A new report is out concerning the state of cyber schools in Pennsylvania. It finds that
Cyber charter[s] have become an inequitable corner of Pennsylvania’s school-choice system, leaving the state’s neediest students with another bad option that their peers from better-off school districts largely avoid.
Read the full Education Week article here.
Keystone Crossroads profiled the Chester-Upland School District’s attempts to increase revenue by attracting more special education students. Here’s the logic:
In the tangled world of Pennsylvania public school financing, special education payments to charters are a particularly thorny problem.
The payments are not calculated based on the actual cost of services, which can vary widely depending on a given student’s needs. Nor are they based on the actual number of students served.
Instead, payments are calculated by a bafflingly complex formula that treats all districts and disabilities equally. The results can seem absurd, but bust budgets nonetheless.
Read the full article here.
by Autumn Herring
He dramatically changed his views on gay marriage. Here’s how he says the nation can come together. David Blankenhorn, the co-director of The Marriage Opportunity Council, spoke out in 2010 saying that he was against gay marriage. He was against gay marriage because he believed that people were not taking it seriously politically. However, one of his friends showed him a book that changed his outlook on same-sex marriage.
He completely flipped his views on the matter and is not the founder of an organization called Better Angels. Better Angels works with people from all sides to try and encourage them to be more open minded on the subject.
Blankenhorn invited both Trump and Hillary voters after the presidential election as part of the Better Angels mission to try and dispel stereotypes and get the people to agree. The discussion was around thirteen hours long, but the two groups managed to come together and find some common ground amongst one another. David now has been devoting the majority of his time to try and engage people in the act of depolarizing the nation. He most recently wrote about seven ways that you can be an effective depolarizer. I agree with what he wrote where he stated “reframing your thinking to see issues differently, or at least, not as black and white.”
Blankenhorn is a perfect person to advocate depolarizing the nation, because he himself changed his opinion about gay marriage. He was so against it and looked at it so negatively until he stopped being close minded. I think it is a good example that he can show to to people to show them that even he himself can change his political opinion on issues. To me, it is important to be open-minded, especially in regards to politics and topics such as same-sex marriage. If people were more open-minded and willing to see the other side of things our nation would not be so polarized. Diversity is important in regards to politics, and I strongly agree with David as he stated “Diverse groups make better decisions than the smartest individual. If that’s a fact and I really believe it, then no one person knows everything.”
by Mohamed Mohamedali
My action plan is to advocate for the institution of mandatory treatment, rather than jail time, prescribed by mandatory sentencing policy, for minor and nonviolent drug offenders. One political activity that has been in the news headlines in recent times in relation to this topic is the changing attitudes toward drug offenses. In 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to reduce sentences in most drug cases arguing that it was not fair and justified to sentence someone for 25 years for selling a small amount of drugs. The AG sought to reset the sentencing policies for federal judges and reduce sentencing for such crimes by an average of nearly a year (Zuckerman, 2014).
This indicated the changing wind of times and in a recent article by Alan Greenblatt on the wave of new district attorneys who are redefining justice, the author notes that new attorneys, a case in example being Kim Ogg, Harris County new attorney who wants her office along with law enforcement as a whole to pay less attention to minor drug offenses and in fact, she announced in February 2017 that she would no longer seek jail time in most cases for the crime of possessing up to four ounces of marijuana, but instead, the offenders would be diverted toward treatment instead (Greenblatt, 2017). Her sentiments are supported by Dwight Boykins, a member of the Houston City Council who notes that is that two-thirds of the people in jail are minorities and nonviolent based on minor drug offenses and this is not proof of an effective criminal justice system.
Greenblatt, A. (2017, April). Law and the New Order: A Fresh Wave of District Attorneys Is Redefining Justice. Retrieved from Governing:http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-district-attorneys-houston-criminal-justice-reform.html
Zuckerman, M. B. (2014, May 9). Get a little less tough on crime. Retrieved from U.S. News: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/09/its-time-for-prison-reform-and-an-end-to-mandatory-minimum-sentences
by Lizzie Cohen
The Keystone XL Pipeline is now back into play under President Donald Trump’s Administration, that was previously stopped under Former President Barack Obama’s Administration. The pipeline would carry approximately 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to Nebraska, where it would flow on to different refineries along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline has been debated very visibly in American politics with costs and benefits thrown around on both sides.
Those arguing for the pipeline believe the following benefits would occur.The pipeline would have a very high short term influence on job growth with thousands of jobs created for the time being, with a low long term job growth with experts projecting only 35 permanent jobs being created. It has also been estimated that the pipeline would cause an increase in tax revenue at both the state and local level along the pipeline route.
Those arguing against the pipeline believe the following costs will occur such as more carbon emissions being release into the atmosphere due to the type of oil that would be refined from the pipeline. More generally it would have the negative effects on the environment due to the pipeline, as well as disturbing native American lands that the pipeline will go through.
There are other costs and benefits that are not mentioned in the article, but overall it provides an argument for the effects that will happen from the Keystone XL pipeline. The article discusses the positive and negative effects as well as future projections that the pipeline could have on the United States as well as Canada.
by Darshan Jha
The father of student had testified against Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, claiming that his son’s education was threatened by Judge Gorsuch’s views. Defending the decision, Judge Gorsuch stated that he was bounded by the circuit precedent and he had apologized. However, the Supreme Court did not rule in whether the parents should be reimbursed.
At a time when there is a battle in the Senate to fill the 9th position on the Supreme Court, there are critics of Judge Gorsuch coming out on his previous rulings. Some of the critics against Judge Gorsuch have used his ruling on the Thompson R2-J School District v Luke P. In the court case, Judge Gorsuch had applied the “de minimis” standard and rejected the parent’s claim that the school didn’t provide enough for their son. The parents enrolled their son in a specialized school for children with autism and were asking for reimbursement of the costs because the parents claimed that the school was doing enough to provide a fair education. The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the “de minimis” standard is a low standard and stated by Chief Justice Roberts:
“When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”
This comes at a crucial time when the Education Secretary has been questioned on her policy as well the Trump Administration. Prior to this, the Education Secretary had suggested that the States are in charge of how to implement Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
by Kim Braun
Late last week, the Supreme Court decided a case increasing educational requirements that schools must provide for students with disabilities. Previous rulings stipulated that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), special education needed only to meet a standard defined as more than the minimum education. The Supreme Court now indicates that this threshold was too low. While the court did not specify that special education achieve equivalency with regular education, it lifted the standard to an “‘appropriately ambitious’” standard where “‘every child … [has] the chance to meet challenging objectives’” (qtd. in Brown and Marimow). The court also indicated that these levels would vary depending upon the unique needs of the special education student, typically delineated in individualized education plans (IEPs).
This Supreme Court decision nicely illustrates federalism at work. The court performed its checking function on the other branches by ruling on the administration of legislation. Interest groups were also evident during the process: Autism Speaks and the National School Boards Association voiced support and opposition, respectively, for raised standards. These groups, among others, filed amicus briefs during the judicial process to advocate for their members’ perspectives during the deliberations.
Interestingly, the case connects to recent Trump nominees: the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals previously decided the case. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was not involved in the initial ruling, but used the precedent in later cases he decided on that same court. The father of a student affected by a Gorsuch ruling on the standard testified against the judge’s nomination to the highest court, relating how the decision negatively affected his child. Additionally, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ responses to questions about her plans to implement IDEA concerned several confirmation committee members, who felt that she was not adequately familiar with the legislation.