Campaign News

All the time, parents are making decisions about what happens in their children’s lives. The same needs to be true when it comes to choosing what happens with their child’s academic education. It is more than just choosing a school but also what happens in the school building. With the sustainable community school model, parents are very much part of the decision-making process. This goes beyond the realm of engagement but views them as collaborators in the achievements of the school. The Community Schools Toolkit created by The Center for Popular Democracy signifies the importance of this involvement by stating, “parent engagement is promoted so the full community actively participates in planning and decision-making.” It is important to consider parents in the same manner as teachers and administrators although they provide a different perspective. It is like pieces to a puzzle, each one has a part to contribute which must be done for it to be whole. Parents must be at the table with equal input regarding the daily activities that happen in the school building from academics to after-school programming and other aspects such as community events.

It is quite understood, parents are not formally trained as educators; however, they are the first teachers of children. This is a shared experience we all have as adults. Yes, some were better than others but it was those things our parents taught us which have a lasting impact. As a result, parents possess the necessary qualities to be involved with the process of choosing curriculum, managing the budget, and identifying staff, teachers, and administrators who are a good fit with the school’s climate. The parents have a particular perspective when it comes to their involvement and their inclusion and embracement would create a cohesive culture for success. They need not be considered an option but one of the main individuals in building the school’s environment conducive to learning.

This role of parent involvement is different and separate from PTAs or PTOs. These organizations are representative of an existing institution within the school. It may not necessarily project the sole interests of parents since it is also an organization comprised of other members. Additionally, the groups are connected to a national organization where the interests may align with corporations. Parents as decision-makers bring a different viewpoint as a result of their concern for children and the community and not institutions or corporations.

The relationship between the school and parents needs to be one of partnership instead of a dichotomous one. They both are involved with developing the child to become a successful adult who can function as a productive member of society. One thing a parent is free to do when compared to those who work for the school district is aggressively advocate. There is every reason to take the risk where the answer may be no for others. They aren’t at risk of losing their job, adverse disciplinary action, or retaliation. So, parents can do what the others can’t which is lobby elected officials, make demands with the central office leadership and Superintendent, speak out against the unequal and unfair treatment, and actively galvanize all stakeholders to be involved in the process of making not only the school better but the overall community.

Since parents possess a variety of resources, it’s proper for them to assist with the development of the school. Some of these assets which can be contributed are time, talents, knowledge, and skills. For example, I am a Social Worker by profession and I can be utilized to provide a range of services to the school community. A benefit with having a parent involved is their existing relationship with the school along with their knowledge of the community, and their vested interest of the best possible outcome for the children, the school, and neighborhood.

There are times when parents are regarded as an after-thought and advisors. Ultimately, the successful outcome of the school is comprised of the necessary ingredient which is parent engagement. But, parents as decision makers goes beyond the realm of engagement to the extent of involvement in every aspect of the school’s functioning. Recently, there was reporting of lead levels above the EPA threshold in Newark, NJ public schools. Although this was an ongoing problem for some years and known to Newark Public School officials, this information wasn’t disclosed to the parents or the community. It is important for parents to be provided with the necessary information so they can determine how to proceed with it. Also, their inclusion recognizes the link between the overall success of the school and the progressive development of the community. When all of us embrace the inclusion of the children’s first teachers in the process of academic development, we will understand the essential impact of parents as decision-makers.

By Viva White 

Source

El Diario - December 14, 2014, by Steve Carbo - Aunque las oportunidades para avanzar reformas progresistas se han disminuido en Washington y en muchos estados después de las elecciones de noviembre, existe aún terreno fértil en las ciudades, lugares que reciben menos atención de los medios pero son cada vez más reconocidas como importantes "laboratorios de la democracia".

La ciudad de Nueva York es notable por su liderazgo. Después de tomar las riendas en enero, el Alcalde Bill de Blasio, la Presidenta del Concejo Melissa Mark-Viverito, junto con concejales progresistas, han expandido las leyes de días de enfermedad pagados, han implementado políticas policiales más justas, y han puesto fin a las detenciones injustas de inmigrantes. Y esta semana, el alcalde Bill de Blasio firmó una nueva legislación que que marca el comienzo de una gran expansión del electorado a través de la revitalización de la ley Pro-Voter (Pro-Votante) . Este es un modelo que otras ciudades deberían seguir.

La ley Pro-Votante, que fue inicialmente firmada en el año 2000, prometía expandir las oportunidades para el registro de votantes en la ciudad. La ley exigía que diecinueve agencias municipales, cada una de las cincuenta y nueve juntas comunitarias, y muchas agencias que reciben contratos del gobierno municipal, debían ofrecer formularios de inscripción de votantes, y asistencia completando los formularios, para residentes de la ciudad que estuvieran aplicando para recibir servicios de las agencias, re- certificando su exigibilidad, o reportando un cambio de dirección. Estos programas de registro de votantes en agencias públicas están basados en la Ley Nacional de Registro de Votantes, la cual requiere en parte que las agencias estatales de asistencia pública ofrezcan formularios de registro electoral a sus clientes.

Al ser administrados bien, estos programas tienen la capacidad de registrar del 15 al 20 por ciento de los clientes de la agencia. Un programa local similar en la ciudad de Nueva York podría ayudar a cientos de miles a qué se registren para votar.

Lamentablemente, las cosas aún no se han dado así. En octubre, el Centro para la Democracia Popular, y sus aliados en la coalición Pro-Votante, reportaron en un estudio que las agencias municipales de la ciudad de Nueva York estaban ignorando la ley. El ochenta y cuatro por ciento de los clientes entrevistados para el estudio eran elegibles pero nunca recibieron formularios de registro electoral.

Pero las elecciones son importantes y el cambio está en camino. En su primera Directiva Ejecutiva el verano pasado, el Alcalde De Blasio ordenó a cada una de las agencias contempladas en la ley Pro-Votante que desarrollarán planes para conformarse a la ley, y que reportaran su desempeño en la implementación de estos planes cada seis meses. Nuestra coalición fue invitada a ayudar a desarrollar modelos de planes para las agencias. Inmediatamente el Concejo de la Ciudad tuvo su primera audiencia pública acerca del tema, y el 25 de noviembre aprobó una nueva legislación presentada por los concejales Ben Kallos y Jumanee Williams, la cual fortalece las provisiones de la ley Pro-Votante. Con estas nuevas mejoras y algunos cambios adicionales, como la inclusión de agencias con un alto número de clientes como la agencia de viviendas públicas (NYCHA) y el departamento de educación, y el reemplazo de formulario de papel con formularios electrónicos, la ley Pro-Votante de la cuidad de Nueva York representa un gran modelo nacional que otras ciudades pueden replicar. El gobierno puede y deber jugar un papel líder en asegurarse que cada individuo que es elegible para votar sea agregado a las listas de votantes.

Pero las ciudades no deben para ahí. Con suficiente autoridad y autonomía, las ciudades pueden expandir la democracia permitiendo medidas como el registro de votantes el mismo día de la elecciones, el voto temprano, y la extensión del derecho al voto a los no-ciudadanos y personas que han pasado por el sistema judicial, el registro de estudiantes de secundario, y el pre-registro de jóvenes de 16 y 17 años de edad. Estas son algunas de las medidas promulgadas por la coalición de oficiales electos progresistas, Local Progress, que se han unido por su compromiso a avanzar una economía justa, igualdad para todos, ciudades habitables y gobiernos efectivos.

Los años que vienen van a ser difíciles para las personas que luchan por la justicia social. Pero aún mientras luchamos en contra de la agenda de la agenda regresiva de la derecha, los progresistas debemos buscar oportunidades para avanzar políticas públicas. Y como lao demuestra la nueva ley Pro-Votante, las ciudades representan un gran espacio de oportunidad.

Source

ProgressOhio - May 16, 2014 - A new report released today reveals that fraudulent charter operators in 15 states are responsible for losing, misusing or wasting over $100 million in taxpayer money.

“Charter School Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud And Abuse,” authored by the Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity in Education, echoes a warning from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. The report draws upon news reports, criminal complaints and more to detail how, in just 15 of the 42 states that have charter schools, charter operators have used school funds illegally to buy personal luxuries for themselves, support their other businesses, and more.

The report also includes recommendations for policymakers on how they can address the problem of rampant fraud, waste and abuse in the charter school industry. Both organizations recommend pausing charter expansion until these problems are addressed.

“We expected to find a fair amount of fraud when we began this project, but we did not expect to find over $100 million in taxpayer dollars lost. That’s just in 15 states. And that figure fails to capture the real harm to children. Clearly, we should hit the pause button on charter expansion until there is a better oversight system in place to protect our children and our communities,” said Kyle Serrette, the Director of Education Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy.”

“Our school system exists to serve students and enrich communities,” added Sabrina Stevens, Executive Director of Integrity in Education. “School funding is too scarce as it is; we can hardly afford to waste the resources we do have on people who would prioritize exotic vacations over school supplies or food for children. We also can’t continue to rely on the media or isolated whistleblowers to identify these problems. We need to have rules in place that can systematically weed out incompetent or unscrupulous charter operators before they pose a risk to students and taxpayers.”

You can read the report by going to www.integrityineducation.org or www.populardemocracy.org.

Source

OZY - December 23, 2013, by Pooja Bhatia - For decades, talk about economic inequality was taboo. Those who tried were met with accusations of sour grapes, inciting class warfare, or — gasp! — advocating socialism.

But such rhetorical bludgeons appear to have lost force in recent years, and words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse. It’s not quite the head of the table, but it’s not the servants’ quarters either. 

Words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse.

“The core issue of economic justice has been getting more traction now than during most of my time in organizing,” says Andrew Friedman, who’s been a progressive organizer for more than 15 years and now co-directs the Center for Popular Democracy in New York. Derecka Mehrens, executive director of labor-oriented think tank Working Partnerships USA in San Jose, Calif., agrees: “There’s been a sea change in how and even whether we talk about inequality.”

The signs are everywhere. In his November apostolic exhortation, the pope warned of the “tyranny” of unfettered capitalism and called “an economy of exclusion and inequality” sinful. Clear majorities of Americans support hiking the minimum wage and other policies that aim to reduce the wealth gap. Earlier this month, President Obama positioned inequality and lack of social mobility as the “defining issue of our time.” Mayors-elect of major cities all made economic inequality central to their platforms. And this year’s National Book Award for nonfiction went to George Packer’s The Unwinding, which chronicles rising social and economic inequality in the United States.  

Inequality talk is no longer off-limits for a simple reason: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely. 

Some credit the 2011 Occupy movements for popularizing economic inequality. (Or blame it, depending on their perspective.) But the main reason inequality talk is no longer off-limits is probably simpler: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely. Some 10 million people lost their homes in the Great Recession. Although unemployment is at a five-year low, the decline is partly because many have stopped looking for work.

As OZY noted a few weeks ago, the lag between technical “recovery” and job growth is lengthening, and these days it’s lingering four to five years. No wonder the Great Recession’s rough ride seems endless. Moreover, while worker productivity has increased over the past decade, real wages have stagnated or declined — leaving the average worker to wonder just where the gains from productivity are going.

“They hear the news that the stock market is climbing and say, Oh really?” Mehrens says.

Lovely A. Warren won election as mayor of Rochester last month with a campaign lamenting what she called the “two Rochesters,” challenged by crime and poverty, but also boasting prosperous neighborhoods.

Economic inequality has been growing since at least the early 1980s. But it was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike. Economic inequality grew during the Bush years too, but those were the days of subprime homeownership and plasma TVs for all. Five years after the collapse of that easy-credit economy, most Americans are still hurting. The average household has recovered less than half the wealth it lost during the recession.

As a result, income inequality has become a winning issue in some cities. The mayors-elect of New York, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis made economic justice a central plank of their platforms — and did so despite naysayers and with newfound success. New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s “tale of two cities,” for instance, was not much different from Fernando Ferrer’s campaign theme in 2005 or Ruth Messinger’s in 1997 — but only in the New York of 2013 did it resonate. 

It was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike.

Not that the discursive war has been won, mind you. Plenty of people and conservative think tanks still argue that inequality has nothing to do with poverty. Winning a war of words wouldn’t be enough anyway, organizers say: “We need to figure out how to use this sea change in how we talk about inequality to how we act against inequality,” says Mehrens.

The newfound cache of certain phrases has had some perverse effects. Developers and other big employers have latched onto terms like “living wage” but not always with worker-friendly intentions, says Lee Strieb, a researcher with labor organization Unite Here. Developers have “attempted to wrap themselves in the flag of the living wage, almost as a shield to avoid unionization,” says Strieb. ”There is a heightened sensitivity to the need to address [the wage] issue — but to the extent they can address it in a superficial way, they will.” 

Mr. de Blasio’s relentless critique of economic inequality in New York seemed to resonate with voters, who elected him in a landslide.

The shift could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners. 

It’s unclear whether 2014 will set in motion changes to our income distribution. Mayors alone may have little power to tackle the issue. They usually can’t run big deficits and, in cities like San Francisco and New York, space for affordable housing is hard to find. Most important, mayors can’t singlehandedly restore the middle-class jobs that disappeared during the recession.

Yet the shift in tone and rhetoric is significant and could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners. Consider Cam Kruse, 72, a mostly retired civil engineer who is active in ISAIAH, a social justice organization of about 100 churches in metropolitan Minneapolis. Kruse believes in small government. When working full time, he perched in the top one to three percent of earners. And he was a Republican for most of his adult life.

But earlier this year he found himself urging the state legislature to raise tax rates on top earners, which, he said, had fallen through the decades. Growing “gaps” in education, health, housing and transportation worried him. “My success, and that of all the other top earners in Minnesota, has been based on the investments that people before us made,” he testified. “It is our turn to give back and make investments for those who will be our future.” 

The tax increase passed.