Archives for category: Texas

The prospects for vouchers just got dimmer in Texas. Parent organizations and Pastors for Texas Children are among the many groups that have stood strong against vouchers, and their hard work has stopped vouchers again and again. It was an uphill battle, because Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (a former talk show host, the Rush Limbaugh of Texas) is a voucher fan, and he had a solid bloc of support in the State Senate. Each time the Senate passed a voucher bill, a bipartisan coalition killed it in the House, where rural Republicans joined with urban Democrats. Some key Republican leaders in the House are strong supporters of the public schools because of their own experience, either as school leaders or parents or active community members.

The recent election sent some voucher supporters in the Senate to defeat. As a result, the voucher issue has lost steam. Beto O’Rourke lost his bid for the U.S. Senate, but his campaign energized campaigns at the state level.

This story appeared in the Austin Statesman:

The issue of private school vouchers — shifting public education dollars to private school tuition — once a priority of conservative state lawmakers from suburban districts, seems destined for the back burner during the coming legislative session.

At least a half-dozen more opponents to the idea were elected this month, amid widespread Democratic gains. In past sessions, Democrats and rural Republicans, concerned that a voucher system would erode traditional public schools, blocked all voucher measures in the House. Voucher bills have easily passed the GOP-dominated Senate.

Proponents call the idea “school choice” because it would give some students the option to leave poorly rated neighborhood public schools for private ones.

Meanwhile, the education focus at the Capitol has shifted to repairing a broken system of funding public schools. Last week, Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, the likely next speaker of the House, singled out school finance as the priority for the chamber, and Gov. Greg Abbott’s school finance plan was introduced at a meeting at the Capitol.

That’s left public school teachers and their advocates hopeful that the Legislature won’t have much appetite for a voucher bill.

“I like having the ability to choose when I’m making a purchase, but I don’t see education in that same light. The best opportunity for the population we have is in public education — a well-funded public education system — and if we want to get to the goals that we want to get to, that’s not going to happen by just handing kids a voucher and saying, ‘Good luck,’” said Michelle Smith with Austin-based public school advocacy group Raise Your Hand Texas.

Beto O’Rourke lost his race against Ted Cruz, but became a national figure because of his charisma and upbeat goodwill. And he did something else: He helped many down-ballot candidates.

Public education was one of the beneficiaries.

According to the Texas Parent PAC, last Tuesday was “a very good night for public education in Texas!” The legislative candidates endorsed by the group went 42-13, defeating six incumbents who are hostile to public education for all Texans. Among the winners are 16 freshmen who will be seated in January. The only incumbent they lost – Dallas Republican Linda Koop – was beaten by liberal Democrat Ana-Maria Ramos, whose lead campaign issue was public education.

Texas Parent PAC emphasizes that support for public education is bipartisan.

Forty-two candidates endorsed by Texas Parent PAC won their general elections on November 6. It was a very good night for public education in Texas! Congratulations to these candidates and their campaign teams.

Texas Parent PAC helped the winning candidates in many ways, including campaign coaching, mailers, calling services, promotion via email and digital advertising, and funding to pay for TV and radio advertising, signs, canvassing, campaign staff, and more.

Thanks to all the generous Texas Parent PAC donors who made this possible!
Every election has unique drama, and the November 6 general election was no exception. For example:
Beto O’Rourke’s vigorous campaign for the U.S. Senate helped to generate record-breaking voter turnout. While he did not win, Beto’s campaign helped many down-ballot candidates to be successful.

Texas educators and public school supporters were extremely engaged in the election and voted in record numbers thanks to turnout efforts by the Texas Educators Vote coalition, Texans for Public Education, Association of Texas Professional Educators, Texas AFT, Texas State Teachers Association, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, United Educators Association, Pastors for Texas Children, Texas Parent PAC, Texas PTA, and many other groups. This energetic involvement bodes well for the future!

Two incumbent senators lost, which will help to change the dynamics in the Texas Senate. Former Burleson school board trustee Beverly Powell defeated Sen. Konni Burton, and Dallas attorney Nathan Johnson defeated Sen. Don Huffines. These were significant victories! In the Texas House, candidates endorsed by Texas Parent PAC defeated four incumbents: Vikki Goodwin (Rep. Paul Workman), Terry Meza (Rep. Rodney Anderson), Julie Johnson (Rep. Matt Rinaldi), and John H. Bucy III (Rep. Tony Dale).

A summary of the results for endorsed candidates is below. Unofficial primary election returns are at the Secretary of State web site and the Texas Tribune web site.

Endorsed First-Time Candidate Winners
SD 10—Beverly Powell, D-Burleson Web Site
SD 16—Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas Web Site
HD 4—Keith Bell, R-Forney Web Site
HD 8—Cody Harris, R-Palestine Web Site
HD 46—Sheryl Cole, D-Austin Web Site
HD 47—Vikki Goodwin, D-Austin Web Site
HD 52—James Talarico, D-Round Rock Web Site
HD 62—Reggie Smith, R-Van Alstyne Web Site
HD 105—Terry Meza, D-Irving Web Site
HD 113—Rhetta Bowers, D-Garland Web Site
HD 114—John Turner, D-Dallas Web Site
HD 115—Julie Johnson, D-Addison Web Site
HD 118—Leo Pacheco, D-San Antonio Web Site
HD 121—Steve Allison, R-San Antonio Web Site
HD 126—Sam Harless, R-Houston Web Site
HD 136—John H Bucy III, D-Round Rock Web Site

Endorsed Incumbents Re-Elected in the General Election
SD 31—Senator Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo Web Site
HD 3—Representative Cecil Bell, Jr., R-Magnolia Web Site
HD 10—Representative John Wray, R-Waxahachie Web Site
HD 14—Representative John Raney, R-Bryan Web Site
HD 16—Representative Will Metcalf, R-Conroe Web Site
HD 17—Representative John Cyrier, R-Lockhart Web Site
HD 18—Representative Ernest Bailes, R-Shepherd Web Site
HD 24—Representative Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood Web Site
HD 33—Representative Justin Holland, R-Rockwall Web Site
HD 34—Representative Abel Herrero, D-Robstown Web Site
HD 41—Representative Bobby Guerra, D-McAllen Web Site
HD 49—Representative Gina Hinojosa, D-Austin Web Site
HD 57—Representative Trent Ashby, R-Lufkin Web Site
HD 64—Representative Lynn Stucky, R-Denton Web Site
HD 71—Representative Stan Lambert, R-Abilene Web Site
HD 78—Representative Joe Moody, D-El Paso Web Site
HD 88—Representative Ken King, R-Canadian Web Site
HD 95—Representative Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth Web Site
HD 99—Representative Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth Web Site
HD 101—Representative Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie Web Site
HD 117—Representative Philip Cortez, D-San Antonio Web Site
HD 125—Representative Justin Rodriguez, D-San Antonio Web Site
HD 127—Representative Dan Huberty, R-Houston Web Site
HD 137—Representative Gene Wu, D-Houston Web Site
HD 144—Representative Mary Ann Perez, D-Houston Web Site
HD 149—Representative Hubert Vo, D-Houston Web Site

Heartfelt thanks to the other endorsed candidates who campaigned very hard but unfortunately did not win. All were seeking political office to make a positive difference. They are Texas House candidates Joanna Cattanach, Alex Karjeker, Neal Katz, Michael Shawn Kelly, Adam Milasincic, Lorena Perez McGill, Steve Riddell and Texas Senate candidates Steven Kling, Rita Lucido, Mark Phariss, Kendall Scudder, and Meg Walsh.

We are grateful to State Representative Linda Koop for her two terms serving in the Texas House. Her many contributions made Texas a better state, and she will be greatly missed.

This was the first election cycle that Texas Parent PAC endorsed candidates running for statewide office. While Mike Collier and Scott Milder (Republican primary) did not win their races for Lieutenant Governor and Justin Nelson for Attorney General, they made public education an important issue in the election and helped down-ballot candidates to win.

With Texas parents, grandparents, and public school supporters working together on campaigns, we can elect even more advocates for Texas children. Let’s do it. It’s the American way.

Charles Foster Johnson, leader of Pastors for Texas Children, reports on the election results and their implications for public schools:

2018 Texas Midterm Election Analysis for Public Education

Thanks to a groundswell of grassroots advocacy efforts during the 2018 electoral season, the Texas Legislature has taken a dramatic step toward the support of universal public education for all children.

The Texas Senate, misled by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, took a demonstrable step away from the narrow anti-public fringe and toward an embrace of their constitutional responsibility to “make suitable provision for public free schools.” A key pro-public education moderate Republican from Amarillo withstood a vicious primary attack from Patrick’s rightwing forces in the spring, and two of his Tea Party allies were replaced with pro-pub education Democrats in Fort Worth and Dallas this week. This effectively strips Patrick of his supermajority of 19 votes required by Senate rules to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

What this means is that privatization policies will have a much harder time making it past the Senate in the upcoming 2019 legislative session. These bad ideas have prevailed in the Senate, due to Patrick’s strong-arm tactics, only to be squashed by the more moderate Texas House, but Tuesday’s election results make this strategy far less likely.

On the House side, Democrats picked up twelve seats, bringing their total to 67 of 150 members of that chamber. This all but ensures the election of a moderate Speaker of the House like Joe Straus, who is retiring in January. Speaker Straus’ deft leadership helped block Patrick’s voucher and bathroom bills last session. The House is marked by a creative and dynamic alliance of rural Republicans and urban Democrats unified in their opposition to vouchers, troubled by the proliferation of charters, and committed to structural increases in school funding.

An unsung positive sign for public education in Texas was the close race that Mike Collier ran against Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor. With little money or name recognition, Collier waged a robust pro-public education race, and lost by less than four percentage points. This serves a terse notice to Patrick that his anti-public education platform is crumbling.

The cherry on the cake is the passage of key school bond and funding measures in several urban centers.

There is a wonderful resurgence of support for our neighborhood and community public schools in Texas. Public education emerged as the most vocal, visible issue in the midterm campaigns. Those who ran unabashedly in support of it won handily, and those who sounded an uncertain trumpet lost. It is crystal clear that Texans love their public schools, and are prepared to support elected officials who represent them in this conviction—and retire those who don’t.

This is an important collection of data about the funding of public schools and charter schools in Texas. Do you think that taxpayers know that they are funding two separate school systems, one governed by elected, accountable school boards and the other governed by private, self-selected, unaccountable school boards? Do you think that the public knows that district public schools outperform charter schools?

What Local Taxpayers Should Know About the State's $20 Billion Privatization Experiment (October 2018)tax2tax3tax4tax5tax6tax7tax8tax9tax10tax11tax12

This article by Tom Ultican tells the sordid story of rich elites who have cynically decided to destroy public education in San Antonio.

They have cumulatively raised at least $200 million to attract charter operators to San Antonio, a figure which includes funding by the U.S. Department of Education and local plutocrats. The lead figure is a very wealthy woman named Victoria Rico, who sits on the boards of multiple charter chains. Rico and her friends have decided to re-engineer and privatize public education in San Antonio. Rico is working closely with Dan Patrick, the State’s lieutenant governor, who loves vouchers, hates public schools, and was the Rush Limbaugh of Texas before winning election to the State Senate.

Was there a vote taken in San Antonio? No. Was the public asked whether they wanted to abandon public education? Of course not. The titans don’t believe in democracy. They know what’s best for other people’s children.

They have hired a superintendent, Pedro Martinez, who was “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, which encourages school closures, privatization, and top-down management. Martinez has worked in school districts but was never a teacher or a principal and apparently knows nothing about pedagogy. Martinez is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, which promotes privatization and technology in the classroom. He is also a big fan of the faux Relay “Graduate School of Education,” which specializes in charter teachers training new teachers for charter schools and has no professors or research programs.

As a native Texan, this whole deal made me physically ill. It stinks to high heaven. Everyone facilitating this private takeover of public schools should be ashamed of themselves.

They are not “doing it for the children.” They are doing it for their own egos. There are more failing charter schools than failing public schools. What right do they have to destroy the public schools of San Antonio? Who elected them? They have won plaudits from Betsy DeVos, the Koch brothers, and ALEC. They should be held accountable for their assault on democracy. I noticed that the Texas philanthropist Charles Butt refused to participate in this unholy cabal; he prefers to invest his fortune in supporting public schools.

I take this opportunity to name Victoria Rico, Pedro Martinez, and all their rightwing enablers to the Wall of Shame.

I am a native Texan. I met Beto O’Rourke when he was not well known outside the state. I went to a small fund-raiser in a coffee shop on the lower east side of New York and was very impressed. He spoke as a liberal but avoided harsh political rhetoric. He talked about going to small towns that Democrats hadn’t visited in 30 years. He talked about bridging partisan rancor.

Now, much to my surprise, he was endorsed by my hometown newspaper.

It is a compelling editorial.

The Chronicle wrote:

The collective swoon that U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke has aroused among victory-starved Democrats nationwide recalls, even as it far exceeds, the fleeting infatuation that attached itself to another Texas politician not long ago. A Democratic gubernatorial candidate known for her 13-hour filibuster on the floor of the state Senate against stringent anti-abortion legislation, as well as for her watermelon-hued running shoes, she drew the same sort of clamorous attention that O’Rourke is getting this year.

As it turned out, of course, the Wendy Davis crush couldn’t survive another sort of crush – an ignominious 22-point loss to her 2014 Republican opponent, then-Attorney General Greg Abbott.

A similar fate may await O’Rourke in this still-fervid red state, despite the charismatic El Pasoan’s attention-getting and indefatigable campaign, the ubiquitous black-and-white “BETO” signs in yards across the state and an astounding fund-raising operation that has raised close to $40 million while eschewing money from political action committees. Impressive, yes, but Lone Star State Democrats have learned not to get starry-eyed during their nearly quarter-century sojourn in the political wilderness.

With eyes clear but certainly not starry, we enthusiastically endorse Beto O’Rourke for U.S. Senate. The West Texas congressman’s command of issues that matter to this state, his unaffected eloquence and his eagerness to reach out to all Texans make him one of the most impressive candidates this editorial board has encountered in many years. Despite the long odds he faces – pollster nonpareil Nate Silver gives O’Rourke a 20 percent chance of winning – a “Beto” victory would be good for Texas, not only because of his skills, both personal and political, but also because of the manifest inadequacies of the man he would replace.

Ted Cruz — a candidate the Chronicle endorsed in 2012, by the way — is the junior senator from Texas in name only. Exhibiting little interest in addressing the needs of his fellow Texans during his six years in office, he has kept his eyes on a higher prize. He’s been running for president since he took the oath of office — more likely since he picked up his class schedule as a 15-year-old ninth-grader at Houston’s Second Baptist High School more than three decades ago. For Cruz, public office is a private quest; the needs of his constituents are secondary.

It was the rookie Cruz, riding high after a double-digit win in 2012, who brazenly took the lead in a 2013 federal government shutdown, an exercise in self-aggrandizement that he hoped would lead to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Cruz, instead, undercut the economy, cost taxpayers an estimated $2 billion (and inflicted his reading of Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham” on an unamused nation). Maybe the senator succeeded in cementing in his obstructionist tea party bona fides, but we don’t recall Texans clamoring for such an ill-considered, self-serving stunt.

Cruz’s very first vote as senator was a “nay” on the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, a bill authorizing $60 billion for relief agencies working to address the needs of Hurricane Sandy victims. More than a few of Cruz’s congressional colleagues reminded him of that vote when he came seeking support for Hurricane Harvey relief efforts. Cruz’s Texas cohort, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, was effective in those efforts; the junior senator was not.

Voters don’t send representatives to Washington to win popularity contests, and yet the bipartisan disdain the Republican incumbent elicits from his colleagues, remarkable in its intensity, deserves noting. His repellent personality hamstrings his ability to do the job.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” is how Republican former House Speaker John Boehner described Cruz, adding: “I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

Lindsey Graham, Republican senator from South Carolina, famously said: “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”

Graham, of course, was being facetious — we think — and yet Cruz’s off-putting approach works to the detriment of his constituents. His colleagues know that Cruz works for Cruz, first and foremost.

Former U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican who was adept at tending to Texan needs and who worked tirelessly on the state’s behalf, once reminded the Chronicle editorial board that Cruz would have to decide where his loyalties lay when he got to Washington: with fellow Texans or fellow obstructionist ideologues. Six years later, it’s obvious he’s decided.

Cruz’s challenger is running as an unapologetic progressive. He supports comprehensive immigration reform, including a solution to the Dreamer dilemma; health care for all; an end to the war on drugs (including legalizing marijuana); sensible (and constitutional) gun control, and other issues that place him in the Democratic mainstream this political season.

What sets O’Rourke apart, aside from the remarkable campaign he’s running, are policy positions in keeping with a candidate duly aware of the traditionally conservative Texas voter he would be representing in the U.S. Senate. Representing a congressional district that includes Fort Bliss and numerous military retirees, he has focused on improving the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, with special attention to mental health. He’s a strong believer in free trade and global markets, an economic position that should appeal to pragmatic Houston business interests.

As a lifelong border resident, O’Rourke supports our trade ties with Mexico and our need to sustain and encourage those ties (despite the anti-Mexican malice that emanates from the White House). In fact, he once partnered with Cornyn on a bill to improve those economically critical border crossings. He opposes Trump’s wall, not only because it’s an absurd and colossal waste, but also because he objects to the government’s use of eminent domain.

“While he may look like the second coming of Bobby Kennedy to D.C. pundits,” political scientist Jay Aiyer of Texas Southern University has written, “Texans can see that O’Rourke has more in common with the politics and approach of former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby, who advocated for modernizing Texas through bipartisan cooperation during his time leading the Texas Senate.”

Aiyer also compares O’Rourke to Lloyd Bentsen, Ann Richards and Mark White – reform-minded Democrats all, “who recognized the need to expand opportunities systematically when leading a conservative state.”

There’s one more reason O’Rourke should represent Texas in the U.S. Senate: He would help to serve as a check on a president who is a danger to the republic. Cruz is unwilling to take on that responsibility. Indeed, the man who delighted in calling the Texas senator “Lyin’ Ted” all through the 2016 presidential campaign, who insulted Cruz’s wife and his father, is bringing his traveling campaign medicine show to Houston next week to buoy the Cruz campaign. The hyperbole, the hypocrisy and the rancorous hot air just might blow the roof off the Toyota Center.

While the bloviations emanate from the arena next week, imagine how refreshing it would be to have a U.S. senator who not only knows the issues but respects the opposition, who takes firm positions but reaches out to those who disagree, who expects to make government work for Texas and the nation. Beto O’Rourke, we believe, is that senator.

Tom Ultican, retired teacher of advanced math and physics, has been reporting on the aggressive plans and spectacular failures of the Destroy Public Education Movement.

In this post, he details the explosion of funding to increase privatization of public assets in Texas, most notably carried out by the IDEA charter chain.

He begins:

“First it was KIPP, then it was YES Prep and now IDEA has become the point of the destroy public education (DPE) spear in Texas. KIPP flourished because GAP founders Don and Doris Fisher gave them big money. YES Prep so excited Oprah that she presented them with a million dollar check during a TV interview. Now, John Arnold has given IDEA $10 million to expand into Houston and the El Paso based Council on Regional Economic Expansion and Educational Development has pledged another $10 million for IDEA to expand into El Paso.

“The oddest DPE inspired plan of all comes from Austin, Texas. In 2016, the Austin American Statesman reported that the relatively small KLE foundation is committing $16 million to IDEA. Odd because that represents more than half of the foundation’s assets and is 20 times greater than any previous grant. The Statesman article says, “The financial gift … will more than double IDEA Austin’s previous expansion plans by 2022, and the charter school says the donation will help it boost enrollment to 20,000 students, more than 12 times as many as it has now.”

“A recent article in the Santa Fe New Mexican says about the IDEA growth initiative, “Those plans include expanding to 173 pre-K, elementary, middle and high schools from Texas to Louisiana and Florida by 2022 — a goal of serving 100,000 students compared to 35,595 today.”

“YES Prep, KIPP and IDEA have many similarities. All three charter school systems were started by Teach for America (TFA) alums. None of the founders had more than three years experience teaching, nor did they have any education training other than a five week TFA summer course. It is perplexing when industry leaders like Walton, Fisher, Broad and Gates lavish inexperienced and untrained school founders with millions of dollars.”

The IDEA chain won $29 Million from Arne Duncan’s Race to the Top.

Ultican reviews the research about IDEA, which features boasting, high attrition rates, and careful selection of students.

He details the finances of the IDEA chain, which includes a bevy of high-paid executives and a staggering asset value.

He writes:

“At the end of 2016, IDEA’s asset value climbed to $680,172,540 and their year’s income was $332,775,059.”

This is big business. It has mastered the art of gaming the system. It is leading the march to Destroy Public Education in Texas.

If you live anywhere near Nashville, please turn out to hear theeloquest Dr. Charles Foster Johnson talk about the danger of vouchers and how they threaten religious liberty.


Pastors for Tennessee Children has been expanding but needs your help to reach more ministers and faith leaders (laypeople) prior to the January session of the General Assembly. Come find out why and listen to the dynamic Rev. Charles Foster Johnson advocate for public education as part of our moral duty.

Thursday, October 4, 11:30 AM – 1 PM CT

Nashville Event Featuring Rev. Charles Foster Johnson

Belmont University, Curb Event Center, Vince Gill Room, 2000 Belmont Blvd

Building #26. Parking is available through the P7 entrance- visitors spaces are well marked. The Vince Gill Room is at the Belmont Blvd. side of the building, attached to the Arena. Signs will direct you there.
Lunch provided

To RSVP, contact diana.page@comcast.net

Rev. Johnson of Fort Worth is founder of Pastors for Texas Children and has inspired the Oklahoma, Kentucky and Tennessee groups He is also the promoter of similar groups in formation in ten other states. He has told us how his Texas group of more than 2,000 pastors and faith leaders has helped prevent the passage of private school vouchers in the Texas Legislature since its founding five years ago. Tennesseans hope to similarly convince our legislators to support our Tennessee schools and reject vouchers. We are starting by introducing pastors and faith leaders across the state with a speaking tour to present our positive public education message. You will hear how the voices of ministers, lay leaders, rabbis, imams, and their congregants are needed to support our public school children.

Also. please consider becoming a partner (member) of our network at http://www.pastorsfortennesseechildren.org/ (website).
Contact pastors4TNchildren@gmail.com for more information about the other four stops on Rev. Johnson’s Tennessee speaking tour: Chattanooga (lunch, Oct. 2), Knoxville (lunch, Oct. 3), Pleasant Hill (evening of Oct. 3), and Memphis (lunch, Oct. 5),

Screen Shot 2018-09-27 at 10.40.34 PM

Screen Shot 2018-09-27 at 11.01.03 PM

Linda McNeill is a professor at Rice University who writes about funding, testing, and other education policy issues.

In this post, she describes her reaction when she received a beautiful invitation to a dinner to raise money for charter schools in Houston. The invitation came from one of Houston’s existing very well-funded charter chains. (Coincidentally, IDEA just announced plans to expand in Houston, as well as a plan to saturate El Paso with 20 IDEA charters).

She writes, in part:

The thick envelope gave a hint of elegance inside. An invitation. Colorful graphics, fine card stock, strategically placed photographs, “bold face” names inside the folds of this multi-layered, professionally crafted solicitation. A separate card, two-sided on high quality card stock, lists in bold contrasting colors the details of the events. Also inside, a return envelope for the enclosed commitment card suggesting “underwriting opportunities” from a mere $500 to levels of $50,000 and $100,000.

An invitation to a museum gala or symphony fund-raiser? A call to join the restoration of our Harvey-flooded opera house? The funding categories would seem to so suggest.

No, this was an invitation to a fund-raiser for a corporate charter school chain. A private company that has added “public” to its name because it is one of the corporate entities that takes taxpayer dollars (the “public” part) to fund its schools.

My first inclination was curiosity: who are these people? I looked over the names of the funders already listed on the invitation: the usual anti-public school billionaires, some names of really good people who should know better, and some people I didn’t recognize who probably have been sold on the idea that only by contributing to these charter chains can they save the city’s poor, minority children.

My next reaction was anger. This invitation – fancy graphics, elegant card stock, thick white envelopes – was expensive! Each one must have cost several dollars, even accounting for a bulk order discount. I turned each piece over to try to find the printing company that produced it. No designer or graphics company attributed, but a line that caught my eye: contact the charter chain’s “manager of special events” for more information. Really??

Manager of Special Events! I know of no public school, no neighborhood school, that has a manager of special events – much less the budget to hire one. But they all could use that $100,000 for a long list of needs after years of underfunding.

Then I immediately knew the source of my anger: the inequity of it all. These charter chains are privately incorporated, but they not only take our tax dollars out of our public schools – the public’s schools, but they may be using our tax dollars to pay their special events managers and printers to advertise against our public schools! Our tax dollars enable their “marketing” in competition with the public’s own schools. I took the invitation to a high-quality stationery store to ask if they had produced it and what it might have cost. The woman said they hadn’t produced it but confirmed it was definitely expensive and each would have cost “several dollars” even if, as I had suspected, several hundred or thousand had been printed and mailed out (yes, add the mailing costs). And even if the printing had been donated by an individual or corporation, those dollars would still have been taken from our public schools as a tax-deductible, “charitable” contribution.

So the first inequity is that all of these “contributions,” from the modest $500 (mere seat at luncheon) to the ‘naming rights’ (I’m not making this up!) for donors giving $100,000, all of these dollars end up subtracted from the public treasury.

The second inequity: the costs of those invitations. I suddenly realized each one must cost more than many of our teachers have for school supplies and instructional materials on any given day. So I asked some teachers. A 7th-grade biology teacher new to her current school was hopeful: “They say I’ll have the supplies I need for labs and we’ve ready sent in the order for frogs for the kids to dissect, so we’ll see. So far, so good.”

The next answer was less optimistic: “I’m told I have to require every student to bring a ream of copier paper; when that runs out we won’t get any more, so I’m trying to be careful to plan ahead.” From a high school teacher: “No, we don’t get to buy paperbacks for our classrooms. We have some on hand but if we want to assign other titles, the kids have to buy their own. If they can’t afford it, I see if I have an extra copy at home or maybe I just buy it for them.”

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?