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;
;
The plutocratic cabal wanted a working class that was merely trained to do a particular job, not think about social or political issues. They created an educational system focused on training instead of learning, which took its lead from such physiological, materialistic “psychologists” as Wilhelm Wundt, G. Stanley Hall, James McKeen Cattell, E. L. Thorndike, and others. The primary ideas and practices of this group included:
Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt
A thing makes sense and is worth pursuing only if it can be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated
Psychology, accordingly, should concern itself exclusively with human behavior–not with non-demonstrable entities such as “mind,” “soul,” “thought,” etc.
Public education must limit itself to training working class students to carry out whatever task they are given to do and to accept the commands of their superiors
This ruler-imposed system, enhanced by anti-intellectual activities such as minority-group studies and multiculturalism, produces uneducated and programmed students who understand almost nothing of what occurs beyond the propaganda and mythology of the political-financial leaders.
the Supreme Court has delivered the coup de grace to American education: on June 27, 2002, the Neanderthal majority in the court ruled that the government may give financial aid to parents so they can send their children to religious or private schools. Our tax dollars can now be used to fund training in any religious or political ideology imaginable. Granted, public funds since the 1950s have been used exclusively to dumb down America, but tax dollars did not go to support ideologically-based schools that were totally inimical to American values.
That’s the difficulty; we’ve lost any effective understanding of what American values are. So now the fascist cabal is going to destroy any unity among Americans through this new educational anarchy.
MAYBE you should learn to answer a question about relevance.
Shaaaa-zam!
And I blasted Dredd on the content of his arguments and got ad hominem evasion for responses. Just like the dozens of other times I (or Tony or any number of others) have taken Dredd to task for his dubious understanding and restatements of science. That selective reading will get you every time, AY.
Bron,
The marketplace of ideas present at this place is as close to a laissez-faire market as you’ll ever see in reality, but even it has a minimal set of rules. None of which interfere with the notion of interesting thoughts vetted and tempered down into an interesting and sometimes extraordinary result.
AY:
isnt that pretty much what we do here voluntarily? I mean for the most part. Sometimes tempers flare.
Isnt that what civility means? It should be voluntary, its a little bit of freedom in an otherwise pc world.
Which is my point about laissez faire, when people are free to engage in voluntary exchanges things have a way of working out. And if there is a bad apple you ignore them so to speak.
Freedom is always a good thing for human beings. How many interesting thoughts have you seen posted here over the years? And they get vetted and tempered and filtered down a thread. And many times the end result is quite interesting and sometimes extraordinary.
That is what freedom is all about, allowing the best to flourish to make all of our lives richer.
AY,
I didn’t say you did. I asked if you cared to explain where the lie was in my statement to nick. Really, do try to keep up. (This last sentence was entirely snark.)
None, AY.
For there was no snark in pointing out the problem with relevance (or the statement preceding it for that matter).
I could be snarky if you like though.
But on the other hand, you probably wouldn’t like that.
See, that was snark.
Now, care to explain how either the rules of another site are applicable or where the lie was? (This question is entirely snark free with the exception of this disclaimer.)
Suggestion Gomer, a suggestion …. Learn to read…
I said MAYBE this could be this blawgs guidelines… I Did not say it was This blawgs guidelines…. Read…. You’re just so ready to pounce on anyone…. You blasted Dredd alot today….
Play the pious fool…
I didnt sayyou lied today…
Care to explain the rules of another site here?
AY,
There was no snark in what I said.
Care to explain how are the rules of another site material here?
Or answer the other questions for that matter.
They are legitimate questions.
Where’s the lie?
Gene,
There’s really no reason for me to engage you. I have been reading the blawg today and there are many which have sharp tongues…. You are pretty good at baiting especially as well today…..
I read the suggestions for another site, gave credit and your response to me was very uncalled for…. Maybe, you have a feeling you are the blog administration and have to call out everyone that says something…. Maybe I’m missing the role of who is really in charge here….
If I posted a suggestion…. Why do you have to snark?
Bron,
The form is the thing and the repeated defiance. He’s actually done “worse” on this thread as far as content goes. Whitaker Chambers? That’s just silly. 😀
nick:
How degenerate and base are you? I cannot believe you said that one of the regulars here had a writing style similar to William F. Buckley’s. Your attacks are depraved and indifferent to that individuals feelings. Callous and most hard hearted nave, reform, reform I say. And use the name Rawls in an insulting way and you will be found a most fine fellow full of bonhomie and jest. But the name of Buckley stings and burns the soul. Such poor, such bare, such lewd, such mean attempts at insults.
You write like Whitaker Chambers, take that you black hearted cad! 🙂
Or would you care to prove which part of the above was a lie, AY?
That he wasn’t informed? Or that he didn’t engage in violating the rule after being informed?
Keep in mind you yourself admonished him for his behavior more than once after 6/18.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. If it’s a fact and provable as such? It isn’t a lie.
AY,
Remember that responsible action starts with following the rules and accepting accountability for one’s actions in violation thereof, not denying them in the face of evidence to the contrary.
However, the guidelines of another blog are immaterial to the rules here even if they somewhat conform to the rules as stated here unless that language is specifically adopted by he who makes the rules.
Lets see Gene:
From the Urban dictionary:
1. snark
noun
Combination of “snide” and “remark”. Sarcastic comment(s).
Also snarky (adj.) and snarkily (adv.)
His commentary was rife with snark.
“Your boundless ineptitude is astounding,” she snarkily declared.
Or try this:
Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906
1 : crotchety, snappish 2 : sarcastic, , or in tone or manner
Figure out which works best for you….
Gene,
Just copied this off of Reader Supported News, maybe it could be this blawg general guidelines: General guidelines:
Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
We miss you, Elaine.
Elaine,
What AY said plus an “I hope you’re getting plenty of fun time with Baby J.”
We’ll keep your seat warm and the light on.
Not taking responsibility for your bad behavior doesn’t make it go away.
However, which part is the lie, nick? That you were told refusing to follow the rule can get you banned (6/18)? Or that you’ve attacked people since being told(6/22, to name just one)?
That’s what’s called actual evidence.
So which is it? You haven’t heard about what kind of behavior will get you banned? Or you haven’t been engaging in that behavior since finding out?
LK said: “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.”
Although I do agree with your statement, it still doesn’t hurt to try, and I was just using the Catholic, private school system as an example. Do I think th placing STL’s inner city youths in a private Catholic school system is good idea so that they can obtain a better education than what the failing STL public school system has given them? Probably not, but I have been wrong before……
LK said: “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.”
If the conservative Christian Schools (example of private, religious schools that I mentioned in the above article) & for proft schools (example of private, non-religious school, also mentioned in the abov article?) are performing as I mention above, then I am all for it!