Great News for Camden Students
March 25, 2015Opt-Outers in N.J. Are on a “Collision Course with Low-Income Families of Color”
March 26, 2015QOD: NJEA Spokesman on Why N.J. PARCC Opt-outs Skew White and Privileged
“The vast majority of opt-outs are taking place in non-urban, non-disadvantaged districts,” agrees [NJEA Spokesman Steve] Wollmer, “because parents tend to be better informed in those districts and tend to communicate among themselves a lot more.”
This quote is courtesy of Robert Pondiscio at the Fordham Foundation, who was able to research opt-out numbers using NJEA’s own list that they’re collecting in order to lobby legislators to vote for anti-PARCC bills. According to this data, parents who opt their kids out of PARCC tests are largely affluent and white so Pondiscio checked in with Wollmer, perhaps anticipating a bit of hedging, but NJEA is apparently content with this disparity.
As long as it’s Throwback Thursday, we’ll glance back at a quote from Julia Sass Rubin, who founded the Princeton-based (i.e., white and affluent) lobby called Save Our Schools-NJ. Rubin recently co-authored a report with Mark Weber, aka Jersey Jazzman, that claims that charter schools attract poor but not really poor kids, “creaming off” those come from more motivated families. Upon the report’s publication, Rubin answered a Star-Ledger reporter’s question about the way that poor families choose charter schools.
Rubin explained, “People in abject poverty don’t have the bandwidth to even evaluate charter schools,” she said. “It’s just not going to be high on their list.”
Some of those “people in abject poverty” — who, by the way, have bandwidth to spare — responded to Rubins’s aspersion, although they could just as likely be responding to Wollmer. (NJEA and SOS-NJ read from the same script.) Here are reactions from parents to Rubin, all of whom live in Camden and Newark, and all of whom would no doubt beg to differ with Wollmer’s description of their ability to communicate and inform themselves.
Crystal Williams, Newark mother of four children who attend district public schools:
Who is Julia Sass Rubin and what does she have against my kids?
Her “study” yesterday was nothing more than a series of cherry-picked numbers chosen to create a false narrative, but it has little resemblance to the story of my family’s life. My child’s experience is proof of that. And the real evidence coming out of the high-performing charter schools shows that she is just wrong
Arthur Barclay, lifetime Camden resident and City Council member:
Everywhere I turn, Julia Sass Rubin seems to be talking for Camden’s poor. Just last week she told one of the state’s largest newspapers: “People in abject poverty don’t have the bandwidth to even evaluate charter schools. It’s just not going to be high on their list.”
Excuse me? That deeply offensive comment toward low-income families in Camden shows not only her complete disregard of our families, but a dangerous misunderstanding about what our families want.
I know thousands of parents in this city — including my own — who desperately want better for their kids. Our district schools are finally showing progress.
Thankfully, we are also getting some new schools in our city that are committed to ensuring our kids’ potential is fulfilled. Rather than assailing these new schools, called Renaissance schools, she should be embracing them because of what these schools are doing for our children. The kindergartners in Renaissance schools in Camden are already reading, counting to 100, and articulating the major accomplishments of George Washington Carver. And it’s only November.
Marlene Gonzalez and Hector Nieves, two parents whose children attend Camden’s LEAP Academy:
Speaking on behalf of more than 1,000 families who made the choice to send their children to the LEAP Academy charter school in Camden, we have had the bandwidth to evaluate the education available to children in traditional public schools in cities such as Camden, Trenton and Newark. In spite of the thousands of dollars that poured into these districts, even when they have been under state oversight, the results have been atrocious and simply unacceptable.
Note to Wollmer and Rubin: We should all have as much bandwidth, communicative ability, and ability to inform ourselves about standardized testing and school choice as the parents whom you disparage so flippantly. As NJEA and SOS-NJ get ready to slam Camden’s expansion of renaissance schools, the ones that Mr. Barclay says you should be embracing, you might want to expand your bandwidth enough to speak to the parents directly affected.
6 Comments
Laura,
As I commented some time ago on another one of your many inaccurate blog posts, why not just wait for the actual PARCC refusal numbers instead of trying to force your talking points on what is very preliminary data?
Such early efforts are frequently wrong. For example, you recently lauded how few refusals there were. Now that number is 40,000 and climbing rapidly, with only about a third of districts reporting.
Are you afraid that if you wait, reality will once again not match your ideology?
Not afraid of the numbers across the state at all, Julia. The problem is when a subset of districts — white, suburban, rich — are used as representative of the whole. I think your strategy to derail annual student growth measurements is dangerous and divisive. Some — I won't go that far — would call it racist.
Laura,
The only ones using a subset of districts to represent the whole are you and the Fordham Institute author you linked to.
I prefer to wait until we have actual data before doing the analysis.
You have consistently tried to dismiss those who refuse high-stakes standardized tests.
First you argued that there were very few refusals in New Jersey.
That is clearly wrong.
Then you argued that the opposition to high-stakes standardized testing was all coming from teachers unions and Tea Partiers.
That is clearly wrong.
This race baiting you are pushing now is just your latest attempt to mischaracterize and dismiss those with whom you disagree.
It too will be proven wrong,which is why you can't wait for the data and are trying to get as many digs in now as possible, to shape the narrative.
But the opposition to the damage that high-stakes standardized testing is doing to our children and to our public schools is too strong for you and the other corporate education reformers to stop or even to slow down.
What happen to you original attempt to slam parents”One more thing—this is a mostly white, Crunchy Mama, privileged-driven argument that overlaps a bit with the anti-vaccination rhetoric.”
Not surprising that Ms. Waters is once again trying to pit public school parents against each other.”It is the rule in war, if double, be able to divide them; if equal, engage them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.”
Take a cue from Al Shanker's wife Ms. Waters: Here's what she had to say about your “reform” ideals:
” Conveniently, Klein did not indicate that Al denounced the idea of charters when it became clear that the concept had changed and was being hijacked by corporate and business interests. In Al’s view, such hijacking would result in the privatization of public education and, ultimately, its destruction – all without improving student outcomes.”
Let's recap:
The majority of people opposed to and not using excessive-testing/PARCC:
-parents
-students
-teachers
-Private schools
-People like Diane Ravitch,
The majority of people for excessive testing/PARCC:
-Major tech and testing corporations
-Associations affiliated with money dependent on NJDOE, USDOE or legislative allowances.
-People like Bill Gates.
Ms. Waters, I think your strategy to derail academic learning with excessive testing and your support of shuttering public schools in minority cities is dangerous and divisive. Some — I won't go that far — would call it racist.
As usual, Julia seeks to change the subject when he is held accountable for what she unequivocally said: “People in abject poverty don’t have the bandwidth to even evaluate charter schools.”
Confirming that this is not some fringe point-of-view in the pro-status quo alliance, Steve Wollmer unequivocally stated: “The vast majority of opt-outs are taking place in non-urban, non-disadvantaged districts because parents tend to be better informed in those districts…”
The clear meaning of these statements is that urban, disadvantaged parents are incapable of making sound decisions about their children's future. That's an astounding assertion that must be challenged (and was by those very same parents).
But when challenged, Julia changes the subject. And of course attacks Laura.
Still sticking by your statement, Julia?