Archives for category: History

This story appeared in the Washington Post, by Haben Girma, a disability rights lawyer, author and public speaker.


I am Deaf-blind, and I almost missed my first lesson about Helen Keller. In second-grade U.S. history, my teacher scheduled Helen Keller’s story after a lesson in square-dancing. I remember my heart racing as I danced a do-si-do with my not-so-secret crush. So when our teacher told us about Keller, I was not-so-secretly distracted.

But throughout my schooling, snippets of Keller’s story would come back to me. I would turn to the nearest computer wondering: How did she . . . ? In high school, I finally read her books and marveled that she excelled in college before the Americans With Disabilities Act, before digital Braille and before, of course, the Internet. She pioneered through the world’s unknowns in a way that inspired me as I carved a path for myself. If my school hadn’t taught us about Keller, I might have do-si-do’d a different direction entirely. When I tell people about the path I did take — law studies at Harvard University and work as a disability rights advocate — they think back to their own lessons on Keller. Learning her story sparks something students carry with them into adulthood.

Last week, the Texas Board of Education took a step to remove Keller from the state’s social studies curriculum. The board preliminarily voted to update the K-12 curriculum by eliminating several historical figures, including Keller. Proponents said dropping the Keller lesson would save teachers 40 minutes. The board will make a final decision in November.

Spending 40 minutes annually to teach children about Keller is not just worthwhile but also imperative. The story serves as a gateway to conversations about disability and virtue. It introduces students to Braille, a tactile reading method that blind people have used since 1824. Children also learn about American Sign Language, a visual language developed by the Deaf community. Keller held her hand over another person’s to feel each letter as it was signed, then finger-spelled or voiced her response. She spent her life teaching people about the abilities of people with disabilities. She also advocated for women’s rights, racial equality and workers’ advancement. Keller wanted to make the world better for all of us.

Keller’s story provides an irreplaceable lifelong lesson of optimism, hard work and community inclusion. She labored over her studies, learning to read and write in multiple languages. She set high expectations for herself, gaining admission to Radcliffe College, the sister school to Harvard. Her teachers and friends converted books from print to Braille. She developed a community of friends and colleagues who welcomed her, finger-spelling and all. Successful people with disabilities such as Keller foster these inclusive communities. Disability itself is often not a barrier; the biggest barriers exist in the social, physical and digital environments.

People are dying waiting for disability. What’s taking so long?

In the last two years, nearly 19,000 Americans died waiting for disability. The wait has soared from around 350 days in 2012 to nearly 600 in 2017. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)
The techniques a Deaf-blind person uses to navigate those barriers in a sighted-hearing world fascinate students. Whenever I do presentations at schools, students express boundless curiosity about Keller’s story. How could she climb a tree? How did she read if she couldn’t see?

If Texas removes Keller’s story from the curriculum, when will non-disabled children learn about disability? Her story is too often the only disability story. Deleting Keller from the curriculum can mean deleting disability from the curriculum.

Of course, relying on a single story to represent the disability community is in itself a problem. The disability community is diverse, full of rich stories of talented people improving their communities. Students need to learn more about disability, not less. It touches all of our lives. Our bodies change as we age. Anyone can develop a disability at any point or witness a family member or friend do so. More than 57 million Americans have a disability. We number 1.3 billion worldwide — the largest minority group.

Teaching students about disability through the stories of people such as Keller prepares them to be better citizens, better friends and better family members. Keller’s optimism, hard work and commitment to justice inspire them to the same virtues.

Texas will make a final decision in November. We have time to educate the state’s Board of Education on the importance of keeping Keller in the curriculum. Keller herself would urge people to stay optimistic: “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement; nothing can be done without hope.”

Keller’s words have sparked movements in the past. Why not now?

Hillsdale is one of the most conservative colleges in the United States. It is one of the very few in the nation that refuses to accept any federal funding, not even for student aid. Betsy DeVos’s brother Erik Prince went to Hillsdale College.

Diane Douglas, the far-right extremist who is currently state superintendent of schools in Arizona, wants to replace the state’s academic standards with a set of standards developed by Hillsdale College.

Douglas came in third in a five-way Republican primary for state superintendent just weeks ago. The winner of the Republican primary was Frank Riggs, who was a Congressman in California and a major supporter of charter schools. The Democratic nominee is Kathy Hoffman, a teacher in Arizona. She is a speech therapist, age 32, who has worked in Arizona public schools for five years. If Riggs is elected, Arizona can expect more charter schools with no accountability or transparency. If Hoffman is elected, it will be a new day for education in Arizona.

This is Diane Douglas’s last effort to inject her Christian worldview into the curriculum in Arizona:

Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas wants to replace Arizona’s academic standards with a set linked to a conservative college in Michigan with connections to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Douglas is on her way out of office in January. She lost her bid for re-election in the Republican primary to Frank Riggs.

At Monday’s State Board of Education meeting, Douglas is scheduled to present a draft of standards developed by Hillsdale College’s charter school initiative. Hillsdale is a private, Christian college.

Standards are set by the state Board of Education, typically with input from local parents and educators, and guide what public district and charter school students are expected to learn at each grade level.

“(Douglas) believes they’re more robust than the ones that have been developed locally,” Michael Bradley, Douglas’ chief of staff, said.

Connections to Trump, Devos

The Hillsdale set, referred to as the “Barney Charter School Initiative’s Scope and Sequence,” would replace all Arizona academic standards. No other state appears to adhere to the Hillsdale standards. The Barney Charter School Initiative is a project out of Hillsdale that advances the founding of charter schools.

Hillsdale President Larry Arnn is a supporter of President Donald Trump, according to Politico. In 2013, Arnn drew criticism after, in comments to Michigan lawmakers, he said state officials visited Hillsdale’s campus to determine whether enough “dark ones” were enrolled.

Last year, U.S. Senate Democrats blocked a tax break they said was designed exclusively to benefit Hillsdale.

The DeVos family donates to Hillsdale, where the education secretary’s brother, Erik Prince, is an alumnus. Its student body has been designated the second-most conservative in the country, after the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas.

What are academic standards?

Academic standards are the state goals for what a child should know by the end of each grade level.

The state last changed its K-12 math and reading standards in 2016. It is currently revising its science, history and computer science standards.

The revision process is lengthy. The state board initiated the cumbersome process of revising its science and history standards nearly two years ago, according to Cassie O’Quin, an education department spokeswoman.

The Arizona Department of Education brought together experts, teachers, community members and parents to help develop the standards.

On Monday, the department will present the proposed standards. They are expected to be adopted by the state board in October, according to a state timeline.

Douglas’ move to throw out both the existing and the proposed new standards in lieu of an entirely new — and largely obscure — set of standards has puzzled some.

“I’m not sure why she’s doing this,” Carole Basile, dean of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University, said. “It’s kind of like, why these as the standards and why now?”

The Hillsdale standards include numerous differences from those currently in place. They also provide teachers week-by-week lesson prescriptions.

For instance, one of the first references to slavery in the Hillsdale standards is under a second grade Civil War section in a bullet point that reads, “controversy over slavery.” Slavery is first mentioned in the Arizona history standards draft in the fourth grade section.

There are more references to Christianity in the Hillsdale standards than in Arizona’s draft standards. Judaism and Christianity in the sixth grade Hillsdale plan are framed as “lasting ideas from ancient civilization.” One of the bullet points implies an exploration of “the nature of God and humanity” and under Judaism, “the idea of a ‘covenant’ between God and man…”

Bradley said the superintendent looked at standards across the country before settling on the Hillsdale set. He denied the accusations that the Hillsdale set are a curriculum rather than standards…

The move by Douglas drew criticism from Democratic superintendent candidate Kathy Hoffman, who on Facebook encouraged supporters to attend the meeting and protest Douglas’ presentation.

The standards, if adopted, she wrote, “Would be devastating to our students as they represent minimal learning requirements, do not account for different learning styles and would require a new curriculum. Furthermore, it would undermine the countless hours of work put in by teachers and experts.”

The state is at the tail end of reviewing its science standards.

In May, a draft of those proposed standards was circulated that had removed evolution wording.

The American Institute of Biological Scientists, a D.C.-based non-profit dedicated to the biological research advancement, published a letter Sept. 20 asking the State Board of Education to reject the proposed science standards.

Douglas tapped creationist Joseph Kezele, president of Arizona Origin Science Association, to assist in changing Arizona’s science standards in August, as first reported by the Phoenix New Times. The move ushered in a deluge of national criticism.

The Arizona Science Teachers Association, comprised of 1,200 members, criticized the draft science standards in a letter to the state board dated Sept. 20.

The changes in May include removing the word “evolution” in some areas and describing it as a “theory” in others.

In an email to The Republic in May, Douglas wrote, “Evolution is still a standard that will be taught under the Arizona Science Standards.”

A rally against those changes is planned outside the Arizona Department of Education building near the State Capitol before Monday’s board meeting. The Secular Coalition of Arizona is organizing the rally, along with other education advocates.

“It’s almost like a circus, what’s happening now,” Tory Roberg, director of government affairs for the Secular Coalition, said. “These are our children.”

Branch said the decision of an internal review board to revise references to the origin of species through natural selection seemed especially “deliberate” and “problematic” to scientists.

“The whole idea of how a new species can originate was lost in that revision,” he said. “That wasn’t careless. What (creationists) don’t like is the origin of a new species, because it implies that human beings share a common ancestry with other living things.”

Kevin Lee is an editor at Lagniappe and a native of Alabama. He recently visited the National Lynching Memorial (formally called the National Memorial for Peace and Justice) in Montgomery and explored Mobile’s history in that awful story.

He tracked the history of each victim of this brutality in Mobile, and the cumulative effect is powerful in reminding us of the depths of human depravity, the ultimate expression of racism, and man’s bottomless capacity for pure evil.

As the world learns again and again, then forgets, it is easy to overlook the deaths of hundreds or thousands or millions, yet impossible to turn away from the fate of individuals.

Denis Smith discovered a bizarre fact about Trump: he tears up documents that are supposed to be archived for future generations. The White House archivists empty his wastebasket and painstakingly tape together letters that were ripped apart or shredded.

Smith predicts that the Trump Presidential Library will be housed in a very small building.

Tom Ultican here reviews Johann Neem’s history of public schools in early America: “Democracy’s Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America.”

Neem, a historian of American education, is an immigrant to the United States from India. He attended public schools. He met students from many different background. From his own life experience, he understood the genius of public education in fostering a democratic culture.

Ultican found Neem’s history to be especially relevant in understanding debates today.

He reviews important topics in the book and sees how they relate to today’s battles over curriculum, pedagogy, religion, and charter schools.

He writes:

My main take away from this read is that in developing universal free public education in America the foundation for democracy was forged. That foundation is under attack today. Read this book and you will deepen and reinforce your own need to protect America’s public schools.

Elizabeth Warren sent a blast email today:

Here in Massachusetts, I love it when when people proudly come up to me and say, “I was with Jack Kennedy in 1960” or “I was with Teddy Kennedy in ’94.” The energy and passion hasn’t faded in their voices one bit – and it’s infectious.

But there’s something different about the way people say: “I was with Bobby in 1968.” Often it comes in a whisper. Some choke back tears. You can still see the hope – and the pain – in their eyes.

It always hits me like a punch in the gut.

Robert Kennedy’s life – and his brief, tragic campaign in 1968 – has had an enduring impact on so many generations of Americans. The reason, I think, is because Bobby had the courage to challenge a divided nation to face up to its own failings. To challenge a divided nation to acknowledge their own contributions to our nations’ problems. To challenge us to step back from the stale, cheap politics of the moment. To challenge us to do better by each other.

Bobby spoke about some of the issues that brought a lot of us to the fight over the past half century. Good jobs. Affordable housing. Investments in education.

But he also spoke at a moment when our people seemed divided beyond repair. With the credibility of our government in doubt, with neighbor pitted against neighbor, and our politics dominated by anger and resentment, America itself seemed to be falling apart at the seams.

Kennedy warned:

“[T]he essential humanity of men can be protected and preserved only where government must answer – not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, or a particular race, but to all its people.”

History may not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Things are different now, but a lot of the anxiety that swept through the country in 1968 echoes the anxiety of today. The anxiety felt by millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but feel the opportunity slipping away from themselves and their children. The anxiety felt by African American and Latino families that those opportunities never truly existed to begin with.

Half a century later, we face another moment of crisis – a crisis in our government, a crisis in our politics, and, indeed, a crisis in democracy itself.

You see it in the way this administration is trampling on the laws and traditions that are supposed to keep the most powerful in our country accountable to the people.

You see it in the cesspool of money and power that is our nation’s capital – those same billionaires and giant corporations gobbling down their huge new tax cuts, then spending millions of dollars on Super PAC ads and lobbyists to keep the game going.

You even see it in the way some politicians are working to rig our elections: gerrymandering and voter ID laws and Citizens United – it’s all designed to make sure we, the people, can’t hold them accountable.

When Bobby Kennedy was killed 50 years ago today, the promise of a different America – a better America – seemed to vanish. America continued down a dangerous road where the rich got richer, and everyone else got left behind. We became a country that said, “I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”

But that promise isn’t gone – not by a long shot. It’s not gone in the eyes of the people I meet who remember that campaign in 1968. It’s not gone in the children who pass by his photo with his big brother John at the Kennedy Library here in Boston. And it’s not gone in the millions of people – young and old, rich and poor, black, white, brown – who still believe that we can build a better future for our children and grandchildren.

Our democracy is fractured in deep and terrible ways. The darkness may seem all-encompassing. But I still believe in Bobby Kennedy’s tiny ripple of hope. I believe that history is shaped from numberless diverse acts of courage. And I believe that all of us together will write the history of this generation – and in doing so, continue to write the legacy of Bobby Kennedy for generations to come.

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

All content © 2018 Elizabeth for MA, All Rights Reserved
PO Box 290568, Boston, MA 02129
This email was sent to gardendr@gmail.com
We’ll miss you, but you can always unsubscribe.

Another twist in a very strange century.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went to visit the man convicted of assassinating his father. He believes there was another shooter.

At the time, it seemed open and shut.

It’s not.

This is a beautiful memory of a terrible time.

Please watch the YouTube video that Denis includes.

If you aren’t old enough to remember, you can’t imagine how sad it was.

From Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect. I get these missives almost daily from the American Prospect and they are invariably thought-provoking. Click here and you too can get a daily briefing (very short) from the American Prospect.

Meyerson on TAP

Paul Schrade: Not Just the Other Guy Who Was Shot in the Ambassador Kitchen. Today’s New York Times has a story on the 50th anniversary of Robert Kennedy’s murder, featuring interviews with Kennedy staffers and supporters. But the piece misidentifies Paul Schrade, who was also critically wounded when Kennedy was shot, as “a campaign aide” (in the caption) and doesn’t quite get it right in calling him “a labor organizer who worked on the campaign” in the text of the article.

It’s important to get Paul Schrade’s actual identity right, though—because he was a key figure in California and union history during the pivotal decade of the ‘60s.

As a young man, Paul had worked as an assistant to United Auto Workers (UAW) President Walter Reuther, who headed what today has to be viewed as by far the most important progressive union in American history. In the 1950s, Paul headed a UAW local at North American Aviation in Los Angeles, and became the UAW’s western regional director in the early 1960s. As such, he became, in 1965, the first established union leader to provide resources and assistance to the fledgling union of farmworkers that Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta were organizing. That same year, in the aftermath of the Watts Riots, he devoted union resources to establishing the Watts Labor Community Action Council and the East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), which became longstanding political powerhouses in LA’s black and Latino communities, respectively.

One year later, Paul put Chavez in touch with Robert Kennedy, who came to California to champion the farmworkers’ cause. Paul also opposed the Vietnam War early on—and when Kennedy declared his presidential candidacy in early 1968, Paul became his most prominent labor backer. By so doing, he also became the odd man out on the UAW’s national executive committee, on which he was by far the youngest member. Reuther certainly had profound misgivings about the war, and had helped form Negotiations Now, an organization that sought to bring the war to a halt but stopped short of advocating a unilateral withdrawal of U.S. troops. But Reuther was also an old friend and comrade of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, with whom he had founded Americans for Democratic Action in 1948. Humphrey was a solid liberal, but was tethered to Lyndon Johnson’s war policy and refused to break with it. Like most labor leaders, Reuther supported Humphrey’s presidential bid when Johnson announced in late March that he wouldn’t seek re-election.

The Kennedy-Humphrey rift between Schrade and Reuther was the UAW’s top-level, in-house version of the rift between the New Left and the Old. Over the next couple of years, Schrade grew more critical of UAW practices, and in 1970, Reuther’s successor as president, Leonard Woodcock, made sure that Paul wasn’t re-elected to the executive committee or the western regional directorship.

That hardly ended Paul’s work in and for labor. For some years, he returned to the assembly line; he also founded and led the California ACLU’s Worker Rights Committee and played a significant role in a host of worker causes. After the Ambassador Hotel (where Kennedy had been assassinated and Paul shot) closed down, he spent several decades leading the fight to build a badly needed high school on the site. That required defeating a number of other proposals, including one for a towering high-rise from Donald Trump. In time, Paul prevailed: The Robert F. Kennedy High School now stands where the Ambassador once stood. More controversially, Paul has also long believed that there was more than one shooter that June night 50 years ago in the Ambassador kitchen.

Paul’s sidelines are almost as interesting as his primary endeavors. He became an expert on Italian bread baking, and became a de facto consultant to LA’s tony La Brea Bakeries. A Wagner devotee, he made annual pilgrimages to Bayreuth. And as a longtime resident of Laurel Canyon, during one stretch in the ‘70s, his next-door neighbor on one side was Jerry Brown, and on the other side, Timothy Leary. ~ HAROLD MEYERSON

This article unintentionally explains where charter schools went wrong. When Shanker proposed the idea of charter schools in 1988, he thought of them as “schools within schools,” created by teachers and subject to both union rules and the school district. But it all changed when Minnesota passed the first charter law in 1992.

The article was written by Paul Peterson, the Harvard professor who supports charters, vouchers, and all kinds of choice. He is editor of Education Next. I have known Paul for many years (though I have not seen him for nearly a decade). I got to know him during my time as a member of the Koretz Task Force at the Hoover Institution from 1998-2008. He is a very genial man. I recall one night after a meeting at Hoover when David Packard (of Hewlett Packard) invited Paul and me to see the old-time movie theater that he purchased in Palo Alto. It was closed that evening, and he had the projectionist run a classic film for us. Then, as a treat, he had the old-fashioned organ rise from beneath the stage. Paul went onstage and played the organ, a talent he had developed many years earlier in church in Minnesota.

Paul writes in this article about the origins of the charter school. The article is titled, “No, Albert Shanker Did Not Invent the Charter School.” I was frankly happy to read it because I get tired of right-wingers pretending to be progressives and insisting that they are doing exactly what that esteemed labor leader recommended, and that charters are run by progressives and teachers.

Paul makes clear that Shanker’s vision of what a charter school should be was replaced by a very different vision in 1992.

Paul adds an interesting twist to the origins of the contemporary charter school idea. Shanker wanted charters to be authorized by schools and/or districts and subject to collective bargaining. But the first charter law was passed in Minnesota and its proponents were Joe Nathan (who often comments here) and Ted Kolderie. They wanted charter schools to be authorized by state entities, not limited to teachers or subject to collective bargaining, and to compete with public schools. Nathan and Kolderie won, and their model is the one that is dominant today. So now, instead of charter schools that are subject to school district’s needs and collective bargaining, we have corporate charter chains and charters opened by entrepreneurs.

Shanker wanted charters to serve as R&D for the public schools; he did not want them to undermine public schools. Nathan and Kolderie wanted them to compete with the public schools, according to Petersen. And now we have the most rightwing figures in American society–the DeVos family, the Koch brothers, and ALEC–fully embracing charter schools. They would never have tolerated or supported Shanker’s model. They want to use charters to smash public education as a public good.