| For Immediate Release December 13, 2019 |
CONTACT:
Ori Korin |
| Education, Civil Rights and Community Groups Respond to News of Planned Protest at Democratic Presidential Forum in Pittsburgh |
|
PITTSBURGH—Several leaders of the 11 organizations co-hosting a forum on public education with eight Democratic presidential candidates this weekend—who, combined, represent more than 7 million people, including the Alliance for Educational Justice, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Journey for Justice Alliance, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the Network for Public Education, OnePA, the Opportunity to Learn Action Fund and the Service Employees International Union—issued the following statement:
Alliance for Educational Justice National Director Jonathan Stith said:
“The mandate of black and brown students in the Alliance for Educational Justice is to end the school-to-prison pipeline wherever it rears itself. We stand with those who stand with us against the prisonization and privatization of our schools. Students of color are in a crisis wherever they attend class. Our schools are over-policed and under-resourced, and we have no rights the federal government feels bound to protect. Our fight is for sustainable community schools that don’t need police, where Black and Brown students and their parents are respected and are able to determine the education we deserve.”
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said:
“We are so excited that there are candidates for president who believe in public education and want to engage with the students who go to our public schools, the parents who rely on our public schools, the allies who advocate for our public schools, and the educators who work in our public schools. After all, public schools are the foundation of our democracy. That’s why Saturday’s education forum will be all about engagement—engagement around the issues that matter to all of us. We are united behind a single goal: to engage the candidates in a wide-ranging, important conversation about public education in our country and how we can best meet the needs of the people who work and learn in them.
“As to the announced protest, we are wondering why the groups didn’t simply ask any of the conveners whether they could join in the forum. Many of the organizations involved in the forum work with charter schools, many support them, and some represent educators who work in them. We’ve worked for months with partners to accommodate all inquiries from groups that requested participation in the forum. We’d encourage these groups to talk to candidates about their education platforms and proposals, or to consider holding their own forum, instead of staging a protest at the last minute at other groups’ events.
“Notably—and sadly—what we have discovered is that the group behind this protest is tied directly to a Republican campaign firm with connections to President Trump, whose track record, starting with the appointment of Betsy DeVos, the most anti-public school secretary of education in history, certainly speaks for itself.”
Center for Popular Democracy Director of Education Justice Campaigns Dmitri Holtzman said:
“This forum is an important opportunity for young people and allies to speak directly to presidential candidates about the issues that matter most to them and their futures. Education justice centers on the strengthening and uplifting of public education. That’s why the Youth Mandate for Presidential Candidates—which has been endorsed by over 150-plus youth-led organizations and allies—calls for an end to federal funding for charter schools and a moratorium on charter expansion. We stand firm in this fight and look forward to discussing these issues with presidential candidates at the forum. Any attempts to protest and disrupt this event undermine democratic and civic engagement about the future of public education.”
Journey for Justice Alliance National Director Jitu Brown said:
“We are excited to have Democratic presidential hopefuls speak to the breadth of the education justice movement: parents, educators and students. We know and live through the harm caused by inequities in public education and how the illusion of ‘school choice’ intensifies those inequities. To be clear, we will not be pitted against black and brown parents who support charters. J4J is not anti-charter school as centers of innovation in our communities. We are, however, firmly anti-charter industry which has advocated for school closings, produced mediocre academic results and done harm by destabilizing education in our communities. We don’t have failing schools—as a public we’ve been failed.”
National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen-García said: “All students should have access to a quality public education no matter what ZIP code they were born, the color of their skin, or how much money their parents make. But sadly, for too long, astroturf groups have pushed privatization schemes including charters and vouchers, that divert already scarce money from the public schools that 90 percent of students attend. Despite the fact that these efforts have failed to improve education outcomes for students, Betsy DeVos and her allies continue to support efforts to privatize our public schools.
“Over the past two years, educators, parents and students across the country have come together in the #RedforEd movement to say enough is enough. It’s time to get serious about student success. Our elected leaders need to focus on the proven steps to ensure every student has access to a quality public school education. That means fully funding our public schools so students have the support and wraparound services they need, more one-on-one attention, inviting classrooms, and a well-rounded curriculum.”
Network for Public Education Executive Director Carol Burris said:
“The Network for Public Education Action believes that public schools are the pillar of our democracy and therefore parents have a right to elect those who govern their schools. Our nation’s most vulnerable children deserve public schools that have the resources to meet their needs. Well-resourced schools are undermined when funds go to privatized alternatives. Privatized choice with charters and vouchers is a means by which to distract the public from the need to equitably fund and support our public schools.”
OnePA leader and Pittsburgh parent Angel Gober said:
“When we win for the most vulnerable and underserved children, we win for all children. Charter schools are not the way. As a black mother, what I have seen is other families choosing charter schools only to be disappointed by big promises. The lack of special education supports, the lack of innovative curriculum, and the harsh zero-tolerance policies find children right back in their public schools. We cannot continue to fund two separate education systems, especially one that leaves children with disabilities behind.”
Opportunity to Learn Action Fund Director John Jackson said:
“Today’s presidential candidates’ forum is significant because simply having an election doesn’t make a democracy, and after decades of inequities and injustices not only is our democracy on trial, but, by parents, students and educators engaging the candidates, they are placing justice on the ballot.”
SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry said:
“SEIU believes that every child should have excellent schools in their neighborhoods—no matter what their zip code or what they look like with communities, parents, teachers and classified employees having input and oversight into how our public schools and publicly-funded schools are run. SEIU members send their children to charter schools and they work in charter schools. We cannot deny how, unchecked, some charter school operators put profits over students. We see how lack of public oversight can lead to charter school operators operating for some of our communities, not all of our communities, and drain much needed resources from public schools. We will keep fighting for excellent public schools for all children, no exceptions.”
###
|
| The AFT represents 1.7 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators. |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think it would be very interesting to send some public school students with cameras to talk to and interview the protestors tomorrow. It could be an educational experience in documentary filmmaking.
One of the first questions to ask the protesting parents is what they do. What profession are they in? Are they stay-at-home parents? Are they professionals with college degrees? Do they do any paid work for any charter advocacy organization or charter schools?
I assume the parents would answer honestly. If a parent won’t answer the question “do you do any paid work for any charter advocacy organization or charter school”, then we can assume they do, since there would be no reason for any parent not to say “nope, I’m just a charter school parent”. I’m sure at least some of them have kids in charters and have never received any income connected to charters. I’m sure others would answer honestly that they have been compensated for working as a charter organizer or a canvasser.
I assume no one would lie on camera, as it is likely they would eventually be outed by people who knew them and saw the video.
I think student journalists would find that parents admit to the things that the leaders of the charter movement do not. Do they know any families who left charters? Do they have kids with behavior problems in their charters? Are all their friends in public schools trying every year to get into their charter and stuck on long wait lists? And some open ended questions: Is there anything you wish was different about your charter?
Real parents are willing to say the good and the bad about their schools. I’ve never met a parent even in the most highly coveted private school who says their school is perfect.
Finally, it would be great to ask the charter parents whether they believe their child should have the same rights as public school students, or are they willing to trade those rights to keep their child in the charter?
Reporters should ask the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference if they plan to join Allen in Pittsburgh.
An investigative journalist should report to the public about the source of funding for the state Catholic Conferences and their action networks.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ( “strong advocates for parental school choice from the beginning”) should be asked, “What right do you have to undermine democracy and, to undermine the American nation designed as a country with separation of church and state?”
I want to talk about the orchestrated responses from the charter/”reform” sector to this conference and to some developments, and also about the press coverage. I’ve been following the charter/”reform” sector for nearly 20 years, and it’s always evident when the memo has gone out about a mode of attack or defense — multiple voices saying the same thing, including some that posture as left/progressive and some that are openly right-wing. Twitter seems to be their favored medium — sometimes I’m startled when I get off Twitter and find that actually, the rest of the world isn’t in a lather about whatever-it-is.
So, the sector is complaining vociferously because they say this conference didn’t invite pro-“reform” voices, and because they claim the press coverage (mainly Chalkbeat) didn’t disclose NPE’s funders. Considering the vast number of education events that never invited a single educator (remember NBC’s “Education Nation”?) — and the many astroturf operations covered for years as though they were legit grassroots, this would hardly be an outrage. The press has largely woken up in the past very few years and started pointing out Walton and Gates funding, but for years and years and years they let the astroturf flourish unchallenged.
Also, of course, if NPE’s funders include teachers’ unions — the horror, teachers supporting a pro-public-education organization. It’s just the same-old-same-old teacher-bashing and misogynistic union-bashing (uppity women!) to make that sound sneaky or improper.
In another sphere, not only did the charter/”reform” memo go out about blasting anyone who wondered if pro-charter protesters, or “protesters,” at an Elizabeth Warren event were hired or astroturfing — and ripping the questioners apart as racist — but the press openly and aggressively joined in with that, in the form of Erica Green and Eliza Shapiro at the NY Times.
Well, I call BS. If the charter/”reform” sector has EVEN ONCE orchestrated a fake protest with paid “demonstrators” (or parents working off their required work hours); created an astroturf operation; or passed off paid operatives as sincere advocates — all of which it has done extensively over the years — then it’s completely legit to ask if THIS TIME those protesters are also paid “demonstrators.” In fact, it’s naive and gullible not to ask, and the press would be remiss not to call out the long history and question the legitimacy of this “demonstration” sharply. That’s not racist; it’s just fool-me-twice-shame-on-me common sense.
And I’m shocked at Green’s and Shapiro’s outrageously unprofessional response to those asking the questions that they should have been aggressively asking.
And one more issue, and sorry if this is touchy. NPE did its report on charters that received federal money and then didn’t open. There were a few cases where actually, the charter had opened under another name or some such. I’ve done plenty of research of my own on charters, and that kind of thing — whether a charter with a different name was actually the same charter — is practically impossible to pin down. (It even is with public schools.) Now the “reform” voices are howling that the study is discredited, abetted by Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat, who did some checking on the schools. Well, I call BS on that too. Research reports have errors all the time — that’s the nature of research — and the proper thing to do is correct the errors. It doesn’t discredit the findings of the study, but the memo went out to unjustifiably claim that it does. Don’t be cowed by their BS.
You will see Carol Burris’ response posted here at 7 am tomorrow to the choice advocates who say there are errors. There are a few, but not many, and wherever anyone points out an error, it will be promptly corrected. Easy to do.
NPE is not Union-funded. Sometimes unions offer scholarships for their members to attend our annual conference. No problem. Unions are not a “special interest group.” They represent teachers, and we are happy to work with them towards shared goals.
People who are bought and paid for by the Waltons and other rightwing foundations assume everyone else is bought too. We are not. I am not.
We are the Resistance and we are winning.
“I’m shocked at Green’s and Shapiro’s outrageously unprofessional response to those asking the questions that they should have been aggressively asking.”
Me, too. Although I found that later, in twitter exchanges with public school parents who were African-American, Green seemed to be listening to them and considering their POV.
On the other hand, I did not notice Eliza Shapiro doing anything but asserting her own superiority. Most shocking was Shapiro’s writing that her July article about charters was an example of her bravely standing up to the pro charter forces! That article that she believes was critical of charters consisted of a dozen rabidly pro-charter folks who all made their living in the ed reform industry “acknowledging” a few issues with charters as part of describing the wonderful changes they had made to make their charters even better. That article had a single quote from a random Manhattan politician who supported public schools as “balance”. Shapiro insisted that article in which only charter supporters were interviewed was an example of her being very critical of charters! Shapiro’s over the top self-righteousness was shocking, and it is clear that she has no idea that there are tens of thousands of African-American students in NYC public school who are doing well. Shapiro reports stories that imply those students do not exist, and NYC public schools have only poor struggling students who are abject failures whose parents are desperate for charters.
“Now the “reform” voices are howling that the study is discredited, abetted by Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat, who did some checking on the schools.”
Chalkbeat reporters always accept studies promoted by charter supporters at face value and never question any conclusions.
I find it odd that Matt Barnum won’t do a deep dive into studies promoted by charters that never include attrition rates, but he will do a deep dive into whether this study might have misidentified a charter school that opened.
The very first thing that any decent science reporter does when handed a study promoting a new treatment is to look at the control group that was studied to make sure that the results were not manipulated. And the very first thing every legitimate treatment effect study includes is attrition rates. It is ground zero because without knowing if subjects who don’t respond to the treatment are left out of the study, the results are worthless.
Chalkbeat reporters regularly accept without question charter studies that hide what attrition rates are. They would never get away with this with science reporters, who understand how to ask questions and understand that the more gobbledygook that a study contains, the more likely it is that it is worthless. A science reporter who saw a study that devoted pages and pages of data that purported to measure “additional days of learning” while hiding the most important data needed to evaluate whether the data was manipulated — the size of the control group and how many students left that original control group — would ask questions.
Apparently, education writers only feel the need to ask questions of studies that aren’t promoted by the charter industry. It’s like science writers only questioning the results of studies done by universities who get no pharmaceutical dollars while accepting without question studies done by pharmaceutical industry itself.
There is nothing wrong with Matt Barnum questioning an NPE study. But there is something very wrong if he has never once questioned why charter studies hide attrition rates in every study to manipulate results.
Using Barnum’s findings to “discredit” the entire study and the NPE reminds me of the right wingers who used Obama’s comment “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” to discredit Obama and the entire Affordable Care Act. The right wing mischaracterized that as a blatant lie, and used the false equivalency that Obama “lies” just like Trump.
Good reporters whose goal is to illuminate the issue would want to explain the complexities of why Obama believed at the time he was saying something true and explain that while it is not true, the reasons it was not true actually support the need for the Affordable Care Act. (i.e., people were paying for insurance policies they “liked” because they were cheap but they didn’t actually cover any treatment if they had a serious illness!) Lazy reporters or reporters pushing the right wing agenda simply reported Obama’s words as a blatant “lie” justify repealing the ACA.
I hope Matt Barnum isn’t the second kind of reporter. The kind who would mischaracterize Obama’s words as a huge lie that proves that the Affordable Care Act needs to be ended. I hope he has enough pride to act like science reporters do when handed a charter supported study filled with meaningless gobbledygook that leaves out the most important information. Does he?
“I assume the parents would answer honestly.”
Can’t resist!
“https://youtu.be/U5tgrssDn1w?t=3”
Are you going to this in Pittsburgh or are you just watching on television?
Sent from my iPad
>
Watching on computer… For some reason neither MSNBC nor CSPAN rates public ed high enough as a national issue to put this program on TV…
more and more “news” outlets” now controlled by big money and therefore steered carefully clear of ed. issues
Great set of statements.
For those who like facts instead of provocative ed-reform memes, check out this recent Valerie Strauss “Answer Sheet” post, which shows an example of how Warren’s plan to quadruple Title I funds & double IDEA’s would, e.g., bring in ANNUALLY to MESA [Brooklyn charter] 96% of the one-time start-up funds they received from BDeVos’ slush fund [CSP]. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/11/22/um-thats-not-what-warren-actually-said-about-charter-schools/
One may argue whether Warren or Sanders, or other Dem candidates promising multiplying Title I/ IDEA funds can pass legislation for such appropriations. But they’re appealing to majority-voter grasp that trickle-up, rich-poor-gap-exacerbating laws on the books pump up the corp & indiv 1% [& the military budget] via squeezing public goods– not just public ed, but also healthcare, infrastructure, environment, the arts, etc ad nauseum– to the lowest common denominator, already have heading for banana-republic territory.
Clearly, even a fraction of the funding priority shifts promised by many of our Dem prez candidates would leave CSP et al weak-kneed band-aid ed-reform agendas high & dry. Hence, the death-rattle agita by charter activists re: tomorrow’s Public Education Forum. That govt might fund pubschs adequately is anathema to them.
I will not subscribe to the Washington Post. I have read their terms of service and they are pure vapor speak. I have great respect for the work of Valerie Strauss, but the owners of the Post think they are entitled to automatic renewals of any subscription I may have, and with no notification to me once they have my credit card number. Paper editions may be at the library, but none can be bought from any source that I can easily access, not even my independent bookstore where the NYTimes is available.
Also, thank you Arthur Goldstein for your photo of the sinkhole and apt description of the utility of the charter protestors.
Thanks for the word to the wise, Laura. This was my first year with them [1/2-price subscription, just renewed at ½-price]. So far they have behaved appropriately – & I use PayPal, so they can’t renew by themselves – but I will keep my eyes open. NYT by contrast has a professional & user-friendly circulation dept (even talk to you on phone!). We get Sat&Sun pprs delivered, which includes full online access by omg they are so expensive…
I’m here in Pittsburgh, and I have a detailed message for the protestors, who I’d argue serve as little constructive purpose as the huge sinkhole in front of my hotel. http://nyceducator.com/2019/12/charter-supporters-to-protest-us-in.html