Along with billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad, Governor Schwarzenegger spoke at the Education Writers Association annual meeting in Los Angeles today (I'm here as a panelist). As someone who's seen the The Terminator more times than I'd care to admit (okay, 30), I have to say it was kind of cool.
The panelists were seated in a single row on the stage, with a big wooden podium on the side. About halfway through the session, after Broad had finished speaking, the governor suddenly sat up, walked over to the podium, grabbed it, and deliberately hauled it back about five feet. Then he says (turn on your mental Schwarzenegger accent now), "I wanted to be sure the podium wasn't blocking the view of the people over on the side there." (It was.) Then he continues, "Plus my chest is sticking out so people can't see Eli here." Everyone laughs.
So, in the space of about 15 seconds, the governor shows awareness, robust physicality, uncommon concern for the people relegated to the side of the room, spontaneity, unpredictability, light self-deprecation, and good humour. When the governor sees a problem, he doesn't wait for permission or ask for help--he fixes it, with his bare hands. How do you go from Conan the Destroyer to the California governor's office? Like that.
A lot of the discussion focused on ED in 08, the new $60 million initiative funded by the Gates and Broad Foundations (both of which have funded Education Sector) to put education reform in the center of the 2008 presidential election agenda. Broad said his goal is to raise the standard of discourse, to not let candidates get away with the "pablum" of simply saying "I'm in favor of better schools and better teachers." This strikes me as an important goal. Political candidates often free-ride on the public's broad support for education without ever putting any concrete proposals on the table and owning up to their monetary or political price tag.
One complication, however, is that ED in 08 (also known as Strong American Schools), isn't just pushing candidates to have some real education agenda; it also wants them to support a specific trio of policies: more learning time for students, common academic standards across states, and tying teacher pay to things like subject specialty, performance, and working in high-poverty schools.
The politically controversial aspects of some of these issues aside, I wonder how ED in 08 will react if a major political candidate puts forth an education agenda that meets the test of seriousness, but doesn't focus on these issues. Is a genuine commitment to education as a first-tier issue enough, or does the policy agenda have to fall in line too?
Strong American Schools is being led by former Los Angeles Unified Schools Superintendent and Colorado governor Roy Romer, who has a blog. Perhaps we'll find out on the postings there as the campaign heats up.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Education in the Campaign
Alexander Russo has an uncharacteristically long post about why he doesn't think much of Eli Broad's and Bill Gates' efforts to make education a core issue in the 2008 campaign. I don't think his general point is totally crazy, but a lot of his analysis is off-base. For example, Alexander says:
True, presidential campaigns, even the unprecedented 2000 campaign in which education was a central issue, aren't won or lost on education as an issue per se. Having a better teacher performance pay plan probably isn't going to give one campaign a huge leg up on another, for example. But, as Andy and I have written previously, the way candidates choose to talk about education, and the proposals they make, have a symbolic value in shaping voters' perceptions of them as candidates and people that can impact the core dynamics of the race. Bush didn't win in 2000 because people thought the specific proposals in his education plan were awesome. But Bush's education plan in 2000, and the rhetoric it allowed him to employ about closing achievement gaps and helping disadvantaged kids, was critical to supporting his claims of being a "compassionate conservative" and convincing middle-class white women it was ok to vote for the guy because he wasn't a mean, Gingrich-style conservative. (Funny how that all ended up, eh? Not to mention that Gingrich himself is now seen in some corners as a viable '08 candidate, but I digress.) Similarly, Democrats who are willing to take on some of their own interest groups and make hard decisions on education can show they've got cojones in a way that doesn't involve treatening to attack other countries. Wonks have a tendency to think of education policy disputes as being about technical issues and competing interests, but we have to remember that at heart debates about education are debates about our deepest-held values and how we transmit them to the next generation. They're about the thing many voters love most--their children--so they have tremendous emotional power if they're deployed effectively.
There's a pretty wierd paradox operating here, though: Just as candidates can use the education issue to help define perceptions of themselves and their values, they can also use their prominence to fundamentally reshape the parameters of public debate around education, challenging old assumptions and putting new ideas on the table (this goes for other issues, too). But the federal government, including the president, actually has precious little real say in most of the really gritty education policy decisions that directly impact kids' lives. Federal policy does make a difference, and the presidential campaigns have an impact beyond simply the policies they might enact in office, because they shape public opinion and perceptions on the issue, but it's an oddly indirect kind of impact.
btw, check out Education Sector's "8 for 2008" for 8 (who'da thunk it?) education policy ideas we think would be smart for candidates to adopt in the 2008 campaign, both for what they'd say about the candidates and because they're substantively good ideas for kids and the country.
But education has a long track record for being discussed only intermittently, and for being influential only in the rarest of circumstances. Nearly every candidate has an education plan but few races are influenced by education issues (unless you count social issues like prayer in the classroom, creationism, support for private and parochial schools, etc.)
True, presidential campaigns, even the unprecedented 2000 campaign in which education was a central issue, aren't won or lost on education as an issue per se. Having a better teacher performance pay plan probably isn't going to give one campaign a huge leg up on another, for example. But, as Andy and I have written previously, the way candidates choose to talk about education, and the proposals they make, have a symbolic value in shaping voters' perceptions of them as candidates and people that can impact the core dynamics of the race. Bush didn't win in 2000 because people thought the specific proposals in his education plan were awesome. But Bush's education plan in 2000, and the rhetoric it allowed him to employ about closing achievement gaps and helping disadvantaged kids, was critical to supporting his claims of being a "compassionate conservative" and convincing middle-class white women it was ok to vote for the guy because he wasn't a mean, Gingrich-style conservative. (Funny how that all ended up, eh? Not to mention that Gingrich himself is now seen in some corners as a viable '08 candidate, but I digress.) Similarly, Democrats who are willing to take on some of their own interest groups and make hard decisions on education can show they've got cojones in a way that doesn't involve treatening to attack other countries. Wonks have a tendency to think of education policy disputes as being about technical issues and competing interests, but we have to remember that at heart debates about education are debates about our deepest-held values and how we transmit them to the next generation. They're about the thing many voters love most--their children--so they have tremendous emotional power if they're deployed effectively.
There's a pretty wierd paradox operating here, though: Just as candidates can use the education issue to help define perceptions of themselves and their values, they can also use their prominence to fundamentally reshape the parameters of public debate around education, challenging old assumptions and putting new ideas on the table (this goes for other issues, too). But the federal government, including the president, actually has precious little real say in most of the really gritty education policy decisions that directly impact kids' lives. Federal policy does make a difference, and the presidential campaigns have an impact beyond simply the policies they might enact in office, because they shape public opinion and perceptions on the issue, but it's an oddly indirect kind of impact.
btw, check out Education Sector's "8 for 2008" for 8 (who'da thunk it?) education policy ideas we think would be smart for candidates to adopt in the 2008 campaign, both for what they'd say about the candidates and because they're substantively good ideas for kids and the country.
I Love My Laptop, but.....
New York Times has a good look at the limitations of programs giving every student in a school or grade a laptop. Maine, Michigan and a number of school district have been among those experimenting with such programs. There are lots of problems: laptops break and need to be repaired; teachers often have limited technological savvy, and even those who are computer wizzes often have little idea how to use the computers effectively for instruction; kids are good at figuring out how to abuse the technology for non-educational purposes (or, at least, acquiring an education in matters adults might prefer they didn't). Moreover, equipping every kid with a laptop can be expensive, and those resources might be better spent on other activities. But the biggest reason I've been skeptical of these proposals when they've appeared in the states is that they always seem heavy on the "gee-whiz-technology-is-awesome" compenent and the "big-ideas" component, but light on any coherent theory of change about how technology is really going to improve instruction. Yes, there are a lot of cool things that teachers could potentially do with computers, but just being cool isn't enough: the activity has to produce real improvements in kids knowledge, understanding, or abilities; and those benefits have to be weighed against the benefits of alternative, possibly cheaper, investments.
Off-topic: Check out the t-shirt on the kid in the middle of the big picture at the top of this article (NYT says his name is Jeff Hendel). I think it's inappropriate for school, and am pretty sure that if one of my dad's students showed up in it, they'd be wearing their gym clothes (or at least the shirt inside out) for the rest of the day. But it kinda cracks me up.
Off-topic: Check out the t-shirt on the kid in the middle of the big picture at the top of this article (NYT says his name is Jeff Hendel). I think it's inappropriate for school, and am pretty sure that if one of my dad's students showed up in it, they'd be wearing their gym clothes (or at least the shirt inside out) for the rest of the day. But it kinda cracks me up.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
A Clear Day in D.C.
Nelson Smith reports that the D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation is contracting with the See Forever Foundation, the people who run D.C.'s nationally recognized Maya Angelou Public Charter School, to take over operation of the city's infamous Oak Hill Youth Center. The See Forever folks have their work cut out for them, but this is a promising sign. As Mayor Fenty takes control of the D.C. Public Schools, I hope he'll consider a similar approach and seek out charter and other school operators with a record of success, both in D.C. and elsewhere, to create and run schools in neighborhoods and for populations that have historically been ill-served by the city's schools.
If You're Healthy and You Know It
A new study from the Children's Health Fund finds that one in four children lacked health insurance at some point last year. It's crazy that a country as affluent as the United States doesn't guarantee health care for all its children. Children's health care is pretty cheap, and failure to identify and properly treat common childhood health problems, such as ear infections, can have serious and lasting negative consequences. This is a real issue for schools: Kids who have a lot of absences due to untreated asthma, or who can't concentrate because of an untreated toothache, are going to have a harder time learning.
The Children's Health Fund uses mobile medical units to deliver health care services to children who lack access to health care. Schools are also doing interesting things to try to help address this problem: Community Academy, a charter school in Washington, D.C., has a pediatrician on staff; Young Women's Leadership Academy, a charter school in Chicago, has an onsite clinic that provides health care, including reproductive health care, for its students. These are innovative responses to an important problem, but they're still stopgaps against a much bigger problem.
The Children's Health Fund uses mobile medical units to deliver health care services to children who lack access to health care. Schools are also doing interesting things to try to help address this problem: Community Academy, a charter school in Washington, D.C., has a pediatrician on staff; Young Women's Leadership Academy, a charter school in Chicago, has an onsite clinic that provides health care, including reproductive health care, for its students. These are innovative responses to an important problem, but they're still stopgaps against a much bigger problem.
Longhorns' Lender Lists
Via New America Foundation, some pretty eye-opening documents (pdf) coming out of Texas
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
College Admission, Continued
Jay Mathews' weekly Class Struggle column focuses on college admissions, referencing the piece on the same topic I wrote for the American Prospect Online a couple of weeks ago. In short: the declining college admissions rates you read about in the newspaper every year aren't an accurate measure of whether it's actually getting harder to get into an elite college. Matt Yglesias weighs in here.
Jay raises a legitimate question in wondering whether the increase in the number of college admissions might actually be a function of colleges adjusting their policies in the face of declining yield (the ratio of enrollments to admissions). In the context of this analysis, the answer is no. During the same time period that Ivy League admissions rose by 10.6%, as noted in the Prospect article, Ivy League enrollments increased by 10.8%. (All the data comes from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, nces.ed.gov/ipeds) In retrospect, I probably should have found a way to work that number into the original piece.
I can't help but note that on the same day Jay's thoughtful column runs, the Post print edition features a brand-new article about...drumroll...how colleges are rejecting more applicants than ever before. It concludes thusly:
Jay raises a legitimate question in wondering whether the increase in the number of college admissions might actually be a function of colleges adjusting their policies in the face of declining yield (the ratio of enrollments to admissions). In the context of this analysis, the answer is no. During the same time period that Ivy League admissions rose by 10.6%, as noted in the Prospect article, Ivy League enrollments increased by 10.8%. (All the data comes from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, nces.ed.gov/ipeds) In retrospect, I probably should have found a way to work that number into the original piece.
I can't help but note that on the same day Jay's thoughtful column runs, the Post print edition features a brand-new article about...drumroll...how colleges are rejecting more applicants than ever before. It concludes thusly:
And in the end? Even after all those rejection letters, things have a way of working out. Every fall, UCLA does a national survey of freshmen.Such a contradiction. Why might that be....
Most of them say they're at their first choice college.
Truth on Teacher Quality
Nicholas Kristoff gets everything right in his Times column($) about teacher policy, which basically re-summarizes the findings and conclusions of Gordon, Kane, and Stager's widely-discussed Hamilton Project paper. Long-time Quick and ED readers know all about the report, of course, since we blogged about it on April 14th...of 2006. But better late than never, I say. To quote our post from last year:
"For decades researchers have been struggling to tease out bits of evidence pointing to the small impact of various traditional methods of categorizing teachers--certified, uncertified, alt-route, has a Master's degree, licensure exam scores, this disposition, that disposition, etc. etc. Some of these things matter a little, or somewhat; some (like having a Masters' degree) appear not to matter at all. The lack of definitive results has left plenty of room for people of different camps to comfortably keep various ideological arguments going ad infinitum, with little danger of actually resolving the issue and thus having to find something else to do.
But at the same time, research has also consistently found huge variations in teacher effectiveness within any category of teacher you care to name--old or young, certified or not, black or white, short or tall. Some teachers are just much, much better than others, regardless of external labels or credentials.
The Gordon paper simply takes these finding to their logical conclusion: instead of shaping teacher policy around things we know don't matter very much, let's shape teacher policy around things we know matter a lot. Instead of fighting a losing up-front battle to filter and sort prospective teachers based on qualities that may have a tenuous connection to success in the classroom, let's filter and sort them based on actual success in the classroom.
This would be a seismic change in the way teachers are prepared, hired, and treated as professionals. Really, an earth-spins-backward-on-its-axis, time-reverses-direction, Margot-Kidder-flies-up-out-of-a-ditch magnitude of change. It would mean taking seriously a fact that most educators know intuitively yet is largely absent from teacher policy: teaching is an extraordinarily complicated endeavor, and people find different ways to be good at it. You can train and test prospective teachers, give them knowledge and skill, and those things are important, but once they get into the classroom some teachers bring additional talents, work ethic, intelligence, drive, etc. to bear, and others don't. Those differences matter a lot to student learning.
This report has the courage to take seriously plain facts that many people know but are unwilling to act upon, because doing so would be a huge challenge to the status quo."
Also, along the same lines, see this Chart You Can Trust up on the EdSector home page today, focusing on how states have largely failed to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers to succeed in the classroom.
"For decades researchers have been struggling to tease out bits of evidence pointing to the small impact of various traditional methods of categorizing teachers--certified, uncertified, alt-route, has a Master's degree, licensure exam scores, this disposition, that disposition, etc. etc. Some of these things matter a little, or somewhat; some (like having a Masters' degree) appear not to matter at all. The lack of definitive results has left plenty of room for people of different camps to comfortably keep various ideological arguments going ad infinitum, with little danger of actually resolving the issue and thus having to find something else to do.
But at the same time, research has also consistently found huge variations in teacher effectiveness within any category of teacher you care to name--old or young, certified or not, black or white, short or tall. Some teachers are just much, much better than others, regardless of external labels or credentials.
The Gordon paper simply takes these finding to their logical conclusion: instead of shaping teacher policy around things we know don't matter very much, let's shape teacher policy around things we know matter a lot. Instead of fighting a losing up-front battle to filter and sort prospective teachers based on qualities that may have a tenuous connection to success in the classroom, let's filter and sort them based on actual success in the classroom.
This would be a seismic change in the way teachers are prepared, hired, and treated as professionals. Really, an earth-spins-backward-on-its-axis, time-reverses-direction, Margot-Kidder-flies-up-out-of-a-ditch magnitude of change. It would mean taking seriously a fact that most educators know intuitively yet is largely absent from teacher policy: teaching is an extraordinarily complicated endeavor, and people find different ways to be good at it. You can train and test prospective teachers, give them knowledge and skill, and those things are important, but once they get into the classroom some teachers bring additional talents, work ethic, intelligence, drive, etc. to bear, and others don't. Those differences matter a lot to student learning.
This report has the courage to take seriously plain facts that many people know but are unwilling to act upon, because doing so would be a huge challenge to the status quo."
Also, along the same lines, see this Chart You Can Trust up on the EdSector home page today, focusing on how states have largely failed to hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers to succeed in the classroom.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Creeping Big Brotherishness
Objectively speaking, I'm sure that new tools like Edline, which gives parents up-to-the-minute information about their children's academic progress--class attendance, quiz grades, the whole megillah--are probably a good thing. Identify problems early, keep families engaged with the school community, etc.
But I can't help but think that if such a tool existed when I was a senior in high school, my 17th year would have been a whole lot less fun. Once I got accepted into college, I basically stopped going to class and instead spent all my time with my buddies and girlfriend, playing ultimate frisbee and applying all of my analytic skills to calculating the precise combination of date, time of day, convenience store location, and apathetic/bribeable clerk that would most likely result in my being able to buy beer. My parents didn't discover this until my report card accidentally got mailed home six months later. Of course, being parents, they immediately panicked and assumed that the abundance of Cs, Ds, and Fs were evidence of a debilitating addiction to LSD and/or crack cocaine, which in retrospect I feel kind of bad about. That aside, I don't regret my decision for a moment; those were good times. Whence the next generation's "Dazed and Confused" if this trend is left unchecked?
Speaking of scary Internet monitoring and beer (and really, you can't do this often enough), can it really be true that Millersville University of Pennsylvania denied a 25-year old student a teaching certificate on the grounds that her MySpace page has a picture of her drinking a presumably alcoholic beverage at a party, along with the caption "Drunken Pirate"? (Hat tip: This Week in Education)
But I can't help but think that if such a tool existed when I was a senior in high school, my 17th year would have been a whole lot less fun. Once I got accepted into college, I basically stopped going to class and instead spent all my time with my buddies and girlfriend, playing ultimate frisbee and applying all of my analytic skills to calculating the precise combination of date, time of day, convenience store location, and apathetic/bribeable clerk that would most likely result in my being able to buy beer. My parents didn't discover this until my report card accidentally got mailed home six months later. Of course, being parents, they immediately panicked and assumed that the abundance of Cs, Ds, and Fs were evidence of a debilitating addiction to LSD and/or crack cocaine, which in retrospect I feel kind of bad about. That aside, I don't regret my decision for a moment; those were good times. Whence the next generation's "Dazed and Confused" if this trend is left unchecked?
Speaking of scary Internet monitoring and beer (and really, you can't do this often enough), can it really be true that Millersville University of Pennsylvania denied a 25-year old student a teaching certificate on the grounds that her MySpace page has a picture of her drinking a presumably alcoholic beverage at a party, along with the caption "Drunken Pirate"? (Hat tip: This Week in Education)
The Kids Are All Right
Peggy Noonan's "We're Scaring Our Children to Death" op-ed in Friday's WSJ is both nauseating and totally nonsensical. The latter, because Noonan fluctuates between suggesting that the world is actually a more dangerous place for kids these days, and suggesting the "culture" is exposing kids to too much scary (and vulgar!) stuff to early. But there's a huge difference between these two potential problems, and without clarity around that, Noonan's views on the subject are meaningless.
Then there's this: "But another reason is that, for all our protestations about how sensitive we are, how interested in justice, how interested in the children, we are not. We are interested in politics. We are interested in money. We are interested in ourselves." I'm sorry, but modern Americans are living at a time of a-historical protection of children and preoccupation with children and their needs. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect kids, but for most of human history, close quarters and lack of privacy meant children were exposed early and regularly to the realities of sex, violence and death. Today's parents are spending more time with their kids than anytime since researchers started keeping track, and fathers in particular are spending more time with their kids than they did in the fabled 1950s 1960s. Educational toys and services for kids from birth on are rapidly-growing, multi-billion dollar industries. Child and youth indicators have been improving, not getting worse (although in recent years they've hit a troubling plateau). Kids are inherently vulnerable, growing up is really hard, and I believe strongly that society needs to do more to support parents and kids--but we shouldn't be nostalgic about some mythical past golden age of innocent childhood.
There is a real problem with media overhyping of threats to children, many of which are relatively rare or not as deadly as they're made out to be. Everyone from the producers of Dateline's seemingly constant airings of "To Catch a Predator," to NYT editors who feel the need to daily proclaim the difficulty of getting into Ivy League schools knows that scaring the beejezus out of parents is one of the best ways to gain readership and make a buck. But this kind of overhyping has bad consequences for parents, kids, and sometimes public policy.
But the most offensive thing is the class spin Noonan tries to employ here:
Apparently Noonan doesn't understand that TV sets don't come with a meter that requires you to pay in order to turn off the set or change the channel. More to the point, this faux concern with inequality is downright nauseating coming from someone who thinks that cutting taxes for the rich is more important than providing health care for poor kids or decent childcare for low-income working folks. Noonan's unwillingness to raise a finger or voice concern about child wellbeing other than when it's a convenient excuse to chastise (presumably, liberal) "makers of our culture" demonstrates that she is the one who really cares more about politics and money than children.
Then there's this: "But another reason is that, for all our protestations about how sensitive we are, how interested in justice, how interested in the children, we are not. We are interested in politics. We are interested in money. We are interested in ourselves." I'm sorry, but modern Americans are living at a time of a-historical protection of children and preoccupation with children and their needs. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect kids, but for most of human history, close quarters and lack of privacy meant children were exposed early and regularly to the realities of sex, violence and death. Today's parents are spending more time with their kids than anytime since researchers started keeping track, and fathers in particular are spending more time with their kids than they did in the fabled 1950s 1960s. Educational toys and services for kids from birth on are rapidly-growing, multi-billion dollar industries. Child and youth indicators have been improving, not getting worse (although in recent years they've hit a troubling plateau). Kids are inherently vulnerable, growing up is really hard, and I believe strongly that society needs to do more to support parents and kids--but we shouldn't be nostalgic about some mythical past golden age of innocent childhood.
There is a real problem with media overhyping of threats to children, many of which are relatively rare or not as deadly as they're made out to be. Everyone from the producers of Dateline's seemingly constant airings of "To Catch a Predator," to NYT editors who feel the need to daily proclaim the difficulty of getting into Ivy League schools knows that scaring the beejezus out of parents is one of the best ways to gain readership and make a buck. But this kind of overhyping has bad consequences for parents, kids, and sometimes public policy.
But the most offensive thing is the class spin Noonan tries to employ here:
I am not sure the makers of our culture fully notice what they are doing, what impact their work is having, because the makers of our culture are affluent. Affluence buys protection. You can afford to make your children safe. You can afford the constant vigilance needed to protect your children from the culture you produce, from the magazine and the TV and the CD and the radio. You can afford the doctors and tutors and nannies and mannies and therapists, the people who put off the TV and the Internet and offer conversation.
Apparently Noonan doesn't understand that TV sets don't come with a meter that requires you to pay in order to turn off the set or change the channel. More to the point, this faux concern with inequality is downright nauseating coming from someone who thinks that cutting taxes for the rich is more important than providing health care for poor kids or decent childcare for low-income working folks. Noonan's unwillingness to raise a finger or voice concern about child wellbeing other than when it's a convenient excuse to chastise (presumably, liberal) "makers of our culture" demonstrates that she is the one who really cares more about politics and money than children.
Who I'll Be Rooting for May 5
This month's ESPN The Magazine may have Floyd Mayweather on the cover, but I was more interested in the article profiling Oscar De La Hoya, who'll be fighting Mayweather on PPV May 5.
The article focuses on De Lay Hoya's efforts to become not just a fighter but also a major boxing promoter and in the process to transform the business to make it a respectable part of mainstream American sports. I couldn't help but see a resemblance between De La Hoya's efforts to take on powerful promoters and change some of the seedier--and unfair to boxers--aspects of the industry, and his support for public charter schools that challenge the status quo and powerful interests in education to try to deliver a more equitable education for disadvantaged kids.
In ads for the fight
The article focuses on De Lay Hoya's efforts to become not just a fighter but also a major boxing promoter and in the process to transform the business to make it a respectable part of mainstream American sports. I couldn't help but see a resemblance between De La Hoya's efforts to take on powerful promoters and change some of the seedier--and unfair to boxers--aspects of the industry, and his support for public charter schools that challenge the status quo and powerful interests in education to try to deliver a more equitable education for disadvantaged kids.
In ads for the fight
De La Hoya narrates street scenes from his hometown of East Los Angeles: "Life was a struggle -- for myself, for my family, for those who need someone to believe in, like I did. I can give back. I'm living the American dream. Estoy viviendo el sueño Americano."One of the ways that De La Hoya has given back is by putting up bank to support the founding of the Oscar De La Hoya Animo Leadership Public Charter School, an East LA charter high school (mascot: The Boxers) operated by Green Dot Public Schools. ESPN The Magazine describes him as "a natural-born politician," and his promoting efforts as "his most ambitious campaign yet," but if De La Hoya's looking for a real challenge, I'd love to see him put more of that political talent to work on behalf of charters and other promising education reforms. In any case, I know who I'll be rooting for this Cinco do Mayo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)