Mediaboss Marketing

The battle over school reform makes for some very odd allies and even stranger adversaries.

rangizz via Shutterstock

The school reform issue ought to split up conservatives as badly as it does liberals. But it doesnt. I cant figure that out.

No matter which side looks at it, school reform turns on the same fundamental question: Can a poor, minority kid from a chaotic background be as smart as accomplished in school as a rich, white kid from a nice home? If so, why arent public schools closing that gap?

Conservatives ought to have as much to fight about with each other over that question as liberals. But I dont hear it. Not where I live.

In East Dallas, its almost always the liberals going after each other. Many of my neighbors and friends are teachers. They tend to be liberals, and you know how we are. We liberals agree wholeheartedly on a whole menu of issues, hyperlocal to intergalactic, but that stops at school reform. There, we split, often with drama.

And here in this space, the drama goes on: I get a lot of sincere questions from a certain kind of reader asking me how I can be so right on some issues yet be such a Trumpian, corporate lackey fool on school reform. I dont know that I think the question about me is very interesting if its inconsistency you want, Ive got plenty more where that came from but Im beginning to think the way we all approach the topic is something for the whole city to ponder.

First of all, I bet were in for some long-overdue national attention on school reform. Were pretty far away geographically and culturally from the coastal and Northeastern media beats where most big news happens, so it takes us a while to get noticed. But the fact is that Dallas is a national leader on many school reform issues. Recently The New York Times took note of some of the programs left behind by former Dallas school Superintendent Mike Miles.

I wrote about the piece, mainly to point to the one thing the Times didnt notice, probably because it was too local: Many of the programs the Times thought were cool in Dallas are in danger of retrenchment. The reforms here are in danger of being undermined because the anti-school reform forces are close to taking back the kingdom.

The Miles-era school reforms are protected by a razor-thin, one-vote margin on the school board. An anti-reform candidate came close to reversing that margin in the recent school board elections, only to be defeated in a runoff, an event greeted by huge sighs of relief from worried reformers.

We are about to get more national attention soon, especially for our merit pay reforms, which were designed to resolve mistakes made earlier in other cities, and for our Accelerating Campus Excellence schools, where the merit pay system is used to achieve increasingly stunning results in schools where kids supposedly are toughest to teach.

Those reforms, especially ACE, lie very close to the hot wires that seem to short-circuit whenever liberals get onto this topic. The ACE program takes me back to my reporting roots on this story, 20 years ago when George W. Bush was governor of Texas.

I was new at the Observer and set out to do a story about how the Bush Republicans were destroying the Dallas public school system. I dont remember why that was my working thesis. Somebody I knew just told me they were.

I couldnt get that story to make. Somewhat distressingly for me, Bush had all these really smart people around him on school issues, like future Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, who I think was still Margaret La Montagne at that time, and a bunch of super-sharp people from the Houston school district.

Every time I tried to ask them why they wanted to destroy the Dallas public school system what had the Dallas school system ever done to them? they steered me to even smarter people they thought I needed to talk to, and thats how I found my way to William S. Sanders in Tennessee. Sanders is a statistician who started out knowing not one thing about education, as he explained it to me. He discovered that Tennessee had amassed an enormous 10-year trove of data from statewide achievement tests that nobody had ever looked at. He asked for and got permission to mess around with the data.

Since, by his own admission, Sanders knew nothing about education and did not work in the field, I asked him why he wanted to work with the Tennessee school achievement data. He said, Because it was a whole bunch of numbers.

He and his colleagues churned up an explosively original insightout of those numbers. First of all, their findings took a cherished belief of liberals so dearly and fiercely held that I have decided it may even be at the core of liberalism and turned it on its head. I am talking about the belief that achievement in school and even performance later in life are driven and shaped mainly by external forces.

Until Sanders dove into those numbers, all of the numbers that anybody knew about tended to buttress the liberal belief that achievement in school and in life are driven almost entirely by social class, economic status, family status, vicissitudes of the economy and even the tax structure. When you married all of those factors to race, according to this view, you wound up with a bulletproof deterministic equation to predict everything. Demography became God.

The Sanders research reaffirmed that all of those factors are important in predicting achievement so important as predictors that they must also be taken in some degree as causal, which was already known. Sanders discovery was that none of those things was the most important thing. Something else in the numbers could trump even demographics.

Margaret Spellings

LBJ Library

The good teacher. A kid with all of the worst predictors going against him the kid from the bottom of every barrel learned significantly more in a year than he was supposed to learn if he wound up in the class of the good teacher. And the good teacher was consistently good. The kids always did better, no matter where they came from.

The opposite was true for the bad teachers. Their kids did worse than they were predicted to do, and they always did worse, year after year.

The people I talked to who were working for Bush on education issues were on fire with a single conviction: If you could find out what made the good teachers good and the bad teachers bad, and if you could distill only a portion of that into something teachers could be taught, then theoretically you ought to be able to come up with a way to teach kids that would have a shot at trumping demographics.

If you could teach poor kids to read as well as affluent kids, then you could change the nature of our society in profound and enduring ways. I sensed in those people back then a very intense conviction that I continue to find today in school reform activists: the belief that if such a thing can be done, it is a great social sin not to get it done.

They had a simpler, clearer way of saying it: Reading is the new civil right.

The school reform issue continues to divide us on a long, deep equator. It divides us between those people who think poor kids can be just as smart as affluent kids and those people who still believe demography is God.

Some of the people who maintain their faith in demography are liberals. They say poor outcomes in life are driven by poverty, and you cant fix anything until you end poverty. Others who dont believe in the reform movement believe that nonwhite children are born less smart than white children and nothing can change that. But the nonbelievers all wind up in the same vessel the Good Ship Status Quo.

Among the reformers I have gotten to know, there is plenty of acknowledgement that mistakes have been made in the reform effort. But great victories are being achieved as well, like the programs The New York Times noticed recently in Dallas.

Those victories ACE schools, for example are proof that, absent some kind of damage, babies are born equal. Then its up to us what sort of chance we give them.

Is it liberal or conservative to recognize fundamental equality and the supreme importance of the individual? I dont think I know any more. I know we liberals fight about it more, maybe because more of us get our paychecks from schools. But this much is sure: As Dallas moves farther down the path to reform, as it must, we who live here will all be forced to look deeper into our core beliefs.

See the rest here:
Can't Tell Liberals from Conservatives in Dallas School Reform Debate - Dallas Observer

Thomas Gallatin Jul. 3, 2017

What is a liberal? Or maybe a better question is, what does the term liberal refer to today? Well, according to Jacques Berlinerblau, a professor from Georgetown University who recently wrote an article for the Washington Post, there are liberals and then there are radical leftists. Berlinerblau admits that American academia is mostly comprised of liberal professors and that those professors who identify as politically conservative are utterly under-represented in Americas halls of higher learning, with humanities departments in particular being the least politically diverse. In other words, it is not wrong to suggest that leftist ideology is controlling most of the nations colleges and universities.

But while Berlinerblau rightly concludes that conservatives are not to blame for the recent havoc wreaked in places like Middlebury, UC Berkeley and Evergreen College, he also attempts to shift the blame away from liberals. According to Berlinerblau, three groups exist in academia: a small conservative minority, a sizable liberal contingent and the dominate radical left who he blames for the current campus intolerance. The question remains, what is the difference between a liberal and a leftist?

Berlinerblaus answer to that question ends up sounding more like a difference in the manner of application of ideology rather than an actual distinction in form. He cites as examples liberals reactions to certain events, such as liberals didnt exult over Irans 1979 Islamic revolution, or that liberals didnt refer to the victims of 9/11 as little Eichmanns. He also notes that liberals are generally made highly uncomfortable by censorship, speaker boycotts, trigger warnings, safe spaces and the like. Berlinerblaus argument sounds eerily similar to the one made by Muslims who may reject the methods of Islamic terrorists, yet refuse to disavow Islamists.

The truth is that modern liberalism stands in stark contrast to those classical liberal values expressed by our nations Founding Fathers. It is todays conservatives who hold most closely to those classical liberal principles. Todays radical leftist social justice warrior is merely the logical manifestation of modern liberal ideology a distinction without a difference. It is modern liberalism that can be credited with teaching the ideology of socialism that glories in the utopian ideals of Karl Marx. It is modern liberalism that sees little value in Christianity and has a long mocked Christians as backward fools. It is modern liberalism that has questioned the very nature of truth itself, opening a Pandoras box of relativism. No, Professor Berlinerblau, liberals may not like it, but the radical left is their creation; they are to be blamed.

Original post:
Liberal vs Left - Patriot Post

Updated July 03, 2017 18:47:03

South Australia's Liberal Opposition has decided to block a proposed state budget measure imposing a levy on five major banks.

Some Liberals expressed concern the banks might try to pass on the cost to SA households and borrowers, despite the Labor Government vowing to legislate so that cannot happen.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the public would welcome the bank levy being voted down by the Liberals.

"I am 100 per cent convinced that nobody in South Australia wants more tax," he said.

"We believe unequivocally that SA is at a tipping point, the SA economy is teetering.

"We have the highest unemployment rate, we have a government that's got all of the wrong economic settings, our economy has ground to a halt with the highest energy costs in the nation.

"The last thing that any South Australian needs is another tax."

The budget measure now seems unlikely to get through the Upper House, where several crossbenchers have already indicated their opposition to a state tax on the biggest of the banks.

Premier Jay Weatherill said Australia's five biggest banks could afford to pay the levy and Parliament should let it through.

Mr Weatherill said the Opposition Liberals could not be trusted to fill the budgetary gap if the $370-million levy was blocked.

"It means that they will have to cut something else and what the Liberal Party does when they're faced with choices about budget holes [is] they cut jobs, they cut deeply into public services," he said.

SA Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said Mr Marshall was being a weak leader.

"The big banks come knocking on his door one day and he changes his mind the next," he said.

"The Liberal Party has put protecting the big banks' super profits ahead of tax cuts for small business and investing in jobs.

"The Government will continue to promote its budget through the Parliament in its current form."

But Australian Bankers Association chief economist Tony Pearson believed blocking the tax would help promote job growth in the state.

"The tax raised the prospect of business investment not coming to this state," he said.

"It was sending a signal to the business community that the risk of being targeted for a tax just because you're successful is high in South Australia and it would have led to jobs not being created in South Australia, but outside South Australia in every other state and territory.

"We think this is a great decision, it'll reconfirm that South Australia is open for business, it'll help to rebuild business confidence in South Australia and we believe it'll help to promote inflows of investment, promote economic growth and create much-needed jobs."

Topics: state-parliament, budget, government-and-politics, states-and-territories, tax, federal---state-issues, sa, adelaide-5000

First posted July 03, 2017 16:51:33

See more here:
SA budget: Bank levy to be opposed by Liberals in SA Parliament - ABC Online

Over the past decade, patriotism has been out of vogue among many liberals. Rituals like saluting the flag were largely left to those serving our country at home and abroad through military or government service. Meanwhile, pledges of allegiance conjured memories of school assemblies.

Republicans, in contrast, wrapped themselves in the mantle of patriotism. Open love of country justified the party's claim to moral authority and united its members. Drive through America and you know when you've entered Republican strongholds by the number of flags displayed. Despite its embrace of anti-big government ideologies, the GOP managed to preserve its reputation in the eyes of its base as the party of national fidelity.

Trump stands to change all that. Our 45th President has spoken and acted in ways that for millions test the basic definition of what it means to be a patriot: someone who loves one's country and acts with its best interests in mind. Like the many authoritarian rulers he so admires, Trump seems intent on making public office serve his personal desires and goals. He has done very little to resolve the conflicts of interest with his business concerns, leaving the impression that private profit comes first and national well-being second.

When it became known that he had excluded our national press corps from the Oval Office meeting while allowing a Russian photographer access, it seemed to many Americans another sign of loyalties that did not seemingly lie with the country he took an oath to serve -- and certainly a gamble with our national security and intelligence allies.

Millions of Americans who feel the void in political leadership are looking for patriots to admire and emulate. Fearing that their civil liberties and rights are threatened, they are scanning the horizon for individuals who have stood out and stood up to power, putting the national interest before their own careers. Sally Yates has been anointed and, for many, James Comey too. Others will likely emerge before we are through with Trump.

This quiet building of patriotic sentiment presents an opportunity for the Democrats, who have been struggling to craft an identity in the wake of the lost presidential election. The use of powerful patriotic rhetoric and symbols can underpin the party's assertive positioning of itself as the guardian of American freedoms and values now imperiled by Trump and his GOP allies.

The GOP squandered patriotism's precious currency by backing Trump. Their loss can be the Democrats' gain in 2018 and 2020.

The rest is here:
Liberals are reclaiming patriotism from the right - CNN

There is nothing "charitable" about charities spending less on philanthropic work and more on political endeavours. But Justin Trudeau's Liberals are nevertheless considering loosening charities' spending limits and restrictions on political activity.

By the end of this month, the Liberals say they will officially respond to a report commissioned from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which recommends the government "broaden the ability of registered charities to engage in political activities," while at the same time maintain "an absolute prohibition on partisan political activities."

The Liberals have already gone ahead and suspended the political audits and revocations of charities, a process that was launched under the Harper government in 2012. At the time, the government was accused of political opportunism for its "witch hunt" of charities that were, for example, critical of its policies on the environment. The CRA, nevertheless, found violations committed by seven out of the 54 charities audited violations that were grievous enough to warrant revocations. Indeed, with hindsight, it appears the Conservatives might have been onto something.

Currently, a large (annual income over $200,000) charity can spend only 10 per cent of its budget on "non-partisan" political activity, but if the report's recommendations are adopted by the government, charities will be allowed unlimited "non-partisan" political engagement, just as long as it is "subordinate to and furthers their charitable purposes."

What that means, and how the line will be drawn, is unclear.

What would be clear, however, is that charities such as the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, of which Trudeau was vice president of the board in 2012, would have no limit as to how much it could spend on social science research, conferences and speaking events promoting progressive policies policiesthat are awfully well aligned with the Liberal agenda.

The right-wingFraser Institute, which is also a registered charity, would likewise have no cap as to how much it could spend on reports meant to influence government policy. Yet none of these activities are even deemed political by the current rules, as these charities didn't file any of their expenses under the political activity section with the CRA. As it stands, the rules might be too lax already.

It already appears the Liberals have benefitted from third party political involvement:arecent report in the Calgary Herald alleged registered third parties with the aid of funnelled foreign money helped the Liberals win ridings in the last federal election.

Granted, only a few of those 114 third parties were registered charities. Butwould it not be politically advantageous for the Liberals to allow and encourage more charities to get politically involved if could potentially lead to electoral success?

Sure, every party theoretically stands to gain from unconstrained "charitable"spending, but as National Post columnist Andrew Coyne has pointed out, other than the odd conservative-minded charity like the Fraser Institute, "the vast majority are more likely to sympathize with Liberal and NDP policy than Conservative." Trudeau'stop adviser Gerald Butts ran a charity while it engaged inpolitical activities and campaigns against pipelines, so he surely knows firsthand how charities can be politically influential in reaching a desired end.

According to charity expert and lawyer Mark Blumberg, Canadian charities report spending a total of about $25 million annually on political activities, but they already have the combined potential to spend a whopping total of $25 billion. That's without counting added funds fromforeign entities, which have already gotten involved withstopping pipeline development.

If the Liberal government relaxes the laws in a misguided effort toencourage charities to "make an important contribution to public debate and public policy," more out of these billions could be syphoned for political operationsinstead of charitable purposes, potentially dwarfing the tens of millions political parties themselves spend.

The philanthropic sector in the U.S. has already been largely co-opted by trillions of dollars from its richest citizens looking to covertly influence the political process. That's not the case in Canada; by and large, charities remain highly respected by industry experts for their vital work in helping the needy.

But if the Liberals let go of the reins and allow charities unlimited political spending, an opportunistic few could sully the reputation of an entire industry. There are limits on political spending by third parties for a reason. The Liberals should not be making it easier to bypass the rules.

This column is part ofCBC'sOpinion section.For more information about this section, please read thiseditor'sblogandourFAQ.

Read more from the original source:
The Liberals are considering loosening the reins on charities' political spending. That is a terrible idea - CBC.ca