Archives for the year of: 2013

In its ongoing effort to destroy neighborhood schools and communities, the NYC brought out a plan to centralize kindergarten admissions. This paren activist says it is time to fight back now:

“Last week, the DOE announced the roll-out of a new $800,000 kindergarten admissions process, known as Kindergarten Connect.

“Kindergarten Connect, like the centralized system currently used for high school admissions in the city, asks parents to submit a list of their school choices, ranked in order of preference. The DOE will then process this application and determine where the child will attend kindergarten. For most districts, this differs significantly from the current, school-based system in which parents who apply to multiple schools learn of acceptances or waitlists from each school individually. It is then up to the parents to decide where to enroll their children.

“Of course, there are many ways our admissions policies can be improved, but any policy that moves from press release to Panel for Education Policy vote in one week—and that affects thousands of families—deserves our close attention. This is especially true since the last time the DOE tried to centralize kindergarten admissions (in 2008) over a thousand parents, from all 5 boroughs, signed petitions to stop the policy from becoming a reality.

“Despite this, there has been no opportunity for public comment on Kindergarten Connect. So we at NYCPublic.org are taking things into our own hands and creating a place for the public to weigh in and ask questions about this policy.

“Please visit this page to see what parents are saying about Kindergarten Connect, and to add your two cents by filling out the form on this page. Our hope is that these stories will find their way into the press and be heard by decision makers.

“Even if you are not quite sure what to think about this policy change, we ask that you consider writing the Panel for Education Policy today to request that they table a decision on Kindergarten Connect until there has been a public hearing and period for public comment.

“In May of 2014, parents will receive kindergarten admissions letters with only one school placement (a big change from years past). They will likely have very few options to move their child to another school. Please don’t wait until then to mobilize around this policy.

“Sincerely,

“The NYCpublic.org Team

—
Liz Rosenberg
Executive Director and Co-founder
NYCpublic.org
917-697-1319

With the likely election of Democrat Bill de Blasio as mayor of Néw York City, the educrats at Bloomberg’s Department of Education are updating their resumes and starting to pack their bags.

First to jump ship is Deputy Chancellor Marc Sternberg, who is moving to Arkansas to help the Walton Family Foundation in its quest to replace public schools with vouchers and charter schools.

This article, written before the Democratic primary (which de Blasio won) explains why the DOE will no longer need Mr. Sternberg’s inestimable services:

“Two days ago NYC Mayoral Candidate de Blasio (the frontrunner for Tuesday’s Democratic primary) announced his support for a moratorium on ‘co-locating’ charter schools into buildings already occupied by neighborhood schools. If ‘co-locating’ sounds reasonable, well it’s because the practice was given a deceptively anodyne title.

“NYC co-locations are really hostile takeovers (sometime in whole, sometimes in part) of zoned neighorhood schools. Kids attending then’co-located’ neighborhood schools are kicked out of their classrooms and forced into yet more crowded classrooms. Charter schools don’t pay rent, often get the best facilities, and cherry pick the use of ‘shared space’. They often reject students who don’t fit in their managers’ model of the right sort of student.”

Apparently Sternberg will keep pushing those co-locations in NYC until the day he moves to Arkansas. The Bloomberg administration has a long list of co-locations that it expects to approve next month.

It is time for de Blasio to assert that the last-minute efforts of Bloomberg’s lame-duck Panel on Educational Policy to give as much space as possible to charter operators will be subject to a moratorium on January 1, when a new day begins for Néw York City

Jersey Jazzman connects the dots in his review of “Reign of Error.”

He sees the connection between school and society. He writes:

“There is one chapter in this part of the book that caught me by surprise: “The Toxic Mix,” as frank a discussion of race, inequality, and segregation as I have read in some time. Ravitch’s candor stands in stark contrast to the bromides of the corporate reformers, who have pretty much left any attempts at integration out of their schemes:

(Quoting the book:)
But the wounds caused by centuries of slavery, segregation, and discrimination cannot be healed by testing, standards, accountability, merit pay, and choice. Even if test scores go up in a public or charter school, the structural inequity of society and systematic inequities in our schools remain undisturbed. For every “miracle” school celebrated by the media, there are scores of “Dumpster schools,” where the low-performing students are unceremoniously hidden away. This is not school reform, nor is it social reform. It is social neglect. It is a purposeful abandonment of public responsibility to address deep-seated problems that only public policy can overcome.****

“This may be Ravitch’s best accomplishment in Reign of Error: in defending public education, she forces the conversation back toward the structural deficiencies of our society. Real education reform can only happen when we reform America itself.””””””

I had an online interview today on the national broadcast, NPR’s “On Point.”

We had a very good discussion about the state of American education, the false claims of failure, and the solutions I proffer. We were then joined by a young woman whose name I don’t recall who used to work for Michelle Rhee’s The New Teacher Project (TNTP). She went into the familiar “attack the messenger” mode, saying that I was polarizing, that I needed to compromise, that she (or her organization) had interviewed 50 D.C. insiders, and they agree there is too much testing but are comfortable with the other corporate reform policies.

I pointed out to her that everything in my book is carefully documented, that my data is right from the US Department of Education website. She insists that charter schools are public schools, and I pointed out that when they have been taken to federal court for violating employee’s rights, they insist that they are private corporations acting as contractors and not subject to state laws.

After the program, I was forwarded some questions from listeners, and I answered them.

I had the good fortune to go to Wellesley College after spending all my K-12 days in the public schools of Houston, Texas. I am a graduate of the class of 1960.

I have never been prouder to be a Wellesley alumna than today when I learned that 40% of the faculty signed a petition to dissolve a partnership with Peking University if it fires a courageous professor who supports human rights.

I will be prouder still if I hear that the petition was signed by 100% of the faculty.

The professor whose position in jeopardy is a distinguished professor of economics at Peking University.

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote this:

Like his friend Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace laureate who has spent much of the past 25 years in Chinese prisons, Xia had few illusions about what he was getting into when he signed Charter 08, a valiant manifesto calling for human rights and an end to one-party rule in China. Since then Xia has grown increasingly outspoken in his defense of liberty and his condemnation of Communist Party censorship and persecution. So when he learned that the economics faculty at his university intends to vote this month on whether to expel him, he understood which way the wind was blowing.
 
“I prepared myself for the worst long ago,” Xia told me when I reached him by Skype on Tuesday at his home in Beijing. “If I want to see constitutional democracy come to China, I must accept this. If it happens, I will bravely face it. I will not surrender; I will not back down.” In recent years he has been harassed, threatened, and followed by the police. Several times he has been detained for several days and interrogated (“Why did you sign the Charter? What is your relationship with Liu Xiaobo? What instructions have you been given by foreign agents?”) A faculty vote to oust a colleague is virtually unknown in China — the last case Xia knows of happened 30 years ago. Which means, he says, that “this is not coming from Peking University. It is coming from the central leadership.” 

If people in higher education don’t stand up for freedom of speech, human rights, and academic freedom, who will? It is hard for Professor Xia to speak out; his job is in jeopardy. It is not hard for professors at Wellesley; their jobs are not on the line. They should all sign the petition and defend their colleague at Peking University.

Media Advisory: September 19, 2013
Contact: Richard Allen Smith / rasmith@inthepublicinterest.org / (202) 327-8435
** MEDIA ADVISORY **

New Report: Shocking 65 PERCENT of For-Profit Prison Contracts Include “Lockup Quotas” and “Low-Crime Taxes” to Guarantee Profits

In the Public Interest report will expose contract language guaranteeing 80-100 percent prison occupancy and forcing taxpayers to pay a penalty for empty beds.

(Washington, DC) – On Thursday, Sept. 19 at 1 p.m. EDT, In the Public Interest (ITPI) will host a tele-briefing to unveil a new report titled “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and Low-Crime Taxes Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations.” The study will document the shocking prevalence of contract language between private prison companies and state and local governments that either guarantee prison occupancy rates (“lockup quotas”) or force taxpayers to pay for empty beds if the prison population falls due to lower crime rates or other factors (“low-crime taxes”).

Major findings of the ITPI study include:

Of the 62 private prison contracts ITPI received and analyzed, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) include occupancy guarantees and force taxpayers to pay for empty prison beds if the lockup quota is not met.
Lockup quotas in private prison contracts range between 80 and 100 percent; 90 percent is the most frequent occupancy guarantee requirement.
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia have the highest occupancy guarantee requirements, with quotas requiring between 95 and 100 percent occupancy.
WHAT: Tele-briefing to unveil “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and ‘Low-Crime Taxes’ Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations”

WHO: Shar Habibi, Research and Policy Director, In the Public Interest

Justin Jones, Former Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Alex Friedman, Managing Editor of Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

Reverend Michael McBride, Director, Urban Strategies and Lifelines to Healing, PICO National Network

WHEN: Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 – 1 p.m. EDT
DIAL: 866-952-1907
Conference ID is “PRISONS”

###

In the Public Interest is a comprehensive resource center on outsourcing and responsible contracting. It is committed to equipping citizens, public officials, advocacy groups, and researchers with the information, ideas, and other resources they need to ensure that public contracts with private entities are transparent, fair, well-managed, and effectively monitored, and that those contracts meet the long-term needs of communities.

In the Public Interest, 1825 K St. NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20006

Paul Thomas reviews “Reign of Error” in the context of what he calls Ravitch 1.0, Ravitch 2.0, and now Ravitch 3.0.

He connects it to earlier works:

“The first twenty chapters of Reign continues a tradition of other important, but too often ignored by politicians and the media, works confronting the false narratives perpetuated about U.S. public education—The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, And The Attack On America’s Public Schools by David Berliner and Bruce Biddle, from the mid-1990s, and Setting the Record Straight: Responses to Misconceptions About Public Education in the U.S. by Gerald Bracey, which followed Berliner and Biddle about a decade later.”

After describing my alternatives to the present failed policies, Thomas writes:

“Toward the end of her plan for alternative policies to reform education, while discussing the problem with privatizing schools, Ravitch sounds what I think is the most dire point confronting the U.S. and our commitment to democracy:

“The issue for the future is whether a small number of very wealthy entrepreneurs, corporations, and individuals will be able to purchase educational policy in this nation, either by funding candidates for local and state school boards, for state legislatures, for governor, and for Congress or by using foundation “gifts” to advance privatization of public education. (p. 310)

“And the problem is not “whether” this can occur, but that it is happening now.”

The teachers of Rhode Island are in a jam. Incumbent Governor Lincoln Chafee is retiring.

The Democratic primary pits state treasurer Gina Raimondo against Providence Mayor Angel Taveras.

Teachers can’t forgive Raimondo for her role in cutting their pension benefits.

It appears they may endorse Taveras even though he pink-slipped every teacher in Providence (and rehired them all), admires the no-excuses Achievement First charter chain from Connecticut (celebrated for the highest suspension rate in the state), and wants more Teach for America recruits. He is both for standardized testing and against it as a graduation requirement. Maybe. At least today. Or not.

The teachers are between a rock and a hard place.

I just received conformation that Matt Damon will introduce me when I speak at California State University at Northridge on October 2.

Wow!

Many years ago, Deborah Meier and I used to be antagonists. She was a progressive and I was a conservative. But in 2004 or 2005, we started blogging together, exchanging posts each week in which we practiced “Bridging Differences.” She (and events) turned me around. I have often said, half in jest, that anyone who spends five years blogging with Debbie Meier will eventually be converted.

I was thrilled to receive Debbie’s wonderful review of the book. Her response means a great deal to me. I look up to her as a champion of children, a lover of education, and a true apostle of democracy.

Here is a sample:

Reign of Error lays out step by step the relentless thirty year drive to ether centralize the education of the young—on one hand—or divest it entirely into privatized hands on the other. Finally, the two sides have joined forces on a strategy that simultaneously does both. While this coalition has many old roots, in its current form it began with the fanfare around the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983). Ravitch was, at that time, a supporter of this bold statement that more or less accused America’s teachers and school boards of a plot to undermine American health and welfare onthe international scene….

And in the past few years Diane’s change of mind has been a particular blessing. She hasn’t, as her preset opponents claim, done a complete switch at all—she was always pro-union, pro-public education and always for standards. Fairly traditional ones. (In fact, her criticism of Progressive educators was that so many had abandoned all standards, she believed.)

Then lo and behold: no one has pulled it all together better than Diane—over and over again in the past few years she has led the challenge to the corporate reformers—right , center and left.. Her last two books Reign of Error and The Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010) pull it altogether…..

Thanks, Diane. We all need to keep this book handy so we can whip out the citations to make our case for the kind of reform America really needs, in your own words: “to prepare citizens with the minds, hearts and character to sustain our democracy into the future.”