SIEMENS is tops in creating that global human capital distribution system with global Johns Hopkins, global Wall Street, and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. SIEMENS represents such a level of corporate consolidation that they as a multi-national corporation control much of global infrastructure development.
The last thing a US citizen would want is a global multi-national corporation having operated these several years without any operational restrictions regarding US Rule of Law, US Constitution, US standards of life, any recognition of environment, human rights, public safety. Yet, that is who our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones and these 5% to the 1% are pushing to bring to our US cities and into our schools.
As we said-----Green Street Academy is that corporate school working as a conduit to breaking down all of our public education regulations and structures. Public education is the top policy to ensure liberty, freedom, justice, citizenship, and pathway from poverty up the income ladder. Any group working to install global ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE EDUCATION is working to enslave a global 99% of citizens. WARNOCK here in Baltimore is called a 'venture capitalist' but he is simply a front man for the global rich to launder money into local economies as is happening with the capture of Baltimore's public school system. Global 1% place a local person's face on what are very bad economic structures----SHOW ME THE MONEY SAYS WARNOCK -----
THE FIGHT FOR ANY REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE GROUP IS TO STOP THIS CORPORATIZATION----SIMPLY SHOUTING 'WE NEED MORE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS' OPENS THE DOOR TO THAT FUNDING BEING CORPORATE CAMPUS SCHOOLS.
Green Street Academy teacher awarded prestigious Siemens Award
David Warnock | Education
Siemens is the very face of DEEP, DEEP, VERY VERY DEEP STATE. It has consolidated industries in all infrastructure areas and will become that ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL CORPORATION in the area of global infrastructure. From self-driving cars to computer technology, building contracts to port management----SIEMENS does it all in Foreign Economic Zones globally.
The Dark Side of Cyberspace
This report describes the working conditions at the supplier factories Compeq Technology (Huizhou)
and Excelsior Electronics (Dongguan), which manufacture electronic products in Mainland China. Both
factories produce printed circuit boards (PCBs) and other components for brand-name companies
including Fujitsu Siemens Computers, Dell and Lenovo. The findings are based on corporate research
and interviews conducted by the Hong Kong-based Organisation SACOM (Students and Scholars Against
Corporate Misbehaviour) from June to December 2008. Violations of the Chinese Labour Law, the Core
Labour Standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the corporate codes of conduct
of the brand-name companies are documented in the two case studies.
The key findings are:
• Workers don’t obtain their working contracts
• Excessive working hours (up to 380 hours a month)
• No paying of the statutory minimum wages
• Enforced and underpaid overtime work
• Health risks and problems, above all because of unsificient or non existing protection while working
• Authoritarian factory regulations
The european campaign “ProcureITfair - for sustainable purchasing of computers” derives from the
results of the report demands from the brand companies and public institutions, who consume a
amount of IT products. A
summary of the brand companies ́ reactions to the study is included in this
Excelsior is a first-tier supplier to Fujitsu Siemens Computers (FSC), while Compeq is a direct manufacturer of Dell and Lenovo.
On the factory assembly lines at both Excelsior and Compeq, the majority are young, single, female Chinese
migrant workers aged between 16 and 25 years old. As wage labourers of rural household registration, no
matter how long they have been working in the cities, they are not permitted to stay permanently.
Now, SIEMENS has been the target of global labor and justice rights organizations these several decades as enslaving people around the world and for building that global slave trade structure that CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are bringing to the US. We would not want a global corporate campus in the US tied to multi-national corporations committed to operating like this here in the US.
When SIEMENS becomes that corporate K-career FUNDING DONOR it becomes the entity controlling the education and that is what a WARNOCK AND GREEN STREET ACADEMY have as a goal. No doubt using Globatopia lesson plans.
When we call Baltimore a city of FREE LABOR this is the goal of MOVING FORWARD and the biggest step in creating free labor is installing it into our public schools as a pre-K to career vocational apprenticeship. Now, it takes a few years for a student to learn basic coding as it does other workplace skills. That is why apprenticeship and vocational training in US has started in HIGH SCHOOL. Here we have the goal of all the RACE TO THE TOP STEM education reforms----it was Obama and Clinton neo-liberals in Congress----our state assemblies, and our city halls who pushed these several years that RACE TO THE TOP GLOBAL CORPORATE JOB TRAINING STRUCTURE.
So, it will be corporate schools like WARNOCK'S GREEN STREET ACADEMY that brings SIEMENS into Baltimore and stages these pre-K testing and evaluations to track children into these elementary school job training apprenticeships.
You will notice these global corporate campuses are heading to southern states first-----and Maryland is that far-right wing global Wall Street state. See how our public school structure is tied to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR----that was what Obama and Perez as Labor Secretary did----tie our public K-career to one job training structure knowing it will be enslaving. Everyone in no one out ---99% of black, white, brown citizens. If you think your family is middle-class or upper middle---or merely a few million dollars rich---you are sending our children and grandchildren into this global labor pool tied to these corporate campus schools K-career.
Siemens: An Apprenticeship USA LEADER in STEM Fields
U.S. Department of Labor
on May 19, 2015
Editor’s Note: The following guest blog post is authored by Mike Panigel, senior vice president and chief human resources office for Siemens USA. Siemens is part of ApprenticeshipUSA’s LEADER program. Learn more about the program at www.dol.gov/apprenticeship.
Apprentices at Siemens' gas turbine manufacturing facility in Charlotte, North Carolina.The Business Roundtable recently conducted a survey of member companies to determine where the biggest gaps are in skills. The survey found that 97 percent of member CEOs see the skills shortage as a problem, and that job vacancies in science, technology, engineering and math fields often attract far fewer applicants.
Of the nearly 2,000 job openings at Siemens, almost two-thirds are for STEM jobs and nearly half of our 50,000 employees here in the U.S. require some STEM education. Yet we still find that the functions we have the hardest time filling are all STEM related. According to the Department of Education, only 16% of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in a STEM career – at a time when STEM jobs are growing three times faster than non-STEM jobs.
'However, numerous independent researchers have raised serious doubts about whether a STEM shortage ever existed or will at any time in the foreseeable future'.
At Siemens, we’ve made a concerted effort to address this gap by using the German apprenticeship model as a guide. The dual system in German high schools allows for both a university track and a vocational track, with around 60 percent of young people choosing the vocational training track. With an unemployment rate below 8 percent for workers under age 25 in Germany – compared to 21.9 percent in the rest of the European Union – it’s clear the German model is doing something right.
So we’ve started to import this model here to the U.S. and have begun to create public, academic and corporate partnerships around the country to train workers for the highly skilled, well-paying manufacturing jobs that need to be filled.
For example, a few years ago when Siemens built a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, North Carolina, we gave applicants a test to evaluate their basic skills in math, reading, and applied technology. Only about 1/3 of the applicants met the minimum qualifications that we were seeking. So to develop a trained labor force to operate this new plant, we worked with Central Piedmont Community College to develop a mechatronics apprenticeship program. Students participate in a 3 ½ year program in which they get paid while going to work part time and going to school part time. There are currently 18 participants in the program and the first class will graduate later this summer.
We’re creating similar programs around the country:
- In Fort Payne, Alabama, we recently began an apprenticeship program for machinists at our electrical component manufacturing plant.
- Just outside of Atlanta, we started an apprenticeship program in testing technology at our drives manufacturing facility.
- And in Sacramento, we’ve partnered with multiple local community colleges to help upskill our workforce there from ferrous metal welding to stainless steel welding.
We hear in Baltimore and read in our national media this phrase below-----THIS IS THE GERMAN APPRENTICESHIP MODEL. Know what? Nations gone global have corporation having never acted as they do overseas. So, a German SIEMANS just like a French VEOLA do not operate under rules of German labor laws or French labor laws----the apprenticeship model Siemens installed in Asian Foreign Economic Zones looks nothing like German national labor structures---neither does French global VEOLA and global General Electric. WE THE PEOPLE need to understand these global Wall Street players are using terms from our last century regarding labor and justice having no ties to what those US or European structures were.
The German Apprenticeship model is not left social progressive---it is Asian Foreign Economic Zone enslaving.
When we watched a Democratic National Committee place a PEREZ and an ELLISON as top to be DNC chairs----both are tied to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL RULE---they would both push global Wall Street players just as a Wasserman-Schultz and a Steve Israel.
'At Siemens, we’ve made a concerted effort to address this gap by using the German apprenticeship model as a guide.
Notice when these reparations were paid by global corporations like VEOLA and SIEMENS---1998 just as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA were working to bring them to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We are focusing on one corporation in SIEMENS but an APPLE CORPORATION, an UnderArmour, and Beyonce/JZ/AIR JORDAN operate the same way overseas and will promote doing the same here in the US---they don't care about the future for the 99% of Americans--watch as old world Merchants of Venice kill newly rich trying to be those global merchants of Venice
Siemens Offers $12 Million to WWII Slave Labor Victims
September 24, 1998| From Associated PressBERLIN --
Following Volkswagen's lead, Siemens announced plans Wednesday for a $12-million fund to compensate former slave laborers forced to work for the firm by the Nazis during World War II.
The electronics giant, along with VW, is one of several German businesses under pressure from lawsuits in the United States and threats of more at home from Nazi-era victims.
Earlier this month, Volkswagen became the first of these firms to agree to victim payments when it announced its own $12-million fund--a change of heart after arguing for years that it had no legal duty to pay back wages for labor forced on it by the Nazis.
Siemens had a similar change of heart: Almost a year ago, at its 150th anniversary celebrations, the company had insisted that it could do no more for its former slave laborers than express "deepest regrets."
The Munich-based Siemens said its fund is in addition to the $4.3 million it paid to the Jewish Claims Conference in 1961 and to providing humanitarian help for victims. Siemens estimates that between 10,000 and 20,000 slave laborers worked in its wartime factories.
The threat of lawsuits has raised the pressure on German firms to pay direct claims to the thousands of concentration camp inmates, mostly Jews, forced to work in their factories.
Lawyers representing former slave laborers criticized Siemens, as they did Volkswagen, for setting up a fund to avoid larger payments a lawsuit might demand.
Siemens is seeking "the cheapest alternative," said Munich attorney Michael Witti, who with a colleague filed the U.S. lawsuit.
We read that international labor unions like the UAW have already made deals overseas with what are SIEMANS-tied industries like VW----and they are selling for SIEMENS these corporate K-career education reforms as good KNOWING they will lead to a pre-K through career child labor apprenticeship and push the American workers into the same global labor pool structure as several decades of Asia have seen. Our international labor unions KNOW they have no negotiating power and will work to install third world wage standards as with BASIC INCOME.
Who are harmed the most when we lose strong public education? Our working class especially labor union members. These RACE TO THE TOP are NOT the German Apprenticeship structure because they eliminate all our European and US K-12 democratic education structures having vocational tracking in high schools and community colleges and install apprenticeships through elementary grades with our high school years becoming vocational job training.
SEE WHY RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS IN OUR SOUTHERN STATES ARE NOW GETTING BEHIND INTERNATIONAL UNIONS!
Business News | Wed Sep 25, 2013 | 7:46pm EDT
Analysis: UAW sees VW's German union model as best hope in South
Flags of Germany's metalworkers' union IG Metall (IGM) are pictured past the IGM headquarters in Frankfurt May 3, 2012. REUTERS/Ralph Orlowski
By Bernie Woodall | DETROIT
If the United Auto Workers is successful in organizing Volkswagen AG's (VOWG_p.DE) plant in Tennessee, it will owe a lot to the unique relationship the automaker has with labor in Germany.
The powerful IG Metall union that represents Volkswagen's German workers is six times the size of the UAW, with 2.26 million members. IG Metall's outsized influence - labor representatives hold half the 20 seats on VW's supervisory board - could give the UAW its best chance yet to organize autoworkers at a foreign-owned plant in the South.
But it is not clear if VW's U.S. management is willing to support the UAW and its push for recognition in Chattanooga without a formal vote among the workers.
UAW President Bob King has, since he took office for a single four-year term in 2010, espoused the need to organize foreign-owned U.S. auto plants, and made known his desire for cooperation beyond national boundaries for his union. IG Metall's support could help him realize both goals.
After the UAW's organizing efforts failed to gain traction at South Korean and Japanese plants in the United States, the union now sees VW and its unique labor model as the best chance to expand its influence in the South.
Workers are represented at all of Volkswagen's fully owned plants, except at the company's 2-year-old factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The UAW is banking on the fact that Chattanooga is an outlier and that the company's executives in Germany want to bring the plant into the fold.
The UAW believes it has sufficient backing from Chattanooga workers to seek recognition by VW.
In the United States, a company can allow a union at a plant without a formal vote if a majority of the factory workers indicate support.
The UAW says a majority of the 1,567 production and maintenance workers at VW's Chattanooga plant have signed cards supporting the union. But it is not clear if IG Metall's leadership fully supports the UAW position or whether it will hold sway at company headquarters in Wolfsburg.
The U.S. union also faces stiff opposition in Tennessee, where politicians, including Gov. Bill Haslam and U.S. Senator Bob Corker, both Republicans, are staunchly anti-UAW.
In order to count VW's Chattanooga workers as members, the UAW will stray from its traditional model at the three major Detroit automakers, General Motors Co (GM.N), Ford Motor Co (F.N) and Chrysler Group LLC, which is a unit of Italy's Fiat SpA FIA.MI.
The UAW is seeking an alliance with VW to create a works council at Chattanooga, akin to what the automaker has at 88 its 104 plants worldwide. In addition to Chattanooga, the only VW plants without works councils are in China, where the automaker operates them in partnership with government-owned companies.
In a works council, blue-collar laborers and white-collar workers are represented. The works councils give workers a voice in how the company operates. Elected labor representatives have influence on personnel issues, working methods and production planning. In Germany, IG Metall also negotiates with management for worker wages and benefits.
The works council has become an integral part of VW's corporate structure with its 12 brands ranging from motorcycle maker Ducati to heavy truck manufacturer Scania. The VW group maintains a wider works council, including brand deputies, led by top labor representative Bernd Osterloh.
U.S. labor law might also help the UAW at Chattanooga. Most labor experts say a VW works council in the United States would be allowed only if it worked in tandem with a U.S. trade union.
Arthur Schwartz, a consultant who used to be a labor negotiator for GM, said that, without the presence of a U.S.-based trade union independent of the company, the works council would be a considered a company union, which is illegal.
The UAW has not been specific about how a works council-union alliance would work at Chattanooga, other than to say it should be as close as possible to the German model used at VW plants in Germany.
In Germany, 90 percent of Volkswagen workers are IG Metall members, but union membership is not mandatory, as it would not be in Tennessee. Tennessee is a right-to-work state where union membership cannot be compulsory.
The UAW is attempting to represent only the blue-collar workers at the plant, but the 2,525 employees in Chattanooga include 761 white-collar office workers and 197 temporary workers.
ELECTION OR RECOGNITION
King wants VW to allow the UAW to represent the workers, avoiding a election by secret ballot. While anti-union forces say such an approach is undemocratic, King has said an election would divide the workforce.
King also wants to skip a formal vote because, in the past, even when a majority of workers signed cards expressing support, labor has lost because of what the UAW claims is misleading advertising directed at workers.
Half of Volkswagen's 20-member supervisory board are connected to IG Metall, and an influential member of its nine-member board of management, Horst Neumann, head of VW global human resources, is an IG Metall member.
The board of management is made up of high-ranking company executives, including Neumann, and is chaired by VW Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn. The supervisory board is chaired by Ferdinand Piech, a former VW CEO whose family holds a significant stake in the company. Piech has two votes that will break any ties between management and union representatives.
(Additional reporting by Andreas Cremer in Berlin, Christiaan Hetzner in Frankfurt and Ben Klayman in Detroit. Editing by Andre Grenon)
We saw American Federation of Teachers national leader WEINGARTEN come out early for Hillary----we see her tied to all United Nations and Foreign Economic Zone Clinton neo-liberal education overseas----as we do our United Autoworkers and our International Steel unions. All behind Clinton from 1990s forward knowing Clinton global Wall Street neo-liberals were killing our US labor unions and our US public education system while being given the opportunity to organize in Foreign Economic Zones overseas. No matter how much press wants to say Asian labor conditions are better after several decades of these union ties to Foreign Economic Zones----THERE HAVE BEEN NO IMPROVEMENTS IN WAGES---WORK CONDITIONS----ENSLAVING POLICIES.
We have rank and file public school teachers who know all these corporate education policies are bad for our children----bad for teaching profession----bad for our communities and they are shouting across the nation. I was getting that advanced education degree in the early 1990s as our professors were warning of Clinton/Reagan goals of corporatizing and ending public education from K-university. While parents were shouting SCHOOLS NOT BOMBS---they were not shouting against corporate charter schools and school choice as the Clinton era MOVING FORWARD to corporate schools tracking our children through the fastest track to job training. This is what our US teachers are shouting today in most states fighting Race to the Top and Commoner Core. Here in Baltimore and Maryland labor and citizens are silenced and MOVING FORWARD by that 5% to the 1% pretends it cannot be stopped.
As Race To The Top ends, controversy continues
By Jessica Bakeman
07/16/15 05:45 AM EDT
ALBANY—Five years and $700 million later, New York’s implementation of the education reforms that were required under the Obama administration’s Race To The Top grant program remain controversial, with resistance from educators and parents as strong as ever.
None of the changes associated with New York’s 2010 award under the competitive grant program is new anymore. State lawmakers adopted a statewide teacher evaluation system in 2010 (and have subsequently strengthened it), education officials adopted the Common Core standards the same year, and the state began testing students on the more difficult material and using the exam results to rate teachers in 2013.
But teachers’ unions and parent groups continue to fight implementation of the reforms, as was evident in the so-called “opt out” movement, this year’s unprecedented statewide boycott of standardized tests.
Some—teachers’ unions, in particular, as well as lawmakers who are closely aligned with labor groups—say the public’s anger over the reforms is an indictment of Race To The Top. It was a failure, they argue.
But education officials who have been and are still fierce advocates of the changes argue the current public tumult is the result not of broad failure but a specific strategic mistake they made: inadequate communication.
Because they didn’t impress upon teachers and parents how drastic the changes were and how acutely they’d be felt, political opponents like the unions had an opening to begin a war against the reforms that continues even as the final dollars from New York’s sizeable grant award are spent.
“This was one that I take responsibility for," said Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch, who led the powerful education policymaking panel throughout the application process and full implementation of Race To The Top. "We did not use any of the money to engage parents and let them know why we were moving to such a radical change. We did not use enough of the money to engage teachers early on to explain the rationale, and so this came at them fast and furious. … Therefore, other people were able to misinterpret the significance of what was going on, and it all came down to test scores.”
Ken Slentz, former deputy education commissioner, said the department realized too late its failure to communicate.
“When we came around to that, the proverbial well had already become so poisoned, we were already in a defensive position,” said Slentz, who left the department last year to lead a small Finger Lakes school district.
Michael Mulgrew, president of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers, the largest local teachers’ union in the state, supported the state’s application for Race To The Top but blames the board and state education department for what he calls a “horrendous” implementation.
“That’s where it all went bad,” he said.
In 2009, under former governor David Paterson, who took office amid a national economic crisis, the board and department applied unsuccessfully for Race To The Top funds. Before a second attempt, education officials convinced Paterson and lawmakers to change certain education laws that were acting as roadblocks; the establishment of a teacher evaluation system was among those changes.
Leaders described the state’s interest in the program as a financial calculation.
“In 2008, the state was broke. It was a financial crisis, and there was no money coming into the school system—none, not a penny. The state was cutting back,” Tisch said. “We had an opportunity to apply for federal funding under Race To The Top, and simultaneously, we had an opportunity to move a system that had been stagnant for a very long time forward.”
Mulgrew said the federal government took advantage of states’ devastating fiscal circumstances, and so New York and others applied out of “desperation.”
Explaining what he called the “political context” of the application process, Mulgrew said: “David Paterson comes in, and the economy is completely in the crapper. The federal government is coming around and saying, we are going to save you from laying off thousands of teachers. … It wasn’t so much the education policies at the time. Everyone was freaking out over the budget.”
Successful on the second application, the state won $700 million in 2010, half of which went to school districts. The board and department moved forward with the implementation.
In 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo took office and made strengthening the teacher evaluation system a top priority. The result was a system where educators’ ratings would be based 20 percent on students’ state exam scores and another 20 percent on their performance on local tests.
In 2013, when New York became the second state to begin testing students based on the Common Core standards, which are meant to boost college- and career-readiness, there was an intense public backlash.
The state rushed the implementation of the Common Core, school stakeholders argued. Some districts didn’t have textbooks or curriculum based on the new guidelines. As critics saw it, the state was forcing kids to take tests on material they hadn’t learned yet, and the vast majority of them were going to fail. By education officials’ own admission, only about 30 percent of third through eighth graders would be proficient on of the new math and reading exams, and they were right.
In fall 2013, Tisch and then-education commissioner John King embarked on a statewide tour of public forums, some of which they canceled and subsequently rescheduled in a different format after the meetings devolved into chaos, with teachers and parents who attended slinging personal attacks at the leaders.
As the public unrest intensified going into 2014, an election year, Cuomo and lawmakers increased pressure on education officials, adopting what they argued were legislative fixes to the board and department’s poor implementation. For example, leaders banned the use of standardized tests in early grades, limited the amount of time teachers could spend giving tests or delivering test preparation and prohibited students’ Common Core-aligned test scores from being used in promotion decisions.
This year, Cuomo, who is warring with the unions, pushed lawmakers to intervene further, again overhauling the evaluation system so it relies more heavily on test scores. They later also required the department to increase transparency around the exams.
Also, during the last two years, King left the department for a federal post, and lawmakers, who elect board members in a joint session, ousted three incumbent regents. They appointed several experienced educators who have been outspoken in their criticism of Common Core implementation.
The remaining funds from the grant program expire at the end of September.
Critics said Race To The Top was not what federal and state education officials promised it would be.
“The cake didn’t quite bake,” said Assembly education committee chair Cathy Nolan, a Queens Democrat. “We have not yet seen any real fruit, and it has not been implemented in the way that we thought it would be. I am a Democrat and support President Obama, but that’s been a great disappointment.”
New York State United Teachers spokesman Carl Korn called Race To The Top an “experiment that did little if anything to improve public education.
“When you look at the main components, students, parents and educators have spoken out loudly and clearly against the overreliance on standardized testing and the linkage between student test scores and teacher evaluations,” he said.
Further evidence of the grant program’s failure is legislation that has popped up in state legislatures throughout the country and on the federal level that seeks to undo some of what Race To The Top did, both Korn and Mulgrew argued.
State education officials, though, point to gains students have already made on the Common Core-aligned tests and national studies that found New York’s tests to reflect the highest proficiency standards in the country.
They also argued that the greatest successes of Race To The Top implementation are ones that went largely unnoticed by the public: a robust professional development program in which thousands of teachers participated and a incentive-based "career ladder" program that enabled educators in more than 200 districts to mentor their peers, improving retention for both the more experienced principals and teachers and the newer ones.
"So many people were focused on the evaluation system and the mechanical aspects," said assistant education commissioner Julia Rafal-Baer, who oversees the department's office of teacher and leader effectiveness and has been closely involved with Race To The Top implementation. The "career ladder" program "is really about using the evaluation system the way it was intended—making smart and strategic decisions within your district about what your educators need."
The board and department have asked the Legislature for funding to continue these programs, which will remain in only a limited capacity. So far, their request has not been granted.
“We learned about what can work and what is possible, but because the Legislature did not give us the money that we asked for, there is no way to expand that work across the state,” Rafal-Baer said.
Senate majority leader John Flanagan, former education committee chair, seems to be an advocate. He has argued recently that the department is underfunded and needs more state aid.
“I never viewed Race To The Top funding as a permanent stream, and I think a lot of the money was well spent,” he said during a recent interview. “There are things that aren’t always apparent. I went to a massive professional development workshop up here [in Albany] which was absolutely fantastic. … That was Race To The Top money. Is the public going to know about that per se? Not really.”
Officials and stakeholder groups said the expiration of funds to support these initiatives will be deeply felt.
Bob Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents, was critical of some aspects of the grant program but said the state-sponsored professional development will be missed.
"Early on, in the beginning years, we heard terrible reviews, and they, over time, got better and better," Lowry said of the Albany training sessions, a program that was called the Network Training Institute. "Now people are thinking, what will we have to replace that? How might we replicate it on a regional level? ... The loss of funding for professional development—that hurts."
Education officials also boasted that the state’s development of a $28 million Common Core-aligned curriculum was a success of the grant implementation. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute has positively reviewed the series of lesson plans, which are freely offered online and have been downloaded millions of times, including from many people in other states.
The curriculum had its critics, though, who complained that it was not yet finished before students started taking tests. Some argued that superintendents and principals were instructing teachers to use the curriculum like a script in hopes that strategy might help students achieve higher scores on the tests.
Slentz, the former deputy commissioner, echoed his colleagues’ arguments that the curriculum was meant to be an optional resource for districts. He doesn’t buy critics’ claims, he said.
“All of a sudden there was this implied intentionality that it had to be implemented script-like, all creativity gone,” he said. “That was a reactive comment; that was not an intellectual comment. … That was truly problematic for me, and in my role as chief liaison to the field to try to get that message out there, we really lost our ability to have a genuine conversation with people.”
Some critics said they’re heartened by the change of leadership in the department and the new members on the board. Commissioner MaryEllen Elia took office earlier this month, and the 17-member board has five new members, three of whom were superintendents.
“The fact that we have pushed to put people with more educational experience on the regents has made a difference, because they’re going to be the people that will help us get to better standards and higher standards without the kind of crippling backlash that we’ve seen from parents and teachers,” Nolan said.
Tisch, who has also expressed hopefulness that Elia’s arrival will foster unity rather than further fuel discord, said she isn’t surprised that the controversy hasn’t yet died down.
“The politics have become enraged between the governor and the teachers’ union, and that makes it more complicated still,” she said. “But even without a lot of the extra rhetoric, a large change in a large system is still very complicated.”
First, Bill Gates did not pull off the swift installation of Commoner Core and Race to the Top ---there is strong opposition from both right and left wing and simply because today's elections are rigged to global Wall Street players does not mean IT WAS PULLED OFF.
As in Baltimore US cities are using the threats of public school closings----the threats of teacher lay-offs----the threats of citizens in low income communities being forced out -----THE KEY WORD IS 'THREATS' to install this mess.
The national media sold Commoner Core as a national standard knowing the entire time it is a GLOBAL EDUCATION STANDARD FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION CORPORATIONS FOR GLOBAL LABOR POOL. It never had any tie to making US education better just as Affordable Care Act never was tied to affordable access to health care.
So these several years of Obama had hundreds of billions of dollars spent installing global neo-liberal education while throwing a few million in US cities to make local citizens feel they had jobs or small businesses. Now that will disappear. This is how CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was able to kill everything tied to being DEMOCRATIC and being a REPUBLIC.
No one knows better the goals of Race to the Top and Common Core than our Catholic Church---they have global corporate schools in Foreign Economic Zones overseas these several decades so they know to where pre-K to career apprenticeship job training leads and they know first hand how a SIEMENS or a VEOLA or an UNDERARMOUR operate overseas.
'The standards have become so pervasive that they also quickly spread through private Catholic schools. About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core, Catholic educators said'.
These are the global Wall Street 'labor and justice' organizations that should be leading against ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION but are the 5% to the 1% pushing all these policies.
How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution
Outside InA new era of influence
By Lyndsey Layton June 7, 2014
Five questions with Bill Gates
Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is taking heat from education groups, who say the Gates Foundation's philanthropic support comes with strings attached. Here, he responds to his critics in an interview with The Post's Lyndsey Layton. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)The pair of education advocates had a big idea, a new approach to transform every public-school classroom in America. By early 2008, many of the nation’s top politicians and education leaders had lined up in support.
But that wasn’t enough. The duo needed money — tens of millions of dollars, at least — and they needed a champion who could overcome the politics that had thwarted every previous attempt to institute national standards.
So they turned to the richest man in the world.
On a summer day in 2008, Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman, an emerging evangelist for the standards movement, spent hours in Bill Gates’s sleek headquarters near Seattle, trying to persuade him and his wife, Melinda, to turn their idea into reality.
Coleman and Wilhoit told the Gateses that academic standards varied so wildly between states that high school diplomas had lost all meaning, that as many as 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes and that U.S. students were falling behind their foreign competitors.
The pair also argued that a fragmented education system stifled innovation because textbook publishers and software developers were catering to a large number of small markets instead of exploring breakthrough products. That seemed to resonate with the man who led the creation of the world’s dominant computer operating system.
“Can you do this?” Wilhoit recalled being asked. “Is there any proof that states are serious about this, because they haven’t been in the past?”
Wilhoit responded that he and Coleman could make no guarantees but that “we were going to give it the best shot we could.”
After the meeting, weeks passed with no word. Then Wilhoit got a call: Gates was in.
What followed was one of the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.
Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.
The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.
Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core.
One 2009 study, conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute with a $959,116 Gates grant, described the proposed standards as being “very, very strong” and “clearly superior” to many existing state standards.
Gates money went to state and local groups, as well, to help influence policymakers and civic leaders. And the idea found a major booster in President Obama, whose new administration was populated by former Gates Foundation staffers and associates. The administration designed a special contest using economic stimulus funds to reward states that accepted the standards.
The result was astounding: Within just two years of the 2008 Seattle meeting, 45 states and the District of Columbia had fully adopted the Common Core State Standards.
The math standards require students to learn multiple ways to solve problems and explain how they got their answers, while the English standards emphasize nonfiction and expect students to use evidence to back up oral and written arguments. The standards are not a curriculum but skills that students should acquire at each grade. How they are taught and materials used are decisions left to states and school districts.
The standards have become so pervasive that they also quickly spread through private Catholic schools. About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core, Catholic educators said.
And yet, because of the way education policy is generally decided, the Common Core was instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker. Kentucky even adopted the standards before the final draft had been made public.
States were responding to a “common belief system supported by widespread investments,” according to one former Gates employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the foundation.
The movement grew so quickly and with so little public notice that opposition was initially almost nonexistent. That started to change last summer, when local tea party groups began protesting what they viewed as the latest intrusion by an overreaching federal government — even though the impetus had come from the states. In some circles, Common Core became known derisively as “Obamacore.”
Since then, anti-Common Core sentiment has intensified, to the extent that it has become a litmus test in the Republican Party ahead of the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination process. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose nonprofit Foundation for Excellence in Education has received about $5.2 million from the Gates Foundation since 2010, is one of the Common Core’s most vocal supporters. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who, like Bush, is a potential Republican presidential candidate, led a repeal of the standards in his state. In the past week, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a former advocate of the standards, signed a law pulling her state out, days after South Carolina’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, did the same.
Some liberals are angry, too, with a few teacher groups questioning Gates’s influence and motives. Critics say Microsoft stands to benefit from the Common Core’s embrace of technology and data — a charge Gates vehemently rejects.
A group calling itself the “Badass Teachers Association,” citing opposition to what it considers market-based education reform, plans a June 26 protest outside the Gates Foundation’s headquarters in Seattle.
In an interview, Gates said his role is to fund the research and development of new tools, such as the Common Core, and offer them to decision-makers who are trying to improve education for millions of Americans. It’s up to the government to decide which tools to use, but someone has to invest in their creation, he said.
“The country as a whole has a huge problem that low-income kids get less good education than suburban kids get,” Gates said. “And that is a huge challenge. . . . Education can get better. Some people may not believe that. Education can change. We can do better.”
“There’s a lot of work that’s gone into making these [standards] good,” Gates continued. “I wish there was a lot of competition, in terms of [other] people who put tens of millions of dollars into how reading and writing could be improved, how math could be improved.”
Referring to opinion polls, he noted that most teachers like the Common Core standards and that those who are most familiar with them are the most positive.
Gates grew irritated in the interview when the political backlash against the standards was mentioned.
“These are not political things,” he said. “These are where people are trying to apply expertise to say, ‘Is this a way of making education better?’ ”
“At the end of the day, I don’t think wanting education to be better is a right-wing or left-wing thing,” Gates said. “We fund people to look into things. We don’t fund people to say, ‘Okay, we’ll pay you this if you say you like the Common Core.’ ”
Whether the Common Core will deliver on its promise is an open question.
Tom Loveless, a former Harvard professor who is an education policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the Common Core was “built on a shaky theory.” He said he has found no correlation between quality standards and higher student achievement.
“Everyone who developed standards in the past has had a theory that standards will raise achievement, and that’s not happened,” Loveless said.
Jay P. Greene, head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, says the Gates Foundation’s overall dominance in education policy has subtly muffled dissent.
“Really rich guys can come up with ideas that they think are great, but there is a danger that everyone will tell them they’re great, even if they’re not,” Greene said.
Common Core’s first win
The first victory for Common Core advocates came on a snowy evening in Kentucky in February 2010, when the state’s top education officials voted unanimously to accept the standards.
“There was no dissent,” said Terry Holliday, Kentucky’s education commissioner. “We had punch and cookies to celebrate.”
It was not by chance that Kentucky went first.
The state enjoyed a direct connection to the Common Core backers — Wilhoit, who had made the personal appeal to Bill and Melinda Gates during that pivotal 2008 meeting, is a former Kentucky education commissioner.
Kentucky was also in the market for new standards. Alarmed that as many as 80 percent of community college students were taking remedial classes, lawmakers had recently passed a bill that required Kentucky to write new, better K-12 standards and tests.
“All of our consultants and our college professors had reviewed the Common Core standards, and they really liked them,” Holliday said. “And there was no cost. We didn’t have any money to do this work, and here we were, able to tap into this national work and get the benefits of the best minds in the country.”
“Without the Gates money,” Holliday added, “we wouldn’t have been able to do this.”
Over time, at least $15 million in Gates money was directed both to the state — to train teachers in Common Core practices and purchase classroom materials — and to on-the-ground advocacy and business groups to help build public support.
Armed with $476,553 from Gates, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce’s foundation produced a seven-minute video about the value and impact of the Common Core, a tool kit to guide employers in how to talk about its benefits with their employees, a list of key facts that could be stuffed into paycheck envelopes, and other promotional materials written by consultants.
The tool kit provided a sample e-mail that could be sent to workers describing “some exciting new developments underway in our schools” that “hold great promise for creating a more highly skilled workforce and for giving our students, community and state a better foundation on which to build a strong economic future.”
The chamber also recruited a prominent Louisville stockbroker to head a coalition of 75 company executives across the state who lent their names to ads placed in business publications that supported the Common Core.
“The notion that the business community was behind this, those seeds were planted across the state, and that reaped a nice harvest in terms of public opinion,” said David Adkisson, president and chief executive of the Kentucky chamber.
The foundation run by the National Education Association received $501,580 in 2013 to help put the Common Core in place in Kentucky.
Gates-backed groups built such strong support for the Common Core that critics, few and far between, were overwhelmed.
“They have so much money to throw around, they can impact the Kentucky Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education, they can impact both the AFT and the NEA,” said Brent McKim, president of the teachers union in Jefferson County, Ky., whose early complaint that the standards were too numerous to be taught well earned him a rebuke by Holliday.
The foundation’s backing was crucial in other states, as well. Starting in 2009, it had begun ramping up its grant-giving to local nonprofit organizations and other Common Core advocates.
The foundation, for instance, gave more than $5 million to the University of North Carolina-affiliated Hunt Institute, led by the state’s former four-term Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, to advocate for the Common Core in statehouses around the country.
The grant was the institute’s largest source of income in 2009, more than 10 times the size of its next largest donation.
Full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core
Bill Gates sat down with The Post's Lyndsey Layton in March, to defend the Gates Foundation's pervasive presence in education and its support of the Common Core. Here's the full, sometimes tense, interview. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)With the Gates money, the Hunt Institute coordinated more than a dozen organizations — many of them also Gates grantees — including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Council of La Raza, the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, Achieve and the two national teachers unions.
The Hunt Institute held weekly conference calls between the players that were directed by Stefanie Sanford, who was in charge of policy and advocacy at the Gates Foundation. They talked about which states needed shoring up, the best person to respond to questions or criticisms and who needed to travel to which state capital to testify, according to those familiar with the conversations.
The Hunt Institute spent $437,000 to hire GMMB, a strategic communications firm owned by Jim Margolis, a top Democratic strategist and veteran of both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. GMMB conducted polling around standards, developed fact sheets, identified language that would be effective in winning support and prepared talking points, among other efforts.
The groups organized by Hunt developed a “messaging tool kit” that included sample letters to the editor, op-ed pieces that could be tailored to individuals depending on whether they were teachers, parents, business executives or civil rights leaders.
Later in the process, Gates and other foundations would pay for mock legislative hearings for classroom teachers, training educators on how to respond to questions from lawmakers.
The speed of adoption by the states was staggering by normal standards. A process that typically can take five years was collapsed into a matter of months.
“You had dozens of states adopting before the standards even existed, with little or no discussion, coverage or controversy,” said Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, which has received $4 million from the Gates Foundation since 2007 to study education policy, including the Common Core. “People weren’t paying attention. We were in the middle of an economic meltdown and the health-care fight, and states saw a chance to have a crack at a couple of million bucks if they made some promises.”
The decision by the Gates Foundation to simultaneously pay for the standards and their promotion is a departure from the way philanthropies typically operate, said Sarah Reckhow, an expert in philanthropy and education policy at Michigan State University.
“Usually, there’s a pilot test — something is tried on a small scale, outside researchers see if it works, and then it’s promoted on a broader scale,” Reckhow said. “That didn’t happen with the Common Core. Instead, they aligned the research with the advocacy. . . . At the end of the day, it’s going to be the states and local districts that pay for this.”
Working hand in hand
While the Gates Foundation created the burst of momentum behind the Common Core, the Obama administration picked up the cause and helped push states to act quickly.
There was so much cross-pollination between the foundation and the administration, it is difficult to determine the degree to which one may have influenced the other.
Several top players in Obama’s Education Department who shaped the administration’s policies came either straight from the Gates Foundation in 2009 or from organizations that received heavy funding from the foundation.
Before becoming education secretary in 2009, Arne Duncan was chief executive of the Chicago Public Schools, which received $20 million from Gates to break up several large high schools and create smaller versions, a move aimed at stemming the dropout rate.
As secretary, Duncan named as his chief of staff Margot Rogers, a top Gates official he got to know through that grant. He also hired James Shelton, a program officer at the foundation, to serve first as his head of innovation and most recently as the deputy secretary, responsible for a wide array of federal policy decisions.
Duncan and his team leveraged stimulus money to reward states that adopted common standards.
They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.
Heading the effort for Duncan was Joanne Weiss, previously the chief operating officer of the Gates-backed NewSchools Venture Fund.
As Race to the Top was being drafted, the administration and the Gates-led effort were in close coordination.
An early version highlighted the Common Core standards by name, saying that states that embraced those specific standards would be better positioned to win federal money. That worried Wilhoit, who feared that some states would consider that unwanted — and possibly illegal — interference from Washington. He took up the matter with Weiss.
“I told her to take it out, that we didn’t want the federal government involvement,” said Wilhoit, who was executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. “Those kinds of things cause people to be real suspicious.”
The words “Common Core” were deleted.
The administration said states could develop their own “college and career ready” standards, as long as their public universities verified that those standards would prepare high school graduates for college-level work.
Still, most states eyeing Race to the Top money opted for the easiest route and signed onto the Common Core.
The Gates Foundation gave $2.7 million to help 24 states write their Race to the Top application, which ran an average of 300 pages, with as much as 500 pages for an appendix that included Gates-funded research.
Applications for the first round of Race to the Top were due in January 2010, even though the final draft of the Common Core wasn’t released until six months later. To get around this, the U.S. Department of Education told states they could apply as long as they promised they would officially adopt standards by August.
On the defensive
Now six years into his quest, Gates finds himself in an uncomfortable place — countering critics on the left and right who question whether the Common Core will have any impact or negative effects, whether it represents government intrusion, and whether the new policy will benefit technology firms such as Microsoft.
Gates is disdainful of the rhetoric from opponents. He sees himself as a technocrat trying to foster solutions to a profound social problem — gaping inequalities in U.S. public education — by investing in promising new ideas.
Education lacks research and development, compared with other areas such as medicine and computer science. As a result, there is a paucity of information about methods of instruction that work.
“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor. Yet you could argue it should be the highest.”
Gates is devoting some of his fortune to correct that. Since 1999, the Gates Foundation has spent approximately $3.4 billion on an array of measures to try to improve K-12 public education, with mixed results.
It spent about $650 million on a program to replace large urban high schools with smaller schools, on the theory that students at risk of dropping out would be more likely to stay in schools where they forged closer bonds with teachers and other students. That led to a modest increase in graduation rates, an outcome that underwhelmed Gates and prompted the foundation to pull the plug.
Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s 15,000 school districts.
In February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in classrooms.
Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest.
“I believe in the Common Core because of its substance and what it will do to improve education,” he said. “And that’s the only reason I believe in the Common Core.”
Bill and Melinda Gates, Obama and Arne Duncan are parents of school-age children, although none of those children attend schools that use the Common Core standards. The Gates and Obama children attend private schools, while Duncan’s children go to public school in Virginia, one of four states that never adopted the Common Core.
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Still, Gates said he wants his children to know a “superset” of the Common Core standards — everything in the standards and beyond.
“This is about giving money away,” he said of his support for the standards. “This is philanthropy. This is trying to make sure students have the kind of opportunity I had . . . and it’s almost outrageous to say otherwise, in my view.”
US News and World Report has an Education Ranking system tied to corporate education. It is a global Wall Street journal and ranks schools-----historically universities by how corporate they are and how well they market and expand overseas.
Johns Hopkins is always ranked high because it has these few decades been able to secure revenue to expand globally and at the same time expand its BRAND. Tying itself to our government via Defense----NIH----Foreign Policy brought those funds and created that entry into nations overseas. It has nothing to do with having good education policy----it has nothing to do with having goals of creating strong public education---it is the opposite.
Below we see Florida which indeed is tops in corporatizing their public universities----they installed all of the reduction in degree requirements that create the tiered system of degrees and partnered with global corporations in apprenticeship pathways. It does lower cost if students are working right inside corporate campuses doing those jobs rather than have public universities free from corporate influence educating broadly with liberal arts and humanities graduating students ready to work in many different industries.
IT'S A WASTE OF TIME TO HAVE STUDENTS TAKING HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, LITERATURE, ARTS WHEN ALL THEY NEED IS LEARN HOW TO DO A JOB.
This is what gets a university at the top of US News and World Report===as with EDUCATION WEEK does with corporate K-12. If your state or school is ranked high in these guides---you are heading for ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE COMMONER CORE.
Please consider moving away from being proud of a top ranking when the goals of those rankings harm 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Florida ranked No. 1 for higher education by U.S. News and World Report
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — New rankings released by U.S. News and World Report say Florida is the number one state in the nation for higher education.
The Sunshine State got the top ranking because of several factors, including the state’s relatively low tuition rates for colleges and universities.
Florida also had a high ranking because more than half of students seeking a two-year degree graduated either on time or within three years.
Gov. Rick Scott and others heralded the new rankings, which are coming at a time when the Florida Senate is considering pushing through changes to the state’s higher education system. Senate leaders want to boost spending on student financial aid and provide more money for college faculty.
State University System Chancellor Marshall Criser III said the rankings were an “inspiration” to push for a better, stronger system.
Here we have both of our global ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION Wall Street corporate K-university media US NEWS AND WORLD and EDUCATION WEEK telling us this global K-career education school is best -----it meets the needs of a global labor pool being moved from one Foreign Economic Zone overseas to another and the US is MOVING FORWARD to being just another set of Foreign Economic Zones.
These schools make the education ranking system called GREAT SCHOOLS----GREAT SCHOOLS is to global Wall Street as MOODY'S is to financial ratings. When we see our K-12 schools tied to GREAT SCHOOLS we know they are being corporatized and ranked to meet global education standards.
Why is this bad for AMERICANS AND WE THE PEOPLE? Foreign Economic Zones overseas have installed for several decades this hyper-competitive hyper corporate structure that has parents and students fearing education outcomes because these pathways are directly tied to getting that job with a global corporation. Where here in the US a university student graduated from any university then applied for a job with all corporations in any job pathway-----what Race to the Top does is tie our children from pre-K to a corporate campus vocational pathway and job training----if that child does not excel they do not get that job with say an UnderArmour here in US or around the world. A global corporation will not consider students trained from a different corporate job training.
THIS IS WHAT CREATES THAT HYPER-COMPETITION FOR FEWER AND FEWER JOB OPENINGS---AND IT COMPLETELY KILLS OUR FREE DEMOCRATIC BROAD EDUCATION FOR QUALITY OF LIFE AND LEADERSHIP PUBLIC EDUCATION.
US News & World Report's 'Best High Schools' survey names Newcomers High tops in city, #6 in country
Newcomers High is one of 12 NYC public school among U.S. News & World Report's best 100 high schools. Above, Newcomers teacher Catherine Del Frate with students.(Theodorakis/News)
BY Joe Kemp Meredith Kolodner
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Updated: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 9:03 AM
An all-immigrant Queens school with students from 50 countries cracked the top 10 of U.S. News & World Report's coveted list of the nation's 100 best high schools.
Ms. Short and Ms. Boyson collected data on 63 newcomer programs around the United States in 2010, updating a survey from a decade ago when more than three-quarters of them were in urban areas. The most recent data show that while programs might be shrinking in number, they are also shifting location due to changing immigration patterns'.
- School Director
- Menlo Park Academy, Cleveland, OH
- Middle School Math Teacher - Abu Dhabi Public Schools
- Teach Away Inc., Ab, United Arab Emirates
- Superintendent of Schools
- Yorktown Central School District, Yorktown Heights, NY
- Middle School Teacher(s)
- Howard University Public Charter Middle School of Mathematics and Science, Washington, DC
- Middle School and High School Science Teacher - Abu Dhabi Public Schools
- Teach Away Inc., Ab, United Arab Emirates
Remember, MOVING FORWARD has US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones filled with global 1% and their 2% as global corporate executives and then global labor pool as workers in global corporate campus and global factories working in US as they did overseas----US citizens will be pushed into being those global ex-pats looking for education taking them overseas. Our immigrant families are losing that ability to experience REAL American public education and are instead seeing US build the same education structures in their third world nations.
When we see Race to the Top and Commoner Core does not have a goal of creating an AMERICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM but a global corporate campus vocational system for training human capital ---we see how all these K-career college structures will end. Our US high schools will be those vocational community colleges and yes, lots of students will get college degrees because they will be job training certificates. We have citizens in Baltimore right now with a dozen job training certificates.
Study Shares Newcomer Schools' Best Practices
Students watch an educator pour water as part of an experiment on erosion at the Columbus Global Academy in Columbus, Ohio. The academy enrolls about 460 students in grades 6-12, all of whom are recent arrivals to the United States.
—Maddie McGarvey for Education Week
Adolescent immigrants face big challenge: time
By Lesli A. Maxwell
January 17, 2012
When adolescent immigrants enroll in American public schools, time is not on their side.
Within as few as four years, they must learn English, master academic content, and adapt to American culture. Some, lacking formal schooling, may not be literate in their native languages.
But a small number of programs around the United States offer promising practices for teaching such students for other school districts to emulate, according to a new national research study from the Center for Applied Linguistics.
Practical guidance on working with this vulnerable group is crucial: "Newcomer" students make up one slice of the nation's more than 5.3 million English-language learners, the fastest-growing population of students in public schools. Increasingly, these newcomers are moving to communities where educators have little or no experience working with students having such academic and social needs.
Financed by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the new report by the Washington-based research center draws on survey data collected over three years from 63 newcomer programs at middle and high schools across the nation. Researchers Deborah J. Short and Beverly A. Boyson also have compiled a searchable database of those programs. (Carnegie also helps support coverage of district and high school reform in Education Week.)
For their analysis, the researchers delved into the attributes that successful secondary newcomer programs share as they help adolescent students overcome multiple learning challenges in a short amount of time. Beyond offering instruction in beginning English, many newcomer programs teach core academic courses and provide social services to help newcomers and their families adjust to living in the United States.
"The key is for educators to know exactly who their students are and to design a program that meets their needs," said Ms. Short, a senior research associate. "You have to start with the basics for many of these students. And it's clear that you can benefit these students even if you are only able to do a little bit to support them."
Impact of NCLB
Special programs serving recently arrived immigrant teenagers who are English-learners began appearing in school districts during the 1970s. Most enroll students for a limited period—one or two years—before the students transfer to a regular language-support program such as English as a second language or bilingual education. In 2000, the Center for Applied Linguistics collected data from 115 newcomer centers around the country.
But several programs closed down in the years after the federal No Child Left Behind Act became law in 2002 because of accountability pressures, Ms. Short said.
Maryan Abdullahi, 17, works on her chemistry homework at the Global Academy. Ms. Abdullahi, a junior, was born in a refugee camp for Somalis in Kenya.
—Maddie McGarvey for Education Week
"The whole-school programs would never reach proficiency under NCLB," Ms. Short said. "So they closed or called themselves something else."
More recently, budget cuts and the recession—which has slowed immigration—have hit newcomer programs. One of the nation's oldest centers, Newcomers High School in San Francisco, shut down in 2010 after 30 years of operation.
One school that has persevered is the Columbus Global Academy in Columbus, Ohio, according to the report.
The school's 460 students in grades 6-12 come from all over the world. Roughly half are refugees from Somalia, Iraq, Burma, or Nepal, said Principal Kimberly A. Normand in an interview. The students receive a comprehensive academic curriculum for middle and high school students, a feature common among the successful programs.
"The programs that work best for students are those that are focused not just on teaching English, but on the content areas as well," Ms. Short said.
For most of its 15 years, students at the Global Academy would stay a year or two before transferring to an ESL program elsewhere in Columbus, but last year, the school began issuing diplomas to graduates. Having the option to stay until graduation is especially beneficial to newcomers who arrive in 10th grade or later, Ms. Normand said.
"That gives them the chance to develop relationships with teachers who will be with them until they graduate," she said.
Students get most of their instruction in English, but every classroom has a bilingual assistant who can speak with them in their native language. The bilingual staff also act as liaisons to families, Ms. Normand said.
"All of our teachers, even the gym teachers, have to have certification to work with second-language students," said Brenda Custudio, the school's assistant principal.
Careful selection of staff members is a hallmark of most of the successful newcomer programs, Ms. Short said. Besides handpicking staff, she added, effective programs "do very targeted professional development to focus on adolescents who are learning to read."
The best programs offer extended learning time after school, on weekends, and during the summer, the report says. And many provide targeted learning supports for students. At the Global Academy, for example, retired teachers work with students in "reading clinics" three times a week. Offering counseling, mental health, and other connections to social services is also key, according to the report.
Ms. Short and Ms. Boyson collected data on 63 newcomer programs around the United States in 2010, updating a survey from a decade ago when more than three-quarters of them were in urban areas. The most recent data show that while programs might be shrinking in number, they are also shifting location due to changing immigration patterns.
Of the programs in the current survey, 52 percent are in urban areas, while 33 percent are in suburbs and 14 percent in rural areas. Some are in unlikely places, such as Jackson Hole, Wyo., an upscale ski resort town in the Rocky Mountains, and in West Fargo, N.D.
That such programs have opened in communities that have not traditionally been gateways for immigrant families underscores the need to train more educators on how to provide services for teenage immigrant students, said Andrés Henríquez, a program officer for literacy and standards at Carnegie.
"What's particularly critical is that these nontraditional areas develop a capacity to work with these students," Mr. Henríquez said. "We wanted to figure out what elements are in these newcomer programs that make them successful, so that knowledge can be shared."
WE THE PEOPLE know there is no shortage of good STEM grads in America----what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are shouting is again a lie as an excuse to build these global labor pool job training structures replacing our US PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.
'However, numerous independent researchers have raised serious doubts about whether a STEM shortage ever existed or will at any time in the foreseeable future'.
The debate over high-skilled STEM grads always brings in this discussion of foreign workers. The problem for US citizens is not our immigrant labor it is the failure of our our local politicians to create local economies with small and regional businesses. There would be plenty of jobs for both US STEM and foreign workers if we were not tied to global monopoly. We know we have enough STEM grads---we know we have enough students interested and capable of STEM degrees and certificates.
We would suggest that global corporations are preparing for US wages tied to STEM falling to that of overseas Foreign Economic Zones is why they need to build these global labor dynamics---so what we see below $37 an hour will be history as MOVING FORWARD has US cities paying what they do in Asia.
'As Costa indicated in the previously cited8 article, "average wages in the computer and mathematical occupations for workers with at least a bachelor's degree" barely moved from 2000 to 2011 when studied in 2012 dollars (i.e., in constant dollars). Using Current Population Survey data he found that average hourly wages had moved from $37.27 in 2000 to $39.24 in 2011, an average annual increase of about 18 cents an hour'
PLEASE STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL WALL STREET TO CREATE THESE CRISES ONE AFTER THE OTHER WHETHER ECONOMIC OR HIRING---GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS.
America Has More Trained STEM Graduates than STEM Job Openings
By David North May 2013
David North is a CIS fellow who has studied the interaction of immigration and U.S. labor markets for more than 40 years. This Backgrounder is based, in part, on a blog on the same subject published earlier.
It has become quite clear that America has more high-tech college graduates than needed to fill high-tech jobs now and, importantly, the nation will keep producing many more such graduates than job openings in the future — so why the shrill calls from the industry that there is a shortage?
The debate revolves around two sets of initials: STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) graduates and workers and the H-1B temporary worker program that floods our labor markets with low-cost, docile, high-tech nonimmigrant graduates, mostly working in computer-related industries.
Why the demands, as supported by the Senate's Gang of Eight, from industry for huge increases in the number of H-1B workers? Is it a genuine shortage of talent, as the industry claims, or is it because, as the Wall Street Journal1 of all publications, put it, the firms want to continue to staff their operations "with Indian expatriates who earn significantly less than their American counterparts"? I think the Journal has it right.
As to the future supply and demand, this is the big picture as drawn from data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (on future job openings) and from projections drawn from Department of Education and National Science Foundation data (on high-tech degrees likely to be awarded to U.S. citizens and green card holders in the decade to come).
The table above deals with the future. Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute recently released a comprehensive study dealing with the supply and demand of STEM graduates showing similar findings in the immediate past. One of its findings was:
For every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired in a STEM job.
That study2 was by three experts in the field (Hal Salzman, a Rutgers professor, B. Lindsay Lowell, of Georgetown University, and Daniel Kuehn, who has worked with both the Urban Institute and EPI). It stated that "in computer and information science and in engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each year."
It also found that "the annual inflows of guestworkers amount to one-third to one-half the number of all new IT job holders."
Further, it concluded that "there is a robust supply of domestic workers available to the IT industry."
Finally, in a classic economist's rebuttal to industry allegations of a shortage of talent, the authors noted that had there been a genuine labor shortage, wages would have risen, but "wages have remained flat [in the IT field] with real wages hovering around their late 1990s levels."
Returning to our CIS projections in the high-tech fields shown earlier, it is useful to note that the Obama administration, gung ho on giving the computer-centric industries everything they want in terms of more high-tech workers no matter how many resident workers are hurt in the process, has not worked with these readily obtainable data on the future trends in the supply and demand for STEM workers.
No one from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security has pulled together the numbers used by either CIS or EPI above, though all come from official data sets.
Further, one should bear in mind while looking at these supply and demand numbers that the United States is routinely bringing in a million new immigrants a year, as well as more than 100,000 new H-1B high-skilled workers as nonimmigrants.
There are, under current law, two nonimmigrant ceilings: 65,000 for ordinary H-1Bs and 20,000 more for those with U.S. graduate degrees — mostly two-year master's degrees — as well as many more who are working for universities or entities more or less connected to universities; the last group has no numerical limit. Most of the H-1B's are in IT.
But do we need any more high-tech migrants at all? Do we need any?
Before answering those questions, we should note that we have removed all data on the categories of architects and social scientists from these STEM counts, as there is little demand for foreign workers in those professions.
The remaining data show that there will be three new high-tech degree holders for every two high-tech job openings for the 10-year period, even if employers restricted their future hiring to new grads only. In addition, there are millions of unemployed college graduates out there, and even larger numbers of STEM-trained people employed in other lines of work. America is swimming in IT talent.
The focus on new university graduates that dominates the industry's immigration policy statements is a hidden indication of the not-often-discussed elephant in the room — the ease with which employers can hire docile, young foreign workers permits wide-spread de facto discrimination against older (35-plus) American workers.
Which brings up another point: the industry's constant talk about the need for recent STEM college graduates blurs the policy conversation. Should not the policy discussion be about the total supply of STEM workers and the total need for such workers, not the number of new graduates? Industry is only too happy to ignore the large numbers of resident STEM workers who are unemployed, or more likely, working in non-STEM jobs.
Do IT Jobs All Need IT degrees?
A predictable response of industry to our supply and demand numbers will be: you are only showing the big picture you are not comparing the number of new jobs in the IT industry to the number of residents securing IT-specific degrees. That's both narrowly correct, and totally misleading.
Yes, if one were to look into the numbers above, one would find that BLS predicts more openings in what it calls "computer operations" than the projected number of brand-new graduates with computer training.
But there is a big catch, as Daniel Costa of the Economic Policy Institute pointed out in a useful paper3 last fall:
68 percent of the workers in the IT industry do NOT have a computer-related degree
31 percent of them do not even have a STEM degree.
So why should we pay much attention to the ratio between new computer science grads and the industry's alleged needs, when the industry pays so little attention itself? Except of course, when it wants to try to support its complaints of "labor shortages", when it means salary savings, and when it says it needs the "best and the brightest" to do technical work, much of which is pretty ordinary, as Professor Norm Matloff of UC/Davis4 often has pointed out.
Costa's source for the statement above is another NSF study, the "2003 National Survey of College Graduates".
Most of us, in our private lives, incidentally, probably know a computer whiz or three, and the chances are that one or more of them did not major in computers in college.
Industry Overstates the Need for Advanced Degrees.
Let's look a little further at the industry's rhetoric in its efforts to push through a "staple bill", one that would affix a green card to the diploma of every alien who secures an American advanced degree in STEM. This is just one of the lobbyists' efforts to increase the flow of foreign workers into the United States; they are also seeking to make the ceilings much higher in the nonimmigrant H-1B program, and to make it easier for STEM people to secure green cards after working as H-1Bs.
There are also provisions in S.744, the Gang of Eight's proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, making it easier for those with advanced STEM degree from U.S. educational institutions to get their green cards; more specifically, unlike other aliens with employment-based visas, were the law to be enacted, they would be admitted outside of numerical ceilings.
Note that these provisions are directed at foreign workers who secured either a STEM master's degree or a PhD in this country; this is clearly for an elite group among the foreign workers currently employed in the H-1B program, and others, but do labor-demand data show a particular need for employees with such degrees? Not really.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' scholarly publication, Monthly Labor Review, ran an article5 last April on this point showing the "typical education needed for entry" into a number of occupations and sub-occupations.
In engineering and architecture there were 35 such subcategories, and none showed a need for more than a bachelor's degree; in the computer and mathematical field, again, only three of the 16 subcategories called for more than a bachelor's degree.
Further, we know from a long series of articles6 by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (another government operation) that a substantial majority of aliens with American PhDs in science and engineering manage to stay in the United States for many years after graduation under current laws.
In short, the staple bill and the S.744 provisions on this point both look like alleged solutions valiantly looking for problems to be solved.
Academic/Labor Market Mismatches. There has long been what might be regarded as a mismatch in America between the specific fields of advanced education and the labor market, which we see currently in the STEM field.
For example, prominent commentator Andrew Hacker wrote the following:7
[The] most recent Occupational Outlook Handbook [a BLS publication] uses payrolls for 2006 as a base, and then offers employment estimates for 2016. I was surprised to learn that in 2006 the nation altogether had only 17,000 paid positions for physicists, apart from teachers, and that only 1,000 more openings are envisaged for 2016. The number of employed mathematicians is expected to rise from 3,000 to 3,300. … Employment for engineers is slated to grow from 1,512,000 to 1,671,000, about the same percentage of growth as for the workforce as a whole. Indeed, at current rates, 650,000 new engineers will have received degrees by 2016, four times the predicted number of openings. Hence a high attrition rate. Most reach salary ceilings early — chemical engineers average $73,300 at midcareer — so many shift to sales or management. Perhaps our society would benefit were we to train more people in science and technology. But no matter how estimable their knowledge, when employers say they don't need more of these employees, it tells us either that there aren't tasks for them to do, or that money isn't there [to hire them].
So a rational approach by the universities might be to train more residents in IT, and perhaps fewer in math and engineering, but the momentum inside math and engineering departments would tend to blunt any such changes. And, or course, some students, particularly at the PhD level, are consumed with an interest in fields that have feeble employment prospects.
Yes, shifting academic priorities to make them closer to those of the labor market would be a good idea in the long run despite the inherent difficulties in such moves; and while this is happening there may be a need for some really temporary admissions — but certainly not more than current levels — of some nonimmigrants in some very precise fields, perhaps some in IT, but there is no need for anything as massive and as long-lasting as industry's current requests.
There may be some actual, short-term personnel gaps here and there, but we do not need a permanent Mississippi River flood of new alien workers to close those temporary shortfalls.
Finally, What IT Wages Tell Us. Returning to the wage-levels point raised by the three EPI authors, I get a kick out of lobbyists and industrialists who urge that business be allowed to run free of needless regulation and government interference, and yet urge direct governmental intervention in the labor market by permitting the massive infusion of inexpensive and young foreign workers.
Are these guys capitalists or socialists? The answer is that they take one route or the other depending on how it will serve the specific industry in question at the specific moment in time.
Right now they are all for substantial government intervention in the labor market by permitting the admission of many more foreign workers.
And how do such admissions square with the most fundamental rule of capitalism — that the markets regulate prices and wages? Bear in mind that those seeking more alien workers to keep wages in check are the same people who would scream to high heaven if the government sought to control prices.
Are there indications in the wage patterns of a real shortage of IT workers?
As Costa indicated in the previously cited8 article, "average wages in the computer and mathematical occupations for workers with at least a bachelor's degree" barely moved from 2000 to 2011 when studied in 2012 dollars (i.e., in constant dollars). Using Current Population Survey data he found that average hourly wages had moved from $37.27 in 2000 to $39.24 in 2011, an average annual increase of about 18 cents an hour.