Archives for category: Civil Rights

John King, who served as Secretary of Education after Arne Duncan departed, went to the Cleveland City Club to praise high-stakes testing as the route to equity and civil rights. He spoke highly of No Child Left Behind and its successor, the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

He is so wrong. Not just wrong, but misinformed, misguided, and ignorant of facts and evidence about the injurious effects of high-stakes testing on children, teachers, schools, and education. When you read things like this, you remember how the Obama administration sold public education out and paved the way for Betsy DeVos.

All that testing, he said, raises test scores.

Clearly, he never read the report of the National Academy of Sciences (2011) “Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education.”

I recommend that King read Daniel Koretz’ new book: “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better.” Koretz shows that high-stakes testing produces score inflation, teaching to the test, cheating, and loss of instructional time for non-tested subjects.

Someone should explain Campbell’s Law to John King. Whenever high stakes are attached to a measure, it corrupts the measure as well as the social process that is being measured. That means that when you attach high stakes to tests, you can no longer trust the test results and you mess up what is being measured.

Tests are normed on a bell curve. Every bell curve has a top half and a bottom half. The most advantaged kids cluster in the top half. The most disadvantaged kids cluster in the bottom half. Could someone explain to John King that standardized tests never produce equity? That they measure gaps without reducing them? That they discourage children who are told year after year that they didn’t meet the standard? How does it promote equity to rely on a tool that is designed to measure and reproduce inequity?

During her confirmation hearings, Betsy DeVos seemed unclear about the extent to which children with disabilities were protected by federal law.

Democratic senators challenged her knowledge–or lack of knowledge–of the federal law protecting these children. Many assumed her unwillingness to comment reflected her ignorance of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and other legislation and court decisions.

Now, however, there seems to be a darker reason for her incoherence. She doesn’t think the federal government should intrude into decisions that she thinks belongs to states and localities.

She has rescinded 72 “guidance documents” about protecting the rights of students with disabilities.

The Education Department has rescinded 72 policy documents that outline the rights of students with disabilities as part of the Trump administration’s effort to eliminate regulations it deems superfluous.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services wrote in a newsletter Friday that it had “a total of 72 guidance documents that have been rescinded due to being outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective – 63 from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and 9 from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).” The documents, which fleshed out students’ rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act, were rescinded Oct. 2.

A spokeswoman for Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did not respond to requests for comment.

Advocates for students with disabilities were still reviewing the changes to determine their impact. Lindsay Jones, the chief policy and advocacy officer for the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said she was particularly concerned to see guidance documents outlining how schools could use federal special education money removed.

“All of these are meant to be very useful . . . in helping schools and parents understand and fill in with concrete examples the way the law is meant to work when it’s being implemented in various situations,” said Jones.

President Donald Trump in February signed an executive order “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens,” spurring Education Department officials to begin a top-to-bottom review of its regulations. The department sought comments on possible changes to the special education guidance and held a hearing, during which many disability rights groups and other education advocates pressed officials to keep all of the guidance documents in place, said Jones.

DeVos is moving with all deliberate speed to eliminate the federal role in protecting the civil rights of groups of students who relied on the U.S. Department of Education.

This is not the first time DeVos has rolled back Education Department guidance, moves that have raised the ire of civil rights groups. The secretary in February rescinded guidance that directed schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity, saying that those matters should be left up to state and local school officials. In September, she scrapped rules that outlined how schools should investigate allegations of sexual assault, arguing that the Obama-era guidance did not sufficiently take into account the rights of the accused.

This should not come as a surprise. Betsy DeVos is a libertarian who does not believe in federal intervention to protect vulnerable groups of students.

The Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance did everything possible to make Betsy DeVos feel comfortable, surrounding her with allies in the fight for school choice, but it wasn’t enough.

Protestors outside complained, and students in the audience asked unsympathetic questions about her enthusiasm for school choice, her admiration for for-profit charters, and her determination to roll back the Obama era regulations protecting civil rights. Not even her fellow panelists could save her.

When she was asked why she opposed accountability for charters in Michigan, she answered with a non sequitur. She said that the families with means had already abandoned Detroit, and the charters were a haven for those who remained behind. She forgot about the kids still enrolled in public schools, who are apparently non-persons. And her explanation made no sense.

As she left the stage, some students in the room called out, “What does white supremacy look like? That’s what white supremacy looks like.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Education awarded more than $250 million to states and charter chains to open new charters and expand existing ones.

In her statement accompanying the grants, DeVos said:

“These grants will help supplement state-based efforts to give students access to more options for their education, What started as a handful of schools in Minnesota has blossomed into nearly 7,000 charter schools across the country.”

“Charter schools are now part of the fabric of American education, and I look forward to seeing how we can continue to work with states to help ensure more students can learn in an environment that works for them.”

Shame on any Democrat who supports the DeVos agenda of charter schools and school choice. This is a flimsy, hard-hearted response to income inequality, poverty, and underfunding of schools that enroll students with high needs.

She is a one-woman wrecking crew, intent on destroying the legacy of Horace Mann and other genuine pioneers and reformers in the struggle for public education. Her legacy will be one of wreckage and destruction, untempered by any compassion for those in need. She should ask herself why she generates such antipathy.

North Carolina was once the most progressive state in the South. Since the Tea Party swept the Legislature, the state is in a race to wipe out every last vestige of its social progress.

The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina selected former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings as the president of the state system. Faculty objected, since Spellings has no advanced degrees or research or scholarship. It was a purely political decision.

Now the board, presumably with Spellings’ approval, has voted to abolish its Center for Civil Rights. This may be outrageous but it is also appropriate, since the very concept of civil rights has been downgraded in the state and by the Trump administration.

“After months of contentious back-and-forth, the UNC Board of Governors voted this morning to ban the UNC Center for Civil Rights from doing legal work on behalf of the state’s poor and minority populations. The ban would effectively neuter the Center from providing legal representation to those who cannot afford it—groups it has been advocating for since it was founded by the famed civil rights attorney Julian Chambers in 2001.

“Since then, however, the UNC Board of Governors has taken a turn to the right. That’s because board members are elected by the state legislature, which, since 2010, has been controlled by Republicans. In many ways, the reorientation of the board’s political makeup is a reflection of the state’s dramatic rightward shift over the past seven years, which has made its imprint on everything from the redistricting process to, now, the law school’s ability to sue on behalf of the indigent and the poor.

“The Center for Civil Rights is not the only progressively-oriented UNC body that has taken hit as of late, however. In 2015, the Board voted to close the law school’s Poverty Center, which, true to its namesake, focused on the state’s low-income populations. The General Assembly also recently slashed the law school’s budget by $500,000.

“The Center’s opponents say that it’s inappropriate for one body of the state, such as the UNC system, to sue another; proponents say marginalized communities that would likely be unable to afford legal support in civil rights cases rely on its work. Over the years, the Center has litigated a long list of cases that are almost all related to low-income African-American communities: school segregation, racial discrimination in affordable housing, victims of the state’s eugenics program, and more.”

In the perspective of the UNC, the poor don’t deserve legal representation, at least not legal representation funded by the state.

Let them eat cake. But they should pay for it themselves.

This is a really good piece of investigative writing by Alina Tugend on the value of Advanced Placement courses. It doesn’t answer the question posed in the headline of this post but it supplies valuable information and poses the right questions.

I was interviewed and what really bothers me about the demand for “AP for All” is the implicit assumption that taking a rigorous course and failing the exam will improve educational opportunity. As I say in the article, if this is the goal of the College Board, why not offer the test for free? It is easy to forget that the College Board is a business, not a charity.

There are other ways to reduce the achievement gaps instead of putting kids in a class where the reading level is far beyond their reach and they are near certain to fail.

Although AP was originally designed for elite high schools, some of them have dropped it because their own classes are equally demanding. And some elite college don’t give credit for AP courses.

So the strongest claim of the College Board these days is that their tests supply equity. No standardized test has ever increased equity. They are designed not to. If your primary interest is civil rights, fight for funding and desegregation, not a better standardized test.

In a speech at George Mason University, one of the few universities where she can speak without student protests, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced a retreat from the guidelines protecting victims of sexual assault on campus. She devoted equal time in her speech to the rights of the victims of rape and the rights of those accused of rape.

Her stance seems likely to discourage rape victims from coming forward, since doing so is already hazardous and puts them at risk of ostracism, especially when the alleged perpetrator is a popular athlete on campus.

Given that she was appointed by a man who has boasted of sexually assaulting women without their consent–just “grabbing them by” their genitals–her indifference to victims of sexual assault is not surprising.

When the subject was first discussed by the Secretary and the Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Candace Jackson, Ms. Jackson said that most claims of sexual assault were bogus.

“Investigative processes have not been “fairly balanced between the accusing victim and the accused student,” Ms. Jackson argued, and students have been branded rapists “when the facts just don’t back that up.” In most investigations, she said, there’s “not even an accusation that these accused students overrode the will of a young woman.”

“Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” Ms. Jackson said.

“Ms. Jackson later issued a statement clarifying that the conclusion was based on feedback from cases involving accused students, and even if complaints don’t allege violence, “all sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously.”

“Such comments infuriate advocates for victims and women, who have spent the last six years waging a concerted campaign to educate college administrators, and the public, on students’ rights under the law, and how to combat what some have called “rape culture” on campus. A 2015 survey commissioned by the Association of American Universities found that more than one in four women at a large group of leading universities said they had been sexually assaulted by force or when they were incapacitated while in college.”

The current stance of the Department suggests that Jackson prevailed, that is, if anyone in her Office tried to persuade her that she was wrong. She meant what she said the first time. She believes that 90% of accusations are false.

The steady evisceration of civil rights continues apace.

Vouchers in Indiana have been an expensive flop. Students don’t learn more. They learn less.

Worse, says Sheila Kennedy, many voucher schools explicitly ban LGBT students.

Only about 3% of the students in the state use vouchers, even though their advocates believe that everyone is clamoring for them. Sorry, they are not.

Where I disagree with Kennedy is that she refers to charters as public schools. They are not. They are run by private corporations. They open the door to vouchers. They are a form of privatization. Frankly, it is sad to see a corporation take the place of a neighborhood school.

Your local public school should not be run by Walmart.

I posted the following comment:

“Diane Ravitch August 29, 2017 at 12:02 pm

“Charter schools are not public schools, even when state laws call them that. They are private schools that receive public money. They are the first step towards full privatization. They are the Gateway to vouchers. When anyone challenges charter corporations in federal court, their defense is that they are not “state actors” and therefore not subject to state laws. The NLRB recently ruled that charters are not subject to labor laws because they are not public schools. Documentation: read my last book: “Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools”

Diane Ravitch”

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.”

Those of you who read this blog regularly have often read insightful articles by Jeff Bryant of the Education Opportunity Network.

In this post, Jeff interviews Becky Pringle of the NEA about charters, vouchers, and other efforts to withdraw support from public schools. They were both at Netroots, a gathering of politically active progressives.

Are progressives waking up to the dangers of privatization?

In the Democratic primary in Georgia, a candidate who supported the creation of an “opportunity district” was scorned by fellow Democrats. In Virginia, a Democratic candidate who had been pals with prominent charter supporters lost the primary for governor.

Read the article and listen to the podcast.

Jeff begins like this:

Every year Netroots Nation is arguably the most important annual event in the progressive community and a barometer of what’s on the minds of “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” At this year’s event in Atlanta, the headline-making happening was Democratic primary candidate for Georgia governor Rep. Stacey Evans being shouted down by protestors holding signs saying, “Stacey Evans = Betsy DeVos,” “School Vouchers ≠ Progressive,” and “Trust Black Women” (Evans’ opponent in the primary is Georgia Rep. Stacey Abrams, who is African American.)

Protesters circulated leaflets comparing Evan’s past votes on education-related bills to positions DeVos espouses. This included her support for a constitutional amendment in 2015 that would allow the state to convert public schools to charter school management, her support for a “Parent Trigger” that would allow petition drives to convert public schools to charters, and her support of a school voucher program.

Message: Progressives support public schools, not charters or vouchers. If ALEC supports it, it is not progressive.

Rann Miller, writing at Alternet (and Salon), explains why the NAACP finally stepped up and demanded accountability for and oversight of charter schools. Miller directs the 21st Century Learning Center in southern New Jersey. He taught at a charter school in Camden, New Jersey, for six years.

Miller writes that the NAACP recognizes that charter schools are a way for state officials to abandon accountability for black and brown children.

“The conversation about the failings of public education is worth having. However, too many folks are missing the larger point that the NAACP is making: state governments must be held accountable for the education of Black and Brown children. School privatization has allowed state governments to avoid their obligation to educate children of color, especially poor children. The erosion of the public commitment to educating all kids is sadly ironic when you consider that it was Black people who pushed hardest to make free public education a reality for all.

“Here is what the abandonment of the public responsibility for educating all kids looks like. State policymakers declare themselves fed up with overseeing underperforming public schools in poor Black and Brown neighborhoods. Some policymakers, at the behest of their constituents, rather than seeking solutions to improve these schools, tell families that the schools are so bad that they can’t be improved. Families are then told that “experts” will be invited to improve the education of their children. This “strategy” takes the burden of educating poor children of color off of the state, which many believe is a waste of tax money considering the continuous underperformance of city schools. This strategy also paints education policymakers in an innovative light; they look as though they are thinking outside the box to attack a problem largely created as a result of the state’s own negligence.

“According to the NAACP task force, charter schools are exacerbating racial segregation, a topic that critics of the civil rights group have been largely dismissive of. The larger issue is that outsourcing the education of students of color abandons the spirit of integration. School choice and the proliferation of charter schools prevent people of color from holding state governments to the obligation required of them as per Brown v. Board of Education. The NAACP report documents the consequences of this abandonment: inadequate funding of urban schools, a lack of accountability and oversight for charter school, most of which are concentrated in urban communities, the disproportionate exclusionary discipline of Black students, high teacher turnover, and an absence of teachers of color in both charters and traditional public schools.”

Relinquishing the responsibility for educating children of color to the private sector is not an answer to the needs of children, families, and schools.