WHERE ARE THE LABOR AND JUSTICE CANDIDATES IN MARYLAND ELECTIONS!
The goal of education reform corporatizes US universities and K-12. The 1% think they are going to make emigrants of our children and grandchildren by keeping unemployment high and government debt out of site with one economic crash after the other. Remember, when empire-building in the UK in the 1800s families lived abroad all their lives working for the crown! This is where neo-liberals want to take the US and starving education in order to state the need for revenue-raising is leading to this. So, here we have NYU....with Wall Street and Manhattan right around the corner expanding overseas to attract the Best of the Best to bring to the US. They cannot fund student aid domestically, but allow corporations not paying taxes in the US to fund scholarships abroad giving families little options for higher ed. THIS IS DELIBERATE AS THEY WANT TO MAKE US EMIGRATE FOR JOBS.
THIS IS WHAT O'MALLEY IS DOING IN MARYLAND AS WELL. CUOMO AND O'MALLEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS.
Budget shortfalls at all levels of government are created by massive corporate fraud and the solution is reinstating Rule of Law and recovering all that fraud to government coffers making funding of education easy! STOP ALLOWING NEO-LIBERAL DNC CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATES....RUN LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL ELECTIONS TO STOP THIS INSANITY!
Remember, a thriving first world democracy that was the US in the 1950-1970s worked because corporations were held accountable and workers earned strong wages and had benefits.....making them able to consume and fuel the economy. We need to downsize these global corporations by simply reinstating Rule of Law bringing back corporate fraud and laws giving higher wages and Universal Health Care to free worker's money for consumption.
THE 1% WANT TO KEEP DOMESTIC WORKERS IMPOVERISHED AND EARN ALL THEIR PROFITS OFF OF CONSUMPTION ABROAD.
For Some NYU Students, A Sweet Deal To Study ... In Shanghai
by September 25, 2013 3:10 PM 7 min 49 sec
New York University in Shanghai is the first Sino-U.S. joint university. Here, a student speaks with an NYU staffer on Aug. 11.
Liu Xiaojing/Xinhua /Landov First-year college student Stephanie Ulan, from Queens, N.Y., had her sights set on New York University, in the heart of Manhattan's Greenwich Village.
She got her wish — sort of.
At first, the school offered her a generous scholarship but told her and her father they'd still have to take out big loans.
"My father is 62 years old," says Ulan, who plans to major in international relations. "There was a big scene and he flipped out and he was, like, 'I can't do that.' "
“ A scholarship that's worth about $228,000. How can you turn that down?
- Ron Ulan, father of a first-year American student at NYU Shanghai
Then, NYU made her a better offer — but only if she attended NYU's new Shanghai campus, where she'd applied as an afterthought by clicking a box on an application. The deal: tuition, room, board and even reimbursement for her plane ticket to Shanghai.
"I was a little bit flabbergasted," says Ron Ulan, Stephanie's dad, who works as a computer programmer with the New York City Police Department.
Ron, who says he lives check to check, calculated the savings over four years.
"A scholarship that's worth about $228,000," he says. "How can you turn that down?"
And ultimately, that's how Stephanie Ulan found herself among the students at this month, when classes opened at the first Chinese-American, joint-venture university.
The NYU Shanghai campus aspires to educate a new generation of students who can speak English and Mandarin and navigate U.S. and Chinese culture.
For Students, A Variety Of Perks
For many first-year students like Ulan who are willing to take the plunge, there is an added benefit: huge tuition breaks.
Stephanie Ulan, an 18-year-old from Queens, N.Y., wanted to go to New York University in Manhattan. But after the school offered her free tuition at its Shanghai campus, she headed for China.
Frank Langfitt/NPR Although money was a big factor in her decision, Ulan says she's glad she came to China, because she's stretching herself in ways she never would have back home. While her friends at American universities talk about partying every night, Ulan says she's often focused on more basic needs.
"I need to find someone who speaks Chinese, because I want to eat lunch today," says Ulan, 18, who adds that she's determined to learn the language.
Ulan wasn't the only U.S. student at the campus to get financial aid. Half a dozen others with whom NPR spoke said they got either huge discounts or free tuition.
Why is NYU Shanghai being so generous?
Ron Ulan thinks it's because the school wants to attract quality students to a new program. Jeff Lehman, the vice chancellor of NYU Shanghai and the former president of Cornell, puts it a bit differently. He says the school was able to offer huge scholarships with the help of private donors, including Chinese interested in reforming the country's education system.
"We've benefited from tremendous philanthropic support," says Lehman, speaking from his office on the leafy campus of East China Normal University, NYU's joint-venture partner in Shanghai. "As we prove ourselves, I very much hope that kind of support will translate into the creation of a great endowment."
The inaugural class of 300 is nearly split between Chinese and international students, including 90 from the U.S. Every foreign student rooms with one from China.
The attraction for Chinese students is getting a Western education without leaving home or draining their parents' bank accounts. The Shanghai government pays roughly two-thirds of their $45,000 annual tuition bill.
Yang Xiran, who grew up in southwestern China's Sichuan province, says she came to NYU Shanghai to get away from the country's rote style of learning and to engage with professors.
The university is currently located on the leafy campus of East China Normal University. Next year, NYU Shanghai will move to a 15-story building in the city's financial district.
Frank Langfitt/NPR "[At NYU] the teachers want you to be involved in the class more," she says. "They want you to ask, 'Why?' In my high school, the teacher just kept talking."
Cai Xingyang, from neighboring Jiangsu province, finds the classrooms at NYU Shanghai much freer than traditional Chinese ones.
In the first week, students discussed politically sensitive topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising. When Cai tried to address the subject in a presentation in her Chinese high school, her teacher stopped her and told her to never bring it up again. Cai did get to make a presentation to her high school class, but she had to change the topic to something less controversial: food.
One thing Cai finds challenging is the language. All classes at NYU Shanghai are taught in English.
"Sometimes, I just can't understand all the things my classmates and professors said and I do practice listening every day," says Cai, who estimated her comprehension at about 70 percent.
Some faculty back in New York worry that NYU — which also has a campus in — has , straining resources. Rebecca Karl, a faculty senator and China scholar, says that as professors head overseas to staff other campuses, NYU New York suffers.
"In the senate committees I'm in, the complaints have been persistent about Abu Dhabi," she says, "particularly from such places as the Economics Department, which has had trouble finding people to teach the large intro courses here in New York because their professors are going abroad."
Lehman says Shanghai has minimal impact on New York. Of the 50 faculty this year, he says, only 15 are from the Manhattan campus and only three of them are in Shanghai for the entire year.
Shanghai, NYU Stand To Gain
Richard Vedder, who runs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a Washington think tank, says schools like NYU face some big challenges these days. He says with students balking at high tuition and endowment growth slow, schools like NYU are looking to other countries.
"I think there's a financial motive," he says. "They want to have a top, national reputation — and they do have a good reputation — but they don't have the resources or the historical prestige that the Harvards have."
So, Vedder says, schools like NYU have to look overseas "to expand [their] franchise and also to make some money."
What does Shanghai stand to gain from the partnership?
For one thing: prestige.
NYU is widely respected. Shanghai's Pudong district government is giving the school rent-free use of a 15-story building — estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars — in China's Wall Street, Lujiazui.
Yu Lizhong, chancellor of NYU Shanghai, says the school will help the image of Lujiazui, which, despite its towering architecture, has yet to become the hub city planners envisioned.
Yu, who also served as president of East China Normal University, says the partnership with NYU can help improve and reform China's oft-criticized educational system.
In fact, he says, it's already happening. When prospective students used to interview at East China Normal, they would sit and wait with nothing to eat or drink. After watching NYU's more gracious approach, Yu says East China Normal — known as ECNU — changed.
"Now, ECNU also prepares some tea, coffee, and some dessert for the student, to make them comfortable, to [feel] respected," Yu says.
That may sound small, but it's meaningful change. In China's hierarchical education system, a prospective student is seen as a supplicant, not a consumer.
Of course, NYU Shanghai has far bigger goals. They include building an undergraduate student body of 2,000 and developing a sustainable way to fund the fledgling school.
See why Americans can't afford universities? The professors and Deans are now Executives and CEOs.
PLEASE VOTE NEO-LIBERALS OUT SO WE CAN REVERSE THESE CORPORATIZATION POLICIES!
NYU Gives Loans for Executives' Vacation Homes
June 18, 2013 Inside Higher Ed
New York University is breaking new ground in compensation for higher ed executives and star faculty members by providing loans for vacation homes, The New York Times reported. President John Sexton received $1 million in loans for a home on Fire Island, while others have received assistance to buy second homes in other prime vacation areas. The article notes that many colleges provide homes for presidents, and some institutions in places like New York City -- where housing is expensive -- provide housing assistance for many others. But the article says that help for second homes is "all but unheard-of in higher education."
John Beckman, a university spokesman, told the Times: "The purpose of our loan programs goes right to the heart of several decades of sustained and successful effort at NYU: to transform NYU from a regional university into a world-class research residential university." The loans help attract and retain talent, he said.
Among the critics of the practice quoted in the article was Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, a former president of George Washington University who has been a defender of high salaries and benefits for higher education leaders. "That’s getting to be a little too sexy even for me, and I have a good sense of humor about these things," he said. "I don’t think that’s prudent. I don’t mind paying someone a robust salary, but I think you have to be able to pass a red-face test."
If you look at the expenses US universities have today much of it involves marketing, recruiting, and building unneeded student activities ALL TO RECRUIT FOREIGN STUDENTS. All of this expense is at the expense of student financial aid and grants for domestic students. THIS IS WHAT O'MALLEY HAS DONE TO MARYLAND SCHOOLS AND WHAT ALL OF THE CURRENT CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR WILL DO AS WELL.
Education reform is about handing public education over to corporations and our universities are far along in that regard. Maryland's #1 ranking in Education Week.....a school privatizing group with Bill Gates....is for just this. This is also what the market-based Immigration reform is all about...a pathway to bringing more and more immigrants who will take top leadership positions in business and do it more cheaply than a US grad. The expectation is that US students/grads will go overseas to school and work if they want a degree and job.
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY? REALLY?
Talk Turns to Agents
September 20, 2013 By Elizabeth Redden
TORONTO – Two years ago, a proposed change to National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) policy on the use of commissioned agents in international student recruitment was a subject of intense debate. A session on this subject at NACAC’s annual conference on Thursday was, however, notable largely for the lack of drama.
There were references to bad practices and predatory behaviors, but for the most part the discussion centered around questions of a technical nature – questions regarding clarification on language and the like – and of first steps for institutions that choose to engage commissioned agents internationally if and when NACAC lifts its long-standing ban on the practice.
The NACAC Assembly will vote on Saturday as to whether to do just that, in the culmination of what’s been a more than two-year-long process. In 2011, NACAC proposed a revision to its Statement of Principles of Good Practice clarifying that the association’s ban on incentive-based recruitment, which U.S. law bars in the case of domestic students, applies in overseas contexts as well. After being flooded with comments, however – more than 300 of them – NACAC formed a Commission on International Student Recruitment, which this past summer issued a report recommending that the association allow, but discourage, the use of commissioned agents in international recruitment, and that it hold universities that do choose to use agents to high standards around issues of accountability, integrity, and transparency. At the same time the commission recommended continuing NACAC's mandatory ban on the use of incentive-based compensation in domestic student recruitment. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY? REALLY?
It's hard to say with certainty what the muted atmosphere surrounding Thursday's discussion of the commission's recommendations foretells for Saturday's vote, but Inside Higher Ed's own surveys, conducted this year by Gallup, have documented a shift in attitudes toward this topic. In 2011, the majority of admissions directors (65 percent) backed NACAC's then-draft policy banning the use of commissioned agents in international recruiting, while this year the majority (58 percent) support the new draft policy permitting the practice. No doubt helping to bring about the change in views is the fact that a growing number of U.S. universities -- NACAC members -- are now openly using agents: the proposed policy is thus in some ways catching up with the practice.
Fifteen of the 28 members of the commission were on hand to discuss the recommendations and answer questions on Thursday. Throughout the session they straddled the line they drew in the report, reiterating that it is possible to responsibly and ethically work with commissioned agents, while warning of the dangers involved in doing so. Although members of the commission did not reach consensus on whether per-capita compensation of agents is to blame for abuses such as misrepresentations by agents to students and institutions, the majority of members believed that the practice "tends to compound the likelihood of such problems occurring."
"There's no question that the issue of protecting students was foremost in everyone's mind," said Mark Sklarow, chief executive officer of the Independent Educational Consultants Association. "The important task for us was [determining] is there something inherent to incentivized compensation that makes it impossible? I think if you look at the recommendations, #2 says that it's not best practice to do this. You've got to give serious thought to doing it, because there are difficulties and you've got to approach it the right way. And I hope people take that item #2 very seriously. You should not enter into this until you're sure that you're protecting the best interests of students. That's gotta be first."
"I just want to make sure we know where we've been and where we're going," said Jim Miller, a former NACAC president and retired admissions director at the University of Wisconsin-Superior. During the commission's deliberations, he said, members learned that "there were folks dealing with agents well and that there were real problems with some agent behavior and relationships that led us to go from a complete ban, which had been the case, to saying, 'OK, there are some ways you can do this, it's fraught with challenges, but if you do it with transparency and accountability, we are comfortable that it's an allowable practice.' So we've moved from no one can, to you can if you do it responsibly."
"If this passes the Assembly on Saturday we will go from a ban to an allowance with those provisions, and then we can work out the details," Miller continued. "If we don't get it through the Assembly on Saturday, then we've got the ban."
Among the details that came up during the session was how the language of "domestic" and "international" students included in the commission's recommendations applies to NACAC member institutions based outside the U.S. Members of the commission acknowledged that they did not address this issue specifically in their report, but said that the association's newly formed International Advisory Committee will be continuing to tackle questions such as these in the year ahead.
"This is the first step of many," said Douglas L. Christiansen, the vice provost for enrollment and dean of admissions at Vanderbilt University.
Below you see that a majority of people are shouting out against this education reform....from all walks of life. Do not allow states like Maryland that have captured media not letting its citizens know that most do not support this reform keep you from shouting out and holding politicians accountable.
NEO-LIBERALS ARE VOTING FOR THESE BAD EDUCATION POLICIES. REMEMBER, WE DO NOT NEED TO DO IT FOR THE FUNDING.....WE HAVE MASSIVE CORPORATE FRAUD YET RECOVERED THAT WILL FUND ALL!
This goes for K-college!
June 18, 2013 Special Edition TOP STORY Thousands Sign New Education Declaration Calling For New School Policies
Jeff Bryant Sign the Education Declaration
A Declaration With Broad Support
Released last week by the Education Opportunity Network, in conjunction with the Opportunity to Learn Campaign and the Institute for America’s Future, the Declaration received widespread attention from national and local outlets.
Reporting from her blog at The Washington Post, Valerie Strauss wrote, “The document offers a progressive approach to school reform that includes ensuring that teachers are properly trained and respected, that opportunities to learn for all students are paramount and that learning must be ‘engaging and relevant.’”
The Chicago grassroots parent activist group PURE said the Declaration “demonstrates that the message of true education progressives is becoming clearer and more unified.”
At the progressive blog site Daily Kos, long-time classroom teacher Kenneth Bernstein wrote, “Increasingly people are coming together to oppose what has been the thrust of educational policy, and to try to reclaim and reinvigorate public education.” Bernstein called the Declaration “an important step in that direction.”
From the website of the Tucson Citizen, local blogger called the Declaration “an answer to the conservative ‘education reform’ movement,” and the document “signals the growing strength of progressive educators at a time when the public is growing skeptical of the endless high-stakes testing.”
At The Huffington Post, Richard Eskow said the Declaration was an answer to “the Wall Street crowd” that “wants us to think of education in terms of means – which usually means finding ways to spend less – rather than ends. But when it comes to education, the ‘ends’ are our children.”
Eskow, who is affiliated with one of the sponsors of the Declaration, noted, “A lot of well-intentioned people get taken in by cynical agendas like this, especially when the other side isn’t being heard. That’s where the “Declaration” comes in. It says that ‘Education is a public good.’ A public good is something that is, or should be, available to all without exception, like clean air, drinkable water, and the national defense.”
Eskow’s words resonated throughout the progressive blogosphere as his post was quickly picked up by the websites Nation of Change and Truthout.
Despite the waning of the school year, the Declaration comes at an opportune time.
America’s Education Spring Rolls On
As The Nation’s John Nichols recently said on MSNBC, what is transpiring in the nation’s public schools “is a mess.”
Huge rallies protesting governance of public schools have taken place in the state capitals of New York and North Carolina.
In Michigan, supporters of public education will rally on June 19 to “reject the corporate, profit-motivated takeover of public schools, massive school closures, and meaningless high-stakes testing.”
In Pennsylvania, a rally is in the works at that state’s capital to protest massive education cuts, including a “Doomsday Budget” in Philadelphia that prompted layoffs of nearly 4,000 school staff.
The fight for public education is flaring in rural areas as well – at least in Tennessee, where families and students are fighting school cuts and consolidations.
And in Texas, a parent-led movement against out-of-control standardized testing came to a head last week when governor Rick Perry signed a bill reducing the amount of testing.
These protests against education mandates are not going away. At the website for The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, there is a running timeline with the latest news on the movement, and new links are added every week.
A Positive Way Forward
The Education Declaration to Rebuild America comes at a time when lawmakers in Washington, D.C. continue to fret over education legislation – the rewriting of No Child Left Behind – that will likely go nowhere and please no one.
Writing at The National Journal, Kevin Welner – the director of the National Education Policy Center and a signatory of the Declaration, wrote, “Perhaps our senators haven’t yet noticed, but their constituents don’t much care for No Child Left Behind. Perhaps they haven’t noticed all the protests against excessive testing and school closings.”
Noting that the Declaration he signed had “in just one day … garnered more than 10,000 signatures,” Welner concluded, “Let’s hope that during the summer recess [the senators] have a chance to speak with parents, students and teachers – people who will ask the fundamental question: Why continue failed policies?”
There is a more positive way forward. Sign the Education Declaration to Rebuild America and help advance that.
Sign the Declaration Yes, I’m committed to providing our children the education they deserve.
I’m signing the Education Declaration to Rebuild America.
For too long, our policymakers have engaged the nation’s schoolchildren in a grand experiment, with frequent testing, incentive programs and top-down mandates that promised much but delivered little.
Today, leading academics, policymakers and educators have come together to demand an education spring embodied in An Education Declaration to Rebuild America.
This declaration (below) represents a strong critique of our nation’s current course on education – and an outline of a positive new direction focused on opportunities and supports for students. Add your name and forward this to friends so that we can grow this movement for real education reform based on what America needs and our children deserve.
Click here to add your name
PLEASE REVIEW THIS LIST OF GOOD OBJECTIVES AND THINK TO YOURSELF.....IS THE EDUCATION PROGRAM IN MY SCHOOL MEETING THE OBJECTIVES BELOW?
An Education Declaration to Rebuild America
Americans have long looked to our public schools to provide opportunities for individual advancement, promote social mobility and share democratic values. We have built great universities, helped bring children out of factories and into classrooms, held open the college door for returning veterans, fought racial segregation and struggled to support and empower students with special needs. We believe good schools are essential to democracy and prosperity — and that it is our collective responsibility to educate all children, not just a fortunate few.
Over the past three decades, however, we have witnessed a betrayal of those ideals. Following the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, policymakers on all sides have pursued an education agenda that imposes top-down standards and punitive high-stakes testing while ignoring the supports students need to thrive and achieve. This approach – along with years of drastic financial cutbacks — are turning public schools into uncreative, joyless institutions. Educators are being stripped of their dignity and autonomy, leading many to leave the profession. Neighborhood schools are being closed for arbitrary reasons. Parent and community voices are being shut out of the debate. And children, most importantly, are being systemically deprived of opportunities to learn.
As a nation we have failed to rectify glaring inequities in access to educational opportunities and resources. By focusing solely on the achievement gap, we have neglected the opportunity gap that creates it, and have allowed the resegregation of our schools and communities by class and race. The inevitable result, highlighted in the Federal Equity and Excellence Commission’s recent report, For Each and Every Child, is an inequitable system that hits disadvantaged students, families, and communities the hardest.
A new approach is needed to improve our nation's economic trajectory, strengthen our democracy, and avoid an even more stratified and segregated society. To rebuild America, we need a vision for 21st-century education based on seven principles:
- All students have a right to learn. Opportunities to learn should not depend on zip code or a parent's abilities to work the system. Our education system must address the needs of all children, regardless of how badly they are damaged by poverty and neglect in their early years. We must invest in research-proven interventions and supports that start before kindergarten and support every child's aspirations for college or career.
- Public education is a public good. Public education should never be undermined by private control, deregulation and profiteering. Keeping our schools public is the only way we can ensure that each and every student receives a quality education. School systems must function as democratic institutions responsive to students, teachers, parents and communities.
- Investments in education must be equitable and sufficient. Funding is necessary for all the things associated with an excellent education: safe buildings, quality teachers, reasonable class sizes, and early learning opportunities. Yet, as we've “raised the bar” for achievement, we've cut the resources children and schools need to reach it. We must reverse this trend and spend more money on education and distribute those funds more equitably.
- Learning must be engaging and relevant. Learning should be a dynamic experience through connections to real world problems and to students' own life experiences and cultural backgrounds. High-stakes testing narrows the curriculum and hinders creativity.
- Teachers are professionals. The working conditions of teachers are the learning conditions of students. When we judge teachers solely on a barrage of high-stakes standardized tests, we limit their ability to reach and connect with their students. We must elevate educators’ autonomy and support their efforts to reach every student.
- Discipline policies should keep students in schools. Students need to be in school in order to learn. We must cease ineffective and discriminatory discipline practices that push children down the school-to-prison pipeline. Schools must use fair discipline policies that keep classrooms safe and all students learning.
- National responsibility should complement local control. Education is largely the domain of states and school districts, but in far too many states there are gross inequities in how funding is distributed to schools that serve low-income and minority students. In these cases, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure there is equitable funding and enforce the civil right to a quality education for all students.
Principles are only as good as the policies that put them into action. The current policy agenda dominated by standards-based, test-driven reform is clearly insufficient. What's needed is a supports-based reform agenda that provides every student with the opportunities and resources needed to achieve high standards and succeed, focused on these seven areas:
- Early Education and Grade Level Reading: Guaranteed access to high quality early education for all, including full-day kindergarten and universal access to pre-K services, to help ensure students can read at grade level.
- Equitable Funding and Resources: Fair and sufficient school funding freed from over-reliance on locally targeted property taxes, so those who face the toughest hurdles receive the greatest resources. Investments are also needed in out-of-school factors affecting students, such as supports for nutrition and health services, public libraries, after school and summer programs, and adult remedial education — along with better data systems and technology.
- Student-Centered Supports: Personalized plans or approaches that provide students with the academic, social, and health supports they need for expanded and deeper learning time.
- Teaching Quality: Recruitment, training, and retention of well-prepared, well-resourced, and effective educators and school leaders, who can provide extended learning time and deeper learning approaches, and are empowered to collaborate with and learn from their colleagues.
- Better Assessments: High-quality diagnostic assessments that go beyond test-driven mandates and help teachers strengthen the classroom experience for each student.
- Effective Discipline: An end to ineffective and discriminatory discipline practices, including inappropriate out-of-school suspensions, replaced with policies and supports that keep all students in quality educational settings.
- Meaningful Engagement: Parent and community engagement in determining the policies of schools and the delivery of education services to students.
As a nation, we're failing to provide the basics our children need for an opportunity to learn. Instead, we have substituted a punitive high-stakes testing regime that seeks to force progress on the cheap. But there is no shortcut to success. We must change course before we further undermine schools and drive away the teachers our children need.
All who envision a more just, progressive and fair society cannot ignore the battle for our nation’s educational future. Principals fighting for better schools, teachers fighting for better classrooms, students fighting for greater opportunities, parents fighting for a future worthy of their child’s promise: their fight is our fight. We must all join in.