Archives for category: Civil Rights

A group of civil rights and education organizations called on Governor Andrew Cuomo to return the money he has received from hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb. Cuomo hopes to run for president in 2020: what matters most to him? Campaign funding or the civil rights constituency?

PRESS RELEASE

CIVIL RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CALL ON GOVERNOR CUOMO TO ENTIRELY DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM DAN LOEB, RETURN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOLLOWING RACIST REMARKS

ALBANY, NY (August 11, 2017) — In the wake of hedge fund billionaire Dan Loeb’s racist attack on State Senate Democratic Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins on Wednesday, 14 organizations have released a letter calling on Governor Andrew Cuomo to disassociate himself from Loeb, a Cuomo ally and supporter, and to return the more than $170,000 in campaign donations that he has received from Loeb.

The organizations made the demand in a letter addressed to Governor Cuomo Friday morning. The letter states, “Loeb’s extremely offensive and racist attack on Senator Stewart-Cousins requires swift and dramatic action. As a longstanding ally of Loeb, and the leader of the State of New York and of the Democratic Party in New York, it is essential that you provide leadership to show that such racist statements will not be tolerated in any way. This must begin with you: It would be unconscionable to keep Mr. Loeb’s money and to continue to allow him to influence policy in Albany after his un-American attack on Leader Stewart-Cousins.”
“It is imperative that you disassociate yourself entirely from Dan Loeb and send a clear message that he has no place in public policy in New York State,” the letter continues. Read the full letter here.

The organizations that signed the letter include Action Potluck, Alliance for Quality Education, Badass Teachers Association, The Black Institute, Brooklyn Movement Center, Citizen Action of New York, Hedge Clippers, Justice League NYC, Make the Road New York, New York Communities for Change, New York Indivisible, Strong Economy for All, True Blue NY, and Working Families Party.

The NAACP bravely spoke out in favor of regulating charter schools to make them accountable, transparent, and subject to the same standards as public schools.

Most people would say that the NAACP’s concerns and recommendations are reasonable.

But supporters of charter schools are outraged and hysterical.

The Center for Education Reform, which has advocated for charters for more than 20 years, astonishingly called the NAACP “opportunity’s opponent.” This is a breathtakingly insulting slur coming from a conservative organization that has long been hostile to public education.

CER provides a link to other rightwing organizations that oppose the NAACP’s criticism of public schools.

Who cares more about black children?

The NAACP or the Heritage Foundation?

The NAACP or CATO?

The NAACP or Betsy DeVos?

The NAACP or hedge fund managers?

The NAACP or the Walton Family Foundation?

The NAACP or the Center for Education Reform?

The NAACP or the Thomas B. Fordham Institute?

The NAACP or the Koch brothers?

Please read the NAACP report on charter schools.

Ever since it was released, charter supporters have complained bitterly about the report and accused the NAACP of being paid off by the unions.

This is ridiculous. It is a sound and sober report.

Consider its recommendations.

1. There should be more equitable and adequate funding for schools serving children of color. The school finance system is extremely unfair and inequitable over states, districts, and schools. School funding in 36 states has not returned to its pre-2008 levels, when budgets were slashed. Federal funds in real dollar amounts have declined for Title I and special education over the same period.

Do charter supporters disagree?

2. School finance reform is needed to ensure that dollars go where the needs are greatest.

Do charter supporters disagree?

3. Invest in low-performing schools and in schools that have a significant opportunity to close achievement gaps. “Students learn in safe, supportive, and challenging learning environments under the tutelage of well-prepared caring adults.” Authorities must invest in incentives to attract and retain “fully qualified educators”; they must invest in creating instructional quality that provides a stimulating and challenging learning environment; they must invest in wraparound services that meet the need of children, including early childhood education, health and mental services, extended learning time, and social supports.

Do charter supports disagree? What would they object to? Maybe they would reject the idea that teachers should be “fully qualified,” since that might be a slap at Teach for America’s teachers, who are never fully qualified when they begin teaching.

4. Mandate a rigorous authorizing and renewal process. States with the fewest authorizers have the best charters. Only local school districts should be allowed to authorize charters, based on their needs.

This would be a problem for many charters, because they like it when there are many authorizers, and they can go shopping to find one that will give them an okay. They hate being overseen by local districts, because they see themselves as competitors to public schools, not collaborators. But that is part of what makes charters obnoxious.

5. Eliminate for-profit charter schools and for-profit charter management companies that control nonprofit charters. Not a dollar of federal, state or local money should go to for-profit charters. The report notes that the widespread reports of misconduct of for-profit charters and their for-profit managers is reason enough to forbid them. As for-profits, they have an “inherent conflict of interest,” and may well put the interest of their investors over those of students.

Do charter supporters disagree? Obviously, this is a sticking point for many charter supporters, including Betsy DeVos, who welcomes for-profit charters. More than 80% of the charters in her home state of Michigan operate for profit, and they get poor results. That doesn’t bother her at all. It bothers the NAACP.

Now, I ask you, what part of these five recommendations suggests that the NAACP is wrong? That it was doing the bidding of teachers’ unions? Is it so objectionable to charter advocates to propose that children should be taught by fully qualified educators? Are they prepared to fight for teachers who are not fully qualified?

Later in the report, on page 26, is an expanded discussion of the recommendations, including a recommendation that charters hire only certified teachers and that charters abide by common standards for reporting on disciplinary practices and admitting and retaining students.

I commend the NAACP for its common sense proposals to reform the charter sector.

Are charter advocates prepared to go to the mat to defend for-profit operations?

What part of this report and its recommendations has lit a fire of outrage in charter land?

Ann Cronin, a retired teacher of English in Connecticut, writes about what charters were supposed to be and how they have failed to fulfill their original promise. Nowhere have they been more disappointing than in Connecticut, where the harsh “no excuses” model prevails. The charters in the Nutmeg State have won generous state funding, thanks to the campaign contributions to Democratic Governor Malloy by hedge fund managers and the OxyContin billionaire Sackler Family.

Cronin thanks the NAACP for speaking truth to power.

She writes:

“An English teacher friend of mine was a finalist for Connecticut Teacher of the Year in the mid 90’s. As one of the culminating steps in the selection process, the four finalists were assigned a topic little was known about at the time. They were instructed to research it and present their findings to an audience.

“The topic was charter schools.There were no charter schools in Connecticut at the time. My friend concluded that the worth of charter schools would depend on the answers to two questions:

“1) Will the innovations created at charter schools inform and improve the public schools that the vast majority of children and adolescents in the U.S. attend?

“2) Will charter schools be held accountable to address student needs as traditional public schools are required to do?

“Fast forward to 2017: We now have had charter schools in Connecticut for 21 years. The answers to my friend’s two questions came from the NAACP.”

The answer to number 1: NO.

The answer to number 2: Not yet.

Steven Singer is sorry, really sorry for the self-proclaimed crybabies who call themselves reformers.

Their efforts to privatize public education were going well, they were under the radar, until Trump and DeVos came along and joined forces with them.

How could they continue to sell charters as a crusade for poor children when Trump and DeVos want the same?

How could they get away with the ridiculous assertion that turning public money over to private contractors was a matter of civil rights, when the most reactionary, anti-civil rights administration in generations shares their cause?

What’s next? Will they hold a joint press conference with DeVos and Jeff Sessions to denounce the NAACP for daring to demand that charters cease to operate for profit and meet minimal standards of financial and academic accountability?

It was bad enough when they took their cues from the Waltons, ALEC, and the Koch brothers. Now their champions are Trump and DeVos.

Sad.

Singer writes:

“It’s gotta’ be tough to be a corporate school reformer these days.

“Betsy DeVos is Education Secretary. Donald Trump is President. Their entire Koch Brothers-funded, ALEC-written agenda is national policy.

“But their stripes are showing – big time.

“The NAACP has turned against their school privatization schemes. The Journey for Justice Alliance is having none of it. The Movement for Black Lives is skeptical. Even their trusty neoliberal Democratic allies are seeking to put some distance between them.

“And it’s making them look… sad.

“You’d think they’d have much to celebrate. Their policies are right up there with voter disenfranchisement, the Muslim ban and building a wall.

“Charter schools – YES! Voucher schools – YES! Public schools – NO.

“High stakes testing is going gangbusters pushed by the federal government with little interference from the states.

“Common Core is in almost every school while the most state legislatures do about it is consider giving it a name change.

“And in every district serving students of color and the poor, budgets are being slashed to pieces to make room for another juicy tax cut for the rich.

“They’ve taken George W. Bush’s education vision – which neoliberal Barack Obama increased – and somehow found a way to double-triple down on it!

“They should be dancing in the streets. But somehow they just don’t feel like dancing.”

Steven Singer reviews the panicked reaction of the charter lobby to the report by the NAACP demanding charter accountability and an end to profiteering off the backs of children.

What part of the NAACP was so horrendous and unpalatable to the charteristas?

What is so radical about accountability and transparency?

Shouldn’t local communities have the right to reject for-profit charters? Shouldn’t they have a say in whether a charter opens in their district? At present, charters are foisted onto communities whether they want them or not. That doesn’t seem right.

Charter school cheerleaders like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos call their movement School Choice. Shouldn’t communities get to choose whether they want them there in the first place? If the program is based on the free market, let them make their case to the community before setting up shop. They shouldn’t get to make a backroom deal with your congressman and then start peddling their wares wherever they want.

Moreover, if charter schools are, indeed, public schools, why should they be allowed to operate at a profit? They are supported by tax dollars. That money should go to educating children, not lining the pockets of venture capitalists and hedge fund managers.

The “backroom deal” that Singer refers to is usually not with a congressman, but with the state legislature or the state board or the governor, and it usually is the result of campaign contributions. But why should campaign contributions determine what happens to public schools?

Jose Luis Vilson, teacher and blogger in New York City, writes his view of the Secretary of Education here.

He writes:

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos spoke to the American Legislative Exchange Council on July 20 about school choice and her vision for dismantling federal support for our public schools. In her speech, DeVos praised the drive to privatize education through charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credit scholarships that cover private-school tuition. She hailed “new waves of legislation” that brought charter schools to Kentucky, education savings accounts to North Carolina for special needs students, and a similar savings-account program in Arizona for every student.

She went after the American Federation of Teachers, for being “defenders of the status quo” who don’t have “kids’ interests at heart.”

She criticized the AFT because “They have made clear that they care more about a system—one that was created in the 1800s—than about individual students.”

[Here is a bit of information for Betsy DeVos: the Constitution was created in the 1700s, and most of us think it is a good document.]

Vilson writes:

But let’s be clear: at the root of DeVos’s approach is the devaluation and eventual abolition of the public sphere, which often goes together with tax cuts for the wealthy.

First, the status quo is not, as DeVos puts it, the people protesting her outside her offices and wherever she appears in public. If anything, policies such as No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top moved school privatization directly to the center of education decision-making in this country. The bipartisan effort to disrupt public education created the pathway for Trump’s agenda to shake it up some more. Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) set the stage for Trump, inviting school-choice evangelists including Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz and former Washington D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to meet about education before eventually calling up DeVos.

Second, as the Education Secretary in 1971, Thatcher became known as “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” for abolishing milk programs for children over seven years old. She was also popular for using dog-whistle rhetoric against black and ethnic minorities, claiming that Afro-Caribbeans gave cannabis to babies and different cultures would dilute England’s strong democracy. Given Thatcher’s history with trade unions, DeVos blew her own barely audible whistle to those who oppose teachers unions. This is not an accident.

DeVos’s mythological interpretation of what the founders wanted is worth noting as well. Certainly they had a lot to say about the importance of education and public schools. Thomas Jefferson also asserted that governments shouldn’t be allowed to manage schools. But there’s a difference between working with thirteen states generally struggling to stay afloat and a fifty-state country that’s one of the most powerful in the world. That’s why amendments exist. But DeVos skipped that part of civics. Just as importantly, states’ rights as the founders intended it allowed white plantation owners to keep enslaved peoples as property, whether they went to free land or not. How does one support freedom of choice by pointing at policies that literally kept entire peoples in captivity?

Make no mistake: this is no benign blueprint for public schools.

The whole raison d’être for public education is to ensure that all students get an education. As New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones astutely stated in a rebuttal to DeVos, “PUBLIC education is, at its heart, about the common good. Meaning one student’s gain should not come at another student’s loss.” It’s as if DeVos believes she runs the Department of Individualized / Personalized Opportunities and not the U.S. Department of Education, a department created specifically for “strengthening the federal role in creating equal educational opportunities for all.” Because public schools serve approximately 90 percent of eligible pre-K through twelfth grade students, the U.S. Department of Ed plays a vital role in the direction that our schools take.

For sure, public schools have had deep, institutional problems with inequity and injustice. We must acknowledge the ways our country perpetuates systemic racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia through schools. This country harms so many of our children through curriculum, funding, and unstable bureaucracy that still works as a reflection of our general social stratification. Progressive activists ought to keep in mind the plethora of frustrated parents of color who will intently listen to hedge fund billionaires offering better resourced schools. We do an injustice by not acknowledging that as we work to create better public schools.

None of these points should give someone like DeVos a platform for dismantling one of the strongest pillars of our country’s social safety net.

DeVos also took time to speak directly to teachers after a week of meetings with some of our best and brightest. She used the last part of her speech to express support for teacher autonomy, which sounds good. She is correct that the last ten-plus years of education reform have led to scripted lessons, overemphasis on standardized testing, and the muffling of teacher voices. But DeVos is effectively weakening the chair in which she sits. This includes a Trump executive order giving her office 300 days to look for examples of federal “overreach” in education, which doesn’t do much in the way of actual legislative action, but show the direction this administration would like to go in. DeVos’s appetite for deregulation, defunding, and negligence (masked as incompetence) bodes ill for a department created specifically to help our country right these wrongs.

This, along with any number of absurd news items coming out of the Department of Education these days, give me reason to say DeVos and her boss need to resign effective immediately. She is no one’s secretary of education. She serves the 0.01 percent of folks who stand to profit from ultra-conservatism.

She already has the lowest approval rating of any Trump appointee, and, like Thatcher, she continues to bring the hammer to our most fragile policy pieces with little care for public accountability. When you’re that wealthy and thatdismissive of the actual job you were hired to do, it starts to look like you were hired to eliminate the department you lead.

DeVos proves every day that she has earned her position as the least popular member of Trump’s Cabinet of Horribles. All of them are there to destroy the agency they head. She is off to a fabulous start in her program of destruction, elimination, and sneering.

The NAACP today released a strong report demanding the reform and regulation the charter school industry. The NAACP report calls for a flat prohibition of for- profit charters and for-profit charter management companies. It says that only school districts should be allowed to authorize charters. It says that charter teachers should be certified.

The task force of the NAACP said that “while high quality, accountable and accessible charters can contribute to educational opportunity, by themselves, even the best charters are not a substitute for more stable, adequate and equitable investments in public education in the communities that serve our children.”

The NAACP report boldly acknowledges that charters are part of a public-funded system. It says that it makes no sense to strip funding from the public schools that enroll the great majority of students in order to fund a parallel system that is usually no better than the public system and often worse.

Carol Burris analyzes the report here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/07/26/naacp-report-charter-schools-not-a-substitute-for-traditional-public-schools-and-many-need-reform/?utm_term=.9d91271f673d

There is also a link to the full text of the NASCP report and resolution.

This report strips away the claims of charter advocates who say that they are advancing civil rights. They are not. They are undermining public education by stripping students and resources away from the public schools.

The NAACP recognizes that the best way to advance civil rights in education is to assure a strong, accountable,and equitable system of public schools.

Like every national organization, the NAACP relies on major donors to survive. By standing strong against privatization of public schools, the NAACP has demonstrated courage and integrity. I add the NAACP to the honor roll of this blog, with admiration and respect.

Steve Singer calls out the Destroy-Public-Education campaign for their attacks on Randi Weingarten.

It’s not because he is a fan of Randi’s, but because he doesn’t like hypocrisy.

Charter schools are more segregated than public schools, even in districts that have high levels of racial segregation. Charters don’t mind being 100% black or Hispanic. It’s not a bug to their promoters. It’s a feature. In some states, charters are all black and have become White Flight z
Academies.

Vouchers cause racial and religious segregation. Period.

Meanwhile, the Destroy Public Education crowd is acting shocked, shocked, shocked that Randi dared to connect their activities to the racist Southern governors and Senators who championed school choice as their response to the Brown decision.

I saw an email blast a few days ago from Jeanne Allen, the CEO of the pro-privatization Center for Education Reform, who wrapped herself in the mantel of the late Wisconsin legislator Polly Williams, an African American woman who supported vouchers, hoping they would help poor black children. She neglected to acknowledge that Williams was appalled when vouchers became the favorite idea of Scott Walker, who raised the income limits. Poor black children were left behind. Before her death, Williams admitted her error. Poor black children were cynically used by the hard-right Bradley Foundation, the Koch brothers, Scott Walker, and a bunch of white reactionaries who didn’t give a hoot about black children. To think that these people have the nerve to chastise anyone who calls out their racist heritage!

Jeanne Allen called on Randi to resign for daring to connect charters and vouchers with their historical antecedents. Sorry, Jeanne, Randi was right. You are carrying forward the twisted ideals of George Wallace. For doing so, you should resign.

A group of Democratic Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to express their concern that she was abandoning civil rights enforcement.

DeVos wrote back to say that she was “returning” the Office for Civil Rights to its role as a “neutral” investigative agency.

It is at a time like this that DeVos’s ignorance of education policy and history becomes embarrassing. OCR is the Office FOR Civil Rights. It was never a “neutral” agency. It led the way in the 1960s in forcing the integration of Southern schools. It didn’t just investigate. It threatened Southern districts that did not produce hard data about students and faculty integration. No integration, no federal funding.

One can’t be “neutral” about civil rights. The Office for Civil Rights is meant to enforce the law and protect the vulnerable–not to feign indifference.