An article in the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the Los Angeles Unified School District is prepping a large cutback in funding for students with disabilities. They’re planning to shut down the West Valley Special Education Center–a specialized campus for disabled students–as well as 200 classes serving the same kids. In light of nationwide financial struggles and funding battles, the news comes as no shock. What’s surprising is some of the logic. As quoted in the Times, Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines had this to say:

“Blend [an LA special education center] has one adult to every three kids. Some of those are very, very severe cases, but you have to look at it in perspective. When you fund some of the special ed things, you’re taking from regular kids.”

But here’s the converse: when you fund some of the “regular kid things,” you’re also taking from “special ed” kids. “Special ed” isn’t the only exclusionary subgroup of students. What’s important is balance, not using a meat cleaver to separate students with disabilities and students without.

The decision came in the wake of an announcement that for the first time in 20 years, Los Angeles won’t offer any summer classes for developmentally disabled adults and seniors.

Robert Zazula, a special education teacher in the adult school division of LAUSD, was quoted in an interview with Los Angeles Daily News columnist Dennis McCarthy:

“These people were born into a world where they are not as fortunate as the rest of us. They need our continued support. Now that there’s a budget crisis we’re going to forget about them?”

A big victory came last week for advocates in the intellectual disability community: a Senate committee approved a measure that removes the words “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” from federal education, health, and labor laws. “Intellectual disability” and “individual with a mental disability” will replace the old terms.

The jettison of the derogatory and stigmatizing term “retard” demonstrates a growing focus on human beings, rather than any intellectual, developmental, or physical disabilities. The bill is named for Rosa Marcellino, a 9-year-old girl from Maryland, diagnosed with Down syndrome. Rosa’s mother, Nina:

“This has always been about so much more than just changing words or political correctness. It’s about marking a new era where the dignity of people with intellectual disabilities is respected and their value appreciated.”

In the words of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who introduced the bill:

This bill is driven by a passion for social justice and a compassion for the human condition. At its core, it comes down to what Rosa’s brother Nick said in testimony before the Maryland General Assembly, ‘What you call people is how you treat them.’”

This week, renowned educator Pedro Noguera is guest editor of The Nation‘s special education issue. In an editorial, he takes the Obama administration to task for “policies that, to the chagrin of many of [administration] supporters, have had far more in common with the previous administration than expected,” and offers a detailed look at what’s missing in education policy today:

Third, the need for change is clear, but history has shown that change in public education does not come easily or quickly. The Obama administration deserves credit for its willingness to provide funds to promote reform, but it is far too impressed with quick fixes like mayoral control of urban districts and charter schools. Over the past forty years studies have shown that education policy must be devised in concert with health reform, poverty alleviation initiatives and economic development in order to address the roots of failure in the most depressed areas. From crime and unemployment to teen pregnancy and even racism, education—or the lack thereof—is implicated in many of our nation’s social and economic problems. Education can be part of the solution to these and many other problems if reforms are designed and implemented in concert with key constituents—parents, teachers, local leaders and students—and with an understanding of how they must be coordinated with other aspects of social policy.

Flickr Creative Commons

According to a recent Huffington Post article, retired US generals are still appearing on network news as expert “military analysts” without disclosing clear conflicts of interest.

The piece is worth quoting at length:

One of these men in particular — NBC News military analyst and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey — has appeared on MSNBC at least 10 times in the past month to criticize Obama’s proposed troop-withdrawal deadline, to lavish praise upon Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, and to underscore the importance of training Afghan security forces.

But neither McCaffrey nor the MSNBC anchors ever mentioned the fact that McCaffrey sits on the board of directors of DynCorp International, a company with a lucrative government contract to train the Afghan National Security Forces. Nor did they mention that McCaffrey recently completed a report about Afghanistan that was commissioned by Petraeus and funded by the Pentagon.

Bassett points out that DynCorp’s Afghan contracts make up more than half its $3.1 billion annual revenue, but “McCaffrey continues to be presented as an objective expert” on cable news.

Another whammy quote:

Last year, the Society of Professional Journalists called on NBC to sever ties with military analysts that could personally profit from the shaping of public opinion.

“By failing to be forthright and transparent, these networks — which are owned by General Electric, a leading defense contractor — are giving the public powerful reasons to be skeptical about their neutrality and credibility,” said Andy Schotz, the chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee.

NBC has ignored the SPJ’s call. A spokesperson from NBC said that McCaffrey’s biography on the MSNBC website details his involvement with DynCorp and other corporations, but she declined to comment about why anchors do not identify McCaffrey as a Pentagon contractor or defense contracting consultant when he appears on their shows.

So, in case this hasn’t sunk in yet: A man who is personally making money off the war in Afghanistan is appearing on cable news to offer viewers his “objective” take on the war, with no indication of any potential vested interest.

Moreover, NBC is failing on a more rudimentary journalistic level. When positioning a commentator with analysis, general journalistic practice is to attribute why this person is informed-on and relevant-to the subject. If McCaffrey were discussing the Afghan war, the most important piece of biographical info about him wouldn’t be that he’s a “retired general,” but that he’s actively involved in the war.

As NBC told the Times’ David Barstow, who won a Pulitzer for his reporting on NBC’s pro-war propaganda machine:

“We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”

That statement didn’t hold water then, and there’s ample evidence now that it still rings hollow.

In the past week, two news stories arose that, despite their comedic value, served only to shave still more dignity from this country’s dignity-deficient conservative voice; The Obama Muslim-smearing that reared its ugly head before the election is still a right-wing trope — along with the right’s familiar tabloid circus fare.

Read the full story