Archives for category: Academic Freedom
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

An Open Letter to the Education Minister of Liberia

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2017 //
8

Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, issued a bulletin about disturbing developments in Liberia, which threaten freedom of research about the performance of corporate outsourced schools.

EI wrote in a letter I received:

“As you would be aware, just over 12 months ago, in an unprecedented move, the Government of Liberia announced its intention to out-source its entire primary and pre-primary school system to Bridge International Academies in 5 tranches.

“As a result of considerable opposition to the announcement, the Government announced a one year pilot program called Partnership Schools Liberia (PSL) involving 8 actors operating 93 schools.

“At the time of the announcement, the Government gave a number of assurances, including that the pilot would be subject to a rigorous evaluation.

“Approximately 6 weeks ago, less than 6 months into the “trial”, the Minister announced that he was preparing to announce a scale-up of the PSL without waiting for the outcome of the evaluation.

“On 18 May, in a further disturbing move, the Minister blocked an independent research team from the University of Wisconsin from conducting qualitative research into the PSL by denying them access to schools.”

Here is the letter:

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE WERNER, MINISTER OF EDUCATION, LIBERIA

We are writing to express deep concern about both your reluctance to permit independent research of the Partnership Schools for Liberia pilot programme and your rush to expand the pilot before evidence is available.

Education International, with support from ActionAid, commissioned an independent research team from the University of Wisconsin to conduct qualitative research which was designed to complement the Randomised Control Trial evaluation that is already underway in Liberia with the Center for Global Development (CGD) in partnership with Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). We understand that, having indicated your support for this complementary research, you withdrew that support at the last moment (just as the researchers were due to fly to Liberia) and will not now permit the researchers to access the pilot schools.

The Partnership Schools for Liberia pilot has a very high profile internationally and warrants detailed study. We understand that a lot has been invested in the RCT evaluation, but no single evaluation, however well-designed, will ever provide a comprehensive picture of a pilot programme as complex as the one you have initiated. By blocking independent research you are depriving the academic and policy community important opportunities to fully understand this pilot.

It is our view that permitting and facilitating independent academic inquiry is a precondition for transparency and good governance, particularly when you are seeking to challenge established practices and norms.

You will be aware of the widespread concerns about how Bridge International Academies blocked independent research in Uganda and have failed to allow external evaluation of their schools whilst making bold claims for their success based on their own internal data. This is very poor practice and we would be very concerned if the Ministry of Education in Liberia played a role in extending such practices.

Our second major area of concern relates to your plans to scale up the initial pilot programme even before findings from the evaluation and research come through. You have previously gone on record stressing that any scaling up would be subject to the findings from the initial pilot programme (over three years) but from the latest reports it seems you are now planning a significant expansion from September 2017, without any of those findings being ready. This flies in the face of evidence-based policy making and suggests that you are only paying lip-service to the importance of research and evaluation. Such a move makes the pilot programme appear to be one driven largely by ideology. Indeed it undermines the RCT evaluation as well as the value of any complementary research.

We urge you to move away from this present damaging path, to reassert the importance of using evidence to inform your policy choices and to commit publically to supporting and facilitating independent research at the start of the new school year in September.

Yours sincerely

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Corporate Reformers, International, Privatization

Rutgers Professor Prevails Over New Jersey Charter Lobbyists Who Tried to Silence Her

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2017 //
41

This is a sordid story with a happy ending. It tells how the deep-pocketed charter industry tried to silence and discredit a scholar who disagreed with them. The story appears in the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Professor Julia Sass Rubin is an associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. She has researched charter schools in New Jersey, and one of her studies concluded that charter schools in the state were not serving the same demographic as public schools. She is also an active leader in the Save Our Schools New Jersey organization.

The New Jersey Charter Schools Association did not like her research. They particularly did not like a study she published in October 2014, demonstrating that charter schools enrolled smaller numbers of students with disabilities, English language learners, and poor children as compared with the public schools in the same school district.

They might have challenged her to a debate. They didn’t. They might have published a response, challenging her facts. They didn’t.

Instead the New Jersey Charter Schools Association registered complaints against her with the New Jersey State Ethics Commission charging that she had violated the state’s Conflict of Interest Law and its Uniform Ethics Code. It also complained to Rutgers University that she had violated the Rutgers Code and Policies for faculty employees.

In other words, they sought to destroy her reputation and her career.

The state board of ethics made no ruling. The university reported that there was no evidence for the charges against Professor Rubin. She was vindicated but it took two years.

Professor Rubin was the intended victim of a SLAPP lawsuit. This is defined in Wikipedia as:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

“The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

As Martin Levine writes in TNQ, more was at stake than Professor Rubin’s reputation.

“This story came to a happy end. After the state board made no finding, the university found none of the allegations were supported by the evidence. Yet, this remains a cautionary tale. The ease with which political opponents can make the debate personal can have a very chilling effect.

“We ended our piece two years ago with a challenge to others to speak out in defense of free, fact-based speech: “We’re waiting for state and national nonprofit associations to speak out against this travesty, as they should, and stand up for the core nonprofit value of free speech.” While Professor Rubin’s reputation and ability to freely go on with her important work has been upheld, it is more important than ever for others to speak loudly. As we see scientists removed from advisory panels and facts that don’t support political beliefs discarded, the collective voice is still critical.”

For her refusal to be intimidated, for defending the rights of others to write and speak without fear, I add Julia Sass Rubin to the honor roll of this blog. She really should be honored by the American Association of Universities, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and others who are passionate about protecting our freedoms.

Categories Academic Freedom, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Honor Roll, New Jersey

New York City: Principal Under Investigation, Suspected of Being a Communist

By dianeravitch
May 5, 2017 //
44

Shades of McCarthyism. The principal of a small high school in Brooklyn is under investigation after someone tipped off the Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations that she might be a Communist.

“It was early March when a representative from the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations sat down with Jill Bloomberg, the longtime principal of Park Slope Collegiate in Brooklyn, a combined middle and high school, to inform her that she was under investigation.

“The representative told Ms. Bloomberg that she could not tell her the nature of any allegations, nor who had made them, but said that she would need to interview Ms. Bloomberg’s staff.

“Then one of her assistant principals, who had met with an investigator, revealed to her exactly what the allegation was, one that seemed a throwback to another era: Communist organizing.

“I think I just said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. This is something O.S.I. investigates?’” Ms. Bloomberg said, using an abbreviation for the Office of Special Investigations. “I mean, what decade are we living in?”
But after the initial shock, she said she realized she had been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time.

“Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg has become one of the most outspoken and visible critics of New York City’s public schools, regularly castigating the Education Department’s leadership at forums and in the news media. Most of her criticism is aimed at actions that she says perpetuate a segregated and unequal educational system and that penalize black and Latino students. Through the years, she has helped organize protests and assemblies to push for integration and equal resources and treatment for her almost entirely black and Latino student body.

“Last Friday, Ms. Bloomberg filed a lawsuit against the school system saying it violated her rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects an individual’s civil rights and the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Ms. Bloomberg was seeking an injunction to stop the investigation until her lawsuit is resolved.”

Do employees of the New York City Department of Education have freedom of speech?

More on this subject: See here.

Categories Academic Freedom, Freedom of Speech, New York City

Teachers of the World, Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Subservience

By dianeravitch
May 3, 2017 //
27

A group of internationally renowned educators are meeting in Rotterdam starting today, and they are building an organization of educators to resist the test-driven, compliance-driven culture that has enveloped many nations. They are resisting the movement to privatize schooling and to turn children into data points.

It is an international rebellion against corporate reform.

Join.

They call themselves “We the Educators.”

You can join the conversation at wetheeducators.com

Here is the link to their Facebook page.

I will occasionally post material they produce.

You can download the report here.

Categories Academic Freedom, Education Reform, Teachers

What Opportunities Do Charter Schools Provide That Would Not Exist Without Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
March 28, 2017 //
48

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy–a retired educator who served as deputy commissioner of education for the state of Ohio- asks the question that is the title of this post.

And he answers:


What educational opportunities do charters provide that would not exist if there were no charters?

Sometimes public school advocates say, “I don’t have a problem with charters, but…” A short quiz is an appropriate way to think about what the charter industry has contributed to the improvement of educational opportunities and results.

ο What innovations and best practices have Ohio charters demonstrated that are worthy of replication in the real public school system?

ο What additional and/or high quality educational opportunities are charters providing for regular, disadvantaged, career/technical students and those with disabilities that are not available in the real public school system?

ο What extracurricular activities do charter schools offer that the real public school system does not?

ο Have charters demonstrated stronger academic performance than the real public school system?

ο Have charters demonstrated a lower cost for school administration than the real public school system?

ο In view of more than 200 charter school closings in Ohio, have charters provided more stability for students than the real public school system?

ο Have the threads of fiscal fraud and corruption, funds wasted in charter closings, nepotism, inordinate profits and towering administrative salaries inherent in charterdom established a new normal in school operation?

Ohio taxpayers have been forced to invest in this $9 billion charter experiment. Truthful answers to the above questions reveal that they have, in large part, been bilked; but state officials in charge of the Statehouse continue to throw more money at this failed venture.

If you want to contact Bill for information or to support his activities, he can be reached at:

Ohio E & A, 100 S. 3rd Street, Columbus, OH 43215
ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Ohio, Privatization

Cedar Riener: Should There Be Limits to Free Speech?

By dianeravitch
February 3, 2017 //
48

Cedar Riener is a professor of psychology at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. In this post, he debates the dilemmas of free speech. What stance do you take when confronting fascists? Do you ignore those who bully the vulnerable in public? He uses the example of a rightwing provocateur who humiliates a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin by displaying photographs of her as part of a public lecture. Should hate speech be protected? Should incitement to violence be protected?

These are issues that once seemed antique. They no longer are.

As a reader pointed out recently, I wrote a book called “The Language Police,” which is a strong affirmation of free speech. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. But, as this angry reader told me, I block content on this blog that uses certain four-letter words, that insults me, and that I find offensive. I am walking a fine line here.

Cedar Riener tries to redefine the line. We are in new times. Should we protect the speech of fascists? Racists? Misogynists? Issues we once thought were settled no longer are.

Categories Academic Freedom, Bias, Bigotry, Freedom of Speech

GregB: What to Expect in the Age of Trump And How to Resist

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2017 //
7

GregB, a regular reader and commenter, left the following thoughts about the four years ahead of us:

 

 

“I commented on another site today about Al Franken that “it took a great comedian to show DC what a great senator looks like.” The perverse reality we live in today is amplified by the fact that comedians give us better news and analysis than “journalists.” Think of Jon Stewart and Jon Oliver as great examples. Tonight Samantha Bee had the best expose of hypocrisy of Kellyanne Conway and how “journalists” can’t cut through her bs. But her interview with exiled Russian dissident journalist (no quotes) Masha Gessen was amazing. Here’s a quick checklist of things that Gessen went through that Donald’s regime will likely do which mirrors Putin.

 

First pre-election speculation if Donald were to win:

 

— it feels like we’re staring into an abyss

 

Post election things to expect (most efforts to successfully resist that she knows of have failed and her biggest worry is a nuclear holocaust):

— he’s certain to do irreparable harm to the environment that will make the survival of the human species impossible,
— the impossibility of going on to democracy after Trump

(after Bee does a chart that shows what the path is to rock bottom, what low points do you expect to see in our near future?)

— he’s going to lift the sanctions against Russia
— he’s going to start banning one newspaper after the other from the White House
— he is going to start thinking about wars
— he is going to go to the Putin model of holding one press conference per year
— suppose some cities refuse to cooperate with deportation, so he calls on the American people to start reporting on immigrants, and that’s when we start getting into really disgusting territory
— that will be the beginning of the culture of citizen against citizen
— so there’s a Russian joke: We thought we had reached rock bottom and then someone knocked from below
— (in language) he’s very similar to Putin, he uses language to assert his power over reality
— what he’s saying is “I create the right to say whatever the hell I please and what are you going to do about it?”
— it’s instinctual, it’s like a bully in a playground
— the point is to render you completely powerless
— because everything you know how to do (to point out reality) is useless
— the thing to do to resist is to continue panicking, to keep being the hysteric in the room and say, “This is not normal”
— just remember why you’re panicking, write a note to yourself about what you would never do, and when you come to the line, don’t cross it

 

Thanks Samantha and Masha. It would have been good advice in Germany 1933 and seems apt for the US in 2017.

Categories Academic Freedom, Democracy, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Trump

Gene V. Glass: Two Arizona Republicans Want to Prohibit Teaching “Social Justice”

By dianeravitch
January 22, 2017 //
12

 

The distinguished researcher Gene V. Glass writes here about legislation proposed by two Arizona legislators to prohibit the teaching of “social justice” in schools or colleges.

 

http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2017/01/arizona-republicans-want-to-prohibit.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EducationInTwoWorlds+%28Education+in+Two+Worlds%29

 

Schools found to be in violation would be fined 10% of their state monies.

 

I am not sure what the definition of “social justice” is. Fairness, equality, equal rights? The Constitution? The Bill of Rights?

Categories Academic Freedom, Democracy, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press

Education Deans Issue a Statement in Support of Public Education and Democracy

By dianeravitch
January 13, 2017 //
7

Nearly 200 education deans from across the nation released a “Declaration of Principles,“calling on Congress and the Trump Administration to advance democratic values in America’s public schools.

 

Press Release:
Contact:
Dean Kevin Kumashiro: (415) 422-2108, kkumashiro@usfca.edu
Dean Kathy Schultz: (303) 492-6937, katherine.schultz@colorado.edu
William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net

 
BOULDER, CO (January 13, 2017) – As the nation watches this month’s transition to a new administration and a new Congress, a growing alliance of deans of colleges and schools of education across the country is urging a fundamental reconsideration of the problems and possibilities that surround America’s public schools.

 

In a Declaration of Principles released today, 175 deans sounded the alarm: “Our children suffer when we deny that educational inequities exist and when we refuse to invest sufficient time, resources, and effort toward holistic and systemic solutions. The U.S. educational system is plagued with oversimplified policies and reform initiatives that were developed and imposed without support of a compelling body of rigorous research, or even with a track record of failure.” The deans called upon federal leaders to forge a new path forward by:

 

Upholding the role of public schools as a central institution in the strengthening of our democracy;
Protecting the human and civil rights of all children and youth, especially those from historically marginalized communities;
Developing and implementing policies, laws, and reform initiatives by building on a democratic vision for public education and on sound educational research; and
Supporting and partnering with colleges and schools of education to advance these goals.
Signing the statement are current and former deans of colleges and schools of education from across the United States, as well as chairs of education departments in institutions with no separate school of education.

 

The statement was authored by Education Deans for Justice and Equity (EDJE) and prepared in partnership with the National Education Policy Center. EDJE was formed in 2016 as an alliance of deans to address inequities and injustices in education while promoting its democratic premises through policy, research, and practice.

 

The entire Declaration of Principles by Education Deans for Justice and Equity on Public Education, Democracy, and the Role of the Federal Government, as well as an online form for additional education deans to sign on, can be found on the NEPC website at http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/deans-declaration-of-principles.

Categories Academic Freedom, Civil Rights, Democracy, Teacher Education

Take 3 Minutes and Watch Meryl Streep’s Powerful Speech; Trump Responded with a Tweet

By dianeravitch
January 9, 2017 //
15

Meryl Streep spoke last night at the Golden Globe awards, where she received a lifetime achievement award. She spoke about kindness, decency, compassion. She spoke about the role of the artist and the importance of the arts. She spoke about immigrants and the power of diversity. She urged everyone to support a free press, specifically the Committee to Protect Journalists. She called out an unnamed powerful person who mocked and mimicked a disabled reporter. All in a few minutes.

 

Please watch.

 

Donald Trump responded with a tweet, saying that Streep is “overrated” and that she “doesn’t know me but attacked me.”

 

So one cannot attack Trump’s words or actions unless you “know” him. Hmmm.

Categories Academic Freedom, Democracy, Freedom, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »