Pro Bono Dream Team Needed for Resegregation, Fiscal Equity
After writing a post earlier this morning about a court decision in MI where gun rights advocates were seeking to overturn school district bans on open carry, I was heartened to read an editorial in today’s NYTimes about a “pro bono dream team” that was going to launch an all out effort to overturn a host of NRA initiatives that have resulted in a proliferation of guns in public places. It struck me after reading this that it is time for a similar “pro bono dream team” to tackle the resegregation of schools and the inequities that exist in public school funding. Controlling access to guns will do a lot for public safety, but offering a high quality public education will do even more for our country in the long run.
Clio, Ann Arbor MI School Districts Prevail in Court: Guns CAN be Banned in School
In a ruling that could easily be moot in a month or so, the Clio and Ann Arbor School Districts in Michigan prevailed in separate lawsuits brought by “gun rights advocates” seeking to overturn gun bans enacted by the school board. In what I view as rational and logical rulings, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld bans against “…the possession of guns on school property and at school-sponsored activities.” The court rejected the gun advocate’s contention that schools in MI were impacted by a law that mandated open carry because they were “a local unit of government”, a bit of an irony in a State where the phrase “government schools” was coined:
The state law prohibits a “local unit of government” from, among other things, banning the possession of firearms. A key issue in the case was whether that applies to a school district. The Michigan Legislature, the appeals court said, defines a local unit of government as a city, village, township or county.
“A school district is not included in that list,” the court said in the Ann Arbor ruling, and therefore, the state law “does not control the outcome of this case.”
But some of the basis for the court’s decision might be in peril. In rendering the decision the court made reference to “weapon-free school zones”, which might be eliminated after President-elect Trump is sworn in next month:
The Ann Arbor district’s policy, the court said, “ensures that the learning environment remains uninterrupted by the invocation of emergency procedures which would surely be required each and every time a weapon is openly carried by a citizen into a school building.”
The panel said there are 26 references in state laws to “weapon-free school zones.”
“These four words telegraph an unmistakable objective regarding guns and schools; indeed, we find it hard to imagine a more straightforward expression of legislative will. The Legislature contemplated that this repeatedly invoked phrase would be interpreted to mean exactly what it says — no weapons are allowed in schools.“
The court’s logic is in peril for another reason as well: the MI legislature will undoubtedly be pressured by the gun right’s activists to remove those 26 references in State law and/or specifically include school districts on the list of “local units of government”. Rest assured that the gun lobby will not rest until this issue is decided in their favor.
If open carry will be allowed in public schools, here’s a question for Secretary of Education DeVos: if guns are allowed in public schools, will they be allowed in the charter schools she advocates? And a follow-up question: if Ms. DeVos decides that guns MAY be banned in charter and religious schools, will the NRA aggressively work to overturn those bans?
Vouchers Mean Less Local Control Over Schools, Less Regulation… but Lower Property Taxes. Is the Trade-off Worth It?
Harvard Government Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have an op ed piece in today’s paper that poses this question: Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy? Spoiler alert: their answer is a decided and well documented “Yes“.
But Professors Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analysis of Mr. Trump’s corrosive impact on democracy overlooks one crucial element of Mr. Trump’s threat: his desire to privatize as many government functions as possible. Mr. Trump’s nomination of voucher advocate Betsy DeVos to Secretary of Education is a case in point. An avid proponent of replacing “government schools”, Ms. DeVos has no time whatsoever for school boards at any level, for THEY are the “government” in “government schools”. Moreover, in most communities the democratically elected Boards that govern school districts have a greater impact on property taxes than any other locally elected board. But locally elected school boards view themselves as guardians of the well-being of children and are not driven by the profit motive. Consequently these democratically elected boards tend to spend more freely than a business and, consequently, taxpayers need to pay more. This chain of events might be lost on government professors, journalists, and voters… but it is not lost on the businessmen who would love to pay lower taxes and are eager to make a profit by operating low overhead schools. In a democracy the well being of citizens is more important than the bottom line. In business, that is often not the case.
So here are some handy equations to keep in mind as we consider Ms. DeVos’ opening appointment:
More choice = less local governance
More choice = lower property taxes
More choice = business opportunities for de-regulated for-profit schools.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that more choice = better opportunities for children… OR more learning in the classrooms… OR healthier communities… OR local control over spending.
IMHO Rejecting DeVos Based on Unpaid Fine is Wrong Tactic
I read yesterday’s Politico blog post on public education with dismay. It noted with a degree of pride that many Senators who will vote on Ms. DeVos appointment will use their earlier report on her failure to pay fines for “…more than $5.3 million for election law violations — a record fine that is now nearly a decade past due.” The post listed the Senators who have currently expressed concerns over this issue:
Senate Democrats are calling on Trump’s education secretary pick to pay more than $5 million in election fines owed by her school-choice advocacy group… A group of four Democratic senators sent DeVos a letter Wednesday urging her to pay the fine, and calling it “deeply troubling.”
“This will be major factor in my vote,” tweeted one of those senators, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), on Wednesday night, saying the response from the DeVos camp showed a “disturbingly cavalier attitude toward breaking the law.” Joining Merkley in signing the letter were Sens. Tom Udall(D-N.M.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The letter to DeVos expresses “significant concerns” about the elections fine, and urges her to pay it.
I was disappointed to see that the payment of the fine was being used as a litmus test of sorts for Ms. DeVos because the real problem with her appointment is the complete lack of evidence on her part of ANY support for public education. Instead of using what some will perceive as a technicality, the four Senators would serve public schools far better if they opposed Ms. DeVos’ appointment on principle.
Education Matters…. Unless You Are Rich and White…
NY Daily News writer Shaun King pulls no punches when it comes to assessing the political landscape, and his review of the educational background of President-elect Trump’s cabinet provides an insight into the value Mr. Trump places on scholarship.
Mr. King’s article opens with a quote from Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Atlantic article that has been liked on Facebook hundreds of thousands times:
If I have to jump six feet to get the same thing that you have to jump two feet for — that’s how racism works.
To be President, Obama had to be scholarly, intelligent, President of the Harvard Law Review, the product of some of our greatest educational institutions, capable of talking to two different worlds.
Donald Trump had to be rich and white. That’s the difference.
To prove Coates’ point, Mr. King contrasts the education of President Obama with that of Mr. Trump and then contrasts the educational background of the current cabinet with that of Mr. Trump. The comparisons chillingly reinforce the notion that wealth is far more important than intellect. In all cases Mr. Obama’s cabinet (and it could have applied to the cabinets of both Presidents Bush) is far more educated and well versed in their fields than Mr. Trump’s cabinet. King concludes his article with this:
Education matters. It is often on college campuses where people are challenged with new ideas, new cultures, and opposing viewpoints that don’t quite match their own.
While Trump, and these men, may indeed argue that they don’t need advanced graduate degrees, because they are so rich and successful, I’d prefer both. Not only that, but many of these nominees, and indeed Trump himself, don’t even have a day of experience working inside of the government. These systems are complicated and robust. To see the education levels drop off so much, is not just disappointing, it could be dangerous.
We are turning education over to someone who has never attended public school, never enrolled a child in public school, and whose husband can’t even utter the words “public school” having re-named them “government schools”. We have individuals with deep roots in the fossil fuel system overseeing key functions in an are where government regulation of that industry is essential if we ever hope to control climate change. And we have an individual overseeing the treasury who made his fortune in hedge funds. Mr. King is right: it could be dangerous!
Say Goodbye to ANY Chance that Technology Can Provide an Equitable Learning Opportunity
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/opinion/expect-a-cozy-trump-telecom-alliance.html?ref=opinionI just read today’s NYTimes editorial and was inclined to slam my laptop shut. “Expect a Cozy Trump-Telecom Alliance” includes this disheartening paragraph:
On the chopping block are net neutrality rules adopted by the F.C.C. in 2015 to prohibit companies like Comcast and Verizon from giving preference to some content over others. For example, Comcast is not allowed to engineer its broadband network to download movies and TV shows from its NBC Universal subsidiary faster than movies from Netflix. These rules were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June. But the F.C.C. under Mr. Trump is likely to repeal them. Once Mr. Trump appoints a new F.C.C. chairman, probably early next year, Republicans, who have been inveterate opponents of telecom regulation in recent years, will have a 3-to-2 majority on the commission; Democrats have a majority now.
The deregulation will be great for the oligopolist oligarchs… but yet another obstacle to those in rural outposts and urban areas where profits are hard to come by.
Bill Bennett’s CL4E Platform for State Implementation of ESSA: Good for Parents, Profits, and Technology; Not So Good for Equity
This morning’s Politico feed on public education included a link to the platform of Bill Bennett’s latest advocacy group, Conservative Leaders for Education, or CL4E. Unsurprisingly the group of conservatives who wrote the platform recommends that State’s embrace choice, choice, and more choice… and fails to mention equity anywhere.
The four founding principles of the CL4E group are hard to reject at first blush. They are: Local Control; Parent Choices; Accountability; and Quality Content. But a translation of each of these broad ideas indicates that there might be a reason for suspicion.
The Local Control plank, for example, makes no mention of LOCAL school boards. Instead, it refers to the need for States to control more oversight of education and for the Federal Government to back off.
The Parent Choices plank intimates that parents should be able to use “set-aside funds that empower” them to choose any school at all for their child. CL4E believes that if parents are given more control over their child’s education they will naturally do what is best for their children if they are given sufficient information. It seems to assume that all parents have the time and resources to conduct a search for a school that meet their children precise needs… and that every community can provide that array of choices.
The approaches described in the Accountability plank are on target. They suggest that in the long run each student should develop an individualized learning plan and the successful implementation of that plan should be the basis for determining success. But there is one clinker: there is no clear delineation of who should be responsible for developing and monitoring such a plan. How can CL4E say it values accountability while failing to specify who will be accountable? The logical answer to this would be a public school— but that would mean the “government” would be involved instead of– well I’m not sure who CL4E thinks would be responsible.
Last, the section on Quality and Effective Testing section is devoid of any meaningful recommendation other than it doesn’t want any kind of consistent national expectations for children. On the one hand it strives to use tests for diagnostic purposes… but on the other it envisions “more effective tests modeled on the NAEP”. What the purpose of those tests would be isn’t clear. It seeks high academic standards and aligned tests that measure what a student is learning and insists that STATES determine the content to be taught and measured. Given that at least three states think creation science is something that should be taught I’m not certain that what their tests measure is worthwhile. Nor is it clear how a NAEP-like test would interface with these new State tests.
There is nothing in the CL4E proposal that addresses the gross inequities that exist in schools today. Nothing that addresses the steps public schools need to take to address the problems children bring with them into the classroom because of the grinding effects of poverty. Nothing that addresses the need for more and more children to adapt to the world they will be in charge of once they become adults. The CL4E proposal WILL help parents who currently enroll their children in private schools, de-regulated for-profit charters who want to recruit more students, and the testing and technology companies who will develop assessments and track data. The CL4E proposal will also help taxpayers since it doesn’t call for any more spending on schools or social services. The CL4E proposal will help guide states in the direction of privatization and at long last realize the dream of entrepreneurs who ant to convert the public school monopoly into a free market.
Vote even if you think it doesn’t matter…. and be grateful you still can!
