Archives for category: Bias

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?

Arthur Camins retired recently as Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at Stevens Institute of Technology. He has taught and been an administrator in New York City, Massachusetts, and Louisville, Kentucky. Unlike Betsy Dezvos and other ersatz “reformers,” he knows quite a lot about teaching and innovation.

In this post, he explains the fraud of school choice.

He writes:

“Segregation and the evil twins–racism and inequity– are the divide and conquer gifts that keep on giving­ to the rich and taking from everyone else. Over the decades, the wealthy and empowered have found ways to dress up their barely concealed essential messages: We deserve what we have. Inequality is the natural order of the world. Caring about others is for losers. Winners care about themselves. If you are unhappy with your station in life, blame yourself. Some of you would be better off if was it not for Them.

“The latest incarnation of message obfuscation is the vaguely democratic-sounding term, school choice. The push for expansion of charter schools- publicly funded, but privately controlled– and for vouchers to offset a portion of the tuition for private schools is the old wolf in new sheep’s clothing.

“Equity and universal high quality have never been the goals of school choice, the roots of which are resistance to desegregation. Its latest advocates do not suggest vouchers so that the poor can attend elite, expensive private schools. They do not demand adequate funding for all schools. They do not want to give students experience interacting with one another across class or race. They certainly do not want to end the defining characteristic of the status quo, rationing of quality by socioeconomic status.

“Their rhetoric notwithstanding, they have other goals: Undermine public sector unions to reduce their political power, as well as members’ pay and health and retirement benefits; Pander to subgroups to undermine political unity; Undercut the power of unified organizing by offering an escape hatch for the so-called “deserving poor.” Advance the advantages of privilege.

“Segregation is the simple enabling strategy. Contrary to popular mythology, post-Brown v. Board of education segregation was not so much the product of individual choices, but rather intentionally segregative transportation, zoning, housing and employment policies. Policy and preexisting bias were mutually reinforcing. Increased isolation was the inevitable result. People naturally trust folks they know and interact with regularly. Economic and racial isolation turns the distant “them” into an abstraction, easily stereotyped in the absence of countervailing evidence informed by direct contact and shared struggle. It is the empowered’s Tower of Babel tactic. Sow distrust and hatred, so that even when diverse citizens speak the same language, building for the common good becomes too challenging and threatening….

“Rather than addressing the structural causes of growing inequity, appeals to market-based education play on parents’ anxieties about their children losing out in the intense competition for well-paying jobs. Similarly, school choice rhetoric reinforces some parents’ bias that going to school with certain others will hurt their children. It encourages parents to take a belligerent, you can’t-make-me, stance…

“Coupled with the exaltation of selfishness, segregation is a time-tested way for the privileged to remain in control. School choice is the latest euphemism for leaving everyone to fend for themselves in a dystopian world of ruthless competition.

“When centrists Democrats adopt choice rhetoric, they abet conservative ideology. They enable labeling of legislative solutions to help people as being about Them, not us. If the last presidential election is any indication, Democratic politicians are reluctant to take on the rhetoric of choice and the segregation and inequity it supports. That will only change when voters demand that candidates adopt a different, explicitly pro-integration, stance.

“It is time to bring back the old labor slogan: An injury to one is an injury to all.”

Linda Datling-Hammond of Stanford University and the Learning Policy Institute, posted the following statement. She attacked many reseources for educators, but since I have to copy links manually, I am adding only one:

Keep the DREAM Alive
A message from Linda Darling-Hammond

On Tuesday, President Trump announced his plan to repeal the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Since it was implemented, the DACA program has ensured that nearly 800,000 children of immigrants—many of whom have no recollection of any country other than the U.S.—can safely attend school, earn degrees, and become contributing members of the country in which they were raised.

As educators and allies, we have dedicated our careers to creating safe, respectful, and welcoming spaces where children and youth are valued for who they are and supported to learn, grow, and bring their talents into the society. The repeal of DACA and the deportation of the children and young adults it protects is cruel and counterproductive: It flies in the face of country that is a nation of immigrants and where these “Dreamers” are working towards a better life each and every day.

And now Dreamers are being told to prepare for deportation, their futures frozen in an agonizing six-month stasis, facing the fear of leaving their home, their family and friends, and futures they have invested deeply in. Many are still school children, now living with the daily nightmare of being torn from their families and sent to a land they don’t know.

As educators and education advocates, we have an ever-increasing responsibility to protect our students, to be even more explicit in our belief in their potential, and to protect their right to learn and to become contributing members of society, just as generations of immigrants before them have done.

When our nation fails our children, our pathway is clear: We must double down on our collective work for equity, justice, and high-quality education and make sure that every student feels safe and empowered to learn, thrive, and realize their dreams.

We urge Congress to act quickly to integrate the protections of DACA into law.

Resource:

Southern Poverty Law Center:

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/spring-2017/immigrant-and-refugee-children-a-guide-for-educators-and-school-support-staff?utm_source=LPI+Master+List&utm_campaign=9102525a7f-LPI_MC_DACA_20170907&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7e60dfa1d8-9102525a7f-42294815

Which is the incompetent? Which is the malevolent? Or are they both? Neither is qualified by experience or temperament for the jobs they hold. This story was posted on the Politico website:


The controversial attorney who runs the Education Department’s civil rights division cited her work attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton at the top of her resume when she applied to work for President Donald Trump, according to a copy of the document obtained by POLITICO.

Candice Jackson, who brought a group of women who had accused President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to a presidential debate last year between Trump and Hillary Clinton, listed that event as one of her “top five qualifications” for working in the administration.

At the Education Department, Jackson has taken a prominent role helping Education Secretary Betsy DeVos shape federal policy pertaining to protections for transgender students and the handling of campus sexual assault cases. She drew fire in June for telling The New York Times that 90 percent of campus sexual assault cases “fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk.'”

On her resume, Jackson noted that she had steadfastly attacked Hillary Clinton’s “lifelong corruption and hypocritical claim to defend women and children” in ads and videos and brought a “unique perspective due to also being a gay Republican.”

Jackson joined the Education Department in the spring.

POLITICO obtained the resume from American Oversight, a watchdog group that acquired it using a Freedom of Information Act request. It’s not clear whether the document was submitted directly to the Education Department or by another means, such as to the Trump transition team.

Melanie Sloan, senior adviser at American Oversight, said Jackson’s hiring is an example of Trump’s “clear pattern of filling important roles in his administration with ideologues and political hacks.

“Nowhere is this more evident than at the Department of Education, where Secretary DeVos — despite a total absence of experience in management or education policy — now oversees thousands of employees and over $60 billion in taxpayer money,” Sloan said.

When reached by telephone, Jackson referred questions to the Education Department’s press office, which did not respond to questions.

DeVos has previously defended Jackson as “a valuable part of the administration and an unwavering advocate for the civil rights of all students.”

Reposted: new link.

John Merrow recalls an anti-Semitic incident on the playing fields from his youth. He recently heard from the boys (men) involved and found that their views were unchanged, except that now the anti-Semite was now openly racist.

Remember the song in “South Pacific”? “You’ve got to be carefully taught” to hate. We aren’t born hating. At the time Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote that song, they were called Communists.

John’s post reminded me of an incident last week. I went to a splendid wine-tasting and dinner at Paumonok Vineyards on the North Fork of Long Island. I was sitting next to a very pleasant and intelligent young man. As we got into dinner, we inevitably reached the subject of politics, and he told me that he enthisuasically voted for Trump. He is certain that Democrats want socialism and the next step is Communism. I learned that he is the son of Italian immigrants and an engineer who went to a state university. He saw no contradiction in Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric or his contempt for public education. As we talked, he expressed resentment about the lazy people who were getting government benefits. Why should he be taxed to pay for them? The longer the conversation went on, the more I realized that he was expressing deepseated racism. When the subject turned to education, he made clear that in his view, teachers are ignorant, have an easy job, are overpaid, should not have unions or tenure or pensions. Nothing I said changed any of his beliefs. I wondered why he was so bitter. I never found out. He is a solid member of Trump’s base.

We all know the words attributed to the German Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was sent to Dachau by the Nazis. They appear at the back of the paperback edition of “The Diary of Anne Frank”:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew 


Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist


Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist


Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
— (Pastor Niemoeller, Victim of the Nazis in Germany)”

It turns out that the story is far more complicated than we knew (as reader GregB has written here on more than one occasion).

The Washington Post explains here that Pastror Niemoller was a Hitler supporter and an anti-Semite. He became concerned that the Nazis were trying to politicize and control the church. His critical views led to his arrest and assignment to Dachau.

After the war, he toured American cities, and he said the things for which he is now remembered, but not always in the same words or the same order.

One day not long ago, Trump woke up and wondered what he could tweet that would distract attention from the Russia investigation. What red meat could he throw to his base? Aha, he thought, I will declare that no transgender person may serve in any capacity in the military. I will claim that I consulted with “my generals” and they agreed (although he had not consulted with anyone).

The military leaders were surprised but said they would make it happen.

Think of it. Trump got five draft deferments, one of them for sore feet. He never served. But he wants the military to fire transgender people who volunteered to serve in harm’s way.

Some unknown number of people in the Army, Navy, and Marines will be ousted, no matter how exemplary their service.

Why? They are the easiest people to attack. Their numbers are tiny. Who cares about them?

Trump won’t stop there. Who’s next? His base won’t be satisfied with just a few thousand transgender people? Will Muslims be next? Jews? Mexicans?

That is the way if the bully, the demagogue, the fascist. Start with the most disfavired group. Then pick off the others, one by one.

This is how it begins.

Do you care? He is betting that you don’t.

I read about the events discussed in this open letter to Louise Linton and decided that I would not comment on the blog about her condescending remarks, made on a public site. But a reader said I should post the letter, because of what it says about oligarchy and the condition of our society today.

The background: The glamorous Ms. Linton Mnuchin posted a photograph of herself and her (homely) husband getting off a U.S. government jet after a trip to Kentucky. Along with the photo, she posted a comment listing the super-expensive designer items on her body. Someone saw her comment and chastised her for bragging about her clothes and her wealth. Linton responded with a nasty put-down of her critic, who clearly was not as rich as Mrs. Mnuchin.

Richard Escow wrote an open letter to Louise Linton.

The letter includes all the details and begins like this:

“Dear Ms. Linton,

“This has undoubtedly been a difficult couple of days for you, both as a person and as the wife of the United States Treasury Secretary.

“Nobody enjoys the sudden onrush of hostile attention that comes when something they’ve said goes viral, and not in a good way. Your public record, and even your recent infamous post, suggests you want to be a good person – or, at the very least, that you’d like to be seen as one.

“That’s not how people are seeing you at the moment, and that has to be rough.

“Perhaps it would help if someone explained why you’ve received so much negative attention in the last 48 hours.

“Bubble Life

“Simply put: You live in a bubble. That’s not your fault. It’s just the way it is. According to the Internet – the same Internet that has turned on you with such ferocity – you were born into a wealthy Scottish family and educated at the prestigious St George’s School for Girls and Fettes College.

“Your family owns a real-life, honest to God castle, for God’s sake.

“A little self-awareness is therefore in order: Your experience is not like that of most people. Some people are born into privilege and make a dedicated effort to see life from other people’s point of view. That does not seem to have been the case with you.”