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

Florida: School Board Bans Book about Banning Books!

By dianeravitch
June 27, 2024 //
9

At what point does Florida go from the absurd to the ridiculous? Or has that point already been passed? A school board in Florida voted to ban a book called Ban This Book.

I wish someone would explain to school board members, to Moms Restricting Liberty, and to Governor Ron DeSantis that whenever a book is banned, that book gets national notoriety and a big sales bump. Authors are thinking, “Please ban my book,” it needs publicity, and yahoos oblige.

Scott Maxwell, columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, writes:

The headline that made its way around the world last week looked like a joke:

“Florida school board bans book about book bans”

The story couldn’t have been more meta. Or more Florida. I half-hoped it was satire, but having covered Florida’s increasingly ridiculous education priorities in recent years, knew it wasn’t.

The Tallahassee Democrat explained that the Indian River County School Board voted 3-to-2 to ban a book called “Ban This Book.”

The book is a lighthearted yet poignant tale about a 9-year-old girl named Amy Anne Ollinger who, upon learning that her school is trying to censor books, decides to fight back by cultivating her own secret library in her school locker. It’s part comedy and part thought-provoker. Some of the book focuses on how Amy Anne doesn’t always go about things the right way.

A promotional blurb for the book says: “Ban This Book is a love letter to the written word and its power to give kids a voice.” Publishers Weekly said it celebrates “kids’ power to effect change.”

To that end, I have a new proposal for Florida’s book-banners: Before pushing to censor any book, you have to first actually read it and then prove you understood it. In this case, “Ban This Book” was written for 8-to-12-year-olds. So you might need to put on your thinking cap.

The story in Indian River got even more ridiculous when it revealed that virtually all the censorship stemmed from one person — a Moms for (so-called) Liberty member who objected to books by everyone from Toni Morrison to Kurt Vonnegut.

“She also got ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’ pulled from a high school,” the story said. “And, in response to her objection to a children’s book that showed the bare behind of a goblin, the school district drew clothes over it.”

OK, let’s stop here. If you’re a grown adult whose crowning accomplishments are to censor a book about the Holocaust, ban a book on book-banning and draw cartoon underpants on a cartoon goblin, then to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy: You might be an idiot.

So this is my plea today to my fellow Floridians during an election year: Stop electing idiots. Specifically, stop electing them to school boards.

Categories Censorship, Democracy, Extremism, Florida, Freedom to Read, Literacy, Stupid

Kathy Gebhardt Wins State Board Race in Colorado, Despite Dark Money

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
3

Kathy Gebhardt was elected to the Colorado State Board of Education, despite nearly $1 million behind a charter school candidate. Kathy says she is not opposed to charters, but she did stop a Hillsdale College Barney charter school from opening in her district. Governor Jared Polis, a charter enthusiast, backed her opponent; Polis opened two charters himself, years ago. Kathy’s experience was far more extensive that that of her opponent. The voters paid attention. Kathy won. Her election assures that the charter lobby will not control the state board of education.

For the background, read Peter Greene’s summary of the race and Carol Burris’s endorsement of Kathy, whom she has worked with.

Carol Burris wrote:

No one is more qualified to serve. Kathy is an education attorney with expertise in school finance, a long-time school board member, and has served on both state and national school board organizations. All five of her children attended public schools.

The Denver Post reported:

Former Boulder school board president Kathy Gebhardt won the Democratic primary for a seat on the Colorado State Board of Education on Tuesday, despite a group supporting charter schools having spent nearly $1 million to oppose her campaign and back political newcomer Marisol Lynda Rodriguez.

The preliminary results for the 2nd Congressional District seat on the state education board almost certainly ensure Gebhardt will win the seat in November as there is no Republican candidate in the race. She will replace board member Angelika Schroeder, whose six-year term ends in January.

“It shows that money can’t buy an election,” said Gebhardt, adding that the results so far showed that “people were stepping up for public education.”

As of 10:15 p.m., Gebhardt led with 43,156 votes, or 56% of the total. Rodriguez had 33,911 votes, or 44%.

Rodriguez told The Denver Post that she called Gebhardt to concede shortly before 9 p.m.

Categories Charter Schools, Colorado, Dark Money, Education Industry, Elections

Justice Thomas Stands Up For the 2nd Amendment Rights of Violent Spousal Abusers

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
38

Lucien V. Truscott IV explains Justice Clarence Thomas’ devotion to gun owners.

He writes:

Well, I guess somebody has to stand up for the rights of spousal killers, wife beaters, child abusers, and the Second Amendment, and I’ll just bet you can guess who it is.  Today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stepped up and took one for the team, voting alone against the 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi that bars people from possessing firearms while they are under domestic violence restraining orders.  Not stripping them of the right to own guns, mind you, but only suspending that right under the Second Amendment until such an asshole can get the restraining order straightened out so he can get his guns back. 


Thomas must be spending so much time in the history stacks in the Fairfax County library, where he lives in Virginia, that they’re probably considering buying a cot for him to take naps on during his long hours of study of our laws in the 1700’s and 1800’s, not to mention old English law and a few ancient Greek statutes he quoted in his Bruen gun rights decision.  Perusing the laws that were in existence at the time of our nation’s founding, Thomas wrote in his dissent in today’s case that “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.”  The “statute at issue” suspends the right of those under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns.


Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be the one who convinced four of the other six gun nuts on the court, all of whom voted to allow bump stock equipped machine guns earlier in the week, to join him in at least temporarily coming to their senses.  Roberts was able to somehow resurrect enough common sense on the court that he got enough votes to rule, as the author of the decision, that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”  I mean, whoop-de-fucking-doo, but I guess we are in the position of taking them when we can get them, right?

The plaintiff in the case, one Zacky Rahimi, is a convicted drug dealer who had beaten his girlfriend to the ground in a parking lot and was dragging her back to his car when a bystander intervened.  Rahimi fired a shot at the bystander, and the girlfriend took that opportunity to escape.  Rahimi called her later and threatened violence – specifically, he said he would “shoot” her – if she told anyone about the incident. The girlfriend asked a Texas court to issue a restraining order and amazingly they agreed, finding that Rahimi had committed “family violence” and suspended his right to possess guns while the restraining order was in effect. 

Rahimi managed to hang onto enough firearms that he was involved in five shootings in the following months, according to the Supreme Court brief filed by the Biden Department of Justice.  Rahimi was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, was convicted in federal court and sentenced to six years in prison.  But Rahimi continued to argue that his rights under the Second Amendment had been violated.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Rahimi at his first hearing, but after Justice Thomas wrote the decision in Bruen, ruling that laws restricting firearms had to be rooted in the “history and tradition” of this country, the Fifth Circuit reheard the case and, incredibly, ruled for Rahimi.  Citing the Bruen case a Trump appointee on the court wrote that while the federal law banning people under restraining orders from possessing firearms was “meant to protect vulnerable people in our society…our ancestors would never have accepted” laws against domestic violence.

The decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was unanimous, so Rahimi’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment was restored.

The case was appealed by the DOJ to the Supreme Court, where many legal experts feared it would hit the “history and tradition” brick wall of Thomas’ Bruen decision.  Chief Justice Roberts, however, appeared to back the court away from that decision a bit today.  “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” Roberts wrote. “The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.”  Roberts cautioned that if courts hearing gun cases were to consider only laws in existence at the founding of the country, they would find laws dealing with “muskets and sabers.”  Instead, Roberts urged courts that will interpret his decision in the future to consider whether a gun regulation at issue is “relatively similar” to regulations that were in effect closer to the nation’s founding.  “For example,” Roberts wrote, “if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”

In the amazingly dull and nearly impenetrable language of the Supreme Court, that comes as close as we will ever get to a relaxation of the Thomas decision in Bruen, which courts like the Fifth Circuit have interpreted as turning back the clock to the way guns were regulated in 1791, which is to say not at all.

That may be why Thomas was the lone dissenter in the decision today, because it took some of the edges off his celebration of guns-for-everybody in the Bruen decision.  Or maybe Thomas, in his history-stacks-diving on domestic violence laws discovered, as he has before, a favorite old English construction of what husbands and domestic partners are permitted to do to the women in their lives:  the “Rule of Thumb.” 

It’s not like this subject hasn’t been dealt with before.  In January of 1982, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that was entitled “Under the Rule of Thumb:  Battered Women and the Administration of Justice.”  The Commission found that when it came to domestic violence, “American law is built on the British Common Law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used.  This ‘rule of thumb’ stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with ‘a rod not thicker than his thumb.’” 

The Commission noted that William Blackstone, who “greatly influenced the making of law in the American colonies,” commented thusly on the rule of thumb:  “For as the husband is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allow to correct his apprentices or children.”

American courts, bless their bleeding hearts, can be said to have taken up the rod passed to them by the Brits.  Have a look at this from an 1864 court in a case of a man who choked his wife:  “The law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force, as is necessary to control an unruly temper, and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain. It prefers to leave the parties to themselves.”  The Civil Rights Commission quoted a Mississippi Supreme Court case from 1824: “Let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and use salutary restraints in every case of misbehaviour, without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned.”

After an Alabama court had rescinded the right of a man to beat his wife in 1871, a North Carolina court came along and provided some relief to all those poor men who had to deal with those damn recalcitrant women: “If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.”

Thomas, in his dissent that would allow abusive husbands and male partners under court restraining orders to own guns, would appear to smile upon Ye Ole Rule of Thumb as well.  It’s history and tradition, you understand — Thomas’ favorite harkening back to the good old days when a man was allowed to own not only a gun, but a stick big enough to beat his wife with.

Categories Extremism, Gender, Guns, Injustice, Safety

Robert Hubbell: The Supreme Court’s Wacky Spin on Gun Control

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
15

Robert Hubbell understands that the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority would like to remove all limits on gun ownership. But even this group of extremists couldn’t find a way to justify allowing a man with a history of domestic abuse and violent threats to exercise Second Amendnent rights. So they got tangled up in knots trying to find common ground to say that some people should not own guns.

Note that Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and was willing to allow a man who had threatened his girlfriend’s life and fired a gun at others to have a gun. Justice Thomas complained that Mr. Rahimi had lost his right to own a gun without due process.

In the odd world of Republican ideology, it is perfectly reasonable to defend both “the right to life” and the right for everyone to own and carry a gun in the open. Except this particular person, Mr. Rahimi.

Hubbell wrote:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that a domestic abuser with a demonstrated history of gun violence could have his right to possess a firearm suspended pending a hearing on a restraining order. See US v. Rahimi. The result was the only rational outcome in a case with horrific facts. As described by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate,

Zackey Rahimi, who beat his girlfriend, then fired shots at either her or a witness as she fled his abuse. His girlfriend subsequently obtained a restraining order from a state court that found that he posed “a credible threat” to her “physical safety.” Rahimi, however, continued harassing her, threatened a different woman with a firearm, and was identified as the suspect in at least five additional shootings. When the police searched his apartment, they found a pistol, a rifle, ammunition, and a copy of the restraining order.

Although we should celebrate the outcome, the fact that that case made it to the Supreme Court is emblematic of the extremism that the Court’s prior Second Amendment decisions have unleashed. Worse, in attempting to walk back from the precipice of the absurd absolutist position adopted by the Court in an earlier case (Bruen), the justices needed seven different opinions to explain how their ruling in Bruen applied to the facts in Rahimi.

In short, the opinion in Rahimi is a hot mess that leaves lower courts with no meaningful guidance on how to apply the nonsensical rule of Bruen to the real world of a society under siege by gun violence. There is an old saying in law that “Hard cases make bad law.” That saying is true of today’s ruling in Rahimi, as explained below.

It is important to reflect on how we arrived at this moment—one in which rational people heaved a sigh of relief that the Court did not adopt an insane result. The fact that we are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the table of the reactionary majority is a sign of the urgent need to reform the Court.

Background on Supreme Court Second Amendment cases

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Between 1791 and 2008, the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to bear arms, as was made plain by the language of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court overthrew two centuries of jurisprudence to rule in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to bear arms belongs to individuals seeking self-defense in their homes. In 2010, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Second Amendment apply to states and municipalities. Finally, in 2022, in NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court ruled that the “ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

See how fast that happened? For two centuries, the right to bear arms was a collective right grounded in state militias. In the 14 years from 2008 to 2022, the right quickly morphed from a right to self-defense in homes to the right pack a pistol in public. And last week, the Supreme Court ruled that right extended to private ownership of machine guns.

The problem with Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Bruen (2022)

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Bruce upholding the right to carry a pistol in public. He adopted an “originalist” approach, holding that laws regulating guns were presumptively unconstitutional and that regulations could pass muster only if they were “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Because most modern firearms were not in existence when the Second Amendment was ratified, virtually all restrictions on gun possession would be ruled unconstitutional under the originalist test in Bruen.

In short, Bruen was an absolutist nightmare that would lead to absurd results. District and appellate courts were quickly mired in rulings leading to nonsensical results—such as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that Rahimi could not be deprived of his guns despite his demonstrated history of actual and threatened use of firearms against domestic partners.

The ruling in Rahimi (2024)

In Rahimi, issued on Friday, the majority ruled (8 to 1) that temporarily suspending a respondent’s gun ownership in a domestic violence proceeding was constitutional, notwithstanding the holding in Bruen. Justice Thomas dissented, writing (correctly) that applying the holding in Bruen to the facts of the case in Rahimi should have resulted in a ruling declaring the temporary suspension unconstitutional.

But the majority in Rahimi understood that the facts in that case were horrific and that it would be ludicrous to apply their earlier ruling in Bruen as written. In a just universe, the majority should have declared Justice Thomas’ opinion in Bruen a mistake and adopted a new rule. Sadly, the majority did not overrule Bruen. Instead, it came up with an exception to Bruen, which was crafted by Chief Justice Roberts.  

The exception created by Roberts is as nonsensical as Justice Thomas’s original rule. Or, as Ian Millhiser writes in Vox, Justice Roberts’ opinion is “incoherent gobbledygook.” See Vox, The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi.

Justice Roberts narrowed Bruen by writing that some gun regulations would be constitutional if they were based on “analogous regulations that existed when the Constitution was framed.” Okay, so far. What “analogous regulations” existed in 1791 that were similar to depriving a domestic abuser of his firearms? Answer: There were no such regulations. (A point made by Justice Thomas.)

Instead, Justice Roberts pointed to “surety laws” that required some people to post a bond if it could be shown they might engage in dangerous activity. But posting money is nothing like being deprived of a firearm (a point made by Justice Thomas). Nonetheless, Justice Roberts ruled that posting a surety bond was “relevantly similar” to depriving someone of gun ownership. Uh, okay. If you say so, Justice Roberts.

Don’t get me wrong. I am happy with the outcome. But Justice Roberts’ test of finding “relevantly similar analogous regulations” is pure mush—especially if posting a money bond is “analogous” to being deprived of gun ownership. The test provides no guidance and casts lower courts adrift on a sea of challenges to local gun regulations.

But it gets worse. Justice Roberts left the door open for future challenges from plaintiffs like Rahami. Why? Because Rahami claimed that the statute in question was invalid on its face as applied to everyone. This distinction is explained by Ian Millhiser in his Vox article, cited above:

Facial challenges allege that a particular law is unconstitutional in all of its applications, meaning that a court must effectively strike it from the books. They stand in contrast to weaker “as-applied” challenges, which allege that a law is unconstitutional only when enforced against a particular party. As Roberts explains, facial challenges are notoriously difficult to win — the party challenging the law must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.”

So, it is possible that if Rahami had simply said, “The law is invalid as applied to me,” he might have won under Justice Roberts’ approach.

In the end, the Supreme Court has anointed itself as the final arbiter of every challenge to a gun regulation because no lower court can be certain that it has divined whether a regulation is “relevantly similar” to an “analogous regulation” that existed in 1791. Lower courts are effectively consigned to playing a game of Twenty Questions with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s inability to set forth a coherent, predictable, interpretable rule for lower courts is due to its rushing headlong to overturn long-established, settled precedent—as it did in Heller, Bruen, and Dobbs.

Again, in the words of Ian Millhiser,

Rahimi, in other words, is a monument to this Court’s arrogance, and its inability to admit its own mistakes. Bruen is an unworkable disaster that has caused mass confusion within the lower courts. It should be overruled in its entirety.

To similar effect, with a slightly more positive view of the opinion in Rahimi, see Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court Walks Back Clarence Thomas’ Guns Extremism. Stern writes,

By replacing Thomas’ hard-line views with a more malleable standard, SCOTUS has ended one battle over guns. But by remaining in this area, where it has no right to be in the first place, the court has invited a thousand more.

Finally, for a review of the various concurring opinions, see Chris Geidner’s Substack, Law Dork, What the justices are writing about when they write about Rahimi. Geidner includes the following excerpt of Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, which will be the final word on the subject for today’s edition:

The Court today clarifies Bruen’s historical inquiry and rejects the dissent’s exacting historical test. I welcome that development.

That being said, I remain troubled by Bruen’s myopic focus on history and tradition, which fails to give full consideration to the real and present stakes of the problems facing our society today.

In my view, the Second Amendment allows legislators “to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence” not merely by asking what their predecessors at the time of the founding or Reconstruction thought, but by listening to their constituents and crafting new and appropriately tailored solutions.

Categories Guns, Safety

CNN Report Blasts Vouchers in Arizona

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2024 //
13

As you might have noticed, the mainstream media has not paid much attention to the reckless privatization of America’s public schools. This “movement” is a response to billionaire dollars, not to public demand. The beneficiaries are students who were already enrolled in private schools, whose parents can afford the tuition, not poor students.

It’s rare when a major TV show or newspaper features a story on the billionaire funded effort to destroy our nation’s public schools.

CNN recently aired a segment showing how Arizona was sending millions of dollars to voucher schools that discriminate against certain groups of students, while underfunding the public schools that most children attend and that accept everyone.

The feature story aired on Anderson Cooper’s CNN program. Even Ja’han Jones, who writes the blog for Joy Reid’s show, noticed the story.

CNN pointed out that rightwing evangelical churches are expanding as nearby public schools are drained of resources.

CNN reported:

Near the edge of the Phoenix metro’s urban sprawl, surrounded by a wide expanse of saguaro-studded scrubland, Dream City Christian School is in the midst of a major expansion.

The private school, which is affiliated with a local megachurch where former President Donald Trump held a campaign rally this month, recently broke ground on a new wing that will feature modern, airy classrooms and a pickleball court. It’s a sign of growth at a school that has partnered with a Trump-aligned advocacy group, and advertises to parents by vowing to fight “liberal ideology” such as “evolutionism” and “gender identification.”

Just a few miles away, the public Paradise Valley Unified School District is shrinking, not expanding. The district shuttered three of its schools last month amid falling enrollment, a cost-saving measure that has disrupted life for hundreds of families.

One of the factors behind Dream City’s success and Paradise Valley’s struggles: In Arizona, taxpayer dollars that previously went to public schools like the ones that closed are increasingly flowing to private schools – including those that adopt a right-wing philosophy.

Arizona was the first state in the country to enact a universal “education savings account” program – a form of voucher that allows any family to take tax dollars that would have gone to their child’s public education and spend the money instead on private schooling.

A CNN investigation found that the program has cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than anticipated, disproportionately benefited richer areas, and funneled taxpayer funds to unregulated private schools that don’t face the same educational standards and antidiscrimination protections that public schools do. Since Arizona’s expanded program took effect in 2022, according to state data, it has sent nearly $2 million to Dream City and likely sapped millions of dollars from Paradise Valley’s budget.

And Arizona is hardly alone: universal voucher programs are sweeping Republican-led states, making it one of the right’s most successful efforts to rewrite state policy after decades of setbacks.

This expansion of vouchers in red states was facilitated by millions of dollars spent to fund far-right legislators in state races by Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children and other billionaires, like Jeff Yass, a Trump supporter and the richest man in Pennsylvania. Yass said to CNN: “School choice is the civil rights issue of our time,” an oft-cited but phony claim.

In fact, school choice benefits the haves, not the have-nots, and it encourages segregation. Schools choose, not students or families.

In an internal presentation obtained by the progressive watchdog group Documented and provided to CNN, AFC boasted that it had “deployed” $250 million “to advance school choice over the last 13 years,” and that that spending had led to “$25+ billion in government funding directed towards student choice.” 

In 2018, nearly 2/3 of Arizonavoters rejected universal vouchers. Koch-funded Governor Doug Ducey kept pushing them, ignoring the will of the voters, and they were adopted in 2022. Now every student in the state can get a voucher, and most who take them come from families that can afford to pay their own tuition bills.

But unlike some other states that have adopted voucher programs, Arizona has no standardsrequiring private schools to be accredited or licensed by the state, or follow all but the most basic curriculum standards. That means there is no way to compare test scores in public schools to students in the ESA program.

“There’s zero accreditation, there’s zero accountability, and there’s zero transparency,” said Beth Lewis, a former teacher who leads an Arizona nonprofit that advocates against school privatization.

Arizona’s voucher program is busting the state’s budget. The state is facing a $1 billion deficit, caused largely by funding private schools that are discriminatory and whose academic progress is unknown.

On the other side of the Phoenix metro area, the private Valley Christian Schools received nearly $1.1 million in ESA funding last year despite facing allegations of LGBTQ discrimination in federal court. Valley Christian fired high school English teacher Adam McDorman after he voiced support for a student who came out as pansexual, McDorman alleged in a 2022 lawsuit. In an email that McDorman provided to CNN, the school’s then-principal argued that the idea that it was possible to be both “homosexual or otherwise sexually deviant and also a Christian” was a “hideous lie.”

Public schools are barred from discriminating against students because of characteristics like their religion or sexuality, but no such rules cover private schools. In court documents, Valley Christian lawyers have argued that the school had the religious liberty to fire McDorman. The school declined to comment because the case is pending.

In an interview, McDorman said his former school taught creationism as a scientific fact, and “whitewashed” American history to downplay the harms of slavery. He was surprised to learn about the level of public funding it was receiving.

Will the defunding of public schools be an issue in the Presidential election? Trump will surely boast about the progress of.school choice. Will Biden speak up against this nefarious effort to destroy public schools?

Categories Arizona, Education Industry, Media, Privatization, Vouchers

Breaking News! Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Religious Charter School!

By dianeravitch
June 25, 2024 //
25

Good news! The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against public funding for a religious charter school. Many were watching closely to see how the court ruled. A decision that went the other way would have rebuffed the tradition of separation of church and state and erased the distinction between charters and vouchers. The fact that Oklahoma’s ultra-conservative Governor Kevin Stitt and its State Commissioner of Education Ryan Walters strongly supported the religious charter school idea makes the decision even more startling.

CNN reports:

An effort to establish the first publicly funded religious charter school in the country has been blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The court Tuesday ordered the state to rescind its contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in a 6-2 decision with one recusal.

“Under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school,” wrote Justice James R. Winchester for the court. “As such, a charter school must be nonsectarian. However, St. Isidore will evangelize the Catholic faith as part of its school curriculum while sponsored by the State.”

A charter contract for St. Isidore was approved by a state board last year.

Charter schools in Oklahoma are privately owned but receive state funding under the same guidelines as government-operated public schools.

The fight over the school exposed a fault line between two of the state’s top Republican politicians. Gov. Kevin Stitt strongly advocated for the school, saying when the contract was approved that it was “a win for religious liberty and education freedom in our state.”

But the school’s charter status was strongly opposed by Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who filed the lawsuit against it and predicted the state could be forced to fund other types of religious education if St. Isidore succeeded.

“The framers of the US Constitution and those who drafted Oklahoma’s Constitution clearly understood how best to protect religious freedom: by preventing the State from sponsoring any religion at all,” Drummond said in a statement Tuesday. “Now Oklahomans can be assured that our tax dollars will not fund the teachings of Sharia Law or even Satanism.”

PLEASE OPEN THE LINK TO FINISH THE STORY.

[Thanks to reader FLERP for alerting us to this story.]

Categories Charter Schools, Curriculum, Democracy, Education Industry, Oklahoma, Religion, Separation of church and state

South Carolina Imposes Sweeping Book Censorship on School Libraries

By dianeravitch
June 25, 2024 //
9

Judd Legum at Popular Information writes about South Carolina’s sweeping censorship of school libraries. The state superintendent Ellen Weaver is affiliated with the notorious Moms for Liberty. Clearly this group does not support the “liberty” to read the books of your choice.

Legum writes:

On Tuesday, the South Carolina State Board of Education will impose a centralized and expansive censorship regime on every K-12 school library in the state. The new regulations could result in the banning of most classic works of literature from South Carolina schools — from The Canterbury Tales to Romeo and Juliet to Dracula. The rules were championed by South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver, who is closely aligned with Moms for Liberty, a far-right advocacy group seeking to remove scores of books from school libraries.

The regulations restricting library books, which were first proposed by the State Board of Education in September 2023, would ban any instructional materials, including library books, that are not “Age and Developmentally Appropriate.” The term “Age and Developmentally Appropriate” is defined as “topics, messages, materials, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group.” This definition is so broad and subjective that it could justify the removal of virtually any material. 

Further, any library books (or other instructional materials) are automatically deemed “not ‘Age and Developmentally Appropriate’ for any age or age group of children if it includes descriptions or visual depictions of ‘sexual conduct,’ as that term is defined by Section 16-15-305(C)(1).” Critically, the regulations ban library books with any descriptions of “sexual conduct” whether or not those descriptions would be considered “obscene.” Under the South Carolina law, a library book is not considered obscene if it includes descriptions of “sexual conduct” if it has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” or if the book, taken as a whole, does not appeal to a “prurient interest in sex.” This means that classic texts that contain descriptions of sexual content, including The Bibleand Ulysses, are not considered obscene.

The new South Carolina regulation refers only to Section 16-15-305(C)(1), which defines “sexual conduct” as “vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated, normal or perverted,” “masturbation,” or “an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with, the covered or exposed genitals.” Starting tomorrow, any book that contains any descriptions of “sexual conduct” that meets that sweeping definition is required to be banned from South Carolina schools, regardless of whether it has literary merit or would be considered obscene. 

Similar language in an Iowa law “resulted in mass book bans affecting classics, 20th-century masterpieces, books used in AP courses, and contemporary Young Adult novels.”

The enforcement of the new regulation is highly centralized. Any South Carolina parent with a child enrolled in a public K-12 school can challenge up to five books per month on the grounds that they contain descriptions of sexual content or are otherwise not age-appropriate. The school district board is then required to hold a public meeting within 90 days to consider the complaint. At the meeting, the school district board is required to announce whether or not it will remove the book. If the school district board decides not to remove the book, the parent can appeal to the South Carolina State Board of Education. After the State Board receives the appeal, it must publicly consider it no later than the second public meeting. 

If the State Board decides that the book should be removed, that decision is binding not only on the school district where the complaint originated by all K-12 schools in South Carolina. Any school employee who fails to comply with the bans will be subject to discipline by the State Board. The State Board is empowered to impose any punishment, including termination, that it deems appropriate. 

The regulations are opposed by over 400 authors, prominent book publishers, and free speech groups. 

Moms for Liberty’s influence in South Carolina

Weaver is a close ally of Moms for Liberty, which has advocated across the country to remove books from school libraries. She appeared at the Moms for Liberty 2023 Joyful Warriors National Summit. “There is nothing more precious that God has created than the hearts and the minds of our young people,” Weaver said. “And that is what the radical woke left is after. Make no mistake: saving our country starts with saving our schools.” 

Many of the books challenged by Moms for Liberty activists address racial or LGBTQ issues. Earlier this month, Weaver’s department announced it would “eliminate Advanced Placement African American Studies in [South Carolina] high schools.” 

The South Carolina Association of School Librarians (SCASL) opposes Weaver’s efforts to impose a centralized censorship regime on school libraries. In response, Weaver wrote to the group and declared that “the South Carolina Department of Education will formally discontinue any partnerships with SCASL as an organization, effective immediately.” The SCASL has collaborated with the South Carolina Department of Education for over 50 years. Weaver said the move was punishment for suggesting her efforts to remove library books amounted to a “ban” or a “violation of educators’ intellectual freedom.”

Please open the link to finish the post.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Democracy, Disruption, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom to Read, South Carolina

New Hampshire: Why the GOP Is Determined to Destroy Public Schools

By dianeravitch
June 25, 2024 //
10

Every time I see New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu interviewed on CNN, he plays the role of the GOP “moderate.” Don’t be fooled. When it comes to education, he’s a clone of Betsy DeVos.

Veteran New Hampshire Garry Rayno pulls away the mask of “moderate” that Sununu wears in this article in InDepthNH.

This is an important article for everyone to read, no matter where you live. It explains succinctly the true goals of the privatization movement.

He writes:

Public education has been since its inception with the work of Horace Mann, the great equalizer.

Students from poor families have been able to compete with students from the other side of the tracks, maybe not in reality, but close enough to at least have an opportunity to excel.

Many of the founding fathers understood the need for an educated public if democracy was going to survive and thrive.

A responsible citizen is an informed citizen, and that appears to be the problem today. Too many people interested in power instead of governing don’t want a truly informed public. Instead, they want enough of the public spoon fed “alternative facts,” conspiracy theories, and outright lies to ensure they retain power although they have views that are both harmful to the majority of citizens and allow the tyranny of the minority to overturn the will of the majority.

At the heart of the minority’s transformation plan is the destruction of the public school system.

New Hampshire has had a front row seat to the war on education since Chris Sununu was elected governor and named his rival for the Republican nomination in 2016, Frank Edelblut, to be Education Commissioner, a man without any experience in public education, which was the first for someone holding that position in our lifetime.

If Sununu did not know what would happen when he put Edelblut in charge of this critical state department, shame on him, because Edelblut’s one term in the House was a roadmap for his actions during his two terms as commissioner, his second ending in March 2025.

Sununu has also packed the State Board of Education with school choice advocates instead of supporters of public education, so you have the two entities in the executive branch responsible for the state’s public education systems, maybe not anti-public schools, but certainly not advocates for the state’s public education system.

According to the statutes, the education commissioner “is responsible for the organizational goals of the department and represents the public interest in the administration of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative and instructional services to all public schools in New Hampshire.”

Notice it says public schools, not private schools or religious schools, or homeschooling, or learning pods, or any of the other non-public entities that are approved vendors under the state’s Education Freedom Account program, some with questionable philosophies or intent.

An attempt by lawmakers this year to better define the education commissioner’s qualifications and responsibilities to the public school system was defeated this term by the same element that pushed to establish the EFA program and then to expand it, although this year’s attempt to increase the income threshold to participate in the program failed on the last day of the session to act on bills.

The outright attacks on public education began in New Hampshire about a decade ago but gained more warriors as FreeStaters/Libertarians swelled the ranks of the House and Senate Republican members.

The attack on public education here has been much the same as it has been in other states, mostly in the south and the west, with claims of the indoctrination of students by leftwing faculty members.

They have also attacked educators directly and have tried to pack school boards — without much success — to undermine curriculum, educators and slash budgets as happened in Croydon several years ago when the annual school meeting was poorly attended due to a snowstorm.

The Republican majority in the 2021-2022 legislature passed the state’s divisive concepts law forbidding teaching controversial subjects such as institutional racism.

The law was recently found unconstitutional by a US District Court judge.

That was the same term the EFA program was approved after earlier unsuccessful attempts.

Both the EFA program and the divisive concepts law were included in the state’s biennial budget package because they were not likely to pass on their own.

The same folks also tied education into the trumped out recent outrage over the LGBTQ community and sold it as an attack on parental rights.

The intent was to start a war between parents and educators, although parents already have many of the rights touted by the anti-public school advocates.

The theory touted was that educators were keeping information from parents about their students and their sexual identification and that educators were urging students to explore different sexual identities.

Then came the book banning other areas of the country experienced like Florida where some school libraries were stripped of books.

The red herring advocates touted here came from a national app that contains almost every book published that students could access both in schools and at home, and not on school library shelves.

Some tried to enlist town and city libraries in the surveillance of children and what they read and accessed, but that did not go very far.

All of this goes to create the appearance that schools are hotbeds of leftist politics and anti-parental values, some fueled by Edelblut in an op-ed he sent to media outlets.

And despite all this ginned up controversy, local public schools that educate about 90 percent of the school age children in the state remain very popular with parents and the public at large.

If that is true, you have to ask what is behind the push to demonize public schools like political candidates demonize opponents.

Keep in mind this attack on public education occurs at the same time when the superior court’s latest education funding decision says the state does not provide enough money to cover the cost of an adequate education for every student and the way it raises its biggest contribution to public education — the Statewide Education Property Tax — is unconstitutional.

Education is governments’ —not just state government’s — single biggest expense, costing about $3.5 billion a year.

If you are a Libertarian or Free Stater who believes “taxation is theft,” destroying public schools will shift the cost directly to parents, and you could keep a lot more of your money to spend as you see fit and not for the good of society.

And if you espouse the philosophy of the Koch Foundation or former US Education Commissioner, Betsy DeVos, you not only keep more of your money, one of the largest union-backed workforces in the country will be dismantled when certified teachers are no longer needed.

Without a public education system, a child would receive the education his or her parents could afford and for many, particularly minorities, and the historically poor, that may not be much beyond the time they turn 16 and have to go to work to keep the family treading the economic waters.

And then maybe they will work for a lot less than if they had a high school, or even a college education.

And without even an adequate education, how informed will the general public be or how capable of the critical thinking needed to realize all those folks touting their parental rights really do not have their best interests at heart.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Democracy, Disruption, Education Industry, Elections, Extremism, New Hampshire, Privatization, Vouchers

UFT President Drops Effort to Force Retirees into For-Profit Medicare Advantage Plan

By dianeravitch
June 24, 2024 //
6

There’s an old saying that “you can’t fight City Hall.” Public service retirees in New York City just proved that you can fight City Hall and win. You can fight City Hall and your own union and win. With a passionate leader and small donations from retirees (mostly teachers), the retirees prevailed because they had the law on their side and they never gave up.

For the past three years, New York City retirees have been fighting a plan hatched by City government and some union leaders to compel retirees to leave Medicare and enroll in a for-profit Medicare Advantage plan. The retirees, led by Marianne Pizzitola, a retired EMT in the NYC Fire Department, have won multiple lawsuits and won control of the UFT Retiree Caucus (the first time in its 64-year-old history that the Unity Caucus that controls the UFT ever lost an internal election.) This story appeared in City & State, a publication about public employees.

Yesterday, UFT President Michael Mulgrew announced that the UFT was dropping out of the effort to push retirees into an MA plan. He blamed the city, not the retirees’ objections to MA.

In a dramatic reversal, Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation Teachers, notified the Municipal Labor Committee on Sunday that it was withdrawing its support of a controversial Medicare Advantage plan as well as from “the current healthcare negotiations for in-service and pre-Medicare retirees” with the Adams administration.

The bombshell news came in the form of a letter that Mulgrew sent to Harry Nespoli, the chair of the Municipal Labor Committee and leader of the city’s largest Department of Sanitation union. 

“It has become apparent that this administration is unwilling to continue this work in good faith,” Mulgrew wrote in the letter. “The city has delayed our current in-service and pre-Medicare retiree healthcare negotiations for months, and we no longer feel that it is in the interest of our members to be part of that process. This administration has proven to be more interested in cutting its costs than honestly working with us to provide high-quality healthcare costs to city workers.”

Mulgrew also sent a separate letter to retired UFT members explaining his decision.

“The city’s losses in the courts and the needless anxiety created among retirees has made it clear to us that our support for this initiative cannot continue … You did not deserve the angst and fear you went through as we worked toward our goal of improving our health care in an increasingly difficult national landscape,” he wrote in the letter. “I have heard your voices. And as we have all grown increasingly frustrated with this process, we will use our strength in the MLC to push for a new strategy moving forward.”

Following the news, a spokesperson for the city’s Law Department defended the city’s Medicare Advantage plan.

“We have been clear: the city’s plan, which was negotiated closely with and supported by the Municipal Labor Committee, would improve upon retirees’ current plans and save $600 million annually. This is particularly important at a time when we are already facing significant fiscal and economic challenges,” the spokesperson said.

Going back several years to the de Blasio administration, the Municipal Labor Committee – which includes representatives of every municipal union – had been working collaboratively with the City of New York to try to reduce the city’s health care costs while maintaining the quality of coverage and ensuring that city workers would still not have to pay health insurance premiums.

As part of that grand bargain during the de Blasio era, the Municipal Labor Committee agreed to shift New York City ‘s 250,000 retired civil servants from their current Medicare plans to a Medicare Advantage plan managed by a private, for-profit health insurance company. Boosters of the controversial Medicare Advantage plan that insisted that it would save the city $600 million annually.

Almost instantaneously, a racially and economically diverse coalition led by retired FDNY EMT Marianne Pizzitola formed the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees. With close to 50,000 members, Pizzitola’s organization helped fund a successful legal challenge to the plan that has already won several rounds in the courts. State court judges have consistently ruled in favor of the retirees, finding that under the legal doctrine of promissory estoppel, the city’s past commitments to its retirees as active employees were still binding….

In his letter to the Municipal Labor Committee announcing UFT’s withdrawal from the Medicare Advantage plan, Mulgrew did not mention the recent leadership election for the Retired Teachers chapter – a fact that upset Bennett Fischer, who won that election by running on an anti-Medicare Advantage platform.

“President Mulgrew should have acknowledged that he is changing his position because elections have consequences,” Fischer wrote in a statement. “He could have acknowledged that he is taking these steps because Retiree Advocate wrested control of the 70,000+ Retired Teachers Chapter from his Unity caucus, and because he sees that his control of the UFT is slipping away. … Until now, Michael Mulgrew and Mayor Adams have been on the same page.”

In a free-ranging interview with City & State, Mulgrew said that the decision to pull the plug had been coming long before the recent electoral rebuff by his retirees, though he conceded it was part of his  final calculus.

“About eight weeks ago, I started talking to people at the MLC that this was ridiculous with the courts clearly saying over and over again through all the appeals that this [Medicare Advantage] was not going to work,” Mulgrew said. “And when I read this latest decision out of the Court of Appeals of New York State, half of the decision was about the incompetence of the city’s attorneys.”

Mulgrew continued. “At the same time, we were getting nowhere, I mean nowhere with the negotiations for health care for our in-service active members,” he said, adding that when some of the unions wanted to meet with Mayor Adams to jump start the talks, they were rebuffed by management’s representatives at the table.

“This has got to stop – the members have spoken, the courts have spoken – so why are we continuing to do this?” Mulgrew asked. “Why would the city continue to put its retirees through this process anymore?”…

Pizzitola, the president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, said that the city should finally give up on its attempt to force retirees to Medicare Advantage plans.

“For three years, an ad-hoc coalition of retirees has been fighting this illegal scheme in the courts and in the City Council,” she wrote in a statement. “And while retirees have been continuously successful – winning 9 victories over three separate lawsuits and thwarting an attempt to change the law  – the City still can’t seem to get the message: enough is enough!”

Pizzitola continued. “It is time for the City to come to its senses and end its senseless, illegal war on retirees. If retirees are forced off of traditional Medicare and into the City’s new Medicare Advantage plan, thousands will be denied access to the doctors they depend on and the medical care they desperately need. And, as the director of the NYC Independent Budget Office testified, City taxpayers will not save a dime.”

Categories Education Reform, Health, Unions

Lithwick and Ornstein: A Last Chance for Democracy?

By dianeravitch
June 24, 2024 //
88

Dahlia Lithwick and Norman Ornstein are lawyers and close observers of national politics. In this article, they urge us to take Trump’s threats seriously. They are not just campaign rhetoric or empty promises. He means what he says. As Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Most of the mainstream media (MSNBC is an exception) attempts to normalize Trump, as though he’s just another in a long line of conservative politicians. He is not. He is an autocrat who longs to have total control and to use that control to get vengeance for his enemies (no “loyal opposition” for him).

The first term was a warning. Trump tried in some cases to pick good people, but they didn’t last long. He won’t make the same mistake. He will demand loyalty, total loyalty. Anyone he appoints will have to agree that the election of 2020 was rigged and stolen.

He says he will take bold steps to reverse the progressive gains of the past 90 years, which he will attribute to “communists, socialists, fascists vermin, and scum”

Lithwick and Ornstein write at Slate about The dangers posed by Trump:

Most would-be dictators run for office downplaying or sugarcoating their intentions, trying to lure voters with a vanilla appeal. But once elected, the autocratic elements take over, either immediately or gradually: The destruction of free elections, undermining the press, co-opting the judiciary, turning the military into instruments of the dictatorship, installing puppets in the bureaucracy, making sure the legislature reinforces rather than challenges lawless or unconstitutional actions, using violence and threats of violence to cow critics and adversaries, rewarding allies with government contracts, and ensuring that the dictator and family can secrete billions from government resources and bribes. This was the game plan for Putin, Sisi, Orbán, and many others. It’s hardly unfamiliar.

Donald Trump is rather different in one respect. He has not softened his spoken intentions to get elected. While Trump is a congenital liar—witness his recent claim that he, not Joe Biden, got $35 insulin for diabetics—when it comes to how he would act if elected again to the presidency, he has been brutally honest, as have his closest advisers and campaign allies. His presidency would feature retribution against his enemies, weaponizing and politicizing the Justice Department to arrest and detain them whether there were valid charges or not. He has pledged to pardon the Jan. 6 violent insurrectionist rioters, who could constitute a personal vigilante army for President Donald Trump, presumably alongside the official one.

He has openly said he would be a dictator on Day One, reimplementing a Muslim ban, purging the bureaucracy of professional civil servants and replacing them with loyalists, invoking the Insurrection Act to quash protests and take on opponents while replacing military leaders who would resist turning the military into a presidential militia with pliant generals. He would begin immediately to put the 12 million undocumented people in America into detention camps before moving to deport them all. His Republican convention policy director, Russell Vought, has laid out many of these plans as have his closest advisers, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Michael Flynn, among others. Free elections would be a thing of the past, with more radical partisan judges turning a blind eye to attempts to protect elections and voting rights. He has openly flirted with the idea that he would ignore the 22nd Amendment and stay beyond his term of office.

The battle plan of his allies in the Heritage Foundation, working closely with his campaign via Project 2025, includes many of the aims above, and more; it would also tighten the screws on abortion after Dobbs, move against contraception, reinstate criminal sanctions against gay sex while overturning the right to same-sex marriage, among other things. His top foreign policy adviser, Richard Grenell, has reiterated what Trump has said about his isolationist-in-the-extreme foreign policy—jettison NATO, abandon support for Ukraine and give Putin a green light to go after Poland and other NATO countries, and reorient American alliances to create one of strongmen dictators including Kim Jong-un. Shockingly, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson violated sacred norms and endangered security by bypassing qualified lawmakers and appointing to the House Intelligence Committee two dangerous and manifestly unqualified members—one insurrectionist sympathizer, Rep. Scott Perry, who has sued the FBI, and one extremist demoted by the military for drunkenness, pill pushing, and other offenses, Rep. Ronny Jackson—simply because Donald Trump demanded it. They will have access to America’s most critical secrets and will likely share them with Trump if his status as a convicted felon denies him access to top secret information during the campaign. This is part of a broader pattern in which GOP lawmakers do what Trump wants, no matter how extreme or reckless….

We are worried about this baseline assumption that everything is fine until someone alerts us that nothing is fine, that of course our system will hold because it always has. We worry that we are exceptionally good at telling ourselves that shocking things won’t happen, and then when they do happen, we don’t know what to do. We worry that every time we say “the system held” it implies that “holding” equals “winning” as opposed to barely scraping by. We worry that while Trump has armies of surrogates out there arguing that Trump is an all-powerful God proxy, the rule of law has no surrogates out there arguing for anything because nobody ever came to a rally for a Rule 11 motion. The Biden administration has largely taken the position that the felony conviction is irrelevant because it’s proof that the status quo isn’t in danger. But the reality is that Republicans are openly campaigning against judges, juries, and prosecutors. Overt declarations of blowing up our checks and balances and following the blueprints to autocracy set by Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán, meanwhile, are treated with shrugs by mainstream journalists and commentators. What’s more, Republicans in Congress have shown a willingness to kowtow to every Trump demand. The signals are flashing red that our fundamental system is in danger.

“The system is holding” is not a plan for a knowable future. It never was.

Please open the link and read the article in full.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Lies, Republicans, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »