Archives for category: Equity
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Jan Resseger 2: The New York Times Confuses the Public About What Schools Need

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2016 //
8

Jan Resseger writes that the New York Times has done a great disservice to the public by its incoherent reporting on the recent court decision in Connecticut.

NY Times Muddles Education Debate

In its “Room for Debate” feature, the Times continued its practice of citing people who had not read the decision and just repeated their talking points. This does not inform the public.

The Times has decided that this decision has national implications. It does but some of them are muddled. The judge says the legislature should fix the funding formula because the property tax-base of funding disadvantages poor children. He goes on to say that the teacher evaluation system is broken and teachers should be judged by student performance, which reveals his ignorance of the flaws and repeated failures of this method. He says that money spent on profoundly disabled children is wasted, which ignores federal law.

Let’s hope the New York Times soon finds the education editor it has advertised for, and that the editor is deeply knowledgable about research and the learned experience of the past 15 years of failed federal policies.

Categories Connecticut, Equity, Funding

Wendy Lecker on the Connecticut Funding Decision: Is Equity Without Adequacy Possible?

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2016 //
2

Wendy Lecker, a veteran civil rights attorney, here analyzes the Connecticut funding decision that was lavishly (and erroneously) praised by the New York Times. Lecker explains why in this and forthcoming articles.


On Sept. 7, Judge Thomas Moukawsher issued his post-trial decision in Connecticut’s school funding case, CCJEF v. Rell. His sweeping decision covered funding, which I will address here, and education policy, which I will address in my next column.

On the funding front, the outcome was mixed. While the judge did declare Connecticut’s system of distributing school aid unconstitutional, he found that the state was providing adequate funding. In doing so, he redefined constitutional adequacy and ignored the plaintiffs’ overwhelming evidence of resource deficiencies in the CCJEF districts.

At trial, the CCJEF plaintiffs put forth overwhelming evidence of severe resource deficiencies of inputs such as: academic and social intervention for at-risk students and students with special needs; guidance counselors, social workers, nurses, services for English Language Learners, music art and other subjects; and reasonable class size.

Judge Moukawsher’s charge was to examine the resources in the districts at issue in the case and determine whether those resources were so inadequate as to violate Connecticut’s constitution.

However, nowhere in the opinion does the judge systematically look the actual resources present or absent in each district.

Rather, the judge focused only on three types of resources: facilities, instrumentalities of learning, and teachers. He declared that since, in his view, the state provides the “bare minimum,” in these three areas, the plaintiffs did not prove that state funding is constitutionally inadequate.

Moukawsher claimed to base his ruling on the 2010 Connecticut Supreme Court plurality decision allowing the CCJEF case to proceed to trial. He claimed to rely specifically on Justice Richard Palmer’s concurring opinion, which is seen as the controlling opinion.

Moukawsher stated that Palmer limited his focus to those three narrow resources. This is untrue. Palmer acknowledged a much wider range of potential resource deficits, including class size, language instruction, technology, intervention for at-risk students, and a safe and secure learning environment.

Judge Moukawsher’s decision ignored the wide range of essential educational resources absent in the CCJEF districts. In fact, the judge actually claimed that intervention for at-risk children was an “extra.”

As a result, his ruling does an injustice to the children suffering in those districts.

Moukawsher also attempted to claim Palmer’s definition of a “minimally adequate” education was narrower than the plurality opinion, and that it required only the “bare minimum” of resources.

However, Palmer actually declared that “I perceive no difference between an educational opportunity that is minimally adequate and an educational opportunity that the plurality characterizes as ‘soundly basic.’”

Moukawsher created a bare-bones definition of constitutional adequacy that the Connecticut Supreme Court clearly did not envision.

The one ray of light in this funding decision is Moukawsher’s finding that the state’s system for distributing school aid is unconstitutional. He ruled that “(b)eyond a reasonable doubt, Connecticut is defaulting on its constitutional duty to provide adequate public school opportunities because it has no rational, substantial and verifiable plan to distribute money for education aid and school construction.”

To illustrate Connecticut’s irrational system, Moukawsher cited the legislature’s decision last session to cut school aid for poor districts while providing more aid for wealthy districts. Here, the judge finally acknowledged the severe resource deficits caused by these cuts: of administrators, guidance counselors, kindergarten and special education paraprofessionals, music and athletics, a shortened school year and classes of “29 children per room — rooms where teachers might have a class with one third requiring special education, many of them speaking limited English, and almost all of them working considerably below grade level.”

The judge declared that a system that “allows rich towns to raid money desperately needed by poor towns makes a mockery of the state’s constitutional duty.”

Categories Connecticut, Equity, Funding

Education Law Center: California Supreme Court Was Right on Vergara, Wrong on Funding

By dianeravitch
August 31, 2016 //
1

The Education Law Center reminds us that the California Supreme Court made the right decision on teacher tenure (Vergara) but passed up a chance to make funding equitable across the state. One would think that there should be a right to go to a public school that is adequately and equitably funded. But not yet.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT GOES 1 FOR 2: ENDS TENURE CASE, BUT TURNS AWAY CHALLENGE TO INADEQUATE SCHOOL FUNDING

On August 23, the California Supreme Court denied petitions for review in two cases asking the courts to declare state education laws unconstitutional. Campaign for Quality Education (CQE) and Robles-Wong v. State claimed the state’s school funding system violated the state constitution, and Vergara v. State challenged laws on teacher tenure, dismissal, and seniority.

Education Law Center, joined by civil rights organizations, filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs in both cases, arguing that the Supreme Court deny review — and effectively end — the Vergara tenure case and accept review in CQE Robles-Wong to allow the school funding case to proceed to trial.

In a 4-3 decision in CQE Robles-Wong, the Court denied review of lower court rulings and, instead, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaints for “fail[ure] to state a claim for which judicial relief may be accorded,” thereby denying plaintiffs a trial on the merits of their claims.

The Court majority denied review without comment. But, three Justices would have accepted the case for review, two of whom wrote strong dissents. In his dissent, Justice Liu wrote,

It is regrettable that this court, having recognized education as a fundamental right in a landmark decision 45 years ago (Serrano v. Priest), should now decline to address the substantive meaning of that right. The schoolchildren of California deserve to know whether their fundamental right to education is a paper promise or a real guarantee.

In Vergara, the Court denied review of the Court of Appeal decision, which found plaintiffs had failed to show a causal connection between the challenged statutes and an alleged inferior educational opportunity. The civil rights brief opposed the Vergara plaintiffs’ claims and explained to the courts that fair and sufficient funding is essential to providing a high quality teacher workforce in California’s school districts. The brief also recounted the expansive research showing that adequate educational resources yield better results for students.

“The California Supreme Court got it right in denying review in Vergara,” said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director and a leading education rights litigator. “The media attention on Vergara, however, overshadowed Robles Wong, a ruling with far more impact on the educational opportunities afforded California’s public school children.”

Mr. Sciarra added that, “in Robles Wong, the Supreme Court allowed an Appellate Court ruling to stand which effectively holds that public school children cannot vindicate their fundamental right to an education under the California constitution in the California courts. The ruling also prevents courts from hearing evidence and deciding on the constitutionality of California’s school finance system — among the most inadequate in the nation.”

California has the largest public education system in the nation, serving over 6 million K-12 students—one in eight U.S. students. Nearly half of those students qualify for federal free and reduced priced lunch, the benchmark for student poverty.

Education Law Center Press Contact:
Molly A. Hunter
Education Justice, Director
mhunter@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 19

Categories California, Equity, Funding

Arthur H. Camins on the Equity and Empathy Gap

By dianeravitch
July 27, 2016 //
5

Arthur H. Camins, Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at Stevens Institute of Technology,tries to figure out why our society has become desensitized to hatred and violence.

He writes that:

Inequity is the fuel that feeds the fires of the racism and bigotry that underlie most of the pervasive violence around the world and in the United States. However, let’s be clear. Divisiveness enables the privileged to attain or maintain their power.

Others lash out in hatred to vent the pent up frustrations and fears for which no friend, family member, politician or spiritual leader have provided a better channel. When the patina of democracy disintegrates in a society dominated by the few some of the disempowered become susceptible to the simplistic appeal of blame and authoritarianism.

As a nation, the United States is infected with racial and socio-economic myopia. Sadly, the malignant biases that support the empowered also undermine the ability of the disempowered to identify and empathize with one another.

He writes:

We have a profoundly endogenous equity and empathy gap. What the too frequent impunity of police in disproportionate killing of Black men and the market competition and no-excuses behavioral prescriptions for school improvement have in common, is a failure to imagine the life experience of another. It is particularly difficult for the empowered to visualize what it is like to be disempowered, especially without social pressure to do so. And, without forging common cause, even small differences in relative powerlessness lead to a failure to empathize. In the last three decades, our ability as a nation to engage in multiple-perspective taking appears to have deteriorated.

This deterioration has many parents.

First, it is the result of vast and growing structural inequality and the erosion of democracy. The rules and processes that govern day-to-day life are increasingly influenced by a tiny percentage of unfathomably wealthy individuals. They live in a rarified environment. Even when they advocate for others, it is within the context of maintaining, if not increasing, their power and influence. Their education remedies are for other people’s children. The empowered treat police brutality as if it is a problem of others’ (the victims) behavioral pathology, rather than a systemic problem to which extreme wealth and poverty contribute.

Second, hardening patterns of residential racial and economic segregation and divergent employment opportunities mean that the rest of us interact less often. We fail not just to interact across perceptions, but temporally and spatially. As a result, it is more difficult to identify common problems and easier for divisiveness to plant seeds, grow roots and thrive. In tough times, people often come to see their survival as contingent on the diminishment of others.

Finally, public schools — the one place where young people might engage in planned early experiences with perspective-taking across differences — are becoming more balkanized in the name of choice and more focused on narrowing academic outcomes in the name of better test results. In addition, the test-driven focus on reading and mathematics has diminished attention to science and social studies, the two areas of study that might engage students in discussions of controversial issues, evidence-based thinking, examination of bias in reaching conclusions, and reasoned argumentation.

He sees hope in those who stand up against injustice.

I do see a ray of light in courageous people who continue to defy negative community norms to make a moral and strategic case for common ground. I see it in relentless researchers and writers who expose the hypocrisy of the powerful who seek benefit from division. I see it in parents and teachers who push back against their schools being taken over and turned into testing factories. I see it in the diversity of citizens who demonstrate their outrage and call for unbiased justice.

We can reclaim our schools and our society if we don’t let the powerful pit us against one another.

Categories Equity

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton

By dianeravitch
July 27, 2016 //
122

I cast my first vote in 1960, when I was 22. That was before 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. I voted for John F. Kennedy, and I worked in his campaign. I was thrilled when he visited campaign headquarters, and I got to shake his hand. He was exciting and dynamic.

At the time, critics said he was no better than Richard Nixon.

They talked about his father, his money, his privilege, his Roman Catholicism; rumors swirled about his private life but were never reported by the media.

Public opinion was so divided about JFK, even among Democrats, that Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. felt compelled to write a short book called “Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference?” Of course, he argued that Kennedy was infinitely preferable to Nixon. Kennedy was elected by a narrow margin.

Democrats were even more divided in 1968 when Hubert H. Humphrey ran against Nixon. Liberals were angry at Humphrey because he had loyally served as LBJ’s vice-president and had not spoken against the war in Vietnam. I worked in the Humphrey-Muskie campaign and organized an event on October 31, 1968, in Manhattan. We didn’t have much money, so we rented a big, shabby labor hall on West 34 street in Manhattan. It was a ragtag affair with a lineup of wonderful speakers: John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Herman Badillo, and a parade of other liberal notables of the time. Vice-Presidential candidate Ed Muskie was supposed to drop in. Actress Shelley Winters moderated. In the middle of Galbraith’s endorsement of the Democratic ticket, two people in the front row–a man and a woman–jumped up, took off their raincoats, and ran stark naked onto the stage, where they presented Galbraith with the head of a pig. Shelley Winters threw a pitcher of water at them. The one security officer on duty began chasing them around the stage, and it was like a scene out of the Keystone Kops. Meanwhile, in the back of the room, about 15 protestors marched in, carrying a North Vietnamese flag, banging a drum and chanting “Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong are gonna win!”

By the time the protestors moved out, the rally collapsed, Muskie didn’t drop in.

Nixon was holding his own rally across the street at Madison Square Garden, and he had no protestors. Security was tight, and no one got in without credentials.

Our event was a debacle. I knew that night in my heart that Nixon would win.

Fast forward to today.

There are two major party candidates for the presidency, and one of them will be elected in November.

I am an idealist and I fight for what I believe in, but I am also a realist. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be elected president.

I will support and vote for Hillary Clinton. I am not telling anyone else how to vote. I am telling you why I am voting for Hillary.

To begin with, I think that Donald Trump is the most unqualified person in my lifetime to be a major party candidate. I think that a presidential candidate should have some prior experience in public life; they should have demonstrated their ability to bring people together and to shape foreign and domestic policies that will advance our national goals and values. Trump represents a nativist view of America, with his open disregard for certain ethnic and religious groups. He openly speaks of “America First,” a long-discredited phrase associated in the 1930s with isolationism. Had we listened then to the America Firsters, Hitler would have conquered all of Europe. Like Nixon, Trump appeals to “the silent majority” and presents himself as the “law-and-order” candidate. His campaign plays on our fears: our fear of Others, our fear of weakness, our fear of decline. His “policies” are boasts: he will “make America great again.” He will turn back the clock. He will bring back all the jobs that were outsourced or that disappeared because of technological change. He will restore the America of a misty and idyllic past. He will revive torture to keep us safe. He believes climate change is a hoax. He thinks women who get an abortion should be punished, or at least their doctors should. He will eliminate gun control and gun-free school zones. He will appoint Supreme Court justices who will roll back reproductive rights, gay rights, and regulations on corporations. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage. He threatens to abandon NATO. He has a thin skin. If someone offends him, he lashes out. He ridicules them, belittles them. Can he be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes? Will he get annoyed and nuke some country he doesn’t like?

I am not voting for Hillary as “the lesser of two evils.”

I don’t think she is evil. I don’t think she is ethically challenged. I have met her several times in the past and have been impressed by her intellect, her judgment, and her compassion. We all know the ordeal she endured because of her husband’s infidelities. That was not her doing. She tried to protect her family as best she could. We know now that other revered presidents, like FDR and Ike, had affairs; JFK was a serial womanizer. The media abandoned their code of silence about presidential privacy when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary can’t be blamed for Bill’s misadventures, and it was nearly 20 years ago, so who cares? God knows, there are plenty of members of Congress and governors in both parties who would not want their private lives revealed in the news. Remember the Republican Congressman who had a “wide stance” in the men’s bathroom in an airport?

I don’t think Hillary is a liar or a person of low character.

Trump has tried to brand her as “Crooked Hillary,” just as he branded Jeb Bush as “low energy,” Ted Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted,” and Marco Rubio as “Little Marco.”

She got large speaking fees but so what? So has every other major political figure when they left office, as well as every celebrity.

I give her credit for being able to withstand the constant barrage of hatred, vilification, smears, and mudslinging–and she has taken it for 25 years. Republicans blame her for everything.

She must have a very thick skin. They have called her every name in the book, and she is still standing. I admire her courage. I admire her resilience.

I know she is smart. She is super-smart. There are very few people who have run for president who are as well informed about the details of foreign and domestic policy as she is.

I am not happy with her qualified support for charter schools. I would like to explain to her that they are undermining the nation’s public schools, and in some cities, destroying them. I would like to explain to her that the problem is not just “for-profit charter schools.” The problem is setting up a dual publicly-funded school system, one that chooses its students and the other required to accept and enroll every student. It makes no sense.

Like me, she went to public schools. She knows how important they are to our democracy. I believe she would not knowingly sacrifice them to the entrepreneurs and privatizers who want to take them over.

We had a dual system before the Brown decision in 1954 (and for years afterwards). That was a very bad idea. Charters are typically more segregated than public schools. In some states, they are havens for white flight. They are not public schools. They are not accountable or transparent. They are privately managed. They are a form of privatization. They pave the way for vouchers. They encourage parents to think as consumers, not citizens. What we have learned from twenty-five years of charter schools is that deregulation opens the door to fraud, nepotism, and graft. Not all charter schools are bad, not all charter leaders are grifters, but those who are go undetected until a whistle-blower appears.

Hillary says she supports only “high quality charter schools,” but what does that mean? The charters with the highest test scores? Those are the charters that are most likely to exclude students who don’t speak English and students with disabilities and to push out problem students. Why should our government deliberately fund a two-track school system? Charter schools are NOT public schools. They are private schools that receive public funding.

If she is elected, and I hope she is, I will continue to fight for public education. Supporting public education is not a choice, it is a civic responsibility. It is a civic responsibility for those whose children are grown and for those who have no children. This is what good citizens do. I will continue to try to persuade the Democrats to oppose the school privatization policies promoted by ALEC, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, Mike Pence, Pat McCrory, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party.

The American public school is one of the bedrock ideas of our democracy. We must not abandon it. To privatize our schools betrays our democratic values.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because I trust that she will have a steady hand on American foreign policy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will shape domestic policies to strengthen our economy and to increase equity.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will reflect and think before making decisions and will not act or react impulsively.

I will vote for her because I trust she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will make decisions that protect our rights and strengthen our democracy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will fight for a society that is more just for all.

I will vote for her because she has experience, wisdom, and deep knowledge of our nation and the world.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because she is eminently qualified to be president of the United States.

Diane Ravitch

#Imwithher

Categories Clinton, Democracy, Equity, Trump

Julia Sass Rubin: Governor Christie’s Dishonest and Unfair Funding Plan

By dianeravitch
July 10, 2016 //
14

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey unveiled a new funding plan, which he claims is “fair.” The essence of his plan that all children in the state would get exactly the same dollar amount–$6,599–, and that is fair! So, whether you are a child in a wealthy district or a child in an impoverished district, you will get the same! Isn’t that fair? Well, not really. That’s like saying the rich and the poor are equally permitted to sleep under bridges.

Julia Sass Rubin of Rutgers University explains why Chris Christie’s plan is a hoax and a swindle. It is not just because giving exactly the same amount to children in rich and poor districts is divisive and harms those with the greatest needs, but because so much of the budget is already earmarked that there is not enough to divvy up fairly.

Although numerous commentators pointed out the devastating impact that Christie’s proposal would have on children who live in communities with high rates of poverty, none actually verified the governor’s claim that dividing state aid equally among all New Jersey students would result in $6,599 per pupil funding.

Had they done so, they would have found that the $6,599 per pupil figure, and the promises of property tax reductions predicated on it, are both false.

There simply is not a $9.1 billion state education budget available to distribute across New Jersey while also protecting special education funding and charter schools.

State special education funding alone accounts for almost a billion dollars. And state funding pays for less than a third of all special education expenses. So if the governor distributed state aid evenly, he would eliminate the ability of many districts to provide special education services as their local tax base is inadequate to fund the additional costs.

Then there’s the state funding Christie would need to set aside to protect charter schools. In 2015-16, charter schools received in excess of $600 million in funding, primarily in the form of state aid pass-throughs from high poverty districts. And charter school funding is growing rapidly as the Christie administration increases the number of charter school students.

The governor’s numbers also ignore other programs he is unlikely to cut, such as pre-school funding and choice aid.

Eliminating state pre-school funding would remove another $656 million from the funds Christie could distribute to all districts. Cutting the funding would not only be bad public policy, it also would jeopardize federal preschool funds New Jersey currently receives.

The $54 million in choice aid funds the popular Interdistrict Public School Choice program that the governor supports and that benefits many small, rural districts.

There are many other examples.

When all is factored in, the actual amount that the governor’s plan would distribute is approximately $4,800 per student, nearly $2,000 less than he promised in his speech….

For example, Union City, which Christie lauded for producing “extraordinary growth under very trying circumstances,” would see its state and local funding drop from approximately $16,400 to $6,100 per student, a funding level below that of Mississippi.

Categories Equity, Funding, New Jersey

Jan Resseger Writes the Education Platform that Democrats Should Have Written

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2016 //
13

Jan Resseger worked as a social justice leader for the United Church of Christ until her retirement. She is an ardent supporter of public education and lives in Cleveland. In this post, she eloquently describes the education platform that Democrats should adopt. No advocacy for “high quality charters” or “high academic standards,” but advocacy for children, for democracy, and for a better education for all.

This is how she begins:

Introduction A comprehensive system of public education, that serves all children and is democratically governed, publicly funded, universally accessible, and accountable to the public, is central to the common good. Historically it has been the role of the 50 states to establish and implement a fair system of funding and regulating public education; of local school districts to share the responsibility for funding and to administer the schools in their localities; and of the federal government to protect the civil rights of our nation’s children by ensuring that schools serve all groups of children—children of every race, ethnicity, economic level—and ensuring that schools serve children with special needs— children with disabilities and children learning English.

A just and good society balances individualism with the needs of the community. Likewise public schools are intended to serve the needs of particular children and at the same time to serve our society by preparing citizens to participate actively in our democracy. Today, our society has moved too far in the direction of promoting individual self-interest at the expense of community responsibility. The result has been the abandonment of the common good. While some may suggest that the sum total of individual choices will automatically constitute the needs of society, there is no evidence that individual choices based on self-interest will protect the vulnerable or provide the safeguards and services needed by the whole population. As a matter of justice, our society must strive always to expand the individual rights guaranteed by government for those who have lacked rights and recognize the important role of government for providing public services on behalf of the community.

Categories Civil Rights, Democracy, Education Reform, Equity

Arthur Camins: This is the Speech That Democrats Should Give

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2016 //
5

Arthur Camins wrote this speech a year ago, but it remains timely today, as Democrats consider what their party stands for:

Almost all parents want the same thing for their children — an education that will prepare them well for life, work and citizenship. They want classrooms in which their children are known and valued. They want a well-rounded education that engages their children to stimulate and expand their interests, critical thinking, and imagination. They want well-prepared teachers who continue to grow in expertise, just like other professionals. They want high-quality neighborhood schools that remain open. They want a say in the governance of schools in their communities.

This is a shared dream that cuts across the racial, religious, socio-economic and geographic differences that too often divide us. The past several decades have moved us away from, not toward this dream. It is time for us to move forward again.

Here is what we need to do.

We need to move away from inequitable local property tax-based school funding that rewards the wealthy and penalizes everyone else. Some may say we cannot afford to do this. I say we cannot afford not to. The human and economic costs of inequity are too high a price to pay. We can afford this investment if we reorient our national priorities and tax structures.

We need to invest in ensuring the quality of the community public schools we already have rather than in escape schemes for individuals such as expanding the number of charter schools or funding vouchers for private schools. We need systemic strategies for all, not escape hatches for the few. We are all diminished when some of our children don’t get the highest quality education.

We need federal incentives to promote well-integrated schools. We live in an increasingly diverse country. In fact, diversity is our strength. Putting our heads in the sand divides us, while protecting the privileges of the few. Learning to live and work together is essential for all of our futures. That begins with our children’s education.

We need federal support for well-prepared, career educators who have the time and resources to continue to hone their knowledge and expertise. Teaching children and meeting their diverse needs is every bit as complex as practicing medicine or law. We need to treat teachers as professionals with this same level of support and respect.

We need to fund special education so that meeting the needs of some children does not drain local resources away from meeting the needs of all children.

Finally, we need to shift federal resources toward supporting teachers’ expertise with assessment and feedback about everyday classwork and away from over-testing students and punishment of their teachers based on flawed data.

These are the bold steps we need to take to achieve our dreams for all of our children. It will not be easy. We cannot do it by competing with one another or treating our schools like businesses competing in the marketplace. We can only achieve the dream as a community.

We can do this together. It’s time! If not now, then when?

Arthur H. Camins is the director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. He has taught and been an administrator in New York City, Massachusetts and Louisville, Kentucky. The ideas expressed in this article are his alone and do not represent Stevens Institute.

Categories Democrats, Equity

LEAKED: The Draft of the Democrat Party Platform

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2016 //
116

Several members of the Democratic party’s platform committee sent me the draft of the platform. It is linked below so we can all reflect on what is being considered. This is a draft so it can be changed. Please read it and send your best ideas.

The section on education contains a lot of reformer lingo. Zip codes. Options. Accountability. The Democratic party favors “high academic standards.” Who favors “low academic standards?” The party opposes too much testing; who favors too much testing?

The rhetoric about “high academic standards” brings echoes of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Wouldn’t it have been refreshing to see a statement about meeting the needs of all children? Or ensuring that all schools have the staff and resources they need for the children they enroll?

And then there’s the section on charters. The party is against for-profit charters: so far, so good, but how about saying that a Clinton administration will stop federal funding of for-profit schools and colleges, because they are low-quality and predatory, with profit as their top priority?

The party favors “high quality charters.” Does that mean corporate charter chains like KIPP, Achievement First, and Success Academy? Probably. How about a statement opposing corporate replacements for neighborhood public schools? How about a statement insisting that charters accept English language learners and students with disabilities at the same rate as the neighborhood public school? How about a statement opposing draconian disciplinary policies and suspensions?

How about a clear statement that the Clinton administration will no longer permit school closings as academic punishment? How about a clear signal that the Clinton administration intends to protect and strengthen our nation’s essential traditional public schools, which serve all children. How about signaling a new direction for federal education policy, one that promises to support schools and educators, not to punish them.

Please read and share yours reactions. I will pass ideas along to platform committee members.

See the entire pdf here.

Categories Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reform, Democrats, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, For-Profit, Funding, Support for public schools, U.S. Department of Education

Mississippi: Yes for Charters, No for Funding

By dianeravitch
June 26, 2016 //
2

Last year, the people of Mississippi had a chance to increase the funding for their woefully inadequate public schools, and the legislature and governor did everything in their power to reject the proposal, even creating an alternative measure designed to confuse voters. Act 42, which would have compelled equitable funding was voted down. Act 42 failed to win approval. Here is the background.

The legislature’s answer to school improvement: charter schools. These are the schools of choice that segregationists have wanted since the Brown decision.

Some in the legislature want to take the next step and authorize vouchers, to thoroughly undermine public schools.

The first two charters in Jackson are finishing their first year: one is struggling, the other is part of a corporate chain and is off to a good start.

Categories Charter Schools, Equity, Funding, Mississippi, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »