Tag Archives: Department of Education

The DOE’s Future and MORE’s Winning Strategy

coallitionbuildingcycle

I became a tenured teacher in 2003. Between September of 2000 and June of 2003, I would walk into the main office of my school to see my name on the list of probationary teachers. These were the teachers who had yet to receive tenure. Then, at the start of the 2003 school year, my name was off the list. I did not throw myself a party nor did my principal make any type of to-do about it.

However, I think receiving tenure in the New York City Department of Education today is an accomplishment that calls for the throwing of a party, like a Bar Mitzvah or Confirmation. In fact, I cannot remember the last time a teacher with whom I have worked has received tenure. There is an excellent and dedicated teacher at my school who is in her 4th year and, not surprisingly, got her probation extended another year last year.

This is a trend happening all over the city. Teachers are being denied tenure one or two years in a row before they are unceremoniously herded out of the system. How dedicated or effective a teacher is matters not. Principals are obviously under pressure from the DOE to deny tenure as much as possible. Even worse, tenure is not what it used to be, especially with the Race to the Top evaluation system now in place.

Many veteran teachers, myself included, have expressed outrage over the lack of ownership demonstrated by NYC teachers over their profession and their union. The vast majority did not even bother to cast a vote in the most recent union elections.

Yesterday I ran into a former colleague who retired last year. She looked very rested and happy. I saw on her face the joy she must have felt for not having to be evaluated by exam scores or implement a set of ill-conceived standards. My words to her were “you got out at the right time” and she totally agreed.

This is a teacher of the baby boom generation, that massive sector of the American workforce who is starting to collect Social Security and Medicare. Many baby boomers in the DOE must feel as if they are sprinting through a mine field, hoping to make it to retirement safely before a bad evaluation hobbles their chances of a peaceful dotage.

With the exodus of the baby boom generation, as well as the revolving door of Gen Xer and Millennials brought about by the rampant denial of tenure, we should wonder no more as to why teachers in NYC are not taking ownership of their working conditions. The fact of the matter is very few teachers in the system look into the near and distant futures and see themselves working inside of a DOE school building.

So voting in union elections, going to union meetings, attending protests of the Panel for Educational Policy and the rest of the things that activist teachers do must seem like a whole bunch of useless work to young and veteran teachers alike. They cannot be blamed for this. There surely are many young teachers who intended to make education their life’s work, or many older teachers who would have wanted to stay on just a little bit longer, but cannot do so due to the efforts of Pharaoh Bloomberg and his Queen Consort, Dennis Walcott, to turn public school teaching into a temporary gig.

And then there is that other group of younger teachers who are working on their administrative licenses. Generally speaking, they tend to teach non-core or non-academic classes, tend to not be very dedicated to what they do inside of the classroom and tend to not be very good at whatever it is they do inside of the classroom. This is just what I have seen from my experience. I am sure there are plenty of exceptions. This young crop, many of whom are more likely to get tenure if they do not already have it, may not be longed for the DOE either.

With the prospect of a Bill de Blasio mayoralty starting in 2014, many people are expecting big changes to Department of Education headquarters at the Tweed Courthouse. De Blasio has never really been a fan of Tweed. I hear stories everyday through the grapevine of Tweedies and people from the various DOE networks jumping ship to other jobs in anticipation of the de Blasio era. There seems to be a general sense that he is going to clean house once he inhabits Gracie Mansion, which is certainly welcome news to teachers who care about public education. If this is indeed the case, where will these young people with administrative hopes go?

Years ago there was a young teacher at our school who fit the description of the bureaucracy-climber described above. He taught with us for one year before getting an assistant principal’s job somewhere else. He was an AP for around one year before going off to work at Tweed doing God knows what. From what I saw of him, the only skill he mastered was the ability to kiss the right posteriors, and he mastered this better than most anyone I have ever seen. What will become of him and those of his ilk? Will the ass-kissery that is their stock-in-trade be less of an asset (no pun intended) in de Blasio’s DOE?

Chances are, the field of administrative sinecures at the DOE will greatly decrease in the near future. That means these young teachers either have to be really lucky, really connected or really dedicated to making things work as a classroom teacher. Barring these things, they will have to find another profession or another school system.

That means that the next few months and years will be a time of great flux in the DOE. Current and aspiring Tweedies are going to be jumping ship. Principals will be trying to weed out the probationary teachers to whom they have refused tenure. More baby boomers will retire once they get the chance. And, finally, if the recent Daily News and New York Post hit pieces are any indication, Bloomclot is on one last push to get those teachers awaiting termination hearings out of the door.

So who is left in the system that has the most vested interest in improving our students’ learning conditions? First, there are teachers like me, the veteran 30-somethings to whom retirement is a distant prospect. Second, there are the first-year teachers who have come out of traditional teacher education programs (that is to say, not Teach for America), whose prospects for tenure might be better in three years under a de Blasio DOE than they are now in the Bloomclot DOE. Finally, there are the teachers of the Absent Teacher Reserve, the ATRs, who generally are veterans who continue to rotate from school to school without classes of their own.

If MORE wants a shot at winning the next UFT elections, these are the groups to whom they must appeal. These are the people who will most likely hunker down in the DOE for the long haul. If recent history is any guide the younger generation, the ones who elected Obama and de Blasio and started Occupy Wall Street, will be receptive to the “social justice” aspect of MORE’s platform. Social justice, however, must ride the coattails of bread-and-butter union issues and not the other way around.

MORE must paint for teachers a picture of what the teaching profession can look like. Solid workplace protections, small class sizes, a deemphasizing of standardized testing and a respect for the autonomy of educators as professionals, these are the things that will matter in the upcoming union elections. Thanks to a crop of new principals who have imbibed the Bloomclot method of systematic workplace bullying; thanks to the budget cuts that have swelled the size of our classes; thanks to the Race to the Top evaluations that have institutionalized the standardized testing regime; thanks to the prospect of Common Core that takes so much of the joy and creativity out of education, the imprint of over a decade of reformer philosophy will be felt in our schools for some time. MORE must attack each of these things head-on with an alternative vision of what the teaching profession in NYC can be.

Doing these things will paint MORE as a stark and highly desirable contrast to the Unity leadership of our union that has been complicit in this reformer legacy. They can paint the Unity method of caving to the reformers as the stuffy old status quo. Seasoning their rhetoric with the right amount of social justice will set them up to be the next wave of civil rights leaders, much like the reformers started using the language of civil rights over a decade ago to give their destructive policies a pious sheen into which the general public bought. MORE, by properly tailoring their message what promises to be the backbone of our union in the decades to come, can become a legitimate threat to the Unity stranglehold on power.

MORE will take a step towards building this new union coalition tomorrow with the “Win Back Wednesday” rally tomorrow at 4:00 pm outside of UFT headquarters at 52 Broadway. I will be there and hope to see you there as well.

Attend the State of the Union Conference This Saturday (2/4/12)

Teachers across New York City who are concerned about the education of their students and the state of the profession need to attend the State of the Union Conference this Saturday February 4, 2012. It will be held at the Graduate Center for Worker Education at 25 Broadway in the financial district of Manhattan.

Registration information and directions click here.

Public education is under attack! Stand up, fight back!

As educators we are strongest when our voices are united.

That is what a UNION is for. The UNION makes us strong.

For far too long the leadership of our union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), along with the national American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have been silent, thrown up minimal defenses too little too late, and have even collaborated in the assault on our profession, our students and their families.

It is time to re-imagine our teachers’ union.

Imagine. . .

A union with true democracy.

A union where members’ concerns, ideas and opinions form the union identity.

A union that works to educate, organize and mobilize its members in support of public education, our careers as professionals, and our students, their families and communities.

A union that works to end mayoral control and other racist policies that have removed the voice of educators and parents from decision making.

A union that works with individual schools to recruit and train chapter leaders and delegates who share this vision.

A union that supports Chapter Leaders in struggles with administrations and in their work to educate and organize members.

Join rank and file  union members and their parent and community allies at The State of the UNION Conference Come meet other UFT members who want a new kind of union, while learning about the history and functioning of the UFT in workshops facilitated by rank and file members, union delegates and education activists.

Workshops include: What is Social Justice Unionism? Organizing 101: Parents and Teachers Working Together-a Vision for a Community Oriented Teacher Union What happened to Brown vs. Board of Education: Resegregation of our Schools. The Disappearing Black and Latino Teacher and the Deprofessionalization of Teaching. What’s the 1% Want with Our Schools? (Privatization 101) Mayoral Control vs. A People’s Board of Education Know your rights: Civil Disobedience and Student Organizing. Strategy & Tactics: After OWS, What’s Next for Our Movement?

 

The Propaganda of Small Schools

Don't go beyond that blue wall. That's not your school.

I have never heard of the MDRC until few days ago. It is a think tank with the motto “Building Knowledge to Improve Social Policy.” However, it is tough to see what type of knowledge it is building by publishing a mindlessly laudatory study of New York City’s small high schools entitled “Sustained Positive Effects on Graduation Rates Produced by New York City’s Small Public High Schools of Choice”. The single most important sentence in the 12-page study can be found towards the bottom of page 11: “This policy brief and the study upon which it is based are funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

There you go. The fix was in from the start.

Closing New York City’s large comprehensive public high schools in order to replace them with several small schools has been a cornerstone of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s brand of education reform. It states in the introductory paragraph of the study: “Between fall 2002 and fall 2008, the school district closed 23 large failing high schools (with graduation rates below 45 percent), [and] opened 216 new small high schools (with different missions, structures, and student selection criteria)…” Rather than just stating facts, the authors use language (like “large failing high schools”) to soften up the reader to accept the study’s ultimate conclusion: “In summary, the present findings provide highly credible evidence that in a relatively short period of time, with sufficient organization and resources, an existing school district can implement a complex high school reform that markedly improves graduation rates for a large population of low-income, disadvantaged students of color.”

Of course, we did not need a 12-page study printed on glossy paper to tell us that graduation rates in New York City have increased under Bloomberg. What the study does do, amazingly, is attribute these rising rates to the great education provided by the small high schools: “In a large sample, like that used for the MDRC study, lottery winners and lottery losers are the same, on average, in all ways before they enter high school. Consequently, it is valid to attribute any differences in their future academic outcomes to their access to an SSC (“Small Schools of Choice”). Because students who lose an SSC lottery attend over 200 high schools that vary widely in their size, age, structure, academic programs, and effectiveness, the MDRC report judged SSCs against the overall effectiveness of a diverse group of other high schools. The results released in 2010 indicated that, on average, the 105 SSCs studied increased student progress toward graduation during their first three years of high school and increased students’ four-year graduation rates.”

Only a bunch of policy wonks, isolated from any reality of what goes on in New York City schools, would say something like all students who apply to the small schools of choice “are the same, on average, in all ways before they enter high school.” I am sure this is news to the parents of these students, who remember giving birth to their children instead of buying them off an assembly line.

But if you can contend that all students are the same, then you can pretend that you have controlled for the human elements of different learning styles, socioeconomic background and home life. If you can pretend in good conscience that you have controlled for these factors, then you can give your flimsy findings an air of scientific respectability.

So what does it do to the validity of this study when Bloomberg’s own sock puppet school Chancellor Dennis Walcott admits that these small schools have not taken in their fair share of students with learning problems and English Language Learners? What does it do to the validity of the study when a man like Walcott, who faithfully toes Bloomberg’s corporate line, pretty much admits that the non-small high schools (i.e. the type that this study would consider “failing”) against which these small schools were compared have been weighed down by a disproportionate number of the most difficult students to educate?

I would have gladly taken the filthy money of the Gates Foundation to conduct my own study on the issue. Since they have not yet offered to avail themselves of my services, I will be the bigger man and publish my study for free. I do not even need 12 pages of glossy paper on which to write it. All I need is this little black space and white font that I pay for out of my own pocket.

Graduation rates are up because standards are down. When you chop one large high school into 5 smaller schools, you must hire 4 new principals. That means a much higher principal-to-teacher ratio than ever before. In short, they are better able to lean on their teachers. Since the careers of these principals depend on the school’s yearly report card, and that report card is heavily contingent upon graduation rates, principals around the city have made it very clear to their teachers that students better pass no matter what. A student did not show up for class all year? No problem. Give them online credit recovery, where they can take basket-weaving 101 and pretend it is a science credit. It does not matter if kids learn anything. All that matters is that the data looks good. If the MDRC was really serious about measuring student success, they would have mentioned that most NYC public high school graduates that go on to college do not make it past their sophomore year. If this is what success looks like, I would hate to see abject failure.

But are not more and more public high school students passing the state Regents exams? Sure they are. That is because of the rampant growth of grade inflation. The biggest blow to Bloomberg’s legacy as the “education mayor” has been the statement of this obvious truth by the people who administer the Regents exams statewide.

To top it all off, as I have pointed out on this blog millions of times, the small high schools are too small to provide art, music, sports, debate, clubs and whole host of enrichment activities only made possible by pooling the resources of a large number of diverse people working cooperatively under the same roof. Instead of bringing the community together, the small schools tear it asunder. Bloomberg has replaced cooperation with competition and the children have suffered because of it.

This MDRC study is just more proof that ideas are up for sale in our day and age. Instead of “Building Knowledge to Improve Social Policy”, their motto should be “Selling Social Policy to the Highest Bidder”.

This is Why Bloomberg Wants to Destroy John Liu

It's either this guy or the lady responsible for more Bloomberg.

It’s because John Liu does studies like this:

More than 40% of public school educators are not using a key tech tool designed to boost lagging test scores, city Controller John Liu charged Monday, in labeling the $83 million program a waste of money.

But the city Education Department shot back that the use of the program, called ARIS, continues to expand and that Liu’s own audit found most teachers and principals say it is helping.

I have some experience with ARIS, as I think do most teachers in New York City. It is the computer program that teachers here can use in order to look up past grades and attendance of their students. $83 million dollars on a program that almost half of all teachers have never used seems like an awful waste.

The DOE seems to take a perplexing stand: that more than half of school staff say that ARIS “helps”. First, is this 50% of total school staff, or 50% of the people who have actually used it? If it is the latter, then the overall percentage would be at around 25%. Second, what does it mean that ARIS is “helping”? Is it helping to provide a quality education to our children, or is it helping in aggregating and disaggregating data? If the latter, then is a program like this worth $83 million? Maybe someone with the pecuniary acumen that I so sorely lack can do a cost-benefit analysis.

Oh wait, that is pretty much what John Liu did. He calls it a huge waste. The DOE’s irrefutable rebuttal is that ARIS is helping students “improve”.

I wonder if there were any better ways of spending that money. Perhaps we could have spent that money on retaining teachers, so Bloomberg would not have to cry poverty in order to have an excuse to fire half of all teachers and double class sizes. Maybe we could have invested some of that money in the litany of schools Bloomberg, in his infinite wisdom, has closed down. In terms of cost-benefit, you do not have to be a financial whiz like John Liu to understand that those $83 million could have went to a million other things that would have been of more benefit to children than a giant data mining system. Especially considering that the data being mined on ARIS is readily accesible as it is: it’s called a transcript.

In reality, those of who work in the DOE know what John Liu is getting at. He is calling attention to the massive waste at Tweed brought about by no-bid contracts to Bloomberg’s cronies in the private sector.

You think the current witch hunt against John Liu has something to do with this annoying tendency he has of criticizing Bloomberg? Bloomberg certainly does not want John Liu to become mayor, preferring instead to have his clones follow him into office in order to solidify his odious legacy.

I certainly see the John Liu investigation for what it is. Too bad so many New Yorkers still are blind to what is really happening. I guess you cannot criticize the Mayor or be too friendly with those evil unions in NYC if you want to have a legitimate shot at power.

The Values of NYC’s Department of Education

Parents, students and community leaders protest for the ouster of the sexual harasser principal John Chase, Jr. at Bronxdale High.

Lisa Cruz Diaz was removed from her position as principal of P.S. 31 in the Bronx for falsifying overtime sheets to the tune of nearly $5,000. The real amount stolen would be much more if this was something Ms. Cruz did over the long haul.

I wish I could get worked up into a self-righteous lather about Ms. Cruz betraying tax-payer trust. The truth is, what Ms. Cruz did is nothing compared to the systemic corruption that occurs inside and outside Bloomberg’s Department of Education. Eva Moskowitz gets paid over $300,000 a year for destroying inner-city public schools. Trillions in tax dollars bailed out sleazy CEOs who led the economy off of a cliff. Pardon me for being desensitized to the type of petty malfeasance committed by Ms. Cruz.

Yet, there is something in this story to get worked up over. It seems principals in New York City can sexually harass their staffs, fudge student transcripts and try to destroy teachers based on personal vendettas with no repercussion at all. Their leadership can be so odious that hundreds of people from the school and community, especially students, show up to protest. They can do things that endanger the well-being and futures of children and face no consequences.-

The message is clear: the way a principal treats people does not matter. The way a principal treats money does.

This is the lesson children in NYC schools are learning. Principals are objects of mystery and fear to children. They may not see their principals every day but they know he/she runs the building and gets paid a hefty salary to do it. The principal’s voice may occasionally crackle over their school’s public address system, a disembodied voice of authority and power. In short, principals occupy a very important place in the lives of children. They are the first leaders children know.

The DOE’s principal policy sends the message that leadership is not about treating people fairly. In fact, it does not matter how you treat people at all. Creating a healthy environment where everyone can flourish is not even part of the job description. No, just take care of the money. Violating the public’s trust over their money is the worst thing you can do.

At the same time, the DOE can spend millions on charters run by politically connected people like Eva Moskowitz. They can bring in “consultants” who pull enormous salaries just because their uncles or sisters work at Tweed (The DOE’s central building which has always been, and continues to be, a bastion of old-fashioned New York City political cronyism). Ms. Cruz lost her position not because she was corrupt, but because she was the wrong type of corrupt.

These are the lessons children in New York City are learning. Money over people. The job of the leader is to ensure that the corruption in the system works in only one way. Not everyone can profit from the gravy train; only those with the right connections. Outside of that, people in power can do what they want.

So kids, if you have a personal vendetta with someone in the cafeteria, try to get some power when you grow up. You will be able to use it to destroy anyone you want. Nobody will ever cross you again. If you like the opposite sex, you can use your power to harass as many of them as you want. Nothing is out of bounds when dealing with the people you lead; just watch what you do with the money.

This is corporate school reform.

Occupy the Department of Education (Part I: Fascism as Policy)

It has been a long time by blogging standards since I have added a new post. In many ways, I was undergoing a crisis over the direction this blog should take. I resolved this crisis by deciding to start another serial, this time on the importance of Occupying the Board of Education. It was inspired by Occupy Wall Street’s commandeering of Dennis Walcott’s Panel for Educational Policy meeting this past Tuesday. Like everything else OWS does, it brought home the cruelty and indifference of the people we look to for leadership. As a teacher, I feel I have a duty to lay bare the importance of Occupying the Board of Education. Below is the start of that effort:

Fascism exalts the private over the public. For fascism to take hold, government and corporations must conspire to privatize public services. The United States military, the prison system and huge chunks of our infrastructure have already been privatized. Public schools are next. Public school teachers naturally support Occupy Wall Street, whose one clear demand continues to be to roll back this emerging fascism. Occupying the Department of Education involves exposing the ways in which the New York City school system is already fascistic.

In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” the great Jewish thinker, Hannah Arendt, explained that totalitarian regimes operate by constantly changing the rules. What was policy one day was completely illegal the next. Those that thought of themselves as loyal party players suddenly found themselves outside of the law. The regime constantly weeded out undesirables in this way. People would become mistrustful of each other. The goal was to make collective action on the part of the people impossible. A citizenry atomized into its component parts was easier to control. Atomizing the collective has been a goal of the DOE’s totalitarian ruler, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, from the start. In Year I of the Bloomberg Regime, he replaced the publicly elected Board of Education with a Department of Education whose officers were appointed by, and answerable to, him. The rationale for doing so is familiar enough to students of atomization schemes in other public institutions: the old system was an unresponsive bureaucracy; the new system embodied corporate efficiency. Of course, it is this corporate efficiency that allows the Mayor to constantly manipulate policy in an attempt to destroy any collective action at all, including those two great bastions of collectivism: large high schools and the United Federation of Teachers.

Mayor Bloomberg decreed that all schools get an annual letter grade. Those that consistently receive failing grades are “reorganized”. It is impossible for the schools to know what it takes to receive a passing grade, since the rubrics change every year. Schools that pass one year fail the next, despite no appreciable change in standardized test scores, attendance or violent incidents. It is clear that a school’s grade does not depend on its performance. Instead, the undesirables who are the targets of this ever-changing standard are the large schools. A large school has thousands of students, several dozens to hundreds of teachers and a small cadre of administrators to run it all. The large public school is probably the last rampart of collective community-building anywhere in the country. Large schools can successfully resist mandates for “reform” from outsiders. They can accommodate reform in a way that does not threaten their existence or radically change their culture. But Bloomberg’s DOE is not a reforming force. It is a radical force that seeks complete privatization and atomization of the school system.

“Reorganization” in the DOE means taking the large building in which the large school was housed and requiring 4 or 5 smaller schools to operate in different parts of that building. Chances are that at least one of those schools will be a charter school that has much greater freedom to choose who they will educate. The other schools are still subject to the arbitrary letter grades of the DOE, which largely determines which types of students each school attracts from the surrounding community. The radical “reformers” call this giving parents “choice”. This is the language of consumerism. This is the language of a radical movement to turn the collective action of citizens into the isolated choices of consumers. Instead of the community pooling their resources and sharing space, schools now atomize the members of the community into smaller portions that compete for space and jealously guard the resources they have. What used to be a civics exercise in community-building has become a soulless microcosm of the war of all against all that resembles a “free market”. It is incredible that such a blatant violation of “separate is not equal” has been allowed to develop, causing the NAACP to bring lawsuits against charter schools that exist alongside public schools.

None of these atomizing tactics would have been possible without the evisceration of that other bulwark of collective action: the United Federation of Teachers. If the public school system symbolizes the last great rampart of community-building in America, the teacher’ unions symbolize one of the last great ramparts of worker solidarity. But just because the UFT still exists does not mean it has withstood the same atomizing that is destroying public schools. The Teaching Fellows and Teach for America programs brought in hired mercenary teachers who promised to stay in the system no more than three to five years. Some have stayed on past their bids, most have not. Due to the closed-shop rule (one of the few scraps left to the UFT), all of these new teachers had to join the union. Their arrangements ensured that the union would not be able to count on future generations of dedicated teachers to keep up the fight for better working conditions. Most of the younger members would be off to their real careers on Wall Street, the bar or the theatre well before they could talk of retirement. In this way, the DOE scooped out the heart and soul of the UFT. The union began overly representing retirees and other entrenched interests disproportionately over their members on the front lines. This helps explain why the last contract negotiated under Randi Weingarten was so willing to bargain away working conditions while jealously guarding pensions.

When you place those unprotected teachers in smaller schools, you get the fascism we have now. Chopping down large schools greatly increases the need for principals, “middle management” as Mayor Bloomberg has called them and “commissars” as the Soviets used to call them. Greater principal-to-teacher ratios mean greater supervision of the teachers. Principals are required to have no more than three years of teaching experience, ensuring they will have very little empathy with teachers the longer they remain principals. Instead, their empathy lies with themselves and getting their schools to outdo other schools on the yearly report card. The small size of the schools combined with the most recent UFT contract gives principals greater control over teachers and what teachers should do to get better grades for the schools’ report cards. It is a system where principals are incentivized to abuse their powers. They are not encouraged to think of themselves as leaders accountable to the communities they serve. Instead, they are told they are managers implementing the policies of the hierarchy. The communities must serve them. Teachers must work longer hours and focus on test prep. Those that protest are disappeared by the principals’ powers to drum up fake charges and initiate frivolous hearings to terminate teacher licenses. Students must produce higher test grades. Those that do not produce face being creatively expelled in charter schools or sacrificed to the psychological/pharmaceutical complex by being labeled as “disabled” in public schools. Parents are not meant to play any role at all. Instead, they are directed to lodge their concerns with impotent parent coordinators or the somnambulant Panel for Educational Policy. It is a system designed to make the community irrelevant by privatizing and atomizing it.

All of the fascism in the DOE is tending towards the ultimate goal of privatization. Mayor Bloomberg and corporate reformers like Bill Gates form the fascistic nexus responsible for the destruction of our public schools. Theirs is a privatization more insidious than any that has come before. It is not simply a movement to destroy schools. It is a movement to destroy the classroom. As school buildings and teachers’ unions become more atomized, Bill Gates sees a future where the classroom itself will become atomized as well. 30 kids in a classroom will be replaced by individual students sitting in front of computers. Of course, all the computers will be made by Microsoft, as will all of the programs that “teach”. It will be the final frontier of privatization. It will be the ultimate atomizing of the population into individuals. This is what the Common Core Standards adopted by most states, including New York, represent. On top of being a giant government hand-out to Bill Gates, it will allow Bill Gates to remake the nation in his own image by giving him direct control over the rearing of every young brain in the country.

But that is a matter for the next installment…