You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Governor Markell’ category.

When it comes to the debate over Governor Markell’s and Mark Murphy’s educational reform…… Salon echoes what the Christina, the Capitol, and Red Clay School Districts have been saying all along ( as have myriads far too numerous to mention here)….

“For instance, you can make the claim, “this tastes great” because that can’t be proven one way or the other. But when you claim, “your kids will love how this tastes,” and parents say, “my kids think it tastes like crap,” you’re pretty much toast. And you make matters all the worse if you respond, “Well, if you were a good parent you’d tell your kid to eat it anyway.”


That is Common Core.  That is Charter Schools,  That is everything but putting 11:1 teacher/student ratios in schools k-5 with reduced levels over 50%……

We know what works… that is building personal and mentoring relationships between students and teachers so the students want to succeed….

Anything taking us in any other direction, is not helping education… It is digging a deeper hole we will one day have to refill….

It only takes Common Sense to put away Common Core… Obviously that is something on which the editorial board of the News Journal, the Delaware Chamber of Commerce, the Rodel Foundation, the US Department of Education, the Delaware Department of Education, Dave Sokola, Darryl Scott and the governor of this state could use a Common Core course:   How To Apply Common Sense…..


Yesterday InBloom announced it will die.

“I have made the decision to wind down the organization over the coming months,” inBloom CEO Iwan Streichenberger wrote in an email to the organization’s supporters. “The unavailability of this technology is a real missed opportunity for teachers and school districts seeking to improve student learning.” 

The announcement comes on the heels of the New York state legislature’s recent enactment of legislation that effectively pulled the plug on inBloom’s last remaining large partner….

It was a dumb idea… Selling our children’s profiles.

Ron Russo’s argument boggles the mind…

There is no other way to put it:  “Come into my house and I’ll give you candy..”

In this case the candy is something called ” innovation”   As would any pedophile (no implication being made to Russo here) in making HIS argument, Ron Russo only mentions one side. He does not talk about the …”other”…   Which we know is the rape of the public school system that allowing charters will provoke.

How do we know this?





Washington DC.

It’s been done… It’s always failed.

Those places went into the Charter House for innovation…. They came out broken and raped…. Sorry, there is just no other way to describe what really happens when you allow Charters to siphon resources away from the public school system…

Imagine if you had riots in Wilmington… And you pulled resources… “All right, all national guard, all policemen, all fireman, all public employed are commanded by the mayor to leave the city… Let them innovate themselves out fo their predicament”….  Would that work?

That is exactly what you do to public schools when you have charters… You take resources direly needed to hold their own against a plethora of problems,  and you take them away and give to someone else… someone who really doesn’t need them…

Why does Russo not mention this ugly part of charters?  Most likely because he has lived a lily white existence.  As head of St. Marks,  where one picks and chooses ones students… As head of Wilmington Charter… where one picks and choses ones students…. A charter school, where less than 5.7% are considered low income….   Yet they steal resources away from low income schools that desperately need more money, not less, but get less because of people like Russo who think innovation is good…

However, I must thank Russo for one thing… For bringing to the forefront the mission statement that was hailed to bring charter schools into the mix in the first place….

The purpose of Delaware’s charter schools, as stated in the “Charter School Law of 1995,” is to “… improve public education overall …” 

Research in Philadelphia has proven that since Charters were allowed into Philadelphia… the average score of the entire district, including both charters and public schools, as fallen considerably…. That means we were sending kids through the Philadelphia school system with a better shot at a good future before 2004 before charters were allowed, than we currently do today….

That is in direct opposite to Delaware desire….”to improve public education overall…..”

Seriously,  if you help 20% and hurt 80%…. how does the entire state perform better when for every 2 going forward, you have 8 going back?

Why does Russo not address this?  Because it completely destroys his argument. That is why.

There is one way to do both… And that is to cut the financial cord between charters and their districts… If you want the luxury of allowing charters to flourish, and try new things,… you need to put them as a line item in the state budget and tax the 1% who will have access to these charters sufficiently, to pay for them…

Then you can have your innovation and eat it too…..



Tennessee, the “other” RTTT finalist besides Delaware, has just passed through conference Committee the bill to jump out of Common Core…
Here is the text…
The Committee further recommends that the following amendment be adopted:
by deleting the preamble to the bill and by substituting instead:
WHEREAS, the federal government has no constitutional authority to set educational
standards for Tennessee or to determine how children in Tennessee will be educated. Any
partnership with the federal government is solely at the discretion of the state; and
WHEREAS, selection of educational standards for Tennessee public schools is the
exclusive right of state and local education authorities; and
WHEREAS, intrusive data tracking is an invasion of the rights of students and their
families and any data collected should be used for the sole purpose of tracking the academic
progress and needs of students by Tennessee education officials; now, therefore,
AND FURTHER AMEND by deleting all language after the enacting clause and by substituting
instead the following:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 1, Part 3, is
amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated section:
(a) No educational standards shall be imposed on the state by the federal
government. Any adoption of educational standards for the public schools of the
state shall be done freely by the state board of education which, except as
provided in subsection (b), may change, adjust or recede from a standard at any
(b) A proposed change or addition to an educational standard, including,
but not limited to, the Next Generation Science Standards, the National
Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, the National Health Education
Standards, or the National Sexuality Education Standards shall be posted for
public review on the state board’s web site and submitted to the education
committees of the house of representatives and the senate at least sixty (60)
days before the state board meeting during which the final adoption of the
proposed standard is to be considered. The state board may vote on adoption of
standards or proposed changes or additions only at a public meeting at which a
quorum is in attendance.
(c) The state board shall not join a testing consortium inclusive of multiple
states that requires the adoption of common standards in social studies or
science subjects, unless the board provides at least sixty (60) days notice to the
education committees of the house of representatives and the senate and posts
such notice on its web site at least sixty (60) days before officially joining any
such consortium.
(d) Data collected from the use of or testing under educational standards
adopted by the state board shall be used for the sole purpose of tracking the
academic prowess and needs of students.
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 1, is amended by
adding Sections 3 through 9 as a new, appropriately designated part.
SECTION 3. This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Data
Accessibility, Transparency and Accountability Act”.
SECTION 4. As used in this part:
(1) “Aggregate data” means data collected or reported at the group,
cohort or institutional level;

Page 3
- 3 -
(2) “Biometric record” means a record of one (1) or more measurable
biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated
recognition of an individual;
(3) “Data system” means the body of student data collected by the
department of education;
(4) “De-identified data” means a student dataset in which parent and
student identifying information, including the personal identification number, has
been removed;
(5) “Department” means the department of education;
(6) “FERPA” means the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1232g;
(7) “Personal identification number” means the unique student identifier
assigned to a student under § 49-6-5101;
(8) “State board” means the state board of education;
(A) “Student data” means data collected or reported at the
individual student level that is included in a student’s educational record;
(B) “Student data” includes:
(i) State and national assessment results, including
information on untested public school students;
(ii) Course taking and completion, credits earned and other
transcript information;
(iii) Course grades and grade point average;
(iv) Date of birth, grade level and expected graduation date
or graduation cohort;

Page 4
- 4 -
(v) Degree, diploma, credential attainment and other
school exit information such as receipt of the GED® and drop-out
(vi) Attendance and mobility;
(vii) Data required to calculate the federal four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate, including sufficient exit and drop-
out information;
(viii) Discipline reports limited to objective information
sufficient to produce the federal Title IV annual incident report;
(ix) Remediation;
(x) Special education data; and
(xi) Demographic data and program participation
information; and
(C) Unless included in a student’s educational record, “student
data” does not include:
(i) Juvenile delinquency records;
(ii) Criminal records;
(iii) Medical and health records;
(iv) Student social security number; and
(v) Student biometric information; and
(10) “Teacher data” means personal summative and evaluation scores,
the access to which is limited to the department, LEA administrators, local
boards of education or those with direct supervisory authority who require such
access to perform their assigned duties. Nothing in this part shall restrict the
availability of information pursuant to § 49-1-606.
SECTION 5. The state board of education shall:

Page 5
- 5 -
(1) Create, publish and make publicly available a data inventory and
dictionary or index of data elements with definitions of individual student data
fields currently in the student data system along with the purpose or reason for
inclusion in the data system;
(2) Develop, publish and make publicly available policies and procedures
to comply with FERPA, § 10-7-504 and other relevant privacy laws and policies.
These policies and procedures shall, at a minimum, require that:
(A) Access to student and de-identified data in the student data
system is restricted to:
(i) The authorized staff of the department and the
department’s contractors who require access to perform their
assigned duties;
(ii) LEA administrators, teachers, school personnel and the
LEA’s contractors who require access to perform their assigned
(iii) Students and their parents; provided, however, that a
student or the student’s parents may only access the student’s
individual data;
(iv) The authorized staff of other state agencies as
permitted by law; provided, however, that within sixty (60) days of
providing such access, the department shall provide notice of
such release to the state board and the education committees of
the house of representatives and the senate and post such notice
on the department’s web site;
(v) Parties conducting research for or on behalf of the
department or an LEA, provided such access is granted in

Page 6
- 6 -
compliance with FERPA and other relevant state and federal
privacy laws and policies, and provided the department shall
provide notice of such release to the state board and the
education committees of the house of representatives and the
senate and post such notice on the department’s web site;
(vi) Appropriate entities in compliance with a lawfully
issued subpoena or court order; or
(vii) Appropriate officials in connection with an interagency
audit or evaluation of a federal or state supported education
(B) The department uses only aggregate data in public reports or
in response to public record requests in accordance with subdivision (3);
(C) The commissioner develops criteria for the approval of
research and data requests from state and local agencies, the general
assembly, researchers and the public; provided, however, that:
(i) Unless otherwise approved by the state board or
permitted in this part, student data maintained by the department
shall remain confidential; and
(ii) Unless otherwise permitted in this part or approved by
the state board to release student or de-identified data in specific
instances, the department may only use aggregate data in the
release of data in response to research and data requests; and
(D) Students and parents are notified of their rights under federal
and state law;
(3) Unless otherwise approved in this part or by the state board, the
department shall not transfer student or de-identified data deemed confidential

Page 7
- 7 -
under subdivision (2)(C)(i) to any federal agency or other organization or entity
outside the state, except when:
(A) A student transfers out of state or an LEA seeks help with
locating an out-of-state transfer;
(B) A student leaves the state to attend an out-of-state institution
of higher education or training program;
(C) A student registers for or takes a national or multistate
(D) A student voluntarily participates in a program for which such
data transfer is a condition or requirement of participation;
(E) The department enters into a contract that governs databases,
assessments, special education or instructional supports with an out-of-
state vendor; or
(F) A student is classified as “migrant” for federal reporting
(4) Develop a detailed data security plan that includes:
(A) Guidelines for authorizing access to the teacher data system
and to individual teacher data including guidelines for authentication of
authorized access;
(B) Guidelines for authorizing access to the student data system
and to individual student data including guidelines for authentication of
authorized access;
(C) Privacy compliance standards;
(D) Privacy and security audits;
(E) Breach planning, notification and procedures; and
(F) Data retention and disposition policies;

Page 8
- 8 -
(5) Ensure routine and ongoing compliance by the department with
FERPA, § 10-7-504, other relevant privacy laws and policies, and the privacy
and security policies and procedures developed under the authority of this part,
including the performance of compliance audits;
(6) Ensure that any contracts that govern databases, assessments or
instructional supports that include student or de-identified data and are
outsourced to private vendors include express provisions that safeguard privacy
and security and include penalties for noncompliance; and
(7) Notify the governor and the general assembly within sixty (60) days of
the following:
(A) Any new student data fields included in the state student data
(B) Changes to existing data collections required for any reason,
including changes to federal reporting requirements made by the United
States department of education;
(C) Any exceptions granted by the state board in the past year
regarding the release or out-of-state transfer of student or de-identified
data accompanied by an explanation of each exception; and
(D) The results of any and all privacy compliance and security
audits completed in the past year. Notifications regarding privacy
compliance and security audits shall not include any information that
would itself pose a security threat to the state or local student information
systems or to the secure transmission of data between state and local
systems by exposing vulnerabilities.

Page 9
- 9 -
(a) Parents and guardians have the right to inspect and review their
children’s education records maintained by the school.
(b) Parents and guardians have the right to request student data specific
to their children’s educational records.
(c) LEAs shall provide parents or guardians with a copy of their children’s
educational records upon request.
(1) The department shall develop a model student records policy
for LEAs that requires an LEA to:
(A) Annually notify parents and guardians of their right to
request student information;
(B) Ensure security when providing student data to parents
or guardians;
(C) Ensure student data is provided only to authorized
(D) Set the timeframe within which record requests must
be provided; and
(E) Consider implementation of a plan to allow parents and
guardians to view online, download, and transmit data specific to
their children’s educational records
(2) The department shall develop the model student records policy
by December 31, 2014. An LEA shall adopt the model policy or develop
its own policy prior to the beginning of school for the 2015-2016 school
year. Before implementing a policy other than the model policy, an LEA
shall submit the policy to the department for approval.
SECTION 7. LEAs and schools shall not collect individual student data on:

Page 10
- 10 -
(1) Political affiliation;
(2) Religion;
(3) Voting history; and
(4) Firearms ownership.
(a) Unless explicitly mandated by state or federal law, a state agency or
education institution shall obtain written consent from parents or students, in the
case of students eighteen (18) years of age or older, before collecting any
individual student biometric data, student data relative to analysis of facial
expressions, EEG brain wave patterns, skin conductance, galvanic skin
response, heart-rate variability, pulse, blood volume, posture, and eye-tracking.
(b) No state agency or education institution shall pursue or accept any
grant whether from the federal government or any private entity that requires
collecting or reporting information in violation of subsection (a).
(c) No state or national student assessment shall be adopted or
administered in this state that requires collecting or reporting information in
violation of subsection (a).
SECTION 9. Any collection of student data by the department existing on July 1,
2014, shall not be considered a new student data collection in accordance with
subdivision (7)(A) of Section 5 of this act.
SECTION 10. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 1, Part 2, is
amended by adding the following language as a new section:
(a) The Tennessee comprehensive assessment program (TCAP)
tests, inclusive of achievement, end of course and the comprehensive
writing assessments, shall be administered in the subjects of English

Page 11
- 11 -
language arts and math in grades three through eleven (3-11) during the
2014-2015 school year.
(b) Prior to the 2015-2016 school year, the department of
education shall issue a request for proposals and, through competitive
bidding, contract with one (1) or more entities to provide assessments in
English language arts and math, which shall be aligned to state
standards and fully implemented during the 2015-2016 school year. Prior
to the 2015-2016 school year, such tests shall be field tested and shall
replace the existing assessments in the applicable subject area. The
request for proposals issued by the department shall be prepared in
consultation with the comptroller and in compliance with state
procurement requirements, including those relative to conflicts of interest.
The fiscal review committee shall, by December 31, 2014, review all
contracts awarded pursuant to such requests for proposals and shall
annually report to the full education committees of the senate and house
of representatives as to the terms and performance thereof.
(c) The state of Tennessee shall not adopt common core state
standards in any subject matter beyond math and English language arts.
SECTION 11. The state board is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations
to effectuate the purposes of this act. All such rules and regulations shall be
promulgated in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 5.
SECTION 12. Section 10 of this act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the
public welfare requiring it. All remaining sections of this act shall take effect July 1,
2014, the public welfare requiring it
It is sad to see no change in Delaware; only the consistent plodding forward towards ruin, with blinders dutifully on both eyes, and tightly held reins slapping at the back…..
if the other state that won RTTT along with Delaware is jumping ship, are we now way off course?

I see John got here first… but this link explains Race To The Top better than any explanation so far….    My takeaway was that looking at how the winners taking a lion’s share of the money, how does that help the losers?  It is as if the 1% philosophy of just spending money on the very top… seems to have poisoned the system.

Charter Schools want to come into Wilmington…  Delaware Charter Schools Network Executive Director Kendall Massett explains it this way:   “When you have an open field, you build a road into it, that is just what you do; when you have a shore line, you haul dump trucks of sand to the ocean’s edge and dump sand it it…Therefore even though we don’t really need one more Charter School, we desperately need 5, simply “… because it makes me look good if I can get them to all go in…. “”

State legislators disagree…  In a letter to Mark Murphy, 20 state legislators (one third) expressed their concerns… Their main concern was that new Charters would deplete financial resources from public schools, particularly Red Clay, costing it $2.6 million…

Delaware Charter Schools Network Executive Director Kendall Massett responded: “2.6 million?  That’s nothing.  That’s only half the number of bacteria living on on human hand …  Spectators noted that Mark Murphy, Delaware’s Superintendent of Education, recently promoted as a Chief of Pocket Change,  nodded approvingly.

However to the north of Delaware, in the district of Philadelphia, Charters have become a nuisance like banana boat roaches. Their infestation has grown faster than the training of exterminators.  In a 2007 analysis of Philadelphia’s persistent deficits, Pennsylvania State Budget Director Michael Masch indicated that reimbursement to charter schools account for the largest growth in Philadelphia school district expenditures over the last five years 

According to state records, Philadelphia’s School District paid $240 million to charter schools per year…..  These costs had to be met in other ways.

Kendall Massett says parents should have the right to choose a school for their child…. She brought up the beach sand analogy to prove its point… “Every year we truck sand in from the Pacific ocean across the nation at very great expense, to give beach goers an option to stand on either Atlantic or Pacific sand if they choose.  Without the great cost and expense, they would only have the sand of one geographical location, and their lives would be severely limited.”  The legislators pulled out a microscope and then challenged Kendall Massett to prove which grains were from the Pacific and which were locally beached.  Kendall Massett was unable to distinguish any difference between the two.

In Philadelphia, they discovered that overall, the results suggests that charter school performance is statistically
indistinguishable from the public school system’s students as neither the math nor the reading coefficient estimates for charter schools were statistically significant. This result is largely consistent with the existing literature that has generally found small negative, small positive, or no effects for charter schools across various locations (Solmon, Paark, and Garcia, 2001; Gronberg and Jansen, 2001; Hanushek, Kain, and Rivikin, 2002; Zimmer et al., 2003; Bifulco and Ladd, 2006; Sass, 2006; Zimmer and Buddin, 2006; Betts et al, 2006; Witte, et al., 2007; Hoxby and Murarka, 2007; Booker, et al, forthcoming)…..

So despite great expense in carting the sand from one side of the country to the other, and despite great expense in getting charters off the ground, as well as in running a public school system on $240 million less,  Kendall Massett insists we continue forward with Charters for the most serious of reasons:  “… because it makes me look good if I can get them to all go in…. “

The analysis quoted above, further suggests that for students attending a charter school in its first year, charter schools have a negative and statistically significant effect in math….

To this Kendall Massett replied that unless you go forward and put Pacific sand on the beach, many beach goers will never get the opportunity again, to stand on Pacific grains of sand…  ” “We believe these schools will add unique value to Delaware because of their innovative methodology”..

When questioned by legislators what unique methodology Charter Schools could provide… Kendall Massett responded:  “Duh, I said they’re from a different place… So, that means they are different…In the case of two of them, a strong track record of success for kids.” meaning of course that three of the five have no record of success at all. but she insists, we should approve them all, because?

“… because it makes me look good if I can get them to all go in…. “

Recently, when it was announced that Freire Charter’s application was in jeopardy, 41 parents of students in Freire in Philly, all wrote letters extolling the virtues of Freire, once  it was clearly told them that their child would fail the entire year, if glowing letters of recommendation were not forthcoming immediately…

Waxing eloquently, Massett wrote a letter in large hand printed script to her gym teaching mentor stating, that “It is perplexing that, in a city plagued by violence, charter opponents have criticized Freire’s nonviolence policy, which creates a safe haven in which students can learn and thrive.”

The legislators responded that Massett must have been smoking crack while they were talking.  No one said anything like that at all, they insisted.  If anything their opposition was not against Freire per se, but was instead directed against the loss of money that it would steal from the good existing schools already in place in the four districts surrounding Wilmington….

After the meeting, many legislators expressed amazement at Kendall Massett’s assertions…. Rep, Kim Williams, “the way she was acting, I almost pulled a chunk of green kryptonite I carry in my purse, just to see if she’d wither and collapse in a corner somewhere” she seriously pondered….

Said Charles Potter:  If Kendall Massett wanted to fill her pickup with sand and haul it across country at her own expense, we’d have no problem with that. But to make everyone pay an extraordinary price for sand that is identical to what we already have, is not the best use of taxpayers money at this time….

After all, the only reason Kendall Massett is so rabidly insistent is because?

“… because it makes me look good if I can get them to all go in…. “









One of the benefits of thinking through outragous possible comibinations associated with the math portion of the Smart Balanced Assessments, was that it forces one to look at even the most ridiculous approaches to the most ridiculous possible problems….

So one should not be surprised that a very young child applies that to writing the date down on his homework, and  come up with what for the first time, has been made public….

Every day this week … the date is the same forwards as it is backwards…

Sunday,        4 13 14

Monday        4 14 14

Tuesday        4 15 14

Wednesday  4 16 14

Thursday      4 17 14

Friday            4 18 14

Saturday       4 19  14


Others may look to check it out, but we may never see another such a perfect aligned week in our lifetimes…..


I’m sure that Dave Sokola, Darryl Scott, Mark Murphy, and Jack Markell are breaking out the champagne and opening the caviar to celebrate something good coming out of Common Core… But did we really have to spend $116 million (Kilory :)  ) as a state to achieve this fantastical observation?

This was in his editorial:  

“One of the best investments the business community can make is to simply share our knowledge of leadership, goal-setting and time management.

Business community:  shall we present your knowledge of leadership?

“I don’t care if you do think it’s a really stupid piss poor idea that will destroy my business. It’s my way or the highway… Wait a minute. You’re fired! So it’s the highway. There! I decided it for you!..  Seriously, how about them apples?…”

Business community:  shall we present your knowledge of goal setting…?.

“Um.  If they meet their goal, they will all get lazy afterwards and not want to do anything… I know, I’ll raise the goal 4 gazillion times higher than anyone can possibly achieve in reality!… Then I’ll fire them for not meeting it… That should keep them scared of me and on their toes…”

Business community:  shall we present your knowledge of time management?

“Holy piss!  Grading these motherfvcking papers? I’m not doing them, they can kiss my fvcking a$s.   I don’t have time for that s\it… I gotta tee off at 2:30…..”


Somehow… I think as far away, as we can keep businesses from our kids while they are growing up…. the better all will be….  Kids have the right to grow up right.

Our children can learn what real assholes are, AFTER college is finished….  like, duh,… when it’s time to enter the…… business world……  heavens.  Who in their screwed-up mind still thinks that businesses are something holy to still be venerated?   Duh… How long has it been since Cheney took over our country?  Fourteen years now?


When one has a bad program, if one is employed and wishes to remain so, one must suck the hose spewing the money. Recently Ezra Klein felt the necessity as John links to over here.  Further more  on this day, we have Terri Hodges paying the piper here… And to make it a hat trick… from the dark black hole of 901 N. Market Street, a place sucking up just in 2013… $6,231,714.57 of Delaware’s taxpayer’s money, a ringing endorsement dutifully published by  the News Journal without any of the clear quid-pro-quo lines of connection between public dollars and one’s private fortunes that one would expect to find on a real news source, such as here….. 

But at the same time of this pro-Common-Core-coordinated push…., South Carolina is dropping the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Louisiana will be exiting PARCC assessments. Tennessee is leaving the PARCC assessments and Common Core altogether.  Indiana has left Common Core and chose to go solo with their own standards….keeping the best, trashing the worst.

The difference between these two opposite opinions depends solely on whether or not one is sucking the hose.  People who suck, all chorus “we need higher standards now blah, blah, blah”.  The People who got sucked (as in being pegged for suckers, silly, what did you think I was implying?)…  are saying “we’re getting the hell out of this stinking glory hole as fast as we possibly can… “

Interestingly, all this is being viewed by those in charge of the next wave of reform: which is the implementation of Science and Math standards, or STEM…  This is more serious than Common Core.  Because real science and math, are more important to daily life than ELA and randomly attributed math puzzles.  Society always get along if we hear colorful language…”Yo! Ain’t yet got ‘dem Seasoned Eag’s tiks yet, bro,” ….  We can survive because we are smart enough to know that upon hearing that, we should ask someone else for our season Eagles tickets…   But being on an operating table, half in and out of consciousness and hearing “Ewwwwww… what’s that brown-red thingy, ugh, looks disgusting.””Uhh, Doctor, that is her liver.” “oh, yeah right,  It’s her liver.” does not play well for society overall and and as a whole….

People working on putting the next wave together are saying this in unison:


Instead here is what THEY recommend:

1) Anticipating that schools will not be able to tackle all aspects of the standards at once, and that some kind of staged implementation is called for.

2) Introducing the standards one grade level at a time, allowing each cohort of students to arrive at each grade with the requisite prior knowledge.  For example, start with k; then do k, 1st; then do k,1,2; and then do k,1,2,3; and so on….

3) Begin at the beginning (rather than the middle) and laying a solid foundation for subsequent work, especially important for high-need students.. Science is cumulative, and complicated ideas are built upon constituent concepts taught earlier,,

4) Build upward to give districts the requisite time to adapt the new standards and to offer effective professional development for all science teachers, one grade level at a time… From a district’s perspective, this professional-development challenge becomes more tractable and affordable…

5) The “all in” approach so far taken with the common core  indeed feels more like a tsunami, hitting a district all at once, changing the landscape, and threatening to erode all of the very progress it is trying to make. Such disruption lead to a backlash, followed by efforts to roll back or water down new standards….


When you see how much Common Core has failed and fallen on its face, so much that the next wave is calling for it’s abandonment….  it is physically hard to take any cheerleading …. “Rah, Rah, Rah! Sis Boom Bah” for Common Core seriously…

Perhaps we should do them a favor, find the handle on the spigot and shut off the water drowning them, so they can finally catch their breath…. and talk clearly ……

Common Core like the Reconstructionist South… is crawling with Carpet Baggers, each intent on  plying their own brand of self-help for a problem they alone are creating; there was never any overall systemic structure for regulating vendors; it was from the beginning set up like a bazaar…  When one walks in a bazaar, all one hears is noise.  A cacophony.  We need to stop listening to Common Core cheerleading as anything more than the marketing of self-promotion…  For the News Journal to allow this dark black-hole company of only 3 people earning over $6 million of state tax dollars just this past fiscal year…. , WITHOUT disclosing to us, the public, where exactly that opinion is coming …. is doing all of journalism a gigantic injustice….

Doing exactly that should be immoral.

Carpet Baggins's















And back date it to apply to all transactions starting after midnight, January 1, 2011….

A giant 248 MW power plant is going into a residential neighborhood.  That is unheard of.  We know Rowan jumped out of a similar deal.

Every human being in Delaware should demand (because they will soon breathe the toxins) that the UD lose its proprietary status, and that we find out what is really going on.

They were up front with Rowen and Rowen said no thank you… The University of Delaware is sitting on valuable information required by all to make a balanced decision, without which a gigantic lifetime mistake could occur….

Obviously they want that mistake to occur…

So, to fight back, they should lose all future protection from FOIA requests…  All it takes is a change of one sentence…..

A statement (not a rhetorical but an action that has grave consequences),  needs to be emphasized:  that if you want of fuck with the citizens of the town of Newark, it will cost you.  It WILL cost you…..

Here: John and Paul….

Synopsis: This bill would include the President’s Offices of the University of Delaware as being defined as a public body, and would therefore serve to open it to all FOIA inquiries.  Furthermore this bill would reach back to  midnight January 1, 2011 and require the University to legally fulfill all FOIA requests for information dating henceworth that period in time.

Section 1.  Amend § 10002(h), Title 29 of the Delaware Code  by making insertions as shown by underlining as follows:

(h) ”Public body” means, unless specifically excluded, any regulatory, administrative, advisory, executive, appointive or legislative body of the State, or of any political subdivision of the State, including  the University of Delaware, but not limited to, any board, bureau, commission, department, agency, state university, committee, ad hoc committee, special committee, temporary committee, advisory board and committee, subcommittee, legislative committee, association, group, panel, council or any other entity or body established by an act of the General Assembly of the State, or established by any body established by the General Assembly of the State, or the University of Delaware, or the Presidents Office of the University of Delaware, or appointed by any body or public official of the State or otherwise empowered by any state governmental entity, which:

and… Section 1.  Amend § 10002(l), Title 29 of the Delaware Code  

(i) ”Public body,” “public record” and “meeting” shall not include activities of the University of Delaware and Delaware State University, except that the Board of Trustees and all offices of the President of the University of Delaware and the Board of Trustees and all offices of the President of the  Delaware State University shall be “public bodies,” and that the University and University documents relating to the expenditure of all private and public funds shall be deemed “public records,” and each meeting by the President or of the full Board of Trustees of either institution shall be deemed a “meeting.”  This action will apply retroactively to January 1, 2011.


We may all die of asphyxiation, but we won’t die without fighting back……



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers