Sign up for our newsletter
Contact

STATEMENT: Allen Renews Call for Union Leader to Step Down

July 26, 2017 By

Statement from the Center for Education Reform: 

Randi Weingarten’s smug obstinacy in refusing to accept responsibility for her slur against reformers is disturbing. [U.S. News & World Report, July 24, 2017]Clearly, she believes staying on message—no matter how insulting that message is to African-Americans and people of color throughout the nation—is more important than honesty, fairness, respect and simple decency.

“She knows that the modern-era education reform movement has its origins in efforts led by such amazing people as Fannie Lewis, an African-American Cleveland City Councilwoman and grandmother who fought for the Cleveland Scholarship Program enacted in 1995, and Wisconsin State Rep. Polly Williams  who, in 1990, did the same in Milwaukee. Neither had any connection whatsoever with segregationists from the past. Weingarten knows it, yet she refuses to amend her remarks, and continues to impugn the reputations and accomplishments of these women, and to discredit the hopes, dreams and work of school choice parents everywhere by insulting them and their motives.

“Weingarten may have been taken aback by the reaction her hate speech generated but even now, after it has been made abundantly clear that her words were offensive, she is not apologetic or even chastened. Her only reaction is to reiterate the ‘truth’ of her noxious statement, as she and her political advisors choose to carefully spin it, and to blame ideological enemies and shadowy conspirators for the criticism she’s receiving.

“It is also possible that she was not at all surprised by the reaction and that it was her intention to use race-baiting to blow-up the school choice discussion.

“Regardless of whether or not it was an act of insensitive ignorance, or ruthless political calculation, Weingarten should step down as head of the AFT.”

About the Center for Education Reform

Founded in 1993, the Center for Education Reform aims to expand educational opportunities that lead to improved economic outcomes for all Americans — particularly our youth — ensuring that the conditions are ripe for innovation, freedom and flexibility throughout U.S. education.

As a non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to great opportunities for all children, students and families, The Center for Education Reform does not endorse candidates or take political positions, but will always recognize and applaud those who advance sound education policies.

Filed Under: CER in the News, Press Releases, News & Analysis, In The Loop, In The News, Breaking News, Uncategorized Tagged With:

Newswire July 25th, 2017

July 25, 2017 By

THE GREATEST HITS OF 2017 SO FAR…

…but before we get to that, a couple of late-breaking notes from a mid-summer swirl of ed-related news

SMART ALEC.  It was great to attend the 44th ALEC Annual Meeting that went off in Denver last week. The program featured Education and Workforce Development Task Force meetings on K-12 and Higher Education and a workshop on the data and trends on school choice. Model policies were presented, covering education savings accounts, scholarship tax credits, and the protection of free speech in higher education.  And there was a policy discussion and debate between representatives from the American Federation of Children and the Heritage Foundation the federal role in advancing school choice. (Included in the discussion from Heritage: an option to repurpose a federal Impact aid program into student-centered, parent-controlled education savings accounts that would provide active-duty military families with education choice. Hmmm.)

BLOWIN’ UP ON TWITTER.  As you may have heard AFT president Randi Weingarten went all in on race baiting at the union’s annual summer meeting calling tuition tax credits and the like “only slightly more polite cousins of segregation.” Some took exception to her insulting, hateful insinuation and said she should resign. She took exception to the exception. In all seriousness, Weingarten’s warped opinions on this matter are abhorrent and, we hope, in no way reflect the views of union members. This isn’t just a kerfuffle; it’s a thing.  Weingarten needs to go.

We’re waiting for her next blow up.  The Lone Star State’s Senate Education Committee passed two key bills last Friday, including one that would create a scholarship program for students looking to enroll in private school. We’re awaiting Randi Weingarten’s statement calling all who voted for the measures racists.

…And now, back to our previously scheduled programming

A NOTICE FROM SCOTUS.  One of the bigger deals leading up the Summer of 2017 was the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran Decision. Trinity Lutheran had been denied funding from the state of Missouri for a playground surface solely because its school is a religious one. The lower court had relied on the Blaine Amendment that dates back to the 1800’s which prohibits the use of public funds at sectarian institutions. The decision that Trinity Lutheran’s “exclusion from a public benefit is “odious to our Constitution” and “a clear infringement on free exercise” has ramifications for the future of educational choice, further opening the door for parents to decide the best educational opportunities for their children, be they private, religious or public in nature.

CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’.  A big deal in California, too, when the makeup of the LA School Board flipped to a majority of charter supporters for first time ever. The election included victories for charter school proponents Nick Melvoin—in District 4 in the West San Fernando Valley, over incumbent School Board President Steve Zimmer who was supported by public service employee unions—and Kelly Gonez in District 6, East San Fernando Valley.

BLUEGRASS MUSIC TO OUR EARS.  Back in March, Kentucky became the 44th state to allow charter schools. Great news, albeit tempered by the fact that the law could have, and should have, been stronger. Still, half a loaf is better than none. The bill allows both local school districts and the mayors of Lexington and Louisville to authorize an unlimited number of charter schools, most of which are not likely to open until 2018-2019.

SPRING THAW. In April, Minnesota passed an Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit program. The program enables students to receive $7500 opportunity scholarships, creating more choice for low income and working-class families.

BIG FUN DOWN ON THE BAYOU. In May, Louisiana’s Senate Education Committee defeated legislation that sought to weaken the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). Senate Bill 13 would have placed restrictions on the eligibility of Kindergarten students entering the LSP. As every student in the program comes from a low-income family with 89% minority representation, the scholarship creates opportunities for Louisiana’s most vulnerable students.

MEANWHILE IN THE HEARTLAND. May also was when the Nebraska School Choice Bill moved forward. The bill, which is expected to go to a vote in January would allow up to $2 million in tax credits in its first year, creating more educational opportunities for more of the Heartland’s children.

SAY “CHEESE.”  In June Wisconsin Badgers were all smiles when the State Assembly followed the Senate’s lead by passing (in bi-partisan fashion mind you) a bill that increases accountability and enhances efficiencies in the state‘s school choice programs. The bill calls for greater financial accountability and also revises the financing formula so that special needs scholarship students receive more funding.

DIAMONDBACK DEALINGS.  In April Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed SB1431 within hours of the legislation passing both the House and Senate yesterday. Now all Arizona children will, over the course of four years, become eligible to apply for the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program that allows education dollars to follow each individual child to the school or learning environment they need.

TOMORROW IS HERE.  In May, Teachers of Tomorrow was approved as alternative route to certification in SC. The program is helping the Palmetto state to address its teacher shortage with a new pipeline of enthusiastic educators.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!  To give direction to, and spur action by, the new administration, back in January CER issued “The First Hundred Days: The path to going bold on education innovation & opportunity.” Of course, as with Rome, reform wasn’t accomplished in such a short time so, to hold everyone’s feet to the fire, in June CER presented a scorecard on actions to date, and re-issued its call to action in Beyond the First 100 Days: Transforming government’s role in education. There is a HUGE opportunity to finally achieve substantive education reform at the federal level…if we don’t lose our way. 100 Days is a roadmap that can keep everyone on track.

REDISCOVERING REFORM.  Also in June CER issued Charting a New Coursechallenging the education reform movement to refocus on the real core principle of reform: the right of parents.  The collection of essays explores how school choice and the charter school movements have evolved, or mutated, and now consist of two camps: one that relies on bureaucracies and officialdom to decide what educational options are best for kids, and one that relies on innovators and parents. As previously noted, the former sounds A LOT like the status-quo-education-establishment arguments that have been reform’s bane from the beginning; while the latter sounds like, well, one of the core principles on which reform was founded. Read it here.

Filed Under: Newswire Weekly, Newswire

Union leader’s attack on parents and others who support school choice is hateful and should not stand

July 20, 2017 By

STATEMENT BY JEANNE ALLEN, FOUNDER AND CEO

“AFT president Randi Weingarten’s characterization of education reform parents and advocates as racists akin to the southern segregationists of the past, is not just ill-advised hyperbole, it is a deeply offensive, highly inflammatory insult to all the parents and people – of all races, backgrounds, and regions – who have worked to bring options, opportunities, and reforms to an education system that has failed them for generations.

 “Weingarten’s allies should disavow these comments, and America’s teachers should look into their hearts, consider whether this is the type of language and leadership they want as being representative of their views and voice, and consider inviting Weingarten’s resignation.”

* (as reported July 20, 2017 in USA Today)

About the Center for Education Reform

Founded in 1993, the Center for Education Reform aims to expand educational opportunities that lead to improved economic outcomes for all Americans — particularly our youth — ensuring that the conditions are ripe for innovation, freedom and flexibility throughout U.S. education.

As a non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to great opportunities for all children, students and families, The Center for Education Reform does not endorse candidates or take political positions, but will always recognize and applaud those who advance sound education policies.

Filed Under: CER in the News, Press Releases, News & Analysis, In The Loop, In The News, Breaking News, Unions & Establishment, Uncategorized Tagged With:

Newswire July 18th, 2017

July 19, 2017 By
Filed Under: Newswire Weekly, Newswire, Uncategorized

Shining a bright light on flaws in Duke University study of N.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

July 14, 2017 By

(WASHINGTON, DC) – A white paper produced by Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina (PEFNC) “is not only a victory for scholarship programs but for honesty in research,” according to Jeanne Allen, Founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform.

The paper, developed by PEFNC’s Brian Jodice, catalogs an array of apples-to-oranges comparisons, selective use of test performance data and unfair, unjustified conclusions that are among the many flaws in a recent Duke University study critical of the N.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

“The data analysis strategy for the Duke report is poorly designed, using both different comparison groups and different tests,” Allen pointed out. Moreover, scholarship students who tend to be predominantly from lower-income families are matched against a national sampling of studnets who come from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds, creating an apples -to-oranges comparison,” she added.

“The Duke study completely ignores the good news from the North Carolina Opportunity Scholarship and other school choice programs around the nation,” Allen noted. “More than half of the 740 private schools in North Carolina participate in the program and more than 90 percent of first-year enrollees opt to enroll their children for a second year – arguably, the most important statistic of all.”

Read Allen’s full statement. 

Filed Under: Opinions, News & Analysis Tagged With:

Further Analysis Reveals: A welcome rebuke of Duke University’s flawed research on North Carolina Opportunity Scholarships student performance

July 13, 2017 By

by Jeanne Allen, Founder and Chief Executive

The white paper “North Carolina Opportunity Scholarships: Countering a Flawed Duke Report,” developed by Brian Jodice of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina (PEFNC), is not only a victory for scholarship programs but for honesty in research which, when it comes to school choice issues, is often negatively skewed in both its construction and execution.

Jodice’s paper delineates the fundamental problems with the Duke report and other studies evaluating school scholarship initiatives like the recently published negative assessment of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. The Duke report and others like it are inherently flawed because they inaccurately depict students who participate in school choice programs as performing below expectations just because they have not skyrocketed to the top of the class during their first year in the program.

The new analysis sets the record straight on several fronts. First, the data analysis strategy for the Duke report is poorly designed using both different comparison groups and different tests. For example, scholarship students who tend to be predominantly from lower-income families are matched against a national sampling of students who come from a cross-section of socio-economic backgrounds, creating an apples-to-oranges comparison. The study also integrates metrics such as “national average” without an explanation as to how the term is defined or calculated.

Jodice also points out that Duke’s student test-performance data was only collected for one year which is hardly enough time to make an adequate assessment of the program’s results. Most studies show that it could take at least three years for aggregate test scores to show improvement. Furthermore, the report does not include a comparison of the students’ test scores before and after their enrollment in the scholarship program, making it impossible to know if a student performed better or worse than he or she had previously.

That the Duke study completely ignores the good news from the North Carolina Opportunity Scholarship and other national school choice programs. For example, a recent study has shown that the likelihood of DC Opportunity Scholarship participants graduating from high school has jumped from 70 percent to 91 percent, a statistic that is a harbinger of positive outcomes for similar scholarship programs.

More than half of the 740 private schools in North Carolina participate in the program and more than 90% of first-year enrollees opt to enroll their children for a second year – all of which, arguably, is the most important statistic of all.   When parents buy into schools their students are more likely to succeed.

There are three kinds of lies, the saying goes: lies, damned lies, and statistics. And while that adage may overstate the case, it can, at least, stand as a constant caution. First, to average people who read stories based on statistics, heed this generic advice: don’t believe everything you read.

Second, to those who write about studies and statistics. Far too many news stories, opinion pieces, and issue analyses trumpet statistical “findings” that are overblown, misleading – sometimes wildly so – and that often draw conclusions that are, unjustified, unfair, or flat-out wrong. Be less accepting of information that is handed to you, and more discerning in your assessment of it.

And third, the caution should be greatest to those who construct the surveys, create the data sets, and crunch the numbers. Your work may be “accurate” but does it carry a bias, is it fair, is it honest? Are their flaws? What have you missed? What have you omitted? Why?

By calling out Duke, Brian Jodice has done a public service for the people of North Carolina, and for all of us who are advocates for options, opportunities and choice in education.

Jeanne Allen is an entrepreneur, an innovator and a leader. Her entire career has been devoted to education reform, and as a result, Jeanne is the most recognized and respected expert, thought leader, speaker, and writer in the field. She founded the Center for Education Reform (CER) in 1993 and leads the nationwide fight to ensure that the bedrock of U.S. schooling is innovation, freedom and flexibility. Follow Jeanne on Twitter @JeanneAllen

Filed Under: Opinions, News & Analysis Tagged With:

New White Paper Counters Duke’s Flawed Analysis of NC Opportunity Scholarship Program

July 13, 2017 By

Press Release from Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina: 

Raleigh, NC (July 13, 2017) – Today Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina (PEFNC) announced the release of a new white paper rebutting a flawed academic analysis of the Opportunity Scholarship Program from the Children’s Law Clinic at Duke Law School. PEFNC’s paper, North Carolina Opportunity Scholarships: Countering a Flawed Duke Report and Setting the Record Straight, disputes Duke researchers’ claim that the Program is unlikely to improve student outcomes and clarifies what data show about NC students’ performance. The paper also corrects misinformation about school choice research nationwide and provides a framework for an “apples-to-apples” comparison of state-sponsored scholarship students and public school students. Duke researchers claim such a comparison is not possible since Opportunity Scholarship students are not required to take state tests in North Carolina.

“Publicly-funded private school scholarships are the subject of scrutiny and debate in our state and nation right now, and understandably so. Unfortunately, the March report from the Duke Children’s Law Clinic interjected a flawed analysis of our state’s Opportunity Scholarship Program into the debate,” said PEFNC President Darrell Allison. “Therefore, we are releasing this paper now to set the record straight. Data to date offer no evidence that Opportunity Scholarships are unlikely to improve low-income students’ outcomes in North Carolina. Nationally, the balance of research shows that scholarships benefit students, especially those who remain in such programs. Though we support full accountability, we also want to ensure that Program analysis is done fairly and is driven by facts. Surely we owe that to our state’s citizen-taxpayers, and especially to the thousands of families statewide that depend on the Opportunity Scholarship Program,” said Allison.

According to PEFNC’s white paper, Duke researchers’ initial analysis, which was reported on by the media, featured an inequitable comparison between private school scholarship students and public school students that relied on different tests and different comparison groups. Duke researchers later removed this direct comparison but still provide in their corrected report a problematic and somewhat misleading analysis of public school performance for NC low-income students eligible for the federal school lunch program. PEFNC’s paper offers a more accurate and comprehensive look at NAEP test performance for these students but makes clear that Duke researchers’ inclusion of NAEP data is of little value in either version of their report.

PEFNC’s paper also reviews national school choice research. Scholarship programs are generally linked with positive academic outcomes for students, especially after several years. Benefits are most evident for African American students, and in the areas of reading achievement and educational attainment. Even new studies of scholarship programs initially deemed poor-performing, released this summer after PEFNC’s research review was completed, confirm a trajectory of progress over time. For example, after several years scholarship-students in Louisiana and Indiana reversed earlier learning losses.

Finally, PEFNC’s paper highlights a framework for an “apples-to-apples” comparison of Opportunity Scholarship Program students and public school students—an assessment that does not require state tests. An early comparison of scholarship and public school students from similar backgrounds, using the same nationally standardized test, is already underway; independent researchers are expected to release results this fall. This initial study, though not an exhaustive assessment, nonetheless offers a template for future equitable evaluations.

“We’ve long believed that accountability for the Opportunity Scholarship Program would require an assessment comparing scholarship recipients to their peers in public school. This evaluation does just that, while also providing critical qualitative feedback on the Program as well. It is essential to our organization that we all, as a coalition of K-12 stakeholders, work together for accountability in our state’s schools. It is our hope that by engaging in this process, we will lay a firm foundation for real and ongoing accountability in this Program,” added Allison.

In addition, a new task force established by state lawmakers in the 2017 Legislative Session budget will shape future testing and assessment parameters. As a standing member of this task force, PEFNC will work with the state’s diverse K-12 stakeholders, public and private alike, to study the evaluation of Opportunity Scholarship Program students and to set clear parameters for future test-based comparisons of scholarship students and public school students.

Contact: Brian Jodice | (919) 995-0741 | brian@pefnc.org

###

 PEFNC is a statewide organization that supports greater educational options through parental school choice, such as public charter schools and the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Our mission is to inform parents of the benefits of expanded options and empower them to exercise freedom in meeting their children’s needs, regardless of race, national origin, income or religion.

Filed Under: News & Analysis, Choice & Charter Schools, Breaking News, Uncategorized Tagged With:

Teachers union dues case vies for Supreme Court

July 11, 2017 By

For somebody who says she is pro-union, public school assistant principal Bhavini Bhakta certainly has her union worried.

She is one of the plaintiffs in Bain v. California Teachers Association, a lawsuit that could end the ability of public-sector unions to force workers like her to support its political activities. It is one of three cases vying for the Supreme Court’s attention that could be a serious blow to public-sector unions.

“I would like to see CTA reformed so that it actually represents us. I do believe in labor unions,” Bhakta, a registered Democrat, told the Washington Examiner. “I just don’t believe that what we have now works at all.”

Under California law, unions can charge teachers for expenses related to collective bargaining as well as the unions’ political activities, regardless of whether the teachers support that political spending. Bain v. CTA argues that the political fees are unconstitutional under the First Amendment and dissenting teachers such as Bhakta shouldn’t have to pay for them. Private-sector union workers already have the right to opt out of those fees under the Supreme Court’s 1988 Beck decision.

Bhakti, an assistant principal at Arcadia Unified School District in Arcadia, Calif., and her co-plaintiffs, teachers April Bain and Clare Sobetski, are being represented with help from StudentsFirst, the nonprofit group founded by education reformer Michelle Rhee.

Should Bhakta and her co-plaintiffs prevail, it could be a severe financial blow to the unions, which depend on the funding to their political spending. The Supreme Court already has taken a skeptical view of these fees. In 2012’s Knox v. SEIU, it said the union could not make members pay a one-time special assessment for political spending without giving them the opportunity to opt out first.

Bain v. CTA is before the West Coast’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the more liberal appeals courts. “We are just waiting on a date for trial arguments,” said Josh Lipshutz, the attorney for the plaintiffs. Appeals of appeals court decisions go to the Supreme Court.

“We’re not in a position to comment on the case, which we are actively litigating at the Court of Appeals,” CTA spokeswoman Claudia Briggs said.

Also vying for the Supreme Court’s attention are Yohn v. California Teachers Associationand Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Both ask if state government employees can be forced to pay so-called “security fees” to the unions that represent their workplace as a condition of employment. Such fees are common provision in public-sector union contracts. Losing them would be a severe financial blow to the unions.

The justices deadlocked 4-4 last year on a case similar to Yohn and Janus called Friedrichs v. CTA. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death prevented a tie-breaking vote, leaving the question unresolved by the court. Now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has replaced Scalia, the court may decide to take up the issue of compelled union dues again.

Bain v. CTA doesn’t go as far as the other cases, Lipshutz noted, since it doesn’t challenge the ability of the unions to charge for costs strictly relating to collective bargaining. “My clients don’t oppose being in a union,” Lipshutz said. They just want the union to focus on representing them.

The unions nevertheless fear the case. When a District Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in 2015, CTA called it “the latest example of corporate interests reinterpreting the First Amendment to silence the collective voice of the nation’s working men and women and undermine the democratic process within unions.”

Organized labor and its allies in the Democratic Party have been bracing for a major hit to union power since Gorsuch was confirmed. “This justice is poised to cast the fifth vote to make it next to impossible for public-sector labor unions to organize,” said Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former secretary of labor, in an April speech to the United Steelworkers union.

Bhakta says her local union does a good job of representing its members and negotiating with the school board. Her objection is with the leaders of the state headquarters. Bhakta was active in education policy advocacy at the state level only to find that the union was blocking reforms she supported.

She recalls one instance in which she was testifying in favor of a measure with several dozen teachers and parents. The union sent a single lobbyist who nevertheless swayed the committee. Afterward the lobbyist told Bhakta, “Teachers don’t want this bill,” ignoring that she and many of her fellow activists that day were teachers.

It was a stark contrast from her local chapter, which surveys its members regularly to decide on policy, Bahkta said. With CTA’s headquarters, however, there was “no communication whatsoever.” She decided that being forced to pay for that kind of representation wasn’t fair.

“I don’t think the idea that the union owns this [security clause] money is accurate. The union should have to earn this,” she said. “Every organization needs to cater to their members.”

Filed Under: News & Analysis, Breaking News Tagged With: ,

Personalized Learning Gains a Big Endorsement

July 11, 2017 By

PERSONALIZED LEARNING GAINS…  a big endorsement from a newly released RAND report which finds that students who engage in PL do better in math than their peers and gives an added boost to kids who are behind their classmates and trying to catch up.  The report also found that schools in the study “were pursuing a wide variety of practices to focus on the learning needs of each individual student in a supportive and flexible way;” and that “students experienced positive achievement effects and closed gaps relative to national norms.”  Oh, and it also found that the “implementation and effects [of PL] both seemed stronger in the charter schools than in the district schools.” Want to learn more about PL?  Start here.

Filed Under: Opinions, News & Analysis, Choice & Charter Schools Tagged With: ,

Newswire July 11th, 2017

July 11, 2017 By

PERSONALIZED LEARNING GAINS…  a big endorsement from a newly released RAND report which finds that students who engage in PL do better in math than their peers and gives an added boost to kids who are behind their classmates and trying to catch up.  The report also found that schools in the study “were pursuing a wide variety of practices to focus on the learning needs of each individual student in a supportive and flexible way;” and that “students experienced positive achievement effects and closed gaps relative to national norms.”  Oh, and it also found that the “implementation and effects [of PL] both seemed stronger in the charter schools than in the district schools.” Want to learn more about PL?  Start here.

TICK-TICK-TICK.  If the teacher unions thought independent charter schools were a looming threat, (see the NEA’s new policy statement that supports “limiting charter growth” and “slow[ing] the diversion of resources from neighborhood public schools to charters”) they must be beside themselves waiting to find out if SCOTUS will take up Bain v. California Teachers Association, which, The Washington Examiner succinctly explains is “a lawsuit that could end the ability of public-sector unions to force workers like her to support its political activities.” Talk about a threat!

A NATIONAL AUDIENCE FOR CHARTERS.  Charter schools were front and center on TV sets around the nation Sunday when NBC’s Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly featured Boys Latin Founder & CER Board Member David Hardy in its piece on the controversy in urban communities over charter schools, and how people are responding.  (The interview was arranged by CER so the reporter could focus on this school as part of the larger debate about how and why charter schools just may fix what ails many communities.) It was a well done, balanced report and David was a great advocate for charters. Still, as noted by pioneer Joe Nathan.

Many larger issues were left unaddressed, such as the fact that having choices is one of the fundamental principles of America. Piece begins at the 14:00 minute mark of the broadcast.

IN ANOTHER MEDIA COUP.  In a Special Report on the what the SCOTUS Trinity Lutheran Church ruling means for the future of school choice, Fox Newsfeatured (via another CER-brokered interview) founding president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, Darrell Allison, who was also an impressive spokesperson for choice.  Between actions by the Trump administration, Supreme Court rulings, and various legislative efforts in states across the nation, the charter/choice/equitable funding/education innovation debate(s) are finally receiving the attention they deserve from the mainstream media. Now the trick is to get reporters and editors to stay focused – and remain fair – when covering these transformative issues.

AND IN LOCAL NEWS.  The aforementioned debates have been occurring locally for years, and are still going on…with some yielding rather interesting debate points. Witness the appearance of Jim Bender, president of School Choice Wisconsin and Tim Slekar, dean of the school of education at Edgewood College, on Madison’s “Capital City Sunday.”  As reported in The Capital Times, Mr. Bender argued that President Trump’s emphasis on school choice was a good thing, giving “parents options on top of the traditional public school system here in Wisconsin.” Mr. Selkar, in responding to points raised by Mr. Bender, conceded that “If you’re an African-American in Madison … the public system is failing you.” But, his argument went, that’s not the point, because “It’s not about public schools failing, it’s about the idea that people are meddling and public schools aren’t allowed to use and do the things we’re supposed to do.”

INSIGHT, CONTEXT AND CONCLUSIONS.  In a well-reasoned op-ed appearing in the Boston Globe, Eric Fehrnstrom provides some little-known historical insight into the Blaine Amendment and looks at the impact of the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran decision. Pointing to other cases that the Court returned to the states for further consideration, Fehrnstrom notes that “While the Court has not yet ruled on [the] larger funding questions [in these cases], it would be hard for the justices to depart from the logic of their reasoning in Trinity Lutheran simply because the benefit is more substantial than a playground resurfacing.” In other words, he concludes, this spells an end to “…the idea that you can treat churches differently for no other reason than they are religious, and that is a victory for liberty.” Good piece. Worth a read.

Filed Under: Newswire Weekly, Newswire, Uncategorized
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »