Repub pols KNOW exactly what they're doing - this crap is a good fund raiser for them; it goes over well with the conservs, which is why they use it over, and over, and over...Repub pols KNOW what the recent Feirleigh Dickenson Univ survey proved - FOX viewers are the least informed, and most misinformed.
Today, we’re going to talk about Mitt Romney’s education speech.
Whoa! Calm down. Of course, it’s exciting — policy, Mitt Romney, education, speeches. That’s why I brought it up at the start of a long weekend, so there would be plenty of pondering time.
This was Romney’s first foray into education since he became the presumptive nominee, but it had a quality of mushiness seldom seen outside of a six-week-old pumpkin. At one point, in a tribute to American entrepreneurs, Romney announced that “if every one of our small businesses added just two employees, Americans could pay more mortgages and buy more groceries and fill their gas tanks.”
Or, you know, if they each added one. Or if the guys in the third row each hired 46.
But about the schools. Romney laced into President Obama for failing to resolve the nation’s “education crisis,” after he took over. “Wouldn’t it be great if we could look back on the last four years with confidence that the crisis had been confronted and we’d turned the corner toward a brighter future?” he asked.
Now this was interesting. Remember No Child Left Behind, George W. Bush’s enormous education reform law that became the domestic hallmark of his administration, if you want to be generous and not count the deficits? Bush spent eight years rolling it out, tweaking it and cheerleading for it. Also underfunding it, but you can’t say the attention wasn’t there.
The result, apparently, was an “education crisis” that Romney put right up there with the “jobs crisis” and “spending crisis” — all of which he said Obama inherited, and then failed to solve. The president often complains about the mess Bush left for him to clean up, but you don’t often hear Republicans singing this song.
What do you think’s going on here? So far, W.’s presidential endorsement has consisted of saying: “I’m for Mitt Romney” as an elevator door closed between him and a persistent reporter. Do you think there’s a connection?
The Tea Party folk hatehatehate No Child Left Behind as a federal intrusion on states’ rights to screw up their schools in whatever way they see fit. Romney vaguely referred to it as not being “without some weaknesses,” then promised to end “that political logjam that has prevented successful reform of that law.” Are you with me so far? I kind of like the logjam. I am seeing Mitt, in lumberjack garb, in the middle of a river full of downed trees and the occasional committee chairman. Perhaps the Romney boys are along, singing family songs. Maybe the dog is strapped to a fallen sycamore.
If there’s an education crisis, it’s one of at least 50 years duration. By the best national assessment we have available, it appears that the math skills of American fourth- and eighth-graders have been going up slowly but steadily for decades. Reading scores are also a tad better, although pretty flat. We need to do much better, and the fight over what to do next is mainly between people who think the big problem is a lack of resources and those who think it’s all about accountability and standards and tests. Romney is definitely way over in camp two.
Also, Mitt is going for “bold policy changes.” He said “bold” almost as many times as “education crisis,” even though the Romney verbiage was un-bold in the extreme. Did he want vouchers so kids could use public money for private school tuition? The one brief mention in the prepared text of “private school where permitted” vanished in Mitt-speak.
Here, in total, were his thoughts on the terrible problem of college costs: “We got to stop fueling skyrocketing tuition prices that put education out of the reach of way too many of our kids and leave others with crushing debt. Now, these are bold initiatives. ...”
But about school reform. Three big ideas: First, Romney is going to make the states provide “ample school choice.” Unless we’re talking, mushily, about vouchers, this one sounded exactly like the Bush law that allows parents whose children are in failing schools to move them elsewhere. It hasn’t really worked well. It turns out the parents wanted their local school to be better, not to ship their children out of the neighborhood. The magic of the marketplace works great for iPods, but not apparently for fourth graders.
Second, Romney wants the schools to have “report cards” on student performance so parents can make good decisions about choice. The only problems with this plan are: A) The parents don’t want that kind of choice; and B) the schools already have report cards.
Finally, he vowed to encourage teacher evaluation and accountability. This is something the Obama administration has been doing through its Race to the Top initiatives, much to the dismay of some teachers’ unions.
Romney then concluded with a long attack on Obama for being in the pocket of teachers’ unions.
Romney's Plan to Save Higher Ed: Let the Private Sector Handle It
Reuters
By Jordan Weissmann May 24 2012, 5:20 PM ET
Mitt Romney has released his plan for bringing down the cost of higher education, and although it's not extensive, it is enough to tell us where his heart is on the issue. And, unsurprisingly, his heart is in the private sector.
This is the bullet point version of Team Romney's agenda. As president, the candidate would:
• Loosen restrictions on for-profit universities
• Get banks back into the federal student loan game
• Streamline (or possibly just cut) government aid programs
• Give colleges more flexibility when it comes to how they award degrees
In other words, it's a very conventionally conservative blueprint, beginning with the core presumption that the main culprits behind rising tuition are a lack of competition and the limitless amounts of student aid that schools can simply pocket as they raise their rates. As Romney's position paper puts it, "a flood of federal dollars is driving up costs and burdening too many young Americans with too much debt and too few opportunities." It assumes that tightening the money hose and encouraging more companies to get into education will bring down prices. It's about unabashed faith in the free market.
Here's a point-by-point rundown of the good, bad, and irrelevant in the plan.
1. LIMITING STUDENT AID
Interesting idea in theory. Painful, and maybe pointless, in practice.
Although it tends to elicit a knee-jerk reaction from some liberals, the idea that student aid contributes to the rising cost of college is not crazy. Far from it. Econ 101 says that when you subsidize something, it increases demand and prices go up -- especially when there isn't stiff competition in the marketplace. But studies on the effect of student aid on college costs suggest that the link might be much more subtle and complicated than the basic logic would imply [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/is-financial-aid-really-making-college-more-expensive/253153/ ]. The research suggests that the growth of loans and grants has in fact led to some tuition inflation, but there's little agreement about what kinds of aid are responsible, what schools are most likely to hike up their rates when the government's dollars come rolling in, or how significant the effect is. Basically, the details are hazy.
Nonetheless, the notion that aid fuels college costs has become an article of faith on the right and is gaining currency on the left. President Obama himself embraced it a few months ago, when he declared that "if colleges and universities can't stop their costs from going up, then the funding they get from taxpayers, it should go down." Romney, for his part, promises that under his administration, "the federal government will no longer write a blank check to universities to reward their tuition increases, and by supporting institutions that are pursuing innovative operating models to drive down costs."
Unfortunately, Romney doesn't detail exactly how he plans to do that. He does pledge to eliminate "duplicative, inefficient, or ineffective" aid programs to save administrative costs. As for Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for school, he plans to "refocus" them "on the students that need them most and place the program on a responsible long-term path...." In other words, he'd cut the Pell budget and the number of loan programs the government runs. Would that pressure colleges into keeping down costs? Maybe. Or it might just drive students into the private loan market. It would certainly make paying for school more difficult for the neediest families, and without an explicit mechanism that punishes schools for tuition hikes, its hard to predict how college administrators would react.
2. GETTING BANKS BACK INTO STUDENT LENDING
There is no good reason for this. No, really. None.
Romney's suggestion that banks should once again play a larger role in student lending might be the only portion of his platform without a shred of good public policy rationale. One of the bonuses tucked inside Obama's health care reform bill was a provision that finally put the kibosh on the Family Federal Education Loan program, which slapped a government guarantee on private student loans issued by private banks. The program was an awful vestige of the 1960s [ http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federal-student-loan-programs-history ], when Congress realized that, thanks to a bit of budget gimmickry, backing private loans would appear cheaper than making them directly. In reality, it turned out to be vastly more expensive, to the tune of billions of dollars a year by the time Obama nixed it. Today, the government makes all federal subsidized loans straight to students. There's no more middle man.
Romney claims that when Obama "nationalized the student loan market," he "drove away private lenders and moved a trillion-dollar obligation to the federal balance sheet." This simply isn't true. The government was already on the hook for that money -- that's what it means when to guarantee a loan. If it goes bad, you pay. Other than that, Romney makes some noise about private lenders offering students more information and choice. Again, this is nonsense, unless you believe the banks were doing a fabulous job informing 18-year-olds about the risks of taking out debt before 2010. The long and the short of it: This idea looks like a give-away to the banks, or possibly a way to weaken the federal direct lending program.
3. UNLEASHING FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
Maybe not the greatest idea, unless you think recruiting at homeless shelters is OK.
Romney would like to see less regulation across the economy, and higher education is no exception. He specifically singles out the "gainful employment" rule, which cuts off federal financial aid for vocational schools that fail to place enough of their graduates in decently paying jobs. The for-profit college industry fought an all-hands-on-deck lobbying battle against the regulation and would still love to see it disappear (It's probably no coincidence that two Romney's education advisers previously lobbied [ http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2012/05/22/three-former-lobbyists-join-romney-education-policy-team/ ] for Apollo Group, corporate parent of The University of Phoenix).
There are many smart people who believe the for-profit colleges are helping push higher education into the 21st century, especially through their pioneering role in online learning. There's certainly no reason to strangle the industry in its cradle. But the gainful employment rule was aimed at scaling back the sector's worst excesses, like recruiting hopeless students at homeless shelters and halfway houses [ http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177064219731.htm?chan=magazine+channel_features ], then encouraging them to load up on debt. Unless you truly in your heart of hearts believe that all regulation is bad regulation, there's no reason to eliminate it.
4. LETTING COLLEGES DECIDE HOW TO AWARD DEGREES
Now we're talking!
Of course, there are some regulations that do stifle innovation. Consider the government's decision in 2010 to formally define a credit hour. That appears to be the rule Romney is suggesting we eliminate, when he argues that colleges need more leeway to award degrees based on demonstrated skills rather than the time spent in a classroom.
As the country's major education lender, the Department of Education is interested in making sure degree programs meet certain standards, and since schools are accredited partly based on the amount of time students spend studying in and out of a classroom, the agency felt compelled to issue a formal rule.
The problem, which Romney's paper articulates rather well, is that time is an expensive and ineffective way of measuring achievement. Here's his take:
The current emphasis on time to degree, rather than measured competency, discourages more innovative learning solutions and continues the frustration of employers who are unable to fill high-skilled positions. Forcing students to complete a fixed term of study also drives up the costs for those who might need less time, while graduating those who have not yet obtained market-ready skills. Federal regulations and aid rules must change to facilitate instead of obstruct models that recognize and address this reality.
Exactly. If schools can figure out ways to graduate students faster and cheaper without compromising the quality of their education, there's no reason to let the government get in the way.
By almost every educational measure, the Agora Cyber Charter School is failing.
Nearly 60 percent of its students are behind grade level in math. Nearly 50 percent trail in reading. A third do not graduate on time. And hundreds of children, from kindergartners to seniors, withdraw within months after they enroll.
By Wall Street standards, though, Agora is a remarkable success that has helped enrich K12 Inc., the publicly traded company that manages the school. And the entire enterprise is paid for by taxpayers.
Agora is one of the largest in a portfolio of similar public schools across the country run by K12. Eight other for-profit companies also run online public elementary and high schools, enrolling a large chunk of the more than 200,000 full-time cyberpupils in the United States.
The pupils work from their homes, in some cases hundreds of miles from their teachers. There is no cafeteria, no gym and no playground. Teachers communicate with students by phone or in simulated classrooms on the Web. But while the notion of an online school evokes cutting-edge methods, much of the work is completed the old-fashioned way, with a pencil and paper while seated at a desk.
Kids mean money. Agora is expecting income of $72 million this school year, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total anticipated revenues of K12, the biggest player in the online-school business. The second-largest, Connections Education, with revenues estimated at $190 million, was bought this year by the education and publishing giant Pearson for $400 million.
The business taps into a formidable coalition of private groups and officials promoting nontraditional forms of public education. The growth of for-profit online schools, one of the more overtly commercial segments of the school choice movement, is rooted in the theory that corporate efficiencies combined with the Internet can revolutionize public education, offering high quality at reduced cost.
The New York Times has spent several months examining this idea, focusing on K12 Inc. A look at the company’s operations, based on interviews and a review of school finances and performance records, raises serious questions about whether K12 schools — and full-time online schools in general — benefit children or taxpayers, particularly as state education budgets are being slashed.
Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.
Current and former staff members of K12 Inc. schools say problems begin with intense recruitment efforts that fail to filter out students who are not suited for the program, which requires strong parental commitment and self-motivated students. Online schools typically are characterized by high rates of withdrawal.
Teachers have had to take on more and more students, relaxing rigor and achievement along the way, according to interviews. While teachers do not have the burden of a full day of classes, they field questions from families, monitor students’ progress and review and grade schoolwork. Complaints about low pay and high class loads — with some high school teachers managing more than 250 students — have prompted a unionization battle at Agora, which has offices in Wayne, Pa.
A look at a forthcoming study by researchers at Western Michigan University and the National Education Policy Center shows that only a third of K12’s schools achieved adequate yearly progress, the measurement mandated by federal No Child Left Behind legislation.
Some teachers at K12 schools said they felt pressured to pass students who did little work. Teachers have also questioned why some students who did no class work were allowed to remain on school rosters, potentially allowing the company to continue receiving public money for them. State auditors found that the K12-run Colorado Virtual Academy counted about 120 students for state reimbursement whose enrollment could not be verified or who did not meet Colorado residency requirements. Some had never logged in.
“What we’re talking about here is the financialization of public education,” said Alex Molnar, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education who is affiliated with the education policy center. “These folks are fundamentally trying to do to public education what the banks did with home mortgages.”
The online companies can tailor their programs by reducing curriculum and teachers. During a presentation at the Virginia legislature this year, a representative of Connections explained that its services were available at three price points per student:
Option A: $7,500, a student-teacher ratio of 35-40 to 1, and an average teacher salary of $45,000.
Option B: $6,500, a student-teacher ratio of 50 to 1, with less experienced teachers paid $40,000.
Option C: $4,800 and a student-teacher ratio of 60 to 1, as well as a narrower curriculum.
Despite lower operating costs, the online companies collect nearly as much taxpayer money in some states as brick-and-mortar charter schools. In Pennsylvania, about 30,000 students are enrolled in online schools at an average cost of about $10,000 per student. The state auditor general, Jack Wagner, said that is double or more what it costs the companies to educate those children online.
“It’s extremely unfair for the taxpayer to be paying for additional expenses, such as advertising,” Mr. Wagner said. Much of the public money also goes toward lobbying state officials, an activity that Ronald J. Packard, chief executive of K12, has called a “core competency” of the company.
In all, for-profit educational management companies run 79 online schools around the country, according to the study by researchers at Western Michigan University.
Many educators believe there is a place for full-time virtual learning for children whose pace is extremely accelerated or those with behavioral or other issues, like teenage mothers who need to stay home with their babies. But for most children, particularly in the elementary grades, the school experience should not be replaced with online learning, they say.
“The early development of children requires lots of interaction with other children for purposes of socialization, developing collaboration and teamwork, and self-definition,” said Irving Hamer Jr., deputy superintendent of Memphis city schools.
In an interview at K12’s headquarters in Herndon, Va., Mr. Packard said, “We’re here to help children, and that is our overriding purpose and we want to do it as well and efficiently as possible.”
He acknowledged what he called a “degradation” in K12’s test scores, but he argued that they are an inaccurate measure because many students are already behind when they arrive. “The type of child now coming to an online school, 75 percent of those kids coming in are behind more than one grade level,” Mr. Packard said.
He said K12 continues to invest in its curriculum and has developed interventions, like a remedial math program, to help struggling students.
“Kids have been shackled to their brick-and-mortar school down the block for too long,” Mr. Packard has said repeatedly, adding that for the first time, every child, regardless of where he or she lives, has a choice.
Some educators are questioning its value. “It’s choice,” said Thomas L. Seidenberger, superintendent of the East Penn School District in Pennsylvania, which is outperforming Agora and other online schools its students attend. “What about a bad choice?’”
THE MONEY FINDS A HOME Hadyn Packer, 8, at a check presentation at St. John Neumann Regional, a Catholic school in Williamsport, Pa. Niko J. Kallianiotis for The New York Times
LAWMAKER IN THE LIMELIGHT Sam Smith, speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, at a scholarship celebration. Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus
SCHOLARSHIP STAR Keyante Green (No. 1) left public school for the Eagle’s Landing Christian Academy. Jeff Hurndon Photography
ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE POLITICS A school-choice group paid for ads against Dan Gelber, a Florida attorney general candidate.
Parents at the Gwinnett Christian Academy in Snellville, Ga., got this handout, a primer in how to make the scholarship system work for them.
Christian Heritage School in Dalton, Ga., promoted a discount and rebate program in this handout. Parents who contributed to the tax credit program and earmarked their donations for the school could save money on their own child's tuition.
By STEPHANIE SAUL Published: May 21, 2012
When the Georgia legislature passed a private school scholarship program in 2008, lawmakers promoted it as a way to give poor children the same education choices as the wealthy.
The program would be supported by donations to nonprofit scholarship groups, and Georgians who contributed would receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits, up to $2,500 a couple. The intent was that money otherwise due to the Georgia treasury — about $50 million a year — would be used instead to help needy students escape struggling public schools.
That was the idea, at least. But parents meeting at Gwinnett Christian Academy got a completely different story last year.
“A very small percentage of that money will be set aside for a needs-based scholarship fund,” Wyatt Bozeman, an administrator at the school near Atlanta, said during an informational session. “The rest of the money will be channeled to the family that raised it.”
A handout circulated at the meeting instructed families to donate, qualify for a tax credit and then apply for a scholarship for their own children, many of whom were already attending the school.
“If a student has friends, relatives or even corporations that pay Georgia income tax, all of those people can make a donation to that child’s school,” added an official with a scholarship group working with the school.
The exchange at Gwinnett Christian Academy, a recording of which was obtained by The New York Times, is just one example of how scholarship programs have been twisted to benefit private schools at the expense of the neediest children.
Spreading at a time of deep cutbacks in public schools, the programs are operating in eight states and represent one of the fastest-growing components of the school choice movement. This school year alone, the programs redirected nearly $350 million that would have gone into public budgets to pay for private school scholarships for 129,000 students, according to the Alliance for School Choice, an advocacy organization. Legislators in at least nine other states are considering the programs.
While the scholarship programs have helped many children whose parents would have to scrimp or work several jobs to send them to private schools, the money has also been used to attract star football players, expand the payrolls of the nonprofit scholarship groups and spread the theology of creationism, interviews and documents show. Even some private school parents and administrators have questioned whether the programs are a charade.
Most of the private schools are religious. Nearly a quarter of the participating schools in Georgia require families to make a profession of religious faith, according to their Web sites. Many of those schools adhere to a fundamentalist brand of Christianity. A commonly used sixth-grade science text retells the creation story contained in Genesis, omitting any other explanation. An economics book used in some high schools holds that the Antichrist — a world ruler predicted in the New Testament — will one day control what is bought and sold.
The programs are insulated from provisions requiring church-state separation because the donations are collected and distributed by the nonprofit scholarship groups.
A cottage industry of these groups has sprung up, in some cases collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative fees, according to tax filings. The groups often work in concert with private schools like Gwinnett Christian Academy to solicit donations and determine who will get the scholarships — in effect limiting school choice for the students themselves. In most states, students who withdraw from the schools cannot take the scholarship money with them.
Public school officials view the tax credits as poorly disguised state subsidies, part of an expanding agenda to shift tax dollars away from traditional public schools. “Our position is that this is a shell game,” said Chris Thomas, general counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association.
Some of the programs have also become enmeshed in politics, including in Pennsylvania, where more than 200 organizations distribute more than $40 million a year donated by corporations. Two of the state’s largest scholarship organizations are controlled by lobbyists, and they frequently ask lawmakers to help decide which schools get the money, according to interviews. The arrangement provides a potential opportunity for corporate donors seeking to influence legislators and also gives the lobbying firms access to both lawmakers and potential new clients.
The programs differ from state to state, with varying tax benefits for donors and varying rules on who may receive the scholarships. Arizona’s largest program permits donors to recommend students who already attend private schools. Pennsylvania’s program lets them get scholarships and also lets scholarship organizations retain up to 20 percent in administrative fees.
Some states have moved to tighten restrictions after receiving complaints. In Florida, where the scholarships are strictly controlled to make sure they go to poor families, only corporations are eligible for the tax credits, eliminating the chance of parents donating for their own benefit. Also, all scholarships are handled by one nonprofit organization, and its fees are limited to 3 percent of donations. Florida also permits the scholarships to move with the students if they elect to change schools.
David Figlio, a professor at Northwestern University who has studied [ http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/ctc/files/figlio_ftc_test_score_report_2010.pdf ] Florida’s program, said it was an important alternative to public schools for some families. “They’re doing it because they’re feeling stuck,” Dr. Figlio said. “Their kids are doing poorly in the classroom, and they don’t know why.”
State Representative Earl Ehrhart, a Republican who helped write the Georgia law, called that report “sophistry” and said that any abuses in the program were anomalies. “I can’t tell you about the difference it makes in the lives of these kids,” Mr. Ehrhart said.
The report found that from 2007, the year before the program was enacted, through 2009, private school enrollment increased by only one-third of one percent in the metropolitan counties that included most of the private schools in the scholarship program.
The logical conclusion was that most of the students receiving the scholarships had not come from public schools.
“The law was passed under a certain promise,” said Steve Suitts, vice president of the foundation. “There is no evidence it’s going to those purposes. The kids who were supposed to benefit are not benefiting.”
‘Fiendishly Clever’
The scholarship programs represent the expansion of a mission that began more than 10 years ago, when the school choice movement ran into headwinds over the use of vouchers. Vouchers, which directly use public money to finance private school educations, were unpopular among many voters and legislators, and several state courts had found them unconstitutional.
Proponents decided to reposition themselves, and in 1997, Arizona’s Legislature adopted the first tax-credit scholarship program.
For school choice advocates, the genius of the program was that the money would never go into public accounts, making it less susceptible to court challenges. Representative Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican and former state lawmaker, is credited with the idea of routing the donations through nonprofit organizations. “The teachers’ union called it fiendishly clever,” Mr. Franks said during a recent interview.
“The difficulty of getting at this thing from a constitutional point of view is that there are private dollars coming from a private individual and going to a private foundation. It drives the N.E.A. completely off the wall because they can’t say this is government funding,” Mr. Franks said, referring to the National Education Association.
Kevin Welner, a professor of education at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who wrote a book on the tax-credit programs, dubbed them “neovouchers.”
As predicted, tax credits have thus far withstood legal challenges, most recently when the Supreme Court upheld [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-987.pdf ] Arizona’s program last year. It had been challenged on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.
A national network of school choice advocates has been promoting the programs with financing from conservative activists and foundations. The advocacy groups do everything from financing political advertising to lobbying state legislatures. One group, the American Federation for Children in Washington, D.C., has not shied from the rough-and-tumble of state politics.
In Florida’s 2010 election, the federation supplied $255,000 to finance an organization that paid for advertising against Dan Gelber, who was running for attorney general and had opposed state financing for private schools.
The ads, mailed to Jewish neighborhoods, called Mr. Gelber “toxic to Jewish education.” His staff found out about them from his 11-year-old daughter, who called the office in tears after finding an ad in their mailbox.
One big proponent of the tax-credit programs is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a coalition of conservative lawmakers and corporations that strongly influences many state legislatures. The council became a flash point in the Trayvon Martin case because it had championed the controversial Stand Your Ground gun laws.
“ALEC is a huge player in pushing forward a conservative agenda based on the premise that the free market and private sectors address social problems better than the government,” said Julie Underwood, dean of the school of education at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has been critical of ALEC’s education agenda.
Scholarship legislation was approved in Virginia this year and is gaining traction in other states, including New Hampshire and New Jersey, according to Malcom Glenn, a spokesman for the American Federation for Children. Schools participating in the programs range from elite private academies to small, inexpensive programs operating in church education wings. The New Jersey proposal would establish a five-year pilot program in several school districts, including Lakewood, a community with a number of Yeshivas.
“It’s spreading,” said Mr. Ehrhart, the Georgia lawmaker. “It’s clearly a reaction to parents’ concern about the educational experiences of their kids.”
Enrolling for Dollars
After Georgia’s scholarship program was adopted, parents of children in private schools began flooding public school offices to officially “enroll” their children.
Their plan was to fill out the paperwork even though they had no intention of ever sending their children to public schools. According to the way the law was interpreted, the enrollments would make them eligible for scholarships. Some public schools balked.
“I recently contacted you about having some trouble enrolling/registering my child in a public school while he is going to a private school,” one parent wrote to a scholarship organization last year in an e-mail obtained by The Times. “A principal told us he cannot attend two schools at the same time, which is simply not true because public and private schools have nothing to do with each other. But we need to have my child enrolled in a public school in order to qualify for the student scholarship program.”
The idea, based on a technical interpretation of the word “enroll,” was promoted by State Representative David Casas, a Republican and co-sponsor of the scholarship legislation in Georgia. In meetings with parents, he had explained that the bill’s wording was intentional — using the word “enrolled” rather than “attending” — to enable the scholarships’ use by students already in private schools.
by Mr. Casas that was posted on YouTube. “ ‘You’ve been going here for nine years. Now you’re enrolling in public school? You’re enrolled in two schools?’ ”
Mr. Casas, the president of a seminary, assured him it was not a scam. “Feel fine about it,” Mr. Casas said.
“Some people felt a little weird about that, felt it was dishonest that they would take their child, enroll them in a public school and not have them actually attend, but all of a sudden they actually qualified for a scholarship,” Mr. Casas said at another meeting, where he called the program “too good to be true.” A transcript of the comments was contained in the Southern Education Foundation report. Mr. Casas did not respond to inquiries seeking comment.
The Georgia Department of Education endorsed the interpretation.
Some scholarship programs rejected the idea, including one whose focus is on low-income students. “We actually checked that out and called the Department of Education,” said Derek Monjure, who runs a scholarship organization called Arete Scholars Fund. “They agreed with it, but we didn’t feel right with it and didn’t do it. It was confusing to be told by the state organization that it’s right.”
Georgia’s largest scholarship organization, the Georgia Goal Scholarship Program, said it interpreted the law to require that students must have attended public school for one semester, unless they are beginning school. The program has also established income guidelines for its recipients.
Some states collect little information on the scholarship organizations. When asked how many students switched from public to private schools, Linda Dunn, policy analyst for the Georgia Department of Education, said: “We don’t collect that data. We don’t regulate them in any fashion.”
The fact that children already attending private schools can receive scholarships from some organizations means that Georgia’s private schools have a ready source of donations — parents and families of existing students. While the law was advertised as a way to help needy students, it contained no income limits for eligible recipients. And although it prohibits donations designated for a specific student, some students are benefiting from the donations of relatives and friends.
Hanaiya Hassan, whose daughter attends Hamzah Academy in Alpharetta, Ga., said she had saved $5,000 by asking four friends to donate to a scholarship organization with money earmarked for her daughter’s school. “If you collect four people for $2,500, then one of your children is free,” she said.
The friends were awarded a tax credit. Depending on their tax bracket, some donors could actually come out ahead by filing for a federal charitable deduction as well as the state credit.
The Christian Heritage School in Dalton, Ga., circulated a flier for the 2011-12 school year titled “TUITION BREAKS FOR CURRENT FAMILIES!” It stated, “The scholarship tax credit is so vital to CHS that the school is encouraging all parents to participate in the program and enlist at least two others to do the same.” Participating families would get a 10 percent tuition rebate and a $250 bonus. The rebates would be doubled or tripled depending on overall participation.
The school has discontinued the rebate program, its controller said.
At Gwinnett Christian Academy, Mr. Bozeman, who was recorded saying that donations would be funneled to the family that raised them, did not respond to requests for comment. He has been promoted to headmaster.
Similar deals, some nicknamed “swaps,” in which parents donated for each other’s children, have cropped up in Arizona as well, according to Mr. Thomas, the school board association general counsel there.
After news reports in 2009 about scholarships in Arizona being awarded based on the recommendations of donors, the state enacted a series of changes, including a prohibition on “swaps.” Mr. Thomas, however, said he believed they were continuing.
Johnathan Arnold, headmaster of Covenant Christian Academy in Cumming, Ga., said he viewed using the program to discount tuition for existing students as unethical.
“We, as a Christian school, felt that wasn’t the right approach,” he said. “You’re giving money out of the goodness of your heart with the intent to receive nothing in return. When you give it for the purpose of getting it back or actually make money on that, to me that doesn’t qualify for the spirit of the law.”
Getting In On the Act
When the gas drilling company XTO Energy made generous donations for private school scholarships in Pennsylvania, the corporate largess was hailed in ceremonies across the state. As the cameras flashed at one event in Punxsutawney, Sam Smith, the speaker of the Pennsylvania House and a local native, stood with an oversize cardboard check for area private schools.
The media events began in 2010 and have generated a burst of good will for XTO at a time when the controversy over the hydraulic fracturing drilling method has been growing in Pennsylvania. One state official remarked that the company, which donated $650,000 over the past three years, had gone “above and beyond” its duty. In reality, as much as 90 percent of XTO’s donation was underwritten by taxpayers.
Also in attendance in Punxsutawney was Peter Gleason, chairman of the Bridge Educational Foundation, the middleman organization that arranged XTO’s donations. Mr. Gleason congratulated the voters of Punxsutawney for having the wisdom to send Mr. Smith to Harrisburg. In addition to serving as chairman of Bridge, Mr. Gleason is a lobbyist in Harrisburg. Two other lobbyists, who have represented XTO, serve on Bridge’s advisory board, as does the chief of staff to Mr. Smith. XTO was acquired in 2010 by Exxon Mobil.
While a spokesman for XTO said the company donated to provide additional educational opportunities to Pennsylvania schoolchildren, such arrangements appear to benefit all involved — donors with business before the legislature, lawmakers and lobbyists.
The Rev. Theodore Clater, a Pennsylvania advocate for school choice, said that Bridge and a similar Pennsylvania organization, Bravo Foundation, frequently asked lawmakers for advice when deciding where the money should go. Mr. Clater said he was not aware of any illegality, but nevertheless questioned that practice.
“You could get into all kinds of political games, favoritism,” he said, emphasizing that his own scholarship organization tried to distribute its money without influence.
Mr. Smith said he saw no evidence that the program was politicized. Instead, he said, companies “have a certain amount of money they’re going to put in charitable contributions anyway, and they now see ‘I can get a tax credit and give back to education.’ ”
Bridge’s director, Natalie Nutt, whose husband ran the campaign of Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, said all of the group’s board members were selected for their devotion to school choice.
Between them, Bridge and Bravo control about $3 million in scholarship funds a year, putting them in the top 10 of more than 200 scholarship organizations in the state.
Among Bridge’s founders in 2005 was John O’Connell, a lobbyist who had been a partner at Bravo.
In 2006, Mr. O’Connell pleaded guilty to federal charges of embezzling more than $200,000 from another nonprofit organization, Pennsylvania Law Watch, whose mission was to promote tort reform. Mr. O’Connell argued for a reduced sentence, citing his charitable work through Bridge and Bravo.
The federal government disagreed. “As a lobbyist, O’Connell’s involvement in the Bravo Education Foundation and later in the Bridge Foundation was very beneficial to him in a business sense in that it afforded him excellent opportunities to cultivate new corporate clients and relationships with legislative leaders,” prosecutors wrote.
Even some lawmakers have started their own scholarship organizations. Mr. Ehrhart, the legislative sponsor of the Georgia scholarship program, is also the unpaid chief executive of a scholarship organization, the Georgia Christian Schools Scholarship Fund.
In Arizona, one of the largest of more than 50 scholarship organizations, the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, is controlled by State Senator Steve Yarbrough, a Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. In an interview, Mr. Yarbrough pointed out that he was running the organization before he was elected to the Legislature. The organization paid Mr. Yarbrough $48,000 in 2010 and disbursed $313,000 to a company he partly owns to process scholarship applications.
Uneven Playing Fields
In Georgia, where the world revolves around high school football, the scholarships have driven a wedge between public and private schools.
Over the past few years, coaches at public high schools have complained about the defections of a number of players from large public schools who have left for small private academies. At Savannah Christian Preparatory School alone, four starting players migrated from nearby public schools and helped the team become last fall’s Class A champions.
Coaches at the public schools have suspected that scholarships were given to their players by Savannah Christian and other private schools to build athletic programs. Athletic scholarships are banned in the state’s high schools.
The coaches have not been able to prove their suspicions, but the growing dominance of private schools in Class A prompted the public schools last year to threaten to withdraw from the Georgia High School Association.
“This money just makes the playing field completely unlevel,” said Larry Campbell, a coach in Lincoln County, Ga., who is known for his winning record. “The private schools are thriving, and they’ve got the money to go out and recruit the great athlete.”
One star athlete, Keyante Green, went to Eagle’s Landing Christian Academy in McDonough, Ga., in the ninth grade after his stunning performance in an annual championship game sponsored by an Atlanta radio personality. Keyante, then 14 and an eighth grader at a public school, was named most valuable player. His youth coach at the time, Dan Curl, predicted that Keyante would one day be heading to the N.F.L.
Within months, Mr. Curl had enrolled his son in high school at Eagle’s Landing, he said, and had agreed to become a part-time middle school coach. He said he also told the school about Keyante.
“I told them I had a kid who is a good athlete, a stud athlete,” Mr. Curl recalled recently. “They had already seen the highlight video. They said, ‘Man, bring him over.’ ”
Mr. Curl said Keyante’s family could not afford the approximately $10,000-a-year tuition at Eagle’s Landing. He said he had helped fill out an application to the GOAL scholarship program for Keyante that first year and in the two subsequent years. The scholarship paid only part of his expenses, so Eagle’s Landing’s coaches sought donations to pay Keyante’s remaining expenses, said Mr. Curl, who is no longer employed at the school. As a freshman [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geF1psEYM9w ] in 2009, Keyante stole the show at a state playoff game with four touchdowns and 292 yards. The head coach at another school compared him to the Georgia legend Herschel Walker.
Neither Keyante, who will graduate in 2013, nor his family responded to requests for comment. Questioned about the scholarships, the Eagle’s Landing assistant head of school, Chuck Gilliam, said in an e-mail that two of the school’s 29 scholarship recipients played football. But he said the scholarships had “not been used to enhance the football program.”
GOAL’s director, Lisa Kelly, said in an e-mail that the organization adopted a written policy in 2009 prohibiting the use of scholarships to “recruit and provide aid to students for athletic purposes.”
At Savannah Christian, Coach Donald Chumley, whose Raiders includes four recipients of GOAL scholarships, said: “I’m not going to say to you that some didn’t say ‘I want to go to college, and I want to play football.’ But we don’t select them on athletic ability. We select them on need.”
Under a compromise, the public schools did not withdraw from the high school association. Instead, for the first time, the public and private schools in Class A will hold separate playoffs next fall.
A Boon for Creationists
The scholarships have amounted to a lifeline for many religious schools. One Catholic grade school in Berwick, Pa., regained its health through $87,000 in scholarship donations, according to the Rev. Edward Quinlan, the education secretary for the Diocese of Harrisburg, where nearly 20 percent of students receive scholarships. In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 100 of the 160 students enrolled in Mount Bethel Christian Academy receive tax-credit scholarships, according to the school’s headmaster.
In the Arizona case that went before the Supreme Court, the National School Boards Association joined local school officials and teachers in arguing that the program was skewed toward religious schools, openly selecting students for scholarships based on their religion.
Many religiously affiliated schools across the country are known for turning out well-educated students and teaching core subjects without a sectarian bias. But some schools financed by the tax-credit programs teach a fundamentalist dogma holding that the world was literally created in six days. Some of the schools use textbooks [ http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/textbooks/index.html ] produced by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, a Christian publisher in Pensacola, Fla.
The books became an issue in 2005 when the University of California system said it would not honor some credits of students who attended schools that use them.
In an ensuing lawsuit filed against the university by Christian schools, Donald Kennedy, a biologist who is a former president of Stanford, said in court papers that the science texts made statements that were “flatly wrong” and “plainly contrary to the scientific facts” when hewing to creationist theory. The case was ultimately decided in favor of the university.
“It’s a Christian curriculum, and some parts of it are controversial,” said Jon East, vice president for policy at Step Up For Students, the organization that runs the Florida scholarship program. The books are also used in some schools in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
An A Beka high school science text concluded that “much variety within the human race has developed from the eight people who left the Ark.” Another text, used in sixth grade, makes repeated references to Noah and the flood, which it calls the reason for both the world’s petroleum reserves and the development of fossils.
Frances Paterson, a professor at Valdosta State University in Georgia who has studied the books, said they “frequently resemble partisan, political literature more than they do the traditional textbooks used in public schools.”
Mr. Arnold, the headmaster of the Covenant Christian Academy in Cumming, Ga., confirmed that his school used those texts but said they were part of a larger curriculum.
“You have to keep in mind that the curriculum goes beyond the textbook,” Mr. Arnold said. “Not only do we teach the students that creation is the way the world was created and that God is in control and he made all things, we also teach them what the false theories of the world are, such as the Big Bang theory and Darwinism. We teach those as fallacies.”
When a Boy Found a Familiar Feel in a Pat of the Head of State
In the photo that has hung in the West Wing for three years, President Obama looks to be bowing to 5-year-old Jacob Philadelphia, his arm raised to touch the president’s hair — to see if it feels like his. Pete Souza/The White House
In the photo, Mr. Obama looks to be bowing to a sharply dressed 5-year-old black boy, who stands erect beside the Oval Office desk, his arm raised to touch the president’s hair — to see if it feels like his. The image has struck so many White House aides and visitors that by popular demand it stays put while others come and go.
As a candidate and as president, Mr. Obama has avoided discussing race except in rare instances when he seemed to have little choice — responding to the racially incendiary words of his former pastor, for example, or to the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Florida. Some black leaders criticize Mr. Obama for not directly addressing young blacks or proposing policies specifically for them.
Yet the photo is tangible evidence of what polls also show: Mr. Obama remains a potent symbol for blacks, with a deep reservoir of support. As skittish as White House aides often are in discussing race, they also clearly revel in the power of their boss’s example.
The boy in the picture is Jacob Philadelphia of Columbia, Md. Three years ago this month, his father, Carlton, a former Marine, was leaving the White House staff after a two-year stint on the National Security Council that began in the Bush administration. As departing staff members often do, Mr. Philadelphia asked for a family photograph with Mr. Obama.
When the pictures were taken and the family was about to leave, Mr. Philadelphia told Mr. Obama that his sons each had a question. In interviews, he and his wife, Roseane, said they did not know what the boys would ask. The White House photographer, Pete Souza, was surprised, too, as the photo’s awkward composition attests: The parents’ heads are cut off; Jacob’s arm obscures his face; and his older brother, Isaac, is blurry.
Jacob spoke first.
“I want to know if my hair is just like yours,” he told Mr. Obama, so quietly that the president asked him to speak again.
Jacob did, and Mr. Obama replied, “Why don’t you touch it and see for yourself?” He lowered his head, level with Jacob, who hesitated.
“Touch it, dude!” Mr. Obama said.
As Jacob patted the presidential crown, Mr. Souza snapped.
In keeping with a practice of White House photographers back to Gerald R. Ford’s presidency, each week Mr. Souza picks new photos for display. That week, Jacob’s easily made the cut.
“As a photographer, you know when you have a unique moment. But I didn’t realize the extent to which this one would take on a life of its own,” Mr. Souza said. “That one became an instant favorite of the staff. I think people are struck by the fact that the president of the United States was willing to bend down and let a little boy feel his head.”
David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime adviser, has a copy framed in his Chicago office. He said of Jacob, “Really, what he was saying is, ‘Gee, you’re just like me.’ And it doesn’t take a big leap to think that child could be thinking, ‘Maybe I could be here someday.’ This can be such a cynical business, and then there are moments like that that just remind you that it’s worth it.”
A copy of the photo hangs in the Philadelphia family’s living room with several others taken that day. Mr. Philadelphia, now in Afghanistan for the State Department, said: “It’s important for black children to see a black man as president. You can believe that any position is possible to achieve if you see a black person in it.”
Jacob, now 8, said he indeed does want to be president. “Or a test pilot.”
Vice President Biden gets personal with family members of the fallen
The Rachel Maddow Show May 25, 2012
Rachel Maddow shares video of a Vice President Joe Biden in an off-script, personal moment with family members of fallen service members at the 8th annual TAPS National Military Survivor Seminar and Good Grief Camp in Arlington, Va., discussing coping with grief and loss.
“I just refuse to hide. I did that way too many years and it’s just not healthy,” said Bob Page, the chief of Replacements Limited. John Van Beekum for The New York Times
By JAMES B. STEWART Published: May 25, 2012
In the months leading up to North Carolina’s vote this month to ban gay marriage, most of the state’s business leaders were conspicuously silent. While some executives spoke out against it as individuals, not one Fortune 500 company based in North Carolina, including Bank of America, Duke Energy, VF Corporation and Lowe’s, opposed it.
But one company did: Replacements Limited, which sells silver, china and glassware, and is based in Greensboro. Its founder and chairman, Bob Page, is gay. The company lobbied legislators, contributed money to causes supporting gay marriage, rented a billboard along the interstate near its headquarters, and sold T-shirts at its showroom. Its experience may explain why no other for-profit company followed its example.
Hostile letters and e-mails poured into the company from customers canceling their business and demanding to be removed from its e-mail list. “I understand that your company donated $250,000 or so to the effort to ban the marriage amendment,” read one. “I am very concerned that with an increased visibility and acceptance of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, one of my children, who would have grown up and been happily married to a husband, could be tempted to the lesbian lifestyle.”
Another read: “I was excited to see your wares and expected a pleasant shopping experience. Instead I was accosted by your political views, which I do not share. It was very uncomfortable and unpleasant browsing with all those signs and T-shirts against amendment one, to the point where I had to leave.”
A third said, “Money you used to support this opposition came from my many purchases from your company and that is not O.K. with me,” adding, “I will look for my replacement pieces elsewhere.”
Several writers seemed more sad than angry. “Visiting Replacements Limited has always been one of my favorite treats,” said one. “I had the privilege of experiencing your beautiful store firsthand,” began another. Both said they would never return.
Andrew Spainhour, Replacement’s general counsel and a member of the steering committee that organized opposition to the amendment, tried to recruit other businesses. “I had a lot of phone calls and e-mails that weren’t returned,” he said. “If I did have a conversation, they’d say, ‘Gosh, we can’t do this, we can’t go out on a limb.’ There’s a tremendous amount of fear.”
The company did get a few letters and e-mails of support, but the outpouring against its stand shows that the subject of gay marriage “is hugely divisive in our state,” Mr. Spainhour said. “It’s exposed a lot of fault lines. It’s a natural reaction for people to say, ‘We’re not going to anger 50 percent of the people that we do business with or want to do business with.’ There’s too much downside.”
Mr. Spainhour said he worried about Mr. Page’s safety, and has discussed his concerns with him. He mentioned Charles C. Worley, pastor of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., not far from Greensboro, who preached on May 13 that lesbians and gays should be separated from each other and society and quarantined behind electrified fences. “In a few years, they’ll die out,” Mr. Worley said. “They can’t reproduce.” Video of the sermon circulated on the Internet.
“Bob has been absolutely fearless in the face of that,” Mr. Spainhour said. “It’s a North Carolina that exists but that I don’t recognize. There are two North Carolinas: the progressive cities and college towns, and places where there are no openly gay people.”
Much the same could be said of America as a whole. Although recent polls suggest a majority of Americans favor legalizing gay marriage in their state, those who do are concentrated in the Northeast and on the West Coast. But even in those states most hostile to the idea, support for gay marriage has grown strongly over the last decade.
Most companies have traditionally tried to avoid taking positions on political and social issues. But corporate involvement in campaigns to support gay marriage has mirrored the shift in the nation’s attitudes, from nonexistent 10 years ago to some involvement by major companies in 2008, when Apple, American Apparel, Google and Levi Strauss publicly opposed California’s Proposition 8 [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage/index.html (well howdy, Mitt!)] to ban gay marriage (it passed). Last year, corporate support in New York was deemed critical to the Legislature’s passage of a law allowing gay marriage. This year, major corporations based in Washington State, led by Amazon, Starbucks and Microsoft, have publicly opposed an effort to repeal the state’s law permitting gay marriage, scheduled to take effect on June 7.
Mr. Page, 67, said he didn’t like politics and wasn’t “extreme,” or “in your face” about being gay. But, he added: “I just refuse to hide. I did that way too many years and it’s just not healthy.”
At the same time, he said: “I’m always concerned I will hurt our business. I know we have lost business. But I don’t have a board or shareholders I have to answer to. My life is not about money.”
Mr. Page drives a Ford Explorer with 146,000 miles on it and said he had never paid more than $10 for a shirt. His father was a tobacco farmer with a ninth-grade education and his family of six lived in three rooms with no indoor bathroom. He attended the Happy Home United Church of Christ with his family and earned a 10-year attendance pin. “I prayed that God would not make me this way,” he said. Mr. Page served two years in the Army and was the only member of his family to attend college, graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“I could not deal with being gay,” he said. “I didn’t know anyone who was gay. I never discussed how I felt with anybody straight through the Army. At one time, I hoped I would go to Vietnam and get killed. I contemplated suicide. I never felt I measured up to everybody else. Sometimes, I still feel that way.”
Mr. Page liked to go to flea markets, and in 1981 he left his job as an auditor for the state of North Carolina to start an antique china and glassware mail-order business. The Small Business Administration told him not to bother applying for a loan. “Selling used dishes for a living? People thought I was crazy,” Mr. Page said. He scraped up enough money to open the business with one part-time assistant.
Five years later, lonely and still in the closet, Mr. Page placed a personal ad. Dale Frederiksen, a math teacher from Tennessee, responded, and they spent several months talking on the phone. Finally they met. They traveled back and forth until Mr. Frederiksen said he’d have to make a decision about whether to move to North Carolina. “I can’t make that decision for you,” Mr. Page said. Mr. Frederiksen moved.
When Mr. Page finally told his parents he was gay, they were supportive. His two brothers and their families are also “pretty accepting,” he said. His sister and her daughters “think I and my partner are going to hell.”
“I’ve always loved children and wanted a family,” Mr. Page said. In 1999 he and Mr. Frederiksen traveled to Vietnam where Mr. Page adopted twin boys (North Carolina bans adoption by gay couples, but not by single parents.). An article in the local News and Record, “Partners in Parenthood,” chronicled their struggle to change diapers and prompted angry letters from readers. “I’d lie awake at night and I was in so much pain and agony that I couldn’t sleep,” Mr. Page remembered. “They suggested we wanted to adopt children so we could molest them. Even though we don’t know these people, it still hurts.”
The visibility led to growing public awareness that Mr. Page is gay. Fifteen years ago, he was invited to speak at nearby Elon University, and a student asked him about his sexual orientation. “I was so nervous I was trembling,” he said. Now, “I’m very comfortable speaking out. But there are people who will tell you I’m the Devil’s advocate here on earth.”
Despite this month’s lopsided vote in favor of the amendment (it passed by a margin of 20 percentage points), Mr. Page said that he considered his money well spent, and that tolerance in North Carolina, while it may have a long way to go, has improved. “I love children, and it tears me apart when I think about these young kids and teens who are committing suicide, like the young guy at Rutgers who jumped off the bridge. This doesn’t have to happen. I want things to be better for other people than it was for me. I truly hope things will be better, and I want to do my part to make things better for those coming after us.”
Today their twins are 13. Mr. Page and Mr. Frederiksen have been together 23 years. Replacements has annual revenue of $80 million and employs 450 people, all in North Carolina. Mr. Page was named North Carolina’s small-business person of the year by the Small Business Administration in 1986. The company was included in Inc. Magazine’s “Inc. 500” in 1986 and Fast Company’s “Fast 50” in 2004. It has received numerous workplace awards and was cited in 2002 by the Advocate magazine as one of the top 10 gay-friendly companies in America. Hundreds of local construction workers completed an expansion that nearly doubled the size of its warehouse to 500,000 square feet. It holds over 13 million items.
Angry e-mails and letters notwithstanding, and despite the weak economy, Mr. Page said 2011 was one of the best in the company’s history.
Lady Gaga Cancels Show After Islamist Threats May 27, 2012 Just last week, Lady Gaga declared that she would perform “alone” in Indonesia if that’s what it took to get local police and religious authorities to allow her June 3 sold-out show in Jakarta to go forward. Now, in the wake of increased threats of violence, Gaga tweeted early today that she’d canceled the show. [...] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/05/lady-gaga-cancels-show-after-islamist-threats/ [with comments]
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
