text:
When your editor took time yesterday to discuss how infighting among congressional Republicans would make any reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act unlikely, he didn't fully expect that the sparring would doom the prospects of John Kline getting his own plan passed out of the House today. Yet House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman, who has long posed himself as a stalwart adherent of movement conservatism (even as he champions increased subsidies for special education ghettos and evisceration of accountability for federal spending), is battling with true-believers within his own caucus over whether his plan for reauthorizing the law was adherent enough to their interpretation of ideology.
Earlier today, House Republican leadership recessed debate on Kline's No Child plan, the Student Success Act, without so much as a vote on the full bill after conservative true-believers within the caucus threatened to vote against it. The bill has since been withdrawn from further consideration.
Spurred in part by their ire toward Speaker John Boehner (against whom they spurred a revolt last month), a manifesto issued last week by a group of even-less sensible erstwhile school reformers such as Hoover Institution's Williamson Evers and Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, and the not-so-subtle threats of being primaried by Heritage's political action wing and the Club for Growth, the true-believers claim Kline's plan doesn't do enough to "[get] Washington out of the business of running America's schools" as his committee's mouthpieces proclaim.
With at least 31 House Republicans likely to vote against House Resolution 5, Kline is scrambling to get at least some of those members back on board to pass it. In fact, he even canceled a trip to a school in Washington, D.C.'s Anacostia neighborhood to whip up support. He needs all the help he can get. House Democrats have already made clear that they will only support a proposed No Child reauthorization that they cobbled together over the past two days. President Obama's announcement that he will veto H.R. 5 if it somehow managed to gain Senate approval (which was going to be unlikely anyway), along with the desire among congressional Democrats to deny Republicans any legislative victory (as well as stop them from rolling back Obama's legacy on education policy) has all but assured that no Democrat will come to Kline's side.
Kline also can't count on either Boehner or Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. They are far too busy battling with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over a version of a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security that leaves out a poison pill kiboshing the Obama Administration's executive order temporarily staying deportation for five million undocumented emigres. Given that Boehner and McCarthy will likely have to pass that legislation over the ire of Nativists and conservative true-believers, they are unlikely to do more on Kline's behalf other than some tepid vote-whipping. [Update (5:25 p.m.): Boehner and McCarthy couldn't even gain passage of a stopgap measure to finance Homeland Security operations for a three-month period. Fifty two of 243 House Republicans voted against the bill.]
Meanwhile Kline can't really do much to appease conservative true-believers without making his No Child reauthorization plan even less likely to win passage.
Centrist Democrat school reformers along with the more-sensible of movement conservative counterparts, governors from both parties, and civil rights-oriented players are opposed to proposals from true-believers to abolish No Child's testing provision, which rightfully requires states to administer reading, math, and science exams in exchange for federal education subsidies. Such a move would also lead moderate Republicans more-supportive of reform (and mindful of support from the chambers of commerce who back overhauling public education) to abandon their support.
Given that the idea comes from more-rabid school choice activists such as Evers and Burke (along with University of Arkansas' Jay P. Greene) who want to shield voucher programs from any accountability, and would get the backing of traditionalists (who oppose testing altogether), eviscerating the testing mandate exposes Kline and House Republicans to charges (from other conservatives) of hypocrisy and being in bed with unions.
As it is, Kline can now be accused of being both an apostate from conservatism and being a stooge for teachers' unions after the House voted last night to approve an amendment from Rep. Bob Goodlatte backed by Club for Growth and NEA to allow districts to use unreliable local assessments (including those drawn up by teachers) in place of state standardized testing regimes. The amendment not only makes a mockery of accountability by using tests that wouldn't pass anyone's smell test, it even violates both state constitutions (which put states in charge of public education and therefore, in charge of all testing) and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hunter v. Pittsburgh (which affirms the positions of districts and municipalities as arms of state governments).
Kline also can't allow H.R. 5 to be amended to include a plan to voucherize Title 1 dollars; one version of the idea was withdrawn during markup of the bill and kept off the list of amendments to be considered by the full body after both Democrats and moderate Republicans strenuously opposed it. Your editor has no particular problem with such a plan so long as it also includes requiring states to allow the rest of school funding to follow children to any schools their families choose. Otherwise the entire exercise won't work for children. But Kline couldn't incorporate such a provision without stoking claims of federal overreach from other movement conservatives; that the federal government couldn't mandate such a move even if either Kline or the Obama Administration wanted to also makes the entire effort an exercise in futility.
Given the state of play — including Boehner's need to stave off further ire from conservative true-believers over the eventual passage of McConnell's plan for funding Homeland Security — Kline won't likely get H.R. 5 passed out of the House. For the Minnesota Republican, who is in his last term chairing Education and the Workforce, it could mean his five-year-long effort to eviscerate No Child and its powerful accountability provisions will likely come to an ignominious end if he can't find enough votes to win passage. [Boehner, who cowrote No Child during his tenure chairing the committee Kline now runs, is probably quietly happy about it.]
The defeat of H.R. 5 would also be an even more-humiliating political loss than the one he faced two years ago when 70 of his fellow Republicans, at the behest of Indian tribes in their districts and Native education groups, passed an amendment to retain Title VII as its own funding stream. It also means Kline cedes control of the process of reauthorizing No Child, such as it is, to his colleague (and rival) in the Senate, Lamar Alexander, whose own plan for eviscerating the law's accountability provisions is no better. But given that Kline can't even get his own plan passed, along with the even greater obstacles Alexander faces from Senate Democrats (who can block his efforts at will), the chances of any No Child reauthorization coming from Capitol Hill are slim and none.
Your editor is unsurprised by this moment of movement conservative and Republican Party fratricide. There has been an endless cycle of purity-testing that rivals the battles within both the conservative movement and the Grand Old Party that were the norm between the Second World War and Ronald Reagan's election to the presidency in 1980. The recriminations over the excesses, perceived and otherwise, of George W. Bush's tenure as president (as well as the defeat of Republican nominee John McCain by Obama seven years ago) even extend to education policy as movement conservatives otherwise unconcerned with education policy are accusing conservative reform outfits such as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute of being apostates. In short, no different than the battles within Democrat circles over reform during the previous decade.
Kline, who whipped up the frenzy of movement conservatives against No Child during his tenure as chairman of Education and the Workforce (and before that as ranking Republican) has now found himself on the business end of it. Conservative reform outfits such as Fordham and players such as Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, who supported Kline's plan to eviscerate accountability (and have essentially accused with the rest of the school reform movement of race-baiting), also find themselves isolated. They now face new charges of being insufficiently conservative from ideological fellow-travelers who want even further rollbacks on reform. Turnabout is, well, turnabout.
Certainly centrist Democrat reformers and others can enjoy this episode of Republican and movement conservative seppuku if they so choose. But they better get to work advancing systemic reform at the state level. Or else this temporary victory will lead to a greater loss for our children.
Based on all the complaints from Washington State politicians and conservative Beltway school reformers such as Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute reported by Motoko Rich last Sunday in New York Times, you would think that the Obama Administration's leveled a great injustice by not renewing the waiver given to it two years ago to ignore the No Child Left Behind Act. If anything, as an update of a study by Thomas Ahn of the University of Kentucky and Duke University's Jacob Vigdor shows, moving back under No Child will help spur reforms that will help children in the Evergreen State succeed. If anything, the Obama Administration should abandon its counterproductive gambit altogether and embrace the strong approach to accountability at the heart of the federal law.
From where Washington State politicians and Petrilli sit, the Obama Administration's decision is "punishing schools and educators" because the state will now have to fall back on No Child's Adequate Yearly Progress accountability provision, as well as the aspirational provision that states must ensure that all kids are proficient in reading, math, and science. This, along with No Child's provision that states must make sure all kids are proficient in their core subjects by 2014, would lead more schools being labeled for under-performing than they supposedly should be. Meanwhile Petrilli and others believe that the Obama Administration is acting arbitrarily in violation of federal law. From where they sit, the administration cannot require states to fulfill promises they made as part of seeking the waivers.
Rich's report (as well as the views of politicians and others cited in the piece) has garnered much-deserved criticism from Anne Hyslop of Bellwether Education for offering a misleading perspective on how No Child's accountability provisions actually work in practice. This includes the fact that the 100 percent proficiency provision isn't actually so (thanks to safe harbor provisions and other legalisms in place, it is actually 92 percent), as well as the fact that the school highlighted in the piece, Evergreen Elementary in the Seattle suburbs, wasn't identified as being in need of improvement in 2012-2013 because of better performance. So I won't spend time on this.
But Evergreen State politicians, along with Petrilli and other Beltway reform wonks, ignore a few inconvenient facts.
For one, they ignore the key reason why the Obama Administration declined to renew Washington State's waiver: The state's failure to meet its promise to replace its shoddy observation-based evaluations with more-objective data-based performance management tools using test score growth data. After all, implementing those new evaluations was a key condition of attaining the waiver in the first place. Because state legislators, at the behest of the National Education Association's affiliate there, refused to pass a law back in February allowing the use of test score growth data in teacher evaluations. As in the case of Oklahoma (whose own failures in getting its No Child waiver renewed was discussed on these pages in August), Washington State had ample opportunity to muster the political will needed to change the law in order to fulfill its promise under the waiver. So it deserves no sympathy for failing to do so.
There's also the fact that the Obama Administration is rightfully holding Washington State accountable as it is supposed to. Sure, as your editor has long explained ad nauseam, the No Child waiver gambit is a grand misadventure that is damaging efforts at advancing systemic reform. At the same time, the administration is correct in holding Washington State accountable for not meeting the condition of its waiver. What is the point of the entire exercise if the federal government will let states off the hook? Just as importantly, and contrary to assertions by the Petrilli crowd, the Obama Administration is legally correct in doing so. The No Child waiver gambit is legally questionable because the administration is allowing states to ignore whole sections of federal law. But the administration is allowed to hold states responsible for how they spend federal subsidies. This includes any promises states made as part of attaining waivers.
In any case, Washington State's return to AYP should be welcomed and not disdained. Why? Because it has been proven that No Child's accountability provision is critical to spurring reforms that help children succeed.
This was made clear this week in Ahn's and Vigdor's study on the impact of AYP on improving student achievement in North Carolina, a new version of research developed last year for the American Enterprise Institute on the impact of No Child's accountability measures. Freed from the efforts of AEI's education czar, Rick Hess, to spin the results in support of his opposition to accountability and focusing on achievement gaps, Ahn and Vidgor point out that AYP has "beneficial" effects on student achievement. By shining harsh light on the low performance of schools as well as prescribing consequences for continued failure, No Child's accountability approach forced districts to focus on improving student achievement, especially for poor and minority children they have long ignored.
In the case of North Carolina, for example, the mere threat of No Child's sanctions alone led to many schools that were identified as failing for the first time to take on the kind of reforms needed to improve student achievement. It also worked for schools failing AYP for the first time; on average, a Tar Heel State school failing AYP improved its math performance by five percent of a standard deviation. Even better, the failure of a school to achieve AYP led families to transfer their kids to better-performing schools under No Child's school choice provision allowing them to escape, which led to improvements in their math achievement.
The benefits are even better when perpetually failing schools are forced to take corrective action under No Child accountability. A poor-performing North Carolina school under Needs Improvement for a fifth consecutive year (and forced to develop a restructuring plan) improved reading performance by six percent of a standard deviation, while math achievement improved by nearly three percent of a standard deviation. An under-performing Tar Heel State school forced to restructure after six consecutive years of laggard performance improved did improve student achievement in math by six percent of a standard deviation.
No Child accountability was particularly helpful for poor and minority kids. Ahn and Vigdor found that a student in a school that missed AYP saw math achievement improve by four percent of a standard deviation; a student in a school missing AYP for five consecutive years improved math achievement by nearly 10 percent of a standard deviation. For poor and minority kids, AYP has proven to be a critical tool in helping them gain the knowledge they need for lifelong success. None of this is shocking. As Dropout Nation has noted, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that accountability (along with other reforms) have led to declines in illiteracy and innumeracy among poor and minority kids (including a 10 percentage point decline in the number of black fourth-graders reading Below Basic between 2002 and 2013).
The benefits of AYP are also reaped by high-performing kids, according to Ahn and Vigdor, countering arguments by Petrilli and others that No Child's focus on stemming achievement gaps led to high-performing students being shortchanged. Children in the top percentile of student achievement in schools missing AYP saw small gains in math and reading achievement. This corresponds with Dropout Nation's analysis of NAEP data, which shows that average reading and math scores for top-performing students improved between 2002 and 2011 (versus almost no change between 1998 and 2002, before No Child was implemented), while the percentage of students reaching such levels increased since its passage (including a four percentage point increase in the number of students reaching such levels in reading between 2002 and 2013).
Though Ahn and Vigdor concede that North Carolina's implementation of AYP — including merit bonuses to teachers who increased student test score growth — may have ameliorated any possible "adverse impacts" on either top-performing or struggling students, they conclude that high-performing kids can benefit from accountability. If anything, No Child's focus on stemming achievement gaps — and helping poor and minority kids receive high-quality teaching and curricula — benefits all children. And contrary to what Petrilli and others have argued, curricula and learning, especially in music and arts, hasn't been narrowed either (something, by the way, that has been proven by both the U.S. Department of Education and Quadrant Arts Education Research founder Robert Morrison).
This isn't to say that AYP is perfect or even an unqualified success. The fact that No Child allows a school to fail for six consecutive years before triggering an overhaul has never been a good idea; failure mills should be forced to restructure within at least three years instead. There's also the fact that AYP focuses solely on schools and not on the laggard traditional districts whose failures are the reason why they are under-performing in the first place; forcing districts to overhaul their operations is as critical to helping kids succeed as restructuring and shutting down schools. The fact that AYP doesn't focus on low educational achievement for young men of all backgrounds, the most-persistent symptom of the nation's education crisis, has allowed districts to continue practices such as overlabeling of young men as special ed cases that toss more futures into the abyss.
No Child's school choice option could have been more powerful than it has been. In fact, the school transfer option has often failed to work effectively in many districts because families weren't fully informed of their options until June, when they are on their way to summer vacation and cannot exercise any choice. The fact that the school choice option was limited to just schools operated by the district (which may often be just as bad as the failure mills kids were leaving) instead of a wide array of charters and parochial schools outside of it has also blunted its usefulness.
Yet by holding states and districts accountable for — and forcing focus on — helping poor and minority kids they long ignored — No Child's AYP provision has spurred reforms that have helped more kids get onto the path to lifelong success. This, in turn, points out a reality that neither the Obama Administration nor Beltway wonks such as Petrilli fail to admit: That No Child has been the single-biggest advance in education policy, both at the federal level and among states and local governments, since the Defense Education Act of 1958.
For the first time in the history of American public education, federal education policy set clear goals for improving student achievement in reading and mathematics, and finally focused attention on using data in measuring teacher quality. It also made it clear to suburban districts that they could no longer continue to commit educational malpractice against poor and minority children, as well as focused American public education on achieving measurable results instead of damning kids to low expectations. Without No Child, there would be no Common Core, no overhaul of teacher evaluations (or focus on revamping how we recruit, train, and compensate teachers), or no expansion of school choice options. Even the most-sensible reforms touted by the Obama Administration — especially Race to the Top — wouldn't have happened without No Child in place.
Which is what makes the Obama Administration's No Child waiver gambit so disappointing. By dismissing the lessons gleaned from No Child's success — and ditching the accountability tool that worked so well — the administration has weakened systemic reform on the ground. The ditching of AYP (along with allowing states to replace the 100 percent proficiency provision with Plessy v. Ferguson-like targets) has allowed states and districts to go back to subjecting poor and minority kids to the soft bigotry of low expectations. This is particularly true in states such as Indiana and Florida that have implemented A-to-F grading systems that essentially allow schools proclaim they are high-performing even when they have wide achievement gaps.
By allowing states to ignore AYP, the Obama Administration also took away valuable information on performance that is critical for shedding harsh light on school and district performance that is key to accountability. The effort has turned federal education policy into an incoherent mess, fueling opposition to a strong federal role in supporting reform. It has even weakened the advancement of the second wave of reforms — most-notably implementation of Common Core reading and math standards — critical to helping kids gain the academic proficiency needed to succeed in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.
But in not renewing No Child waivers for Washington (as well as for Oklahoma), the Obama Administration has an opportunity to set things right. More states are up for waiver renewal — and many of them are struggling to meet the promises they made in order to be allowed to ignore federal law.
As Dropout Nation has constantly pointed out, the administration shouldn't have granted waivers to most of these states in the first place. Of course, the gambit shouldn't have been undertaken either. The administration should decline to renew all of them save for those who have actually fulfilled their promises. [That the Obama Administration moved today to renew waivers for Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oregon, Rhode Island and Utah is a sign that it wants to continue on this disastrous path.*]
The Obama Administration could then take these last two years of its existence to advance reforms through the No Child framework, as it should have done in the first place. This includes issuing a new round of waivers that keep AYP in place, and at the same time, adjust it to address its shortcomings as well as take advantage of what has been learned about accountability over the past decade.
Certainly this will be displeasing to many. But it is clear that returning to AYP will help more children than continuing a waiver gambit that has become a present obstacle to systemic reforms the administration and the movement support.
Featured photo courtesy of the Associated Press.
*Updated to include this afternoon's decision by the Obama Administration.
First of all, I am extremely proud of the effects of No Child Left Behind. For the first time, the federal government basically demanded results in return for money. It started by saying, We expect you to measure [student performance]. As a result, there has been a noticeable change in achievement, particularly among minority groups. And I'm proud of that accomplishment and proud of the fact we were able to work with people from both parties to get it done.
When I think back about No Child Left Behind, it's one of the really positive things our Administration accomplished along with Congress. So on the 10th anniversary, it's time to celebrate success, but it's also a time to fight off those who would weaken standards or accountability. I don't think you can solve a problem if you can't diagnose it, and I don't think it is fair for parents or students not to be informed of how their schools perform relative to other schools and how their children perform relative to other children.
Former President George W. Bush stating what should be obvious to all about the importance of the No Child Left Behind Act in fostering the first steps towards systemic reform of American public education. What is needed now is to expand accountability, especially in addressing the low quality of teacher training in the nation's ed schools, not scaling back as being proposed by far too many people who should know better.
[If] a great teacher is leaving, parents should hold bake sales or pass the hat around in hopes of collectively offering the teacher as much as a $100,000 bonus to stay for an extra year… Conversely, a very poor teacher has the same effect as a pupil missing 40 percent of the school year. We don't allow that kind of truancy, so it's not clear why we should put up with such poor teaching. In fact, the study shows that parents should pay a bad teacher $100,000 to retire (assuming the replacement is of average quality) because a weak teacher holds children back so much.
New York Times Columnist Nick Kristof, gleaning the lessons from the recent Harvard-Columbia study on value-added analysis of teacher quality. (Dropout Nation offers more thoughts on improving teacher quality in this week's Podcast and Building a Culture of Genius commentary on teacher evaluations.)
"We know that great teachers have the power to help students catch up when they're behind. But you can't catch up when you don't have access to the best teachers."
Arun Ramanathan of the Education Trust's California branch discussing the outfit's latest study on teacher quality in the Los Angeles Unified School District. This study comes on the heels of an agreement between the district and its American Federation of Teachers affiliate over revamping teacher performance management — and a lawsuit from families of L.A. Unified students suing the district to force it to improve its teacher evaluations and use student test data in teacher performance management.
"People who care about improving early childhood education need to be deeply concerned about taming the growth in college tuitions, for at least two reasons. First, skyrocketing tuition makes it more difficult and costly to raise the higher educational credentials of the early childhood workforce. Second, unless we reign in college costs, there's a strong risk that public funding to support higher education affordability will wind up cannibalizing or squeezing out early childhood spending. That's because most policy efforts to date to improve college affordability have focused on providing increasing public funds to help students pay for college. But, with ever-rising college costs that outstrip inflation and government revenues, this strategy can sustain and expand access only if it consumes increasing shares of government revenue"
Sara Mead, pointing to another state budget priority that will play a part in shaping school reform conversations — and not only for early childhood and prekindergarten programs. Dropout Nation Editor RiShawn Biddle made the same points in yesterday's The American Spectator column on growing Medicaid burdens.
One can easily say this: The proposed bills for revamping No Child Left Behind Act proposed today by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline could be worse. The more palatable of the two, called the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, would at least attempt to require school districts to use value-added analysis of student test score data as a "significant part" of evaluating teacher performance.(The fact that it imposes a federal mandate even as Kline declares that he's attempting to Another element of the proposal, which would consolidate some federal teacher quality grants into a "Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant" is a nod to the competitive grant model pioneered by the Obama administration through its Race to the Top and I3 initiatives.
But the rest of Kline's proposals — including the so-called Student Success Act — are hardly worth the paper upon which they are written.
As with the now-comatose Harkin-Enzi plan and President Barack Obama's senseless No Child waiver gambit, the Kline proposals would gut the Adequate Yearly Progress provisions, the most-successful element of the law that has spurred school reform efforts. Even worse, the current draft of the Student Success Act doesn't even require states to still subject the nation's 5,000 dropout factories and the five percent of schools with wide achievement gaps, something that Harkin-Enzi had required. Essentially it is another white flag declaring an unwillingness to pursue strong vigorous school reform efforts from the federal level Further putting the kibosh on accountability — and playing to the FairTest crowd — Kline's proposals would allow states to opt out of testing students for science proficiency; currently No Child requires states to test students at least three times during elementary, middle, and high school years. This would effectively let schools off the hook for helping all kids improve their science literacy. In an increasingly knowledge-based economy, this aspect of Kline's proposal is incredibly thoughtless.
Kline's plan would also put an end to the federal School Improvement Program, one of the three key aspects of the Obama administration's school reform efforts. Your editor has offered plenty of reasons why only one of SIG's four improvement models is likely to be the most-successful (and why school turnarounds driven, in general, particularly driven by districts, are a fool's errand). At the same time, Kline doesn't offer anything that would address the critical question of what to do with dropout factories and failure mills. While the Student Success Act would require states to include some form of "system for school improvement", the proposal doesn't require districts to either shut down schools or demands states to enact a Parent Trigger law that would allow families to force their overhaul (or replace district management of the school with a for-profit or nonprofit charter operator).
Meanwhile Kline's legislation is silent on expanding school choice or advancing any other form of Parent Power measure. While Kline will argue that expanding charter schools is addressed in a bill passed by the Education and the Workforce Committee last year, the current proposal does little to push states or districts to allow parents their rightful role as lead decision-makers in education. The Kline proposals are also more aimed at putting the kibosh on the Obama administration's reform efforts than offering anything coherent in terms of federal education policy on tackling the nation's education crisis. One provision would restrict the Department of Education's use of the regulatory process to require states to enact college- and career-ready standards in exchange for grants or for waivers. That is largely driven by complaints among movement conservatives and reformers from the Heritage and Cato crowd that the administration's tacit support for Common Core standards in reading and math are tantamount to enacting a national curricula.
Essentially, Kline's plan would simply revert back to the days before the passage of No Child, when federal dollars were handed out to states without showing any results. And traditional districts would essentially be let off the hook for failing to provide high-quality teaching and curricula to poor and minority students. Essentially the word from Kline's camp to those kids, along with young men of all races, is basically: "You're on your own."
Certainly none of this is shocking. Kline has made clear his intentions more than a year ago in his interview with Dropout Nation. The good news is that Kline's effort won't go very far.
For one, his attempt to address federal education policy through a series of piecemeal legislation runs counter to the desires of both his senate counterpart, Tom Harkin and the Obama administration, to reauthorize No Child in its current omnibus form. It is unlikely that Harkin will go along with Kline's plans. Another roadblock lies within his own party, starting with House Speaker John Boehner, who teamed up with the late Ted Kennedy and President George W. Bush a decade ago to help usher No Child into place. This fact, along with the opposition to gutting AYP from other Republicans (including reform-minded governors, many of whom have already embraced Common Core and would likely rather take their chances with Obama's waiver effort), means that Kline's efforts are at a standstill.
Add in the reality that congressional Republicans, regardless of their position on No Child, have no interest in offering Obama any form of legislative victory just in time for his re-election bid, and it is unlikely that any effort to revise No Child (or gut AYP) will at least come out of the federal lower house. Whether the Obama administration will be able to continue its waiver effort without a court challenge? That's a different story.
One of the major arguments advanced by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Obama administration for ditching No Child's Adequate Yearly Progress accountability provisions was that it was penalizing far too many schools arbitrarily for failing to improve student achievement. Since February, Duncan has been declaring that 82 percent of schools would be found academically failing under No Child, and insisted that as many as 90 percent would be found failing. And he has stuck to this statement even as school reformers such Charlie Barone of Democrats For Education Reform and Andy Rotherham, and early numbers coming out of state education carpets, proved that Duncan's estimates were nothing but smoke.
So it isn't surprising that Duncan attempted to dance around yesterday's Center on Education Policy report that showed that just 48 percent of schools were found to be academically failing under No Child's accountability provisions. Declared Duncan: "Whether it's 50 percent, 80 percent, or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken." Despite all evidence to the contrary, Duncan essentially insists that No Child is unfair to schools that are making progress and yet could be labeled as failing.
What Duncan continually fails to acknowledge is that the underlying reason for that had to do with the gamesmanship by states that didn't make their standards and proficiency targets more-rigorous in the first place, then ramped them up just a few years before the 2014 target would come into play. The gamesmanship was tolerated by both Duncan and his predecessors. Since Duncan took over as education secretary, he has allowed more gamesmanship on the accountability front. For example, the U.S. Department of Education has allowed Montana and Idaho to keep their accountability targets at last year's levels, essentially allowing schools and districts in those states to essentially escape accountability for the time being; Virginia has even been allowed to set its accountability targets retroactively, gaming the system even further.
More importantly, in arguing that No Child's accountability provisions wrongly label schools, Duncan fails to acknowledge that American public education today is poorly serving all of its students regardless of who they are or where they live. As Harvard's analysis of 2009 PISA data has shown, our top-performing students are outscored by top-performers in 22 other countries; top-performing white students are outperformed by students in 16 nations. Suburban districts, whose failures to provide high-quality education to poor and minority children has been exposed by No Child's provisions, are also doing a disservice to middle-class families. Just 30 percent of students in the prosperous Fairfax County, Va., district would outperform kids from Singapore, and only 41 percent would do better than kids from Canada (a nation that is almost as diverse as the United States).
Even with the gamesmanship by states, No Child's accountability rules have shown that far too many schools are dropout factories, failure mills, and warehouses of mediocrity; that far too many teachers are not capable of providing high-quality instruction; that school leadership at all levels is often abysmal; and that the fierce urgency of right now is not only necessary, but paramount to helping all kids get the education they need to fulfill their potential. Contrary to what Duncan argues, No Child is hardly broken, and has actually done its job. After all, without No Child, the conditions for which Obama's signature school reform program, Race to the Top, could be successful would have never existed.
Meanwhile the Obama administration's effort to essentially eviscerate No Child's accountability requirements will do nothing to stop such gamesmanship. Duncan says that states can only evade AYP and the aspirational 100 percent proficiency provision if they enact a vague set of "ambitious but achievable goals", and an equally amorphous requirement that states must put "college and career-ready" curriculum standards in place. But federal law essentially prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from laying out exactly what these standards should be (lest it be accused of crafting a national curricula), and it cannot public support the implementation of Common Core standards in reading and math already underway in all but a few states. As a result, a state can probably come up with some mishmash, call it college- and career-ready, and easily get it past federal officials without actually following through with their promises.
Meanwhile the waivers don't actually address the need to expand federal accountability. For example, the waivers fail to address the need to overhaul the nation's ed schools (which train most of the nation's new teachers), or push for the development of alternative teacher training programs outside of university confines. The waiver plan doesn't address the crisis of low educational achievement among young men of all backgrounds, one of the leading symptoms of the education crisis. As Richard Whitmire and I proposed earlier this year, simply requiring gender to be measured as part of subgroup accountability would do plenty to force states and districts into dealing seriously with this problem. The waivers may allow for the possibility of states targeting gender for subgroup accountability (and thus, addressing the crisis of low educational attainment among young men of all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds) on their own. But the conditions under which the waivers are being granted don't require states to take on any additional accounting for the performance of young men or other children whose academic failures are the result of the education crisis.
Until this year, Duncan has done a great job on pushing systemic reform. What he should do now is stop this wasteful effort to ditch accountability and get back to work.
Your editor thought that this week's effort by Dan Willingham and the Core Knowledge crowd to tout curriculum reform as the silver bullet for overhauling American public education would be the height of education's silly season. But the efforts by education traditionalists and even some school reformers seem to take leave of intellectual rigor just to be provocative keep coming.
One spectacular example is the "odd couple" piece on the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal role in education (and, supposedly, how to "rescue" school reform) offered up yesterday by American Enterprise Institute education czar Rick Hess and Stanford's resident education traditionalist, Linda Darling-Hammond. Declaring that the current debate over the federal role in education is stuck between Republicans arguing as to whether the feds should be involved at all, and sparring between reform-minded Democrats and the teachers' unions who have, until now, been the leading activists within that party, Hess and Darling-Hammond argue for abandoning the No Child Left Behind Act (which Senate Democrats, congressional Republicans, and President Obama are already trying to do) because, as far as they are concerned, the federal role in education doesn't work. From where they sit, "the federal government is simply not well situated to make schools and teachers improve" and does little more than add bureaucracy. As far as the twosome are concerned, the feds should simply stick to four areas, including encouraging transparency, overseeing school research, ensuring basic civil rights for poor and minority children, and promoting innovation through competitive grants.
The piece — along with Hess and Darling-Hammond — has already garnered well-deserved criticism from Bellwether Education's Andy Rotherham on his Eduwonk site for essentially talking out of both sides of their respective mouths — espeically in declaring at different times in different pieces that No Child's Adequate Yearly Progress provisions are both overly prescriptive and "vague". (Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute has his own criticisms and I'll leave it at that.) The fact that neither Hess nor Darling-Hammond realize (or want to admit) that No Child has been beneficial as a civil rights law and in promoting education research and transparency makes their argument especially senseless.
But in many ways, the schizophrenic nature of the overall argument advanced by Hess and Darling-Hammond isn't shocking. Like her equally thoughtful fellow-traveler, Pedro Noguera, Darling-Hammond is someone who genuinely realizes that American public education is need of systemic reform (and whose criticisms of teacher training are largely honest and on-target), but unwilling to challenge either the thinking and practices of her fellow education traditionalists or her own worldview. As for Hess? These days, contrary to his declarations, he seems more concerned with needless playing the contrarian than offering a coherent approach to systemic reform. Certainly foolish consistency is Walt Waldo Emerson's hobgoblin of little minds, one can all hold two contradictory thoughts within the same mind, and contrarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. But these days, the otherwise admirable Hess has a habit of stretching the limits of intellectual inconsistency.
As a result, Hess and Darling-Hammond have put together a piece with flawed narratives about the role of No Child in expanding bureaucratic morass, the Republican debate over federal education policy and, the benefits of No Child in spurring systemic reform.
For one, Hess and Darling-Hammond seem to solely blame No Child for growth in the bureaucratic nature of school activities. That's rather simplistic. Even before the passage of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the first iteration of No Child, in 1965, bureaucracies were growing largely because of the expanding role of states in governing school systems (including the passage of laws that forced districts to bargain with National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers affiliates) and the consolidation of school districts from smaller operations into massive bureaucracies. Thanks to the efforts of the NEA and AFT to make teaching more-comfortable for its members and further expansions of state education governance (including the use of categorical programs in providing state funding to districts), those bureaucracies expanded further. Between 1949-50 and 1969-70, the number of administrators and other staff increased by 94 percent; it increased by another 68 percent between 1969-1970 and 2001-2002.
Since the passage of No Child, the percentage of school bureaucrats increased by only 24 percent by the 2008-2009 school year. Which makes sense. For one thing, No Child didn't so much expand the federal role in education as it signaled the reality that states, not school districts, control the direction of education. Given that school districts, as local governments, are merely tools of state control, and that states have been expanding their role in governing schools since the 1950s, this has always been implied. (The fact that most of the growth in education over that period has been driven by the increase in the number of teachers in the workforce, and the accompaniment of paperwork and expensive compensation costs, by the way, also doesn't factor into either Hess' or Darling-Hammond's thinking.)
Another problem with the piece? Hess and Darling-Hammond oversimplify the debate within Republican circles over the federal role in education and in spurring systemic reform. Movement conservatives, who are generally supportive of expanding school choice and even holding schools accountable for spending, are largely rebelling against the against the excesses of Dubya's presidency (and his legacy, on education, as the Democrats' favorite Republican). This is why the current GOP field has essentially abandoned discussions about school reform except tossing out bromides about wanting to end the U.S. Department of Education.
Even those statements can't be taken seriously: Both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, for example, were strong supporters of No Child during their respective tenures as governors of Massachusetts and Texas; and Romney, despite his protests, has praised the work of President Barack Obama and his secretary of education, Arne Duncan — at least, until Perry made it a campaign weapon.
As for the rest of the Republican side: Even as House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline pushes to abolish No Child's accountability provisions, he also champions increasing the $11 billion the federal government ladles out to special education programs, essentially supporting the perpetuation of an educational ghetto that has helped fuel the nation's education crisis by labeling illiterate but otherwise capable young men as "learning disabled". While Kline and some of his colleagues on Education and the Workforce push for tearing apart No Child, the law still has strong defenders, especially among governors such as Indiana's Mitch Daniels (who, along with his colleagues, have successfully used the law to push through reforms at the state level), former education secretary Margaret Spellings (who has championed the law from her perch at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), and House Speaker John Boehner (who teamed up with Bush, congressional Democrat education point man George Miller, and Ted Kennedy to pass the law in the first place). In fact, it is this opposition from those Republicans that is a reason why Kline hasn't been able to pull apart No Child.
In essence, there is far less divide among Republicans over the federal role — especially among those who hold congressional seats, and thus, must make sure that the school districts in their communities continue getting some of that dough — than Darling-Hammond or Hess (the latter being the education czar for one of the leading think tanks within the conservative movement and Republican Party elite) want to admit. Save for libertarians such as the folks over at Cato's education shop (who are alone even among libertarian think tanks in opposing a federal role in education) most conservative and Republican school reformers think that the federal role in education has real value (even if it neither lucrative from a fundraising or public discussion perspective, to admit it publicly).
Among other Republican camps, the issue isn't the federal role (at least in terms of the cash that comes from the coffers), but the fact that the federal government is finally requiring suburban districts to admit they are poorly educating children, especially kids from poor and minority households. Like Democrat colleagues who stick to their NEA- and AFT-provided talking points, they don't want to admit the need to abandon a failed, amoral vision of American public education.
Which gets to the biggest problem of Hess' and Darling-Hammond's piece: Their unwillingness to admit that No Child has been the most-critical element in spurring the first successful national efforts at systemic reform and in amplifying initiatives that began before its passage with the work of Southern governors, big-city leaders such as former Milwaukee mayor John Norquist and school superintendent Howard Fuller, and the grassroots efforts of reformers such as Wendy Kopp at Teach For America.
No Child has been the single-biggest advance in education policy, both at the federal level and among states and local governments, since the Defense Education Act of 1958. For the first time in the history of American public education, No Child set clear national goals for improving student achievement in reading and mathematics; it finally focused attention on using data in measuring teacher quality. The law also made it clear to states and suburban districts that they could no longer continue to commit educational malpractice against poor and minority children; and it focused American public education on achieving measurable results instead of damning kids to low expectations.
Through its Adequate Yearly Progress measures, the low quality of education across the nation's public schools — including urban districts and in suburbia — was exposed while it gave researchers the impetus to look at the nation's high school graduation rates (and present in clear, stark terms the high school dropout crisis). As stated earlier, No Child fully signaled the primary role of states in education governance. Without No Child, there is no Race to the Top, no teacher quality reform movement, no discussion about value-added assessment and no real national focus on stemming achievement gaps.
Proof of the imperfect success of No Child in spurring systemic reform can be seen in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. The percentage of all fourth-graders reading Below Basic proficiency declined from 39 percent in 2002 to 33 percent in 2011; the percentage of black students who were functionally illiterate declined from 60 percent to 51 percent during that period, while the percentage of poor and minority kids reading Below Basic declined from 54 percent to 48 percent. To quantify this overall (based on federal enrollment data and Dropout Nation's projections of fourth-grade enrollment for 2010-2011), it is likely that 217,432 fewer fourth-graders were functionally illiterate — and likely to drop out — in 2011 than in the year after No Child was passed.
(Some will attempt to use long-term NAEP data to argue that little has happened. But given that most states didn't participate in NAEP until 1996, any data from NAEP extending from before 1996, and really, before 2001, when all states were required under No Child to participate in the exam is essentially invalid because it is incomplete.)
Certainly No Child has not been an absolute success — and no one should dare suggest it. The AYP provisions needed to be tightened up in order to ensure that states didn't game the system. But the problem lies not with the law itself, but with the U.S. Department of Education's implementation of AYP (which now has been used by Duncan and Obama to declare that they need to scrap accountability altogether). No Child's Highly Qualified Teacher provision was a rather wishy-washy element that didn't require the use of student test data in measuring teacher quality (focusing instead on certification and other qualifications that have no positive correlation to student achievement) and allowed states and school districts to simply allow laggard teachers to keep their jobs at the expense of students and taxpayers alike. No Child also never took aim at the low quality of teacher training at university schools of education, which train most of the nation's teachers; it also never addressed the critical role of chronic truancy in spurring the nation's education crisis, allowing states to dodge the problem.
Nor should No Child be the end all of the federal role of systemic reform. If anything, we need more federal accountability efforts, not fewer. It has been proven that reform-minded state leaders need a strong federal hand (along with active grassroots efforts and reform-minded players working statehouses) to help them cut through the political barriers for systemic reform. The federal Race to the Top effort, which has pushed states such as New York to allow for the expansion of charter schools and require the use of student test data in evaluating teachers, has proven the importance of making competitive grants an important part of federal education funding. Forcing states to finally push for systemic reforms of their ed schools, an effort already underway in Indiana and Louisiana, must be part of any federal reform effort.
As seen in today's NAEP results for big cities — especially those such as New York and Boston — the early reforms spurred by No Child that led to strong gains are starting to slow. One of reasons lies with the fact these early reforms just touch the surface of the underlying issues of low teacher quality, lack of school choice, limits on Parent Power, and shoddy curricula that are at the heart of the nation's education crisis. It would make sense to launch a new version of Race to the Top that targets reform-minded school districts and allows them to be transformed into the educational equivalent of enterprise zones in which they can be freed from tenure laws and other state policies that protect laggard teachers and their unions at the expense of children — and will be required to enact Parent Trigger laws, expand school choice, and ensure that all kids are taught rigorous, college preparatory curricula.
But No Child, for its imperfections, has been successful in spurring the first of many needed steps for systemic reform on a national level. And for Hess and Darling-Hammond to merely argue that No Child has merely been a lesson in "humility" about the federal role in education is the height of intellectual disingenuousness.


text:
Talking Pineapples? NY Drops
Weird Q&A on Standardized Test
8th graders in New York state were baffled in April when the following story and questions appeared on a standardized test meant to measure reading ability:
Directions: Read this story. Then answer questions 6 through 11.
The Hare and the Pineapple
In olden times, the animals of the forest could speak English just like you and me.
One day, a pineapple challenged a hare to a race.
(I forgot to mention, fruits and vegetables were able to speak too.)
A hare is like a rabbit, only skinnier and faster. This particular hare was known to be the fastest animal in the forest.
"You, a pineapple have the nerve to challenge me, a hare, to a race," the hare asked the pineapple.
"This must be some sort of joke."
"No," said the pineapple. "I want to race you. Twenty-six miles, and may the best animal win."
"You aren't even an animal!" the hare said. "You're a tropical fruit!"
"Well, you know what I mean," the pineapple said.
The animals of the forest thought it was very strange that tropical fruit should want to race a very fast animal.
"The pineapple has some trick up its sleeve," a moose said.
Pineapples don't have sleeves, an owl said.
"Well, you know what I mean," the moose said. "If a pineapple challenges a hare to a race, it must be that the pineapple knows some secret trick that will allow it to win."
"The pineapple probably expects us to root for the hare and then look like fools when it loses," said a crow. "Then the pineapple will win the race because the hare is overconfident and takes a nap, or gets lost, or something."
The animals agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple.
When the race began, the hare sprinted forward and was out of sight in less than a minute. The pineapple just sat there, never moving an inch.
The animals crowded around watching to see how the pineapple was going to cleverly beat the hare. Two hours later when the hare crossed the finish line, the pineapple was still sitting still and hadn't moved an inch.
The animals ate the pineapple.
MORAL: Pineapples don't have sleeves.
- Beginning with paragraph 4, in what order are the events in the story told?
- Switching back and forth between places
- In the order in which the events happen
- Switching back and forth between the past and the present
- In the order in which the hare tells the events to another animal
- The animals ate the pineapple most likely because they were
- Hungry
- Excited
- Annoyed
- Amused
- Which animal spoke the wisest words?
- The hare
- The moose
- The crow
- The owl
- Before the race, how did the animals feel toward the pineapple?
- Suspicious
- Kindly
- Sympathetic
- Envious
- What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare?
- The pineapple would have won the race.
- They would have been mad at the hare for winning.
- The hare would have just sat there and not moved.
- They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner.
- When the moose said that the pineapple has some trick up its sleeve, he means that the pineapple
- is wearing a disguise
- wants to show the animals a trick
- has a plan to fool the animals
- is going to pull something out of its sleeve

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Return to Smoke Out website
Return to Index
Nathan how about you?
April 3 2010 at 9:33 PM
Ratman (
no login
from IP address 188.8.131.52
Response to
leaving fortsmith area on thursday
which way are you leaving town? (you are riding, right?)
Respond to this message
Re: Nathan how about you?
- nathan on Apr 13, 2010, 10:04 AM


text:
Amy M. Friedlander joined Black & LoBello in 2009. Prior to joining the firm, she served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Robert W. Teuton of the Eighth Judicial District Court – Family Division.
Ms. Friedlander graduated cum laude from California State University, Long Beach in 2004, with a bachelor's degree in political science and a minor in psychology. As an undergraduate, Ms. Friedlander received the Pi Sigma Alpha Political Science Scholarship for Academic Excellence in September 2003 and the Outstanding Undergraduate Student Award in Political Science in May 2004.
Ms. Friedlander received her Juris Doctorate from the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in May of 2008. After her first year of law school, she worked as a summer associate for Christiansen Law Offices, where she worked on personal injury, medical malpractice, and criminal defense cases. Also, while in law school, she served as an extern to the Honorable Kent J. Dawson of the United States District Court, District of Nevada. Furthermore, she spent three semesters working as a student attorney as part of William S. Boyd School of Law's Child Welfare Clinic, representing numerous foster children and successfully conducting a trial on a petition to terminate parental rights.
Ms. Friedlander was admitted to the State Bar of Nevada in October of 2008. She is currently a member of the American Bar Association and the Clark County Bar Association.


text:
We're huge fans of stuffed peppers, so its natural that we bring our peppers outside and cook them on our outdoor grill. This recipe is similar to chili rellenos, found in the American Southwest and Mexico, but they're grilled, not deep-fried, which adds a delicious, smoky flavor to the entree, and makes them a very healthy dish.
Tools: Outdoor grill, any variety, grill rack; see text
Anaheim or poblano chili peppers; see text
Using a sharp kitchen knife, make a slit lengthwise down the side of each chili pepper. Remove seeds, ribs inside peppers, and as much as the core as possible, taking care to leave the stems attached. Note: The stems make an attractive presentation and offer something to grab on to, if needed. Reserve
Peel back ears from corn, remove. Remove and discard corn silk. Reserve.
Photo: Anaheim chili peppers are stuffed with a previously grilled mixture of delicious vegetables.
Using sharp knife, slice lengthwise the squash, potato and onion half. I prefer to slice to a thickness of about 1/2" but it's not critical. I suggest that you make all piece roughly the same thickness, for uniform cooking. Remove skins from garlic cloves and slice lengthwise into slices about 1/4" thick. Reserve all vegetables.
Light grill, spray with non-stick spray, and bring to high heat. Spray grill rack with non-stick spray. Place potato slices, tomato slices, onion slices and garlic on grill rack. Spray vegetables with canola spray. Turn over and spray other side. Sprinkle desired amount of Canadian Steak Seasoning, if used, on vegetables. Place squash and corn on a plate, and spray both sides with the non-stick spray. Sprinkle Canadian Steak Seasoning on vegetables, if used.
Photo: Vegetables for the stuffed chili peppers cooking on the grill. Note the grill basket to the rear of the grill, as its used so the small and "mushier" vegetabls don't fall through the cracks in the grill. Note the attractive grill marks that are beginning to appear.
During one of my trips to Mexico, I learned a neat trick, as I had the opportunity to attend a family barbecue while visiting friends in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. When the grill reached operating temperature, my friend took a half an onion and rubbed the grill with it. Not only did the onion add to the "non-sticking" power, but it added a heavenly aroma, which will find its way into your food. Now, I always coat the surface of the grill with an onion. It's a great way to utilize an onion that's past its prime.
Place grill rack, with vegetables, on grill, near the rear. Place corn and squash near the front. Use direct, high heat, as the object is to sear the vegetables, and to implant attractive grill marks. Total cooking will be about 20 minutes. The corn should be turned four times, in order to cook each side, and the potatoes and squash should be allowed to cook for 10 minutes, then turned over, and allowed to cook for another 5 minutes before removing. The tomato and garlic slices should cook for 10 minutes and then removed from the grill. You don't need to turn over the tomato or garlic.
Removed cooked vegetables from grill and allow them to cool. At this stage, the vegetables are about 2/3 cooked; they will be finished when they are placed in the chili peppers.
When vegetables are cool enough to work with, dice garlic, tomato, squash and potato into small pieces, about 1/4" by 1/4" and place in mixing bowel. Remove kernels of corn from cobs. The method that I use is that I cut the tip off the ear of corn, so when I hold it vertically, it won't move around. Using a sharp kitchen knife, I simply slice off the kernels, as I hold the ear of corn vertically, on a cutting board. Add corn to mixing bowl with other vegetables.
Add salt and cheese, if used, to vegetables and stir well. Using your bare hands, stuff mixture in equal amounts of vegetable mixture into each pepper, placing as much as you can into each pepper. Spray each stuffed pepper with non-stick spray. You'll probably have left over vegetable mixture, but that's not a problem as it is makes a delicious side dish.
Photo: These stuffed poblano chili peppers are ready to be removed from the grill.
Spray non-stick cooking spray on grill, being mindful of flare-ups. If desired, rub onion on grill. Place stuffed peppers on grill. Grill for about 15 minutes, or until charred grill marks appear, turn over and grill for an additional 10 minutes. Total grilling time for the stuffed peppers is between 20 and 30 minutes, depending on your grill. I use a Weber Genesis 3000 LX LP gas grill, and I grill my stuffed peppers at a temperature of 350 degrees.
When attractive grill marks are seared on both sides of your stuffed peppers, they're done. Remove from grill and allow to cool. Serve immediately. Note: remove stem and core before eating, as its non-edible and tends to be very hot!
There is absolutely nothing critical about this recipe, including cooking times, cooking methods, type of pepper, or what you stuff it with. I've used Anaheim, poblano and jalapeño peppers, and my wife has even used the boring bell pepper. You can stuff your peppers with whatever you have on hand, including any type of meat. Our stuffed peppers are a great way to utilize leftovers and add a delicious side dish to your grilled meal. I serve them with Mexican dishes as well, as an alternative to deep fried chili rellenos.
Photo: If you don't have an outdoor grill, or if you just don't want to bother cooking ourdoors, as an indoor George Foreman grill will do a fine job.
You don't even need an outdoor grill, as I've made stuffed peppers using my George Foreman grill with great results. Of course you don't get the smoky flavor, and you can't use whole ears of corn, but I simply substitute frozen corn, that's thawed, and cook the kernels on the grill. This recipe is absolutely foolproof!
Give these stuffed peppers a try, as they're delicious, healthy, and fun to make.
Copyright(c) 2008 eRench Productions, Inc. All rights reserved. This site has been on the web since December 22, 2002.
Web page design has been created by eRench Productions, Inc., website design, custom photography and more...


text:
NAB wrap up
NAB was tremendous as you might imagine and Adobe had a terrific presence and impact upon the attendees. Adobe is what you might call a "destination" booth, but we don't take anything for granted and so it was with great pleasure and relief that we had a packed booth from the opening of the show to the very last hour on Thursday.
In fact, I remarked to someone that most of the theater in our booth was full on the last presentation, even as streams of people were filing out to catch a cab to wherever.
First off, thanks to those of you who took the time to find me and introduce yourselves – it is SO great to meet and connect with you. Hopefully, after meeting me, you'll still read the blog now and again! 😉
Around the booth, we did have a lot of other companies that no doubt benefited from and contributed to the general congestion that was in the area. Most notably, the RED booth. They introduced two cameras, each of which will be fascinating in their respective markets. The one that struck me the most was a 3K camera for $3k. I certainly hope that Adobe will have RED on the Cinema DNG group and that viable workflows with Adobe and RED products will be a reality sooner rather than later.
So, what was the buzz around the show floor this year? Read on!
- Sony XDCAM EX – definitely something that people are excited about. It can do 1920×1080 both interlaced and progressive and record it at a measly 4.3 MB/s. At least that is what I've encountered thus far. People love the EX1 and rate it a near perfect camera except it isn't particularly well balanced. The new camera didn't have the same warm fuzzies – not because of the features like interchaneable lenses, XLR inputs, shoulder mount. Rather, it was too expensive for the extra features.
- The aforementioned RED booth. The revolution is in full swing, at least according to them and I'm inclined to agree.
- AVC-Intra from Panasonic – DVC Pro HD is big and the new AVC-Intra has seemingly been greeted with warm applause. I was asked if we supported AVC intra several times while doing a pod (the answer is no for now)
- Adobe technology preview. While I didn't see it personally, I know what it contained and more importantly I had a gaggle of people come up to me to talk to me about how cool it was. The speech-to-text feature allows you to convert audio dialog to actual text. Why is that cool? Well, what if you want to condense a baseball game to just all of the important plays. Simply search for words like "strikeout and double?" There are tons of potential applications that are possible here. That was only one of 5 bits that we presented.
- Adobe Media Player was also hot. We had 3 "living rooms" that had a big screen TV running a PC or Mac with the Adobe Media Player. People were watching CSI, Star Trek and my own personal favorite, The Twilight Zone. I'll leave it to others to comment on the number of people downloading and using AMP, but it is encouring to be sure!
I had a number of meetings and more than ever before I heard from other manufacturers that they wanted to forge closer relationships with Adobe. Whether its because their customers are using Adobe or because they see a value to it doesn't matter. Its a win for customers which is what really counts.
Lastly, I should mention that I typed this on the plane ride back from Las Vegas and I was struck by one thing very clearly. in case you don't know, both Sony and Panasonic have HUGE offices in NJ and yet it still struck me how there were a bunch of Panasonic and Sony people on the plane. Not surprisingingly, I didn't really see them chatting much with each other! 😉
I could certainly write more and perhaps I shall…but for now, know that NAB was probably the best yet for Adobe


text:
NIA implementation of NIH Policy on Acceptance for Review of Applications Requesting $500,000 or More in Direct Costs in a Single Year
NIA implementation of NIH Policy on Acceptance for Review of Applications Requesting $500,000 or More in Direct Costs in a Single Year
NIA implementation NIH Policy Acceptance Review Applications Requesting 500,000 More Direct Costs a Single Year Notice Number: NOT-AG-11-001 Key Dates Release Date: October 18, 2010 Issued National Institute Aging NIA) Purpose NIH policy requires applicants seek research support at least 500,000 direct costs) a single year seek permission submit application an Institute Center least six weeks before intended submission date. part new cost control measures NIA revising this policy being implemented NIA the following ways: NIA established budget accepting large applications. program division been assigned budget accepting large applications review. NIA Program Divisions accept applications request 500,000 direct costs) more a single year only accepting such applications allows Program Division stay within budget that fiscal year. policy applies new, resubmission, renewal, revision applications. NIA limits share the competing budget assigned large awards. NIA also restricting share the overall competing research grant budget may awarded large grants. FY 2011, NIA limit share competing RPG funds going large grants no than share competing RPG budget awarded large grants FY 2010 50% competing dollars). future years NIA announce share the competing budget going large awards its website. Given limits program divisions ability accept large applications, NIA strongly encourages applicants submit such requests early possible the planning phase the application well before six week deadline. Applicants submit request directly program staff. the appropriate program officials not known applicants submit inquiries the individual listed below. NIA continue update website additional information the budget FY 2011 beyond becomes available. Inquiries Interested parties contact: Program Contact: Dr. Robin A. Barr National Institute Aging Division Extramural Activities 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C218 Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 Express courier use: Bethesda MD 20814 Tel.: 301-496-9322 Fax: 301-402-2945 E-mail:
Funding Number:
Web Site:
Expiration Date:
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Release Date:
Monday, October 18, 2010
Funding Type:
Source URL:


text:
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0223 Tuesday, 9 February 1999.
Date: Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 22:32:38 +1300
Subject: Re: Touchstone
Reading the introduction to the screenplay of Much Ado About Nothing, I
was somewhat astonished to see Branagh's description of Touchstone as
"one of the great unfunny Shakespearean clowns."
Since I cannot ask Branagh himself, I wondered if there were others -
especially those with experience of As You Like It in performance - who
agree with this. When I directed AYLI several years ago, our Touchstone
was brilliantly funny, and brought the house down at every performance.
Any thoughts?
Judy Lewis


text:
UK Law
Get UK Law Questions Answered by Verified Experts
Thanks for your question.
I assume you are a national of a non-EEA member stated country.
It is a condition of your visitor's visa that you must leave before the expiry of the visa which you have been granted. Usually it is limited to 6 months.
There is, I regret to say, no possibility of your applying for indefinite leave to remain (permanent resident) at the end of your visa. It is simply not permitted and, in fact, the only way you could stay for any length of time after your visa expires is if there are exceptional compassionate reasons why you should be granted further leave to remain (eg. Where to remove you would provably affect your health because of a serious and existing health condition).
If you wish to apply for ILR you must do so under the normal ways (eg. Either by a visa based on a family relationship (eg. Wife) or as a sponsored skilled worker (ie. Tier 2):-
It is very important that you do not overstay your visitor's visa because this could prejudicially affect any future application for a visa that you make.
I am very sorry it could not be better news.
If this has been useful please kindly click accept so that I may be rewarded for my time. If you do not click accept your money stays with the site and I do not receive any credit for the time I have taken to answer your question.
I will answer your follow up questions you may have.
Kind regards,Tom
Dear XXXXX,
Thank you very much for your reply. I have been informed that I can be granted a 5 years visit visa to UK where as you have mentioned I cannot stay more than 6 months. But they informed me that I can change this to a Residence Visa for 3 years if I opened a company and started making profit or if I found a job.
So I want to ask if it is easy to get a job in UK while I am on my visit visa or I can open a company to be able to take a 3 years Residence and afterwards apply for the PR.
You will note that I said generally visitor's visas are granted for 6 months. The visitor's visa you refer to is, I think, a multi-entry vistor's visa., which pemits you to enter and leave the UK provided you do not stay in the UK for more than 6 months in any 12 months period. As it is a visitor's visa you would still not be able to work or set up a company and work for that company during that time, so I'm not sure the advice you have received is quite correct.
Similaly, the UKBA do not permit switching from a visitor's visa to one of the workers category (ie. entrepreneurial, investor or tier 2 on the above link) whilst you are in the UK. They would require you to return home and make the application from there.
If your ultimate aim is to gain permanent residency in the UK and you are not in a relationship with a UK or EEA-member state national then you would have to apply under the bracketed ways in the paragraph above. The information is contained in the link in my previous post. A visitor's visa (multi-entry or otherwise) is not appropriate if you wish to secure PR. Trust this clarifies, if so please click accept. Kind regards,


text:
Within the ever-growing range of compact SUVs, Kia's little Sportage has represented a bargain-priced, well-warranted alternative to industry darlings such as the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. But there's a reason the others have been the standouts and the Sportage has not: The outgoing model wasn't dynamically or stylistically compelling. The Sportage will be better…
Featured Articles
2011 Kia Sportage – First Drive Review
Featured Articles


text:
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/1/2014 (1292 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
Meal-plan rules clear
Re: Students' food fight with U of W (Jan. 9).
Diversity Foods, an award-winning food-service provider, was introduced to the University of Winnipeg campus in 2009 with a mandate to offer local, nutritious, locally sourced "real" food. The university engaged Diversity's services to provide an affordable, flexible, healthy meal plan for the 172 students in McFeetors Hall.
The University of Winnipeg offers various housing options to approximately 425 students and while the tax-free meal plan is offered to all university students, it is only mandatory for McFeetors Hall residents, as there are no kitchens in the dorm rooms.
The meal plan offers a service for students who live in residence, with specific restrictions, limitations and conditions that apply to those services. Our housing and food-program details are easily accessible, transparent, and clear, and are posted online for students and parents to peruse; each student is encouraged to thoroughly read their housing and food contracts before signing them.
The university meal plan is one of the most affordable in all of Manitoba's post-secondary education facilities and is also one of the most flexible -- students can use their card at four Diversity locations on campus and take advantage of the variety of menu options.
Diversity continually seeks to improve delivery of food services to students at the University of Winnipeg, offering a cost-competitive, nutritious, delicious product at the minimum requirements set out by the Canada Revenue Agency for tax exemption.
Questions have been raised regarding CRA requirements associated with the design and operation of our meal plan. While we believe our plan is consistent with CRA requirements, we take these questions seriously. As a result we will be seeking a formal ruling from the CRA regarding the plan.
Diversity charges no administrative fee to operate the meal plan and is more than willing to meet with students and our student association to discuss concerns and hear ideas around improving the meal plan.
Senior executive officer and adviser to the president,
University of Winnipeg
Tallying the damage
Reported accidents have reached 20,000 (Snow job, or just new reality?, Jan. 8), yet road clearing and sanding have still been abysmal -- all to save a few million dollars from the snow-clearing budget.
Council can find $100 million to cover over-expenditures on police and fire stations, but not a few million to protect the lives and automobiles of their citizens. The cost of repairing these vehicles will no doubt be passed on to the drivers in the coming years.
Also in the coming year is a municipal election. How many of the current councillors deserve to be re-elected?
Another senseless tragedy
Re: ER patient dies outside his home (Jan. 10).
The medical system in this province clearly leaves a lot to be desired. The Phoenix Sinclair and Brian Sinclair inquiries offer proof of what can and did go wrong, but it seems no lessons have been learned.
David Silver, 78, died after being released from the Grace Hospital into the care of a cab driver. It was -37 C in the middle of the night. Dressed in little more than pyjamas and slippers, Silver never made it to his front door -- he was essentially abandoned.
Will another inquiry be called? Would it make a difference?
Open books on cottages
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship constantly references the argument cottage owners have not had an increase in service fees and rent in many years, and that we should therefore have an increase (Cottage-fee hikes in mail soon, Jan. 9).
Most cottagers realize fees need to be adjusted, and that we should pay our fair share. But what is our fair share? The provincial government has not been able to account for park expenses since 2002, even with a 2005 court ruling stating Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship's books must be opened to the public.
Cottage owners and associations have filed freedom-of-information requests but are ignored or told an extension is needed as a large number of records need to be searched.
We have been told the increase will go ahead, but that they promise to do an audit in the future.
More promises from a government that increases rent by up to 750 per cent and ignores their own rental act that does not allow for such large increases.
To enjoy the "privilege" of being a cottage owner, my husband and I earned diplomas, then worked long hours -- usually 12 or more, including shiftwork -- as we raised our children.
Owning a second home does not mean unpacking a cooler, putting your feet up and relaxing. Yard work, repairs and maintenance costs is the life of a cottage owner, yet it has been a wonderful retreat for over 20 years.
Conservation Minister Gord Mackintosh claims the government is only interested in what is a fair outcome. So are cottagers. Comparing cottage fees inside and outside of parks is not reasonable: There are no schools in provincial parks, there is minimal street lighting, no garbage pickup (cottagers must take their garbage to receptacles) and only primary highway snow clearing (cottagers privately pay for block road clearing).
As for frozen park service and rent fees, my invoices have increased steadily from $660 to $1,000 annually.
This tax being imposed on cottage owners without showing where the money has and will be spent smells foul. If everything was in order, the government would not defy a court order to open the books.
The same goes for the gasoline and provincial sales-tax increases. Does anyone believe they will spend that money on road improvement?
East St. Paul


text:
CUMBERLAND-RIVER-L ArchivesArchiver > CUMBERLAND-RIVER > 2001-10 > 1002950151
From: "Bobbie Ivey-Lewallen" <>
Subject: [CRR] Obits from The News-Journal, Laurel County area
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 01:15:51 -0400
Obituaries for October 10, 2001
Mary Elizabeth Gabbard, 95, of Annville, KY in Jackson Co., passed away
Saturday, October 6, 2001 at Jackson Manor. Born on May 25, 1906, in Jackson
Co., KY, she was the daughter of the late Andrew Jackson and Syrena McDowell
Simpson. She was a retired school teacher receiving a Bachelors of Arts
degree from Eastern Kentucky University.
She was a member of the McWhorter Christian Church, the Eastern Star,
DAR, Alpha Delta Kappa, and Daughters of the Nile, and Central Baptist
Hospital Volunteer Auxiliary Association.
She is preceded in death by her husband of 58 years: Ernest L. Gabbard;
one sister: Gertrude Hillard; and one brother: Charles L. Simpson.
Survivors include several nieces and nephews: Charles L. Hillard, Mary
Trosper, Andy Hillard, Donna Simpson, Dana Albrecht, Charley Price, Ova Gene
Gabbard, Fletcher Gabbard, Arkie Gabbard, Violet Kostun, Ernestine Reece,
Tony Gabbard, Sylvia Boggs, and Dennis Tillery, along with great-nieces and
Funeral services were held Tuesday at Bowling Funeral Home at 10:30 a.m.
with Quentin McNabb and Eldon Bowling officiating. Burial was in the
Lexington Cemetery at 1 p.m. Pallbearers were: Andy Hillard, Tom Trosper,
Ova Gabbard, Stanley Boggs, Fletcher Gabbard and Tony Gabbard.
Nola Ball, 92, of London, KY passed away Monday, October 1, 2001 in her
residence. She was a retired school teacher and was affiliated with White
Oak Christian Church in Cincinnati, OH.
Preceding her in death: father: Charlie McKnight; mother: Nannie Belle
(Coldiron) McKnight; husband: Archie J. Ball.
Survivors include several nieces, nephews and cousins.
Funeral services were held Thursday, October 4, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. in
House -Rawlings Funeral Home. Burial was in Swiss Colony Cemetery in London,
Marvin Craft, 74, of Barbourville, passed away Sunday, September 30, 2001
at Central Baptist Hospital in Lexington.
He is survived by: brother: Jack Craft and wife Dorothy of London, KY;
sister: Geneva Underwood of Barbourville.
Funeral services were conducted at 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 3, 2001
at the Hart Funeral Home Chapel with Rev. Roger Wolfe and Rev. Seymour
Wattenbarger officiating. Burial was in the Mt. Olivet Cemetery.
On October 2, 2001, God called our beloved husband, Daddy, Pappaw and
Great-Pappaw home. After a lengthy illness, Charlie R. McNew passed on to
his new life at his Hamilton residence. He was born October 23, 1921 in
Laurel County, Kentucky, the oldest son of William and Ella (Hopkins) McNew.
His brothers, Ray and John survive.
Charlie was educated in Laurel County and worked as a farmer. He proudly
answered his Country's call serving in the Headquarters & Headquarters
Squadron of the 5th Army Air Corps during World War II. He was in Bismark
Archipelago, Southern Philippines and Luzon. He received the American
Theatre Ribbon; Asiatic-Pacific Theatre Ribbon with three bronze stars; Good
Conduct Ribbon; and World War II Victory Medal.
Upon his discharge, he returned to Laurel County to marry his childhood
sweetheart. On June 27, 1946 Charlie and Inez Lewis were united in marriage.
To this union, one daughter was born Brenda Charlene Irvine also of
The couple moved to Hamilton in 1947 and he became employed with Krauth
and Benninghofen, from which he retired in 1981. He was a member of Zion
United Baptist Church, proudly being a charter member of the church. Charlie
was also affiliated with the Fairfield Veterans of Foreign War Post and
Fraternal Order of Eagles Butler Aerie 407.
God, Country and Family were Charlie's greatest pride. During his long
illness, visiting with friends and especially family members brought him
great joy. In addition to his wife, daughter and brothers, he leaves four
grandchildren: Jacque (Bill) Vandeventer and Becky (Ryan) Isaacs of
Hamilton, Mark (Melanie) Irvine of Atlanta, Georgia and Chris (Bridget)
Irvine of London, Kentucky. Also left were his extra-special
great-grandchildren: Michael and Nicci Vandeventer; Brittani, Collin,
Lindsey and Logan Irvine; and his new "Little Buddy" Kenny Isaacs. He also
leaves behind a devoted niece, Dorothy Moore of Trenton, Ohio, as well as a
host of other family members and friends.
Charlie was preceded in death by his parents, one brother, several
step-brothers and sisters as well as a much-loved Mother and Father-in-law,
Lillie and Caddie Lewis and special brother-in-law Delford Lewis.
Funeral services were held Saturday, October 6, 2001 at the Colligan
Funeral Home in Hamilton; burial followed in Rose Hill Memorial Park with
Elder Lowell Brown, Pastor of Zion United Baptist Church officiating.
Pallbearers were: Mark Irvine, Chris Irvine, Bill Vandeventer, Michael
Vandeventer, Nicci Vandeventer and Ryan Isaacs.
The family would like to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Kathleen Long,
Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Kevin Campbell for their wonderful care; and
also to the many friends and family for their prayers and support during his
Cindy Jill Hatton Miller, 28, of London, KY, passed away Tuesday, October
2, 2001 in her residence. She was a Pre-school teacher and was affiliated
with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Survivors include: husband: Terry Miller, London, KY; father: Charles
Edward Hatton, London, KY; mother: Mary Janice Hatton (Nicely), London, KY;
son: Zachary Tyrel Miller, London, KY; brother: Charles Brandon Hatton,
London, KY; sister: Kimberly Ann Hatton, Richmond, KY.
Funeral services were held October 5, 2001 at 1:00 p.m. in the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Corbin, KY, with Bishop James Thomas
officiating. Burial was in A. R. Dyche Memorial, London, KY. Pallbearers
were: Elder Brown, Pat Graham, Matthew Maguet, Gary Nicely, Owens Ockerman,
Jr. and Elder Udermott.
Bowling Funeral Home, Inc. was in charge of all arrangements.
Eric Todd Hopkins, 22, of London, KY, passed away Monday, October 1, 2001
in Marymount Medical Center. He was a former employee of Red Lobster,
Richmond, KY.
Those preceding him in death: grandfather: Charlie Hopkins; grandmother:
Martha Hopkins.
Survivors include: father: Esco Hopkins, London, KY; mother: Debbie
(Proffitt) Hopkins, London, KY; son: Drake Vanorney; brother: Chris Hughes,
London, KY; grandfather: Tilford Proffitt, London, KY; grandmother: Wilma
Proffitt, London, KY.
Funeral services were held October 4, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. in
House-Rawlings Funeral Home with Rev. Paul Baker, Rev. Shawn Madden and Rev.
Thermon Taylor officiating. Burial was in Smith Cemetery in London, KY.
Cloyd Patton, 88, of London, KY, passed away Tuesday, October 2, 2001 in
his residence. He was a grocer and was affiliated with Laurel Chapel in
London, KY.
Those preceding him in death: father: Thomas C. Patton; mother: Mattie
(Watkins) Patton; wife: Nola Green Patton.
Survivors include: daughter: Margie Anders, London, KY; three sons: Carl
Patton, London, KY; Donald R. Patton, Cincinnati, OH; Jack Patton, London,
KY; brother: Onas Patton, East Bernstadt, KY; four grandchildren; two
Funeral services were held at House-Rawlings Funeral Home on October 5,
2001 at 2:00 p.m. with Rev. Walter Ballenger and Rev. Isaac Proffitt
officiating. Burial was in Pleasant View Cemetery, London, KY.
Evelyn Smith, 73, of Valparaiso, IN, passed away Monday October 1, 2001
in Fountainview Place, Portage, IN. She was a homemaker and was affiliated
with Blackwater Baptist Church, London, KY.
Those preceding her in death: father: Daniel Maxey; mother: Lily (Hodge)
Maxey; husband: Shelby R. Maxey.
Survivors include: daughter: Shirley Luna and husband Fred, Valparaiso,
IN; son: Darrell R. Smith, Benton, KY; brother: Charles Maxey and wife
Josie, Corbin, KY; sister: Rosa Smith and husband Earl, London, KY; sister:
Geneva Williams and husband Jim, Tampa, FL; three grandchildren: Shelbie J.
Luna, Bridgette Smith and Jacob Smith.
Funeral services were held October 5, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. in
House-Rawlings Funeral Home with Rev. Gene Huff and Bro. Larry Roark officia
ting. Burial was in Smith Cemetery in London, KY.
Lorene Benge Williams, 78, of London, KY, passed away October 7, 2001 at
her residence. She was retired Co-Owner and Operator of Benge Farm Supply
and attended the First Baptist Church.
Those preceding her in death were: mother: Leona Walden; father: Sherman
Benge; one sister: Thelma Pearl Bruner; two brothers: Loren Benge, Billy
Sherman Benge.
Survivors include: spouse: Victor S. Williams, London, KY; one son: Ted
Williams, East Bernstadt, KY; two daughters: Marna Bundy, London, KY, Kaye
Parsley, Oakland, KY; two brothers: Charlie Benge, Harold Benge, both of
London, KY; three sisters: Viola Brewer, Virginia Chesnut, Ann Berry, all of
London, KY; eleven grandchildren.
Services were held at the London Funeral Home Chapel on Oct. 9 at 11 a.m.
with Dr. Terry Lester officiating. Burial was in the Benge Cemetery, London,
Pallbearers were Ed Stanko, Scott Porter, Philip Bundy, Hubbell Williams,
Austin Williams and Melvin Chesnut.
Johnnie B. Wyatt, 54, of Trafalgar, IN, passed away Sept. 29, 2001. He
owned and operated Wyatt's Grocery in Peoga, IN.
Preceding him in death were: father: George Franklin Wyatt; wife: Polly
Wyatt; son: John John Wyatt.
Survivors include: mother: Eulene Wyatt Garland, London, KY; daughter:
Edith Wyatt Hale and husband: Mike Hale, London, KY; one grandson: Justin
Hale, London, KY; two sisters: Judy Read, Fairland, IN and Rita Garrison,
Indianapolis, IN; five brothers: Walter Fletcher, Delmas Fletcher, Jim
Fletcher and George Wyatt, all of Trafalgar, IN; Frank Garland, London, KY;
stepmother: Hazel Wyatt, Trafalgar, IN.
Services will be conducted at 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Bowling Funeral
Home with Rev. Walter Fletcher and Jay Griffie officiating. Burial will be
in the Wyatt's Chapel Cemetery, London, KY.
Thelma Buckner, 86, of London, KY, passed away Saturday, October 6, 2001
at the Marymount Medical Center. She was a homemaker and attended the
Liberty Baptist Church.
Those preceding her in death were father: Jim Pennington; mother: Ella
Pennington, husband: Carl Buckner.
Survivors include: two sisters: Geneva Mooney, Alma Morgan, both of
London, KY; two brothers: Earl Pennington, Johnny Pennington, both of
London, KY.
Services were held at the Bowling Funeral Home Chapel on Oct. 8 at 11
a.m. with Rev. Shawn Madden and Rev. Thurman Taylor officiating. Burial was
in the Liberty Cemetery, London, KY.
Lomer Smith, 71, of East Bernstadt, KY, passed away Friday, October 5,
2001 at his residence. She was a homemaker and attended the Indian Grave
Branch United Baptist Church.
Those preceding her in death were: father: Felix North; mother: Alifair
North; husband: Bradley Smith.
Survivors include: seven daughters: Lois Fulkerson, New Albany, IN,
Sharon Gorter, Lexington, KY, Janice Gregory, Barbara Napier, both of
Manchester, KY, Dorothy Hensley, Kimberly Reams, both of London, KY, Alice
Matthews, CA; one son: Freddie Smith, East Bernstadt, KY; three sisters:
Rosa Brock, Betty Jackson, both of Harlan, KY, Ruby Powers, Dayton, OH; one
brother: Eugene North; twenty grandchildren; fourteen great grandchildren.
Services were held at the Indian Grave Branch United Baptist Church on
Oct. 8 at 1 p.m. with Rev. Elbert Howard and Rev. Wayne Sizemore
officiating. Burial was in the Smith Cemetery, Manchester, KY.
Bowling Funeral Home, Inc. was in charge of all arrangements.
Bobby McDowell, 54, of London, KY, passed away Friday, October 5, 2001 at
the St. Joseph Hospital in Lexington. He was affiliated with the Dutch
Reform Church of Annville, KY, a truck driver and a US Army Veteran.
Preceding him in death was his father: Ed McDowell.
Survivors include: mother: Katie McDowell, London, KY; one sister: Betty
Jones, London, KY; three brothers: Johnny McDowell, London, KY, Lowell
McDowell, Berea, KY, Robert McDowell, Windsor, MO.
Services were held at the Bowling Funeral Home Chapel Oct. 9 at 1 p.m.
with Rev. Leon Edwards officiating. Burial was in the McDaniel Cemetery,
London, KY.
David Walter Nelson, 58, of East Bernstadt, KY, passed away Friday,
October 5, 2001 at the University of Louisville Hospital. He was retired
from International Harvester in Louisville, affiliated with Olive Gilead
Methodist Church, graduated from EKU with a BS degree in Accounting, and a
US Army Veteran.
Those preceding him in death were: father: Arthur (A.H.) Nelson; mother:
Mattie Nelson.
Survivors include wife: Kathy Nelson, East Bernstadt, KY; one son: Todd
Nelson, Louisville, KY; one daughter: Tiffany Wilbert, Louisville, KY; four
sisters: Judy Gautsch, Tuscon, AZ, Irene Goldstein, Vero Beach, FL, Orvilyne
Gumm, Somerset, KY, Linda Joseph, Pittsburg, KY; one brother: Emery Nelson,
Louisville, KY; one grandchild: Deaven Wilbert, Louisville, KY.
Services were held at the Bowling Funeral Home Chapel Oct. 8 at 1 p.m.
with Rev. Lawrence Cornelius officiating. Burial was in the Nelson Cemetery,
East Bernstadt, KY.
Mr. James (Jim) Payne, 85, of London, KY, formerly of Claiborne County
was born May 1, 1916 and departed this life Oct. 6, 2001 at his home.
He was a Christian, a Veteran of WWII. He was a prisoner of war. He
received the Purple Heart. He was preceded in death by his parents: B.M. &
A.M. (Jennings) Payne; his wife: Mary O'Dell Payne; four sisters and four
Survivors include one son: Jeffery Austin Payne; one grandson: Demian
Corey Payne; granddaughter: Jessica Diane Payne, all of London, KY; one
sister: Kathleen Stockwell of Florida; sisters-in-law: Bertha Payne of New
Tazewell, Alberta Cody Payne of Aiken, SC.
Services will be held at the Coffey Funeral Home in Tazewell, TN on Oct.
15. Burial in the Fairview Cemetery.
Paula Edmonds, 82, of East Bernstadt, KY, passed away October 7, 2001 in
the Marymount Medical Center. She was a homemaker and was affiliated with
Swiss Colony Baptist Church.
Preceding her in death: father: Paul Eichblatt; mother: Ethel Johnson;
husband: William O. Edmonds, Sr.
Survivors include: two daughters: Ann Corso, London, KY; Bonny Porter,
Denver, CO; three sons: Bill Edmonds, Louisville, KY; Gerry Edmonds,
Columbus, GA; Jim Edmonds, Chicago, IL; six grandchildren: Andy Edmonds,
Chicago, IL; Shannon Gruenke, Nashville, TN; Josh Martinez, Denver, CO;
Kendra Powers, Omaha, NE; Max Swartz, London, KY; Katie Corso, London, KY;
great-grandchild: Hunter Powers, Omaha, NE.
Memorial service will be held October 11, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. at the Swiss
Colony Baptist Church with Rev. Johnny Jervis officiating.
In lieu of flowers the family suggests donations be made to the Swiss
Colony Baptist Church.
London Funeral Home was in charge of all arrangements.
This thread:
|[CRR] Obits from The News-Journal, Laurel County area by "Bobbie Ivey-Lewallen" <>


text:
Decorative Skull Wine Bottle
Want a fun Hostess gift or gift for a guy that enjoys wine and has a great sense of humor?! This Skull Wine Bottle @zgallerie.com from Skeleton Cellars, is unfilled, but would be a perfect piece of "artwork" on any bar!
The perfect gift for that hostess with the mostest who loves mojitos. The tall glasses will display all the muddled mint leaves. Love the cigar band detail.Tags: gifts, kitchen, accessories, entertaining, glasses, glassware, bars, cocktails, drinkingAdded 9 Years Ago from Zgallerie
Sleek martini glasses with a skull and crossbones on the front.Tags: home, kitchen, accessories, glass, entertaining, glasses, drinks, glassware, decorAdded 9 Years Ago from Zgallerie


text:
*Tuesday, Parkview Physicians Group, Family Medicine, 104 Nicholas Place, Avilla
*Thursday, , Byron Health Center, 12101 Lima Road
*Friday, , Indiana NewsCenter, 3401 Butler Road
*Dec. 27, Parkview Physicians Group, Family Medicine, 1331 Minnich Road, New Haven
*Dec. 28, Maid Perfect and Chalfant Chiropractic, 5931 Stoney Creek
Appointments preferably should be scheduled before the date. For an appointment, call 483-1847 or 1-800-727-8439, Ext. 26540.IPFW will host Fitness Day for approximately 400 elementary students from five Fort Wayne Community Schools 10-11 a.m. Tuesday at the Gates Sports Center, 2101 Coliseum Blvd. E. The event is sponsored by Chase, WMEE, 97.3-FM, WQHK,105.1-FM, Fred Toenges shoes and the IPFW Athletic Department.
In addition, the Mastodons women's basketball game against Detroit will start at 11:30 a.m. in the Gates Sports Center.ADA and GINA: Understanding Medical and Genetic Information Requests in the Workplace audio conference will be 2-3:30 p.m. Tuesday.
For a hosted site location, visit www.adaindiana.org/audio/default.asp.A 2013 Wellness Retreat will be 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Jan. 5 at the Fort Wayne Dance Collective, 437 E. Berry St. The event will include Feldenkrais: Awareness through Movement and Iyengar Yoga with Barbara Ulmer or Movement Fundamentals with Liz Monnier. Lunch will be provided by Jeannie Porter. Cost is $35 and includes lunch. Register by Jan. 5.
To register or for more information, call 424-6574 or go online to www.fwdc.org/register.