redefinED

From the archives: The FEA on lost influence

By Adam Emerson on August 4, 2011

Now that a document highlighting lobbying machinations at an AFT affliate in Connecticut has stoked another conversation about teacher unionism and parent empowerment, redefinED wanted to reach into its archives and pull out a memo from the public policy director at the Florida Education Association that also reflects on a singular concern among teachers unions: lost membership.

RedefinED host Doug Tuthill reported on the memo last fall after FEA policy director Jeff Wright urged members to head to the polls and keep Rick Scott out of Florida’s governor’s mansion. Why? Wright said that Scott would enhance merit-pay practices and expand school choice, specifically pointing to enhanced voucher, charter and virtual school policies along with “merit pay in its worst form” that would “obliterate FEA’s and our local unions’ influence.”

“If we are no longer strong due to reduction in the number of people served by public schools,” Wright continued, ”then they can do what they want with the education budgets of today.”

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Affluent and minorities split on school choice

By Adam Emerson on August 4, 2011

The authors of the latest Education Next-PEPG Survey highlight the growing disconnect between the general public, the affluent and teachers when it comes to sweeping public policies in education. But, just as notably, the results show a wide range of attitudes between the affluent, Hispanics and African Americans when it comes to school choice.

Vouchers have gained more support nationally since the 2010 survey, but support slips when the results are broken down by the affluent and by teachers. In some cases, the difference is stark among minority groups and the affluent, but those differences disappear when the policies (and the questions) change.

Depending on how the question was asked, as much as 60 percent of Hispanic respondents and 53 percent of African Americans supported vouchers compared to 47 percent of affluent respondents.

However, when it comes to individual or corporate tax credit scholarships, support among the affluent increases to 57 percent, which is the same result among African Americans and closer to that of Hispanics, a group that showed no difference in support among tax credits or vouchers.

Adam Schaeffer at the Cato Institute has more on the differences in support of vouchers and tax credits here.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

James Blaine, Charley Johns, and Anita Bryant?

By Jon East on August 1, 2011

Reasonable people can disagree over whether government should be paying for children to attend religious schools, but Florida’s latest ballot initiative reminds us how little reason plays a role in Blaine amendment debates.

The Florida Education Association already has sued to remove Amendment 7 from the 2012 ballot, and it makes a reasonable point when it argues that the ballot title, “Religious Freedom,” tends to obscure the actual goal of the provision. The amendment is aimed at allowing the state to financially support programs that may have a faith-based component. It specifically deletes this constitutional prohibition: “No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.”

Of course, these debates are seldom about just the language. They are first and foremost political wars that follow traditional partisan fault lines, so FEA president Andy Ford was also eager to tell reporters: “This is a shady way of opening the door for school vouchers for all.” A progressive political consultant and a history professor then took to the pages of the state’s largest newspaper to brand Amendment 7 as the “Pony Up for Religion and Pave the Way for Vouchers Act.”

The column was a feast of hyperbole, but most notable for its comparisons to: 1) the Charley Johns Committee, Florida’s own legislative version of McCarthyism in the 1950s and 60s that spread well beyond Communism and invaded the private lives of professors, blacks and homosexuals; and 2) Anita Bryant’s ugly attack on gay rights in the 1970s. It’s not entirely clear whether the authors intended to suggest that passage of Amendment 7 would promote rampant discrimination against blacks or gays, but missing from their historical condemnation were the authors of the Blaine amendments. For that equally well-documented historical bigotry they offer only that: “Sponsors of Amendment 7 allege the no-aid provision has roots in anti-Catholic sentiment.”

Suffice it to say that these debates do not bring out the best in either side. What is also confounding is how these showdowns seem determined to ignore the degree to which church and state mix in everyday life. Florida indeed has its own no-aid clause, which is deemed to go further than the Establishment Clause to the U.S. Constitution. Yet people on both sides of this divide acknowledge that such aid exists in multiple ways that neither is prepared to challenge: charitable deductions, property tax exemptions, scholarships at religious universities, vouchers for 4-year-olds at faith-based centers and churches, scholarships for poor and disabled students at faith-based schools to name just a few.

I’m not trying to be dismissive of constitutional clarity, and I don’t blame FEA for challenging the amendment. It’s what the union is conditioned and financed to do. But in the arena of education reform, which increasingly includes finding different ways to reach children with different learning needs, it just feels mostly like a distraction.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The irony of the Save Our Schools rally

By Doug Tuthill and Adam Emerson on July 28, 2011

Thirty-nine years ago, author and activist Jonathan Kozol reflected on an enterprise that began when a dozen parents of the children he taught in Boston convened in his kitchen to plan their own school outside the traditional public education system. “We were very much aware of doing something different and, as we believed, unprecedented in this city and this nation,” Kozol wrote in Free Schools. As he joins perhaps thousands of others for the Save Our Schools rally Saturday in Washington, D.C., Kozol is taking part in a protest that appears so philosophically distant from these older observations that they appear to be written by a different person.

Public education remains as over-regulated as when Free Schools was published in 1972, so we sympathize with Kozol and the other marchers who say more government regulation is not the answer. But we don’t think the solution ends with the plea, “Send us more money and leave us alone.” Educators spending public funds should be publicly accountable, but instead of more government regulation, public education needs more teacher and parent empowerment.

That kind of empowerment once inspired Kozol’s ambitions as an educator, but unfortunately he and the others who will gather on Saturday oppose parental choice. They prefer a command and control structure that centralizes power in the hands of school boards because they can’t conceive of a public education system that’s not a government-owned monopoly. But prior to the 1840s public education was a decentralized system consisting of what today we’d call publicly funded vouchers and charter schools. The systemic disempowerment of teachers and parents did not begin in earnest until the mid-nineteenth century and wasn’t completed until the mid-twentieth century.

People — teachers, students and parents — are public education’s greatest resource. We need an education system that utilizes their assets and maximizes their effectiveness. This can best occur in a well regulated system that empowers educators, both individually and collectively, to create more diverse learning options, and empowers parents to match their children with the learning options that best meet their needs.

Saturday’s event will be steeped in irony. A group of anti-corporate “progressives” will rally to conserve a 150-year old command and control corporate structure that disempowers them and their students. Unfortunately these well intentioned education activists aren’t educated enough about the history of public education to know this is what they’re doing.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Catholic schools, charter schools and social capital

By Adam Emerson on July 26, 2011

Do charter schools anchor an urban neighborhood the way catholic schools do? Not according to two researchers from the University of Notre Dame Law School. Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Nicole Stelle Garnett studied catholic and charter schools in Chicago to see how they function as urban community institutions. Why this focus? “Catholic schools are vanishing from the urban neighborhoods where they have operated for decades — in some cases, for over a century — and are being replaced by educational institutions so new that they did not exist anywhere in the United States two decades ago,” the authors write in a report bound for the University of Chicago Law Review. “Yet virtually nothing is known about the impact that the transition will have on urban neighborhoods, many of which already struggle with disorder, crime, and poverty.”

Would any school have an effect on what ails an urban community? Brinig and Garnett argue no. Relying on police “beat” data from the Chicago Police Department, the researchers found that beats with open Catholic schools have lower rates of serious crime than those without one. “Usually,” the study concludes, ”the presence of a charter school in a police beat appears to have no statistically significant effect on crime rates …”

This is important in any debate over school choice, the professors say, because charter schools are seen as the more politically palatable policy alternative. “But, our findings that Catholic schools apparently anchor and stabilize struggling urban neighborhoods — and that charter schools do not — bolster the case for expanded school choice.”

They continue:

If education policy continues on its current course, which favors an expansion of public school choice and charter schools and disfavors private school choice programs like vouchers and tax credits, then charter schools will continue to open, and Catholic schools will continue to close, in our cities …

… At this point, we cannot know how charter schools will perform as community institutions over the long hall. But, we do know how Catholic schools are performing today and strongly suspect that further school closures likely will further erode the social capital that they generate. We also know that it is likely that multi-pronged approach to school choice, which includes financial assistance to students attending private schools might stem the tide of Catholic school closures by increasing their accessibility to students of modest means.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

School choice and the case for equity

By Adam Emerson on July 22, 2011

Over at Dropout Nation, RiShawn Biddle has explored how school choice activists, particularly those on the left, can re-energize the legal case for equity in education spending. He writes, “If choice activists and civil libertarian groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union successfully take up such moves, it would lead to another round of school choice efforts that would provide more poor and minority children with opportunities to get the high-quality education they deserve.”

Biddle has done more than any journalist to highlight the egregious symptoms of what he calls zip code education, notably pointing to the criminal prosecution of a homeless mother in Connecticut and a low-income parent in Ohio who sent their children to schools outside their assigned districts. He sees relief in the very state constitutional provisions that give most choice advocates heartburn: the idea that states must provide uniform systems of public schools. The language differs depending on the state, but the same barriers exist for voucher or charter school expansions. Or do they?

“Practices that have led to zip code education, including the concept of zoned schools, are essentially unconstitutional; and thus, inter-district choice of the kind encouraged by otherwise foes of choice such as Richard Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation would be allowable,” Biddle writes.

Before readers roll their eyes, they should know there is precedence in Biddle’s contention, namely in two of the most stalwart advocates for equity, John E. Coons and Stephen D. Sugarman of the University of California at Berkeley. Coons and Sugarman first struck at the inequalities in school spending between rich districts and poor districts in the 40-year-old California case known as Serrano v. Priest. The case led the California Supreme Court in 1971 to establish the concept of “fiscal neutrality,” which recognized that the quality of a child’s education should not be a function of a district’s wealth or poverty. The way to equalize education for rich and poor, Coons and Sugarman eventually argued, was to enact a system of choice.

A commitment to family choice in education, Coons would later write, “would maximize, equalize and dignify as no other remedy imaginable.” And, notably, this comes from a progressive voice that Biddle believes is critical to this enterprise. While it’s unlikely that any grassroots or parent-led effort can soon convince the ACLU to drop its opposition to the choice policies that Biddle and Coons would promote, Biddle is right to argue that it will take a left-of-center effort to quarterback this challenge.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The disturbing result from dark of night legislation

By Peter H. Hanley on July 21, 2011

Editor’s note: This guest column comes from Peter H. Hanley, the executive director of the American Center for School Choice and a board member of the San Mateo Union High School District outside San Francisco.

When I was first elected to my school board ten years ago and was puzzled about why certain things were the way they were, a veteran board member told me that understanding public education policy is much easier once one realizes the adults within the system, not the kids, are the first priority.

The California legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown reinforced that truth with a stealth law passed late the night of June 30 with no hearings or debate to prohibit school districts from laying off any teachers this year, even if they anticipate reduced funding and a deficit. With nearly 15 percent of all school districts on the California Department of Education’s financial “watch list” as of mid-June, this law also recklessly suspends the legislation requiring county superintendents to certify the current and future financial viability of school districts.

That same day, the state lost $4 billion of revenue when temporary taxes expired. Yet the budget somehow anticipates that $4 billion will magically reappear. If it doesn’t, another $2.5 billion in education funding cuts could automatically kick in around the middle of the school year.

No one questions that teachers are a key to educational success, but they are also around 50 percent of most school districts’ budgets. If you take teachers off the table, your ability and options to manage the organization are significantly reduced.

Unbelievably, the legislature’s and governor’s alternative suggestion is to throw our kids under the bus by cutting the shortest school year in the industrialized world further by seven days. Well over half of the K-12 population qualifies as economically disadvantaged and performs far below other students. Moreover, about 40 percent of all students are below proficient in English and 70 percent are below proficient in high school mathematics. With this situation, incomprehensibly, California public policy now is to preserve, at the cost of children’s educations and the real risk of school district bankruptcies, the jobs of college-educated adults. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

A new strategy?

By Adam Emerson on July 20, 2011

This week, the Denver-based Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People filed a federal complaint alleging that a Colorado school district’s pilot voucher plan discriminates against children with special needs. The voucher program would provide “only limited services (if any) for students with disabilities” and violates not only the Americans with Disabilities Act, but also Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protecting civil rights law, reads the complaint to the Justice Department. “Parents of students with disabilities do not have the same choice to participate in this program,” the center states.

This, of course, comes just a month after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a similar complaint to the Justice Department alleging that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and two schools in particular, also violate both ADA and Section 504 by discriminating against students with disabilities and further segregating Milwaukee students. “Proposed legislation to substantially expand the voucher program, if implemented, will exacerbate the discrimination against and segregation of students with disabilities by permitting more schools to participate in the program,” the ACLU states.

The Milwaukee program did indeed expand to Racine, Wis., just as many private school options passed state legislatures during the past several months. Will we be seeing more complaints like these as one strategy to reverse the momentum?

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The rationale for choice and the greater good

By Doug Tuthill on July 18, 2011

The Sunday New York Times featured a front page story on the rise of charter schools in the suburbs and quoted one charter school opponent, Matthew Stewart, in Millburn, N.J., as stating, “In suburban areas like Millburn, there’s no evidence whatsoever that the local school district is not doing its job. So what’s the rationale for a charter school?

The rationale for all learning options, including virtual learning, homeschooling, magnet schools, career academies and charter schools is primarily twofold. First, every child is unique and all parents, regardless of their financial status, have the right to match their child with the learning options that best meet her needs. Self determination is a basic human need. We all want the freedom to determine our own destiny and parents in particular want and need the freedom to do what’s best for their children. Denying parents this freedom undermines parenting, schooling and student development.

The second rationale is tied to organizational improvement. Public education is strengthened when its primary customers, the parents, have multiple schooling options and are empowered to choose the options that best meet their children’s needs. When customers are forced to receive services from a single provider, that provider will not be as effective or efficient as when customers are able to choose from multiple providers.

Many school choice advocates like to assert that parents need choices to escape from failing schools, but that’s a poor rationale for many reasons, most notably because it leads to endless debates over what constitutes a failing school. A school’s quality derives from the interaction between that school and each child. It’s the school-child relationship that succeeds or fails. Almost every school succeeds with some children and fails with others.

Of course some schools are so toxic we can all agree they should be closed, but the vast majority of schools are not in this category. I sent my older son to the only “F” rated school in Pinellas County, Fla., and he had a good experience. Conversely, I sent my younger son to the highest rated academic program in the district and he had a terrible experience. Hence, my belief that as a parent I can’t evaluate a school’s effectiveness independent of how that school affects my child.

Expanding customized learning options is key to improving public education. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Stewart’s assertion that giving suburban parents access to more learning options will undermine the greater good.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Interest spiking in Indiana voucher program

By Kenya Woodard on July 14, 2011

While a group of educators and clergy are challenging Indiana’s voucher law in court, more than 125 schools have submitted applications to participate in the program, according to The Associated Press.

About 80 have been admitted to the program, considered one of the most sweeping voucher efforts in the nation which will initially allow a limited number of low- and middle-income families to use public money toward private school tuition. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the voucher program into law in May.

Meanwhile, Fort Wayne-South Bend Catholic Diocese Schools Superintendent Mark Myers says his organization “has been flooded with calls from parents hoping to obtain vouchers,” reports Fort Wayne’s The Journal Gazette.

“The target is to admit 25 students in each building or about 1,000 new children in grades K-12 this summer,” Myers wrote in an article for Today’s Catholic News, the diocese’s official publication. “If this goal is reached, the diocese would receive just fewer than 14 percent of the total number of vouchers awarded by the state in 2011.”

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

« Previous 1 … 89 90 91 … 111 Next »

From the archives: The FEA on lost influence

Affluent and minorities split on school choice

James Blaine, Charley Johns, and Anita Bryant?

The irony of the Save Our Schools rally

School choice and the case for equity

The disturbing result from dark of night legislation

A new strategy?

The rationale for choice and the greater good

Interest spiking in Indiana voucher program

Best guest posts

Hosts

Blog roll

Archives

Categories

Follow Us

Best guest posts

Categories

Hosts

Blog roll

Archives

Categories