Juez Federal Suspende la Acción Ejecutiva un Día Antes de Entrar en Vigor
Univision - February 16, 2015 - Un juez federal de Texas suspendió temporalmente el lunes la entrada en vigor de la...
Univision - February 16, 2015 - Un juez federal de Texas suspendió temporalmente el lunes la entrada en vigor de la acción ejecutiva del presidente Barack Obama, un día antes de que comenzara la inscripción a la primera parte que frena la deportación de unos 2.4 millones de dreamers.
“No está permitido hacer nada para implementar ninguno de los nuevos programas que Obama anunció.” El beneficio migratorio, anunciado el 20 de noviembre del año pasado por Barack Obama, en total, protege de la deportación a entre 4.5 y 5 millones de indocumentados, entre ellos, padres de ciudadanos y residentes legales permanentes (DAPA, por sus siglas en inglés) que están en el país desde antes del 1 de enero de 2010 y carecen de antecedentes criminales. También amplía la cobertura de la Acción Diferida (DACA, por sus siglas en inglés) del 15 de junio de 2007 al 1 de enero de 2010, cuya entrada en vigor estaba prevista para este 18 de febrero. El juez Andrew S. Hanen dio la orden de frenar la medida y dictó que el gobierno federal no tiene permitido hacer nada para implementar ninguno de los nuevos programas que Obama anunció en noviembre. Minutos después de haberse emitido la medida cautelar, el gobernador de Texas, Greg Abbott, quien lidera la demanda, anunció el fallo provisional a través de su cuenta en Twitter. Juez federal acepto su pedido para detener la orden ejecutiva para indocumentados bajo el programa de DAPA. El fallo provisional de Hanen es en respuesta a una demanda presentada en diciembre por 26 estados, liderados por Texas, contra la acción ejecutiva. Veinticuatro de ellos, gobernados por republicanos, argumentan que Obama se extralimitó en sus funciones y que la medida viola la Constitución. La decisión de Hanen significa que aquellos dreamers (soñadores) que tenían pensado enviar sus solicitudes para evitar ser deportados a partir de este miércoles, no podrán hacerlo. El dictamen provisional ocurre mientras la Corte Federal para el Distrito Sur de Texas, que preside Hanen, sigue revisando la demanda. En su fallo, el juez asegura que "al haber hallado que al menos un demandante satisface todos los elementos necesarios para mantener la demanda", concede "un mandato judicial temporal" para suspender la aplicación de las medidas hasta que haya "una resolución final de los méritos de esta causa o una orden ulterior de este tribunal". La acción ejecutiva frena temporalmente por tres años las deportaciones y concede un permiso de trabajo por el mismo periodo de tiempo. Al tercer año se esperaba que pudieran renovarse ambos beneficios. Los demandantes habían pedido a Hanen que emita una "orden judicial preliminar" que bloqueara temporalmente tanto DACA como DAPA en tanto la querella sigue su curso. El Servicio de Inmigración comenzará a recibir solicitudes de quienes califiquen para Acción Ejecutiva Extendida. Wendy Feliz, representante del American Immigration Council, había advertido en la víspera que Hanen no estaba obligado a tomar una decisión antes de este miércoles, “pero se esperaba que lo hiciera”, reportó la agencia mexicana Notimex. Otra de las opciones que tenía el juez, además de suspender temporalmente la acción ejecutiva, era no tomar acción alguna y también rechazar el otorgamiento de la suspensión pedida por los demandantes. También Hanen pudo haber emitido una orden de suspensión parcial contra algunos de los beneficios contenidos en la acción ejecutiva. La decisión de Hanen ocurre en momentos que el Congreso, controlado por los republicanos, debate si aprueba el presupuesto del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS, por sus siglas en inglés) para lo que resta del año fiscal 2015. A finales de enero la Cámara de Representantes aprobó incluir dos enmiendas al proyecto, una que anula la acción ejecutiva y otra que prohíbe al DHS utilizar dineros del presupuesto en la ejecución de la medida. El Presidente Barack Obama había advertido que vetará cualquier iniciativa de ley que frene la acción ejecutiva. Pero no puede vetar la medida de Hanen. Solo apelarla. De no aprobarse el presupuesto antes del 27 de febrero, el DHS se quedará sin fondos para seguir operando, excepto áreas de emergencia de seguridad nacional. Los republicanos, sin embargo, han dicho que seguirán desafiando la medida ya sea en el Congreso o en las cortes, y exigen al gobierno que escuche la voz del pueblo expresada en las urnas el martes 4 de noviembre del año pasado cuando concedió a los republicanos la mayoría en ambas cámaras del legislativo. La demanda del 3 de diciembre fue entablada por el entonces gobernador electo de Texas, el republicano Greg Abbott, y luego secundada por otros 25 estados, 24 de ellos gobernados por republicanos. West Virginia y Montana están gobernados por demócratas, pero sus fiscales son republicanos. Nevada, un estado gobernado por el hispano Brian Sandoval, es otra de las sorpresas de esta demanda. Los demandantes argumentaron en ella que Obama no siguió la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo en la emisión de su directiva migratoria. Y sostienen que la acción ejecutiva de Obama, en la propia admisión del presidente, "cambia la ley y establece una nueva política, excede su autoridad constitucional y perturba el delicado equilibrio de poderes". “La extralimitación constitucional por el presidente Obama es clara y muy preocupante”, señala el recurso. El Center for Popular Democracy comentó que el fallo del juez Hanen es una medida cautelar temporal y que “no cambia el hecho de que la orden ejecutiva del presidente Obama sea una victoria para las familias inmigrantes. “Hacemos un llamado al Departamento de Justicia para que presente inmediatamente una instancia ante el Quinto Tribunal de Apelaciones de Circuito para que sea desechada esta demanda sin mérito que se traduce en un ataque a las familias inmigrantes y una pérdida de dinero de los contribuyentes, dijo Joaquín Guerra, del Proyecto Organización de Texas (Texas Organizing Project) en un comunicado poco después de conocerse el dictamen de Hanen. A mediados de enero, luego de una audiencia en la que ambas partes presentaron y defendieron sus argumentos, Hanen dijo que no emitiría un fallo sobre la solicitud de interdicto sino hasta antes del 30 de enero. Señaló que el caso era "un área de debate legítimo" y que "no hay tipos malos en esto". Dijo que Brownsville y el sur de Texas han visto tanto los beneficios como los inconvenientes de la aplicación estricta de las leyes de inmigración y de lo que "algunas personas llaman una política laxa de aplicación". Durante la audiencia Hanen admitió que había criticado la política de inmigración de Estados Unidos en dos fallos previos, pero también señaló que en ambos casos su determinación fue a favor del gobierno federal. Además de Texas, los estados demandantes son Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Carolina Norte, Carolina del Sur, Dakota del Norte, Dakota del Sur, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia del Oeste y Wisconsin. Los estados que se oponen a la acción ejecutiva no solicitan una indemnización, sino que quieren que los tribunales bloqueen la acción ejecutiva y señalan que el mandatario se extralimitó en sus poderes. Esta no es la primera vez que Hanen se pronuncia en contra de los inmigrantes. Hanen, el año pasado, acusó al gobierno de participar en conspiraciones criminales para llevar al país niños de contrabando al reunirlos con los padres que vivían en el país de manera ilegal. Source
New Report: Big Banks Require Tellers to Use Predatory Practices
Bill Moyers & Company - April 9, 2015, by Katie Rose Quandt - Front-line workers at our nation’s big banks —...
Bill Moyers & Company - April 9, 2015, by Katie Rose Quandt - Front-line workers at our nation’s big banks — tellers, loan interviewers and customer service representatives — are required by their employers to exploit customers, according to a revealing report out today from the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). Big banks have internal systems of penalties and rewards that entice employees to push subprime loans and credit cards on customers who would be better off without them.
CPD’s report outlines several illegal predatory practices big banks have been caught employing, usually via their front-line workers:
Blatantly discriminatory lending: In 2011 and 2012, Bank of America and Wells Fargo paid out settlements for charging higher rates and fees to tens of thousands of African American and Hispanic borrowers than to similarly qualified white customers. Minority customers were also more likely to be steered into (more expensive, riskier) subprime mortgages.
Manipulating payment processing to maximize overdraft charges: When a savings account balance drops too low, the bank charges a hefty overdraft fee on each subsequent purchase. Both Bank of America and US Bank paid settlements for intentionally processing customers’ largest debit card payments first, regardless of chronological order, in order to hit $0 faster and maximize overdraft fees. US Bank was also accused of allowing debit card purchases on zero-balance accounts to go through (and incur overdraft fees), instead of denying the charges upfront.
Forcing sale of unneeded products: Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup were accused of forcing customers to purchase overpriced property insurance.
Manipulative sales quotas: Lawsuits show Wells Fargo and Bank of America created incentive programs for employees with the interests of the company — not the customer — in mind. Wells Fargo’s sales quotas encouraged bank workers to steer prime-eligible customers to subprime loans, while falsifying other clients’ income information without their knowledge. Bank of America’s “Hustle” program rewarded quantity over quality, encouraging workers to skip processes and checks intended to protect the borrower.
Instead of cutting back on the risky, unethical practices that led to the Great Recession, the CPD report asserts that big banks have not learned from their mistakes. Bank workers report higher levels of sales pressure in 2013 than in 2008, and most do not have the job security or seniority to simply refuse to hawk credit cards or steer customers into risky financial situations. While the financial sector is turning near-record profits, the average bank teller made just $12.25 an hour in 2013 (a real-dollar decrease from 2007), causing 31 percent of tellers’ families to rely on public assistance. What’s more, 85 percent of these underpaid front-line bank employees are women, and one-third are people of color. Most are in no position to risk losing their job or having their pay docked for stepping out of line.
Several anonymous big bank employees went into detail about how their employers incentivize sales:
An HSBC employee reported that when workers fell short of sales goals, the difference was taken out of their paychecks.
A teller at a major bank said she is expected to sell three new checking, savings, or debit card accounts every day. If she falls short, she gets written up.
Customer service representatives at one major bank’s call-center said everyone is expected to make at least 40 percent of the sales of the top seller. Credit card sales count for extra, encouraging callers to push credit cards on customers who would be better served with checking or savings accounts.
A call-center worker said she offers a credit card to every customer, regardless of whether it would be beneficial. She explained: “If you aren’t offering, you can get marked down — the managers and Quality Analysts listen to your call, and can tell if you aren’t offering.”
“We’re not servicing their needs,” said one front-line worker. “What they want, what they need, isn’t important to us. Selling them a product is … Some of our customers just have their savings, many are just retirees.”
As the report concludes, “Our nation’s big banks are committed to a model that jeopardizes our communities and prevents bank employees from having a voice in their workplace.”
Source
I'm a Puerto Rican refugee from Hurricane Maria. Here's why I care about the Pa. midterm
I'm a Puerto Rican refugee from Hurricane Maria. Here's why I care about the Pa. midterm
"I am a hurricane Maria survivor who now calls the state of Pennsylvania my home...Without support from the federal...
"I am a hurricane Maria survivor who now calls the state of Pennsylvania my home...Without support from the federal government, I am grateful for the assistance of grassroots organizations and nonprofits like CASA and CASA in Action, affiliates of the Center for Popular Democracy...I am now proud to work with CASA in action, canvassing and energizing voters. It is empowering to knock on doors and connect with other Latinos and long time residents who came to Pennsylvania before me. They understand that it is our duty as a community to come together and send a strong message that we are here and that we vote too."
Read the full article here.
Report: Lack of oversight leads to fraud, abuse in charter school operations
Arkansas Times - May 6, 2014, by Max Brantley - Don't look for Bill Moyers to be getting any grants from the Walton...
Arkansas Times - May 6, 2014, by Max Brantley - Don't look for Bill Moyers to be getting any grants from the Walton Family Foundation. His website reports on a new study about harm to taxpayers and school children from poor oversight of charter schools.
Charter school operators want to have it both ways. When they’re answering critics of school privatization, they say charter schools are public — they use public funds and provide students with a tuition-free education. But when it comes to transparency, they insist they have the same rights to privacy as any other private enterprise.
But a report released Monday by Integrity in Education and the Center for Popular Democracy — two groups that oppose school privatization – presents evidence that inadequate oversight of the charter school industry hurts both kids and taxpayers.
Sabrina Joy Stevens, executive director of Integrity in Education, told BillMoyers.com, “Our report shows that over $100 million has been lost to fraud and abuse in the charter industry, because there is virtually no proactive oversight system in place to thwart unscrupulous or incompetent charter operators before they cheat the public.” The actual amount of fraud and abuse the report uncovered totaled $136 million, and that was just in the 15 states they studied.
Here's the full report. Arkansas is not among the states studied. It had a cap on open enrollment charters for years, unlike some states where proliferation of the schools has led to shady operators, poor education and self-enrichment.
But a bit of the rubber meets the road this week in Arkansas. A Texas charter school operator,Responsive Education Solutions, is going to ask this week for permission to move its proposed Quest charter school into a building on Hardin Road in west Little Rock that neighbors says isn't suitable for the school because of traffic. Responsive Ed has a hand in seven charter schools in Arkansas. It has been faulted in a national study for quality of its work with poor kids and a Slate investigation pointed up shoddy curriculum in science (creationism) and history (fractured facts). In Little Rock, it has not been honest with regulators. It won approval for a school on Rahling Road in far western Little Rock while it was negotiating for a school site closer in, near existing Little Rock and charter schools. Then, it said it wouldn't complete the purchase on the alternative site until it had approval from state and city officials. Records show the sale has closed, though neither the city nor state has formally approved use of the property for a school. How tough is Arkansas oversight? We shall see.
A measure of the looseness of regulation in Arkansas is the decision by top regulator Diane Zook,a member of the state Board of Education, to declare she has no conflict of interest in voting (FOR) on all Quest proposals even though her nephew, Gary Newton, is a lead organizer for the school and she has supported its establishment from early in the organizing process. Newton is financed in several pro-charter-school organizations by money from the Walton Family Foundation. I wonder if lawyer Chris Heller's aunt was on the state Board of Education if anyone would object to that Board member voting on a case, like Quest, where Heller was objecting to the charter on behalf of his employer, the Little Rock School District. I'd make a small wager that Gary Newton would.
Source
Liberals Turn to Cities to Pass Laws and Spread Ideas
If Congress won’t focus on a new policy idea, and if state legislatures are indifferent or hostile, why not skip them...
If Congress won’t focus on a new policy idea, and if state legislatures are indifferent or hostile, why not skip them both and start at the city level?
That’s the approach with a proposed law in San Francisco to require businesses there to pay for employees’ parental leaves.
It might seem like a progressive pipe dream, the kind of liberal policy that could happen only in a place like San Francisco. But Scott Wiener, the city and county supervisor who proposed the policy, sees it differently.
“The more local jurisdictions that tackle these issues, the more momentum there is for statewide and eventually national action,” he said.
It’s part of a broader movement, mostly led by liberal policy makers, to take on not just the duties that make cities run — like road maintenance and recycling — but also bigger political issues. Think soda taxes, universal health care, calorie counts on menus, mandatory composting and bans on smoking indoors.
The federal government is too gridlocked to make anything happen, these policy makers say. So they are turning to cities, hoping they can act as incubators for ideas and pave the way for state and federal governments to follow.
Conservatives used the strategy in the 1960s and 1970s, often for anti-regulatory policies. On the liberal side, Baltimore helped inspire others by passing a living wage law in 1994. The method has grown more popular in recent years, said Margaret Weir, a professor at Brown University who studies urban politics.
“Historically, especially for groups that want more government action and more generous social and economic policies, they could go to the federal government and achieve those things,” Ms. Weir said. “That has become more difficult. It’s a reflection of the loss of power at the federal level.”
Opponents have frequently responded by trying to limit the legislative power of cities. Many states have passed so-called pre-emption laws, which block cities from making their own laws on certain issues, including gun control, plastic bag bans, paid leave, fracking, union membership and the minimum wage. It’s a strategy pioneered by the tobacco lobby and later much used by the National Rifle Association. In all but seven states, state laws pre-empt local gun laws.
The pro-business American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, has pushed for many of the pre-emption laws. More recently, however, it has adopted the methods of its opponents. It has helped policy makers in local government make laws to reduce the size of government, for instance, even when states decline to do so.
One division of ALEC, called the American City County Exchange, has most notably pushed for local right-to-work laws to allow workers who are members of a union to opt out of paying dues. Yet in other cases, it has drafted legislation to prevent cities from coming up with their own laws, including on issues like plastic bag bans and containers for composting.
“Sometimes cities and counties overstep the powers they’ve been given,” said Jon Russell, director of the exchange and a town councilman in Culpeper, Va. “There are certain times states and cities are going to disagree, but for the most part, we’re going to figure out ways to resolve certain regulatory issues while staying in our lanes.”
The demographics of big urban centers — often more liberal and diverse than other parts of the country, and more likely to be governed by a single party — foster more progressive policy-making than elsewhere.
And that policy-making does seem to bubble upward to the national level. Workers’ rights are one of the main focuses of today’s urban politics, and several such city policies are now getting state and national attention, including in the presidential campaign. Paid sick leave is an example. The first city to require it was San Francisco in 2006. It is now the law in 23 cities and states, and President Obama last fall required federal contractorsto provide it. (Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have pre-emption laws to stop cities from requiring paid sick leave.)
Minimum wage is another example. SeaTac, Wash., passed a $15 minimum wage in 2013. Nearby Seattle followed, and then so did San Francisco, Los Angeles, Mountain View, Calif., and Emeryville, Calif.
Fourteen states have since changed their minimum wage laws, two bills in Congress would do the same nationally, and all three Democratic presidential contenders have said they would raise the federal minimum wage.
“It’s all due to victories at the city level,” said Ady Barkan, co-director of Local Progress, a network of local progressive elected officials. “They actually did it and showed it was possible politically and as a policy matter.”
But many of these policies have not caught on widely. Take soda taxes: Berkeley, Calif., is the only city to have passed one. Similar laws have failed in San Francisco and New York state.
Other city legislation that could eventually be passed at the state or federal level includes those related to drones, ride-hailing and home-sharing.
San Francisco’s paid parental leave policy, which would be the first such law in the nation, would apply to all businesses with at least 20 employees, some of whom work at least some of the time in the city, including national chains that do not offer paid leave to workers elsewhere.
Californians already receive paid parental leave from the state. It is one of three states to offer it; the state’s temporary disability fund pays 55 percent of workers’ salaries, up to a maximum salary of $105,000. In San Francisco, companies would pay the remainder for six weeks of “bonding leave” for all new parents, including fathers, same-sex parents and adoptive parents.
The city’s board of supervisors, which will vote on the policy, has not a single Republican. It would be a much harder sell almost anywhere else.
From Mr. Wiener’s point of view, that gives the board a responsibility: “To push the envelope on these issues, because we can.”
Source: New York Times
Williams picked as next president of New York Fed
Williams picked as next president of New York Fed
But Shawn Sebastian, director of the Fed Up Coalition, a collection of liberal groups, said the New York Fed search...
But Shawn Sebastian, director of the Fed Up Coalition, a collection of liberal groups, said the New York Fed search process had failed in its job to offer diverse candidates. "The New York Fed's claims that there are no qualified candidates who are women or people of color working in the public interest who would take this job are untrue," he said in a statement.
Read the full article here.
Ford Supporters Descend on Senate Offices of Grassley and Collins to Demand GOP #CancelKavanaugh
Ford Supporters Descend on Senate Offices of Grassley and Collins to Demand GOP #CancelKavanaugh
The Women's March, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Center for Popular Democracy all participated in the protest,...
The Women's March, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Center for Popular Democracy all participated in the protest, where demonstrators chanted, "We believe Christine Ford! We believe Anita Hill!" before proceeding to senators' offices.
Read the full artilce here.
Bill de Blasio: From Education to Poverty, Leadership by Example
Huffington Post - October 9, 2014, by Richard Eskow - Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique...
Huffington Post - October 9, 2014, by Richard Eskow - Progressives who are elected to executive office have a unique opportunity to highlight neglected issues and stimulate much-needed debate, by taking actions which challenge the "conventional wisdom." They can change the political landscape by employing a principle that might be called "leadership by example."
The mayor of New York City is uniquely positioned to play this role, thanks to that city's prominence, and so far Bill de Blasio has done exceptionally well at it. Two of his actions -- on education and assistance to the poor -- deserve particular commendation, because they challenge the "bipartisan" consensus that has too often strangled open debate and left the public's interests unrepresented.
Action for the Impoverished
1. "Welfare Reform's" Record of Failure
"Centrist" Democrats like Bill Clinton, together with Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, have long sung the praises of "welfare reform" -- a set of policies that promised to turn welfare recipients into "productive citizens" through a combination of educational programs, work requirements, and "tough love" that denied benefits to some of them.
Clinton signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" on August 22, 1996, saying it would "end welfare as we know it and transform our broken welfare system by promoting the fundamental values of work, responsibility, and families." That bill quickly became a symbol of "bipartisan consensus" and a much-touted piece of model legislation for the neoliberal economic agenda.
Unfortunately, we now know that it didn't work. In fact, it backfired. A report from the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center showed that extreme poverty increased in the United States by 130 percent between 1996 and 2013 -- and pinpointed "welfare reform" as the cause.
Despite its documented failure, the myth persists that "welfare reform" succeeded. This belief has so far proved resistant to the mounting evidence against it, perhaps because it serves the personal interests of wealthy individuals and corporations who don't care to be taxed for antipoverty programs.
This "reform" myth also serves to assuage their consciences. Politicians like Cuomo and Clinton are all too happy to help in that effort by assuring wealthy Americans that this policy is smart, even liberal, and that it only coincidentally happens to benefit them personally.
2. The End of Welfare As They Know It
The mayor of New York City cannot supersede a federal law, but a recent executive action will hopefully serve to re-open the debate on welfare "reform." De Blasio ended the policies of his GOP predecessors and eased requirements for welfare eligibility in New York City. New rules will give young people more time to complete their educations, and native speakers of foreign languages time to learn English. He also cut back on some "workfare" requirements (which in some cases amount to little more than ritual humiliation.)
For the first time, allowances will be made for parental duties, travel time, and other obstacles which are faced every day by the poor -- but which are little-understood by prosperous "bipartisans" from either party.
As a de Blasio official explained, "we have the data to show that toughness for the sake of toughness hasn't been effective."
3. Data Driven
Data. That word is anathema to "centrist" politicians and commentators who claim to be technocrats, but who are actually driven by ideology, donor cash, or both. When de Blasio issued his orders the hyperventilation was, predictably, all but instantaneous. "We don't need to guess how de Blasio's welfare philosophy will pan out," wrote Heather McDonald, who is "Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute."
Reihan Salam fulminated in Slate that welfare programs must "rest on a solid moral foundation. And that, ultimately, is what work requirements are all about."
But when the work isn't available, or people have no practical way of obtaining it, it's immoral to make them -- or their children -- suffer. By ending the inhumane but "bipartisan" policies of his predecessors, Bill de Blasio has potentially re-opened the debate on the draconian and failed "welfare reform" concept.
Action on Education
1. Charter Schools Are "Special Interests"
De Blasio's much-publicized struggle with charter school CEO Eva Moskowitz began when he overturned Bloomberg's decision to give her "Success Academy" free space in city buildings. That led her to make a series of false claims about her organization's accomplishments -- claims that were effectively debunked by Diane Ravitch and Avi Blaustein. Success Academy students aren't the best in the state, they aren't the most difficult students in the city -- and the program is so cost-inefficient that it spends over $2,000 per year more per student than other schools serving similar populations.
Bloomberg was generous to Moskowitz because her program suited his predilection for Wall Street-friendly, corporate-cozy ideas -- ideas which appeared on the surface to promote innovation or "reform," but which on further study reveal themselves as a wealth transfer from the many to the few, often at the expense of the public good.
That's exactly what the charter-school movement represents. Sure, it sounds like a good idea: Schools will "compete" for students, and those which offer the best "products" will succeed. As writer and education activist Jeff Bryant says: Everybody loves "choice," right?
But the concept is flawed at its core. Schools aren't failing because students and their parents don't have "choices" in schools. They're failing -- to the extent they are, because even that concept is overhyped -- because they don't have choices in jobs or housing. Schools are struggling because we don't pay teachers well enough, because we underfund our school districts, and because social factors (especially poverty) inhibit the learning process.
2. Rockets to Nowhere
For all the hype and all the money, there's still no evidence that charter schools work. Advocates love to claim that "school choice" offers lower-income children a way out of poverty. But Milwaukee, which the conservative American Enterprise Institute calls "one of the most 'choice-rich' environments in America," remains one of America's 10 most impoverished big cities.
And kids aren't any more educated in Milwaukee than they were before they were given all this "choice." Educator Diane Ravitch reviewed the data and found that, 22 years after the program was implemented, there was no evidence of improvement in students' test scores.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reviewed the "Rocketship" program, which has bid to take over Milwaukee's underperforming schools, and found that it isn't working. They observed that "in 2012-2013, all seven of the Rocketship schools failed to make adequate yearly progress according to federal standards."
Call it "failure to launch."
3. Follow the Money
The EPI also noted that "Blended-learning schools such as Rocketship are supported by investment banks, hedge funds, and venture capital firms that, in turn, aim to profit from both the construction and, especially, the digital software assigned to students."
That might help explain why wealthy Wall Street investors paid Moskowitz's $2,000-plus-per-student cost overruns out of their own pockets. The same hedge funders also happen to have donated at least $400,000 to Andrew Cuomo's reelection campaign. Perhaps coincidentally, Cuomo led the charge against de Blasio after he moved to end Moskowitz's taxpayer-funded privileges.
Charter schools are an ideological and investment opportunity, which explains why enormous sums of money have been expended promoting them. (The latest effort, funded by $12 million from the wealthiest families in the nation, is something called "The Education Post."
Not all charter schools are driven by the profit motive, and some may in fact do a good job. But there is no evidence to support their claims, their operating principles, or the broader "free market" ideology behind them -- an ideology that is founded on hostility to government itself.
4. Breeding Fraud
Ravitch also notes that Washington, D.C., whose "Opportunity Scholarship Program" launched at least one educational celebrity career, was equally unable to demonstrate results. Its final-year report notes that "There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement."
There is conclusive evidence, however, that the charter school movement has produced at least one fairly widespread outcome: fraud. A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy, Integrity in Education, and ACTION United told the story. The report, titled "Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania's Charter Schools," showed that the state had failed to properly audit or review its publicly-funded charter schools.
It also uncovered a pattern of abuses so disturbing it makes charter schools look like petri dishes for fraud. The director of one charter school diverted $2.6 million in school funds to rebuild his church. Another stole $8 million for "houses, a Florida condominium, and an airplane." Yet another used taxpayer funds to finance "a restaurant, a health food store, and a private school." A couple stole nearly $1 million for their personal use.
There are more revelations in the report -- and it only covers one state.
And yet, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, charter schools continue to be talked up by Bill Clinton, whose recent boosterism was described by Salon's Luke Brinker as "stunning" in its variance with the facts. (Jeff Bryant has more on the reality behind Clinton's disingenuous remarks.)
5. The Ongoing Battle
De Blasio acted wisely in moving to end Bloomberg's gift of scarce New York City school resources to Moskowitz. He was ultimately forced to back down, at least in the short term, after her big-dollar backers won a victory in Albany.
That was no surprise, given the money behind the so-called "reformers." But it's not the end of the story, either. De Blasio's position on charter schools triggered a fierce response -- but it also triggered a long-overdue conversation.
By challenging the conventional wisdom on charter schools, Bill de Blasio has started something their backers didn't want: a genuine debate on their merits. He may have lost a battle, but if the debate continues he's likely to win the war.
Leadership Through Action
By taking actions which challenge the orthodoxy of his own party's corporate wing -- an orthodoxy shared and taken to extremes by the entire GOP -- Bill de Blasio is changing the political landscape. Although he is reportedly close to the Clintons (he managed Hillary's 2000 senatorial campaign), his executive decisions are offering a new political vision for progressives who have felt starved for representation in the two-party system of recent decades.
De Blasio's deeds haven't been limited to education and welfare, of course. As we've discussed elsewhere, he's taken on issues that range from the minimum wage to the environment, and to housing as a human right.
He's made mistakes, and he's all but certain to make more as he navigates difficult political waters. De Blasio's trying to effect change from within the political process, which is always a risky endeavor. But he's made great strides in a short time. His is the sort of leadership which can change the national political landscape even as it improves the quality of life for his constituents.
Bill de Blasio is using his position as mayor of New York to lead -- with action as well as words. And for that he's owed a debt of gratitude.
Source
Scarlett Johansson organises all-star performance of Our Town to benefit Puerto Rico disaster victims
Scarlett Johansson organises all-star performance of Our Town to benefit Puerto Rico disaster victims
Scarlett Johansson used her real superpower – an all-star contact book – to assemble an incredible cast for a...
Scarlett Johansson used her real superpower – an all-star contact book – to assemble an incredible cast for a performance of Thornton Wilder’s classic play Our Town at Atlanta's Fox Theatre.
She was joined by Avengers workmates Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo for a rehearsed reading of the 1938 play. All proceeds from the performance went to The Hurricane Maria Community Relief & Recovery Fund.
Read the full article here.
New York's vote to curb stop-and-frisk is another win for civil rights
The Guardian - June 27, 2013, by Brittny Saunders - New York City Council passed two bills designed to guarantee safety...
The Guardian - June 27, 2013, by Brittny Saunders - New York City Council passed two bills designed to guarantee safety and respect for all New Yorkers. The measures were championed by Communities United for Police Reform, a broad coalition of city groups, and will strengthen the existing ban on police profiling and establish independent oversight of the city's police department.
Today is a new day for New York City. The move reflects a growing alarm over NYPD policies and practices that violate the rights of thousands of New Yorkers and undermine police-community relationships – practices such as the discriminatory use of stop-and-frisk that waste valuable public dollars, while producing no measurable impact on public safety.
Criticism is mounting, not only in the council, but also in federal court, where the legality of these practices is being questioned. Those same questions are echoed in the homes of regular New Yorkers – a majority of whom disapprove of stop-and-frisk and two-thirds of whom support independent oversight of the department. The message is clear: it's time for New York City to turn away from an approach to policing that results in countless rights violations each year, while doing little to reduce crime, according to an analysis by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The bills passed by city council respond to increasing evidence that in too many cases the department has substituted stereotyping for real police work. A study by the New York Civil Liberties Union found that in 2011, for example, 41.6% of all New Yorkers stopped by the NYPD were black and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24 years old, despite the fact that that these groups make up a mere 4.7% of the city's population. The department has continued to defend these discriminatory tactics, despite evidence that they do not even succeed on their own terms, failing to take guns off the street or to significantly reduce crime. In more than 99% of all 2011 stops, for example, no gun was retrieved. And in the first three months of 2013, crime dropped, even as stops also tapered, undermining the department's claim that stop-and-frisk is responsible for the city's lowered crime rate.
All of this suggests that the department's continued reliance on discriminatory tactics is not about what it takes to actually keep all New Yorkers (and those visiting the city) safe. Instead, it is about what it takes to convince some in New York City's whiter, wealthier communities that the administration and the department are serious about public safety.
For too long, too many city leaders have accepted discriminatory policing tactics on the assumption that the costs borne by the New Yorkers who are targeted are outweighed by the benefits enjoyed by communities that are not singled out for unlawful and abusive treatment. But the truth is the NYPD's discriminatory policies and practices have indirect negative impacts on all who live in the city, including its white residents. They allow the NYPD to substitute crude and ineffective strategies – like stopping New Yorkers on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender expression – for the sophisticated police work one might expect from the nation's largest local law enforcement agency. In the process, they position NYPD officers as adversaries instead of allies of many of the communities they are charged with protecting, reducing willingness to report crime and making all New Yorkers less safe.
It is becoming increasingly apparent, then, that the costs of massive spending on ineffective policing strategies extend beyond those borne by the individuals who are unlawfully targeted in the streets each day. But the most powerful argument for increased NYPD accountability has nothing to do with financial costs and benefits and everything to do with what we, as New Yorkers, allow to be done in our names. And it is about staying true to the city's own legacy of innovation and the conviction that here – if nowhere else – we can find a way to keep everyone safe without sacrificing anyone's rights.
City Council made an important choice today. They stopped endorsing a set of NYPD policies and practices that are discriminatory, ineffective and wasteful. They chose instead to guarantee safety and respect across the boroughs. The choices that they and other city leaders will make in the coming weeks, months and years as these bills are enacted and implemented will have a lasting impact on New York City and hopefully set a better example for cities across the country.
Source
8 days ago
8 days ago