Private school vouchers—the forbidden fruit

Guest editorial: Private school vouchers—the forbidden fruit:

Private school vouchers—the forbidden fruit

"God does not need vouchers"

 In the beginning, temptation appeared as a fruit. Today, it appears as a voucher. As tempting as it may be for private religious schools to pluck the low-hanging fruit of “free” public money, the cost is too great. I say this as a pastor. I say this as a Christian school leader. I say this with certainty.

Has someone bothered to ask faith-based schools if they should take the money? In Florida, 82 percent of students receiving voucher money attended a religious school, according to U.S. News & World Report (Aug. 28, 2014). 

Kyle HendersonWhat will it mean for hiring employees at the religious school? Will this public money be used to tell the school who they can and can’t hire? Look at incidents around the country where religious schools are being taken to court for releasing employees who undermine the core ethical stances. The courts are telling them which parts of their school qualify as faith-based. 

Strings attached

Vouchers come with government strings attached.

I have been a pastor more than 30 years. I have been the pastor of a 150-year-old Baptist church in East Texas 18 years. We operate a distinctively Christian grade school averaging 75 students. Our students have thrived, going on to high academic success. 

I know how tempting it could be to take voucher money. I know the burden on families who scrimp and save to send their kids to our school. I have bought lots of cookie dough, sponsored walk-a-thons and attended fundraisers. I also know the freedom of operating a school that is able to talk openly about Christ, a place where prayer is a part of each class, where sharing Christian testimony is encouraged, and where chapel and worship are a regular part of the school.

Payouts seek to fill in for faith

These government payouts seek to fill in for faith. They whisper from the shadows they are the answer to the problems of funding a Christian school. 

God does not need vouchers.

Vouchers and all their versions, including “school-choice options,” rightly come with responsibilities and obligations to the government. But Jesus told us we cannot serve two masters. These vouchers are either a grab to control faith-based schools or an irresponsible, unaccountable disbursement of public funds. Either the government will start exerting control over faith-based schools, or it will send money to schools not required to meet any standards. 

The only viable choice for a faith-based school is to reject the funds.

Faith is strong and alive in America because of the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. In the places where this is not true, the church is an empty shell. Depending on the state for funds is a death sentence for free religion and vibrant faith.

There are, however, some faith-based schools ready to receive the funds. I don’t want tax dollars diverted to them any more than I want them diverted to my school. In North Carolina’s voucher program, 8 percent of the public money is diverted to a single school, the Greensboro Islamic Academy, according to North Carolina Policy Watch. Louisiana’s voucher system only passed the state legislature when an Islamic school’s Guest editorial: Private school vouchers—the forbidden fruit:

Opt-out push urges parents to buck standardized tests:

Opt-out push urges parents to buck standardized tests

Parents Can Opt Out - United Opt Out National

Click Here to go to United Opt Out National: 

Click Here to go to the Website- United Opt Out Team

Click Here to go to the Website FairTest

 When it came to testing her kids, Sara Miller used to go with the flow.

"Like other things in school, you just kind of assume that you're going to do it," said Miller, a Clearwater mother of four.

That's no longer the case for Miller and a small-but-growing movement of parents who're pushing back on standardized school testing.

They're opting their children out of tests such as the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, citing concerns with growing frequency of standardized tests, the efficacy of such tests and their impact on students and teachers.

St. Cloud-area supporters of the opt-out movement are spreading their message to parents before MCAs start in coming weeks. In St. Cloud school district, most will begin in April.

Miller says she first opted her school-age kids out of standardized tests last year after learning about the movement. She did so again this year, submitting statements to their school principals that said her children were opting out.

In Minnesota, less than 1 percent of students opted out of the MCAs in 2014. Most were in the Minneapolis school district.

Yet Minnesota Department of Education officials acknowledge the opt-out movement, while small, is gaining momentum.

Shannon Essler-Petty is a local parent and education professor who supports the opt-out movement. Essler-Petty said simply making parents aware they can opt their children out has been a big hurdle for the movement.

"It's growing as more parents find out it's an option," Essler-Petty said.

Test results questioned

The opt-out movement is part of a backlash to the national standardized-testing sea change that started in 2002.

That's when former President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind law, which linked federal funding to standardized testing and required schools to make yearly progress in test scores.

In Minnesota, the reading, math and science MCAs meet the requirements of the federal law and measure student progress toward state academic standards.

Students also take other standardized tests, including the STAR reading and math tests and the Optional Local Purpose Assessments, or OLPAs, in reading and math.

Testing proponents see the MCAs and their counterparts in other states as crucial to gauging student performance. They say test scores help teachers and schools know where their students excel and where they need to improve.

Some advocates see test scores as a lever for change in struggling schools.

Testing critics say U.S. schools have become fixated on standardized tests even as Opt-out push urges parents to buck standardized tests:

Robert Putnam’s New Book Makes Us See the Invisible Dynamics of Widening Inequality | janresseger

Robert Putnam’s New Book Makes Us See the Invisible Dynamics of Widening Inequality | janresseger:



Robert Putnam’s New Book Makes Us See the Invisible Dynamics of Widening Inequality

 Robert Putnam’s new book, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis is an important book.  It has been criticized a bit by social science reviewers because it doesn’t challenge the power and money behind the politics that have created the problems it describes, but I would guess that Putnam’s purpose is different.  This is a book written to make us see what is invisible to most of us: “Ultimately, growing class segregation across neighborhoods, schools, marriages (and probably also civic associations, workplaces, and friendship circles) means that rich Americans and poor Americans are living, learning, and raising children in increasingly separate and unequal worlds, removing the stepping-stones to upward mobility—college going classmates or cousins or middle-class neighbors, who might take a working-class kid from the neighborhood under their wing.” (p. 41) The book is written for a popular—not an academic—audience to illuminate the social science research on which it is based.

While most of us will notice a new stadium or a new convention center or revitalization downtown, we are less likely to see that a neighborhood or community is changing demographically and we are likely to be blind to the social dynamics at work or the meaning of the change until perhaps years later.  Putnam turns our attention directly to growing inequality in the institutions that matter to children: the family, the parents’ marriage and parenting style, the school, the neighborhood.

I confess that my own fascination with Our Kids is my interest in public school inequality and our society’s wrong headed approach to addressing achievement gaps.  After all, Putnam’s book is evidence that the great wave of standardized testing, sanctions for so-called “failing” schools, and privatization of schools cannot possibly address the primary cause of achievement gaps: rapidly widening economic inequality and segregation by family income. Putnam explains, “Our contemporary public debate recognizes this problem but assumes it is largely a ‘schools problem.’ On the contrary we have seen that most of the challenges facing poor kids are not caused by schools.” (p 231)  Schools, according to Putnam’s research, are sites where we can observe inequality but not its primary cause: “In fact, all of the factors that we’ve discussed so far in this book—family structure, parenting, childhood development, peer groups, extracurricular opportunities—have contributed to the widening gap in college graduation rates in recent decades, along with the neighborhood and community influences….” (pp. 188-189)

Four years ago the Stanford University sociologist Sean Reardon published two studies that startled people watching trends in public school achievement.  Reardon documents that the proportion of families in major metropolitan areas living in either very poor or very affluent neighborhoods increased from 15 percent in 1970 to 33 percent by 2009, and the proportion of families living in middle income neighborhoods declined from 65 percent in 1970 to 42 percent in 2009.  Reardon also demonstrates that along with growing residential inequality is a simultaneous jump in an income-inequality school achievement gap among children and adolescents.  The achievement gap between students with income in the top ten percent and students with income in the bottom ten percent is 30-40 percent wider among children born in 2001 than those born in 1975, and is now twice as large as the black-white achievement gap.  Putnam quotes Reardon’s research and then he explains what it means in the daily lives of families and children.

I describe Reardon’s conclusions again and again in this blog, because I think we all have to Robert Putnam’s New Book Makes Us See the Invisible Dynamics of Widening Inequality | janresseger:

Family Engagement in Education Act Reintroduced in Congress - K-12 Parents and the Public - Education Week

Family Engagement in Education Act Reintroduced in Congress - K-12 Parents and the Public - Education Week:

Family Engagement in Education Act Reintroduced in Congress

 Bipartisan legislation that aims to strengthen the relationships between families and schools was reintroduced in Congress March 2.

The Family Engagement in Education Act, which also was introduced in 2011 and 2013, seeks to earmark funds to develop systems that would encourage more parents to become involved in their local public schools.

"We can create a brighter future for our youth by ensuring that educators, community organizations, and family members have the resources they need to work together effectively," Sen. Chris Coons D-Del., said in a press release. Coons is a co-sponsor of the legislation.Representatives Glenn Thompson R-Pa., and Mark Desaulnier D-Calif., are co-sponsoring the bill in the House.

The Family Engagement in Education Act would boost funding tied to family-engagement efforts to 2 percent from 1 percent of school districts' Title I dollars. The legislation also would require school districts to develop and enact standards-based policies and practices to support family-school partnerships. Finally, the bill would set aside 0.3 percent of Title I administrative funds to increase state capacity-building efforts, such as creating statewide family-engagement centers.

Members of the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes the National PTA, United Way Worldwide, the Harvard Family Research Project, and the National Council of La Raza, provided input into the development of the bill, according to the release.

Otha Thornton, president of the National PTA, called the legislation a "crucial piece in education reform," in a news release. He said the Alexandria, Va.-based organization believes that "family engagement is at the core of student success and school improvement."

Bipartisan legislation that aims to strengthen the relationships between families and schools was reintroduced in Congress March 2.

The Family Engagement in Education Act, which also was introduced in 2011 and 2013, seeks to earmark funds to develop systems that would encourage more parents to become involved in their local public schools.

"We can create a brighter future for our youth by ensuring that educators, community organizations, and family members have the resources they need to work together effectively," Sen. Chris Coons D-Del., said in a press release. Coons is a co-sponsor of the legislation. Representatives Glenn Thompson R-Pa., and Mark Desaulnier D-Calif., are co-sponsoring the bill in the House.

The Family Engagement in Education Act would boost funding tied to family-engagement efforts to 2 percent from 1 percent of school districts' Title I dollars. The legislation also would require school districts to develop and enact standards-based policies and practices to support family-school partnerships. Finally, the bill would set aside 0.3 percent of Title I administrative funds to increase state capacity-building efforts, such as creating statewide family-engagement centers.

Members of the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes the National PTA, United Way Worldwide, the Harvard Family Research Project, and the National Council of La Raza, provided input into the development of the bill, according to the release.

Otha Thornton, president of the National PTA, called the legislation a "crucial piece in education reform," in a news release. He said the Alexandria, Va.-based organization believes that "family engagement is at the core of student success and school improvement." Family Engagement in Education Act Reintroduced in Congress - K-12 Parents and the Public - Education Week:

Youthanasia - Change The LAUSD

Youthanasia - Change The LAUSD:

Youthanasia

 Tom Torlakson:

The November election between you and Marshall Tuck was billed by many as one that pitted those who would privatize our public education system versus those who would defend it. Based on the belief that you were the candidate who would put student’s needs first, I chose to support you. With this in mind, I hope that you will rescind your support of the “One System: Reforming Education to Serve all Students” report. Some of these proposals will inflict harm on the most fragile members of our population and are already being used by the Los Angeles Unified School District to dismantle programs that are desperately needed.

As you know, all children are unique and a successful education system must reflect this fact. Unfortunately, this report engages in a cookie-cutter approach in it’s first sentence. When it maintains that “far too many children and young adults in California’s schools are not acquiring the skills they will need to succeed in postsecondary education and secure stable employment,” it ignores children like mine. While it would be great if my two daughters grew up so that they could “participate meaningfully in the nation’s economy and democracy,” they reside on the part of the autism spectrum where it would be a great accomplishment for them to reach a point where they could take care of their own basic needs in a highly structured environment. How will considering them “general education students first” help them to achieve this goal? Was anyone on this task force familiar with the needs of our most challenged students?

When the co-executive director of the task force, Vicki Barber, confirmed to the LA School Report that this report called for the closing of special education sites in the Los Angeles Unified School District, she was acknowledging that they had not considered the needs of all students. While “not all students with a particular disability need to be on a separate site,” closing these sites endangers Youthanasia - Change The LAUSD:

Big Education Ape: California Special Education Task Force - One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students http://bit.ly/1bbMiUI

Big Education Ape: Task force unveils plan to overhaul special education | EdSource http://bit.ly/1bbMjI8

Ditch the Test-and-Punish Model - US News

Ditch the Test-and-Punish Model - US News:

Ditch the Test-and-Punish Model

 The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act started out with good intentions to help improve schools and student performance. But it took a wrong turn in both delivering the funding promised, and in creating, because it focused on the sanctions imposed if student test scores failed to show “adequate yearly progress,” a test-and-punish model of schooling. The law, combined with the greater evaluation and testing requirements of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program, inspired today’s misuse and overuse of testing. This obsession with testing has all but eclipsed the rich and robust instruction, the engagement of students and the enjoyment of learning that should be going on in every classroom in America.

Public educators’ obligation is to help all children succeed. This is especially important and challenging given that half of all public school students live in poverty. A rich, robust, well-resourced public education is one of the best routes out of poverty and a pathway to prosperity. Yet the test-driven system is not working, and worse, it’s creating a lot of agita for students and gobbling up a lot of learning time.

For instance, an American Federation of Teachers study found that the time students spend taking tests ranges from 20 to 50 hours per year in heavily tested grades. Students can spend 60 to more than 110 hours per year in test prep in high-stakes testing grades.

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Economy]

Why do we see little evidence that school districts’ hyper-testing has paid off?

The rate of progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, commonly known as the Nation’s Report Card, for grades four and eight was generally faster in the decade before No Child Left Behind took effect than since its launch. This has been consistent for overall results and for individual demographic groups, including black students, English language learners and students with disabilities.

The United States is one of the only countries that has annual high-stakes testing. Yet the results of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Program for International Student Assessment consistently show flat performance by U.S. students. Instead of asking why this performance is stagnant, some use it as a hammer to bludgeon public schools as well as their students and teachers.

Those assessments ask students to apply knowledge. While the top-ranked nations focus on that educational approach, the United States focuses instead on rote memorization of facts and figures. American school systems use multiple-choice exams and buy canned programs, sapping teachers of the authority and flexibility to use their judgment to meet the needs of their students.

[READ: Stop Counting on Education 'Miracles']

The Common Core State Standards, and aligned curriculum and assessments, were supposed to usher in an era of change where we, like our OECD counterparts, help all students learn to apply their knowledge and to use problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. But implementation of the Common Core has been wildly flawed. Rather than provide the supports, resources and time teachers and students need to succeed with the new, higher standards, school districts have rushed to attach high-stakes consequences to the new tests – and now, they face a huge backlash and a growing parent opt-out movement.

Research has found that even when students improve their scores on standardized tests, they don’t always improve their cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention and speed. When student performance shows increases on test scores, that improvement is not associated with an increase in “fluid intelligence” – that is, using logical thinking and problem solving in novel situations, rather than recalling previously learned facts and skills.

Beyond these cognitive skills, students also need social and emotional skills – trust, teamwork, persistence, confidence – to succeed in life and career. The OECD recently found that these skills can lead to greater health and behavioral outcomes for students. They also found that this type of learning can be successfully measured, not by high-stakes tests but by teacher observations, student surveys and performance-based assessments. Indeed, student classwork and grades may be the best indicator of this.

It’s time to stop this hyper-testing, sanction-based accountability system. Even the OECD, which administers the Program for International Student Assessment tests, agrees, noting that while U.S. performance data “is often used for purely accountability purposes, other countries tend to give greater Ditch the Test-and-Punish Model - US News:

Portrait of a Young Test Taker | Bright Light Small City

Portrait of a Young Test Taker | Bright Light Small City:

Portrait of a Young Test Taker

 Testing, from the inside out: The following sketch of a young test taker grew out of a conversation I had recently with a school employee. 

She is six years old and in first grade. English is not her first language, Spanish is. But, she is lucky enough to go to a school in Minneapolis–a neighborhood public school–where she will be  taught in Spanish for most of the day, until she is almost ready for middle school. 

Image by artist Ricardo Levins Morales

When it is testing time at her school, though, she is tested only in English. And it is almost always testing time at her school, where many of the kids are poor, non-white, and non-native English speakers. The school has many homeless students, too.

In the fall, near the start of the school year, she took theMAP test, which is an optional, district-chosen reading and math test that is supposed to show “growth,” or how much a student’s MAP score changes during the course of a school year.

The MAP is only done online, and on her first day in the computer lab, she looked at the screen, where the reading test was cued up. In English.

There were paragraphs of text in front of her. She started to cry. 

“I can’t read!”

No one could help her. The testing proctor is not allowed to read the text for her. Her classroom teacher is also not allowed to share any information with her about the test or how to take it.

She is six years old. She can’t read in English yet, or in Spanish.

The test proctor said, “Just do your best.”

The little girl gave up, and started clicking on answers, just to get through the test.

Her teacher will be evaluated on the girl’s test scores, even though the test is in English and the teacher and child work together in Spanish, as a way to ease bilingual children like her into later academic success.

In the spring, the child will take the MAP test in English again.

She also took another test just for English language learners during the winter, called theWIDA test. The WIDA test is a federally mandated test given to all ELL students–from Portrait of a Young Test Taker | Bright Light Small City:

SEIU State Council Reverses Course, Endorses Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s Run Against Rahm Emanuel - ‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

SEIU State Council Reverses Course, Endorses Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s Run Against Rahm Emanuel - Working In These Times:

SEIU State Council Reverses Course, Endorses Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s Run Against Rahm Emanuel

Garcia on election night. SEIU Health Care Illinois Indiana Executive Vice President April Verrett is to Garcia's immediate left, and HCII President Keith Kelleher (in glasses, holding a "Chuy" sign) is visible on the far right. (Garcia Campaign) 

The SEIU Illinois State Council has decided to endorse Jesus "Chuy" Garcia in his run against Rahm Emanuel for mayor of the City of Chicago, reversing the council's previous decision to remain neutral in the race—and overriding the desires of SEIU Local 73 to maintain that neutrality.

The Chicago Tribune reported this afternoon that while an official announcement of the endorsement would come tomorrow, the council had made the decision today. Jerry Morrison, a "political operative" at Local 1, told the paper, "We usually play to win in politics, and [the union's involvement in the race] will be significant."

Not all SEIU staffers were pleased with the decision. Matt Brandon, Secretary-Treasurer for Local 73—whose union had previously filed an internal cease-and-desist request against HCII for its endorsement of Garcia—said his local attempted to block the vote. "We raised several objections at the meeting to procedure and rules, but of course we were overruled," Brandon told the Tribune before accusing the other two locals of being radicals:

"They are trying to create more of a socialist agenda," Brandon said, while his local is trying to take more of a realist approach. "I just think the mayor has done a lot for our members."

Similarly, in early March, Brandon told In These Times he "totally disagree[d]" with the widespread characterization of Emanuel as an anti-union mayor, saying Local 73 had been able to secure key gains from the mayor.

The endorsement comes as a number of unions and community leaders are rethinking their decision to sit out the mayor's race after Garcia and three other candidates unexpectedly forced Emanuel into a runoff late last month. Last week, Teamsters Local 743 decided to endorse Garcia, as did key African-American leaders including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rep. Danny Davisearlier this week.

SEIU's Illinois State Council is made up of three SEIU locals in Chicago and throughout the state: Health Care Illinois Indiana, which represents home health workers; Local 1, which represents building services workers like janitors; and Local 73, which represents public sector workers. HCII had previously endorsed Garcia and given him multiple large donations, defying the council's vote of neutrality; Locals 1 and 73 had pledged neutrality in the race, but Morrison told the Chicago Sun-Times after Emanuel was forced into a runoff that "this is now a different election." 

The large majority of the city's unions either stayed neutral or sided with Emanuel in the first round of the race. UNITE HERE Local 1, which represents hospitality workers in Chicago, could be seen directly behind the mayor as he gave his election night speech. 

Most of the city's labor movement still has not come over to Garcia's side. But the decision of several key locals to move to his side in the last few weeks leading up to the runoff could provide a much-needed boost of financial resources and boots on the ground for the progressive challenger, who is reported in a recent Tribune poll to be trailing Mayor Emanuel by double digits.

In January, In These Times's David Moberg explained why the majority of the city's labor movement was sitting out the race. Moberg noted, however, that there was a chance union leaders might be willing to shift their position.

But some may jump into the race if Garcia’s campaign takes off. Sources familiar with the thinking of SEIU Local 1’s leaders say there was enthusiasm for [Cook County Board President Toni] Preckwinkle and [Chicago Teachers Union 

SEIU State Council Reverses Course, Endorses Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s Run Against Rahm Emanuel - Working In These Times:

Click here to go to Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Mayor of Chicago Website

‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

The mayoral debate Chicago needs: Here are the questions - Crain's Chicago Business ‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

The mayoral debate Chicago needs: Here are the questions - Blogs On Politics - Crain's Chicago Business:

The mayoral debate Chicago needs: Here are the questions

Chicago voters wanted a second round in the race for mayor, and they got one. But now that an April 7 runoff has been set, what should the candidates be talking about?

For the most part, not the stuff in their TV ads. Though it was appropriate for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to do a little bit of a mea culpa in his latest spot, he is not now and never will be Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. His foe, Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, will win a personal popularity contest every time. Nor should the ads emphasize the "Mayor 1 Percent" stuff that Garcia has been peddling:

Though Emanuel has handed out some corporate goodies, his ladle has been far, far smaller than Garcia suggests, and is considerably smaller than the boodle Richard M. Daley dispensed.

I'll have more on the latter after I finish up a research project. Meanwhile, here's the debate I'd like to see.

The first thing on the agenda is money. Not because people don't count, but because they do.A city whose bond rating was just lowered to two levels above junk won't be able to keep schools open, pay police or do any of the other things we all need without the economic resources to pay the tab.

At the top of the money list is worker pensions, a subject on which Emanuel, pending Illinois Supreme Court review, has made some progress but still faces a $550 million increase in payments in the year that begins Jan. 1, just for police and fire.

Garcia says anyone now on the payroll ought to get what they've been promised no matter what, with no changes or concessions. If you really believe that, sir, how are you going to get the money? Isn't some shared sacrifice, in which taxpayers pay more and workers get less, the fairest and sanest way out of this mess?

Emanuel, meanwhile, needs to tell Chicago how he'll handle that $550 million police/fire cliff. And he needs to tell the city if he has a Plan B in case the courts throw out his earlier pension deal covering city laborers and white-collar workers.

TAX TALK

Next at the top of my list is taxes. To both men, I pose this question: Are there any circumstances under which you'd agree to a hike in property taxes over the next four years, perhaps as a last resort? If not, what is on the table?

So far, Emanuel has ducked on property taxes, while Garcia has seemed to rule them out, as well as a commuter tax and a levy on LaSalle Street financial transactions. That's cool, guys. But how are you going to pay the bills? This one particularly applies to you, Mr. Garcia, since you want to freeze and potentially end the city's red-light camera system, which annually pulls in tens of millions of dollars. How would you replace that money, sir? And, Mr. Emanuel, why don't you drop the facade and concede that the cameras are at least as much about raising revenue—a sin tax of sorts—as they are about safety?

BOOSTING CHICAGO'S ECONOMY

Another key area the two need to debate in the five weeks left is economic development.

Let's start with improving the Chicago Transit Authority, which much of Chicago uses to get to work. Does either candidate have a funding source to extend the Red Line south to the city limits? Garcia at one point seemed to throw out the possibility of a gasoline tax for transit capital work but has been silent on the issue since. Is he still for the idea? How about Emanuel?

Tax-increment financing, otherwise known as TIF, has been and remains a big issue. Emanuel, when he ran four years ago, suggested that the era of big downtown TIF deals was pretty much over but since has approved funding for a Wolf Point office building, a Near West The mayoral debate Chicago needs: Here are the questions - Blogs On Politics - Crain's Chicago Business:

Toward Fiscal Sustainability: A New Approach in Prudent Fiscal Management of Chicago

Click here to go to Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Mayor of Chicago Website

‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

Peg with Pen: ALEC, Pearson, Gates & Opt Out Bills vs. Civil Disobedience

Peg with Pen: ALEC, Pearson, Gates & Opt Out Bills vs. Civil Disobedience:

ALEC, Pearson, Gates & Opt Out Bills vs. Civil Disobedience

I am not a supporter of opt out bills. This surprises lots of folks. Opt out bills distract from the real issues. Opt Out is NOT an anti-testing movement. We support teacher-created tests, portfolios, projects - all the things that allow teachers to determine how best to support their learners. Opt Out is a social movement which gains its power through the act of refusing the tests - an act of civil disobedience which denies the government and the corporations the much coveted data.  Data is the new gold. Refusing the tests, as an act of civil disobedience, is absolutely necessary in order to restore learning to our classrooms while demanding wrap around services and equitable funding for all schools.  Opt out bills do nothing to change the inequitable conditions in our public schools that legislators continue to ignore.  If Opt Out is legal, we can be guaranteed that our schools will still have racially and culturally biased high stakes tests.  Our schools will still funnel money to corporate testing and the technology for testing - a never ending cash cow.   Our schools will still lack nurses, librarians, libraries, art, music, PE, counselors and more.  Our schools will still operate within the confines of a fear-based environment which requires teaching to the test all year long. Our schools will still be segregated and void of democracy. Children will continue to be harmed. Teachers will continue to commit educational malpractice against their will.

Opt Out as an act of civil disobedience is necessary in order to force the government to change immoral and unjust laws.  

I do not need permission to opt out. Opt out bills proclaim to the masses that Opt Out must be legal in order for parents and students to refuse the tests.  If Opt Out is legal, and all repercussions are removed, they have just placed us back in the mode of servitude to the corporations via government mandates. Nothing changes. We lose our power and we lose the mass awakening that is occurring across the country as individuals look around and recognize that our democracy is being dismantled via the take down of our cornerstone, our public schools.

There is much to pay attention to as we gain power via Opt Out. It's important to recognize that co-optation of this social movement could indeed mean the decline of the Opt Out Movement.   

ECS , Education Commissioner of States, recently came out with a document that shares the legalities of Opt Out.  ECS is funded by Pearson and Gates, among others.  As Morna Peg with Pen: ALEC, Pearson, Gates & Opt Out Bills vs. Civil Disobedience: