Links:
Conversation between Marisela Gomez & David Harvey: http://indyreader.org/content/baltimore-conversation-between-david-harvey-and-marisela-gomez
Indie GoGo: http://www.indiegogo.com/east-baltimore-books
Activist walks away: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-01-01/news/bal-md.activist01jan01_1_smeac-neighborhood-east-baltimore-development
Marisela Gomez now: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-protest-20120607,0,227730.story
Video talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2tJJYgWM9Q
Red Emma's Baltimore Free School: http://freeschool.redemmas.org/
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Dead White Men
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is two-and-a-half hours of rhetorical one-upsmanship, passionate posturing, and good intentions from white men -- the film allows speaking roles to only a handful of women and people of color -- who legislate in abstract from those who will benefit.
Representatives talk plenty about how the 13th amendment will or won't impact their white male constitutents -- they favor the end of war but beyond that would not hope that African-Americans be given the same opportunity for success, trade, or business as they already fight to eke out amongst their lilly-headed brethren. Lincoln's secretery of state asks one farmer who is brought into Lincoln's study what he would hope the government might do regarding slavery once peace has been declared. His wife, in a rare display of matriarchy for the film, announces that he would much prefer to have less competition in his trade.
Lincoln wishes for the passage of the 13th ammendment, which abolished unwilling servitude (with the notable exception of prison labor), on supremely moral grounds. He believes that it must be his legacy to free the slaves. He deters a peace delegation from the Confederacy because he knows that they would not offer surrender, nor would they free their slaves. Many of his Lincoln's cabinet contemporaries call him mad -- not only because Peace is so widely wished for that in most hearts it hits closer than abolition (because these are white, landed gentry who have sons in the war, the war for them is more real than the horrors of Southern slavery, which they don't have to see or experience in an emotional way, rather only intellectually). And yet for Lincoln, he will send his son to war. He acknowledges that if he and his wife prevent their oldest from enlisting, he will hate them for the rest of their lives. And so he lets him go. For Lincoln, the intellectual and moral world trumps the emotional. His wife, whose character exudes emotion in an overly stereotypical portrayal of maternal hysteria, wonders why Lincoln must be caught in his head rather than swayed by feelings of grief. She cries on the floor while he threatens to throw her in the madhouse.
There is one scene that hints that Lincoln may be swayed to consider the emotions of another. Considering his daily litany of potentially pardonable cases, Lincoln comes across the case of a 16-year old boy who went AWOL and beat a horse. While talking to one of his staff members -- whom he awoke at 2 a.m. to discuss the minutiae -- Lincoln receives a nugget of advice that at once seems to portend an investigation into the emotions of black folk he may know. When Lincoln asks his staffmember what he thinks a suitable punishment for the young man should be, his staff replies, "Why don't we ask the horse?" What follows is a lingering medium-shot of Day-Lewis as he appears to experience a "eureka" moment. With such directorial attention focused on the man, it appears that he is considering asking slaves (in this extremely problematic allegory, the "horses," the victims of a dispute) what they think ought to be done in the dilemma of primacy between Peace and Abolition, or even what they imagine the fate of the Confederate leadership ought to be in the era of Reconstruction.
Lincoln's follow-up investigation never happens.
During his conversation with the woman of color who works for Mrs. Lincoln, Day-Lewis does not bend his character to ask what she may feel on the subject of the Ammendment. Indeed, she tells him off, and he does not appear to flinch. For Lincoln this is an intellectual crusade of historical importance rather than a question of how he may identify with an emotional appeal.
---
How much to be accorded to this issue -- white men debated in the House for a month, putting one another down in haughty flourishes of grandeur. Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones, is the most dogmatic defender of "equality before God" rather than simply before the law -- in other words, he favored a more sweeping racial equality accorded to "radical Republicans." And his is the character most prone to putting down his elected compatriots by showing off his superior vocabulary. He enjoys flaunting his superior education more than anyone else. Ignorant of privelege, he reveals to Lincoln in their basement chat that he stopped caring a long time ago about his people. They elected him to make smart decisions for the rest of them. While Lincoln does not show his hand in this conversation, it appears that he too experiences his election as a vindication of his moral and intellectual superiority to make decisions on behalf of others.
The gerrymandered 3rd district of Maryland, which in 2012 threw out the Republican Roscoe Bartlett. In 186?, Lincoln bought off Democratic Representatives to vote for his amendment. Are we better off? Am I assuming my own moral high ground by arguing that if the guardians of good don't play by the rules, then they sully the impact of their victories by opening themselves up to perfectly legitimate cries of foul?
Liberalism, or leftism, based in force, will not establish a harmonious or equitable society. We have seen that with the 13th amendment and the lingering racism and discrimination which continue to plague this country. We may soon see the same as Democrats stack certain decks in their own favor.
Representatives talk plenty about how the 13th amendment will or won't impact their white male constitutents -- they favor the end of war but beyond that would not hope that African-Americans be given the same opportunity for success, trade, or business as they already fight to eke out amongst their lilly-headed brethren. Lincoln's secretery of state asks one farmer who is brought into Lincoln's study what he would hope the government might do regarding slavery once peace has been declared. His wife, in a rare display of matriarchy for the film, announces that he would much prefer to have less competition in his trade.
Lincoln wishes for the passage of the 13th ammendment, which abolished unwilling servitude (with the notable exception of prison labor), on supremely moral grounds. He believes that it must be his legacy to free the slaves. He deters a peace delegation from the Confederacy because he knows that they would not offer surrender, nor would they free their slaves. Many of his Lincoln's cabinet contemporaries call him mad -- not only because Peace is so widely wished for that in most hearts it hits closer than abolition (because these are white, landed gentry who have sons in the war, the war for them is more real than the horrors of Southern slavery, which they don't have to see or experience in an emotional way, rather only intellectually). And yet for Lincoln, he will send his son to war. He acknowledges that if he and his wife prevent their oldest from enlisting, he will hate them for the rest of their lives. And so he lets him go. For Lincoln, the intellectual and moral world trumps the emotional. His wife, whose character exudes emotion in an overly stereotypical portrayal of maternal hysteria, wonders why Lincoln must be caught in his head rather than swayed by feelings of grief. She cries on the floor while he threatens to throw her in the madhouse.
There is one scene that hints that Lincoln may be swayed to consider the emotions of another. Considering his daily litany of potentially pardonable cases, Lincoln comes across the case of a 16-year old boy who went AWOL and beat a horse. While talking to one of his staff members -- whom he awoke at 2 a.m. to discuss the minutiae -- Lincoln receives a nugget of advice that at once seems to portend an investigation into the emotions of black folk he may know. When Lincoln asks his staffmember what he thinks a suitable punishment for the young man should be, his staff replies, "Why don't we ask the horse?" What follows is a lingering medium-shot of Day-Lewis as he appears to experience a "eureka" moment. With such directorial attention focused on the man, it appears that he is considering asking slaves (in this extremely problematic allegory, the "horses," the victims of a dispute) what they think ought to be done in the dilemma of primacy between Peace and Abolition, or even what they imagine the fate of the Confederate leadership ought to be in the era of Reconstruction.
Lincoln's follow-up investigation never happens.
During his conversation with the woman of color who works for Mrs. Lincoln, Day-Lewis does not bend his character to ask what she may feel on the subject of the Ammendment. Indeed, she tells him off, and he does not appear to flinch. For Lincoln this is an intellectual crusade of historical importance rather than a question of how he may identify with an emotional appeal.
---
How much to be accorded to this issue -- white men debated in the House for a month, putting one another down in haughty flourishes of grandeur. Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones, is the most dogmatic defender of "equality before God" rather than simply before the law -- in other words, he favored a more sweeping racial equality accorded to "radical Republicans." And his is the character most prone to putting down his elected compatriots by showing off his superior vocabulary. He enjoys flaunting his superior education more than anyone else. Ignorant of privelege, he reveals to Lincoln in their basement chat that he stopped caring a long time ago about his people. They elected him to make smart decisions for the rest of them. While Lincoln does not show his hand in this conversation, it appears that he too experiences his election as a vindication of his moral and intellectual superiority to make decisions on behalf of others.
The gerrymandered 3rd district of Maryland, which in 2012 threw out the Republican Roscoe Bartlett. In 186?, Lincoln bought off Democratic Representatives to vote for his amendment. Are we better off? Am I assuming my own moral high ground by arguing that if the guardians of good don't play by the rules, then they sully the impact of their victories by opening themselves up to perfectly legitimate cries of foul?
Liberalism, or leftism, based in force, will not establish a harmonious or equitable society. We have seen that with the 13th amendment and the lingering racism and discrimination which continue to plague this country. We may soon see the same as Democrats stack certain decks in their own favor.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Misha Glenny's thesis about the Balkans
In The Balkans 1804-1999, Glenny recounts the First Serbian Uprising and the Greek civil war/war for independence, both of which took place in the early part of the 19th century. The Serbs were led by tribal bands of peasants and sheep farmers known as pashaliks; the Greeks likewise but with also a substantially Westernized intelligentsia who were influenced by Enlightenment ideals. The peasants who led the revolution, meanwhile, were not educated -- Glenny recounts a telling example of a Greek scholar visiting one of the klephts (brigand, guerilla warriors who had expelled the Turks) and calling him "Achilles" as an honorific. The influential leader responded, "What rubbish are you talking about? Who is this Achilles? Handy with a musket was he?"
Russia, France, and Britain also played a strong role in establishing modern Greece -- the so-called philhellenes, led by Byron, called for the Great Powers to support the fledgling Greek nation. The European nations ultimately resolved amongst themselves to establish as Greek autocrat the Bavarian prince Otto, who would "guarantee the controlling interest of the great powers over the young state." This paragraph appears to portend Glenny's overarching analysis of the region:
"The First Serbian Uprising began over half a century before the unification of Italy; the first modern Greek state was proclaimed forty years before the unification of Germany. But the national identities of Serbs and Greeks were ill-defined. Both national movements owed their success more to Ottoman decay than to their own inherent strength. To compensate for their political and economic weakness, the national elites sought support for their aspirations from the European powers. Herein lies the start of the Balkan tragedy -- these were peasant societies poorly equipped to assimilate the ideas of the Enlightenment, and located at the intersection of competing absolutist empires. The result was a stunted constitutional development whose shortcomings would inevitably be exploited by the great powers as competition between them intensified in the region in the second half of the nineteenth century." -- p. 39
Russia, France, and Britain also played a strong role in establishing modern Greece -- the so-called philhellenes, led by Byron, called for the Great Powers to support the fledgling Greek nation. The European nations ultimately resolved amongst themselves to establish as Greek autocrat the Bavarian prince Otto, who would "guarantee the controlling interest of the great powers over the young state." This paragraph appears to portend Glenny's overarching analysis of the region:
"The First Serbian Uprising began over half a century before the unification of Italy; the first modern Greek state was proclaimed forty years before the unification of Germany. But the national identities of Serbs and Greeks were ill-defined. Both national movements owed their success more to Ottoman decay than to their own inherent strength. To compensate for their political and economic weakness, the national elites sought support for their aspirations from the European powers. Herein lies the start of the Balkan tragedy -- these were peasant societies poorly equipped to assimilate the ideas of the Enlightenment, and located at the intersection of competing absolutist empires. The result was a stunted constitutional development whose shortcomings would inevitably be exploited by the great powers as competition between them intensified in the region in the second half of the nineteenth century." -- p. 39
Monday, November 19, 2012
Charter school graduation data
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but I feel like this article
explains something I hadn't understood before and which might be helpful
to those wishing to understand why charter school data is skewed and thus impossible to compare with data from traditional public schools.
In some cases, charter schools are able to have higher graduation rates than neighborhood high schools (i.e. regular public schools) because they can transfer out students at will, whereas the neighborhood school is a "school of right" which guarantees education to every child who lives within their boundary district.
For example, if a charter has 50 10th-grade students on their books, but only 30 who look like they might meet graduation requirements on time, they can transfer out those 20 problematic students at the end of 10th grade. If the rest succeed as expected, the charter school will have a 100% graduation rate two years later.
When a charter transfers students out of their school, those students must enroll at another school in order to shift out of the charter school's cohort (i.e. so that they do not read as a student of that charter school who failed to graduate). Many re-enroll at their local neighborhood high school. However, if a student drops out of a neighborhood high school and does not re-enroll elsewhere, that student remains on the books of the neighborhood high school as a non-graduating student. Charters will never, ever have this particular issue because they can push out students at will. Neighborhood high schools have nowhere else to dump students.
One remaining question I have is: is the onus at all on the charter school to ensure that a student is re-enrolled elsewhere, or when they are removed from the charter school, are they automatically added back to the local neighborhood school's cohort?
This was brought to my attention by an excellent analysis by Erich Martel, a retired DCPS social studies teacher who unrelentingly excoriates the neoliberal education reform sweeping Washington, D.C.
"Don’t students drop out of the regular public school? Certainly. When they drop out, they are still counted in the school’s cohort (denominator). A student can only be removed from the denominator/ cohort, if he or she is transferred to another school and enrolled. The regular public school has no equivalent “default” LEA into which it can unload unwanted students. Since charters are all in the same school zone as the regular public school, they can transfer at will.
After a student has been transferred to the LEA school of right, i.e. the “traditional” public school, he or she is removed from the cohort. The US Department of Education introduced the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACJR) calculation with the graduating class of 2011. It starts with the grade 9 enrollment, students transferring in are added; those transferring out are subtracted from the cohort.
When there are multiple LEAs in the same geographical district, but only one is required to enroll all students, the other LEAs have the privilege of cherry picking and then getting rid of students who don’t fit in. That’s what they all do in DC, including much acclaimed KIPP."
As posted on GF Bradenburg's blog, here:
http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/from-one-washington-to-the-other/
In some cases, charter schools are able to have higher graduation rates than neighborhood high schools (i.e. regular public schools) because they can transfer out students at will, whereas the neighborhood school is a "school of right" which guarantees education to every child who lives within their boundary district.
For example, if a charter has 50 10th-grade students on their books, but only 30 who look like they might meet graduation requirements on time, they can transfer out those 20 problematic students at the end of 10th grade. If the rest succeed as expected, the charter school will have a 100% graduation rate two years later.
When a charter transfers students out of their school, those students must enroll at another school in order to shift out of the charter school's cohort (i.e. so that they do not read as a student of that charter school who failed to graduate). Many re-enroll at their local neighborhood high school. However, if a student drops out of a neighborhood high school and does not re-enroll elsewhere, that student remains on the books of the neighborhood high school as a non-graduating student. Charters will never, ever have this particular issue because they can push out students at will. Neighborhood high schools have nowhere else to dump students.
One remaining question I have is: is the onus at all on the charter school to ensure that a student is re-enrolled elsewhere, or when they are removed from the charter school, are they automatically added back to the local neighborhood school's cohort?
This was brought to my attention by an excellent analysis by Erich Martel, a retired DCPS social studies teacher who unrelentingly excoriates the neoliberal education reform sweeping Washington, D.C.
"Don’t students drop out of the regular public school? Certainly. When they drop out, they are still counted in the school’s cohort (denominator). A student can only be removed from the denominator/ cohort, if he or she is transferred to another school and enrolled. The regular public school has no equivalent “default” LEA into which it can unload unwanted students. Since charters are all in the same school zone as the regular public school, they can transfer at will.
After a student has been transferred to the LEA school of right, i.e. the “traditional” public school, he or she is removed from the cohort. The US Department of Education introduced the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACJR) calculation with the graduating class of 2011. It starts with the grade 9 enrollment, students transferring in are added; those transferring out are subtracted from the cohort.
When there are multiple LEAs in the same geographical district, but only one is required to enroll all students, the other LEAs have the privilege of cherry picking and then getting rid of students who don’t fit in. That’s what they all do in DC, including much acclaimed KIPP."
As posted on GF Bradenburg's blog, here:
http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/from-one-washington-to-the-other/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)