Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 17:27:35

Frank Rich is back in the NY Times, thank goodness, though available only to subscribers. He notes tomorrow's anniversary of Bush's flight suit prance and the laundry list of Bush failures since. He notes Bush's remarks on the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
"We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools," Mr. Bush said on that glorious day. Three years later we know, courtesy of the Army Corps of Engineers, that our corrupt, Enron-like Iraq reconstruction effort has yielded at most 20 of those 142 promised hospitals. But we did build a palace for ourselves. The only building project on time and on budget, USA Today reported, is a $592 million embassy complex in the Green Zone on acreage the size of 80 football fields. Symbolically enough, it will have its own water-treatment plant and power generator to provide the basic services that we still have not restored to pre-invasion levels for the poor unwashed Iraqis beyond the American bunker.
Rich, like Colbert last night, recalls, too, the press's complicity in cheerleading for Bush in the runup to and early days of the war.
At the time, "Mission Accomplished" was cheered by the Beltway establishment. "This fellow's won a war," the dean of the capital's press corps, David Broder, announced on "Meet the Press" after complimenting the president on the "great sense of authority and command" he exhibited in a flight suit. By contrast, the Washington grandees mostly ignored the Downing Street memo when it was first published in Britain, much as they initially underestimated the import of the Valerie Wilson leak investigation.
From the LA Times, on the Food and Drug Administration and the Bush administration, this stunning sentence:
At the heart of the continuing stalemate over Senate confirmation of a permanent FDA commissioner is the unresolved question of what role religion and ideology should play in making science policy.
You'd think the answer would be simple, wouldn't you?
The Saturday Democrat-Gazette reported on a Little Rock School Board work session where board members made it clear that changes, perhaps seismic ones, were coming in its relationship with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. There may even be sufficient sentiment to end recognition of the CTA as a bargaining agent for teachers. One board member figures this could prompt a short strike and then a court order forcing teachers back to work. All happy as clams, you may be sure.
A negotiated contract is undoubtedly an occasional hindrance to school officials like the autocratic Superintendent Roy Brooks. It insures due process in disciplining of staff. It gives a voice to employees who otherwise risk their livelihoods by speech. The dispute, sadly, reinforces the erroneous belief that the teachers union is solely responsible when students fail to achieve as we wish. Little Rock performs better than many districts, particularly when you consider the economic and other demographic circumstances that reliably predict school outcomes. It performs worse than some others. Its situation is little different than that of hundreds of school districts nationwide, some with professional contracts negotiated by unions, some without. LR needs some peace-making, not union busting. Some open government would be good, too. It is, for example, a good time for the board to disclose who paid for the force-fed PR campaign that took time out of teachers' work days to lobby them to vote for a misbegotten "merit pay" experiment. The nominally nonpolitical Arkansas Community Foundation was used as a cutout to hide the identity of the manipulator, but we suspect Superintendent Brooks knows or could readily find out who's trying to run the School District from the shadows.
All this is prompted by a letter we received from a teacher overnight, excerpted here:
The school board's position on the current teacher contract has me experiencing a myriad of emotions. The media, board and certain administrators as well as business men who have no children in our district have made a point of villifying the CTA and classroom teachers .
The latest diatribe on the need for negotiations and contracts fails to raise 2 questions. What was the original need for this process and how does the board's attack on the process promote student learning? In the world of education, administrators come and go, but teachers remain. This is why a contract is in place. So that a teacher's livelihood cannot be treated frivilously based upon the current principal or administration's moods, whims or personal view of an educator's role. So that teacher's are not given "duties" that intefere with the preparation and execution of quality instruction. So that teachers are duly compensated. We don't have a contract to hide behind to break rules, to be subversive or to keep from working. What is most amazing, with the current shortage of quality teachers, is why the board insists on focusing on portraying teachers in a bad light, using disrespect
and threats to administrate change.Implementing policy that will create a hostile work environment for teachers
is not the answer. Change will only come when the majority of the responsibility for educating students is placed back on the student and the parent. Legislation needs to be enacted for parent's who send children to school with the idea its okay to disrespect teachers, classmates and administrators; send them with no supplies, no discipline and unprepared; who think school is a free babysitter and lunch provider!The board, and administration need to sit down with teachers and come up with a mutual vision for our school and a workable plan for success.
I love children, I love my job and I'm tired of being portrayed as the bad guy in education in Little Rock.
The ultimate question is -- How does the superintendent and the school board's current conversation DRIVE STUDENT LEARNING??????
Anonymously signed for obvious reasons
Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 20:35:16
NY Times Sunday article looks at impact of $3 gas on average folks to whom a tank of gas is a big part of their weekly expenditures. We've had the same thought. Arkansas is a state with a high per capita use of gasoline - we're a rural state, etc. We have it easy. We live two miles from work. We no longer have kids young enough to ferry to soccer, school, etc. But what about, say, the state employees, who bought a Suburban and lve in Cabot, Lonoke, Sheridan, etc. How are you coping with $3 gas?