Archives for the month of: April, 2017
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Illinois: 17 School Districts Sue the State of Illinois, Governor Rauner, and State Board for Fair Funding

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
3

Seventeen Illinois school districts have banded together to sue Governor Bruce Rauner, the State of Illinois, and the Illinois State Board of Education for failing to fund public education adequately in accord with the state constitution. The state expects all students to meet its learning standards but not provide the funding to support what is expected. This is not equality of educational opportunity.


Media Contact: Allison Ordman
319-594-4690

Illinois School Districts File Lawsuit to Hold State Accountable to Adequately Fund State Learning Standards
Seventeen districts with low-wealth property tax bases and high number of low-income students unite
to demand state not leave their students behind

SPRINGFIELD – Today 17 Illinois school districts stood up for students when they filed an unprecedented lawsuit to hold accountable the State, Governor Bruce Rauner and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to carry out their constitutional duty of adequately funding a “high quality education” for all students. The superintendents of four plaintiff districts discussed the lawsuit today at a press conference at the state’s Capitol building: Dan Cox (Staunton CUSD #6), Jill Griffin (Bethalto CUSD #8), Art Ryan (Cahokia CUSD #187) and Brad Skertich (Southwestern CUSD #9). The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.

The plaintiffs argue the State first must use an evidence-based methodology to calculate the per-pupil extra financial aid necessary for low property wealth districts to meet the Illinois Learning Standards, and second must fund each district at that calculated level. The Illinois Constitution provides basis for this case in Article X, Section 1, which requires that Illinois “shall provide for an efficient system of high quality education.”

Under the current model, students are held accountable to meet the Illinois Learning Standards – standards that school districts across Illinois have been forced to fund on their own without additional state funding to cover those mandates.

“The 17 districts that have joined this case so far did so because we are all at a breaking point. We as school administrators and superintendents have been forced to increase class sizes, lay off qualified teachers and eviscerate social services for students, all because the State is not living up to its constitutional obligation to adequately fund the Learning Standards it mandates,” said Dr. David Lett, Superintendent of Pana CUSD #8. “Each district has gone through its budget line by line to re-allocate dollars more efficiently. But we won’t stand to see our students lose out any longer simply because of where they live.”

This lawsuit stands out from previous cases in that the State now has defined the standards of a “high quality” education and has required districts to meet those standards.

Participants in the suit include districts from these counties: St. Clair, Bond, Christian, Clinton, Fayette, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Montgomery and Peoria (the full list of districts is available at the end of this release). All 17 plaintiff districts spend under the state average on instructional and operating cost per pupil, primarily because their regions have less property wealth to tax. These districts comprise about 25,000 students, half of whom qualify as low-income.

In 1997, ISBE adopted the Illinois Learning Standards to hold schools (teachers, administrators, students) accountable to achieve key benchmarks. These standards were aligned with the federal Common Core standards in 2010, and after a three-year grace period, each district was “expected to fully implement curricula that meet the new standards during the 2013-14 school year” without any additional State aid.

Over time the standards increased in rigor, and meeting them required new resources such as textbooks, curriculum and professional development, for which the State provides no assistance.

Though all plaintiff districts support the establishment of and accountability for rigorous student standards, their superintendents have learned firsthand that meeting these standards consistently comes at a cost – a cost of eliminating critical teaching positions, counselors and other programs essential to student learning – because the State does not fund these mandates.

ISBE has adopted and held all school districts accountable to meet the Learning Standards, disregarding the districts that lack sufficient local finances to cover the costs of special programs, curriculum and professional development that the Learning Standards inherently require.

If the plaintiffs win in court, the State would be required to fulfill its constitutional obligation to adequately fund each district for the Learning Standards it mandates.

Each year, the General Assembly establishes a “Foundation Level” per-pupil cost (as of now $6,119), and if any district lacks the local resources to meet that level, the State is obligated to make up the difference. Lawmakers have not adjusted this “Foundation Level” in over eight years, and the level does not relate to the Illinois Learning Standards in any measurable way.

In fact, in recent years the General Assembly has failed to fully appropriate the “Foundation Level,” so instead it has prorated the funds. Under proration, the State decreases its aid to each district in a proportional manner. However, proration has a disproportionate impact on districts that have lower property wealth because those districts rely more heavily on state aid.

The State also evaluates districts based on their students’ scores on the Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) exam, an exam that must align with the Learning Standards. The 17 plaintiff districts’ PARCC scores remain lower than wealthier school districts. This increasing disparity has made it even harder for students in the lower property wealth districts to compete against students from higher property wealth districts for admission at Illinois public universities and colleges.

Due to this disparity, some families have elected to move to areas with higher-performing schools or to districts that have higher state-assigned grades. This shift has further reduced the pool of local resources available to the already under-funded school districts.

The Board of each plaintiff district voted to join the suit. The 17 plaintiff districts are listed here, as well as the 14 superintendents who attended the press conference.

Bethalto CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Jill Griffin)
Bond County CUSD #2 (Superintendent Wes Olson)
Bunker Hill CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Victor Buehler)
Cahokia CUSD #187 (Superintendent Art Ryan)
Carlinville CUSD #1 (Superintendent Mike Kelly)
Gillespie CUSD #7
Grant CCSD #110
Illinois Valley Central CUSD #321 (Superintendent Chad Allison)
Mt. Olive CUSD #5 (Superintendent Patrick Murphy)
Mulberry Grove CUSD #1 (Superintendent Brad Turner)
Nokomis CUSD #22 (Superintendent Scott Doerr)
Pana CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Dave Lett)
Southwestern CUSD #9 (Superintendent Brad Skertich)
Staunton CUSD #6 (Superintendent Dan Cox)
Taylorville CUSD #3 (Superintendent Gregg Fuerstenau)
Vandalia CUSD #203 (Superintendent Rich Well)
Wood River Hartford #15

The firm representing the plaintiffs is Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd.

###

Categories Equity, Funding, Illinois

Russ Walsh: Defending Public Education from Trump’s Tyranny

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
15

Russ Walsh has written an important post, which is a call to arms for all of us who care about public education and don’t want it to be turned into a free-market consumer good.

Last week on his show, Real Time, Bill Maher introduced the Yale professor and author, Timothy Snyder, whose new book is entitled, On Tyranny. The book outlines 20 lessons we can learn from the rise of fascism and communism in the 20th century to make sure the same does not happen to us in the 21st century. Lesson #2 caught my ear immediately: Defend Institutions. Snyder says

It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of “our institutions” unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about – a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union – and take its side.

OK, Professor Snyder, I choose public education as my institution to defend.

One way we can be sure that Trump and his minions are coming after our institutions is to see who the Tweeter-in-chief has chosen to head up various government departments. Almost to a person (Pruitt, Perry, Price), people who are opposed to the very institutions they are leading have been put in charge. If public education is to survive, we are going to have to fight for it. We cannot sit back and wait for this current nightmare to pass because by the time we wake up, it may be too late. It should be clear to all of us that the institution of public education is under a very real threat from the authoritarian Trump administration and its anti-public schools Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

The appointment of DeVos was the clearest indication from the new Trump administration that public education would be under siege. Next came the Trump budget proposal that, as Jeff Bryant reports here, strips money from after-school programs for poor children, reduces the overall budget of the department by 13%, but still finds billions of dollars for various school choice schemes.

Russ says:

Be informed.

Speak up.

Get involved.

Our institutions are under assault. One of the most vulnerable of these institutions is public education. If we do not fight for it, we will lose it. If we do fight for it, perhaps we can turn the conversation about schools around and focus on what is really causing our educational problems – income inequity, prejudice, and segregation.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Resistance, Trump

Los Angeles Times: Trump’s War on Journalism

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
15

This is the fourth and last editorial published by the Los Angeles Times about Trump. It contains links to the preceding three. These are strange times we live in. We have a president who lies and doubles-down on his lies and is incapable of apologizing; a president who refuses to divest or even disclose his worldwide financial holdings, which may be affected by decisions he makes; a man who trusts his immediate family members more than his cabinet to carry out government functions; a man without honor or integrity or knowledge or decency or even a sense of irony (after declaring April to be Sexual Assault Awareness Month, he defended Fox News host Bill O’Reilly who has settled multiple sexual harassment complaints; Trump said O’Reilly had “done nothing wrong.”)

Here is the editorial:

PART VI
Friday
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

APRIL 5, 2017

In Donald Trump’s America, the mere act of reporting news unflattering to the president is held up as evidence of bias. Journalists are slandered as “enemies of the people.”

Facts that contradict Trump’s version of reality are dismissed as “fake news.” Reporters and their news organizations are “pathetic,” “very dishonest,” “failing,” and even, in one memorable turn of phrase, “a pile of garbage.”

Trump is, of course, not the first American president to whine about the news media or try to influence coverage. President George W. Bush saw the press as elitist and “slick.” President Obama’s press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined.

But Trump being Trump, he has escalated the traditionally adversarial relationship in demagogic and potentially dangerous ways.

Support our journalism
Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Most presidents, irritated as they may have been, have continued to acknowledge — at least publicly — that an independent press plays an essential role in American democracy. They’ve recognized that while no news organization is perfect, honest reporting holds leaders and institutions accountable; that’s why a free press was singled out for protection in the 1st Amendment and why outspoken, unfettered journalism is considered a hallmark of a free country.

Trump doesn’t seem to buy it. On his very first day in office, he called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”

Since then he has regularly condemned legitimate reporting as “fake news.” His administration has blocked mainstream news organizations, including The Times, from briefings and his secretary of State chose to travel to Asia without taking the press corps, breaking a longtime tradition.

He apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality.

This may seem like bizarre behavior from a man who consumes the news in print and on television so voraciously and who is in many ways a product of the media. He comes from reality TV, from talk radio with Howard Stern, from the gossip pages of the New York City tabloids, for whose columnists he was both a regular subject and a regular source.

But Trump’s strategy is pretty clear: By branding reporters as liars, he apparently hopes to discredit, disrupt or bully into silence anyone who challenges his version of reality. By undermining trust in news organizations and delegitimizing journalism and muddling the facts so that Americans no longer know who to believe, he can deny and distract and help push his administration’s far-fetched storyline.

It’s a cynical strategy, with some creepy overtones. For instance, when he calls journalists “enemies of the people,” Trump (whether he knows it or not) echoes Josef Stalin and other despots.

But it’s an effective strategy. Such attacks are politically expedient at a moment when trust in the news media is as low as it’s ever been, according to Gallup. And they’re especially resonant with Trump’s supporters, many of whom see journalists as part of the swamp that needs to be drained.

Of course, we’re not perfect. Some readers find news organizations too cynical; others say we’re too elitist. Some say we downplay important stories, or miss them altogether. Conservatives often perceive an unshakable liberal bias in the media (while critics on the left see big, corporate-owned media institutions like The Times as hopelessly centrist).

The news media remain an essential component in the democratic process and should not be undermined by the president.

To do the best possible job, and to hold the confidence of the public in turbulent times, requires constant self-examination and evolution. Soul-searching moments — such as those that occurred after the New York Times was criticized for its coverage of the Bush administration and the Iraq war or, more recently, when the media failed to take Trump’s candidacy seriously enough in the early days of his campaign — can help us do a better job for readers. Even if we are not faultless, the news media remain an essential component in the democratic process and should not be undermined by the president.

Some critics have argued that if Trump is going to treat the news media like the “opposition party” (a phrase his senior aide Steve Bannon has used), then journalists should start acting like opponents too. But that would be a mistake. The role of an institution like the Los Angeles Times (or the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or CNN) is to be independent and aggressive in pursuit of the truth — not to take sides. The editorial pages are the exception: Here we can and should express our opinions about Trump. But the news pages, which operate separately, should report intensively without prejudice, partiality or partisanship.

Given the very real dangers posed by this administration, we should be indefatigable in covering Trump, but shouldn’t let his bullying attitude persuade us to be anything other than objective, fair, open-minded and dogged.

The fundamentals of journalism are more important than ever. With the president of the United States launching a direct assault on the integrity of the mainstream media, news organizations, including The Times, must be courageous in our reporting and resolute in our pursuit of the truth.

Categories Freedom of the Press, Lies, Trump

Peter Greene: Scott Walker Attacks Teachers and Public Schools Again

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
20

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker thought he could run for president based on his hardline hatred for public school teachers and public schools. He was rushing to enact Betsy DeVos’s agenda even before she became Secretary of Education. And his agenda is even more expansive because he wants to drive teachers out of public schools. It is hard to believe that Wisconsin was once a progressive state with this guy as governor.

Peter Greene here reviews Walker’s latest attacks on public schools and their teachers.

First, he proposes to punish any district that is not strictly enforcing his infamous Act 10, which slashed teachers’ pay and shifted the cost of their health benefits and pensions to teachers.

Second, he proposes to eliminate any required number of instructional hours for students. Wisconsin, under his backwards leadership, would be the only state in the nation that did not set forth a minimum number of instructional hours. He claims this would provide “flexibility,” but in reality it would be a boon to cybercharters and others who will cut instructional time and teachers to save money. For more on this proposal, read here.

Greene observes:

Not that this is about cutting costs. Oh no. And that may be true– it may be more about reducing the need for staff. Can’t find enough teachers who want to work under Wisconsin’s increasingly regressive system? Split your school into morning and afternoon school meeting every other day and you can get twice the students, at least, served by one teacher. Have trouble staffing classes that don’t actually affect your state report card? Cut ’em and send the kids home early.

More than that, this also serves as a big blast of freedom for charters. Set your charter up however you want, teaching whatever you want, meeting as often as you want, with as few teachers as you want. Scott Walker says that’s okay. Come be an edu-preneur, and we won’t tell you what you have to do, ever.

Would this reduce the number of teachers in Wisconsin? Of course– and thereby weaken that damn union and its ability to stand up to guys like Scott Walker. And of course this also accomplishes the goal of making public schools less and less attractive so that charter schools can look better by comparison (without having to actually get good). Will this have any effect on the education of rich folks who can afford to make sure their children get into real schools that do real educating? Of course not, and that’s undoubtedly part of the point–

Scott Walker has pushed hard on many reformster ideas, but the unifying principle seems to be one of the lowest of all reformy ideas– wealthy folks (who deserve their wealth or why else would they be wealthy) should not have the government taking their well-deserved money to provide services for lousy poor people (who must deserve to be poor, or else they wouldn’t be). And that include those damn teachers, who not only keep taking money they don’t deserve, but keep using some of it to try to organize revolt against their rightful rulers. These peasants need to be sent packing and forced to understand that their Betters will decide what these Lessers deserve– and the short list of what these Lessers deserve does not include an excellent, free public education.

Really, I try to be civil on this blog. So, either Scott Walker is determined to drive every last professional teacher out of the public schools, or he is a moron. Or both.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Teacher Pay, Teachers, Walker, Scott, Wisconsin

DeVos is Visiting Pitbull’s Charter School Today, Which Was Investigated by Her Own Department Last Year

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
8

Jennifer Berkshire writes that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is visiting the Florida charter called SLAM started by misogynist rapper Pitbull. It is part of the controversial for-profit charter chain Academica, which was investigated last year by the UlS. Department of Education.

Berkshire interviews Preston Green about The problems of cronyism, conflicts of interest, and corruption that accompany deregulation.

Meanwhile, DeVos will bring the gospel of deregulation and choice without accountability to the converted.

A useful reminder: Join the Network for Public Education to fight DeVos’ efforts to destroy public education.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Florida, For-Profit, Fraud, School Choice, U.S. Department of Education

How the Wealthy Scam the Government by Donating to Tax Credit Schemes

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
20

Carl Davis writes in “The American Prospect” that tax credits for private scholarships have become a scheme for money-laundering to benefit the wealthy.

“Some states, in their zeal to subsidize private schools, have created an egregious tax scam that allows wealthy taxpayers to profit by donating to private school scholarship funds in return for lucrative tax credits.

“Many states have constitutional provisions that expressly prohibit the use of public dollars for private religious schools. To sidestep these prohibitions and public aversion to the practice, voucher proponents and their legislative allies in 17 states have created generous tax credits to encourage taxpayers to donate to private school scholarship funds.

“Critics who object that vouchers drain resources away from public schools would be doubly outraged if they knew how these vouchers were, in some cases, fleecing the public till.

“Neovouchers,” as these scholarship funds are often called, have received considerable attention as education policy initiatives, but their full impact as tax policies has drawn less notice. Critics who object that vouchers drain resources away from public schools would be doubly outraged if they knew how these vouchers were, in some cases, fleecing the public till. By offering tax subsidies in exchange for donations to private school scholarship programs, states are using private citizens as middlemen. Rather than include line-items in state budgets for spending on school vouchers, lawmakers ask taxpayers to undertake such spending on the state’s behalf, in return for a generous tax giveaway.

“Incentivizing philanthropy through state tax codes is nothing new, of course. For example, donating $100 to a veterans’ organization, food pantry, or cancer research institute might shave $5 to $10 off a taxpayer’s state tax bill, if the donor claims a deduction for that contribution.

“But with profit-making “neovoucher” schemes, states supercharge the incentive to donate, rewarding charitable gifts to private schools much more handsomely. Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Virginia, for example, all provide tax credits worth between $65 and $95 on every $100 donated. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, and South Carolina go even further by providing dollar-for-dollar tax credits: Donate $100, and receive $100 back in tax credits.

“Because taxpayers are also permitted to claim a federal charitable tax deduction on their donations to “neovoucher” programs—even if they were already fully reimbursed for those gifts by their state governments—the result for some taxpayers is a tax cut as large as $1.35 for each dollar donated.

“Like many tax loopholes, this one is not geared toward ordinary taxpayers. A quirk in federal law limits the benefit primarily to high-income taxpayers. So, in effect, a handful of states have created elaborate tax schemes that allow wealthy taxpayers to generate risk-free private returns of up to 35 percent. A one-year, guaranteed return of 35 percent on a legitimate investment is uncommon, and a publicly funded return of that size on a so-called charitable donation is patently outrageous. This perverse use of the tax code on two fronts should raise the ire of taxpayers everywhere.”

Read on to see how wealth managers are advising their clients to take advantage of this tax loophole, which not only subsidizes nonpublic schools but is very profitable for the donor. Three strikes against our republic.

1. Making it possible to do what is prohibited by the state constitution;

2. Legally evading taxes;

3. Disinvesting in public education.

Categories Vouchers

Peter Greene’s Take on Rahm’s Latest “Reform” Idea

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2017 //
32

I reported earlier today that Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to require all students to have specific plans or they won’t be allowed to graduate.

Here is Peter Greene’s take on the same proposal.

That’s it– Choose college, trade school, internship, or military, or else Rahm will hold your diploma hostage.

Janice Jackson, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, pointed out that any student who graduates from CPS is automatically accepted into the City College community college program. So I suppose we could see this not as a draconian, one-size-fits-all intrusion on the lives of young adults and instead see it as a really, really aggressive recruiting program for the City Colleges.

Or maybe just an aggressive recruiting program for Chicagoland charter schools.

My mind is still reeling from trying to compile the full list of life paths that Rahm Emanuel has now declared Not Good Enough.

Steady job that’s not a trade? Working musician? Stay-at-home mom? Person who just needs to spend a year or two working at a crappy minimum wage job while they figure out what they want to do next? Manage the family business? All of that and more have passed through my classroom and gone on to successful, productive, happy lives. Are you telling me we shouldn’t have given them a diploma because they didn’t do what we wanted them to after graduation?

Categories Chicago, Emanuel, Rahm, High School Graduation

NEWS: Working Families Party Sweeps Milwaukee School Board Elections!

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2017 //
20

This is one of the very first reactions to the Trump-DeVos (and Scott Walker) agenda to destroy public education.

RESISTANCE! It works, especially at the ballot box.

​
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 4, 2017
CONTACT: Marina Dimitrijevic

STUDENTS, WISCONSIN WORKING FAMILIES PARTY SWEEP MILWAUKEE; STATEWIDE EDUCATION ELECTIONS

Milwaukee board tilts to public education majority opposing corporate operators; profiteering

MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee Board of School Directors now has a pro-public education majority with tonight’s election of all Wisconsin Working Families Party-endorsed candidates. Tony Baez, who is the new District Six representative on the board, along with incumbents Larry Miller and Annie Woodward, can now begin to eradicate the corporate profiteering that is draining resources from our schools while failing to deliver quality education for our children. Together with other advocates on the board, they have the ability to transform how education is delivered in Milwaukee. Working Families Party also supported Tony Evers in his successful run for a third term as the state’s superintendent of public instruction.

“This election is part of the resistance to the dangerous troika of Donald Trump, Scott Walker, and Betsy DeVos. If Wisconsin Working Families and our partners, including the teacher’s union, had not been involved, corporate interests and privatizers could have succeeded in tipping the balance of the school board, carrying out the Trump agenda and destroying our public schools,” said Marina Dimitrijevic, executive director of Wisconsin Working Families Party. “While the anti-public school forces recruited and funded candidates, they lost because voters want quality public schools for all students. We are building a template and record of taking on corporate operators and winning.”

Wisconsin Working Families Party worked for months to elect a slate of public school champions who will advocate for more resources for our school system, fight off unaccountable voucher expansion, and put forth an aggressive policy agenda that trusts teachers, invests in our student’s success, and adds to the quality of life for working families in Milwaukee.

“The Wisconsin Working Families Party saw that a District Six victory could be key to creating a pro-public school majority on the school board as well as having a dedicated voice for Latino students. They recruited me to run, supporting me throughout the election progress. I’m proud to work with Working Families because we share a vision and a drive to support and deliver a quality education to all of the students in our diverse city,” said Dr. Tony Baez, the newly elected District Six member of the board. “Thanks to Working Families’ campaign support and community organizing, we’ve turned the tide in Milwaukee against privatization and charter schools.”

Beyond assisting the candidates, Wisconsin Working Families Party mobilized volunteers and members using grassroots people power to help our endorsed candidates win. More than 60 people volunteered for several Saturday canvasses, contacting more than 2,000 voters through canvassing or phone calls. The organization also sent mailers to educate voters about the candidates and the issues in the campaign.

“Wisconsin Working Families Party recognized that this election posed a unique opportunity for change on the school board, held onto that vision, and ran until we won,” said Kim Schroeder, president of the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association. “This election is a clear repudiation of the vouchers and corporatization that have drained out schools and failed our students. We have a template of how to organize and win.”

This election marks the second successful Wisconsin Working Families Party campaign to elect a pro-public education majority to school boards. In April, 2016, Wisconsin WFP worked with the Racine Education Association to elect eight of nine candidates to the Racine United School Board after Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans forced through a restructure of Racine’s school district governance.

Costly experiments with vouchers and charter schools have not yielded promised results. A study by the Public Policy Forum found that Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination test scores for voucher students lag behind those of MPS students, particularly for voucher students who attend predominantly voucher-funded schools. And schools with high concentrations of voucher students have lower WKCE test scores than their public school counterparts.

###

The Working Families Party is a grassroots political organization. With chapters in Wisconsin and a dozen other states, as well as a membership that spans the nation, the Working Families Party works to advance public policies that make a difference in the lives of working people, like raising the minimum wage, stopping bad trade deals, taking on Wall Street, tackling climate change, and combating racial injustice. Working Families brings these issues to the ballot box and the halls of government at the federal, state and local levels.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Milwaukee, Resistance, School Choice, Trump, Vouchers, Walker, Scott, Wisconsin

Rahm Proposes New Requirements for High School Graduation

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2017 //
68

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago has proposed that students will not be allowed to graduate from high school unless they can demonstrate their post-high school career plans, including college acceptance, a job or the military.

Since he has been unwilling to fund what is needed to help students succeed (small classes, a full curriculum, school libraries, etc.), it does seem unreasonable to require that students achieve success without a fully funded school experience.

Here is a modest proposal: Suppose he were to fund all public schools in Chicago to match the same resources and opportunities at his own children’s school (the University of Chicago Lab School)? Higher expectations won’t get you very far without the opportunity and resources to meet them.

We will keep an eye on this.

Categories Chicago

Michael Petrilli: The Three “Miracles” Trump Needs to Make a Federal School Choice Program

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2017 //
29

Mike Petrilli wrote an enlightening post about the hurdles that the Trump administration faces in trying to enact a $20 billion school choice program. He says that the Trump administration will need three “miracles” to make good on his promise. Mike, of course, is a strong supporter of choice and continues to believe despite 25 years of evidence that choice itself does not produce different results from public schools. Some of that evidence was sponsored by his own organization (the Ohio voucher study that shows kids actually losing ground as a result of shifting to private schools). His discussion of the federal legislative process and the politics of change are worthy of a read.

Miracle number-one is getting a federal tax credit enacted in the first place. This feels much less achievable after the health-care debacle in Congress last week. It was always going to be hard. We know from past Senate votes on private school choice that the numbers simply aren’t there. Virtually every Democrat is a guaranteed “no” (save, perhaps, for Cory Booker); too few Republicans are a sure “yes.” Rural-state Republicans simply don’t have the incentive to buck their education establishments to support a policy that will bring very little bacon back to their own communities.

The conventional wisdom was that the tax credit plan would be attached to a whopping multi-dimensional tax-reform bill, which voucher-squeamish Republicans would vote for because they wanted the other goodies included in the package. (Using the legislative process called reconciliation would make such a bill filibuster-proof, so no Democrats would be needed.)

After last week, however, Republicans of all stripes know that they can sink the President’s agenda by holding out for what they want. He is in a much more precarious political position than most members of Congress are. It will only take a handful of GOP Senators demanding the removal of the tax credit/voucher initiative from the tax bill for the Administration to cave. Though less likely, something of the sort could also happen again in the House.

If somehow Team Trump overcomes those seemingly insurmountable barriers, miracle number-two will be finding the sweet spot between too much federal regulation and too little. There are massive risks on both sides of that equation.

I would have added one more twist to the story he tells here: the question of where the $20 billion that Trump has promised will come from. Will it mean turning all current federal aid programs (Title 1, special education, etc.) into an unrestricted block grant? If so, the opposition from the groups (civil rights organizations, disability organizations) currently protecting the sanctity of these programs will be fierce.

Categories School Choice, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »