It was a great idea. It embodied that concept that you can’t get something for nothing. Instead, here, participants would have gotten something (legal status) for something (attending college or joining the military). It also happened to be the last best hope that Congress would do anything even faintly resembling comprehensive immigration reform before mid-century.

Of course, the DREAM Act had a troubled history. The idea of swapping college or military service for legal status isn’t new. It was first proposed way back in 2001, and it spent nearly ten years on Congress’s back burner. When that happens, it’s a giveaway that lawmakers in both parties find themselves in a tough spot.

In this case, conservatives knew they couldn’t very well support a measure that many in their base consider “amnesty” for college students; but they were afraid to come out against a group of individuals who seem sympathetic to much of the general public. Meanwhile, liberals were inclined to support the measure; but they were afraid that tackling the immigration issue piecemeal in this way would undermine whatever support there might be for a more sweeping comprehensive immigration reform bill.

But, after the 2010 election, there was a new sense of urgency to get something done and try to make the DREAM Act a reality. Perhaps Democrats were eager to repay the support of Latino voters. Or perhaps, with Republicans poised to take the control of the House of Representatives in January, some liberals concluded that this was their last chance to get the bill through.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives recently scheduled a floor debate on the bill and held a vote. C-Span viewers were treated to the spectacle of GOP Congressman saying a host of ridiculous things, such as when Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA, suggested that the bill would give college admissions “preferences” to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens and thus amounted to an “affirmative action amnesty.”

When the votes were cast, to the surprise to many, the bill passed – mostly along party lines.

Then the spotlight shifted to the Senate, where those who oppose a piece of legislation have an additional weapon at their disposal: the filibuster. The concern of Democratic supporters of the DREAM Act was that Republicans might filibuster the bill, and that this would amount to a humiliating defeat. So naturally, they did the logical thing and simply surrendered.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill from consideration when it became clear that he didn’t have enough votes to avoid a filibuster. He might re-submit it, or he might not.

It doesn’t matter. The DREAM Act is dead. That is clear. The only question is whether supporters should direct their anger at the party that attacked the bill, or the one that abandoned it.

Answer: Both.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, a regular commentator for NPR, and a weekly contributor to CNN.COM.

There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about the Texas State Board of Education, new Board Commissioner Gail Lowe, and the revision of Texas Essential Knowledge Skills.  Most of the talk concerns the fact that Lowe is a conservative Christian and she feels our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be guided by Christian principles, thus making it acceptable to use those principles to shape the education of American school children.  Like most of the things regarding the country’s Founding Fathers, it is debatable whether that was their intention, and statements can be cherry-picked from each of them to support either side of the argument.  Those men were remarkable thinkers, interested in multiple disciplines of thought, and supporters of the advancement of science to achieve greater understanding of the natural world.  Because of that support, I have a hard time believing that any of the Founders would argue against evolution or the Big Bang in favor of creationism or a fundamentalist time-line, which Lowe’s predecessor did while serving as Commissioner.

I read several of the published criticisms of the Texas State Board of Education.  I became concerned with some of the changes that were being considered which seemed to defy reason in favor of promoting a conservative political agenda.  I wanted to help publicize this revisionist agenda, criticize the flawed logic of the changes suggested, and call people to action against the subversion of public education.  Before sitting down to type, though, I took an important step.  Rather than regurgitate information that had come to me through secondary sources, I found the drafts of proposed revisions to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, annotated with commentary from members of the board.

What I found actually came as a surprise.  Looking at the proposed changes for Social Studies, Special Topics Social Studies, US Government, US History, Sociology, and World History, I discovered that the proposed changes in these drafts overwhelmingly support a broad and multicultural point of view in public education.  Despite reports to the contrary, Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall are not being eliminated in favor of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh.  Many, many historical figures are being proposed as additions to the curriculum (including Chavez and Reagan) that were not previously specified as part of the required teachings.  The majority of the controversy surrounds opinions made by one or two board members (or panelists appointed by those members) on the significance of particular figures, or the balance of “liberal” figures against “conservative” figures.  This again brings me back to the Founders.

The process underway in Texas to shape the education of our children is reflective of the Founder’s desire for elected representatives to debate the merits of public policy and act in the public interest.  They knew that a consensus would be rare, so they created a government in which debate could be used to sway opinion, and the opinion held by the majority would emerge victorious.  Checks and balances would be in place, though, to protect against tyranny by the majority.   Americans seem to have forgotten that this is the way the system works.  Follow this train of thought – if our students are subjected to an education that is scientifically deficient or politically slanted, it is because the Board of Education, chosen by the citizens, approved of that education.  If the Board approves of that education but the majority of citizens do not, it is because dissenting citizens did not adequately exercise their right to vote for the Board. And if they did not adequately exercise their right, it stands to reason that the eligible voters did not take the time to educate themselves on the gravity of that election.  In turn, if an unfavorable outcome occurs, the next election provides a means of redress.  Knowing this, I can only shake my head in disbelief when I see modern tea-party protesters claiming that they have no representation.  The representation is present, only now, that particular opinion is in the minority.

It is important to the core concepts of our government that we hold our elected officials accountable.  We must make clear before and after they are elected what we want them to do on our behalf.  This is true right now in Texas as the Board decides the things teachers will talk about with our children, and it’s important nationally as our lawmakers decide how to change the health care system.  Equally important is remembering that decisions will favor the majority, and as a member of the minority, one must maintain a rational opposition. Extreme vitriol not only reflects poorly on your point of view, but causes an immediate disconnect with the party you’re trying to persuade.  We have all been guilty of it at some point.

The Texas Board of Education is accepting informal feedback on TEKS proposals through October 9.  You can go here to find the annotated drafts, the contact information, and the appropriate procedure for submitting commentary.  Shouts of “you lie” are not considered valid.

Jake Negovan strives to shine a light on truth and hypocrisy when the mainstream media overlooks those small details. “…For the People,” Jake’s column, is his platform to address the issues that our country faces as we continue growing toward a society of equality.

For the most part, White teachers told us to “Stop speaking Spanish at home…speak American… (English)…change your Spanish names to English …and fit in!” Perhaps these experiences have helped me to understand the emotional hardships of modern-day immigrants. We too, worked in menial jobs growing up harvesting crops in nearby Nunica, Hudsonville, Sparta, and as far away as Traverse City. I remember my escape from the fields to work in restaurants locally and later in the factories while attending school. These experiences made me well rounded by the time I reached high school. I left home at 16 and continued attending high school until graduating from Grand Rapids Central High School.

I hadn’t expected to go on to college but was recruited by a Chicano Counselor to Eastern Michigan University and the rest is history! I completed my degree and began working in the Grand Rapids Public Schools to change the system. I went on to earn my Master’s Degree at GVSU and Doctorate Degree from Wayne State University. As an educator I have been at the forefront of several movements to change the school system from within. Change has been slow to come and in recent years pushed back to the philosophies of yesteryear.

As I near retirement age, I often find myself at odds with individuals that seek to dismantle the progress we have made in hiring bilingual teachers and implementing programs to curb the horrendous Hispanic drop-out rate in the public schools. My two older sisters and my brother dropped out of school before the 9^th grade from the Grand Rapids Public Schools. That left me, my younger brother and sister to navigate the system and graduate from high school. Therefore, the math worked out to 50% drop out rate for my family. Not much has changed in Grand Rapids according to the district’s dropout data for Hispanic children since…in fact, our drop-out rate is actually higher…nearly 75% and we are worse than Detroit and Flint pubic school districts.

A group of concerned Hispanic leaders met with Superintendent Bernard Taylor to express our concerns and were met with arrogance, condescending attacks and lack of respect for the elder leaders who expressed their concerns about the lack of progress of our district in meeting the needs of children learning English. The district is cutting back programs and in some areas has failed to meet state and federal laws regarding the education of ELL children in the classroom. We pointed out these concerns and challenged Supt. Taylor to address these issues. Dr. Taylor failed to take an opportunity to receive input about the concerns of the community which he had asked for in public meetings. He failed to be a problem-solver.

I am convinced that the Hispanic Community of Michigan will not meet success in our public schools classrooms until there is real reform. The statistics demonstrate that Hispanic children enrolled in private religious schools and in Charter schools are having greater success completing high school. The recent demographic statistics regarding urban flight to suburban schools by Black and Hispanic students also suggest that Hispanic parents realize there is a better standard of education in the suburbs. Wyoming, Godfrey Lee, Godwin Heights, Kentwood, Comstock Park schools all have experienced dramatic increases in Hispanic enrollments over the past five years. There is a lesson in this …Hispanic parents have options too! We can leave and take our children elsewhere if urban public schools continue to fail the majority of our children.

As a seasoned educator and community activist, I recommend that Hispanic parents consider enrolling their children in private schools or public charter schools where there are opportunities to do so. Many Hispanic parents live in the city and send their students to suburban schools by using friends and relatives’ addresses. Many Hispanic parents have moved and continue planning to move to the suburbs as a solution. I also recommend that we Hispanic educators who have the contacts and the knowledge base, expand the number of Charter schools with a Hispanic American centered theme in order to insure that more of our children achieve an education.

Public schools that cannot meet national or state standards should be closed or re-organized. Superintendents who can’t provide safe and orderly schools or provide “appropriate instruction” for ELL children to succeed should move on. I have reached new decisions on my next course of action. I strongly support the movement for a statewide demonstration of Hispanics to boycott our schools on the fourth Friday count day in September! Perhaps when districts lose the millions of dollars they reap as financial gain that we produce for them, they will begin to listen and act to properly educate our children.

Dr. José Angel Flores is the publisher of The Community Voice/La Voz Bilingual Magazine, www.lavozweb.com in Grand Rapids, Michigan.