DeKalb County (Atlanta) ranks 15th on School Choice -- Ahead of Boston and Charlotte and Cobb Co. (outside Atlanta) School Districts

A Brookings study released in Q1 2014, purportedly ranks school districts based School Choice, measured by 13 different categories of policy and practice.  Some of the 13 categories include virtual schools (and the % of students enrolled), availability of alternative schools (such as magnets, vouchers, affordable private, and tax credit scholarships), whether there is a policy of restructuring or closing schools, whether there is a common application to enroll, performance data, comparable standards and assessments, and transportation.  The purpose of the study is to "to create public awareness of the differences among districts in their support of school choice."  

A conversation about measurables aside (everyone knows that what you measure often dictates what you find), Brookings ranks the top 107 school districts -- with only New Orleans schools and NYC schools getting overall "A" or "A-" grades and school districts like Atlanta - Fulton County, Clayton County (south of Atlanta) and Shelby County, TN receiving grades of "F."  

DeKalb County (Atlanta) comes out passing with a "C+" at rank number 15.

Article found here:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/ecci_2013

-E

The Most Compelling Points of Hobby Lobby (the dissent that is)

In light of the huge decision yesterday from the Supreme Court of the United States in Hobby Lobby et al., here are portions of the dissent where Justice Ginsburg speaks so eloquently on several points -- with which I agree.

On Corporations as "people"

“In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owner are one and the same. By incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity’s obligations.  One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interest of those who control the corporation.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 19).

“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. . . . Again, the Court forgets that religious organizations exist to serve a community of believers. For-profit corporations do not fit that bill.” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 17, 18).

On impact of corporate owner's religious beliefs (permitted to be exercised through a for-profit entity) on third-parties (i.e. employees)

“Women paid significantly more than men for preventive care, the amendment’s proponents noted; in fact, cost barriers operated to block many women from obtaining needed care at all. See, e.g., id., at 29070 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (“Women of childbearing age spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.”); id., at 29302 (statement of Sen. Mikulski) (“co-payments are [often] so high that [women] avoid getting preventative and screening services] in the first place”).” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 4).  “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage . . . that almost one-third of women would change their contraceptive method if costs were not a factor . . . and that only one-fourth of women who request an IUD actually have one inserted after finding out how expensive it would be . . . .” – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 25).  

“Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. . . . Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”  – J. Ginsburg (dissent at p. 23).

Bing! asks for support for ad-free searches

K-12 students are children and youth inundated by information everyday.  Some of that information -- and probably more than we'd realize -- is marketing of products, services, and entertainment.  To that end, Bing! has launched an initiative to provide ad-free searching to schools to reduce some of this exposure to students in learning environments.

If you support this effort, go here. 

New Study says a college degree continues to be more valuable

An article published in the New York Times today shows that the value of having a college degree has risen dramatically since 1980 (for the 80's babies like me), and has even risen since 2010.

Here's a bit of the scoop of what David Leonhardt writes:

The pay of people with a four-year college degree has risen compared to that of those with a high school degree but no college credit. The relative pay of people who attended college without earning a four-year degree has stayed flat.

Importantly, the article also notes:

a bachelor’s degree does not guarantee success. But of course it doesn’t. Nothing guarantees success . . .

The article even goes on to criticize the discussions aimed to depress people from going to college.

The decision not to attend college for fear that it’s a bad deal is among the most economically irrational decisions anybody could make in 2014.

To read the whole thing yourself, see here:

Is College Worth It? Clearly, New Data Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

An agriculture degree instead of a finance degree--makes some sense to me

A recent article by Alex Rosenberg (of course forwarded to me by my father who retired from agriculture field), argues that real goods are going to be much more important than speculative goods in the future.  Precisely, Rosenberg argues that fields like finance are going to be less pivotal than fields like agriculture. He captures this in his article:

 "We are going to be trying to feed 9 billion people by 2050 with the same number of acres of arable land," said Timothy Burcham, dean of agriculture and technology at Arkansas State University. Calling that task "overwhelming," Burcham notes that "the opportunities for a person that has a graduate degree in agriculture are great now, but they are going to be really, really excellent going into the future."

The article (and the argument) have some staying power with me.  By my own admission, I have always thoughts that great mind power should be applied to public policy issues:  education policy (of course), food policy, energy policy . . .

Anyway, for your reading pleasure: Jim Rogers: Skip the MBA, get an agriculture degree

UPDATE 1/8/2014:

From reports in England, it seems that His Royal Highness Prince William is prepping to study agriculture at Cambridge soon.  Hat tip to him.

DeKalb County Schools (Atlanta) -- Over 400 Applicants down to about One Dozen

When the State School Board decided that six members of the DeKalb County School Board (Atlanta, Ga) would lose their seats due to mismanagement, over 400 applications were received to fill those positions.  I wrote about it here and here.

News just in today?  A special committee tasked to recommend candidates to fill those seats should widdle that list down by the end of the day to about one dozen, or 2 for each seat, to be presented to the Governor.  Here's the article from the local WSBtv affiliate.

APS "Top-Lawyer" moves to Michigan

Reporting of the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal has mostly subsided.  I am probably in the minority of people with long memories on this and a desire to still know what's going on.

That said, today's reporting in the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) speaks of APS's "Top-Lawyer" ("top" being the woman-in-charge) moving to Michigan to take up a similar post.

And, part of the first reporting (see paragraph #2) includes her paycut -- from Atlanta Public Schools salary of $211,000 to Grand Rapids Public Schools salary of $115,000.  I'm not particularly sure why this being reported first struck me.  But it did.

The article goes on to report "She was Hall’s chief of staff for about 10 years before Davis appointed her to the interim general counsel position when he took over in July 2011."  Moreover, Superintendent Davis "barred" her from being involved in the cheating scandal stuff once he came on.

And, as I just indicated at the onset -- there have been no indictments.  None.  

"No one has been indicted, and Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard has declined to comment on the investigation."

StudentsFirst grades States: Georgia and Massachusetts get D+

Did you ever think you'd see the day when the shining beacon on a hill, Massachusetts, would get a state education ranking equal to that of Georgia???  I didn't.

Well, this is what StudentsFirst is proclaiming with its new State Policy Report Card.  If I list out all the states in which I've gone to school, worked, or otherwise have a remarkable connection to, here's what I find:

• Georgia, D+
• Massachusetts, D+
• Virginia, D-
• Mississippi, D
• Michigan, C-
• Florida, B-
• District of Columbia, C+

More after the break...

Buy a T-shirt? How about give to a classroom . . .

J. Crew is selling t-shirts in support of Teach For America, Inc.

See here.


 For the past few years, Teach For America and J. Crew have had a partnership in which shoppers could come in and use a friends and family discount with some of the proceeds benefiting Teach For America, Inc.  And, they aren't the only corporate cause (see here for the Minted sponsorship).

What do I think?  As a Teach For America alumna?

Well, I think that Teach For America works relentlessly to move toward its goals.  One of those goals has been an expansion of the corps to impact more underrepresented students in under-served communities.  As most non-profit leaders will tell you, that takes money.  So, no.  I'm not gonna hate on Teach For America for building corporate sponsorships to strengthen its finances.  Nor am I gonna hate on Teach For America for its effort to market itself as hip, cool, and the thing to do among recent and prospective college graduates.  The teaching profession needs electricity and enthusiasm.

But what goes through my mind seeing the J. Crew model sporting a Teach For America t-shirt for purchase is: why didn't that person just give to Teach For America directly?  Or, they could have bought a t-shirt directly form Teach For America at the online store (and it may even be cheaper).

Better yet, to have a direct impact, a person could go to the donorschoose.org site, filter through the projects, and select a Teach For America corps member classroom (or, hey, ANY project cause any of these teachers' students deserve it) to which a donation would be greatly appreciated.  I have been on the receiving end of someone donating to my classroom.  As thanks, the donor got pictures of my students using the materials, and my students got days on end of playing bean-bag math and reading in our softly lit corner.  I call that having an impact!

Back to the Question: Is a FEDERAL Department of Education Necessary—notes from academia

From Friedman's assessment (mostly rejected)

Milton Friedman writes of the appropriate federal role in public education in an economics-based article from 1955.[1]  His analysis begins with pointing out the huge role government has assumed in financing and administering education for a nation that believes in individual freedoms, family, and free enterprise.  He gives three plausible ways to justify such heavy government involvement:  creating competition where there would otherwise be a natural monopoly, “neighborhood effects” (or what I am conceptualizing as negative externalities) of which there is no coercive compensation mechanism and a strong form of paternalism over children and the vulnerable.  The article then goes on to differentiate between common education and vocational education.

Wolf in “Status Quo” Clothing [Reading Response]

Flexibility and accountability. Laboratories for innovation. Starting Over. Having More Options in the Market. I think the point has been clearly made that the system as exists isn’t serving us well for student outcomes (nevermind test scores or performance). It has also been underscored that it takes lots and lots of effort from the people on the ground and lots and lots of vision, guts, and a refreshing stubbornness from those that are to lead. But how do we get the stability from authorizing political environments (and I mean the voters and taxpayers, not necessarily those making the direct appointments) that is needed to prove a reform is working? To allow a reform to work? That will hold the cord, but won’t yet pull the plug. This is what I want to know. Because as much as I would vote for the bull-in-a-china-shop candidate if it meant grade levels of students would be saved, I dunno how many others would…

I posit that it takes someone that knows both sides of the issues and is party to both worlds. Someone who is legitimate enough to stay, or stay for now. The person who is hungry as a wolf to do the things mounds and mounds of education reform readings tell us work, but who has enough political cover that the status quo posse likes her too (or at least is not calling for her hide). We either find such people (begin to create them) or continue to feed the mob.