The Mayor’s Handpicked Board issues new 1.6% pay cut to CTU educators and all but assures teachers will walk on April 1st

CHICAGO—Moments ago, the Chicago Board of Education added insult to injury to every teacher, paraprofessional and clinician by announcing it would impose three furlough days this school year, causing educators to potentially lose a whopping 8.6 percent loss in pay.  The first furlough, Friday, March 25^th, marks the start of the Easter holiday season.

In an email forwarded to the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), the Board writes:

Please be advised that the Board is modifying its academic calendar for SY15-16 and will conducting 3 furlough days of employees on the following days:

• March 25, 2016
• June 22, 2016
• June 23, 2016

The reason for these actions is to improve the Board’s cash flow.  Employees will no longer be scheduled to work on those days and will not be paid on those days.   To the extent that teachers redistributed the flex PD day on June 23 and have already work the time, they will be paid.   Employee benefits will not be affected. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the impact of this decision, please feel free to call me and I will schedule a meeting with you.

Notices are being sent to employees via electronic mail simultaneously with this communication.  A copy of the employee communication will be transmitted to you separately.

CTU President Karen Lewis denounced the cuts by saying this (action) “only strengthens our resolve to shut down the school district on April 1^st,” she said. “The mayor is already seeking a 7 percent pay cut and today’s directive adds another reduction in salary and benefits. They should have never extended the school year in the first place if they couldn’t afford to do so.”

The “pension pickup” has been in the contract since 1981, and was agreed to in lieu of salary increases. It requires CPS to pay 7 percent of teachers’ salary to the pension fund instead of to the teachers. If CPS does not pay the 7 percent, teachers must pay this pension fund requirement themselves. Such action would therefore constitute a pay cut and therefore would make a strike permissible under an interpretation of state law.

 

The state could lose more than $140-million a year if the bill passes, maybe up to $325-million.

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The U.S. Department of Education has sent the state of Oregon a letter, threatening to pull federal funding if Oregon lawmakers pass a bill making it easier for parents to opt out their children from standardized tests.

The state could lose more than $140-million a year if the bill passes, maybe up to $325-million. Representative Lew Frederick is a supporter of the bill. He says losing funding has always been a thought but he tells KOIN 6 News, Oregon isn’t the only state fighting standardized testing.

“The bill doesn’t say get rid of the test.” said Frederick. “The bill says simply, here is a procedure for opting out of the test if parents come forward and want to opt out, that’s all it says.”

Toya Fick with Stand for Children Oregon is worried the threat is real and is against House Bill 2655.

“Those funds go to very needy schools and children to pay for many things, literacy programs, second half of full day kindergarten, other things that really help insure our kids are on the path to success.” said Fick.

There is some disagreement whether this is a legitimate threat. The Portland Association of Teachers said there is no way the feds would really pull funding and they call it a scare tactic. The State Superintendent of Public Education thinks the threat is legitimate and the feds could pull the money.

Source: Feds threaten Oregon over Common Core

By Beth Hawkins –

The state Board of Teaching violated Minnesota law when it unilaterally discontinued a popular and effective process for licensing teachers, argue motions filed in a lawsuit against the board in Ramsey County District Court.

Filed on behalf of a growing list of plaintiffs, the suit contends that the board has engaged in a pattern of arbitrarily and without explanation denying licenses to would-be teachers. To date, much of the controversy has centered on a 2011 law the board has largely failed to enact that would make it easier for out-of-state candidates.

The most dramatic action at a Ramsey County District Court hearing scheduled for June 25, however, will concern a teacher-licensing measure the board lobbied lawmakers to approve several years ago, but has since quietly discontinued.

The decision, the plaintiffs are expected to argue, compounds a fundamental problem: No matter their skill or experience, those who want to teach in Minnesota must spend time and money with one of the traditional teacher training programs.

In 2012 the board stopped allowing teachers to earn licenses by submitting portfolios showing their teaching skill. Those who wanted to teach but whose backgrounds had wrinkles — they went to school elsewhere, were changing careers or wanted to add a new specialty — had had a variety of possibilities for demonstrating their abilities.

Process was used by nearly 500 teachers

A top board priority just four years earlier, the process had been used successfully by nearly 500 teachers. Some 200 applications were pending when the board terminated the program. There was no public discussion, just a note posted to the Minnesota Department of Education website.

“Due to budget reductions and policy changes, the Licensure via Portfolio process has been discontinued,” it explains. “Interested candidates who were unsuccessful are encouraged to contact a Minnesota college or university to complete a teacher preparation program.”

What changed between 2008, when the board asked the Legislature to enshrine Licensure via Portfolio in state law, and 2012? A couple of major factors. The first: A Republican governor with an eye toward education reform left office. When his DFL replacement appointed new members to the Board of Teaching, they no longer included critics of the status quo.

The other thing that delivered a shock to the teacher prep system was the arrival in the Twin Cities of the highly successful alternative teacher preparation Teach for America (TFA). Faced with an influx of elite college graduates who entered the classroom after a summer of nontraditional training, board members were talking openly of needing to protect their constituencies.

In 2011, two years after TFA’s arrival, Minnesota passed a law mandating two processes to make it easier for teachers with nontraditional training and those who have taught successfully elsewhere to get Minnesota licenses. Until then, the board had been enthusiastic about the portfolio process, which the current lawsuit claims was actually generating more revenue than it cost to operate.

(The By-Now-Standard Kramer Disclaimer: MinnPost founders Joel and Laurie Kramer are the parents of TFA Co-CEO Matt Kramer. Matt Kramer’s wife, Katie Barrett Kramer, is a former TFA teacher and corps leader. Matt’s brother Eli Kramer is married to Jessica Cordova Kramer, who works for TFA. None of them is aware that this story is being prepared.)

Teacher attempts thwarted

Some of the plaintiffs in the suit [PDF] say they should have been able to use the portfolio option. Others attempted to use a streamlined process for licensing teachers trained in other states that the board has failed to implement despite the 2011 law ordering its creation. Requests for appeals by some went unanswered.

At a court hearing scheduled for late June, the board is expected to argue that in general [PDF] the plaintiffs do not have a legal remedy and are presenting their case to the wrong court. The board’s court filings also argue that it has fulfilled the 2011 law requiring a process for out-of-state teachers. The board’s executive director was not available to respond to questions for this article; the board’s chair did not respond to an e-mail.

Instead of spelling out the reasons for its denials, the board routinely recommends to even experienced and lauded teachers that they contact Minnesota training programs, which in turn require expensive and redundant coursework. The lawsuit is one of several ongoing efforts to force the agency to license teachers trained outside traditional Minnesota programs.

Legislative efforts, state audit

Depending on the outcome of this year’s legislative special session, the board will face a revamped version of the 2011 law that advocates for the plaintiffs and other potential teachers say contains language that is stronger and more difficult to evade. The board also faces a state audit.

Board members — all appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton and many with strong ties to teacher-prep programs and Education Minnesota, which opposes some of the changes — have offered only oblique answers why the debate has dragged on. At the public meetings where the topic has come up repeatedly since the 2011 law’s passage, board members have expressed distaste for the changes.

Portfolio licensure would be a godsend to Campbell-Tintah teacher Tony Munsterman, one of the teacher-plaintiffs who has spent years and thousands of dollars trying to secure a Minnesota license. In 1984, Munsterman graduated from Augsburg College with what was then the appropriate degree to teach music at the secondary level.

The parameters of the grades 5-12 music license changed that year, though the coursework to earn the credential stayed the same. Because music teachers are among the first to be laid off when budgets fall, Munsterman has spent the last three decades moving his family of five from one Greater Minnesota community to another.

In part because of this dynamic, teachers are in particularly short supply outside of Minnesota’s larger cities. Consequently, credentialing teachers in hard-to-fill areas is a policy priority for state education officials. In many of Munsterman’s past postings, district officials didn’t worry too much about his license and asked him to teach music in numerous settings.

In search of a permanent credential, Munsterman earned most of a master’s degree from St. Cloud State University, but quit when he realized the extra degree would price him out of the market in the towns where he wanted to work.

In an attempt to keep his current job, in Otter Tail County, Munsterman did what licensing officials said he should do and contacted a number of Minnesota colleges, several of which suggested he start over. He was one hour from losing his job — which no one else had applied for despite a statewide advertising campaign — when Concordia University agreed to help.

Munsterman was told he needed to take five classes at a cost of up to $3,000 each, including a course in choral methods. Last Friday, in an unexplained about-face, state licensing officials concluded he and at least one other plaintiff in the BOT lawsuit did not need to take a reading class.

Some of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and similar ones filed in the past were subsequently offered licenses or temporary teaching credentials. None has received an explanation to date, though at least one was told that if he were not a plaintiff state officials could more easily communicate with him.

Envisioned as a gap-closing mechanism

Resolving problems like Munsterman’s was only part of the original appeal of a portfolio procedure. The original intent, according to the lawsuit, was to satisfy a requirement, linked to federal funding, that Minnesota adopt “highly qualified teacher” requirements as a mechanism to closing racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps.

Portfolio licensure, the state told the U.S. Department of Education, “provides opportunities to expand the field of teachers thereby providing district administrators greater opportunity to hire highly qualified teachers particularly in schools with high poverty and [that] have been identified as having inequities in their teacher assignments.”

The portfolio pathway was particularly advantageous to impoverished schools and charter schools, MDE noted: “The state cannot ignore the fact that many of the students that enroll in charter schools have high needs, have not been successful in ‘traditional’ school and the enrollment of students in charter schools continues to increase.”

In 2008, the board successfully lobbied lawmakers to make the portfolio process a state law. In 2009 and 2011, the board returned to the Capitol to ask for funding to support the portfolio program. Both times its director asked teachers to testify about the process.

‘Portfolio option was just awesome’

Despite the fact that she had a master’s degree, one testified, “the classes that they were suggesting were basically beginners teaching classes, so for me the portfolio option was just awesome.”

Not only was a revenue stream created, including state money and fees from portfolio applicants, the Legislature reauthorized the board’s portfolio account for 2014 and 2015, according to the motion before the Ramsey County court.

MDE was then part of a Republican administration, which was, of course, not aligned with the teacher’s union and which appointed its own board members. The out-of-state licensing provisions passed in 2011 but not implemented were developed on their watch.

“It’s certainly my assessment that politics is playing a role in how candidates from out of state are being treated and how the board deals with programs like alternative licensure,” said Daniel Sellers, executive director of the advocacy group MinnCAN, which has monitored the issue for several years.

Indeed perhaps the fate of the portfolio process is best sorted out in a court of law. The teachers’ motion contends the portfolio program was self-funding, noting that e-mails between the board and MDE show that from 2009 to January 2011, the program took in $15,000 more in application fees than it spent. After portfolio was discontinued, other e-mails show, there was discussion about what to do with an undisclosed surplus.

MDE: ‘Pathway was not self-sustaining’

MDE disputes the notion that the program paid for itself.

“The pathway was not self-sustaining,” the agency asserted in reply to a MinnPost request. “Revenues collected from applicants offset the costs related to external portfolio reviewers, but did not cover costs related to online tools, technology, or staff time with either the department or the board.”

The department estimated to lawmakers that the process would require one full-time employee to manage the process at an estimated cost of $95,361 and a half-time employee at the board of teaching at an estimated cost of $58,496 as well as online tools and technology costs of $75,000.

As late as November 2011 — after the out-of-state licensure pathway was supposed to have been created — the board was telling applicants that the portfolio process was their best option for securing a Minnesota license.

Asked whether he would submit a portfolio, Munsterman immediately starts touting the big-city competitions in which his budding small-town musicians have held their own. Heck, he adds, who but a zealot would pick up and move every couple of years just to stay in the same line of work?

“When I get up in the morning, the only thing I want to be is a music teacher,” Munsterman said. “I want my license. I want to stay where I am without interruption. I don’t want to have to pay all this money for coursework I don’t necessarily need.

“In jail, this would be called time served.”

Source: Dropping portfolio approach to licensing teachers violated state law, suit argues | MinnPost

Josh Hedtke –

That’s one of several phrases deemed a ‘microaggression’ at faculty leader training sessions initiated by University of California President Janet Napolitano

“America is the land of opportunity,” “There is only one race, the human race” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” are among a long list of alleged microaggressions faculty leaders of the University of California system have been instructed not to say.

These so-called microaggressions – considered examples of subconscious racism – were presented at faculty leader training sessions held throughout the 2014-15 school year at nine of the 10 UC campuses. The sessions, an initiative of UC President Janet Napolitano, aim to teach how to avoid offending students and peers, as well as how to hire a more diverse faculty.

At the gatherings, deans and department chairs across the UC system have been instructed to be careful using (read: instructed not to use) phrases such as “America is the land of opportunity” or even use forms that provide only “male” and “female” check boxes, among a long litany of supposed microaggressions listed in a document underlying the “Faculty Leadership Seminars.”

The document has drawn little scrutiny until now, when a professor in the UC system pointed it out to The College Fix. The professor chose not to attend the seminars, but myriad materials on the UC Office of the President (UCOP) website give indication as to what sort of lessons were taught there.

Other sayings deemed unacceptable include:

● “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”

● “Where are you from or where were you born?”

● “Affirmative action is racist.”

● “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”

These phrases in particular are targeted because they promote the “myth of meritocracy” or represent “statements which assert that race or gender does not play a role in life successes.” Others are said to be color blind, apparently a bad thing that indicates “that a white person does not want to or need to acknowledge race,” according to the handout, “Tool: Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send.”

In another handout, “Tool for Identifying Implicit Bias,” faculty are advised when dealing with a student or researcher that they are particularly impressed with not to express approval with compliments like “It’s clear he’s a rockstar.” The handout also describes “raising the bar” as “elitist.”

President Napolitano’s “invitation” to deans and department chairs in January describes the half-day seminars as helping them meet their “responsibility” to create “academic climates that enable all faculty to do their best work.” The seminars are intended to help faculty identify and “interrupt” microaggressions and develop “an inclusive department/school climate,” according to the seminars’ webpage.

The seminars also taught faculty how to deal with prospective hires and existing minority faculty. According to a synopsis of the theatric production “Ready to Vote?” presented at the gatherings, a group of professors consider whether to nominate an Asian American female colleague for tenure. It’s intended to illustrate several perceived microaggressions, such as holding minority professors to higher standards than white male counterparts and not supporting their research.

Another highlight among materials for the seminars is a curious choice: a Supreme Court dissent in a decision upholding Michigan voters’ right to ban race preferences in college admissions. Its inclusion suggests to faculty that publicly approving of race-neutral admissions policies is a microaggression.

The College Fix reached out to the UC Office of the President for comment. In response to a question about how these seminars might have a chilling effect on faculty members’ ability to engage in free speech, representative Shelly Meron said in an email Tuesday that “These seminars are not an attempt to curb open dialogue, debate or classroom discussions.”

“The seminars are part of the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program,” Meron stated. “Deans and department heads who attended the seminars could choose whether they wanted to convey the information to their faculty.”

With regard to the seemingly commonplace, innocuous quotes that are labeled microaggressions in the seminar leaflets, Meron writes:

“The quotes you referenced are taken directly from research done on this topic. We present this research literature/climate survey responses as examples so that faculty leaders can be more aware of the impact their actions or words may have on their students, and to provide faculty members with potential strategies to create an inclusive learning environment for all students.”

Many UC administrators are used to talking about promoting diversity thanks to diversity initiatives and calls to “improve campus climate” that have been legion across UC campuses in recent years. UCLA’s campus in particular has been a hotbed of activity for diversity campus crusaders.

In 2013, Carlos Moreno, a retired California Supreme Court judge, authored an exhaustive report on “Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty” at UCLA. Just this past year, after failed attempts in 2004 and 2012, UCLA passed a highly controversial diversity class requirement that was the subject of multiple faculty votes.

Source: California professors instructed not to say ‘America is the land of opportunity’

Jonathan Benson –

Efforts by the vaccine mafia to manipulate more parents into vaccinating their children are failing, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics. The first randomized trial to evaluate how “better communication” between doctors and their patients affects vaccination rates has revealed that, despite what doctors say or do to try to persuade their clients into vaccinating, the same number of parents are still saying “no.”

It apparently came as a shock to both researchers and the mainstream media, which believed that teaching more doctors how to regurgitate the most convincing pro-vaccine talking points would somehow dramatically increase vaccination rates. As it turns out, parents who question or flat-out refuse vaccinations due to concerns about safety and effectiveness aren’t easily swayed by rhetoric and propaganda.

The study, which was funded in part by the militantly pro-vaccine Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, involved 347 mothers of healthy newborn babies. The mothers were randomly divided into two groups, one of which was assigned to receive care at a clinic where doctors had each undergone a special 45-minute training session on how to push more vaccines, and the other where doctors had not been fed pro-vaccine propaganda.

At the end of six months, no difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the number of hesitant or refusing mothers who changed their minds about vaccines. This was despite the fact that during the study period there was both a whooping cough outbreak in Washington state (which, as usual, was blamed on the unvaccinated) and changes in the law requiring parents to receive a doctor’s note before opting out of vaccines.

“None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child,” reports the study, noting that the results also indicate that some parents are actually less likely to vaccinate when presented with manipulative propaganda.

“Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects.”

Child jabbers plan to keep on trying until every parent is compliant with vaccine agenda

Though these important findings clearly show that parents with valid concerns about vaccines aren’t stupid, nor are they easily swayed by bombastic rhetoric, the researchers involved plan to continue trying. They apparently see this latest study as an indicator that the pro-vaccine mob is “headed in the right direction,” to quote a professor of government at Dartmouth College who believes that this is all just “part of real science.”

How he came to this illogical conclusion is anyone’s guess. If anything, this paper proves that, no matter how much lipstick you slather on a pig, it’s still a pig and everyone knows it. But when you’re maniacally obsessed with jabbing every child on the planet with deadly neurotoxins and live viruses to supposedly protect them against mostly benign conditions like measles or chicken pox, there’s no telling the level of mental derangement at play.

“These are not ‘idiots’… they are caring, intelligent, mostly highly educated, and skeptical parents, who rightly own the last word on their children’s well-being, and who are not so foolish… as to just blindly trust the medical profession,” wrote one NPR commenter about parents who question or refuse vaccines for their children.

“It would be easier to just be an ‘idiot’ and let others make the crucial decisions regarding what’s best for their children, but these conscientious parents are working hard to figure out what’s best for their children.”

Sources:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org

http://www.npr.org

Source: Vaccine propaganda isn’t working – Research finds parents still saying NO to jab-pushing doctors – NaturalNews.com

Source: World’s Leading Islamic University Al Azhar distributing free book dedicated to discrediting Christianity, the “failed religion” | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West

The New York Times recently published an op-ed that offered defaulting on your loans as a viable way of escaping student debt. Pretty much everyone disagrees with that.

“It struck me as absurd that one could amass crippling debt as a result, not of drug addiction or reckless borrowing and spending, but of going to college,” Lee Siegel, a journalist based out of Rhode Island, wrote in an essay for The New York Times. “Having opened a new life to me beyond my modest origins, the education system was now going to call in its chits and prevent me from pursuing that new life, simply because I had the misfortune of coming from modest origins.”

The best way to fight back, Siegel explained, was to simply default on his loans. Doing so was his way of discarding “a social arrangement that is legal, but not moral.”

“When the fateful day comes and your credit looks like a war zone, don’t be afraid,” he counseled. “The reported consequences of having no credit are scare talk, to some extent.”

Not everyone’s on board with Siegel’s proposal, however (and he does indeed propose this to be a viable path for others, saying that “the millions of young people today, who collectively owe over $1 trillion in loans may want to consider my example”). Some believe Siegel’s argument is disconnected from the economic realities of poor Americans.

Source: One way to pay back your student loans that you should avoid at all costs | Deseret News

“Film Festivals are still an important outlet for people to find great films. We were able to bring together a significant number of American indie and international films created with limited resources but still incredible art.” – Bryce Renninger3979 miles from Cannes, 4147 from Venice and 3000 from Los Angeles, a diverse international crowd gathered at the Brooklyn Film Festival (now in its 18th year) to celebrate innovative storytelling and filmmaking in the age of the Indie.

Technology has levelled the playing field, giving artists greater access to the filmmaking process, yet huge challenges remain for those drawn to the world of making and distributing movies. “Filmmakers are using technology to create amazing things, comments Bryce Renninger, the Festival’s new Director of Programming; “but there are many more films and there are many more entertainment choices for audiences.” It is easier, cheaper and even faster to make a film, but how do you make your movie stand out and how do you ensure people actually get to see it? Renninger notes, “Film Festivals are still an important outlet for people to find great films. We were able to bring together a significant number of American indie and international films created with limited resources but still incredible art.”

2331 films from 114 countries were submitted to the Festival. Just 109 films from 26 countries were selected. When the screenings, panels, parties and awards were over, I asked some of this year’s winners to share the important lessons they learned while making their newly honored films.

“The creative process of a film is like a Christmas tree. I try to choose really talented collaborators – people I truly admire, and I’m just trying to get their gifts.”- Alison Bagnall (Funny Bunny)Joseph Frank (Sweaty Betty – Awards: Grand Chameleon Award – Joseph Frank & Zachary Reed, and Best Narrative Feature)

Joseph: Don’t try to make a movie above your means. If you are a beginner filmmaker and don’t have any financial backing, you have to make a movie that is centered around dialogues. Props, locations, actors, special effects all cost money that we didn’t have. We knew our story had to be one that takes place in free locations and is character driven with strong dialogue showcasing the characters and the story. Make a movie about/with people who have strong stories. We didn’t create Sweaty Betty, instead we asked around in our neighborhood for the best stories. Learn how to professionally record and edit sound yourself or hire a professional sound recorder/editor. I didn’t take any classes on producing and I wish I had. We did mostly everything wrong from a producing standpoint because all we had time to focus on was directing and making the movie. Make sure you research the producing issues that may affect your movie before or during production.

Alison Bagnall (Funny Bunny – Awards: Certificates for Outstanding Achievement for Male Actor and Editing)

Alison: The creative process of a film is like a Christmas tree. I try to choose really talented collaborators – people I truly admire, and I’m just trying to get their gifts. In Funny Bunny I tried to get really comfortable with the feeling of not knowing precisely where we were going. I learned to not be afraid of that feeling. I learned to be humble to the point of self-effacement. I wonder in hindsight if I was purposely acting clueless and confused at times because it creates a power vacuum that others get nervous and feel they have to compensate for. And as a result, I get all their best gifts. Maybe it was calculated and brilliant, or maybe I was just actually clueless. I’m not sure!

“Work with people who believe in you. It will give you courage and make you much better.” – Alfie Lee (In The Future, Love Will Also)Clayton Allis & Alfie Lee (In The Future, Love Will Also – Awards: Best Experimental Film and Audience Short Narrative)

Alfie: Work with people who believe in you. It will give you courage and make you much better. There are many ways of getting things done. You just have to start doing them.

Clayton: We learned to blend our different mediums together – his music and art, and my filmmaking. If you truly want to collaborate, then sometimes you have to allow your collaborator to be right even if you may not be sure.

Frank Hall Green (WildLike – Awards: Certificates of Outstanding Achievement for Producing, Screenplay and Female Actor)

Frank: Tenacity! Having a strong determination when the going got tough was key. The process of script to screen is an art. I particularly found it emotionally and creatively challenging to mold my script into actual images. Each day you must change, adjust, cut, alter and then judge that change on how it affects your story. No one cares about your project like you do. Collaboration is key, and finding smart, hardworking people is a blessing. You need to include people and ask their advice. But at the end of the day, it may be you who has to act and get something done.

Danya Abt (Eric, Winter To Spring – Awards: Best Short Documentary)

Danya: Be as transparent as you can with your subjects. It will set the tone for your project and your relationship with your collaborators. Find ways to make your subject a partner in the project – we did long recordings of Eric driving around town with a GoPro in his cab and he would collect unbelievable interactions with passengers. The footage gave us something to collaborate on. Shoot quietly. Eric is an excellent storyteller and I liked hearing his stories so our early footage is very talk-y. I realized we needed to switch things up and usually that meant a very small crew (often just me) needed to hang out until Eric got bored with us.

“Documentary production is an ever-evolving process, and your story will inevitably change, the deeper you get into production. However, you can’t lose sight of that initial conflict that inspired you in the first place.” – Sean Ryan (Born Into This)Lea Scruggs & Sean Ryon (Born Into This – Awards: Documentary Audience)

Lea: You face the unique challenge of making a film that is both journalistically sound and theatrically thrilling. About halfway into the editing process, we started to get bored with our structure and realized that we should probably rework the storyline, music and images to keep the audience engaged through every scene and transition. We dug up an old children’s book about our main character that featured water color illustrations of him as a kid. These helped to salvage our film in the end. As a female filmmaker working on a sports film, I quickly realized that my role would be scrutinized and questioned in ways that a male director would not be. Navigating shoots, editorial feedback sessions and panel discussions about the film showed me that I had to maintain a sense of authority in the storytelling and pride in my role on this documentary.

Sean: We learned each other’s strengths and weakness, we communicated about every problem head-on, and most importantly, we made sure the film itself was more important than egos. Documentary production is an ever-evolving process, and your story will inevitably change, the deeper you get into production. However, you can’t lose sight of that initial conflict that inspired you in the first place.

Robert Machoian (God Bless the Child – Awards: Certificate of Outstanding Achievement, Cinematography)

Robert: When working with small children, patience is extremely important because they can feel your energy and they do an amazing job of reading your face. The value of good lenses and maximizing the lighting you have access to are important. Understanding what you can do with what you have is often times better than what you tell yourself you need in order to get a specific shot.

For more information

Top row L to R: C. M. Rubin, Clayton Allis, Alfie Lee, Alison Bagnall, Lea ScruggsBottom row L to R: Robert Machoian, Frank Hall Green, Bryce Renninger, Danya Abt, Joseph Frank, Zachary Reed, Sean Ryon(Photos are courtesy of Brooklyn Film Festival: lead picture and pictures 2 & 3 by Bobby Polanco; picture 4 by Jena Goldman; photo of Bryce Renninger by Scott Passfield)

Follow C. M. Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@cmrubinworld

Study finds college and career readiness focus of Common Core a disconnect with students from Military Families since majority are under seven years old

BOSTON – A remarkable education system has been created to benefit Military-Connected Children, enabling them to perform academically as well as or better than children whose families are not in the military, despite the unique challenges they face, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

 

In Support & Defend: The K-12 Education of Military-Connected Children, education analyst and retired career Air Force officer Bruce Wykes presents an in-depth analysis of how the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) provides high-quality education to more than 84,000 eligible Military-Connected Children in more than 190 schools around the world and scores above the national averages on nearly all standardized assessments. He also examines efforts to expand that success to Military-Connected Children attending non-DoDEA schools.

 

“Given the central role that the United States military serves in defending our democracy and way of life,” said Jamie Gass, director of Pioneer Institute’s Center for School Reform, “it’s vital that policy making related to Military-Connected Children be based upon solid research. For their many sacrifices, they deserve nothing less than the best.”

 

The paper features a preface from retired United States Army Lieutenant General Rick Lynch, a 34-year veteran and the author of the book Adapt or Die: Leadership Principles from an American General. “Pioneer Institute’s research paper on educating Military-Connected Children is both timely and pertinent,” writes Lieutenant General Lynch, “It is extremely well documented and is an exhaustive examination that deserves careful consideration.”

 

Despite the clear successes of Military-Connected Children, some policy analysts claim that Common Core standards may help Military Families. Wykes argues otherwise, saying that available evidence does not support the Common Core given that Military Families tend to have children while in service, but transition from active duty before their children even reach middle or high school.

 

Demographic data on Military-Connected Children reveals that “41 to 42 percent of active duty Military-Connected Children are preschool and only 16 percent are high school. These numbers are also supported by the Military Child Education Coalition, which reported that in 2012 more than half of the active duty Military-Connected Children were seven years old or younger.” In short, Common Core’s claims to “college and career readiness” are of limited utility to this student population.

 

Additionally, Common Core is also contrary to the rising trend of homeschooling among Military Families, which may be in part due to concerns over the mismanaged implementation of Common Core. Typically, homeschooling has been far more common among Military Families than their civilian counterparts. It’s also noteworthy that 20 percent of active military personnel are located in Texas and Virginia, states that did not adopt Common Core.

 

Instead, other initiatives such as the Interstate Compact on the Education of Military Children, the creation of school liaison officers, support for military homeschooling families, and the use of targeted grants are better suited to assist Military Families and military leaders while addressing the challenges of K-12 education for Military-Connected Children.

 

The paper uses two case studies to assess the academic performance of Military-Connected Children. One looks at standardized test scores in the Lincoln Public Schools in Massachusetts. Another focuses on the Davis School District, the second largest in Utah, through de-identified, aggregate standardized test results.

 

While spotlighting the success, Wykes also points out that there is still much we do not know about the academic performance of Military-Connected Children. This unknown information is essential for policy makers at all levels of government and invaluable to education and military leaders, nonprofits dedicated to supporting Military Families and to the Military Families themselves. The recommendations of the paper include:

• Coding Military-Connected Children as a subgroup within existing systems of assessment and performance. The lack of standardized coding and tracking is the largest hurdle in assessing the academic performance of these children. The paper calls for coding that would identify Military-Connected Children as members of a singular subgroup, similar to how race or gender is coded. Coding that differentiates the military service of the parents in one of the branches, as well as the status of that service, such as active duty or National Guard, would also be useful.
• Perform longitudinal studies. To overcome the challenges of assessing mobile students over time, longitudinal studies should be conducted. Because of that mobility and the fact that most military children are too young for most standardized testing, longitudinal studies are vital to any detailed picture of the academic performance of Military-Connected Children. The considerable challenges involved in following mobile Military Families can be overcome through modern communications technologies and innovative research projects.
• Raise awareness of the Interstate Compact on the Education of Military Children. Though the compact is binding on all public schools, it is inconsistently understood and utilized. Some educators and administrators are unaware of their state’s participation in it. The military community, through school liaison officers and “Welcome” programs for new arrivals at a base, as well as via orientations for new leaders, must continue to get the word out.

The 60-page paper also includes a brief history of federal efforts to ensure that children in Military Families receive an adequate education, dating back to 1821 when General Winfield Scott established the earliest official policy regarding the funding and operation of schools on military installations.

 

Lieutenant General Rick Lynch distinguished himself while commanding at all levels throughout his Army career. Whether directly leading 100 soldiers or more than 65,000, and whether managing all U.S. Army installations or leading “The Surge” in Iraq with only six weeks lead time, Lieutenant General Lynch applied insight born from overcoming adversity and achieved exemplary results. With his exceptional leadership experience, demonstrated skills as a strategist, and his ability to connect with leaders from all walks of life, he is highly regarded as both a speaker and author. His new book, Adapt or Die: Leadership Principles from an American General, provides unprecedented clarity to leaders on how to gain the confidence needed to lead in our ever-changing world.

 

Author Bruce Wykes is a Ruth and Lovett C. Peters Fellow in Education. He completed a master’s degree in politics and political philosophy in 2014 through the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College, writing a thesis on the legacy impacts of progressive education theories of the early 20th century. His prior academic career includes a master’s degree in Middle East history through the University of Texas at Austin as well as a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Guam and associate degrees in Educational and Instructional Technology from the Community College of the Air Force and in Christian Studies from Wayland Baptist University. He is a career Air Force officer who completed nearly 23 years of active duty service in 2011.

Looking for leverage in the crowded presidential field, governors backtrack on new education regime.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became the latest GOP presidential contender to flip on Common Core, announcing last week his opposition to the curriculum and standards system once embraced across a broad political spectrum.

In flipping on Common Core, Christie joins Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who moved from support to staunch and vocal opposition as he prepared to run for the presidency. Jindal has made good on his reversal by leading a dogged effort in the courts and bureaucracy to peel the state away from the system.

“This legislation will help us get Common Core out of Louisiana once and for all. We will not accept this one-sized-fits-all approach to our children’s education,” Jindal said in a statement in March, U.S. News reported.

Source: The latest GOP presidential contender to flip on Common Core | Deseret News