Yesterday, we had an interesting juxtaposition of views on child advocacy here in the Garden State. On the one hand:
Click through and read who signed this: parent groups, children's advocates, school board members, civil rights groups, teachers unions, scholars, labor, politicians... it reads like a who's who of NJ education policy.Dear Secretary Duncan,We are writing to express our grave concerns about the negative impact of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver on New Jersey’s most vulnerable children.We understand that the waivers were an effort to return more control to the states to improve educational opportunities and outcomes. Unfortunately, here in New Jersey, it is quite clear that the NCLB waiver is being used to apply measures that are more damaging than NCLB would have been, particularly to low-income Black and Latino children.Below, we detail our most pressing concerns with the program the State is implementing under the waiver: 1) introduction of a punitive accountability system that disproportionately impacts school districts populated by low-income children of color while rewarding selective schools and those populated by wealthier, majority white students; and 2) a process of State intervention that excludes low-income communities of color from substantive input in the planning or implementation of the proposed interventions.
The two problems the letter outlines can be laid directly at the feet of NJ Education Commissioner Chris Cerf. He implemented the system by which schools can be classified as "Priority," "Focus," or "Reward" schools, a system that does nothing to acknowledge the very real differences in student demographics between these schools:
Cerf's other problem goes back to his autocratic nature. He wants to strip local control away from "Priority" schools and districts. You know, because state control of Newark and Paterson and Jersey City has worked out so well...
At this point, the NJDOE's stance is fairly clear: we are going to use waivers from NCLB to take over schools with large poor and minority student populations, and the local communities will pretty much have nothing to say about it. The people who signed this letter stand in opposition to the state's coup d'etat.
Compare their reaction to this one:
The mothers of three students have asked the state Department of Education to find new schoolsHere, the parents filing suit are actively seeking the state's intervention. It's hard to argue their point as presented. I've long said that every parent must do what's in their child's best interest; no child should be used to make a political point.outside the failing district immediately for their children.
Citing DOE studies and the comments of Education
“What do we do with children who we know are being deprived of their fundamental right to an education?” lawyer Patti Bombelyn said at a news conference
The DOE last spring said 23 of the city’s 26 schools are failing.
The parents filed a petition Monday with the state. They are seeking class-action standing.
Because the three students can’t jump ahead on charter school waiting lists — one city charter has a list of 500
And there's no denying that segregation runs rampant throughout New Jersey, if not the nation, in our public schools. Of course, if that's the issue the lawsuit is trying to address, I don't much understand how making the case that there aren't enough charter seats to go around helps make the point. Charters are increasingly becoming hotbeds of segregation: by race, class, gender, ethnicity, language, and special need. Expanding charters isn't going to ameliorate segregation; it will most likely make it worse.
So what exactly is this all about? Maybe we can find a clue in who is sponsoring the lawsuit:
Groups supporting the filing include E3 (Excellent Education for Everyone), the Black Ministers’ Council of New Jersey, and the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey.Ah, now it's clear: this lawsuit is being sponsored by private school voucher advocates.
These groups also support a bill that would use public money to pay for scholarships for students in some state towns.
The money would be used to allow students in those towns attend private schools.
These three groups have been tight for some time. Christy Davis Jackson, President and CEO of E3, is married to Reginald Jackson, head of the Black Minister's Council. The members of the BMC have shown great interest in starting their own schools using taxpayer monies, be they charters or privates. As the tale of Pastor Amir Khan showed us, the revenue streams from schools housed in churches can be quite useful to the ministries who own those churches.
Martin Perez, President of the Latino Leadership Alliance of NJ, also serves on E3's board. Perez is such a rliable voucher cheerleader, he's available through the right-wing Friedman Foundation for speaking engagements focused on school choice.
E3 has been trying to get vouchers passed in New Jersey for 13 years; they failed once again this past summer. Well, if rich guys like Peter Denton are willing to keep forking over money to keep the lights on at E3, I don't know why they shouldn't stop plugging away at this lost cause. And it looks like this might be the perfect way to start a new campaign.
The sad truth is that private schools will never have enough seats to serve more than a small number of Camden's children. I can certainly understand these parents' desperation; again, they've got to do what they've got to do to stand up for their sons and daughters.
But who is really standing up for New Jersey's students? Those who demand local control and adequate resources...
... or those who would take money out of public schools and put them into vouchers?
ADDING: A quick thought: I didn't see much local press about the letter to Secretary Duncan. I saw quite a bit of local press about the lawsuit.
Just one more bit of proof that the Jersey media loves reforminess.