And when was the last time we saw any sort of civil rights crowd that didn’t have a well-coifed Al Sharpton at the front – or trying to muscle his way to the front – with one eye searching for the media and the other eye searching for a mirror?

Get used to Al in Education, folks. That ‘Strong Schools’ bit last year was the calm before the annoying, prolonged, ineffectual drizzle that’s a Sharpton storm.

Here’s a press release/e-mail I got the other day. I’ll parse it.

Hi Matthew,

Did you see that Al Sharpton, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich came together today — and at the White House of all places?  The meeting was to discuss education equality and how to improve our nation’s schools.  It was a remarkable gathering and you can read about the event here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/07/gingrich_bloomberg_and_sharpto.html?wprss=44

Trios are good. Sometimes individually great men combine to make something greater – like the Three Tenors, or even Bryan Adams, Rod Stewart and Sting singing “All for One [and All for Love]” on The Three Musketeers soundtrack.

This combination – unlike the two cited above – has a weak, embarrassing link. Gingrich could be a classic Kenny Rogers and Bloomberg one of those successful but ever-evolving David Bowie types. Sharpton, however, is not to be taken seriously. He’s a bit like the ukulele player Tiny Tim, God rest his soul.

Can you imagine what song we’d get from Kenny Rogers, David Bowie and Tiny Tim?

And you can see footage of the event here: http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0509/unlikely_trio_at_the_w_h_444542bd-4539-431b-abf6-f06fca3f1f77.html or here http://www.edequality.org

I’d rather hear the song.

The meeting was in advance of education equality day, which will feature thousands of people coming together to demand education equality in Washington DC on May 16th:  http://edequality.org/page/s/eepday

Let me know if you have any questions.

Here’s one: Why does anyone in education take Al Sharpton seriously? How quickly we’ve forgotten his actions in the Tawana Brawley case, his outright racism and his lifelong defense of his actions. Don’t bother Googling for Sharpton’s apologies to Stephen Pagones, the others he accused of rape, defilement and hatred, New York State or the public. He’s never uttered any.

And how spineless we’ve become, especially in public education, not to hold a man like Sharpton to account. Sharpton’s prominent involvement in education issues shows how weak the field of education leaders really is – and how badly we need some respectable, heroic leaders.

I’m getting tired of scoundrels like Al Sharpton, but I’m more tired of the milquetoasts who let it slide. I’ll pass on “Education Equality Day” in lieu of celebrating “High Standards and Integrity Day.”

Some of us celebrate that one every day. Do you?

“If I thought for a second that this Forum was an objective, non-partisan opportunity to discuss problems in public education instead of an ideological pow-wow, I would likely participate.

Again, thanks for the heads up – and I look forward to any more announcements you might have. Please tell Ms. Darling-Hammond, Ms. Meier and Mr. Noguera that I said hi.”

I receive many e-mails a day with press releases, requests for exposure, requests for help/organization/administration/web design – lots of things. I can’t always oblige, but I appreciate them. They keep me informed and alert me to blips on the massive radar of public education that I might otherwise miss.

And some of these notices are garbage. Well, not the notices/press releases themselves, but the events and initiatives they describe. The PR firms almost always do an excellent job.

Consider the following from the Forum for Education & Democracy, which is introducing a campaign called “Will We Really?” My e-mail response is after the jump.

NEW NATIONAL CAMPAIGN URGES OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE PUBLIC TO IMPROVE PUBLIC EDUCATION

January 6, 2009 (Washington, DC) – Just days before President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a major education group is launching a national web-based campaign that challenges all Americans to transform the optimism of the election season into the promise of collective action to improve public education.

“Our goal is to build on the “Yes We Can” hopefulness of the Obama campaign, address the shared anxiety about our uncertain future, and channel both sets of feelings into actions that will help support our nation’s schools,” said Sam Chaltain, National Director of the Forum for Education & Democracy, which is sponsoring the campaign.

A short web film, an homage to the “Yes We Can” will.i.am-produced video that has been viewed nearly 15 million times on YouTube, sets in motion a national petition drive, available at www.willwereally.com, in which all signers commit to work with President Obama to honor four promises that must be fulfilled if we are serious about supporting young people and public schools:

1. Every child deserves a 21st Century education.

To honor America’s ongoing commitment to a democratic way of life, we must provide all young people with a high-quality, free education in schools that are designed to help students develop the skills and abilities they need to exercise a powerful voice in shaping their own lives — and our nation’s future.

2. Every community deserves an equal chance.

To honor America’s founding promise of “liberty and justice for all,” we must provide equal access to a high-quality education to all young people, regardless of their family’s money, race or power.

3. Every child deserves a well-supported teacher.

To honor America’s commitment to its public schools, we must ensure that all young people have the same opportunity to learn from well-prepared, well-supported teachers, who are in turn empowered to exercise their professional judgment, and not just follow a script, when it comes to helping students learn.

4. Every child deserves high-quality health care.

To honor America’s responsibility to take care of its youngest citizens – and to acknowledge the myriad out-of-school forces that impact a child’s capacity to learn – we must ensure that all young people are free from want, and have access to high-quality health care.

To encourage action on the local level, the Forum provides a list of easy steps people can undertake individually and at the community level in support of each promise.

There’s more, but I’ll spare you. What I pasted above is the tofu and soy-flakes [meat and potatoes didn't seem appropriate]. Here’s my e-mail response:

Thanks for the heads-up here, I appreciate it a great deal. It’s not easy to stay in the loop – even with the internet – without being in one of those policy centers like New York City or Washington.

But I’m going to pass on this one other than posting the press release [and this e-mail] on my website. This initiative is tripe.

Please share that, along with the following opinions, with the folks at the Forum for Education and Democracy.

Here’s a bullet-point review of the initiative’s four core principles:

1. Every child deserves a 21st Century education. The rhetoric in support of that point is baseless, useless and unclear. FfE&D hasn’t a clue what a “21st Century education” is – and hot air about a “powerful voice” means even less.

Stop that.

2. Every community deserves an equal chance. That’s one we all agree on, and I’ve yet to meet a serious thinker in education, on a large or small scale, who thinks otherwise.

The bit about “power” may work well in a college freshman’s Sociology 101 paper – or perhaps in an introduction to a Teachers College Press book, if we throw in a few typos – but it’s not to be taken seriously outside of either. If you want to talk about failed pedagogy [Whole Language or 'Investigations'-style math], abysmal teacher education programs and the fiscal mismanagement that keeps so many communities from the equality we’d all like to see, I will welcome the discussion [provided that the conversation doesn't include will.i.am videos].

Not “power,” though. Take that one up with Maxine Greene, a third-rate grad student or one of the distinguished conveners.

3. Every child deserves a well-supported teacher. Agreed. Nothing in the description, however, suggests that this Forum will take a hard look at teacher preparation programs – or the realities of teacher practice. I won’t join you folks in railing against ‘scripted’ curricula because some of it is very good, and some teachers desperately need it. These points are tendentious rhetoric, not critical analysis of pedagogy or administration. When the Forum cares more about objective analysis than the storybook dignity it’s invented for practitioners in public education, perhaps we can talk.

4. Every child deserves high-quality health care. Again, we agree – though points about keeping children healthy are low-hanging fruits. Unfortunately, this has almost nothing to do with education. The failures that have necessitated the Forum’s examination of points 1-3, albeit a misguided examination, don’t bode well for our ability to solve healthcare problems short of increasing already-bloated per pupil expenditure by an obscene amount.

I’d go into more detail on that point, but the fiscal responsibilities and the financial realities on which points 1-4 depend were not elements of the proposed discussions.

If I thought for a second that this Forum was an objective, non-partisan opportunity to discuss problems in public education instead of an ideological pow-wow, I would likely participate.

Again, thanks for the heads up – and I look forward to any more announcements you might have, and I hope the next one will be for a fairer, higher-quality initiative.

Please tell Ms. Darling-Hammond, Ms. Meier and Mr. Noguera that I said hi.

Best,

Matthew
mktabor@gmail.com
www.matthewktabor.com

It’s official – Chicago’s Arne Duncan will be the new Secretary of Education.

The Twittersphere is abuzz as are the blogs. There’s no shortage of Duncan-related link dumps. You can get started on your own personal Duncan Familiarity Web Research Project over at Mr. Russo’s This Week in Education. Oil your scroll wheels, kids – there’s a lot to see.

I’ve pulled two clips that represent the two camps pow-wowing on Twitter.

First, the “progressives,” who feel betrayed and saddened that a charter stooge like Duncan will run the DoE in President-Elect Obama’s Land of Hopenchange:

I see four little scamps in the video – I’ve named them Constructiraptor, CharterRage, Unionmartyr and Dewey. I’d be remiss if I didn’t honor ed school ideology properly with a little Dewey-worship.

Actually, strike that – our fuzzy little Dewey’s had a name change. He’s now Hornswaggle.

And boy, are they panicking. I assume that piece of food is a piece of medium-rare public teat.

Look at’em fight!

But the progressives aren’t alone. There’s horror on the other side, too. Ms. Malkin, a favorite of mine, has missed the mark badly. Following E.M.’s lead, she’s popped three Alka-Seltzers in her mouth – Bill Ayers, Everyday Math and the Annenberg Challenge – taken a gulp of blog-soda and shaken her head vigorously. Here’s the resulting Duncan-drool from Malkin and E.M..

I’m as sympathetic to those arguments as anyone, especially on the Conservative side. I don’t, however, conflate three problems into criticizing Duncan’s appointment – Malkin et al. have made a mistake.

These scream queens sum up the Conservative reaction:

And then there are the more sensible folks like the Democrats for Education Reform. Peep their statement on Duncan’s selection.

Me? Well, I wouldn’t have chosen him, but we could’ve gotten much, much worse. Like Linda Darling-Hammond worse.

We’re in for a wild ride. I’ll criticize Duncan’s poor ideas and praise the good ones.

I had a great time talking with them both and interacting with the live listeners in the chat room. If you haven’t heard ETT Conversations before, I recommend subscribing…

… when you pop over to listen to Episode 19, of course.

Jay P. Greene is moderating this debate. He says on his own blog, “Let them all talk.”

Ed is Watching is impressed by the star-studded cast of debaters:

“Panelists include Joe Williams of Democrats for Education Reform, Neal McCluskey from Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, the Hoover Institution’s Eric Hanushek, and Elaine Gantz Berman from the Colorado State Board of Education.”

Below is the full press release for the event [fonts/layout from the original] – if you’ve got time and/or a well-reasoned opinion, weigh in.

NEW YORK – November 18, 2008 – The online discussion site NewTalk (www.NewTalk.org) will host a fourth and final installment in its special month-long series of conversations on education. Centered on the possibility of ending No Child Left Behind, the three-day discussion will run November 18 – 20.

At its inception, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) had worthy goals of improving teacher quality, raising achievement levels, and increasing accountability in education. However, implementation has proven problematic and positive results have been few and far between. This raises the question: should we scrap NCLB?

Before that decision can be made, it must be determined if the program’s failures have been the result of a lack of resources or something inherent in the program itself. Can NCLB be fixed, or should we discontinue the program and address its goals with new legislation? This and other important questions will be explored by a panel of education policy experts including:

· Elaine Gantz Berman – Colorado Board of Education / Common Good Colorado Board of Directors;

· Jay Greene – Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute;

· Eric Hanushek – Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University;

· Richard D. Kahlenberg – Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation;

· Sandy Kress – Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Senior Advisor to President Bush on NCLB;

· Neal P. McCluskey – Associate Director, Center for Educational Freedom, The Cato Institute;

· Judith Rizzo – Executive Director and CEO, James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy;

· Andrew J. Rotherham – Co-Founder and Co-Director, Education Sector;

· Richard Rothstein – Research Associate. Economic Policy Institute;

· Martin West – Assistant Professor, Brown University, and Executive Editor, Education Next; and

· Joe Williams – Executive Director, Democrats for Education Reform.

This is the closing installment in NewTalk’s month-long series on education issues. Previous discussions, now archived on NewTalk, addressed the following questions:

• Do we need a new deal for teachers?
• Why is there so much school bureaucracy and what can we do about it?
• How can we restore order and respect in public schools?

Launched in June 2008, NewTalk offers a new kind of conversation: one that acknowledges reality, uncovers common ground, and finds a responsible way forward. It takes advantage of the Internet, letting each discussion unfold over several days with notable participants contributing from across the country. All conversations are archived online with participants’ photos and biographies. NewTalk site visitors can participate, too, offering comments and ideas, as the discussion evolves each week.

Recent NewTalk discussions have included renowned American leaders such as Mayors Michael Bloomberg (New York) and Shirley Franklin (Atlanta); former presidential candidates and U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten; and a host of other high-profile thinkers with a wide range of expertise.

Among the completed discussions now archived on NewTalk:

· “How Can We Restore Americans’ Sense of Optimism?”

· “What Strategies Best Support Displaced Workers?”

· “Obesity: What’s Needed to Encourage a Culture of Fitness?”

· “Should Test Results be the Main Focus of School Reform?”

NewTalk was created and is supported by the non-profit organization Common Good (www.commongood.org) in recognition of the need to improve the quality of public discourse on a broad range of topics.  Both NewTalk and Common Good were founded by Philip K. Howard, lawyer and author of the bestseller, “The Death of Common Sense,” and the upcoming book “Life Without Lawyers” (Norton).

And then there’s the education blog…

… and Twitter, an excellent, free PR tool. If you aren’t following me on Twitter already – or using it yourself – sign up for free, check my profile and click follow. There’s always a good conversation to have or a good link to click.

That triumvirate of e-media makes it easy to do a roundup of interesting stuff I’ve read, so give a warm welcome to the world premier of the Great Links Curriculum.

The British are one baby step ahead of us in self-destruction. DailyWritingTips brings us a story from the Telegraph about banning “elitist” and “discriminatory” Latin phrases – like bona fide, vice versa and et cetera. Fancy book larnin’s a 20th century skeel, it seems.

“Why Parents Get Angry When They Learn the Truth,” from Motel Special Ed.

“Quantifying Greatness” - Greg Forster debunks an unfounded gripe about the Great Books.

Exhibit 1036a: Perfect example why normal people don’t take educrats seriously, courtesy of Salon. Really, that diagram could be drawn for just about any topic on Earth.

The Carnival of Education is up at the Core Knowledge Blog. This Carnival’s scripting took some real effort – well done.

Flypaper with some sober common sense. Want to retain great teachers? Remove the bad ones.

Obama celebrated in the World of Warcraft? Good Lord, there are so many factual errors in this testimony as to make me want to call the poor kid out. We’ll see.

Having solved every problem in New York public education, the State Education Department decided to buy a ton of fruits and vegetables.

Racial taunts in class for supporting John McCain? You betcha. This ideological intolerance happens a bit more than people realize, and sometimes – as in this case – it can get ugly.

Really, really, really, really smart to get into law school? George Leef at Phi Beta Cons drags that argument back to reality.

Head over to eMailOurMilitary and drop a quick note, even if it’s just a quick thanks.

Bill Gates?!?!? Making curriculum?!?! Relax, mouth-frothers. Ms. Jacobs and Mr. Pondiscio will calm you down.

… and another political candidate in the education world whines while laying bare her ignorance on blogs, media and technology. Advertising, too, I suppose. Well done, Ms. Gallucci of Pinellas County. Perhaps the problem isn’t your makeup or wardrobe, but the woeful inadequacy you bring to the job.

In New York State, the education budget cut spin begins. Give it a day or two, you’ll want to throw money at NYSED just to get this circus to stop.

In case you were wondering, “Ed.D.” also stands for “Educrat Dolt.”

Apparently Ms. Harris teaches in Fayetteville, not Asheville, in the Cumberland County system. Not that it matters to me – I don’t care which city or state she’s in. She’s an awful, destructive teacher.

Dr. William Harrison, Cumberland County Schools Superintendent, released an obnoxious yawner of a video statement today about the taped incident. As usual, this school official thinks you’re an idiot. He expects you to swallow his tripe uncritically.

Not today, Dr. Harrison – and not tomorrow, either.

Here’s the video with a transcript, courtesy of Michelle Malkin:

I was shocked when I saw the clip of an interaction between a Cumberland County Schools teacher and her students as posted on YouTube. While neutral discussion of the political process is appropriate, at no time, particularly with elementary students, should a teacher infuse his/her political views into the discussion. Most disconcerting was the military slant that made its way into this discussion. We are a military community, serving over 15,000 military students and their families. We value the sacrifices, not only of the military parents but also those of their families.

We believe that military children are our children, military spouses are many of our employees, and military service men and women are our heroes. We proudly serve our military children and have received national awards for our support of military families.

I was particularly disturbed to see the uncomfortable position in which our children were placed due to the inappropriate actions of one of our teachers. Please be assured that the actions exhibited in this video are not consistent with the vision of the CCS. Moreover, the actions of one teacher do not represent the 7000 employees in our organization.

Once the video was brought to my attention, I immediately launched an investigation. Personnel laws prevent me from releasing information regarding individual employees and personnel action taken. I can assure you that upon completion of the investigation, I will take appropriate action.

Dr. William Harrison
CCS’ Superintendent

Standard stuff here – we’re sorry, it’s an isolated incident, we’d love to tell you more, but we can’t. I’m going to parse his statement.

“I was shocked when I saw the clip of an interaction between a Cumberland County Schools teacher and her students as posted on YouTube. While neutral discussion of the political process is appropriate, at no time, particularly with elementary students, should a teacher infuse his/her political views into the discussion.”

Dr. Harrison, you were shocked because you don’t have a damn clue what goes on in your school district. Get your fingers on the pulse of your schools and teachers, or start delegating properly so your underlings can do it for you.

I understand that Harrison has a large system in Cumberland County and it isn’t practical to know what every teacher does every day. But he’s also got a series of principals, assistants, team leaders, etc. who need to know what’s going on a bit better than they do now. Admit that and fix it – don’t patronize me, taxpayers, parents and other interested parties with some third-rate statement written by someone who may have taken PR 101.

And personal politics? Dr. Harrison, you’ve got it all wrong. One can discuss personal politics – even in a K-12 classroom – while doing it fairly, responsibly and respectfully. Because you and Ms. Harris don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean that others don’t.

I’ve got a ‘Contact’ tab on this site – feel free to use it if you’d like to learn. Lucky for you, I charge less than Vanderbilt did for that useless Ed.D. your attendance and tuition earned.

“Most disconcerting was the military slant that made its way into this discussion. We are a military community, serving over 15,000 military students and their families. We value the sacrifices, not only of the military parents but also those of their families.”

No, that wasn’t what was “most disconcerting.” That Harris’ tirade against the military occurred in a ‘military community’ has no bearing on how awful it was – it’s just a detail.

Most of the conflicts I get into involve defending the dignity of the US military or our government. I’ll be damned if I’ll let some edu-dolt hide behind that dignity to avoid being accountable for his poor administration.

“We believe that military children are our children, military spouses are many of our employees, and military service men and women are our heroes. We proudly serve our military children and have received national awards for our support of military families.”

Really, stop this – it does a disservice to that military you claim to respect.

“I was particularly disturbed to see the uncomfortable position in which our children were placed due to the inappropriate actions of one of our teachers.”

You’re a bad writer, too.

“Please be assured that the actions exhibited in this video are not consistent with the vision of the CCS.”

If the actions of CCS employees fail to be consistent with the ‘vision’ of your district, then there’s a problem fulfilling that mission. You’ve just admitted your own administrative failure, Dr. Harrison, and I hope Cumberland County realizes that.

“Moreover, the actions of one teacher do not represent the 7000 employees in our organization.”

Dr. Harrison and others – let me introduce you to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. In short, you read something patently false/inaccurate, then turn the page and revert to trusting the content. Harrison has outlined his system’s total failure regarding Ms. Harrison, then assures us that the failure isn’t repeated 7,000 times over.

It’s a logical mismatch.

I’m not suggesting that all 7,000 CCS employees are clones of Ms. Harris – that’s ridiculous. But do I believe for a second that Dr. Harrison and his staff have a handle on the CCS climate? Not for a second.

“Once the video was brought to my attention, I immediately launched an investigation.”

I’ll rephrase: “Once my professional irresponsibility was exposed, I decided to release a statement in which I pretend to have done my job and in which I commit to the most basic functions of my professional contract.”

“I can assure you that upon completion of the investigation, I will take appropriate action.”

I don’t think you’re capable of it, but I encourage you to surprise me. I’ll believe that ‘appropriate action’ was taken when there’s proof of it.

Good luck and God bless, Cumberland County.

Other takes:

1. A Small Corner of Sanity – An Online Oasis for Conservative Thought
2. Solomonia
3. Bookworm Room » Indoctrinating the new brownshirts *UPDATED*
4. I Almost Feel Bad For This Woman, But the Uninformed Get What they Deserve « Trust, But Verify
5. Without Objection: WO’s Daily Roundup
6. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Superintendent: “Appropriate action” will be taken against teacher who lectured serviceman’s daughter
7. Reason 142 to Homeschool: Obama Teachers Won’t Bully Kids Who Support McCain « Mcnorman’s Weblog
8. UPDATE on “The Beast of Cumberland County” « Mark Epstein
9. And it begins… Barack Obama wants to Indoctrinate America’s Children…. : P.U.M.A

Discussing politics in the classroom is a delicate thing. It’s a bit like open heart surgery; if you know what you’re doing, you can perform miracles. If you don’t, you’re going to cause irreparable damage.

A couple of months ago I heard of a local school district board member who curtly instructed staff that politics are not to be mentioned in the classroom. That stance is absurd and there’s no inherent, justifiable reason for it. Politics past and present can be discussed by any two reasonable, informed parties.

I assumed that this board member’s worry was that some teachers wouldn’t approach the subject honestly or in a disinterested, unbiased way – she was playing it safe. Some teachers can’t be objective because they don’t want to be; others simply don’t know enough about politics and history to engage in a proper discussion of either.

It’s time to meet Diantha Harris of Asheville [turns out Ms. Harris is from Fayetteville in Cumberland County] North Carolina.

Ms. Harris was included in a recent Swedish-language Finnish documentary called From Bill to Barack. She’s shown teaching a class of what looks like ~7th graders. In an interview portion of the documentary, Ms. Harris explains her philosophy for discussing politics in the classroom:

Diantha Harris: “Now I can support whomever I want to support, as long as I don’t browbeat another person for the candidate that they supported. Like I have some students that support John McCain, and when they told me that, I said ah … “that’s good’ and I just moved on. So, I think that everybody is entitled to their own personal opinion.”

Not terribly eloquent, but we get the idea. What Ms. Harris describes is a mix of freedom of and respect for intellectual diversity. This is a fine foundation on which a teacher might build a disinterested discussion of politics in the classroom.

That Ms. Harris didn’t show up for class. The real Ms. Harris lured her students into a degrading, brow-beating indoctrination session that buffed her 13 year old political allies and demeaned her barely-pubescent opponents.

The entire exchange – caught on tape below, with transcript – shows Ms. Harris:

• Demeaning a student for supporting John McCain, with dismissive laments of “Oh no, John McCain… Oh Jesus, John McCain…”;
• Coaching another student on reasons to support Obama;
• Berating a girl whose father is apparently in the military over the “senseless war” and how her dad will be in Iraq for “100 years”;
• Setting same girl up for ridicule from peers, Harris pushes her until girl almost cries.

Here’s the video clip – it’s a harrowing three minutes. The English portion begins 15 seconds in. [Click here if you're reading this in RSS]

… and here’s a transcript, courtesy of Tundra Tabloids:

Diantha Harris: We want to talk about the presidential election. Ok, what I want to ask you, who are you pulling for? Raise your hands.

(Kids seen dutifully raising their hands one states ‘Obama’)

Diantha Harris: You’re pulling for Obama

Diantha Harris: (Speaking to another student) Who you’re pulling for? And if you’re pulling for John McCain, that’s fine say him as well. Who are you pulling for?

Student’s answer: Obama.

Another student: John McCain

Diantha Harris: Oh Lord John McCain!

Another student: John McCain

Diantha Harris: Oh Jesus, John McCain! Ok, Now I want to ask you something. (to the girl who is ‘pulling’ for McCain) Why are you pulling for John McCain. Now it’s ok! But why are you pulling for John McCain?

Student: I think it’s because of my parents are going for him too.

Diantha Harris: Ok, your parents are going for him. (Now to another student) Why are you pulling for Barack? (pronounces it differently) Or Barack?

Student: Because I just want a black president sometime.

Diantha Harris: Ok, you want a black president. Addresses another student.

Student: The reason I want to pick Barack Obama is because he is making good changes, in the good country and stuff like that.

Diantha Harris: So he’s making good changes for our country. (Shaking her head affirmatively) Ok, now can you tell me just a little bit more like, like what type of changes?

Same student: Like, …..not having um, a fight between Iraq, and having soldiers killed.

Diantha Harris: Shaking head up and down) So in other words, B-a-r-a-c-k is going to end that war (shaking head up and down) in Iraq. (Speaking to the classroom) What do you all know about that war in Iraq? Now talk to me, because your dad is in the military!

(Same female student who supports McCain shown noticeably biting lips)

Diantha Harris: Talk!

(Female student shown again but doesn’t speak)

Diantha Harris: It’s a senseless war! (shown staring at her) And by the way Kathy (the girl’s name), the person that you’re picking for president said, (Harris seen shaking head) that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to! (emphasis added),

(Kathy shown biting lips and looking nervously in silence, while kids stare at her smiling, laughing and smirking)

Diantha Harris: So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years!

During an interview later:

Diantha Harris: Now I can support whomever I want to support, as long as I don’t browbeat another person for the candidate that they supported. Like I have some students that support John McCain, and when they told me that, I said ah … “that’s good’ and I just moved on. So, I think that everybody is entitled to their own personal opinion. And we have something in our school system that called ‘Kids Voting’, and in my class….Barack Obama won. (Smiling).

Ms. Harris was in the news once before. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush met with Roy Harris – Diantha’s ex-husband and former member of the Asheville City Schools Board of Education – and our Diantha. A transcript of that exchange is available on the American Presidency Project’s website.

Over the last three months, the level of discourse at that point where politics and education meet has been disappointing and worrying. Public school teachers aren’t all Diantha Harrises, but tendentious, overzealous, underinformed discussions are more common in the classroom than most folks realize.

It isn’t clear what Ms. Harris’ job was in Asheville, though I’d find it odd if she was filmed for a documentary while serving as a substitute teacher. Either way, Ms. Harris needs to find a new line of work.

Teaching is a tremendous responsibility. That’s no secret. If you, as a parent, teacher or administrator, can’t discuss politics or history responsibly, don’t do it yourself. Find someone who can, sit back and learn.

Ms. Harris has embarrassed herself, her school system and her profession – and in that order of importance. But what she taught 15 young kids about political discourse is the real problem. Harris showed these children that it’s acceptable [and a desirable means to an end] to abuse someone into submission over ideology; that it isn’t important to respect one’s views, or engage in discourse that furthers understanding; that intellectual diversity and dissent is to be crushed for political expedience; that a sneering, mean-spirited contempt drives politics.

We’ve heard a great deal about hope, change and goodwill over the last two years. Ms. Harris’ disgusting display undermined the efforts of folks on both sides of the aisle.

Other takes on Ms. Harris:

RiehlWorldView: Harris needs to be fired.

Scoopthis.org: Teacher bullies students who support McCain.

BelchSpeak: Reason 142 to homeschool.

TundraTabloids: Browbeating, with update.

HotAir.com: Hope and Change.

Michelle Malkin: Harris is a child abuser.

Poligazette: It’s extremism.

The Forum: Teacher embarrasses student.

Rhymes With Right: Utterly unprofessional.

I’m not a secretive voter, either. I don’t mind telling anyone how I vote or why I do it.

As a resident of Otsego County, I’ve got 3 local races to vote on tomorrow:

• Otsego County Judge, Jill Ghaleb [D] vs. John Lambert [R]
• 111th NY Assembly District, William Magee [D], unopposed
• 51st NY Senate District, Jim Seward [R] vs. Don Barber [D]

Otsego County Judge, Jill Ghaleb [D] vs. John Lambert [R]

Mr. Lambert turned in an impressive performance last Monday at SUNY Oneonta. Though the Otsego County Judge handles mostly Family Court cases – about 70% are family cases, I think [***please read the addendum below] – a deep knowledge of Surrogate’s and Criminal Courts is necessary. Lambert’s experience as Asst. District Attorney has prepared him will for the job. While Ms. Ghaleb’s familiarity with the Family Court is admirable, it isn’t enough to warrant a 10-year term as Otsego County Judge.

Ghaleb’s speech at the SUNY Oneonta event was weak. I want a clear, confident, knowledgeable judge on the County bench. Mr. Lambert talked to us like a judge. Ms. Ghaleb talked to us like a kindergarten teacher.

My vote for Otsego County Judge is for John Lambert.

*** Mr. Lambert’s campaign sent a brief explanation of the 70% Family Court figure. I could have been more clear, but what’s above does imply that the majority of cases heard by the Judge are Family Court cases. I referred to the number of cases, not the Court’s commitment to those cases.

In short, it stands to reason that several custody hearings are easier than a single murder trial. They explain it this way:

“In your blurb about John, I couldn’t help but see that you mention that Family Court is 70% of the job.  Unfortunately, this statistic is misleading.  Ms. Ghaleb wants us to believe the job is 70% family court, but it’s just not true.  For example, in county court during a given week there may be 5 family court matters.  One a day for the week.  In that same week there could be one trial in criminal court.  That one trial could take the entire week (usually longer).  There are also several steps to a criminal trial that need to take place outside of the court room as well.

So, as far as Ms. Ghaleb’s statistics are concerned,  the above scenario would count as 5 family court cases and 1 criminal court case – While the number of family court cases may show a number at or around 70%, the time it takes to run a single criminal trial is actually much longer.

If Ms. Ghaleb’s numbers were true then Otsego County would probably have its own Family Court Judge like many other surrounding counties.  Also, if the criminal court aspect was less than 15-20%, then Otsego County would not need a full time district attorney and 4 assistants to handle the case load.”

I’d contend that the numbers are true, just that Ms. Ghaleb hasn’t been clear about the meaning of those numbers. I’ve found her commitment to statistics favorable to her to be disingenuous.

111th NY Assembly District, William Magee [D], unopposed

Though William Magee is running unopposed, I will not vote for him.

I don’t know Assemblyman Magee personally, but he seems like a delightful guy. Unfortunately, Magee could be the posterboy for the philosophy that has turned Central New York into a stale, atrophying wreck.

Check Magee’s questionnaire for the Observer-Dispatch – including his answer of “Yes.” to whether the state Legislature could reduce property tax burdens.

Magee is all over the board philosophically with little for substantial plans. Property tax cuts, yes – school funding from the state? Yes as well, though that tax money has to come from somewhere Magee hasn’t disclosed. He’d like to stop the ‘brain-drain’ but thinks that making New York a “mecca of green” and pushing an ad campaign for hiking and biking will do the trick.

Bill Magee, your platform could be held responsible for 111th District New Yorkers under the age of 35 being damned miserable. I don’t care that you’re unopposed – I won’t give you a vote. It might not be your fault personally, but what you stand for is a problem.

And if I’d known sooner that the Republicans didn’t have a candidate to run against you, I would’ve run against you myself. I thank Assemblyman Magee for his many years of service, but I’d like to see him move along in 2010.

My vote for the 111th NY Assembly District is for no one, despite William Magee running unopposed.

51st NY Senate District, Jim Seward [R] vs. Don Barber [D]

I attended the 90 minute Seward/Barber debate in Oneonta last Monday. It was a clear victory for Jim Seward, who is one of the finest, most benevolent politicians in New York State. I think if Seward moved to Park Slope, even those folks would drop their arugula and pick up an “Another Family for Seward” sign.

Don Barber comes off as a sneaky, dishonest leftist – not to be confused with a liberal. As I wrote about Barber’s school funding ideas, he’s comfortable with a bait’n'switch on taxes and state healthcare.

I like openness and honesty, and it’s why Barber received the lowest grade [D+] of any profiled candidates who submitted an answer.

I sincerely believe what Barber says about wanting universal healthcare for New Yorkers, and in a way, this race will gauge the 51st District’s interest in and support for that issue. Barber does not, however, address the issue honestly in terms of how the fiscal ramifications will impact New Yorkers.

Seward has exercised excellent judgment during his tenure and has balanced well the interests of our District’s businesses and citizens. Seward is responsible, responsive and has progressive ideas for how to keep Central New York’s talented younger generation in New York – like tax credits to forgive student loans over a 10-year period for those who take up residence. I can’t imagine where Central New York would be right now if it wasn’t for the work of Seward and friends.

In this case, I want more of the same – not a shifty leftist bent on bankrupting our businesses to fulfill the agenda of the Democratic party’s social engineers.

My vote for the 51st NY Senate District is for Jim Seward.

I’m not a secretive voter, either. I don’t mind telling anyone how I vote or why I do it.

There are two races on which I’ll vote tomorrow that have national significance:

• House of Representativess, 24th District, Michael Arcuri [D] vs. Richard Hanna [R]
• President of the United States, John McCain [R] vs. Barack Obama [D]

House of Representatives, 24th District, Michael Arcuri [D] vs. Richard Hanna [R]

Richard Hanna is a breath of fresh air in Central New York. He’s a businessman, not a career politician. If he’s not silver-tongued like his opponent, it’s to his credit. I’ll take a genuine guy over a weasel of a politician any day.

Michael Arcuri is a shill for his party – he’s a Blue Dog on paper only. As late as September, over 80% of his campaign contributions had come from outside our district. Arcuri serves his party nationwide and in Washington more than he serves the 24th Congressional District. They might love him for it. I don’t.

Richard Hanna didn’t have $5,000/plate breakfasts held hundreds of miles from his district. If he’s a shill, it’s for people in Upstate New York – and that’s exactly the type of shill I want.

Their stances on the large, looming national issues are fairly predictable given their respective parties. They did differ a great deal on education funding, as I wrote last week, and on their understanding of public education. Hanna not only gets how we deliver, monitor and improve public education, but he understands how it relates to that ‘brain-drain’ we’ve got in Upstate NY.

After two years of Michael Arcuri’s impotent representation, Richard Hanna is a welcome alternative.

My vote for the 24th Congressional District of New York is for Richard Hanna.

President of the United States, John McCain [R] vs. Barack Obama [D]

I’m a simple guy. The government’s got two main functions: to keep me safe and to stay out of my way. Senator John McCain will be better than his opponent at both.

My vote for the President of the United States is for John McCain.