Leading civil rights groups speak out against Obama Ed Policy

[erodriguez]

Civil Rights Groups Call for New Federal Education Agenda
By Michele McNeil on July 26, 2010 10:00 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks Seven leading civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, called on U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today to dismantle core pieces of his education agenda, arguing that his emphases on expanding charter schools, closing low-performing schools, and using competitive rather than formula funding are detrimental to low-income and minority children.

The groups, which today released their own education policy framework and created the National Opportunity to Learn campaign, want Duncan to make big changes to his draft proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

What's even more interesting is that a big event planned to release the framework this morning in conjunction with the National Urban League's annual conference was mysteriously cancelled (or postponed, depending on whom you ask) after a lot of press releases went out last week trying to drum up interest.


It is about time!

More here:

http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-civil-rights-leaders-going-to-take.html

[Catshrink]

1. The National Council of Churches wrote Obama a similar letter

We value democratic governance of public schools.
We support democratic governance of public schools. Because public schools are responsible to the public, it is possible through elected school boards, open meetings, transparent record keeping and redress through the courts to ensure that traditional public schools provide access for all children. We believe that democratic operation of public schools is our best hope for ensuring that families can secure the services to which their children have a right. On balance, we believe that if government invests public funds in charter schools that report to private boards, government, not the vicissitudes of the marketplace, should be expected to provide oversight to protect the common good.

<snip>

We are concerned today when we hear the civil right to education being re-defined as the right to school choice, for we know that equitable access to opportunity is more difficult to ensure in a mass of privatized alternatives to traditional public schools or in school districts being carved apart into small schools of choice. Experimentation with small schools must not cause us to lose sight of society's obligation to serve all children with appropriate services; we must continue to expect public school districts to provide a complete range of services accessible to children in every neighborhood of our cities.

Choice-based alternatives being proposed in local, state, and federal policy pose serious questions that we ask you to consider regarding equal access and public oversight. Here are just a few examples:

*When large high schools are broken into smaller schools or when charter management or education management organizations are brought in to operate small schools, what happens to children with special needs and English language learners when small schools cannot provide the more expensive services such children need?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/no-child-...

Here's the link to the DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[erodriguez]

6. The plea for Social Justice

What I find interesting is that a lot of these corporate-backed ed reformers claim they are pushing for privatizing education and eroding teacher job security as a means of social justice.

Yet, the groups that actually have long histories for fighting for social justice are against these type of reforms.

I mean really, who do you think would have a greater stake in ending the education gap between minorities and whites, the NAACP or Bill Gates?

[erodriguez]

2. Some of the more interesting recommendations by the groups

Recommendation 1B: Shift the Focus from Competitive Grants for a Few States to Incentives for All States to Embrace Systemic Reform.

Because only a few states will receive competitive grants, most children in most states will experience a real decrease in federal support when inflation and state and local budget cuts are taken into consideration. We are concerned that the Administration’s Blueprint suggests that ESEA reauthorization will
continue this approach. Instead, we call for a shift of focus from competitive grant programs to conditional incentive grants that can be made available to all states, provided they adopt systemic, proven strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to learn.

Recommendation 2B: Promote and Support Universal Access to Highly Effective Teachers.

Finally, the federal government must build upon its recently announced intention to ensure that states and school districts do not use test data as the sole or primary measure of teacher effectiveness. Rather, effectiveness should be defined by teachers’ experience,knowledge, skills, and classroom performance, as well as their individual contributions to student learning and their joint efforts to improve learning within the school. Any measure of teacher effectiveness must account for the degree of difficulty of the teaching environment so that high-quality teachers will not be deterred from working in high-need schools.

[erodriguez]

3. On school closings and Charter Schools

Recommendation 2E: Employ School Closure Only as a Last Resort and with Appropriate Safeguards.

we fear that the Administration’s Blueprint places too much emphasis on school closure, as well as the reconstitution of school staff, in its proposed
turnaround models. Efforts to close schools and reconstitute staff in urban and rural communities over the last decade have not been a panacea – a fact that school districts that have tried these approaches have come to recognize. Research has found that widespread use of these strategies has increased disruption but has not improved achievement for the students in these communities.

Recommendation 2F: Employ Charter Schools as Accountable Laboratories of Innovation rather than Systemic Reform Prescriptions

We have reservations about the extensive reliance on charter schools in the Blueprint’s turnaround strategies. While charters can serve as laboratories for innovation, we are concerned about the overrepresentation of charter schools in low-income and predominantly minority communities. There is no evidence that charter operators are systematically more effective in creating higher student outcomes nationwide. The largest national study found that charters are more likely to underperform than outperform other public schools serving similar students.12 And there is even less evidence that charters accept, consistently serve, and accommodate the needs of the full range of students.

Charters enroll 54% fewer English Language Learner (ELL) students, 43% fewer specialeducation students, and 37% fewer free and reduced price lunch students than highminority public school districts. Thus, while some charter schools can and do work for some students, they are not a universal solution for systemic change for all students, especially those with the highest needs.

[bobbolink]

4. Kick for more unpopular truth.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

5. This paragraph is powerful.

"About Race to the Top, the competitive grant program for states that is the administration’s central education initiative thus far, it says:

“The Race to the Top Fund and similar strategies for awarding federal education funding will ultimately leave states competing with states, parents competing with parents, and students competing with other students..... By emphasizing competitive incentives in this economic climate, the majority of low-income and minority students will be left behind and, as a result, the United States will be left behind as a global leader.”

Ouch."

From Valerie at the WP article.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/civil-rights-groups-skewer-oba.html

[erodriguez]

7. Thanks MF

I think this is the kick in the head that Obama has been needing for a while.

[Lifelong Protester]

8. any time funding is competitive and not formulaic in education

it means someone has decided to purposely leave some groups behind. The groups usually hurt by this type of funding are urban poor districts, and rural districts, like mine. We do not have someone who can spend full time writing grants, no small school can. So are my rural kids less worthy than the children who by CHANCE were born to go to schools in rich suburbs? I think not. That is why the whole title: No Child Left Behind was so offensive to me. By the very nature of how it is structured and how it uses punitive measures, such as removing funding from schools, it guarantees that kids will intentionally, IMHO, be LEFT BEHIND.

I want Duncan replaced.

[erodriguez]

9. Thanks for your perspective

I never thought about the issue of grant wrimting in small districts.

As for Duncan being replaced, I'm not sure if that would make any difference. It is Obama's policy afterall.

[Starry Messenger]

10. k & r

[ibegurpard]

11. Hurrah!

[Starry Messenger]

12. kick.