Archives for category: Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mercedes Schneider: Trump’s Plans for Education

By dianeravitch
November 12, 2024 //
24

If Trump follows through with his education proposals, if the Republican-controlled Congress lets him do it, America’s students and teachers are in for a world of hurt.

Mercedes Schneider writes here about what’s at stake. I did not copy and paste the article in full. It is excellent. I urge you to open the link.

I do not believe American education is a top concern for Donald Trump. I do believe that he could well turn it over to the likes of the Heritage Foundation and their Project 2025, so long as nobody outshines him in the press and puts anything (Constitution included) ahead of loyalty to him above all else.

So, when ABC News reports that Trump’s Agenda 47 as though the Heritage Foundation has not already done most of Trump’s homework for him, well, that fashions Trump’s interest in a number of issues as though it is something more than just letting those extreme-right-leaners who really care about that stuff have at.

Now that the election is over, Trump allies are openly admitting that Project 2025 was the Trump plan all along.

One featured Project 2025-Trump issue is the proposed dismantling of the US Department of Education (USDOE), which was created during the Carter administration. Talk of getting rid of USDOE began with the Reagan administration(in other words, soon after it was created). It should come as no surprise that in 1980, the “fledgling” Heritage Foundation was in Reagan’s ear and is proud to declare as much in the opening pages of its Project 2025:

page xiii

Several decades later, USDOE still exists, and several decades later, the Heritage Foundation is still trying to kill it. 

Heritage et al. has taken great pains to outline its 900+-page wish list of ultra conservatism, including nixing USDOE. However, it would take a lot to achieve the kind of legislative unity required to dissolve a federal department that supports numerous Americans in desired and positive ways, not the least of which is via the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

Brookings offers a concise discussion of the Project 2025 plan for education, including this “sample list” of negative consequences:

No surprise that Heritage wants school vouchers for all, a notably unpopular concept at the 2024 ballot box:

Project 2025, page 319

Of course, the key is to have legislatures jump onto the choice bandwagon and force choice onto voters whether they want it or not. But some voters do benefit from having access to publicly-subsidized private schools: Those with money. Heritage alludes to Arizona’s “expanded program… available to all families. However, in Arizona, those accessing school voucher cash tend not to be the working class but more affluent families.

Speaking of the affluent and private school vouchers: Billionaire former US Ed secretary Betsy DeVos, who in 2023 could not get private school vouchers over the line in her home state of Michigan, apparently smells opportunity. 

On January 07, 2024, DeVos resigned as Trump’s US ed sec. In her resignation letter, DeVos placed the fault of January 06, 2024, chaos squarely on Trump:

In a November 07. 2024, interview with EdWeek about advice for Trump’s next Ed sec, , DeVos is fact checked as she tries to put lack of a school choice “big moment” at the feet of the Democrats. Not so, Betsy:

During Trump’s first term, DeVos’ inability to push private school choice to her liking has to be attributed in part to some Republican resistance to the idea. Heritage and any Heritage-sympathetic ed sec could well face similar issues in Trump’s second term.

I did not copy the entire article. Open the link to finish reading it.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Disruption, Education Industry, Elections, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, For-Profit, Freedom to Read, Funding, Trump, U.S. Department of Education

Peter Greene: Another Charter Miracle School Implodes

By dianeravitch
November 12, 2024 //
7

Perhaps you remember “Waiting for ‘Superman,'” the overhyped documentary from 2010 that made the audacious claim that public schools were failing due to “bad teachers”and that the only sane alternative was charter schools. The documentary was funded by the Gates Foundation, with the obvious purpose of smearing public schools and promoting charter schools. I reviewed the film in the New York review of Books, in a review called “The Myth of Charter Schools.” Among other flaws in the film, I pointed out that it misused and distorted NAEP data to paint a horrifying picture of public schools. I concluded it was dishonest propaganda on behalf of the privatizers.

One of the amazing, miraculous charter schools featured in the film was a residential boarding school in D.C. called SEED.

Peter Greene writes that SEED is in deep trouble and may be shuttered.

The SEED School of Washington, D.C. was in the Washington Post yesterday, accused of inaccurate records and wholesale breezing past laws that are supposed to protect students with disabilities.

If the name of this unusual charter boarding school seems vaguely familiar, that may be because back in 2010, they were one of the charter schools lovingly lionized by the documentary hit piece, “Waiting for Superman.”

“Waiting for Superman” was a big hit, popularizing the neo-liberal narrative that public schools were failing because public school teachers were lazy incompetents. Every damn newspaper in the country jumped on the narrative. Roger Ebert jumped on. Oprah jumped on. NPR wondered why it didn’t get an Oscar (maybe, they posit, it was because one big emotional scene was made up). It helped sustain the celebrity brand of Michelle Rhee (the Kim Kardashian of education, famous despite having not accomplished anything). It was a slanted hatchet job that helped bolster the neoliberal case for Common Core and charter schools and test-centric education and heavy-handed “evaluation” of teachers.

And it boosted the profile of SEED, the DC charter whose secret sauce for student achievement is that it “takes them away from their home environments for five days a week and gives them a host of supporting services.”

Except it turns out that maybe it doesn’t do that after all. 

According to the WaPo piece, reported by Lauren Lumpkin, audits of the school suggest a variety of mistreatment of students with special needs.

SEED underreported the number of students it expelled last year. It couldn’t produce records of services it was supposed to have provided for some students with disabilities (most likely explanation–those services were never provided). Federal law says that before you expel a student with an IEP, you have meetings to decide if the misbehavior is a feature of their disability, or if their misbehavior stems from requirements of the IEP that are not being provided. 

These have the fancy name of “manifestation determination” which just means the school needs to ask– is the student acting out because that’s what her special situation makes her do, or because the Individualized Education Program that’s supposed to help deal with that special situation is not being actually done. For absurd example– is the student repeatedly late to her class on the second floor because she’s in a wheelchair? Does her IEP call for elevator transport to the second floor, and there’s no elevator in the building? Then maybe don’t suspend her for chronic lateness. 

Founded in 1998, SEED enrolls about 250 students, which seems to preclude any sort of “just lost the details in the crowd” defense. But as Lumpkin reports, questions arose.

But after receiving complaints about discipline, understaffing and compliance with federal law, the city’s charter oversight agency started an audit of the school in July. One complaint claimed school officials had manipulated attendance data and were not recording suspensions.

The audit’s findings sparked scathing commentary from charter board members and questions about SEED D.C.’s practices.

“I’m the parent of a special-needs child, and I’ve got to tell you, reading what was happening in these pages, it’s like a parent’s worst nightmare,” charter board member Nick Rodriguez told SEED D.C. leaders. “I sincerely hope that you will take that seriously as you think about what needs to happen going forward.”

Lumpkin reports that this is not their first round of problems. A 2023 audit found a high number of expulsions and suspensions compared to other charters– five times higher. A cynical person might conclude that SEED addressed the problem by just not reporting the full numbers. Inaccurate data, missed deadlines, skipping legal requirements–that’s a multi-year pattern for the school.

The school is now on a “notice of concern,” a step on the road to losing its charter and being closed down (or I suppose they could just switch over to a private voucher-accepting school).

The whole sad story of the many students who have been ill-served by SEED is one more reminder that there are no miracles in education, and no miracle schools, either. 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, District of Columbia, Education Industry, Failure, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates

Glenn Kessler: The Challenge of Fact-Checking Trump UPDATED

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2024 //
35

Glenn Kessler is the fact checker for The Washington Post. He describes what it is like to check the nation’s most notorious prevaricator.

Kessler writes:

In my 14 years as The Washington Post Fact Checker, nine have been devoted to dissecting and debunking claims made by Donald Trump. Indeed, no person has been fact-checked more often than Trump, as he has bested or outlasted foes — Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — who drew their share of fact checks. And no other person has consistently earned Four Pinocchios — the badge of a committed liar — day after day, week after week.


I first covered Trump as a business reporter in the 1980s, so I was very familiar with his long history of exaggeration and bravado when he burst onto the political stage in 2015 (not counting his brief flirtation with the Reform Party in 2000). “Businessman Donald Trump is a fact checker’s dream … and nightmare,” I wrote in the fact check of his speech announcing that he would seek the presidency.


Now, he has convincingly won a second term via the electoral college and is even on track for the first time in three tries to win the popular vote. After his first two races, I wrote analyses that, in retrospect, misjudged the Trump phenomenon.

In 2016, I noted that “based only on anecdotal evidence — emails from readers — one reason that Trump’s false statements may have mattered little to his supporters is because he echoed things they already believed.” But I expressed hope that “now that Trump will assume the presidency, he may find that it is not in his interest to keep making factually unsupported questions.”

As an example, I noted that during the campaign he had claimed that the unemployment rate was 42 percent, rather than the 5 percent in official statistics. I suggested that he might find himself embarrassed to be contradicted by the official data once he took office.


I was wrong. He embraced the numbers as his own — and then bragged that he had created the greatest economy in American history, even though he had inherited it from Barack Obama.
When Trump was defeated in 2020, my analysis carried a headline that is embarrassing in retrospect: “Fact-checking in a post-Trump era.” I wrote that “his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden suggests that adherence to the facts does matter.”


The Fact Checker documented more than 30,000 false or misleading claims that Trump made during his presidency. Indeed, through that term, Trump was the first president since World War II to fail to ever win majority support in public opinion polls. A key reason was that relatively few Americans believed he was honest and trustworthy, an important metric in Gallup polls. Gallup has described this as “among his weakest personal characteristics.”

As evidence that Trump was hurt by falsehoods, I pointed to Biden’s narrow victories in Arizona and Georgia: “It’s quite possible that at least 9,000 people in Arizona and 5,000 in Georgia were upset enough at Trump’s continued false attacks on native sons Sen. John McCain (R) and Rep. John Lewis (D), even after they died, that they decided to support Biden over Trump.”

The essay appeared before Trump embarked on a months-long campaign to claim that Biden won only through election fraud — a lie debunked in court ruling after court ruling. The Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, inspired by his rhetoric, appeared to be an indelible stain. Yet from 2020 on, Trump used his false claim to maintain his Republican support and build a base for his comeback.


In this election campaign, Trump once again resorted to false claims and sometimes outrageous lies, especially on immigration and the economy. He rode a wave of discontent about inflation — a problem in every industrialized country after the pandemic — to falsely claim that the economy was a disaster, despite relatively low unemployment, falling inflation and strong growth.


Last month, the Economist magazine published a cover story declaring that the U.S. economy was “the envy of the world.” Yet exit polls show that two-thirds of voters said the economy was in bad shape.


I do not write fact checks to influence the behavior of politicians; I write fact checks to inform voters. What voters — or politicians — do with the information in the fact checks is up to them.

Trump certainly benefits from an increasingly siloed information system — a world in which people can set their social media feeds or their television channel so they receive only information that confirms what they already believe. It’s perhaps not an accident that Trump’s rise in politics coincides with the rise of social media, which he adeptly used to first attract attention by elevating (false) questions about Obama’s birth certificate.


In this campaign, Trump made many promises that will be difficult to achieve, such as reducing the national debt and cutting energy prices in half. He also said he would reduce inflation, though that’s already been mostly achieved, and many economists say his plan to impose large tariffs on imported goods might spark inflation again.


No matter what happens, or how many fact checks are written, this time I won’t doubt his ability to convince his supporters that it’s all good news — or that the problem is the fault of someone else, facts notwithstanding.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Elections, Ethics, Lies, Trump

Colorado: Voters Reject Proposal to Embed School Choice in State Constitution

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2024 //
2

Colorado voters rejected a proposal that was likely to protect school vouchers.

Colorado Public Radio reported:

It’s looking like Coloradans have rejected an effort to enshrine school choice in the state Constitution. 

As of 9:45 p.m., Amendment 80 was losing, with 52 percent opposed to 48 percent in support. This measure, which would have been the first of its kind in the nation, needs 55 percent of the vote to go into the state constitution.

It would have added language stating each “K-12 child has the right to school choice” and that “parents have the right to direct the education of their children.” It explicitly named charters, private schools, home schools and “future innovations in education” as options guaranteed by the state constitution.

Opponents celebrated the amendment’s apparent defeat.

“We find it really encouraging that people understand what this ballot measure was really trying to do, which was to create a pathway for a private school voucher system,” said Kevin Vick, president of the Colorado Education Association. “And we’re also really encouraged that Colorado voters really value public schools and don’t want to see that happen.”

A legislative analysis concluded that the measure would have no immediate impact on education in Colorado but could have opened the door to future changes to laws and funding for education.

Vick said the vagueness of the measure would have created a “legal quagmire,” which he said, in a worst-case scenario could have meant millions of dollars taken out of the public education system. 

The battle over the measure drew millions of dollars from both sides and complaints against proponents alleging deceptive campaign practices. Amendment 80 was a nuanced ballot issue and difficult for many to understand.

When Denver voter Kyle Slusher first read Amendment 80, he thought giving children options would be a good thing. 

“But if it is actually just creating a lane for private schools to take from public school funding, that’s not obviously something that needs to be occurring,” he said.

After doing more research he changed his mind and voted “no.”

Advance Colorado, a conservative action committee that doesn’t disclose its donors, proposed the amendment. They argued Amendment 80 would protect families’ right to choose the school — public, private or home school — that they deem is the best fit for their child. It was also backed by Ready Colorado, the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Colorado Association of Private Schools.

The measure was opposed by a coalition that included the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado PTA, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado, Colorado Democrats, Stand for Children, the ACLU Colorado and others.

School choice is popular in Colorado, with nearly 40 percent of public school students choosing a school outside their assigned neighborhood school. The 30-year-old school choice law has bipartisan support. Critics of the measure argued that the constitutional amendment wasn’t needed because laws giving Coloradans the right to attend the school of their choice for free already exist.

But proponents worried about what they said were increasing attempts to erode choice by local school boards, the state legislature and the State Board of Education. Proponents said Amendment 80 would be a backstop to any legislative attempt to reverse decades of bipartisan work to expand choice for students.

Categories Accountability, Colorado, Education Industry, Elections, Privatization, Vouchers

Nebraska: Voters Reject Private School Vouchers

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2024 //
3

Voters in Nebraska voted against using public funds to pay for private schools.

LINCOLN — Voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected Nebraska’s new school voucher or scholarship program, steering public dollars spent to public schools.

Supporters of using state tax dollars to offset the costs of a private K-12 education have argued that families unhappy with their public schools need more options.

But rural and urban supporters of public schools, the Nebraska State Education Association and private foundations supporting public schools won the day.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said he was proud to see right- and left-leaning counties agree that vouchers were the wrong choice.

“It confirms what we knew, the majority of Nebraskans don’t want public dollars going to private schools,” Royers said. “What really stood out to me is the consistency.”

Royers hopes state senators move on

Royers said he is hopeful that state senators will follow the will of the voters and move onto other more pressing issues in education that teachers and parents can work on together.

Support Our Schools argued that diverting even small amounts of public money toward private K-12 schools with a scholarship program or vouchers risked long-term support for public education.

They pointed to the experiences in other states with voucher programs, including neighboring Iowa, which has seen the national rankings of its public schools slide since that program began.

They argued that school choice programs typically end up largely benefiting the people already making the choice to send their children to private schools.

And they said such programs risked creating greater concentrations of poverty in some schools by draining them of students who often act as stabilizing force

Categories Education Industry, Elections, Nebraska, Vouchers

Public Education Has Been Ignored in the Campaign, But It Is on the Ballot

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2024 //
7

It’s hard to notice something that is invisible, but it is indeed obvious that there has been no discussion of education in the Presidential campaign.

It’s not as if education is unimportant: education is a path to a better life and to a better society. It is the road to progress.

The differences between the two candidates are like night and day. Trump supports dismantling public education and giving out vouchers. Harris is committed to funding schools and universities.

Project 2025 displays Trump’s goals: to eliminate the Department of Education, to turn the programs it funds (Title 1, IDEA for students with disabilities) and turn them into unrestricted block grants to states, which allows states to siphon off their funding for other purposes. At the same time that the Trump apparat wants to kill the Ed Department, it wants (contradictorily) to impose mandates on schools to stop the teaching of so-called critical race theory, to censor books, and to impose rightwing ideology on the nation’s schools.

It’s too bad that the future of education never came up in either of the high-profile debates. The American people should know that Kamala Harris wants to strengthen America’s schools, colleges, and universities, and that Donald Trump wants to destroy them.

Randi Weingarten wrote an excellent article in Newsweek about the plans of each candidate.

If you can’t open it, try this link.

Categories Bigotry, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Charter Schools, Curriculum, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Elections, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Trump, U.S. Department of Education, Vouchers

Florida: Voting on the Amendments on the Ballot

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2024 //
4

Scott Maxwell, a regular columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, has some suggestions about how to vote in the referenda in Florida. From reading him for the past few years, I trust his judgment.

I don’t live in Florida, but the amendment I will watch closely is #4. That’s the amendment to roll back Florida’s harsh six-week ban on abortion. Very few, if any, women know that they are pregnant at the six-week mark. A six-week ban is, in reality, a total ban. Under this ban, women will die; young girls will be forced to become mothers. People like Ron DeSantis are not pro-life.

VOTE YES TO REPEAL THE SIX-WEEK BAN.

VOTE YES TO REPEAL THE BAN.

This is how Scott Maxwell is voting on state referenda:

Florida’s Constitutional amendments can be confusing, often by design.

So I’m going to try to break down the six amendments on this year’s ballot as simply as possible. I’ll give you the arguments for and against each one, tell you some of the supporters and opponents and share how I’m voting. Do whatever you want. It’s your constitution.

Amendment 1: Make school board races partisan

This would take school board races, which are now nonpartisan affairs, and turn them into partisan contests with closed primaries. The idea was backed by Republican state legislators — and one Democrat, Sen. Linda Stewart of Orlando — who believe partisanship should play a bigger and more transparent role in school issues. Opponents, including the League of Women Voters, say injecting more partisanship into school board races is a rotten idea and note that the closed primary system will prevent many of you from casting votes.

Vote yes: If you want more partisanship and party involvement in local school races, as well as closed primaries.

Vote no: If you think candidates should appeal to voters based on their platforms and credentials rather than their party affiliation.

How I’m voting: No. I think this is the worst amendment on this year’s ballot. The last thing our schools need is more politics and partisanship.

Amendment 2: Put hunting and fishing in the Constitution

This would add language to the Florida Constitution that says hunting and fishing is a constitutionally protected right. Hunting and fishing is already legal in Florida. Existing statutes even declare them as “preserved” activities. And no state has banned hunting and fishing. But advocates say they just want to be super-duper sure. Opponents say this is like asking voters to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the right to golf or play tennis. The Florida Bar Journal also published a lengthy piece that said this proposal could have unintended consequences, such as prohibiting local beach communities from closing stretches of beach to protect turtle eggs, for instance, if someone claimed that turtle protection got in the way of their “constitutional right to fish.”

Vote yes: If you want to enshrine hunting and fishing protections in the Florida Constitution.

Vote no: If you don’t.

How I’m voting: No. This one seems unnecessary and potentially fraught with unintended legal consequences.

Amendment 3: Legalize recreational marijuana

This would basically treat marijuana like cigarettes and booze, making the substance legal but subject to strict government regulation. Advocates note that marijuana is a natural substance, already widely used and argue that legalization would make it safer. Some law enforcement chiefs say it would also stop wasting their time. Opponents, including Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, dispute the drug’s safety, say this amendment would primarily benefit a few large companies and generally argue that communities that allow marijuana are unpleasant.

Vote yes: If you want to legalize marijuana.

Vote no: If you don’t.

How I’m voting: I’ve been torn on this one. I don’t think marijuana is as harmless as some advocates claim and know companies like Trulieve hope to make billions off legalization. But I also believe adults should have the ability to make their own decisions and can’t make a good case for why alcohol and carcinogenic cigarettes should be legal and why this naturally grown plant shouldn’t be. So I ultimately decided yes, agreeing with the Sentinel editorial board’s summary: “We’re not going to pretend that legalizing recreational marijuana would be a 100% beneficial experience for Florida. But it does make sense — far more sense than the current situation, where some people use medical pot with no fear of prosecution while others still face arrest, jail steep fines or a lifelong criminal record for possessing it.”

Amendment 4: Prohibit Tallahassee-imposed restrictions on abortion

This is the abortion amendment. And it’s pretty simple. It would prohibit state lawmakers from imposing any laws that place restrictions on abortion “before viability” beyond what federal law says while preserving requirements for parental notification. Citizens placed this initiative on the ballot to combat Florida’s new restrictions, which are some of the strictest in the nation, banning abortion after 15 weeks without exceptions for rape or incest and effectively banning most abortions after six weeks. Supporters, including some doctors, say Florida’s law puts women’s lives in danger, is heartlessly cruel to victims of sexual crimes and that abortion decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not politicians. Opponents, including the governor and GOP lawmakers, generally oppose abortion and say they should have the right to decide what medical procedures pregnant women can undergo.

Vote yes: If you think Florida’s existing ban on abortions without many exceptions is too extreme.

Vote no: If you are opposed to abortion under most any circumstances and trust state politicians to make the rules.

How I’m voting: Yes. I believe thoughtful people can have different opinions on abortion. But Florida’s current laws are extreme and dangerous.

Amendment 5: Adjust homestead exemptions for inflation

State lawmakers want to offer homeowners a tiny tax break — maybe $10 a year — but force local governments to pay for it. This one’s a bit complicated. It would take half of the $50,000 homestead exemption homeowners get and tie it to inflation. So if inflation rose by 2.5% one year, your homestead exemption would be worth $50,625 the next, representing an increase of 2.5% on $25,000. Clear as mud, right? Opponents say this is political trickery, since state lawmakers aren’t offering to cut state taxes. They want to force local governments to take the hit. And the Florida League of Cities argues that tiny savings for homeowners would have a huge collective impact on local governments. The Tampa Bay Times editorial board supports this plan. The Orlando Sentinel and Sun Sentinel oppose, noting this tax break would elude many Floridians, namely renters.

Vote yes: If you want to slightly increase the tax exemption homeowners get every year and decrease what local governments collect for services like fire and police.

Vote no: If you think the exemption is fine the way it is.

How I’m voting: No. I don’t really care much about this one either way. Sure, I’d like a few extra bucks. But this seems like political theater; a way for state lawmakers to say they provided a tiny tax break without cutting any of their own spending. If state lawmakers want to cut taxes, they should cut the taxes they collect.

Amendment 6: Repeal taxpayer financed campaigns

This would end the law that allows candidates for statewide office to use public money to finance their campaigns. Forty years ago, Floridians voted to create this program, hoping it would help grassroots candidates compete with politicians who suck up gobs of special-interest money. But now, thanks to political committees that can take unlimited donations, the candidates who take the most special interest money also collect the most tax dollars. Ron DeSantis set the record in 2022, collecting the most money ever from deep-pocketed donors and the most from taxpayers (more than $7 million). Supporters of this repeal include Florida legislators. Opponents include the League of Women Voters and the Sentinel editorial board.

Vote yes: If you don’t believe taxpayers should finance political campaigns.

Vote no: If you like the idea of tax dollars paying for campaigns and believe lesser-funded candidates deserve help, even if their better-funded opponents get more of it.

How I’m voting: Yes. Unlike my newspaper’s editorial board, I believe this subsidies-for-politicians program was a noble idea that has been warped beyond sense or salvation. It could’ve been fixed by requiring subsidy recipients to limit all their other contributions. But lawmakers have consistently refused such reforms.

Want more info?

Check out the League of Women Voters’ great voter-info site at Vote411.org

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

Categories Charter Schools, Democracy, Education Industry, Elections, Florida

Ohio: Vote YES on Issue 1 to De-politicize Gerrymandering

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2024 //
1

Jeanne Melvin is a public education activist in Ohio. She urges Ohio voters to vote YES on issue 1. This would put a bipartisan commission in charge of redistricting instead of the Legislature. It would block the Legislature from designing their own districts to assure a supermajority. Ohio’s Republican supermajority has passed numerous bills to privatize school funding, including a universal voucher bill that enables all parents to get public funding to subsidize their private school tuition. Vouchers. Most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in private schools. Like all universal vouchers programs, Ohio’s is welfare for the wealthy.

Melvin writes:

Public Education is on the ballot across our nation.

Americans must choose between two presidential candidates whose policies, strategies, and experience relating to issues in public education are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Voters in 10 states will decide 11 statewide education-related ballot measures– the most since 2018.

Ohio voters have the opportunity to elect state school board candidates and pro-public education candidates, along with approving or renewing tax levies or bond issues from over 100 school districts in the Buckeye State.

This November, Ohio voters will also decide if politicians should be left in charge of drawing our voting maps, or if the politicians should be removed from the process in favor of a citizens commission. 

According to Dr. Christina Collins, former State School Board member and current director of Honesty for Ohio Education, the lack of competitive districts brings “extreme” education policies like attempting to regulate curriculums to avoid what legislators call “critical race theory” from getting into schools, the anti-LGBTQ law keeping transgender students from playing sports in the teams that align with their gender identity, and active bills that would threaten funding and dictate the kind of materials allowed in school libraries.

As previously stated, Ohio’s gerrymandered GOP majority has brought forward some extreme education bills designed to benefit private schools and to defund and diminish public school districts. Public education advocates have responded with facts, logic, and common sense, but lawmakers and lobbyists have chosen not to listen. 

Why would they listen? Gerrymandering has guaranteed a GOP supermajority, and Senate President Matt Huffman said the quiet part out loud: “We can kind of do what we want.”  

Ohioans can VOTE YES on Issue 1 on or before November 5, a bipartisan effort to remove the politicians from legislative redistricting in favor of a 15-member citizens commission made up of five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents. 

For education, this would mean that instead of Ohio lawmakers focusing on culture wars and EdChoice school voucher expansion, they could focus on more important issues, such as fair school funding to help our local public school districts.

If you don’t like legislative-district maps that have been deliberately drawn to ensure that one political party has a veto-proof supermajority, VOTE YES on Issue 1.

If you don’t like unreasonable education policies, VOTE YES on Issue 1.

If you don’t like paying for other peoples’ private school choices, VOTE YES on Issue 1. 

If you want to keep public tax dollars in public schools, VOTE YES on Issue 1.

That’s why I voted YES on Issue 1!

Categories Education Industry, Elections, Extremism, Ohio, Privatization, Republicans

Massachusetts: Vote YES On Question 2 to Remove State Test as a Graduation Requirement

By dianeravitch
November 1, 2024 //
13

Massachusetts has one of the highest performing school systems in the nation on the national test called NAEP (National Assesmrnt of Educational Progress). Some attribute this success to the state’s testing and accountability program. Others believe that the state test–MCAS–is overused and misused as a high school graduation requirement. Critics of the high-stakes exam as graduation requirement say that it was not designed to be an exit exam, that it has no value for diagnostic purposes, and that the small number of students who don’t pass it are disproportionately made up of students with disabilities and students who are not native-English speakers.

More than 90% of tenth graders pass the MCAS on their first try. Ultimately only hundreds out of more than 65,000 students don’t pass the test, and 85% of those who fail either have disabilities or don’t speak English.

Opponents of MCAS as a high-stakes graduation requirement have placed a referendum on the ballot called Question 2.

I urge voters in Massachusetts to vote YES on Question 2.

Belief in standardized testing as a remedy for low test scores has been misplaced for decades. Some believe that facing a test compels students to study harder, but we now know that the results of the standardized tests reflect family income and education more than student effort and ability. Those at the bottom of the scores inevitably are students with disabilities, students who don’t read English, students living in high poverty.

If high-stakes standardized were the solution to poor academic performance, the U.S. would have no failure at all. We have been administering those tests for more than 20 years. After the initial increases that are associated with test prep, improvement ground to a halt and score gaps between racial and economic groups stubbornly persisted.

Massachusetts teachers know that good things happen to students when schools have ample resources, small classes, and time to help the students with the greatest needs.

The YES vote is supported by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, many local school boards, and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

The NO vote is supported by Governor Maura Healey and the business community.

The campaign to keep the MCAS as a graduation requirement just received a donation of $2.5 million from former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg ran the New York City schools with a firm belief that high-stakes testing, charter schools, and firing professionals would fix the schools. They didn’t, but he hasn’t learned anything from his stewardship of the schools.

The Boston Globe reported:

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $2.5 million to the group trying to beat back a ballot question that would eliminate the MCAS test as a graduation requirement, offering a significant infusion into the heated campaign just ahead of Election Day.

Bloomberg’s seven-figure donation is the largest contribution the “Vote No on 2″ campaign has received, and accounts for more than half of the $4.8 million it has reported raising this election cycle, state data show.

It’s not the billionaire’s first time pouring money into a Massachusetts ballot campaign. Bloomberg donated $490,000 in 2016 to a failed ballot question that would have expanded charter schools in Massachusetts.

If approved by voters, Question 2 would repeal a provision of the state’s landmark 1993 education law that makes earning a high school diploma contingent on students passing MCAS exams in English, math, and science. In its place, the ballot measure would establish a new mandate: Students would need to complete coursework certified by their districts in those subjects that meet state academic standards. The state would be able to add new subjects to that list.

Maurice Cunningham, a retired professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, writes on his blog that the entry of Bloomberg clarifies the actors. He says it is capital vs. labor, the oligarchy vs. the teachers’ union.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Elections, Massachusetts, Standardized Testing

Kentucky Catholic School Student: Vote NO on Vouchers

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2024 //
4

This post appeared originally in the Louisville Courier-Journal. It has since been posted by The Network for Public Education, whose contents are curated by Peter Greene.

Liam Amick: Trinity won’t let me write about Amendment 2. Here’s why I’m against it.

Liam Amick is a senior at Trinity High School, a Catholic school in Kentucky, where vouchers are on the ballot next week in Amendment 2, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would okay vouchers. Trinity has made support of the Amendment mandatory. Amick would like to disagree, and does so in the Courier Journal.

Every day when I drive into school, I’m greeted by yard signs blazing with the message “YES on 2!” To see these put up at Trinity, a school that generally requests little political discussion at school, was quite a shock.

I’m a “private school kid.” I went to St. Francis of Assisi for first through eighth grades, and I am now a senior at Trinity High School. I will always be indebted to those schools for providing me with fantastic educations and experiences in the most formative years of my life. But to say I am disappointed with Trinity’s stance on Amendment 2 — a Kentucky ballot measure that would allow public tax funding to be used for private schools — would be an understatement.

An even bigger disappointment has been Trinity’s and the Archdiocese of Louisville‘s responses to criticism of their position. When both Trinity’s Student Government and Faculty Senate asked if the “YES on 2!” signs could be taken down, they were told that the archdiocese had asked us to put them up and there was absolutely no chance of them being taken down. Also, the administration doesn’t allow our school journalism program to report on any political topics and or criticisms of Trinity and its policies, so I felt that to share my views I had to look outside of the school.

In my opinion, the desire of non-public schools to support Amendment 2 is logical, but closed-minded. What’s important to remember is that, in Kentucky, 65% of non-public schools are found in Louisville, Lexington and the general Northern Kentucky area. Out of 120 counties in Kentucky, 89 have no access to a non-public school, and well-run, accredited non-public schools aren’t going to magically appear in those counties after the passage of Amendment 2. So, the “school choice” amendment would in fact offer students in these areas no “choice” to go to a different school.

Supporters of Amendment 2 often bring up Kentucky’s 2023 $1 billion budget surplus, claiming that that money will be used to provide funding to public schools and said schools will lose no money. However, that surplus money already has a destination. According to House Appropriations and Revenue Chair Jason Petrie, the extra money has “provided the opportunity to invest more than $2.7 billion over the next two years to improve road, rail, river, air, and water infrastructure.” Although Petrie claims they are also making “targeted investments in school facilities,” the bottom line is that significantly fewer tax dollars would go to public schools, leaving no replacement funding in their wake.

Read the full op-ed here. You can view the post at this link : https://networkforpubliceducation.org/blog-content/liam-amick-trinity-wont-let-me-write-about-amendment-2-heres-why-im-against-it/

Categories Education Industry, Elections, Ethics, Religion, Separation of church and state, Students, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »