Archives for the month of: June, 2018

Sarah Lahm is an independent journalist based in Minneapolis. Her work has appeared in The Progressive, In These Times and other local and national publications. She blogs about education at brightlightsmallcity.com.


Should progressives embrace charter schools?

This question came up again recently when Teach for America alum and apparent expert on school choice, Conor P. Williams, landed an op-ed in the June 3 New York Times. Williams, who is now an education policy analyst with the New America Foundation, used Minneapolis’s Hiawatha Academies charter school chain as a key example of why, in his opinion, liberal and progressive activists should indeed be pro-charter school.

In 2017, Hiawatha Academies, which operates five highly segregated charter schools in Minneapolis, received a federal school choice expansion grant worth over $1 million dollars, courtesy of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. The money has likely been absorbed into Hiawatha Academies’ expansion plans, as the charter network seeks to enroll “6.2% of the Minneapolis student population” in the coming years.

Being affiliated in any way with DeVos and her devotion to accountability-free school choice schemes is probably uncomfortable for a charter school network like Hiawatha Academies, which likes to bill itself as progressive. DeVos continues to not only staunchly defend a Wild West-style approach to public education, she is also heavily engaged in rolling back many federal education policies that are there to protect the nation’s most vulnerable students.

Frankly, it is becoming harder and harder to separate, or pretend to separate, school choice and the spread of segregated charter schools from Betsy DeVos.

Perhaps that is why many of the links in Williams’ op-ed are as stale as the very premise underlying his piece. His first paragraph includes a description of an elementary school in the Hiawatha Academies’ chain, complete with a charming image of a teacher standing before students in a colorful kindergarten classroom. This, Williams proclaims, is one of “Minnesota’s best public schools.” To support this, he links to a celebratory 2012 PR-laden article written by Minnesota based education writer, Beth Hawkins.

Hawkins’ piece was published in MinnPost, a local online news outlet. Here’s why that matters: Hawkins’ stint as an education reporter at MinnPost was funded by the Bush Foundation, one of many local philanthropic groups that has bestowed money, clout and endless public relations support on the growth of charter schools in Minnesota. Oh, and MinnPost was started and run for years by former Minneapolis Star Tribune publisher, Joel Kramer. (Hawkins has since become the national education correspondent for the reform-funded outlet, The 74.)

Here’s why that matters: Kramer’s two sons, Matt and Eli, are both heavily invested in the national and local education reform movement. While Matt was serving as the co-CEO of Teach for America, Eli was busy “growing” the Hiawatha Academies charter school network, which serves mostly Latino families in south Minneapolis. It would be fair to say that the Kramer family has close political and financial ties to elite education reform policy makers and financiers, in Minnesota and on the national stage.

Eli Kramer is leaving Hiawatha Academies. The charter school chain’s new executive director is Colette Owens, another Teach for America acolyte who received her administrative training through a reform-funded venture, the School Systems Leaders Fellowship. Kramer made over $170,000 annually as head of Hiawatha Academies’ five school sites; Owens’s salary has not been publicly disclosed. (For comparison purposes, Ed Graff, superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools and its 60+ sites, has a contract worth $225,000.)

The Hiawatha Academies’ site (Morris Park) profiled by Williams sits in one of the two Minneapolis Public Schools buildings purchased by the charter school chain nearly ten years ago, on its path to grow its market share. “Hiawatha schools should be easy for the left to love,” Williams insists, before promising (without any evidence) that the schools are “full of progressive educators helping children of color from low-income families succeed.”

Beneath the wince-worthy white savior aura of this argument lurk some actual facts worth exploring further. First, Minnesota’s charter schools do not have to follow the same desegregation laws as public schools. This means highly segregated charter schools, like Hiawatha Academies, have been allowed to flourish, creating artificially isolated sites that cater to one particular demographic. If this is progressive, it sure smacks of age-old segregationist policies that allowed for school vouchers and, eventually, charter schools in the face of federal desegregation lawsuits.

Hiawatha Academies’ Morris Park location, for example, sits in a south Minneapolis neighborhood where over 75 percent of residents are white, and the majority do not live in poverty. But you would never know this by reviewing the school’s demographic data.

According to the Minnesota Department of Education, 91 percent of Hiawatha Academies’ Morris Park students are Latino, and 88 percent live in poverty. Still, Williams insists that the charter network is “successfully” meeting these kids’ needs, and so, presumably, should be excused for being unnaturally racially and economically segregated. But what is the definition of success? If it is standardized test scores, then no, Hiawatha’s Morris Park students are not receiving an education that is “beating the odds,” as education reformers like to say.

Data actually show that test scores at Hiawatha Academies-Morris Park dropped in 2017 and are lower than those of a nearby Minneapolis public school site, Northrop Elementary. Another neighborhood public school, Lake Nokomis Community School, serves almost as many students in poverty and special education students as the Morris Park charter school, but also has twenty-four homeless or highly mobile students on its roster. The charter school had zero.

In his New York Times piece, Williams does acknowledge that Hiawatha Academies schools are staffed by non-union teachers. He also notes that many progressives may also “worry that charters foster segregation, siphon funding from traditional public schools and cater to policymakers’ obsession with standardized tests.” Rather than addressing any of these very real concerns, however, Williams continues on with his fantasy-like defense of charter schools in general and of Hiawatha Academies in particular.

Hiawatha Academies schools are staffed and run by progressives, he assures readers, and they are determined, in the words of outgoing director Eli Kramer, to “elevate the importance of identity, race consciousness” and “pride in self.” Williams then describes taking a walk through the charter chain’s high school, which will relocate this fall to a newly-built campus that has been funded in part by wealthy, Republican-aligned local venture capitalists and philanthropists, not to mention the Walton Family Foundation.

How progressive is that? Many Walmart employees live on food stamps, leaving plenty of profit left over for the Walton family to pour into the promotion of non-union charter schools.

To wrap up his defense of Hiawatha’s privately run, publicly (and privately funded) charter schools, Williams revives yet another stale debate. In trying to prop up Hiawatha’s racially and economically segregated charters, Williams mentions Robert Panning-Miller, who was president of the Minneapolis teachers union from 2007-2009. (Michelle Wiese, the current head of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, is a Latino woman who has helped push the union in a more progressive, social justice-oriented direction. Perhaps her brand of union leadership doesn’t fit into Williams’ narrative.)

Panning-Miller once called Eli and Matt Kramer emblems of a kind of “educational apartheid” for allegedly sending their own children to a private Montessori school (the Kramers’ alma mater) full of wood blocks, natural play areas and hands-on learning, while simultaneously profiting from a test score-driven charter school network for students of color who live in poverty (Hiawatha Academies). Panning-Miller also documented the tightly woven, Kramer-Teach for America cabal that has drawn attention nationwide, and received PR support from, again, Beth Hawkins.

Maybe Williams had to harken back to Panning-Miller’s 2014 critique of the Kramers and Hiawatha Academies because there are so few of them. There is almost no counter-narrative out there for anyone, progressive or not, who would like a more realistic examination of the role Hiawatha Academies and other such narrowly marketed charter schools are playing in the systematic attacks on public education in the United States. As I mentioned, the Kramer family once employed an education writer who continues to serve as a philanthropist-funded champion of school choice.

It is impossible, then, to join Connor P. Williams’ in his unbridled praise for charter schools without fully examining the “ecosystem” of funding, hype and political support that prop up such “schools of choice.” To embrace the racially and economically marginalized population of the Hiawatha Academies charter chain, which Williams tries but fails to defend, would be to also, presumably, embrace the nearly all-white charter schools that also exist in the Twin Cities.

Among these are the Twin Cities German Immersion School, Nova Classical Academy and Great River Montessori School. Is it somehow right for public dollars to be diverted from the public school system (both Minneapolis and St. Paul are facing double-digit deficits for the upcoming school year) to create portfolios of niche charter schools that selectively serve segregated populations of students?

Is that what it means to be a progressive or a liberal? No, it is not. Don’t let the kind of propaganda peddled by Williams and the Kramer family convince you otherwise.

Betsy DeVos claims to be an advocate for parental rights. She is not.

Utah passed a law recognizing the right of parents to opt their children out of state testing. The US Department of Education rejected the Utah ESSA Plan because it respects parents’ rights.

I want to remind every reader to recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed parental rights in a 1925 decision called “Pierce v. Society of Sisters.”the right of parents to make decisions about their child.” That decision rejected an Oregon law that required every child to attend public schools, not private or religious schools. The court said, in a decision that was never reversed and has often been cited, that the child is not a “mere creature of the state,” and parents have the power to make decisions for their children, excepting (I believe) where their health and safety are concerned.

Given DeVos’ advocacy for school choice and parental rights, it is shocking that she has agreed to punish the schools, the children and families of Utah for recognizing the rights of parents to refuse the state test.

In New York State, education officials are threatening financial punishments and other more drastic actions for schools that don’t meet the 95% participation rate. Very few schools in the state did. We will see a state takeover of 90% of the schools in the state?

ACLU, where are you?

Gary Rubinstein has been watching the progress of the 83 students who were in Success Academy’s first class.

By the time they reached fourth grade, their number had shrunk to 59.

By ninth grade, there were 26.

A few months ago, it appeared there would be 17 graduates.

But, wait, Eva handed out only 16 diplomas!

Where is the missing scholar?

If you have any clues, please let Gary know or post them here.

Elections have consequences. In the last Los Angeles school board election, charteristas took control of the school board by one vote. Their fourth vote, however, is tenuous b3cause Ref Rodriguez is awaiting trial on felony charges of campaign finance violations.

The board voted not to renew the contract of the district’s inspector general. He led several investigations into charter school corruption.

The board said they were terminating him due to a “hostile work environment” in his office, although none of the complaints were about him.

The inspector general investigated the Billion-dollar iPad scandal.

The financial scandals at the Celerity charter chain.

Fraud at the PUC charter chain started by Ref Rodriguez.

But this can’t be the reason he is being ousted, right?

The General Assembly in North Carolina has members with nothing to do except harass teachers and attack public schools. The Republicans who control the legislature should be a national laughing stock. This is the same legislature that rushed through the state budget without allowing time for debate or discussion.

In the latest idiotic move, Rep. Justin Burr proposed legislation that would require teachers to compile careful records about which movies they show in class and report to the Legislature.

“House Bill 1079 would require all North Carolina school districts and charter schools to report to the state which movies were shown during instructional time this school year from November through January and from April through June. Schools would also be required to say when the movies were shown, the amount of time they were shown and the instructional purpose for viewing them.

“Monthly totals would also be required on the number and percentage of classrooms viewing a movie and the number and percentage of instructional hours spent viewing movies. The bill would provide the state Department of Public Instruction with $100,000 to compile the information and present it to state lawmakers by Nov. 15.”

Teachers were of course insulted.

But there was a bright side. Rep. Burr lost his primary last month.

“John DeVille, a social studies teacher at Franklin High School in Macon County, noted in a tweet that Burr lost his re-election bid in the Republican primary in May.

“The NC teacher corps is pleased with your newfound interest in quality instructional time as you prepare to clean out your desk,” DeVille tweeted to Burr on Saturday. “If you have a moment to file a slightly more constructive bill, we would appreciate one which cut required time to facilitate state-mandated testing cut in half AND one which would restore school year and testing calendar flexibility to the LEAs.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article212485969.html#storylink=cpy

Please, if you have HBO, watch the VICE documentary on Friday. I don’t know the time. I was interviewed. I have no idea what direction it will take, but VICE always has an interesting take on whatever it does.

Let me know how it goes. I never watch myself on TV.

When Mayor Bloomberg first took control of the New York City public schools and launched his reforms, his Chancellor Joel Klein said that New York needed not “a school system,” but “a system of schools.” Over time, his meaning became clear. He would break up and close scores of existing schools and replace them with brand new schools, including dozens of shiny new charter schools. “A system of schools” is akin to what others call “the portfolio model.” The board chooses winners and losers, like buying and selling stocks for your stock portfolio.

It soon turned out that the “system of schools” was a reformer cliche, like offering choice to “save poor black kids from failing schools.” We now know that most of those poor black kids lost their community school and were sent off to a distant school that was no better than the school that was closed. They were not saved. There seems to be a Reformers’ Hymnal that lists all these cliches (“no child’s future should be determined by his zip code,” etc.). I would love to see that list of favorite phrases to rationalize disruption the public schools and replacing them with privatized charters that come and go like day lilies.

Jane Nylund, a parent activist, gave a lot of thought to this “system of schools” thing. Here is her effort to put it in perspective by comparing it to the city’s water system.

She writes:

In all the discussions regarding the idea of creating a “system of schools”, I have not seen any discussion regarding school governance, and why these two sets of schools can never be “systemized” as a means to create an aura of goodwill and cooperation amongst the competitors. That’s because the topic of school governance is seen as unimportant, unnecessary, not needed for quality or equity, etc. Don’t worry about it…parents don’t care, because we told them not to…

I’ve been trying to figure out an analogy for what the board has proposed, and I think I’ve come up with one:

A System of Water

East Bay Municipal Utility District provides a high quality product to just about everyone within our municipality. It’s clear, clean, tasty. It’s not entirely free, but the cost can be subsidized for those who have trouble affording their product. As far as I know, virtually everyone has access to it. It is a public utility governed by an elected public board and heavily regulated. It is also fiscally transparent. It operates for the common good. Everyone gets the same high-quality product. It would be terrible if people couldn’t afford it, or the quality was lacking and people got sick from it.

Meanwhile, an assortment of private bottled water companies are having trouble growing new market share in their mature, saturated market. Their mountain springs are running dry, their expenses are going up, and they need to tap into new markets to keep running, so to speak. Crystal Geyser needs to come up with a strategy to sell to EBMUD, and fast. Their shareholders are breathing down their necks.

Crystal Geyser comes up with this great idea, A System of Water. Who needs a pricey mountain spring? What if Crystal Geyser can use EBMUD’s infrastructure and facilities in order to produce a great tasting product that Crystal Geyser can sell for a profit? EBMUD already has low-cost facilities, so why can’t Crystal Geyser simply take over part of those facilities? It can produce its bottled water easier and cheaper than trying to find another clean, high-quality mountain spring. After all, Crystal Geyser has an ROI to worry about. At the same time, because it’s a business, it also needs to grow market share, so part of that marketing campaign would be to claim that Crystal Geyser is clean, pure, free of any nastiness that might get into the regular water system, you know, EBMUD. So even though their product isn’t really superior, they can sell more of it by bashing the quality of EBMUD’s own water product. Crystal Geyser also has attractive packaging, superior distribution, as well as plenty of advertising budget to sell its water. More and more, you see their ads on social media, TV, AC Transit. Crystal Geyser even hands out discount coupons near public water fountains, warning users of potentially harmful bacteria lurking in the plumbing.

EBMUD’s customers don’t think A System of Water is a good idea. EBMUD has to maintain their quality standards and they are accountable to the voters and the regulators if they don’t perform; if Crystal Geyser takes up a portion of their manufacturing/bottling/purification plant, that’s going to make it more difficult and expensive for EBMUD. They also expose themselves to all kinds of legal and ethical entanglements if they can’t keep the water standards high. They have to be held accountable.

Crystal Geyser’s superior marketing means that they are able to grow their share of the water market, bottled or otherwise. Not everyone wants or needs Crystal Geyser, but that doesn’t matter to them as long as their financials look good. Maybe some people try Crystal Geyser, but they don’t like the idea of using plastic. Or maybe it doesn’t really taste as good as the Hetch Hetchy straight from the tap. Customers complain to the company, but there are other customers willing to drink Crystal Geyser, so not a big concern for the company. Any dissatisfied customer can certainly choose another brand of water or go back to EBMUD.

It also turns out that there is some malfeasance going on with the quality of Crystal Geyser. Lab tests show tiny bits of plastic floating around in the water. If ingested, they can pose a health risk. In addition, it turns out that they have not disclosed to their customers that the company no longer bottles their water from a pure, mountain spring, but they have been filling bottles with EBMUD’s own tap water, slapping their own label on the bottles, and marketing it as mountain spring. Since they are a private company, no one is really checking their marketing claims or making sure that the water is safe to drink.

Does Crystal Geyser care about what happens to EBMUD? Of course not, they are a business. They only care about growing and maintaining their own market share. But the company really, really wants to use EBMUDs facilities to grow and save on expenses, so Crystal Geyser comes up with A System of Water, as a means to increase its market share using EBMUDs infrastructure. Crystal Geyser explains to EBMUD’s customers that they are both on the same page; they both provide a quality product; they are both in demand. There’s room at the table for everyone. Really.

But, as more and more water drinkers start purchasing more and more Crystal Geyser (it’s a nice bottle, and it’s pure mountain-spring!), EBMUD struggles. It has to shut down part of its capacity. Crystal Geyser sees that excess capacity as an opportunity to increase its own production. Soon, EBMUD starts having water quality problems: bacteria, particulates, you name it. They have to add more chlorine to counteract this problem; now it tastes funky. This can’t end well for EBMUD. Meanwhile, Crystal Geyser has managed to set up a brand new filtration/purification system that ensures its side of the plant is functioning well. And now, it can market its water as cleaner, safer, and better-tasting than EBMUD. Bottled water flies off of the shelves. Crystal Geyser’s plan has worked perfectly.

Now, given this scenario, can you imagine this kind of business partnership between two directly competing products ever happening in the real world? Then why would anyone ever think that public district schools and privately managed charter schools can work as a system? It’s the same scenario. My analogy isn’t perfect; charter operators argue that district schools do not, in fact, provide a quality product for everyone; hence the creation of a “choice” system. But of course what ends up happening is that charters “choose” their students in the long run and shed the rest, who often return to the district schools. It’s part of the business model of which the entire charter sector is based, and it’s an effective way to sabotage a public good. Unlike public entities, no business exists to serve high quality to all. It can’t happen. Can everyone buy a Porsche? (sorry, that one doesn’t come with an engine). In contrast, there are plenty of businesses that serve low-quality to most. (Pepsi and Dominos Pizza).

One can also argue that, unlike Crystal Geyser, charters in California operate as non-profits. That feel-good nonprofit label is a tax designation that means their profits don’t go to shareholders, but instead are supposed to be “invested” back into the business. But as we have seen, these investments can include all kinds of money-making opportunities: high admin salaries, big consulting contracts handed out to friends and relations, exorbitant rents paid out to leasing companies owned by friends and relations, etc. No oversight. The usual. All for the kids…

In conclusion, the idea that “Turning charters into the Wolf that guards and hunts with you in lean times, rather than than the one that eats you” is an unenforceable, feel-good platitude at best, and nothing more than a rationale for more charter giveaways. In the business world, they don’t call it “Dog Eat Dog” for nothing. The Waltons would be proud.

Peter Greene retired as a teacher but, happily, not as a blogger. He continues to eviscerate hot air balloons and pretensions.

In this post, he examines the questions raised by the conservative journal Education Next: Have states maintained high expectations and does it matter?

Daniel Hamlin and Paul Peterson “note that ESSA gave states license to dump the Common Core, either in its actual form or under whatever assumed name they hid it behind. For accountability hawks, this raises the concern that we’ll have a Race to the Bottom, as states make it easier for schools to clear the performance bar (yes, for the six millionth time, this blurs the barely-existing line between the standards and the tests used to account for them). Will the political expediency of being able to say, ‘All our kids are Proficient (as we currently define it)!’ be too much for politicians to resist?”

They write:

So, has the starting gun been fired on a race to the bottom? Have the bars for reaching academic proficiency fallen as many states have loosened their commitment to Common Core? And, is there any evidence that the states that have raised their proficiency bars since 2009 have seen greater growth in student learning?

In a nutshell, the answers to these three questions are no, no, and, so far, none.

Peter responds: “So nobody has loosened up requirements to– hey, wait a minute. Did they just say that raising proficiency bars hasn’t actually increased student learning?”

Yep. States still have high standards, but the states with those high standards did not see “greater growth in student learning.”

Peter observes: “We are now only one third of the way through the article, and yet the next sentence is not “Therefore, there really is no purpose in continuing to fret about how high state standards are, because they have nothing to do with student achievement.” But instead, the next sentence is “While higher proficiency standards may still serve to boost academic performance, our evidence suggests that day has not yet arrived.” And sure, I understand the reluctance to abandon a favorite theory, but at some point you have to stop saying, “Well, we’ve now planted 267 magic beans in the yard and nothing has happened– yet. But tomorrow could be the day; keep that beanstalk ladder ready.”

Peter thinks those magic beans will never grow into a giant beanstalk.

You would think that after almost 20 years of pursuing high standards and rigorous tests, there might be more discussion of the meager results of these policies.

I have to use this discussion as an opportunity to say a few words about the subjectiveness of the term “proficiency.” Setting the dividing line between “basic” and “proficient” is an arbitrary process. A group of people, some educators and non-educators, meet together to decide what children of a certain grade should know and be able to do. On different days, the same panel might draw a different line. A different panel might choose a different cut score. The decision about where the cut score falls is not objective. “Proficient” is not an objective term.

When I served on the NAEP board, it was understood that “Proficient” was a high bar that most students were unlikely to reach. I thought of it as equivalent to an A. Somehow it has been transformed into a goal that all students should reach. On NAEP, Massachusetts is the only state where as many as 50% of students have reached Proficient.

It is not reasonable to complain when students don’t reach an arbitrary goal that is out of reach, like the NCLB goal that 100% of students would be Proficient by the year 2014. Making tests harder doesn’t make students smarter.

Education psychologist Gerald Coles reports that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg plan to fund neurological research to find out why poor children’s brains aren’t working well enough to produce higher test scores.

Coles writes:

“Why are many poor children not learning and succeeding in school? For billionaire Bill Gates, who funded the start-up of the failed Common Core Curriculum Standards, and has been bankrolling the failing charter schools movement, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, it’s time to look for another answer, this one at the neurological level. Poor children’s malfunctioning brains, particularly their brains’ “executive functioning”–that is, the brain’s working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control–must be the reason why their academic performance isn’t better.

“Proposing to fund research on the issue, the billionaires reason that not only can executive malfunctioning cause substantial classroom learning problems and school failure, it also can adversely affect socio-economic status, physical health, drug problems, and criminal convictions in adulthood. Consequently, if teachers of poor students know how to improve executive function, their students will do well academically and reap future “real-world benefits.” For Gates, who is always looking for “the next big thing,” this can be it in education.

“Most people looking at this reasoning would likely think, “If executive functioning is poorer in poor children, why not eliminate the apparent cause of the deficiency, i.e., poverty?” Not so for the billionaires. For them, the “adverse life situations” of poor students are the can’t-be-changed-givens. Neither can instructional conditions that cost more money provide an answer. For example, considerable research on small class size teaching has demonstrated its substantially positive academic benefits, especially for poor children, from grammar school through high school and college. Gates claims to know about this instructional reform, but money-minded as he is, he insists these findings amount to nothing more than a “belief” whose worst impact has been to drive “school budget increases for more than 50 years.”

“Cash–rather, the lack of it–that’s the issue: “You can’t fund reforms without money and there is no more money,” he insists. Of course, nowhere in Gates’ rebuke of excessive school spending does he mention corporate tax dodging of state income taxes, which robs schools of billions of dollars. Microsoft, for example, in which Gates continues to play a prominent role as “founder and technology advisor” on the company’s Board of Directors would provide almost $29.6 billion in taxes that could fund schools were its billions stashed offshore repatriated.

“In a detailed example of Microsoft’s calculated tax scheming and dodging that would provide material for a good classroom geography lesson, Seattle Times reporter, Matt Day, outlined one of the transcontinental routes taken by a dollar spent for a Microsoft product in Seattle. Immediately after the purchase, the dollar takes a short trip to Microsoft’s company headquarters in nearby Redmond, Washington, after which it moves to a Microsoft sales subsidiary in Nevada. Following a brief rest, the dollar breathlessly zigzags from one offshore tax haven to another, finally arriving in sunny Bermuda where it joins $108 billion of Microsoft’s other dollars. Zuckerberg’s Facebook has similarly kept its earnings away from U.S. school budgets.”

New York State Allies for Public Education, a coalition of 50 parent and educator groups, issued a statement denouncing New York state’s plan to punish schools where participation in testing drops below 95%.

The state ESSA plan says that such schools may be humiliated with low rankings, lose their Title 1 funding, be closed, or turned into charter schools.

This is clearly a harsh, unreasonable, almost fanatical effort to punish opt outs. Since the opt movement is strongest on Long Island, where some of the state’s best schools are located, the state is threatening to punish its best schools, principals, and teachers because of the decisions made by parents.

My view: the New York State Education Department is acting like a bully. Whoever made this decision should back off and remember that they are public servants, not masters. This is a democracy, not a tyranny. This behavior on the part of state officials is outrageous. There is nothing holy or sacrosanct about the state tests. Reasonable people can differ about their value. Parents have the right to withhold their children from state testing if they so choose. Almost 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that children do not belong to the state. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters [1925]). This ruling overturned an Oregon law that required all children to attend public schools.

The NYSAPE statement begins:

“This afternoon, Class Size Matters and NYS Allies for Public Education sent the below letter to Commissioner Elia and the NYS Board of Regents, expressing our strong objections to the draft ESSA regulations that were released last month.

“These regulations violate assurances that were given parents that NYSED would continue to respect their rights to opt their children out of the state exams. Instead the regs would allow the Commissioner to wrongly identify their children’s schools in need of “Comprehensive Support,” withhold Title One funds and even close these schools or turn them into charters if the opt out rates were judged too high. NYSUT, the state teachers union, sent a similar letter of protest on May 29.

“The Regents will be discussing these regs at their meeting on Monday, June 11. Feel free to contact Elia at Commissioner@nysed.gov or your Regents member to make your voices heard. You can also submit comments through July 9 to ESSAREGCOMMENT@nysed.gov”

Please read the full statement here.

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/06/class-size-matters-nysape-protest.html