Author Archives: pandora

About pandora

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong By Bringing A Gun Into A Haunted House?

I’m going to let TBogg set the scene:

Outside of going to the gun range and blasting away at paper targets while pretending that they are Muslims or black teenagers, there is nothing Armed-Americans enjoy more than showing off their guns in public. Open carry rules!

No self-respecting NRA member would think about making a grudging late-night emergency run to CVS to pick up some tampons for his wife without first pulling on some camouflage pants, strapping a Glock to his hip, and pulling the whole ensemble together with an AR15 dangling from his neck.

Because…. Something Might Happen.

It’s always Something Might Happen with this group – that would shoot their own shadow, or toddler. But this is a story happening in our own backyard – at Frightland.

So when the owner of a popular Delaware haunted house was quite adamant that nobody — including off-duty cops — pack heat while visiting his attraction, gun nuts reacted as if the amusement park operator dug up Zombie Reagan and dressed him up in a Mao jacket and let people throw poop at him as part of the Halloween hi-jinks.

A week ago an off-duty Delaware cop named Nick Roll took his son to the Frightland in Middletown, Delaware — an enormously popular East Coast attraction — and was told that he couldn’t bring his service weapon in with him. Although his hosts graciously offered to lock it up for him in lieu of him locking it away in his car, Roll demurred. He then did what all good American’s do when confronted with tyranny — he complained about it on Facebook in what is known as a “rant” that went “viral.”

Could someone explain why anyone would think it’s a good idea to be armed in a place designed to make you jumpy and frightened? A place that’s dark and full of people jumping and screaming?

It is reasonable to believe that people who live in such constant mortal fear of being attacked that they can’t go out to get the newspaper in the driveway without dashing for the cover of the agapanthus first, would have no need of a haunted house to get their heart racing. Going to Frightland seems like overkill… in a manner of speaking.

On the other hand, making a big show of saying you are boycotting the cancer-fundraising haunted house — particularly when you live on the other side of the country and couldn’t find Delaware on a state map of Delaware — over guns is kind of lame.

Here’s the truth with these ammosexuals. The 2nd Amendment trumps every other amendment, and their right to be armed (even on private property – which is something they only care about when guns aren’t involved) are more important than than anything else in the world. And it’s this obsession with all guns, all the time that makes them one of the biggest dangers out there. Seriously, if you need to be armed while taking your child through a haunted house with a ton of other people, you have a big problem. You also disqualify yourself as a responsible gun owner.

Paul Ryan Tries To Herd Cats

It’s really, really obvious that Paul Ryan is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into running for the House Speaker. He really, really doesn’t want the job.

Ryan spoke to the House GOP behind closed doors Tuesday and said if all factions can share his vision and he can get the endorsement of the major caucuses, then he will serve as speaker.

The news was confirmed by his spokesman Brendan Buck, who said according to reports, “If he is not a unifying figure for the conference, then he will not run.”

So, he wants the vote before the vote. And he has conditions:

He said Republicans needed to move from being “an opposition party to an proposition party.” He also said he would seek updates to the House rules — a common demand by the conservative hardliners that roiled Speaker John Boehner’s tenure — “so everyone can be a more effective representative.”

He also said he would not sacrifice his time with his family and young children, a concern that had been raised by his allies as the speaker often spends weekends fundraising for members. He said he was still worried about the toll the role would take on his family, but added, “My greatest worry is the consequences of not stepping up.”

Pretty interesting, no? Ryan doesn’t want the job. Can you blame him? Because we all know, no matter what’s agreed to now, the word of the conservative hardliners is worthless in this regard. Does anyone doubt that? This is a group that campaigns (and wins) on obstruction and opposition. It’s all they know how to do.

What’s also interesting is his condition concerning House rules. Basically he’s saying: Change the rules around the motion to vacate the chair so they are not used as easily – Remove the threat so often used against Boehner.

Josh Marshall sums it up:

Ryan is saying he’ll accept the Speakership if all the major factions agree to his terms. So he’s trying to make it something he accepts rather than runs for, as it were. Everyone has to agree to his terms rather than getting each faction’s buy-in by agreeing to their terms and then trying to make all those hopelessly conflicting demands function together.

House Republicans seem so desperate for Ryan at this point that I think there’s a good chance he can do it on the front end. It seems decidedly more dubious that he can make it work over time. The real division is between those who want traditional legislative practice and those who embrace government by shutdown. It’s not clear to me that division has been settled or submerged. But we’ll see.

Yep. It says a lot about the GOP that they can’t give away one of the most powerful and coveted positions in the nation. That’s what a leaderless party looks like.

And, did I mention that Ryan put a deadline on this? Friday. I guess that makes sense since we’re rapidly approaching the need to raise the the Federal Borrowing Limit and to pass spending regulations. Has the choice come down to Ryan as Speaker vs. default and government shut down? Sure sounds like it, and if that’s the case does anyone see the Republicans giving up their favorite toys? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this. It sounds like the deal is: Elect Ryan as Speaker and pass whatever’s necessary to avoid default and a government shut down. So, the hardliners would not only not get the Speaker they want (Daniel Webster) but they’d have to give up the only thing they “accomplish” in Congress? Anyone else having trouble seeing this happen?

Here’s my prediction: If Ryan becomes Speaker (and that’s still a big if) his conditions will be discarded by the conservative factions that agreed to them. In a heartbeat.

This Is Who We Are

I am no longer shocked. This is the life we have chosen. It is the American Way.

Via NYT:

A gunman killed at least seven people and as many as 10 at a community college in Oregon, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

[Live updates from the scene are here.]

The first 911 calls reported shooting at Umpqua Community College at 10:38 a.m., and several law enforcement agencies responded.

Ray Shoufler, a fire marshal with the Douglas County Fire Department told MSNBC that as many as seven to 10 people could be dead. Mr. Shoufler also said that a number of injured people had been taken to nearby hospitals.

Cory Grogan of the Oregon Office of Emergency Management said that at least 20 people had been wounded. Most of the wounded were taken to nearby hospitals, he said, but some were still being treated at the college.

The Planned Parenthood Hearings Revealed More About Republicans Than PP

Watching the Planned Parenthood hearings was wince inducing. It was also one of the best ways to see Republicans in their natural habitat of ignorance and petulance. Everything you need to know about Republicans was on display yesterday.

1. Math is hard

Have you seen this chart? Pay special attention to the source listed in the lower right corner. Given Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s (R-UT) questioning anyone would be forgiven for thinking he actually created this chart. He didn’t.

Please notice the numbers. Brainwrap at Daily Kos uses math to create a chart that actually uses, well, math.

Chaffetz wouldn’t pass the SAT.

Needless to say, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards schooled him into embarrassed silence. Via TPM:

Chaffetz, who chairs the committee, at one point showed a slide that had one straight line heading downward and another straight line heading upward.

“You created this slide. I have no idea what it is,” Richards said.

“Well, it is the reduction over the course of years — in pink, that’s the reduction in the breast exams — and the red is the increase in the abortions,” Chaffetz said. “That’s what’s going on in the organization.”

Richards said that she had not seen the slide before and that it “absolutely does not reflect what’s happening at Planned Parenthood.”

“You’re going to deny that —” Chaffetz said.

“I’m going to deny this slide that you just showed me that no one has ever provided us before,” she said. “We’ve provided you all the information about everything — all the services that Planned Parenthood provides. And it doesn’t feel like we’re trying to get to the truth here. You just showed me this.”

“I pulled those numbers directly out of your corporate reports,” Chaffetz said.

“Excuse me,” Richards said. “My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source.”

Chaffetz, paused, stuttered a bit and said, “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”

That had to leave a mark. Notice Chaffetz’s comment, “I pulled those numbers directly out of your corporate reports.” Why no, no he didn’t. The chart was created (the numbers pulled) by Americans United for Life. How embarrassing it must be to cheat off your neighbor’s paper only to find out you cheated off an idiot. Notice, also, when confronted with actual facts his reply was, “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”

Conclusion: Math is important. Reading and making charts is important. Grade: F

2. Treatment of Women

One of the most frustrating things about this hearing was the number of times Republicans interrupted Cecile Richards. They simply refused to let her answer their questions. Go ahead and try to watch this video. Painful, no? Disrespectful, no? Obviously, allowing Richards to actually answer their questions wasn’t the point. Their treatment of her spoke volumes.

3. Republicans make exceptions to their morality depending on who it is, or… my abortion, welfare, veteran booing, gayness, etc. is justified.

I really thought that Trump’s comment about McCain’s war record would be the final nail in his coffin. Silly me. I had forgotten that the Republican base actually booed a gay soldier during their last primary debate. It’s the same with sexism and racism. Only Republican women and minorities are victims of sexism and racism. Everyone else… nope.

And their family values seems to only apply to others. Hello? Intern sex Newt Gingrich. Diaper wearing, prostitute using David Vitter. Wide stance Larry Craig. And, let’s not forget, Pro-Life Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn who’s wife had two abortions – with his blessings:

“Things were not going well between us and it was a mutual decision,” DesJarlais said of the elective abortion. “I don’t think that it was easy for either one of us. I think it was a very difficult and poor choice and I think that there are probably regrets both ways.”

That’s called “choice for me, but not for thee” and he’s a big pro-choicer when it comes to how a pregnancy impacts his life.

Here is what family values/pro-lifer DesJarlais said to his pregnant mistress: “You told me you’d have an abortion, and now we’re getting too far along without one,” DesJarlais tells the woman at one point in the call while negotiating with her over whether he’ll reveal her identity to his wife. They then discuss whether he will accompany her to a procedure to end the sort of life the congressman now describes as “sacred.”

There’s plenty more hypocrisy from the “family values” crowd. I’ve just scratched the surface, but if you want more, just ask.

4. Lying

Everything listed above (and many examples not listed) has one thing in common: Blatant Lying and stunning hypocrisy. It’s actually quite brazen. And it’s being used to justify legislation. Chaffetz’s chart was one big lie. Refusing to let Cecile Richards answer a question was so their lies wouldn’t be countered or exposed. Their “pro-life/family values” stance only applies to other people’s lives. Their lives are complicated, their abortions are different, etc.

But, right now, the biggest liar on the field is Carly Fiorina. The breadth of her lies is stunning. Not only did she completely fabricate what’s on the Planned Parenthood “sting” videos, she keeps doubling down on the lie:

“Yes,” she said. “And I would challenge Planned Parenthood… They’re trying to distract the American people from the hideous reality that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. That is a fact.”

“Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation,” Fiorina continued. “And taxpayers are paying for it. Planned Parenthood desperately wants everyone to think this isn’t going on. Because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. This goes to the character of our nation and it must be stopped.”

She uses the line “That is a fact” a lot. Does she not know what a fact is? Personally, I think she demonstrates the problem with a “business person” as President. They live in a yes-men bubble. (Note: Watching Congress eat President Donald Trump alive would be entertaining. He’s delusional if he actually believes he’ll accomplish what he says. In fact, I think he’ll become the bi-partisan issue.)

Fiorina is a piece of work. I get that politicians lie, but her lies are eerily specific and easily disproved – and yet she still lies, about a lot.

But I guess these lies say more about the Republican base. The candidates/legislatures couldn’t get away with this stuff if their base cared about facts… or math… or science.

I, Robot? Sex Machine?

I came across this article on BBC. Pretty interesting and 100% predictable. All roads eventually lead to sex.

A campaign has been launched calling for a ban on the development of robots that can be used for sex.

Such a use of the technology is unnecessary and undesirable, said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson.

Sex dolls already on the market are becoming more sophisticated and some are now hoping to build artificial intelligence into their products.

Those working in the field say that there is a need for such robots.

Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on – how they will look, what roles they would play – are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

I’m not for banning them. They are inevitable. They are the next step after blow up dolls and vibrators.

Abyss Creations, which sells male and female sex toys, is now starting to introduce electronics into its creations.

Meanwhile True Companion boasts that it is developing “the world’s first sex robot” and promises to launch its first doll, Roxxxy, later this year.

Chief executive Douglas Hines believes there is a real need for products such as Roxxxy.

“We are not supplanting the wife or trying to replace a girlfriend. This is a solution for people who are between relationships or someone who has lost a spouse.

“People can find happiness and fulfilment other than via human interaction,” he added.

He told the BBC that he hopes Roxxxy will eventually become a self-learning engine that is able to talk to her owner and learn his likes or dislikes.

“The physical act of sex will only be a small part of the time you spend with a sex robot – the majority of time will be spent socialising and interacting,” he said.

Really? The physical act of sex will only be a small part? The majority of time will be spent socializing and interacting… with a robot who learns your likes and dislikes… and parrots them back to you?

It’s that part that has my eyebrows lifting. It’s that part I find unhealthy. A sex robot designed to talk dirty to you? Go for it. One that always agrees with you, obeys your every command and validates whatever crazy thing comes out of your mouth? Awesome. One more anti-social, narcissistic, insecure person for all of us to deal with in our everyday lives. That should work out well for society. We take a person who can’t (or won’t) read social cues and have them spend a significant amount of time with a robot programmed to say, “It’s them, not you.” and then sit back and wait for the explosion. Now, if the robot was programmed to call them out on their missteps, to explain and disagree with them that might be helpful, but creating a bubble where the human user’s world view is enforced, their every need and opinion satisfied doesn’t strike me as good for the person or society as a whole.

This summer my daughter and I watched the movie Her. Without a doubt it was one of the most depressing movies we had ever seen. I get the movie’s point. Basically, it said: If you can’t have a healthy relationship with a person, the robot (operating system) will leave you, too. See? It is about you.

Side note: How does one clean these sexbots? Will they have detachable groin areas that are dishwasher safe? Or will many people do what they do in real life when it comes to personal cleanliness and douse the robots in AXE body spray? I have questions, damn it!

Which brings us to MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) and their take on sex robots. Actually, it’s not about the robots. It’s about, as is usual for this group, about women. Keep an eye on this group (one of its spin-offs gave us Elliot Rodger, who “spelled out his plan to kill every “slut” who had ever denied him sex as “retribution” for his still being a virgin.”) because what they’re saying lines up with a lot of what the GOP is saying, as well as what some “liberal” men are nodding their heads to.

Many men relate to this mindset, and that’s a problem. We saw this on the #YesAllWomen post. For some reason, even liberal men (#notallmen. Sheesh!) refused to admit that Elliot Rodger’s actions were linked to misogyny. Steve Newton summed it up in that post:

When somebody who is rampantly anti-Semitic commits an atrocity, most people are comfortable that they are not anti-Semites and feel no direct empathy for the perpetrator. Then there will be those on the fringe who say (or at least think), “You know, he was batshit crazy and I’d never do that, but I kinda know how the whole Jew-Israel thing pissed him off.” And then there will be those who completely sympathize with the murderer, and say so within their limited, self-referential circles.

The difference here, I think, is there will be millions and perhaps tens of millions of men who read Rodgers’ manifesto and fit into that second category: “You know, he was crazy, and I’d never do that, but man those women can do a number on a guy’s head, and I sorta know what he meant by all those stuck-up sorority bitches out there shaking it like it’s made out of gold or something.”

Yep, there it is.

And don’t buy into their name (Men’s Rights). This group is all about women. Don’t believe me? Scroll down the cover page for A Voice For Men. See anything there about helping men, supporting men, making men’s lives better? Me neither.

But back to the Breitbart (I know, I know) article.

Who, or what, men have sex with is the basis of our civilisation. It is the driving force behind our greatest accomplishments. Men don’t compete for abstract pleasure: they compete to bag the best mate. The internet, the pyramids and the moon landings would not exist were it not for man’s desire to have sex with woman.

That’s why Nature experiments more widely with men: the male IQ range is wider, and there is more variation in male behaviour and biology than in women. Men are where experimentation happens, because a wider variety of male aptitudes and preferences will keep women happier and result in a more well-rounded and healthy society.

Everybody got that? Men invent things so women will have sex with them. Men are naturally smarter, not due to societal restrictions, but because it benefits society and keeps women happier… and in their place?

In response, men are simply checking out, giving up on women and retreating into porn and video games. I call it the “sexodus,” and its immediate victims aren’t men, but women, who are being consigned to singledom as men lose interest in them or are simply too exhausted or fearful of the social consequences of approaching girls romantically. The truth is, men get along okay without women, unlike women, who become shrieking, neurotic messes if they’re still single in their 30s.

Wow. You know, I find this men “are simply too exhausted or fearful of the social consequences of approaching girls romantically” utter nonsense. Perhaps if these exhausted/fearful men approached women as people they wouldn’t have problems. But that’s obviously asking too much of these guys – who view single women as “shrieking, neurotic messes”. Maybe that could be part of their problem?

But gender relations in the West are at their worst for fifty years, possibly more, which is why popular men’s bloggers are now asking whether sexbots will replace women entirely. The consensus seems to be: for some men, yes, totally. For other men, they will become a masturbation tool. A few “alphas” and players at the top will be able to bang their way around the entire female population, which will be comprised of ever more neurotic, backstabbing and insane behaviour.

Now we’re getting to the heart of this. The only man (and woman) who thinks sexbots will replace people is one who already views their human partner as a sexbot. Not to mention… men who are having relationships with actual woman are “alphas” who “bang their way around the entire female population” and not men in healthy, functional relationships. If you’re a man in a great relationship with a woman then you’re on their target list, as well.

In the short term, sexbots will be good news for dudes. For one thing, with a robot, men know the orgasm will be fake, so it removes the performance anxiety of trying to make the grade. (Men know the robot orgasm doesn’t exist — unlike the female orgasm, whose existence is still insisted upon by some conspiracy theorists and biological extremists.) And Heartiste says that real women are going to get “looser and more willing to please” as men become “choosier and less willing to please.”

Um… okay. This might be a big part of the problem. If these guys have convinced themselves that the female orgasm is a myth then could someone explain why women buy vibrators? Do these guys think that women buy vibrators as a prop to make men feel insecure and not for pleasure? And men becoming “less willing to please” is actually a big part of the problem, too. These guys are bad in bed. It really is that simple… and that sad.

I mean, look, I don’t mean to be rude, but most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads. Imagine how much worse they’re going to get when the passive aggressive manipulation tactics stop working because the guy can get himself off with a thinner, hotter robot any time he wants to. They’re going to go mental. 

Oh wow! Just wow. He “went gay” because he didn’t want to deal with nutty broads? It had nothing to do with his attraction to men? It was a choice. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what a self-loathing gay man looks like. He is saying, “If women weren’t so “nutty” I’d be a straight man, because that’s truly what I am. I’m just having sex with men until women get their act together. Once they do, I won’t be gay anymore.” Everybody got that?

We’ll have it even worse here in the West, because Japan is still patriarchal. As a result, society functions. In the West, women are surging ahead into positions of dominance in the media, the arts, academia, politics, you name it. Some people will find this offensive, but: matriarchy is a problem for the rest of us. As feminist critic Camilla Paglia so memorably put it, if civilisation had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.

And this is another one of their grievances. They tie a women’s success to their failure. It’s very personal to them. The reason why they aren’t successful, or in the corner office, has nothing to do with their own mediocrity. This group has always blamed others for their failures. Even before women and minorities succeeded they blamed nepotism, golf, not belonging to the country club, etc..

When men start checking out en masse, as is already happening, you can say good-bye to all of society’s best astrophysicists, mathematicians, philosophers, composers and chess players. Scientific progress will effectively stall, because men are just as happy beating a video game as they are solving the riddles of the universe — and they’ll take the entertainment option if they have no interest in impressing women.

Women will not take men’s places in these disciplines, because there simply aren’t enough women with IQs over 120. Again, sorry if you find that offensive, but it’s just a fact. IQ isn’t a perfect measure, by any means, but it’s the best gauge we have of whether someone can perform the higher-level functions needed to be a game-changing scientist or transcendently brilliant artist.

There aren’t enough words to express how much I hate the biology and/or genetics argument. And I’m insulted for men when this nonsense is trotted out. “Better bang me, baby, or no cure for cancer! I’m going to spend my time playing Assassin’s Creed!”

Sex with a woman will always be the prestige form of intercourse, to put it in the language of marketers. But the sexual marketplace is changing terrifyingly fast. Sex won’t be truly commoditised until there is a mass-produced, victimless, cheap alternative to having sex that is good enough for most men.

It won’t be long before we arrive at that point. And the consequences are going to shake the foundations of our economy and irreparably change how our society is organised. It will also, I’m sorry to say, leave women even more horribly unhappy and lonely than they already are. If I were you, girls, I’d start being a bit nicer to your boyfriends…

Yep, forget getting something out of a relationship, ladies. You had better focus on what men want (men who believe you get no pleasure out of sex – because, let’s be honest, these men are doing it wrong!) or else you’ll end up horribly unhappy and lonely.

And it hasn’t escaped my notice his use of the word victimless. That choice of word demonstrates what a rape apologist is.

In the MRA world, sex is something that happens to women, not with them. And they wonder why they’re alone and salivating at the thought of sexbots. That’s not only sad, it’s pathetic… and is really their only chance of getting laid. Which all this is about! Real human women won’t sleep with/be in a relationship with them – Sexbots won’t change that fact.

We Must Be Psychic! More Details On The SBA Test Scores

Whooocouldaknown???

State Average — Reading: 51.9 percent; Math: 38.8 percent

Low Income — Reading: 35 percent; Math: 23 percent

Disabilities — Reading: 15 percent; Math: 10 percent

Black — Reading: 36 percent; Math: 22 percemt

Hispanic — Reading: 40 percent; Math: 29 percent

Learning English — Reading: 15 percent; Math: 15 percent

I’m also gonna drop this chart here since people have been asking for it.  We are still compiling data. Here’s what we have for the state so far.

 

 

NCC_SBAC_PLI

State GOP Gives Sussex Republican Committee A Spanking Over Disparaging Remarks About Women

Wonder if these “rules” will apply to Dem women?

Here’s the Delaware Republican Party statement:

Newark, DE: Delaware Republican Party Chairman Charlie Copeland has issued the following statement regarding the release of disturbing audio tapes in which Sussex County GOP officials make offensive comments about women leaders in the Delaware Republican Party and about women in general:

The recent release of audio recordings by DelawareRight.com in which Sussex County Republican leaders take aim at leaders of the Delaware Federation of Republican Women and the Sussex County Republican Women are offensive and counter to the fundamental beliefs of the Republican Party.

While the remarks were made in the hours leading up to the election of a new Sussex County Republican Chair, these remarks should never have been part of the debate on selecting the party’s county leadership. The Delaware Republican Party respects women as individuals and leaders in both our party and nation.

In the previously cited recordings, Sussex County Executive Committee member Duke Brooks remarks: “Females very often, or if not generally are, a little fast to start using verbal insults and name-calling then men are. I have witnessed this, not every time, but they seem sometimes to be that way.”

The recordings also included comments the Sussex County GOP Vice Chair Fred Silva, in which he says: “Listen, this is the way of the world from time immemorial. The problem today is you have a bunch of, what’s the word for them, metrosexuals who are willing to listen to the women.”

I find the remarks of Mr. Brooks and Mr. Silva to be wholly unacceptable. It is beyond my comprehension that any Republican official would harbor such bias, let alone promote these demeaning opinions in a public forum.

“Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina recently hit the nail right on the head when she spoke to the national convention of the Federation of Republican women and proudly said: “Note to the Democrat Party: We are not a special interest group. We are the majority of the nation.”

The Delaware Republican Party stands with the Delaware Federation of Republican women, and all women, as they fight bigotry and sexism in a world where they demand and deserve better.

There are a lot of tells in the quoted comments. Referring to women as “females” is a big one. And men willing to listen to women aren’t real men, they’re “metrosexuals” is another.

Personally, I don’t think this statement is going to go over well. After all, the GOP has put too much effort into controlling and demeaning women for them to be taken seriously on women’s issues. I’m expecting a push back on this because, obviously, the Delaware GOP is full of metrosexuals who listen to females.

On the other hand, I am fine with holding the Delaware GOP to these standards – for all women.

Guest Post: Opt-Out Ends The Madness Of High-Stakes Testing

Kevin from Exceptional Delaware asked if we could share his post. The State Board of Education is having their monthly meeting at 1:00pm today. The Parent Strike press conference will begin prior to the meeting at 12:30pm in front of Legislative Hall in Dover. If any of our readers attend, let us know in the comments.

As a proud advocate of parent opt out, I watched in horror as Governor Markell vetoed legislation created for parents and their fundamental rights.  The News Journal  refers to House Bill 50 as giving parents the right to opt out.  This is wrong.  It’s about honoring a parental right that already exists, an attempt to codify that right and stop schools and the Delaware Department of Education from punishing schools over parent opt-out.

Today, the State Board of Education will have their monthly meeting, and they will discuss Regulation 103.  To give some quick back-story here, Regulation 103 covers school accountability.  Born out of Race To The Top, Delaware won in the first round partly because we already had this regulation in place.  Race To The Top was an abject failure.  But the DOE and the State Board are attempting to further legitimize this program under the guise of the Delaware School Success Framework.  This “school report card” is nothing more than Federal mandate PLUS the many layers of complexity the DOE added to it.  This regulation will put any Title I school in jeopardy if the students don’t perform well on Smarter Balanced.  This week, we will hear about the creation of 10 new so-called “Focus Schools” and 4 “Focus Plus Schools”.  The DOE will attempt to sell this as yet another way of “fixing” these high-need schools.  The truth is, these labels are punitive in nature and are just another step before they become “Priority Schools”.  We all know how that went a year ago.

The transparency around Regulation 103 and the “school report card” is suspect at best.  I filed a large complaint with the Delaware Department of Justice over several issues last week.  As well, for the second time this year, I filed a complaint over FOIA violations with the DOE.  The first complaint showed the DOE overcharging me nearly $7,000.00.  It seems the DOE wants accountability for everyone but themselves.  Yesterday, I filed a complaint with the US DOE Office.

In conjunction with Delaware Liberal and my own blog, Exceptional Delaware, we have been writing articles on the true impact of high-stakes testing in Delaware.  The schools with very small populations of low-income students do great on Smarter Balanced, whereas the opposite occurs in high populations of poverty.  The DOE would have us blame the teachers in these schools.  How about we blame the DOE and Governor Markell?  Instead of focusing on the true needs of students, such as smaller classrooms and more special education training, our schools continue the failed experiment of Smarter Balanced.

When House Bill 50 appeared, I was contacted by parents throughout the state asking me about opt out.  I told them it was their decision and choice.  I didn’t push it on any parent, but I did advise them to do research and do what is best for their child.  When the Governor vetoed House Bill 50, I was upset and launched a Refuse The Test campaign.  Today a coordinated effort across the country called Parent Strike will occur.  For Delaware, I strongly encourage every single parent in the state to opt their child out of Smarter Balanced if they have not already.  The misuse and abuse inflicted upon our schools because of this test needs to stop.  The only way to stop the insanity is to effectively shut it down.  The federal funding threats self-destructed when Arne Duncan backed off.  The scores in our highest need schools show how much minorities do not need this test.  If every single parent opts out, we are essentially calling the DOE’s bluff and pulling the plug on Smarter Balanced.  Our legislators acted, our PTA acted, and now we must act as parents.  Whether your child attends a traditional school or a charter, we ALL need to do this.  We need to act now for our children and say NO MORE! We don’t need the business community telling us how to run our schools.  Opt your child out and let’s take back education.

For Parent Strike on 9/17, Delaware parents will have a brief press conference at 12:30pm in front of Legislative Hall in Dover, followed by an invitation for every single parent in the state to give public comment at the State Board of Education meeting at 1pm in opposition to Regulation 103.

Comment Rescue: Dorian Gray, Education And The Uncomfortable Truth

I keep going back to Dorian’s comment on my Education post. Here is what he said:

I have a solution that nobody will like. It’s warranted and would address the very neediest, but good luck convincing anybody…

Start paying reparations in the form of schools. The idea that how good a public school is is based on where your parents/guardians live is one of the biggest examples of institutional racism I can think of (beside mass incarceration, maybe).

What other public services work this way? Can you imagine if people moved to ensure their post office was the very best rated post office in the area!

Fuck charters… fuck moving to Chadds Ford… I think the people in Chadds Ford should subsidize the Chester Upland schools. How do you like that?

Look, I don’t ever comment on these education posts because I don’t have children and it doesn’t directly impact me. But the idea that people cry “property values” is disgusting and racist… Listen to the two part This American Life from last month (The Problem We All Live With)..

I say this as a middle-aged white guy of relatively considerable means.

You’ll be nibbling around the edges forever wondering how to fix all this when the answer is there. It’s just too bitter to gulp down the gullet. Part of the reparations package should be a reallocation of public funds to low-income black neighbourhoods. I’d start by taking money from Hockessin, Monchanin and Middletown and building brand new, state-of-the art public schools (not charter, not private, not wait-list)… public schools in the most forgotten neighbourhoods. Maybe to start I’d build one in Hilltop and name it after Jim Gilliam. James Gilliam Middle School has a nice ring to it.

And if people tried the old white flight routine again I hit them with a Reparations transfer tax on the property sale. We all live in this fucking country. We should start taking some god damn responsibility.

The real problem is people see a problem but if you’re rich enough it’s other people’s problem and if your black and poor you’re totally fucked anyway. We need to make it a rich person’s problem. How long are we going to victimise people until we just admit what we’ve done and correct it?

Wow. I 100% agree with this comment. Right now, the system rewards more affluent people. It separates, deliberately, the most influential voices in our communities – and that is done, in part, under threat. Districts tell this more affluent group, “Don’t make waves or we’ll send you to those struggling city schools.” Don’t believe me? Then check out what Red Clay said during their last capital referendum in order to build another brand new suburban elementary school:

1. What happens if it [referendum] doesn’t pass?
Adjust feeder patterns at elementary schools, reconsider BSS K-8, remove programs at city schools (Pre-K, Parent Centers, Boost Up, Small Class Size).

Obviously, that wasn’t grave enough so they changed that answer to this:

We would need to consider a number of options.
• Readjusting feeder patterns in most of our elementary schools to shift the population to our schools in the city. This would be disruptive to all of our schools, and impact important programs in place at our city schools.
• Reconsider the BSS K-8 model.
• Continue to rent trailers, and add additional trailers

[emphasis mine, but really, Red Clay’s SuperPac, Friends of Red Clay, as well!  And we’ll wait and discuss these school district’s SuperPacs in another post)

As of this morning it reads:

The district will be forced to consider other options to address over-crowding at elementary schools, such as adjusting feeder patterns at elementary schools, reconsidering BSS as a K-8 school, removing programs at city schools (Pre-K, Parent Centers, Boost Up, and Small Class Size)

Forced? Really? And there it is. Shut up or we’ll take away everything we’ve given to you. Don’t vote for the referendum and we’ll bus your kids back to those awful city schools – that we purposefully created, btw. None of what’s going on could have happened without buying suburban and charter/magnet school citizens’ votes… and silence. And when you read the above “threats” you can not only understand why the suburban community voted for the referendum, but that some did so under duress. Red Clay wasn’t subtle. They threatened this community’s children. I completely understand why the suburban community voted the way they did. I just ask that this community stop kidding themselves that they are in the driver’s seat. They aren’t. They surrendered their power years ago. Not sure how they get that power back. Basically, they sold themselves cheap, and if they think what’s going on with Priority Schools, Focus Schools and charters isn’t heading their way they are naive. They’ll be all for it until their kids don’t get into the choice school they applied for. Then they’re outraged, but they already diluted their voice.

Look, I get that every parent’s priority is to their own children and that everyone works within the existing system – which is designed to pit parent against parent and community against community. I understand that the suburban community is concerned with their property values. What I don’t understand is why high poverty/high needs people’s concerns – people who live in high poverty feeder patterns across the state – about their children attending schools that have lost valuable programs as well as their property concerns are dismissed as not valid. Seriously, why are people who live in affluent areas more deserving of a good education?  Why am I constantly asked to care about their worries? To understand where they are coming from, while they (not all!) don’t care about kids in high poverty schools or these people’s property values?

Back to Dorian’s comment… If his comment upsets you ask yourself why. Is it because he’s wrong? Or is it because you’re personally invested in the status quo? BTW, saying you only care about your kid and your property values is fine. Just own it.

 

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words: Poverty And The Smarter Balanced Assessment

Last week LiberalGeek took a comment I posted about the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) scores and turned it into a graph.

Basically, LG took this:

School (RCCD 5th)……..PLI………..ELA 2015……..MATH 2015

North Star……………….3.8%………….92.2%…………..76.1%
Brandywine Springs…..9.0%………….85.4%…………..70.3%
Linden Hill……………….9.9%………….75.7%…………..59.6%
Heritage…………………22.1%…………60.2%…………..23.7%
Forest Oak……………..37.2%………….59.0%………….46.2%
Richey……………………39.3%…………43.8%…………..35.1%
Marbrook……………….51.4%…………41.0%…………..28.6%
Mote……………………..52.2%…………48.5%……………22.8%
Baltz……………………..58.1%…………35.0%……………13.5%
Richardson Park………61.4%…………29.5%……………..7.7%
Highlands………………65.2%…………32.2%……………10.0%
Lewis Dual Lang……..73.2%………….20.4%…………….7.1%
Shortlidge………………81.0%…………18.3%……………16.4%
Warner…………………..82.6%…………..5.0%……………..2.5%

And turned it into this:

Amazing, no?

Below you will find charts of the four districts that serve city of Wilmington students (click on charts below to enlarge). You will also find a chart of Charter Schools. Pay attention to the trend lines. Some are more obvious than others.

Before I continue, let me say this: I do not support the SBA, but since we’ll be using these scores to judge and label students, teachers and schools we need to look at the data. This test will have consequences.

Colonial

Colonial_SBAC

I’m not very familiar with Colonial so I asked Brian from Those In Favor blog (a blog everyone should be reading, btw) to share his thoughts. Here’s what he says: Colonial has several hundred students that are bused out of Wilmington to the District and back each day.  You are correct that they do not have a school in the city, but they do educate a sizable number of children and those children live in areas affected by poverty so I think they are part of this, too.  That’s a big question mark for WEIC.  Colonial has no buildings in Wilmington, but their students will be transferred to Red Clay…so where will they attend school?

Good points, Brian. Thank you!

Christina School District

Christina_SBAC

Christina shows a distinct PLI to SBA trend line. What to say about Christina? I’m not the best person for the job, so please share your thoughts in the comments. They still have the highest percent of low income students. I’m not sure removing the city of Wilmington will help as much some Newark residents seem to think. What I think will happen is their chart will end up looking more like Red Clay’s.

 

Brandywine

brandywine_SBAC

The Brandywine (BSD) chart looks different from the others. The trend line exists, but there’s a lot more noise. Does this mean BSD is doing a better job with their high poverty population? We don’t know that. What I do know is that BSD said “No” to the Neighborhood Schools Act, limits Choice and doesn’t house charters. In addition, BSD has placed its most desirable programs (TAG/IB) in its least desirable schools. These programs probably explain Mount Pleasant High School (IB), P.S duPont Middle (TAG), and Claymont Elementary (TAG) School’s higher test scores.
*What’s going on at Talley Middle and Harlan Elementary? Aren’t they still IB schools? Harlan has the highest poverty numbers so that may answer my question. I’m not getting Talley. Anyone know the answer?
So, while I can’t say if BSD’s poverty population is scoring well on SBA, I can say that the schools these children attend offer programs missing from other districts’ high poverty schools. And everyone knows I believe programs make a school and keep it viable and attractive to all families.

Red Clay School District

RCCSD_SBAC

Gotta hand it to Red Clay. The pattern is amazing… almost deliberate? Wow. Are we really considering giving Red Clay (RCCD) more of our city children? I’m not comfortable with that decision. Take a look at the three high schools (A.I., Dickinson and McKean) that everyone in Red Clay is assigned to and ask yourself this: Are you okay with buying a house that comes with a high school lottery ticket? Don’t kid yourself, property values are affected, and going by this chart it’s no longer just city property values. Mike O. and I called this several years ago. We said what was happening in the city would spread outward.

17 out 26 RCCD schools of are below the 50% mark on the SBA. Nine schools are above it. Four of those nine schools are charters and/or magnets – which means to gain entry a student has to complete an application, and/or audition, take a “placement” test, etc.. The five public schools above the 50% line consist of four elementary schools (which come with attendance zones) and one middle school. That’s a pretty poor track record.  Hmmm… we probably need a chart showing RCCD’s public schools only – schools that have an attendance zone and don’t require any applications for admission.

Which brings me to WEIC – Wilmington Education Improvement Commission. I don’t envy this commission one bit. The task before them is daunting, especially given the inevitable push back heading their way. But I have to ask this: Given Red Clay’s chart above, why would anyone think RCCD would be a good choice for our highest needs kids? If WEIC goes down this path with RCCD  then the conditions/rules/funding, etc. must be carved in stone. Remember how the Priority Schools had a “punishment” attached if the schools didn’t improve? May I suggest attaching something similar to RCCD if they continue on the path they’re on? Joking? Sorta. Not really.

Charter Schools
(Red=PLI/Gray=ELA/Yellow=Math)
charterPovertyCorrected

Look at that! It’s almost as pretty as Red Clay’s chart.

First, can we finally put to rest the myth that charters perform better than public schools. For schools with the luxury of controlling their population you’d think this chart would look different. When it comes to poverty, even charters aren’t immune.

Second, I guess we’ll have quite a few charters being labeled Priority Schools.

I’m really not sure what else to say about charters. This chart shows that they are a failed experiment.  When you look at “successful” (and boy am I using that term loosely) charters it’s easy to see that their “secret sauce” is who they let into their school and not what goes on in the classroom. And our tax dollars are funding this. Meanwhile, true public schools continue to lose money, programs, teachers, etc. – they also have to take all students, even the ones charters don’t take or keep.

The only silver lining I see with the Charter School chart is that a lot of people are going to need to sit down and be quiet about Charter awesomeness. It simply isn’t true.

In closing I want to take a moment to thank all the people who spent a large part of their holiday weekend (and are still working, and will be working for quite some time) compiling data, checking figures, making charts, etc.. Everyone was amazing. So hats off to LiberalGeek who started it all and continues to help chart; to Brian of Those In Favor blog for creating spreadsheets and charts – if you aren’t reading his blog you are missing out. Thanks to Kevin Ohlandt for his data checking and contagious passion. Kevin has become a leading voice in Delaware Education with his blog, Exceptional Delaware. (Go read him!) And a special thank you to Rep. Kim Williams who tirelessly answered our questions and helped review mountains of data.

Exceptional Delaware has a post up on this issue, as well. Go Read It!

Here’s an excerpt:

What Governor Markell seems to lack insight into or just plain ignores is the impact of poverty on children’s education.  It isn’t something “rigor” and “grit” can fix.  It’s a matter of increasing the funding to these schools, and not under the guise of priority schools or focus schools.  It means lowering the size of classrooms, increasing special education funding, and judging children based on a once a year test the clearly shows how much poverty does matter.  The Smarter Balanced Assessment is not improving education. It is making it more difficult for schools to get the true reform they need.

And… buckle up. More charts are coming!

Charter Schools Ruled Unconstitutional In Washington State

Wow.

In the ruling, Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that charter schools aren’t “common schools” because they’re governed by appointed rather than elected boards.

Therefore, “money that is dedicated to common schools is unconstitutionally diverted to charter schools,” Madsen wrote.

Justice Mary E. Fairhurst agreed with the majority that charter schools aren’t common schools, but argued in a partial dissenting opinion that the state “can constitutionally support charter schools through the general fund.”

I always wondered why charters just received tax payer money when they weren’t listed on operational referendums.  Consider that districts have to clearly spell out how they will use our money if the referendum passes. Shouldn’t the amount being diverted to current (and future) charter schools be listed? Those figures could result in public schools losing operational funds that the public actually, you know, voted on. Our referendum votes include funding these charters.  Shouldn’t charters have to tell us how they plan on using our tax dollars?

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Results Are In

I’m not even sure where to begin. I’ll start here:

Only half of Delaware students are proficient in English and fewer than four in 10 are proficient in math, according to results of the state’s tough new standardized test, the Smarter Balanced Assessment. (link takes you to the results)

Newsworks posts the charts:

EnglishScores

MathScores

If you’re looking for an in-depth article about these scores, I’d suggest reading the Newsworks article. WDEL also has a good round up.

State leaders eagerly pointed out in a press briefing that Delaware out-performed projections on the first Smarter Balanced assessment.

[…]

This is good news. But it comes with a caveat…

Delaware versus the other states

DelStates 3 English

DelStates 3 Math

Yes, Delaware bested the Smarter Balanced projections. But as the above charts make clear, everyone is besting the Smarter Balanced projections.

I get that projections are, well, projections, but I have to wonder why they are so far off the mark. If everyone is beating the projections then I question the accuracy and value of these projections. Personally, I’m going to ignore them. They aren’t really telling us anything, but they do seem to be the big talking point.

The News Journal: “The Smarter Assessment is harder and different from any of our past state assessments,” said Gov. Jack Markell. “Although we raised the bar considerably, our students performed better than anticipated.”

WDEL: Markell said Delaware students outperformed state expectations in all grade levels in English and in all but one grade level in math. Those expectations were set based on a nationwide field test of more than 4 million students in Delaware and several other states last spring.

Newsworks: State leaders eagerly pointed out in a press briefing that Delaware out-performed projections on the first Smarter Balanced assessment.

Cape Gazette: Overall, Gov. Jack Markell and Secretary of Education Mark Murphy said they were pleased with test results. “Our students performed better than we expected,” said Markell, during a Sept. 1 press conference discussing results of the first round of Smarter Balanced testing. […] “We outperformed the Smarter Balanced estimate and have a new baseline moving forward,” Markell said.

For a test that touts setting a high bar it sure set a low one when it came to projections, and it bothers me that this bar is what’s being used as some sort of silver lining. It’s not. The projections, quite simply, were wrong. So, let’s stop holding them up as some sort of success. They aren’t. And if this is the best thing one can say about these test results, we’re in big trouble.

Both Markell and Murphy say they expect scores to steadily grow as students more of their high school careers learning Common Core in the classroom. A big reason why elementary scores were noticeably better than high school scores, they argued, was because older kids have spent most of their lives learning under the old model.

And I’d argue against that claim. NAEP has shown for years that high school scores show very little improvement. That’s a serious concern, and one I doubt will be solved with the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) or Common Core. (AGAIN, I am fine with National Standards!)

It’s no secret I’m not a fan of standardized tests, mainly because I think we’re using them incorrectly.  We focus on handing out gold stars to schools who pass and slap “failing” labels on schools that don’t. But… maybe this is changing?

“There will certainly be an increase in regards to how the state allocates resources–and that’s really part of the value here–let’s understand which districts and which schools have the greatest struggles, and let’s make sure that we, as a state, are able to allocate resources to those students who need it most.”

Hey, that sounds like equitable funding. Could it be? I’m skeptical tho, since I lived through the Priority School fiasco. “Allocate resources” is usually followed with the threat of charter conversion, privatization and closure. We’ll see. That said, if these tests were actually used to help struggling schools (instead of punishing them) I’d change my tune.

When you look at the test score results notice how they line up with poverty numbers (PLI)? Of course, they do. We flippin’ know this and haven’t done a damn thing to address this situation. Wanna know how your school did on the test? You can pretty much ignore the scores and just look at the PLI percentage. Be sure to look at the charter schools’ scores.

Speaking of charters… what in the world? Can someone explain this?

East Side Charter (grade 5)

ELA 2015:  10.8%

Math 2015:  7.7%

ELA 2014:  66%

Math 2014:  70%

Kuumba Academy (grade 5)

ELA 2015:  41.2%

Math 2015:  22.9%

ELA 2014:  78.4%

Math 2014:  79%

These are the charter schools that are always held up as successes – Our Governor and former Secretary of Education repeatedly held up East Side Charter as a model for our public “Priority” schools. Now, as someone who doesn’t have a lot of faith in these tests I’m a bit conflicted. I want to just ignore the results, but the numbers above are quite startling. Why did these scores drop so much? Basically, which test is BS? Because one of them has to be, right? (I think both are, but no one listens to me!) Well, if we go by what our Governor and former Sec. of Education have said, DCAS was the bad test – which is why they replaced it with the SBA. If those supporting SBA believe this then I guess East Side Charter will now be labeled a failing School. So will a lot of other charters. Someone remind me… wasn’t one of Kuumba’s strengths its math program? I think it was, but what are they supposed to do now? Scrap it?

Hmmm… how will people reconcile these test scores with their charter school support? If there’s a silver lining here it’s that these scores are putting to rest a lot of charter school myths.

Delaware Dem summed it up: “Poor schools did poorly.” And by “poor” he means high poverty.

Note: There’s a lot of data here – there’s also a lot of data missing (percentage of special ed, ELL, etc.) – and I’m still pouring over it. Which means… I’ll probably be writing a lot more posts!