Several members of the Democratic party’s platform committee sent me the draft of the platform. It is linked below so we can all reflect on what is being considered. This is a draft so it can be changed. Please read it and send your best ideas.
The section on education contains a lot of reformer lingo. Zip codes. Options. Accountability. The Democratic party favors “high academic standards.” Who favors “low academic standards?” The party opposes too much testing; who favors too much testing?
The rhetoric about “high academic standards” brings echoes of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to see a statement about meeting the needs of all children? Or ensuring that all schools have the staff and resources they need for the children they enroll?
And then there’s the section on charters. The party is against for-profit charters: so far, so good, but how about saying that a Clinton administration will stop federal funding of for-profit schools and colleges, because they are low-quality and predatory, with profit as their top priority?
The party favors “high quality charters.” Does that mean corporate charter chains like KIPP, Achievement First, and Success Academy? Probably. How about a statement opposing corporate replacements for neighborhood public schools? How about a statement insisting that charters accept English language learners and students with disabilities at the same rate as the neighborhood public school? How about a statement opposing draconian disciplinary policies and suspensions?
How about a clear statement that the Clinton administration will no longer permit school closings as academic punishment? How about a clear signal that the Clinton administration intends to protect and strengthen our nation’s essential traditional public schools, which serve all children. How about signaling a new direction for federal education policy, one that promises to support schools and educators, not to punish them.
Please read and share yours reactions. I will pass ideas along to platform committee members.
See the entire pdf here.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why should the platform say those obvious things about the value of educating children? The NEA nearly tore a hamstring running to endorse Clinton early in the primary season, so she doesn’t have to worry about alienating union leadership. All that’s left is the weasel wording that will sound superficially acceptable but is an assurance to corporate reformers that no one in a Clinton administration will stand up to them.
Short version: this is what we’d expect.
Very clearly enunciated…Hillary wants “high performing charter schools.”
See page 26..as follows…
Democrats are also committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and
17 expanding these options for low-income youth. We support great neighborhood public schools
18 and high-quality public charter schools, and we will help them disseminate best practices to other
19 school leaders and educators. Democrats oppose for-profit charter schools focused on making a
20 profit off of public resources. We instead support increased transparency and accountability for
21 all charter schools.
And now we can add this info to the mix re Hillary and Trump…just hit my email…..
“Donald Trump Launches Blatantly Anti-Semitic Attack Against Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump tweeted a blatantly anti-Semitic image Saturday morning, causing an immediate backlash online and further confirming the Republican nominee is willing to sink to depths well beyond usual, acceptable bounds of politics.
The tweet, posted at roughly 8:30 a.m., featured a picture of Hillary Clinton pasted over a backdrop of $100 bills with a six-pointed star — the Jewish Star of David — next to her face. Read more.”
…and there is this as more confounding confusion re Hillary…..
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/
What to do??? What to believe????
Exactly what was expected, Diane. They all know exactly what to say to appease the masses while maintaining the plutocratic Reform policies.
This platform is shockingly bad, beginning with using the reformers’ lingo of PUBLIC charter schools
The only public “charter” schools are the ones that answer to the public school system.
In Brooklyn, there are schools like The Children’s School and the Brooklyn New School that are what charters should be. Those are the only schools that should get the name “public charter” (although they aren’t called that). If the Democratic Platform supports schools like the Children’s School and BNS, hooray for them.
But the “high performing” charter schools that this platform claims to support is almost always synonymous with “We serve an affluent population” (BASIS Charter and Success Academy Upper West and Union Square) or “we serve many at-risk students – although fewer than failing public schools – and we do whatever necessary to make sure the non-strivers among those kids understand that they will be punished and humiliated until they leave (other Success Academy schools).
Very few of the non-profit charters are “public charters”. They are private, non-profit charters. If the Democrats are already so desperate to convince the public of exactly the opposite, then we can all write them off as having any interest in supporting public education.
“The party is against for-profit charters: so far, so good, but how about saying that a Clinton administration will stop federal funding of for-profit schools and colleges, because they are low-quality and predatory, with profit as their top priority?”
The distinction between “for profit” charters and “nonprofit” charters is an ed reform fantasy. In Ohio, I can open a school that is a “nonprofit charter” and 97% of the funding can go thru a for profit charter management entity.
They’re kidding themselves with this. These schools are essentially layers of contracts. The “charter” is just the contract between the state and the school entity. There can 1 or 2 or 3 or 15 contracts below that. “Nonprofit” itself is losing all meaning. It’s turning into a tax designation.
If Democrats were serious about supporting “public education” they’d get off the dumb “for profit/non profit” distinction that means nothing in practice and have the courage to define “public school”. THAT’S the issue.
A couple of the private insurance carriers on the Ohio health care exchange are “nonprofits”. Does that mean they’re “public”? Of course not. They’re regulated private entities who receive federal subsidies. No one outside of ed reform defines “public” as “nonprofit”. It’s unique to the public school privatization “movement”.
WELL SAID.
Thank you! This is exactly what is wrong with the term “public” charter. It’s ridiculous.
There are for-profit and non-profit charters. If non-profit charters want to call themselves PUBLIC because they get public money, then for-profit charters are also public because they get the same public money.
So to be consistent, I assume the Democrats will correct their egregious error and say:
“We do not support for-profit PUBLIC charters, but we do support non-profit PUBLIC charters.”
Because according to the idiots who claims that charter schools are “public” schools because they take public money, for-profit charters are ALSO public schools and we should always make sure to say “for-profit public charters”.
Let’s start with the basics. While all public entities are nonprofits, not all nonprofits are public entities. They have to stop relying on this “nonprofit” fig leaf. What does “public” mean to these people? Does it mean “publicly funded”? Because if it does Ohio Catholic schools are public schools and defense contractors are also public.
Dodging the definition of “public” won’t work forever. Eventually people will need to know, since they’re busily privatizing whole communities.
Ed reformers had a huge problem with Rocketship charters being called a “company” in a news article. What are we supposed to call these chains? They’re national. Are they a “school system”? So we have national school systems now?
I propose we call them “contractors” because that’s the term that every other publicly-funded private entity uses. Why AREN’T they contractors?
Michigan privatized some of it’s health and human services services. The entities who provide those public services are called “contractors” because that’s what they are.
What type of contractor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractor
I support democracy and elected school boards to lead the way forward. We need to stop giving public funds to private boards.
(I also support the federal government in its role as defender of social justice. Therefore, I support equitable funding, not test-and-punish.)
One of the fundamental points of education is understanding the meaning of words. The Education Commission of the States
(I couldn’t find the funders), provides a list, at its site, of individuals representing organizations, who apparently serve some role with ECS. A “commercial business”, which defines “company”, rarely appeared among those listed. Yet, the heading for the column was “company”. Rephormers should show more of the benefits of education.
Chiara,
I think you have a handle on how to dismantle the idea that charters are public schools.
Schools authorized by the federal or state government to operate and be managed by unelected “contractors” are not public, even if they receive public funds. Such schools are often called charter schools.
Could the answer be that contractors providing public services are subject to fed/ state procurement et al laws found to be so psky by charter schools?
I think that to the extent that the term “public” has any meaning in this context, it has to do with access, not the source of funding. The New York “Public” Library is “public” because anyone who meets the residency requirement can borrow books for free. As long as that’s the case, most people are OK calling it a “public” library even though it’s privately managed.
FLERP!
The New York Public Library is privately managed but it is accountable, financially transparent, and open to all who enter its doors.
I’m not well-schooled on how accountable the NYPL is and I haven’t reviewed its financials. How is the NYPL accountable? How is it financially transparent?
The NYPL’s doors are indeed open to all who come in, but you can’t get a library card unless you meet the residency requirements. And many a poor soul has tried to borrow a book, only to be told that there are no copies available. (I do hope the library’s membership demographics are representative of the city as a whole.)
FLERP,
I was on a he board of the New York Public Library. It raises private money and receives public subsidy. It’s financial statements are open to public scrutiny. It is accounts able to public officials, who have representatives to N its board. Its doors are open to all, without qualification. I attended its Centennial celebration, where Toni Morrison was a featured speaker. She was eloquent on the public nature of the public library. There are branch libraries in every neighborhood serving every demographic. The library and its branches area great educational institution. No test needed to enter. The treasures of the written word available to all, forever free.
Impressive. I assume you’ve met the wonderful Mr. Schwarzman, then. It is reassuring to know that in some cases, it can be a great idea to put private corporations that raise hundreds of millions of dollars from hedge-funders in charge of public goods.
Also, I’m glad it hear you weren’t on the board of the Queens Public Library. http://theforumnewsgroup.com/2014/05/15/queens-library-board-of-trustees-rejects-comptrollers-request-for-audit-documents/
FLERP,
Billionaire Schwarzman got his name put on the main building of the library because he made a gift of $100 million. That’s the way it goes these days, but it doesn’t make the New York Public Library less public.
And Trump gets paid to have his name put on buildings that belong to others. Imagine how high his licensing fees to use his name will go after this Presidential election.
The fact that the DNC’s platform comes up short on public education is no surprise as a large segment of the party, especially the hedge funders, are heavily invested in charter schools. If the early debates are any indication of what is to come, the issue of public education will be avoided at all costs. If they have an unrehearsed open forum, some informed citizen may be able to put Hillary on the spot. However, we all know Hillary is smart lawyer that will probably be able to talk her way out of the question without saying anything too offensive to her charter friends. I believe Hillary plans to continue Obama’s failed policies, but unlike him, I believe she may be more flexible if pressure is applied and the evidence is clear that charters are causing an undue burden on public schools. I don’t believe she is as anti-public schools as Obama as she was a good state senator that always supported public education. She needs to choose a DOE leader that is not from the reform camp for her to gain any level of credibility from public educators.
Let’s not forget the last time Hillary Clinton was put on the spot: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-vowing-to-close-schools-not-above-average/
People often criticize the fact that I will not vote for her. But how can I vote for a person that believes it’s ok to close schools and replace them with charters? I’m being serious, someone please tell me how?
I don’t have any proof but I think Clinton will be better on public schools than Obama was too. As far as I can tell Obama outsourced his entire education approach to ed reformers. He is smitten with market-based ed reform. I also think he considers labor unions outdated vestiges of the Democratic Party that he has to pander to- pesky obstacles that have to be patted on the head every cycle.
He gave an interview with Bloomberg where he described himself as a “strong supporter” of labor unions”. They should have asked him: “really? How so? Be specific”.
He likes the abstract idea of labor unions. ACTUAL labor unions with working members who demand things? Not so much. They’re kind of..icky and low class.
Would it be too much to ask the DNC to adopt this as their platform?:
Education as a Right:
Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university.
Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude.
Protect our public school systems from privatization.
Use restorative justice to address conflicts before they occur, and involve students in the process.
Evaluate teacher performance through assessment by fellow professionals. Do not rely on high stakes tests that reflect economic status of the community, and punish teachers working in low income communities of color.
Replace Common Core with curriculum developed by educators, not corporations, with input from parents and communities.
Stop denying students diplomas based on high stakes tests.
Stop using merit pay to punish teachers who work with the most challenging student populations.
Restore arts, music and recreation to school curriculums.
Ensure racially inclusive, sensitive and relevant curriculums.
Use Department of Education powers to offer grants and funding to encourage metropolitan desegregation plans based on socioeconomically balanced schools.
Recognize poverty as the key obstacle to learning. Ensure that kids come to school ready to learn: healthy, nourished, secure and free from violence.
Increase federal funding of public schools to equalize public school funding.
Chiara: I recall when Scott Walker gutted the unions in Wisconsin, and the teachers protested his actions. Obama did absolutely nothing. Actually, Obama has done very little for the working class other than some token social legislation. Everyone cites the ACA as a big achievement, and on a social level it was. It was really a windfall for Big Insurance, and Big Pharma, although the insurance industry is having buyer’s remorse.
And exactly how will they hold schools accountable? Withholding funds, having non educators be at the top of the DOE, supporting for profit charter schools as a alternative for “underachieving” schools? Will the DEMS continue their attack on public school educators who are subjected to the evaluation process that holds them accountable for tests scores from flawed tests developed by corporate entities in the hip pocket of those at the head of the DOE? Duncan, King, both incapable leaders. Non educators in the for profit camp. TFA? What do you plan to do with this fiasco? Endorsing this group ensures the poorest and most neediest students receive instruction from unqualified college grads who seek to lower their student loans while they “educate” our children,moving on at the end of their tenure to high paying jobs in the corporate world. Once again, what are you going to do to advocate for the public school educators whose unions have blindly endorsed you year after year even though you slap us all in the face in favor of your corporate friends? Address this or you will see a huge movement away from this party as educators realize there is no difference between DEM or GOP and we become IND supporting instead our students , our professions,and our livelihoods.
Extortion is been at the core of Obama’s failed education policy. The message has always been, accept this rule, or you get the stick. This has been true, even when the rule or law has no basis in fact like the CCSS or VAM.
Correction- has been
Right on, Martha…I agree with all you state.
Since democrats are supposed to be for the little guy, and we are trending away from federal intrusion into state education policy, why should the platform not be an outline of basic principles that promote what is good for those who need it most.
1. Democrats deplore the tendency of inequalities in educational funding to exaggerate the difference between rich and poor. Charters steal funding from the poor and so to fancy suburban public schools where whole communities fund their own kids well but vote down state taxes needed for the rural and inner city places with small tax bases.
2. Democrats deplore the way testing is used to damn the poor and validate the wealthy.
3. Due to the out-migration of talent from certain areas of the country, the federal government should base the distribution of dollars on where tax bases are left without the contributions of those who have used their talents to move to some other part of the country, leaving the cradle of their intellectual youth to rock itself.
The current DNC is not of one mind when it comes to the little people. While there are still social liberals in the party, their economic agenda has done little for the working class and poor. Most legislators get funding form corporate lobbies, and many of these people are invested in privatized prisons and charters. We are a lot less likely to get unbiased support when special interest groups are pulling the strings. We need a system like Denmark’s where the government funds campaigns at the same rate for all. It makes for a more honest, fair elective process.
“The Democratic Platform”
“Far beyond norm
Ne’r below”
Demo platform
There you go!
I am dismayed, but not even remotely surprised, that the Democratic Party continues to cling to the lie of “reform.” Their coffers are filled with donations from the usual con men: Gates, Bezos, Broad, Wallton, and so on. They are engaging in doublespeak, as you indicated in your article. Meaningless statements masquerading as policy. At the end of the day, it’s more of the same: charters, testing, labeling, and greed. And that’s why I have left the party.
The Democratic party left working people long ago.
It’s now a cocktail party of corporate elites.
All ideas that both teachers Unions should propose be included in the platform of both parties before any Union resources are used supporting the parties nominee for President.
Both unions should have waited until the platform contained these items. Instead, they rushed to endorse Clinton over a year before the general election, without discussion with the local rank and file, or the concessions mentioned above. Makes me sick.
Diane,
I wrote “The K-12 Education Speech We Need From Democrats,” but it still seems relevant today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/the-k12-education-speech-_b_7755854.html
Thanks,
Arthur
I bookmarked your speech, and I would love to see it put into action, However, I doubt we will hear this sentiment in this election in the current climate.
Same here, Arthur. This speech, though written last year, holds true today. But considering that DFERS continue to rule the party, and the big money leads the DNC, I feel hopeless.
The first fifteen years of my educational career was with traditional public schools. After a brief hiatus, I returned to education and began working in public charter schools. I have been and administrator in four different charter schools. At each of the schools, I found that I was not comfortable with many of the schools’ policies and practices. I found my greatest concerns were those dealing with student due process. When I would ask my superiors for clarification on decisions made that seemed contrary to my understanding of educational law, I was often told, “We don’t have to follow the rules public schools have to.” My immediate thought to this response was always, “But you are a public school.”
I have since researched charter school case laws it relates to student discipline, dismissal, and due process and found that, “Charter schools are public schools-except, apparently, when they aren’t” (LoMonte, F., 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.splc.org/blog/splc/2013/09/charter-schools-are-public-schools-except-apparently-when-they-arent). At present, case law seems to more often protect the practices of charter schools than the due process rights of students. It appears that semantics are critical. Charter schools regularly choose to “dismiss” or “counsel out” their students rather than expel, freeing them from having to provide due process required by California law that governs student expulsions.
The term “public charter school” is an oxymoron. I heard that it was suggested by a PR firm. (Can anyone confirm this?) I know for a fact that some charters insist their teachers use his term. Use of the term is intended to confuse and reframe the issue. There is no such thing as a public charter school. (You wrote: After a brief hiatus, I returned to education and began working in public charter schools.)
Democrats are playing a semantics game that is intended to snowball the public. Charters are only public because they get to use public money as a result of misguided legislation. Charters are not public schools in their structure; they are private and corporate. They are not democratically operated, and they are not of, by and for all people. They are not transparent, and many of them are misusing funds. With a system of little to no oversight, we are inviting frauds to rip us off.
Charters have not delivered on their hype, and we are wasting our students’ education and money on schools that are rarely better and often worse. It sickens me to see that charters, paid out of tax dollars, are increasing segregation. We should not be using public money to violate federal desegregation laws. Separate is never equal.
I don’t know what this means- does anyone else? Low-cost high-yield investment in group mentoring?
To me that sounds like the Bill Gates agenda. Class loads of 50 or more with a poverty wage earning TFA adult monitor with no retirement plan and no health benefits cracks the whip and forces the children to stay focused on the flickering computer screens as they monotonously, like good little brainwashed automations, go through the programed, step-by-step curriculum that is allegedly linked to the Common Core and high stakes tests that punish public schools while turning blind eyes and deaf ears to the autocratic, selective, child abusing, for profit, often fraudulent and inferior corporate charter schools that are based on a foundation of murky cherry picked facts and outright lies.
Isn’t this “personalized learning”? Low-cost during rollout years; high-yielding return in USDollars and a mentoring fee payable to administrators.
Leonie “We will focus on group mentoring, which is a low-cost, high-yield investment that offers the benefit of building a supportive network of peers who push one another towards success.”
What does this mean? Peer-to-peer mentoring is usually voluntary and high-touch, person-to-person, not group oriented unless you are inducting a group into a program e.g. (vocation, college experience, STEM professionals volunteer to a school program). It could mean that we do NOT need to pay for school counselors and school social workers.
It could mean mentors are “volunteers” or reimbursed through grants like those funded by AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is widely tapped by TFA and the charter school pipeline, and others eager to “accelerate the teacher pipe-line.”
AmeriCorps also has awards for programs designed as social impact bonds (pay-for-success contracts), such as those in Promise Neighborhoods and pre-school programs in Utah, And Chicago. See http://www.nationalservice.gov/focus-areas/education.
It could mean funding some of the US programs already of interest at the Clinton Foundation, examples here: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/search/node/peer%20mentor
If you do not care about “high-touch, person-to-person, peer mentoring” but do care about “low-cost, high-yield investments” in pushing for success, you can organize some funding for school climate and social-emotional research and learning, also encouraged in ESSA.
The online “virtual mentors” are proliferating, as are “diagnostic” surveys of students, parents, instructional staff, and non-instructional staff.
One example: Bouncy’s You Can Learn for the “most challenged four to six year olds is a suite of apps with a teacher’s edition. The avatar-based apps use videos, games and the adventures of animated avatars to instill academic mindsets. These mindsets include caring about learning, believing you can learn, knowing that learning requires effort and grit—practice and persistence.
The press for this commercial suite of products claims that “ at risk” kindergarteners in an urban Cleveland school who were exposed to the program for only two weeks were more actively engaged in classroom activities, group exercises, and asking questions. Rutgers’ Social Emotional Learning Lab expert Dr. Maurice Elias has said the program, “…moves the work of building children’s social-emotional skills to a new plane.” Bouncy’s You Can Learn school and teacher editions include extensive teacher resources, the student app, multilingual guidance for families, eBook, classroom extension activities, “Howmuch-ometer” for young students to register their own mindsets, and easy to use data management tools.
There are many more products like these with a claim to research-based interventions that are “at scale,” and relatively low cost.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
Take a look to see what the lesser of two evils might be up to. When something like this is allegedly leaked, that usually means it is a test run to see what the public reaction will be.
We are all cowards , we vote for the lessor of two evils because it is safer for our careers our pensions . Each time we do it, the two choices becomes worse. Care to guess what comes after Trump .
What comes after Trump?
I shudder at the thought. It might as well be Lucifer because no one else can be worse than Trump.
Not. Voting. For. Hillary.
Nor will I vote for any of the pondscum neoliberals in the party.
Donations? Shut off.
Want my vote? Too effing bad.
No more GOTV, phone banking, door knocking, or voter registration drives.
I’m done, Democrats. See this? I’s my one finger salute to what you have done to the party of the people.
As you point out, being against overtesting or misuse of test scores is easy. Privatization, whether in the form of charter school advocacy or vouchers, is the most fundamental threat to equitable democratically governed public education. Memo to Clinton and Sanders: Competition is Not a Healthy Choice for School Improvement http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/memo-to-clinton-and-sande_b_9453824.html
YES. When did we get to that point where school “competitions” with winners and losers makes sense in a PUBLIC, ALL-STUDENT education?
When has the platform mattered in the recent past?
Specific examples?
The platform does not control future actions but gives a hint of dispositions and hopes
Nitpicking, but I HATE the Republican use of “Democrat” as a noun when it should be an adjective. It should read “Draft of the Democratic Party Platform”. Thanks.
I favor simple declarative sentences without much nuance:
Public funds for education must be used to support PUBLIC schools. Public means “open to all” without exception.
At the state and local level, it is clear that there are limits to resources. The federal government faces the same challenge. Parallel “public” school systems designed for the few or fewer are simply not sustainable.
I strongly believe that all mandates must be funded. IDEA has never even come close to the 40% level of federal support promised when the law was passed in the 70’s. If the feds did nothing else in terms of funding, I would like to see this commitment honored.
Evaluating teachers’ and schools’ effectiveness cannot be done by a computer. The paragraph in the draft about so-called accountability in k12 is ridiculous. It says they want to use test scores to “inform” instruction but not “drive” instruction. Empty rhetoric. An impossibility! The federal government has a role in seeing to it that the education funds it gives states, as per the 1965 ESEA, are spent equitably, directed at students in need. Period. Creating curriculum standards is not for the federal government to do. Informing instruction is my job, not theirs.
I support equitable funding. We need to hold state and local governments accountable for funding and maintaining accessible facilities and programs. (Politicians are the ones who need to be held accountable.)
Come to think of it, can we just drop the word ‘accountability’ altogether and never ever use it again? Schools cannot be held accountable for the great ills of society. The only ones accountable for student performance are students. “Do your best and get good grades so you can have a bright future,” not “Do your best so you can take a test and show Washington D.C. what a good staff your school has.”
Absolutely agree on striking “accountability.” Most misused word in the discussion…and never applied to those who use it.
From Meriam-Webster:
“accountable”
required to explain actions or decisions to someone
required to be responsible for something
____________________________________________________
This begs the question, what exactly are the responsibilities of the public schools?
Safety, Nutrition, Immunization
Health and wellness programs
School lunch programs, School breakfast programs
English language arts education (reading, writing, listening, speaking)
Math education
Social studies, History, and geography education
Science education (biology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, chemistry, physics
Foreign language programs
Physical education
Extracurricular athletic programs
Home economics (including sewing and cooking)
Vocational education (including industrial and agricultural education)
Mandated school transportation
Business education
Art and music
Speech and drama
Extracurricular theatre programs
Band, chorus, and orchestral programs
Expanded science and math education
Driver’s education
Foreign language instruction
Sex education
Guidance counseling
Advanced Placement programs
Head Start
Consumer education
Career education
Drug and alcohol abuse education
Parenting education
Character education
Special education
Title IX programs
Environmental education
Women’s studies
African-American heritage education
Keyboarding and computer education
English-as-a-second-language and bilingual education
Teen pregnancy awareness
Preschool programs for children at risk
After-school programs for children of working parents
Alternative education in all its forms
Stranger/danger education
Antismoking education
Sexual abuse prevention education
Expanded health and psychological services
Child abuse monitoring (a legal requirement for all teachers)
Conflict resolution and peer mediation
HIV/AIDS education
Expanded computer and internet education
Distance learning
Tech Prep and School to Work programs
Gifted and Talented opportunities
At risk and dropout prevention
Bus safety, bicycle safety, gun safety, and water safety education
Bully prevention
And we are asked to do this on an unprecedented scale: 50 million children, 100,000 schools and 3 million teachers.
And the reformsters want all of this boiled down to math and ELA test scores?
I’ll say it again, regarding schools and teachers, “accountability” is a bullshit term used by those who want to stay employed and stay in power.
A giant YES to all you said here…Leftie.
Latest news on how money is to be spent by our govt….
“Trump, Ryan would shortchange students to give tax breaks to corporations and CEOs.”
Just what we don’t need–another proposal to give unneeded handouts to big corporations and the wealthy at the expense of students and schools.
http://educationvotes.nea.org/2016/06/24/trump-ryan-shortchange-students-give-tax-breaks-corporations-ceos/
Thank you all, accountabili-buddies.
We have to acknowledge the damage done by common core and its accompanying, flawed testing. NAEP scores are actually going down under common core and Kentucky, which adopted the common core first, is in bad shape. Here are a few articles co-authors and I have written:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/16/how-common-cores-recommended-books-fail-children-of-color/
http://empathyeducates.org/Journeys-to-and-through/laying-bare-of-questions-which-have-been-hidden-by-common-core-answers/
Of course children of color would do poorly under the common core–David Coleman (“architect”) threw out everything we knew about culturally reponsive pedagogy and, frankly, most everything we knew about teaching literacy and language arts.
Simple declarative sentences without nuance.
Public (taxpayer) funds must be directed to PUBLIC schools. By definition, public schools are schools that are open to all without discrimination (as defined by federal law).
The federal government must commit to meeting its obligation under IDEA. Mandates must be funded. The federal government has never come close to the 40% level of funding that was promised in the 1970s when the law was crafted.
Local and state governments must deal with limited resources. The same is true for the federal government. No government should make promises it cannot keep. Parallel systems of public education are not sustainable and are fundamentally inefficient.
Public schools are much more than that. Public schools are publicly funded and publicly controlled. The public control is shy charters are not public. (You wrote: “By definition, public schools are schools that are open to all without discrimination (as defined by federal law).”
I’m still rooting for the FBI. Will James Comey save our public schools? Find out by the DNC convention!
Shame on the AFT and NEA for not getting any concessions for their money and endorsement. The current leaders are obviously getting monies from Gates and other Reformers while our high dues gets us and our students very little. I wonder if Rank and File can file a class action suit so we can see how our PAC is being spent and which Reform candidates are receiving campaign contributions?
Agreed that the shockingly early endorsement was both disheartening and eyebrow raising. At times it’s hard not to look at the national teacher unions as anything short of tools for the Reform Movement.
In what form would that concession be . Would it be written in stone .
They certainly got a commitment .One that Clinton has no intention to uphold. With out the active participation of the working class ,unions and working class voters will be dismissed . Right now a good percentage of them are voting for the idiot in the race, which is part of the problem . Dismal democrats make Republicans look acceptable .
Unions that fail to motivate and educate their own members are participating in their own demise. I wont ask how many AFT /NEA teachers are voting for Republicans and Trump . How many retired members are voting Republican?.
“Shame on the AFT and NEA for not getting any concessions for their money and endorsement. ”
Of course they got concessions: Clinton conceded that union leaders would be high on the list of cabinet nominations.
I find this incredibly disheartening. This document MUST say that the Democratic Party is going to eschew the funds from billionaires, who are not educators, who are driving our school districts to spend millions/billions on ed tech companies instead of teachers, smaller class sizes, actual books, social workers, reading specialists, etc. The Democratic Party must wake up to the rampant conflict of interest inherent when tech companies, and ed tech companies, go after public school dollars. I am so sick of people who did not/do not send their children to public schools pulling strings and exerting pressures that result in destroying public schools. Clinton and the Democratic Party need to get some actual parents who are living some of the last 7 years of national education policy and corporate “philanthropy” on their team. I do not want my kids tested anytime, anywhere through online CBE programs any more than I want PARCC.
“This document MUST say that the Democratic Party is going to eschew the funds from billionaires, ”
That’s like demanding that a squirrel eschew nuts.
The Democratic Party has a long way to go to earn back my support. Fear of Republicans won’t do it. Campaign platitudes won’t do it. But the “Several members of the Democratic party’s platform committee [who] sent [Diane] the draft of the platform” are moving in the right direction. Asking for feedback from Dr. Ravitch instead of Bill Gates is a progressive step. My compliments to whomever those committee members are.
I don’t know the details of Diane’s situation or who “leaked” these documents to her (maybe she’ll tell us), but the platform was “leaked” publicly. I saw it before this post, simply by browsing Twitter. I just wouldn’t assume it was an “asking for advice” sort of thing.
Five members of the committee (of fifteen) were appointed by Bernie Sanders.
As SomeDAM Poet also points out, no candidate is actually obligated to follow the platform.
I see. Thank you for your insights, your detective work. Leaking the draft to many outlets is not as good as a direct and exclusive nod to Diane, but it’s still a good thing if several committee members are committed to public discourse instead of technocracy, and leak the document.
And you’re right about politicians not feeling obligated to meet campaign platforms and promises once elected. I haven’t forgotten 2008-2009. But wouldn’t it be good if there were numerous people working high up in the Democratic Party who also have come to understand that and want to change it? Maybe there are Sanders people up there. Good! I’m not saying I support Clinton. I don’t. But I want Diane Ravitch to have the president’s ear, one way or another.
Oh, we should definitely push for a party platform that is as “progressive” as possible. It would give us one tactic for holding officials accountable, by pointing to their own pseudo-constitution.
…at the same time, we cannot expect it “proves” any official will do any particular thing. It will only work if people get behind it. I think that’s the lesson of this election cycle. The platform COULD be beneficial, or it could just be a piece of paper.
Naomi Klein says: “politicians will do nothing unless they are backed by social movements and accountable to those movements.”
If Hillary gets in, it will take lots of pressure, and things may improve incrementally. This is my only hope for her.
Agreed.
The Platform should
(1) Recognize that the “ideal of quality public education for all, is under greater threat today than it is ever been”.
(2) shutdown plutocratic puppet masters, in the US Dept. of Ed. and, in all federal departments, agencies and commissions.
(3) Roust, from government influence, the Aspen Institute. Its plutocratic funders use the organization to silence the voice of democracy.
This draft was posted in a FB BAT’s thread late last night and I didn’t think it was real. I read it and was so disappointed–a high school student could have written that vague drivel about education on p.21. Then I became indignant. So, I proposed some suggested revisions. I doubt they will be read or even considered as they are too specific and will offend the neoliberal plutocratic education cause the democrats seem to embrace. I fired away none the less–
“This is so disappointing….. The language regarding “for profit” k-12 charter schools is missing and needs to be included–like “k-12 for profit charter schools” should be retroactively eliminated with no grandfathering in clause. And if we can’t do that then language regarding k-12 charter schools should read that all charter schools must abide and follow all state/federal mandates, ed codes, statutes, follow all laws pertaining to financial transparency, take all students who apply despite the cost to the charter school, be overseen by locally elected school boards not the own appointees. No more 501(c)3 tax exemptions under the umbrella of a corporation either. No persons or entities from foreign nations may start charter school chains in the USA-make it retroactive to include all Gulen schools. ”
I know–very “pie in the sky” and all this “when pigs fly”.
Thank you…..
At least, if we all write, it lets the power brokers know that we’re aware of their betrayal.
I really hope they are deluged with our suggestions! Here are my thoughts and critiques of each section.
I am an educator who teaches art appreciation and art history at the community college level to low-income, immigrants, and first-generation college students, among many others at our diverse college. I am extremely concerned for all levels of our education, and the lack of value we put on it, seeing it instead as “job training”. I would like any reference to job training, income after earning a degree, etc, stricken from the platform. That is not education’s responsibility, that is the responsibility of our country to provide good jobs in a robust economy. Free trade deals that will leach jobs away from the country are the problem, not our education system. If there are no jobs to be had, there is little our education system can do about it. But no matter what, everyone, from farmers to factory workers to teachers and lawyers deserve a strong liberal arts foundation. It’s one of the major pillars of our democracy, which demands an educated public, not widget-makers with an impoverished life of the mind.
Higher Education:
I would like to see a strong statement in favor of liberal arts education. Free community college would be great, but only if we don’t allow businesses to transform our departments into free job training for them. Businesses need to step up and invest in their own workers with apprenticeship programs, paying workers while they learn. Look to Germany for a good model of this. Let’s keep our education about educating, and I’d like to see language reflecting that assurance.
“colleges holding the line on costs” – this is ominously vague. I’d like to see language in support of tenure and protecting and supporting professors. I would also like to see something added about the precarious situation many adjuncts are in, and a commitment to supporting them. Healthy faculty are better educators.
Student Debt:
Bringing back the bankruptcy option is the least you can do. This whole section is actually very weak. Much more could be done to offer debt forgiveness, which would pay for itself eventually by being a huge boost to the economy. H. Clinton has elsewhere proposed rather sweep debt-forgiveness for up to almost $18,000 for one, already privileged segment of society: tech entrepreneurs. As far as I’m aware, a degree is not even necessary for one to be an entrepreneur, nor is it fair, or even seemly to single out one profession for this kind of gift. Doctors, nurses, teachers, therapists, social workers, librarians, public defense lawyers, etc. all serve the public to make our society better, and all these professions require multiple degrees and credentials, and most professions listed here do not remunerate well. In fact, teachers get such low pay for the work they do that there is a crisis-level teacher shortage in this country. Let’s consider debt forgiveness to the public servants!
Minority-Serving Institutions:
this sounds promising.
For-Profit Schools:
I would remove any language involving the word “Trump”. This platform should offer a positive independent vision, not be a reaction to any republican. That weakens it. The government should not be involved in funding any for-profit schools at all. Full stop. Federal loans should not be allowed to apply to them. “Cracking down” shouldn’t mean they need to guarantee jobs that are not there – it should mean removing accreditation entirely.
Early Childhood, Pre-K, K-12:
“Hold schools accountable for raising achievement levels”. “Accountability” in this sphere has lately meant punishment. Suffering schools need better support, not punitive measures. This does involve “receiving adequate resources and support” – “adequate”? Why not “excellent”? Why not have something in here that incentivizes the states to robustly fund all levels of public education? Punish the state lawmakers if they refuse to fund education, if you must punish anyone. Make this happen.
“recruiting and retaining teachers” – how, without such low wages as teachers receive? This section keeps mentioning “world class education”, but offers no suggestions of how to get there, or look at other countries as examples. Look at Finland. I want a promise to raise teachers’ salaries. There is no mention of the teacher shortage. Recruitment tools like TFA do not work. We need professional teachers who are treated as professionals. “ensure ongoing professional development” – this is vague, and I don’t like how the teachers’ autonomy in the classroom is not mentioned. That is something that needs to be respected and supported.
Privileging STEM over the Liberal Arts is a problem. The liberal arts include math and science. Education is not job training. Education is about acquiring a breadth of knowledge and learning to think, producing citizens, not workers.
Charter schools should not be part of any democratic platform. They are more expensive, and funnel money away from true public education, that is open to all.
Not sure if my comment went through?
Tangentially related- May 7, posted article at Republic Report, by David Halperin,
“New Head of Zuckerberg Education Charity Sits on Board Governing For-Profit College.”
testing?
Diane: you have stated it perfectly.
AND
For those who will not be voting for Hillary,
send your wishes to Donald Trump and the Republican platform..
See what kind of response you get from the Republican platform.
MAYBE you think that you will get a better platform from them but don’t hold your breath waiting.
we do not have to stand for that sort of bullying…..there might be enough hostility to shove Donald trump’s hair so far up your inner parts that you…..become uncomfortable.
I mean really really really really uncomfortable.
You ,might want to think about the bullying aspect of your logic.
four years of republicans revealing the true depth of their idiocy versus allowing Hillary and friends lie and bully and do everything they want because they are Clintons?
Even with the supreme court stuff…if Hillary is going along with this we must use democracy to put an end to what she is.
Someone stated it perfectly on this blog years ago, and nothing has changed.
“Public schools and their teachers are political orphans left on the doorstep of an abandoned building.”
End of story.
Here’s the core of the problem with Democrats:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176159/tomgram%3A_thomas_frank%2C_worshipping_money_in_d.c./
“Influence is where you can read about all the smart former assistants to prominent members of Congress and the new K Street jobs they’ve landed. There are short but meaningful hiring notices — like the recent one announcing that the blue-ribbon lobby firm K&L Gates has snagged its fourth former congressional “member.” There are accounts of prizes that lobbyists give to one another and of rooftop parties for clients and ritual roll calls of Ivy League degrees to be acknowledged and respected. And wherever you look at Influence, it seems like people associated with this or that Podesta can be found registering new clients, holding fundraisers, and “bundling” cash for Hillary Clinton.”
As with Tom Daschle and his wife. He segued right into lobbying for Big Pharma when he left government…and she was already there protecting Monsanto.
and of course also Dick Gephart…always liked them when they were in the Congress/Senate but did not know who they really were until they left to make the big money. Only Russ Feingold has not disappointed me. Hope you all give him a few in his run for Senate.
29. “Democrats believe that a strong public education system is an
ANCHOR of our democracy, a
PROPELLOR of the economy, and the
VEHICLE through which we help all children achieve their dreams. ”
What Say??? That is should be an embarrassing assertion.
Democrats also apparently believe that eloquent, coherent writing is unimportant.
“Anchor” instead of foundation, “propeller”, instead of engine, and “vehicle”, instead of, …believe…. system helps all children…
Is the writing problem the result of nepotism, no grown-ups or, no interest in the process, by delegated people, who are more interested in profit-taking from their influence-peddling activities?
How many airplanes have you seen with an anchor?
It’s like something out of Doctor Seuss
Oh, I see, they were talking about the propeller on a boat.
Now it makes perfect sense
Then it should read:
DANFORTH ANCHOR of our democracy, the
FIXED PITCH MARINE PROPELLOR of the economy,
and the
MOTORBOAT through which we help all children achieve their dreams.
Many a time have I used the boat’s propeller as an anchor.
Just don’t forget to take the chain off the propeller before you start the engine like I did once.
Another useful hint (which I have discovered after much experimentation): if you simply drop the whole engine overboard without taking off the propeller, it works much better as an anchor because of the much greater mass.
That way you also don’t have to reattach the propeller after you weigh the nachor.
THESE BELOW ARE GROSS OMISSIONS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM PLANKS: (1) STEAM courses have been given the short shrift as funding for education is increasingly focused on STEM. Scientific knowledge without a basis in the Humanities and Art can encourage an economic system without ethics and gross misuses of our nation’s human and natural resources. (2) There is no mention of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE which if included as an essential tenet of our criminal justice systems has the potential to eliminate much of the current misdirection and reorient our police and court systems toward “justice” rather than incarceration.
Scientific knowledge without a basis in the Humanities and Art can encourage an economic system without ethics and gross misuses of our nation’s human and natural resources. ”
Not just can, but has.
Some day, if the human species survives, people will wonder why the United States squandered so much wealth on useless and destructive junk and produced relatively little (particularly compared to what we could have produced) in the way of lasting art, music, literature, architecture, etc.
When it comes to the latter, the US pales in comparison to ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy.
When the Age of America is over, people will remember us primarily for the piles of junk that we left behind an the environmental degradation that resulted from the production of all that junk (iPhones, iPads, and all the rest of the iJunk)
The biggest issue in public education for me will always be local funding vs. national standardization. We test students with incredibly different backgrounds and starting points in life on fairly arbitrary national standards – harkening back all the way to the Binet model IQ tests, which were a skewed-white skills test designed to decide if a student was functioning at grade level; and not much in standardized testing has changed since then. This is the most backward thing we can do, and it pushes economic disparity into a cycle of failing schools producing failed students, who in turn can’t give back to their low income communities, and thus contribute less in taxes and so the cycle continues. Until we begin funding public education nationally and allowing communities to allocate those resources as they see fit – i.e. ESL programs where we have many immigrants, additional social services in at risk communities, technical and job training where a particular community has space for growth in a given field – nothing changes. Everything else is just good intentions and failed policy. Despite Brown vs. Board, impoverished schools and wealthy schools will never be separate but equal until the funding structure is nationalized and the control over our children’s education is localized. This is the root. Also, If the DNC could get in touch with the Philadelphia Student Union while they’re there, that is the first and only student run union for political action of its kind in the country, and it does amazing work to fight privatization and for profit schools. It’s where I got my political start, and I trust the PSU to have the best ideas for urban education going forward.
Reblogged this on Network Schools – Wayne Gersen and commented:
This is no surprise… Ms. Clinton’s a die hard neoliberal who will sustain the same “bi-partisanship” that gave us NCLB, RTTT, and ESSA.
Cross posted at Oped news, with this comment
Diane Ravitch opens up the conversation to YOU, before it is too late!
At her site, join teachers and parents, to tell the DNC what YOU think is needed in eduction. Drafts can be changed– explain your thoughts about a draft which contains in solutions that support children, and ensure democracy for all.
Go, talk about what YOU want to see in the section about THE SCHOOLS?
NO, explain to congress that any school won’t do… that the PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION explains that the government is there to promote THE COMMON GOOD.. which must include the INSTITUTION of public education!
Look at th link below and see what Oklahoma wants to sneak into their legislation, and you will know why Clinton and the democratic party needs to pay attention to the destruction that every teacher, parent and child KNOWS IS happening.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/23/1490004/-Oklahoma-Committee-Votes-to-End-Public-Education-SB1187?detail=emailclassic&link_id=14&can_id=333137475fdb83b9834686730288f7e0&source=email-trump-rally-no-joking-matter-5&email_referrer=trump-rally-no-joking-matter-5___83739&email_subject=conservative-congressional-candidate-shares-screenshot-forgets-to-close-porn-windows
I’d say this is education platform is disappointing but I didn’t expect different.
“Accountability” is surely here to stay, which is understandable and necessary. But maybe we can change the conversation to include how to more accurately measure how schools and students are faring, because every reader of this blog knows that the current testing-based accountability system is not just inaccurate, but is plainly encouraging insane test prep (see, eg, Success Academy) and is hurting our kids.
Let’s offer other more accurate measures that don’t push away the things we value (other than math and English language arts skills), like creativity, problem solving, confidence building, science, foreign language, physical and mental health, worldwide and local history, vocational skills, etc.
Seriously, shouldn’t graduation rates count for something? And how about analyzing what kids are doing as they leave; college, military, dance/theater companies, trade schools are all admirable next steps. How about qualitative reports from school staff, parents, and students? And we can look at reports from independent accrediting groups that some schools volunteer to be reviewed by?
There are many other, more accurate, growthful, supportive ways to assess our schools and help them to improve. Our leaders, current and prospective, need to get off the current testing-based bandwagon (which no one I personally know supports) and move on to meaningful markers that truly help children and their schools.
I couldn’t pull up the platform draft but would hope that it would include support for regulating the marketing of educational products and services just as the nation has made some attempts to regulate the marketing of pharmaceutical drugs–the country needs a publicly available up to date national registry where any entity selling an educational good or service is required to report any consideration (money, even a pen) paid to employed superintendents or anyone holding a decision making position (even a consultant) in a school district, and reporting should also be made about whether any consideration was paid to such a person’s family or connected business or associate. Reporting should be required even when the person in a decision making position performed services or did not. Reporting requirements should include any company that acts as a middleman between the payor and the payee.
I would also hope that the platform includes increased privacy protections for students and their families.
Thank you.
How about a commitment to developmentally appropriate education, including play, in the early primary grades? And to social emotional development – including full funding for nurses, counselors, therapists and support staff? Or more funding for special needs students? I’d also like to see a commitment not to adequate funding, but to equitable and robust funding – with an acknowledgement that there has been a demand for accountability from school communities but no accountability for the failure to provide even basic resources at high-needs schools.
How I wish I could be optimistic.
After 12 years of Bloomberg, our hopes were high when our new Chancellor under diBlasio set significant mandatory time in the classroom as part of the requirement to become an administrator.
But as time has marched on, it’s become more than apparent that the hatchet men and women who were hired under Bloomberg with no classroom experience whatsoever are here to stay. Working for and achieving tenure.
I don’t see anything changing under Hillary. And I so hate to say that. But Trump is worse.
In my opinion, it reads like status quo rhetoric. I agree with Diane’s questions/critique, as well as those questioning the emphasis on STEM and omission of the Arts and Humanities.
There is tremendous disparity in beginning wages for college graduates. Depending on discipline, starting salaries can range from ~$28,000-$65,000. Nevertheless, assuming all students spent on average the same amount of time completing their degrees and incurred on average the same amount of Student Loan Debt (SLD), there is significant wage inequity, which affects their ability for repayment.
Making community college free, as it should be and once was, is a step in the right direction. There are some vocations that can be completed at this level, with starting wages far higher than those of our public school teachers. However, this is not enough. Higher education in numerous, far more civilized and compassionate countries is free. As well, teachers are respected, revered, and in some cases on par with or exceed medical and legal professions. In some cases, a master’s degree is required to become a teacher. In the USA, this requires more SLD, unless fortunate enough to have the financial means to pay for one’s education.
The section on Student Loan Debt is one of personal interest and concern. There is nothing new, much less helpful in it for those saddled with SLD. As someone who completed graduate school at an older age (MS and PhD) out of desperation as a single mom on welfare to find meaningful employment, my SLD is economic slavery and debt that will not go away. Even though my loans were consolidated at a fairly reasonable interest rate, i.e., ~ 3.1%, the bulk of my payments continue to be applied to interest. The way the interest accumulates, and the loan structure in general, is predatory. With debt ~ $69,000 at graduation, and after paying on my loans for ~12 years, the balance is now ~$59,000. Now age 67, this is not a promising scenario. The SLD for some professions, e.g., medical, legal, spirals upwards of $300,000.
New repayment plans provide no relief, particularly for those of us in education. Every time there is a new repayment plan, I investigate. The payments are unaffordable for me as a single-person income. This includes the one for those in public service positions, such as higher education at a public institution, which can be forgiven after 10 years. I was informed that in order to move to this payment plan, none of my previous payments or years of service would apply and my 10 years would start from zero if this plan was selected. I was then in my mid-60s, which in addition to the unaffordable payment amount, made this not an option.
Changing bankruptcy standards to relieve SLD, while perhaps “progress,” isn’t an option many desire to pursue for obvious reasons. As someone forced into bankruptcy by a former spouse, it’s a long road to travel (10 years) when there’s no accumulation of assets.
Of particular importance is to remember that it was the Clinton administration who allowed and passed legislation ~ 1996 that allows Social Security and disability benefits to be garnished for SLD. I am not optimistic another Clinton administration will be any more favorable. And a Trump administration, given his history of bankruptcy and personal gain, will be even more disastrous.
As well, it was the Clinton administration during the same period as above, who passed punitive legislation to limit welfare to five years. As a single mother on welfare who received no child support and with no living relatives, it was that same controlling fear that drove me to higher education. I don’t regret my education or my resulting career. However, I resent the economic prison where I now find myself.
Finally got around to posting my thoughts
https://rlratto.wordpress.com/
Thank you, Diane, for your fight and hope for public education. I heard you speak in Milwaukee, and follow your blog. I am a recently retired (74 years old) public Montessori teacher in MPS. This is the email I sent to Bernie Sanders: (somehow couldn’t copy it) People talk about our”failing schools” as though it were a fact. Urban public schools, serving a majority of poor children of color, are supposedly the worst. It is easier to blame teachers and whole schools in challenged areas, rather than to address the root causes of poverty. Government officials have succumbed to billionaire do-gooders/profit-seekers, pushing for more charter and voucher schools, most of which have shown no improvement over public schools, are under fewer restrictions and so “weed out” the difficult children. Many, many, have been closed because of fraud. These schools siphon money from public schools. The emphasis is on standardized testing and scripted curriculum (a huge money-maker for the testing companies), a teach-to-the-test approach, forcing out the arts, physical education, history and literature that the wealthy children enjoy. Now in this era of corporate reform, children are “test scores,” and families have become “market shares.” You have passionately spoken for federal support, rather than privatization, for our citizens’ needs in society. You are even (thankfully) opposed to private prisons–but what about public elementary and high schools that are to prepare our children for citizenship in a democracy? No one denies that public education can be improved. In the Democratic platform, please include research into, and support for, good public education. Please consult Diane Ravitch (dianeravitch.net) and Linda Darling-Hammond (Execadmin@learningpolicyinstitute.org), brilliant and eminent authors, educational historians, researchers, and advisors on local and federal levels. Thank you! Karen Woodbury