Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty-(Rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
We often hear the term “school reform” used often by politicians of all stripes. Chicago’s politicians are no different when it comes to talking about and taking action on so-called school reform. Recently, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who is a big fan of the charter school program and a former investment banker, decided that the best way to “reform” Chicago Public Schools was to close 49 schools and terminate 550 teachers and another 300 school staff employees!
“On June 14, the Chicago Public Schools sent layoff notices to 850 school employees, including 550 teachers. The layoffs will hit hardest at those teachers working in African-American and Latino communities. These are the communities that were targeted in the system’s recent decision to close 49 schools – the largest single school closure in US history.” Truth-out What is interesting to me is that while Mayor Emanuel has hammered the Chicago Public School teachers union and Chicago Public schools, he has made sure that Charter schools will be a big player in the City of Chicago.
“Emanuel, a former Congressman and investment banker, has become a darling of the US education reform lobby by implementing its demands for privatizing the public education system through establishing charter schools – privately owned, for-profit schools that receive public financing – by attacking the CTU, and most recently, by pushing forward the huge school closure.
The number of charter schools – which receive public money while being freed of many work and collective-bargaining rules – has doubled in Chicago since 2005, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. There are now about 100 of them in the city. The Emanuel administration has called for 60 new charter schools by 2017. ” Truth-Out
While no one will argue that the Chicago Public Schools do not need improvements, why is it that politicians insist that educating our children should be done by for-profit corporations? Mayor Emanuel is actually continuing a “reform” program first initiated by Mayor Richard Daley and now Education Secretary, Arne Duncan.
“Daley began the privatization of the school system by closing so-called “underperforming” schools, mostly in black and Latino neighborhoods, and firing large numbers of teachers. Between 2001 and last year, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) district closed about 100 schools. Arne Duncan, the CEO of CPS during many of those years, was appointed Secretary of Education by President Barack Obama, who himself rose out of the Chicago political system.” Truth-Out
Is it just a coincidence that most of the schools closed by the last two Mayoral administration’s were in black and Latino neighborhoods? Are the charter schools a way of attacking the Chicago Teachers Union? The problems that the CTU and Mayor Emanuel had during the last strike were well documented. The Teachers Union now has 550 fewer members and there may be more terminations to come. Round 1 to Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
Why are charter schools the latest rage in the education arena? Why would alderman and mayors around the country be sold on the idea of for profit education, paid for by taxpayer money? What facts did the Emanuel administration use to make its claim that Chicago needed to engage in the largest single school closure in history?
“Critics accused the board of using false and misleading claims to justify the closures. They say 46,000 students, not 30,000, will be affected. The board claims public schools had lost 145,000 students. In reality, enrollment had declined by 75,000, and 47,000 of those students had gone to charter schools, making the real figure 28,000. Most of Chicago’s student losses occurred 30-40 years ago at the height of deindustrialization. The school district claimed what it said was a $1 billion deficit made closures necessary, but in fact, since students don’t disappear and other schools will require more funding, there will be no cost savings from the closures.” Truth-Out
If I understand the numbers correctly, the Mayor may have used bogus numbers to make his claim that public schools needed to be closed en mass while Charter schools are increasing in number. Could the lower average teacher salaries at charter schools be part of the reason Emanuel and other politicians are fawning over the alleged promise of charter schools?
At least one study provided numbers that seems to claim that charter school’s promise of improvement is all wet. Especially when you compare apples to apples. “Research on charter schools paints a mixed picture. A number of recent national studies have reached the same conclusion: charter schools do not, on average, show greater levels of student achievement, typically measured by standardized test scores, than public schools, and may even perform worse.
The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found in a 2009 report that 17% of charter schools outperformed their public school equivalents, while 37% of charter schools performed worse than regular local schools, and the rest were about the same. A 2010 study by Mathematica Policy Research found that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than regular middle schools in improving student achievement, behavior, or school progress. Among the charter schools considered in the study, more had statistically significant negative effects on student achievement than statistically significant positive effects. These findings are echoed in a number of other studies.” Education Justice
If for profit charter schools are not performing better than public schools why would politicians be in favor of them? The best answer I have to that question is to repeat the statement made by the infamous “Deep Throat” of Watergate fame. “Follow the Money”!
Mayor Emanuel, have you no shame?
Additional References: Edudemic.com; Washington Post;
;
Elaine,
You have been greatly missed…. Hope all is downsizing well….
Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true, even if you put it in a bold font.
rafflaw,
Thanks for bringing this subject up again. The push to increase the number of charter schools and to privatize public education isn’t happening only in Chicago, but in many cities and states across the country.
*****
Chicago Teachers Take a Stand Against Mayor Rahm Emanuel and His Contract Demands
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/09/16/chicago-teachers-take-a-stand-against-mayor-rahm-emanuel-and-his-contract-demands/
*****
Sorry I haven’t been around much lately. Moving/downsizing is no easy task. I hope I’ll be back to guest blogging again soon.
Interesting links, LK.
RWL, When I wrote my response to you the thought that gave me pause was our catholic high schools. St. Louis has excellent Catholic high schools and world class Catholic Universities. Stellar is a word that comes to mind. But growing up in St. Louis and being raised Catholic- or at least that was the parental unit’s plan- I became acquainted with the Catholic school system early on.
Just to stick with that, it is a private school system and as such has the latitude to pick and choose its students at every level. Being a k-8 catholic student with good grades is a plus to get into a Catholic high school and so on. It’s expensive. Even with vouchers it would be expensive at the high school level unless you qualified for scholarships or had personal benefactors. And grades aren’t the only factor. The Archdiocese uses the High schools as an opportunity to cement ones faith, they have daily prayers and other spiritual opportunities available to the students. As an aside, my slide out of Catholicism (and religion entirely) was cemented at a Catholic religious retreat of primarily Catholic school girls. It was a strange thing all in all.
In any event, I don’t know what the exact cost is but I hesitate to think dropping some vouchers on the impoverished of St. Louis and pointing them in the direction of the private school system of the St. Louis Archdiocese is going to serve more than the merest tiny fraction of kids that are already of the sort that would be comfortably embraced by that school system.
Vouchers are not being used to swell the ranks of Catholic high schools, they are being used, where implemented, to swell the ranks of for profit and conservative Christian schools.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/04/christian-roots-school-voucher-movement-still-pretty-obvious
http://creationistvouchers.com/creationist-vouchers-database/
There is a spiffy, professionally done interactive map that has the same info as the second link but it’s down for maintenance so you know the drill, click a state and it gives the list of schools.
RWL,
No need to apologize. If you’re happy with your response, it works for me.
This is Jebby’s pet project in florida and it’s spreading like his own personal disease.
Besides, this is what investment bankers do, particularly when the govt. (rahm) still hands out goodies to its buddies in the “new” education business sweeping the land, or any of the many mega businesses it supports with our taxes . Now taxpayers will be ensuring big profits for the educators. Suckers, we.
Gene,
I am sorry that I didn’t answer your question the way you wanted, but what I have written is sufficient enough.
That doesn’t answer the question, RWL. I wanted to know what you thought about excluding schools based on their religiously dogmatic preferences in teaching over using a science based non-secular curriculum and how that could run afoul of both the Constitution and case law surrounding both Separation of Church and State and the Equal Protection Clause. Just because substantive legal challenge on those grounds may not have been brought out doesn’t mean the underlying issues doesn’t exist or will never see the bar.
Is it fair under the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause to allow one religious school to participate in voucher programs and disallow participation by another based on having a religiously based curriculum instead of a non-secular curriculum?
RWL,
Then how would you feel about Dominionist schools like Regents and Bob Jones (as collegiate examples, not primary or secondary, but such Dominionist private religious schools do exist – I had the misfortune of attending one for a year) being excluded because of curriculum content? They have a notoriously anti-science pro-theocracy bent to their teachings but wouldn’t excluding them based on the religious bias in their education run into both Establishment and Equal Protection problems? I don’t see how it couldn’t. The use of voucher programs in that matter is going to create a situation were excessive entanglement in the form of monitoring standards for certification and run headlong into a Lemon problem.
Gene,
How would I feel by excluding an institution based on curriculum content? Depends upon so many factors: subject matter, number of students enrolled in the course(s), how the course(s) are being taught, whether or not the curriculum content is in line with the schools’ mission statement or purpose, etc.
As far as legal ramifications for excluding certain schools, I would have to refer you to the 12 states, plus the district of columbia, as to how they are utilizing their vouchers (article and the article’s referenced links on their website that I mentioned above).
IMO and experience, You have to remember: Some of these institutions don’t want these ‘types of students’ coming through their doors. Some don’t mind. Some of these institutions are so far away from the students’ home that they are automatically excluded or their parents choose not to send them that far away.
nick,
What you’ve been told is that anecdotal evidence is of little probative value because a sample space of one is insufficient to make a general claim and that it is subject to all kinds of cognitive biases (including forms of lying in both deliberate and inadvertent ways). Yet still you expect people to accept anecdote as if it is gospel. It’s crap for evidence, sport. That you think it’s the paragon of evidence notwithstanding.
And despite what you think, you are not cool with most everyone here, nick.
You persistently violate the civility rule even after hearing from Professor Turley himself that can get you banned. You’re violating it right now but the anosognosia you’re obviously experiencing doesn’t even let you realize that. You’ve done so more than once since he himself told you violating the civility rule will get you banned.
Keep it up.
See how your passive-aggressive compulsion is going to work out for you in the long term.
Just not as long as you seem to think.
Darren, Yes, I am argumentative w/ some. But, that’s part of this forum. What some folks here call “ad hominem” is really just me quoting them in contexts where it fits. I’ve been told that my anecdotes are “lies” by one person, “possibly false” by another. So, when appropriate I quote their words. Is that ad hominem? Of course not. I get along w/ virtually everyone here. Yesterday I was told that’s because I’m an “ass kisser.” As you might imagine, I’ll be using that quote a lot. I’m cool w/ just about everyone. I think you and I are pretty cool? There are chronic problems w/ Gene and MikeS. They write boring polemics about me that go on interminably, hijacking their own threads. That’s painfully obvious to everyone. I take responsibility for what I write, and zero responsibility for the thousands of words written about, or to me. Maybe they need to read some Hemingway.
Finally, this “sides” stuff. It was painfully obvious from day one there are cliques here, middle school “A, “B.” They do seem to have broken apart a bit lately. I don’t join clubs, I deplore cliques, I don’t gossip, all of that stuff is antithetical to my personality. I’m a laid back dude who is welcoming and jovial, except for The Two. I have taken counsel from people here that I respect, and will continue to do so. This is really a tempest in a tea pot w/ The Two just very frustrated that I won’t get in line. It’s petty and stupid. Tell The Two to stop “making it about” me. And tell them to lighten up. Life is too short and unpredictable to sweat the small stuff. This is all small stuff that they seem obsessed about. I’ve just written more to you than I usually ever write. That’s because you’re worthy. And, I’m not kissing your ass!
RWL,
True, true, but in the same breath there is a big difference between the quality of education you get as say a Loyola or an SMU compared to a Regents or a Bob Jones. Just because a school has a religious affiliation is not a guarantee that they provide a quality education. I too want the same educational opportunities for low-income students but that opportunity should be based on quality of instruction, not institutional denominational preference.
Gene,
Of course! I am not stating that all private, religious or non-religious schools have good educational quality either via comparison to all public schools’ or not comparing. There are no absolutes in this world except death and taxes.
However, with the voucher program, parents and their students have the opportunity to examine the school’s educational quality: curriculum, class size, updated facilities, including ‘smart’ classrooms, teaching styles of instructors, etc. There are a few schools that will send a counselor to the child’s home, and discuss with the parents, what their offering. Also, certain states, utilizing vouchers, have a list of private, religious and non-religious schools that parents can transfer their children to. The list of schools have to meet certain criteria, including price range of the voucher, graduation rates, curriculum content, etc.
If education interests you, then you owe it to yourself to read Alfie Kohn. This speech encapsulates his viewpoints and his passion for education.
I forgot to add: many want to demean religious institutions by demeaning the religion, instead of looking at the results of those institutions. Some of our best doctors, lawyers, engineers, college presidents, etc have graduated from private religious schools. I want the same educational opportunities for low-income students who are attending failing, public school districts.
Ooo. More passive-aggressiveness.
Yeah. That’s really going to help you bond with people, nick. 🙄
How about addressing the valid factual observation about your response to Darren. You clearly weren’t asking questions. You clearly were doing something else. What do you think that was, nick? Clearly it made an impression on Darren as to what you were doing, hence his question.
Nick:
The reason I ask is it seems you are engaging in a practice to infer that other guest bloggers are not following the best interests in this website, you are then trying by extension to appeal to the emotions of those two men to side with you claiming that you stand for virtuous contributions in the hope that they and the other readers will side with you. It seems that the intent is to divide other guest bloggers so that they will go into your camp to protect you.
But what I find to be confusing is that despite what you have been doing here that is all too often very inflammatory and contentious with some of those here, you are positioning and declaring yourself to be a champion and fighter for those who are not inflammatory and nop-contentious. This is contractictory. It is hard to maintain a credible position of being altruistic while within a close period of time you then go on the attack elsewhere on the blog and stir up strife when it isn’t necessary.
I know there is a philosophy, as it reads in the Latin, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war) which seems to be the mantra of what you are proclaiming when you write to this contributor that you will be there to protect him and that he should “Buckle up and wear a helmet.” But this really is not the place to prepare for war. Wars are not conducive toward social progress and justice in this society. It is better in this forum to stick to the issues and have a civil discussion with civil people who have differing views in the hope that betterment will prevail and that with empathy for those having opposing views others will at least have a better understanding of the other persons’ concerns and in fact might even learn more about their own position or cause.
Going about trying to accomplish this with the idea the blog is a case of us vs them among the contributors really is beginning to look more like personal vendetta and intrigue than something of what this website has come to be known for.
I would ask that you stop making it all about You and start being genuine in your proclaimed respect of others. A sharp disagreement is one thing, a pattern of ad hominem is another.
One of my favorite scenes in The Big Lebowski is when The Dude is in the office of the Malibu Chief of Police. The Chief gives a pompous lecture that takes several minutes. The Dude sits there quietly, and when the Chief finally stops his soliloquy the Dude asks, “I’m sorry, did you just say something?” Of course the Chief then knocks the Dude off his chair. We share a love of this classic flick so I thought it might help us bond.
LK said: “It’s being implemented all over the country to our country’s detriment.”
Not True. Since Wisconsin started the program in 1989, only 11 other states, plus the district of columbia (DC), have utilized the voucher program. Read the following article:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-choice-vouchers.aspx
Do you really understand the purpose of the voucher program? Please read the article, and see how the voucher program has helped low income minorities escape failing school districts and increased their chances of graduating from high school.
LK said: “Whatever happened to teaching kids real stuff instead of (corporate and) religious-based BS? When did people stop laughing at ‘people rode dinosaurs to work’ and demand that I fund that a**-hattery with tax dollars?”
You either didn’t read my first article, didn’t read Darren’s comment about sending a child to a good school, never looked at the curriculum of a private religious high school and compared it to a failing public high school’s curriculum, and/or never stepped foot in one of the numerous failing, urban city high schools. If you have, then you wouldn’t have made those comments.
I will give small glimpse of what I have experienced:
In several failing highschools in St. Louis, MO, I have noticed that Calculus, Trigonometry, Genetics, and Latin are not part of the curriculum. However, in a private, STL catholic high school’s curriculum, they are teaching all of the above, including theology, Calculus 1 & 2, microbiology, and other college prep courses.
Don’t take my word for it. Do your homework on comparison, and you will see the high school graduation rates, college (including Ivy Schools acceptance rates) entrance rates, PSAT, ACT & SAT 1 & 2, Achievement test scores, disciplinary issues, baby-making rates among high school students, etc. If you did, then you would see why low-income families would want to use a voucher to send their children to a private religious school, instead of the failing and unsafe school down the street.
nick,
The problem with “I keep it civil, and merely ask questions and I’m accused of an Oliver Stone plot.” is that the post Darren refers to (June 23, 2013 at 10:17 pm) doesn’t contain a single question. Darren’s post did contain a question though, which you answered “Yes Darren, I’m recruiting a band of guerilla fighters known as ‘The Quixotics.’” Which raises the question of both the motive and need for recruiting “guerrilla fighter” allies.
One of the things that you fail to understand about the marketplace of ideas model is that numbers won’t help you if your arguments are based in bad logic and/or weak or non-existent evidence. Meritorious arguments prevail in such an environment and bad one do not because it is the arguments that are judged and speak for themselves first and foremost. Other factors are secondary. We’ve seen the phenomena here before. Someone comes in with a weak argument and it is attacked. Unable to withstand the critical scrutiny, this person returns with “allies” to further their agenda of having their ideas accepted as valid on their face and minimize the damage critical scrutiny has done to their original statement(s). This never works. Bad ideas are bad ideas and they won’t withstand critical scrutiny no matter who or how many make them.
If one if looking for simple agreement or playing to their confirmation biases as they might be, a free speech forum in the marketplace of ideas mode is not where they are going to find it . . . unless, of course, they have a better argument and/or better evidence. That’s how the marketplace operates.
Just keeping it logic and evidence based.