HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 'Reaching Out' to the Bla...

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:34 AM

'Reaching Out' to the Black Community With a Wagging Finger, a Closed Fist, and an Empty Hand

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 01:19 PM - Edit history (3)




Mitt Romney wants African-Americans to vote for him. At the very least, he wants black voters to think twice before proudly casting their ballot for the first African-American president in the nation's history. That's why his campaign is stepping up their messaging and outreach to the black community, beginning this month -- to try and convince voters (both black and white) that his campaign and party aren't actually the pariahs that their indifferent and mostly hostile positions and statements would suggest.

It's a rather tardy start to this initiative by the Romney campaign, having only recently appointed their first, sort-of-senior, black official as a communications adviser for outreach to the African-American community. The new campaign official, Tara Wall, a former Bush appointee and conservative commentator, must understand that she has a daunting task in selling her candidate's message and policies to the black community.

from an article in TBO: http://www2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2012/may/27/namaino13-romney-begins-quietly-courting-black-vot-ar-408443/

"Yes, it is a bit harder this time. We have a black president. But we can't go in with the mindset that we aren't going to win any people over to our side," said Tara Wall, a former Bush administration official who was recently hired as a senior Romney communications adviser to handle outreach to African Americans.

"From a messaging standpoint, we need to be able to communicate and relate to these communities about how they are being impacted by Obama's policies. It's the right thing to do, and it's an important part of the process. It's not a ploy, it's not a tactic, it's part of who we are. We have to show up."


It may not be an actual ploy, as Wall argues here, but republican outreach is normally not what most African-Americans have in mind when they look for support and attention to their particular needs and concerns. In fact, most of the republican party's outreach to the black community has been a cynical attempt to convince folks that the issues and initiatives they've advocated and fought for over the decades are wrongheaded and should be supplanted with their party's own prescriptions and schemes, instead.

That's certainly been the case with Mitt Romney. Despite providing lip service to the overall concerns of black voters, he's adhered to most of the confrontational planks of his party's reflexive paternalism which is determined to convince African-Americans that their conservative agenda is ultimately superior to what black Americans have been demanding and fighting for.

It's rather easy to point to Romney's opposition to affirmative action as a harbinger of his overall attitude toward issues which predominately affect black Americans. Although, that position would seem to be a predictable and ordinary disagreement on policy which, by itself, wouldn't seem to necessarily mean that the presumptive nominee for president is hostile to the interests of the African-American community.

However, that very position of Mr. Romney's is at the hub of his party's philosophy that there isn't actually any more need to seek or recognize any broad legislative remedies for the black community and individuals, because, as the right-wing thinking of the vast majority of his party goes, 'equality' means that blacks aren't viewed as requiring or deserving any benefit from the government targeted specifically to their particular community of concerns and interests.

The lie that's perpetuated by their right-wing is that blacks have already achieved enough recovery from the institutionalized racism and discrimination of our nation's past, so that they should now be made to compete on an 'equal' level with their white counterparts for government assistance and benefit.

Despite the persistence of disproportional percentages of black individuals in states of poverty; insubstantial health care; inadequate housing; criminal profiling and higher rates of incarceration for similar crimes as non-blacks; lack of resources for education; etc., the Romney republican stance would never favor the views of the African-American community that these are issues which need to be addressed with specific attention to their impact on black Americans.

In fact, republicans only seem to recognize that a black 'community' actually exists around election time; and even then, only to posture as if 'responsibility' and 'accountability' were challenges for African-Americans alone, and, that poverty, joblessness, crime, and other deficiencies of their community were the product of all that they would deny them legislatively. For their own good, the contemporary republican dictum goes, the community that they'll admit is suffering proportionally to the rest of the nation (if they can somehow blame our black President), should not receive benefits or government remedies which don't carry some punitive or corrective measure to induce desired behavior.

For example, Romney vehemently defended his wife's decision to 'work at home' raising her children, but, for poor communities which are disproportionally black, Romney insists mothers should be forced to put their children in daycare and go to work. At a town hall event in Manchester, New Hampshire on January 4th, Romney described his position on work requirements for welfare recipients as governor of Massachusetts:

“I wanted to increase the work requirement,” Romney said. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that's heartless,' and I said ‘No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

Fair enough, except when you consider how difficult it is to find employment these days, especially in hard-hit African-American neighborhoods. Without available jobs, the workfare measures are merely punitive, and not any path to upward mobility or sustenance.

So, what about the health needs of the black community and the impact of Romney's pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

from ColorLines: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/04/mitt_romneys_dismal_racial_justice_report_card.html

In 2000, 57.5 percent of black Americans had employer-sponsored health insurance. By 2010, that number fell below 50 percent, to 45.3. For black children, the drop was even steeper: employer sponsored health insurance fell 14.1 percentage points.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in coverage persisted over time, with non-Hispanic whites in 2010 experiencing rates of ESI coverage 71 percent higher than those of Hispanics and 48 percent higher than those of blacks,” the Economic Policy Institute’s Elise Gould wrote in a recent report. Health care reform has filled in the gap for people who lost their employment and their health insurance. Moreover, it’s worth noting that even if the same number of jobs lost over the last five years comes back, they’re not the same quality jobs that existed before. Romney’s plan to deregulate health care could lead to more gaps in coverage.


As Romney 'reaches out' to the African-American community, his campaign for president is imbued with his political promise to eviscerate any progress for the black community that's been made as a result of the health law's passage. Yet, he's determined to tell that community, and others in need, that he knows better than they do in their support of the historic changes in access and benefit.

It was that superior attitude on display last week in a black community in west Philadelphia where Romney staged the second of his tardy attempts at outreach in minority neighborhoods. At a charter school with a predominately black population, Romney sought to confront educators he met with, instead of listen to their concerns. This, despite his statement beforehand that he came "to learn, obviously, from people who are having experiences that are unique and instructive."

Instead, Mr. Romney came armed with proposals for school vouchers and a cynical slap at teachers' unions in the form of an argument against the well-established need for smaller classrooms; a view of his which was based on a study done in Singapore and South Korea; apparently good enough in Romney's mind for our U.S. communities. It's not as if Romney cared about the issue, though, as much as he was mindlessly taking glee in opposing the teachers' union's longtime support and advocacy for more qualified teachers and more classrooms.

One of the most important things Mr. Romney might 'learn' from people in the African-American community is that it won't do any good to patronize them with his presence if all he intends to do is ignore their concerns and interests in favor of promoting to them his cynical own. It might help if he actually respected these folks in the first place. People can, not only sense a phony, they know when they're being talked down to and ignored.

from BET on Romney's Philadelphia 'outreach' effort: http://www.bet.com/news/features/vote-2012/news/politics/2012/05/25/commentary-romney-s-telling-visit-to-a-black-neighborhood.html

Washington Post writer Philip Rucker, notes that Romney was greeted (in Philadelphia) by shouts of “Get out, Romney!”

Residents, some of them organized by Obama’s campaign, stood on their porches and gathered at a sidewalk corner to shout angrily at Romney. Some held signs saying, “We are the 99%.” One man’s placard trumpeted an often-referenced Romney gaffe: “I am not concerned about the very poor.”

Madaline G. Dunn, 78, who said she has lived here for 50 years and volunteers at the school, said she is “personally offended” that Romney would visit her neighborhood.

“It’s not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come in here and speak his garbage.”


Romney discovered an active, informed community which wasn't just sitting around waiting for some republican demagogue to sweep into town and rescue them with his punitive reforms. In fact, the charter school's founder told reporters that he's not sure whether Romney understands the needs of the African-American community. I'm not even sure he has any affinity for them at all.

Before an awkward photo op with a group of African Americans kids at a Martin Luther King Day parade in January 2008, Romney displayed his most candid side. That hasn't been his strong suit . . . "Who let the dogs out? Who, who?" Romney presumptuously chanted to the small crowd gathered on the corner of the block. Personally, I think he's just not up to 'outreach.' Perhaps he should actually take himself up on his offer to just 'listen' to the people he intends to vote for him, instead?



35 replies, 5534 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Reaching Out' to the Black Community With a Wagging Finger, a Closed Fist, and an Empty Hand (Original post)
bigtree May 2012 OP
Lionessa May 2012 #1
bigtree May 2012 #2
Lionessa May 2012 #5
bigtree May 2012 #6
iemitsu May 2012 #8
bigtree May 2012 #9
iemitsu May 2012 #12
bigtree May 2012 #15
HiPointDem May 2012 #14
bigtree May 2012 #16
HiPointDem May 2012 #19
bigtree May 2012 #22
HiPointDem May 2012 #23
bigtree May 2012 #24
HiPointDem May 2012 #25
bigtree May 2012 #30
HiPointDem May 2012 #32
HiPointDem May 2012 #13
bigtree May 2012 #17
HiPointDem May 2012 #18
iemitsu May 2012 #20
bigtree May 2012 #21
HiPointDem May 2012 #26
bigtree May 2012 #27
HiPointDem May 2012 #28
bigtree May 2012 #29
HiPointDem May 2012 #31
bigtree May 2012 #33
HiPointDem May 2012 #34
bigtree May 2012 #35
99Forever May 2012 #3
madashelltoo May 2012 #4
goclark May 2012 #10
Scurrilous May 2012 #7
annabanana May 2012 #11

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:46 AM

1. I agree completely, but the question that hangs in my mind is...

 

How is Obama's education plan any different? Seems this is at least one place where the distance between Obama and Romney is negligible.

Both sides are seemingly in favor of publicly funded, privately run charters and both have virtually no concern for teachers or students of any color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:08 AM

2. first, you'd have to locate an 'education policy' of Romney's to debate

You may well find Romney parroting some similar proposals, but without substance, we'll just have to assume that he's still favoring investment in private institutions over public education. He's still criticizing President Obama for his opposition to Romney's school voucher proposals.

His campaign released a white paper highlighting his support for federal vouchers — a plan to reroute tax dollars sent to public schools to help educate poor and disabled children, instead letting that money follow the students to private schools. The federal government will spend $48.8 billion this year on poor and disabled students.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nationall/education/mitt-romney-promotes-school-vouchers-in-attack-on-obamas-education-policy/2012/05/23/gJQAZN37kU_story.html


here's a perspective from the Nation
: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168059/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romney-and-education

Does Romney support the implementation of the Common Core curriculum standards? Partly in response to federal funding incentives put in place by the Obama administration, forty-six states have agreed to adopt these shared English and math standards, which will be far more challenging than many current state curriculum guidelines, and will include more writing, more non-fiction reading, and greater conceptual depth in math. Meanwhile, conservative legislators in South Carolina and several other states are pushing to prevent the Core’s implementation, complaining it robs parents and local districts of influence. Romney’s education white paper never even mentions the Common Core, and makes no statement at all on matters of curriculum. A campaign staffer told Education Week that while Romney supports the Core, he believes the Obama administration has gone too far in pushing states to adopt the standards. That’s a pretty theoretical definition of “support,” since implementation of the standarnds will be the program’s key challenge.

Will Romney protect funds for poor and disabled kids? Romney’s white paper lays out a teacher quality proposal similar to the one advanced by House Republicans earlier this year. But he has been silent on another priority of the Congressional GOP: allowing local schools and districts to redirect Title I and IDEA funds—now targeted exclusively toward poor and disabled children—toward other types of programs that serve larger populations. This is a direct attack on the federal government’s traditional, civil rights-oriented role in education funding. Would Romney sign such legislation?

What about preventing draconian local budget cuts? The House GOP wants to give states and districts access to federal dollars regardless of how drastically they cut local school budgets. Current law helps tamp down on local budget cuts by tying federal aid to “maintenance of effort” on programs for disadvantaged children. Does Romney agree with the House Republicans, or with the law as it is written, and has been supported by both parties in the past?

How about the youngest learners? High-quality preschool is one of the most effective interventions to build children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, yet only about half of American 3- to -5-year-olds are enrolled in any kind of organized program. As my colleague Maggie Severns writes at Early Ed Watch, Romney hasn’t uttered a word on the trail about pre-K, childcare or full-day kindergarten, all priorities the Obama administration has attempted to address (with mixed success) through its Race to the Top program. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney actually presided over an increase in pre-K enrollment, yet he isn’t bragging about this now, probably because pre-K is expensive.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168059/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romney-and-education

You're leaving out an awful lot of stuff when you just blithely equate the two candidates' views and efforts on education. It's almost surreal to have that debate here on a Democratic board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Sun May 27, 2012, 12:13 PM

5. Yeah, well after much reading here on DU, I have little hope for the public system under Obama

 

and his education secretary. Sorry, I'll side with teachers on this issue, and they tell me Obama admin sucks at school reform because he chooses to head into the direction of charter schools, blaming teachers, etc. Romney may be a tad worse in his rhetoric, but in his actions, Obama has failed teachers and teachers' unions and thereby is failing in the educational arena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #5)

Sun May 27, 2012, 12:36 PM

6. well, just on the money invested on PE on the initiative of this admin alone he deserves support

And, after all, we're talking about a comparison to republicans who have opposed most of those funds in favor of the all-privatization/all-the-time approach of Romney and the republican party. He's not some maverick or something. He's as determined to gut public education as the rest of today's conservatives. It's just not supported by any fact that the president isn't committed to fully investing in public schools.

Now, you do have some very real differences with the President and teachers unions, as you say. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a real and substantial investment initiated and implemented as a result of this Democratic presidency.

I know that many folks want to ignore the investments made in the Recovery Act for one political motive or the other, but it provided important investments in early learning programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start, child care, and programs for children with special needs. It also helped keep teachers on the job in many struggling communities around the nation.

President Obama signed into law student loan reform, a historic measure to make college more affordable for students and families and save American taxpayers roughly $68 billion over 10 years. Would Romney have initiated and implemented that measure? It certainly took this Democratic administration to make it happen.

The Obama administration has invested $40 billion into Pell Grant scholarships, more than doubling the size of the program since he took office. Meanwhile, republicans proposed cutting Pell Grants by over 15 percent. You think Romney wouldn't go along with them?

Just take a look at conservative complaints about the President's spending and it becomes clear how ridiculous it is to compare Democratic efforts and aspirations in education with the republicans' historically hostile attitude to public school spending.

from the Heritage Foundation:

Obama’s budget request increases the Department of Education budget to $69.8 billion. That’s a 2.5 percent boost over 2012 levels and the largest increase proposed for any domestic government agency.

And that’s not all. Tack on another $13.3 billion in mandatory spending for Pell Grants and the total request is $83 billion. Add to that $60 billion more from Obama’s supplemental “blueprint” — covering school construction, teacher pay and compensation — and you get the picture of just how much this administration has expanded the federal government’s role in education.

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke takes Education Secretary Arne Duncan to task for suggesting he doesn’t have enough to make do:

If enacted, these proposals would mean that in one term, President Obama has spent almost as much on education as President George W. Bush spent in two terms—even considering the fact that Bush nearly doubled the size of the DOE. …

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Sun May 27, 2012, 01:24 PM

8. that money comes with strings.

obama has been a disaster for public education.
i fear it will be the worst looking aspect of his "legacy".
the charters he supports not only drain public funds from those who need them most but are also re-segregating the school populations around the nation.
obama is smart enough to see these truths but clearly he has not taken the time to find out anything about his misguided promotions.
he literally cheered when that RI town fired all of its teaching staff.
what a spit in the face?
on this issue, obama is as clueless as romney is when speaking to the black community.
when i vote for obama in november it will be one of the hardest compromises i have ever faced, since (as a public school teacher) it will feel like endorsing my own death warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #8)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:07 PM

9. 'death warrant?' that's just hyperbolic nonsense

. . . and heaping all of that blame on the 6,000 or so charter schools around the country? 'Draining' funds from public schools? Hardly. The National Charter School Research Project reports that 89 percent of U.S. school districts “have no charter schools within their boundaries.

Charters re-segregating? You must have gotten that from some article somewhere. It isn't a fact that I'm familiar with. I don't think it's true.

The U.S. Department of Education's 1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, is based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. Charters tend to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represent primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tend to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:41 PM

12. big tree, you must not be a public school teacher.

not one i work with would call my accusations "hyperbolic nonsense".
charter schools are part of the larger privatization scam.
charter schools do not test better than non-charter traditional schools.
and charters can apply entrance requirements that allow them to skim off the students they think will make them look better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #12)

Sun May 27, 2012, 06:33 PM

15. charter schools, as they exist today, don't threaten your job

It's doesn't add up to equate the two.

I'm sorry, I just think 'death warrant' is just nonsense. The notion that the educators in these charter schools are part of some 'scam' is hyper-inflated rhetoric. These schools vary greatly in make-up, mission, and effectiveness. It not something that's being forced on communities; it's a community choice.
There's no question that these new regulations and initiatives like the testing and the 'race' for funding is not what I'd prescribe. I'm not a fan of making schools compete for funding. poor performing schools usually need more resources, so, I'm no fan.

My mother taught in a D.C. school for 30 yrs. and volunteered for 20 more in another D.C. school. I do think this administration has decided to take a confrontational approach with teachers, and I think that's a shame.

Now, that said, we can't just ignore the fact that this administration and Congress have opted to stick with public schools. Almost 90% of school districts in the country have absolutely no competition from charter schools. It's hard to get worked up and declare the administration a disaster while they're initiating and approving record dollars for public education, including billions in the current budget for modernization, repairs, and construction of new schools.

The bleak picture you paint is good for firing folks up over what may well be a worthwhile debate over teacher's rights and benefits -- yet, the hyper-charged rhetoric leaves out so much of the support and progress that this administration has made in their term. I listed some above. The investment in dollars is unprecedented, and the control you speak of is aspirational, more than it is coercive. The federal contribution is still dwarfed by the states'. There have been waivers and other accommodations of individual states' obligations under the Leave No Child Behind Act and other regulations.

Moreover, it's easy to criticize the Democratic administration, but let's not forget what they've been resisting in the form of republicans' determination to neuter the federal contribution to education. We can argue about this regulation or the other, but it's still a major improvement over the opposition to have a Democratic administration still committed to initiating and approving increases in the amount of federal dollars that go into traditionally state-funded schools.

The alternative? Look at the teachers which were able to hold onto their jobs as a result of this administration's hard-fought-for Recovery Act. It's just not credible to argue that this administration is some enemy of public education, or even teachers. We just saw the president defend smaller classes, which don't just automatically work with just any level of teacher. Studies show that the standards the administration is calling for in teacher education are necessary for the success of those classrooms. We need to keep working to find the right balance of opportunity and expectation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #9)

Sun May 27, 2012, 06:10 PM

14. The research you quote is from 1997, when the majority of the few charter schools that existed

 

were well-funded experiments for upscale liberal urban/suburbanites. It was only about 3 years since the first charter school was opened (I believe that date was 1994).

That was before Bush pushed through NCLB and other charter-promoting/enabling legislation that made low-income minority districts the opening wedge in the assault on public education.

Charter schools are indeed more segregated than public schools:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/11/charter_study

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/10/report-reveals-trend-of-segregation-in-charter-schools/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #14)

Sun May 27, 2012, 06:39 PM

16. so, like, in a predominately black neighborhood, you'll find a charter school

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 08:15 PM - Edit history (1)

dominated by black kids . . . and that's bad, how?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #16)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:15 PM

19. In case you didn't know, charter schools aren't neighborhood schools. They're open to all students.

 

So that might be a justification for a traditional neighborhood school in a black area being 99% black, but it's not for a charter school.

Not to mention that the study says charter schools are *more* segregated than traditional public neighborhood schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #19)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:08 AM

22. you act like they're corralling folk to the schools based on race

ridiculous charge and you should know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #22)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:22 AM

23. I didn't say that, & I didn't do the study. I linked a reputable study & gave you a *fact* that

 

anyone who actually knows anything about charters knows: they're *not* neighborhood schools. They're open to anyone who *chooses* to enroll their kids.

What's ridiculous is your straw men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #23)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:41 AM

24. the 'straw' is acting as if the racial makeup was some issue

It's no more of an issue than 'segregated' areas in a lunchroom. At some point, people will choose where they want to put their students. I mentioned the predominately black areas because I don't know what the objection would be to black families in those neighborhoods opting for the charter school choice. I'm not sure what the objection to that school with a majority black population, for example, would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:54 AM

25. You're free to keep repeating the falsehood that charter schools are neighborhood schools, but

 

they're not. You don't get preferential admission to a charter because you live in the neighborhood.

And it's not black families in the neighborhood closing neighborhood schools and setting up charters.

That plan is straight out of whitesville, from its most wealthy quarters. And if you think those people care about poor black kids, well, where the hell have they been for the last 200 years, eh? The answer to that question would be highly embarrassing, so don't even bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #25)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:22 AM

30. schools aren't closing because of charters. There are many, many factors behind closing schools

Of all of the complaints about charters, the 'segregated' issue is the most absurd. It's designed to provide a wedge argument, but admission is voluntary. I live near Baltimore and we have several charter schools in predominately black neighborhoods with majority black populations of students which are supported by residents there. There's nothing any more wrong with that than there would be in a white neighborhood. As the charter program stands today, there isn't the negative impact from that tiny fraction of schools that critics warn of. All you can do is wave around the hobgoblin that someone somewhere wants to end public education by promoting charters.

The federal government will never gain control of what schools states and districts choose to set up. Most of the charters are in urban areas where there are funding challenges (bonds rather than the property taxes generated in more residential areas). States are still going to be in control of what types of schools they make available. The federal government can only provide incentives. I think a lot of these urban districts are grateful for the help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #30)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:38 AM

32. Public schools are closing because the PTB want them to close. Charter schools are opening

 

for the same reason.

End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:47 PM

13. Most, if not all, of the extra money the admin put into ed has been used to coerce states and

 

districts into changing laws and standards to better enable charter schools, privatization, and destruction of teachers' union protection and the professional teaching corps and to develop the privatizers' tools.

Obama's big education money is a joke to anyone who's actually looked into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #13)

Sun May 27, 2012, 06:46 PM

17. 'all the extra money?' That's not what I see in the budget.

sounds good, though.

Sounds like rhetoric, actually, when you look at where the money has been allocated in the past three years. I don't know why anyone would want to just ignore the billions that have been poured into educational initiatives for the poor and disabled; almost $50 billion just this year. That's just a tip of the federal contribution to states which has been increased dramatically as a result of this Democratic presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #17)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:14 PM

18. A large part of it went to RTTT, which went to coerce states and districts as I said.

 

In the 2013 proposal for the education budget there is $69 bill of discretionary spending, so if you claim Obama put $50 bill into *new* education initiatives for the poor & disabled, you're going to have to prove that claim.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/summary/13summary.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #18)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:50 PM

20. i see it the same way as you do HiPointDem.

and so do my peers.
i am an old timer and have seen many school reforms during my career but the anti-teacher rhetoric and the anti-union action has never been so ugly.
NCLB was designed to make it look as if every public school in america was failing and that evidence was to be used as a reason to sell off the school system to charters.
obama should have rejected this destructive course but instead he has embraced it and upped the prize for selling off the schools even more quickly than the bushs could have hoped for.
it is not a good time to be a member of the working class in america.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #18)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:55 PM

21. you haven't proven that the discretionary spending is to 'coerce' states

They have these initiatives you disagree with as part of the funding, but I think you're really stretching the point to make it look like all the focus of the budget is on the new initiatives, like Race to the top. The overall funding is still there, with significant increases in federal dollars to what is traditionally a state-funded enterprise. If you have federal dollars, you're going to have federal initiatives and guidelines included along with that funding, but most of the 'discretionary' money is spent and directed by the states.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/edlite-section1.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #21)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:55 AM

26. I don't have to "prove" it, it's right there in the requirements to get the money.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #26)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:11 AM

27. those are incentives which are in addition to other increases in funding

You call it 'coercion.' It's no more coercion than any of the federal initiatives. At least there's money allocated for them. It would be one thing if the administration was establishing programs and not funding them.

But if you look further down in the budget, you''ll see increases in funding across the board for many other initiatives like special needs and disability assistance.

Again, most of the money for public schools comes from state revenue. The federal government has always represented a small contribution. The fact that there are charter school initiatives and other programs you might disagree with in the budget doesn't preclude the fact that they represent only a tiny fraction of the schools in the country. Most of the money in the budget are for programs which supplement public education systems. As with most federal dollars, there are guidelines and requirements, but the funds are incentives for these initiatives, the majority of which are not mandatory. You've conflated it all into a little box and are misrepresenting the intent of the initiatives and the impetus..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #27)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:23 AM

28. Not in RTTT they're not. Regardless of how much money comes from the feds, the impetus for

 

the destruction of public education and charters is coming from the feds, & big business. On both sides of the aisle.

I've done enough research on the topic to know that you have done much less, possibly none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #28)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:05 AM

29. I know enough

. . . to realize that the notion of the handful of charter schools around the nation leading to the demise of public education is a canard. Public schools are here to stay. The president believes in preserving and enhancing public education. His support for the fraction of schools which are charters is not a bid to eliminate public schools. The overwhelming amount of money in the increased education budget is for public education efforts. That's not going to change, nor does the president intend for it to change. it's a ridiculous tactic to divert from that fact just to oppose charters. They don't threaten public education in the U.S. and they won't be allowed to. They are an option which is supported in a rather minor way by the federal government. All of the hyperbole about ending public education actually distracts from some valid arguments against some of the president's initiatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #29)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:35 AM

31. "Handful"? There were over 5600 charter schools in the US 2 years ago, with more than 2 million

 

students, and the rate of increase is growing every year. 2010-2011 the number of students increased 13% and 500 new schools opened.

18 years ago there were basically *none*, which means growth has been about 6000% over those 18 years, most of it since 2000.

This president, like the president before him, has promoted policies which push charter schools & close public schools and attack teachers and teachers' unions. The man this president chose for his education secretary had a history of pushing charterization in Chicago.

Those are facts, deny them as you will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #31)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:38 AM

33. compared to the amount of public schools, it's a pittance

about 89% of districts in the U.S. have no charter schools at all.

There are about 98,000 elementary and secondary public schools in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #33)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:49 AM

34. It was 5% in 2009, and getting bigger every year. Not to mention on-line schooling & vouchers, +

 

the increasingly privatized world of higher ed.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30

As for your "86%", I'd appreciate a link, as I googled that, plus "14% & find no verification for that stat either way.

I think you made it up, but if you can prove it, fire away.




In 2009-2010, over 10% of arizona & DC students were in charter schools; in 15 more, including three of the four most populous, % was 4-9.9%.

10 States didn't allow charters; today that's 9 with one more coming on board soon.

My state is one without charter legislation. The voters have turned them down three times & the pushers just keep introducing the legislation over and over. Currently going for a fourth try.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/figure-cse-2.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #34)

Mon May 28, 2012, 04:23 AM

35. I though we were assuming that we're both sincere in this discussion. I guess not.

The National Charter School Research Project reports that 89 percent of U.S. school districts “have no charter schools within their boundaries, perhaps in large measure because so many school districts are so very small." (Lake, 2010)

source: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Organizing-a-school/Charter-schools-Finding-out-the-facts-At-a-glance

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/projects/1?page=yes&id=5&parent=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:11 AM

3. Bingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:39 AM

4. He came for nothing, and he left with what he came for.

Rmoney came to Philly for a photo op with some black children. That's all. Everyone is up in arms about his educational policies, of which he has none, but the fact is that's not the point for him. Winning! to borrow the word momentarily, is his only motivation. Has anyone asked the Mittster if he intends to be a two term president? He was only a one term governor . . . didn't even try to run again. These offices are all simply notches on Mittie's belt. A whim, people! He wants to have a higher office than Daddy. If he didn't run for president of the United States, what would he be doing? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! He has no occupation anymore. He doesn't need the money. And, when you start putting elevators in your crib for your cars, you have completely run out of decorating ideas! This is a game for Mitt, and using little African American children works for him right now. Someone should have told Mittie Philly wasn't a good town for anyone they don't love. Tell him to ask Santa Claus, Beyonce and her girls what happens when Philly's not feeling you.

Oh, by the way, am I the only one who has noticed the Mitt is looking a little peaked these days. He's sweating like a bully victim in a corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madashelltoo (Reply #4)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:18 PM

10. You mentioned Charter Schools

and mentioned that Obama was for them ~ he is in no way near as "for them" as Romney.

He wants to educate all children and Romney looks and acts like he can't evn relate to the lovely AA children in the photo. I am African American and one thing I know about -- Prejudice. I also was an Elementary School Educator for many years.

Look at the photo --- he doesn't CARE about those children.
Reflect on photos of Obama with children and Unions by the way ~ I'll take Obama.

I'll take Obama to work for educating ALL children and not just the Rich and White ones.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 01:00 PM

7. Thanks.

K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:11 PM

11. It's hard work, pretending you give a rats ass

about anyone but your rich clients and your commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread