Archives for category: Segregation , Racial Isolation and Integration

Max Brantley is a fearless columnist in Arkansas who dares to disagree with the Waltons in their home state. Yes, there are such reporters who are unafraid to speak truth to the monied power that owns their state.

In this column, Brantley describes the latest ploy by the charter industry: They are opening charters that implicitly will serve as havens for white families that do not want their children to attend majority-black schools in Arkansas.

Brantley writes:

Then there’s Quest, to be run by a Texas private organization faulted in a national study by a charter school-friendly research outfit at Stanford for its poor performance with lower-end students. Not that those kind of students are really anticipated in western Little Rock. There’ll be a lottery for admission if demand exceeds seats, but with a pittance budget for transportation it will be a miracle if it doesn’t reflect the higher incomes and lower black percentages of the neighborhood elementaries potential Quest parents now attend. They don’t want to go to majority black/poor nearby middle schools with lagging test scores. Some are improving, Forest Heights, particularly, and there are plans to make it an academic magnet, but it’s a risk the parents are reluctant to take. Too bad, because it’s project-oriented model sounds truly innovative.

Innovation? Look at Quest’s application. It’s full of meaningless education-speak gobbledygook. It promises to “feel like a private school,” but be free. I think you and I both know what “feels like a private school” means. The application also says bluntly that, since the Little Rock deseg case is over, neither they nor the state needworry one bit about whether the kids they draw from the Little Rock school district  will add to segregation there or create a segregated publicly financed school surrounded by the dregs of truly public education.

Sixty years after the controversial Brown v. Board of Education, the charter industry has found a way to render it moot. Remember, it’s all for the children. That is, for some children.

In this article, Richard Rothstein is critical of high school textbooks–and of our media in general–for failing to identify the true causes of de facto segregation.

Either they barely mention the role of government in segregating neighborhoods by race or they imply that it happened naturally (de facto), without any government intervention.

He writes:

One of the worst examples of our historical blindness is the widespread belief that our continued residential racial segregation, North and South, is “ de facto ,” not the result of explicit government policy but instead the consequence of private prejudice, economic inequality, and personal choice to self-segregate. But in truth, our major metropolitan areas were segregated by government action. The federal government purposefully placed public housing in high-poverty, racially isolated neighborhoods (pdf) to concentrate the black population, and with explicit racial intent, created a whites-only mortgage guarantee program to shift the white population from urban neighborhoods to exclusively white suburbs (pdf). The Internal Revenue Service granted tax-exemptions for charitable activity to organizations established for the purpose of enforcing neighborhood racial homogeneity. State-licensed realtors in virtually every state, and with the open support of state regulators, supported this federal policy by refusing to permit African Americans to buy or rent homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. Federal and state regulators sanctioned the refusal of the banking, thrift, and insurance industries to make loans to homeowners in other-race communities. Prosecutors and police sanctioned, often encouraged, thousands of acts of violence against African Americans who attempted to move to neighborhoods that had not been designated for their race.

Rothstein compares our present moral blindness to the Truth and Reconciliation commission of South Africa that followed the end of apartheid.

Public policy must be built on a firm foundation of facing the past honestly, not by evasion or lies or indifference.

Blogger redqueeninla takes a hard look at what is happening to the schools and the children and asks the inevitable question: “Where’s the outrage?”

Why do parents tolerate classes with 50 students? Teachers can’t teach such large classes. Does anyone care?

Why does the media report calmly about self-enriching deals for corporate interests without treating it as a scandal?

Why do we ignore segregation of our most vulnerable children when we know it’s wrong?

She writes:

“And yet therein lies the irony. Reported anger does not register; only blandishments do. The means to move change are so hampered by our unwillingness to hear unpleasantness. We wrap up the old year and hope for betterment in the next, but we school ourselves to ignore what ought to be infuriating. Bad things – injustice, poverty, denied opportunities — are being meted out upon our very own children. As a parent, I see the structure of our society as intended to support this next generation. Why do we do any of what we do if not to provide opportunity for them? Opting for disengagement equates to sanctioning inequity. The most important accounting this new year could bring is an acknowledgement of the harm our complacency catalyzes. Let these lists infuriate you. Hear the anger and do not just shut it off. Demand an accounting with accountability.”

What should we do this new year?

Get angry. Demand an accounting.

Get active. Reject complacency.

Find allies. Make noise.

Defend the children. Defend their teachers. Defend their schools.

United, we have the power to make a difference.

The New York Times has a predictable editorial about gifted students, referring to PISA scores as evidence of failure and complaining that educators are not nurturing the talents of the best and brightest students.

What is notable about the editorial is what is missing:

1. Little to nothing about budget cuts that have devastated most state and district education budgets in recent years.

2. Little to nothing about the billions diverted to standardized testing, which does not encourage gifted students.

3. Nothing about the appalling poverty rates that crush the spirits of gifted students who are living in terrible circumstances. Perhaps the Times should think about their recent series about a homeless child (“Invisible Child”) in New York City, likely very gifted, but living in abject squalor.

4. Not a word about the resurgence of racial segregation, which dims the hopes of children of color.

5. Frankly, the editorial’s assumption that nations with the highest test scores contain the most gifted students is dubious. There is no evidence that the test scores of 15 year olds predict anything about the future economy or the future winners of Nobel prizes.

Once again, the New York Times editorial board demonstrates the limits and pitfalls of conventional wisdom.

Governor Chris Christie has made clear that he doesn’t like the public schools in his state. He calls them “failure factories,” as he campaigns for vouchers. (He is a graduate of Livingston High School.) He seems to despise public school teachers. He enjoys berating teachers, especially if they are female. He is one big, tough, strong guy who knows how to put down women.

Melissa Tomlinson is a public school teacher in New Jersey. She went to a Rally for Governor Chris Christie and she held up a sign.

Read this wonderful description on Jersey Jazzman’s blog of Melissa’s courage in confronting a bully.

Her sign said:

“I am a public school teacher.

“We are NOT failing our students.

“N.J. is ranked 3rd in the US.

“Christie’s refusal to finance public education is failing our students.”

She asked him: “Why do you portray our schools as failure factories?” His reply: “Because they are!” He said: “I am tired of you people. What do you want?”

So, the most powerful executive in the state of New Jersey treated this dedicated public school teacher with arrogance, rudeness, and disrespect. She didn’t back down. She had him cornered. She is right. He is wrong. Probably, he knows he is wrong, so he felt compelled to shout her down instead of engaging in civil dialogue.

Melissa Tomlinson was right that Governor Christie has underfunded the schools. He froze the spending that was supposed to be used to repair schools with leaky pipes and mold and crumbling facilities.

But Tomlinson was wrong about one thing: on the 2011 NAEP, New Jersey was second in the nation in reading, behind Massachusetts and tied with Connecticut. In math, New Jersey was second in the nation. Not third, but second.

The districts in New Jersey that are failing are the ones that are controlled by the state, some for decades. The state has no idea what to do other than to hand students and public funds over to private corporations.

As Julia Sass Rubin pointed out in an earlier blog today, the Christie administration has systematically underfunded districts that enroll children of color. It has stripped them of democratic governance. It has overloaded them with charters that skim the best students and increase segregation. Governor Christie praises charter schools that exclude children who have serious disabilities and children who don’t speak English. The state has embarked on a policy of separate and unequal for the districts that are powerless.

Governor Chris Christie should be ashamed of himself for his systematic neglect of the education of New Jersey’s most vulnerable children as well as his rude and disgraceful behavior towards public school teachers. He should stop his war against public education. It will not help him become president. It will be a huge liability.

Here is a blog in California. Governor Christie, your reputation as a bully is going national.

Los Angeles has decided that the best way to improve the language skills of students who don’t speak English is to segregate them with others who don’t speak Emglish.

A group of 17 principals objected to the plan to segregate English learners, Many teachers also opposed segregating the students by language.

Thousands of educators and parents oppose the new policy. “In recent weeks, a group of southeast L.A. principals have mounted a rare challenge to district policy, teachers have flooded their union office with complaints, and parents have launched protest rallies and petition drives urging L.A. Unified to postpone the class reorganizations until next year.

“Kids with little or no English are going to be segregated and told they’re not good enough for the mainstream,” said Cindy Aranda-Lechuga, a Granada mother of a kindergartner who gathered 162 parent signatures seeking a postponement and spoke against the policy at an L.A. Board of Education meeting last week. “Kids learn from their peers, and they’re not going to be able to do that anymore.”

“Marking the latest chapter in California’s fierce language wars, the furor over class placements for those learning English raises the controversial question of which is more effective: separating students by fluency level or including them in diverse classes. Critics are also upset that the change is coming two months into the school year, after students have bonded with classmates and teachers have developed classroom lessons and routines. Opponents blame the district and local schools for the disruption.

“Although the district adopted segregated classes as official policy for all schools in 2000, it has not been widely practiced or enforced, according to officials from both L.A. Unified and the teachers union.”

But that changed this year. L.A. Unified settled a complaint by the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which contended that the district had failed to provide adequate services to students learning English.

Katherine Hayes, the district’s chief research scientist, told teachers last week that district data show that students placed in classes with peers of similar language level progress more rapidly toward fluency than those in mixed-level classes. But she added that the question had not been widely studied and more research was needed.

Norm Gold, an independent educational consultant who has worked in the field of English language development for more than 35 years, said that although studies are mixed, they tend to skew toward separating students based on their English ability.

“My experience tells me, in addition to research, that there is an absolute necessity for doing this kind of grouping,” he said — adding, however, that students should be moved in a timely manner to new classes as their fluency improves.

 

Norm Gold, an independent educational consultant who has worked in the field of English language development for more than 35 years, said that although studies are mixed, they tend to skew toward separating students based on their English ability.

“My experience tells me, in addition to research, that there is an absolute necessity for doing this kind of grouping,” he said — adding, however, that students should be moved in a timely manner to new classes as their fluency improves.

Yes, we do know the secret of getting high test scores!

Exclude the kids who might get low scores.

Kick out the kids who do get low scores.

Only strivers need apply. Only strivers will be admitted.

It is the formula for a miracle school!

All children get high scores!

All children (who weren’t kicked out) graduate and go to college!

This s the golden dream of Race to the Top.

Cull the best, forget the rest!

Chentcher writes:

“Edweek has closed the comments on Bridging Differences!

On this very topic, Petrilli wrote a column today defending policies that “dump” the vast majority of inferior, undeserving needy students. He calls on today’s reformers to establish a mercilessly demanding environment like the one that once allowed a few exceptional, highly motivated and “deserving” negro students a straight and narrow path upward:
“Though relegated to second-class status and stifled at every turn, Dunbar produced a coterie of graduates that the most elite schools in the country would envy. Doctors, lawyers, Ivy League professors, generals, and titans of business all graced and were graced by Dunbar’s faculty and community.”

After waxing nostalgic for the Golden Age of segregation, Petrilli actually wrote these words:

“And this, of course, was in the Jim Crow era.
Dunbar later became a regular, de-tracked, “comprehensive” high school–and started its long slide. Would anyone argue that Washington, D.C., is better off as a result?”

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2013/10/the_especially_deserving_poor.html

I just want to say, with all my heart, yes. Please consider all that rose up, among the generations of “undeserving” poor children who gained access to our public schools. I want to say, a promise has been made that can’t be called back.

Anthony Cody has written a column in response, “Social Darwinism in the Gilded Age”
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/10/social_darwinism_resurrected_f.html

Comments have been closed on Cody’s blog, also! Diane, please link his column, and write about this where we can discuss it.”

Professor Mario Waissbluth of Chile wrote three blog posts
previously about Chile’s choice-based free-market schools (see
here
and here
and here).
Here he adds a fourth, summarizing the results of recent studies:

Previously,
I wrote in this blog a 3-part sequence describing the Chilean
educational system, its consequences, proposing some ways to run
away from this malignant design. Recently, Universidad de Chile
published the results of a survey on adult literacy and numeracy
skills, following the exact methodology of SIALS, the Second
International Adult Literacy Survey published in
1998.
  Within
the survey data, it is shown that 15 years ago, 45% of young people
in the segment between 15 and 24 years, i.e., the generation that
was graduating or recently graduated from high school, had no
comprehension of language and arithmetic… whatsoever, not even
the ability to read and understand a very simple text or balance a
checkbook. Today, this same age segment shows, tragically and
exactly, the same results. With one of the highest high school
attendances in the world, we now find that these young people spent
12 years sitting passively at a desk, not achieving improvement
even in their most basic skills.
 
Even worse, in the segment of higher
education graduates, only 10% show adequate or complete
understanding of prose and numeracy, similar to what happened 15
years ago. This is the result of market system debauchery and
completely unregulated exploitation of students who pay and/or get
indebted to obtain these spurious titles. So far, only 20% of
higher education programs, most of them for-profit, have some sort
of voluntary accreditation.
 
This does not happen by chance, it
is the result of a market-based educational model, with extreme
segregation based on academic and socioeconomic skimming,
curricular overload, with students spending most of their time
training as parrots to answer standardized tests, with public
education and the teaching career virtually demolished.The basic
organizational and financial rules of our model do not exist
anywhere in the world and are full of perverse incentives.
  We’ve been
hearing self-congratulatory messages from succesive governments for
more than fifteen years, with some people even traveling around the
world to brag about the “chilean model”. This failed model ran its
course, and it seriously threatens the future of millions of
people, as well as chilean labor productivity (stagnant for more
than a decade) and its international competitiveness. Time to
accept and embrace failure and change course.


When the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Louisiana’s voucher program, on grounds that it threatened to undermine court-ordered desegregation, Jindal went on a well-publicized rant against the DOJ, claiming politics. Suddenly, Jindal presented himself as a leader of he civil rights movement, trying to save poor black kids from failing public schools. His op-eds appeared in the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and other media. Shocking that the U.S. Department of Justice was upholding court orders intended to protect the roghts of black children!

Jeb Bush rushed to Jindal’s side, claiming that the voucher program was already showing amazing results. So did GOP leaders in Congress, including John Boehner.

Of course, none of this was true.

The courts in Louisiana said the funding for the voucher program was unconstitutional. So many voucher schools taught creationism and lacked qualified teachers that the voucher program made the state an international laughingstock.

The test scores of the students in the voucher schools were appallingly low, but, hey, there’s always next year.

Here Louisiana blogger CenLamar shows how cynical Jindal was.

He writes: here about Jindal’s claims:

“Unfortunately, that’s just not true. None of it. The truth is, from the very beginning, Bobby Jindal and John White worked with a group of highly-paid political consultants to market the voucher program, almost exclusively, to African-Americans. The Louisiana Black Alliance for Educational Opportunities (or LA BAEO) was created, seemingly out of thin air, by a national organization of conservative “school choice” activists, and they spent months touring the state and recruiting African-Americans to participate in the program, with very little understanding of the public schools they were attempting to disparage as “failures.” For example, about a year ago, I got into a Twitter exchange with one of LA BAEO’s principal consultants over remarks he had made about Peabody Magnet High School in my hometown of Alexandria. Peabody may not be an academic powerhouse, but it is a damn good school with an amazing campus and a deep connection with its community. But nonetheless, LA BAEO held town hall meetings in Alexandria in an attempt to convince parents to take their kids out of Peabody and, instead, enroll them in voucher schools. It didn’t seem to matter that the voucher schools in Central Louisiana are, with only a few exceptions, fly-by-night church schools with shoddy facilities, questionable finances, and uncertified teachers.

“See, the real issue– and how Bobby Jindal duped John Boehner– is that, on the whole, Louisiana’s voucher schools are significantly worse than the public schools. Jindal and Boehner both argue that Louisiana’s voucher program provides students with the opportunity to seek a “better education.” In reality, however, Louisiana’s voucher program is comprised, in large part, of unaccountable and completely unregulated schools, many of which rely on thoroughly discounted, ahistorical, and anti-scientific curricula.

“Last year, voucher students scored thirty points less on the LEAP test than their peers in public schools. Notably, while Superintendent White and Governor Jindal love to use test results as a way of gauging the performance of public schools, neither of them were willing to make the same argument against the dramatically worse performance of voucher schools.”

CenLamar sums up Jindal’s voucher program: “We’re not sending 91% of Louisiana’s voucher students to the best and most important voucher schools. This is not about integrating African-American students in traditionally and well-established and high-performing private schools; this is nothing to do with integration and almost everything to do with quietly re-codifying segregation.”

Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute was part
of a radio program that began with an interview of Secretary of
Education Duncan. Rothstein, who has written extensively about how
government policies created and preserved segregated neighborhoods,
was taken aback
by
what Duncan said. He called it “backsliding.”

Rothstein says that Duncan doesn’t understand why government must act
forcefully to promote integration.

He writes: “Integration is necessary for the success of black students, even if they never
have the opportunity to command white soldiers or hold jobs in
predominantly white enterprises. When African-American students
from impoverished families are concentrated together in racially
isolated schools, in racially isolated neighborhoods, exposed only
to other students who also come from low-income, crime-ridden
neighborhoods and from homes where parents have low educational
levels themselves, the obstacles to these students’ success are
most often overwhelming. In racially isolated schools with
concentrations of children from low-income families, students have
no models of higher academic achievement, teachers must pitch
instruction to a lower academic average, more time is spent on
discipline and less on instruction, and the curriculum is disrupted
by continual movement in and out of classrooms by children whose
housing is unstable.

“Social science research for a half century
has documented the benefits of racial integration for black student
achievement, with no corresponding harm to whites. When low income
black students attend integrated schools that are mostly populated
by middle class white students, achievement improves and the test
score gap narrows. By offering only a “diversity” rationale for
racial integration, Secretary Duncan indicated that he is either
unfamiliar with this research or chooses to ignore it.”