Report charges many charter schools exclude children in violation of the law | EdSource

Report charges many charter schools exclude children in violation of the law | EdSource:

Report charges many charter schools exclude children in violation of the law

Over 1 in 5 of California’s charter schools have restrictive admissions requirements or other exclusionary practices that keep out many students with the greatest academic needs, a report released today by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the public interest law firm Public Advocates alleges.

These practices, the report alleges, “violate the California Education Code, the California and U.S. Constitution, and state and federal civil rights laws.”

The report, titled, “Unequal Access: How Some California Charter Schools Illegally Restrict Enrollment,” says that according to the California Charter Schools Act of 1992, charter schools are required to “admit all pupils who wish to attend,” except for space limitations.

See California Education Code Section 47605(d)2)(A)

“Charter schools may not enact admissions requirements or other barriers to enrollment and must admit all students who apply, just as traditional schools cannot turn away students,” the 28-page report charges.

Of the  1,228 charter schools in California, the report said that it has identified 253 that have practices that are “plainly exclusionary,” based on information posted on the schools’ websites.

GOING DEEPER

Report:  Unequal Access: How Some California Charter Schools Illegally Restrict Enrollment

Response from California Charter School Association

These practices include:

• Denying enrollment to students who have weak grades or test scores;
• Expelling students who do not have strong grades or test scores;
• Denying enrollment to students who do not “meet a minimum level of English proficiency;”
• Requiring students to meet “onerous” requirements for admission, including students or parent having to write essays or be interviewed;
• Discouraging students from immigrant background from applying by requiring parents or students to provide social security numbers or other citizenship information;
• Make enrollment conditional on parents volunteering or donating funds to the school.

In a lengthy statement, Jed Wallace, president and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, said, “We agree with Report charges many charter schools exclude children in violation of the law | EdSource:

 

The Mouth of Donald Trump | deutsch29

The Mouth of Donald Trump | deutsch29:
The Mouth of Donald Trump

Perhaps the best Republican promoter of another Clinton presidency is the mouth of Donald Trump.

He simply cannot control himself. He apparently tried, sort of, following the Democratic National Convention, when he told CNN that he wanted to “hit” some of the speakers so that “they’d never recover.” CNN’s Ashley Killough was quick to translate for Trump: “Trump often uses the term ‘hit’ to mean verbally attack, rather than physical contact.”

Trump even seemed to try to abide by the advice to refrain from attacking DNC speakers and instead focus on Clinton:

Trump said his friend, who he labeled a “very great governor,” urged him to stay focused on attacking Clinton, not other Democrats.

“He said, ‘Don’t hit there. Don’t hit down. You have one person to beat. It’s Hillary Rodham Clinton,'” Trump recalled, adding that he initially objected to the advice. “I said, ‘But I really want to. I don’t like what they’re saying because a lot of it is lies. Not all of it but a lot of it is.’ I said, ‘I just really … it makes me feel good.’ “

Ultimately, he said, he conceded and decided not to launch into verbal assaults against the Democrats.

But like a kid who cannot master his own verbiage, Trump botched an interview with George Stephanopolos in which he was asked questions about the speech given by Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of an American Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who died while serving America in Iraq.

In a particular blunder, Trump focused The Mouth of Donald Trump | deutsch29:

CURMUDGUCATION: Common Core Defenders Still Flailing Away

CURMUDGUCATION: Common Core Defenders Still Flailing Away:

Common Core Defenders Still Flailing Away

I think of Common Core defenders as a little like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster-- folks kind of believe they're out there, but only a handful of folks will admit to having seen them.

After all, neither major party will admit to loving the Core any more, and lots of policy folks have adopted the more generic and less civilian-alarming "college and career ready" for describing any kind of standardy stuff we're trying to push. Charter purveyors have learned they don't have to back the Core to succeed, and most everyone else has determined that the mere use of the term raises so much squawking that it's just better to keep quiet. The Gates Foundation slowed spending on the Core way down, with just one grant awarded in 2016.

And yet, every once in a while, like dust bunnies before a vacuum cleaner on a hardwood floor, the CC supporters come running out.

This time, the vacuum cleaner was a New York Times op-ed by Diane Ravitch. The piece really had nothing all that new or novel to say-- the Common Core cost taxpayers a buttload of money, and it hasn't helped students a bit. But, perhaps predictably, some folks popped right up to defend the still-useless set of standards.

The Collaborative for Student Success went with alistsicle of nine times they thought Ravitch was wrongin the NYT piece.

These included old standards like "they aren't really national" and "they aren't really curriculum," not acknowledging that both of those ideas are out in the world because back in the day, Core supporters put them there. It is true that, as of today, the Core are not quite national standards-- but they were always supposed to be. The whole notion was that CCSS would "fix" education by ensuring that students in Iowa and Alabama would be on the same page when it came to math and CURMUDGUCATION: Common Core Defenders Still Flailing Away:

Seattle Schools Community Forum: National PTA Survey

Seattle Schools Community Forum: National PTA Survey:

National PTA Survey

The National PTA is currently conducting a survey of members.  It asks a few early questions about how members use PTA and then asks about what members know about "advocacy" work.

They then ask about interest in webinars on

• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• National PTA's Advocacy Toolkit
• Common Core standards
• Special Education Toolkit

They aren't asking members for their input on these issues but rather, do members want to hear what PTA thinks.

Then they ask about the "2016 Election" and various activities. 

It's curious because they ask if members are interested in hosting a voter registration event "if your PTA was provided a guide/planning tool on how to do it."  I find that interesting because I honestly have not heard of many/any Seattle PTAs doing this.

Then they get to "National PTA Legislation Committee Focus."  They list:

• mental health care access and early intervention 
• lead in school water systems/playgrounds
• climate change
• pre-K teacher credentials
• pre-K teacher pay scale
• pre-K funding
• kindergarten funding
• recess
• virtual charter schools
• gun safety and violence prevention

Why so many pre-K issues?  I'm baffled on that one.  And virtual charter Seattle Schools Community Forum: National PTA Survey:

A Follow-up about My Position on Presidential Election 2016 | deutsch29

A Follow-up about My Position on Presidential Election 2016 | deutsch29:

A Follow-up about My Position on Presidential Election 2016

On July 28, 2016, I published a post entitled, “I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton Because I Cannot Possibly Vote for Donald Trump.”

I received an entire spectrum of reactions to that post.

Some readers jeered and called me names (not many).

A number expressed their disappointment and even stopped following my blog. (Some added that they could not trust me anymore and included statements like “thanks for nothing” and that my work was “all for nothing.”) But the disappointment was not unified. Some were disappointed because

• I publicly expressed an opinion about whom I would support.
• I would not be voting for Trump.
• I would not be boycotting the election.
• I did not write an enthusiastic endorsement of Clinton.
• I would not be voting for Johnson or Stein.

Others did not express their disappointment with my position but did let me know of their concern; still others openly yet respectfully disagreed and said that they were taking a strong stand opposite mine (i.e., voting for Trump because they could not possibly vote for Clinton).

Some expressed that they knew early on I would endorse Clinton; others went further and added that I was only looking for some excuse to do so.

And there are those who wrote that they understood my dilemma because it was their dilemma, as well.

Among my friends, a number will vote for Trump. They have told me so. And a number will vote for Clinton. They have told me so. This election is a tough one, and I have been surprised more than once about which candidate a friend supports. But I have told none that I am disappointed; I have tried to argue none into my own position, and I have ended no relationships over a friend’s choice of Clinton or Trump (or neither).

I have had some readers ask if I have seen the movie, Hillary’s America. I have not. And a number asked if I had seen Clinton Cash.

I watched about half of Clinton Cash before writing this post. And I read from a few articles related to the Clintons’ involvement in other countries and related to their A Follow-up about My Position on Presidential Election 2016 | deutsch29: