Last month, the Education Department decided to freeze rules put in place by the Obama Administration that were meant to erase the student loan debts of students who had been defrauded by sketchy colleges. The rules were supposed to take effect on July 1.

But in May, a California association of for-profit schools filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the new rules. Citing the lawsuit, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos put the rules on hold. Now 18 states and the District of Columbia are suing DeVos and the department. Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general who led the states’ effort, said:

Since day one, Secretary DeVos has sided with for-profit school executives against students and families drowning in unaffordable student loans. Her decision to cancel vital protections for students and taxpayers is a betrayal of her office’s responsibility and a violation of federal law.

DeVos called the so-called borrower defense rules “muddled” and “unfair to students.” But on Thursday, two students who have borrowed money for studies sued the Education Department over the same issue. They had both attended the for-profit New England Institute of Art in Massachusetts, which was the target of a federal lawsuit in 2015.

MA is challenging Betsy DeVos’s illegal attempt to protect fly-by-night schools that cheat students & bury them in mountains of debt.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 6, 2017

There is already a federal law in place that allows students to apply for loan forgiveness if they think they have been a victim of fraud, but the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule would facilitate and streamline the process. It was created when a massive number of students applied after some major for-profit education companies were shut down or filed for bankruptcy a few years ago.

More than 15,000 claims were filed after the Corinthian Colleges collapse alone, by students owing over $247 million. As of now, taxpayers have to foot that bill. The Obama-era regulations that DeVos froze would have required the schools that defrauded students to take responsibility. It would also forbid schools from implementing mandatory arbitration contracts that prohibit students from taking legal action against the schools.

Critics of the borrower defense rule said it’s too hard on individual schools. The association that filed the lawsuit in May, the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools, said that the rule “threatens the existence” of some of the private schools.

But these schools deceived students by exaggerating job placement statistics; in one case, a school claimed that 100 percent of its students found a job in their field after graduating. The real number was 0 percent, the Education Department found in 2015. Other times, the schools closed unexpectedly and left the students without degrees but with massive debt.

The students that filed a lawsuit on Thursday said they already applied to have their loans written off under the older procedures. But at this point their cases have been pending for two years.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Eighteen States Sue Betsy DeVos for Blocking Student Loan Protection Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s new education budget draft appears to have an upsetting provision for many holders of student loans who work for the government and non-profit sector–it gets rid of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The program is supposed to forgive balances of student loans for those who work in certain positions, like teachers, government lawyers, law enforcement officers, and social workers, as long as they make on-time payments for 10 years and fit certain other guidelines.

The logic behind the program is that those who qualify for it give up more lucrative future careers to work in civil service, and should be given some sort of benefit for making that choice. For example, a public defender earns an average of about $60,000 a year. First year associate jobs at Big Law firms, in contrast, are paid an annual salary of up to $180,000 at this point. Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that public defender, as long as she pays her loans on time and in full, could qualify for loan forgiveness in 10 years.

The program is relatively new. The first “wave” of people who would qualify for loan forgiveness will hit their 10-year mark in October. At this point it’s unclear if the Trump Administration could affect the program for those who are already enrolled or if it would only shut down the program moving forward. Currently, there over half a million borrowers signed up.

Overall the Department of Education budget would be slashed by $10.6 billion, according to the Washington Post, which obtained a copy. Those cuts are seemingly welcomed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has consistently said that the federal government needs to step back from its involvement in education.

In addition to the cessation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the proposed budget also slashes or completely eliminates funding for college work-study programs, mental health services in schools, after-school programs, arts education programs, programs for gifted students, international language programs, organizations that provide childcare to parents in school, career and technical education, and Special Olympics education programs, among many others.

Of course, the Trump Administration isn’t cutting everything. In fact, Devos’ pet causes of school vouchers and charter schools will receive more funding.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Trump Administration End Public Service Loan Forgiveness? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered a review of the federal government’s control over education policies and regulations. It is the president’s latest attempt to grant more flexibility over education policy to the states, a position his Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, shares.

Wednesday’s executive action instructs DeVos–an advocate for school choice–to conduct a review of the Department of Education’s regulations and guidance documents. Within 300 days, her findings will be published in a public report.

“For too long, the federal government has imposed its will on state and local governments,” Trump, whose 100th day in office is on Saturday, said at a press conference on Wednesday. “The result has been education that spends more, and achieves far, far, far less.”

The purpose of the order is “to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, and personnel of educational institutions, schools, and school systems, consistent with applicable law.” According to an Education Department official, the review will concentrate on K-12 institutions.

DeVos is a staunch backer of school vouchers, charter schools, and private education institutions. Her critics worry she will funnel resources away from public schools–many of which already suffer from a lack of funding–to vouchers and other avenues for boosting school choice.

In an interview with The New York Times, DeVos, who also opposes the Common Core curriculum, called Trump’s executive action a “welcomed opportunity.” The order, she said, is “a clear mandate to take that real hard look at what we’ve been doing at the department level that we shouldn’t be doing, and what ways we have overreached.” She added: “And when it comes to education, decisions made at local levels and at state levels are the best ones.”

But not everyone thinks diminishing the federal government’s role in education is for the best. In a statement, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the order “dangerous and wrongheaded.” Henderson added: “State and local primacy without federal oversight in America’s schools has never worked for all children and will not work now.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Orders Betsy DeVos to Review DOE Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

America’s education system has become increasingly more complicated in recent years, as U.S. students continue to lag behind many other industrialized nations in academic achievement. In new data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) on international math and science assessments, U.S. students ranked an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. While the U.S. is one of the most advanced nations on the planet, public education remains a dismal system in the states. Many seeking to improve the status of education advocate for school choice, touting voucher programs and charter schools as the ideal method to fix America’s broken school system. The guaranteed effectiveness of these methods, however, is questionable given extensive research–begging the question: is school choice the right choice?

What is School Choice?

School choice allows for parents to pick any traditional public school or charter school in a particular school district. The movement for school choice is attributed to Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education,” in which he proposed giving families redeemable vouchers for educational services. Following the essay’s release, the concept of freedom of choice in education gained popularity.

Arguably, school choice is a favorite among large corporations and more wealthy conservatives, although some Democrats, including President Barack Obama, support the idea (Obama called for expanding charter schools when first addressing Congress in 2009). The education style is backed mostly by right-wing organizations and business such as the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the Koch brothers, some of the world’s richest and best known political donors. Even with the support of some moderate conservatives and liberals, the primary backers of school choice are extremely conservative activists seeking to radically transform public education in America. While school choice is touted as a social justice movement and a program committed to procuring effective education for all children, it does have some serious issues.

Research has found that school choice actually widens the achievement gap between white and black children. Moreover, it often advocates dismantling public education, rather than attempting to make it stronger. It has often become a mechanism of privatizing education and defunding public schools, starving the remaining public institutions of funds and quality teachers.

The concept of school choice may be fueling the transformation of public education into a business. The reason many corporations favor the school choice model is that it allows the wealthy to profit off of the education system. Teachers may also experience more punitive environments; as parents begin to choose schools because of performances on standardized tests, teachers will receive the full blame when students score poorly on a high-stakes test. Making a teacher the scapegoat for lackluster performance shifts blame to an individual, rather than tackling the systemic problems in education.

Charter Schools

Charter schools have become an increasingly popular choice around the country. These schools are publicly funded, but are governed by appointed boards and tend to be run by private companies. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia allow charter schools, with 22 states having some sort of cap that limits the number of charter schools.

Charter schools were first created in Minnesota and endorsed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Specifically, charter schools are public schools that are accountable via a contract or “charter” to public bodies; if they fail to meet the agreed-upon terms of the charter, they can be shut down quickly. Charters are also accountable for student performance on standardized tests. However, in a 2009 Stanford study, only 17 percent of charter schools were found to provide better education than public schools.

Charter schools may also have negative consequences for traditional public schools. A 2015 study from Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center determined that exceedingly high percentages of charter schools had a devastating impact on poorer school districts in Michigan, such as Detroit. Unlike other states, roughly 80 percent of Michigan’s charter schools are run by for-profit companies. Once charter schools reached 20 percent or more enrollment, it became far more difficult for the traditional schools to compete.

Vouchers

School vouchers are government certificates, backed by state dollars, that allow parents to choose which school to send their children to, including private or religious institutions. Vouchers have come under intense criticism for diverting public money away from public schools and have been accused of disproportionately assisting wealthy white families, while neglecting minorities in poorer communities–ultimately reducing diversity in classrooms and  fostering segregation. The National Education Association, the largest labor union in the U.S. representing public school teachers and other support personnel, is a strong, vocal opponent of school vouchers.

Those who support vouchers argue that the programs are actually more diverse. Many voucher programs are targeted to specific populations, such as low-income students or students with disabilities. Moreover, research conducted in Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. found that money was not necessarily drained from public schools because of school vouchers. Instead the program assisted in saving Wisconsin money and infused the city of D.C. with federal funds in exchange for passing a voucher program.

But major studies of voucher programs tell a different story. In late 2015, results from a study on the Indiana voucher program found that voucher students who transferred to private schools experienced significant losses in achievement and no real improvement in reading. In a study of Louisiana’s program, researchers found large negative results in both reading and math; elementary school students who started in the 50th percentile in math and then used a voucher to transfer to a private school plummeted to the 26th percentile in just one year. Finally, a third voucher study in Ohio uncovered that students who used vouchers to attend private schools actually performed worse academically compared to closely matched peers attending public school.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and School Choice

The appointment of Besty DeVos, a conservative philanthropic billionaire, as the Secretary of Education, will likely ramp up lobbying for school choice programs. As the new Department of Education head, she is committed to making vouchers and other school choice policies the heart of education reform. DeVos, someone with no real public school experience, has even stated that historically black colleges and universities were “pioneers” of school choice. While that is certainly not the case, her statement illuminates her naivety and the new administration’s willingness to push school choice programs.

“Betsy DeVos” Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Over the years, DeVos has been ardent supporter of vouchers for private religious schools. DeVos was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Dutch Calvinist denomination. In a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing the Christian faith via philanthropy, DeVos stated that there were “not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education…Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God’s kingdom.”

Critics note that DeVos is attempting to change the definition of school choice to allow taxpayer money to follow students to any private school through vouchers. This implementation of “universal school choice” would allow funds to funnel into religious private schools. Trump’s education proposal calls for allotting $20 billion in federal money to help parents choose schools that are not “failing,” and instead send students to charter, private, or religious schools.

Conclusion

Many educators oppose the idea of school choice and privatizing education, noting that diversity is a critical aspect of well-rounded learning. Private schools may encourage too much student withdrawal, sheltering students from the rigors of real-world experiences with such specialized educational amenities and services. The research surrounding the efficacy of charter schools and voucher programs appears to tell a more complex story. More school choice does not necessarily lead to better results. Moreover, the U.S. should tread carefully when attempting to privatize the public education system. The American public school system’s ultimate goal should be ensuring that students are equipped with the knowledge necessary to become responsible, informed, and contributing citizens.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Choice: Is It the Future of the American Public School System? appeared first on Law Street.

In her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Betsy DeVos, President-elect Donald Trump’s education secretary nominee, was grilled about her lack of experience in public education, and about her controversial philanthropic history. She punted when asked about her stance on gun-free zones in schools, and would not commit to a full-throated support for public schools.

DeVos, a 59-year-old billionaire from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is an ardent supporter of charter schools and voucher programs, a divisive option that is barred in many states. She has scant experience in public education but has a long history of advocating for private schooling options.

In 1993, as the chairwomen for the Michigan GOP, DeVos pushed the law that legalized charter schools in the state. Today, charter schools are legal in 43 states and the District of Columbia. After seeing success as an advocate for charter schools, DeVos set her sights on voucher programs, which use taxpayer dollars to encourage families to enroll their children in private or religious schools.

If you missed Betsy DeVos’ confirmation hearing for education secretary yesterday, here’s a recap from @npr_ed: https://t.co/3dUjVePRWx

— NPR (@NPR) January 18, 2017

Her attempts to bring voucher programs to Michigan failed however, when a ballot measure she backed in 2000, which would have legalized them in the state, did not pass. Thirteen states and D.C. have instituted voucher programs for qualifying students. Critics of voucher programs say they fail to foster diversity, and that they suck resources from public schools, which could adversely affect low-income students. Supporters say they encourage competition and innovation, and increase the options available for families to educate their children.

In her hearing on Tuesday, DeVos was asked about her commitment to public education. “Can you commit to us that you will not work to privatize public schools or cut a single penny from public education?” asked Sen. Pat Murray (D-WA). DeVos replied that she supports “options” and that “not all schools are working for the students that are assigned to them.” She did not explicitly say she would not cut funding for public schools.

Democrats also prodded DeVos on her stance on gun-free zones in schools, as well as the millions of dollars she and her family have poured into some controversial causes. For instance, DeVos gave money to Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that supports conversion therapy, an ineffective practice meant to change a person’s sexual orientation. DeVos estimated she and her family have spent $200 million in donations.

Tuesday’s hearing resulted in one lightning rod answer that is making the rounds on social media. When asked about whether she supported Trump’s stance on gun-free zones in schools (he said he’d ban them), DeVos said: “I think that’s best left to locales and states to decide.” She alluded to a school in Wyoming that erected a fence to protect students from wildlife, suggesting guns could be useful in such a situation. “I think probably there, I would imagine that there’s probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies,” she said.

Twitter had a field day with her answer:

What a grizzly image. pic.twitter.com/IjRFc7v99g

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 18, 2017

Raise your hand if you’re more qualified than #BetsyDeVos to be the next Secretary of Education. #DeVosHearing pic.twitter.com/22yfLZVU8A

— Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) January 18, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Meet Betsy DeVos appeared first on Law Street.

It’s back to school season, so in the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver set his sights on the political phenomenon that is charter schools.

These publicly funded schools are privately run and receive money based on how many students they have enrolled. They’ve become increasingly popular among politicians (from both political parties), and many are run by celebrities–even Pitbull has one! Yet, despite their popularity, there have been countless examples of charter schools being run in horribly unprofessional ways.

Principals have been found guilty of embezzlement, and in the case of Philadelphia’s Harambee Institute (yes, just like the name of the slain gorilla, but spelled differently), the school’s cafeteria was turned into an illegal, unlicensed nightclub after school hours.

Oliver quipped, “A nightclub in an elementary school is a recipe for disaster, because those are the two most vomit-prone populations in the world. They must have had to Febreeze the sh*t out of that place!”

Fact is, in Philadelphia alone, at least ten executives or top administrators at charter schools have pleaded guilty in the last decade to charges like fraud, obstruction of justice and misusing funds. In reference to Pennsylvania’s charter laws Oliver says,

It is not like having the worst ‘something’ is new for Pennsylvania. Remember, this is the state that has the worst football fans, the worst bell, and the worst regional delicacy. Yes. If I wanted Cheez Whiz on my steak sandwich, I’d eat at Kiddie Cafeteria, the restaurant run by six-year-olds.

But Ohio doesn’t have a great track record either when it comes to charter schools. Oliver critiqued Gov. John Kasich 2009 comparing the need for choice in schooling options to the need for a competitive market for “pizza shops,” saying “That doesn’t work on any level.”

Oliver concluded,

The problem with letting the free market decide when it comes to kids is that kids change faster than the market,” Oliver said. “And, by the time it’s obvious a school is failing, futures may have been ruined. So, if we are going to treat charter schools like pizza shops, we should monitor them at least as well as we do pizzerias. It’s like the old saying: ‘Give a kid a sh—y pizza, you f— up their day. Treat a kid like a sh—y pizza, you could f— up their entire life.’

Watch the full clip below

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver on Why Charter Schools Are Not Like Pizzerias appeared first on Law Street.

The vast majority of public school classrooms in the United States are composed of students of both genders. While some private schools do occasionally embark on single-sex education, public schools focus on a blend of genders. However, there is growing debate about the effectiveness of each method of education. Read on to learn about single-sex education, its benefits, its problems, and its future.

History of Single-Sex Education

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-sex classrooms in public schools were the norm and a product of cultural views on women and their roles in society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, however, single-sex education was only found in elite private schools and reserved for students whose parents could afford to send their children to expensive preparatory programs. Recently, however, there has been a push to offer single-sex classrooms in the American public school system.

In the mid 1990s, there were only two public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms; today there are more than 500. As education professionals search for innovative ways to improve the education system, many have looked toward single-sex education as a way to capitalize on boys’ and girls’ different learning styles. While various studies and reports proclaiming the merits of a single-sex education, many claim just the opposite.

What are the Arguments for Single-Sex Education?

Advocates claim single-sex education offers students a learning environment that is directed toward their gender’s natural learning style. Research has shown that boys and girls learn differently; where boys often learn better in an environment that emphasizes physical activity and more structure, girls often learn best in a classroom that emphasizes verbal communication and empathy. In a single-sex classroom, a teacher would be better able to focus on those learning styles to enhance the experiences of each gender.

Advocates also argue that a single-sex classroom would help to remove existing gender biases, which some professionals say are pushing girls away from computer technology careers and boys away from the arts. Traditionally, boys excel in math and sciences while girls succeed more in the arts and English. Some argue that single-sex classrooms would allow students to explore all of these areas unhindered by any gender biases that may exist.

Many people point out that removing the distraction of trying to impress the other gender, especially for middle and high school students, would improve student performance. Experts say girls tend to “dumb themselves down” for boys, while boys will often act out or goof off in order to catch the attention of girls. Without the distraction of the opposite gender, some experts say that students will be more focused and serious about their schoolwork.

What are the Arguments Against Single-Sex education?

Opponents of single-sex classrooms point out the similarities between separating genders in education and the “separate but equal” doctrine aimed at African Americans in public schools in the 1950s. They argue that separate but equal education is “inherently unequal.”

To some, single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, a federal educational amendment that requires females to be included in any educational program or activity. Opponents feel that single-sex classrooms would actually reinforce the same gender stereotypes advocates hope to eliminate. The kind of learning environments proposed by advocates of single-sex classrooms cater to existing stereotypes about males and females, and would present problems for students such as, for instance, a sensitive boy or an assertive girl.

Opponents argue that students are not cookie cutter molds of the traits commonly associated with their gender; rather their character varies along a spectrum ranging from loud and physically active to quiet and empathetic. Single-sex classrooms would trap students in rigid stereotypes, failing to allow students who fall anywhere else on the spectrum the chance to grow individually and academically.

Additionally, opponents say the true failure of a single-sex education is that it does not provide opportunities for boys and girls to work together, thus failing to prepare them for a co-educational world. As women anchor their places in American industry and business, today’s students will need to learn how to function with both genders, without being distracted simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.

Case Studies: Examples of Single-Sex Education Across the U.S.

Urban Prep

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Prep Academies is a collection of single-sex all-male public charter schools. They are currently the only all-male public schools in the state of Illinois. The curriculum includes a heavy focus on community and public service, and working toward either college admittance or a professional field. Urban Prep has made reaching out to young men, and teaching in ways that correspond to the way in which young men learn, one of its primary goals.

The success of Urban Prep has been well documented — it certainly has had a higher graduation rate than many of its peers in other public schools in the area. However, there are questions as to whether that comes from the single-sex aspect of education, or the other benefits offered by a charter school like Urban Prep. There’s also the question of whether the model that Urban Prep employs would be sustainable on a wider scale.

William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity (WALIPP), located in Houston, Texas, is an all-male public school. One interesting aspect of WALIPP is that in addition to an all-male student population, the teaching staff is also all men. The reasoning behind such specific hiring is that the teachers act as strong male role models for the young men who are in their classrooms. Many of the young men at WALIPP were raised primarily by their mothers, in single-family households, and benefit from having successful older men to look to for guidance. Audrey Lawson, the founder of WALIPP, explained that: “inner city boys started out not being thought of as good students. In elementary school, they have had mostly women teachers, and girls respond better to them.” 

Conclusion

Whether or not we’ll start to move more convincingly toward single-sex classrooms is uncertain; although it is important to note that as more charter schools try unconventional methods, it is certainly a possibility. The benefits have yet to be proven, but as American students constantly struggle in meeting educational benchmarks, the experiment of single-sex learning may be valuable enough for some schools to consider worth the risk.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Additional

Washington Post: Boys and Girls Learn Separately at Prince George’s School

National Association for Single Sex Public Education: What Have Researchers Found When They Compare Single-Sex Education With Co-Education?

Denver Post: Genders Split Up At More Schools

CRC Health Group: The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

ASCD: Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls

Synonym: The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools

Al Jazeera America: Study: Single-Sex Education Offers No Benefits

Atlantic: The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools

American Psychological Association: Single-Sex Education Unlikely to Offer Advantage Over Coed Schools, Research Finds

The New York Times: Single-Sex Education is Assailed in Report

Washington Post: More Schools Trying Separation of the Sexes

Huffington Post: Arlington High School in Indianapolis Separating Boys and Girls in Classes

Great Schools: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons

Atlantic: The Never-Ending Controversy Over All Girls Education

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Public Schools are Experimenting With Single-Sex Education appeared first on Law Street.

Charter schools have made news in recent years among American pedagogues, offering quality education for students who often live in inner city areas where a quality education is hard to come by. While repeated attempts have been made to reform America’s public school system, educational progressives have hailed charter schools as the solution to the problem of overcrowded, under-achieving public schools in urban areas; however, some see the special privileges that have been endowed on these schools recently, such as free real estate inside public school buildings, as too much of a distraction from the job of truly improving public schools. One such debate took place in New York City, when Mayor Bill De Blasio chose not to let charter schools move into public school space. Read on to learn about the controversy.

The Buildup

In New York City, former Mayor Bloomberg had accepted applications by charter schools to co-habit public school buildings rent free, allowing charter schools to open up in areas where rent and real estate are expensive. However, Mayor Bill De Blasio has been vocal about his opposition to providing special privileges to charter schools. De Blasio made comments about prolific New York charter school founder Eva Moskowitz during his election campaign, saying “There’s no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, OK?” and “These changes appear to be part of a sustained pattern to privilege Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy schools with space and resources at the expense of the traditional public schools with which they share buildings.”

True to his word, on February 27, 2014 De Blasio withdrew three agreements to allow charter schools to share space with public schools in public education buildings. These three withdrawals were the only ones among 17 total charter school applications, leaving 14 charter schools that were permitted to continue with plans to share public education space. While the Mayor’s administration used a strict set of four criteria to withdraw those schools, the three he did revoke were all from the Success Academy chain headed by Moskowitz, leading many opponents to argue that this was an act of a personal vendetta.

What’s the argument in favor of De Blasio’s actions?

De Blasio’s supporters see this issue as a political ploy by Moskowitz to maintain her company’s economic growth in New York City, and maintain that De Blasio used unbiased criteria in his selection of schools to withdraw from co-location agreements. Out of 45 total applications, De Blasio approved 36–an overwhelming majority–and of the 17 charter school applicants, 14 were approved. The De Blasio administration used the following four criteria as the basis for this decision:

• It would not approve putting an elementary school in a high school.
• It would not open any school with fewer than 250 students because the school would be too small to meet the needs of students.
• It would not approve any co-locations that required heavy construction.
• It would not approve any co-locations that dislocated students with disabilities.

Many find these perfectly reasonable criteria, and 36 of the 45 applying schools met these requirements. De Blasio claims that these approvals were rushed by the previous administration, and that they simply did not pass his own set of criteria. Some Moskowitz opponents also argue that the reason behind Success Academy’s triumphs in New York City is due to the Academy’s ability as a private school to dismiss or force out any unsatisfactory students, including students with special needs. This allows them to retain only the upper-tier students to generate excellent test scores and apparent success. These charter schools also often cater to the city’s political and economic elite, ensuring charter schools’ continued success through campaign contributions and political dealings.

Additionally, the Success Charter School chain had submitted eight total co-location applications, five of which were approved by De Blasio. The Mayor’s supporters equate Moskowitz’s actions to those of someone throwing a tantrum for not getting everything she wants. After learning of the three withdrawn applications, Moskowitz closed all Success Academy schools on March 4, 2014 to organize a protest march to Albany to combat the new mayor, and since then has filed a lawsuit against the mayor for his co-location decisions. This is in addition to an event in October in which Moskowitz also closed all her schools to organize a march across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest De Blasio during his mayoral campaign. De Blasio supporters argue that Moskowitz is using cheap political tactics at the expense of students to fight with a mayor who simply blocked three of five new schools from obtaining free rent in America’s largest city.

What are the arguments of those who disagree with De Blasio?

Opponents accuse De Blasio of using politics to level a personal vendetta against the Success Academy leader, and point to charter schools’ proven success rate to argue that these schools should be given the same chance as public schools to flourish in New York City and elsewhere. De Blasio had already made remarks about Moskowitz during his campaign, saying she was a person not to be “tolerated, enabled, and supported.” Some opponents frame these application withdrawals as a Chris Christie-esque act of political revenge.

Additionally, charter schools have been proven successful in New York City. Success Academy Harlem 4’s students have some of the highest math scores in New York State, but with their co-location application denied, they do not have the resources to expand and accept more students. Many parents are upset at the prospect of being forced to send their children to their local public schools, where dropouts and crime are common. In the end, charter school supporters argue, it’s the children who are most affected by De Blasio’s policy. Roughly 600 students already enrolled in the Success Academy schools that were about to be opened up will instead be routed to an uncertain future in the public school system, prompting calls from many to put aside political bickering in favor of true discussion over what is best for New York City’s children.

 Resources

Primary

NYC Charter Schools: Co-Location: How Public Schools Share Space in New York City

Additional

Huffington Post: The Smear Campaign Against Bill De Blasio

Brooklyn Eagle: Parents, Teachers, Kids, Pols Rally Against Charter School Plans

DNA Info: Harlem Special Needs School Rallies Against Charter School Expansion

Washington Post: Why NYC Mayor Is Getting Unfairly Bashed Over Charter Schools

New York Post: Deputy Mayor: Charter School Expansion Could Lead to “Privatized” School System

New York Post: De Blasio Starts His War on Charter Schools

Fox News: New York’s De Blasio Boots Charter Schools From City Space

CNN: New York Mayor Fails Charter School Kids

US News: De Blasio Stands Alone: De Blasio Has an Extreme Position on Charter Schools

Washington Post: Why is New York Mayor Bill De Blasio Undermining Charter Schools?

New York Magazine: Mayor De Blasio vs. Charter Schools, Round 1

The New York Times: De Blasio Seeks to Halt 3 Charter Schools From Moving Into Public Spaces

Huffington Post: Major Charter School Chain To Lose Space Under New De Blasio Plan

New York Daily News: Charter Schools Axed By Mayor De Blasio

Fox News: NYC Mayor De Blasio Hit With 3 New Lawsuits in Charter School Fights

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Preventing Charter and Public Schools From Sharing Space appeared first on Law Street.