Archives for category: Special Education
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Brookings Institution: What Project 2025 Means for Education

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2024 //
6

A group of scholars at the Brookings Institution analyzed Project 2025’s proposals for education and their implications.

What struck me as most bizarre about Project 2025 was not its efforts to block-grant all federal funding of schools, nor its emphasis on privatization of K-12 schools. (Block-granting means assigning federal funding to states as a lump sum, no strings attached, no federal oversight).

No, what amazed me most was the split screen between the report’s desire to hand all power over education to states and communities, and the report’s insistence on preserving enough power to punish LGBT students, especially trans students and to impose other far-right mandates, like stamping out critical race theory. You know, either you let the states decide or you don’t. The report wants it both ways.

It’s also astonishing to realize that the insidious goal of the report is eventually abandon federal funding of education. That’s a huge step backward, taking us to 1965, before Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whose purpose was to raise spending in impoverished communities. I essence, P2025 says that decades of pursuing equitable funding “didn’t work,” so let’s abandon the goal and the spending.

Here is the Brookings analysis:

Project 2025 outlines a radical policy agenda that would dramatically reshape the federal government. The report was spearheaded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and represents the policy aims of a large coalition of conservative activists. While former President Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, many of the report’s authors worked in the previous Trump administration and could return for a second round. Trump, himself, said in 2022, “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.”

In other words, Project 2025 warrants a close look, even if the Trump campaign would like Americans to avert their gaze.

Project 2025’s education agenda proposes a drastic overhaul of federal education policy, from early childhood through higher education. Here’s just a sample of the Project 2025 education-related recommendations:

  • Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
  • Eliminate the Head Start program for young children in poverty
  • Discontinue the Title I program that provides federal funding to schools serving low-income children
  • Rescind federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Undercut federal capacity to enforce civil rights law
  • Reduce federal funding for students with disabilities and remove guardrails designed to ensure these children are adequately served by schools
  • Promote universal private school choice
  • Privatize the federal student loan portfolio

It’s an outrageous list, and that’s just the start of it.

We’ve reviewed the Project 2025 chapter on education (Chapter 11), along with other chapters with implications for students. We’ve come away with four main observations:

1. Most of the major policy proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely amount of congressional cooperation

Project 2025 is presented as a to-do list for an incoming Trump administration. However, most of its big-ticket education items would require a great deal of cooperation from Congress.

Proposals to create controversial, new laws or programs would require majority support in the House and, very likely, a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate. Ideas like a Parents’ Bill of Rights, the Department of Education Reorganization Act, and a federal tax-credit scholarship program fall into this category. Even if Republicans outperform expectations in this fall’s Senate races, they’d have to attract several Democratic votes to get to 60. That’s not happening for these types of proposals.  

The same goes for major changes to existing legislation. This includes, for example, a proposal to convert funding associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to no-strings-attached block grants and education savings accounts (with, presumably, much less accountability for spending those funds appropriately). It also includes a proposal to end the “negotiated rulemaking” (“neg-reg”) process that ED follows when developing regulations related to programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The neg-reg requirement is written into HEA itself, which means that unwinding neg-reg would require Congress to amend the HEA. That’s unlikely given that HEA reauthorization is already more than a decade overdue—and that’s without the political baggage of Project 2025 weighing down the process.

The prospect of changing funding levels for existing programs is a little more complicated. Programs like Title I are permanently authorized. Eliminating Title I or changing the formulas it usesto allocate funds to local educational agencies would require new and unlikely legislation. Year-to-year funding levels can and do change, but the vast majority of ED’s budget consists of discretionary funding that’s provided through the regular, annual appropriations process and subject to a filibuster. This limits the ability of one party to make major, unilateral changes. (ED’s mandatoryfunding is more vulnerable.)

In sum, one limiting factor on what an incoming Trump administration could realistically enact from Project 2025 is that many of these proposals are too unpopular with Democrats to overcome their legislative hurdles.

2. Some Project 2025 proposals would disproportionately harm conservative, rural areas and likely encounter Republican opposition

Another limiting factor is that some of Project 2025’s most substantive proposals probably wouldn’t be all that popular with Republicans either.

Let’s take, for example, the proposed sunsetting of the Title I program. Project 2025 proposes to phase out federal spending on Title I over a 10-year period, with states left to decide whether and how to continue that funding. It justifies this with misleading suggestions that persistent test score gaps between wealthy and poor students indicate that investments like Title I funding aren’t paying off. (In fact, evidence from school finance reforms suggests real benefits from education spending, especially for students from low-income families.)

The phrase “Title I schools” might conjure up images of under-resourced schools in urban areas that predominantly serve students of color, and it’s true that these schools are major beneficiaries of Title I. However, many types of schools, across many types of communities, receive critical support through Title I. In fact, schools in Republican-leaning areas could be hit the hardest by major cuts or changes to Title I. In the map below, we show the share of total per-pupil funding coming from Title I by state. Note that many of the states that rely the most on Title I funds (darkest blue) are politically conservative.

[Open the link to see the map.]

Of course, the impact of shifting from federal to state control of Title I would depend on how states choose to handle their newfound decision-making power. Given that several red states are among the lowest spenders on education—and have skimped on programs like Summer EBT and Medicaid expansion—it’s hard to believe that low-income students in red states would benefit from a shift to state control.

What does that mean for the type of support that Project 2025 proposals might get from red-state Republicans in Congress? It’s hard to know. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that the GOP’s push for universal private school voucher programs has encountered some of its fiercest resistance from rural Republicans across several states.

3. Project 2025 also has significant proposals that a second Trump administration could enact unilaterally

While a second Trump administration couldn’t enact everything outlined in Project 2025 even if it wanted to, several consequential proposals wouldn’t require cooperation from Congress. This includes some actions that ED took during the first Trump administration and certainly could take again.

Here are a few of the Project 2025 proposals that the Trump administration could enact with the authority of the executive branch alone:

  • Roll back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students
  • Roll back Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination
  • Dismantle the federal civil rights enforcement apparatus
  • Eliminate current income-driven repayment plans and require higher monthly payments for low-income borrowers
  • Remove protections from predatory colleges that leave students with excessive debt

Federal education policy has suffered from regulatory whiplash over the last decade, with presidential administrations launching counter-regulations to undo the executive actions of the prior administration. Take, for example, “gainful employment” regulations that Democratic administrations have used to limit eligibility for federal financial aid for colleges that leave students with excessive loan debt. A second Trump administration would likely seek to reverse the Biden administration’s “gainful employment” regulations like the first Trump administration did to the Obama administration’s rules. (Then again, with the Supreme Court striking down Chevron, which provided deference to agency expertise in setting regulations, the Trump administration might not even need to formally undo regulations.)

Other Project 2025 proposals, not explicitly about education, also could wreak havoc. This includes a major overhaul of the federal civil service. Specifically, Project 2025 seeks to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order that Trump signed during his final weeks in office. Schedule F would reclassify thousands of civil service positions in the federal government to policy roles—a shift that would empower the president to fire civil servants and fill their positions with political appointees. Much has been written about the consequences of decimating the civil service, and the U.S. Department of Education, along with other federal agencies that serve students, would feel its effects.

4. Project 2025 reflects a white Christian nationalist agenda as much as it reflects a traditional conservative education policy agenda

If one were to read Project 2025’s appeals to principles such as local control and parental choice, they might think this is a standard conservative agenda for education policy. Republicans, after all, have been calling for the dismantling of ED since the Reagan administration, and every administration since has supported some types of school choice reforms.

But in many ways, Project 2025’s proposals really don’t look conservative at all. For example, a large-scale, tax-credit scholarship program would substantially increase the federal government’s role in K-12 education. A Parents’ Bill of Rights would require the construction of a massive federal oversight and enforcement function that does not currently exist. And a proposal that “states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents” would impose an enormous compliance burden on schools, districts, and teachers.

Much of Project 2025 is more easily interpretable through the lens of white Christian nationalism than traditional political conservatism. Scholars Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry describe white Christian nationalism as being “about ethno-traditionalism and protecting the freedoms of a very narrowly defined ‘us’.” The Project 2025 chapter on education is loaded with proposals fitting this description. That includes a stunning number of proposals focused on gender identity, with transgender students as a frequent target. Project 2025 seeks to secure rights for certain people (e.g., parents who support a particular vision of parental rights) while removing protections for many others (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racially minoritized children). Case in point, its proposal for “Safeguarding civil rights” says only, “Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.”

These types of proposals don’t come from the traditional conservative playbook for education policy reform. They come from a white Christian nationalist playbook that has gained prominence in far-right politics in recent years.

At this point, it’s clear that the Trump campaign sees Project 2025 as a political liability that requires distance through the election season. Let’s not confuse that with what might happen during a second Trump administration.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Disruption, Early Childhood Education, Education Industry, Elections, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Equity, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Extremism, Funding, Privatization, Religion, Republicans, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Special Education, Vouchers

Carl J. Petersen: Selecting a New Member for the Los Angeles School Board

By dianeravitch
October 22, 2024 //
6

The legendary Jackie Goldberg is retiring from the Los Angeles school board, which means there is an open seat. Carl J. Petersen, an LAUSD parent, sent questions to both candidates for the seat, but only one answered.

Petersen writes:

Karla Griego

LAUSD Board District 5 covers Northeast Los Angeles from East Hollywood to Eagle Rock and extends through Koreatown and Pico-Union to include much of Southeast L.A. (“SELA”) from Vernon to South Gate and also part of South LA. With its representative, Jackie Goldberg, taking a well-deserved retirement, a rare open-seat election is occurring in November.

As voters begin receiving their ballots, the two remaining candidates, Karla Griego and Graciela Ortiz, have been given one last opportunity to answer questions about issues facing the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Throughout the campaign, Ortiz has failed to answer questions sent to her as part of the LAUSD Candidate Forum series and this last set of questions were no different. Griego continued to participate and her answers to the first half of the questions can be found below:

  • According to the District, charter schools currently owe $3,003,768 in delinquent overallocation fees, some of this debt is several years old. How would you force the District to ensure that these debts are paid?

Charter Corporations should not be allowed to continue expanding while carrying outstanding debt to our district and our students. I would propose specific limits to their expansion and contract renewals until such debts are paid off.

  • After telling the LAUSD School Board for years that state law required the District to classify classrooms used to provide Special Education services as “empty” and are, therefore, available to be given away when providing space under PROP-39, the Director of the Charter School Division admitted this year that it was, instead, the policy of the district. As a result, some of our most vulnerable children were receiving these services in closets and stairwells. How should Jose Cole-Guitierez, Director of the Charter School Division, be held accountable for misleading the Board?

It is unconscionable that Charter corporations have deceived our districts’ decision-makers and that LAUSD has not yet held Charter companies accountable. In conjunction with the community schools model, schools should have the decision-making power to use their facilities to best benefit their students, and not be at risk of space being taken to expand or co-locate charters.

  • The LAUSD is required to have a Homeless Liaison for each school per the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act. What are the candidate’s positions on LAUSD partnering with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Homelessness Liaisons in Neighborhood Councils to notify our constituents about homeless services for students and their parents at their schools?

LAUSD should at the very least have a homeless liaison in each school, and be in communication with existing partners so that our students and their families are aware of homeless services available to them. But we need to do more. With rising housing costs in Los Angeles, LAUSD has the responsibility– and the ability–to address homelessness in creative ways that offer vital services to our students. This includes using vacant lots to build housing for our students and their families and partnering with community based organizations, city and county offices to address the homelessness crisis.

  • What statement(s) from the opposing campaign team would like to address?

My opponent claims that it is not her place to evaluate the Superintendent, her boss. I disagree. I believe that as an educator, and as a School Board member, it will be my responsibility to hold the Superintendent accountable to the students we serve and to the many qualified employees of the District. We need to focus on funding services for our students, not new digital platforms that no one asked for. We need to focus on serving our special education population, not overtesting our kids. We need to focus on providing enrichment, arts education, and mental health services to our students, not selling our kids out to more privately-run charters. We need to evaluate his decisions every step of the way, and demand better.

  • Given the rhetoric around cutting wasteful spending, please provide one specific part of the budget where you believe waste exists and how would you make cuts that would not affect the classroom?

It seems that there are too many high paid administrators at the District and Local District levels as well as contracts with outside consultants, marketing and testing companies. One of those contracts, the recent AI Bot named Ed, whose company filed for bankruptcy, is an example of expenditures that were made at the top level without stakeholder input.

  • One of the basic jobs of a School Board Member is to hire and fire the Superintendent. How should a Superintendent be evaluated?

Evaluation should be based on progress towards goals which are predetermined by the school board. These goals should be informed by stakeholder input and priorities. Beyond progress toward academic achievement, graduation and attendance, goals should include school climate and culture, safety, wellness and progress toward improving the overall educational experience of all of our students. Data toward these goals should be collected throughout the Superintendent’s tenure, to provide guidance and opportunities to make changes and improvements on actions designated to achieve these goals.

  • Nurses need equipment and the proper size office to care for students. Have all school Administrators established a HIPAA compliant Health Office where the nurse has confidential work space to talk with students, parents, staff members, and doctors regarding students health needs, reporting abuse or neglect? Do they have a private area to do procedures, other than in a bathroom which is not appropriate to do give a Insulin Injection, or to do a Gastronomy Tube feeding or to put the tube back into a student in a space large enough and as sterile or clean as possible?

I support equipping our nurses with the resources and facilities necessary at all schools to provide safe and secure health services to our students.

  • Do Special Education Centers and special day classes have a place in the District’s continuum of services. If not, why? If yes, what will you do to ensure that families have an ability to choose them during the IEP process?

Special Ed Centers and Special Day Classes should have a place in the District’s continuum of services. Although it is part of the IEP meeting discussion, it is not necessarily one that is delved into deeply. Sometimes parents do not understand the difference between programs and placements. An action step toward making this conversation meaningful and collaborative with the whole IEP team, is to provide information to help parents be aware of their rights. They must also be encouraged and empowered to participate in the meetings. An accountability piece is adding space in the IEP document that records the conversation; holding local regional meetings at least 4 times a year that informs and supports parents’/caregivers’ understanding of the IEP process, their rights and engagement in the process. Furthermore, this meeting would also inform families and students what various Special Education Programs are offered in the LAUSD.

  • There is a wide consensus that the IEP process has become increasingly adversarial. How will you ensure that parents are equal partners in guiding special education services?

Some of the first steps of action to remedy this, is to ensure that case carriers/teachers’ caseloads/class size is honored and respected. This way, teachers and case carriers can meet with family members to review the IEP process and meeting. Building relationships and respecting families/caregivers and approaching the IEP meeting from a place of compassion and understanding while centering the child’s needs, is critical to build trust. Meetings should include norms of collaboration that are agreed upon by the IEP team, which explicitly states that everyone on the team is an equal partner (although these norms exist, they are not always reviewed at IEP meetings.)

Additional responses from either candidate will be published as they are received. Griego’s previous participation in the LAUSD Candidate Forum Series can be found in the following articles: Special Education, PROP-39 Co-Locations, Student Safety, The Budget, Inclusion and Diversity, and Charter School Accountability.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Elections, Los Angeles, Parents, Special Education

John Merrow: Education and the 2024 Election

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2024 //
9

John Merrow spent many years as PBS’s education reporter. Now retired, he continues to be a well-informed and well-respected observer of education issues.

Merrow writes:

If Kamala Harris wins the Presidency, public education isn’t likely to be shaken up as much as it needs to be. If Donald Trump is elected and has his way, public education will be turned upside down. But no matter who wins, American higher education is in big trouble….although, as you will see, every crisis is also an opportunity.

If Trump wins in November, the world of education faces rough seas.  His “Project 2025” pledges to abolish the federal Department of Education, without specifying what agencies would be responsible for what the Department now does, such as enforcing civil rights laws in education.  “Project 2025” pledges to abolish Head Start, the preschool program that now serves about 833,000 low income children, send Title One money directly to states (while phasing it out over a 10-year period), and turn over Pell Grant administration to the Treasury Department.   While many in education want the Pell Grant cap of $7,395 per year to be raised (given the cost of a college education), “Project 2025” does not address this.

President Biden has made forgiving student debt a goal, but most of his efforts have been stymied by the courts. “Project 2025” would end the practice completely.

Trump and his team promise to advance “education freedom” by vigorously promoting “school choice.”  In practice, this would provide parents with cash vouchers that can be spent at private and religious schools, as well as federal tax credits for money spent on private school tuition. In simplest terms, Trump and his team want as much of the money that now goes to public schools to go to parents instead, and they want it to be tax-deductible, as it now is in Arizona. 

“Project 2025” calls for restricting free breakfast and lunch to low income students. Doing that would probably bring back separate lines and separate entrances for those paying and those eating ‘for free.’  That practice led some poor kids to skip meals entirely, to avoid humiliation, which is why many school districts have opted to feed all kids. (There’s some evidence that feeding everyone is actually cheaper, because it eliminates the need for special passes, separate accounting, and so forth. Ask Tim Walz about it.)

A significant change that I experienced as a reporter was the treatment of children with handicapping conditions.  Prior to 1975, many of those children were institutionalized or kept at home. “The Education of All Handicapped Children Act” (PL 94-142) moved the revolution that had begun in Massachusetts and Minnesota to the national level. While it’s not perfect today, the federal government contributes more than $14 Billion to pay for services for those youngsters.  “Project 2025” would distribute the money to states directly with few if any strings attached and would ask Congress to rewrite the law so that some money could go directly to parents. That doesn’t seem to me to be a step in the right direction.

All of these provisos and directives seem likely to do major damage to public education, as well as to the life chances of low income students.

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run schools, seem unlikely to fare well no matter who wins. They aren’t private enough for most Republicans, and they are too private for most Democrats.

What lies in store for education if Harris wins in November?  The Biden-Harris Administration promised far more than it delivered, particularly in higher education, and its Secretary of Education has been largely missing in action, as far as I could tell. The party’s platform calls for free pre-school, free public college for families earning under $125,000 per year, making college tuition tax-deductible, smaller classes, and more ‘character education,’ whatever that is.

My own wish list would be for an energetic Secretary of Education who would encourage and lead conversations about the purposes of education, and the roles that schools play.  Too often today public schools are merely rubber-stamping the status children arrive with; but schools are supposed to be ladders of opportunity, there to be climbed by anyone and everyone with ambition.

The federal government cannot change how schools operate, but its leadership could and should shine a bright light on what schools could be….and how they could get there.

If I am allowed one wish, it’s that President Harris and Vice President Walz propose National Service, a 2-year commitment for all, in return for two years of tuition/training.  It’s long past time to put the ‘me-me-me’ self-absorption of the Ronald Reagan era in our rear view mirror. Our young people need to be reminded that they live in a great country and ought to show our appreciation by serving it in some capacity.

Whoever wins, Harris or Trump, American higher education’s rough years will continue, because a growing number of young people are questioning the value of, and necessity for, a college education.  This is a genuine crisis, and American higher education is in the fight of its life: Last year nearly 100 colleges shut down, roughly two per week.  While we still have more than 4,000 higher education institutions, many of those may not make it to 2030.  The rising cost of college defies common sense, the rise of Artificial Intelligence threatens some professions that now require a college degree, and many young people seem inclined to opt out of the high-speed, high stakes chase for a credential.  How many of the 31,000,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 will continue to enroll in college this year and next is an open question.  

Of course, colleges aren’t standing pat. For example,  Community Colleges are reaching down into high schools to keep their enrollment up; about one-fifth of all current Community College students are also enrolled in high school. Those institutions also enroll lots of older students–the average age of a Community College student is 28.

Four-year colleges and universities are fighting to enroll the 40,000,000 Americans who have some college credits but not enough for a degree.  They are also doing their best to attract on-line learners of all ages, and the most ambitious institutions are working hard to enroll (full paying) students from all over the world.  

If Trump wins, his immigration policies might shut the door on foreign students, a cash cow for a large number of institutions.  If Harris wins, federal aid probably won’t be slashed, but that won’t stop the questioning.

Questioning is long overdue. For too long elitists in the Democratic and Republican parties have looked down their noses at those not going to college, ignoring the wisdom of the great John Gardner:  “An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”

Every crisis is also an opportunity:Some of those shuttered college campuses might be repurposed for housing for senior citizens, or veterans.  Some of those facilities could become Head Start centers, hubs for small businesses, community hospitals, and so forth. I’d like to see a Harris-Walz Administration embrace the possiblities, with energy and imagination.

So please pay attention. Vote intelligently, and urge your friends and neighbors to vote.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Democracy, Democrats, Deregulation, Education Reform, Elections, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Funding, Harris, Kamala, Higher Education, Republicans, Special Education, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. education

Nancy Bailey: Project 2025 Will Hurt Students with Disabilities

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2024 //
2

Nancy Bailey, retired teacher and veteran blogger, explains how Trump’s Project 2025 will strip away the federally-guaranteed rights of students with disabilities.

She writes:

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 is generally troubling, and its education plan is worrisome. It involves Milton Friedman’s undemocratic ideas to privatize public education, and its voucher plan for students with disabilities will continue to end public school services as we know them.

Project 2025 will eliminate the costs and hard-fought legal protections for children with special education needs instead of strengthening the public school programs.

The All Handicapped Children Education Act

Since its start in 1975, The All Handicapped Children’s Education Act, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has opened public schools to children with disabilities. Before then, children had limited services, and many were mistreated in poor institutions.

The momentous passage of this act was a proud moment for America! For years afterward, public education focused on improving education for students with disabilities.

However, many politicians and policymakers have worked to undermine these school programs, believing this law is too expensive or wanting to privatize those services.

They reauthorized the Act in 1997 and 2004, when it changed to IDEA. They shuttered long time programs, turning a blind eye to states and local school districts that have pushed children out of services.

Consider how Texas officials denied children services for years, as did New Orleans  by converting public schools to charters after Hurricane Katrina. Those reading this might have their own examples of how their local schools reneged on the necessary services.

In these cases the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) did not perform due diligence to stop states from rejecting students. A stronger federal department should have ensured that students who needed disability services got them.

As disability services have been whittled down throughout the years, parents have become increasingly frustrated with public schools and convinced they should remove their students with a voucher, even though other school options lack accountability and are often less than ideal.

Project 2025 is correct that there are too many lawsuits by parents unhappy with public school programs, but without public schools, parents will have no rights!

Please open the link and read the post in full to learn how Project 2025 will hurt the most vulnerable children.

Categories Bigotry, Education Industry, Elections, Equity, Ethics, Extremism, Special Education, Trump

Florida: Should These Children Live or Die?

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2024 //
7

Scott Maxwell, columnist for The Orlando Sentinel, wrote about the state’s callous indifference to the neediest of the state’s children. These are the children who are not included in Ron DeSantis’s commitment to “right to life.” He cared about them when they were fetuses but neglects them now. Their lives don’t matter.

Maxwell writes:

Last week, the Orlando Sentinel shared a gut-wrenching story about the parents of some of this state’s sickest children either losing Medicaid coverage or bracing for losses.

Keep in mind: We’re not talking about kids with sniffles and headaches, but toddlers with traumatic brain injuries who need feeding tubes, wheelchairs and round-the-clock care. And kids who are nonverbal with challenges so severe that their parents take days off work just to care for them.

They are Florida’s most vulnerable residents.

The story was depressing, yet merely the latest in a long string of stories about various vulnerable populations. Consider other recent headlines:

https://mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2022/10/31/thousands-of-disabled-floridians-waiting-years-to-get-off-wait-list-for-help

https://www.wfla.com/8-on-your-side/just-help-me-get-my-kid-services-tampa-boy-with-autism-among-460k-florida-kids-kicked-off-medicaid/

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/670068-more-than-22k-children-dropped-from-florida-kidcare-in-2024-as-state-challenges-federal-eligiblity-protections/

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/15/1163617435/florida-is-1-of-11-states-declining-to-accept-federal-money-to-expand-medicaid

That last headline was actually from last year. Now, we’re one of only 10 states rejecting billions of federal dollars meant to help struggling families.

Each of those stories has its own complexities involving different segments of families in need. But I submit the common theme boils down to a single, soul-defining litmus test:

When you see a paralyzed or terminally ill child or an impoverished family, you either believe we have a collective, societal obligation to help them … or you don’t.

I submit this state has too many of the latter in charge. And too many people who just breeze past the dire headlines, because they have the luxury of doing so. Because they aren’t personally affected.

Like many of you, I was dealt a relatively good hand in life. My wife and I are healthy. So are our kids. But I still believe we have an obligation to care for those who aren’t, particularly those who can’t care for themselves.

I think most people agree. On tough issues — like abortion, taxes or the death penalty — reasonable people can reach different conclusions. But throughout time, most civilizations have agreed on this point.

In Florida, however, the state leaves children born with severe disabilities — without the ability to feed themselves or ever live on their own — languishing on waiting lists for services. The average wait is seven to 10 years. Some kids die before they’re served.

Again, either you think that’s OK or you don’t. The leaders of this state haven’t fully funded that Medicaid waiver program since Jeb Bush was in office.

Now, if you’re healthy and wealthy, the term “Medicaid waiver” may be unfamiliar. The health care landscape is littered with a dizzying array of jargon. There are Medicaid waivers, iBudgets, the Medikids program, Healthy Kids, the Children’s Medical Services Health Plan.

It all makes most people’s eyes glaze over. But each program serves a different population and has two common themes: Most are incredibly difficult to navigate. And most leave many people struggling to get the services they need … often by design.

Nowhere is that more evident than in this state’s steadfast refusal to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid.

The expansion was created under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage to millions more low-income Americans and hundreds of thousands more Floridians. A slew of organizations and think tanks have said Florida should do so for both moral and economic reasons.

Health care experts say it would save lives. Hospitals say it will create jobs. The Florida Chamber of Commerce says it will boost our economy by tens of billions of dollars.

GOP lawmakers, however, have steadfastly refused — as part of a decade-long tantrum against “Obamacare.” To hell with those who need coverage and for whom the money is there. These politicians say they’re unconvinced the program will work or that the state’s costs won’t rise.

But remember: Florida Republicans are an outlier. The vast majority of states — including dark red ones led by hard-core conservative leaders — have already accepted the money.

“It’s pro-life, it’s saving lives, it is creating jobs, it is saving hospitals,” Arizona’s former governor, Jan Brewer, said when she took the money back in 2013. “I don’t know how you can get any more conservative than that.”

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said: “We’re a compassionate state, and we’re not going to leave 220,000 people without some recourse.”

Florida Republicans, however, are fine with abandoning those low-income people. And sick kids. And those with profound disabilities. Re-read the headlines.

After reading all this, if you believe this state should do better by its most vulnerable residents, do me a favor, will you? Don’t send me an email telling me you agree. While I enjoy hearing from readers, I’m not the one who needs to hear this.

Send your thoughts to your state legislators. Or to the House speaker or Senate president. (Their contact info can be found at www.leg.state.fl.us) Or use the governor’s website at www.flgov.com/email-the-governor to share your thoughts there.

You can also ask them some basic questions.

Ask them if they believe it’s acceptable for 22,000 families with profound disabilities to face a 7- to 10-year wait for getting Medicaid waivers.

Ask if they believe the state did the right thing by removing 1.3 million people, including families with terminally sick children, from the state’s Medicaid roll.

Or just copy all those headlines above and ask: “Do you really believe all of this is OK?”

I’d like to believe most decent people don’t. But the headlines keep coming.

Categories DeSantis, Ethics, Florida, Health, Special Education

Arizona: Parent Learns That “School Choice” Means “Schools Choose”

By dianeravitch
February 23, 2024 //
35

Pamela Lang, a journalist and graduate student in Arizona, wrote for The Hechinger Report about her futile search for a school that would enroll her son, who has special needs. Despite Arizona’s budget-busting voucher program, she and he were turned away again and again. It’s time for her to check out her local public school, where her son would get the services he needs and he could not be rejected.

Please read her account.

If you live in Arizona, school choice may be coming to your neighborhood soon. As someone who has had more school choice than I know what to do with, I can tell you what may feel like a shocking surprise: Private schools have the power to choose, not parents.

I live in Phoenix, where the nearby town of Paradise Valley is getting ready to offer the privatization movement’s brand of choice to families. The district has indicated that it will likely vote to close four public schools due to insufficient funds. If this happens, other districts will probably follow: The state’s recent universal voucher expansion has predictably accelerated the diversion of money from public to private schools.

Arizona approved use of school choice vouchers, called Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, or ESAs, in 2011 on the promise that they were strictly for children with special needs who were not being adequately served in the public school system. The amount of funds awarded to qualified students was based on a tiered system, according to type of disability.

Over the years, the state incrementally made more students eligible, until full expansion was finally achieved in 2022. For some students, the amount of voucher money they qualify for is only a few thousand dollars, nowhere near enough to cover tuition at a private school. Often, their parents can’t afford to supplement the balance. However, my son, who is autistic, qualified for enough to cover full tuition.

I took him out of public school in 4th grade. Every school I applied to seemed to have the capability to accommodate his intellectual disability needs but lacked the willingness. Eventually, I found a special education school willing to accept him. It was over an hour from our home, but I hoped for the best. Unfortunately, it ultimately was not a good fit.

I then thought Catholic schools would welcome my son, but none of them did. One Catholic school principal who did admit him quickly rescinded the offer after a teacher objected to having him in her class.

The long list of general, special-ed, Catholic and charter schools that turned my son away indicate how little choice actually exists, despite the marketing of ESA proponents.

There was a two-year period where I gave up and he was home without social opportunities. I was not able to homeschool, so a reading tutor and his iPad became his only access to education.

I then tried to enroll him in private schools for students with disabilities.

These schools were almost always located in former office suites in strip malls with no outdoor access. My son’s current school shares space with a dialysis center in a medical building, while a former school was located in a small second-floor suite in a Target plaza.

Once a private school admits your child, they can rescind admission without cause. Private schools are at leisure to act as virtual dictatorships, and special-ed schools in particular are notorious for keeping parents at a distance…

Education is a human right, and public schools, open to all, are the guardians of this right. What privatizers call choice does not really exist.

Please open the link and read the article in full.

Categories Arizona, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Competition, Education Industry, Extremism, Failure, Fraud, Hoax, Parents, School Choice, Special Education, Students, Vouchers

Houston: Teachers of Special Ed and Bilingual Ed Object to Standardized Curriculum

By dianeravitch
October 31, 2023 //
15

In Houston, the backlash against the authoritarianism of state-imposed superintendent Mike Miles continues to grow. Teachers of special education and bilingual education don’t like the standardized curriculum.

If I’m focused on what’s happening in Houston, there are two reasons:

1. I’m a graduate of the Houston Independent School District, and I don’t like to see it under siege by a know-nothing Governor and his puppet state superintendent.

2. This state takeover demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of state takeovers. It was concocted out of whole cloth, on the claim that one school in the entire district was “failing.” Before the takeover, that school—Wheatley High School—received a higher score (based on state tests) and was no longer “failing,” but the state took over the entire district anyway. So Houston is a national example of the vapidness of “education reform,” meaning non-educators like Miles, Governor Abbott, and State Chief Mike Morath telling professional educators how to do their jobs.

Anna Bauman of The Houston Chronicle writes:

A cornerstone of the New Education System introduced by Superintendent Mike Miles is a highly specific and rigorous instructional model.

As many students and teachers know by now, the system includes a standardized curriculum provided by the district, frequent classroom observations and grade level materials. Each day, teachers in core classes provide direct instruction for 45 minutes, give students a timed quiz and then split the children into groups based on their understanding of the lesson, with struggling learners getting more help from their teacher.

Miles says the model is meant to improve academic achievement, especially among student populations whose standardized test scores often lag behind their peers, and has disputed any claims that the system fails to accommodate the diverse needs of students.

In conversations over recent weeks, however, seven teachers at five different schools told me they are struggling to meet the needs of children with disabilities or emergent bilingual studentsbecause the model is too rigid, fast-paced and inflexible to provide accommodations for these learners.

For example, one teacher at an NES-aligned campus told me she cannot realistically give students extra time, a common accommodation for special education students, on the timed Demonstration of Learning. If she lags behind schedule, administrators will enter her classroom and demand: “Why aren’t we where we’re supposed to be?”

A teacher at Las Americas Newcomer School, home to many refugee and immigrant students, said district officials instructed educators to remove alphabet posters from their classrooms and limit the use of dictionaries, which many non-native English speakers rely on during class.

“Many of them, it’s their first year being in school. They don’t know the language. I have a classroom with at times four different languages spoken. And we’re forced to do the same slides and the same work as a regular, general education school,” the teacher said.

Only time will tell whether the new system will boost academic achievement as Miles intends, but for now, teachers are speaking out because they are concerned about doing what is right for their most vulnerable students.

“When I go home at night, I want to know when I put my head down on my pillow that I did the best I could by my kids,” said Brian Tucker, a special education teacher at Sugar Grove Academy.

You can read more in-depth about these issues in separate stories published this week about special education students and English language learners.

 

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reform, Curriculum, Education Industry, Education Reform, English Language Learners, Extremism, Failure, Houston, Special Education, Stupid, Teachers, Texas

South Dakota: A Catholic School Parent Explains Why He Opposes Vouchers

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2023 //
50

Kevin Woster, a veteran journalist in South Dakota, explains here why he opposes vouchers, even though he sent his own children to Catholic school and appreciated the education they got there.

He notes that the South Dakota legislature considered vouchers and did not pass them but he is sure that the issue will be back again for debate.

He and his wife made the right decision by sending their children to Catholic schools, but he nonetheless thinks it would be wrong to take public money for private schools.

He believes that public money should not be used to fund private schools.

It’s public money, for public schools. And the commitment and responsibility to provide a free public education isn’t a new idea. It’s a constitutional idea, as in the South Dakota Constitution, which reads in part:

“The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.”

And as taxpaying citizens, it’s our duty to support that system of free public schools.

Making your choice with your checkbook, not public money

Just because my first wife, Jaciel, and I decided to send our kids to a Catholic-school system didn’t mean we were absolved of our responsibilities as citizens to support public schools. You don’t stop being a citizen because you decide to become a private-school parent. You are both. You must be both.

It would be wrong, he believes, to weaken the public schools for the benefit of those who have made private choices.

Categories Catholic Schools, Citizenship, Democracy, Funding, Religion, School Choice, South Dakota, Special Education, Supporting public schools, Vouchers

Wisconsin: Voucher Schools Openly Discriminate Against LGBT Students and Students with Disabilities

By dianeravitch
May 10, 2023 //
2

A nonpartisan journalism project called Wisconsin Watch released an alarming report about voucher schools that openly discriminate against LGBT students and students with disabilities. State law requires them to admit all who apply but not to enroll those from these disfavored groups.

State law for public schools prohibits discrimination on these very same grounds. In other words, public schools may not discriminate against these two groups, but publicly-funded voucher schools may and do.

Among the voucher schools, discrimination against gay students and families is usually on religious grounds. Voucher schools may exclude students with disabilities for any reason, such as lack of staff or resources.

Wisconsin has funds 52,000 students in 373 private voucher schools, or 6% of all students in publicly funded schools. This year the state spent $444 million on vouchers. “About one-fifth of voucher schools have 90% or more of their students on vouchers, what one scholar describes as “private in name only.” Republicans want to expand voucher availability by removing any limits, so that public funds underwrite tuition for rich kids.

Wisconsin is considered the birthplace of the “school choice” movement. The nation’s first publicly funded private voucher program began in Milwaukee in 1990. Initial restrictions, such as limiting vouchers to secular schools, have disappeared as the program has expanded. Today, 32 schools — including at least one with an anti-LGBTQ+ stance — have their entire student bodies on publicly funded vouchers.

Legal discrimination against students who are LGBTQ+ or have disabilities results from a lack of state-level protections; a federal exemption that allows religious entities to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students and another that requires schools taking federal funds to make only minor adjustments for students with disabilities; and a state education agency constrained by punctilious rules and decades of litigation.

One of the cardinal goals of publicly-funded education is equal opportunity for all. In voucher schools, it’s equal opportunity for some. We are reminded once again that “school choice” means SCHOOLS CHOOSE.

Categories Bigotry, Cruelty, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Privatization, School Choice, Shame, Special Education, Vouchers, Wisconsin

Florida Vouchers: A Multi-Billion-Dollar Hole in the Budget

By dianeravitch
April 5, 2023 //
7

The Florida legislature passed a universal voucher plan, meaning that the state will subsidize the tuition of every student, no matter their family income, Rich or poor. The state will hand out subsidies to rich families whose children go to elite private schools. All money deducted from public schools. Short-sighted and stupid, a giveaway to families who can afford private schools.

Currently, there are more than 400,000 students enrolled in private schools. About 80,000 may already have a voucher. Now, even those attending an exclusive school will be subsidized by the state. Homeschoolers will also be subsidized by the state, at least 20,000 in the fumigation year.

Most of the schools that take vouchers are religious and most are not accredited.

Likely new cost: 320,000 students already enrolled in private schools without a voucher plus 20,000 homeschooled kids x $7,800=$2.65 billion. And that’s without a single student now in public school asking for a voucher. A realistic estimate for the annual cost of Florida’s universal voucher would be at least $3 billion a year.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priotities notes that the Florida voucher funding is designed to reduce the funding of public schools, which currently enroll about 80-85% of the state’s children:

While voucher programs are often funded as line-item appropriations in state budgets or through private donations (which over time reduces the revenues available for education and other state priorities), this Florida voucher is actually designed to take money away from the state K-12 funding formula designated for public school districts.

Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel says that Florida’s universal voucher program is likely to blow a billion-dollar hole in the state budget. As I pointed out above, $1 billion is a low estimate. That hole in the budget will be closer to $3-4 billion, when you include the students whose parents can already afford to pay tuition.

He writes:

Florida lawmakers are about to take the biggest educational gamble in American history — financed with your tax dollars.

They want to offer every child in Florida the chance to use publicly funded vouchers at private schools that have virtually no regulation and offer no guarantee that the students will get educated.

Florida’s existing network of voucher schools is so infamously unchecked that the Orlando Sentinel has found schools employing teachers that don’t have high-school diplomas themselves. Some refuse to serve children with disabilities or gay parents. Others were such financial wrecks that they shut down in the middle of the school year, stranding students.

Flaw #1:

Voucher schools in Florida are unregulated. They can hire teachers who are not certified. They can hire teachers who never finished college. Voucher schools do not take state tests. They need not disclose their graduation rate or their curriculum. They are not overseen by state officials. Some voucher schools ignore safety codes, because they are not required to comply with them. The Orlando Sentinel conducted an investigation called “Schools Without Rules,” demonstrating that voucher schools take tax money without any oversight, transparency or accountability.

Flaw #2:

Voucher schools operate in secrecy. They are not required to report anything to the state.Not test scores, graduation rates, SAT scores, or anything else. Florida is operating on the principle of “Trust But Don’t Verify.” Public schools are held to tight accountability requirements. Voucher schools, none at all. If accountability is good for public schools, why is it unnecessary for voucher schools?

Flaw #3:

Voucher schools can discriminate against any group. Unlike public schools, voucher schools can discriminate on any grounds. They don’t have to accept students with disabilities, gay students, students who don’t speak English, or students from a religion they don’t like.

Flaw #4:

Legislators think that choice is the only accountability needed. If a parent is unhappy, make a different choice. The only choice that parents do not have is to stop paying their tax dollars to fund this sector.

There is another grievous flaw:

The Florida voucher program reduces funding for the schools that the overwhelming majority of students attend. Why does this make sense?

Maxwell says there are good voucher schools, and they should have no objection to accountability, transparency, and oversight. Maxwell recommends the following fixes for the state voucher program.

All voucher-eligible schools should be required to:

  1. Publish graduation rates and nationally accepted test scores.
  2. Hire teachers who are certified or at least have a college degree.
  3. Disclose all the curriculum being taught.
  4. Ban discrimination. (If discrimination is a key tenet of a religious organization’s belief system, they should fund that discrimination with their own money. Any group that receives public dollars should serve all the public.)

Maxwell does not address the two glaring defects of the voucher program:

1. 75-80% of the students who take vouchers already attend private schools. Why is it in the interest of Florida to pay their tuition?

2. About 60% of the students who switch from a public school to a voucher school will drop out within two years. The vast majority of voucher studies conclude that students lose ground academically when they take a voucher. Shouldn’t parents be warned of the risk that they are taking by accepting a voucher?

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Budget Cuts, Civil Rights, Corruption, Democracy, Deregulation, DeSantis, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Florida, Funding, Privatization, Republicans, Special Education, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »