Expand Public Charter Schools?

Exclusive to AWildDuck . . .

This week, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education awarded 3000 new charter school seats across the Commonwealth. It increases the number of students that can be educated at new or existing charter schools in the Commonwealth.

While this is exciting news for students and families, Massachusetts has again reached a legal cap in Boston and is close to a cap in Holyoke and Lawrence, such that no new charters can be awarded in these communities until the Legislature votes to lift the cap.

It’s not just Massachusetts, of course. Across the United States, a debate is raging over the legality and wisdom of the publicly-funded charter school model. Many, are puzzled over the debate. Why are there statutory caps? Who stifles what works?! But it’s not that simple...

Publicly subsidized charter schools draw from the same tax dollars that fund incumbent districts. Charters often hire from industry instead of teaching colleges and they often ignore the pay scales that were negotiated in good faith with collective bargaining units in the communities served. In fact, their very existence breaks covenants entered into with unions. For these reasons, the public-charter school model is fighting against some who feel strongly that it is not in the best interests of students or their communities.

If today’s post were like the many that appear under my name, the title of this post would end with an emphatic “Hell Yes!”. After all, I am biased. This Blog is all about bias—and as chief editor, I often use it as my personal bully pulpit.

I support the public charter school model. But I have tended to avoid the public debate, because my chief reasons are anecdotal or the product of an outside bias:

• I live next to a fantastic charter school, serving pupils from 70 communities


• Our local school district is constantly in danger of losing state accreditation


• My daughter transferred from the local public school to the charter school. She thrives in her new environment, just like pupils at both ends of the spectrum


• I generally dislike and distrust unions *


• Our charter school principal is talented, engaged, motivated and has a pas-
  sion that demonstrates an unfettered interest in the success of every student

* I generally avoid debating the merits of charter schools (from the perspective of student and the perspective of taxpayer). That’s because my general anti-union bias was baked in by a father who directed operations at a manufacturing plant during my formative years. It’s difficult to see unions as anything other than money grubbing, self-serving organizations unto themselves (not their constituents) when you have seen negotiations between management and the Teamsters or any local machinist or electrical workers union.

The high school in my public school district is constantly in danger of losing state accreditation. Standardized test scores are near the bottom of the heap. And yet, our community also hosts the top middle/high charter school in the state. My daughter has transferred to this fantastic charter school in my own backyard. Using the same tax dollars but with a keen financial disadvantage (despite popular conception), the difference is like night and day. Our charter school consistently tops state scores and – more importantly – real world metrics. In fact, with freedom from onerous union contracts and a principal whose incentives are fully aligned with pupils, your charter school can excel too.

A few months ago when discussing our pre-election analysis of Barak Obama, I pointed to his failure to strongly support a public charter school model. I was wrong. Shortly before that post, Obama was interviewed by NBC News correspondent, Savannah Guthrie. The US president not only demonstrated strong support for charter schools, he also put the teachers’ unions on notice by supporting pay for performance.

But enough armchair analysis! A reader responding to our Barack Obama piece is an analyst with more experience than me in politics, market economics, law and education. He strongly disagrees with my position on charter schools. He not only feels that they have an unfair advantage, he believes they undermine a public school system that deserves more public attention and support.

Today, he represents one side in our counterpoint editorial for and against expansion of the public charter school model. During preparation for today’s column, I have given both sides access to each others’ drafts. Nothing has been withheld.

Arguing for expansion of the public charter school model, Marc Kenen, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. Making a case against expanding public support for charter schools is James Tenser, an analyst, journalist and author from a family of public school teachers.

An Argument For and Against
Expansion of the Public Charter School Model

Read the arguments side-by-side

_________________________________________________________________________

High Performing Charter Schools Should Be Allowed to Expand
By Marc Kenen – February 2013

America was founded on what was then the radical idea that a society could be a meritocracy in which ideas that succeed can flourish. The creation of charter public schools has spurred the kind of educational innovation that should be allowed to thrive not only through the expansion of charters, but also the extension of charter-like reforms to district schools.

President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative provided incentives for states to enact various public school reforms, including removing restrictions on the growth of charters. Nearly 20 states responded by eliminating all caps on charter growth. But many states across the country still impose arbitrary caps. And many urban school districts bound by unyielding teachers’ union contracts have not been able to enact meaningful reforms.

Massachusetts enacted a limited cap lift in 2010 – allowing charters to double the number of seats they offer in low performing districts and reserving new charters for operators that had a proven track record of success.

Recently filed legislation in Massachusetts would allow charters to expand without limits in the state’s lowest performing school districts. This would provide parents in those districts with more public school choices and their children with high quality educational opportunities.

Throughout their history, charters have attacked head-on the persistent achievement gap between rich and poor kids, particularly in urban areas. Their primary mission is to provide high quality educational options for disadvantaged families and they have historically concentrated in urban areas to attract children who are poor, minority and far behind where they should be academically.

Charters generally provide hundreds of additional hours in the classroom, through longer school days and longer years. They establish a culture of excellence setting high standards for their teachers and students and providing the additional supports they need to succeed.

Academic Performance

While charter performance from state-to-state varies, there is no doubt they have been a success in Massachusetts, which provides a good model of how strict oversight and high levels of accountability can breed success. Independent national organizations have rated Massachusetts charter system among the best in the nation and it shows in the academic results.

Charter public schools in Massachusetts are proving that children from these urban communities can achieve at the same high level as children from affluent suburbs.

The vast majority of charter public schools dramatically outperform their host district schools, and have lower dropout and truancy rates.  Last year, 24 charters ranked first in the Commonwealth on various MCAS tests and academic improvement rankings. Many urban charter public schools with mostly low-income and minority students outscore even affluent suburban schools on MCAS.

Charter schools also rank high in the state’s new academic accountability system, which ranks how well schools close race-and-income-based achievement gaps.



Lift the Cap

Given their performance, it’s not surprising that demand for charter public schools across the country is through the roof.  In Massachusetts, just over 29,000 students are enrolled in charters, but another 45,000 are on waitlists. Most of the waitlisted children – 35,000 – live in one of the state’s lowest performing districts.

Given the track record of performance and the incredible demand for new seats, states should not place restrictions on charter growth.

In Massachusetts, the recently filed legislation would eliminate charter caps in districts ranked in the bottom 10 percent statewide, which educate nearly one-third of all public school children. Seven-out-of-ten students in these districts are low-income, 60 percent are African-American and 63 percent come from families in which English isn’t the first language.

The bill would also allow charters to open on an expedited basis in districts that have been placed into receivership, and require municipalities to make space in unused public buildings available to charters.

Financial Impact Exaggerated

Misinformation is the best tool charter opponents use against expansion.

Money has long been at the core of opposition to charter public schools, but the financial impact on districts is grossly exaggerated. First of all, charter schools are public schools, so there is no loss of public education funding in those communities. It’s simply allocated to a different type of public school.

States have different ways to fund charters, but the Massachusetts model seems fairest. It provides charters with the same amount of money the districts would have spent if the children had stayed in their classrooms. Since districts no longer educate these students, they no longer keep the funding.

Massachusetts is unique in that it also provides some financial assistance to districts that lose students to charters – recognizing that not every penny that “follows the student” can be saved in district budgets. The state reimburses districts for funds lost to charters – districts get more than double their money back (225%) over the six-year period. Districts receive every penny back the first year, and then 25% in each of the next five years. It is the most generous reimbursement policy in the country.

Enrollment

Opponents try and dismiss this academic success by claiming charters “select” only the best students. But, charters are open to all students, and enrollment is determined by random lotteries. On a statewide basis, charters serve a far higher percentage of minority and poor children, and a similar percentage of special needs children. And while district schools serve more children who either cannot speak English or struggle with it, recent efforts to attract immigrant families are changing that. Three new charter schools in Massachusetts focus on teaching English-language learners and others have opened in neighborhoods with high immigrant populations.

Private? No. Independent? Yes

Recently, teachers unions and other charter opponents have accused charters of “privatizing” public education. But, charters are public schools; they are founded by local citizens and are overseen by local public boards. They operate independent of local school districts, report directly to the state department of education, and are not required to collectively bargain with teachers unions. They are not “private” in any way. The unions are confusing “private” with “non-union.”

Opponents also claim that charters are “not accountable to anyone,” simply because they do not report to local districts or local school boards. But that’s the point. Charters are designed to be independent of the local bureaucracy.

No aspect of education reform has been more successful than charters.  In a meritocracy, they have earned the right to expand and meet more of the overwhelming demand for schools that provide a world-class education to the neediest children.

Marc Kenen is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association.

________________________________________________________________________


Confessions of a Charter School Skeptic
By James Tenser – February 2013

Questioning the charter school movement in America feels like a touchy business. There are powerful forces in play within our governments and communities. There are powerful people channeling impressive sums of private money to fund their progress. There are powerful emotions in the hearts of parents who sincerely and appropriately want what is best for their children.

I think there are two main areas of discussion regarding charter schools. The first is the relatively straightforward matter of education consumption that parents confront every school year in every community in the nation: “Where shall I send little Amanda so that she receives the best possible education in a safe environment that nurtures her talent and self image and enables the best possible future?”

It’s natural for any parent to want their kids to receive an ideal education. We may define “ideal” in any number of ways, according to our beliefs, preferences, prejudices, desires and fears. If a nearby charter school represents that ideal option (or at least the best available one), we will move heaven and earth to get Adam or Amanda enrolled. We feel it’s our responsibility and our right to do so.

If freedom of choice were there only issue raised by charter schools, this critique might end here and now. Charter schools would simply thrive or fail based on their ability to provide an attractive option. But the second area of discussion is far less straightforward. For me it raises darker concerns about how we model the future of our society and even the motivations of some of the individuals who advocate most strongly in favor of the Charter option.

“Old School” Nostalgia

Public education has for generations been a foundation of the American way of life. It’s been our way of preparing young people for the workforce, for military service, for participation in the political and cultural affairs of our nation. In a nation of immigrants, public schools have been a primary engine for acculturation and assimilation of new arrivals. They have been the places where our traditions of meritocracy, fair play and social equality have been inculcated and reinforced. They have been the places where the ambitions and intellectual contributions our young people have been identified, honed and brought to the surface.

The old public schools were far from flawless. In too many corners of the country they were manipulated to help institutionalize unfair social practices and outright discrimination. They have too frequently perpetuated inertia and apathy that lowered educational quality standards in some communities and harmed America’s academic competitiveness on the world stage.

No wonder the charter school concept had immediate appeal when the idea was first floated by Prof.  Ray Budde of U. Mass. Amherst in 1988. The idea was to operate autonomous, publicly funded schools, which were freed of certain procedural burdens and oriented toward student performance outcomes. For concerned, motivated parents in underperforming districts, this option was a godsend, an affordable chance for their children to escape mediocrity and even danger at some public schools.

I write this from Arizona, a state that has since been a leader in charter school creation. According to the Arizona Charter Schools Association, our state “is home to 535 charter schools that enroll 142,368 students in the 2012-13 school year. Fully at least 25 percent of the state's public schools are charter schools, and 13.5 percent of all public-school students are enrolled in charter schools — the highest percentage for any state, and second only to Washington D.C.”

Full disclosure: I am also married to a middle school math teacher in the Tucson public schools (Tucson Unified School District), who is dedicated beyond reason and who delivers top student test performance year after year. She and I and a number of her colleagues have had thoughtful discussions about how the rapidly expanding charter school movement may be creating both intended and unintended consequences.

Bright Flight

One troubling unintended consequence is micro-economic in nature. When a large, diverse, urban school district loses student population to competing charter schools, the district budgets can become distorted, to the detriment of remaining students. As noted above, motivated parents make individual decisions to move students to charter schools for generally sound reasons. When this happens in large proportion, it amounts to what I call “bright flight” – the departure of the most educationally motivated families first.

A consequence of bright flight is that the school buildings and administrative infrastructure remain, along with their many fixed costs. Payrolls must inevitably be cut. Students who stay behind experience cutbacks in services, including elimination of non-core subjects such as arts, music, shop, phys. ed., sports teams and extra-curricular activities.

I wrote an essay about this issue in 2010, in which I compared the over-schooling of some communities to the over-storing of America. Too much capacity chasing too few consumers is a formula for collapse – which may be healthy, but certainly painful too.

Districts are eventually forced to close and consolidate school buildings – as in Tucson Unified, where 11 schools were designated for closure by the board last December. In a large district, fewer buildings means more remaining  students travel greater distances by bus, further diverting funds out of the classrooms.

The shifts can be demoralizing for teachers and students left behind, who can sense that structural financial issues are overwhelming the mission to educate.

Changing the structure of our public educational system through the widespread implementation of charter schools brings other potential consequences that may amount in some respects to social engineering.  This could be a good thing if we agree on the objectives and have confidence in the means.

But strangely our national debate has not confronted the vision or motives of education reform advocates very vigorously. One might infer that there is a power play afoot, driven by ideology. Philanthropies run by Gates, Waltons, Broads and others have poured billions of dollars into support of the education reform movement over the past several years, including many charter school operations, and the Race To The Top competition. So it’s not unfair to press them on why and what they hope to accomplish. Even where hearts are pure, methods may be suspect.

Charter America?

I harbor another, theoretical, concern – that charter schools might be somewhat self-segregating, by class, ethnicity, or belief. Students who attend them may miss a chance to be exposed to people with differing backgrounds. Already we see charter schools that advertise their points of difference on television. One is focused on sports excellence; another on music and theater; a third on science and math; a fourth promises Christian values; one other promises “no bullying”! I worry this may be culturally regressive – not by design, but in practice. Is the demise of the community school socially, culturally, politically desirable? Is it good for businesses that hope to hire graduates one day? We have yet to confront this as a reasoned public debate.

Of course, some critics have suggested that charter schools are disruptive to unions – threatening disintegration of their power base. Many will shed no tears over this, but once again, we need to ask ourselves if how this change best serves our public school students. Unions are sometimes justly accused of obstructionism, but some union leaders have also been staunch advocates of charter schools.

Education reform in general – and charter schools in particular – bring consequences for our fundamental conception of America. What kind of society are we striving to be? How do we want to prepare our young people to participate in it? What is the proper role for power and influence in our educational system? How can we best define merit for students, teachers, schools, and our nation’s competitiveness?

I would stipulate that these addressing these questions may be fundamentally different from the very personal debate we individually face for and against sending ones’ own child to a charter school. I leave this discussion with food for thought: If we truly had a handle on our institutions of public education, would the charter choice even be necessary?

In addition to being the product, son, brother and husband of talented public school teachers, James Tenser is a retail industry analyst. A former journalist and author, Mr. Tenser pens his own Blog, tenserstirades.com. He is a frequent commentator at RetailWire.com and Chief Analyst at The Center for Advancing Retail Technology.

• Related Editorial: Lift Massachusetts’ Cap on Charter Schools
  Taunton Daily Gazette

Sequestration Standoff Solution

Regular readers know that we here at AWildDuck have a love-hate relationship with the US president. We endorsed him in the November election, but we had some blunt and critical reservations. Of course, bluntness is our trademark style, but in this case, we explained a schism in ethos that reduces the effectiveness of the American president.

Mr. Obama rivals Bill Clinton in his command of foreign policy. He has an innate understanding of democracy, law and homeland security. He is an ethical man with good ideas about helping to elevate those who cannot help themselves. But he lacks a fundamental belief in free market economics. He is suspicious of wealth—and for some reason, he thinks that someone earning 100 times as much as another individual should pay far more than 100 times as much in taxes after you deduct basic living costs for both individuals. Although supporters refute the “socialist” label that is tossed from the right, it is not completely unjustified. Recall how Obama railed against corporate ‘fat cats’ who fly on corporate jets. Obama feels that it is not sufficient to build a safety net for the poor, he has a mission of doing it by soaking the rich.

[caption id="attachment_2184" align="aligncenter" width="724"] No compromise: Obama wants higher taxes on high earners[/caption]

Of course, the problem is that there is not enough wealth in the 1% to address the hole that we have dug. More importantly, he fails to accept the basic premise of capital in-centives. Did he miss a principle taught in every first-year economics class in the free world? Time for a refresher. If you slept through that class, here is the Cliff Notes version: If we punish individuals who build business, employ the middle class and already pay the lion’s share of taxes, then these individuals will build empires elsewhere.

So, since we really do like Mr. Obama, what is a Wild Duck to do?

In the build up to possible Sequestration (America’s newest fiscal cliff), we believe the solution is for Republicans to let the budget ax fall where it may. Don’t compromise on letting the White House legislate ever higher disproportionate tax tiers. That plan is not only divisive, it is a path of economic suicide. It can only lead to capital flight.

Today, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, John Boehner explains that the idea for automatic and across the board budget cuts originated with the White House, but we dispute that looming cuts were designed solely to force bipartisanship and scare legislators into crafting a more palatable plan. Nonsense! Sudden and drastic cuts are necessary to demonstrate to our creditors that we understand our obligations. We cannot continue to renege on debts and fleece our own grandchildren, by continuing to spend beyond our means.

As we go to press, sequestration is 10 days away. In a speech tonight (Feb 19, 2013), Mr. Obama stood before a gaggle of first responders, insisting that the indiscriminate cuts mandated by sequestration would result in layoff of thousands of safety personnel, teachers, airport security and flight controllers, and result in the cancellation of the Head Start program and urgently needed upgrades to an aircraft carrier.

Analysts say that Obama has the high ground. They say that if economic malaise ensues, Republican legislators will be held accountable. We agree. That’s because he is not only an ethical man, he is poised and articulate. And of course, as Republicans often complain, he is extending his campaign mode instead of offering to compromise with legislators.

So, with apologies to Jonathan Swift, we wish to proffer our own modest proposal. An idea on how Republicans can seize the high ground without giving in: We humbly suggest that Republicans announce a press conference immediately. “Hello, America...We understand that indiscriminate cuts would cripple the economy and penalize the needy. We will compromise. We cannot stand by and watch senseless cuts, and so we offer to work with the president on sensible cuts.” Since we cannot seem to agree on taxes, we will work hand-in-hand with the president to reduce the deficit by prioritizing the cuts that are mandated.

[caption id="attachment_2192" align="alignright" width="272"] Indiscriminate cuts disastrous?  So, discriminate, Mr. Obama.[/caption]

Of course, we are in the midst of a crisis, so we won’t limit our cuts to obvious waste. We will make the tough choices and target all those programs that the president never mentions in his popular stump speeches. Hmm-m-m. Where to start? How about you, Mr. President? Any ideas?

This position, will remind Americans that while the president points to the calamity that accompanies cuts to teachers, firefighters, air traffic controllers and battleships, he never cites the other end of his list. What programs can be eliminated or cut way back?. It’s easy to denounce pork and graft, but where will the real belt-tightening begin? Since the wealth of the 1% doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, this is a discussion that really needs to be vetted. And very soon.

Let’s be clear: We support President Obama. In most of his pursuits and methods, he has our admiration and endorsement. But it’s time that this Harvard Law student gain macro-economic perspective. We think that an offer to let the president take the lead in slashing the budget will turn the conversation and take the wind out of his argument that the deficit can be addressed by soaking the wealthy.

Try as he might, nothing the president can do will soak the wealthy. It is not realistic. It will only move the wealth out of the United States, along with the jobs, the technology, the Nobel Prizes and the economic gains that follow it.

As we go to press, it’s reassuring to see The Wall Street Journal agrees that mandated cuts driven by a firm deadline may not be a bad thing. But this is not exactly our point. In our opinion, they needn’t be across-the-board.

— Ellery Davies is editor of AWildDuck. Once in awhile,
he returns to his roots and becomes a political pundit.

What do Donald Trump & Marco Rubio have in common?

Did you ever wonder if interesting and newsworthy events around the world are winding down? I mean, let’s face it. The world is pretty boring. Not much is happening anymore.

Of course, that’s a bald faced lie. There is no dearth of newsworthy events. Not with more wars than ever before, breakthroughs in science at a blinding pace, global warming, a murderous shooting spree every other week, and political brinksmanship in Asia, the mid-east and even in our own Congress. Even the market battle between iPhone and Android is news.

So what passes for news today? How about this: Business mogul, Donald Trump is suing comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, because — according to Mr. Trump — he is not the product of his mother having sex with an orangutan, and he can prove it.

Just how newsworthy is proving that your father is not an orangutan? According to the Washington Times, it is the Fight of the Century. That’s pretty important, right? After all, the century is only 12% complete. It must be more important than a nation’s ballooning debt, a near earth collision with an asteroid, or crazed ex-cop who has published a hit list and killed 4 people before he was burned in a cabin east of Los Angeles

Of course, we understand that Mr. Trump is incensed by Bill Maher’s joke on late night TV. Perhaps his frustration and anger constitutes a brief statement on the news (just a parenthetical one at that). But wait...The Don is really, really, Really incensed. After all, Maher has slandered his parents! Well, not really. Bill Maher is a comedian. Even a child recognizes the difference between character defamation and parody (very good parody, in my opinion). So, if Donald Trump truly believes that the courts are the proper place to assuage his frustration, then – at best – he has a weak case for slander. Not quite the five million to which he claims to a contractual entitlement.

[caption id="attachment_2173" align="alignright" width="265"] Donald Trump: Not the offspring of an
orangutan...But frequently acts like one[/caption]

Why don’t we just set the record straight on Donald Trump once and for all. Donald Trump is a Buffoon with a capital “B”. By comparison, he makes Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians look like Ivy League scholars.

WildDucks may never know how or why Donald Trump is seen as a noteworthy scion of business. It can’t just be his wealth or eccentricities. There are many wealthy and weird business owners who covet publicity. Yet they fly under the radar. Perhaps Trump attracts media coverage, because networks see him as a source of entertainment. But even this theory falls short. As a consumer of news and entertainment, I can categorically state that his TV shows and news clips leave viewers ill at ease and not very pleased with the network. And if the entertainment angle is a viable, why fill up the world news.

Trump has no common sense, a gruff and insulting attitude, is very self-centered and has garish grooming (especially that ridiculous hair piece!). To the Don, I say: “You’re Fired!”

But wait. The trump-orangutan is so “last week”! What’s on the telly this week? Oh, my! Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, reached for a sip of water while delivering a Republican response to the president’s State of the Union address. I find it terribly depressing that this is considered news. He seemed a bit awkward as he ducked below the camera during a close up. Newsworthy? No. Briefly awkward? Sure. Funny? Only to a 2 year old who might also laugh at potty humor.

I can understand that this minor event rippled through Twitter. These are just regular Joe’s sharing an unusual moment with their friends and followers. Perfectly normal.

But, I am really disappointed with CNN for replaying that moment—and making it into a news segment. (I give the anchor a bit of credit. Assuming that he was not responsible for choosing the story, at least he cut off the follow-up discussion and suggested that it is not newsworthy). Just how does grabbing a sip of water during a speech spark a national scandal? The only slightly unusual thing is that the water was out of reach and required that Rubio almost stoop below the camera during a close up. O.K. We saw the result of poor planning. A dry throat should have been anticipated by Mr. Rubio and certainly by the television producer or set coordinator. In my opinion, it not only lacks merit as a news event. it is not funny or entertaining either. I think less of the media for abandoning real news in favor of this quip. My problem is not that it is “fluff”. That would be O.K. But this is invasive and unfriendly fluff without any point at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXOtu6PuSik

To be completely fair, I rather liked David Letterman’s send up of the event. But that doesn’t mean that the original event was news or even funny. It means that David Letterman and his writers have the talent to turn it into something funny.

Returning to the title question: “What do Donald Trump & Marco Rubio have in common?” They are both the absurd subjects of low-brow humor posing as news–or at least as legitimate filler for news broadcasts. They are neither of these things. Although they are newsworthy in other ways (Well, at least Rubio is newsworthy), they are just ordinary people going about their business.

Bitcasa: Unlimited storage, version history & sync

Bitcasa has just emerged from “skunkworks” mode. The cloud storage startup made waves in 2011 as finalist at TechCrunch Disrupt and runner up at Startup Battlefield. They were Kickstarter financed and then went silent. Throughout 2012, there were no public bulletins, but some analysts noted that they filed for 20 patents--a few are really slick! Now, during Feb 2013, they have unveiled a cloud service with an edge over all others (SkyDrive, iDrive, Dropbox, Sugarsync, etc). In my opinion, only Symform and SpaceMonkey come close to the model that I described 3 years ago (search for ‘Ellery’ and ‘RDDC’).

Bitcasa gives every user folder sync, a timeline for version recovery, and cloud storage without limits. And, I really mean limitless! By the end of next month, I may be using petabytes, as in millions of gigabytes! The space available to me shows exabytes are still available.  That’s more than all the grains of sand on the world’s beaches and all the stars in the heavens. How much does this cost? Just $99 a year, or $49 if you sign up early this month. (Promo Code: BETATHANKS). WildDucks can help this Blog by using our referral link. It tacks a free month onto your editor’s subscription.

I can’t guarantee that Bitcasa will be around next year. After all, most startups fail. But in this case, I crafted a substantially identical network architecture years ago. I understand the business model. Even with a high fraction of data hogs, the venture can profitably service users for the long haul. If an understanding of the secret sauce isn’t sufficient to assuage hesitation, this interview with CEO Tony Gauda will floor you. He combines the technical and marketing genius of Steve Jobs with the showmanship of Siegfried and Roy, and the smile of Barak Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImZWVxAQ_Q

Damon Michaels, a WildDuck contributor wrote:

Seems like a virtual drive. I need automatic backup of
my important data. I use Carbonite for this right now.

The folder-sync defaults to all drives in their entirety—even external drives and network attached storage! If you accept the default, it always backs up everything. But more importantly, Bitcasa reverses the model. As connectivity becomes more ubiquitous and speedy, they want you to use the cloud as your primary active storage. Eventually, it will even host your live EXE files (your apps) and your “bootable” OS. The synchronized copy on your PC will be the backup – as well as the one that is used when you cannot connect.

I proposed the fundamental principles used in Bitcasa architecture in this Blog, and 3 years ago in other articles. I called it a “Reverse Distributed Data Cloud” (RDDC). My spec adds distributed, P2P storage to the model. This reduces cost, creates redundancy, and makes a far more robust system. Not only does it get rid of the data center completely. With my model, it is unnecessary for the service provider to perform any backups. In effect, the live cloud is a RAID 10,000 constellation.

One architectural trade-off is the desire for massive de-duplication –vs– the compelling need for end-to-end encryption, in which only the individual users have the keys. These two features are incompatible. DropBox and Bitcasa claim that files are encrypted at the sender and that private keys are never given to the service. While technically true, that claim covers up a nasty little detail. They use a method called Convergent Encryption in which encryption keys are derived from a character string within the encrypted file. Although the service cannot decrypt a unique file (for example, your income taxes), they could compare a hash of your file to one provided by a government or alleged rights owner, thus proving that you have stored a copy of contested media. They could block access to movies and music that you have stored or even block your original upload. The good news is that with a full RDDC implementation, the need for de-duplication is greatly reduced or even eliminated. Therefore, a properly implemented RDDC can truly empower its uses with strong, end-to-end encryption.

I'll report more about Bitcasa after a few months of use. For now, I feel ratified to see my dream taking shape at several American ventures. If you find this field as fascinating as me, check out Symform, SpaceMonkey and Digital Lifeboat. That last venture is floundering, and may be bankrupt by the time you read this. But they have some very compelling technology for p2p, distributed storage.

Colossal PR Failure: Taliban effort to silence Malala

If you have picked up a newspaper or turned on the TV news in the past 11 months, then you probably know of Malala Yousafzai, a courageous Pakistani girl who stared down the Taliban and took 2 bullets to the head. Today, as Malala’s influence spreads across the Muslim world, the Taliban is realizing that attacking a 14 year old girl was a terrible move. Even among religious zealots, their cause was dealt a blow.

Malala was targeted by Taliban militants who sought to suppress her appeal for an education. They stormed her minivan school bus and shot her twice in the face. But she survived. After surgery to replace parts of her cranium, implant a cochlea into her inner ear and reattach nerves to facial muscles, she is making an astounding recovery thanks to triage surgeons in Pakistan and a team of specialists at Queen’s Hospital in Birmingham England.

Mala didn’t want a free education, or one that was mandatory for girls who accept the radical Islam enforced by Taliban militants. She simply advocated for halting their intimidating ban on the education of all girls, including the destruction of 250 schools, and the murder of families who object to their twisted religious doctrine.

But many Wild Ducks have yet to learn of Malala’s back story. For many in the West, it began when the New York Times created a 32 minute video about the life and efforts of Malala’s father, Ziauddin Yousafzai. In the picturesque Swat Valley, just north of the Islamabad, he operated a private high school and college for girls. Ziauddin recruited and paid a professional staff and maintained surprisingly high academic standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F5yeW6XFZk
^{The New York Times profiled Malala’s life 2 years before she was shot}

Although the Times video ends with Malala meeting President Obama’s attaché, she was not yet the object of international attention. Filmed just before and after her twelfth birthday, it captures the profound regional change. It begins with interior scenes of Malala’s home and her father’s school. The family lives with unbearable stress, because of a Taliban decree that schools admitting girls must close within the week. Their radio broadcasts warn that school staffs and parents will be held accountable for any girl who receives an education. The meaning of ‘accountable’ isn’t lost on parents or schools. Gunman shoot, burn, amputate or bomb anyone violating the Fatwa. Half of the pupils stop coming (and stop paying tuition). Across the region, the few schools that weren’t already destroyed are shut off to girls.

[caption id="attachment_2145" align="alignleft" width="200"] Ziauddin Yousafzai[/caption]

Then, The New York Times video covers siege and exile. It follows the father’s flight from Swat, including his 4 month separation from family. Eventually, he returns to a home and school that was occupied by the local army in an apparently successful effort to expel the Taliban. But the narrator explains that Taliban militants are hiding among the refugees, taking food from western charities and slipping back into the region along with returning citizens.

But what about Malala? In addition to exhibiting extreme chutzpah, she is a living testament to her father’s educational methods. Even at 11, she is poised, articulate, multilingual and startlingly proficient in math and science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4ZVvaSVnYOg
^{Malala talks about her remarkable recovery after being shot in the face by Taliban militants}

What does AWildDuck think about Malala and the events that forged courage amongst depravity? There is an astounding array of ignorance, hate and extremism in this world. Extremism inevitably leads to trauma, like that which this girl has endured. Yet, here, we are witness to the emergence of an intelligent and astonishing young adult! Her strength has risen with each ignorant and evil act of tormentors. In short order, she has become a beacon of truth and human dignity. What an amazing triumph of compassion, medical skill and sheer will power over the forces of intolerance.

Malala Yousafzai will go on to do great things. She has demonstrated that she cannot be silenced—certainly not by a bullet. She is an incredible force for good and an inspiration for us all.

Cold War: If Not For Me, We’d All Be Communist

From time to time, at AWildDuck, we offer an observation or op-ed on a topic of human interest. This one is not about current events, the price of gold, law or politics. Nah. It’s just Ellery’s spin with a nod toward levity. This one is fluff…

For most Americans, the cold war ended when the Berlin Wall came down. In just a few months, the USSR dissolved as former republics reasserted independence and the politburo acquiesced peaceably. But for Americans raised in the 1960s, the cold war had effectively ended when an American landed on the moon in 1969. By then, America not only felt that the space race had replaced the arms race, but more importantly, a cold war mentality was no longer baked into their weekly routine.

I attended kindergarten and 1^st grade in the early 60s. Schools held air raid drills and homes with cellars rotated canned food from the pantry and discussed radiation safety protocol. Nearly every child in North America practiced weekly safety drills orchestrated by the US Army or the Department of War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

My most vivid memory of a cold war mentality was the annual screening of the army film, Duck and Cover (LINK) and weekly air raid drills at school. Very high poles next to our baseball diamond were topped with 4-way, square-flared horns. Each Tuesday at 10:30, they blared a slowly rising siren. It was distinct from fire and police sirens, because it was a 2 tone, a full octave lower, and it took a full 30 seconds to rise and fall. That siren was a staple of my early childhood. For me, the sound had a very clear meaning: An air raid drill was about to begin. We were to seek cover. And because of its military precision, you could adjust your clocks. At the tone, the time will be 10:30 am, exactly!

In the army film, pupils ducked under wooden school desks. Presumably, this would protect them from nuclear annihilation, a force that sends mushroom clouds into the stratosphere, turns skyscrapers into smoldering ash and levels cities. Somehow, a wooden desk seems like a weak defense, but no one ever addressed the contradiction. But desks aren’t as strong as cinder block walls, and so we would file into the hallway and crouch down by our boots and winter coats. I sure felt a lot more secure about that bomb, knowing that I was protected by a wall — at least if the bomb fell behind me.

All this safety protocol begs the question…Who are we hiding from? Who is flying those planes and why do they want to kill us? For an elementary school pupil of the 1960s, this would be a profoundly naïve question. It’s the Russians and the Chinese, of course! They are communist. They hate our freedoms. They want to put us all into work camps and then steal the gold bricks that line our streets.

I sensed that information was missing from this simple explanation, but with a first grade perspective of geopolitical tension, it sufficed. Note to self: Ask older brother if he was told something more believable. After all, he was in Junior High and he knew about everything that could be known.

But even a first grader has a concept of military strategy. After practicing the drill each Tuesday one year after another, I began to become very frightened about something. Yet, I couldn’t tell anyone. Not the teacher and not even another student. After all, my secret could help the Russians to win a real war and enslave all of us.

It seemed to me that air raid drills were practiced everywhere. And at least in the communities around me, those drills were always on Tuesday at 10:30 am. The more I thought about this regular practice, the more I feared the communists. Eventually, I had trouble focusing on school work or the red-haired girl with pig tails who sat in front of me.

I realized that if the Commies want to bomb the United States, it would be pretty easy to catch the entire country off guard. All they have to do is send their planes on a Tuesday at 10:30 am. Like lambs to the slaughter, the children would practice their drill while the regional Air Force base was at low alert. Of course, the air raid sirens would blare, but no one would take it as a warning. At least, not at Devonshire school in District 68. We would be blithely practicing our weekly drill. The enemy would face no defenses and all of the children would be sitting ducks. Literally. We would all be in the hallways waiting to be led off to work camps — every one of us.

For all these years, I wondered if the Russians or Chinese ever realized this weak spot in our national defense. Now, 50 years later, I am married to a Chinese American who was raised during the Cultural Revolution. While I was ducking and covering, she was filing into bomb shelters a world apart. (quite a bit safer than a wooden desk or cinder block hallway). She was told that westerners wanted to destroy her way of life.

In the end, history books claim that the west won the cold war (at least our history books see it that way). The Soviet Union has been dismantled and China is better at capitalism than USA, at least at the national level. The years are numbered for the last few communist governments and their leaders know it. China and Venezuela are trade partners, while North Korea and Cuba are isolated. Gradually, the citizens will force a changing of the guard. But what many readers never knew until today, is that I kept my mouth closed about the danger in practicing precisely timed drills. I never told the enemy, nor even my classmates. I saved America from enslavement at work camps. I am the unsung hero.

In addition to saving the world, Ellery Davies is editor of AWildDuck.com
He pontificates about politics, economics, privacy and social phenomena.
He is especially interested in the intersection of technology and law.