Perry Bacon Jr: Is “Education Reform” Dead?

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2023 //
32

In 2020, when I published my last book, Slaying Goliath, I opined that education “reform” as defined by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top (standardized testing, school closings, school grades, charter schools, evaluating teachers by student scores, merit pay, Common Core, etc.) was a massive failure. The test-and-punish and standardization mandates had turned schooling into a joyless, test-obsessed experience that demoralized teachers and students alike. None of the promises of “reform” came to pass, but privatization via charter inevitably led to vouchers and the defunding of public schools.

The failure of federally-mandated reforms seemed obvious to me but Congress continues to use standardized tests as the ultimate gauge of students, teachers, and schools, despite the destruction that was obvious to anyone with eyes to see. And the reviewer in The New York Times slammed my book for daring to doubt the virtue of the “Ed reform” movement.

Perry Bacon Jr. wrote an article recently for the Washington Post titled “‘Education Reform’ Is Dying. Now We Can Actually Reform Education.” It was amazing to see this article in The Washington Post because for years its editorial writer was a cheerleader for the worst aspects of that destructive movement (Rhee could do no wrong, charters are wonderful, firing teachers and principal is fine). But the education editorial writer retired, hallelujah, and we get to hear from Perry Bacon Jr., in addition to the always wonderful Valerie Strauss (whose excellent “Answer Sheet” blog does not appear in the printed paper but online).

Earlier today, John Thompson earlier today responded on this blog to Bacon’s brilliant article. I meant to post the article by Bacon but forgot. Here it is. What do you think?

Perry Bacon Jr. wrote:

America’s decades-long, bipartisan “education reform” movement, defined by an obsession with test scores and by viewing education largely as a tool for getting people higher-paying jobs, is finally in decline. What should replace it is an education system that values learning, creativity, integration and citizenship.

Joe Biden is the first president in decades not aggressively pushing an education agenda that casts American schools and students as struggling and in desperate need of fixing. He has not stated that “education is the civil rights issue of our time,” a sentence said by presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. His administration has backed policies, such as an expanded child tax credit, that view giving people more money, not more education, as the main way to reduce poverty.

There is a push from experts and politicians across partisan lines, including from Biden, to get employers to stop requiring college degrees for so many jobs. There is also a growing defense of college students who study English, literature and other subjects that don’t obviously lead to jobs in the way that, say, engineering does.

An education gospel is being dismantled, one that was 40 years in the making. In 1983, the Reagan administration released a report called “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” It warned that America’s status as an economic powerhouse was under threat because its students were doing so much worse than those from other industrialized nations on standardized tests. That report put education reform on the national agenda and explicitly tied it to economic growth.

But this education fixation wasn’t just about the economy. The two parties couldn’t agree on racial policy. Democrats wanted more funding and explicit policies to help Black people and heavily Black areas to make up for past discrimination, and the Republicans largely opposed them.

What Democrats and Republicans could agree on was making education a priority. So Republican politicians, particularly Bush, pumped more money into schools, as Democrats wanted. And Democrats broadly adopted the view that education was the main way for Black people to make up for the effects of racism, thereby shifting responsibility for Black advancement from the government to individual African Americans, as Republicans wanted.

Eventually education, particularly getting a college degree, became viewed as the primary way for economic advancement for not just Black people but people of all races who weren’t born into the middle class.

The result was a bipartisan education fixation for much of the period between 1990 and 2016. It included the expansion of charter and magnet schools as an alternative to traditional public schools; an obsession with improving student test scores; accountability systems that punished schools and teachers if their kids didn’t score well; increased government spending on college loans and grants as part of a movement to make college essentially universal; and a push for Black students in particular not to just get college degrees but ones in “STEM” fields (science, technology, engineering and math) that would help them get higher-paying jobs.

This agenda was racial, economic and education policy all wrapped into one.

The problem is that this education push didn’t work. While the number of Americans who have graduated from high school and college have skyrocketed in the past three decades, wages and wealth haven’t grown nearly as much. Black people in particular haven’t seen economic gains matching these huge increases in education levels.

Instead of increased education benefiting Americans broadly, this education dogma created a two-tiered system. White-collar, secure, higher-paying jobs with good benefits went disproportionately to college graduates, while those in the worst jobs tended to not have degrees. And to get those degrees, Americans often had to borrow tens of thousands of dollars.

So Americans started revolting. The Black Lives Matter Movement emerged in 2013 and expressed frustration not only with police brutality but also with the continued economic struggles of Black Americans. In the 2016 presidential campaign, both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Trump appealed to voters who felt abandoned by a bipartisan political establishment that appeared unbothered by the disappearance of manufacturing and other jobs that didn’t require higher education. Sanders called for free college, appealing to young people frustrated that their best path to a good job was accruing tens of thousands of dollars in education debt.

After Trump’s election, both parties embraced the idea that they must try to help Americans, particularly those without college degrees, who feel stuck in today’s economy. So politicians are no longer casting education as the ideal solution to economic or racial inequality. Biden and the Democrats are specifically trying to create jobs that would go to non-college graduates, and they are pushing policies, such as expanding Medicaid, that would disproportionately help Black Americans even if they don’t have much advanced education.

But if the real aim of education policy is no longer really economic and racial policy, what should its goals be? Neither party seems to have a clear answer. Most Democrats defend teachers, a core party constituency, and extol public schools and community colleges, trying to shed the Democrats’ reputation as the party for graduates of Ivy League schools. But they don’t have a broader theory of education policy.

The Republicans are doing something much worse. At the state level, they are largely abandoning public schools and instead aggressively pushing universal voucherlike programs for K-12 education to help as many families as possible to enroll their kids in private and/or religious schools. They are also casting K-12 public school teachers and in particular college professors as propagandists who impose liberal values on students. At the college level, Republicans are trying to force out left-leaning faculty and push campuses to the right.


I certainly prefer the “teachers, professors and public schools are good” perspective (the Democratic one) over “teachers, professors and public schools are bad” (the Republican one). But neither is a real vision for American education.

Here’s one: Our education system should be about learning, not job credentialing. Schools and universities should teach Americans to be critical thinkers, not automatically believing whatever they heard from a friend or favorite news source. They should make sure Americans have enough understanding of economics, history and science to be good citizens, able to discern which candidate in an election has a better plan to, say, deal with a deadly pandemic. They should foster interest and appreciation of music, arts and literature.

They should be places where people meet and learn from others who might not share their race, class, religion or ideology. Our schools and universities should of course also provide people the core skills for jobs that actually require higher education. They should provide a path to becoming a doctor, lawyer, professor or any profession that requires specialized training without going into debt.
What our education system should not be is 16 years of required drudgery to make sure that you can get a job with stable hours and decent benefits — or a punching bag for politicians who have failed to do their jobs in reducing racial and economic inequality.

“What I think colleges and universities should do right now is to stop selling this myth that education is going to be the great equalizer,” University of Wisconsin at Green Bay professor Jon Shelton said in a recent interview with Inside Higher Ed.

Shelton, author of a new book called “The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy,” added, “I think what we need to do is focus on being the institutions that are going to help society solve these bigger problems, to be the place where people can encounter controversial ideas on campus, where we can have far-reaching conversations about what needs to change in our economy, and how we’re going to create the kind of world in which climate change doesn’t destroy our entire way of life.”

Blessedly, education reform is dying. Now we can reform our schools and colleges in a way that actually improves teaching and learning.

If you can open the article, you will see two graphs displayed: one shows that Black educational attainment has risen substantially (the percent who have graduated high school and college) but Black income and wealth has stalled. Those who were counting on education alone to eliminate poverty were wrong.

Note to reader: a version of this post was published at 1:30 p.m. This was WordPress’s error. This is the finished version. Too complicated to explain.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Cruelty, Disruption, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Funding, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Privatization, Race to the Top, Real Education, Standardized Testing, Teacher Shortage, Teachers and Teaching

Gary Rubinstein: What Part of the Math Curriculum Is Useful? Part 2

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2023 //
38

Gary Rubinstein is writing a series on whether the math taught in school is useful. Americans typically study math every year, yet don’t remember most of what they learned. This is part 2, in which he identifies the “useful” part of the math curriculum.

He begins:

What if your house was burning down and you could only save one box of your things? What would you save? Fortunately most people will never have to make this decision but it is still an interesting exercise where you think about what it is in your life that really matters.

As a math educator I sometimes think what if I could only choose a small collection of the most ‘useful’ math topics to save from the entire K-12 curriculum. As I argued in the previous post, I think that at least half of the school math topics are not really ‘useful’ in the sense that you will ever actually ‘use’ them in your life. With this narrow definition of ‘useful’ and ‘useless’ an example of something that is pretty useless is to find what’s called the ‘prime factorization’ of a number like 555 and write it as 3*5*37. There might be some uses of prime factorization in some other math topics but certainly on its own it isn’t a very useful skill.

But some math topics are very ‘useful’ and I think that all students should learn them at some point throughout their schooling. In this post I’m going to make an annotated list of what those topics are. These are like the box I’m saving of ‘useful’ math. The list isn’t going to be very long which leads to the question about whether the math curriculum could be compressed so that it doesn’t take 13 years or if some of the less ‘useful’ topics should still be taught for other reasons.

In the old days, like the 1700s, a big thing that math was used for was converting different units of measurement for commerce. So converting ounces to pounds and things like that were very important and you practiced with difference currencies and things like that. Well here in the 21st century we aren’t doing those sorts of conversions very much but in this new world there are different kinds of calculations we have to do. In the news all the time we see different statistics and sometimes two different news sources interpret data in different ways so an informed citizen should have some basic ‘numeracy.’

#1: Basic adding, subtracting, multiplying, and some division. With all the options we have as consumers, it is important for us to be able to look at two competing options and decide which one is better for you. There are different ways to teach these things and I’ll address those later, but these things should be mastered by everyone.

#2: Percentages. Though percentages are really just an application of division and multiplication, I think everyone should have an understanding that 50% of something is the same as half of it while 10% of something is one tenth of it. So 50% of 400 is 200 and 10% of 400 is 40. And once you know about 10%, you can easily calculate or estimate other percentages, like 30% of 400 will be 3 times 10% of 400 which is 3*40=120. Also see how that is a little more than 25% of 400 which is one fourth of 400 or 100. Calculating tips and understanding when businesses offer 30% off or a loan that has a 2.75% interest rate and things like that are really important so consumers can make informed decisions.

#3: Basic Geometry. Knowing how to find the area of a rectangular or triangular floor is something that everyone should know. Put that skill together with multiplying and dividing and you can figure out how much carpet to order and how much it will cost.

#4: Basic statistics and probability. When you make an investment, including whether or not to play the lottery, you are taking a risk. So having some ability to measure this risk will help citizens make the right choices and not get taken advantage of.

#5: Basic ‘data science’. Nowadays we hear so many numbers on the news, but people can’t interpret these numbers without knowing how to think about them. Like we hear that crime has ‘doubled’ from last year and it sounds pretty bad. But someone who has studied this kind of data science knows what the other relevant information is. Like in this case, if crime went up from 1 incident to 2 incidents, that’s a lot different than if crime went up from 10,000 incidents to 20,000 incidents even though they are both ‘double.’ In the education research that I have done, I’ve come across papers that claim that an educational strategy resulted in ‘110 additional days of learning’ which can really mislead a reader who is not aware of the assumptions that go into these sorts of calculations.

#6: Interpreting graphs. So often, especially nowadays, data is presented in a visual form. There are scatter plots and pie charts and so many ways to use pictures to represent information. An educated citizen should be able to look at these and understand them.

Open the link and keep reading.

Categories Curriculum, History, Teachers and Teaching

John Thompson: Is “Education Reform” Dead?

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2023 //
52

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, reacts to an article in the Washington Post.

He writes:

I agree with Perry Bacon’s excellent and optimistic Washington Post analysis and its new path for improving America’s schools – with the possible exception of his first sentence and the first sentence of his last paragraph. After decades of working for the education policies and principles he supports, I’ve become too pessimistic to not doubt his title, “‘Education reform’ is dying. Now we can actually reform education.” I sure hope I’m wrong and he’s right.

Bacon writes, “Joe Biden is the first president in decades not aggressively pushing an education agenda that casts American schools and students as struggling and in desperate need of fixing.” Biden offers a 21st century path away from the 40-year “education gospel” launched by the 1983 Reagan administration’s “A Nation at Risk,” which was joined by presidents of both parties. Bacon then described the bipartisan “fixation” which:

Included the expansion of charter and magnet schools as an alternative to traditional public schools; an obsession with improving student test scores; accountability systems that punished schools and teachers if their kids didn’t score well.

But this reform ideology was worse than that. Bacon explains, “This agenda was racial, economic and education policy all wrapped into one.” He also cited Jon Shelton’s “The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy,” which:

Blamed growing economic insecurity in the United States — caused in actuality by corporate disinvestment in American industry and efforts to fight unions tooth and nail beginning in the 1970s — on the supposed failures of the education system.

“By 2001 and the passage of No Child Left Behind,” Shelton further explains, “Democrats and Republicans competed with each other to remake our education system under the pretext that our schools needed to be held accountable to the long-term economic fortunes of American workers.” Since they could only agree on making education a priority, Bacon added, the Republicans adopted the Democrats’ “view that education was the main way for Black people to make up for the effects of racism.”

Based on decades of experience teaching in the inner city, and studying what it would have actually taken to achieve equity, I’ve seen the way that the students who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries of accountability-driven, competition-driven mandates, were damaged the most. And on-the-cheap, quick fixes hurt these kids in the way educators and education research predicted. Even worse, I would add, the Billionaires Boys Club turned education into a reward-and-punish, data-driven privatization campaign based on the neoliberal venture capitalist model.

Having seen how worksheet-driven “accountability” and segregation by choice reforms drove our school into the lowest-performing mid-high in Oklahoma, and hearing my students protest that they had been completely robbed of an education, I thoroughly support Bacon’s vision of education.  He writes:

Our education system should be about learning, not job credentialing. Schools and universities should teach Americans to be critical thinkers, not automatically believing whatever they heard from a friend or favorite news source. They should make sure Americans have enough understanding of economics, history and science to be good citizens, able to discern which candidate in an election has a better plan to, say, deal with a deadly pandemic. They should foster interest and appreciation of music, arts and literature.

They should be places where people meet and learn from others who might not share their race, class, religion or ideology. … They should provide a path to becoming a doctor, lawyer, professor or any profession that requires specialized training without going into debt.

But, I’ve also seen the rightwing attacks on public schools. And these assaults come after decades of destructive, neoliberal corporate reforms. The difference was that they sought to “blow up” the education system so that entrepreneurs could rebuild it. Today, we have to resist extremist and conservative privatizers who are going for the kill while education is on the ropes.

And that gets me back to Bacon’s optimistic introduction and conclusion. Yes, he is correct in beginning, “America’s decades-long, bipartisan ‘education reform’ movement, defined by an obsession with test scores and by viewing education largely as a tool for getting people higher-paying jobs, is finally in decline.” The vast majority of the people I know agree that these reforms failed, and “what should replace it is an education system that values learning, creativity, integration and citizenship.” I hope I’m being too pessimistic because of my state’s rightwing minority’s assaults on democracy, but I don’t see evidence that the majority of parents and educators, as well as researchers, will be listened to.

Similarly, his last sentence is true, “Now we can reform our schools and colleges in a way that actually improves teaching and learning.” Yes, we can, but what will we be able to do as we again go up against market-driven elites and, worse, MAGA zealots?

I must emphasize that I have always been an optimist so, ordinarily, I would celebrate his sentence, “Blessedly, education reform is dying.” But after four decades of undermining the principles of public education, I worry that its decline has come too late, and I see no sign of progress in my state. Even so, regardless of the odds we face, we must draw upon the wisdom of Jon Shelton and Perry Bacon, and that requires us to keep our hopes up.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Privatization, Vouchers

DeSantis Says He Will “Start Slitting Throats” After His Election; Federal Employees Object to Threats of Violence

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2023 //
42

Ron DeSantis is campaigning to be more racist, more homophobic, angrier and more violent than Trump. To get to Trump’s right is not an easy matter. DeSantis must work hard to reach the militias, Proud Boys, and KKK element in the GOP. He has to sound like a fascist.

He recently proclaimed while campaigning in New Hampshire that if he is elected, he will “start slitting throats” of federal employees, otherwise known as “the Deep State.” On Day One.

The union representing federal employees thought that was a disgusting proposal.

The knives are out in a seemingly avoidable war between Florida’s Governor and a union representing 760,000 federal employees.

In a pointed statement, the American Federation of Government Employees‘ head said Ron DeSantis had “no place in office” after the Governor’s vow to eliminate members of the federal workforce by violent means.

“We’re going to have all these deep state people, you know we’re going to start slitting throats on day one,” the Governor said in Rye, New Hampshire this week at a BBQ event.

“We’ve seen too often in recent years – from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 to the sacking of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 — that violent anti-government rhetoric from politicians has deadly consequences. Any candidate who positions themselves within that shameful tradition has no place in public office,” asserted AFGE National President Everett Kelley Thursday.

“No federal employee should face death threats from anyone, least of all from someone seeking to lead the U.S. government,” Kelley added, calling on DeSantis to “retract his irresponsible statement.”

Ironically, the Granite State promise to slit throats is only one recent time he used the vivid image to make a point about reshaping the federal government to his liking.

During a July 27 interview with Real America’s Voice, DeSantis said he wanted a Defense Secretary who was ready to “slit some throats” and be “very firm, very strong” in imposing their will.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Democracy, DeSantis, Disruption, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Trump

Houston: A Parent Lectures Mike Miles

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2023 //
21

Truth to power!

If you are on Twitter (X), please watch this mother take the state-appointed superintendent to the woodshed.

Love to see community leaders speaking truth to power. We need more leaders like this in ⁦‪@TeamHISD‬⁩ 👏👏👏 pic.twitter.com/OZ0D2DtK5Y

https://twitter.com/HISD_Outreach/status/1687570880732221440?s=20

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Houston, Parents

Gary Rubinstein: Is the Math Taught in School Useful? No.

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2023 //
69

Gary Rubinstein teaches at Stuyvesant High School in New York City. In this post, he questions whether the math taught in school is “useful” and concludes that it is not. This is the beginning of a series of posts in which he explains why he is disappointed in the usual school math and what he thinks should take its place.

Gary writes:

I’ve dedicated my life to teaching a subject I love and have loved since I was a small child.

This country, and throughout the world really, a lot of resources are dedicated to teaching students math. From Kindergarten to 12th grade almost every student takes math and in many elementary schools math is taught for ninety minutes a day. And then in college students often have to take some math, sometimes a Calculus class, as part of their degree, even when the degree is in something like business. And for all the time and money that are put into math in this country, when it is all done very few adults remember anything about math. Maybe they know a little about percentages and vaguely something about how the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

Yes, the same could be said about some of the other subjects, like how much Chemistry or Physics do most adults remember from high school, but the difference is that math is done for 13 years so you would think that more of it would be retained. Fo all that we invest into math in this country, we are not getting the ‘bang for our buck.’ I think I know why this is. I think about this on a daily basis since it is my life’s work and I’m so bothered by it. I’ve written about this before but I want to go deeper into this and explain what the issues are, what it would take to fix the problem, what the obstacles would be in improving math instruction, and whether or not it might be better to diminish the obsession that we have in this country with math instruction.

Part of my evolution in thinking about these ideas comes from watching my own kids who are now 15 and 12 go through the standard math curriculum. They have had decent teachers throughout the years and have always gotten 4s on the New York State tests so you would think that I’m thrilled but when I look at the things that they learned (because they were part of the curriculum) and the things that they have not learned (because they were not part of the curriculum) it frustrates me. Many parents who are not math teachers might feel the same way when they look at what their children are learning in math but they don’t dare question it. It reminds me of The Emperor’s New Clothes, nobody wants to seem like they aren’t smart enough to know why we have to learn how to multiply mixed numbers with different denominators. But as a math teacher who thinks about things like ‘what is the goal in learning this concept?’, ‘Is this concept needed to learn a more difficult concept?’, ‘Does this topic provide opportunity for the students to have ‘aha’ insights for themselves?’, I am constantly critiquing what I see my children learning about. And within my own teaching I am always trying to teach whatever topics are in the curriculum in a way that gives my own students an experience where they get to use their reasoning skills and not just blindly follow an algorithm.

The title of this series is: Is most school math useless? Depending on what you think ‘useless’ means, you will have different answers to this question. There are different ways to define ‘useless’ but the most straight forward way is to say that something is ‘useful’ if you will one day have an opportunity to ‘use’ it for something in your life or your job. We hear all the time that if you don’t know math you won’t be able to compare two competing cell phone plans or you won’t know how big of a ladder to buy so that when you put it at an angle it still reaches the height you need it to. We are told that math is ‘useful’ in this way and while it is true that some math is useful in this way (like knowing the difference between a loan that has a 2% interest rate vs a 20% interest rate, for example), the vast majority of the math that is taught in school is absolutely not useful.

To follow Gary’s thoughtful reasoning, open the link and read the rest of his post.

Categories Curriculum, Education Reform, Teachers

Carol Burris: The Think Tank That the Charter Industry Relies On

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2023 //
53

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, wrote in The Progressive about the role of the conservative Hoover Institution as a reliable advocate for charters, vouchers, and all kinds of school choice. (When I was a conservative, I was a Senior Fellow at Hoover.)

Burris writes:

One of the original intentions of creating charter schools was to improve student learning—which is why it’s telling that proponents of “school choice” now justify charter-school and school-voucher expansion by saying they are necessary to provide parents with options other than traditional public schools.

Choice for choice’s sake—originally a secondary rationale for charters—has become the go-to line of charter school proponents. Meanwhile, measures of academic performance have faded into the backgroundas a justification for school options. Nevertheless, for years, the question of whether or not charter schools academically out-perform traditional public schools has gnawed at the industry like an annoying uncle who insists on having the last word in every family debate.

The latest attempt to prove the supposed superiority of the charter industry comes from the Center for Research for Education Outcome, or CREDO, which has taken prior stabs at the question with results that were far from convincing.

“Remarkable” was how Margaret “Macke” Raymond, CREDO’s director and author described the results of CREDO’s latest national charter school study. Her enthusiasm was infectious. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board proclaimed that CREDO’s new evidence showed charter schools are now “blowing away their traditional school competition.”

But despite the headlines that popped up in pro-charter media, the only thing “blown away” was the truth. Like prior national studies, CREDO’s latest report, “As a Matter of Fact: The National Charter School Study III,” shows tiny average differences between charter and public school students—0.011 standard deviations in math and 0.028 standard deviations in reading. These are differences so small that the Brookings Institution’s Tom Loveless once likened them to standing on a few sheets of paper to increase one’s height.

And CREDO knows it. The organization characterized nearly identical differences in their 2009 national study as inconsequential—referring to them as “meaningless,” “small,” and possibly derived from “measurement error.”

How could “meaningless” suddenly become “remarkable” once a tiny statistical tilt in outcomes favors charter schools? The answer lies in who runs CREDO, who funds it, and the methodological problems inherent in its reports.

We tackle these points in our new Network for Public Education report, “In Fact or Fallacy? An In-depth Critique of the CREDO 2023 National Report.” Here’s a brief summary.

Who runs CREDO?

Although reporters refer to CREDO at Stanford University or Stanford’s CREDO, the relationship between CREDO and the prestigious university is complicated.

CREDO is based in the conservative, pro-charter Hoover Institution, a private think tank on the Stanford University campus. The Hoover Institution governs and finances itself without oversight or control by the university. In fact, Hoover has a “long and fraught relationship” with Stanford’s faculty and students who have objected to its lack of diversity, controversial scholarship, and conservative ideology.

What all of these funders have in common is a vested interest in charter schools and—at least in Pearson’s case—profit.

Expanding school choice is a focus of the Hoover Institution. For example, in 2021, Hoover hosted Betsy DeVos in a stop on her book tour. Secretary DeVos was introduced and praised by Raymond, who, along with her role at CREDO, refers to herself as the education program director at Hoover in the video.

Please open the link and read the rest of the article.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Privatization, School Choice, Walton Foundation

Ohio: Vote NO on Issue 1 on Tuesday to Preserve Majority Rule

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2023 //
4

Ohio Republicans are trying to ban abortion by limiting it to six weeks, before women know they are pregnant. The legislature passed a law prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy but a federal judge halted the implementation of the ban. However, people who support reproductive rights want to write them into the state constitution. They gathered more than 700,000 signatures, nearly double what the state requires. They succeeded in getting their referendum on the ballot in November.

The state Republicans want to stop them but they know that abortion rights have prevailed in other red states (think Kansas). So the legislature came up with a new ploy: there will be a special election on Tuesday August 8, to require that any change in the state constitution get not a simple majority, but at least 60% of the vote. Furthermore, any proposal to change the constitution would require signatures from all 88 counties, not the current 44. Obviously they want to blunt the pro-abortion campaigners by making it nearly impossible to get on the ballot.

Republican strategists are hoping that turnout will be low and that the abortion rights side will fail to block the referendum. Polls have shown that some 58% support abortion rights, so they will never pass an amendment if Issue 1 succeeds and raises the threshold to 60%.

Politico wrote:

Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, a nonpartisan coalition of abortion-rights groups, submitted the ballot language earlier this year, kicking off a four-month dash to collect signatures and campaign across the state. Proponents, including state Democrats, ACLU of Ohio and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio, anticipate spending upward of $35 million on the effort heading into November.

Opponents have pushed against the measure by arguing that it would allow for gender-affirming care without parental consent, even though such a provision is not in the initiative’s language.

Aside from the abortion issue, there is a question about whether it’s right to impose a 60% requirement to get a referendum on the ballot. Why not let the majority (50% plus 1) decide?

Paul Waldman wrote on MSNBC’s site that the issue is stark: Now Ohio Republicans are trying to duck the will of the voters with some clever maneuvering. The state’s voters will decide on two ballot initiatives in two separate elections in a matter of months. One is explicitly about abortion, while the other is only implicitly about abortion but would go even further, to the very question of whether democratic accountability should exist at all…

Lest there be any doubt, the Legislature scheduled the vote on Issue 1 for a special election in August, when it could be assured a lower turnout. So if it succeeds, the abortion amendment on the ballot in November would have to get 60% to pass. Ohio Republicans are so committed to this farce that the Legislature ignored the law it passed in December banning almost all August special elections. When liberals pointed out the obvious contradiction, the Republican-majority on the state’s Supreme Court ruled the Legislature could simply break the law it passed less than a year ago.

Meanwhile, doctors in Ohio have mobilized against the abortion ban, according to ProPublica.

In her eight years as a pediatrician, Dr. Lauren Beene had always stayed out of politics. What happened at the Statehouse had little to do with the children she treated in her Cleveland practice. But after the Supreme Court struck down abortion protections, that all changed.

The first Monday after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling was emotional. Beene fielded a call from the mother of a 13-year-old patient. The mother was worried her child might need birth control in case she was the victim of a sexual assault. Beene also talked to a 16-year-old patient unsure about whether to continue her pregnancy. Time wasn’t on her side, Beene told the girl.

“What if it were too late to get her an abortion? What would they do? And I just, I felt sick to my stomach,” Beene said. “Nobody had ever asked me a question like that before.”

Beene felt she had to do something. She drafted a letter to a state lawmaker about the dangers of abortion bans, then another doctor reached out with an idea to get dozens of doctors to sign on. The effort took off. About 1,000 doctors signed that letter, and they later published it as a full-page ad in The Columbus Dispatch.

Beene felt momentum building within the medical community and decided to help use that energy to form the Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights coalition. Now, Beene and the coalition are working to pass a citizen-led amendment to enshrine reproductive rights into the state constitution. The state’s six-week ban on abortion was blocked by a judge in October 2022.

The group is a part of an emerging political force: doctors on the front lines of the reproductive rights debate. In many states, the fight to protect reproductive rights is heating up as 14 states have outlawed abortion. Doctors who previously never mixed work with politics are jumping into the abortion debate by lobbying state lawmakers, campaigning, forming political action committees and trying to get reproductive rights protected by state law.

Reasons to vote NO on Issue 1:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ISSUE 1

The following argument was prepared by senators Paula Hicks-Hudson and Vernon Sykes along with representatives Dontavius Jarrells, Bride Rose Sweeney and Dani Isaacsohn…

This amendment would destroy citizen-driven ballot initiatives as we know them, upending our right to make decisions that directly impact our lives. It takes away our freedom by undermining the sacred principle of ‘one person, one vote’ and destroys majority rule in Ohio.

Last year, Ohio politicians eliminated August special elections saying, “Interest groups often manipulatively put issues on the ballot in August because they know fewer Ohioans are paying attention.”

And yet here we are, voting in August on just one question: should Ohio permanently abolish the basic constitutional right of majority rule?

Special interests and corrupt politicians say yes. They don’t like voters making decisions, so they’re trying to rewrite the rules to get what they want: even more power.

Here’s why we’re confident Ohio citizens will resoundingly vote NO:

  • Issue 1 Ends Majority Rule: It means just 40% of voters can block any issue, putting 40% of voters in charge of decision-making for the majority.
  • Issue 1 Shreds Our Constitution: It would permanently undo constitutional protections that have been in place for over 100 years to check politicians’ power at the ballot box.
  • Issue 1 Takes Away Our Freedom: It would destroy citizen-driven ballot initiatives as we know them, guaranteeing that only wealthy special interests could advance changes to our constitution.
  • Issue 1 Applies to All Issues: If this amendment passes, it will apply to every single amendment on any issue Ohioans will ever vote on – you name it, just 40% of voters will decide.

We all deserve to make decisions that impact our lives. We must protect our freedom to determine our future, not permanently change our constitution to give up our rights. Vote NO.

Categories Elections, Gender, Health, Ohio, Science

Pennsylvania: Gov. Shapiro Signs State Budget, Vetoes Vouchers

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2023 //
8

Governor Josh Shapiro promised Democrats that if they passed the state budget, he would veto the voucher legislation so beloved by Republicans. Gov. Shapiro had previously declared his support for vouchers. Thursday, the governor kept his promise. He signed the state budget and vetoed vouchers.

Carly Sitrin of Chalkbeat Philadelphia wrote:

As promised, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed the $45.5 billion state budget without a state-funded private school voucher program on Thursday, ending weeks of drama about the proposal.

Budget negotiations had been stalled for nearly a month over the dispute about whether to create a $100 million statewide voucher program. With a one-vote majority in the House, Democrats refused to approve any spending plan that included vouchers — even one supported by Shapiro, a fellow Democrat.

In the end, Shapiro cut a deal to sign the budget and strike the voucher provision, much to the chagrin of Republicans who claimed the governor was turning his back on his own campaign promise.

“The people of Pennsylvania have entrusted me with the responsibility to bring people together in a divided legislature and to get things done for them – and with this commonsense budget, that’s exactly what we’ve done,” Shapiro said in a statement announcing the signing.

In his message announcing that he would use a line-item veto to eliminate vouchers from the budget, Shapiro said the proposal — called the Pennsylvania Award for Student Success Scholarship Program, or PASS — remains “unfinished business.”

“This budget is a first step towards a comprehensive solution that makes progress for our children over the long term, and I look forward to continuing this work with both chambers as we discuss additional programs to help our children including PASS,” Shapiro wrote.

PASS would have expanded the state’s school choice offerings, which currently include the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit and Education Improvement Tax Credit.

Critics in Philadelphia claimed that an earlier version of the program could have upended the city’s public school system.

Nathan Benefield, senior vice president of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation that has backed voucher programs, said in a statement Shapiro’s veto “while not unexpected, is disappointing and unnecessary.”

Benefield said his organization will continue to push for vouchers and cast the program as Shapiro’s “chance to redeem himself, fulfill his campaign promises, and offer a genuine opportunity to thousands of low-income kids who deserve a better future.”

Advocates opposing vouchers celebrated Shapiro’s voucher veto, but also expressed disappointment that the Republican-led Senate has yet to approve some education funding.

Among the programs in the budget Shapiro signed Thursday that will still require Senate approval is so-called Level Up funding for the 100 school districts with the lowest spending per pupil, including Philadelphia. Level Up funding is in addition to the Basic Education funding that schools receive from the state and is included in the $45.5 billion budget Shapiro signed.

“It is disappointing that Senate leadership is standing in the way of releasing needed funds for programs included in their own budget, including Level Up dollars that benefit students in the most underfunded school districts,” the PA Schools Work Campaign said in a statement.

The advocates called it “ironic” that Senate Republicans are still holding up “funding for our students in the most underfunded schools specifically because they were unsuccessful in an attempt to institute a new private school voucher program that purports to help … these very same students.”

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers President Jerry Jordan said in a statement that the union is “pleased” that Shapiro signed the budget without the voucher program.

”The misguided push to divert public dollars into private institutions was a distraction that diverts us from our collective responsibility to truly invest in public education,” Jordan said.

Categories Democrats, Education Industry, Pennsylvania, Privatization, Vouchers

NY Times: Who Paid $267,230 for Clarence Thomas’s RV?

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2023 //
38

Jo Becker and Julie Tate of The New York Times reported today that a wealthy health care executive paid for a spiffy RV that Justice Clarence Thomas purchased in Phoenix in 1999 and uses to burnish his image as a man of the people.

Justice Clarence Thomas met the recreational vehicle of his dreams in Phoenix, on a November Friday in 1999.

With some time to kill before an event that night, he headed to a dealership just west of the airport. There sat a used Prevost Le Mirage XL Marathon, eight years old and 40 feet long, with orange flames licking down the sides. In the words of one of his biographers, “he kicked the tires and climbed aboard,” then quickly negotiated a handshake deal. A few weeks later, Justice Thomas drove his new motor coach off the lot and into his everyman, up-by-the-bootstraps self-mythology.

There he is behind the wheel during a rare 2007 interview with “60 Minutes,” talking about how the steel-clad converted bus allows him to escape the “meanness that you see in Washington.” He regularly slips into his speeches his love of driving it through the American heartland — “the part we fly over.” And in a documentary financed by conservative admirers, Justice Thomas, who was born into poverty in Georgia, waxes rhapsodic about the familiarity of spending time with the regular folks he meets along the way in R.V. parks and Walmart parking lots.

“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States,” he told the filmmakers, adding: “There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer being around that….”

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value.

In an email to The Times, Mr. Welters wrote: “Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his.” Roughly nine years later, “the loan was satisfied,” Mr. Welters added. He subsequently sent The Times a photograph of the original title bearing his signature and a handwritten “lien release” date of Nov. 22, 2008.

But despite repeated requests over nearly two weeks, Mr. Welters did not answer further questions essential to understanding his arrangement with Justice Thomas.

He would not say how much he had lent Justice Thomas, how much the justice had repaid and whether any of the debt had been forgiven or otherwise discharged. He declined to provide The Times with a copy of a loan agreement — or even say if one existed. Nor would he share the basic terms of the loan, such as what, if any, interest rate had been charged or whether Justice Thomas had adhered to an agreed-upon repayment schedule. And when asked to elaborate on what he had meant when he said the loan had been “satisfied,” he did not respond.

“‘Satisfied’ doesn’t necessarily mean someone paid the loan back,” said Michael Hamersley, a tax lawyer and expert who has testified before Congress. “‘Satisfied’ could also mean the lender formally forgave the debt, or otherwise just stopped pursuing repayment.”

Justice Thomas did not respond to requests for comment.

The Supreme Court Justice is a fortunate man indeed. He grew up in poverty, but now has many very wealthy friends who are happy to pay for luxury vacations, private jet travel, his mother’s home, his nephew’s tuition, and countless other gifts. He seldom reports these gifts because why should he? The Supreme Court has no code of ethics and polices itself. It is the only part of the federal government that is above the law.

Categories Accountability, Ethics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »