Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal went into a partisan rant before a far-right audience, complaining that the U.S. Department of Justice had sued to block the state’s voucher program.
The legal action was taken to prevent vouchers from undermining desegregation in counties (parishes) that remain under court order.
In a bizarre twist, Jindal portrayed himself as a champion of the civil rights of poor children, helping them escape the state’s “failing schools” to flee to religious schools, some of which have uncertified teachers and use textbooks that teach creationism and Bible-based interpretations of history. The school that received the most voucher students has already been kicked out of the program for defrauding the state.
Out of 380,000 students eligible to receive vouchers, only 8,000 applied. No stampede there.
The funding for the vouchers was already struck down as unconstitutional by state courts because they took money dedicated in the state constitution to public schools.
We are in bizarro world when a rightwing champion of market-based education claims to be a civil rights champion.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We’re also in Bizarro World when a governor with, ahh, high melanin skin avidly defends a policy dearly beloved by ardent segregationists.
But don’t you know: Jindal’s a house servant. He’s one of the “good” ones.
Rednecks may not be wild about people from the Indian subcontinent, but he’s light enough and reactionary enough to get by. And let’s not forget Alan West, who simply made it based on being crazier and more outrageous than the majority of white Teabaggers.
What a country.
Bluewombat…. I thought the same thing. For a minority to favor segregation is ironic. Had he been born in a less fortunate family, he surely would have been stereotyped from an early age.
Andrew Cuomo has his own version of laying the groundwork for vouchers…coming soon because of his ” death penalty” remarks bout the failing schools resulting from the Pearson attempts to sell crappy tests for lots of profit.
I keep waiting for Mario to show up at one of Andy’s more offensive speeches and smacking him in the face. That it doesn’t happen has been deeply disappointing.
I’m convinced Mario is in parental denial.
That’s how all these people talk, right or left. If you dare to question whether market based reforms really advance civil rights, they say you are a name caller, a whiner, someone who wants kids to be “stuck in failing schools,” someone who is against poor people and their hopes for change. It’s very powerful rhetoric and it’s hard to find public folks who will stand up in the face of that rhetoric and say, *I* am for children being stuck in failing schools. The corporate reformers have framed the conversation such that if you disagree with them you are against poor people getting a real education. Who wants to be holding that standard?
My question is, how can we reframe the conversation? How can we regain control of the narrative? How–to put this delicately–can we expose the lies?
We could perhaps ask why these fine, concerned folks don’t invite kids trapped in poverty to come live next door and attend THEIR neighborhood schools. . .
I think anytime someone uses the catch phrase “failing schools,” you have to ask them what they mean by that. Really get into that subject. Break it down. Ask them to consider what the desired outcome of a public school is. Suggest that it is un-American to want to deny a conveniently located school for every child where the child is welcome no matter what. Just ask more and more questions. It has been too easy for market-education fans to make their case because so many aspects have just been accepted as a given, without a real explanation of what they mean in consideration of the goals of public education. They have tended to make their move without really, I mean really really, having to make their case. Like if they wrote a paper on it at a decent college, I can’t see how it would get a high score because so many terms have been left undefined or not thoroughly examined.
Dedicated teachers will continue to try and do their best for students during this market experiment. But as for me, the term “failing schools” carries little to no meaning. Is a father failing if his income is low, but he sends time with his children and loves them and provides what he can? Homogenize the world, mochachino land doesn’t work with public schools.
“How–to put this delicately–can we expose the lies?”
Follow the money.
I wasn’t sure what you meant. However, it seems as though Republicans always love it when taxpayer money — or just as likely, money borrowed by the government — is given to the private sector. In this case, we are talking about vouchers for private schools. You and I would call it corporate welfare, but this is the kind of redistributing the wealth that Republicans like. To them, taxation is theft.
My new book will reframe the conversation, I promise. Its purpose is to regain control of the narrative and expose the lies, myths, and spin.
Any chance you can you get a segment on 60 minutes?
@NY teacher: Fat chance. 60 minutes has shilled for the charter/privatization movement in numerous segments. (Diane on 60 minutes would be a wonderful thing, though!)
Are we that boxed in by the powers that be?
One alternative, suggested by Commissioner King to combat the issue of low test score results in many of the Buffalo Public Schools, was to see if any of the suburban districts would be willing to let some of the inner city kids attend their schools. The reaction was not positive, since there is a cap on increased school taxes leading to budget cuts along with poor test results all across the state. It’s every man for himself. Of course, even if the situation were different, unless the kid is a top athlete, the suburbs aren’t interested in helping out.
“We are in bizarro world when a rightwing champion of market-based education claims to be a civil rights champion.”
That goes all the way to the top of the food chain, starting with Obama/Duncan.
We need to enlighten parents and community members who are likely to be confused by the “civil rights” hype that market-based “reformers” promote, as if their motive have nothing to do with corporate and political interests. The best thing I can suggest is to share David Sirota’s latest video from CURRENT TV: “The Financial Motives of the Education “Reform” Movement”:
Reblogged this on Blog of an e-marketer by Main Uddin.
I truly believe that “failing” inner city schools are the legacy of America’s racist past and even our racist present. Poverty can be a problem, but not an insurmountable one, unless . . . For example, my father was raised on the lower east side (NYC) by poor immigrant parents who did not speak English. He went on to graduate #10 in his class at Stuyvesant H.S. Poverty did not stop him from working hard in school. The difference between the poverty that he grew up with and the type of debilitating poverty of the modern inner city is the shear hopelessness (and maybe to some degree acceptance) that pervades these blighted, crime and drug ridden neighborhoods.