooses a moment when this kind of thing is going on to announce in today’s Washington Post:

Suspicions of Hamas stem from its charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. It’s just a matter of some words on a piece of paper.

Headline from Monday’s Guardian, one of the squishiest publications in the western world:

 Hamas Praises Osama bin Laden as Holy Warrior

Coming together as Americans doesn’t get easier when some Americans cling tenaciously to delusions so persistently destructive that they defy merely psychological explanations.

To paraphrase Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer: “Even the Guardian gets it. Why doesn’t Jimmy Carter?”

Or to paraphrase Jason Robards in Parenthood: “Defending America against its enemies is like Jimmy Carter’s ego. It never, never ends. It goes on forever – and it’s just as frightening. There is no end zone. You never cross the goal line, spike the ball and do your touchdown dance.”

You never get to live in a world where people aren’t trying to kill you. And apparently you also never get to live in an America where some Americans aren’t doing their best to drive us apart from each other by embracing our enemies.

HT

1 Comment | politics | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Not Everyone is Happy

May 2, 2011

Not everyone is happy about the death of Osama bin Laden.  According to Reuters:

“We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyrs,” Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters…

In the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, Haniyeh accused the United States of pursuing a policy based on “oppression and the shedding of Arab and Muslim blood.”

“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior,” he said.

The Palestinian Authority praised the killing of bin Laden, but they have just entered into a unity pact with their Hamas rivals, so it is unclear what the official Palestinian position is.  And see the video above for Palestinian reaction in the streets to the 9-11 attacks.

8 Comments | politics | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden

May 2, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Continuing the theme, this post by Jim Geraghty…

A key message has been beamed to every corner of the earth, sure to reach anyone who has ever committed terror against Americans, who seeks to do so again, or who is contemplating the act: No matter who you are, no matter how many followers you have, no matter how smart or careful you think you are, our guys can find you. It’s just a matter of time. If you kill our countrymen, they will look, and they will look, and they will look and they will never quit and we will never forget. You will die in prison at Gitmo or you will die quickly from a covert-ops team’s bullets. But one way or another, you will pay the price for harming our people.

Elsewhere, Salon groans that the war against Osama and his organization has cost $1.3 trillion. Think about what that says to aspiring terrorists. When we say, ‘we’ll pay any price to see them brought to justice or to bring justice to them,’ we mean it. That’s the kind of country we are.

…reminded me of this:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Emphasis added. Emphatically.

And I’ll throw this in as a bonus: “We dare not tempt them with weakness.”

Leave a Comment » | politics | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Obama 1, Osama 0

May 2, 2011

As Hal pointed out, this is a day to emphasize our national unity.  So we need to be sure to give credit to President Obama, who had the resolve to continue the effort begun by his predecessor and to carry it to a successful conclusion.  Of course, there is still much to be done, but let us cheer this important victory.

2 Comments | politics | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

After bin Laden

May 2, 2011

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The news of bin Laden’s death reminded me of an important statement by President George W. Bush:

“This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing.”

Bringing bin Laden to justice represents a unifying moment and an opportunity for greater focus in our ongoing conflict. Bob Robb, a columnist for the Arizona Republic, years ago made what I thought was a profoundly sensible suggestion: that Congress make a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda. Nothing in my mind would bring greater clarity to our efforts to both ourselves and to the world: we are not war with terrorism (which is an activity) or with Islam but rather with a group of people who attacked us and those who have chosen to associate with them.

Bin Laden’s death was not a police action- but a military strike carried out by professional soldiers. There was no effort to read anyone Miranda rights, which is appropriate. No one attempted to read Miranda rights to the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor at the Battle of Midway either, preferring to shoot them down and sink their aircraft carriers.

On the other hand, the raid probably killed more actual Al Qaeda operatives than our 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan have lately at a grand total of four. Sun Tzu taught that the object of war must be swift victory and the time is at hand for the United States to weigh the costs and benefits of conflicts such as Afghanistan. The United States has displayed resolve, now it is time for us to exercise wisdom.  Al Qaeda is not anxious to fight our forces in Afghanistan. Both Bin Laden and KSM were found in wealthy suburbs of Pakistan. You play the ball where it lands-our strike teams have guns, bombs, drones and cruise missiles and will travel.

This is a great day for all Americans, but Al Qaeda is not finished, and thus the struggle must continue. Let’s clarify our struggle and finish the job in a way and in an hour of our choosing.

7 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

The Long Knives Come Out

April 25, 2011

“Allen” raised a good point in a recent comment.  As money gets very tight at the state and local level, the interests of different public employee unions should start to diverge.  Firefighters, police officers, and other local government workers will have to bear the brunt of the cuts if education does not share in the pain.  During times of overflowing government coffers, it was easy to maintain harmony by spreading the money around to everyone.  As funds shrink it is nearly impossible to maintain harmony as each tries to shift the bulk of the cuts to the others.

We are beginning to see signs of this fracture among organized government employee groups.  The Fraternal Order of Police has decided to pick a fight with the American Federation of Teachers.  Well, actually the California affiliate of the AFT may have started the fight when they passed a resolution in support of the convicted murderer of a police officer, Mumia Abu-Jamal.  According to Mike Antonucci, America’s last and best investigative reporter on education:

 the resolution claims “the appellate courts have also refused to consider strong evidence of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s innocence,” references his “continued unjust incarceration,” calls on CFT to “demand that the courts consider the evidence of innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal” and bring the issue to the AFT Convention “should he not have been cleared of charges and released by that time.”

In response Chick Canterbury, the president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, wrote a harsh letter to Randi Weingarten, the head of the AFT, saying:

This resolution, if it remains unchallenged by the AFT, would cast grave doubts on your leadership as well as pose serious questions as to the ability of the FOP to work with your organization at any level. On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, the families of slain law enforcement officers and the honored memories of the officers killed in the line of duty, I urge you to repudiate the resolution supporting this cop-killer.

Weingarten has replied:

We have taken the last few days to search the record, and except for this isolated action in California, we cannot find another incidence in which the AFT or any of our other affiliates have adopted a similar resolution. If such a resolution ever were to be raised at our national convention, I’m confident it would be soundly rejected.

Despite this effort to smooth over the cracks, this split may grow for reasons beyond Mumia Abu-Jamal.  These two unions understand that they will soon be engaged in a high-stakes struggle for resources.  FOP is trying to undermine the political standing of the AFT while also stifling support for a convicted cop-killer.

1 Comment | economics, politics, teacher union | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Ravitch Escapes the Dark Side of the Force

April 23, 2011

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Awesome news! Diane Ravitch escaped from the clutches of Emperor Weingarten and has disavowed the Dark Side of the Force. At least, that’s the way it looks on Twitter, where someone has taken to posting quotes from the time before Ravitch joined the Sith.

 Better late than never! Welcome back Diane!

8 Comments | politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Hemisphere Fallacy! Drink!

April 15, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Fordham hasn’t even released its new report explaining why all sensible people favor the creation of an unstoppable national juggernaut to safeguard the decentralization of America’s federal system of government, and we already have to drink up.

In the new Gadfly, Mike Petrilli writes:

Speaking for the anti-“tight” right, Greene argues that “dictating the ends with a national set of standards, curriculum, and assessments will necessarily dictate much of the means.” (And, to be fair, he did so in a witty and amusing blog post, in which he proposed a “drinking game” for readers of Fordham’s forthcoming ESEA proposal, due out next week.)

But it’s unclear why he finds the concept of “tight-loose” so preposterous. Consider this: Here are the most likely potential mandates that Congress might attach to federal Title I funding in the next ESEA:

  1. States must adopt rigorous academic standards (and cut scores) in English and math that imply readiness for college and career.
  2. States must test students annually in English and math.
  3. States must build assessments and data systems to allow for individual student growth to be tracked over time.
  4. States must develop standards and assessments in science and history, too.
  5. States must rate schools according to a prescriptive formula (i.e., AYP).
  6. States must intervene in schools that fail to make AYP for several years in a row, or in schools that are among the lowest-performing in the state.
  7. States must develop rigorous teacher evaluation systems and ensure a more equitable distribution of effective teachers.
  8. States must ensure that Title I schools receive comparable resources—including good teachers and real per-pupil dollars—as those received by non-Title I schools.

The way Greene argues it, Congress has to either choose “none of the above” or “all of the above.” But of course it doesn’t. We at Fordham would select items one through four off this a la carte menu, and leave the rest for states to decide. That, to us, would be “tight-loose” in action.

Hemisphere fallacy! Drink!

Mike continues:

Does Jay believe none of these should be required? And if so, isn’t he arguing for federal taxpayers to just leave the money on the stump? Why not make the principled conservative case and say that Title I and other federal funding streams should simply be eliminated?

And:

Let’s quit with all the over-the-top rhetoric. Give the list of eight mandates above a good look. Congress is likely to move ahead with the first few and will definitely reject the last few; the real debate is about the ones in the middle. In other words, we’ll be arguing over the precise definition of “tight-loose,” regardless of what the anti-“tight” right or the anti-“loose” left have to say about it.

I’m not Jay, but I think the answer to all this is obvious:

  • Mike is wrong to question Jay’s integrity by arguing that “principle” requires him to either support federal education mandates or support repeal of Title I;
  • Mike is wrong to imply that it’s unserious or “over the top” to debate the merits of anything other than the hemisphere-style middle ground that is likely to be the locus of congressional debate in the immediate term; and
  • Mike is self-contradictory to do both in the same post.

Oh, and by the way – “tight/loose”! Drink!

10 Comments | instructional reform, politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Big Lunchlady Is Watching You

April 13, 2011

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Theorists like Amy Gutmann argue that parental freedom needs to be compromised in the name of democracy because parents can’t be trusted as the default authority over the education of children. Jay has frequently responded by pointing out that this logic, applied consistently, would produce not just government control of formal schooling but government control of every aspect of child-rearing. One example I’ve seen him use to devastating effect is to point out that we don’t establish government control over children’s meals in order to ensure kids are getting proper nutrition. Jay suggests that this inconsistency indicates that these theories of democracy are really invented post facto to justify social institutions whose real existential principle is to provide unions with a gravy train.

Well, Jay, you should be careful what you ask for.

The Chicago Tribune reports that some Chicago schools – a government spokesperson declines to say how many – forbid students to bring any food from home unless they have a medical excuse.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring “bottles of soda and flaming hot chips” on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common. [ea]

The Tribune headline writer makes an amusing attempt to soften the obvious implications here – the headline says the school forbids only “some lunches” from home. The actual policy described in the article is that all food from home is banned unless you challenge the ban and have a special medical reason.

Most readers of JPGB probably won’t need to have the real agenda spelled out here. Kudos to the Trib writers, Monica Eng and Joel Hood, for spelling it out to the paper’s readers:

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

This lunchroom needs a better class of criminal.

It’s the same basic principle that has been driving the runaway overhiring of teachers for decades. It just involves the extension of the principle to a new sphere of social control.

HT Joe Carter at First Things

6 Comments | civic values, politics, school funding | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »