Uncategorized

by

New Jersey Debates Charter School Teacher Qualifications

by E. Cohen

A proposal in New Jersey would give high performing charter schools more lee way in concern to the hiring of teachers and principals for the school who don’t have a traditional background in concern to teaching. Various opponents arguments state that it would hurt the quality of the instruction that children would achieve. They also argue that public and charter schools should be held to the same standards. Supporters argue that there is a shortage of teachers in key subjects and that the regulations prevent the hiring of for example scientists, from being brought in to teach the specific specialty subject. It would be the idea of having professionals in the industry be the teachers of those subjects to the charter school students.

The conflict that has emerged according to the article, is the debate over how much freedom the charter schools should have from state mandates. The State board of education in New Jersey is expected to discuss the proposal on Wednesday to decide on the next steps. The five year program if approved would work as follows: The charter schools could hire teacher candidates with bachelor’s degrees who also satisfy two criteria from a menu of four choices: having at least a 3.0 grade point average in college, passing a basic skills test, passing a test of subject matter, and having relevant experience in work or education. The traditional path to becoming a teacher faces higher standards than this with hours of certification needed.

There are many various different arguments to whether the charter schools in New Jersey should face different standards than the public ones, with various political education leaders taking different stances on the issue.

Article by Leslie Brody, “Charter Schools Seek More Leeway in Hiring Teachers.” Wall Street Journal,  January 29, 2017. 

by

Advocates for School Choice

by K. Braun

This Washington Post article highlights National School Choice Week (NSCW; January 22-28), advocating for school choice.*  While NSCW events were coordinated across the country, the main events took place in Washington, DC. Organizers selected the capital due to its obvious political significance and also because the District of Columbia currently has “the nation’s only federally funded voucher program.” The specific confluence of circumstances as a new Republican administration begins in 2017 makes the timing of NSCW particularly advantageous for school choice supporters.

NSCW demonstrates large-scale, concerted advocacy efforts undertaken by groups to gain or retain a place on congressional members’ legislative agendas. As the House and Senate both now have a Republican majority, school choice advocates recognize an opportunity to make significant headway on favorable legislation. Event participants can encourage legislators to act, while NSCW lobbyists can work with legislators and their staffs to propose draft bill language to enact the changes that NSCW favors.

NSCW further focused legislators’ attention by building on existing media coverage of the confirmation process of Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s education secretary nominee. Participants will likely ask their senators to vote in favor of DeVos’ confirmation, as they view her as a school choice champion. (Her past actions have involved lobbying efforts to expand voucher programs and charter schools throughout the country.) Opponents of school choice likely gather at another time within their own issue-specific organizations and lobby senators just as forcefully against school choice.

Article: Brown, Emma. “DeVos receives praise at ‘National School Choice Week’ rally.” Washington Post, 24 Jan. 2017.

* The NSCW organizers define school choice as including all education types: “traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and homeschooling.” However, the article treats school choice as educational options other than public school. The article does not mention the group’s organization, but its website emphasizes that it is an “independent effort” involving partners such as chambers of commerce and schools (notably absent is mention of teachers’ groups or unions).

by

Garbage Trucks in NYC Might Go Green!

by Elisabeth Powell

Widener University Environmental Politics Student

New York City is one of the most crowded cities in America. With a high density of people there is a lot of trash and with a lot of trash there are a lot of garbage trucks. People of New York are beginning to get concerned about asthma and other health effects of these aging trucks. This increased concern made it to former Mayor Bloomberg who began to take steps to modernize the city’s fleet of diesel powered vehicles.  He signed a law to control the emissions of these garbage haulers. At least 90 percent of the vehicles must meet the emission standards by 2017. But there are also private haulers that dispose of the city’s commercial garbage and recyclables, so there is legislation trying to expand the law to control the emissions of these large trucks. If the trucks are “retrofitted” with new engines or old trucks are retired and new ones are used, particulate matter emissions would reduce by 796 tons, nitrogen oxides would reduce by 12,054 tons. The cost of the proposal is between 484- 571.4 million dollars but if the trucks are simply retrofitted with new engines, it would be greatly less. It is a good idea but the cost of garbage disposal is going to cost more for the companies, and these companies are already in economic distress from hurricane Sandy. Pollution and greenhouse gases can be decreased but it will cost the people willing to change.

by

Obama and Zichal are Never Ever Ever Getting Back Together

by Shana Kessler

Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

From Washington DC (that makes it local, right? Come on, all the cool stories were taken, and with the Federal Government in shutdown it has to count!): President Obama and his chief climate advisor Heather Zichal have called it quits, folks. Try as they might, the White House could not convince Zichal to stick around, and they are never ever ever getting back together. Zichal was the White House official to do much of the President’s heavy lifting n climate policy over the last five years, which doesn’t particularly amount to much but that has no real reflection on her. Zichal was instrumental in developing Obama’s climate plan in 2013, and the new federal standards for fuel efficiency in cars. Zichal’s job mixed outreach with environmentalists, industry and lawmakers in Washington. She helped implement policies and oversaw the administration’s response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Yet the headiness of the role did not come with authority, profile or resources such important work necessitates and deserves. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy said Zichal was extremely influential, and Al Gore even mentioned that it was left to one person to do the work without the authority it back it up.

Is this a nasty break up based on false promises of authority and/or policy? Or is this just the common trend of political figures heading into the private sector? Who’s to blame, Obama or Zichal? One thing is for sure: Obama should be judged by whether he keeps his promises reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/07/us-usa-climate-zichal-idUSBRE9960Q220131007

by

California Bill Raises Community College Tuition

by Jessica Dembeck

Widener University American Government Student

Finally, it sounds like at least one state has the accessibility for all students that universities across the nation claim to have, and now legislators have debuted a pilot program, which in essence takes away that accessibility from students. Paul Fain comments on this controversial bill that was recently passed in California in his article entitled “Two-Tiered Tuition is Back ”. According to Fain’s article, six eligible colleges will now be able to charge students the going rate for nonresident students, “which are more than three times the $46 per-credit rate that local students pay.”

That hike in tuition is supposed to channel a third of the revenue from these classes back as a resource for financial aid for low income students. Well, that sounds great in theory, but the bill itself does not offer much supervision for this trial. The California community college system seemed to have it all together prior to the passing of this bill. Compare the tuition of the Community College of Philadelphia  with those of California community colleges, and Philadelphians are looking at a technology fee that is more than half of what Californians were paying for a single credit hour.

Why are legislators in California trying to fix what wasn’t broken? On the California community colleges website , they have a bunch of statistics, but three of them stood out the most. 1) For every $1 California invests in students who graduate from college, it will receive a net return on investment of $4.50. 2) Californians with a college degree will earn $1,340,000 more than their peers with only a high school diploma. Students who earn a degree or certificate from a California community college nearly double their earnings within three years. 3)Funding for California Community Colleges has been cut by $1.5 billion since 2007-08. With all of that said, why wouldn’t the government invest in the community colleges of California instead of making the students pay three times as much?

 

by

Who’s afraid of the big bad solar panel?

by Shana Kessler

Widener University

Who’s afraid of the big bad solar panel? Apparently firefighters in Delanco, New Jersey (among other locations, but for the sake of this blog we’ll stick to this hot spot); they are not educated on how to handle fires in buildings equipped with solar panels. The result of this fear is the destruction of a Dietz & Watson warehouse that firefighters let burn for 29 hours. The warehouse was topped with 700 solar panels, that did not in any way, shape or form contribute or cause the fire in question, but due to their inadequate skills in handling solar paneled buildings they simply let the warehouse burn.

Well, that’s neither fair nor true to say exactly. They did work to keep the fire from spreading, and they did get people out. They simply did not put the fire out because they did not know how to dig a hole in the wide section of roof that was available to them. What can be done about this problem, then, as more and more structures are equipped with solar paneling? The solar industry knows of the issue, and agrees that the only thing they can do is educate first responders, especially firefighters, on solar panels. Many of their fears are based on mere speculation with no actual evidence to support, and therefore with the proper tools, legislation, and education they can learn to navigate the rooftops of solar-powered buildings without the irrational fear of electrocution.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-firefighters-are-scared-of-solar-power/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow