Johann Neem is a historian of education. He understands the central importance of public education in our democracy.
He wrote this thoughtful, important commentary about the task ahead for the Biden presidency:
Restoring the Democratic Promise of Public Schools: An Integration Agenda for the Biden Administration– Guest Blog Post by Johann N. Neem
The last four years have taught us just how fractured America is. After a decisive but divisive election, President-elect Joseph Biden now begins the most difficult work ever: trying to weave back together a social fabric that has, after years of neglect, come unraveled. Biden has promised “to restore the soul of America.” At the heart of his vision must be a reinvigorated and renewed commitment to the democratic purposes of public education.
To restore the soul of America, we need to restore the soul of our schools. This means being committed to public schools as sites of integration, where students learn in common, equally, in the same classrooms. This means rejecting the privatization agenda of choice and vouchers, where the logic of the market instead of the commons dominates. It means remembering that public schools are not just serving individuals or families, as our current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos argues, but all of us. It means finding real solutions to the ways in which residential segregation divides us by race and family wealth. Our public schools today reflect our divided soul, with whiter and richer Americans segregating themselves into exclusive neighborhoods with their own schools. All Americans must go to school together.
The founders of America’s public schools in the nineteenth century considered their integrative function essential. They imagined schools where native-born and immigrant, rich and poor, would learn to live with and for each other. The new state of Michigan’s first superintendent of public schools John Pierce celebrated public schools where “all classes are blended together; the rich mingle with the poor … and mutual attachments are formed.”
Our public schools’ founders shared the racism of their time. America’s public schools were segregated both de facto and by law. Black Americans struggled to achieve integrated schools in which all Americans would be treated equally. Sixty years after six-year-old Ruby Bridges courageously entered New Orleans’ William Frantz Elementary School, that struggle continues. President-elect Biden must work for schools that integrate us across our ethnic, racial, religious, and economic divisions. We must learn that we are not enemies, but Americans.
Learning to see each other as Americans also requires a curriculum that integrates rather than divides. The culture wars have torn us apart and undermined our faith in common institutions. Nowhere have the culture wars been more divisive than over the humanities curriculum, and history in particular. We need to move beyond multiculturalism to telling stories about ourselves that bring us together. But to do that, we also need to avoid moving backward to stories that emphasized the experience of one group of Americans—white men—and ignored or erased the experiences of others.
As an immigrant myself, I know how powerful and important public schools can be when they bring diverse people together and welcome them into the nation. By inviting me into these traditions, Americans demonstrated that, despite my foreign origins and brown skin, I was welcome here. This openness was considered a hallmark of American society. We considered ourselves a nation of immigrants, a place where people from around the world could start new lives in a new country.
While the federal government does not determine curriculum for local school districts, the Biden Administration can use its bully pulpit to do the opposite of what Trump did with his. Under Donald Trump, education was weaponized to tear us apart. In response, the Biden Administration should encourage educators to embrace cultural integration rather than division.
A curriculum that integrates across cultural and racial lines is going to be politically challenging. Today, many on the right are suspicious of such efforts. Fed on right-wing media, they respond with anger, especially when riled up by the likes of Trump, who argued, in his speech celebrating American independence at Mount Rushmore, that he and his supporters “will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them.” He reiterated these words at the first ever “White House Conference on American History.” “Whether it is the mob on the street, or the cancel culture in the boardroom,” the President proclaimed, “the goal is the same… to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage, and their very way of life.”
The Biden Administration will also face resistance from the other side. Today, many on the left worry that to offer a common curriculum is inherently racist or ethnically biased because it privileges some Americans’ stories at the expense of others. Instead, they advocate culturally specific curricula for students based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds. Such an approach also divides rather than unites; it privatizes our history and culture. In contrast, an integration agenda emphasizes the public schools’ democratic aspiration to bring all students into the nation’s common life. Every student deserves to be introduced to American literature and history, as well as such subjects as math, science, and civics. Few Americans get this at home, whether they be native or foreign born. An integrative approach respects students’ diverse backgrounds while preparing all young people to be fluent, competent, and empowered citizens.
The debate between left and right has played out, in negative ways, over the merits of the New York Times’ 1619 Project. The conversation has become, like our culture itself, artificially divided. On one side, Republican Senator Tom Cotton introduced a bill to prohibit federal funds from being used to teach the 1619 Project. But the left responds, too often, in ways that make finding common ground harder. Thus, Illinois state senator LaShawn K. Ford, as if to prove Trump right, urged that public schools stop teaching all history until the curriculum can be revised to be less racist. As long as we think of our history as “us” versus “them,” rather than a complex story we all share, we will not heal America’s divided heart.
There is no conflict between an integration agenda and telling the truth about the past, unless we imagine that the past has only one truth to tell. For example, the national story means both celebrating our founding fathers for creating a democratic republic and coming to terms with their racism and support for slavery. They were—and we are—imperfect, but the goal of our country, as the Constitution proclaims, is to become “more perfect.”
Testifying before Congress in June 2019 during hearings about reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates argued, “we are American citizens, and thus bound to a collective enterprise that extends beyond our individual and personal reach.” For us to see ourselves as a collective enterprise will require, first, rejecting the privatization agenda of choice and vouchers. The next step is a positive commitment to bridge the boundaries dividing us, whether they be racist and economically exclusive school district boundaries, or curricular boundaries that reinforce our differences. White Americans need to see themselves in the experiences of those with darker skin, and those of us with darker skin must be allowed to consider the history and culture of white Americans ours as well. Our failings and our successes, our good and our bad, our flaws and our promise, and our traditions, belong to all of us. We are all Americans.
The public schools are public. Their mission is to forge a public. They should help young people to move beyond their pre-existing identities to see themselves as part of the nation. In a country so divided that we no longer consider each other fellow citizens, reviving the democratic mission of public schools has never been more essential.
Johann Neem is author of Democracy’s Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America. He explores his own personal experiences as an immigrant growing up during the culture wars in his essay, “Unbecoming American.” Neem teaches history at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington.
Must the development/support for a vibrant system of public education be based on the return to/improvement of a system of schooling? The author seems to accept/take for granted that this system will be based on classrooms, fixed curricula – i.e., trying to do what some consider a bad system better.
“….trying to do what some consider a bad system better.” Who are the “some” who consider our public school system to be bad? I think we have a good public school system that, overall and on average, is doing a good job educating the kids. Is it perfect? Of course not, there is always room for improvement. Our system doesn’t need major surgery, it doesn’t need drastic amputations of its functionality, such as closing 50 schools in one day, or firing all the teachers and staff as happened in New Orleans.
“overall and on average” perhaps, but we are not doing a good job of educating students of color or those from low income families in our urban schools. Since the populations of POC are increasing, the issue has to be addressed. Disaggregation of data is important.
Predominantly white teachers trying to take choice away from predominantly black parents is not appropriate, nor should integration be a more important goal than student outcomes (and let’s not go down the test score rat hole; I’m talking about lifetime outcomes).
It’s clear why traditional public schools oppose choice and clear why people who distinguish between traditional and charter public schools (and support the former while denigrating the latter without regard to school quality) are unwilling to look at charter success with POC and low-SES students in our cities. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s about the students’ best interests or that “integration” is not being used as a rationalization for opposing empowering black parents who, if given choice are seen as a threat to the adults who benefit from TPS.
Click to access Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf
John-
“Let’s not pretend”, Slaying Goliath exposes the charter school scam. Credo’s operation was reluctant to identify its funders but, it finally was disclosed- the Waltons.
The goal is to suck Main Street dry to benefit Wall Street.
Don’t defend Reed Hastings for attempting to eliminate democratically elected local school boards because what he wants to do is anti-democracy and anti-common goods.
Does the husband of Macke, Hanushek, list his grants on his 37 page resume? Why didn’t Brown’s Friedman disclose he was one of Gates’ Impatient Optimists in the promotion for his dog and pony show with Hanushek, funded by Gates for Ohio mayors?
Please, Linda, don’t trot out the garbage about “wall street” profiting from charters. If you’re going to say that, provide some data. Most charter are not-for-profits, most “wall street” people involved with charters are philanthropists who donate money, and charter opponents actually cause more profit to be made off charter schools by making it harder for them to borrow money for construction.
And if we’re going to talk about doing right by students, elected school boards hardly have a good track record on improving school outcomes.
Let’s just say that Wall Street has heavily invested in charters because they like to play games with other people’s lives and they disdain democracy. How else to explain the millions they pour into local school board races in cities and states where they don’t live?
Assuming you meant “Wall Street”, they spend money on races for the same reason teacher’s union members who don’t live in the district do; to influence the outcome. Please explain to me how someone like Reed Hastings or Whitney Tilson makes money in charters. I only see the supporting the aspect of public education that they believe in.
Reed Hastings is imposing his will on hapless citizens across the nation. He’s a selfish billiiinaire who hates democracy.
No, he’s facilitating low income parents to choose schools in the same manner suburban parents do. In almost all cases, students are in charters 100% ecause that’s where their parents want them to be. Can you say the same for TPS?
Also, you still haven’t said what he gets out of it besides supporting school choice for low SES families.
Reed Hastings gets many things from supporting privatization of public money.
A sense of power.
The pleasure of telling others how to live.
A sense of omnipotence.
A small way to undermine democracy, thus making plutocrats like him even more powerful.
Lowering his taxes by shrinking the Public sector.
Ignoring evidence that most charters are worse than most public schools.
John says:
“we are not doing a good job of educating students of color or those from low income families in our urban schools.”
I would argue that charter schools that dump students of color and those from low income families because those charters would rather make false claims of success that directly harm the schools that those students dumped attend are not doing a good job.
Newflash; If you are ONLY helping the students whose performance is rewarding to you, then you are not doing a very good job.
Here is an example:
Sending off COVID patients that don’t get better quickly to a different hospital while you demand people generously reward your hospital because your hospital is so successful with the mildest COVID cases does not mean that you are “doing a good job of treating COVID cases”.
It means that you are a self-interested and greedy person who doesn’t care about any patient with COVID who isn’t financially rewarding to you personally.
It is the height of hypocrisy for a hospital to be financially rewarded because it simply dumps all the COVID-19 patients who don’t get well quickly. And it beyond evil for such a hospital to lobby to HURT the hospitals that are actually treating the patients with the most severe cases of COVID-19 and demand that their funding be cut (and given to them) because “they aren’t successful at treating COVID-19 like our hospital”.
John says:
“we are not doing a good job of educating students of color or those from low income families in our urban schools.”
Which hospital does a better job? The ones that dump the sickest patients if they don’t get healthy quickly, or the ones that try their best to heal them even if they fail?
Which school does a better job? The ones that dump the most at-risk students if they struggle, or the ones that try their best to educate those students even if they fail?
Sadly, we have public policy where schools are rewarded as “good” for dumping the most struggling students. And where schools are punished as “bad” for NOT dumping them! For working hard to educate those students.
And that kind of public policy is failing students. But it is greatly rewarding charter school operators.
John usually chimes in to defend Eva Moskowitz and the high test scores of success Academy. Eva closed her charter chain until
At least late March 2021.
There’s good and bad in all human groups, good and bad in all professions and good and bad in all types of schools. 😐
I noticed that John mentioned that billionaire supporters (on and off Wall Street) of charters “donate” money to charters, just like they “donate” money to Trump and the Republicans. It’s all just “philanthropic” when they “donate” to people who do what they want — tell lies that cause great harm to children in public schools.
Let’s agree that anyone who donates billions to empower Trump and his Republican cronies who have no interest in the truth if they can profit more from a lie surely recognize kindred spirits in the charter folks who are happy to tell a lie if that gets them what they want.
John is absolutely right to defend the billionaire Trump supporters who underwrite the charter movement because they are kindred spirits whose ethical and moral values are the same.
John will never say anything bad about Eva Moskowitz because he knows that his funders wouldn’t like it, and pleasing his funders trumps caring about kids always.
When your funders’ interests are more important than the interests of children, you qualify to run a charter.
In fact, that’s why John reminds me so much of the Republicans in the Senate (other than Mitt Romney). They always put their own careers ahead of doing what is right. They would never ever criticize Trump, just like John would never criticize Eva Moskowitz. Self-interest always trumps telling the truth. And not even what happens to kids matters when their own self-interest is at stake.
Reimagine all people, even John, caring about the vast majority of students of color who depend on public education instead of berating their abilities so that he can suck money out of their schools with his charter, with charters on the whole having worse “outcomes” (even life and not test score outcomes; even with harsh discipline, cherry-picking, and attrition) worse “outcomes” than public schools with better supported teachers. Reimagine John reading literature from the beginnings of education and coming to understand its true purpose. Reimagine John.
LeftCoastTeacher,
Everything you just stated is a lie. Let’s have a discussion in the real world about real kids with true information. If you can’t or won’t, please at least lay off the personal attacks. Be less Trump-like, please.
John
Your arguments are disingenuous or you are very poorly informed.
Amazon made no “profit” during its first 9 yrs. of operation. That didn’t mean Bezos wasn’t accumulating wealth from the business. Bill Gates is the poster boy for vulture and disaster “philanthropy”- it’s about control, tax avoidance, and opportunity for long-term financial gain. (Bridge International Academies’ business plan called for a 20% ROI.)
Success Academies’ patrons from Wall Street became rich on the backs of workers educated in the public school system. The rich from Wall Street, educated in private schools, manage to drive down GDP by 2%. Workers overcome that obstacle and go on to build the economy.
Linda, you’re equivocating. Explain to me how philanthropists who support charter schools make money off them. It’s simply a lie. That you disagree with the causes they support doesn’t mean they’re doing it for nefarious reasons. They believe in public education, just not public education with the constraints that you choose to put on it (eg only as controlled by elected school boards and only where the adults are union-represented).
Haven’t we all had enough “fake news” these days?
John,
Explain to us how cherry picking the profitable children to teach while lobbying and supporting underfunded public schools for the others is a good thing, again?
Every argument you make could be used to support vouchers, too. So do you support vouchers? I assume you do given that you want parents to have a “choice”.
John wants to “empower” parents, and giving them a voucher does just that.
John believes in having taxpayer-funded education for schools that are not controlled by elected school boards. Vouchers are taxpayer-funded education for schools not controlled by elected school boards. John wants to “empower” parents not to have to choose a school where the only adults are union represented and in private schools, adults aren’t union represented.
John clearly supports vouchers, because every argument he makes to convince us how charters are so important applies to vouchers, too.
There is a reason that those billionaires who John keeps praising for their generosity in funding the lavish lifestyles of charter operators also support politicians who vote for vouchers! And those reasons are exactly the ones that John presented here to justify charters.
Vouchers programs generally don’t work because minority and low income students generally don’t do well when dropped into affluent schools. Charters have shown their ability to educate these students, so no, I don’t support thing you say I must.
John, kids with vouchers are not “dropped into affluent schools.” Affluent schools don’t accept a voucher worth $5,000. They are dropped into low-quality religious schools, with unaccredited teachers. Many soon drop back into their public schools, where they have rights and a qualified teacher.
John, you are a person who attacks public school teachers. I am a public school teacher. It’s personal.
LCT, you are a person who attacks my life’s volunteer work unsupported information, yet I can be civil with you and not question your motives.
John, LCT is a career teacher in the classroom every day. You are a Olin teen who supports the privatizers propaganda that demeans teachers, public schools, and unions. For a very long time, you have posted here in defense of the billionaire fundedSuccessAcademy. You had nothing to say when a black teacher at SA started a petition against Eva and nothing to say when the communications director of SA resigned because of the racist practices she saw. You can always be relied on to defend SA and to say there is no attrition despite the data. Take a break.
Diane, if you look back, I have said next to nothing about SA just as I said nothing about them now. Nypsp will respond to any post with a rant about SA regardless of what the post said.
I support all public schools and all teachers. I went to public schools and my kids go to public schools. I just include public charter schools and public charter school teachers and most of you don’t. Teacher aren’t important to you unless they are union teachers and schools and the families whose children attend them aren’t important to you if they aren’t run by an elected school board and employ union teachers. You have a litmus test for the type of public education and educators you support. I don’t.
LeftCoastTeacher,
It is also personal for charter promoters who profit handsomely from pushing only what is acceptable to billionaires like Reed Hastings.
That’s why you won’t hear John acknowledging that Eva Moskowitz is less than perfect. He can’t criticize her and still have the charter billionaires support him.
It’s like trying to argue with a pro-Trump troll. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, but a pro-Trump troll can’t acknowledge it. It is personal to them in that those trolls would not have their jobs if they did.
Here’s another, John, since you’re calling everyone here a liar: You’re a liar. Your pants are on fire. I’m sticking my tongue out at you right now. And I’m not inviting you to my birthday party. Nah nah nah nah nah nah.
You can cease and desist with the inappropriately strong, negative emotional responses based on perceived insults — while you insult public school teachers and students.
Yes, true, NYCpsp, thank you. It’s what John always does, he knocks your ice cream cone out of your hand and calls you a bully if tell him to leave you alone.
LCT: “he knocks your ice cream cone out of your hand and calls you a bully if tell him to leave you alone.”
That is a great description of the kind of debate that happens.
It won’t surprise me if John is allowed to post something like “Eva Moskowitz is less than perfect” (being very careful not to mention any specific things), just as he is allowed to make allusions to good and bad public and charter schools without actually talking about or naming “bad” charters like those who have documented instances of demonizing children and inviting them to leave when those children don’t give them the bragging rights that are necessary to please those whose donations underwrite them.
But I did find it rather scary that John said “elected school boards hardly have a good track record on improving school outcomes.”
Elected school boards, like democracy, are the worst forms of oversight of public schools, except for all the others.
I suspect John would argue that rule by billionaire-approved leaders (just like he is!) is much better than democracy.
NYCPSP, well said. Elected school boards have a “less than perfect” record. So why have them when we can turn schools over to entrepreneurs, profiteers, scam artists? Spun the wheel. Roll the dice.
John-
Ohio’s ECOT, the travesty delivered by the state’s GOP and, billionaire-funded Fordham.
John says:
“Vouchers programs generally don’t work because minority and low income students generally don’t do well when dropped into affluent schools. Charters have shown their ability to educate these students..”
Say what??? What kind of hypocrite are you?
Now John is making the racist innuendo that “minority and low income students” are very likely to fail if they were given vouchers to attend well-funded small class size private schools! Presumably John doesn’t believe “white and high income students” would also be failures if they are in well-funded small class size private schools, since the billionaire funders he admires often send their children to those.
John better hurry up and post that white students also do poorly in well-funded and low class size private schools, because otherwise it is clear that he has some very racist views about how African American students need to be kept out of those private schools where white students thrive.
John reveals what the pro-charter folks and their billionaire funders really believe about “minority and low income students” — they don’t deserve the kind of private schools that white students get because they would be failures if they were in such schools, unlike white students.
I’m actually shocked that John said that. But clearly I hit a nerve when I pointed out that everything John says to promote charters can be used to promote vouchers, too. It’s a shame John had to post something so blatantly racist to try to justify his hypocrisy. John would have been better off just admitting that the pro-voucher crowd is right, rather than to use racist innuendo to justify his hypocrisy.
I’m not fundamentally against vouchers as I think low income parents should have the same choices that high income parents do, but I don’t view them as a solution because they don’t show good outcomes for students.
If you support something based on data and outcomes for students, there is a difference between the two. If you make decisions based on the best interests of those employed by traditional public schools, you see no difference since either one gives families the ability to leave traditional public schools that you are so enamored with for other schools that they think are better for their children.
John,
Vouchers do not give poor parents the same choices as rich parents. Rich parents who send their children to private schools spend $30,000-50,000 per year. Vouchers are typically $4,000-$7,000. Elite private schools don’t give away their slots to poor children with a voucher.
John,
First you made what was an incredibly racist comment “Vouchers programs generally don’t work because minority and low income students generally don’t do well when dropped into affluent schools.”
Now you double down on that racism by saying you actually are pro-voucher if they “showed good outcomes” but you still give that racist view that “minority and low income students” don’t show good outcomes if they were to attend affluent schools! And you claim there is data to show that children who attend affluent schools who are minority or low-income just can’t hack it the way they thrive when they are in no-excuses urban charters where they are harshly disciplined and treated in the manner that you clearly believe that “minority and low income students” must have to thrive.
There is a big problem in your certainty that the academically strong “minority and low income students” who survive in no-excuses charters that weed out the academically weak and keep the academically strong would be utter failures in affluent schools. It is quite racist. If those students are academically strong enough and have the enormous parental support required to remain in no-excuses charters, maybe you can put aside your racist beliefs and accept that they are exactly the kind of motivated students who would do well in a well-funded school for affluent kids.
I’m trying to imagine Eva Moskowitz telling the parents of all of the students who haven’t been left back or weeded out and are doing well in her charter that their kids are very likely to be utter failures at an affluent private school that was offering them a full scholarship, and John agrees!
What shocks me is that you can’t accept that the students who remain in those urban charters are actually more likely to do well in an affluent school than some random white middle class student.
John, is the reason you have such a low opinion of “minority and low income students” because they are “minority” or because they are “low income”?
I brought up Eva Moskowitz – who has been criticized for her treatment of African American students – to see if you had the integrity to criticize her, too. You didn’t. Silence is complicity. You have no more integrity than the Senate Republicans who are terrified of saying anything critical of Trump even when he lies and says he won the election in a landslide. Eva Moskowitz can release the private records of a child to demonize him, she can run elementary schools with virtually no white students where the out of school suspension rates in the very lowest grades are nearly 20%, she can have a graduating class that is half the size of the 9th grade class that entered 4 years earlier, and John and the rest of the ed reformers won’t say a word.
At least Robert Pondiscio, who wrote a book on Success Academy, recognizes that those kinds of urban charters teach exactly the kinds of kids who would thrive at an “affluent” school where you are so absolutely certain they would fail. He calls them strivers. Those students do well in charters. They do well in public schools. They do well in affluent private schools. John, you should stop promoting some racist idea that those students must have charters to succeed.
The question is what to do with all the students your charters fail to teach. And while you seem to be fine with them rotting away in underfunded public school as long as no charter has to teach them, public schools should be commended and given the resources they need to teach them.
Maybe they would get that if you stopped pushing your false racist narrative that the “minority and low income” students who are most likely to thrive in charters would be failures in affluent private schools. On the contrary, they are the ones who would do well, as they also do at public schools.
This post explains a lot of what I feel about public education. As an ESL teacher for many years in a integrated public school district, I saw first hand the power of integration on poor minority ELLs.. Many of the students that spoke no English when they arrived went on to college and eventually middle class jobs. Through the collective efforts of teachers that believed that all students deserve reach their potential, we were able be part of a transformation that would enable many young people to pursue their hopes and dreams. All the teachers in the district were invited to the high school graduations because we all took part in helping students reach this milestone. My poor students introduced me to their white friends. My former students were active in athletics, the arts and academics in the high school. It was an opportunity for all teachers to see how far their former students had come. For me it was an affirmation of the power of integration in a diverse public system.
Our students learned balanced American history. They did not learn to “hate America.” They learned that America is at its best when its people work and learn together and at its worst when people divide and discriminate. They learned that America is a great nation despite its missteps. Most of my black and brown students experienced both American at its worst and at its best. History and civics must reflect reality, not idealization.
Yes! This is a wonderful piece by Neem. I was lucky enough to grow up in Flint, Michigan, and benefit from Pierce’s philosophy of integration. I was a white boy from Appalachia, and I went to school with sons and daughters of Blacks from the South, with accents I barely understood–but loved, as well as Blacks from Detroit, whose families had been North for generations. I also schooled with kids whose parents escaped Hungary, Poland, etc. (This was right after WWII). And some of my best friends were from Mexico–Aztecs, Mayans, and Spanish oriented. I loved all my friends (though we literally fought in the hallways and on the playground–but that’s what kids do). Luckily I had a mom who said, when as a small boy I asked about Black people’s color: “They’re just like us.” My dark-skinned friends were welcomed at our home by my wise, loving parents.
Later, as a student teacher at Ohio State, I had the privilege of integrating an all-black junior high school, by being the only white in the building. Then, years later, as Exec. Dir. of the Columbus Education Association, I had the greater privilege of helping integrate the staff and students of the Columbus school district. It wasn’t easy or entirely successful, but it had to be done. It would have been so much better for all if all communities had followed Pierce’s advice.
One of my generous Black students said to me, many years later, “You taught us how to think.” I hope that’s true. That is education’s ultimate mission. As a culture, that should be our main educational goal, teaching kids to think, and helping them find the tools.
I grew up in Philly in integrated schools as well. It never really dawned on me that anything should be different from what I had experienced. Integration was the norm. In my own teaching experience where I was often the only white person in the room, I did my best to prepare all my students for the future. My poor ELLs benefited from attending a diverse, integrated schools that were well funded. More affluent white students got to know and appreciate others from different backgrounds. We need more inclusive and not exclusive education in our fragmented society. Charters and vouchers fragment and divide as they cherry pick students. It is the opposite of what is needed today.
I don’t think the promise of public education was meant to include this sort of obscene, unjust, uncivil and disgusting practice by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Department:
https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/school-data/
Many, many questions. Can we say FERPA?
This is an example of police department overreach. Who are they to decide what students have the potential to be criminals? It sounds like something from the movie ‘Minority Report.’
“They” the sheriff’s department has no legal nor ethical responsibilities to attempt to decide such things.
incredible that this would be project of a sheriff dept. Somebody has too much time on their hands? Who knows this is a way that people are spending money without a press that investigates
Whether it is the mob on the street, or the cancel culture in the boardroom, the goal is the same… to bully Americans into abandoning their values, their heritage, and their very way of life.”
It is so, so, so, so obvious when Trump of the Toddler English is reading (to the extent that he can read) a speech written for him by Propaganda Minister Stephen “Goebbels” Miller.
Trump is no more capable of being this articulate on his own than I am of giving birth.
The next Trump will be. And he or she will actually believe in the nationalism and perhaps in the fundamentalist Christianity that Trump simply saw as a branding opportunity. And he or she will have an ideological racism and fascism, not the garden-variety, unexamined racist and fascist impulses that motivate Trump (and some of his henchmen, like Miller). And he or she will inherit the House that Trump Built and start out with almost half the electorate.
Yikes. Correction. I meant to say, “And he or she will have an ideological racism and fascism, like Miller or Barr, not just the garden-variety, unexamined racist and fascist knee-jerk impulses that motivate Trump.
you have given birth to an idea or two.
Awwww. You are kind, Roy. How are you feeling? Recovered?
If we want to heal this nation, the best way would be to hire some historian like this author, who holds his opinions based on real facts and recognizes the aspects of unity necessary to move a nation forward.
Oh yes. Great choice!
The logic of the market dominates traditional public schools, the real estate market. Buy (or rent) into a catchment area, attend the school. Buy (or rent) into a school district, get access to the resources there. If you can not afford it, too bad.
Again, I suggest folks here listen to the Pro-Publica/This American Life two part episode “The Problem We All Live With” reported by Nikole Hanna-Jones. It can be found here: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one
Perhaps Americans would have more faith in Public higher education if it weren’t for the incompetence and corruption they see – both in the school systems and the officials charged with overseeing those systems?
I have 1st hand experience of both as a student in the SUNY (State Uni of NY) system where I enrolled to gain training in medical skills to become a Radiologic Technician.
My college officials enrolled FAR more freshman than the could provide ‘seats’ in the mandatory ‘clinical classes’ – leaving approx 75% of those students ‘waiting’ for a year or more (some 3 years) to complete that OJT/internships at local healthcare facilities.
Logically, when you have 100 students qualified to graduate and seats for only 25 – 75 students are left ‘waiting’ even though the college terms these students as ‘alternates’ and not on any ‘waiting list’.
To justify continuing charging tuition these students are often transferred into other programs – including Phys-Ed where there is no limit on class size. You can see these student jogging enmasse on any given day because they’re denied the classes needed to graduate.
While any reasonable person would simply limit enrollment to the same number of students as they have ‘seats’ – these colleges continue to recruit new enrollees to maintain the level of funding they receive through Student Aid – both private and government.
Students who can ‘POOP’ (Pay Out Of Pocket’) – such as children of wealthy Ivy League donors – simply continue to pay tuition as they wait for that ‘seat’ in their final classes. People who NEED financial aid, however, must maintain enrollment as part-time students to forestall beginning repayment of their existing loans. The Feds won’t continue funding if they’re not enrolled in SOME course but with college admins denying them access to the remaining classes in their original ‘program of study’ – they either switch programs or must leave school.
**THIS scheme takes large numbers of Health Studies students OUT of their medical studies and diverts them into ‘fluff’ classes (traditionally termed ‘electives’) which they remain in by CLAIMING their INTENT to graduate from that new ‘alternate’ major. That’s why (officially) there may be a great number of students enrolled as Physical Education or other students such those diverted into ‘media studies’, Art and Massage Therapy – whichever course(s) can accommodate the ‘spillover’ from the more popular courses (such as Healthcare) AND the influx of new enrollees recruited each year.
At some point in the future after a given student has been ‘parked’ in the fluff classes – college officials may choose to allow him/her back into their originally desired academic program and switches him/her back. THIS is where the criminal conspiracy lies.
[** NOTE: This temporary diversion of students and their continued ‘claims for payment’ (FAFSA loan/grant applications) to the USDOE ‘Student Aid’ program constitute a felony crime under the same statute as cited when government contractors are convicted for fraud – the federal ‘False Claims Act’ ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 ).]
Other legal statutes are also involved when college officials ‘advise’ students to participate in this federal financial fraud – such as ‘Embezzlement of Public Funds’, ‘Coercion’, ‘Mail Fraud’ and ‘Wire Fraud’. Most students are ignorant of the statutes – having no prior experience in their application or enforcement. Adults such as myself, however, are more likely to know “This ain’t right” and refuse to collaborate.
Due to my experience as an R&D Tech for NASA on the Hubble Space Telescope project (testing the guidance and camera modules AND the large ‘Primary Mirror’) nd my DOD/NSA security clearance – I was VERY familiar with the statutes and refused to collaborate – informing college admins of their crimes. Within a day I received a letter from the college stating my academic record had been ‘re-evaluated’ from 3.85cqpa to less than 2.0 and having done this they decided to enforce the federal ‘SAP’ statute ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.34 ) even though they refused to obey or enforce the other legal statutes which they ignore in their quest for more funding.
As if this weren’t bad enough – filing criminal complaints with all manner of state and federal authorities – including elected officials and the FBI – I found absolutely no interest in pursuing civil or criminal charges – not even on the part of the US Postal Inspectors!
Due to their obvious and complete insubordination (refusal to perform their legal duties) by state AND federal employees in the Departments of Education AND posts I read on several internet forums dedicated to discussing education and financial aid in public colleges – I must presume this illegal scheme is perpetrated nation-wide.
MY solution in such cases was to alter the federal statutes so students need not continue paying tuition (and fees) when they are denied the classes required for graduation – just as buyers of services are not required to continue paying when workmen refuse to work or comply with an agreed contract to provide services to the buyer.
In this ‘conspiracy’ the public colleges falsey use the federal statutes to ‘extort’ funds from the students – threatening to deny the students further instruction in their agreed-upon ‘program of study’ after those students have invested their time and money per the agreed-upon terms of their enrollment contract.
After-all; this scheme is ‘CONTRACT (and CONSUMER) FRAUD’ at its simplest. Any child can understand you don’t continue paying for something you’re no longer getting.
I’d appreciate replies with studied opinions.
The practice you describe occurs because GOP governors (and, possibly some Democratic ones) appoint college boards of trustees and state regents. Cut-throat businessmen are often selected (possibly GOP donors) who foster a system that rewards college presidents and administrators for the operations’ financial gains.
Private universities which are run the same way are worse, admission is legacy based.
As in the U.S. presidential race, a grass roots demand for change is the only solution.
I’m sorry for your experience and glad you are proactive in exposing the situation.
Sorry for the grammatical and spelling errors. Combination of dirty keyboard contacts, fatigue, slow data stream (all I can afford at present) AND (my biggest complaint) small grey text characters on an off-white background on this webpage.
Anyone else have a problem reading the text?
I just got new bifocals but I can’t understand why anyone would use text whose color is closely related to the background color.
I’ve checked on MY computer to no avail. Anyone know how to alter the color of the text on a page to make it stand-out from the background?
Bless you all for caring.
I grew up in Chattanooga, TN in the 1960s and 1970s. At Chattanooga High School we were proud of what we had become as a diverse learning community. We talked about it, wrote about it, and looked forward to the community it could create in the future. As I navigated a 38 year career in public education through two districts in the South I was often devastated by the intentional resegregation happening before me. In numerous settings, as a student and educator, I discovered that few families were willing to stay in integrated schools and chose, if they had the means, to move to segregated communities. I discovered that neighborhood schools were highly valued by suburban families while it became ok to close neighborhood schools in communities of color. To get back to an integrated arc of justice, we have to commit resources to improve our teaching and principal work force. We have to make these jobs attractive through pay and support to attract and develop a diverse community of educators. We have to prepare these professionals by helping them understand the challenges they will face before they step into the classroom. We need to build leaders through experience that is reinforced by intellectual preparation. This is the most important way to overcome the “failed school” narrative that has driven public funding away from integrated schooling. Investing in the people we put into schools, while giving them the autonomy to respond to their school community in meaningful ways, would be a dynamic first step toward breaking the fear and bigotry that keeps our communities apart.