How Much Free Speech is Too Much

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

The constitutional guarantee to free speech is in the news. On university campuses across the country protestors are lining up to do battle against university sponsored, or university-based group sponsored speakers. Does a speaker have the right to be heard no matter what he or she espouses? The following is a partial list (which I compiled by searching the internet for who has been prevented from speaking at universities) of people who have been "disinvited" to speak at universities, disrupted in their attempt to speak, or prevented from speaking by the threat of protest.

• anti-feminists
• anti-muslims
• anti-semites
• conservatives
• mysogynists
• liberals
• online celebrity "trolls"
• police commissioners
• policy makers
• politicians
• pro-Israel supporters
• pundits
• racists
• speakers with violent and sexually explicit language
• supporters of police
• transgenders
• trans- and homophobes

Articles have been written in favor of and against the trend...

• The Battle for Berkeley: In the name of freedom of speech, the radical right is circling the Ivory Tower to ensure a voice for the alt-right

• Colleges Have No Right to Limit Students' Free Speech

• How much free speech do you want for free?

No matter what your position on allowing offensive (and everyone in the list above is offensive to someone) speech at a university, or anywhere else, there are certain things about the First Amendment protection of free speech that should be remembered.

FREE SPEECH HAS CONSEQUENCES

You can, in most situations, express your opinion about almost anything, but by doing so you open yourself up to criticism. Criticism is also protected free speech.

For example, if you don't like what I write on this blog, you can, in the comments, dispute what I have written and tell me I'm wrong. Your comment is the consequence of my self-expression and you have the right to criticize me. (On the other hand, I also have the right to delete your comment if it violates my rules or I find it offensive. That's the consequence of your speech in my comments. Click here to see commenting rules).

GOVERNMENT PROTECTED SPEECH

The government protects free speech. Private citizens or groups do not. If I own a venue and invite speakers to visit on occasion, I can choose who I want to invite. If I invite Bernie Sanders, but not Mitch McConnell, I have not limited the free speech of Senator McConnell. I simply haven't invited him to my venue. He is free to find his own venue in which to speak. If I do invite Senator McConnell, and then change my mind, I might be considered an ill-mannered jerk, but I'm still within my rights, and I have still not restricted the Senator's free speech.

When UC-Berkeley decided to postpone Ann Coulter's speech (Coulter herself is the one who chose to cancel), they didn't restrict her free speech, even though you might consider them jerks for changing the date of the invitation. Ms. Coulter still has the option of writing books and op-eds, speaking at rallies, talking on television, radio and podcasts. In fact, she did just that in the article linked in this paragraph. She has every right to rail against those who prevented her from speaking. But she still has freedom of speech.

When universities cancel speeches because of the threat of protest, they have the right to do so. This is not limiting the canceled speaker's free speech. Every one of those speakers is free to find other locations to speak, or write their opinions, or find broadcasts on which to express themselves.

We can disagree with a group or university who prevents or denies someone the opportunity to speak at a particular location, however, that someone still has the option of arguing against the denial on their own.

[The preceding argument is definitely true when the university is privately owned, but does this change if the university is publicly funded like UC-Berkeley? If so, does that mean that anyone who wants to can demand to speak at a university? See the article by the ACLU, below.]

SPEECH IS NOT 100% FREE

In other words, free speech, under the U.S. Constitution is not 100% guaranteed. There are restrictions and consequences. See here, here, and here for discussions of ways that free speech can be denied in the U.S. Here are a few...

1. First, we've already discussed...

• You do not have a right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else. They can kick you out. They don't have to allow you to speak.

2. Those folks who incite to riot in order to prevent someone from speaking need to be careful...

• It's illegal to incite others to criminal acts or to riot. In Brandenburg v. Ohio the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for what is permissible. This includes so-called "fighting words" which would also incite violence.

3. The following description is the basis of a settled suit against the defunct Trump University.

• You are not allowed to make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.

4. Keep this in mind if you want to keep your job...

• You are not guaranteed free speech in your workplace, except union organization, which is protected by law.

5. This applies to all students.

• Students have restricted rights to free speech in school.

6. Is "knock the crap out of them" a violent threat?

• You don't have the right to threaten someone with violence.

COMPLICATIONS

The American Civil Liberties Union states that objectionable speech may not be restricted at government-financed campuses.

Academic freedom (and freedom of speech) protects the rights of a person who makes objectionable statements, but does it also protect the right of the governing body of an academic institution to change its mind? Once someone is invited is there no option but to let them speak? What about someone who is not invited? May they "invite" themselves?

Furthermore, in the case of Ann Coulter, as in many other of the disinvited speakers' cases, the university itself didn't invite her. She was invited by the Berkeley College Republicans, a university supported, but private organization (Note: The Berkeley College Republicans are the people who also invited Milo Yiannopoulos, who was also "disinvited" by the university).

Hate Speech on Campus

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

The American Library Association fights censorship every day...but are they against censoring everything?

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q and A

What Are The Most Frequently Censored Materials?

Throughout history, books have been challenged for many reasons, including political content, sexual expression, or language offensive to some people’s racial, cultural, or ethnic background, gender or sexuality, or political or religious beliefs. Materials considered heretical, blasphemous, seditious, obscene or inappropriate for children have often been censored.

Since the dawn of recorded human expression, people have been burned at the stake, forced to drink poison, crucified, ostracized and vilified for what they wrote and believed.

Aren’t There Some Kinds Of Expression That Really Should Be Censored?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain narrow categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment: obscenity, child pornography, defamation, and “fighting words,” or speech that incites immediate and imminent lawless action. The government is also allowed to enforce secrecy of some information when it is considered essential to national security, like troop movements in time of war, classified information about defense, etc.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Should objectionable speech be allowed on public campuses?

What's the difference between objectionable speech and hate speech?

Is name calling protected speech?

What about name calling in the form of racial or ethnic slurs?

🇺🇸🗽🇺🇸

2017 Medley #14

Class Size, Testing,
The Federal Role in Education, Privatization, Indiana General Assembly, Walmart

CLASS SIZE

Trump's Education Budget Will Undermine Teaching and Schools

Thirty-five percent of America's school districts – especially high-poverty districts – use federal money to reduce class sizes. The Trump budget will result in larger class sizes in exactly the locations where smaller class sizes are needed the most.

Once again, it is America's high poverty students who are shouldering the burden so the wealthy can have a lower tax obligation.

Why is this important? Class size reduction is not only extremely popular among parents and teachers – it is one of the very few reforms proven to work through rigorous evidence, and to provide especially large benefits for children from low-income families and students of color, who see twice the academic gains from small classes. Indeed, it is only one of a handful of educational policies that has been shown to significantly narrow the achievement gap between economic and racial groups.

TESTING: PISA

Is PISA Data Useless?

Peter Greene asks some questions about the PISA test. Privatizers and "reformers" love to quote America's "low scores" on the PISA and other international tests (see The Myth of America's Failing Public Schools), but new information about the PISA indicates that analyses of the results might not be accurate. What then?

The Testocrats have been quietly assuming that taking a Big Standardized Test on a computer is exactly like taking it on paper. But what if that's not true? What if taking a math test involves not only math skills, but test-taking skills. And what if computer test-taking skills are not the same set of skills as pencil-and-paper test-taking skills?

What if the Big Standardized Tests aren't really measuring what they purport to measure at all, and the whole test-centered education model is built on a sham?

FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION

Don’t Trash the Department of Education. Fix It.

In education, just like other areas of our society, the federal government has an important role to play. In the current education atmosphere, the federal government needs to make sure that equitable funding exists for all schools.

The nation is slowly but surely moving back to segregated schools and as Earl Warren put it in 1954's Brown vs. Board of Education decision, "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." It's the job of the federal government to make sure that states don't revert to the illusion of "separate but equal."

...it’s not the Department of Education that’s the problem. It’s what we’ve done to it.

The department has a vital and important role to play in making sure our system of public education serves everyone. Speaking in broad terms, the department should be dedicated to these three things: ensuring public schools are being properly funded, student and parent civil rights are not being violated and to be a repository for national data and research.

Separate but equal?

FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION: VOUCHERS

Save Our Schools! Americans Oppose Trump-DeVos Plans To ‘Voucherize’ Education

It's clear that Betsy DeVos is ignorant about public education. Like other Trump cabinet and administrative appointees, she has spent her life trying to do damage to the very aspect of society her department is charged with supporting. During her confirmation hearing she proved to America that she is woefully ignorant of how public schools work.

The last thing that America needs is for the nation's schools to contribute to increased segregation by race, ethnic group, or economic status.

Halley Potter, a fellow at The Century Foundation who researches public policy to address educational inequality, examined DeVos’ comment during her Senate confirmation process that “empirical evidence finds school choice programs lead to more integrated schools than their public school counterparts.”

To the contrary, Potter found that “voucher programs on balance are more likely to increase school segregation than to decrease it or leave it at the status quo.” Potter considered not only racial diversity, but religious diversity as well: “(D)ata suggest that there is a strong risk that voucher programs will be used by white families to leave more diverse public schools for predominantly white private schools and by religious families to move to parochial private schools, increasing the separation of students by race/ethnicity and religious background.”

PRIVATIZATION: VOUCHERS

Latest D.C. Voucher Study: Program Harms Students’ Academic Achievement

When the Indiana General Assembly, along with then-Governor Mitch Daniels, demanded a voucher program for Indiana's private schools, the argument was that children who live in poverty should have the same access to "high-quality" schools as wealthier students. The error in that logic is clear. A "high-quality" school is defined by higher test scores and greater support from economically affluent communities. When you segregate students economically, you'll see schools with lower test scores in economically depressed areas.

Over the last few years we've learned that voucher accepting private schools and privately run charter schools are not guaranteed to give children a better education. So the reason for providing tax money to private and privately run schools has changed. No longer are we diverting tax dollars away from public education in order to help poor children "escape" from so-called "failing" schools. Now it's for "choice." Every parent should have the right to choose the best school for their children. This is reasonable, but private choices shouldn't be tax supported.

People don't get subsidies from the government for other "choices." We don't get a voucher to move into any neighborhood we want to move to. We don't get a voucher to "choose" a private country club over public parks. We don't get a voucher to "choose" books at a book store instead of the public library. Like other public benefits, public schools are, and should be, the tax supported option. The cost of other options are the responsibility of the tax payer.

Instead of underfunding and closing public schools filled with struggling students, we should improve the quality of the school and its teachers. We need to invest in our public schools, and we need to invest more where more support is needed.

The Department of Education just released a new study of the Washington, D.C., school voucher program. And the findings confirm what we’ve known for years: The program doesn’t improve students’ academic achievement. In fact, it has resulted in statistically significant negative impacts on student test scores.

The study found that students using a D.C. voucher performed 7.3 percentage points worse in math than their peers. The program especially hurts students in elementary schools, which comprise 68 percent of the voucher students in the study and are the largest demographic in the program. These students performed worse in math and reading: 14.7 percentage points lower in math and 9.3 percentage points lower in reading.

This conclusion isn’t a surprise considering similar results were reached in recent studies of voucher programs across the country. The studies have found negative impacts on student achievement for voucher students in Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana.

PRIVATISATION: CHARTERS

PolitiFact Florida: How not-for-profit are charter schools, really?

Are non-profit charter schools a better use of tax dollars? Not necessarily.

The management company does not manage the governing board; rather, it handles certain aspects of the operations of the school under a contract with the governing board.

The Miami Herald's examination of South Florida's charter school industry found several instances of for-profit management companies controlling charter schools' day-to-day operations.

The Herald found examples of charter schools relinquishing total control of their staff and finances to for-profit management companies. In Miami-Dade County, the Life Skills Center paid 97 percent of its income to cover fees incurred by a management company.

INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Quick takes on the 2017 legislative session

What did the Indiana General Assembly give us this year?

• Large budget increases for charters and vouchers, not so much for public schools
• No voter input for state education policy making
• Continued emphasis on expensive and wasteful testing policies
• Another voucher expansion, this time it's attached to a minimal pre-K increase
• Lower professional requirements needed to teach in charter schools

This is a state that (still) really hates its public schools.

A session of the Indiana General Assembly is kind of like a tornado. When it’s over, you crawl out of your shelter, look around and assess the damage.

Lawmakers finished their business and left the Statehouse on Saturday morning. Here’s a quick look at some of the wreckage they left on the education front.

Voucher program gets outsized share of K-12 funding increase

Students who receive tuition vouchers to attend private religious schools will get nearly 10 percent of the K-12 education funding increase that Indiana lawmakers included in the 2017-19 state budget.

That’s an outsized share given that voucher students make up only about 3.5 percent of the students who receive funding from the state.

WALMART

The Walmart Tax

I'm tired of subsidizing Walmart employees so the Waltons can retain their position as America's richest family. With a family net worth of $130 billion, they can afford to pay their employees a decent wage so the public doesn't have to fork over $6.2 billion in welfare...

In essence, when a Walmart employee must rely on food stamps or other safety-net benefits, taxpayers are paying a portion of that employee’s wages.

Walmart (including its Sam’s Club operation) is currently the largest private employer in the country–and one of the largest recipients of corporate welfare. Walmart employees receive an estimated $6.2 billion dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies each year. Money not paid out in salary goes directly to the shareholders’ bottom line.

Not only is this greedy and despicable, it is bad business. For one thing, as awareness of this subsidy grows, the numbers of people shopping at Walmart declines. But there are other costs incurred.

🚌🏫🚌

The Task of Your Life

DEFICITS, DYSFUNCTION, HYPERKINESIS, AND BRAIN DAMAGE

• In 1902 Dr. George Frederick Still included it in a lecture on "some abnormal psychical conditions in children."

• Later in the 20th century it was referred to as, the brain-injured child syndrome, minimal brain damage, and minimal brain dysfunction.

• By the 1960s it was "Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood."

It wasn't until the 1980s that the term Attention Deficit Disorder was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The latest version, the DSM-5, published in 2013, separates the disorder into three distinct types, or "presentations." The three, simply put, are 1) hyperactive, 2) inattentive, and 3) combined. People still argue about the terms "hyperactive" and "deficit." Adults with ADHD are often driven, energetic, and impulsive, but the term hyperactivity is considered childish and insulting. Children and adults with ADHD might seem not to be able to pay attention, but chances are that they are paying attention to too much, and not able to isolate that to which they are supposed to be paying attention. Attention deficit, then, is actually an attention excess.

DIAGNOSIS: TWO IMPORTANT CRITERIA

Hank Green, of Vlogbrothers fame, recently did a video blog (vlog) entry about his own experience with ADHD.

Coincidentally, I answered a Facebook question about a similar disorder about the same time as Hank's video was released. The Facebook question implied that the disorder wasn't real and was just an excuse for misbehavior.

It may be true that some doctors over-diagnose ADHD, but that doesn't mean that the condition doesn't exist. To those who live with ADHD it's very real (the DSM-5 gives specific criteria for the diagnosis which you can read here).

[In fact, some argue that ADHD is under-diagnosed. See ADHD CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND, below.]

Two of the most important criteria in diagnosing ADHD are, 1) in order to be diagnosed as ADHD,  the condition cannot be better explained as another disorder (such as anxiety disorder, depression, etc.) and 2) as Hank explained it...

Disorders are only classified as disorders when they're ongoing, frustrating, impairments.

In other words, a rambunctious, active child is not necessarily suffering from ADHD if his behaviors are within the normal range and there is no impairment in social and occupational (school) functioning. In other words, if it doesn't cause serious problems in social situations, home, or at work or school, it's not ADHD no matter how "hyper" the behavior.

For example...

Child A reads adequately, but has difficulty concentrating and remembering. He often falls asleep when reading, does not complete homework, and has trouble remembering details. He has high intellectual ability, but fails academically because of 1) his inability to remember things he reads and 2) his inability to pay attention during discussions. Furthermore, he has a tendency to fly off the handle at real or imagined slights. He reacts without thinking and often becomes enraged if things don't go his way. He is frequently impulsive and will often do things which cause upset to others due to his inability to control his behavior and speech. Because of this he has difficulty in social situations and is often isolated. 

Child B has some trouble sitting still. He needs a lot of room to move around and sometimes breaks things at home because of his inability to control his large motor movements. His mother has put valuable pieces away and has provided a place in the basement where he can jump and play without breaking things. He is encouraged to go outside whenever the weather permits to "run it off." At school he will sometimes drop things during class, or bump into people, but is generally easy to get along with and is an above average student. At recess he is constantly active, but is able to settle down when he returns to the classroom.

In the examples above, Child A is the child with ADHD. While he is not hyperactive he is inattentive, impulsive, and unable to focus and remember things. This condition is causing problems both at school and at home, and among his peers. Child B shows some symptoms of "hyperactivity," but those symptoms aren't getting in the way of his social functioning and school achievement. After discounting other possible conditions, a competent professional will correctly make a diagnosis of ADHD for Child A.

TREATMENT

ADHD can be debilitating. About half of all children with ADHD also suffer from a related condition such as a learning disability, or have symptoms of another disorder like depression or anxiety. Treatment for ADHD varies with the patient. Hank describes what's needed for treatment.

There's kind of two parts to minimizing the negative effects of your brain not working...normal. [1] Changing the environment to suit the brain, and then [2] there's improving the functionality of the brain itself through things like medications or mindfulness or exercise.

The second one is how most children and adults are treated for ADHD. Therapy, biofeedback, and medications are all tools professionals can use to help patients cope with the symptoms of ADHD. Treatment is important because, like Hank said,

Figuring out how to live in your own mind and your own body is, like, the task of your life.

GROWING UP WITH UNTREATED MBD

Full disclosure: Child A, above, was me.

I went to elementary school in the mid 50s and was diagnosed with minimal brain dysfunction (MBD).

Back then Ritalin was used to treat kids diagnosed with MBD and hyperactivity. Since I wasn't hyperactive, I received no medications, or any other treatment, for the condition.

Most of my elementary teachers were kind and patient, but weren't sure how to help a student who couldn't remember what he read and couldn't focus when explanations were given.

By the time I got to middle school the diagnosis was forgotten (or discounted), possibly because I wasn't hyperactive, and probably because, even though I wasn't a very good student, I was "getting by." As the content became more difficult, I was given less and less leeway and words like "lazy" began to haunt me. Teachers would report that I "didn't try hard enough," ask me "why don't you listen?" and comment that I was smart, but just "not willing to put forth any effort."

Meanwhile, I had learned (through a massive personal effort) to control my temper (see Child A, above). I still embarrassed myself repeatedly by blurting out the wrong thing at the wrong time, but at least the fights occurred less often.

Every school year started with me promising myself that I would do better. I promised to keep up with my classwork, and pay attention in class...but after a few weeks I was already lost and far enough behind that catching up was rarely an option.

Hurtful and embarrassing phrases directed at my "deficit" increased...from school and home. I became convinced that I wasn't very bright. My friends were good students, but there must be something wrong with me. I often heard the dialogue in my head, "What were you thinking?" "You're just lazy," "You're just not trying," "Maybe you're not really smart after all." The phrases and lectures were, I'm sure, meant to encourage me, but instead they taught me that I was incompetent, incapable, and inept.

Somehow, and with a significant amount of help (and many mistakes), I got by. I even went to college and earned a teaching degree...and I only almost flunked out once.

During my teaching years I continued to question my ability and competence, despite receiving good reviews from principals and positive feedback from colleagues and administrators. After spending 20 years in general education classrooms, I moved into a position as a reading specialist. When offered the job I jumped at the chance. Here was an opportunity to help children who were struggling in class, like I did when I was their age.

As part of my work diagnosing learning problems, I began to learn about students with learning disabilities and ADHD. Reading about the struggles students had with reading and ADHD was like reading my own biography. Finally, after all that time (I was nearly 50), I began to understand the source of my own academic and social failures.

THE DANGER OF UNTREATED ADHD

I was fortunate. A few of the bullets below apply to me, but I have been able to get by in life with a bit of luck, hard – sometimes stressful – work, and most of all, the patience and help of family, friends, and professionals. Most people who have untreated ADHD are not so lucky.

When left untreated ADHD can

• Lower educational attainment

• Negatively impact employment

• Increase interpersonal problems

• Reduce earnings

• Increase emergency room admissions

• Result in greater healthcare utilization

People with untreated ADHD are

• More likely to be divorced

• More likely to suffer from anxiety

• More likely to have traffic accidents

• Twice as likely to smoke cigarettes

• Six times more likely to suffer depression

• Twice as likely to abuse drugs or alcohol

• Four times more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases

Untreated ADHD: Lifelong Risks [emphasis added]

Children with ADHD who fare the best are those who have effective parents, are correctly diagnosed, and receive a combination of psychological, behavioral, educational, and pharmacological interventions. Yet even when treated, ADHD has a significant impact on an individual from childhood through adulthood.

When ADHD is left unmanaged, every area of life is negatively affected. In fact, research shows that untreated ADHD is one of the most highly impairing disorders to live with.

Kids, and adults, with ADHD are not just "normal kids being kids." In order to be classified as a disorder it has to be beyond what is "normal" and have a significant impact on one's ability to function in society. With appropriate treatment, however, children and adults with ADHD can thrive.

AHDH CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND

Two recent articles from ADDitude Magazine suggest that large numbers of children and adults are having trouble getting treatment, for two separate reasons.

First, children of color are not being identified as having ADHD at the same rate as white children when, in fact, the condition is present and consistent among all racial, ethnic, and economic groups.

Children Left Behind

Evidence shows that people of color — black and Latino in particular — are much less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, even though they show symptoms at the same rate as white people. And if they are diagnosed, they aren’t as likely to receive treatment — even though many studies show that it can dramatically help kids and adults manage symptoms.

The reasons for the discrepancy based on race and ethnicity is complicated, but one factor is health insurance inequity. It's clear that a significant number of children and adults with ADHD are "falling through the health care cracks" based on the fact that health insurance rates are lower for people of color. Children are struggling in school because of lack of diagnoses. Adults are struggling with job loss, relationship issues, substance abuse problems, and other symptoms of ADHD because of the inability to afford treatment.

The lack of insurance, coupled with diagnostic biases – assuming that "certain" kids are just "bad" or "uncivilized" instead of seeking a neurological source for misbehavior, the taboo of mental health issues, and fear of medication are all part of the problem.

Second, the lack of health insurance is not the only economic issue when it comes to affording medical care. Often insurance doesn't cover the complete cost of treatment. ADHD diagnosis and treatment can cost thousands of dollars a year when one factors in medication, psychiatrists, and therapy. When health care dollars are short, an "invisible" diagnosis like ADHD has a tendency to get slighted.

ADDitude surveyed readers and found that people often found ways to work around the limitations of poor or non-existing health insurance. Sometimes this "working around" meant not getting needed treatment.

“We Can’t Afford to Treat Our ADHD”

A learning specialist in a private school, in New Orleans, tells a variation on this story. Both she and her two children have been diagnosed with ADHD, but her insurance plan pays only 60 percent of her family’s health expenses, making it impossible to pay for services like occupational therapy, speech, and behavior therapy for her two children. She estimates that she spent more than $5,400 out of pocket on medications and therapists in 2016.

In her job, she says, she often talks to wealthy parents “who come to me crying” about the high costs of paying for ADHD treatment, making her worried about the comparative pressures on parents with fewer resources.

Given the fact that untreated ADHD is so damaging, we can't afford to ignore the consequences of this health issue.

👨‍🎓📿💊

2017 Medley #13

Choice, Alternate Facts, Tenure, Testing,
Virtual Charters, Accountability,
Lead Poisoned Children

CHOICE

School Choice: The Faustian Bargain

"...corporate education reformers," says Russ Walsh in this blog post, "are anti-democracy." That statement rings true, especially now, at the end of this year's Indiana General Assembly Session. Legislation making the state's Superintendent of Public Instruction an appointed position first failed, and then passed the General Assembly after significant political manipulations from legislators who were anxious to take the right to vote for education away from the people. The state Board of Education is already filled with political appointees, and now, beginning in 2025, the office of the Superintendent will be as well making Indiana one of only six states where both the executive head of the Department of Education and the members of state's board of education are appointed.

These are the same anti-democratic legislators who have spent the last half dozen years transferring tax money from public schools to the pockets of corporate charters and church-run private schools. The budget for this year, for example, gives public schools a 1.6% increase while increasing funding for "Choice Scholarships" (vouchers) by 7% and giving SGO tax credits a whopping 31%...all paid for with public tax dollars.

I suggest that those of us who oppose vouchers and charter schools call school choice what it is in the eyes of that Ohio voter, tax theft. The government collects our taxes in order to provide essential services to all of us. There is no choice involved, we all must pay taxes (unless, apparently, we are hugely wealthy). Those essential services include providing for a military, promoting research on health and welfare, providing for police and fire protection, and funding public schools. When money is diverted from the support of the public schools, it amounts to, as the Ohio voter said, theft. Or maybe another way to say it is "taxation without representation", since voters have no voice and no oversight of how tax money is spent in schools that receive money through vouchers or charters.

Unfortunate goal of school choice movement

The goal of "reformers" is, apparently, the complete and total destruction of public education.

Many years ago, Jerry Falwell articulated the goal of the school choice movement well when he said, "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

This op-ed by David R. Currie, Ph.D., of Pastors for Texas Children, could easily have been written about the state of Indiana.

Vouchers, school choice, education savings accounts — they are all code words intended to mask the real aim of this movement: destroy public education in America and turn all schools into institutions of religious indoctrination.

ALTERNATE FACTS

THIS Is What’s Wrong With America

Congressman: "Don't confuse me with facts..."

A Facebook friend who lives in Todd Rokita’s Congressional district attended his recent Town Hall. In a post following the event, she reported on an exchange she had with the Congressman:

My question was “What evidence do you require in order to revise your opinion on climate change?”

His response was “No evidence could ever exist that would change my mind. It’s all Liberal science.”

...I really never expected to live in a country where science and empirical research required defense, but evidently Luddites aren’t simply historical oddities. So later this morning, I will join other Hoosiers at the Statehouse to participate in a “March for Science.”

TENURE

Checker Still Doesn't Understand Tenure

"Reformist" politicians in Indiana have frequently commented on how there are too many well-rated teachers. The complaint is that if there are so many "A" or "B" rated teachers, why aren't there more "A" or "B" rated schools?

This reflects a basic misunderstanding of the process of education and why it's essential that educators participate in the policy-making process. Yet we continue to see "education" conferences, panels, and gatherings where the teachers' voices are absent. We continue to see the federal government education department staffed with non-educators – and those who are hostile to public education. We continue to see the movement for laws and policies which restrict teachers' ability to do their job.

...instead of saying, "Hey, teachers are mostly well-rated, so the profession must be in good shape," reformsters say, "Hey, teachers are mostly well-rated, so the evaluation system must be broken, because we just know that a huge number of teachers suck." So, data is good, unless it conflicts with your pre-conceived biases, in which case, just throw the data out.

"Tenure" is perhaps the most misunderstood concept in K-12 education. It's also a concept which "reformers" disingenuously claim, allows teachers a "job for life." "Tenure" in K-12 education doesn't mean "a job for life" as Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute believes. Instead, the K-12 version of "tenure" simply provides teachers with due process.

In Indiana, when K-12 teachers had tenure, teachers who administrations wanted to fire were allowed a hearing before an impartial observer. When administrators did their jobs, teachers who were guilty of immorality, incompetence, or illegal behavior, were fired. Since 2011, however, teachers in Indiana longer have "tenure." A teacher who is going to be fired may request a meeting with the superintendent, or with the school board, but no impartial observer is required.

...while there are some large districts where the process is long, convoluted and prohibitively difficult, mostly "We can't fire her because if tenure" is administrator-speak for "I could fire her, but it would take a lot of time and I'd have to, you know, work really hard, and then I would have to find a replacement and you know how hard that would be and I'm already backed up on meetings this week and now some kid just threw up in the hall, so how about I just blame her on the union and tenure and get back to my own work." Where burdensome dismissal procedures exist, they have been negotiated into contracts. Fixing those contracts by outlawing tenure is like fixing the electoral college by installing a dictatorship-- little bit of overkill.

TESTING

The Wrong Medicine

When school "reform" was in its infancy the "reformers" insisted that their policies would improve student achievement and reduce the economic/racial achievement gap. After several decades of "reformist" policies such as excessive testing and test prep, vouchers, and charter schools, the results are in. Students do no better now than they did before the "reforms" were initiated.

One of the worst problems features of "reform" is the overuse and misuse of standardized testing. Teachers no longer use test results to guide their instruction because, in most cases, the results of the tests are not timely or specific enough to help. When results are finally returned, they are used to evaluate teachers, grade schools and school systems, and as justification for closing neighborhood schools, none of which are appropriate or valid uses of the test scores.

At what point do parents, teachers, and administrators stand up and say “Enough is enough?” When do we begin to refuse to allow the removal of even one more dollar from our classrooms to continue to support this enormous exercise in futility.

How about now? Today.

The right number of standardized tests that we should be forcing down the throats of our children is precisely zero. The tests do not help our children, our teachers, or our parents. They have not improved education in America one bit.

VIRTUAL CHARTERS

Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2017

Note the recommendations in this report – virtual charter schools should be held to the same accountability standards as public schools.

During her confirmation hearing, when Senator Tim Kaine asked her about equal accountability for private and privately run schools accepting public tax dollars, Secretary DeVos repeated the phrase, "I support accountability" over and over again, refusing to answer whether all schools should be held to the same accountability. This report would seem to indicate that the answer to the question should have been "Yes, all schools receiving tax dollars should be held to the same accountability standards."

Given the rapid growth of virtual schools and blended schools, the populations they serve, and the relatively poor performance of virtual schools on widely used accountability measures, it is recommended that:

• Policymakers slow or stop the growth in the number of virtual schools and the size of their enrollments...

• Policymakers should carefully and continuously monitor the performance of fulltime blended schools...

• Authorities charged with oversight should specify and enforce sanctions for virtual and blended schools that fail to perform adequately.

• Policymakers should specify a maximum student-teacher ratio for virtual and blended schools...

• Policymakers should regulate school and class sizes...

• State agencies ensure that virtual schools and blended schools fully report data related to the population of students they serve and the teachers they employ...

• State agencies should continue the work they’ve started in revising accountability systems...

• State and federal policymakers should promote efforts to design new outcome measures appropriate to the unique characteristics of full-time virtual schools

• Policymakers and other stakeholders should support more research to identify which policy options—especially those impacting funding and accountability mechanisms—are most likely to promote successful virtual schools and blended schools...

• Policymakers and other stakeholders should also support more research on exactly how special education is being provided in virtual and blended schools....

FLINT, LEAD

Marc Edwards – How to Address the U.S. Water Crisis in Flint and Beyond

Is your water safe?

🚌🚌🚌