Jan Resseger explains the continued failure of federal education policy.
Growing inequality, poverty, and segregation, especially in urban districts, were addressed by a strategy of testing and choice. At the same time, many states cut spending on education. The strategy had no bearing on the underlying problems.
We now know what doesn’t work: standards, testing, accountability, and choice. Portfolio districts, turnarounds, State takeovers, school closings. These policies, vigorously advocated by Jeb Bush, Arne Duncan, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and the entire phalanx of so-called “reformers,” have failed. Budget cuts made matters worse.
She writes, in a thoughtful post:
“Bill Mathis and Kevin Welner summarize the way our society responded when, despite widening inequality and growing economic and racial segregation, federal law imposed sanctions and turnarounds on urban public schools: “As policy makers and the courts abandoned desegregation efforts and wealth moved from cities to the suburbs, most of the nation’s major cities developed communities of concentrated poverty, and policy makers gave the school districts serving those cities the task of overcoming the opportunity gaps created by that poverty. Moreover districts were asked to do this with greatly inadequate funding. The nation’s highest poverty school districts receive ten percent lower funding per student while districts serving children of color receive 15 percent less. This approach, of relying on under-resourced urban districts to remedy larger societal inequities, has consistently failed. In response, equity-focused reformers have called for a comprehensive redirection of policy and a serious attempt to address concentrated poverty as a vital companion to school reform. But this would require a major and sustained investment. Avoiding such a commitment, a different approach has therefore been offered: change the governance structure of urban school districts. Proposals such as ‘mayoral control,’ ‘portfolio districts,’ and ‘recovery’ districts (also referred to as ‘takeover’ or ‘achievement’ districts) all fit within this line of attack.” (“The ‘Portfolio’ Approach to School District Governance,” a brief that is part of a 2016 series from the National Education Policy Center, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking)”
Right now, we must hope that a few members of Congress pay attention and act.
Failing that, we must rely on teachers across the nation to continue to walk out, strike, act in concert, demand increases in investment in education, and an end to failed federal policies.

The entire U.S. political-economic system, predatory corporate capitalism, is based on inequality, so why would ANY politician truly address inequality beyond their usual pious, self-serving, deceitful rhetoric.
That is why a SYSTEM CHANGE is necessary. But that will never happen here.
LikeLike
Jan has given us an excellent overview of the lack of public commitment to a growing underclass. Particularly interesting is the reference to rural and suburban districts that return republican majorities to the various state houses with the result being tax cuts that under fund urban districts with unique needs.
What is absent from this excellent essay is why rural districts, also underfunded by these same policies, do not join with urban districts to throw the bums out on Election Day. I would suggest that the same phenomenon occurred in the ante-bellum South when political leaders were able to us vs them the poor hill country folk into supporting an agenda that was opposed to their best interests. Today rural folks, who pay far more in taxes than they get back, are hoodwinked by the logic that this taxation inequity is the result of “liberal politicians” who want to tax them more. The truth is, of course, that corporations get exemptions for taxation that means property taxes and sales taxes must make up the difference in rural areas. In urban areas, sales taxes account for this amount unless a person owns a house, in which case it is the same.
All of this points to the modern tendency for government by the us vs them philosophy instead of statesmanship, which requires that the politician be more than just a localist. Politicians have the duty to bring the people together, not drive them apart. At this we are presently failing miserably.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was it Harriett Tubman who said something along the lines of: I could have freed a thousand more slaves if they had known they were slaves…
LikeLike
An interesting point. How many of those fighting slavery became wage slaves in the economic boom that followed the American civil war? Who among us really knows when we are being taken advantage of by some character or another?
LikeLike
We have a bunch of prima donnas in office.
LikeLike
In reading this article what hit me was all the time that has elapsed, and we have not learned much. We continue to promote inequitable policies that do not help poor young people. “Reform” has widened the gap between those that have and the poor, and it has increased segregation. So called reform subjects the poor to endless experimentation, onerous testing and instability, all of which have failed to deliver improvement.
Teachers should continue to fight to get public schools funding. While teachers are the ones on the front lines, they should be joined by parents and social justice groups. It is easier for a state to intimidate or ignore teachers. It is much harder to ignore irate parents and community groups. We need to present a united fund to demand more from elected representatives that continue to ignore the needs of the poor.
LikeLike