The Butcher, the banker and the candlestick maker weigh in: Anyone else smell a coordinated attack on public schools by the 1%? These men sure seem to know-it-all…

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/09/28/strong-schools-imperative-strong-economy/16384487/

Asinine.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Butcher, the banker and the candlestick maker weigh in: Anyone else smell a coordinated attack on public schools by the 1%? These men sure seem to know-it-all…

  1. I assume that since Markell plans to pack his task force with these business roundtable regurgitaters, he made them write high profile pieces along with ridiculously-penned staffer editorials so the general public would nod once the task force members were announced. I think we can all accurately predict who makes the cut and who doesn’t.

  2. John Kowalko

    The most offensive statement from these corporate, non-educator shills is the line that reads “Third, money. Some have argued that the investment is insufficient, but these schools have already benefited from millions of dollars of investment with little to no impact. As a state, our schools are receiving more money than three-quarters of the public schools nationwide.” This completely fabricated untruth deliberately posited in the News Journal to support DOE’s and the governor’s agenda to privatize and charterize public schools is an obvious attempt to propagandize and twist the truth to pressure the districts into abdicating their authority.

    As regards the authors of this piece, “WHERE HAVE THESE PEOPLE BEEN? WHY AREN’T THEY IN THE SCHOOLS MENTORING, TUTORING, TEACHING, VOLUNTEERING, PROVIDING SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT WITH THEIR ENDLESS AMOUNT OF MONEY????? Why are they all of a sudden so concerned about the horrors in the schools around them? DID THEY JUST FIND OUT”?

    Before any of you buy into this Administration’s, Secretary Murphy’s and DOE’s false assertion that they are trying to improve the educational experience for the “high poverty”, “inner-city” schools by offering roughly $200,000 per year to six schools (not a penny of which will actually reach the children) ask yourselves and then ask this Administration why massive funding cuts that eliminated so many programs that were geared to allow for student achievements, improvements and survival were not restored. It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to pretend to create a program helping students avoid the need for collegiate remedial courses when the money necessary to fund “Reading Resource Teachers” (Gov. Minner’s excellent initiative) and “Math Specialists” has been eliminated in public schools to the tune of $12.5 million. (See attachment). To also promote advisory boards to examine needs of poverty ridden schools and inner-city schools while continuing to deliberately ignore the poverty epidemic in this State and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of smaller class sizes, (not bigger and more bloated & higher paid leadership) is unconscionable propaganda that is insensitive to the reality of the plight of the children. When you examine the attached numbers also reflect on the reductions in base funding levels and increased revenue demands being shifted to local district taxpayers. Then conclude for yourself why should DOE and the State be allowed to takeover, privatize or hand over to non-educator charter operators these locally funded and locally managed (by locally elected unpaid school boards) schools. If you read those numbers and draw the reasonable and moral conclusion that something is drastically wrong here, then you should contact every legislator in the state, the governor, all state board (appointed not elected) member Secretary Murphy and tell them it is morally wrong and reprehensible to treat the children and those who care about them (educators, administrators, teachers and paras and elected, unpaid school board members) with such disdain and arrogance in what quite frankly is an abuse of power by an appointed agency, staffed with educational neophytes that seem to have a commonality of agenda. If they wish to establish a “priority” please join me in suggesting that funding smaller class sizes “needs based funding formulas” should be the top priority.
    I’ve sent out an attachment with the actual numbers of unrestored cuts and the programs that districts have been forced to eliminate (think “SOPHIE’S CHOICE”) because out of $58 million in annual cuts originating in FY 2008 for these programs only $27 million has been restored annually but I can’t seem to copy the scanned sheet to post here
    John Kowalko

  3. The districts are hardly without fault here but the bully tactic high PR “solution” being proposed from Dover has to be rejected. Too much district money goes to admin, consultants and other bureaucrats. It must be repurposed to the classrooms implemented as reduced class size, more specialist teachers and paras. And state services must combine with districts for schools-based social services.

Comments are closed.