Rachel M. Cohen, writing in The Intercept, understands what’s new about the L.A. strike. The teachers are fighting for their students and smaller class sizes, but they are loudly and clearly doing somthing else: They are fighting against charter schools. They are fighting against the pro-charter policies of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Arne Duncan. They are fighting against the pro-charter policies of Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, Corey Booker, and rising Congressional star Hakeem Jeffries.
Cohen writes:
“The centrality of opposition to charter school growth in the LA protests has put many Democrats in an uncomfortable position. The Democratic Party has long straddled an awkward political balancing act between the charter school and labor movements, which both fund Democratic candidates but war with each other. Today, with people across the country focused on the LA teachers, most Democratic lawmakers have stayed silent, and even those who have weighed in have mostly avoided commenting on the union’s opposition to charter school growth….
“The Intercept reached out to all 47 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to ask if they wanted to weigh in on the LA teachers strike and the demands that teachers are striking over. All Democratic senators were also asked to clarify their general views on charter school growth.
“Only seven of them responded.
“A spokesperson for Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., referred The Intercept to a tweet Harris posted on Monday in support of the striking teachers, and said the senator is “particularly concerned with expansions of for-profit charter schools and believes all charter schools need transparency and accountability.” In September, California legislators passed a ban on for-profit charters in the state….
“Martina McLennan, a spokesperson for Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., responded with a statement that did not directly address the LA strike:…
“Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown’s statement also did not directly address the strike. “I support the rights of all workers to join together and fight for better working conditions,” he said. “But it’s shameful that American teachers have to fight so hard just to get the basic supports they need to serve their students. We need to do better as a country investing in public education and public school teachers.”
“Saloni Sharma, a spokesperson for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., referred The Intercept to a tweet Warren posted on Monday in support of the striking teachers. She also added that the senator believes rapid charter school expansion can pose a threat to the financial health of traditional public schools, which is why Warren opposed a ballot measure in 2016 that would have allowed up to 12 new charters to open in Massachusetts per year. “While she generally shares the concerns voiced by LA teachers on this and other issues, she can’t really speak to the charters’ specific impact on LA schools — the LA teachers are the best experts on that,” Sharma said. “We should listen to them.”…
“Ryan King, a spokesperson for Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, said his boss “believes that teachers in Nevada, and across the country, should be treated with dignity and paid a living wage for the work they do in educating our kids. The senator believes that Congress must do all it can to support quality public education in America and ensure our nation’s teachers have the resources and support they need to educate students.”
“Only two other people responded. Jonathan Kott, a spokesperson for Joe Manchin of West Virginia, declined to comment, saying “we are not weighing in on a local issue in California” and that the senator’s “record on charter schools is well-documented.” (Manchin, who voted against Betsy DeVos’s nomination for education secretary, specifically cited her support for charters and private school vouchers as reasons.) Keith Chu, a spokesperson for Ron Wyden of Oregon, also declined to comment.
“Sanders did not respond to a query about his position on charter schools, but he, Warren, and Brown remain the only likely 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate who’ve had anything to say about the strike at all. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Cory Booker of New Jersey did not respond to our questions, nor have they publicly commented. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has also stayed notably silent on the teachers strike happening in her own state.”
Feinstein’s silence is odd. She was just re-elected,and she is very wealthy. She doesn’t need the billionaire’s money, she will never stand for election again. Maybe Eli Broad is a close friend?
Unlike the elected Democrats, the UTLA has drawn the connection between the billionaires and the attack on public school, unions, and teachers.
California, a blue state, has more charter schools in the nation. Ninety percent of charters are non-union. One of the reasons that rightwingers love charters is that they are non-union.
UTLA is making a point: Real Democrats support public schools, not privately managed charters.
Real Democrats are not allied with the Waltons, the Koch brothers, and Betsy DeVos.
Every Democratic candidate for 2020 should declare now whether they support the UTLA; whether they support public schools or charter schools; whether they support teachers’ right to bargain collectively.
A tweet is not enough. Hop on a plane and get to Los Angeles and stand with the teachers if you are a real Democrat.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Ms. Ravitch, can you kindly inform me of the rules for commenting on your blog? I recently posted my first ever comment here noting the effect on the LA public schools of the huge population of immigrant students brought to LA by their illegal immigrant parents. You deleted that comment, even though financial analysis of the LA public schools has shown for years that the huge influx of kids needing bilingual education has strained – to put it mildly – the LA public schools.
I perused the comments sections for the last several days, and I found not even a particle of differing opinion from you or other commenters. Is your blog now closed to any thought that you don’t support?
“illegal immigrants” is a deeply racist term…these persons are not “illegal”, they are human beings facing more challenges than most of us have ever dreamed of…perhaps you meant “undocumented immigrants” or “asylum seekers” or “families fleeing violence and oppression seeking a better life for their children”?
in any event, perhaps your comment was removed because it wasn’t about the LA teachers strike so much as it was an attempt to distract attention from the strike by seeking to cast blame on a vulnerable population? I’m sure there are many financial pressures challenging LA’s schools…the one I’ve heard the most from the district’s teachers is the impact of charter schools on the district’s budget, not an “invading horde of migrant children”. in fact, the district’s enrollment has been shrinking for years due to charters. I question that an increased need for bilingual ed is the driving force behind LA’s struggles. in public education, when kids with needs show up in our schools we teach them…we don’t demonize them. and I’ve not see “even a particle” of understanding of that in your comment above…so there’s that, too.
have a nice day.
mrobmsu
Since when did you become the spokesperson for Diane? Are you the gate keeper? The post of all the immigrants is true and is a real problem in this country and needs to be discussed it just cannot be tossed aside.
If you are a teacher you would understand. If not then keep promoting open borders. You see we all are sympathetic to others needs however if the boat is full then taking in more and more will sink us all.
“illegal immigrants” is NOT a racist term. An illegal person can be caucasian, asian, latino, or of any racial/ethnic background.
Every person who is in this nation, without proper documentation and authorization from the federal government is breaking the law by their very presence.
Mitchell and Linda, I don’t care what everyone else might say about you, you’re alright! 😉
Illegal immigrant describes the immigration status of people who are in America without legal authorization – regardless of their skin color. There are illegal immigrants from Russia, Poland, Ireland, Great Britain, etc. who are white. It’s simple math that school districts with large numbers of non-English speaking students will incur major costs from needing to provide bilingual education. No public school administrator disputes that fact.
Here’s a short video lesson on the history of the term “illegal immigrant.”
I guess Kim doesn’t understand that this country began with so-called illegal immigration. She should check David Duke’s website. I’m sure he’s selling surplus armbands at a discount.
As long as countries including the U.S. have borders and passports and the concept of citizenship there is nothing racist in the term “illegal immigrant”. You may not like the policies, you may not like the whole idea of separate countries, you can be a cosmopolite, but this is the present-day reality, and it operates using terms like citizen and non-citizen. The latter can be a guest, visiting the country, or immigrant. The latter can be legal or illegal. Them are the rules. Don’t like them – change them.
There are no laws about proper language usage.
You even wrote a book about language police fifteen years ago.
That’s correct. There are no laws about language usage other than grammar and syntax.
I shouldn’t, but I’ll give it one more try. “Illegal immigrant” has become a code word, much like “welfare queen” or “thug.” The intent is to describe a particular type of person, usually with darker skin tones. Hollow protestations and false examples do not persuade. When the term “illegal immigrant” is used, it does not include, for example, Irish or Italian people who overstay their visas. For the people who insist on using it means brown-skinned people from south of the Rio Grande (and many citizens north of it); in Italy it means those dark-skinned people from Africa. I know this won’t convince people whose core beliefs are borne out of bigotry, whether they realize it not, but code words are essential for racist ideas to be conveyed. It is up to us who recognize them to point out the truth. The people use them are the same who say things like, “Why can they use the n-word when we can’t?” If you ask that question, you might be a bigot.
Boat sinks: when you say, “keep promoting open borders,” you sound like a Fox viewer spouting memes. Yes, perhaps most of us here are liberals (if not progressives), hence usually voting Dem party. However if you think Dems “promote open borders,” you are just listening to political propaganda.
Comprehensive immigration reform is a concept supported by both parties in theory. Dems lean toward a hurdled path to citizenship for illegals, prioritizing DACA– that’s not amnesty. Reps lean toward increased border security, which is generally OK w/Dems as long as we don’t get stupid [“Wall”– as opposed to sensible use of adv tech as needed (forget areas w/steep cliffs at river), increased judicial & border personnel. Lots of common ground for negotiation.
So why have such measures languished in House/ Sen for decades? My theory: illegal immigration supports ag & other industries, whose deep pockets stuff campaign coffers of elected reps. If this were not so, proposals to clamp down on hiring illegals might gain traction. Gov would be better off taking the issue on directly w/guest-worker policies.
The legal immigration path is unduly difficult.
There is no way to sponsor an illegal. That is wrong. Undocumented immigrants are necessary for agriculture, hotels, fast food restaurants, meat packing, all the hard, dirty jobs that native born Americans don’t want to do.
Elie Wiesel supports the idea that no human can be “illegal”.
I think this website gives an excellent context to the Nobel Laureate:
https://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html
When one refers to an immigrant as an “illegal alien,” they are using the term as a noun. They are effectively saying that the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, is illegal. The term “illegal alien” implies that a person’s existence is criminal. I’m not aware of any other circumstance in our common vernacular where a crime is considered to render the individual – as opposed to the individual’s actions – as being illegal. We don’t even refer to our most dangerous and vile criminals as being “illegal.”
“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
In addition, estimates are that almost half of the undocumented aliens in the United States actually entered with lawful status but merely overstayed their visas. These aliens have not committed a criminal offense at all. Their presence in United States while being out of status is a civil infraction, not a criminal offense.
I think the legal term is “undocumented alien”. Trump, most of the GOP, and alt-right racists prefer to use terms like “illegal alien” or worse.
Technically correct, Diane. I say “technically,” having learned more about our tortuous immigration system thro a friend who’s been working to sponsor her Venezuelan dghtr-in-law for 2yrs. The gal had a naturalized brother in WA, & was here attending a FL uni on a student visa, under rules that (until her sr yr) allowed 6 mos after diploma to obtain work/ re-apply for work visa. Rules changed suddenly; she learned via letter 3 mos before grad stating she’d be persona non grata a week after diploma! My friend immediately signed on as the girl’s sponsor, & the fiancés abruptly married in a civil ceremony. Had the girl dithered & let the newly-curtailed student visa expire, she would have been “illegal” & no one could have sponsored her. (The drama continues; path to ‘legal’ for a sponsored alien spouse of an American does not go unchallenged & will drag on for yrs; meanwhile she is not even allowed to volunteer much less work).
Fischer, thanks for writing to The 74, funded by politically active billionaires and to Gates’ Impatient Optimists asking them to promote America’s most important common good….wait.
Well, Linda, I’m finally starting to see the light on Sherrod’s record on public education. It took a while, but I’m a very slow learner.
Greg,
You and I wanted Brown to be a hero because his words and nonverbal cues indicated he was.
I’ll still support him, but I think it’s incumbent on us to be harder on our allies when we think they’re wrong and explain why. I pledge to do so.
Dr. Ravitch owns this blog. She determines which comments are published. Many of my comments, are at variance with the views that the participants here hold. I am frankly amazed, that so many of my remarks are published. It takes courage, to publish opposing views, and for this I congratulate her.
Charles – I’m mostly amazed at how many superfluous commas you are able to stuff into your dissenting comments.
I delete racist comments and comments that attack hardworking teachers and public schools. This blog supports Public education.
Kim- It is federal law to educate undocumented students in the US. It doesn’t matter where they live. “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents.”
It is in all citizens interest to have these students educated.
Where I live -the community has taken 1,300 refugees since 2013.
This is 20 times more refugees per capita than the rest of the US.
Is it not unusual for the school districts to have students that speak many different languages and dialects. One surrounding district has students who speak 38 languages(with a variety of dialects). My point is—If you live in LA I suggest you stand with the teachers requesting more funding so all the students needs can be addressed.
Bilingual education needs to be fully funded to meet the needs of all students.
“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982) that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
But that law was created in 1982….. today is 2019 hmmnnn almost 40 years later….the game has changed people we now have more than we can handle
Supreme Court rulings are not overruled because they are decided long ago.
Every child in the US is entitled to a free public education.
It is for the benefit of society.
We can’t allow thousands or hundreds of thousands of uneducated children. It is both intolerable and harmful to us all.
Diane Yes. More undocumented children only ups the stakes we all have in offering a qualified education to people here in the US, and also in the rest of the world. It’s MORE important, not less. CBK
@AlwaysLearning, don’t you find it a little strange that students in your nearby district “speak 38 languages(with a variety of dialects)”, but only “bilingual education needs to be fully funded”? And when talking about bilingual everyone knows what is that other language is meant. Why such narrow-mindedness? Why not other 38 languages? To me, English-only education is the only one that makes sense. It is on the parents to make sure their kids speak the language of the country they came to. At the very least, they need to send them to English-only pre-school or kindergarten and make sure they are not exposed to Spanish-only culture at young age. Somehow kids whos native language is other than Spanish manage to learn English rather quickly and integrate. Look at them Asians, who now take more than 70% in the best high schools of New York City.
BA, you are mincing words. “Bilingual ed” is often used as shorthand for “English as second language” [ESL]. Perhaps in the SW the connotation is automatically “Spanish,” but things are very different in many states. (How about Somalis in MN?)
I have friends who have long taught ESL in Newark & NYC. These teachers typically have Span-lang background because that accounts for 1/3-1/2 of their students. The other 1/2-2/3 speak African, Asian, S Asian, & E Eur langs.
Your theory that “Eng-only” is the way to go is based on what? Sink or swim? Encourage illiterate dropouts? “Bilingual Ed” a/k/a ESL doesn’t at all mean encouraging kids to hang onto their native lang. It’s a few-yrs’ bridge that helps them learn Eng, then transit to all-Eng classes.
the sources we use to bolster our views matter…the media outlets and personalities that promote and authorize the term “illegal immigrants” tend to be right wing sources like Fox and Ann Coulter–there’s a pretty clear agenda in their use of the term–it is to stigmatize the individual as a criminal, with no knowledge of their circumstances.
here’s a good overview of the topic: https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html
Kim, I take umbrage at your general slam at commenters here, essentially calling us dittoheads. I, for example, do not take umbrage at the term illegal immigrants. And, having read a lot of articles w/comment threads at various sites in the last few days on the strike, am aware that LASD spends a significant amount on ESL students.
I remember feeling something similar as a NYC dweller in ’70’s when city was broke, yet accepting immigrants hand over fist thanks to ’65 change in immigrant law. It burned me that– tho NYC performed a sort of federal function as a port of entry– & incoming immigrants hadn’t enough $ to move on from city for yrs (if ever)– we got not 1ct from fed to help w/cost burden.
It never occurred to me that immigrants should simply be turned away. And I eventually understood that NYC’s fiscal woes were due to a combination of many factors. But your comment provides neither detail supporting the position that LASD’s $ woes are primarily due to illegal immigration– nor opinion on how (if true) the legal burden of educating all comers [regardless of citizenship] should be supported. So we are left w/the impression that you’re just… anti-immigrant. Or at least have a limited understanding of why illegal immigration is winked at & who benefits. Hence everyone jumping on you
Too many Democrats have cozied up to labor during an election cycle, only to ignore labor once in office. Many Democrats like Republicans depend on corporate and billionaire campaign donations, and some corporate Democrats have actively supported charter expansion. At least as a result of the midterms there are now a few more progressive Democrats that are willing to actively support public schools.
Democrats win when they support public education. One of the reasons Hillary lost in 2016 is that some members of labor voted for Trump and his false promises. Too many voters felt that Hillary was untrustworthy, and the whole Russian interference helped to undermine public confidence in her. No matter who runs in 2020 teachers need to hear a clear message of support for public education. We should not settle for vague messages like the one from Tom Perez in this article that allow them to straddle their allegiance. Teachers should also actively work to ensure that any Democrats running for president support public education. Education must be an issue in 2020.
I don’t expect co-opted Democrats like Corey Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Jerry Brown, or Joe Manchin to be critical of non-profit charters (or, as the co-opted Democrats like to call them, “public charters”).
But I do expect Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and anyone else who claims the progressive mantle to do more than issue some wishy washy statements about “supporting teachers” which do more harm than good because their statements presuppose the “truth” that some charters are really really wonderful and good.
This is not hard, folks. HRC made the statement in South Carolina that should be repeated by all the progressive politicians so that the public understands the basic truth that their praise of “good public charters” keeps covering up (talk about helping the bad guys do their dirty work).
“But the original idea, Roland, behind charter schools was to learn what worked and then apply them in the public schools. And here’s a couple of problems. Most charter schools — I don’t want to say every one — but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation, because they do, thankfully, take everybody, and then they don’t get the resources or the help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education.
So I want parents to be able to exercise choice WITHIN the public school system — NOT OUTSIDE OF IT but within it because I am still a firm believer that the public school system is one of the real pillars of our democracy and it is a path for opportunity.
But I am also fully aware that there are a lot of substandard public schools. But part of the reason for that is that policymakers and local politicians will not fund schools in poor areas that take care of poor children to the level that they need to be. And you can get me going on this…. I mean, the corridor of shame right here in South Carolina, you get on there and you can see schools that are literally falling apart. I’ve been in some of those schools. I have seen the terrible physical conditions. That is an outrage. It is a rebuke to who we are as Americans to send any child to a school that you wouldn’t send your own child to.
And so we’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure that public schools serve people, but that doesn’t mean we don’t also provide options WITHIN the system so that parents can find what they think might work best for their kid.” END OF QUOTE
The progressive politicians need to have a clear message against charters — that is IF they actually are against all charters that operate independently of the public school system because it is not really clear that many of them are.
The message should be:
Charters do not take the hardest to take kids and have absolutely no responsibility – financial or otherwise – as soon as a child they don’t want to teach walks out of their door. Thus independent operating charters are INCENTIVIZED to rid themselves of expensive students. And the bad ones will always drive out the good when the rewards – financially and more support for expansion — go the bad ones who do exactly what they are incentivized to do.
Public schools must educate all students and that includes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for tuition at a private school that specializes in the most severely disabled children who need someone with them 24/7. The public school SYSTEM’S responsibility does not end when a child walks out the door the way it does with charters.
Magnet schools that are part of the public school system can serve the same function as charters. So any progressive politician concerned about those “poor children in failing schools” can support magnet schools that are part of the system instead of “charter” schools that work outside it. In NYC there are magnet schools like Central Park East, Brooklyn New School, the Children’s School, which are part of the public school system, not separate from it.
Most important: “policymakers and local politicians will not fund schools in poor areas that take care of poor children to the level that they need to be.” And by having lying, dishonest charters that crow about being able to teach the most severely disadvantaged students with less money in large class sizes and get extraordinary results, the politicians have cover for not properly funding those schools. Because if even the progressive politicians are insisting that there are wonderful charters getting miraculous results, then why should any public school need anything but better teachers (not more money or small class sizes)? Progressive leaders undermine all the arguments for funding schools properly when they accept without question the notion that there are “good charters” who somehow have some secret recipe to teach any student for less money.
Manchin, when Gov. of W.Va., introduced legislation to bring charters to the state. Dems in the legislature defeated the proposal stating it would create a two-class system.
The amount of money siphoned from public schools in large cities cripples the services and increases the size of classes in the public schools. Why should the public pay for a competing system that offers nothing new and why should taxpayers be forced to disinvest in their local community schools? With all the cherry picking in many charters, as you point out, a magnet school can provide the same service more efficiently and staffed by professional teachers.
Linda,
I expect co-opted Democrats like Manchin and Cuomo to be rabidly pro-charter. I would vote to defeat them any time.
But I also expect that progressive politicians would be leading the drive to educate the public about the reality of charters versus the charter propaganda lies. I expect that they would be repeating the same message that HRC said above.
Why aren’t they? They should be TEARING DOWN the myth of the “good public charter” instead of giving it validity by giving that myth progressive support and credibility.
As long we have progressive politicians carrying water for the privatization movement by promoting the myth that there are “good public charters”, their so-called “support” for teachers is like bailing a sinking rowboat with a leaky bucket instead of spending the money to repair the rowboat instead of buying more leaky buckets.
They don’t do much good, and they do a lot of harm by insisting that leaky buckets are still really good and admirable and useful to spend money on.
I’m in agreement NYC
The money quote: “Progressive leaders undermine all the arguments for funding schools properly when they accept without question the notion that there are “good charters” who somehow have some secret recipe to teach any student for less money.”
I suspect that some Democrats are hesitant to talk about how charters hurt public schools lest they be exposed as the poseurs they are & have been for 40 years.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/ed-reform-ate-the-democrats-berkshire
“The problem is that the Democrats have little to offer that’s markedly different from what DeVos is selling. Teachers unions, regulation, and government schools are the problem, Democrats continue insisting into the void; deregulation, market competition and school choice are the fix. Four decades after the neo-Democrats set their sights on the education bureaucracy, the journey has reached its predictable destination: with a paler version of what the right has been offering all along.”
Well said, NYCPSP.
jcgrim-
The Intercept showed the world what the “liberal” think tank, Center for American Progress, really is in an article 2 days ago, “Liberal Think Tank Faces New Scrutiny”. Truthdig picked up the Intercept story.
So-called “liberal” organizations can not be allowed to speak to media and be quoted as “liberal” when they aren’t. It undermines progressive efforts. Media should quote Our Revolution, instead.
Each time CAP is labeled “liberal” by media, the reporter doing it should be contacted to be corrected.
Worse still – I saw them labeled as Progressive – as if.
I think progressives all must do a better job of promoting progressives. Compared to conservatives, progressives are responsible for national parks, state parks, medicare, Social Security … This is a long list that mostly supports 90 percent of the people, the working class.
What are conservatives and corporate Democrats responsible for?
I’ll mention a few:
Most of the federal national debt.
Giving birth to the industrial military complex and endless wars.
Cutting taxes for the wealthiest 10-percent repeatedly.
Most mass shootings in the United States.
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WARNING: ” We should not settle for vague messages like the one from Tom Perez in this article that allow them to straddle their allegiance.” Straddle their allegiance. Exactly stating how they play this devastating game.
Yes!
I feel like progressives are enabling their politicians to get away with their support of charters by saying “look how they are saying nice things about teachers” without recognizing that these progressives still want to enable the dual system where privately operated charters that the progressives still insist are “public” are allowed to flourish.
Perez is trying to unite the anti-privatization and pro-privatization Democrats. We can’t let that happen. Real Democrats support public schools, not privately owned and operated charter schools.
Real Democrats fight privatization in all its forms.
Real PROGRESSIVES fight privatization. Where are the progressive politicians fighting non-profit charters run by private entities that have no responsibility to students once they are out of their school?
I agree, Ciedie.
I ABSOLUTELY agree, Ciedle. Democrats who keep straddling their allegiance, they may soon find themselves irrelevant. And none too soon.
Did I hear Ocasio Cortez come out in support of public schools? It will be awhile before she has the traditional creds, but she is not letting that stop her. It’s voices like hers that force those who have been coopted by the neoliberal agenda to stop and notice the attention she is garnering. We need more such voices willing to take risks. The freshman class of women seem to be stepping up. Go Gals!
Diane: The below article reveals how business-bent minds will stop at NOTHING to get their “brand” into the classroom to help sell their product. Now they are paying teachers to be “brand ambassadors.”
There is nothing more pure in a democratic culture than a truly-committed teacher–committed to the ongoing education of their students. The whole idea of “brand ambassador” reeks of destroying that purity.
First, be sure teachers are not well-paid and that they don’t have classroom resources. THEN offer them money to be sure that teachers (a) hawk their products to their trusting students and parents and (b) are not critical of the company (God forbid), even if it’s called for.
“Ambassadors”? try bought-offs, spies, puppets, sophists, lobbyists and, as teachers, cancers on the body-politic.
EXAMINING THE NEW PHENOMENON OF TEACHERS AS BRAND AMBASSADORS
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/brand-ambassador
How about digging into the first edition of Core-Plus Mathematics circa 1995 (development officially started in 1992 based on 1989 NCTM standards) and seeing pictures of and references to Texas Instruments graphing calculators all over the textbook. These calculators were $100 apiece then, they are still $100 apiece nowadays. Good business. No wonder that Texas Instruments is a key sponsor of all NCTM events.
This is America. This is how business is done. The same aluminum ladder that costs $30 at Home Depot is sold to Air Force for $150. Doing business with state and federal organizations is the best. Look at the F-35 program, nice.
BA: Making teachers into business ambassadors turns educators into propagandists.
And don’t you love the use of language. CBK
A live person reads e-mails at info@ourrevolution.com for those who want to weigh in against school privatization.
I think establishment Dems made a plan to either ignore or to give aid to the plot of oligarchs from the tech and financial sectors. The oligarchs’ target was confiscation of Main Street K-12 education, with future, similar plans for public universities.
The following politicians should be asked directly about the suspicion, CAP’s Corey Booker, O’Leary’s Newsome, the corporations’ Susan Davis, the hedge funds’ Cuomo/ Hakeem Jeffries, Z-berg’s Schumer and the richest 0.1%’s Jared Polis.
The corporate takeover of public schools is the same as Walmartization of America’s Main Streets.
Kill the small Mom and Pop stores on Main Streets by undercutting their prices.
Hire Mom and Pop as greeters.
Kill Main Street.
If there are not enough profits, pull up stakes and leave deserted towns behind.
Leave behind a wasteland.
Linda,
The way to move the Democrats who embrace the right is for progressive politicians to be calling them out on it. We already KNOW what those right wing Democrats want.
The question is where the voice of progressive Democrats is? Sanders and Warren are not afraid to speak out strongly for issues that they believe in and it has made a difference.
I want to hear those politicians calling for a moratorium on charter schools instead of giving progressive support to the myth that there are “good public charters”.
(1) If Randi continues to carry freight for CAP like she did in 2016, she’s an obstacle that has to be pushed out of the way. Pro-charter leaders in the unions have to be ousted.
(2) Each time the media allows CAP to speak as if it’s a liberal voice, the reporter/columnist should receive a deluge of information from the audience calling them out for the fraud.
The anti-privatization campaign should have been led by the Ed Department secretaries of Clinton and Obama. Just as the Republican politicians fell in line with Trump, ignoring their constituents so did the Democratic politicians fall in line with the horrific education policies of Obama and Clinton.
Making sure that the next Democratic president answers to the majority is critical. IMO, that means getting rid of Third Way, CAP, Podesta, and DFER. They are disliked, can’t even get a win for a Democratic Presidential candidate that they selected who was running against Trump and, they are more Republican than Democrat.
Experts agree Putin was surprised at how much alienation Republican and DINO Democrats had created among voters.
I personally don’t care if progressive candidates are silent on ed issues, as long as they make campaign reform & other “get the $ out” issues A#1 priority. Nothing is going to get better– inequality gap & all public goods [ed, justice system, infrastructure, environment, museums/ libraries/ parks]– until this nut is cracked.
This article was very good and I think we need to shout out to one obscure Congressperson who is saying exactly what needs to be said by PROMINENT progressives like Sen. Warren and Sanders:
From the article:
“In 2016, Khanna said he sees himself as more independent-minded in terms of supporting charter schools than some other Democrats. The Intercept reached out to Khanna’s office for comment on his current views about charter school growth.
“I have the same position on this as Randi Weingarten, president of American Federation of Teachers,” said Khanna in response. “I am supportive of the original concept of charters as laboratories of innovation within the public school system and in collaboration with teachers and administrators in the district. That was the vision [former President of the American Federation of Teachers] Albert Shanker had. I am opposed to the expansion of private charters that siphon resources from public schools, that do not have the same standards as public schools, or that exploit their staff and prohibit their employees from forming unions.”
Khanna went further and said that in the context of the LA teachers strike, he “share[s] the concern of the teachers that the district should not have private companies run the charters. These charters are mostly not unionized, and they are not serving students with a disability or the children of immigrants who don’t speak English. Charters were never supposed to be a substitute for good public education as they have become in the LA school district.” END OF QUOTE
It is a very simple message: Privately operated charters should not exist, period.
I wish progressive politicians who have a much larger bully pulpit than Khanna would stop undermining this message by insisting that SOME privately operated charters are perfectly fine and use the privatizers’ favorite word: “public charters”, to refer to charters that are not “for-profit” (even if they do pay their CEOs extraordinarily high salaries).
Charters should not exist apart from the public school system. Don’t call charters “public charters” just because they are non-profit.
The fact that so many elected Democrats did not respond tells me they failed the litmus test on charter schools and must be defeated the next time they run for office until the message is loud and clear: “We want to know where you stand when it comes to public schools vs the private sector charter school industry.” And you better not lie.
There is only one way to pass the litmus test and that is a clear response that says they support public schools and are totally against charter schools. Then they follow up and show they mean what they say.
The only reason to be silent is because of the risk that they might piss off the billionaires that are funding the charter school movement. Without the autocrats political contributions, democrats running for office fear losing because studies show that 80-percent of representatives that win their elections spent the most money.
I am certain that neither Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren cares what billionaires think about them or whether those billionaires get angry at them.
But what I don’t understand is why those otherwise admirable and progressive politicians find it so hard to say “we are totally against charter schools and support the NAACP’s moratorium on any new charters, period.”
I believe that progressives do more harm than good when they promote the same myth that ed reformers do — that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with charter schools that are separate from the public school system.
Even Elizabeth Warren gives credibility to the reform movement when she says she opposes the “rapid expansion” of such charters. Notice the “RAPID”. I guess the “slow expansion” isn’t a problem for her? Why can’t she just make it clear “charters should not expand, period” just like the NAACP called for? Just like the LA strike called for?
To me, it is much worse when progressive leaders with their loud bully pulpit are still helping to promote the myth that charter are fine as long as they expand a little more slowly and are “public” (whatever that means — it certainly doesn’t mean they are part of the school system and overseen by the same people who oversee public schools).
Who said repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth — Nazi Joseph Goebbels?
Since Reagan’s misleading report known as “A Nation at Risk” in 1983, the lies about incompetent teachers and failing public schools have never stopped. They have been a river at flood stage and every president since Reagan has been swept away by that river.
After 36 years of these endless, deliberately misleading lies, it is possible that inside the Washington DC bubble, that lie has become the truth even for those who should be outspoken in their support of the public schools.
Warren and Sanders are not listening to the inner voice they should trust, because the echo chamber of the DC bubble is too loud.
“the lies about incompetent teachers” — half of North Carolina teachers cannot solve a high school math problem, lie or truth?
False, BA.
North Carolina has more NBCT teachers than any other state.
You have a disgusting contempt for professional teachers.
I won’t print any more of them.
You may be right, BA. I don’t really know or, for that matter care, if my child’s Spanish, history, or English teacher understands trigonometry or can solve differential equations. I suspect that college professors may be similarly lacking in high school math skills. I rewrote/paraphrased/outlined one of my sons’ geometry text to get him through the class. He passed, but he did not understand or really learn geometry until he began working as a carpenter. I, on the other hand, have had very little call to develop that knowledge and have probably forgotten more than I knew. In case you haven’t noticed, people tend to specialize as they move into adulthood and devote time and energy to a smaller range of knowledge in greater depth. There would be very little reason for an English teacher to master the finer points of calculus unless s/he had a personal interest in the subject. I imagine there are an equally small number of math teachers who devote much energy to e.e. cummings.
BA,
Your primary purpose in posting here is to get across the message that people who teach are extremely stupid. That’s inaccurate, insulting, vicious, and will not appear here.
I won’t post your comments unless you have something useful to say.
Does that answer your question?
It’s true that all demo politicians are not against charter, some own them or on the boards of some. Heck, even utla officers differ in there support of charters. That’s why the fight has to go national to win. Dry up that money for charters and you won’t see them. We’ve always had private schools but they were funded by private money. When they were able to get public money, they spread like greedy wildfire. Eliminate the public money and you eliminate bogus charters.
You got it, Paula.
Bernie (via ActBlue) just sent out an e-mail for people to sign in support of the UTLA strike, & in it talks about privatization of schools as an issue. This strike is certainly making the issue crystal clear & nation-wide (I noticed the post mentions a statement from Manchin’s office that is a refusal to speak about something happening outside of WVA, but–to their credit {& never thought I’d say this–NOT a Manchin fan, Big Pharma supporter & father of EpiPen co. price gouger CEO}–that he’d voted against DeVos due to her stands on charters & privatization, & this had been so-stated at the time.)
Should you receive the Bernie/ActBlue e-mail, you will see what he’d said on this issue.
Yet, again, EVERY truly Progressive Dem candidate needs to be absolutely clear & AGAINST charter schools & privatization. (& NO Cory Booker!!!)
We know the old leg of the party (Perez, Biden, etc.) is NOT going to speak out against
the core problem in the preservation of the publics.
ActBlue allows DFER to raise money at its site for privatizers and ActBlue defends the practice which is why I refuse to use ActBlue for contributions. I send a check snail mail and explain in an attached note why I won’t use ActBlue.
Linda–I agree, but I don’t “use” ActBlue; I never send money. I just read their e-mails which, sometimes (such as this) send important messages. Since there is a subject, I pick & choose what I’ll open or delete.
AOC, Katie Porter, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib are in Congress and they are against privatization of America’s most important common good.
To Teachers, Parents and students (in the age to vote in 2020):
Please remember that American Democracy is in your hand through a clear and sharp mind, compassionate soul, most of all your DECISIVE MIND – like in these sentences from our beloved guru veteran teacher, Dr. Ravitch
1) Every child in the US is entitled to a free public education.
2) Real Democrats fight privatization in all its forms.
3) whenever “The corporate takeover of public schools”, it is like Walmartization of America’s Main Streets.” = Hire Mom and Pop as greeters. = Kill Main Street.
4) If there are not enough profits, pull up stakes and leave deserted towns behind.
Leave behind a wasteland.
In our paralleled understanding, CHARTER EDUCATION will leave our children, and grandchildren becoming uneducated or killing all parents and grandparents’ TAX PAYERS SURPLUS FUND = AMERICA WILL BE A WASTELAND
YOUR DECISIVE MIND is very important to maintain AMERICA DEMOCRACY in the upcoming ELECTION 2020. I sincerely wish “All the Best” to all of you. May King