James Talarico is a former teacher who was elected to the Texas State Legislature in 2018. Republicans tried to push him out by redistricting, but he moved to another district and was handily re-elected. He is a staunch supporter of public schools and serves on the House Public Education Committee. In this tweet, he announces his collaboration with Moms Against Greg Abbott. The good MAGA works tirelessly to evict the tyrant Greg Abbott, who boasts about his cruelty and is determined to defund public education in Texas. Governor Abbott has vowed to call as many special sessions as necessary to get vouchers. Of course he must know that most vouchers will be claimed by students already enrolled in private schools. This gambit is a way he can reward his religious voters, the evangelical and Catholic voters who would like to have a public subsidy for their private school tuition.
The North Carolina General Assembly took a highly unusual step by mandating the creation of a center for conservatives values on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Typically, new programs or centers are instituted by the institution or the faculty, not the legislature. Apparently the Republican supermajorities think that conservative college students are snowflakes who must be protected from divergent views and carefully indoctrinated.
When the General Assembly’s Republican majority revealed and passed a new budget in a whirlwind 48 hours last week, it set an aggressive timeline for an unprecedented new school at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The budget provides $2 million in funding in each of the next two fiscal years for the new School of Civic Life and Leadership, described as early as 2017 by its supporters and architects as a “conservative center.” The budget provision also dictates a few specifics:l
- UNC-Chapel Hill’s Provost Chris Clemens must name the school’s first dean by Dec. 31, 2023 — just over three months from now.
- The school must hire, with that dean’s approval, “at least 10 and no more than 20 faculty members from outside the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill” — all with permanent tenure or eligibility for permanent tenure.
- The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees must report to the legislature’s Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee and the Fiscal Research Division on progress made toward establishing the School of Civic Life and Leadership and factors affecting the long-term sustainability of the new school.
It is already unprecedented for a new school at a UNC System campus to be instigated not by the faculty or administration — but rather by the legislature and its political appointees on the system’s board of governors and board of trustees — faculty representatives told Newsline this week. They said they had never heard of state government mandating the number of faculty members, whether they will be tenured and how and when they will be hired.
“It’s demoralizing, to be honest,” said Beth Moracco, a professor in the university’s Department of Health Behavior and chair of the faculty. “In my experience it’s very unusual, for a number of reasons, to have that level of direction in legislation for hiring at the university. I haven’t ever seen anything quite like it. And it’s concerning.”
Open the link to read the rest of the article.
Take advantage of an offer of a free publication about education.
A special issue of Education Policy Analysis Archive (EPAA) just came out, featuring articles by members of the International Academy of Education (IAE). EPAA is a free, on-line journal, published simultaneously in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Access is at https://epaa.asu.edu/index.php/epaa
This special issue was edited by Fernando Reimers of Harvard and features the following articles: Critical thinking and the conditions of democracy by Nicholas C. Burbules; Education and the challenges for democracy by Fernando Reimers; Race, class, and the democratic project in contemporary South African education: Working and reworking the law by Craig Soudien;Speculations on experiences in public education and the health of the nation’s democracy by David C. Berliner; Challenges in fostering democratic participation in Japanese educationby Yuko Nonoyama-Tarumi; Civic education, citizenship, and democracy by Lorin W. Anderson; and Education in a democratic and meritocratic society: Moving beyond thriving to flourishing by Ee-Ling Low.
Retired teacher Nancy Flanagan writes about Michigan’s decision to provide a free lunch to all students. She explains why it’s a good thing and also wonders why some people do not. Open the link and read the entire article.
She writes:
So—Michigan just adopted a policy of offering free breakfast and lunch to all K-12 public school kids. Charter school kids, too– and intermediate school districts (which often educate students with significant disabilities). More than half of Michigan students were already eligible for free-reduced lunch, which says a lot about why free at-school meals are critical to supporting students and their families. Why not streamline the system?
Schools have to sign up for the federal funding that undergirds the program, and still need income data from parents to determine how much they get from the feds. Nine states now have universal breakfast-lunch programs, and another 24 are debating the idea, which—in Michigan anyway—is estimated will save parents who participate about $850 year. That’s a lot of square pizza, applesauce and cartons of milk. Not to mention reducing stress, on mornings when everyone’s running late for the bus and work.
Cue the right-wing outrage.
Headline in The New Republic: Republicans Declare Banning Universal Free School Meals a 2024 Priority. Because? “Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP, allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”
It’s hard to figure out precisely what they’re so honked off about: Poor kids getting something—say, essential nutrition– for nothing? Kids whose parents can well afford lunch mingling with their lower-income classmates over free morning granola bars and fruit? No way to clearly identify a free lunch kid in the 6th grade social hierarchy? The kiosks at the HS, where kids can grab something to give them a little fuel for their morning academics?
Open the link and keep reading.
Gary Rayno of InDepthNH reports on the state board’s unanimous decision to endorse PragerU’s videos for a financial literacy course despite overwhelming public opposition. PragerU is not a university. Its founder Dennis Prager is a rightwing talk show host, not an educator. He has boasted that the goal of his videos is to indoctrinate children into his views. New Hampshire’s state commissioner Frank Edelblut homeschooled his 10 children and has repeatedly pushed for nonpublic choices; he created the “Learn Everywhere” program to grant credits for out-of-school learning (neither audited nor held accountable). Governor Chris Sununu has mildly criticized Trump to mark himself as a GOP moderate, but his anti-public school appointments of rightwing zealots to the state board and the top superintendent job show who he really is.
Open the link to read the entire article.
Rayno writes:
CONCORD — After three hours of public testimony, the vast majority in opposition to approving a PragerU financial literacy course, the state Board of Education approved the application 5 to 0 with chairman Andrew Cline abstaining.
Last month, the board had tabled the application promoted by Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, until additional information could be provided by PragerU Kids.
Thursday, the state board faced a packed meeting room of teachers, school board members, parents, state elected officials and advocates on both sides of the issue.
After three hours of testimony, with the vast majority of speakers opposed to the PragerU application as was the case with several several hundred written comments, several board members raised concerns that opponents sought to censor opposing views noting the Prager political philosophy is supported by about half the country.
Board member Richard Sala said he disagreed with the person who said if the proposal had a woke agenda, the board would not be entertaining the application.
There are progressive charter school programs the board approved, he said he deeply disagrees with but trusts parents more than he trusts the government.
Sala argued Prager’s beliefs are mainstream political thought in this country that half or more than half of the people believe.
He said that means more local parents can make the decision that Prager is the more appropriate website than some others.
“What we saw today was not live and let live,” said board member Ryan Terrell of Nashua, “but a political organization flexing its political muscle.”
He said he had not seen such an outcry like this in the time he has been on the state board.
“I love the fact that parents and people are paying attention, but then there is the misinformation and hypocrisy,” Terrell said. “You open the door and then close the door on dialogue.”
Board member Phil Nazzro of Newmarket said he was concerned about setting a precedent of having an ideological litmus test for who could provide education in the state.
He said the way to build critical thinking is with a broad array of ideas presented, instead they had a lot of red herrings.
Several speakers described Prager’s application to provide a free on-line financial literacy course as the camel’s nose under the tent, with many saying it would lead to greater engagement in the controversial organization’s propaganda with the stated goal of changing students’ minds.
“You cannot separate the creation from the creator,” said Realtor Brenda Perkins, who said she is a 40-year resident of the state. “It is like lighting a match to a slow burning fuse.”
Allowing the program would open the door to uncredited opinions to our schools, she said and would be a Trojan horse to the future use of Prager’s other material.
One person questioned if a similar course done by the American Civil Liberties Union or the Southern Christian Leadership Conference would even be before the board.
“If this had a woke agenda, you would not even consider it,” noted the Rev. John Davis from Meriden. “But this agenda is OK to do to students, I hope that is not acceptable.”
But supporters of approving the application said the course was unbiased, and presented a choice for parents and not a mandate for all high school students who are required to master financial literacy as a graduation credit.
Supporters said the attempt to silence Prager’s other content amounts to censorship and does not give students the ability to hear all sides of issues.
Nancy Biederman of New Boston said the PragerU course is not the only course high school students would need to receive graduation credit.
“This is a choice, not mandated,” Biederman said. “This is all about political sides and I do not understand why you don’t want them to hear the other side.”
She said it would be nice to have students with open eyes.
The non-profit organization, PragerU Kids, is not an academic institution, does not confer degrees and is not accredited, and has had some of its videos removed from YouTube and Google because of their “hateful content.”
On its website, PragerU Kids says it teaches “American Values” while “Woke agendas are infiltrating classrooms, culture and social media.”
The organization’s application would provide videos on various financial topics from interest and compound interest to paying taxes, and provide worksheets, with a 45 multiple choice test at the end.
The course would be under the Department of Education’s Learn Everywhere Program, which according to its annual report discussed at Thursday’s meeting, had 32 students participate, including nine in the other on-line financial literacy court FitMoney.
PragerU said last month it would create a stand-alone website for the literacy class so New Hampshire students would not need to access their website and its more controversial videos that have been called misleading, biased and that marginalize certain groups and issues.
Brandon Ewing of PragerU said he believes the company has made the changes the board sought at its last meeting, and urged them to give the course a half a graduation credit, although board chair Drew Cline unsuccessfully argued for only a quarter credit.
A number of speakers at Thursday’s meeting were concerned students may still go to the PragerU website and watch the videos.
Louise Spencer of Concord and founder of the Kent Street Coalition, said she accessed some of the videos and soon after received an email urging people to take a survey about transgender individuals after statements about the transformation process and calling the group a mob.
Spencer also noted people from the PragerU organization were aggressively filming people who were outside the building opposing the application.
“That very aggressive recording of those of us shows you today what I believe is unethical behavior from a vendor,” Spencer said. “Is this appropriate behavior for a vendor.”She called the on-line course “a foot in the door for the indoctrination of our youth.”
Frank Breslin, a retired high school teacher in New Jersey, wrote recently at Medium that critical thinking is the missing ingredient in high school, even though it is the most important tool that students need.
Breslin writes:
The following warning should be affixed atop every computer in America’s schools: Proceed at your own risk. Don’t accept as true what you’re about to read. Some of it is fact; some of it is opinion masquerading as fact; and the rest is liberal, conservative, or mainstream propaganda. Make sure you know which is which before choosing to believe it.
Students are exposed to so many different viewpoints on- and offline and so prone to accepting whatever they read, that they run the very real risk of being brainwashed. If it’s on a computer screen, it becomes Holy Writ, sacrosanct, immutable, beyond question or doubt.
Teachers continually caution students against taking what they read at face value, since some of these sites may be propaganda mills or recruiting grounds for the naïve and unwary.
Not only egregious forms of indoctrination may target unsuspecting young minds, but also the more artfully contrived variety, whose insinuating soft-sell subtlety and silken appeals ingratiatingly weave their spell to lull the credulous into accepting their wares.
To prevent this from happening, every school in America should teach the twin arts of critical thinking and critical reading, so that a critical spirit becomes a permanent possession of every student and pervades the teaching of every course in America.
Teaching students how to be their own person by abandoning Groupthink and developing the courage to think for themselves should begin from the very first day of high school. More important than all the information they will be learning during these four crucial years will be how they critically process this information either to accept or reject it, or to keep an open mind.
It is a rare high-school graduate who can pinpoint 20 different kinds of fallacies while listening to a speaker or reading a book; who can distinguish between fact and opinion, objective account and specious polemic; who can tell the difference between facts, value judgments, explanatory theories, and metaphysical claims; who can argue both sides of a question, anticipate objections, rebut them, and undermine arguments in various ways.
The essence of an education — the ability to think critically and protect oneself against falsehood and lies — is a lost art in America’s high schools today. This is unfortunate for it is precisely this skill that is of transcendent importance for students in defending themselves.
Computers are wonderful things, but, like everything else in this world, they must be approached with great caution. Their potential for good can suddenly become an angel of darkness that takes over young minds.
A school should teach its students how to think, not what to think; to question whatever they read, and never to accept any claim blindly; to suspend judgment until they’ve heard all sides of a question; and interrogate whatever claims to be true, since truth can withstand any scrutiny.
While looking over my site, I came across this post written in 2014.
It is as timely now as it was then. Reformers worked with communications specialists to develop language that conceals its true meaning.
For example, reformers today don’t want to improve public schools. They want to defund them. Some want to destroy them. They think that public money should go to anyone, any organization that claims they are educating young people. They are fine with funding religious schools. No doubt, they would have no objection to funding Satanic schools, for fairness sake.
These reformers believe in tight accountability for public schools, their principal, their teachers, their students.
They believe in zero accountability for anyone taking public money for nonpublic schools. In most states with vouchers, voucher schools do not require students to take state tests. Students can’t be judged by test scores as public school students are; their teachers can’t be evaluated by test scores. Their schools can’t be closed because of test scores. There are no test scores.
Teachers in public schools must be college graduates who have studied education and who are certified. Teachers in voucher schools do not need to be college graduates or have certification.
Hundreds of millions, maybe billions, now fund homeschooling. With well-educated parents, home schooling may be okay, although the children do miss the positive aspects of meeting children from different backgrounds, working in teams, and learning how to get along with others. But let’s face it: not all home schoolers are well-educated. Poorly educated parents will teach their children misinformation and limit them to what they know, and no more.
Then there is the blessing that the US Supreme Court gave to public funding for religious schools. The purpose of most religious schools is to teach their religion. The long word for that is indoctrination. We have a long history of not funding religious schools. But now all of us are expected to foot the bill for children to learn the prayers and rituals of every religion. I don’t want to pay taxes for someone else’s religion to be inculcated. I also don’t want to pay taxes to inculcate my own religion.
But the Supreme Court has step by step moved us to a point where the government’s refusal to pay for Catholic schools, Muslim schools, Jewish schools, and evangelical schools—with no regulation, no accountability, and no oversight—violates freedom of religion. That’s where we are going.
Ninety percent of the people in this country graduated from public schols. Those who sent their children to private or religious school paid their own tuition. That arrangement worked. Over time, we became the leading nation on earth in many fields of endeavor. Our education system surely had something to do with our national success.
I believe that people should have choices. Most public schools offer more curricular choices than charter schools, private schools, or religious schools. Anyone may choose to leave the public school to attend a nonpublic school, but they should not ask the taxpayers to underwrite their private choice.
The public pays for a police force, but it does not pay for private security guards. The public pays for firefighters, highways, beaches, parks, and many other public services. Why should the public pay for your decision to choose a private service?
Saddest of all, the current trend toward school choice will lower the overall quality of education. The children of the affluent who attend elite private schools will get a great education, although they will not get exposed to real life on their $60,000 a year campus. None of those campuses will get poor voucher kids because all they bring is a pittance.
We are now learning that most public schools are superior to most of the voucher schools. Many charter schools are low-performing.
On average, school choice will dumb down our rising generation. It will deepen social and religious divisions. It will not produce better education or a better-educated society. It will widen pre-existing inequalities.
Books have been and will be written about this fateful time, when we abandoned one of our most important, most democratic institutions. Libertarians and religious zealots have worked for years, decades, on this project. By convincing leaders of both parties to follow them, they have betrayed the rest of us. They have lost sight of the common good.
Those two words are key. The “common good.” With them, we as a society can conquer any goal, realize any ideal. Without them, we are reduced to squabbling tribes, cliques, factions. We are becoming what the Founding Fathers warned about.
If it’s not too late, that is the banner behind which we should rally: the common good. An understanding that we are all in the same boat, and we must take care of others.
For many years, the charter lobbyists have claimed that there were long waiting lists of students hoping to get into a charter school. This claim should be taken with pounds of salt. No one ever audits these lists. A reporter in Boston once told me that he tried to audit the list and found many duplicate names, names of students who had already enrolled in a charter school, and some who had already graduated high school. Obviously, there is political benefit in never updating the wait lists, which helps charter advocates demand more charters.
Lisa Haver, a public school activist, reported that a review of public records reveals that more than half the city’s charter schools are underenrolled.
She writes:
In recent months, promoters of school choice lobbied Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to expand the state’s voucher program to include the Pennsylvania Award for Student Success Scholarship Program (PASS) which would divert an additional $100 million from public school districts to private schools. Already established voucher programs in the state include the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit and the Education Improvement Tax Credit.
Shapiro, after intense pressure from public school advocates, reversed his position and signed the state’s $45.5 billion budget without the voucher provision.
School choice proponents claim that public school students are “trapped” in failing schools, trying in vain to find an alternative. A recent Sunday Inquirer editorial, written by wealthy suburban backers of more privatization of the city’s schools, painted public schools as “cages” from which children could not escape. The only solution, they claim, is to take funding for public schools and give it to individuals to use as tuition to attend private schools. Their version of school choice does not acknowledge that the choice is not the families’ but the schools’–who can reject any applicant without explanation and can discriminate against students on the basis of sexual identity. Most voucher money would go to students already attending religious and exclusive private schools. Education policy expert Josh Cowen writes that a decade of research indicates that vouchers actually lower academic achievement.
What those lobbying for more voucher programs can’t explain is why more families don’t leave the district schools, which they paint with a broad brush as “failing”, and attend any of the district’s 83 charter schools. They refer to the elusive “charter waiting list” of 25, 000 students (inexplicably down from their previous list of 40,000) without producing the list or offering proof of any kind of its existence. The truth is that there is no charter waiting list for the simple reason that most of the city’s charter schools are under-enrolled.
Current data shows that 58 of the district’s 83 charter schools–67%–are under their authorized enrollment. Fifteen charter schools are between 20% and 40% under-enrolled. Two schools are below 50% of their authorized enrollment. Families living in any part of the city could choose from among the 65 charters with citywide admission. Renaissance schools are nominally neighborhood schools, but many have a large percentage from outside their official catchment areas.
Obviously, Philadelphia’s schoolchildren are not trapped in district schools. Parents have fought to stop the hostile takeover of their schools by charter companies, and many continue to choose district public schools over charters. In addition, the low percentage of in-catchment enrollment at Renaissance charters shows that parents will travel farther rather than attend a charter they find to be substandard.
Philadelphia’s schools need more funding, not less. Diverting money to private and religious schools means fewer educational opportunities for Philadelphia’s children.
Note: All data cited in this report can be found on the School District of Philadelphia website. Current enrollment figures are from the 2022-23 school year (except where noted). Schools with enrollment lower than authorized are designated “under”; percentages are given for those more than 5% under-enrolled.
In the balance of the article, Haver identifies the schools that are undeeenrolled.
A reader who signs as “Retired Teacher” posted this astute analysis of how vouchers work. Why are billionaires like Betsy DeVos, Charles Koch, the Waltons, etc. so enthusiastic about vouchers? No voucher will ever be large enough to send a child to the schools their children attend. Why do they want to defund public schools?
During the first phase of the privatization of education was the belief that the private sector can do everything better and more efficiently than the public sector. What ensued was trying to turn education into a commodity. Market based principles applied to education made everything so much worse including hiring the wrong people, endless testing, waste, fraud, firing legitimate teachers and closing public schools. The main goal of privatization has always been to gain access to public funds and transfer it into private pockets. The current interest in vouchers is an extension of this trend. It certainly is not about education as vouchers provide worse education.
Vouchers have always been the goal of DeVos, the 1% and right wing extremists. They are a way to scam the working class out of the public schools that protect their children’s rights and send them to valueless schools with zero accountability while teaching them religious dogma and almost anything else the school deems worthy for less cost. Unfortunately, the students are unlikely get a valid background in science, history, civics or the exposure to diverse students. Vouchers benefit the wealthy and affluent, and they are a losing proposition for the poor and working class.
Diane Ravitch's blog 