Just a cease fire vs. A just peace

Many view the recent exchange of hostility between Israel and Gaza as a border dispute with each exercising their right to self-defense. But Gaza is not a state; just ask the United Nations. Most of Gaza’s population is made up of refugees forced out of their homes in 1948 to allow for the creation of a Jewish state. Gaza today is a militarily occupied territory under Israel’s control. Israel is a sovereign state that exercises complete control over the lives of Gaza’s inhabitants. That control is practiced in part by determining names on identity cards, how much electricity the people receive and even how much food they are allowed to consume.

“Consider, for example, the fact that several years ago Israeli officials prepared a set of fine-tuned calculations determining exactly how many calories per day would be required to keep Gaza's 1.7 million people hovering at the edge of starvation: neither consuming enough to prosper, nor actually crossing the line into outright famine. The magic number they came up with is 2,279 calories per person per day. The Israelis multiplied this figure by the total population and then broke the result down into the number of truckloads of calories per day - minus a number allowing for food produced in Gaza - that they would allow into the territory. Israel even drafted lists that specify particular kinds of food that are allowed into Gaza (pasta did not make the list until 2009, for example)".[1]

How real is the threat Gaza poses to Israel? Aside from the Palestinian Authority’s interest in large deposits of natural gas off the Gaza coast, the threat that Gaza poses to Israel is not simply rockets, “but an abundance of human life itself. For to reduce a people to a "demographic threat" is to lose sight of them as people in the first place. They then become merely a living force, like a weed or a cancer (rhetorical terms that, not coincidentally, flourish in the Israeli political lexicon), whose growth needs to be kept in check, if not cauterised or eliminated altogether.”[2]

To lose sight of people as people, to see them as a weed or cancer to be cut out, is for Israel—or any other state—unpardonable. Israelis, Jews throughout the world, indeed all persons with any knowledge of history know only too well where such thinking and behavior leads.

Saree Makdisi sums up his piece, “The people of Gaza are not just a form of self-reproducing protoplasm, however. They are men, women and (mostly) children with - as the great English essayist, William Hazlitt, once put it in not dissimilar circumstances - thoughts and feelings, and interests and passions, and purposes and affections, and a right and a will to be free. These people need far more than a ceasefire: they need a just peace.[3]

---

[1]
Gaza: People need far more than a ceasefire, by Saree Makdisi, published in Aljazeera November 30, 2012 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/2012113010429209675.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid

Talk About A Gas Crisis...

What is truly going on between Israel and Gaza? Why would Hamas fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel like a child taunting a cobra? Why would Israel risk a land invasion of this small piece of land as reprisal, knowing as it does that the cost in blood would be extremely high? Is more going on here than is meeting the American public’s eye?

According to nafeez mosaddeq ahmed, writing in his blog published in the November 28, 2012 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique,[i] there is indeed more going on.

Israel is in the midst of a very critical energy shortage. There are two major causes for the crisis; Egypt’s repeated suspension of gas supplies to Israel, and the near exhaustion of Israel’s Tethys gas fields. These two factors are causing Israel to scramble to locate additional supplies or face fuel price hikes which would undermine their economy.

According to the Israeli business paper Globes[ii]; Israeli Minister of National infrastructures Dr. Uzi Landau has instructed Noble Energy to develop the Noa North gas reserve in the Mediterranean. One problem—the reserve, about 32km from Gaza’s coastline, is partly under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority in the economic zone of the Gaza Strip.

Enter Tony Blair with a plan to sell Israel Gaza’s gas. Clearly, Israel needs additional natural gas sources, while the Palestinian people sorely need new sources of revenue. An obvious win-win? Not quite.

Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon - also Minister of Strategic Affairs and a former IDF Chief of Staff stated that the gas deal “threatens Israel national security as long as Hamas remains in power.” The same man, writing in the Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs[iii] said, “It is clear that without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement.”

How does Israel justify such an overall military operation? It first must draw fire from Hamas. Israel’s assassination of Ahmed Jabari accomplished exactly that.

nafeez mosaddeq ahmed writes, “By unleashing Hamas’ rage this November, Israel was able to justify an offensive designed at least in part to begin engineering conditions conducive to its control of Gaza’s offshore gas reserves. But this is just the beginning - many analysts note that Israel is preparing the ground for a wider military assault against Iran[iv]. The tentative ceasefire announced on the 21st is, therefore, highly tenuous. If the ceasefire is breached, a military ground operation[v] is still on the cards. With over 140 dead in Gaza, compared to five in Israel, Operation Pillar of Defence has vindicated those in Palestine who think violence against Israel is the only option left[vi]. But then again, perhaps that’s the idea.”

As disturbing as these scenarios are, more disturbing to this writer is the almost total absence of this information from any American media outlet. I am left to ask: How closely aligned is the United States with Israel in this strategy? Why haven’t I heard of this from American sources?

---

[i] http://mondediplo.com/blogs/israel-s-war-for-gaza-s-gas

[ii] http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000653642&fid=1725

[iii] http://jcpa.org/article/does-the-prospective-purchase-of-british-gas-from-gaza-threaten-israel%E2%80%99s-national-security/

[iv] http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/gaza-is-testing-the-limits-of-irans-mideast-ambitions/article5518938/?service=mobile

[v] http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/cease-fire-announced-israel-gaza-conflict

[vi] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/21/israel-gaza-ceasefire-fragile_n_2172876.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&just_reloaded=1

Dark Clouds Gather over Maine Public Schools

As a member of the school board of RSU/MSAD 40, I was recently asked by a citizen of my town to sum up what was happening on the local education front. What follows constitutes my response.

Dear____________,

In replying to your questions please understand above all else that I speak only for myself as a private citizen and Board member, not for the Board as a whole. With that understood:

Perhaps the biggest problem facing RSU/MSAD 40 is the same faced by all Maine districts--funding.  

      We are facing the very ugly menace of the possible Sequester of education (and other) funding on January 2, 2013. For an explanation see:  http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/AASA%20Sequestration%20July%202012.pdf  as well as http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/. 

     The Maine DOE in anticipation of Sequestration has suggested that districts keep within 75% of budget while this threat remains. After placing our children on a very lean education “diet” we are being told to cut back still further.

      Congress is dragging its feet on the re-authorization of the ESEA (now known as NCLB—No Child Left Behind). This law in its current form obviously needs extensive amending

(http://www.nsba.org/Advocacy/Key Issues/NCLB/ProposedRecommendations ).

      Because Maine public schools rely heavily upon funding provided through NCLB, we are applying for easements from some of NCLG’s more onerous requirements (http://www.pressherald.com/news/finding-new-way-to-grade-schools_2012-09-04.html?pageType=mobile&id=1) Here in Maine, most of our schools are eligible for Title 1 funding that goes to schools where 40% or more of the students receive free or reduced price lunches. Even a cursory internet search of either NCLB or ESEA with emphasis on “re-authorization” will reveal much to the curious.

5    Some Maine districts already are receiving push-back from their taxpayers when proposed education budgets are submitted. Less federal funding, the federal threat of sequestration of much of what is provided and with the state unable or unwilling to meet their legal share of education funding even with a formula that is under review for its possible (read definite) unfairness to rural schools are joining together to place public school districts between a rock and a hard place.

(http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/11/news/mid-maine/rsu-19s-superintendent-lays-out-scenarios-cuts-to-address-3m-budget-deficit/)

6    Add to this the specter of needed local funds being siphoned off by charter, digital, and other private-enterprise-for-profit and non-profit schools in the name of “choice” and the problem grows exponentially. Large private corporations are moving into a perceived vacuum seeing much potential profit in Maine’s educational dollars.  Unlike these new entities, Maine’s public schools, with little appreciation and growing criticism, must and do provide an education to all Maine's citizens

.

With regard to a Digital Learning Policy; as a state we have none. Although our legislature has made some progress (Maine Revised Statute Title 20-A, Chapter 802: MAINE ONLINE LEARNING PROGRAM) the state DOE has dropped the ball. Unlike the state of Washington which leads the way in examining and proposing policy in this crucial area (http://digitallearning.k12.wa.us/about/reports/Online_Learning_District_Policy_Report_to_Legislature.pdf), (http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/state-has-outsourced-policy-on-virtual-schools_2012-09-05.html) and (http://bangordailynews.com/2012/09/06/opinion/would-you-send-your-child-to-a-virtual-school/) 

Also on the policy front: This was a very busy year for the Maine Legislature as they considered and passed a record number of Bills directly affecting public schools—so many that I found it necessary to attend a full day seminar given by the legal firm Drummond and Woodsum to try to understand the implications for the district I serve. Among the new Laws that will each require substantial work on local policy, are:

Changes to Maine’s Freedom of Access Statute

Changes to Maine’s Teacher and Principal Evaluation Laws

Changes to Maine’s Student Expulsion Statute

 Amendments to Maine’s Truancy Law

Changes to Maine’s Bullying Statute

Standards-Based Graduation Requirements

Changes to Student Enrollment Laws

Changes to Main’s Rules on Student Restraint and Seclusion

New Statute and Rules dealing with Head Injury/Concussion

This is a very busy year for our education professionals and policy makers. I can only pray that all this effort somehow compliments the education of our children. As parents, grandparents and citizens it up to us to guarantee it does. No government entity will do it for us.

Do not subject my child to any test…

Anyone who is interested in public education cannot help but be bothered by declining scores on standardized, high stakes, national tests. A steady increase has turned into a steady decline and is now flat-lining  across a very bothersome plateau.

A recent piece in the Washington Post entitled, The complete list of problems with high-stakes standardized tests, written by Marion Brady and appearing in Valerie Strauss’ informative column “The Answer Sheet”, gives a very succinct, teacher’s view of the value of such tests:

“Teachers (at least the ones the public should hope their taxes are supporting) oppose the tests because they focus so narrowly on reading and math that the young are learning to hate reading, math, and school; because they measure only “low level” thinking processes; because they put the wrong people — test manufacturers — in charge of American education; because they allow pass-fail rates to be manipulated by officials for political purposes; because test items simplify and trivialize learning.

Teachers oppose the tests because they provide minimal to no useful feedback; are keyed to a deeply flawed curriculum adopted in 1893; lead to neglect of physical conditioning, music, art, and other, non-verbal ways of learning; unfairly advantage those who can afford test prep; hide problems created by margin-of-error computations in scoring; penalize test-takers who think in non-standard ways.

Teachers oppose the tests because they radically limit their ability to adapt to learner differences; encourage use of threats, bribes, and other extrinsic motivators; wrongly assume that what the young will need to know in the future is already known; emphasize minimum achievement to the neglect of maximum performance; create unreasonable pressures to cheat.

Teachers oppose the tests because they reduce teacher creativity and the appeal of teaching as a profession; are culturally biased; have no “success in life” predictive power; lead to the neglect of the best and worst students as resources are channeled to lift marginal kids above pass-fail “cut lines;” are open to massive scoring errors with life-changing consequences.

Teachers oppose the tests because they’re at odds with deep-seated American values about individual differences and worth; undermine a fundamental democratic principle that those closest to and therefore most knowledgeable about problems are best positioned to deal with them; dump major public money into corporate coffers instead of classrooms.”

Maybe it is time we listen to those who have a bird’s eye view and very high stakes in what is going on in our classrooms—the teachers. Retired teacher Marion Brady summed up his opinions thusly: “(There) ought to be an option for every child’s parent or guardian — the right to say, without being pressured or penalized by state or local authority, “Do not subject my child to any test that doesn’t provide useful, same-day or next-day information about performance.”

Standard-Based Education: Two Misconceptions

As the education community moves inexorably toward "standards based education" I would like to address two common misconceptions. The first is that SBE removes student motivation. Some students may exceed the standard, but why bother when attaining the minimum will do to pass and ultimately graduate?"
As you are aware, currently a grade of C or in some cases D will meet the minimum requirements for passing; yet many give more effort and attain higher grades. Why do they bother when attaining a D orC will move them to graduation?
Under SBE the D and C are no more. You may attain a 1 (failure to demonstrate any mastery), 2 (better, but still no cigar), 3 (SBE's equivalent of a B and the new minimum acceptable demonstration needed before moving on), 4 (demonstrates mastery of the subject matter both in theory and application.
It is also being claimed by some that standards-based education suppresses teacher innovation and integrity because focus is forced to shift from education to meeting the standard.
I suppose teaching to the test (current practice) or still worse, moving a student along for purely social reasons invigorates and propels educators to innovate and excel in their profession?
Without a doubt Standards Based Education (an unfortunate use of the word standard in the title in that it conjures up mediocrity) is a work in progress with many kinks and slippery spots. With the help of teachers and administrators applying innovation and corrective maneuvers--over time--SBE at least shows potential, whereas the industrial model now in place has grown weary, stale, ineffective and hampers student's innate learning abilities.
The standards group, as some call it, being made up of teachers and other education professionals, has and continues to work long and hard across the spectrum of concerns and how standards influences teaching and learning. They are faithfully fulfilling their responsibility as educators. 
By the way; responsibility should never be confused with what seems to be an overused word these days: "Accountability". Making educators too accountable to too many absolves them of responsibility. In Finland, a country boasting one of the best educational systems in the world, teachers and administrators are entrusted with the responsibility of educating. There is no word in the Finnish language for "accountability".

State supported mayhem

LD 1859 "An Act to Protect Firearm Ownership During Times of Emergency." http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP137701.asp was recently passed as "emergency legislation" and sent to our Governor for his signature. The bill is literally a word for word copy of a sample bill written by the infamous far right organization ALEC. Any doubt that the Koch brothers have a grip on our Maine Legislature should now be a thing of the past.

The following letter, composed by my wife but signed by us both,was sent to our state representative and senator. Sadly, it was too late.  Following its text I am including the responses we received.

Subject: LD 1859


After all the public concern in the aftermath of the recent tragedy in Florida, and the “Kill at Will” (stand your ground) law that applies in various states in this country, I was so relieved to think that at least in our great state of Maine, laws like this do not exist. So today when I read about LD 1859, I was gravely concerned.


Apparently during this legislative session Rep. Michael Shaw (D-Standish) submitted a bill titled "An Act to Protect Firearm Ownership During Times of Emergency." co-sponsored by Senator Brian Langley (R-Ellsworth). The bill, LD 1859, removes the ability of law officials or the state from prohibiting or restricting the “possession, use, carrying, transfer (sale), transportation, storage or display” of guns or ammunition during a declared state of emergency.  It removes the power of the Governor to suspend or limit the sale, dispensing and transportation of firearms during a state of emergency.  And it holds a law enforcement official or public employee civilly liable for any violation of the law.


Normally, a lead time of at least two weekends is given before a bill has a public hearing. A work session is held several days after the hearing, not the next day. But in this case, the bill was referred to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee on Tuesday, March 13, 2012.  The following day, Wednesday, March 14, the committee held a public hearing on the bill and on Thursday, March 15, they held a work session and voted unanimously to approve the bill.


How much time did this committee have to review this bill? Significantly, how much time did the public have to become aware of the bill and to attend the public hearing? Did that committee consider all the potential and grave harm such legislation could lead to, including chaos, lawlessness, vigilante-ism, and an environment of fear, with each to himself over all others. Did the members of the committee consult with law enforcement, mental health providers and consumers, and others who would be responsible for prevailing law and order during an emergency crisis situation? What would the consequences of the law be on their ability to protect and provide for the health and safety of all of us?


The state  goes far beyond the protection of the ability to bear arms when it removes the ability of any law enforcement official or government agency to address issues related to firearms during a state of emergency.  This law potentially removes our protections, taking away any authority to prohibit or restrict the “possession, use, carrying, transfer (sale), transportation, storage or display” of a firearm. Further, it removes the power of the Governor to “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing and transportation” of firearms during a declared state of emergency.


Emergencies are by their very nature chaotic situations.  Do we really want to limit the ability of the governor and local law enforcement to determine the best course of action to take during a state of emergency?  At the very least, shouldn’t we have a comprehensive public discussion on this before it becomes law?


Please DO NOT support this bill. Please encourage others to NOT SUPPORT this bill. Thank you.


Our State Senator, Chris Johnson, replied:
Thanks for sharing your concerns about LD 1859.
Unfortunately that bill was already enacted on April 2nd.
I did vote against it, but it received the 2/3 necessary and has been enacted as an emergency bill, awaiting the Governor's signature.


State Rep. Sanderson replied:

This bill went under the hammer in the house and senate already for it had unanimous support. 

Though I have a differing view on this bill from you, I understand what you are saying however, in times of crisis that would be huge enough to declare a state of emergency precipitating the need to confiscate a persons firearms, the only people who would possibly  surrender them would be law abiding citizens.

These are the last people I would ever remove firearms from for it leaves them without protection for their home's and families if needed.

People who would act outside the law and seek to harm, steal, or attack others would not willing surrender them, leaving the law abiding population without personal defense when and if proper law enforcement officials are engaged in handling a crisis.

This bill does not resemble Florida's "Kill at will" legislation in the least and most certainly does not change any of the parameters outlined in our current laws in regard to what constitutes appropriate defensive action to defend oneself if need be when faced with a personal attack.

I also understand your point in regard to timely hearing and public vetting.  Unfortunately, when it gets later in the short session, the rules for the two week  and one week span between the public hearing and work session is suspended because of time.  I wish we had been able to hear the bill earlier in the session to afford the time necessary however, there was much support for this at the public hearing and law enforcement had no issues with it to my recollection.  (My files are in the committee room and I will reference them and get back to you if there was any testimony in opposition when I get to the state house this evening for session).

Thank you for writing and if you could also let you (wife) know of this response I'd appreciate it.  She also sent me an e-mail on this issue.

Take care and if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Thank you,

Deb

http://www.examiner.com/gun-control-in-portland-me/what-happens-when-alec-comes-to-maine-gun-bill-slammed-through-legislature-1

Standard-Based Education

There is no question that standards-based education will set aside traditional methods of instruction used to educate students since the late 1800s. Neither is there any question that a change is desperately needed. The disturbing question remains: Is standard-based education the best model in existence to replace the century+ old industrial model?
I am anxious as I watch this change approach us like a tsunami that seemingly cannot be stopped. My anxiety is increased when I read such articles as Teacher: One (maddening) day working with the Common Core, in the Washington Post.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/teacher-one-madden... commoncore/2012/03/15/gIQA8J4WUS_blog.html). 

Simply because this new system will replace an old worn out system is not sufficient reason that it should be embraced. Are there better models out there, which are being ignored (e.g., Finland, Singapore)? Are we racing headlong into this drastic change, thus possibly putting our students at risk, in a disguised attempt to acquire federal money (i.e., the Race to the Top)?
It is past time that we apply a little braking, not enough to stop, but enough to slow a bit and proceed cautiously. There are many wrinkles in the common cores; wrinkles big enough to wreck an already damaged system.

Where There's Smoke

After a thorough reading of LD 1778 as it was voted out of Committee, I tended to waver in my opposition, but quickly snapped back to my senses.

1)     At first it impressed me that LD 1778 conferred on the Directors (read Commissioners for MSHA) no more or less authority than is conferred upon School Board Directors like myself. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks: Unlike the School Board Directors, each of whom is elected separately by members of the town they are from and serve only one incumbent—the good of the district they serve, -- MSHA Commissioners would be overwhelmingly serving at the will of the current Governor. So much for MSHA being out of the sphere of political influence as was intended at its creation

2)     The Chair of the Commissioners, in being given the vote "when it affects outcome” instead of only “in the event of a tie”, can cause a tie (e.g., 3 pro 4 con the Chair votes pro therefore causing a tie--a different outcome.)

3)     LD 1778 may have been unanimously voted out of committee, but hopefully it still faces serious debate and amendments from both Houses of the Legislature. Hopefully.

4)      If LD 1778 becomes law, MSHA will be TOTALLY under the control of the Governor--MSHA's budget will be open to raids from the Legislature thus killing MSHA's credit and bond ratings --already negatively affected by the current power squabbles. In short, it will give total oversight to the Governor at an extreme cost to the raison d’être of MSHA.

Let the Commissioners face the Advice and Consent of a Senate confirmation process after being nominated. Then, perhaps, allow the State Treasurer to serve as Chair. Otherwise stop playing and have the Governor appoint a MSHA Director whom he can hire and fire whenever he feels the need.  All else in the current proposed legislation is pure smoke. 

Equality, Opportunity, Equity

In his January 23rd column in the New York Times entitled “Free Market Socialism”, David Brooks writes:

"Democrats, meanwhile, have shifted their emphasis from lifting up the poor to pounding down the rich. Democratic candidates no longer emphasize early childhood education and community-building. Instead they embrace the pseudo-populist Occupy Wall Street hokum — the opiate of the educated classes.

This materialistic ethos emphasizes reducing inequality instead of expanding opportunity. Its policy prescriptions begin (and sometimes end) with raising taxes on the rich. This makes you feel better if you detest all the greed-heads who went into finance. It does nothing to address those social factors, like family breakdown, that help explain why American skills have not kept up with technological change."

I must say that I admire and respect Mr. Brooks immensely, but as far as his belief that there exists a chasm between expanding opportunity and reducing inequality, he misses the point more than slightly. In fact, he is wrong.

In a January 4, 2012 article in The Atlantic entitled "What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success", Anu Partanen lucidly points out that perhaps the best public school system on the planet exists in Finland.

Partanen often quotes Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education's Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?

Now to the point--to hit the mark squarely with no deviance--I return to Sahlberg: " It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important -- as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform -- Finland's experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity."

The problem facing America is the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addresses.

I believe that the Occupy Movement, if it is stressing anything, is stressing equity; both in the financial sphere and our society as a whole. By striving toward equality we cannot help but provide opportunity--for all. To rewrite Mr. Brooks: To ensure there’s skilled labor for US businesses we must champion different policies: successful training programs, better coordination between colleges and employers, better treatment for superstarteachers, more child care options and better early childhood education. 

How? By focusing more on equality and equity both in education and our society at large and less on competition. That's how.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

From Vanity Fair May 2011
INEQUALITY
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.