Archives for category: Bias

The National Education Policy Center released a report showing how school choice facilitates discrimination that is prohibited in public schools. There should be a basic principle for all publicly-funded schools, whether they are public schools, charter schools, or voucher schools: Where public money goes, public accountability must follow. Public money should not tolerate bigotry against students or staff of any kind.

When Publicly Funded Schools Exclude Segments of the Public

Key Takeaway: Policy brief analyzes discriminatory practices and possible legal protections in an era of education privatization.

NEPC Publication: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/privatization

Contact:
William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Julie F. Mead: (608) 263-3405, jmead@education.wisc.edu

In Indiana, a private religious school receiving over $6.5 million in public funds via the state’s voucher program placed an LGBT counselor on leave because she had married her same-sex partner.

In Milwaukee, where students with disabilities constitute 12-20% of public school enrollments, they constitute only 2% of enrollments in private schools participating in the city’s voucher program. Similarly, charter schools enroll a lower percentage of students with disabilities (particularly more severe disabilities) when compared to traditional public schools. In response to these and other issues of access and discrimination, some defenders of these schools have argued that the schools have broken no laws—and they are often
correct. How can this be?

To answer that question, professors Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin and Suzanne E. Eckes of Indiana University authored a policy brief, titled How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination, which analyzes discrimination in an era of education privatization.

The brief’s review of relevant laws reveals that voucher and charter school programs open the
door to discrimination because of three phenomena.

First, federal law defines discrimination differently in public and private spaces.

Second, state legislatures have largely neglected issues of discrimination while constructing voucher laws; charter laws are better, but they fail to comprehensively address these issues.

Third, because private and charter schools are free to determine what programs to offer, they can attract some populations while excluding others.

After briefly examining the history of discrimination in schools, the brief analyzes each of these
three enabling factors and then outlines recent developments.

Finally, based on its analyses, the brief offers the following recommendations to help address the issue of publicly funded programs currently failing to serve all segments of the public:

1. Congress should amend federal anti-discrimination laws to clarify that states supporting charter schools and states directly or indirectly channeling public funds to private schools must ensure that those programs operate in non-discriminatory ways.

2. Federal agencies should explore whether governmental benefits should be withheld from private schools failing to meet non-discrimination standards.

3. State legislatures should include explicit anti-discrimination language in their state voucher laws to ensure that participating private schools do not discriminate against students and staff on the basis of race, color, sex, race, class, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, national origin, or primary language.

4. State legislatures should adopt or amend charter school laws to ensure that policies and practices are reviewed throughout the process of approval and renewal. Schools failing to attract and retain reasonably heterogeneous student populations should be directed to address the problem and should be considered for non-renewal if the problem is not corrected.

Find How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination, by Julie F. Mead and Suzanne E. Eckes, at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/privatization

This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (greatlakescenter.org).

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu

Rebecca Klein, education editor of Huffington Post, writes here about a voucher school in Florida that rejected a black child because it didn’t approve of his dreadlocks.

The good news is that the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund are fighting back, saying that the ban by the all-white staff serves no useful purpose.

In August, 6-year-old Clinton Stanley Jr. was kicked out of his new school before he even had a chance to step inside a classroom. Administrators at the Florida school didn’t approve of his hairstyle, which he wore in locs, and said he couldn’t return until he changed it.

Now the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and American Civil Liberties Union are filing a legal complaint with the state’s Department of Education, alleging that the private school’s hair policy is racially discriminatory. The complaint cites HuffPost data showing that it is not uncommon for private schools in the state to maintain hair policies with clear racist undertones.

The school in question ― A Book’s Christian Academy ― is private, but it participates in several of the state’s voucher programs, which provides publicly funded scholarships for kids to attend private schools based on factors like income. Clinton was supposed to attend A Book’s Christian Academy on one such scholarship.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and Legal Defense Fund complaint says that A Book’s policy is illegal, violating federal civil rights laws that schools in state voucher programs are required to follow.

“A Book’s ban on ‘dreads’ – a style that Black students are particularly likely to wear – does not advance any legitimate school objective,” says the complaint. “Therefore, A Book’s policy illegally discriminates against Black students.”

Pete Tucker, a freelance journalist in D.C., is puzzled by the Washington Post’s spin on the Maryland Governor’s Race.

He amply documents the Post’s friendly coverage of Republican Governor Larry Hogan, and its consistently unfriendly treatment of his Democratic opponent, Ben Jealous.

Hogan supports school choice. Hogan appointed Checker Finn and Andy Smarick, two hard-line advocates of school choice, to the State Board of Education. Ben Jealous supports public schools and was endorsed by the Network for Public Education Action Fund.

Tucker writes:

“In 1966 Ann Todd and Fred Jealous couldn’t get married in their home state of Maryland because they were an interracial couple. Five decades later their son Ben Jealous is the Democratic nominee for Maryland governor.

“If Jealous wins in November he will become Maryland’s first African-American governor, and the nation’s third-ever elected black governor. (Jealous hopes to share this latter distinction with two fellow Democrats also endorsed by Bernie Sanders: Andrew Gillum of Florida and Stacey Abrams of Georgia, who would also be the first-ever black woman governor.) There are presently no black governors in office.

“Jealous, the former and youngest-ever head of the NAACP, faces stiff competition, and not just from incumbent Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. The Washington Post – which dominates D.C.’s media landscape, including vote-rich Maryland suburbs in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties – has set its sights on defeating Jealous.

“This may seem bizarre. Why would the Post throw its weight behind a Republican instead of an historic candidate like Jealous? Especially when the Post’s aggressive reporting on President Trump has led to record-breaking readership and heaps of praise from Democrats.

“But the Post’s resistance to Trump is a mirage, and the paper’s politics remain far from progressive.

“Once Trump isn’t around, what will be left for the Post to resist? Surely not war, the Post supports all of them. Not climate change, where the paper’s record is mixed at best and includes support for both fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline. And not inequality, as the Post is owned by the richest man alive, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Like Amazon, the Post is anti-union – that is, against workers collectively organizing to improve their lot, an essential tool in addressing inequality.

“It’s these stances – along with the Post’s record of targeting candidates with strong African-American and progressive support – that help explain the paper’s backing of Hogan and over-the-top opposition to Jealous (who I am supporting). Still, the extent to which the Post is willing to go to sway the election is surprising.”

The Post coverage emphasizes how “popular” Hogan is.

Tucker says,

“Maryland has twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, so Hogan needs strong Democratic support to win reelection; and the Post is determined to see that he gets it.

“Hogan, the Post explains, is widely admired for his “winning personality” and “personal appeal.” He’s just a regular guy who is “real down-to-earth,” “follows his gut” and “knows his way around a barroom.”

LWith fawning coverage like this it’s unsurprising that Hogan is “astonishingly,” “stunningly” and “hugely” popular, as the Post tells it. (The word “popular” is used so much one reader asked if the Post had exchanged it for Hogan’s first name.)”

But when the Post covers Jealous, it paints him as a leftist who wants to “soak the rich” to pay for his expensive ideas.

Tucker writes:

“Ben Jealous’s platform – which includes a $15 an hour minimum wage, single-payer health care and free state college tuition – is liked by Marylanders. So the Post downplays these policies (which it opposes), and paints Jealous as a “coup leader” who is too radical to vote for.

“Jealous’s “left-wing advance” is “irresponsible” and “anything but… centrist,” the Post tells readers. His “craven,” “reckless” “left-wing platform” will “blow a Chesapeake Bay-sized hole in the state budget.””

All the more reason for the voters of Maryland to ignore the Post and vote for Ben Jealous and begin to repair the state.

Peter Greene examines in this post why education journalism is biased towards the reformy narrative.

Why do education writers call pundits in think tanks instead of teachers?

Then he analyzes a guide to sources, and the reason for bias becomes clear.

Why talk to a teacher when Reformer pundits are standing by?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of our nation’s most valuable organizations defending our Constitution and democratic values against extremists.

Their report today says that extremist groups are holding a hate rally in Portland, Oregon, today. There are many links, which I am not including because I would have to do each one manually. If you sign up to get their newsletter, you can get the full report with links. What SPLC describes is an example of the way the far-right is “weaponizing the First Amendment,” using it as a shield to defend hatred, racism, and incitement’s to violence. What or who incited these groups?

SPLC writes:

AUGUST 4, 2018
Weekend Read // Issue 91

The threat of violence hangs over a rally that’s being staged by far-right groups in Portland, Oregon, today, nearly a year after the deadly white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys have held more than a dozen rallies throughout the Pacific Northwest over the past year, events marked by street violence and harassment and buoyed by a wide array of racist and antigovernment extremist allies.

David Neiwert, who frequently writes for our Hatewatch blog, has been covering the rallies from the beginning. In a piece for The Baffler, he describes the last violent rally they held in Portland on June 30th:

The Proud Boys and Patriots were primed for battle. Indeed, the whole point of the event was to try to provoke a fight that they were not simply prepared for, but were keen to take part in. Prior to the onset of street hostilities, the alt-right crowd bristled with warlike talk about martyrdom as the price of freedom and “taking down” the antifascists across the street. Periodically they’d break into chants of Queen’s mock-authoritarian seventies anthem “We Will Rock You,” which they dedicated to British Identitarian Tommy Robinson.

As I watched the last of the Proud Boys—waiting for the final school bus that had brought them to the rally to arrive so they could leave, clustered on a street corner and haranguing the counter-protesters across the way—I mused about how conservatives’ sudden concern to safeguard civility in American discourse is a crude, cynical manipulation. Its operational logic is very similar to the Proud Boys’ insistence on claiming that their protests are about nothing more than the assertion and protection of free-speech rights.

That, after all, has been what Gibson’s Patriot Prayer events have been ostensibly about since they were launched in Portland last year. Gibson and his comrades claim that they’re standing up for “conservative speech,” which has always translated into a lot of immigrant-bashing, Islamophobia, “constitutionalist” gun nuttery straight from the Bundy Bunch, and a heavy dose of Deep State/globalist conspiracy theorizing. Unsurprisingly, the gatherings attracted more than their share of extreme rightists, including a broad array of skinheads and white nationalists; last year one of the more unhinged such fellow travelers showed up to one of the earliest Patriot Prayer events draped in a flag, and then began shouting that he was a Nazi and using racial epithets. Organizers kicked him out.

His name was Jeremy Christian. One month later, in May 2017, while riding a Portland MAX commuter train, he began harassing two Arab teenage women, one of whom was wearing a hijab, using ethnic slurs against Muslims. Three men riding the train tried to intervene; Christian pulled out a knife and stabbed them, two of them fatally. At his arraignment, he was still protesting Joey Gibson style: “Free speech or die, Portland! You got no safe place. This is America—get out if you don’t like free speech!”

Patriot Prayer had a previously scheduled rally just over a week after the murders. Civic leaders urged the group to cancel the event amid burgeoning anger in the community, but Gibson and his cohorts held it anyway. It turned into a gigantic melee, with the Patriot crowd heavily outnumbered, and a number of assaults and arrests on both sides. It was some of the worst crowd violence Portland had seen in decades.

Since then, Gibson has organized an ongoing series of “free speech” and “freedom” rallies along the West Coast and elsewhere—in Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, and Olympia and Vancouver, Washington. He’s denounced white supremacists after Charlottesville, but also openly embraced the Proud Boys, the group founded by the white identitarian hipster journalist Gavin McInnes, who’s long been a presence at Gibson’s rallies. The June 30 event was originally intended to commemorate the post-murder event, but it took on a life of its own after an early June rally in downtown Portland also dissolved into violence.

Gibson made a pitch for help from supporters across the nation, and the Proud Boys gladly obliged, putting out the word on their regional social media sites. As a result, a considerable number among the Patriots were wearing black polos and red MAGA ballcaps, and they came from all over the country, especially California.

Listening to them bait the counter-protesters with ugly speech, and talk among themselves about fighting tactics, it was clear the “free speech” they wanted to defend was bigoted and threatening. The lofty constitutional principles were little more than a pretext: they were there mostly to bash some “leftist” heads.

Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys were emboldened by the fighting at that June 30 event. Organizers have discussed coming to the rally armed; open carry is legal in Oregon. We will be monitoring the event closely and reporting live on Hatewatch and Twitter.

The Editors

 

If you want to put an end to civil rights enforcement in the nation, Trump has your guy to do it.

I received this mauling from CREDO ACTION.

“Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.”

Dear Diane,

Tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division

Donald Trump hates equality. When he promises to “make America great again,” he’s talking about undoing decades of civil rights gains and doing everything he can to institutionalize white supremacy and misogyny.

That’s why, when it’s time to appoint heads of civil rights offices across the government, he picks people who will undermine the very principles they are supposed to defend.

Eric Dreiband, Trump’s nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice is a perfect example. Instead of having years of experience defending civil rights, he comes with decades of work defending people and corporations accused of discrimination.1 We need to do everything we can to keep him from being confirmed.

Tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Click here to sign the petition.

Our country’s civil rights laws are part of a generations-long effort to come to terms with and make amends for a country founded on both the systematic oppression and dehumanization of people of color and the misogynistic subjugation and disenfranchisement of women. The Civil Rights Division has a history of defending voting rights, holding rogue police departments accountable, fighting housing discrimination and ensuring equal rights in education. Eric Dreiband’s career has done the opposite. He defended:

The University of North Carolina over challenges to North Carolina’s anti-LGBTQ HB2;
A Catholic challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit;
Abercrombie & Fitch’s attempt to deny a Muslim woman employment because of her headscarf; and
R.J. Reynolds’ policy of weeding out job applications from “older” applicants.2,3
He also spoke out personally against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act and efforts to “ban the box” as a way to minimize discrimination against job applicants with criminal convictions.4

In advance of Dreiband’s committee hearing, Sen. Patrick Leahy said he “honestly couldn’t think of a more uniquely unqualified nominee to defend and enforce the core civil rights laws that codify the values of a just and tolerant society.”5 But Dreiband’s unique disqualifications are what make him a perfect choice for Trump and extreme right-wing Republicans who want to dismantle civil rights protections and use government to protect racists, misogynists, xenophobes and anti-LGBTQ bigots.

We have to put massive pressure on every Senate Democrat and any Republican with a conscience to block Dreiband’s confirmation.

Click the link below to tell the Senate: Don’t confirm Eric Dreiband as director of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division:

https://act.credoaction.com/sign/Block_Dreiband?t=7&akid=27083%2E4147912%2EosCF3c

Thank you for everything you do,

Heidi Hess, Senior Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Add your name:

Sign the petition ►
References:

Deena Zaru, “Civil rights activists raise alarm over Trump’s DOJ pick,” CNN, Aug. 14, 2017.
Tess Owen, “Trump’s civil rights pick has made a career fighting for corporate rights,” VICE News, June 30, 2017.
The Leadership Conference et al., “Oppose the Confirmation of Eric Dreiband to Serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” Aug. 31, 2017.
Ibid.
Paul Gordon, “Republicans Advance More Dangerously Unqualified Nominees,” People for the American Way, Jan. 19, 2018.
photo: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats

 

CREDO action
© 2018 CREDO. All rights reserved.

 

The Huffington Post has been reviewing the thousands of religious and private schools that receive public funding through voucher programs and has discovered some ugly practices. Some of them teach hatred. Some refuse to teach modern science and history. Some discriminate against groups they don’t like.

In this post, Rebecca Klein, education editor, describes publicly-funded schools that discriminate against students and staff who are suspected of being LGBT or non-gender conforming, like a tomboy.

Huffington Post has identified at least 700 schools that discriminate on these grounds.

“In the first story of this investigation, which we published earlier in December, we looked at what was being taught. We discovered thousands of schools that used evangelical Christian curricula, largely considered inaccurate and unscientific. In our second article, we singled out a handful of schools that purported to be secular but maintained strong ties to the Church of Scientology. For this story, we researched the number of schools in our database that practice discrimination toward LGBTQ students and staff members.

We visited every website of each school in search of evidence of their attitudes and policies on gender-nonconforming and LGBTQ students. If a school did not advertise a specific policy, we followed up via email or a call. For Catholic schools, we looked for diocese-wide policies on these issues. Often, these schools had policies against heterosexual sex before marriage, as well.

“We found at least 14 percent of religious schools take an active stance against LGBTQ staff and students. Some of these schools have policies on their websites generally broadcasting their opposition to same-sex marriage or even stating their belief that homosexuality is a sin on par with bestiality. Others have harsher policies ― specifically stating that students can face punishments, like expulsion, for displaying signs of a “homosexual lifestyle” or “alternate gender identity.” At least 5 percent of these schools also have explicit policies against hiring or retaining LGBTQ staff.

“Many more of these schools belong to larger churches that preach anti-LGBTQ sentiment. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is “opposed to homosexual practices and relationships,” per the denomination’s website. The Roman Catholic Church says marriage can occur only between a man and woman. We did not assume that schools identifying with these groups were hostile places for LGBTQ students. In our count, we included only schools (or dioceses) that had a specific anti-LGBTQ policy. In that way, our numbers represent a bare minimum of schools where LGBTQ students may encounter hostility.”

Is this really the way that public money should be spent? Should schools receive public money if they openly discriminate against any group?

Last April, Randi had an off-the-record conversation with Steve Bannon, at his request, before he was ousted. She refused to meet him at the White House. They met at a restaurant. He laid out his vision for a grand alliance of workers against elites (apparently his idea of elites does not include the billionaire Mercers, who bankroll him).

Bannon sounds like a 21st century version of Tom Watson of Georgia, who began his political career as a populist, but eventually turned into a bitter hater of blacks, Jews, and Catholics. He sought to unite people around a common ground of bigotry. Except in Bannon’s case, he is backed by Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebecca, funders of the bigoted alt-right. And now he is leading a crusade to replace moderate and even rightwing Republicans with bigots and extremists like Roy Moore of Alabama.

Randi found his ideas to be abhorrent.

She wrote about the meeting on Facebook.

She wrote:

“Of course I would have a conversation with Bannon…Bannon was Trump’s whisperer at the time (may still be)

“I will go into any ring I can to fight for public education;to fight for the students, patients and communities we serve and the educators, nurses, and public employees we represent;to fight for DACA;to fight against the rollbacks to rights including Title IX rights, LGBTQ rights, labor rights, and voting rights;to fight against predatory practices of student loan lenders;and to fight for infrastructure and manufacturing and good jobs, with good wages, a voice at work and a secure retirement… and to fight for an independent media and judiciary, a thriving labor movement;

“I will go anywhere I can to fight for an America that believes in fairness and democracy, and an America that fights polarization, demagoguery, tyranny and authoritarianism.

“And just on a personal level.. imagine this… I am a gay, Jewish leader of a labor union whose grandparents were immigrants- refugees from Russia and the Ukraine. I was sitting across from a man who would have barred my grandparents from coming to the US.. and is supporting someone for Senator for Alabama who would bar me from living my life…

“So of course this was a tough conversation to have….and his beliefs and positions affect me in a deeply personal way

“But the convo went no where…. because he wasn’t going to convince me about his ideas.. and unfortunately I couldn’t convince him about ours…..”

John Rogers of the University of California in Los Angeles has written a powerful analysis of Trump’s effect on teaching and learning. You will not be surprised to learn that the vulgarity and crudity that Trump regularly expresses towards vulnerable groups has affected the climate in schools. His hate speech has spilled over into the atmosphere. He has given license to bigotry.

Here is Valerie Strauss on the Rogers’ report.

The full title is “Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump: Increasing Hostility and Stress in America’s High Schools.”

This is the press release:

Trump’s Heated Political Rhetoric Spills Over into Classroom,
Increasing Stress and Undermining Learning

New National Survey of Teachers by UCLA finds Heightened Stress and Anxiety, Polarization, Incivility and Hostility Among Students in First Months of Trump Administration

Amid the first months of a Trump administration characterized by highly charged and divisive political rhetoric, a new national survey of public high school teachers finds heightened levels of student stress and anxiety and concerns for their own well being or that of their family members, according to a new study published by the UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education and Access. Teachers in the survey also report a rise in polarization and incivility in classrooms, as well as an increased reliance by students on unreliable and unsubstantiated information. Teachers also report hostile environments for racial and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups.

“Hate speech and acts of intimidation are not new to U.S. Schools, but its disconcerting that numerous teachers are telling us that the level of animus they are seeing is ‘unprecedented’ in their careers, says John Rogers, a professor of education at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and the lead researcher for the study. “The harsh political environment of the first few months of the Trump administration is clearly spilling over into the classroom, increasing anxiety and undermining learning.”

The study, Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump: Increasing Stress and Hostility in America’s High Schools, reports the results of a nationally representative survey of more than 1,500 high school teachers conducted in May 2017 examining the impact of the national political environment on students and the implications for student learning. More than 800 teachers also responded to an open-ended question regarding how their “classroom and school climate has changed this past year as a result of changes in national politics.”

More than half of teachers responding to the survey report more students are experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety than in previous years, and more than three-quarters say students are concerned about their own well being or that of family members. Immigration is the issue causing the most concern, with more than half of teachers saying students are concerned about proposals for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. These concerns are significantly higher in schools serving predominately students of color.

Teachers also report heightened polarization on campus and incivility in their classrooms. One teacher said, “In my seventeen years I have never seen anger this blatant and raw over a political candidate or issue.” More than 40 percent of teachers also report that students were more likely than in previous years to introduce unfounded claims from unreliable sources, with many linking the use of unsubstantiated sources and growing incivility.

Teachers also say that a growing number of schools, particularly predominantly White schools, became hostile environments for racial and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups. More than one quarter of teachers reported an increase in students making derogatory remarks about other groups during class discussions. Teachers responding to the survey described how the political environment “unleashed” virulently racist, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic rhetoric in their schools and classrooms.

“Many teachers are telling us that students seem to be ‘emboldened’ to use harsh racist and bigoted rhetoric,” says Rogers. “They cite examples of students being targeted for the color of their skin, their Muslim faith, or sexual orientation, while others tell stories of students openly embracing racism and white supremacy, and confronting classmates in threatening ways. These acts are taking a toll on young people and undermining student learning.”

Teachers also say that the stresses in the school environment are impacting student learning. 40 percent of teachers reported that students’ concerns over one or more hot-button policy issues including immigration, travel bans with Muslim countries, restrictions on LGBTQ rights, healthcare and the environment impacted students’ learning in terms of their ability to focus on lessons and their attendance.

It is important to note that teachers also have felt heightened stress in the first months of the Trump administration. More than two-thirds (67.7%) of U.S. public high school teachers reported that the level of stress associated with their work increased during the 2016-17 school year.

Teachers responding to the survey want more help to support civil exchange among students and greater understanding across differences. They also believe that leadership matters in cultivating positive school culture and student learning. But just 40 percent of teachers report that school leaders are issuing public statements confronting the problems and just over one quarter say leaders are providing guidance and support. Teachers in schools serving predominately students of color were substantially more likely than teachers in schools with predominately white students to say leaders were speaking out publically or acting to provide teachers with guidance or support.

“Unfortunately, the schools facing the greatest need for leadership to respond to the changing political climate were the least likely to experience it,” says Rogers.

Teachers also strongly support the need for political leaders to address the underlying causes of much campus incivility and stress – the contentious political rhetoric and policies that threaten student well being. More than 90% of teachers agreed that national, state, and local leaders should encourage and model civil exchange and greater understanding across lines of difference.

“In these tense political times, these findings from America’s teachers have important implication for our nation and its schools,” concludes Rogers. “The growing polarization and contentiousness in classrooms and schools undercuts the democratic purposes of public education. Public schooling emerged in the United States as a strategy for developing the civic commitments and skills of each new generation. Ideally, public schools provide opportunities for students to deliberate productively across lines of difference and practice working together to solve collective problems. The heightened level of incivility makes it more difficult for schools to achieve this valued goal.

A complete version of Teaching and Learning in the Age of Trump: Increasing Stress and Hostility in America’s High Schools is available online at: https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/teaching-and-learning-in-age-of-trump

The study is a project of the UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. The study draws on the results of a nationally representative survey conducted in May 2017 of 1,535 social studies, English, and mathematics teachers working in 333 geographically and demographically representative public high schools in the United States. The study also draws on extended interviews with 35 teachers from across the United States who participated in the survey.

###

Summary of key findings

Stress and concerns with welfare have increased, particularly in schools enrolling few White students.

• More than half (51.4) of teachers reported more students experiencing “high levels of stress and anxiety” than in previous years.
• More than three-quarters (79%) of teachers reported students expressed concerns for their well-being or the well-being of their families in relation to one or more hot-button issues including immigration, travel limitations on predominantly Muslim countries, restrictions on LGBTQ rights, changes to health care, or threats to the environment.
• The policy issue prompting most concern among students was immigration. More than half (58%) of teachers reported some students had expressed concerns about proposals for deporting undocumented immigrants.

• Teachers in schools serving predominately students of color were almost six times more likely (53.8% to 9.1%) than teachers in predominately white schools to report that at least 10% of their students had expressed these concerns.

• 44.3% of teachers reported students’ concerns about well being in relation to one or more hot-button policy issues impacted students’ learning—their ability to focus on lessons and their attendance.

Polarization, incivility, and reliance on unsubstantiated sources have risen, particularly in predominantly White schools.

• More than 20% of teachers reported heightened polarization on campus and incivility in their classrooms.

• 41.0% of teachers reported that students were more likely than in previous years to introduce unfounded claims from unreliable sources. Many teachers noted a connection between students’ use of unsubstantiated sources and growing incivility.

A growing number of schools, particularly predominantly White schools, became hostile environments for racial and religious minorities and other vulnerable groups.

• 27.7% of teachers reported an increase in students making derogatory remarks about other groups during class discussions. Many teachers described how the political environment “unleashed” virulently racist, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic rhetoric in their schools and classrooms.

School leadership matters.

More than 40 percent of teachers reported that their school leadership made public statements this year about the value of civil exchange and understanding across lines of difference. But beyond the “public statements” only 26.8% of school leaders actually provided guidance and support on these issues, as reported by teachers in the survey. Teachers in predominantly White schools were much less likely than their peers to report that their school leaders had taken these actions.

72.3% of teachers surveyed agreed that: “My school leadership should provide more guidance, support, and professional development opportunities on how to promote civil exchange and greater understanding across lines of difference.”

Teachers strongly supported the need for political leaders to address the underlying causes of much campus incivility and stress – contentious political rhetoric and policies that threaten student well being.

• More than 90% of teachers agreed “national, state, and local leaders should encourage and model civil exchange and greater understanding across lines of difference.”

• Almost as many (83.9%) agreed that national and state leaders should “work to alleviate the underlying factors that create stress and anxiety for young people and their families.”

Testing companies typically invest in an in-depth review of test questions to assure that the questions are not biased against any group or subgroup. The testers are very concerned about bias, even hidden ones.

A new study asserts that the “new SAT” is gender biased.

Here is Mercedes Schneider’s take on the SAT’s disadvantaging of girls.
The “new SAT” is David Coleman’s latest project, following the Common Core fiasco.

I wrote a book about the process by which test publishers use “bias and sensitivity reviews” to identify and screen out questions and test items that disadvantage groups. I was critical of the way that the reviewers went overboard, eliminating any word or phrase, or image that anyone might consider insensitive. Feminists wanted to delete any word that identified anyone by gender, religious fundamentalists wanted to remove any reference to witches, pumpkins, Halloween, disobedient children. The book is called “The Language Police,” and it looked at censorship from left and right.

So, knowing that the SAT is subject to analysis for every sort of bias and disadvantage, what gives?

Any advice for David C?