Harvard Rugby women celebrate Body and Strength

Ask someone how much I weigh and his or her answer is probably 20-40 pounds off the mark.  I've always been on the heavier-side -- literally -- than what a mirror might otherwise indicate.  I credit my gymnastic and swimming background for helping me appreciate my muscles, my tendons, my bones, my once-was flexibility, and my physique.  And, for showing me all the amazing things a body can do.  Scales have never been my "friend" -- but they haven't been my foe either.  I learned very quickly that numbers are numbers and you are you, but that you can't ignore one to the detriment of the other.

So, when I see a tumblr like this of the Harvard Rugby team of women who are celebrating themselves, I am proud and warmed.

Here's to "Rugged Grace": http://bdcwire.com/harvard-womens-rugby-team-launches-powerful-rugged-grace-photo-campaign/

-E

Did you know? "Children of alumni had a 45 percent greater chance of admission"

This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Opinion that upheld the state of Michigan's ban on affirmative action policies for state undergraduate institutions.

The case is Schuette v. BAMN (the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary).  It stems form a prior case, Grutter v. Bollinger, where the U.S. Supreme Court considered University of Michigan Law School's policy to consider an applicant's race/ethnicity as one of many factors toward law school admission.  After that decision, the state of Michigan voters adopted "Proposal 2" (which subsequently became part of the state's constitution -- Art. I, §26), a state law that "prohibits the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities."  Slip Opinion, page 1. In this instant case (that's what legal people say when they are referring to the case in discussion), the Supreme Court needed to determine whether the lower court should have struck down the voter's law.  Our U.S. Supreme Court determined that the appellate court was incorrect:  the state law of Michigan banning affirmative action was upheld as a proper.

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_5367.pdf

More to write on this soon. Including a juxtoposition like this one: affirmative action and legacy preference.

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.

Case of First Impression: Georgia Supreme Court rules that 12-year cannot appeal his placement decision -- UPDATED

The case is In the Interest of W.L.H., No. S12G1049 (Mar. 4, 2013) in the Ga. Supreme Court.  The article on which I am relying can be found on The Daily Report, "Ga. high court: Children can't contest rulings on their care."

On the facts, a young man had been cared for by his cousin from the time that he was 17-months old until he was 12-years-old.  His father is deceased and his mother not in the picture.  He stayed with his cousin by authority of a placement from the state of Georgia.  However, after accusations of abuse on the young man surfaced and there was evidence that he had been struck by the cousin, a Georgia court appointed a legal guardian for the minor.  Later, the court made a legal determination that the minor was experiencing deprivation in his home.  The court ordered that the young man be removed from the cousin's care-- first to foster care and then to a group home.

The young man, armed with an attorney, appealed the court's decision, and then appealed the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals.  When the case reached the Supreme Court, the question was whether the judges would grant the young man "standing" to actually be heard on his case.  Standing is a legal burden that must be overcome before one can bring a case or controversy to court.  Basically, if one is not appropriately situated in his relationship to the facts and harms of the case, a court will not allow that person to bring the matter to the court's attention.  (Of course, standing is much more complicated, but that's the idea).
 

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!

Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

Voters in Georgia Passed the Charter Schools Amendment, and then the Hype was Gone

One of the initiatives on the voting ballot this November was a proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Georgia.  The Amendment, aptly named the "Charter Schools Amendment," read as follows:

 - 1 - 

Provides for improving student achievement and parental involvement through more public charter school options.

"Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow state or local approval of public charter schools upon the request of local communities?"

Of course, many complained about indirect and ambiguous language.  Aside from the obvious critique that "improving student achievement and parental involvement" is being directly linked to "public charter options" (I've seen the research-- in some cases this assertion is true and in others it is not so accurate), the language also fails to distinguish the new addition to the Georgia Constitution-- that the state (or a state board of representatives) would be authorized to approve public charter schools separate from (or perhaps in an appellate capacity) local approval processes.  Now, the state authority to approve charter schools that would operate in local districts is what all the hoopla was about.  So, let's cut to that.

Georgia voters approved the Amendment with results of approximately 58% to 42% (or 58.5% to 41.5% depending on who you consult).


Those that Vote "Nay"
National education voices, like that of Diane Ravich suggested that the measure would ultimately "gut local control."

Other local, Metro-Atlanta columnists agreed that a NO vote on the Charter Amendment was deserved for at least 10 reasons.  See also this article on the 8 Myths of the Proposed Charter Amendment.  Persuasively for some, even the editorial board of the major state newspaper published a piece urging a NO vote.

Those that Vote "Yay"
The Vice President of the Georgia Charter Schools Association had this to say.  Further, there were even reports that President Obama supposedly supported the Amendment (which would fall in line with the President's education "Blueprint" plan (old and new) that has been a mantle piece for some time).

And the Rest...
Still other journalists tried to distill the issues for voters.  Even in my hometown of Athens, Georgia, which I lovingly remember as having an activist/involved education population, there were open forums and discussions on both sides of the issue.

More than Just Georgia
According to the New York Times, here's more on the political breakdown:

• "Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmart’s founder, Sam Walton, has contributed to campaigns supporting the measure"
• "several companies that manage charter schools, including K12 Inc., Charter Schools USA and National Heritage Academies" supported
• "committees supporting the ballot measure have collected 15 times as much as groups opposing the measure, according to public filings."

 A Mixed Bag
Many tried to cast Amendment 1 as a partisan issue, but I believe it is a bit more complicated than attaching an "R" or "D" label.  (I acknowledge that Republicans were supposedly responsible for the language of the Amendment.).  Evidence shows that some Democrats joined Republicans in support of the Amendment.

"conservatives who typically champion decentralized government are giving the amendment full-throated support. Meanwhile, some Tea Party members have joined Democratic legislators, including State Senators Jason Carter and Vincent D. Fort, in opposing the measure. The state’s school superintendent, John D. Barge, a Republican, has come out against it as well." (NYT)

Further, as the creation of Democrats for Education Reform attests, the policies of U.S. education splice creed, regionalism, and background.  I could continue with the examples, but I think you get the point.


So what's my point?
Well, my point is that there was all this political speech-- ads for a YES vote, ads for a NO vote all over the airwaves on this issue.  Even among my friends, there were chatty talks about "the future of public education in Georgia."  But now?  Radio silence.  I hear not one chirp, besides the articles that I am digging up for this blog post, about what the passage of the Amendment means for Georgia charter schools-- and Georgia schools more broadly.

And, I would like to hear more.  I'll keep you tuned.

Secretary Duncan made a speech at Harvard Graduate School of Education-- here's what I think

Below is an analysis of Secretary Duncan's speech to HGSE students in Feb 2012.  Of course this post is part of an assignment to connect the talk to larger policy frameworks--notably, John Kingdon-- but, all the same, it's my analysis of where I think Secretary Duncan and the Obama Administration are in the education space.

Find the speech HERE.

Consistent with Kingdon’s description of political appointees, Secretary Duncan laid out issues that are of particular importance to him, even though his policy agenda has been set by President Obama.  Secretary Duncan believes in the real world and wants debates rooted in the actual challenges on the ground.  He talks about the sense of urgency ingrained within him, and he talking about the kids and communities he lived in, worked in, and understands.  The policy agenda that he delivers, however, does not seem to be his own.  He delivers an agenda about how brokered policies are better for our country than stubborn faithfulness to absolutist solutions.  He’s trying to soften up the system such that when a window opens—perhaps post November 2012—the policy agenda he is delivering about mutual respect and collaboration will be heard.

The field of education is filled with opposite choices, remarks Secretary Duncan.  He finds incompatibility that being for one choice means that one is necessarily not in agreement to other choices (i.e. flexible state funders being against accountability, English and math tests for performance being against well-rounded curriculum, etc.).  He suggests that win-win is possible and compromises of “both . . . and” exist.  But what he is really saying is that a policy community of people who should all care about kids has splintered—that this policy community is fragmented by the specialists who avow their approaches are best in their pure form: the perfect has become the enemy of the good, he says. 

It Takes One to Know One

It has occurred to me that many of the high-profile education reforms (many of which I have spent the last 5 weeks following on twitter, attending their speeches, reading their newly released reports, and cruntching their policies) probably have never spent 24 hours in the public schools that they have remedies for. 

Maybe this shocks no one.

But for me, as one who sees such merit in many, many of the reform proposals, it seems a bit disingenous to have a cure and have never interacted with the "patients," their communities, or the everyday stressors that may be responsible for the illness in the first place.

Switch Hitting for the Goodside -- Bring my Passion to the Capitol!

My summer time at a law firm has now ended and I'm switch hitting for the good side at a national advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.  Yep, I said it -- in the homeland of the federal government, I am just blocks away from the House floor.

Of course I'm focusing on education policy, bringing my experiences full circle.  So expect to hear my passionate outcries against crippling policies and in support increased opportunities for students and their families.  Kinda nice to get to actually say something.  No better not say that because then they will think you are one of those kinds of people. No if you say that they will just ask you what you meant by that and then they will know you are not their friend. No you know they are gonna ask for support for that statement, and you don't even wanna go there. And especially no you are absolutely wrong on that issue and I am yearning to tell you about yourself.  Instead I get to write, influence, observe, effectuate, dialogue, and deliver.  Yum!

So in the mean time and in-between time . . . stay posted.