Archives for category: History

 

The rightwing Manhattan Institute recently honored a Betsy DeVos with its Alexander Hamilton Award.

Mercedes Schneider brilliantly explains that Betsy DeVos knows nothing about Alexander Hamilton or his convictions. Indeed, her anti-government views are the opposite of Hamilton’s, but she doesn’t know that.

Schneider writes:

According to MI, its Alexander Hamilton Award is named such “because, like the Manhattan Institute, he was a fervent proponent of commerce and civic life. ” However, Hamilton was clearly pro-centralized government, which makes the award an MI misnomer since MI uses it to honor the likes of DeVos, whose ideology is much more in line with the Antifederalists of Hamilton’s day.

The contradiction did not go unnoticed; on May 03, 2019, Think Progress published an article entitled, “Betsy DeVos Appears to Have No Idea Who Alexander Hamilton Was” From the article:

…The entire purpose of the agency Education Secretary DeVos leads is to use the resources of the federal government to foster better public education. Let’s also set aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of American primary and secondary school students — 90 percent — are educated by government-run schools. If DeVos plans to fight for “freedom from government,” she is in the worst possible job.

Yet DeVos doesn’t just appear to be rejecting the core mission of her agency and the foundational premise of the American education system. She also seems to have no idea who Alexander Hamilton is or what he sought to accomplish as the architect of much of America’s economic system. The early history of the United States was, to a large extent, a battle between a Jeffersonian model built on agriculture, small government, and slavery; and a Hamiltonian model built on capitalism, economic expansion, and a robust centralized government.

Hamilton’s core insight was that healthy markets and a robust manufacturing sector do not emerge from the ether so long as centralized authorities do not interfere. Rather, the vibrant economy that Hamilton helped build depends on a strong central government authority.

Below are excerpts from DeVos’ speech for the MI event, which she characteristically uses as a slant for her own pro-choice, anti-union agenda:

The Federalist Papers, to which Hamilton contributed a great deal, cautioned against a tyranny of factions. These groups of agitators jealously protect and advance their own self-interests to the detriment of just about everyone else.

Sound familiar? Education unions, the association of this, the organization of that… those are today’s factions. One of their own, the late Al Shanker, said this: “I don’t see a voice for students in the bargaining process. I think it’s one of the facts of life… the consumer, basically, is left out.”

That union boss admitted then what’s still true today: factions keep student voices out. But it’s way past time to let them in!

Note that the Federalist Papers were meant to assuage public fears about a centralized, federal government, but DeVos tries to shape a reference to them in order to discredit teachers’ unions.

DeVos is single-minded. She believes that her mission in life is to destroy public schools, weaken the federal government, and crush teachers’ unions. Why is this woman in charge of the U.S. Department of Education, which she despises?

This is one of Mercedes Schneider’s best pieces.

She concludes, with irony:

At the opening of her MI speech, DeVos comments, “I must admit I’m not sure what I’ve done to deserve such an honor.”

Indeed.

So many layers to that sandwich.

I just finished reading Noliwe Rooks’ superb book, Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and the End of Public Education (The New Press). Please buy a copy and read it. It is a powerful analysis of racism, segregation, poverty, the history of Black education (and miseducation), and their relationship to the current movement to privatize public education. She dissects the profitable business of segregation.

You will learn how cleverly the captains of finance and industry have managed to ignore the root causes of inequality of educational opportunity while profiting from the dire straits of poor children of color. In fact, as she shows, financiers and philanthropists have used and misused Black children throughout our history, for their own benefit and glory, not the children’s.

The book is both highly contemporary and at the same time, probably the best history of Black education that I have read. Rooks understands that the fight for equality runs through the schoolhouse door, and she documents how white elites have managed to block access, narrow access, or literally steal from Black families trying to gain access to high-quality education. She knows that charter schools and vouchers are a sorry substitute for real solutions. She understands that the rise of the profit-driven education industry has benefited the profiteers far more than the Black children they claim to be “saving.” “Saving poor kids from failing schools” turns out to be a lucrative business, though not for the kids.

Rooks invents a new term to describe the current “reform” movement: Segrenomics. In her telling, a sizable number of entrepreneurs and foundations, and organizations like Teach for America, have enriched themselves while advertising their passion for equity. Segregation and poverty have given them a purpose, multiple enterprises, career paths, and profit.

My copy of the book is covered with underlinings, stars, asterisks, and other notations, as is my way when I become enthusiastic while reading.

She bluntly states, “The road necessarily traveled to achieve freedom and equality in the United States leads directly through public education…Schools that educate the wealthy have generally had decent buildings, money for materials, a coherent curriculum, and well-trained teachers. Schools that educate poorer students and those of color too often have decrepit buildings, no funds for quality instructional materials, and little input in structure or purpose of the curriculum, and they make do with the best teachers they can find.” Differences based on class and color have been a constant in American history, and they remain so today.

She notes the rise of the for-profit industry in education, now associated with charter schools, cybercharters, and other forms of school choice. The new for-profit arrangement, which she calls “segrenomics, is “the business of profiting specifically from high levels of racial and economic segregation…The desire that some have to profit from racial and economic segregation in education, coupled with the active desire members of segregated communities of color have for quality education, has led to our current moment where quality education is for some a distant mirage, and the promise to provide it is profitable for others.”

Rooks was director of the African American studies program at Princeton University for a decade and is now director of graduate Africana studies at Cornell University. She interacted frequently with idealistic elite white college students who could not understand her skepticism about the “reform movement.”

Rooks describes the past thirty years as an era when “government, philanthropy, business, and financial sectors have heavily invested in efforts to privatize certain segments of public education; stock schools with inexperienced, less highly paid teachers whose hiring often provides companies with a ‘finders’ fee’; outsource the running of schools to management organizations; and propose virtual schools as a literal replacement for—not just a supplement to-the brick and mortar education experience. The attraction, of course, is the large pot of education dollars that’s been increasingly available to private corporate financial interests…Charter schools, charter management organizations, vouchers, virtual schools, and an alternatively certified, non-unionized teaching force represent the bulk of the contemporary solutions offered as cures for what ails communities that are upward of 80 percent Black or Latino.” Such policies are never prescribed for affluent white communities, she notes.

She suggests that those who seek to profit from racial and economic segregation should be penalized. Without a real and meaningful penalty, the profit-seekers will continue business as usual.

The fundamental argument of her book is that public education for Native American, Black, Latino, and poor youth is being purposefully unraveled, while wealthy elites are plundering the money that should have been spent on their education.

Rooks recounts the history of Teach for America, which had its beginnings at Princeton University. Wendy Kopp had an idea, visited corporate chieftains, raised money, created a powerful board of directors, and started an enterprise that became fabulously wealthy. Rooks observes that she didn’t spend time talking to the students or parents or the communities that she planned to save. TFA created a career path for idealistic and ambitious elite college graduates, who wanted to try their hand at teaching without committing to it as a professional obligation. TFA offered more benefits to those who joined it, she writes, than to those it claimed it wanted to “save.” It provided a resume builder and an entrée into powerful financial and political networks.

She analyzes a number of well-known “reform” organizations, not only TFA, but Democrats for Educational Reform and Students for Educational Reform. The latter was also founded at Princeton, by students who realized that their venture was so lucrative, so swaddled in grants from foundations, that they dropped out of college to tend to the millions heaped upon them. Helping poor children, it turned out, was indeed a rewarding business. She sees TFA, DFER, and SFER through the lens of segrenomics, business ventures that depended on “saving” poor children without disrupting the institutional and systemic roots of poverty and racism that engulf the world in which they live. She calls out “reformers” for their insistence that they could safely ignore segregation or poverty, because their aspirations alone would be enough to “fix” the lives of poor children.

Her richly documented history of Black education in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is fascinating. In the nineteenth century, most Blacks lived in the South, and the whites who controlled the segregated South did as little as they could get away with to educate Black children. Some opposed doing so, while others thought that Blacks should be equipped with no more than basic literacy and vocational training so that they could contribute to the economy, albeit as manual workers. In the main, the Northern philanthropists adjusted their ideals to the white Southerners’ low esteem for people of color. The philanthropists contributed money to build schools for Black children, but required impoverished Black communities to raise matching funds if they wanted a school. Given the desperate poverty of those communities, raising the matching funds required enormous sacrifice. In one of the most moving passages in the book, she describes a 1925 meeting in a small rural town in Alabama, where a Black representative of the Rockefellers’ General Education Board met with the sharecroppers to discuss raising money to build a school. The representative wrote to his supervisors that “’one old man, who had seen slavery days, with all of his life’s earnings in an old greasy sack, slowly drew it from his pocket, and emptied it on the table.’ He then turned to address the crowd and said, ‘I want to see the children of my grandchildren have a chance, and so I am giving my all.’ What he had to offer was $10. The sum total he had been able to save throughout the totality of his life.’” The assembled crowd raised $1,300 that night and eventually contributed $6,500 to match the gift of the Rockefellers.

As I read this, I felt a mix of emotions. Tremendous sadness but also rage at the Rockefellers, who could have just opened their wallets and given the community the school they so desperately wanted and needed without demanding such sacrifice. The foundation officer who read this account from Alabama must have had a heart of stone. The same stories about penurious philanthropists were repeated across the South, where local white officials typically diverted (stole) money meant for Black education and reapportioned it to white schools.

I have read other histories of Black education, but none that so deftly tied together the past and the present. The term “segrenomics” aptly captures the financiers’ fascination with “helping” black children but avoiding any change in the social policies that might lift their families out of poverty and promote genuine integration. The fact that philanthropists today eagerly underwrite segregated charter schools and insist that TFA  or merit pay or standardized tests can cure poverty represents continuity with their nineteenth century counterparts.

Rooks brings valuable historical, sociological, and philosophical insight into contemporary debates. Her analysis echoes the argument made by Anand Giriharadas in his bookWinners Take All: when the wealthiest elites claim that they are “saving” the world, beware. They are actually protecting the status quo and their own dominant position in society.

You will enjoy watching this YouTube video in which Professor Rooks explains her views about education reform, elite white students, and the lingo of reform. 

 

 

John Blake, a CNN writer, has a different take on the controversy surrounding Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and the recently discovered photographs from his medical school yearbook of one student in blackface, the other wearing a Klan outfit.

He writes:

What more do you need to know? The damage to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s credibility is so beyond repair that some critics say he has to go.
But here’s an uncomfortable truth that photo won’t reveal:
Some of the biggest champions for black people in America’s past have been white politicians who were racists.

Some of our best friends were racist

A pop history quiz:
Who was the white Southerner who used the N-word almost like a “connoisseur” and routinely called a landmark civil rights law “the n—– bill.”
That was President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the greatest civil rights champion of any modern-day president.
Who was the white judge who joined the KKK, marched in their parades and spokeat nearly 150 Klan meetings in his white-hooded uniform?
That was Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who incurred the wrath of his fellow Southerners when he voted to abolish Jim Crow segregation in the court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.
And who was the white politician who also used the N-word freely, told racist jokes and said African-Americans were biologically inferior to whites?
That’s Abraham Lincoln, the “Great Emancipator” and arguably the nation’s greatest president.
The point of these examples is not to offer a historical loophole for any leader caught being blatantly racist.
What happens to Northam is ultimately up to the people he serves and to his conscience.
But what I’m saying is that what matters to some black people — not all, maybe not even most — is not what a white politician did 30 years ago.
It’s what he’s doing for them today.

Who would pass the racist abstinence pledge?

I’m wary of those commentators who say they speak for an entire race of people. When a white friend sometimes asks what black people think of an issue, I sometimes tell them, “I don’t know, I missed the Weekly Meeting for All Black People in America.”
Yet I feel confident in saying this: Most are not shocked to hear that a white politician who is a purported ally is accused of doing something racist…
If black people only worked with white allies free of any racism, bias or past mistakes, we would be alone.
Before the yearbook incident, Northam won the support of Virginia’s black community. He forcefully denounced the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville that took the life of a young woman. He successfully pushed for the expansion of Obamacare in Virginia. Former President Barack Obama campaignedfor him. He won almost 90% of the black vote in his successful run for governor in 2017.
That might help him, or it may not be enough.
What matters for some is not one act from a person’s life but the entire play. Do they push for equality in the end?…
One of the reasons Johnson was such an effective champion for blacks is that he understood the Southern mind better than most. He was fighting against the same demons that he grappled with. He knew what buttons to push against the racist politicians who stood in his way.
Yet there is not much room for a politician to evolve in today’s environment. There is a “rage industrial complex” that fixates on the latest racial flashpoint: an outrageous video, remark or image that’s passed around social media like a viral grenade.
Meanwhile those banal acts of racism that don’t get caught in a photo or a tweet go by unremarked.
Here’s when I know there’s genuine racial progress.
It’s not when a white politician is caught being racist and people demand his or her head. It’s when people show the same amount of public outrage over the everyday acts of racism — voter suppression, racial profiling, redlining — that define so much of our everyday lives.
Now that would be shocking.

 

 

Jack Schneider, historian of education, urges Betsy DeVos to stop telling lies about our nation’s schools. 

Schneider offers a capsule of education history and concludes:

“When critics contend that America’s public schools are preparing students for the jobs of the past, they are engaging in a kind of rhetorical feint. The implication is that today’s students are already being trained for work, and that such a focus has always been an aim of schooling. It suggests that vocational training is something that Americans broadly agree upon, and that is simply in need of an update.

“In reality, workforce preparation would represent a significant shift in the mission of schools. President Donald Trump made this shift plain in 2018 when he unveiled a plan to combine the Department of Education with the Department of Labor into a new agency called the Department of Education and the Workforce. (There seems to be little movement on the proposal since it was announced.)

“Jobs certainly matter, and the future labor productivity of today’s students will impact the entire economy. Yet even if schools could be reoriented to focus effectively on job training, the result would hardly be an unqualified good. Any shift in the present orientation of schools will come at the expense of school activities organized around the preservation of rights and liberties, as well as the inherent value of education. By and large, Americans of the past were unwilling to make that trade-off. If they’re aware of what’s happening, Americans of the present may be no different.”

in the past, vocational training was often designed to prepare students for occupations that would soon be obsolete.

As a basic rule of thumb, never believe anything DeVos says. If she is not lying, she simply speaks from ignorance. Her knowledge of the real world is very limited.

 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944.

Seventy-five years ago today.

He included what was then called the “Economic Bill of Rights.”

It’s good to remember a time long ago when we had a national leader with a vision of a just and fair society, a vision that we remain very far from achieving. It’s good to remember a time when we had a national leader who was intelligent and articulate, surrounded by others who cared deeply about social and economic progress. It’s good to remember a time long ago when America meant something other than rampant individualism, greed, me-first, me-only, competition, and gun violence. It’s good to remember when America was motivated by ideals of the common good and the just and decent society. That was the America of my childhood. I miss it. I hope it can be recaptured.

FDR said:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[3] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

The Washington Post wants us to know that 2018 was not all bad. So the editorial board listed 18 things to feel good about. I think you should subscribe. I subscribe to many newspaper online, and I think the Washington Post is the best, even though its editorials about education are awful.

18 good things that happened in 2018
We are not doomed. Seriously.

WE IN the media are often accused of dwelling on the bad and giving short shrift to positive developments. At the end of last year, as a modest corrective, we published a list of 17 good things that happened in 2017.

Many readers expressed appreciation, and some wrote in to suggest other good pieces of news. So here we go again: 18 good things that happened in 2018.

It has occurred to us that, in establishing this as an annual tradition, we may be setting ourselves up for failure. We can’t promise that we’ll deliver 48 good things in 2048, or 58 in 2058, though we’re hopeful our children and grandchildren will be doing a better job running the world than we’re managing now.

And, of course, news that cheers some may distress others. But we’re an editorial page — we’re allowed to have opinions. In our opinion, and in no particular order, here are 18 good things that happened in 2018:

1. All 12 Thai boys who were marooned deep in a cave were saved in an operation that needed 100 rescuers inside the cave, 1,000 Thai soldiers in support, and thousands of volunteers furnishing meals, transportation and other help. One retired Thai SEAL died in the effort, but many had feared all the boys would be lost.

2. India’s Supreme Court decriminalized consensual gay sex. In the United States, the LGBT community increasingly has stepped out of the closet and vindicated its right to live free of bigotry. But many gays and lesbians elsewhere still live in fear. This decision in the world’s second-most-populous country, after years of activist struggle, offered a major step away from such fear.

3. In the United States, the economy continued to grow, wages increased, and unemployment fell to its lowest level (3.7 percent ) since 1969. Unemployment among black Americans hit the lowest it has been since the government started tracking it in 1972, and the gap with unemployment among whites was the smallest it has ever been.

4. Voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections was the highest in a century — 49.3 percent of the voting-eligible population, compared with 36.7 percent in 2014.

5. Those voters sent an unusually diverse group to Congress. More than 100 women were elected to the House, easily breaking a record, and they included two Native Americans, the first Muslim women elected to Congress, and immigrants and children of immigrants.

6. Oh, and a majority of the House winners were Democrats. Obviously not all of our readers welcomed that, and we’re sure we won’t approve of everything the House majority does in the next two years. But, as we mentioned, we’re entitled to our view; and our view, as we said right after the election, is that we should celebrate the restoration of checks and balances in Washington — and the rejection of President Trump’s campaign appeal to “fear of immigrants [and] his depiction of his opposition as dangerous enemies.”

7. For only the eighth time, a spacecraft landed safely on Mars. The InSight lander touched down on Nov. 26 and sent the first photograph back shortly thereafter. It will collect and transmit all kinds of data for the next two years.

8. Floridians voted overwhelmingly (64 percent) to restore voting rights to felons once they have completed their sentences. The single biggest enfranchisement since voting legislation a half-century ago, this will allow nearly 1.5 million people to exercise their basic civic right, fixing an injustice that disproportionately affected African Americans.

9. It took another bipartisan vote, this one in Congress, to approve a criminal- justice-reform bill that, as we wrote when it passed a couple of weeks ago, acknowledges that “in some cases rehabilitation and training are preferable to long-term human warehousing.”

10. Voters in Utah, Missouri, Colorado and Michigan approved redistricting reforms. That means less gerrymandering and fairer elections.

11. Authoritarian governments were on the march, and the United States retreated from the promotion of human rights, but Ethi­o­pia, a country of 100 million people, took dramatic steps away from dictatorship and toward democracy. A people’s movement in Armenia swept a strongman out of office and paved the way for honest elections. The essential human desire for freedom and dignity never abates.

12. Less momentously: The Washington Capitals won the Stanley Cup. Granted, this wasn’t good news for fans of the Las Vegas Golden Knights, but even many non-Caps fans rejoiced to see one of the all-time greats, the ever-engaging Alex Ovechkin, finally bring home the trophy.

13. In more good news for the capital area, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed to provide long-term funding for Metro, and service on the mass transit system began to improve under the leadership of General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld.

14. The Virginia legislature voted to expand Medicaid, as did voters in Idaho, Utah and Nebraska. Based on election results, Maine, Wisconsin and Kansas may follow. Health-care coverage remains vulnerable thanks to Republican challenges in court, but these results mean hundreds of thousands of Americans will be newly protected.

15. The impunity of powerful men to harass and assault women continued to be challenged by the #MeToo movement. CBS chief Les Moonves lost his job and, we hope, his severance payment. Bill Cosby was sentenced to prison. So was the repugnant sports physician Larry Nassar, after preying on hundreds of girls, in what should presage a cleanup of the corrupt and obtuse U.S. Olympic leadership.

16. Also in the category of better-late-than-never: Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro released a grand jury report that, after an 18-month investigation, revealed more than 300 Catholic priests who had abused children over seven decades. The revelations prompted resignations, sparked other states to undertake their own inquiries and raised hopes that the Catholic Church might finally face its history and reform.

17. While the impending departure of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was unfortunate, his dignified and eloquent letter of resignation personified public service at its best. He expressed his differences with President Trump without resorting to childish insults, and he laid out principles worth fighting for: standing with allied democracies and standing up to authoritarian rivals.

18. The U.S. judiciary defended the rule of law. When the executive branch attempted to rewrite statutes — to separate children and parents at the border, to expel a reporter from the White House, to defund sanctuary cities, to block asylum requests — judges, whether appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents, said no.

Undoubtedly, they will be called upon again in 2019; and, undoubtedly, the year will bring many other challenges besides. Nonetheless — we wish all of you a happy new year in which the good news outweighs the bad. And we pledge to find 19 things to cheer for a year from now.

The Republican Party chair of Canadian County in Oklahoma wrote a letter proposing that the state stop financing public education.

Andrew Lopez, Republican Party chair for suburban Oklahoma City’s Canadian County, signed the letter sent last week. It requested that the state no longer manage the public school system, or at least consider consolidating school districts. Public schools should seek operational money from sponsorships, advertising, endowments and tuition fees instead of taxes, the letter says.

Other Republicans rebuked him and said that they planned to raise education funding.

Rep. Rhonda Baker, a former teacher and current chair of the House common education committee, tells The Oklahoman in an article published Thursday that increasing education funding remains one of her priorities for next year.

“I have always been and will continue to be a supporter of public education,” Baker said.

Oklahoma Republican Party Chair Pam Pollard said Lopez’s letter doesn’t reflect the party’s position.

But Lopez said the GOP lawmakers are betraying party principles, including through increasing the size of government. His letter also called for abolishing abortion and eliminating unnecessary business-licensing agencies.

“In government we have a system that says we believe it’s a good idea to take (money) from you by force to educate other people’s children,” Lopez said. “That doesn’t appear to be a fair deal to me.”

In the recent elections, 16 educators won seats in the Oklahoma Legislature. The education caucus grew to 25 lawmakers in office that come from an education background, whether that be a teacher or school administrator position. Sixteen are Republicans, nine are Democrats. Eight are in the Senate and 17 in the House.

Lopez’s letter demonstrates the importance of building strong support for public education.

The Founding Fathers, acting as the Continental Congress, passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established the template for new states. It prohited slavery in the new states, and it set aside one of sixteen plots in each township for schooling. The ordinance began: “”Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

John Adams wrote in 1785:

the social science will never be much improved untill the People unanimously know and Consider themselvs as the fountain of Power and untill they Shall know how to manage it Wisely and honestly. reformation must begin with the Body of the People which can be done only, to affect, in their Educations. the Whole People must take upon themselvs the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expences of it. there should not be a district of one Mile Square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselvs they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen.

It seems that Mr. Lopez is unfamiliar with American history.

Denis Smith writes here about a Presidential election in 1968 where the GOP candidate colluded with a foreign power to win the election.

Tonight at 9:00 pm, MSNBC will air a special about these events.

Edd Doerr has been CEO of Americans for Religious Liberty for many years. He keeps tabs on voucher referenda. He compiled the list that follows. One thing seems clear: on state ballots, Americans have consistently opposed public funding of religious schools, with only one minor exception, when voters in South Dakota agreed to subsidize textbooks for religious schools, a position consonant with Supreme Court decisions to date. Many state legislatures have endorsed vouchers, even in states where voters rejected them (like Florida). The voucher expansion strategy relies on legislative capture, not popular support. The record below explains why voucher proponents try their o avoid referenda.

Last Tuesday, vouchers were again on the ballot, this time in Arizona. They were soundly defeated, by a margin of 2-1.

Ed Doerr’s list:

AGAINST FOR %

Nebraska 1966
Bus transportation
57-43

New York 1967
Constitution change to allow tax aid
72-28

Nebraska 1970
Tax code vouchers
57-43

Michigan 1970
Constitutional change to allow tax aid
57-43

Oregon 1970
Constitutional change to allow tax aid
61-39

Idaho 1972
Bus transportation
57-43

Maryland 1972
Vouchers
55-45

Maryland 1974
Auxiliary services
56-43

Wash. State 1975
Constitutional change to allow tax aid
60-39

Alaska 1976
Constitutional change to allow tax aid
54-46

Missouri 1976
Auxiliary services
60-40

Michigan 1978
Vouchers
74-46

Wash. DC 1981
Tax code vouchers
89-11

California 1982
Textbook aid
61-39

Massachusetts 1982
Auxiliary services
62-38

Massachusetts 1986
Constitutional change to allow aid
70-30

South Dakota 1986
Textbooks
46-54 (our only loss)

Utah 1988
Tax code vouchers
79-30

Oregon 1990
Tax code vouchers
67-33

Colorado 1992
Vouchers
67-33

California 1993
Vouchers
70-30

Wash. State 1996
Vouchers
64-36

Colorado 1998
Tax code vouchers
60-40

Michigan 2000
Vouchers
69-31

California 2000
Vouchers
71-29

South Dakota 2004
Auxiliary services
53-47

Utah 2007
Vouchers
62-38

Florida 2012
Vouchers
55.5-44.5

Hawaii 2014
Vouchers
55-45

Arizona 2018
Vouchers
65-35

Larry Cuban, Teacher, superintendent, historian, questions the claim of Reeformers—in this case, Laurene Powell Jobs’ XQ Project—that High Schools Are obsolescent and have not changed in a century.

This is a claim shared by Betsy DeVos, Bill Gates, The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, and Jobs. It is foundational to the Reformers’ belief that major disruption is necessary and that they know what change is needed. Both assumptions should be questioned.

Cuban asks, first, is the claim true (probably not, since the high school has been transformed from an elite institution to a mass institution), and next, whether the changes proposed are the right ones. Good questions. A third, which he does not ask, if whether the agents of change have good ideas and what qualifies them to redesign the American high school other than their extreme wealth.