The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Charter Schools Still Work
by Marcus Winters
.
Enforcing Immigration Law Yields Predictable
Outrage
By Thomas Gallatin: U.S. authorities announced that they had arrested more than 680 illegal immigrants in several raids conducted last week. The news brought a predictable outcry from immigration activists groups who had become accustomed to Barack liar-nObama's increasingly limited enforcement policy on illegal immigration — they called the actions a "campaign of terror." Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, wailed, "This is a new day. This is the deportation force that [Donald Trump] has been threatening since the campaign." She should settle down while we look at the facts.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly pushed back against the outrage machine, framing the raids as being both in keeping with the agency's standard operating procedures and focused on criminal illegal aliens. Kelly said, "President Trump has been clear in affirming the critical mission of DHS in protecting the nation and directed our department to focus on removing illegal aliens who have violated our immigration laws, with a specific focus on those who pose a threat to public safety, have been charged with criminal offenses, have committed immigration violations or have been deported and re-entered the country illegally."
While the leftist narrative is that Trump has enacted a new draconian anti-immigrant policy, the reality is that he has simply removed the overly restrictive limits liar-nObama imposed upon the Department of Homeland Security. "Trump really is, so far, just a return to normalcy in immigration enforcement," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "It was liar-nObama that was the radical break."
Not surprisingly though, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) demanded answers for the raids. In a letter, he wrote, "Targeting law-abiding innocent immigrant families whose only wrongdoing was crossing the border to give their children a better life, instead of focusing on removing those who have been convicted of violent crimes is a waste of limited resources and undermines law enforcement in communities across the country. ICE must come clean." It is true that most illegal immigrants are not guilty of violent crime, but by definition they are guilty of committing a criminal act. Yet Schumer seemingly has little respect for the laws of our nation.
There are an estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants living within the U.S. A week of raids netting 680 of them — aliens who were targeted by ICE officials specifically for engaging in criminal activity beyond their illegal resident status — was enough cause for the Left to engage in hyperbolic and dishonest rhetoric. But what else is new?
We should mention that in fiscal 2013 alone the liar-nObama administration deported a record 438,421 illegal aliens. Yet liar-nObama released tens of thousands of criminal aliens, while sanctuary cities protected them. So what's the deal with the over-the top outrage coming from his constituents now?
Two reasons.
1) Trump Derangement Syndrome. Democrats and the Left are still so incensed by Trump's shocking election victory they have made it their mission to resist and obstruct him at every opportunity. That includes creating outrage over any potentially controversial issue, irrespective of its merits, so as to destroy Trump.
2) Political strategy. Democrats have pretty much given up on winning back white middle America and have instead set their sights on creating a new voting block out of the nation's fastest growing and largest minority group — Hispanics. If they can build a large enough coalition of minority groups, they can then afford to ignore white middle America, a group they despise anyway. This is nothing more than identity politics — supporting illegal immigration, especially if it leads to some form of "comprehensive reform" — and it plays well with Hispanics. After all, the same thing worked with blacks. Why not try again?
The right to live and work in the U.S. is reserved only for those who are citizens of our nation. It is a privilege for foreigners. Any attempt to unlawfully apply this right beyond the clearly defined law of the land, no matter how emotionally justified, is to do violence to Rule of Law and to the rights of all citizens. And those politicians who willfully promote and advocate those who break the law should be held to account. Unfortunately, the problem has gone on for so long with little being done to address it that when someone like Trump comes along to simply enforce the law, he is deemed extreme. Thankfully, Trump is serious about fixing the problem and has been sticking to his guns on the issue. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Washington Times Lends Credibility
to Claim of Voter Fraud
by Dave Jolly
{constitution.com} ~ After both the 2008 and 2012 election victories for Barack liar-nObama, a number of verifiable evidences showed that the incidents of voter fraud were much broader than Democrats or the mainstream media were willing to admit... Yes, there was evidence of dead people, pets and felons voting in the elections. There were also verified incidents of thousands of voters registered in more than one state casting votes in more than one state. Some Democrat voter registration people were videoed telling voters how to vote more than once. One poll worked in Cincinnati admitted to voting multiple times; some for other family members and even for a relative that had died months before. Then there were numerous documented cases voting machines automatically switching votes from Mitt Romney to Barack liar-nObama. What was the response from Democrats? It didn’t happen and if it did, it was so minor that it could not have made a difference. Can you imagine if the situation was reversed and Romney won and the evidence pointed to voter fraud that favored Romney and Republicans? They would have been screaming and running to the courts with more lawsuits than refugees pouring into the nation challenging the results in an effort to get liar-nObama elected...
.
This Little-Used Tool Could Help Congress
Undo Years of Government Overreach
by Paul J. Larkin Jr.
{dailysignal.com} ~ In Washington, there is a saying that regulators never met a rule they didn’t like. Federal agencies, commonly referred to these days as the “fourth branch of government,” have been binding the hands of the American people for decades with overreaching regulations... All the while, Congress sat idly by and let these agencies assume their new legislative role. What if Congress could not only reverse this trend, but undo years of burdensome regulations dating as far back as the mid-1990s? It turns out it can, with the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act is Congress’ most recent effort to trim the excesses of the modern administrative state. Passed into law in 1996, the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to invalidate an agency rule by passing a joint resolution of disapproval, not subject to a Senate filibuster, that the president signs into law...
.
Dems Met With ICE – Dismayed Immigration
Laws To Be Enforced As Written
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Pro-invasion Democrat members of the House of Representatives met on Thursday with Tom Homan, the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement... Following the meeting they held a press conference in which they engaged in their predictable and customary hand-wringing over the idea that immigration law could actually be enforced and those people here in the country illegally returned to where they belong. Leading off the sob session was Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who said there were a number of questions put to the Homan about the removals and the scope and the breadth of the enforcement of the related executive order. Sanchez says, “the takeaways from that meeting are essentially that under the new executive order, the universe of people that are a priority for removal is greatly expanded and in fact, I believe that all would be at risk. And they said that we can and should expect many more arrests and removals this year.”... http://rickwells.us/dems-met-ice-dismayed-immigration-laws-enforced-written/
.
liar-Hillary Clinton / State Dept. Aide
Bryan Pagliano To Be Charged...
by Scott Anthony
{youtube.com} ~ Bryan Pagliano, a State Department / liar-Hillary Clinton I.T. Aide, is now being referred to the Justice Department / Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on criminal charges for "FAILURE TO APPEAR" before Congress... This stems from several attempts to have Mr. Pagliano appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September, 2016 to testify with regards to the private server set up for then-Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton. Pagliano had intended on pleading the 5th, meaning, he had no intention of responding to questions, however, there was a lawful subpoena issued for his appearance, as well as his immunity agreement with the Department of Justice. Since he did not appear, and since he did not produce his immunity agreement, Jason Chaffetz has now requested that Attorney General Jeff Sessions issue and summon a Grand Jury to determine if criminal charges can / shall apply for this act of defiance.
.
If THIS isn’t evidence
of SABOTAGE against Trump...
by Allen West
{allenbwest.com} ~ Former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was indeed confirmed as the new Director of the EPA on Friday, obviously to the chagrin of the employees of the agency he’s about to lead... What type of bizarre world are we living in where government employees of an agency are now calling to block the nominations of their future boss? Haven’t these folks EVER heard of the Hatch Act which prevents government employees from lobbying? This is purely political activity and it should not and must not be tolerated. However, this abhorrent behavior has been playing out quite often in these early days of the Trump administration. There’ve been reported instances of similar actions in the Department of Defense and State, and we all know someone is leaking classified information to the liberal progressive media in order to undermine — no, sabotage — the peaceful transition of government...
.
Bolton Candidate To Replace Flynn...
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who was opposed by some Senators and was viewed as having a difficult time being confirmed as a potential Secretary of State or Deputy Secretary of State nominee... may have a future in the Trump administration after all. His name is in the running to replace General Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser, a position for which he would not need Senate confirmation. Other candidates include Lt. Gen Keith Kellogg, the acting National Security Adviser and Army Lt. General H.R. McMaster. The position was declined by Ret Adm. Robert Harward on Thursday, who had stipulated he wanted full control over his own staff, the removal of K.T. McFarland from her position, and had expressed concerns about working with both Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. General David Petraeus took his name out of the running because he would not be able to have full control over national security decision making in the White House. Good riddance to demanding primadonnas...
.
.
Charter Schools Still Work
by Marcus Winters
{city-journal.org} ~ With Betsy DeVos now helming the Department of Education, American parents and students will likely have access before long to a federally sponsored school-choice program. That’s great news, but the Trump administration’s education policymakers shouldn’t ignore the growing charter-school movement, which has dramatically improved access to high-quality education for many students whom the traditional public school system has left behind.
We should work to make traditional public schools as good as they can possibly be—but where layers of rules and regulations have made reform difficult, charters offer the chance of a clean slate. As taxpayer-funded public schools, charters are open to all students and subject to the same accountability systems as traditional public schools. What makes charters unique is their freedom from the unnecessary, outdated, and counterproductive work rules vigorously defended by the teachers’ unions.
Charters aren’t perfect; quality varies both within and across localities. Overall, suburban students do no better in charters than in local public schools and, often, they do worse. But students in many cities do better, on average, when they attend charters. Attending a charter school can be a difference-maker for kids in cities such as Boston, New Orleans, and Newark. Those who say that charters don’t work tend to lump the urban and suburban schools together, treating the heterogeneous charter sector as if it were a homogenous phenomenon. That’s a mistake.
Charters are now succeeding on a large scale. Student achievement has improved dramatically in New Orleans since it became essentially an all-charter district. Schools in the popular Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) continue to produce staggering academic results. They now enroll 80,000 students in 200 schools around the country. If it were its own school district, KIPP would be the 41st-largest in the United States, just behind Milwaukee’s and just ahead of Nashville’s. Recent research finds that charters aren’t getting worse as they increase their market share; if anything, they may be improving. Perhaps the day will come when innovation in the charter sector produces diminishing returns. That hasn’t happened yet.
Charters succeed using various strategies. The most successful schools adopt a mix of high expectations, more instructional time, and improved teacher effectiveness. This is hardly revolutionary. Recent research shows that these practices yield similar positive results when applied within traditional public schools. Resistance to reform is strong within traditional school systems, however, where teachers’ unions and entrenched education bureaucracies wield formidable political influence. The charter sector’s innovations, which prioritize the education of children, often run counter to the interests of the adults running most public school districts.
Many critics argue that charters do not adequately serve students with disabilities. They frequently charge that charter operators counsel disabled students to leave their schools, leaving them for the traditional system to handle. The evidence doesn’t support these claims. My analysis of student-enrollment and classification patterns in both New York City and Denver shows that a student with a disability is actually less likely to leave a charter than a traditional public school. In fact, attending a charter school can affect whether a child even needs special-education services. In a newly published paper, my coauthors and I found that students attending Denver charters were less likely than kids in traditional district schools to be placed into special education in the early elementary grades. Another recent study found that elementary-age students randomly offered a spot in a Boston charter school were less likely to be newly classified into special education in kindergarten than students randomly denied a seat in a charter.
Many regular-enrollment students in charters would have been placed into special education had they gone to a traditional public school. Charters are serving these kids; they just don’t classify them as disabled. The most plausible explanation for why: students attending charters do better academically than they would have done otherwise, thus eliminating the need for extra services.
No, charter schools aren’t a silver bullet, but they have helped hundreds of thousands of kids escape lousy schools. The Trump administration should heed the findings of empirical research and push states to make it easier for charters to open, innovate, and expand.
We should work to make traditional public schools as good as they can possibly be—but where layers of rules and regulations have made reform difficult, charters offer the chance of a clean slate. As taxpayer-funded public schools, charters are open to all students and subject to the same accountability systems as traditional public schools. What makes charters unique is their freedom from the unnecessary, outdated, and counterproductive work rules vigorously defended by the teachers’ unions.
Charters aren’t perfect; quality varies both within and across localities. Overall, suburban students do no better in charters than in local public schools and, often, they do worse. But students in many cities do better, on average, when they attend charters. Attending a charter school can be a difference-maker for kids in cities such as Boston, New Orleans, and Newark. Those who say that charters don’t work tend to lump the urban and suburban schools together, treating the heterogeneous charter sector as if it were a homogenous phenomenon. That’s a mistake.
Charters are now succeeding on a large scale. Student achievement has improved dramatically in New Orleans since it became essentially an all-charter district. Schools in the popular Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) continue to produce staggering academic results. They now enroll 80,000 students in 200 schools around the country. If it were its own school district, KIPP would be the 41st-largest in the United States, just behind Milwaukee’s and just ahead of Nashville’s. Recent research finds that charters aren’t getting worse as they increase their market share; if anything, they may be improving. Perhaps the day will come when innovation in the charter sector produces diminishing returns. That hasn’t happened yet.
Charters succeed using various strategies. The most successful schools adopt a mix of high expectations, more instructional time, and improved teacher effectiveness. This is hardly revolutionary. Recent research shows that these practices yield similar positive results when applied within traditional public schools. Resistance to reform is strong within traditional school systems, however, where teachers’ unions and entrenched education bureaucracies wield formidable political influence. The charter sector’s innovations, which prioritize the education of children, often run counter to the interests of the adults running most public school districts.
Many critics argue that charters do not adequately serve students with disabilities. They frequently charge that charter operators counsel disabled students to leave their schools, leaving them for the traditional system to handle. The evidence doesn’t support these claims. My analysis of student-enrollment and classification patterns in both New York City and Denver shows that a student with a disability is actually less likely to leave a charter than a traditional public school. In fact, attending a charter school can affect whether a child even needs special-education services. In a newly published paper, my coauthors and I found that students attending Denver charters were less likely than kids in traditional district schools to be placed into special education in the early elementary grades. Another recent study found that elementary-age students randomly offered a spot in a Boston charter school were less likely to be newly classified into special education in kindergarten than students randomly denied a seat in a charter.
Many regular-enrollment students in charters would have been placed into special education had they gone to a traditional public school. Charters are serving these kids; they just don’t classify them as disabled. The most plausible explanation for why: students attending charters do better academically than they would have done otherwise, thus eliminating the need for extra services.
No, charter schools aren’t a silver bullet, but they have helped hundreds of thousands of kids escape lousy schools. The Trump administration should heed the findings of empirical research and push states to make it easier for charters to open, innovate, and expand.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/charter-schools-still-work-15021.html
Comments