Archives for category: Equity

Mike Klonsky points out that the policies of Trump and DeVos will cement the segregation and inequality that is now baked into the two-tier system in Chicago.

“Modern school reform has become nearly synonymous with racial re-segregation and two-tier education. There’s one tier for the elite and one big tier for the rest of us. Sociologists call it social-reproduction, wherein school systems become institutions that transmit social inequality from one generation to the next.

The election of Donald Trump and his selection of Betsy DeVos, with her single-minded emphasis on “school choice”, as education secretary, promises to make the gap between the tiers even wider. But the use of charters, vouchers and selective-enrollment schools as competitive forces vis-a-vis traditional public schools predates Trump/DeVos by decades.

“Ironically, selective-enrollment schools and charters originally were envisioned as tools for desegregation. Selective enrollment and magnet high schools in particular were created in the 1970s after consent decrees forced school districts to desegregate.

“The news out of Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has autocratic power over the public schools, is that the city’s selective-enrollment high schools have become even more exclusive. In 2009 the Chicago deseg consent decree was liquidated by a federal judge with support from Arne Duncan and selective-enrollment and charters have dropped all pretense of being about racial equality.

“DNAinfo reports:

Getting into a selective enrollment high school got even harder this year — so much so that members of next year’s freshman class at Walter Payton College Prep High School who won one of the coveted seats outright earned at least 898 points out of a possible 900 points, according to cutoff-score data released by the district.”

“While some provisions are made to admit a quota of “economically disadvantaged” students to schools like Payton, those students are often re-segregated or tracked to lower tiers within the school itself.

Imagine what happens when the only route into a selective school requires a near perfect score on a standardized test.

Sara Roos, aka the Red Queen in LA, explains here why public schools and charter schools are bound to clash.

To begin with, they are competing for a finite amount of public dollars and a finite number of students. It is a zero-sum competition.

To make matters worse, the needs of both entities is not reciprocal, nor is the distribution of these commodities without impact on the other entity. That is, the cost to educate every pupil is not equivalent, some are costlier than others. And where you cluster funds is not a matter of +$1 here means -$1 there because the impact of a dollar matters depending where it is. There are economies of scale, for example, to be gained or it is long-acknowledged that severely disadvantaged communities require more money to come to equity (this is what Federal Title 1 dollars provide, it is why the new “LCFF” uses a formula to assign more money per capita to poorer schools than to relatively richer ones).

Therefore while it’s possible for both entities to tolerate one another, it’s not possible for their existence not to impact the other.

That’s where the fallacy lies. Folks who wonder ingenuously why we can’t all “just get along”, seem not to understand the pernicious consequences of charter schools on the totality of a public education system.

The underlying game-plan of charters is to rarefy its pupil-population, by hook or by crook. Sometimes in the past, this has been done illegally through fixing lotteries or selections processes. Sometimes the lottery process has been weighted through a sanctioned, if questionable, process. Empirical reports of “counseling out” already admitted kids are easy to come by; discouraging applicants to begin with through onerous application or enrollment procedures, for example, which disproportionately impact the “wrong sort” is another trick. There are many, many, many sleights of hand employed to fix the underlying demographic of a charter school in a certain fashion (there are, after all, many, many charter schools). The reciprocal of fashioning a student body just-so, means that elsewhere in the system whatever is overrepresented among charters, is underrepresented among RDS.

The “business plan” of charters is to manipulate the student and parent demographic to their advantage, and that disadvantages the public schools.

Sure we can get along if what you need does not negatively effect what I need. But your school system inherently, necessarily, diminishes mine. It will inherently, necessarily, with time, bankrupt mine. And it will inherently, necessarily, with time grow what is to me democratically intolerable social inequity with time.

“Regular Public District Schools” were designed to be by, for and about the public: it is democracy itself.

Charters are simply the modern incarnation of ancient tribalism, constitution-era separatism, pre-Plessy “separate but equal” schools.

Sending your child – yes, yours – to sit beside someone who is different, smells different, looks different, speaks differently, thinks differently, acts different: this plurality is intrinsically valuable. It sustains a system of equal opportunity and it assures a possibility of awareness and tolerance of things-different.

As we march today nationally, even internationally, toward fascism, protecting with fierceness a public education system of equity for, and by us all, seems about as critical – most very especially for “progressive democrats” – as the very sustenance of democracy itself.

For the second time in the past year, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state is not spending enough on public schools. Governor Sam Brownback has tried to prove that he could be the nation’s leading tax-cutter, but his tax cuts have generated large budget deficits. Now that he is under court order to raise education spending, his response is not to come up with new money but to offer school choice. This lays bare the rationale for school choice as a way to cut costs and to avoid providing adequate resources.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said black, Hispanic and poor students were especially harmed by the lack of funding, pointing to lagging test scores and graduation rates. The justices set a June 30 deadline for lawmakers to pass a new constitutional funding formula, sending them scrambling to find more money to pay for a solution.

This is the second time in about a year that Kansas’ highest court has ruled against the state’s approach to paying for schools, just as Mr. Brownback finds himself wrestling with growing budget deficits and as his relations with fellow Republicans have deteriorated to new lows.

Mr. Brownback, who has made cutting taxes and shrinking government the centerpiece of his administration since taking office in 2011, championed the largest tax cuts in state history, turning Kansas into a national testing ground for his staunchly conservative philosophy. But the state has since struggled with gaping deficits, and patience has run thin, even among some former allies.

Just last month, the Republican-dominated Legislature approved a tax increase that would have raised more than $1 billion to help narrow the budget gap — a bold rejection of Mr. Brownback’s vision. In the end, the governor vetoed the measure, and he barely survived an override attempt. The school funding ruling now adds yet another layer of fiscal trouble for Kansas and political tumult for Mr. Brownback.

“Either the governor will have to bend, or we have to get enough votes in the House and Senate to override him,” Dinah Sykes, a Republican state senator, said, noting that lawmakers will have to get to work immediately to find money in the budget to satisfy the court’s requirements. “I thought that the tax plan that we put on his desk that was vetoed, I thought that was a compromise,” Ms. Sykes said.

Governor Brownback doesn’t want to raise taxes, he doesn’t want to provide extra funding, so he turns to choice as his only answer:

Mr. Brownback, who is barred by term limits from seeking re-election next year, has faced plunging approval ratings and increasingly criticism from the moderate wing of the Republican Party. In a statement, he acknowledged that some students in Kansas had not received a suitable education, calling for a new funding formula to “right this wrong.”

“The Kansas Legislature has the opportunity to engage in transformative educational reform by passing a school funding system that puts students first,” Mr. Brownback said. “Success is not measured in dollars spent, but in higher student performance.”

He made a pitch for schools outside of the public education system, suggesting that parents “should be given the opportunity and resources to set their child up for success through other educational choices.”

The hollowness of this offer is transparent.

Steven Rosenfeld of Alternet interviewed Jitu Brown about the coalition-building he is leading to fight for educational justice. Jitu is national director of the Journey for Justice, which fights for the rights of underserved black and brown children. Jitu is a member of the board of the Network for Public Education.

Jitu led the successful hunger strike at Dyett High School in Chicago, preventing its closure.

He says:

“I always say to people, we had to go on a hunger strike to win a neighborhood school in Brownsville. We had to risk our lives, literally. So I think what people have to realize as we organize, we can’t organize in a way that’s transactional. We can’t organize in a way like we’re insiders, because we are not—even if we think we are. We have to organize like we are fighting a system that is dead-set against making sure that black snd brown children receive a quality education. That’s my understanding. So if Journey for Justice collapsed tomorrow, I’m still going to be in the struggle, because that’d how we assess it.

“This is not about playing the inside-outside game. We have to have an organizing strategy that is determined. People have to be prepared to struggle and suffer a little bit. We call it organizing outside of the acceptable protest playbook. You start at the rallies. You start at the disruptions of meetings and things of that nature. But we have to be prepared to go further. I don’t say that in an arrogant way. We have to tighten our belt, put our big-boy and big-girl pants on, and realize that.

“Let me just share this with you. On the 25th day of the Dyett hunger strike, [during] which Mrs. Irene Robinson was hospitalized twice; while we were starving in Washington Park; while the former head of the Cook County Medical Association called it a public health crisis and urged the mayor to resolve it, that same day, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and CEO of Chicago School Board Forrest Claypool had a ribbon-cutting event at a school called Lincoln Elementary. A neighborhood school for wealthy whites close to De Paul University, and they gave them $21 million for a new annex that several of the parents didn’t even want. Parents from that school advocated [to] give that money back to the South Side and the West Side; we don’t need it, they do. But despite that, while we starved in Washington Park, they did a ribbon-cutting to give them $21 million. That tells me all I need to hear. That’s what you’re up against.

“You are up against a system that does not view black and brown children as valuable. And until we on the left acknowledge that—because we on the left don’t acknowledge that. And we have zero tolerance for that, for a system—like right now, as I’m talking to you, there’s an elementary school in Chicago on the north side where children get Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and Spanish. Every teacher has a teacher aide. They have a full-time nurse, social workers, speech therapist, drama teacher. At the same time, there are children on the Southside where children have to eat lunch under the stairs because the school is so crowded. There’s one teacher aide in the entire building. And a part-time Spanish instructor that they had to lose their librarian in order to get. See, that’s separate and unequal.

“And that’s co-equal to the right and it’s acceptable to the left. And until we are honest about that, and that’s what we are trying to do at Journey for Justice; build a multi-racial alliance that’s grounded in the principle of unity through self-determination. The issues that we bring forth have to be championed by all. Not watered down in order to make white people feel more comfortable—no. We have to face the ugliness, the ugliness of how race has expressed itself in this country. And nowhere is it more profound than in public education.”

Teachers who teach children with multiple disabilities and children who are homeless may think that they have a tough job, but consider what a very hard time Betsy DeVos had in her first week as Secretary of Education, very likely the first paying job she has ever held. She visited a public middle school in D.C., where protestors harassed her and tried to keep her out. When she eventually entered the school, she said nice things to the staff, but after she left she insulted them as being in a “receive” mode. She gave a few interviews and said she hoped to launch more charter schools, more vouchers, more cybercharters, and presumably shrink the number of public schools as she opens up opportunities for students to go anywhere other than public schools.

In one interview, she told syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas that she did not think the protests against her were spontaneous. The implication was that those evil teachers’ unions had plotted against her. The other implication was that parents and teachers would welcome her noble presence in their public school, even though she was unimpressed with what she saw. Someone, she said, was trying to make her life “a living hell.” No matter what the plotters do, she pledged she would not be deterred from her mission of “helping kids in this country,” by enabling them to leave public schools for privatized alternatives.

She suggested to Thomas that it might be a good idea to bring tens of thousands of children to the Capitol to demonstrate for charters and vouchers. She said it had worked in Florida. Of course, this is now a standard part of the privatization script, using children as political pawns to demand more public funding for private choices, thus disabling public schools by diminishing their resources.

She pledged to support alternatives to public schools, without citing a scintilla of evidence that these choices would help kids and without acknowledging that the proliferation of choices harms the great majority of children who don’t choose to leave public schools. Her mindset is purely ideological. She did not offer any suggestions about how to help the vast majority of children who attend public schools. She has one idea, and she is sticking to it: choice. The absence of evidence for that one idea from her home state never comes up. Michigan has tumbled in national rankings as choice has expanded.

When Cal Thomas asked what could be done for children who had an “absent father,” she responded that this problem has to be addressed at the classroom level. “It’s not an easy or a single answer, but again it goes back to having the power to influence those things at the classroom level.” It is not clear what she meant or if she herself knew what she meant. How is the teacher in the classroom prepared to make up for an absent father? Is this what passes for profundity?

Then there was this very interesting exchange, in which Cal Thomas and Betsy DeVos exposed their deepest beliefs:

“Q. Throughout most of the public school system, which began in the late 19th century and flourished in the 20th, education included values, McGuffey Readers and even prayer and Bible reading, until the Supreme Court outlawed both in the ‘60s. Do you see a correlation between the loss of American values, a sense of morality, a concept of the transcendent, right and wrong, objective truth that have been banished in our relativistic age and lack of achievement in some places in our schools?

“A. I think it’s a significant factor. Many of the schools I’ve seen, especially the charters, have a focus on character development and again the whole child development. That’s one of the reasons parents are choosing alternatives like this.”

To begin with, public education got its start in the mid-nineteenth century, not the late nineteenth century.

I am one of the few living Americans who has actually read the entirety of the McGuffey readers. Children today would find them dull, simplistic, and obsolete.

The assumption that public schools lack values because they do not have Bible readings and prayers is nonsense. When I went to public schools in Houston in the 1940s and 1950s, we had daily Bible readings and prayers, but the schools were racially segregated. Few teachers had more than a bachelor’s degree. I would say without question that our public schools today have better quailed teachers today and a stronger value system than they did when we read the Bible and prayed every day. As a Jew in a Christian public school system, I ignored the implicit proselytizing, but from the perspective of the decades, I can say that our schools then did not practice what they preached. We never discussed current social or political issues. Too controversial. We were not well prepared for the real problems of our society.

The values of the dominant religion were imposed on me but I never had any wish to impose mine on anyone else.

Now, as we live in a religiously and culturally diverse society, Thomas and DeVos sound like two antiquarians. They want to turn the clock back 100 years, maybe two hundred years.

There is nothing innovative about DeVos’ ideas. She has lived in a billionaire bubble all her life, surrounded by her like-minded kith and kin of rich white Republican evangelicals. She has nothing to teach our teachers or students. She knows nothing about how to improve public schools. Her beloved charters, vouchers, and cybercharters have not proven to be better than public schools, and in many states, are demonstrably worse than traditional public schools with certified teachers.

We live in a big, ever-changing world, and it is far too late to go back to 1920 or 1820, no matter how devoutly DeVos would like to restore the suprenpmacy of whites and evangelical Christians. They too must learn to live and let live.

 

 

A group of researchers, parents, and other activists released a report on the inequitable provision of education in the nearly all-charter district of New Orleans. Their focus was the highest-risk neighborhoods, where the city’s poorest children live. The group is called Equity for All Places. Its report highlights the poor choices available to the neediest students in New Orleans.

I was never fortunate enough to meet Dr. King, but I was a member of the vast crowd that stood on the Mall when he spoke to the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. I became a good friend of his close aide Bayard Rustin, who like Dr. King, was eloquent and passionate about justice.

 

Dr. King was frequently criticized by friends and foes. The foes thought he was a dangerous agitator who was encouraging rebellion against the social order, which he was. Moderates said he was pushing too hard, too fast, for too much, at the wrong time and the wrong place. Some who should have been his friends said he wasn’t sufficiently radical; they said he was too cerebral, too willing to compromise, out of touch with the masses that were ready to engage in violence. Dr. King believed in nonviolence as a principle, not as a strategy. He believed in justice and equality as principles, not as temporary goals. Some of his erstwhile allies turned to Malcolm X, who did not share Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolence.

 

On this day set aside to remember Dr. King, read or watch one of his speeches. Think about the courage it required to stand up for the oppressed, to face death every day, and to do so in a spirit of love.

 

The March on Washington speech

 

His speech against the war in Vietnam, which caused some of his allies to turn against him.

 

I have been to the mountaintop speech, his last speech, delivered the day before he was assassinated. At the time, he was in Memphis, where he had come to help sanitation workers who were trying to form a union to advocate for better wages. This speech was prophetic. Whenever someone from the .001% claims that they are engaged in the struggle for civil rights and simultaneously attacking unions, I remember why Dr. King was in Memphis.

 

And here are more, from a CNN piece that asks whether you can identify any of Dr. King’s speeches other than “I have a dream,” or his “Letter from a Birmingham City Jail,” both of which are taught in school.

 

 

Paul Thomas had a terrible biking accident on Christmas Eve and has endured great pain while he recovers from a broken hip. He is a serious cyclist, not just a guy out for a bike ride. He and his friends were mowed down by a careless driver.

 

During his recreation, he has been thinking more than ever about the world and the mess we are all in.

 

Let him tell you about a novel that he read and the thoughts it provoked. 

 

So as I recover in the weeks leading to my 56th birthday—a new year, a new age, and this new existence forced onto me—I am deeply moved by “you could get used to anything.”

 

Anything?

 

What an ugly thing to be human and having the capacity to get used to anything.

 

But there was a time in the U.S. when slavery was perfectly normal. There was a time in the world when the Holocaust was perfectly normal.

 

Because normal, like history, is the province of those with power, a way to render some Others “deliberately silenced,…preferably unheard.”

 

And today the U.S. is eagerly normalizing a person and ideologies that would have seemed illegitimate just months ago.

 

Make a promise: You will not get used to “anything.” You will never forget what a democracy and a decent society are supposed to be. You will not accept the cruel policies that we are about to experience as normal. They are not normal. Keep your sense of values. There will be another election is less than two years. And another presidential election in less than four years. Hold on to your integrity.

This is a project that should interest all readers of the blog as well as state and local school boards and elected officials at every level. It includes a book that reviews education issues around the globe and resources that you may access by clicking the link. The bottom line of a vast amount of research is that privatization is a failed policy, not an innovation. The most effective way to invest public dollars is in improving public schools.

 

Stanford Graduate School of Education Research Center Introduces Cross-National Study Central to Debates about Future of the U.S. Education System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ralph Rogers
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
650.725.8600
ralphr@stanford.edu

 

Stanford, CA – December 13, 2016 – In the midst of the ongoing debate and a potential shift in the U.S. approach to education, the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) is pleased to introduce new research-based evidence and analysis that supports investment in public schools as a better alternative than the privatization of education.

“This book shows how public investment in education outperforms privatization across three continents, addressing this critical question as President-elect Trump’s appointee, Betsy DeVos, considers shifting U.S. education to a voucher scheme,” said Frank Adamson, PhD, the primary editor, chapter author, and Senior Policy and Research Analyst at SCOPE. “This book offers reasoned evidence to policymakers, communities, and families about how investing in public schools produces better and more equitable outcomes than voucher programs.”

SCOPE’s work addresses the question of how results from public investment approaches compare with those from market-based reforms and provides a timely explanation of alternatives based on real evidence derived from policy analysis and actual outcomes in six different countries. In this project, SCOPE has designed and implemented a set of accessible information resources designed to inform the different constituencies involved in this important debate.

The book, Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes, with a set of supporting infographics, videos, and research briefs, provides hard evidence supporting investment in pubic schools. Researchers thoroughly investigated the results of experiments with education in Chile, Sweden, and the U.S. and compared their educational outcomes with those of nearby countries with similar economic and social conditions: Cuba, Finland, and Canada (Ontario). At the national levels in Sweden, the U.S., and Chile, market, charter, or voucher systems are associated with greater disparities and lower student outcomes on international tests.

 

SCOPE’s project combined in-depth analysis of the different ends of an ideological spectrum – from market-based experiments to strong state investments in public education. Written by education researchers, including Linda Darling-Hammond, Michael Fullan, Pasi Sahlberg, Martin Carnoy, and others, the authors present long-term policy analyses based on primary and secondary research on the implementation and results of these different approaches.
To best support an open debate on the issue of school reform, SCOPE has created the following set of free information resources:

 
Privatization or Public Investment in Education is a free SCOPE research and policy brief summarizing the findings in the book.
Six Countries. Two Educational Strategies. One Consistent Conclusion is a free infographic presenting an accessible and concise summary of the differences in approaches and outcomes – privatization versus public investment in education.
Our Kids, Our Future: Privatization and Public Investment in Education, a 3-minute video providing an overview of the differences between experimental privatization models and public investment in equitable education systems.
How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education: A Look at the Research, a more detailed 12-minute video explaining the differences between experimental privatization models and public investment in equitable education systems.
Educational Inequities in the New Orleans Charter School System is a free infographic from SCOPE and the Schott Foundation that explains the impact on students and schools of New Orleans becoming a predominantly charter district after Hurricane Katrina.

 

The Editors
Frank Adamson, PhD, is a Senior Policy and Research Analyst at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Björn Åstrand, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer and Dean at Karlstad University in Sweden.
Linda Darling-Hammond, EdD, is the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, the author of over 300 publications, and a former president of the American Educational Research Association.
About SCOPE
The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) fosters research, policy, and practice to advance high-quality, equitable education systems in the United States and internationally.

 
These resources can be downloaded or viewed at the SCOPE Global Education Reform web page.

The Relay “Graduate School of Education” is a hoax, as the article below argues. It is not a graduate school at all. Its location is a post office box. It has no scholars, no researchers, no faculty other than charter teachers. It is a trade school for teaching tricks of test-taking and how to control black and brown children and teach them to obey orders without questioning.

Despite the opposition of legitimate teacher education professionals, the Malloy administration in Connecticut has approved the Relay “Graduate School of Education” to offer faux degrees. This undermines the teaching profession and demeans legitimate degrees and certification.

Before the decision was announced by the Malloy administration, Jonathan Pelto cited a recent article by Professor Lauren Anderson, chair of the Education Department at the prestigious Connecticut College.

Anderson warns the public and state officials not to approve the “Relay Graduate School of Education,” which is a program that trains teachers how to raise test scores and maintain no-excuses discipline. Its Bible is Doug Lemov’s “Teach Like a Champion.” Relay is selling itself as an answer to the shortage of well-prepared teachers of color, but its rigid and limited methods do not deliver on that promise, nor do they produce well-prepared teachers of any color.

She wrote that the Relay proposal

is being framed as a solution to minority teacher recruitment and an engine for ameliorating educational inequities. In fact, Relay is no panacea for our pipeline problems, and instead represents the tip of an approaching iceberg that threatens the education of the state’s most under-served students and sells short the very teachers to whom we owe the best preparation, support, working conditions, and compensation available.

WHAT IS RELAY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION?

First, it is not a graduate school in any recognizable sense. It is a charter-style network of independent teacher preparation programs created by the leaders of three prominent charter school chains (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First), primarily as a means to bypass traditional teacher education. Relay has recently set up shop in New Haven, where it has reportedly enrolled a cohort of candidates who will finish its one-year program this academic year, despite the fact that it has not received approval as a preparation provider.

Its “campus” address is a PO Box; its offices are co-located in a partner charter school; its faculty are unnamed and not required to hold degrees comparable to teacher educators elsewhere; and its nationwide curriculum has been critiqued for emphasizing methods that are reductive and control-oriented, rather than research-based and conducive to critical thinking.

In short, Relay would lower the bar for teacher preparation in Connecticut, increasing the likelihood that students in districts such as Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven would receive teachers who have not met the same standards of preparation as those in more affluent districts.

WHAT IS THE HARM IN APPROVING RELAY?

For candidates in targeted districts, the harm would come from providing a program that doesn’t honor their potential as professionals and would not be deemed acceptable preparation for those certified and employed elsewhere in the state.

For students in targeted districts, the harm would come from providing their teachers with preparation that is based on a reductive, behaviorist view of teaching and learning, and that emphasizes the kind of techniques shown to narrow the curriculum and adversely affect students’ socio-emotional development. For targeted districts and the communities they serve, the harm would come from partnering with a provider that has no credible research base to support its claims to effectiveness or to indicate that it will improve minority teachers’ retention in urban schools. For the public, the harm would come from establishing a pathway into teaching that is not accountable to the profession or state in ways that most other programs are.

To call Relay a “graduate school of education” is an insult to legitimate graduate schools of education. It is a hoax. It has no campus; it has no research; it has no scholars; it has no library. Its methods are behaviorist and limited. It should be sold as a trade school for future charter teachers, not a “graduate school of education.” It undermines the education profession by giving fake credentials to ill-trained “teachers” and sending them to high-needs schools where children deserve well-qualified, well-prepared teachers.