CIR legislation "Details"

The Senate Gang of 8 includes 4 republicans that have conflicts of interest. All four have received considerable campaign funds from the largest private prison corp. CCA. Both Sen. Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker have received more than $50,000, Sen. john McCain has received $32,146 and Sen. Marco Rubio $27,300. These Senators have made much press that they are in agreement with Democrats on legislation, except for minor "details." (see Columbia Journalism  Review, Feb 20, 2013, "Immigration Reform and Private Prison Cash" ) Four foxes in the chicken coop.
In the Tampa bay Times, April 8, 2013 article by Molly Moorehead, staff Writer, pg. 1, she reports on proposals and positions of the two parties, that there is no path to citizenship, there is a path to a green card, according to Sen. Rubio. Those with a green card would join a pool of everyone applying for citizenship. A waiting period of up to 13 years between green cards and work permits is being proposed. Thus, for many, citizenship will never occur, given the time periods and barriers of the number of visas allowed by the U.S. The fines to be imposed may vary between $2,000 and $5,000, plus back taxes for the time worked here. These fines would be a barrier for any poor citizen, never mind the poorest segment of our population, low paid immigrants.
What does this imply? Republicans are giving lip service that they are for CIR but ensures barriers to squash the paths to citizenship. The specific intent is to forbid 11 million undocumented a path to citizenship to avoid 11 million more Democrats for voting against them. The fines are an impossible barrier, to which must be added $675 with the application for citizenship. The process will be messy enough to ensure many undocumented to remain that way, and ensure that private prisons remain filled and profitable.
Can the Democrats reject these diabolical proposals to get a better law, or succumb for the sake of having a "deal"?

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Frederick Douglas, abolitionist 

Last Wednesday, Rutgers University fired men’s head basketball coach Mike Rice for abusive treatment of his players that was caught on video. Then on Friday, Tim Pernetti, Rutgers’ athletic director, resigned.

How do you think leaders, whether they are coaches, directors, instructors, bosses, teachers or any other authority figure, should motivate people? Where does pushing hard stop and abuse begin? 
Read more…

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/should-there-be-stricter-rules-about-how-coaches-treat-their-players/?src=twrhp

             $500,000 payout to charter principal sparks outrage 

T

he idea driving parent empowerment legislation is that a parent knows what's best for their children and will make the effort to do what is in the best interest of their children. The trigger movement originated in California in 2010 and seven states have passed laws giving parents a say in how to fix a failing public school. Opponents say triggers are a back-door way to hand public schools over to private educational companies, and that the process is open to manipulation by for-profit companies, which will lead to corporate control of public schools. Backers say a parent trigger encourages parents to get involved in their children’s education.

A trigger bill failed in the 2012 session when a handful of Republicans voted with Senate Democrats to kill it. This session proponents think that with the new makeup of the Senate they have the votes this year to pass the bill.  In their continued attempts at passing this controversial legislation, the House also passed a charter-school bill that aims to avoid a repeat of NorthStar High School, the failed Orange County School that sparked outrage last year when the Orlando Sentinel reported that it paid the outgoing principal more than $500,000, in addition to her $305,000 a year in salary and bonuses. The payout came as the Orange school district moved to close the school for a host of academic shortcomings.

The face of the charter school
movement through his devious
plan to unleash Parent Trigger
legislation across America.

The check for $519,453.36 in taxpayer money was cut to Kelly Young, principal of NorthStar High School; two days after the Orange County School Board accepted the school’s plan to close in lieu of being shut down for poor performance.  The payment, which was authorized by the charter school’s independent board, appears to be legal…  Young’s payout was based on a contract that called for her to be paid about $305,000 per year through 2014, even though the school’s contract was up for renewal in 2012.  She was paid 85 percent of her remaining contract.  Her yearly pay and bonuses to run the school, which served about 180 largely at-risk students in east Orange County, was higher than that of Barbara Jenkins, superintendent of the 181,000 students of Orange County Public Schools.  Because charter schools do not have to report their principals’ salaries in Florida, it is unclear how many might have similar contracts or salaries to Young’s.

The embattled former Washington
DC Commissioner of Education.

Jeb Bush's Foundation for Florida's Future, Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst and California-based Parent Revolution are the flag bearers for the parent trigger bill moving through the Florida House.  On Monday April 1st, otherwise known as April fool’s Day, the Florida State Senate passed SB 862, the Parent Empowerment Act also known as the "parent trigger" bill, by the Senate Education Committee by a 6-3 vote.  This was quickly followed by their actions on Monday, April 4th, when the full house passed the bill brought by Sen. Kelli Stargel in the house on a vote of 68 to 51.  They are moving quickly as to not give their opponents any time to garner support and again defeat this legislation as was done last year.  

Opponents of this bill say that charter schools looking to open in Florida, there is already a process in place that has been around for many years and is simpler and easier to go through than the process involved in this bill.  The primary motive behind this legislation is to make it easier for them to allow for profit charter school operators to move in and take over the public assets of the community. 

An example of what can take place when a community allows a for profit organization to take over their school was evident in Compton, California in November, 2011.  What followed in Compton was the stuff of high educational drama — claims of intimidation from both sides, an intransigent school board that put parents through ridiculous hoops to verify their signatures and, eventually, legal defeat when the petition was found lacking on largely technical grounds. Ultimately, the charter operator, Celerity Educational Group, decided to open a school a few blocks away instead, to predictions that this would wipe out McKinley by drawing away most of its students.

But that's not what happened. Though the Celerity school quickly filled after it opened in September, relatively few of those students were from McKinley. In fact, only a third of the parents who had signed the petition — and only a fifth of those at the school — enrolled their children in the charter school. And Parent Revolution — the organization that decided McKinley would be a good poster school for the parent trigger, drew up the petitions, led the signature-gathering effort and designated Celerity as the preferred charter operator — went back to the drawing board to rethink its goals and tactics.

What has emerged is a much less splashy version of the parent trigger, but one more likely to bring about real parent empowerment and meaningful reform. Instead of choosing the schools for a possible parent trigger and engineering the petitions, Parent Revolution now leaves it up to parents to determine whether they want to initiate major reforms and what kind. It will provide information and support to parent groups that ask for it, says Executive Director Ben Austin, but it's up to the parents themselves.

Parents ARE the experts when it comes to the needs of their children. There are literally hundreds of studies showing the more parents are involved in their child’s education, the more they succeed in the classroom. We are not putting parents in positions of authority inside a school (they can’t choose curriculum, fire teachers, or control the budget); we are giving them a voice in shaping the future of their school.

Moreover, monies spent on trying to move an organization while trying to incorporate and entire different system in a short period of time maybe better spent in supporting the schools in the first place through parental involvement options.  Study after study has shown that the earlier in a child’s educational process parent involvement begins, the more powerful the effects.  The most effective forms of parent involvement are those, which engage parents in working directly with their children on learning activities at home.