The purpose of education: the three E’s

 

I have heard it said that the purpose of education in IPS should ultimately result in one of the three E’s:

Enrollment

Enlistment

Employment

I want to offer three alternative E’s for your consideration:

Emancipation

Enlightenment

Empowerment

Let us consider the differences between education in different settings.  The elite private schools of Indianapolis certainly don’t offer up “enrollment, enlistment, and employment” as the purposes for the education that they are offering their students.  In fact, one website I visited  included three C’s in their vision: curiosity, compassion, and courage.  It is just me, or are there radically different connotations to each of those lists of words?  Yep.  Enrollment, enlistment, and employment should not be the end game here.  Being enrolled, enlisted, or employed should be natural byproducts of an education that honors and inspires the whole child…a child who is:

EMANCIPATED:  has realized that his current socioeconomic status and/or identity is not predictive of or limiting his future possibilities.

ENLIGHTENED: has been exposed to a wide variety of curricula, activities, and interests, can apply that information to her current circumstance, and is inspired to pursue further learning on topics of her choosing.

EMPOWERED: has realized that his locus of control lies within himself, takes his resources into account and knows when to use them, demonstrates responsibility and self-determination.

Allow me to offer a couple of scenarios for your consideration:

School A students wait outside or on the bus until the bell rings.  Once allowed inside, they walk with bubbles in their mouths and their arms crossed in hallway hugs on the right side of the hallway, using the red tape line as a guide, with absolutely no talking.  They arrive at their classroom, and are greeted by an under-appreciated, underpaid and overworked teacher, who (in some cases) loves them anyway, and are doing the absolute best they can despite the current conditions.  School A student sits at their desk, quietly doing bell work.  Their day consists of a math block, a reading block (typically with basal readers and pre-made worksheets), and Science or Social Studies if it’s in a grade where it’s tested on ISTEP, and when there is time in the day for it.  The Indiana Academic Standards are posted on the wall so we always know which ones we are currently working on, and because there will be a test soon.  There is always an upcoming test; quizzes, benchmarks, I-READS, I-STEPS.  Student A gets gym twice a week, Music twice a week, and Art on a cart or library once a week.  She gets the same lunch as everyone else, whether kindergarten or high school athlete.  She sits down at the long cafeteria table, next to the kid in line according to alphabetical order.  Sometimes she has to sit in silence with the lights out at lunch, while a stressed out adult yells at them through a microphone to be quiet.  If she talks, she get after school detention.

A student from school B arrives at school early to go and speak with his favorite teacher before class starts.  There are no bells, but student B knows when it’s time to head to homeroom because he can hear the happy chatter of students in the halls.  Teachers throughout the halls are standing at their doors, smiling, and greeting students.  Student B enters the classroom and gets ready for his discussion in circle time.  He knows he will have to plan his day of learning, and his teacher guides him in planning to make choices throughout the day, such as where to sit, how to see the best in his (sometimes annoying) classmates, which books to read, which topics to write about, which centers to visit during math workshop.  When his friend helps him to discover grouping pumpkin seeds by ten to count rather than counting by ones, his teacher notes his success and celebrates by asking the class to stop and watch his demonstration.  At lunch, he sits outside in the spring air with a chosen group of friends but plans to visit the library during lunch tomorrow. In the afternoon, he has a disagreement with a peer that wouldn’t leave him alone.  He had to set aside time to attend a peace mediation session with his teacher, and everything is back to normal now – which is great, because the best part of his day is going to the Environmental Club after school.

As you think about the differences in the vignettes from school A vs. school B, please consider the following:

• What organizational differences in these two settings are creating such a vast gap in the learning experiences of students?  What is the “work” culture of these two districts?  What policies are in place to set these conditions?  What role might standardized testing play?  How might the concept of accountability be experienced differently in school A vs. school B?

• What do you think the adults in school A are doing differently than the adults in school B?

• Trick question: which school has the highest paid outside consultants? (Hint: it’s not the one you might think.)

• Which school offers more individual freedom?  What are the consequences of allowing students to make authentic choices, both negative and positive? (dare I say it, student AUTONOMY?)

• How might the opportunity to make decisions in school affect a student’s learning…after all, isn’t LIFE about the ability for people to make sound decisions for themselves?

• Over 12 years of schooling, what cumulative effects can we expect on human lives?  In other words, which set of three E’s is school A preparing students for?  School B?

• Which school is designed to produce leaders and innovators?  Which school is designed to produce worker bees?  Does either school encourage the questioning of authority, or the status quo? Is this by design?

• Does student A DESERVE different treatment than student B, based on an ability to pay for a private school education?  To what extent (if any) can a public school offer a private school education (or a semblance of it)?

_____________________________________________________

For the first time ever, I am allowing comments on this blog thread.  Responses are moderated, and idiocy of any kind is not tolerated.  Let’s discuss the questions above, and the general idea of the PURPOSE of education, public, charter, and private.  If your comments do not get posted, it’s because you did not give input to the questions.  Or you were inappropriate. Don’t take it personal…

_____________________________________________________

Do you want to share the story of what is going on in your Indianapolis school?  I am inviting teachers, school staff and students to write about their experiences, good and bad, to be shared anonymously (or not, you choose) on my blog.  Please email submissions to: gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

These thoughts are my own and do not reflect IPS or any other entity.  I assume no responsibility for the comments of others on this blog or in any other format.

 

thanks

There was a letter of support posted on the Indy Star website today:

I’m honored and proud to be a commissioner for Indianapolis Public Schools. To me, that title carries the weight and responsibility of representing an entire community. I received over 12,000 votes in 2012. Those constituents combined with the roughly 28,000 students in IPS schools gives me ~40,000 reasons to continue advocating for a free, public, high quality education. Without a doubt, there are many changes that could improve IPS…and we have countless talented, dedicated staff that can help us realize those changes. Freedom to innovate at all levels is important and can be achieved from within the IPS district, it does not require contracting with outside organizations in order to run our schools. It is a fallacy to propose that innovation requires anything other than the will and desire to make it happen. I call on all parents and community members to continue advocating for positive reforms that originate from the local educators within our district – rather than to continue to spend money in contracting with outside organizations who may or may not understand our communities and what our children need. Every dollar going to an outside contract is a dollar not spent in a classroom. Thanks for the community support, especially to the author, Nanci Lacy, for her letter to the IndyStar.

 

“Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”  Just a thought…maybe, if there are lots of people who feel this way, and we all bring our candles together…we can see our way out of this mess! #weareamosbrown

My thoughts are my own.  email me at: gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

Tonight’s briefing session: 10-27-2015

The outcome may not have been perfect, but I think that the community’s involvement in the current agenda before the board has had some positive effect.  Following the forcible removal of Larry Vaughn, a well-known community activist, the board heard several other thoughtful delegations from community members on both sides of the issue.  There was a sizeable crowd present.  All seats appeared to be taken, and there were a few folks standing in the back and out in the lobby.  There was some media coverage of the issues before and after the meeting via WRTV6, Chalkbeat, and WFYI.

The result?

1.  The board agreed to postpone voting on the move of school 70 to locate CFI #4 in Meridian Kessler.  That vote will take place FOLLOWING community conversations with schools scheduled November 2, 3, and 4.  However, voting on the closure of the Key School will continue as planned for Thursday.
2. The board also agreed to retain some critically important policy language that speaks to diversity and inclusion:

“The Board believes that a high quality education is most effective in a diverse setting. Therefore, a major purpose of this policy is to promote diversity and avoid the isolation of students of both genders and different racial, ethnic, socio­economic, limited English proficient, and other special needs backgrounds. Diversity for purposes of this policy refers to the inclusion of students of both genders and different racial, ethnic, socio­economic, limited English proficient, and other special needs backgrounds. IPS must respond to the needs of all children in a setting that does not isolate, stereotype, or fail to educate them effectively. Diverse and integrated schooling has inherent educational value from the standpoint of education’s role in a democratic society. The survival and vigor of democracy depends upon an educated citizenry with shared concerns about the welfare of society, its members, and the democratic principles that govern it. Diversity brings different viewpoints and experiences to classrooms discussions and thereby enhances the educational process. It also fosters racial and cultural understanding, which is particularly important in a racially and culturally diverse society. In addition, research shows that integrated education expands post­secondary opportunities for diverse populations. A policy that supports quality education in a diverse and integrated setting for all students will positively affect students who will live and work together in a culturally diverse society and enhance their educational success.”

The same policy language also directs the Superintendent to enact targeted recruitment if there is under-representation of any student groups in magnet enrollment.

Rather than do away with all of the policies addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion, the board agreed to have a revision drafted for consideration on Thursday which will include the language above.  (YAY!!)

---

Here are my commissioner comments in their entirety:

“Tonight’s agenda is problematic on a number of levels.  It’s problematic because 1) it marginalizes children of color in order to accommodate a small select group of white, middle to upper class children and families – 2) the process by which we assign students to magnet schools in this district does not alleviate DOCUMENTED disproportionate numbers of white students in our most desirable magnet programs and 3) it’s a huge problem for me that no input was sought from school communities and families on this important decision to close a school, move a school, and locate a new CFI about a mile away from an already existing CFI school.

So, to my first point, the proposal from the administration that was just introduced to the board last Monday will close the Key School (80% minority pop), move school 70 (90% minority pop), in order to be able to locate another CFI school on the north side. Despite the claims from the IPS administration that the students on the waiting list primarily live on the north side, only about ¼  to 1/3 of the 310 kids waiting live in Meridian Kessler, Butler Tarkington, or Broad Ripple areas.  Besides, the north side already has several high performing school options including CFI 84 (which is 82% white) and the Butler Lab School, (58%) white.  Keep in mind that the entire district is 20% white – which speaks to a high concentration, or disproportionality, in relation to the overall enrollment of students in the district. 

This move is continuing a pattern of “building grabs” that was initiated last year when Gambold, the CFI-feeder high school, was moved from out on west 38^th Street to displace an existing program at Shortridge High School. 

My second point is that we need to examine the root cause of this inequity.  How did we get to this point?  It lies in the way in which students who apply to magnet schools get placed into the schools.  This week we will be asked to vote to remove language from an existing policy on assignment to magnet schools- board policy 5120 – this language reads, “5. The Superintendent shall evaluate the extent to which the applicant pool for each magnet and option program reflects the diversity of the District as a whole. If an identifiable group of students is substantially under-­represented in the applicant pool for any magnet or option program, the Superintendent shall direct targeted recruiting of applicants from the under­-represented group before the random selection process begins.”  I see a huge problem in removing language from this policy which serves to protect the kinds of demographics that we see now.

Further, the tiered system of preference that determines who gets seats in our magnet programs perpetuates inequity.  The first seats go to siblings of currently enrolled students.  After they are placed, then seats go to kids living within the proximity boundary, which right now is a mile.  After that a larger geographical boundary is considered, and finally preference is given to IPS employees children.  Only then are remaining seats available to the broader magnet school applicant pool.  This current tiered system of preference does nothing but perpetuate huge gaps in access for students of color, and all but ensures that our magnets do not become more racially integrated.  One of the intended purposes of magnet schools nationwide was to integrate urban school systems, and other cities have achieved some success.  That is not the case in Indianapolis – and it will not be if we are eliminating language from our policies to address under-representation.

Third, in the age of ‘IPS transparency’, I am very disappointed in the fact that the IPS board (or, at least, I) was unaware of this plan until last Monday.  Even more disconcerting is the fact that families at all of the affected schools are not scheduled to have any discussion until the week after the vote is already done. 

Look, I am just one voice up here.  When I am done speaking, the audience will be inundated with plenty of reasoning as to why this is a good idea. A lot of that commentary will choose to focus on grade level configurations on the setup of different buildings.  Comments may also include data about the high number of minority children enrolled in other schools or magnet programs – WHICH – is NOT disproportionate BECAUSE IT CLOSELY REFLECTS THE OVERALL ENROLLMENT OF IPS AT 75% MINORITY.  But it’s past time for us to confront the real, underlying issues at hand here.  Are we going to continue to marginalize and disenfranchise our 75% black and brown kids for the comfort and convenience of a few?

I WILL NOT.”

---

Thanks, community, for your support and attention to what is happening with IPS.  Stay engaged!!  The vote on the fate of school 70 and the new CFI will be taken at 6pm on November 9th.  It is also a public meeting allowing for comment.  I hope that you all will continue to make your voices heard.

(My views are my own and do not reflect those of the IPS board as a governing entity.)

Comments or Questions?  Email me at gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

Annie ain’t got no…interview??

Before I get started, let me first say that it was a pleasure to hear from three candidates this evening who interviewed for the board vacancy.  They were all smart, intelligent, capable people – well suited for a role in IPS governance.  I’d really be fine with any one of them joining the board.  That decision will be made tomorrow, and I’m already at peace with that decision, however the votes may go down.

There were four applicants, though.  Only three of the four were selected to interview tonight.  And in my humble opinion, the one candidate who was cut prior to the interview process was single-handedly the most uniquely qualified person in terms of sheer experience.

Annie Roof, who just ended a four year term on the board, and who served as the board president last year, was the fourth applicant, and she was denied an interview.

We did get emails in support of Annie.  Several, in fact.  We could have gotten hundreds, but I don’t think it would have mattered… No consideration was given to constituent support demonstrated in the emails, just as no consideration was given to the fact that Annie’s recent board experience would have allowed her to hit the ground running.

Some of you might think that I am advocating for a friend.  That this is personal on my behalf.  While I do indeed consider Annie a friend now, that friendship was not built with sugar and spice.  Annie and I had our share of disagreements in the time we served on the board together. Annie’s IPS voting record speaks to her independent streak – we certainly did not see eye to eye on every issue.  I find her ability to respectfully disagree and not hold grudges to be a rare, and refreshing quality.  If anything, her independence might have restored some balance to a board that is, at times, divided – without compromising the fact that there is a clear majority.

The meeting tonight in which we interviewed the candidates was sparsely attended.  Really, I think there was one single attendee besides the media.  Granted, there was a simultaneous meeting regarding teacher pay that probably trumped in order of importance for people who would regularly attend these types of things…but the 2016 election is quickly approaching.  Four seats (out of a seven member board) will be up for election in November 2016.   If you don’t know the politics of your public school board, now would probably be a good time to start acquainting yourself.

My thoughts are my own and do not reflect those of the IPS board in its entirety or any other organization.

If you’d like to contact me, I can be reached at:

gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

Autonomy for Automatons 101

I have come to hate the word autonomy when it is used in the context of education.  Why?

Quite simply, because it is the most overplayed word in the world of “ed reformers”.  Maybe Indianapolis ed reformers, especially.

Everyone reading this blog probably knows how language can be carefully massaged and crafted until it means something entirely agenda-specific.  This is precisely what has happened to the word, and the concept, of school autonomy.

Let me explain.

On the face of it, the concept of school autonomy is a very promising one.  So promising, in fact, that I used the word quite a bit in my 2012 campaign to describe a utopian ideal where teachers, principals, students, parents (AKA the school community) had a great deal more influence over…everything.  Staffing, Curriculum, Title I Funding – to name a few.  To me, the word autonomy connoted a school community freed from many of the top-down processes of the bloated IPS central office.  Sounds pretty good, right?  I thought so.

As time has passed and I’ve gained experience in my role as a commissioner, I’ve come to learn that autonomy is really a code word for something much darker and more sinister.  The word has gradually been co-opted.  Instead of reflecting a wide variety of options that could be weighed carefully and selected based on what suits our city’s needs, the ed-reformers in this city use the word ‘autonomy’ to refer to anything associated with the PORTFOLIO SCHOOL MODEL, which is the true agenda of the current IPS board majority.

THE PORTFOLIO SCHOOL MODEL is the brainchild of the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), run by Paul T. Hill – whose educational background is in political science, not education.

Since the current board majority and administration have been doing the bidding of the powers-that-be in Indianapolis, the Portfolio School Model has already begun to be implemented here in IPS, despite the fact that true discussions on “autonomy” have not taken place yet (The first meeting of the ad-hoc committee takes place Friday, July 3rd at 1:00pm at the Ed Center.  Yes, it is an IPS holiday.  I know, crazy, right?)   Here is proof from the CRPE website that the portfolio model is already being implemented in our city, without any input from IPS stakeholders whatsoever:

And this, from a CRPE white paper:  

Dear constituent (taxpayer, parent, teacher, student, resident of Indy)…do you see this as a problem?  The utter foundation of public schooling as you know it is being shifted without your knowledge, let alone your input.  Remember in my last blog post when I shared with you that “the citizens of the District are to be viewed as the ownership and clients of IPS, to whom the Board is primarily responsible and for whom the Board acts”?  This comes directly from IPS policy, and I am giving you a direct example of a violation of that policy.

Google ‘Portfolio Schools’, look beyond the barrage of CRPE links, and read for yourself how this has played out in the network of cities mentioned above.  There are plenty of examples like this article about Philly.

The Portfolio Model operates on the premise that a free market approach will “weed out” lower performing schools by replacing them with private options – whether they be for-profit or non-for-profit charter schools or vouchers.

Kenneth Saltman of the National Education Policy Center (2010) has conducted research on the portfolio school model and this is his conclusion:

Although the strategy is being advocated by some policy centers, implemented by
some large urban districts, and promoted by the education reforms proposed as
part of the Obama administrations Race to the Top initiative, no peer-reviewed
 studies of portfolio districts exist, meaning that no reliable empirical evidence
about portfolio effects is available that supports either the implementation or rejection

of the portfolio district reform model.
Nor is such evidence likely to be forthcoming.
Even advocates acknowledge the enormous difficulty of designing credible
empirical studies to determine how the portfolio approach affects
student achievement and other outcomes. There are anecdotal reports
of achievement gains in one portfolio district, New Orleans. The New Orleans results,
however, have been subjected to serious challenge. Extrapolation of research on the

constituent elements of the model is not helpful because of the complex interactions
of these elements within the portfolio model.
Moreover, even when the constituent elements are considered as a way to predict the

likely success of the model, no evidence is found to suggest that
it will produce gains in either achievement or fiscal efficiency. Finally, the policy writing

of supporters of the portfolio model suggests that the approach is expensive to implement

and may have negative effects on student achievement.
In light of these considerations, it is recommended that policymakers and administrators

use caution in considering the portfolio district approach. It is also highly
recommended that before adopting such a strategy, decision makers ask the following questions:

What credible evidence do we have, or can we obtain, that suggests the
portfolio model offers advantages compared to other reform models?

What would those advantages be, when might they be expected to materialize, and how

might they be documented?

If constituent elements of the model (such as charter schools and test
based accountability) have not produced advantages outside of portfolio systems, what
is the rationale for expecting improved outcomes as part of a portfolio system?

What funding will be needed for startup, and where will it come from?

What funding will be necessary for maintenance of the model?

Where will continuation funds come from if startup funds expire and are not renewed?

How will the cost/benefit ratio of the model be determined?

What potential political and social conflicts seem possible?

How will concerns of dissenting constituents be addressed?

If you find these truths to be unsettling, I would urge you to print of this list of questions, and attend the IPS ad-hoc “autonomy” committee on Friday, July 3rd, at 1:00 pm.  It will be held in the IPS board room at 120 E. Walnut.  Be prepared to hear the Portfolio Model packaged very beautifully, like a gift you can’t wait to open, with a bow and everything.  You’ll have to be very discerning to hear the elements of school privatization woven oh-so-carefully into the conversation, but it will be there.  You won’t get to speak…yet.  But your time will come.

The truths expressed here are as I see them, are mine alone, and do not reflect the views of any organization officially.

If you’re as concerned as I am, please email me at: gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

On Governance

Some people were quick to point out that my definition of democracy varied from Webster’s – after my last blog post in which I related some of my experiences as (non)democratic.  In order to avoid further confusion, let’s review the definition of governance together now:

Governance refers to “all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through LAWS, NORMS, POWER or LANGUAGE.”

To be clear, we are going to discuss governance, or (non)governance, in reference to IPS, a formal organization.  Whether you deem it to be governance or (non)governance depends entirely on your point of view.  My point of view on this matter just so happens to be front and center, since I am still technically one out of seven people who together comprise the governing body for Indianapolis Public Schools…although I must admit, I’m feeling like I’m definitely on the fringe of the group.  Maybe even on a last-to-know basis.

I guess they don’t like my blog, y’all.  Sometimes the truth is so bright it’s blinding.  It could make you run for your momma.

Any-whoo, my views are my own and I have never purported to represent the views of the entire board… And I still think there’s something like protected free speech in this country.  So let’s go.

The definition of governance above refers to four processes of governing: through LAWS, NORMS, POWER, or LANGUAGE.  Let’s explore these, shall we?  I think it will be fun!

The laws which outline governance for the Indianapolis Public Schools can be found in Indiana Code 20-25-3 sections 1 through 15, among others.

The bylaws are developed by the IPS school board and are our way of governing ourselves and the way we conduct business.  Our bylaws can be viewed by visiting board docs – I am including a link because it’s very tricky to find on your own and requires some navigational skills.  Once you visit you should probably bookmark it.  This site is where you will need to be if you care to view our meeting agendas or policies.  You can find the categories for bylaws, meeting agendas and policies at the top of the page.

If I could pick just a few of the most telling bylaws it would go something like this:

The school board exists to govern a free K-12 public education for children within IPS boundaries. (PURPOSE)

The Board shall have the management and control of all facilities and programs in the Corporation and the employees, students, and other persons entering upon its premises. (POWER: not as individuals, but as the governing body collective)

The Board shall focus its efforts on maintaining adequate communications with citizens of the school district:

 The citizens of the District are to be viewed as the ownership and clients of IPS, to whom the Board is primarily responsible and for whom the Board acts.

(Bet you didn’t know you had this POWER, did you?  The board was elected by the citizens of the IPS district and is therefore expected to reflect their wishes!)

Members of the Board have the responsibility to attend all Board meetings, intelligently and objectively discuss items on the agenda, make suggestions and recommendations in the best interest of the total educational program, and vote upon motions and resolutions presented in accord with their conscience. (defining expected NORMS)

It is important that Board members be non-partisan in dealing with school matters and not subordinate the education of children and/or youth to any partisan principles, special interest group, or personal ambition. (defining expected NORMS)

Individual Board members have no unilateral authority to make decisions about policies created by the Board, and Board members have no unilateral authority to supervise or direct the Superintendent but no member of the Board shall be denied documents or information to which s/he is legally entitled and which are required in the performance of his/her duties as a Board member.  (defining expected NORMS)

Since I have been on the board, in just the past couple years, I have seen a significant shift in the norms, or unspoken rules and expectations of the school board.  This really is the most important part of this particular blog entry, and one that I hope constituents will pay the closest attention to. When I first became a commissioner, we had six meetings per month.  There were two big meetings, one agenda briefing session on the 3rd Thursday of each month, and one action session on the following Thursday where votes were taken on the items we were briefed on the preceding week.  There were also four smaller committee meetings per month.  The four committees were Legislative, Education, Community Outreach, and Operations.  The intent of these committees was to provide a public forum for discussion on relevant topics before they reached the briefing agenda.

Contrast that with the current board meeting schedule: two regularly scheduled meetings per month.  TWO.  One briefing and one action session, which take place only two days apart, on the last Tuesday and Thursday of the month.

In the “AGE OF TRANSPARENCY”, the IPS board has cut our public interactions and information-giving sessions in the form of regularly scheduled meetings by 66 PERCENT.

The second norm shift that I have noticed is a new paradigm which suggests that board members fly at 30,000 feet above the district (mentioned in articles by the Indianapolis Recorder and Chalkbeat Indiana).  I am in absolute agreement with the fact that the board’s job collectively is to navigate the course, while the superintendent drives.  However, I have received way too many phone calls from disgruntled constituents who have tried to get other commissioners to listen to their concerns, to no avail.  In light of the IPS policy language illuminated earlier, “The citizens of the District are to be viewed as the ownership and clients of IPS, to whom the Board is primarily responsible and for whom the Board acts,” I find this to be a morally reprehensible stance.  We are officials elected by the people to represent the people.  If we cannot hear the voices of the people we represent while flying at 30,000 feet, then we are not doing the job we were elected to do.  Unfortunately, some elected officials feel beholden to the organizations which financially supported their campaigns (or indirectly pay their paychecks, or support them in other ways) rather than to the voters, taxpayers and residents of their district.  Yep, I said it…and yep, I got that money too.  Good thing I had a wake-up call, a revelation, an epiphany of sorts.  You can read all about how that happened in a previous blog entry of mine.

Closing thoughts on governance:  If special interest groups, politicians, well-to-do investor types, tokens, and other windbags all over the city can abuse their POWER to influence NORMS and LAWS and craftily co-opt LANGUAGE to spread false tales about the good they are doing our children with this privatization scheme…

then certainly I can find POWER in truthful LANGUAGE that illuminates an immediate need to challenge purchased legislators’ LAWS and the NORMS that accompany corrupt forms of GOVERNANCE.

(UPDATE: There are some policy revisions on the agenda for the upcoming week.  Some of the aforemetioned policy may be subject to change.  I’m also taking bets on how long THIS –> “The citizens of the District are to be viewed as the ownership and clients of IPS, to whom the Board is primarily responsible and for whom the Board acts”   language will remain as a part of IPS policy, now that I have lifted it up.  It certainly is not evidenced in current practices of the board majority.)

My thoughts are not reflective of anyone other than myself.  If what you have read today concerns you, please email me at gayle_cosby@yahoo.com

The definition of governance excepted from: Bevir, Mark (2013). Governance: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.