In 1976 residents voted for casino gambling in Atlantic City. In doing so the idea was to revitalize a depressed city with substandard housing and double-digit unemployment. Even though current casino profits are down, in 2009 11 casinos brought in over $3.9 billion in revenue.
Double digit unemployment continues, and dilapidated housing is still second-rate for many citizens. The majority of residents and businesses have not seen any change in their communities. Urban decay surrounding the casinos has not improved, and many residents who thought in 1976 they would see neighborhood improvements aren't happy. Taxes are not lower, the streets are not any cleaner, and neighborhood security has not improved much. Many local businesses have closed or been boarded up as casino stores compete against them.
Senate President Sweeney said, “We have to recognize that Atlantic City’s gaming and tourism attractions have a bigger impact than inside the city borders, if we’re serious about turning Atlantic City’s casinos into a resort destination, we have to separate the problems plaguing the casino district from the problems facing the entire city.
So in essence, the revenue of the state comes above the needs of the people, even though very little casino revenue went towards improving the surrounding communities?
In 35 years, many of them pre-recession years, the benefits of that revenue still hasn’t filtered down to the surrounding communities as promised.
In gambling with a bailout of the gaming industry, will those residents be cheated once again with the threat of Eminent Domain under the guise of revitalization that will take away the remainder of little they have left?
~ Joe Sinagra
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
NJEA should take hit for grant loss
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant
by 4.8 points.
Gov. Christie took shots at the President and the
federal government, with the Democrat fangs waiting
in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw
blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied
figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question
specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009.
This was the reason that supposedly cost the state
of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the
streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter.
The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being
held accountable.
A major prerequisite of the program required the
endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of
the unions — and only four out of 591 districts
signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a
chance to review the application over the holiday
weekend and wouldn't sign on to the program
unless it was submitted as they had previously
agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement
clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor
those of the Christie administration, and New Jersey
failed miserably in the first phase of the
competition.
However, four districts of the NJEA had affixed their
signatures to the Christie version of the application,
along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of
parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school
districts, and the state Department of Education.
Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the
reviewers clearly state that only 1 percent of the
unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers
took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation
and how they will make it work. Since the union
would not agree to the application, the reviewers
say that this would hinder the implementation of the
plan, deducting an additional 15-20 points.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong,
one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one
reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's
LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a
significant number and ... New Jersey will find it
difficult to implement even successful elements of
its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the
state 14 points on the scale.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews
that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on
the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat
on a hot tin roof over a missed five-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost
the grant, not the less than five points lost by the
incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people
of New Jersey an explanation for why this
application failed, not Christie.
~ Joe Sinagra
by 4.8 points.
Gov. Christie took shots at the President and the
federal government, with the Democrat fangs waiting
in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw
blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied
figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question
specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009.
This was the reason that supposedly cost the state
of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the
streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter.
The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being
held accountable.
A major prerequisite of the program required the
endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of
the unions — and only four out of 591 districts
signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a
chance to review the application over the holiday
weekend and wouldn't sign on to the program
unless it was submitted as they had previously
agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement
clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor
those of the Christie administration, and New Jersey
failed miserably in the first phase of the
competition.
However, four districts of the NJEA had affixed their
signatures to the Christie version of the application,
along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of
parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school
districts, and the state Department of Education.
Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the
reviewers clearly state that only 1 percent of the
unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers
took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation
and how they will make it work. Since the union
would not agree to the application, the reviewers
say that this would hinder the implementation of the
plan, deducting an additional 15-20 points.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong,
one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one
reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's
LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a
significant number and ... New Jersey will find it
difficult to implement even successful elements of
its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the
state 14 points on the scale.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews
that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on
the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat
on a hot tin roof over a missed five-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost
the grant, not the less than five points lost by the
incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people
of New Jersey an explanation for why this
application failed, not Christie.
~ Joe Sinagra
Monday, August 30, 2010
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
By clicking on the above headline you can view the New Jersey Application #3550NJ-4
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
by Joe Sinagra on Monday, August 30, 2010
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant by 4.8 points.
Governor Christie took shots at the President and the Federal Government, with the Democrat fangs waiting in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009. This was the reason that supposedly cost the state of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter. The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being held accountable.
A major perquisite of the program required the endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of the unions, out of which only 4 out of 591 districts, signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a chance to review the application over the holiday weekend and wouldn’t sign on to the program, unless it was submitted as they had previously agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor those of the Christie administration, and NJ failed miserably in the first phase of the competition. However, 4 districts of the NJEA had affixed their signatures to the Christie version of the application, along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school districts, and the NJDOE. Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the reviewers clearly state that only 1% of the unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation and how they will make it work. Since the union would not agree to the application, the reviewers say that this would hinder the implementation of the plan, deducting further additional 15-20 points.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews, that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof over a missed 5-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost the grant, not the less than 5 points lost by the incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong, one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a significant number and ... New Jersey will find it difficult to implement even successful elements of its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the state 14 points on the scale.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people of New Jersey an explanation for why this application failed, not Christie.
View Application: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/new-jersey.pdf
NJEA . . . The Race to the Bottom
by Joe Sinagra on Monday, August 30, 2010
New Jersey lost the Race to the Top education grant by 4.8 points.
Governor Christie took shots at the President and the Federal Government, with the Democrat fangs waiting in the wings drooling over the opportunity to draw blood.
Education Commissioner Bret Schundler supplied figures for 2010 and 2011, when the question specifically asked for data from 2008 and 2009. This was the reason that supposedly cost the state of New Jersey the loss of $400 million.
The New Jersey Education Association partied in the streets, the next morning, Schundler was fired.
The rationale of why he was fired is another matter. The real issue at hand is why the NJEA is not being held accountable.
A major perquisite of the program required the endorsement of the districts and the endorsement of the unions, out of which only 4 out of 591 districts, signed. The NJEA claimed that they did not have a chance to review the application over the holiday weekend and wouldn’t sign on to the program, unless it was submitted as they had previously agreed upon with Schundler. This latter agreement clearly did not meet the terms of the program nor those of the Christie administration, and NJ failed miserably in the first phase of the competition. However, 4 districts of the NJEA had affixed their signatures to the Christie version of the application, along with 289 of the 591 school districts.
The application has a section on the endorsement of parties involved, which include the NJEA, the school districts, and the NJDOE. Since the NJEA did not essentially approve, and the reviewers clearly state that only 1% of the unions had agreed to the proposal, the reviewers took off 15-20 points.
Then there is another section on implementation and how they will make it work. Since the union would not agree to the application, the reviewers say that this would hinder the implementation of the plan, deducting further additional 15-20 points.
The reviewers of the application state on the reviews, that the NJEA had cost New Jersey 30-40 points on the application. Yet, the NJEA was dancing like a cat on a hot tin roof over a missed 5-point question.
The investigation should be over why the NJEA lost the grant, not the less than 5 points lost by the incorrect information supplied by Schundler.
"While much of the New Jersey proposal is strong, one important fact makes it unlikely to succeed," one reviewer wrote. "Forty nine percent of the state's LEAs will not participate in this proposal. That is a significant number and ... New Jersey will find it difficult to implement even successful elements of its RTTT (Race to the Top) proposals."
The lack of the union's endorsement alone cost the state 14 points on the scale.
NJEA President Barbara Keshishian, owes the people of New Jersey an explanation for why this application failed, not Christie.
View Application: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/new-jersey.pdf
Monday, August 16, 2010
Unemployment rates show no sign of decrease
There are many who criticize the unemployed for not trying to find work and accuse them of living off the system. Not since the 1930’s has the US has seen a recession this great.
I consider myself fortunate enough to work for a great company, but there are many who are not so lucky.
Those who make comments such as,”they aren’t looking hard enough”, or “if they really wanted work they would have found something by now”, are either still employed or living in a vacuum. Ask anyone out of work if they enjoy collecting their “earned” benefits.
Jobs lost in the past few years will be not be coming back. Many U.S. jobs have, or will continue to move overseas or be replaced by technology. Those jobs that do come back are not going to be hiring at previous salaries as the jobs of the next decade do not look rewarding. As an example, the number of home health aides is expected to expand by 461,000. But their median earnings come to just $20,460 — well below the median U.S. wage of $32,390. Also, future benefit packages that were expected from employers will not be as lucrative and top paying jobs of the future will be minimal. Bio-medical engineers, as an example, will account for just 12,000 of the more than 15 million new jobs expected to emerge through 2018.
The job market is grim, and the economy does not look like it will explode anytime soon. Many have lost their benefits, still looking, or just gave up. Anyone previously making $40,000 a year or more certainly does not want to live off the system, especially those with families, mortgages and car payments.
They will hold on to what little they have, they cannot afford to save, and they won’t have anything extra to spend. Consumer spending, which fuels economic and job growth, is likely to remain weak for a long time to come.
The US lost an additional 131,000 jobs in July as the unemployment rate were predicted to go to 9.6%, and held firm at 9.5 %, as 652,000 people abandoned their job searches.. The Bureau for Labor Statistics revised its figures for June downwards, reporting that 221,000 jobs had been lost compared to its original estimate of 125,000.
Even though the U.S. economy added an average of less than 100,000 jobs a month in the first seven months of 2010, it still wasn’t enough to bring unemployment down.
New Jersey lost 245,400 private-sector jobs, a 7.1 percent decline, according to the NJ Department of Labor, between February 2008, at the start of this employment recession, and January of this year, an average monthly loss of 10,225 jobs over the 24-month period. At that rate it could take a decade for the state to reclaim the nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs it has lost over the past two years.
If New Jersey adds about 30,000 jobs per year starting in 2012, it would take until 2019, to reclaim all of the private-sector jobs lost to date and to regain the last private-sector employment peak of 3.44 million jobs, set in January 2008.
Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston said, “If we don’t see significant job growth by the end of the year, the US economy could be in serious trouble.”
Until Americans know that they will not lose their job because their company is in trouble and start feeling a sense of security, there is no way that their outlook on the economy will turn around, regardless of what economists may say.
Even if the job market held at a steady pace, without consumer confidence the market will stay stagnant.
~ Joe Sinagra
I consider myself fortunate enough to work for a great company, but there are many who are not so lucky.
Those who make comments such as,”they aren’t looking hard enough”, or “if they really wanted work they would have found something by now”, are either still employed or living in a vacuum. Ask anyone out of work if they enjoy collecting their “earned” benefits.
Jobs lost in the past few years will be not be coming back. Many U.S. jobs have, or will continue to move overseas or be replaced by technology. Those jobs that do come back are not going to be hiring at previous salaries as the jobs of the next decade do not look rewarding. As an example, the number of home health aides is expected to expand by 461,000. But their median earnings come to just $20,460 — well below the median U.S. wage of $32,390. Also, future benefit packages that were expected from employers will not be as lucrative and top paying jobs of the future will be minimal. Bio-medical engineers, as an example, will account for just 12,000 of the more than 15 million new jobs expected to emerge through 2018.
The job market is grim, and the economy does not look like it will explode anytime soon. Many have lost their benefits, still looking, or just gave up. Anyone previously making $40,000 a year or more certainly does not want to live off the system, especially those with families, mortgages and car payments.
They will hold on to what little they have, they cannot afford to save, and they won’t have anything extra to spend. Consumer spending, which fuels economic and job growth, is likely to remain weak for a long time to come.
The US lost an additional 131,000 jobs in July as the unemployment rate were predicted to go to 9.6%, and held firm at 9.5 %, as 652,000 people abandoned their job searches.. The Bureau for Labor Statistics revised its figures for June downwards, reporting that 221,000 jobs had been lost compared to its original estimate of 125,000.
Even though the U.S. economy added an average of less than 100,000 jobs a month in the first seven months of 2010, it still wasn’t enough to bring unemployment down.
New Jersey lost 245,400 private-sector jobs, a 7.1 percent decline, according to the NJ Department of Labor, between February 2008, at the start of this employment recession, and January of this year, an average monthly loss of 10,225 jobs over the 24-month period. At that rate it could take a decade for the state to reclaim the nearly 250,000 private-sector jobs it has lost over the past two years.
If New Jersey adds about 30,000 jobs per year starting in 2012, it would take until 2019, to reclaim all of the private-sector jobs lost to date and to regain the last private-sector employment peak of 3.44 million jobs, set in January 2008.
Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services in Boston said, “If we don’t see significant job growth by the end of the year, the US economy could be in serious trouble.”
Until Americans know that they will not lose their job because their company is in trouble and start feeling a sense of security, there is no way that their outlook on the economy will turn around, regardless of what economists may say.
Even if the job market held at a steady pace, without consumer confidence the market will stay stagnant.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, July 31, 2010
What is a jobless recovery?
A jobless recovery is when companies still maintain or gain large profits with less people.
In 2009, Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits by $391 billion, and reduced their payrolls by eliminating over 800,000 jobs. The company is doing great, to the people that were laid off it is another story. New Jersey, as of June had 17,100 fewer people in the labor force, and last month we lost another 1,900 jobs.
Another factor stagnating job growth is high taxes. A study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy suggests that states that target the rich for tax hikes may pay a stiff price. New Jersey alone suffered a $70 billion loss in wealth from 2004 through 2008, as many businesses left for greener pastures. The dilemma we face is not only that the wealthy are leaving; the bigger problem is that we can’t get anyone to move here. There have been a larger percentage of wealthy households leaving, than those entering the state.
State tax hikes would hit the wealthy exceptionally hard if President Barack Obama gets his way. For 20011, the Obama administration proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to expire and reducing the value of deductions (including for state and local taxes) for those earning $250,000 plus. Also, some of the upper-middle- class will lose all the advantages of state and local income tax deductions to the alternative minimum tax.
With the private sector generating little tax revenue and with a newly enacted 2 percent cap on property tax increases, the public sector will encounter more pain.
Until we have substantial job growth, incentives to entice companies back into the state, or innovative ways to keep companies from leaving, without an economic recovery, the state will continue to have a budget deficit.
As long as the state has a deficit it will raise taxes eventually on those who no longer have the means to pay.
You may have a jobless recovery, but not an economic one.
~ Joe Sinagra
In 2009, Fortune 500 companies tripled their profits by $391 billion, and reduced their payrolls by eliminating over 800,000 jobs. The company is doing great, to the people that were laid off it is another story. New Jersey, as of June had 17,100 fewer people in the labor force, and last month we lost another 1,900 jobs.
Another factor stagnating job growth is high taxes. A study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy suggests that states that target the rich for tax hikes may pay a stiff price. New Jersey alone suffered a $70 billion loss in wealth from 2004 through 2008, as many businesses left for greener pastures. The dilemma we face is not only that the wealthy are leaving; the bigger problem is that we can’t get anyone to move here. There have been a larger percentage of wealthy households leaving, than those entering the state.
State tax hikes would hit the wealthy exceptionally hard if President Barack Obama gets his way. For 20011, the Obama administration proposes to allow the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 to expire and reducing the value of deductions (including for state and local taxes) for those earning $250,000 plus. Also, some of the upper-middle- class will lose all the advantages of state and local income tax deductions to the alternative minimum tax.
With the private sector generating little tax revenue and with a newly enacted 2 percent cap on property tax increases, the public sector will encounter more pain.
Until we have substantial job growth, incentives to entice companies back into the state, or innovative ways to keep companies from leaving, without an economic recovery, the state will continue to have a budget deficit.
As long as the state has a deficit it will raise taxes eventually on those who no longer have the means to pay.
You may have a jobless recovery, but not an economic one.
~ Joe Sinagra
Saturday, July 10, 2010
America Loves Crackers!
Crackers come in many shapes and sizes.
The life of the cracker came in 1801 when Massachusetts baker, Josiah Bent, burnt a batch of biscuits in his brick oven. The crackling noise given off from the charred biscuits inspired the name – crackers.
There is the prize in Cracker Jacks; the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the combination of ‘LSD’ Talwin and Ritalin is known as crackers, cracker jacks is a reference to Crack smokers.
There are burnt crackers, (Hindus celebrate Lord Rama during Diwiali with burnt crackers), animal crackers, fire crackers, graham crackers, the Cork and Cracker in Indianapolis,The Florida Cracker Trail, The Florida Cracker Horse, The Milwaukee Braves were once known as the “Atlanta Crackers”, The “Atlanta Black Crackers” was a professional baseball team which played in the Atlanta Negro League, Brooke is the name of the female goldfish for Goldfish Crackers, in Scandinavia there is cracker bread, Kentucky is the Corn-Cracker state, the Red-Cracker butterfly, Jumping Cracker Beans Llc in San Jose California, Cracker Neck Virginia, graham cracker bananas, and Mary's Gone Crackers, Inc. in Gridley, Ca. . . Phew!
The weakened economy continues to affect the baking industry, although in the case of crackers, it's had a surprisingly positive effect.
Michael Morrissey, brand public relations manager, Kellogg's, Battle Creek, Mich., sees crackers appealing to consumers in several different ways. “Crackers are tied to a few big consumer trends — the desire for healthier eating, more entertaining at home and the need for on-the-move food,” he notes. “We are seeing consistent growth across our entire snack business, with crackers being particularly strong.”
Shipments in the commercial bakeries industry are over $11.09 billion.
What can I say . . . . America loves Crackers!
The life of the cracker came in 1801 when Massachusetts baker, Josiah Bent, burnt a batch of biscuits in his brick oven. The crackling noise given off from the charred biscuits inspired the name – crackers.
There is the prize in Cracker Jacks; the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, the combination of ‘LSD’ Talwin and Ritalin is known as crackers, cracker jacks is a reference to Crack smokers.
There are burnt crackers, (Hindus celebrate Lord Rama during Diwiali with burnt crackers), animal crackers, fire crackers, graham crackers, the Cork and Cracker in Indianapolis,The Florida Cracker Trail, The Florida Cracker Horse, The Milwaukee Braves were once known as the “Atlanta Crackers”, The “Atlanta Black Crackers” was a professional baseball team which played in the Atlanta Negro League, Brooke is the name of the female goldfish for Goldfish Crackers, in Scandinavia there is cracker bread, Kentucky is the Corn-Cracker state, the Red-Cracker butterfly, Jumping Cracker Beans Llc in San Jose California, Cracker Neck Virginia, graham cracker bananas, and Mary's Gone Crackers, Inc. in Gridley, Ca. . . Phew!
The weakened economy continues to affect the baking industry, although in the case of crackers, it's had a surprisingly positive effect.
Michael Morrissey, brand public relations manager, Kellogg's, Battle Creek, Mich., sees crackers appealing to consumers in several different ways. “Crackers are tied to a few big consumer trends — the desire for healthier eating, more entertaining at home and the need for on-the-move food,” he notes. “We are seeing consistent growth across our entire snack business, with crackers being particularly strong.”
Shipments in the commercial bakeries industry are over $11.09 billion.
What can I say . . . . America loves Crackers!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
que sera sera . . Whatever will be, will be
If Congress awards amnesty and residency to twenty million criminal trespassers called illegal’s, and they vote . . . we can say farewell to the existence of the USA as we know it, in fewer than five years.
If the turnout in November is as pathetic as it was in the primaries, just turn off the lights as you leave the voting booth. By the following election, you won't be pressing 1 for English.
For those who feel that as a nation we must speak English, we have never had a national language bill passed. Just about 87% say English should be the official language of the United States. Eighteen percent of households in the US do not speak English in their own homes, over 17 million of these households do not speak English very well. Nearly seven million speak little or no English, 20 percent, about 52 million people, speak other languages.
Most of these families -- 32 million of the 50 million people -- are Spanish-speakers. 152,000 Americans speak Lao at home, 174,000 Hmong; 312,000 speak Greek, 203,000 speak Armenian, 173,000 speak Navajo, 276,000 speak Gujurati, 812,000 speak Russian, 802,000 speak Italian, 2.3 million speak Chinese, 1.4 million speak French. In these homes about 5 million children, principally new immigrants, arrive at schools with very little English competency.
The vast majority of non-English speakers (75%) live in just seven states, Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois. Will the 112th Congress pass national language legislation? Who knows . . . "que sera sera..."
If the turnout in November is as pathetic as it was in the primaries, just turn off the lights as you leave the voting booth. By the following election, you won't be pressing 1 for English.
For those who feel that as a nation we must speak English, we have never had a national language bill passed. Just about 87% say English should be the official language of the United States. Eighteen percent of households in the US do not speak English in their own homes, over 17 million of these households do not speak English very well. Nearly seven million speak little or no English, 20 percent, about 52 million people, speak other languages.
Most of these families -- 32 million of the 50 million people -- are Spanish-speakers. 152,000 Americans speak Lao at home, 174,000 Hmong; 312,000 speak Greek, 203,000 speak Armenian, 173,000 speak Navajo, 276,000 speak Gujurati, 812,000 speak Russian, 802,000 speak Italian, 2.3 million speak Chinese, 1.4 million speak French. In these homes about 5 million children, principally new immigrants, arrive at schools with very little English competency.
The vast majority of non-English speakers (75%) live in just seven states, Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Illinois. Will the 112th Congress pass national language legislation? Who knows . . . "que sera sera..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)