Archives for the month of: July, 2018

The Trump administration has officially abandoned affirmative action, having decided that African Americans and Latinos no longer need any additional breaks and can pull themselves up by their own shoelaces.

Trump forgot that his son-in-Law Jared Kushner was the beneficiary of affirmative action. As detailed by journalist Daniel Golden in a book about preferential treatment for rich boys, Kushner’s dad gave Harvard a couple of million dollars, although no one in the family ever went to Harvard. This cleared the way for Jared’s admission, who vaulted over better qualified applicants from the same high school. Golden’s Book is called “The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.”

I’m not sure how Donald got into the Wharton School. It surely wasn’t grades or brains or even athletic skills (remember that the bone spur in his foot enabled him to avoid the Vietnam draft, his fifth deferment).

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration will encourage the nation’s school superintendents and college presidents to adopt race-blind admissions standards, abandoning an Obama administration policy that called on universities to consider race as a factor in diversifying their campuses, Trump administration officials said.

Last November, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked the Justice Department to re-evaluate past policies that he believed pushed the department to act beyond what the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court had required, Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman said. As part of that process, the Justice Department rescinded seven policy guidances from the Education Department’s civil rights division on Tuesday.

“The executive branch cannot circumvent Congress or the courts by creating guidance that goes beyond the law and — in some instances — stays on the books for decades,” Mr. O’Malley said.

The Supreme Court has steadily narrowed the ways that schools can consider race when trying to diversify their student bodies. But it has not banned the practice.

Now, affirmative action is at a crossroads. The Trump administration is moving against any use of race as a measurement of diversity in education. And the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the end of this month will leave the court without its swing vote on affirmative action and allow President Trump to nominate a justice opposed to a policy that for decades has tried to integrate elite educational institutions.

A highly anticipated case is pitting Harvard against Asian-American students who say one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions has systematically excluded some Asian-American applicants to maintain slots for students of other races. That case is clearly aimed at the Supreme Court.

“The whole issue of using race in education is being looked at with a new eye in light of the fact that it’s not just white students being discriminated against, but Asians and others as well,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity. “As the demographics of the country change, it becomes more and more problematic.”

The Obama administration believed that students benefit from being surrounded by diverse classmates, so in 2011, the administration offered schools a potential road map to establishing affirmative action policies that could withstand legal scrutiny. The guidance was controversial at the time that it was issued, for its far-reaching interpretation of the law. Justice officials said that pages of hypothetical scenarios offered in the guidance were particularly problematic, as they clearly bent the law to specific policy preferences.

In a pair of policy guidance documents, the Obama Education and Justice departments told elementary and secondary schools and college campuses to use “the compelling interests” established by the court to achieve diversity. They concluded that the Supreme Court “has made clear such steps can include taking account of the race of individual students in a narrowly tailored manner.”

The Trump administration’s decisions on Tuesday brought government policy back to the George W. Bush administration guidances. The Trump administration did not formally reissue Bush-era guidance on race-based admissions, but, in recent days, officials did repost a Bush administration affirmative action policy document online.

That document states, “The Department of Education strongly encourages the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools.”

For the past several years, that document had been replaced by a note declaring that the policy had been withdrawn. The Bush policy is now published in full, with no note attached. It reaffirmed its view in 2016 after a Supreme Court ruling that said that schools could consider race as one factor among many.

In that case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a white woman claimed she was denied admission because of her race, in part because the university had a program that admitted significant numbers of minorities who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class.

“It remains an enduring challenge to our nation’s education system to reconcile the pursuit of diversity with the constitutional promise of equal treatment and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote for the 4-3 majority.

The Trump administration’s plan would scrap the existing policies and encourage schools not to consider race at all. The new policy would not have the force of law, but it amounts to the official view of the federal government. School officials who keep their admissions policies intact would do so knowing that they could face a Justice Department investigation or lawsuit, or lose federal funding from the Education Department.

A senior Justice Department official pushed back against the idea that these decisions are about rolling back protections for minorities. He said they are hewing the department closer to the letter of the law.

He noted that rolling back guidance is not the same thing as a change of law, so that the decision to rescind technically would not have a legal effect on how the government defends or challenges affirmative-action related issues.

The move comes at a moment when conservatives see an opportunity to dismantle affirmative action.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said his prosecutors will investigate and sue universities over discriminatory admissions policies. And the conservative-backed lawsuit against Harvard is being pushed by the same group, the Project on Fair Representation, that pressed Fisher.

Cory Booker has long been an ally of the corporate reformers.

Booker was hooked up with BAEO and the Bradley Foundation around Milwaukee vouchers as far back as 2001. Has he changed his mind? Does he still support vouchers? If so, he will give Trump a run for his money among the evangelicals who are the primary beneficiaries of vouchers.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/black-alliance-educational-options-baeo-congratulates-senator-cory-booker-on-his-win-1842122.htm

https://www.blackagendareport.com/content/fruit-poisoned-tree-hard-rights-plan-capture-newark-nj

https://blackagendareport.com/content/corey-booker-and-hard-rights-colonization-black-american-politics

And here is a contemporary defense of Booker in “The Atlantic,” where we learn more about his deep ties to DFER and education “reform.” Why do liberals hate Booker? So what if Wall Street loves him and he loves them back? So what if he and Chris Christie are best buddies? So what if he loves Privatizing public schools?

If you should ever have the chance, please ask Senator Booker if he still supports vouchers. Ask him if he has any ideas to help the 85% of America’s kids who attend public schools, not charters or voucher schools.

Various media outlets have reported that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s son heads the real estate division at Deutsche Bank, which loaned Donald Trump $1 Billion when he was blackballed by every other bank.

Should these ties have been made public?

Here is a sickening decision, indicative of Trump-era thinking:

https://m.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/07/02/us-court-detroit-students-have-no-right-to-access-to-literacy

“On Friday, dumped out with the least desirable news of the week came word that a lawsuit arguing that Detroit students were being denied an education had been dismissed.

“Perhaps you remember the case. MT presented a cover story about it last year. With the help of a public interest law firm, a handful of Detroit students charged in federal court that educational officials in Michigan — including Gov. Rick Snyder — denied them access to an education of any quality.

“The lawsuit took pains to illustrate how Detroit’s schools — run under a state-appointed emergency manager — were a welter of dysfunction: overcrowded classrooms, lack of textbooks and basic materials, unqualified staff, leaking roofs, broken windows, black mold, contaminated drinking water, rodents, no pens, no paper, no toilet paper, and unsafe temperatures that had classes canceled due to 90-degree heat or classrooms so cold students could see their breath.

“At times, without teachers or instructional materials, students were simply herded into rooms and asked to watch videos. One student claimed to have learned all the words to the film Frozen in high school. The lawsuit even mentions one eighth grade student who “taught” a seventh and eighth grade math class for a month because no teacher could be found.”

Peter Greene writes here about the mass email that went to teachers in many states, advising them about their right to stop paying union dues and have no collective bargaining on their behalf.

Teachers have been targeted by the rightwing Mackinac Center in Michigan, which has never before shown any interest in teachers’ wellbeing.

But there they are, ready to help you kill off your union.

And, wow– it sure is inspiring to see the one percenters so deeply concerned about teacher freedom of speech. I mean, to devote all this time and money just because they want to make sure that every teacher has a chance to exercise her rights. It’s inspiring. Just like all those other times they were out there in the schools making sure that teachers were free to express their opinions and stand up for students and advocate for better education without fear of losing their jobs and– oh, no, wait. They DeVos’s and Koch’s were the ones agitating for the end of job protections so that teachers could be fired at any time, including for speaking up and exercising their First Amendment rights. In fact, the number of times that groups like Mackinac have been out there standing up for teachers’ rights, First Amendment and otherwise, would be, by my rough count, zero. None.

It’s almost as if this whole thing isn’t about teachers’ First Amendment right at all.

It’s almost as if this was just a ploy to bust up the unions and make sure that teachers had even less voice in the world of education. It’s almost as if this was a way to drain funds from the Democratic Party.

Do you think the Koch brothers and the DeVos care about you? Don’t be fooled.

I have never met Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. I probably never will. I only know him as a politician who did his best to turn Newark into another New Orleans, without a hurricane. He became the best buddy of the horrible Governor Chris Christie, who together persuaded billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to put up $100 million to open charters in Newark, an effort that was chronicled in Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize.”

He has been honored by any number of rightwing groups, like the conservative Manhattan Institute. It was funny to watch him fulminate Against Betsy DeVos’ nomination, since he shares her agenda, including vouchers.

Here is his description of the deferred American Dream.

In his account of his life, he stresses his ties to Newark but does not mention that he attended one of New Jersey’s fine suburban high schools, which prepared him for entry to Stanford University, then a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford, then Yale Law School. He is not a humble Newark guy. He is part of the elite, which need not be hidden. He succeeded, and a great public high school set him on the road to success.

If he plans to run for President in 2020, he has to own his entire history and break his ties with the DeVos ideology.

Nancy Bailey reports on Betsy DeVos’ trip to Europe and what she learned: Nothing. She returned convinced that American education sucks, which is what she thought before she left for Europe.

She returned convinced that education is workplace preparation, that public schools must be destroyed along with the teaching profession.

Can this GERM be quarantined?

Yesterday I posted G.F. Brandenburg on the same question. He posted a letter by a parent activist, who thinks the charter industry wants a chancellor on their side. She wrote: “the D.C. Public School Chancellor has absolutely no authority over any charter school in this city. The Chancellor cannot make any determinations on the siting of a school, the board composition of a school, the curriculum, staff or any other matter related to a charter.” Furthermore, charters can locate wherever they choose, even across the street from a public school.

If charters are competing with public schools, why do they get a large say in picking the chancellor who leads the other team?

Here is another post by Brandenburg, with the names of those on the search committee. He cites a post written by Valerie Jablow.

He adds:

“All told, of the 14 people on the selection panel, half have ties to charter and ed reform interests. And several were the source of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions for the mayor.

“[Confidential note to Mayor Bowser: Does this mean that if I and two of my DCPS BFFs donate $5000 to your current campaign, one of us will be named by you to serve on the charter board? I mean, this is the selection panel for the DCPS chancellor we’re talking about here! Why have any charter reps at all, as there have been zero purely DCPS reps. EVER on the charter board? Or is this all OK here because, um, well, because cross sector something something?]

“Then, too, of those 14 people on the selection panel, there are a total of 1 teacher; 1 student; and 4 parents, half of whom have ties to ed. reform and charter interests.

“The law regarding chancellor selection states (boldface mine) that “the Mayor shall establish a review panel of teachers, including representatives of the WTU, parentS, and studentS to aid the Mayor . . . in the selection of the Chancellor.” The law also says nothing about principals or officials from organizations unrelated to DCPS serving on the selection panel.

“Notwithstanding the (remote) possibility that the singular student and teacher selected for this panel have multiple personalities, the math here simply doesn’t add up: there are more than a hundred THOUSAND parents and students in DCPS and several THOUSAND teachers.

“And yet we have a rep from Friendship charter school on this panel and not even TWO DCPS teachers or students??

“Gees, Mayor Bowser: it’s nice that you’re soliciting limited feedback on the next chancellor from us unwashed masses, but can’t you dial back the public dissing?

“Amazingly, all of this is downright familiar in DC public education:

“For instance, several years ago the process to change school boundaries showed that people wanted, overwhelmingly, a strong system of by right public schools in every neighborhood.

“Since then, our city leaders have enacted policies and taken actions that ensure that remains a pipe dream:

“–Thousands of new seats have been created in the charter sector, with little public notification. (One–Statesman–will start this fall without any public notification or input whatsoever beforehand. Yeah: check out these public comments.) Without commensurate growth in the population of school-age children, the result is a declining share of DCPS enrollment–all without any public agreement whatsoever.

“–A closed DCPS school (Kenilworth) was offered to a charter school in violation of several DC laws, including public notification; RFO to other charter schools; and approval of the council. (I am still waiting for my FOIA request to DCPS about this to be answered, since no one on the council, at the deputy mayor for education’s office, or at DCPS ever answered my questions as to how this offer actually came about.)

“–A test-heavy school rating system was approved, which tracks closely with what our charter board uses, without any consideration for what the public actually said it wanted. (And with a private ed. reform lobbying organization phonebanking to ensure it got what it–not the public–wanted.)

“–Ours is a public education landscape in which wealthy donors set the conversation (watch the linked video starting at 1:21:25); determine the way in which schools are judged; and profit from it all, while the public is left far, far behind.

“–Despite clear data showing problems in both sectors for graduation accountability and absences, there has been little movement in city leadership to ensure both sectors are equally analyzed.

“In the same manner, in our new chancellor selection panel the public is disenfranchised and the law not followed, while personnel from private groups are heavily involved and stand to profit in a variety of ways.

“Hmm: Familiar indeed.”

This just in. The inexperienced new chancellor of LAUSD Austin Beutner failed his first assignment. We r3cognize that he was chosen to favor the mostly non-union charter schools, but he should recognize his duty to all the children and teachers in the district.


UTLA STATEMENT ON DECLARATION OF IMPASSE

Our employer refuses to partner with us for a sustainable vision for the future. Why? Because our school district is currently dominated by pro-privatization ideologues who would rather starve our public schools than fight for their survival. Therefore, the UTLA bargaining team believes the bargaining process with our employer has been exhausted, and the two parties are at an impasse.

For more than one year, we have attempted to engage our employer in a thoughtful and progressive bargaining process that paves the way toward a better future for our students and the Los Angeles Unified School District, but it’s become increasingly clear that the charter lobby-backed school board majority, along with its handpicked superintendent, Austin Beutner, has a different goal.

That goal is to blame educators for a starved school system, providing a rationale for even deeper cuts, softening the ground to replace our school district with privatization schemes that have failed in other cities. And we cannot, in good conscience, allow it to happen without fighting back.

Recent LAUSD hires, school board actions and reports are building a case for a repudiation of public education in LA, including the report from Beutner’s task force called ‘Hard Choices,’ which pits students against their teachers, and manipulates data to justify a type of private equity “wind down” of LAUSD. Read UTLA’s full response to the ERS here.

Therefore, today, UTLA sent a letter to district officials, declaring contract negotiations are at a deadlock. Read the impasse letter here.

This school board majority and superintendent have no proactive plan to reinvest in our schools or ensure the survival of LAUSD as a civic institution in our city. Rather than advocate for increased state funding, or use the $1.7 billion in unrestricted reserves, they threaten layoffs, say educators get paid too much, recommend increases to overloaded class sizes and increases to special education teacher to student ratios.

Meanwhile, UTLA has a proactive vision that includes proposals to reduce class sizes, provide more health & human services staff, significantly reduce testing, increase parent and educator power over school site spending, require investment in community schools, ensure access to ethnic studies for all students, provide reasonable oversight at co-located schools and improve early education and adult education programs.

In light of the above actions that signal the willful demise of our own district, as evidenced in Beutner’s ‘Hard Choices’ report, we demand LAUSD bring in a state-appointed mediator to assist both parties in achieving a bargaining agreement that is acceptable to both parties.
__________________________________________
UTLA, the nation’s second-largest teachers’ union local, represents more than 35,000 teachers and health & human services professionals in district and charter schools.

________________________________

As regular readers of this Blog know, Phyllis Bush has been battling cancer for a long while, and reporting with humor and determination on her fight. So far, she is winning. Phyllis is an original member of the NPE board of directors. We are holding our annual meeting in Indianapolis this fall, October 20-21, at her urging.

Here Phyllis reports on the latest skirmish and also on her renewed energy to fight for the revival of decency in our politics.