Archives for the month of: February, 2024
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Los Angeles: Vote for Sherlett Hendy Newbill for LAUSD board, District 1

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2024 //
1

I am pleased to endorse Sherlett Hendy Newbill for election to the Los Angeles Unified School District Board in District 1. The accomplished incumbent George McKenna is retiring, and Newbill would be an outstanding replacement for him.

Sherlett is a native of Los Angeles and a graduate of the Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High School in Los Angeles, where she has spent her professional career after earning her bachelor’s degree at Xavier University in New Orleans.

She has worked as a physical education teacher, department chair, director of athletics, and dean of students since 1998. As a PE teacher and dean, she has been deeply engaged in the physical and mental health and well-being of students. Since 2007, she has been the UTLA representative at her school.

In recent years, she has worked in the office of George McKenna, the District 1 board member, as an education policy advisor. She has worked with district stakeholders and understands the needs of the district.

She was endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles Sentinel, PST (Parents Supporting Teachers), a large grassroots parents organization. She has also been endorsed by the incumbent LAUSD board member, George McKenna, as well as LAUSD board members Jackie Goldberg and Scott Schmerelson.

Visit her website.

Please vote for Sherlett Hendy Newbill for LAUSD Dictrict 1!

Categories California, Education Reform, Elections, Los Angeles

Los Angeles: Vote for Scott Schmerelson in District 3

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2024 //
3

I warmly, heartily, enthusiastically endorse Scott Schmerelson for re-election to the LAUSD board, representing District 3. I have known Scott since he was first elected in 2015, and I admire his dedication to the children, families, and educators of the schools in his district. He is a steadfast champion of public schools.

It was Scott who told me in 2019 that 80% of the charter schools in Los Angeles had empty seats. When I saw him a year ago, he told me that the percentage of vacant seats is even higher now.

The best way to introduce Scott, aside from expressing my heartfelt admiration for him, is to post his story, which appears on his website. No razzle-dazzle here: just an experienced and dedicated educator who wants to work to make the schools better for all children. Here is his campaign website.

Scott Schmerelson knew when he graduated from high school that he wanted to become a teacher. The first member of his family to attend college, he graduated from Temple University with a B.A. in Foreign Language Education and soon began his career as a high school Spanish teacher in Philadelphia. In 1978, he moved to Los Angeles and joined the LAUSD family.

Scott’s commitment and service to the children of LAUSD began with 12 years at Virgil Middle School as a teacher, school counselor and Assistant Principal. He later became an Assistant Principal at Griffith Middle School in East Los Angeles for 5 years and the Principal at Lawrence Middle School in Chatsworth for 5 years. Scott retired as Principal of Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Middle School in South Los Angeles after 10 years of leadership that included significantly improving test scores, a deteriorated physical plant, and student, teacher and parent morale.

After almost four decades in the classroom, and school counseling and administration, Scott could not envision a retirement that did not include continuing to advocate for the future of public education in the second largest school district in the United States. In 2014, at the urging of colleagues and community members, Scott decided that he could make a difference for kids and for our neighborhood public schools, which he considers the heart of our communities, by running for School Board.

On July 1, 2015, Scott Mark Schmerelson took the oath of office as the duly elected LA Unified School Board Member representing Board District 3. He was re-elected on November 3, 2020.

Scott has been a proud member of the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, United Teachers Los Angeles, and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. He also served as the treasurer of the Middle Schools Principals’ Association and is currently the treasurer of the Cuban-American Teachers’ Association. He is a member of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) and served a two-year term as President of ACSA Region 16. He is past Executive Director of Region 16 which encompasses the entire Los Angeles Unified School District.

If you live in School District 1 in Los Angeles, please cast your vote for Scott Schmerelson!

Categories Education Reform, Elections, Los Angeles

Los Angeles: Vote for Fidencio Gallardo for School Board, District 5

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2024 //
1

Los Angeles has an important school board election coming up on March 5.

The esteemed school board President, Jackie Goldberg, is retiring, leaving her seat open in District 5.

Five candidates are running for the seat, and one stands out: Fidencio Gallardo.

Gallardo is an experienced educator who has worked in LAUSD for 35 years as a middle school English teacher (18 years), a high school English teacher (9 years), an assistant principal (3 years), an adult school teacher (3 years), and as a deputy to board member Jackie Goldberg for the past four years.

He is also the Mayor of Bell, California. And an Adjunct Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Cal State, LA. Whew!

As you might surmise, he is a highly accomplished professional who has devoted his life to educating young people.

Gallardo has been endorsed by Jackie Goldberg, who is one of my personal heroes. I met Fidencio on a Zoom fundraiser where I offered my personal endorsement based on his stellar record.

And he was also endorsed by the Los Angeles Times, which interviewed all the candidates.

Here are a few excerpts:

Of the four candidates running, Gallardo articulates the clearest vision for improving student achievement and well-being in the wake of the pandemic. And his breadth of experience puts him the best position to actually get things done.

Gallardo said he plans to prioritize student literacy and achievement, which along with attendance, has suffered tremendously since the pandemic. He would continue the important work of greening school campuses that are asphalt-laden hot spots and detrimental to children’s health and learning.

His most recent teaching experience as an 11th-grade English Language Arts instructor at South Gate High School gives him insight into the best ways that the school board can allocate resources to help students struggling with reading.

Gallardo is appropriately critical of some decisions by district leaders in recent years. That includes Carvalho’s move to replace the successful Primary Promise program that helps elementary school students struggling with reading and math with a new program that includes middle school students, and the board’s 2021 decision to remove school police from campuses without a clear plan to keep students safe.

Gallardo said he will push for more unarmed school safety officers so that every campus has someone consistently responsible for keeping students safe, and for giving individual schools greater discretion over what type of safety personnel are on their campuses. It’s middle-ground positions like these, that seem reasonable but are at odds with UTLA, that could be a good indication of what to expect from Gallardo on the board.

He also wants to see more educational support for kids during their critical middle school years, including more one-on-one instruction.

Please vote for Fidencio Gallardo in District 5!

Categories Education Reform, Elections, Los Angeles, Personal

Arkansas: State Awards $1 Million to Politically Connected Firm to Adminster Vouchers

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2024 //
5

The Arkansas Times, one of those super-valuable local news sites, reported on a plush political deal. The state awarded a no-bid contract to a business called ClassWallet to administer voucher funds. Parents submit bills, and ClassWallet pays them. Surprisingly (or not), ClassWallet employs the same lobbyist who represents former Governor Mike Huckabee, father of current Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. What a coincidence!

ClassWallet — the vendor given a lucrative contract to manage the banking side of Arkansas LEARNS school vouchers — employs a lobbyist who also represents a political action committee for former Gov. Mike Huckabee, the father of current Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The Arkansas Department of Education did not seek competitive bids last year before awarding the contract to manage the inaugural phase of the state’s “Education Freedom Accounts” to Kleo Inc. of Florida, a company that does business under the name ClassWallet. That contract is expected to earn ClassWallet more than $1 million in its first year.

A quick look at the Arkansas secretary of state’s website shows that ClassWallet is represented by the lobbying firm Legacy Consulting, who also lobbies for Huck PAC Inc., former Gov. Huckabee’spolitical vehicle.

Additionally, Legacy Consulting was founded by Chad Gallagher, Mike Huckabee’s former political advisor.

The contract to administer school voucher finances for LEARNS’ second year recently went out for a bid, garnering five out-of-state contenders, including ClassWallet. The winning vendor stands to earn about $2.4 million in service fees during the 2024-25 school year alone…

ClassWallet currently manages voucher programs in five states: Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina. The company is considered a leader in its field, but it is not without its controversies.

The state of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against ClassWallet on Jan. 29 of this year for failing to prevent education funds from being misspent. According to a Jan. 31 article from The Oklahoman, this is the second time ClassWallet has been sued by the state.

In the first lawsuit filed by the state of Oklahoma in 2022, federal and state audits found $1,500 grants meant to be used for educational expenses were instead spent on kitchen appliances, power tools, video game consoles and other non-educational items. The lawsuit claimed that about $1.7 million was misused.

In response, ClassWallet denied any wrongdoing. Federal and state auditors said government officials, not ClassWallet, were at fault for failing to put proper guardrails in place. Oklahoma’s attorney general dropped the initial lawsuit, but Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt announced last month that he’s refiling the complaint.

Open the link and read the story, written by Arkansas Times reporter Jeannie Roberts.

Categories Accountability, Arkansas, Corruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Privatization, Scandal, Vouchers

CNN: “Moms for Liberty” Is Encountering Stiff Resistance

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2024 //
69

When an education story is featured by a major media outlet like CNN, you can bet it’s captured mainstream attention.

Many educators have worried about the pernicious agenda of “Moms for Liberty,” which arrived on the scene in 2021 with a sizable war chest.

What is that agenda? Defaming public schools and their teachers. Accusing them of being “woke “ and indoctrinating students to accept left wing ideas about race and gender. Banning books they don’t like. Talking about “parental rights,” but only for straight white parents who share their values.

M4L got started in Florida, as do many wacky and bigoted rightwing campaigns, but it has been shamed recently by the sex scandal involving one of its co-founders, Brigitte Ziegler. The two other co-founders dropped her name from their website, but the stain persists.

CNN reports that this rightwing group is encountering stiff opposition from parents who don’t share their agenda and who don’t approve of book banning.

The story begins:

Viera, FloridaCNN —

In Florida, where the right-wing Moms for Liberty group was born in response to Covid-19 school closures and mask mandates, the first Brevard County School Board meeting of the new year considered whether two bestselling novels – “The Kite Runner” and “Slaughterhouse-Five” – should be banned from schools.

A lone Moms for Liberty supporter sat by herself at the January 23 meeting, where opponents of the book ban outnumbered her.

Nearly 20 speakers voiced opposition to removing the novels from school libraries. One compared the book-banning effort to Nazi Germany. Another accused Moms for Liberty of waging war on teachers. No one spoke in favor of the ban. About three hours into the meeting, the board voted quickly to keep the two books on the shelves of high schools.

RELATED ARTICLEOusted Florida GOP leader Christian Ziegler won’t be charged with sexual battery

“Why are we banning books?” asked Mindy McKenzie, a mom and nurse who is a member of Stop Moms for Liberty, which was formed to counter what it calls a far-right extremist group “pushing for book banning and destroying public education.”

“Why are we letting Moms for Liberty infiltrate our school system?”

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Corruption, Curriculum, Democracy, DeSantis, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Read, Gender, Hypocrisy, Injustice, Libraries, Literacy, Literature, Media, Parent Groups, Privatization, Racism

Read the Federal Appeals Court’s Unanimous Decision that President Is Not Immune from Prosecution

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2024 //
12

Donald Trump has delayed his trial on charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election by claiming that he enjoys “presidential immunity” for everything he did while in office. The federal district judge hearing his case—Judge Tanya S. Chutkan— ruled against him. Today a three-judge federal appeals court ruled against him. The three judges were two appointed by Democratic presidents and one appointed by a Republican president.

It is a historic decision. It is a history lesson of the utmost importance.

I urge you to read it.

It is a stirring defense of democracy and the rule of law.

A few citations:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution…

We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that ‘Concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government’ compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case…

We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly ‘official’ action that he took as President—a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by ‘double jeopardy principles.’

The justices ruled that what Trump sought (immunity from prosecution) was an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government…

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count…

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity…

The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office.

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”

The judges pointed out that other presidents have recognized that they were not immune from prosecution after they left office. That’s why President Ford pardoned President Nixon and why President Clinton accepted a deal to pay a fine and surrender his law license when he left office.

They noted the irony that the President is sworn to Take Care that the laws are faithfully executed yet was appealing to be immune from those laws.

It’s a good read.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, History, Justice, Trump

Pennsylvania: Public Interest Law Firms Congratulate Gov. Shapiro for Budget Proposal, Not for Vouchers

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2024 //
5

Two important public interest law firms issued a press release congratulating Governor Josh Shapiro for a major proposal to fund public schools. But at the same time, they chastised the Governor for his inexplicable support for vouchers, which will fund schools that discriminate and produce no academic improvement.

MEDIA ADVISORY* * *  

Law Centers Issue Joint Statement on Gov. Shapiro’s Historic Budget Proposal

In-Person and Zoom Media Availabilities Scheduled for Anniversary of Commonwealth Court Decision on Wednesday, Feb. 7


See below for the law centers’ statement and quotes from lawsuit petitioner superintendents. Attorneys are available today for further comment on the governor’s budget proposal upon request.

 

Tomorrow, Feb. 7, attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center and Education Law Center, who represented the petitioners in Pennsylvania’s school funding lawsuit, will be speaking at a noon event in the Capitol Rotunda commemorating the one-year anniversary of the court’s decision and available to answer questions from the media on Feb. 7 both in person in the Rotunda and later on Zoom.

Who:                    Attorneys from Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center

When:                 Wednesday, Feb. 7, Noon, with in-person media availability for Harrisburg media immediately following the event
2 pm, Zoom media availability

Where:                In person in Capitol Rotunda at noon
                             Register for the Zoom media availability at 2 pm

What:                  Attorneys from the Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center will speak as part of the PA Schools Work coalition event in the Rotunda and then answer questions from the media.

 

Joint Statement from Education Law Center and Public Interest Law Center on Gov. Shapiro’s Historic Budget Proposal

 

We commend Gov. Shapiro for today’s historic commitment to address the needs of all Pennsylvania’s school children. Last year Gov. Shapiro promised to develop a plan to bring Pennsylvania’s school funding system into constitutional compliance. Building on the work of the Basic Education Funding Commission, he has kept that promise, and we applaud him for it. Today’s proposal includes every first-year recommendation proposed by the commission.

 

If fully implemented over the next seven years, the commission’s plan will mean thousands more teachers, counselors, librarians, and school nurses delivering what every child deserves: the opportunity to thrive. We look forward to legislation backing up that long-term plan, with annual targets so that school districts can plan, our leaders can be held accountable, and students can see the benefits.

 

There remains work ahead. The seven-year timeline proposed by the commission to implement the plan is too long, and it does not yet include funding for critical strategies like high-quality pre-kindergarten programs. But we recognize his proposal for what it is: a bold, historic first step towards a system that honors the limitless potential of our students and delivers the future our communities and our children deserve. We are ready to stand with the governor in advocating for its passage.

 

On the governor’s stated support for a school voucher program: Pennsylvania’s first obligation is to bring its public education system into constitutional compliance. Commonwealth Court’s decision is entirely focused on ensuring that our Commonwealth provides a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary public education to all Pennsylvania students. Funds spent on vouchers for private schools sanction discrimination against students, lead to worse outcomes by any measure, and don’t bring us a dollar closer to compliance with the court’s ruling.

 

One year after the governor and General Assembly were ordered to enact a plan to remedy the unconstitutional funding system, we have before us one—and only one—plan that answers the court’s command: the plan adopted by the Basic Education Funding Commission and affirmed today by the governor.  

 

Statements from superintendents of school district petitioners in the Pennsylvania school funding lawsuit

 

“Today Governor Shapiro demonstrated his belief in the children of the William Penn School District, and in the entire Commonwealth,” said Dr. Eric Becoats, superintendent of William Penn School District. “By including in his budget the full year-one recommendation from the Basic Education Funding Commission, we are on the path to provide resources for our children that have long been deferred. If carried out over seven years, this plan would be the end of our students living by the unacceptable slogan ‘do more with less.’ These funds will allow us to provide additional teachers and support services (counselors, social workers and health therapists) to the schools and students that most deserve them.”

 

“I applaud Governor Shapiro for taking real action for public schools in communities like mine by putting forward the first year of a transformative plan,” said Dr. Brian Waite, superintendent of Shenandoah Valley School District. “Facing enormous funding gaps, educators in Shenandoah Valley make impossible choices for our students every day, shifting insufficient resources to some students who need them at the expense of others. Now we have a real plan in Harrisburg to bridge those gaps, and to give us the chance to make choices based on maximizing our students’ amazing potential, not minimizing collateral damage.”

 

“Today’s budget proposal could be the start of transformational change for my students,” said Dr. David McAndrew, superintendent of Panther Valley School District. “It means more reading specialists, counselors, teachers and social workers, support that has been denied because of a lack of local wealth in our community. I hope that our leaders in Harrisburg can make this multi-year proposal a reality faster than seven years—our kids have unmet needs right now—but the Governor’s plan provides the meaningful opportunity that children in Panther Valley and across Pennsylvania deserve.”

Categories Education Reform, Funding, Pennsylvania

Houston: Principal Turnover Hits 20% After State Takeover

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2024 //
47

The Houston Chronicle reports an acceleration in principal turnover since the state took over control of the Houston Independent School District and placed non-educator Mike Miles in charge. The principals of nearly 60 schools have resigned or been removed. A military man, Miles was “trained” by the Broad Superintendents Academy. He is imposing standardized curriculum and instruction across the schools he directly controls (called the “New Education System”).

Even the principal of an A-rated school lost his job.

The memos came in one after the other, a laundry list of grievances listing all the ways Federico Hernandez was supposedly failing as principal of Houston ISD’s Middle College High School.

A teacher used Post-It notes rather than index cards during a lesson, according to one complaint from Hernandez’s supervisor. Others allowed students to sit in the back of a classroom or kept a light off during class. Some implemented multiple response strategies, “but not correctly,” read the memo shared with the Houston Chronicle.

Even though the campus run on Houston Community College’s Felix Fraga campus boasts an A-rated academic performance, those were among the infractions that got Hernandez removed from his job less than two months into the school year.

He is one of at least 58 principals who left their schools, involuntarily or otherwise, in 2023 since Superintendent Mike Miles was appointed to his post by the Texas Education Agency on June 1, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of HISD staffing records. After taking into account schools that share a principal, such as Jane Long Academy and Las Americas Newcomer School, or those that recorded multiple changes between June and December, such as Madison High School, the Chronicle confirmed there have been at least 61 leadership changes across 59 campuses…

Erica Harbatkin, an education policy expert at Florida State University who studies principal turnover, said it is not unusual for administrators to reassign principals in an attempt to shake up under-performing schools. They typically don’t do so during the school year, though, because principals need time to plan and coordinate their staff, and “coming in after the school year started… obviously undermines some of those strategies.”

Harbatkin said replacing a principal is one of the quickest ways to effect change at a school, for better or worse.

“The theory of action behind more contemporary school turnaround and improvement policy is that these schools are in this pattern of low performance, and they need something to get them out, some sort of big external shock … and one of the ways that happens is through replacing the principal,” Harbatkin said.

If not done carefully, however, principal turnover can lead to negative effects on student achievement, Harbatkin said. Her research found that principal turnover “is associated with lower test scores, school proficiency rates, and teacher retention.”

“When principals turn over teachers tend to turn over as well, and if that turnover is not well-planned, if there’s not good distributed leadership in the school or someone who can step into the role, that’s likely to make those negative effects even larger,” Harbatkin said.

No one explained the theory or rationale for removing a principal from a high-performing school. Maybe he failed to comply with an order…

Ebony Cumby, who served as principal at Askew Elementary in west Houston for 12 years, resigned within a week of Miles’ appointment after sitting through the first couple days of principal meetings.

“Throughout that period, there were things that I thought were exciting changes that needed to be made in the district, and there were other things that I could foresee being problematic, especially for a district as large as HISD,” Cumby said.

Cumby said she appreciated Miles’ attempts to “bring more consistency” to the district by standardizing the curriculum and other elements, but she was put off by what she described as “a cookie-cutter way of teaching” that she would be expected to enforce. After over two decades at HISD, she ended up leaving public education altogether for another industry.

“I noticed early on that there were things in place that, whether it was intentional or not, were going to take autonomy away from teachers and require them to conform to a certain way of doing things and really take away their creativity, which as a principal was a big deal to me,” Cumby said. “To kind of hear that its ‘our way or the highway’ did not sit well with me.”

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Disruption, Extremism, Failure, Houston, Principals, Texas

North Carolina: More $$$ for Voucher Schools, More Tests for Public Schools

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2024 //
3

It is a strange irony that Red State legislators believe passionately in testing and accountability for public schools, yet excuse voucher schools from those same measures. If public school students must be tested, why not students who receive vouchers to attend private and religious schools on the taxpayers’ dime? Why not use the same measuring stick for all students so the voucher schools can be held accountable?

Here is a report from Public Schools First NC:

North Carolina’s voucher program has been widely criticized for its lack of accountability. The Opportunity Scholarship and ESA+ programs come with little financial oversight, no curriculum or content standards requirements, no educational or credential requirements for teachers, and no publicly available student performance testing data.

Since 1992, NC students in grade 3-8 public schools take the North Carolina End-of-Grade (EOG) Tests designed to measure student performance on the goals, objectives, and grade-level competencies specified in the NC Standard Course of Study. Standards in NC are used at the state level to ensure all students will be taught the content deemed essential and necessary by the state to allow teachers and parents to assess student progress and readiness for the next grade level.

The 2023 Appropriations Act takes a small step toward addressing the gap between the abundant regulation and accountability measures in place for traditional public schools and the state’s laissez faire approach to private schools. After spending half a billion dollars since 2014 and adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the voucher program’s annual budget this year, legislators added a small testing provision that may enable taxpayers to get a glimpse into the academic performance of voucher recipients. Starting in 2024-25, public school students and voucher recipients in grades 3, 8, and 11 will be administered the same standardized test.

But instead of requiring the estimated 4,000 grade 3 and 8 voucher-receiving private school students to take NC’s EOG tests, the approximately 220,000 public school students in grades 3 and 8 will have to take a nationally standardized test that was not developed to measure NC Standard Course of Study in addition to taking the EOG.

The common test in 11th grade will be the ACT, which is already administered to public school students statewide. Currently, voucher-receiving private schools are required to take a test (selected by the school administrator) in 11th grade. Many private schools already administer an assessment of their choice, so there will be little change other than NOW the state is picking up the tab for the new tests.

The common test for grades 3 and 8 will be recommended by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. But the 2023 Appropriations Act (p. 193) specifies that it must be a nationally standardized test, which disqualifies the NC End-of-Grade (EOG) and End-of-Course (EOC) tests. Although they are standardized tests, the EOGs and EOCs are specifically designed to assess goals and objectives of the NC Standard Course of Study, not a broad swath of national standards. Because they are only administered to students in North Carolina, they aren’t “nationally” standardized.

The national tests, often called “off the shelf” tests, are designed to appeal to as many states and districts as possible, so they measure standards common across states rather than one specific state. As a result, they may not align well with the North Carolina Standard Course of Study.

The EOG and EOC test administrations are required by federal and state law, so there is no option to replace them with a test that doesn’t specifically measure the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. However, as a condition of receiving voucher funds, the General Assembly could require the 4,000 or so voucher-receiving students in grades 3 and 8 to take the EOG tests instead of adding another test for the 220,000 public school students in grades 3 and 8.

In addition to affecting the testing burden of far fewer students, administering the EOG to private school students would be much cheaper than purchasing an “off the shelf” national test for hundreds of thousands of public school students.

Should public school students have to take another standardized test to assure lawmakers that private school students are learning? Should taxpayers have to foot the bill for hundreds of thousands of new tests instead of paying next to nothing for a few thousand EOG tests that are already developed and administered in North Carolina?

The legislative short session starts in April. This testing provision may be changed if enough people encourage their legislators to address it. Contact your legislators.

Read our fact sheet for more information on student testing in North Carolina.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, North Carolina, Republicans, Standardized Testing, Vouchers

North Carolina: Vouchers for the Rich! Propaganda Wins!

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2024 //
6

Thomas Mills, a blogger in North Carolina, describes the hoax of “vouchers for all” in his state. Vouchers began as a way to offer new opportunity to poor kids. But since the General Assembly removed income caps on voucher families, vouchers have become a subsidy for rich kids who never attended public schools. The Republicans who passed universal vouchers knowingly and cynically turned them into a subsidy for the wealthy, a reverse Robin Hood scheme.

Mills writes:

This week, the North Carolina Opportunity Scholarship Program, also known as the voucher scheme, began accepting applications. House Speaker Tim Moore tweeted, “The expanded NC Opportunity Scholarship Program is now open for applications! In fact, the website was so inundated that it crashed at 12:15 am, shortly after going live. Thanks to the NC General Assembly, ALL families of K-12 students are now eligible to apply.”

When Moore says “ALL families,” he’s referring to wealthy families since the legislature eliminated the income cap for the vouchers. The site crashed because North Carolina has so many people already in private schools who now are eligible for state subsidized education. Rich folks who send their children to private schools are about to get a windfall while poor schools are going to lose funding. It’s Robin Hood in reverse.

The whole program is a scam, the epitome of a bait-and-switch. Republicans pushed through their voucher program as a way to level the playing field, offering poor families a way to send their children to private schools when public schools weren’t working for them. Now, they’re saying that families that don’t send their children to public schools shouldn’t have to pay for them. They have dropped any pretense of helping struggling families and moved straight to subsidizing rich people. According to Republicans, rich people have no community obligations.

Let’s be clear. The name “Opportunity Scholarship” is pure propaganda. There are two types of scholarships, need-based and merit-based. Giving vouchers to rich people just because they decide not to send their kids to public schools is a tax break, not a scholarship. And it’s a tax break designed for wealthy people at the expense of poor people.

Republicans are working hard to damage public schools. They fundamentally don’t believe in the responsibility of the state to provide a sound, basic education. They have cut per pupil spending, let teacher pay lag, and reduced support staff in schools. They’ve tried to dictate curriculum to indoctrinate students in a conservative philosophy, all while claiming public schools are brainwashing our kids with left wing ideas. They’ve left us with demoralized teachers and overworked staff and our children are paying the price.

Now, the state Supreme Court is about to get into the act, too. Thirty years ago, a group of students from North Carolina’s poor counties sued the state, claiming that their school systems lacked the funding to provide the quality of education that the state constitution demands. They won their suit and, since that time, the courts have reviewed funding to ensure that poor counties got the money they deserve.

However, with a new court dominated by far-right Republicans, the decision may be overturned. Chief Justice Paul Newby and his band of conservatives justices have not been shy about throwing out precedent, giving new meaning to an activist court. They will decide if the most recent allocation determined by the court will be rescinded. The GOP legislature contends that the court has no business telling the lawmakers how to spend tax dollars.

If the Republicans win, they will have essentially reinterpreted the constitution. Article 9, Section 2 of the constitution reads, “The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.” Traditionally, the court has interpreted the “uniform system” of “equal opportunities” to mean the quality of education should be as good in poor counties as it is in rich ones. The GOP would render the clause either aspirational or maybe just a suggestion, despite the word “shall.”

The assault on public education in North Carolina is unprecedented and radical. Republicans aren’t just making cuts around the edges. They are changing the way we view public schools and our collective responsibilities. They are shifting resources and increasing the burden of financial responsibility on the poor while reducing the funds from the rich, just like they did with our tax system.

Ironically, the people who suffer the most are the people who make up the GOP base. Rural counties will watch their tax dollars go to wealthy families in urban and suburban areas while their public schools will suffer from increasing lack of revenue. Of course, Republican donors will almost certainly benefit. As they say, partisanship is a helluva drug.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Disruption, Education Industry, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Lies, North Carolina, Privatization, Propaganda, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »