Thursday, December 13, 2018

America Is Sacrificing Black Education for a False Meritocracy - The stakes of New York City’s school integration plan.

The stakes of New York City’s school integration plan.

America Is Sacrificing Black Education for a False Meritocracy


In the weeks before her election on November 27, Cindy Hyde-Smith looked vulnerable. Not enough, perhaps, to scuttle her chances at winning: She was a white Republican, after all, running for U.S. Senate against a black Democrat in Mississippi, with the country’s least-elastic electorate all but guaranteeing a 60-40 split in her favor. But the knocks against her were damning, and there seemed to be new ones every week. She joked about public hangings and suppressing unfavorable votes in a state where white supremacists once made a pastime of lynching black people to deter them from voting. She wore a Confederate soldier’s hat and described it on Facebook as “Mississippi history at its best!” And in arguably the most flagrant example of her ties to the state’s racist history, local reporters foundshe had attended an all-white “segregation academy” as a teenager — and sent her daughter to one years later.
The last two were framed as especially scandalous. They seemed deeper-rooted, more fundamental to Hyde-Smith’s character than the racist tongue-slips that had preceded them. The Jackson Free Press story about her schooling was circulated breathlessly on social media, sparking a national discussion about racism and so-called “seg” academies — private schools that cropped up across the South during the 1960s and 1970s to accommodate white children whose parents wanted to avoid integration. But it also generated talk cautioning outsiders against casting segregation as uniquely southern. Some observers pointed to purportedly liberal New York City as having some of the most segregated schools in the country.
As if on cue, a group of Manhattan parents gathered on Monday to oppose integration. Facing a proposal from New York mayor Bill de Blasio that would expand the admissions process for the city’s coveted specialized public high schools — thereby securing more spots for black and Hispanic students at institutions that are currently dominated by Asian and white children — they made impassioned arguments for why it was a bad idea. One white parent disparaged it as a dangerous “social experiment.” Another claimed it would be unfair to the new black and Hispanic students, who would find themselves floundering and underprepared. Asian parents and their advocates saw the schools’ current admissions policy — which relies on a single, high-stakes standardized-test score — as a rare color-blind means of upward mobility in a city where Asians face high poverty rates but thrive academically.

But the single-mindedness of these warring interests belies a larger, more fundamental point. Every American wants their child to have a quality education, but few seem invested in a quality education for all children. In a country where the school districts with the most students of color receive 15 percent less money per child in state and local funding than the whitest, it is an unavoidable conclusion that advantage is distributed, and hoarded, according to race. During the civil-rights movement, integration was framed as the remedy to such inequality. More than half a century later, its promise remains unrealized. Americans from New York to Mississippi internalized CONTINUE READING: The stakes of New York City’s school integration plan.

Arizona charter school history: How leaders got the votes

Arizona charter school history: How leaders got the votes

History of Arizona charter schools: 'I don’t think we realized what we’d done'
IN 1994, LEGISLATORS CAME TOGETHER TO PASS A HISTORIC BILL THAT ALLOWED CHARTER SCHOOLS IN ARIZONA.



The charter gamble: In this series, we examine how Arizona committed 25 years ago to the then-untested concept of charter schools, and what the program has meant for the state. Today, Part 1, how it all began.
Fife Symington sounded defiant.
He had run for governor on a promise to overhaul Arizona's sluggish public education system. But by April 1994, three years into his administration, nothing significant had changed. 
Now he felt pressure from all sides. The public demanded change. His re-election was in doubt. His personal entanglements were beginning to make news. 
His best hope was to do something dramatic.  
So the governor called an ally. 
Lisa Graham, a Republican state representative and chairwoman of the House Education Committee, answered the phone. Graham felt defeated. She had poured years of work into an education-reform bill Symington had supported, and then watched from the Senate gallery as it died.
Let's go back, the governor told her. He would call a special session, and they would run the bill again. But this time without its most controversial component. 
We'll take out the vouchers.
Symington was convinced the bill's small voucher program — which allowed families to use public money to send their children to private schools — had doomed the legislation. Without it, Symington said, their reforms would sail through.
The rest of the bill seemed tame by comparison. It allowed "open enrollment," letting children go to schools outside their district boundaries. It created school report cards and expanded preschool for at-risk children. And it established a new breed of public schools designed to operate independently, with fewer rules and looser oversight than their district counterparts. They would fuel competition and parent choice.
They were called charter schools. 

It was more of an idea than a movement. Only a handful of states had passed charter laws, and in those, only a few schools had opened. 
Neither Symington nor Graham had ever visited one. 
Graham had doubts about the timing of a special session. She respected Symington's instincts, but worried it was too soon to try again. She tried to be tactful. 
"I don't know if you know this: People hate you right now. And they don't like me either," she recalled telling him. "I'm not sure if you want me to run this thing."
Symington was undeterred. The November election was six months away. Education reform could spark a rebound in his popularity and give fellow Republicans a talking point for their own campaigns. 
Their recent defeat, Symington assured Graham, was just part of the process. Though he wasn't exactly sure what charter schools were, he knew they would change everything. 
We're coming back, he told her. I'm not asking you. We're coming back.

Changing the system deemed 'impossible'
The push for better schools was a nationwide concern.
In a 1993 report to Congress, the National Center for Education Statistics concluded that the country's lagging schools "continue to have serious implications." It detailed high dropout rates, stagnant test scores and wide racial gaps in American education. CONTINUE READING: Arizona charter school history: How leaders got the votes



Sacramento school district says it will be broke in November | The Sacramento Bee

Sacramento school district says it will be broke in November | The Sacramento Bee

Sac City Unified school district says it will be broke in November 2019


The Sacramento City Unified School District announced Wednesday it expects to run out of cash by November 2019 after months of financial crisis.
In a statement sent to the community, the district said unless major savings are found, it will be unable to pay employees and make necessary purchases.
The statement suggested that moving forward with recent plans to reduce health care costs is the next best step to reach solvency, especially considering it pays more for health care than any other Sacramento-area school district.
At last week’s Dec. 6 Board of Education meeting, four of the district’s five labor unions agreed to work toward trimming health expenses with the district.
The district still needs cooperation from the Sacramento City Teachers Association, which has long been at odds with the district over administrative costs.
SCTA did not sign onto a tentative plan proposed at the board meeting to work with California Education Coalition for Health Care Reform, a nonprofit group that helps districts reduce health care costs. SCTA had already been discussing possible savings with CECHCR last year, but talks between the district and the union have since come to an impasse.
District officials estimate working with CECHCR could save up to $16 million without affecting coverage.
In its statement, the district said it has already found about $19 million in savings in other areas, with $5.4 million coming from removing vacant positions and freezing hiring, $3.8 million from CONTINUE READING: Sacramento school district says it will be broke in November | The Sacramento Bee



Robert Reich VIDEO (The Truth About Privatization Privatization....)

Robert Reich (The Truth About Privatization Privatization....)

The Truth About Privatization




Privatization. Privatization. Privatization. It’s all you hear from Republicans. But what does it actually mean?
Generations ago, America built an entire national highway system, along with the largest and best public colleges and universities in the world. Also public schools and national parks, majestic bridges, dams that generated electricity for entire regions, public libraries and public research.
But around 1980, the moneyed interests began pushing to privatize much of this, giving it over to for-profit corporations. Privatization, the argument went, would boost efficiency and reduce taxes.
The reality has been that privatization too often only boosts corporate bottom lines.  
For example, consider Trump’s proposal for infrastructure. It depends on private developers, who would make money off of both tax subsidies and private tolls. So the public would get charged twice, without any guarantee that the resulting roads, bridges, or rapid transportation systems would be where they’re most needed.
It’s true that private for-profit corporations can do certain tasks very efficiently. And some privatization has worked. But the goal of corporations is to maximize profits for shareholders, not to serve the public interest.
The question should be: What’s best for the public? Here are five rules of thumb for when public services should not be privatized:
1. Don’t privatize when the purpose of the service is to bring us together – reinforcing our communities, helping us connect with one another across class and race, linking up Americans who’d otherwise be isolated or marginalized. 
This is why we have a public postal service that serves everyone, even small rural communities where for-profit private carriers often won’t go. This is why we value public education and need to be very careful that charter schools and other forms of so-called school choice don’t end up dividing our children and our communities rather than pulling them together.  
2. Don’t privatize when the service is less costly when paid for through tax revenues than through prices set by for-profit corporations. 
America’s hugely expensive for-profit health-insurance system, for example, is designed to sign up healthy people and avoid sick people, while running up huge tabs for advertising and marketing, and giving big rewards to shareholders and executives. Which is why the administrative costs of Medicare are a fraction of the costs of for-profit medical insurance – and why we need Medicare for all.
3. Don’t privatize when the people who are supposed to get the service have no power to complain when services are poor. 
This is why for-profit prison corporations have proven again and CONTINUE READING: Robert Reich (The Truth About Privatization Privatization....)






What School Choice Did To Sweden: A Cautionary Example | Diane Ravitch's blog

What School Choice Did To Sweden: A Cautionary Example | Diane Ravitch's blog

What School Choice Did To Sweden: A Cautionary Example


The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development convened a meeting last spring in Portugal to discuss the condition and future of the teaching profession. Each nation present discussed its perspective. The following is the official summary of the presentation by the Minister of Education from Sweden.
To download the full report click here.
SCHOOL CHOICE
Sweden:
In the early 1990s, Sweden moved to a school choice system in which the education system changed from one where the vast majority of students attended the public school in their catchment area to one where many students opt for a school other than their local school, and where schools that are privately run and publicly funded compete with traditional public schools.
Over the past twenty-five years of this unlimited choice system in Sweden, student performance on PISA has declined from near the OECD average to significantly below the OECD average in 2012, a steeper decline than in any other country. The variation in performance between schools also increased and there is now a larger impact of socioeconomic status on student performance than in the past.
Swedish participants described Sweden’s education system as an object lesson in how not to design a school choice system. Housing segregation leads to school segregation, and if you add to that market mechanisms and weak regulation, the result is markedly increased inequity.
The decline in achievement has fueled a national debate about how to improve the Swedish education system, from revising school choice arrangements to improve the access of disadvantaged families to information about school choices and the introduction of controlled choice schemes that supplement parental choice to ensure a more diverse distribution of students among schools. The Swedish government wants to modify its school choice system but this is politically difficult.


The Swedish government is increasing resources to poor schools but has not been able to solve its problem of teacher shortages, which affect the poorest schools the most. The poorest schools have the least experienced teachers, who are overwhelmed by the many problems they face. Teachers also lack time to work with students, and surveys of students report a lack of trustful relations with teachers.CONTINUE READING: What School Choice Did To Sweden: A Cautionary Example | Diane Ravitch's blog



Seclusion and Restraint: 16 Ways to Address Acting Out Behavior Without It

Seclusion and Restraint: 16 Ways to Address Acting Out Behavior Without It

Seclusion and Restraint: 16 Ways to Address Acting Out Behavior Without It
Image result for Seclusion and Restraint


Restraint or seclusion should not be used as routine school safety measures; that is, they should not be implemented except in situations where a child’s behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others and not as a routine strategy implemented to address instructional problems or inappropriate behavior (e.g., disrespect, noncompliance, insubordination, out of seat), as a means of coercion or retaliation, or as a convenience.
How to assist students who act out in school is a difficult challenge.
Since Public Law 94-142, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with serious emotional or behavioral disabilities have attended public school. Teachers might be faced with students who act out in ways that could be injurious to other students, the teacher, or the student themselves.
Teachers are not alone. Other professionals also deal with individuals with psychiatric problems. Here is a report by the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. 
Seclusion and restraints are sometimes permitted, but are extreme, controversial, and CONTINUE READING: Seclusion and Restraint: 16 Ways to Address Acting Out Behavior Without It



Latest News and Comment from Education