Hillary Clinton On Education: 8 Things The Presidential Candidate Wants You To Know - Forbes

Hillary Clinton On Education: 8 Things The Presidential Candidate Wants You To Know - Forbes:

Hillary Clinton On Education: 8 Things The Presidential Candidate Wants You To Know

 Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton announces her long-anticipated bid for the 2016 presidential nomination today. During her four years as Secretary of State and the last two years giving speeches and promoting her memoir, “Hard Choices,” she has said little about education issues.

These remarks come from then-New York Senator Clinton’s appearance at the April 2007 convention of NYSUT, the federation of New York teachers’ unions, during her last presidential campaign. Back then there was no Common Core curriculum debate and she never uses the phrase “school choice” in her speech. She does mention that it “takes a village” to educate a child. A lot has changed since that event eight years ago when she called newly elected New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was ousted from office less than a year later, “a leader in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt.” We’ll see if her other views have evolved:

Vouchers:

I’ll tell you why I won’t support vouchers. Number one, I don’t think they’re constitutional. But number two, I don’t see how you would implement them without having a lot of people get vouchers for schools that would be teaching things antithetical to American values.

Supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton get ready in Manhattan on Saturday for the upcoming announcement of her run for president. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Charter schools:

I actually do believe in charter schools.

Teacher pay:

Not only don’t we pay teachers what they deserve to be paid, in other countries that have better test scores than ours–you hear about that all the time–actually teachers get paid much more on an even standard with professionals who are engineers and in other walks of life.

We have to face the fact that we have a lot of people who come out of school burdened with student loans and decide they can’t go into teaching, so we lose a lot of good young people.

How to spend tax money:

Let’s put money into what we know does work, like smaller class sizes, higher teacher pay and better curriculum.

Let’s use interventions that work. That means extended learning time, it means summer school, it means stronger parental involvement from the very beginning of a child’s schooling.

Character and behavior education:

I believe it is time we get back to teaching discipline, self-control, patience, punctuality. The biggest complaint that I hear from employers is that young people who show up for jobs don’t have those habits. They don’t get there on time. They don’t know how to conduct themselves appropriately.

There are wonderful pictures in museums in New York that I’ve seen where at the turn of the last century there were all the immigrants who were coming into New York and the schools were basically the place where kids were socialized. Where they were given the chance to learn how to fit in and behave and conduct themselves. And I think we’re leaving too many kids to raise themselves. They don’t have adult supervision and responsible mentoring in the way that every child needs. And we all know that education starts at home. And if we don’t have parents who appreciate that, it’s very hard for the schools and the teachers to make up that deficit… It does take a village to raise and teach a child.

Public schools:

The public school system has been, I believe, second to the Constitution, the most important institution in making America the great country that we have been over the last 200 plus years…

Public education must be defended, yes it has to be modernized but never doubt for a minute if we turned our back on public education we would be turning our back on America. I will not let that happen.

Universal preschool:

I want to start by making preschool available to all the children who need it in order to prepare them to be successful at school.

For every dollar invested you get a seven dollar return. Children stay in school, their behavior is better and their academic performance improves over what it would have been without preschool.

Personal background:

Clinton, 67, graduated near the top of her class at Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois, in 1965. She went on to graduate with a degree in political science fromWellesley College, a women’s school in Massachusetts, in 1969. She earned her law degree at Yale Law School, where she met her future husband, President Bill Clinton, who had attended Georgetown University. Their daughter, Chelsea, went to Sidwell Friends School in Washington (the same school the Obama daughters attend). Chelsea has a history degree from Stanford University, a master’s degree and doctorate in international relations from Oxford University in England, and a master’s in public health from Columbia University.Hillary Clinton On Education: 8 Things The Presidential Candidate Wants You To Know - Forbes:

Mexican American Studies Day Commemorated Across Texas MASDay

MASDay:

Mexican American Studies Day Commemorated Across Texas  

Friday, May 1, 2015

 Houston, TX (April 13, 2015)- More people in the U.S. than in Mexico celebrate Cinco De Mayo. Yet, most people don't really know what it's about.

That's why Mexican American Studies Day is here to save the day and raise awareness.  

Tony Diaz, El Librotraficante, founder of Nuestra Palabra: Latino Writers Having Their Say, said, "If more people took Mexican American Studies courses, they would know that Cinco de Mayo is NOT Mexican Independence Day, which some people confuse it for. They would understand the cultural context of May 5. That's the purpose of Mexican American Studies Day-raising awareness about the largest growing demographic in Texas."

State-wide Proclamation in the Morning: Friday, May 1, 2015. 

Who: Senator Sylvia Garcia. Tony Diaz, El Librotraficante Director of Nuestra Palabra: Latino Writers Having Their Say, and supporters. 

What: Texas Proclamation of Mexican American Studies Day, May 1, 2015.

When: Friday, May 1, 2015, 10 am.

Where: Texas Capitol Senate Floor to be followed by a MAS Rally on the Capitol Steps in Austin, Texas. 

Why: Cinco de Mayo is the perfect for metaphor for the Mexican American condition. People have heard of us but don't exactly know what we are about. MAS DAY will help spread understanding.  

Proclamations in several Texas Cities in the Afternoon.  

Houston has confirmed a city-wide proclamation of Mexican American Studies Day May 1. The other cities pending are: El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin. Other cities are expected to join as well.  

The Houston rally for MAS Day will take place at Austin High School, currently the only HISD high school teaching Mexican American Studies. The rally will include an announcement by HISD Boad of Trustee member Juliet Stipeche that the Houston Independent School District has approved a MAS Special Topics course that can be taught at any high school in Houston.

Houston Proclamation of MAS DAY

Who: Austin High School MAS Students, HISD Board of Trustee Juliet Stipeche, Tony Diaz, El Librotraficante, Director of Nuestra Palabra, and supporters.  

What: Houston Commemoration of Mexican American Studies Day

When: Friday, May 1, 2015, 3 PM. 

Where: Austin High School, 1700 Dumble St, Houston, TX 77023   

Why: Recent reports prove that students who enrolled in Mexican American Studies courses graduated at higher rates than those who did not . MAS Students also passed standardized Math and English Tests at higher rates then non-MAS students. 

Go to MASDay website MASDay:

Senate Bill Revising No Child Left Behind Law Excludes Test Score Requirement in Teacher Evaluations : News : ISchoolGuide

Senate Bill Revising No Child Left Behind Law Excludes Test Score Requirement in Teacher Evaluations : News : ISchoolGuide:

Senate Bill Revising No Child Left Behind Law Excludes Test Score Requirement in Teacher Evaluations

A bipartisan Senate bill updating the No Child Left Behind law and remove many of its onerous elements has been announced. While it retains the yearly test requirement in reading and math for students in third through eighth grade, it excludes the linking of test scores to the teacher-rating system.

 The bipartisan Senate bill that will revise the No Child Left Behind law, removing many of its onerous elements, was announced on Tuesday. Earlier this year, Republican House representatives were forced to postpone the vote on the proposed legislation after it became clear that it would not receive the amount of support it needs.

The proposal was sponsored by Senators Patty Murray (D-Washington), and Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee).

It would retain the yearly math and reading test requirements for third to eighth graders, and the one-time administration of the tests in high school. Test scores will also be required to be broken down by income and race, and be made public. However, the framework that classified nearly every public school as failing will be removed. It would also end a requirement that triggered teachers to start an all-out campaign - the use of test scores in their job evaluations.

The Senate bill mandates states to adopt the academic standards in math, science, and reading that would allow students to attend public universities without the need for remedial classes, or meet the state's vocational guidelines. It would, however, deprive the education secretary the authority to approve such standards, Motoko Rich and Tamar Lewin of The New York Times reported.

Also, based on the proposed bill, the federal government will no longer advise states on how they should handle chronically failing schools.

"This is a big deal," said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. "It goes back to the original intent of the law, to level the playing field for at-risk kids."

The NCLB law was passed in 2001 as George W. Bush's signature education achievement. It had established a set of burdensome punishments for schools that failed to produce "adequate yearly progress" on the student test scores. The law expired in 2007, but the Congress kept on failing to reauthorize what was previously known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

While the House bill was being drafted, President Barack Obama concentrated on how it will impact funding for schools with the highest number of needy students. These schools receive extra federal funding under the existing law, and the Senate bill will retain this criteria.

The White House in a statement called the bill "an important step."Senate Bill Revising No Child Left Behind Law Excludes Test Score Requirement in Teacher Evaluations : News : ISchoolGuide:

NYC HS teachers: Principal gave us bad ratings as retaliation | New York Post

NYC HS teachers: Principal gave us bad ratings as retaliation | New York Post:

NYC HS teachers: Principal gave us bad ratings as retaliation

 Teachers at Brooklyn’s scandal-plagued John Dewey HS say they are being punished with bad performance evaluations for standing up to the principal, who they say lets students slide with a grade-inflation system nicknamed “Easy Pass.”

A Post analysis found that half of the teachers at the school were given failing grades from Principal Kathleen Elvin, even though the graduation rate has been soaring.

State education records show that out of 101 teachers, 16 earned “ineffective” ratings and 35 got “developing” ratings last year, a failure rate of 50 percent.

Only 8 percent of teachers citywide received marks that low, leading some Dewey teachers to claim that the game is being rigged by the administration to get back at educators who object to alleged grade inflation.

“This doesn’t make sense. Something is wrong here,” said one teacher, who was rated “ineffective.”

Part of the reason the teachers are blaming the principal is that they had been rated “effective” based on their students’ improvement on state exams.

But when subjective observations by Elvin and her fellow administrators were factored in, their grades sank.

“She has a personal vendetta,” the teacher said. “She’s using the teacher observations as a weapon against teachers. It’s her way to force teachers to leave or retire.”

He said some of the teachers who got the bad reviews were the same teachers who would not alter grades to pass failing students.

The school is under investigation for fixing grades with easy extra credit so it could post higher graduation rates. Students derisively call the system “Easy Pass.”

“I have integrity,” the teacher said. “I refused to give kids credit who didn’t deserve it.”

Only 49 percent of Dewey teachers surveyed by the city agreed that Elvin is an effective manager. She declined to comment and directed inquiries to the Department of Education.

Department spokeswoman Devora Kaye said “Principals must rate teachers fairly and accurately,” but did not address the dispute at Dewey.

United Federation of Teachers grievance director Ellen Gallin Procida called the poor ratings a “red flag.”

“This is the first year we have had this process, but the fact that one school stands out the way it does is noteworthy,” she said.NYC HS teachers: Principal gave us bad ratings as retaliation | New York Post:

Parents, teachers push 'opt out,' with different goals | Capital New York

Parents, teachers push 'opt out,' with different goals | Capital New York:

Parents, teachers push ‘opt out,’ with different goals

ALBANY—Teachers’ unions are leveraging an unprecedented statewide protest of standardized testing in public schools as their latest weapon in a war with Governor Andrew Cuomo over education reform—whether the parent activists who began the so-called “opt out” movement like it or not.

When New York State United Teachers president Karen Magee last month announced the union’s support for the testing boycott, she said her intention was to undermine the state’s teacher evaluation system, which Cuomo and lawmakers made more stringent in the recently approved state budget.

Parents whose activism led tens of thousands of children to refuse state exams last year say the teachers’ unions are welcome to join their cause, but are concerned about the possibility that the focus of their movement will shift from children to adults.

“Are the teachers jumping in on this, the fight that we set up, to try to save themselves? I hope not,” said Jacqueline Lyon, a Suffolk County mother whose son is in third grade. “I want to fight for teachers, too, and I am so glad that they are a part of this. But the No. 1 priority is to save the kids.”

This year’s state exams, which third through eighth graders will begin taking this week, immediately follow a bitter battle between Cuomo and teachers’ unions over evaluations as well as tenure, merit pay and turnaround strategies for chronically underperforming schools.

Just before the March 31 budget deadline, when it became clear that lawmakers would approve a new evaluation system that relies more heavily on state exams, NYSUT joined the “opt out” push, arguing if enough students refuse the tests, they won’t be statistically reliable for use as part of the rating system.

NYSUT then enlisted political allies to help fuel the fire. The Working Families Party, along with advocacy groups Alliance for Quality Education and Citizen Action, sent out emails encouraging the boycott.

Democratic lawmakers, who are closely aligned with teachers' unions but have mixed opinions on whether to support the movement, argued nevertheless that this year’s testing boycott would send a specific message to the State Board of Regents: Minimize the impact of test scores in teacher evaluations.

“The ‘opt out’ movement is going to help deliver that message that we must get the pressure off the tests … particularly as it relates to [teacher evaluations],” said Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy, an Albany Democrat.

“If the Board of Regents does a better job this time in implementing the law, this ‘opt out’ might serve a purpose,” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Westchester Democrat. “Why it took this extreme for them to wake up, I don’t know.”

Parent groups have different goals, though.

In a series of interviews with Capital, members said they want to decrease the amount of time students spend preparing for and taking tests, and ultimately, reverse course on the use of the Common Core standards.

New York adopted the curriculum guidelines for English and math in 2010 and began testing students based on the more difficult material in 2013, years before most other states. While state education officials maintain that the standards are necessary to prepare students for success in college and careers, they admit that the implementation was flawed. Test refusal, which has spread rapidly via social media, has been one of parents' most powerful methods of protest.

Some parents said they were concerned unions’ involvement would shift attention away from children.

“Let’s face it: A teacher is an adult,” said Michael Panessa, a suburban Rochester parent who began home schooling his children this year because of what he described as an overemphasis on testing. “A teacher can go get another job. They already have an Parents, teachers push 'opt out,' with different goals | Capital New York:

CHARTER SCHOOLS: For-profit companies stir legal trouble state bill doesn’t address - OANow.com: Political

CHARTER SCHOOLS: For-profit companies stir legal trouble state bill doesn’t address - OANow.com: Political:

CHARTER SCHOOLS: For-profit companies stir legal trouble state bill doesn’t address

While Alabama’s recent charter school legislations allows for the contracting of for-profit management companies, charter schools nationwide have found themselves in the midst of litigation – and state taxpayers the victims of fraud and abuse – at the hands of management companies.

Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) said the legislation does not specifically address the use of for-profit charter school management companies. Rather, it’s the responsibility of the local school board or charter school appeals board to sift through charter school proposals and check preferences on any proposed management companies.

“If they applied, they would have to list who they intend to contract with or what services they intend to contract out,” Hubbard explained. “…I don’t believe the legislation prohibits it.”

But charter schools across the country have come under fire for mismanagement of funds in the past few years. Since Minnesota passed the first charter school law in 1991, charter school enrollment has doubled thrice. Taxpayers have also lost more than $100 million in public funds, according to “Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse,” a study authored by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education in May 2014. And that number only accounts for the study’s scope of less than half the states with charter school laws.

Nearly half of all charter schools in the U.S. are operated by private education management organizations, often with out-of-state headquarters.

“I think where my personal opinion of charter schools goes south is for-profit management companies,” said Dr. Brittany Larkin, a professor in Auburn University’s College of Education. “Their goal is for profit. It’s no longer for the best interest of the school.”

Public education advocate Larry Lee, who led the study Lessons Learned from Rural Schools, alleged some charter schools spend 25 percent of their budget on marketing to draw students.

“Because every kid they bring in, that’s a potential profit center,” he said.

Because charter schools are public schools and funded through the Education Trust Fund, the money follows the student. When profit is added into the picture, charter schools can become focused on increasing enrollment and therefore revenue, Larkin said. She cited Ohio’s often criticized charter school laws, which state legislators are in the process of amending to create more fiscal accountability, The Columbus Dispatch reported last month.

“Ohio is a hot mess with their charter management companies getting into a lot of legal trouble,” Larkin said.

For-profit management companies also open multiple schools under the same model. The practice goes against the ideology behind a charter school, which is in theory created to fill a specific need not being filled by the district.

“I think that defeats the purpose of having individual charter schools,” Larkin explained.

She also cited for-profit management companies’ lobbying efforts in state legislatures across the country, noting nonprofit lobby group StudentsFirst appearances in Montgomery at the beginning of this year’s session.

“They are big companies; they have a lot of money. They lobby very hard,” she said. “They know how to go to the capitols and lobby for what they want.”

The Sacramento-based StudentsFirst has 10 lobbyists in Alabama, Lee wrote in a column tilted Follow the Money. The group spent $61,958 in lobbying efforts. The Alabama Federation for Children – which was supported by donors in California, Michigan and Arkansas – spent $101,748.

Hubbard argued public schools now contract with private companies for a variety of services, like textbooks and CHARTER SCHOOLS: For-profit companies stir legal trouble state bill doesn’t address - OANow.com: Political:

Should there be a 'No Child Left Behind' for U.S. universities? - Fortune

Should there be a 'No Child Left Behind' for U.S. universities? - Fortune:

Should there be a 'No Child Left Behind' for U.S. universities?

 If states want big federal dollars, they need to expand the use of accountability and add earnings outcomes to their measures of success.

With students at Corinthian Colleges recently making national news for going on strike and refusing to pay their college loans, it’s an opportune time to re-examine the relationship between the costs of higher education, what students get in return and whether these institutions have any accountability to their charges and the taxpayers who often end up footing the bill.

These students are hardly alone: there are 40 million Americans with loans and their debt burden is over $1.3 trillion. The average graduate is now leaving school with nearly $29,000 in education loans. While college remains a good investment on average, especially for those who actually earn degrees, the results are less positive for many students, especially the poor. While we now send many more people to college in America, their education and employment outcomes are often disappointing.

Most low-income youths (and also adults) who enroll go to community or lower-tier four-year colleges, as well as for-profit schools like Corinthian, which is now out of business. With low completion rates, large numbers entering remedial (or “developmental”) education from which few successfully emerge, and many earning generic degrees in areas like “general studies” that have very little labor market value, many should question the value of the experience.

The less competitive but under-resourced public colleges (relative to the flagship or higher-tier schools in any state) also have few incentives to improve the labor market value of the education they offer or their graduation rates.

Unfortunately, public colleges get subsidies from their states based only on student “seat time” – regardless of whether students complete their programs or get good jobs afterwards. Since expanding classroom capacity in some high-demand and well-rewarded fields – like technician jobs in health care and other fields – often require expensive equipment and adjunct faculty, the public schools (especially if their resources are tight) have little incentive to do so, despite strong unmet student demand.

It seems like an appropriate policy response would be to provide extra resources for these colleges – targeted them firmly on exactly what is needed to improve outcomes – but also to create the incentives that are now sorely lacking. States could tie their subsidies to public colleges at least partly on the educational and employment outcomes of their students (like credits attained, degrees completed, and earnings over the next 5 years among students not further enrolled). In addition, they could reward public colleges that enroll many disadvantaged students with additional resources, since those are the students who could truly move up the economic ladder with higher quality schooling. However, those extra resources would only be allowed to be spent on expanding teaching capacity in high-demand (or well-compensated) fields, or on effective support services for students like career counseling, student “coaching” or reforms in remediation.

The federal government could encourage more accountability in the public system of higher education, much as it has done in the K-12 system. In addition to the No Child Left Behind polices started by President Bush, the Obama administration implemented its “Race to the Top” program, in which states received sizable bonuses for education if they implemented test-based accountability along with other reforms. The administration had originally proposed doing the same with higher education, through its American Graduation Initiative (AGI) proposed in 2009, though AGI was mostly not funded or implemented (except for some smaller grants given out by the Departments of Education and Labor that were not tied to major statewide reforms).

In fact, many states are already starting to use measures of accountability in handing out their higher education subsidies. Right now, about half of all states use some type of “performance-based subsidies” for higher education – but the sums remain small and are primarily limited to educational (as opposed to earnings) outcomes. The feds could add their own carrots and sticks: if states want big federal dollars, they need to expand the use of accountability and add earnings outcomes to their measures of success.

The data needed for such accountability already exist: there are administrative databases for public college students which contain courses and grades, credit attainment, and degree completion for every student, which could be linked to quarterly earnings data that all states collect through their Unemployment Insurance programs. Many states are already making these data available for students to make more informed choices about where to go and what to study (and for researchers in some states). Using them for accountability is starting to occur as well, though states would have to address some data limitations when Should there be a 'No Child Left Behind' for U.S. universities? - Fortune:

Proposed Changes to “No Child Left Behind” Draw Bipartisan Senate Support - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

Proposed Changes to “No Child Left Behind” Draw Bipartisan Senate Support - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly:

Proposed Changes to “No Child Left Behind” Draw Bipartisan Senate Support

 In a rare show of bipartisanship, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have proposed comprehensive revisions to No Child Left Behind in a 600-page reauthorization draft of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Their bill, entitled the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, isscheduled for committee action on their agreement and any amendments to begin at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 14th.

With controversy raging about many elements of the federal government’s effort to improve public education, just getting this bill underway as a bipartisan effort is most unusual. What appears to have been the catalyst for agreement is a shared belief that the power of the federal government to shape American educational policy has grown too great and must be contained. The bill’s objective, “to ensure that all children have a fair, equitable, and significant opportunity to receive a high-quality education that prepares them for postsecondary education or the workforce, without the need for postsecondary remediation, and to close educational achievement gaps,” would seem less controversial than first thought.

“This is a big deal,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers. “It goes back to the original intent of the law, to level the playing field for at-risk kids.” Others see the bill as more status quo, though Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union, expressed disappointment that the new bill retained annual testing requirements.

The Alexander-Murray approach does appear to limit the power of the federal government to use federal funding as a lever to pressure state governments and influence public education. Over the past decade, using the authority to grant or deny waivers to the requirements in current funding law that all students demonstrate annual educational progress, the Secretary of Education has been able to pressure states to meet the administration’s educational philosophy. Using this approach the Obama administration has moved to implement the Common Core curriculum, establish national education standards, introduce a regimen of annualized testing, and establish a new methodology of teacher evaluation tied to student test results that has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Alexander-Murray specifically prohibits the Secretary of Education from using this power, returning authority to each State.

States will still be expected to set challenging goals for annual student progress, but the proposed legislation specifically restricts the Secretary of Education from challenging state goals and from withholding funding based on the approach chosen. Annual testing for grades 3-8 will remain a requirement, avoiding a threatened presidential veto, but each state will be given the ability to determine how it will accomplish this objective; the bill specifically recognizes that standardized testing is not the only mechanism available by authorizing the use “of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks.” Current federal policy requires annual teacher evaluations tied to student test results; the proposed revision leaves the decision on how and when to evaluate teachers to each state.

The bill does keep in place encouragement for states to create systems “establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for State certification of teachers and administrators.” This will be seen positively by supporters of Teach for America and similar programs and opposed by those like Diane Ravitch who see these alternate routes as doing great damage to the profession of education at to the children who are in the classroom.

Yet to be addressed is the total amount to be allocated in the federal budget for public education and the specific allocation of these funds among the several funding streams covered by this legislation.

If passed, the Alexander-Murray bill will not end the national debates about how to improve America’s public education system. Rather, it will remove the common enemy of critics of all shades: the U.S. Department of Education. We can expect that the debate will shift from the halls of Congress in Washington to fifty state capitals. And it will raise a new question: Are the educations provided in each state equal in quality? And if they are not, is our national commitment to “all children hav[ing] a fair, equitable, and significant opportunity to receive a high-quality education” being met?

Beginning with Tuesday’s Senate hearings, the debate about the direction of American education will enter its next phase.—Marty LevineProposed Changes to “No Child Left Behind” Draw Bipartisan Senate Support - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly:

Dear White People, Your Kids Are Getting Screwed, Too! | Dame Magazine

Dear White People, Your Kids Are Getting Screwed, Too! | Dame Magazine:

Dear White People, Your Kids Are Getting Screwed, Too!



The Atlanta cheating scandal and the White middle-class revolt against standardized testing have more in common than you think: They’re a repudiation of our failed education policies.

The Atlanta cheating scandal and growing White middle-class anger over the explosion of Common Core tests have more in common than you might think.

From Black teachers being imprisoned for forging answers on tests and Black parents being jailed for “stealing” a better education for their kids, to White middle-class parents organizing a nationwide revolt against standardized testing, we are seeing a repudiation of our failed educational policies. Many might see these as totally separate issues, reflecting the power of race and class, but each represent varied responses to an immoral national strategy that had its major impact on inner-city communities more than a decade ago and has now targeted suburban schools.

The architects of this policy, men with deep pockets like Bill Gates helped by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, decided to use standardized tests to achieve education “equity” despite their racist origins and character.

And even more strangely, many civil rights groups and leaders promoted testing by selling it as the answer to eliminating the notorious achievement gap, and encouraging their constituents to embrace this new form of oppression. So desperate to have some policies to promote equity when the country was turning conservative, civil rights leaders forgot their historic opposition to high stakes testing, with tragic results. And some groups became poverty pimps and virtue rackets that sold out for corporate money. At the end of the day, the rhetoric of civil rights set the stage for the educational holocaust in communities of color, and for the Atlanta scandal.

Where were the civil rights leaders when the Atlanta educators were arrested? Where were they when they were being given sentences worse than people participating in organized crime?

Historically, standardized tests have been the basis of narratives claiming the genetic and cultural inferiority of Black children. Throughout the early 20th century, these tests provided the “scientific legitimacy” for segregation, prompting widespread opposition from Black psychologists and sociologists who identified them as a White supremacist scheme.

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision did not result in an abandonment of racially biased testing. Testing data has since rationalized funding disparities, the achievement gap, and policies resulting in the cradle-to-prison pipeline. It would be akin to using Jim Crow to facilitate integration, or the KKK to bring about law and order. Oh, wait …  

No Child Left Behind changed the whole testing landscape in Black and poor communities. Despite claims that testing will set us free, America’s great testing experiment has left Black and Latino kids behind. 

The test results measure student achievement but also can be used in teacher evaluations, overall school report cards, and as high-school graduation requirements. Opponents say the exams distract from real learning, put added stress on students and staff, waste resources—especially in poor urban districts—and contribute to the privatization of public education. Schools that score badly are sometimes shuttered, turned over to management companies, or become charter schools.

If the goal of testing was to improve educational outcomes, the results have been as transparent as Dick Cheney’s racism toward President Obama. The testing industrial complex is not improving outcomes for Black children, teachers, schools, neighborhoods, communities or our nation. It is NOT making the U.S. more globally competitive. And it definitely will NOT prepare tomorrow’s workforce to thrive, unless of course the point is to train students to become compliant low-wage workers.

Consider a report released by the Schott Foundation for Public Education, which analyzed more than a decade of data on young Black males. Their prognosis: “Too little progress and evidence of recent deterioration. Despite stated intentions of federal education policies, gaps in scores in reading and math tests on the National Assessment of Education Progress between black males and their white peers continue to be wide. Nationally, 38 percent of white males scored at or above proficient on the 2013 NAEP assessment in reading, but only 17 percent of Latino males and 12 percent of Black males did. In math, 13 percent of Black males scored at or above proficient on the 2013 NAEP Grade 8 math assessment, while scores were 21 percent of Latino males and 45 percent of White males.”

And it’s no surprise that graduation rates suffered: The Schott Foundation reported that “of the 48 states where data were collected, in 35 states and the District of Columbia, black males remain at the bottom of four-year high school graduation rates. (Latino males were at the bottom in 13 states.) We as a nation have devoted enormous amounts of time and money to the focused goal of increasing test scores, and we have almost nothing to show for it.”

These failures were predictable, leaving one to consider if the goal was not improved educational success but instead privatization, and a systemic effort to dismantle and destroy public education within inner city communities. Schools were closed; teachers were fired; and culturally appropriate curriculum was left by the wayside. Kids were scapegoated for the failures of school districts while Black and Latino communities were terrorized with pressure to raise test scores under threat of additional school closure, lost jobs, and elimination of communal control.

For the first time, the test results were not just penalizing students who didn’t do well—teachers, administrators, and entire schools were punished. Since NCLB, thousands of schools have been closed around the country. Huge numbers of teachers of color have been removed. So what you have is a racial and ethnic cleansing of teachers of color in places like Houston, New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D.C. because of pressure to raise test scores. And then they were replaced by a revolving door of young White inexperienced teachers with no ties to our communities, or connection to our culture and our children.

This is where Atlanta comes in.

The culmination of this history, from Jim Crow testing to standardized testing, has been on full display in Atlanta, as 11 public school employees face up to 20 years for

- See more at: http://www.damemagazine.com/2015/04/13/dear-white-people-your-kids-are-getting-screwed-too#sthash.bAVmsWbc.dpuf