Archives for category: Equity

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.

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.

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.

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.

Arthur Camins, Director, Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, recognizes that the nation’s public schools and their educators have been targets of a false narrative of failure. He argues that it is necessary not only to refute the propaganda campaign but to propose better ideas to strengthen public schools and our democracy.

 

He writes:

 

“There are real persistent problems in education. Today, failure narratives are the strategy-of-choice for groups who want to privatize education, undermine unions, disempower workers, and open profitable markets for educational technology, testing materials and publically funded, but privately managed charter schools that are unencumbered by government regulation. However, what is said is a smoke screen for what it intended.

 

“Let’s open up schools as profit centers,” “We don’t trust communities to make democratic decisions about their schools,” and “Let’s get taxpayers to fund some charter schools for a few poor kids to get ahead,” would have garnered little public support. Instead, the preferred narrative is that American public schools are failing (especially for the poor and students of color), as have past improvement efforts, so we must do something before it is too late. With the release of every new national and international assessment results, statistics are marshaled to support that argument. The unstated assumption is that our society has abandoned serious efforts to end poverty or segregation. Instead, the US has accepted the audacity of small hopes.

 

In response, critics of the privatization agenda have been justifiably quick to point out flaws, biases, and limitations in how data is often presented. That is a necessary lie-exposing response, but only one of the steps needed to promote equitable democratically-governed education.

 

As with the hyped Soviet and Iraqi threats, critics of the phony education crisis have also countered, with, “It’s not as bad as they say.” That line of argument always comes up short for two reasons. First, it permits those in power to frame the debate and put critics on defense. Second, there is a believable element in the narrative. Education in the US has, in fact persistently failed poor students.

 

Exposing lies provides the clarity and information that lay the foundation for action. The next step is resistance. Resistance is a strategy for protection, survival and to engage people in a unifying common struggle. Opting out of high-stakes over-testing, critiquing flawed standardized tests, fighting school closings and budget cuts, opposing pay for performance for teachers, opposing the disproportionate influence of wealthy donors on education policy, opposing charter school expansion, and resisting attacks on unions are all essential.

 

However, a win for equity and democracy also requires a third step: Promote a new and different proactive agenda for education that resonates with the public more effectively than the current, “We are losing” narrative. (Donald Trump is only the extreme version of that continuum.)

 

There is no denying that education falls short. However, supporters of equity and democracy need to reframe what ails American education and offer unifying solutions that give people something new to fight for together.”

 

Arthur proceeds to offer a clear, coherent and positive agenda for real education reform.

 

“Free, high-quality, universal Pre-K through post-secondary education should be the new norm. That is what the country now needs for all citizens to be successful in life, work, and citizenship. Fairness dictates equitable funding by progressive income, capital gains, and corporate taxes, rather than inequitable local property taxes….

 

Learning in diverse, well-integrated schools and classrooms is vital for personal, social and workplace success. Government policies must promote neighborhood, school, and workplace integration…..

 

Every child should be valued, known, and respected in a school where they learn not just a broad range of academic skills for college, career, and personal fulfillment, but also the empathy and social skills to be a responsible member of their community.

 

Funding programs that have the potential to mediate poverty and historic racial inequity are essential, as is promoting integrated schools. However, for too long both of those goals have been framed narrowly as helping “them.” Since the larger inequities in the US have never been fully addressed, too many people have heard “helping them” and thought, “Not at my expense.”

 

Exposing the lies and organized resistance are the essential steps to stop destructive policies. Winning policies that promote equity and democracy requires a next step: Frame new needs and new solutions that are explicitly multi-racial and unifying.

The crisis we face is in education is not about test scores. Rather, it is that we cannot achieve satisfactory results amidst the far broader crisis of growing inequality, eroding democracy, and escalating divisiveness.”

 

Mike Klonsky explains that the corporate reform of education can’t be the civil rights issue of our time because it disproportionately hurts black and Hispanic children. It closes their neighborhood schools. It encourages or ignores segregation. It tolerates and practices high suspension rates for black children.

 

If reform is supposed to help black and Hispanic children, it has been a failure.

The BadAss Teachers Association is calling for a White House Conference on Education and Equity. Please support their efforts by signing your name.

To learn more about the BAT proposal, read here.

Martin Levine, writing in NonProfit Quarterly, reviews the latest statement by the President of the Gates Foundation, Sue Desmond-Hellman, and concludes that the foundation is unwilling to learn from its mistakes.

 

After Bill Gates had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in creating small schools, he abruptly abandoned that idea and moved on, with little reflection.

 

“The foundation’s lessons learned from this experience did not result in any questioning of their core belief that the answer to building a more equitable society would be found within our public schools. They just shifted their focus to increasing the number of charter schools, creating test-based teacher evaluation systems, improving school and student data management, and setting universal standards through the common core curriculum. Each has struggled, and none appear to have been effective.

 

“In 2014, the BMGF supported InBloom, an effort to create a national educational data management system, shut down after parents protested the collection and storage in the cloud of data on their children. Various states withdrew their support, and NPQ reported last September on the failure of one of these Gates-funded initiatives, Empowering Effective Teachers.

 

“Desmond-Hellman has led the foundation as it has invested heavily in the effort to create a national set of learning standards, the Common Core Curriculum. Despite over $300 million in foundation funding, alliances with other large foundations, and strong support from the U.S. Department of Education, the effort has drawn bitter opposition and decreasing support. The strong push that the DoE gave states to implement the Common Core was seen as an unwanted intrusion of federal power into local schools. The use of Common Core to build a testing regimen for students and teachers was seen as disruptive and ineffective. Test data show little impact on bridging the inequity gap in states using Common Core.

 

“Would not an organization that seeks to be a learning organization want to step back and consider whether their core assumptions are on target in light of their difficult experiences? Perhaps, but not the Gates Foundation. Desmond-Hellmann remains “optimistic that all students can thrive when they are held to high standards. And when educators have clear and consistent expectations of what students should be able to do at the end of each year, the bridge to opportunity opens. The Common Core State Standards help set those expectations.” Not a word about the impact of poverty, or the trauma of community violence, or systemic racism as even small considerations.”

 

In a display of smugness, the Gates Foundation blames public resistance to the Common Core on the critics, not on their assumptions about school reform.

 

What the Gates Foundation has thus far demonstrated is the inability to say, “We were wrong.”

 

 

 

Mississippi lawmakers punished the state’s superintendents by defunding their association. This was in retaliation for the superintendents support for Initiative 42, a referendum calling upon the legislature to fund the schools adequately.

 

Mississippi has extreme poverty, and Schools that are underfunded. Imagine the nerve of those superintendents, sticking up for the children!

 

“The move creates an uncertain future for what has traditionally been Mississippi’s most powerful school lobbying group. The long-term power of the association was already in question after lawmakers voted this year to make all superintendents appointive. Traditionally, the elected members of the association, especially those in the state’s largest school districts, have wielded the most political power.

“Initiative 42 would have amended the state Constitution to require the state to provide “an adequate and efficient system of free public schools.” Supporters said it would have blocked lawmakers from being able to spend less than the amount required by Mississippi’s school funding formula, and would have allowed people to sue the state to seek additional money for schools.

“Gov. Phil Bryant and legislative leaders opposed the measure because it could have limited legislative power and transferred some power to judges. They warned that it could have led to budget cuts to other state agencies. Lawmakers placed an alternative measure on the ballot, which made it harder to pass the measure. Voters ultimately rejected any change by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin.”

This is ironic. Michigan wants to drop the Common Core standards and substitute the Massachusetts standards that were dropped by Massachusetts to make way for the Common Core standards!

 

A bill is moving through the Michigan legislature to do exactly that. Michigan has had a groundswell of opposition to the Common Core standards, like most other states. Their solution is to take the standards of the nation’s highest performing state, Massachusetts, and make them specific to Michigan.

 

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, those standards were jettisoned because the state won a Race to the Top Grant and agreed to adopt the Commin Core.  As it happens, the Massachusetts state Commissioner of Education is Mitchell Chester, who was until recently, the chair of the PARCC testing consortium. So naturally he wanted his state to drop the MCAS and use PARCC.

 

When PARCC started, underwritten by the US Department of Education, 24 states and DC joined its consortium. Now it is down to 6 states and DC. Massachusetts is using a hybrid: part PARCC and part MCAS.

 

What a fine mess!

 

When will states figure out that an effective reform strategy is far more complicated than standards, testing, and accountability. When Massachusetts adopted its standards, it invested new resources and  increased equitable spending. It expanded pre-k and raised standards for new teachers.

 

There is still much to be done in Massachusetts. But it is important to remember that it achieved good results by sensible improvements in schools, not by closing schools, firing teachers and principals or mass privatization (until recently, Massachusetts had only 25 charter schools in the state).