James Gill – columnist, The Advocate
In December, the state auditor of Louisiana recommended more accountability measures for the private school voucher program, including some non-fiscal measures like ensuring participating schools are “academically acceptable.”
“Academically acceptable” could mean a lot of different things, and it’s worth debating. To longtime Louisiana columnist James Gill, there is apparently only one litmus test and only one conclusion to draw.
To use his direct words: “Schools that deny evolution can only churn out ignoramuses, which seems an odd way to spend the public dollar.”
The comment is as inflammatory as it is absurd, and we shouldn’t mistake this as an informed position on education policy.
James Gill
Let’s just forget for the moment about Louisiana’s “Academic Freedom Act,” which still allows creationism (along with other origin theories/myths) to be taught in public schools. That law was passed in 2008 and amends a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Louisiana Law requiring Bible-based creationism to have equal time in public classroom with evolution.
While creationism has long been a part of private (and public) school education in the U.S., we should remember that evolution is a chapter within biology textbooks at the high school level. And while learning creationism may put college-bound students behind their peers in biology class, one bad science course does not make anyone an ignoramus.
Faith-based schools should give factual explanations of what leading scientists have discovered, as challenging one’s own beliefs is an integral part of education. That said, banning schools that teach creationism might work to the detriment of students who may be well-served by the school’s instruction in other subjects, such as literature, mathematics and languages.
I welcome a more rational, less caustic, debate about requiring evolution in private schools, but let’s get kids proficient in basic reading and math before we elevate the importance of a specific topic within a single course.
Grade: Needs Improvement
Alabama Education AssociationThe Institute for Justice, a national civil-libertarian oriented legal firm, stepped in last week to defend Alabama’s new tax-credit school choice program, which benefits low-income children.
But the Alabama Education Association (AEA), which opposes school choice, is using this as an opportunity to toss the carpetbagger label at the Alabama school choice movement.
According to the Washington Post,
AEA spokeswoman Amy Marlowe said the intervention was not a surprise. “This is an orchestrated political maneuver that was shopped around throughout Alabama and has finally been filed by attorneys from outside the state,” she said.
Why even bring up the “outside the state” part if not to try and persuade the public that school choice is something being imposed upon them by non-native groups. This carpetbagger argument is made in many states regarding all sorts of school reform efforts. But it is a claim the AEA should stop using because it can be fired right back at them. After all, they aren’t afraid to take money, or seek help, from outside the state.
According to Mike Antonucci, who authored an Education Next report on teacher union spending, the National Education Association spends millions influencing politics in states each year, including in Alabama. According to NEA disclosures required by the U.S. Department of Labor, the NEA gave the AEA $2,518,513 in grants and contributions (p. 233), spent $314,436 on lobbying in Alabama (p. 199) and provided $1,936,229 in legal aid and for member recruitment (p. 149) – all in 2011-12 alone.
To be fair, the state did hit the low point in 2009-10, losing more than 4,000 instructional staff - down 2.5 percent from peak employment. Both instructional staff and administrators saw a recovery in employment since that time, but school districts continued to cut support staff.
It is good to see media outlets putting these figures into perspective. Hopefully more reporting like this will discourage Chicken Little’s of the future.
New York City charter schools tend to do fairly well (including some new evidence from the Hamilton Institute) – even with less money than traditional public schools in the city. Despite this fact, Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio has virtually declared war on charter schools. I documented his threats in my last report card.
In response 17,000 parents, students and supporters took to the streets last week, marching in support of charter schools in what may have been the largest school choice rally ever. It was a show of force that may make de Blasio pause.
Clearly, parents and students are happy with this option and they are willing to show it.
More than 5,600 charter schools are celebrating National Charter Schools Week this week, but none are in Alabama. Barring a miracle, there won’t be any in the near future, either.
The Alabama state senate whiffed last week on a historic opportunity to finally bring charter schools to one of the last states without any. It took an initially modest bill that had already been downsized in earlier rounds of legislating and proceeded to make it a joke.
“As watered down as a glass of iced tea left to sit in Alabama’s summer sun,” the Birmingham News editorialized this week.
The original bill would have allowed up to 50 charters statewide. What passed last week reduced the cap to 20. It also limited charters to the four biggest cities; allowed only the conversion of existing, low-performing schools into charters; gave veto power to the local superintendent or any member of the local legislative delegation; and provided for no appeals process. In other words, it makes charter schools in Alabama pretty much impossible.
The House could revive the bill, but that appears unlikely.
What a shame for the students of Alabama. This year's Education Week rankings put Alabama at No. 44 among the 50 states in K-12 academic achievement. To be sure, the state has made some recent moves in the right direction by beefing up standards and accountability. But they're not enough. Alabama students deserve to benefit from the kinds of expanded school choice offerings that have helped students across the nation. (more…)
Somebody in Alabama is so desperately scared of school choice, they’ve launched a stealth campaign to make school choice seem scary. Their goal: to tarnish charter schools by linking them to gays, lesbians, Muslims, Democrats, abortions – and if that’s still not frightening enough – to Michelle Rhee and President Obama.
The horror that would spawn such a reaction? The Education Options Act of 2012, a bill now being considered by the Alabama Legislature. It would allow up to 20 charter schools statewide (down from 50 initially) and only in school districts with persistently low-performing schools. Florida, by comparison, has more than 400 charter schools in dozens of districts, enrolling 175,000 students.
But in Alabama – one of the few states left without any charter schools – even a handful, apparently, is apocalyptic enough to throw everything against the wall. In recent weeks, somebody who leaves no obvious fingerprints has posted a series of fleeting, shadowy facebook ads designed, apparently, to make folks think charter schools are a radical, left-wing conspiracy.
Left-wing conspiracy? The darkly creative minds behind the ads should at least get credit for attempting to upend the dominant narrative about school choice – that it’s a right-wing conspiracy. One ad suggests charter schools will protect gay and lesbian kids who are bullied in Alabama schools. Another says “Coming to Alabama soon: Barack Obama Charter School. Support our President and Charter Schools.” Yet others raise the specter of Muslim charter schools - and we all know what that means, don’t we?
“If you believe the advertising on Facebook, Gay/Lesbian and Muslim matriculation will be what Alabama parents have to look forward to if the Education Options Act of 2012 becomes law,” Bill Britt with the Alabama Political Reporter, an alternative online news source, wrote recently. “This seems silly on its face but it is nevertheless effective in inciting fear and prejudice.” (more…)
