Archives for the month of: January, 2017

Steven Singer watched the Betsy DeVos hearings and was taken aback by her ignorance of education policy and her arrogance in thinking she is qualified to be Secretary of Education.

 

He writes:

 

Betsy DeVos wouldn’t commit to protecting students with special needs.

 

She wouldn’t commit to keeping guns out of school campuses.

 

She wouldn’t commit to holding charter and voucher schools to the same standards as traditional public schools.

 

She didn’t know the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was a federal law.

 

And she couldn’t explain the difference between proficiency and growth.

 

That’s your nominee for Secretary of Education, America!

 

During a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) tonight, DeVos showed herself to be hopelessly out of her depth.

 

She tried to cover her ignorance by being noncommittal. But it was obvious that she had no idea what she was talking about more than half the time….

 

Betsy DeVos was never anything. She has never held a real job. She’s never had a job interview, nor has she ever been hired by anyone!

 

Her entire portfolio is being a rich Republican mega-donor. All she’s ever done is use her and her family’s obscene fortune to push for school vouchers, remove charter school accountability, advocate for Common Core and persecute LGBT people.

 

Of course there will be more questions! It’s not because she’s a Republican or that she was nominated by GOP President-elect Donald Trump!

 

It’s because she’s a twit!…..

 

When asked about whether there should be gun-free zones around schools, Betsy DeVos dodged and said some schools might need a gun. She gave the example of a Wyoming school that needs protection from grizzly bears.

 

School officials in Wyoming at the district in question said the school has strong fences but no guns are allowed. The school has 10 students and was quite surprised to be the center of national attention.

 

“(CNN)The superintendent for a rural Wyoming school cited by education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos in Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing says they have no guns for grizzly bear at Wapiti School.

 

“Ray Schulte, superintendent for Park County School District No. 6, told CNN Wednesday he was at the school board meeting Tuesday night when he got word one of their local school had been mentioned by DeVos.

 

“I noticed the gal mentioned Wapiti School,” he said.

 

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who represents Sandy Hook, the site of the 2012 school shooting, had asked DeVos if she believed guns have “any place in and around schools.”
Citing grizzlies, Betsy DeVos says states should determine school gun policies

 

“I think that is best left to locales and states to decide,” she said.

 

After Murphy pushed DeVos, she brought up a story Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi told about a school with has fences around it to protect against grizzly bears.

 

“I will refer back to Sen. Enzi and the school he is talking about in Wyoming. I think probably there, I would imagine there is probably a gun in a school to protect from potential grizzlies,” she said.
Schulte said it’s against state law to have guns at school.
“We do not allow weapons on school property,” he said.

 

 

 

Wyoming school district cited by DeVos: Grizzlies, yes; guns, no
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/politics/betsy-devos/index.html

 

 

Amy Goodman and Juan González interview journalist Matt Taibbi about Trump’S election.

 

Key comment:

 

“MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, and I think that was kind of a big oversight by a lot of the media. Trump—look, how do politicians get elected? There’s a very simple formula that people on both sides have followed for ages. They tell people that, you know, things are bad, and we’re going to give you somebody to blame. You know, on the right, they’ve traditionally pointed the fingers at minorities and foreigners. And on the left, we point at corporations, you know, the pharma companies, insurance companies, etc., etc.

 

“Trump did all of those things. He appropriated all of those bogeymen, both the liberal and the conservative bogeymen, but he also made the campaign process itself a villain. He said, “These people, these reporters, these donors, these two entrenched political parties, they are against you.” And unfortunately for us reporters, we were the only people from that particular group who were actually in the room during these events. So what he would do is he would say, “Look at these people. Look at these bloodsuckers. You know, they’ve never come so far for an event. And they didn’t want to come. They all said I was going to lose,” etc., etc. And the crowds would physically turn toward us and start, you know, sort of hissing and booing. And he made us part of this kind of WWE act. And it was—in a way, it was brilliant theater. And I think that the people on the campaign plane didn’t understand the significance of what he was doing. He was villainizing the process. And it was really effective.”

 

 

 

 

In case you want to listen for 10 minutes about why Betsy DeVos should not be confirmed, here is the link. 

 

Also, I will be on the Chris Hayes show tonight on MSNBC. Same topic.

Richard Painter was the ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush administration; Norman Eisen was the ethics lawyer for the Barack Obama administration. They co-authored an opinion piece decrying the Republican war on ethics.

 

“For two weeks now, the majority leadership in the new Congress and the incoming Trump administration have been conducting a war on ethics. This has ranged from the effort to cripple the Office of Congressional Ethics to the Senate’s rush to confirm President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees before their financial conflicts disclosures were complete to Trump’s own inadequate plan to address his ethical problems.

 

“The latest front involves the Office of Government Ethics and its director, Walter Shaub Jr., who has had the temerity to speak up against Trump’s plan to deal with his conflicts of interest as “meaningless.”

 

“Both of us, former ethics counsels for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively, have worked with Shaub, a career public servant who, in our experience, provided nonpartisan and wise advice. Now, Shaub is being pilloried — and may be at risk of losing his job — for doing just that, and asserting correctly that Trump’s approach “doesn’t meet the standards . . . that every president in the last four decades has met.”
“How does the Trump plan fall short? The president-elect asserted that the conflicts laws don’t apply to him but ignored the most fundamental one of all: the constitutional rule that presidents may not accept cash and other benefits — “emoluments” — from foreign governments.

 

“Trump’s lawyer then offered a porous and insufficient plan to address this problem: The Trump Organization will donate profits from foreign governments’ use of his hotels. But why only hotels? What about foreign sovereign payments to buy his condos or apartments, for use of his office buildings or his golf courses, not to mention his massive foreign government bank loans, and other benefits? And why only profits, when the Justice Department has long held that the emoluments clause covers any revenue from foreign governments — not simply profits?

 

“For speaking up about the shortcomings of this plan, Shaub found himself in the Republican crosshairs. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that has jurisdiction over the White House, demanded Shaub appear for a Star Chamber-style recorded inquisition and implicitly threatened to shut down the Office of Government Ethics if Shaub did not submit. Chaffetz ought to have been doing the exact opposite, supporting OGE and demanding documents from Trump about any financial ties to Russia or other foreign governments.

 

“Then, just when we thought it couldn’t get worse, it did. The incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, went on national television to threaten Shaub. In a scene like something out of a gangster B-movie, Priebus warned the director that “he ought to be careful ” and gave his blessing to Chaffetz’s interrogation. Priebus’s glare of menace was unmistakable. The only thing he left out was cracking his knuckles.

 

“Priebus went on to make assertions about Shaub that were false. For example, he claimed Shaub was “political” because he “may have . . . publicly supported Hillary Clinton,” which is simply untrue. Shaub has done no such thing. (Before becoming director, Shaub made modest political donations, as did his Republican predecessor.Indeed, both of us have also exercised this same First Amendment right.)

 

“Priebus also attacked Shaub’s competence, and so his livelihood, questioning “what this person at Government Ethics, what sort of standing he has any more in giving these opinions.” In fact, the director is a dedicated and talented ethicist who has served Democratic and Republican presidents alike with distinction and without controversy for many years. He has already approved 54 percent of the Trump nominees who have submitted their paperwork to OGE, compared with just 29 percent at this point in the Obama transition eight years ago. If the White House chief of staff had made these kinds of threats against the head of OGE when we were serving in the White House, we would have resigned immediately.”

 

 

The prepared remarks of Betsy DeVos were released, and Daniel Katz analyzes them here.

 

DeVos knows very little, maybe nothing, about the public schools of America. She thinks that parents long to send their children to religious schools, for-profit charter schools, cybercharters, anyplace but a local public school.

 

She never mentions the failure of the school choice policies she has inflicted on Michigan. Michigan has seen its NAEP performance drop steadily–sometimes sharply–since the spread of DeVos ideas. Since 2003, Michigan scores on NAEP have declined from the middle of the pack among states to the bottom third. Detroit is awash in charters, and it is still in desperate trouble as public dollars shift to private management. The Detroit charters are no better than the public schools.

 

But she doesn’t mention any of that. She just talks about the wonders of choice. It worked for her and her family. Why shouldn’t all children have the same choices as the DeVos family?

 

When you figure that out, I have a bridge a few blocks from where I live that I want to sell you.

Kenneth Zeichner is Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Washington. He writes here why Betsy DeVos should not be approved for Secretary of Education.

 

 

Betsy DeVos is thoroughly unqualified for the job of Secretary of Education. She has never attended a public school, sent her children to public schools, taught or worked in a public school district or a state education agency, overseen public education as a governor or governor’s aide, or studied the field of education. There has never been a more unqualified nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education in the history of the Department of Education.

 

The DeVos family’s has donated millions of dollars over the years to education causes through groups like the American Federation for Children and contributions to pro-“choice” political candidates to privatize public schools and turn their management over to corporations or religious groups. In Michigan, where DeVos has focused most of her efforts, about 80 % of charter schools are run by for-profit corporations as opposed to about 13% of charter schools nationally.

 

Ms. DeVos and her husband Dick who became billionaires mainly through earnings from their company, Amway, a Pyramid scheme[1] in which many people have lost a lot of money, have been very active in their home state of Michigan and elsewhere in promoting the spread of both unregulated charter schools and voucher schools.

 

Voucher schools involve the transfer of money from public schools to private and religious schools.

 

They began in the South during the civil rights era of the 1960s as a way for whites to maintain segregated schools after the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision to integrate public schools. The first modern day voucher program was started in Milwaukee Wisconsin in 1989 and has transferred millions of dollars from the Milwaukee Public schools (MPS) to private groups and have made it more difficult for MPS to educate the children who remain in the public schools. Today there are voucher programs in about 30 states supporting some children living in poverty to attend private or religious schools.

 

The success of voucher schools in Milwaukee and elsewhere has been meager. Many voucher schools in Milwaukee have closed (about 40%) and they have not shown any consistent improvement over the performance of public schools even though 3% of their students have a disability in comparison with the public schools where 20 % of students have a disability.

 

In the 25th anniversary report evaluating the performance of Milwaukee’s voucher schools Patrick Wolf a Professor of School Choice at the University of Arkansas concluded “ This whole philosophy and theory of parental school choice kind of falls apart.” Instead of giving families more voice in the education of their children as is promised, voucher schools erode the power of families to influence their children’s education because they are unaccountable to the public even though they use public tax money.

 

There are both good and bad charter schools in the U.S. The unregulated form of charters that Betsy DeVos and her husband have promoted has been widely criticized by education experts and the public. For example, one of the leading advocates for charter schools in the U.S. and most respected education researchers, Professor Doug Harris of Tulane University, has argued in a recent N.Y. Times op-ed “As one of the architects of Detroit’s charter school system, she is party responsible for what even charter advocates acknowledge is one of the biggest school reform disasters in the country… She is widely seen as the main driver of the entire state’s school overhaul… It is hardly a surprise that the system, which has almost no oversight, has failed.”

 

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education rejected Michigan’s application for a grant to expand its mostly privately run charter schools citing the lack of adequate oversight. Professor Harris concludes his op-ed by stating: “The DeVos nomination is a triumph of ideology over evidence that should worry anyone who wants to improve results for children.”

 

A strong public school system is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society. Public schools do not affect just the individuals who use them, but as a public good, they also influence the quality of life in the society as a whole.

 

There is not a single example of a successful education system in the world that has relied primarily on deregulation, privatization and market competition, the kind of reform that Betsy DeVos wants to promote in the U.S. Chile and Sweden are examples of countries where performance declined substantially after the growth of privatization in education…..

 

 

Ken Zeichner is Boeing Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Washington

Sara Stevenson is the librarian at the O. Henry Middle School in Austin, Texas. She is a prolific writer and is published in the letters column of the Wall Street Journal more than anyone in the world, always refuting their free-market claims about schools. In this post, she attempts to debunk the case for choice, specifically, vouchers.

 

Stevenson writes:

 

One must ask about the motive for the school choice movement. Public education in this nation is an operation costing about $600 billion annually. Do these private, charter, cyber and home schools want to open their arms to public school students in a gesture of inclusion, or are they after the money? The amount allotted for private vouchers is almost always less than the private school tuition, so which families will be able to make up the difference? Will private schools relax admission requirements that make their schools exclusive, or will they drop them to be accessible for all? Furthermore, home schools currently run under zero accountability. What is to prevent a home-schooling parent from taking the voucher money and using it to buy a new computer for the family?

 

And then there are the repercussions. Every dollar taken from public schools and given to a charter, private, home or cyber school burdens the operational costs for public schools. In addition, with government money comes government accountability. Do all these private and religious schools, hoping for vouchers, want to submit their students to the battery of STAAR tests as well as the A-F grading scores that public schools must undergo? When the state is still spending $339 less per pupil than before the draconian budget cuts in 2011, won’t public schools suffer further from siphoned funds?

 

 

A group of researchers, parents, and other activists released a report on the inequitable provision of education in the nearly all-charter district of New Orleans. Their focus was the highest-risk neighborhoods, where the city’s poorest children live. The group is called Equity for All Places. Its report highlights the poor choices available to the neediest students in New Orleans.

The Education Research Alliance for New Orleans released a report today that has some troubling implications for those who think charter schools will reduce the cost of schooling by eliminating bureaucratic “bloat.” Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the charter school idea was germinating, advocates claimed that charter schools would save money because there would be fewer administrators and a sharp reduction in central office costs. But this turns out not to be the case in New Orleans.

 

The report by Christian Buerger and Douglas N. Harris of Tulane University is titled:

DOES SCHOOL REFORM = SPENDING REFORM?

THE EFFECT OF THE NEW ORLEANS SCHOOL REFORMS ON THE USE AND LEVEL OF SCHOOL EXPENDITURES

The key findings are these:

  • New Orleans publicly funded schools spent 13% ($1,358 per student) more per pupil on operating expenditures than the comparison group after the reforms, even though the comparison group had nearly identical spending before the reforms.
  • Spending on administration in New Orleans’ publicly funded schools increased by 66% ($699 per student) relative to the comparison group, far more than the overall spending increase. Of this increase, 52% ($363 per student) is due to a rise in total administrative salaries. Roughly one-third of the increase in administrative salaries is due to hiring more administrators, and the remainder is due to higher average salaries per administrator.
  • Instructional expenditures in New Orleans’ publicly funded schools actually declined by 10% ($706 per student) relative to the comparison group. This decline is driven by a drop in spending for instructional staff benefits ($353 per student) and in instructional staff ’s salaries ($233 per student). Almost all of the decrease in total instructional salaries is due to lower average salaries per instructor, though new teachers still earn more today than teachers pre-Katrina who had the same years of experience.
  • Transportation spending and other expenditures, which typically include contracts to outside firms, each increased by 33%. However, student support expenditures and maintenance were largely unchanged.

The authors note that the charters lose the advantages of economies of scale.

 

There is no one right way to use educational resources, and it is worth noting that these changes in spending levels and patterns came alongside a large improvement in education outcomes for students. Still, these results are somewhat surprising given the common concern that traditional school districts spend too much on large bureaucracies. We find that charter schools spend even more in that area.

 

Whatever the reasons, it is clear that the post-Katrina reforms led to more spending in total and different spending patterns in New Orleans’ publicly funded schools…

 

Critics point out…that district rules and union contracts serve useful purposes, freeing up school leaders to focus on instruction, preventing problems, and creating good working conditions and compensation for teachers. There are also concerns about transparency in how charter schools use funding, especially in the case of for-pro t charters that might be more likely to use funds for private gain over student bene t. While New Orleans does not have for-pro t charters, some of the same issues may arise with non-pro ts, which can use increases in revenue to pay higher salaries to their leaders….

 

In larger traditional districts, schools can share a single system for accounting, busing, and food service. As an additional example, districts can have a single lawyer on retainer rather than having each separate CMO hire its own. Individual charter schools also tend to have fewer students than traditional public schools, creating the same economies of scale problem with extracurricular activities and other specialized services.