Archives for category: Civil Rights

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.

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.