Campaign News

We don’t know very much about President-Elect Donald Trump’s ideas about education. Although, during the campaign, Trump briefly presented a plan for a $20 billion block grant program for states to expand market-based school choice, and although he has hinted that he will reduce the role of the U.S. Department of Education and particularly its civil rights enforcement division, there has been no substantive explanation or discussion of these ideas.

One thing we do know for sure, however, is that every branch of our federal government will be dominated by Republicans—the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.

A new President whose plans we do not know.  The absence of checks and balances. Federal public education policy that has for years been undermining support for the institution of public education.  Those of us who believe improving the public schools is important have good reason to be nervous, even afraid.

After all, in 2000 and especially after we were distracted in September of 2001 by the attacks on the World Trade Center, we were unprepared to speak to the federal test-and-punish education law, No Child Left Behind. We failed to connect the dots between an accountability-driven, poorly funded testing mandate and the destruction of respect for school teachers and the drive for school privatization that lurked just under the surface of federal policy.  And in 2008, we didn’t anticipate the collusion of government technocrats and philanthro-capitalists that emerged when the federal stimulus gave billions of dollars to the U.S. Department of Education for competitive experiments with top-down turnarounds to close and privatize schools and attack teachers.

Advocates for improving public schools—particularly the schools in the struggling neighborhoods of our cities where poverty is concentrated—were unprepared.  We struggled to define what it all meant. Why had accountability replaced nurturing children as the mission of the schools? How are achievement gaps affected by opportunity gaps?  What did it mean that everyone had come to define school quality by test scores without any attention to the capacity of communities to provide the necessary conditions for teaching and learning?  How had it happened that everybody was suddenly focused on so-called “failing” schools?  Why did everyone suddenly feel that it was appropriate to blame and castigate school teachers who were said to be protecting adult interests instead of putting students first? And how had it happened that so many people prized the innovation that was supposed to come with charter schools unbound from bureaucratic regulations, and yet those in charge no longer worried about strengthening the oversight necessary for protecting children’s rights and the expenditure of tax dollars?  How had so many people come to accept that the market would take care of all this?

We watched with dismay as all this came to pass, but we were unprepared to name it, unprepared to think through how it all worked, unprepared to do something about it.

But there is an important development these days among advocates for public schools—the people who agree that we need to promote equity and justice in education’s public sector.  Advocates today share broad consensus around the following priorities:

•    driving long-denied public investment to improve the public schools in our poorest communities where family poverty is concentrated, and correcting inadequate and inequitably distributed school funding;

•    addressing family poverty that, research has demonstrated again and again, is likely to undermine children’s achievement at school;

•    ensuring that public dollars are not diverted and that charter schools do not operate as parasites destroying their host school districts;

•    supporting school teachers as a strong, stable cadre of professionals;

•    reducing reliance on standardized testing and eliminating high stakes punishments including turnarounds;

•    rejecting privatization of education and ensuring strong oversight by government of the institutions that serve our children and spend our tax dollars;

•    eliminating widespread overuse—especially in the schools serving our society’s poorest children—of the practices of suspending and expelling students and the widespread obedience-driven discipline practices imposed on poor children when more privileged children attend schools where they are encouraged to question and engage.

At the national level, organizations supporting justice and equity in public education are now unified across a range of constituencies and sectors to endorse and work for these values and priorities.  Here are just some of the centers of advocacy these days:

•    The Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools is a broad coalition of unions—the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Service Employees International Union; civil rights and community organizing groups–Advancement Project, Alliance for Educational Justice, Center for Popular Democracy, Journey for Justice Alliance; and academic, philanthropic and justice advocacy groups—the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, the Gamaliel Network, and the Schott Foundation for Public Education.

•    The NAACP and Black Lives Matter have recently come together in the civil rights community to challenge privatization and lack of oversight as charter schools have expanded.

•    The Network for Public Education is an alliance of advocates including school teachers, activists, and bloggers in support of strong and inclusive public schools and in opposition to unregulated charter schools and to over-reliance on high stakes testing.

•    The National Education Policy Center, located at the University of Colorado, publishes academic research and reviews research from other agencies on education policy.

•    The Education Law Center, and its Education Justice program, and Public Advocates and other school law attorneys are working for school funding equity and civil rights protection.

Last week the education writer, Jonathan Kozol, reminded us about what most of us now know how to articulate but what, ten or fifteen years ago, we would have struggled to say: “Slice it any way you want. Argue, as we must, that every family ought to have the right to make whatever choice they like in the interests of their child, no matter what damage it may do to other people’s children. As an individual decision, it’s absolutely human; but setting up this kind of competition, in which parents with the greatest social capital are encouraged to abandon their most vulnerable neighbors, is rotten social policy.  What this represents is a state supported shriveling of civic virtue, a narrowing of moral obligation to the smallest possible parameters.  It isn’t good… for democracy.”

Today we are well-aware of the organizations that have persistently undermined support for public education and at the same time pressed for an unregulated school marketplace as the alternative: the Hoover Institution; the Heritage Foundation; the American Enterprise Institute; the Thomas Fordham Foundation; Michigan’s Dick and Betsy DeVos and their many far-right organizations; New York hedge fund managers spreading their billions across New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts via the dark money Families for Excellent Schools; the New Schools Venture Fund; the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington that promotes portfolio school reform; the Gates, Walton, and Broad venture philanthropies spending billions promoting charter schools; the U.S. Department of Education under Arne Duncan that granted billions of dollars—without much oversight at all according to the Department’s own Office of Inspector General— to states to expand charter schools; and the American Legislative Exchange Council that promotes school privatization across the states via its large membership of state legislators.

The same election that brought us President-Elect Donald Trump also brought evidence that today’s public school advocates have become organized  and effective. Question 2 to expand the growth of charter schools went down to resounding defeat in a Massachusetts referendum, and Georgia Governor Nathan Deal’s plan for state takeover and charterization of Georgia’s struggling public schools was also soundly defeated at the polls.  Voters responded to protect the idea of public education when the stakes for public schools were clearly defined by well organized and well informed advocates.

During a Donald Trump administration we must stay organized, raising our voices persistently to name and frame our concerns with precision and passion.  A public education system is the best institution to meet the needs of all kinds of children and protect their rights through law.  Our public schools are, of course, imperfect.  It is our responsibility to pay attention and ensure that our schools work for all children.  Democracy makes our role as citizens possible and requires engaged citizenship.

Looking back on his life as an education professor and advocate for education, Bill Ayers suggests something that will be particularly important for us to remember under the presidency of Donald Trump: that public education is the institutional embodiment of the values that define our democracy. “Education for free people is powered by a particularly precious and fragile ideal. Every human being is of infinite and incalculable value, each a work in progress and a force in motion, each a unique intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, moral, and creative force, each of us born equal in dignity and rights, each endowed with reason and conscience and agency, each deserving a dedicated place in the community of solidarity as well as a vital sense of brotherhood and sisterhood, recognition and respect.  Embracing that basic ethic and spirit, people recognize that the fullest development of each individual—given the tremendous range of ability and the delicious stew of race, ethnicity, points of origin, and background—is the necessary condition for the full development of the entire community, and, conversely, that the fullest development of all is essential for the full development of each. This has obvious implications for education policy.” (Demand the Impossible, p. 161)

By janresseger

Source

The Federal Reserve on Thursday voted to maintain its unprecedented support for the U.S. recovery, leaving a key interest rate unchanged amid gathering clouds over the global economy.

In an official statement, the nation’s central bank said the job market is recovering and hiring is “solid.” But it expressed concern that inflation remains too low and exports have weakened. Meanwhile, the risk is building that turmoil overseas will drag down growth in America.

"Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term," the central bank's official statement read.

The decision to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate at zero amounts to a recognition that the robust recovery central bank officials had hoped for when they launched into an uncharted era of easy money during the throes of the 2008 financial crisis has yet to materialize. The Fed has repeatedly pushed back the goal line as the economy failed to deliver. Seven years after the central bank cut its target rate to zero, Fed officials believe the recovery is not yet ready to stand on its own.

At the press conference that followed the rate announcement Thursday afternoon, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said that a rate hike was still likely by the end of the year. But she reiterated that though “domestic developments have been strong, we want to see continued improvement in the labor market," and the central bank would like "to bolster our confidence that inflation will move toward" the Fed’s 2 percent target before a rate hike.

“We have very large drags from energy prices and import prices," Yellen said, adding that the central bank views those as transitory. As the labor market heals, "we will see further upward pressure on inflation," she said. “We expect to achieve our 2 percent goal over the medium term.”

Markets grew volatile immediately after news of the rate hold, going flat by the end of Yellen's press conference. The Dow Jones Industrial average closed down 0.4 percent and the Standard & Poor’s index closed down about 0.3 percent on Thursday.

Documents released by the Fed show most of the Fed's top brass now anticipate increasing rates only once this year, instead of twice. A growing minority think the central bank should not raise its benchmark rate this year at all, and one suggested it should stimulate the economy even more by taking the rate negative.

Three officials are advocating a 2016 liftoff, while one person pinned 2017 as the date -- longer than anyone has suggested so far.

“Even though the summer stresses in financial markets have abated, the impact of the intense market volatility on domestic economic activity is yet to fully play out,” Millan Mulraine, deputy chief U.S. macro strategist at TD Securities, wrote in a research note.

The Fed lowers its target rate when it wants to stimulate the economy by encouraging businesses and consumers to spend. It hikes when the economy begins to grow too quickly and inflation picks up, making saving money more attractive.

Timing, however, is crucial. If the Fed moves too soon, it risks undercutting the recovery’s momentum. Waiting too long could stock dangerous financial bubbles.

Yellen made reference to that risk at the press conference Thursday when asked whether the Fed should be moving sooner rather than later to raise the rates. "I don't think it's good policy to then have to slam on the brakes," she said.

The Fed modestly upgraded Thursday its expectation for economic growth this year from 1.9 percent to 2.1 percent, but the forecast is still lower than the robust expansion enjoyed a decade ago. The jobless rate has already fallen below the central bank's June estimate of 5.3 percent. The Fed adjusted its forecast to 5 percent. It also nudged up its estimate of core inflation from 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent.

In May, Yellen said speech that she expected the economy would be strong enough to raise the target rate by the end of the year. Other top Fed officials had signaled the long-awaited move could come during its meeting this month.

But that was before the jaw-dropping swings in financial markets over the past few weeks, including a 1,000-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average. Evidence is mounting that China’s breakneck economic growth is fizzling out faster than previously thought.

In the meantime, the strong U.S. dollar and low oil prices are weighing on inflation, which has run below the Fed’s target of 2 percent for years. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Nobel-laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers have all called on the central bank to hold off on a rate hike, at least for now.

“Now is the time for the Fed to do what is often hardest for policymakers,” Summers wrote in The Washington Post recently. “Stand still.”

The calls for delay are also coming from a populist campaign known as Fed Up, which protested outside of the central bank’s buildings Thursday. Several lawmakers joined the demonstration, including Michigan Rep. John Conyers, who is sponsoring a bill that would require the Fed to target a 4 percent unemployment rate.

Not everyone agrees the Fed should wait, however. Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker dissented from the central bank’s vote on Thursday. In aspeech earlier this month, he pointed to strong consumer spending, the sharp decline in unemployment and a pickup in inflation measured since the beginning of the year as reasons a rate hike is warranted.

“I am not arguing that the economy is perfect, but nor is it on the ropes, requiring zero interest rates to get it back into the ring,” he said. “It’s time to align our monetary policy with the significant progress we have made.”

In its official statement, the Fed attempted to assure investors and the public that after the first rate hike, it expects to make subsequent hikes only gradually. Though most officials predicted the Fed would raise its target rate several times next year, they also forecast it would remain below its historic norm of about 4 percent for several years. Fed documents released Thursday show the long-run median estimate at  just 3.5 percent.

Each hike will also likely be small, analysts expect just one quarter of one percent. That would allow the central bank to assess how an economy grown accustomed to easy money operates under a new regime.

“One should never discount the importance of an interest rate change by a central bank merely because it looks small,” said Scott Sumner, an economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. “Some pretty big avalanches have started from a small pebble being dislodged.”

Source: Washington Post

Baltimore City Paper - November 4, 2014, by Evan Serpick - Administrators, teachers, union organizers, community leaders, politicians, and students—including cheerleading squads and step teams—were among those gathered in front of City Hall on Oct. 21 to sing the praises of community schools, some literally.

“We are gentle, angry people,” The Charm City Labor Chorus sang from the dais. “And we are singing for our lives.”

The effort, organized by the Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU), Maryland Communities United, Center for Popular Democracy, and AFT-Maryland, aims to press the city government to continue funding the city’s 48 community schools and to ultimately expand the program to include all 210 city schools. (Disclosure: My wife is a teacher in Baltimore City Public Schools.) Community schools work to help students and their families access non-academic services such as health care and food assistance. One key element of the advocates’ efforts, many of those assembled acknowledged, was to inform the public and key officials of exactly what community schools are and how they’re beneficial to students and families.

“People hear ‘community schools’ and they don’t know what that means,” said Councilman Carl Stokes (D, 12th District), who spoke to the crowd “on behalf of [his] colleagues” in support of the effort.

The $10 million in municipal funding for the city’s 48 community schools pays for each school to employ a site coordinator to connect students and families in need with existing services, both public and private. The funding does not, organizers emphasize, pay for the services themselves.

Christopher Gaither, who has been principal of Upper Fells Point’s Wolfe Street Academy for nine years, spoke to the assembled group in Spanish and English. He said when Wolfe Street became a community school in 2006, the school, which had a 72 percent English language learner (ELL) population and 94 percent reduced-price lunch population, ranked 77th among city elementary schools. Eight years later, the ELL rate has gone up to 78 and reduced-lunch rate up to 96, but the school is now ranked second in the city academically, behind only Roland Park Elementary-Middle (which, as Gaither estimated, has an 18 percent reduced-price lunch population). Gaither gives much of the credit to being a community school.

“It sets up systems to identify partnerships to help families to take on challenges,” he said, before adding, more colloquially, “It gives people fish and teaches them how to fish.”

Gaither said his site coordinator helps families apply for food stamps and Medicaid, and also helps find mental health and housing services when needed, in addition to establishing after-school and recreational programs.

“No parent at Roland Park would think it’s acceptable if their child had to go to school hungry or without sleeping because of bedbugs,” he said. “Why should our parents?”

He added that, while community school funding doesn’t pay directly for social services, it does make that funding more effective, since site coordinators are able to link social-service providers directly with families in need so those providers spend less time and money on outreach.

Among those speaking at the rally were Chelsea Gilmer, a seventh-grader at City Springs Elementary/Middle School downtown who is active in Baltimore Urban Debate League, and Yolanda Pernell, a parent of children at Callaway Elementary, a community school in Northwest Baltimore where the site coordinator created an after-school program with the Boys and Girls Club of Metropolitan Baltimore. 

Fred D. Mason, president of the Maryland and D.C. AFL-CIO, was on hand to explain why unions support community schools. “It provides a better, safer, more productive community for teachers to work in,” he said. “When the community organizations are coming into the school, interacting with the students, it just make a better overall environment for everybody.”

But BTU president Marietta English, who has been pushing City Hall hard on the issue, worries that funding for community schools will be cut. “We’re looking at how we can get the funding for next year,” she said. “Right now, it’s all about the budget deficit. Everybody I talk to is like, ‘Well you know we got a budget deficit.’ I hear their support but in the end, it’s ‘Where do we get the money?’”

Speaking to City Paper after the rally, Stokes said funding community schools was imperative.

“The city government needs to put it in the budget in this coming budget year—they should pass it so that it goes into the budget for July and can apply to next year,” he said. “This works. The schools that have the full funding for the coordinator, it works for them. A lot of kids come from environments that aren’t as strong as they could be, should be, and to make that environment in the school helps kids all around.”

Source

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — Liberal activists who stage an annual protest in favor of lower interest rates at the Federal Reserve’s annual conference here are planning a different kind of demonstration this year. They plan to don “Yellen wigs” on Friday to demonstrate in support of Janet L. Yellen, the Fed chairwoman, whose first term ends in February.

President Trump must soon decide whether to renominate Ms. Yellen or pick someone similarly inclined to emphasize economic growth. Or, instead, he could accede to the wishes of many conservatives for a Fed chairman more worried about inflation.

Read the full article here.