Education

“Affirmative Action on Campus Does More Harm Than Good”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

That was the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Gail Heriot (University of San Diego) and Richard Sander (UCLA School of Law) who argued for the motion; and Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law School) and Theodore Shaw (Columbia Law School), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

Affirmative action, when used as a factor in college admissions, is meant to foster diversity and provide equal opportunities in education for underrepresented minorities. But is it achieving its stated goals and helping the population it was created to support? Its critics point to students struggling to keep up in schools mismatched to their abilities and to the fact that the policy can be manipulated to benefit affluent and middle class students who already possess many educational advantages. Is it time to overhaul or abolish affirmative action?

Reflections on Nelson Mandela and New York’s Core Curriculum

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Reflections on Nelson Mandela and New York’s Core Curriculum

On the most recent episode of WCNY’s The Ivory Tower, CNY’s finest academics discussed the death of Nelson Mandela as well as New York State’s Core Curriculum public education standards. 

Hosted by David Rubin (Dean of the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, this edition of The Ivory Tower featured a powerhouse panel including: Lisa Dolak (Syracuse University College of Law), Bob Greene (Cazenovia College), Tara Ross (Onondaga County Community College), and Kristi Andersen (Maxwell School of Syracuse University).

Here is a description of the program:

The panelists first offer some reflections on the passing of Nelson Mandela. Then they examine the controversial Core Curriculum in New York State that is meant to improve the quality of K-12 education. It has roiled parents and teachers considerably and forced the State Education Commissioner to defend it in public forums around the state.

The Fair Housing Act: Then and Now

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

The Fair Housing Act: Then and Now

Last weekend, This American Life ran a fascinating episode on housing discrimination and the history of the Fair Housing Act. 

The “Prologue” talks about the impact where children lives on their education. Here is a description: 

Ira talks to 15 year old Jada who, when she was in third grade, moved from Akron Public Schools in Ohio, to the nearby Copley-Fairlawn schools in the suburbs. After two years, Jada was kicked out by administrators who discovered that her mother was using Jada’s grandfather’s address in Copley, instead of her own in Akron. Jada says that while the schools are only a few miles apart, the difference in education was astounding.
For more information about Jada and her mother, Kelley Williams Bolar, who spent 10 days in jail because she falsified documents so she could enroll Jada and her sister in the Copley-Fairlawn schools, you can go here. (5 minutes)

Both Acts One and Two discuss the history of the Fair Housing Act and housing discrimination in New York City today. 

Act One, “Rental Gymnastics” is described as follows: 

Reporter Nancy Updike talks to a group of New York City residents about their frustrating attempts to rent an apartment. With hidden microphones, we hear landlords and supers tell the apartment hunters that there’s nothing available. But that’s not necessarily true. Forty-five years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, ProPublica reporter Nikole Hannah-Jonestalks to Nancy about the history of racial housing discrimination in the United States and what has been done — and hasn’t been done — to rectify it. (31 minutes)

Here is a description of Act II, “The Missionary“:

Once the Fair Housing Act became law in 1968, there was some question about how to implement it and enforce it. George Romney, the former Republican Governor of Michigan and newly-appointed Secretary of HUD, was a true believer in the need to make the Fair Housing Law a powerful one — a robust attempt to change the course of the nation’s racial segregation. Only problem was: President Richard Nixon didn’t necessarily see it that way. With Nikole Hannah-Jones, Nancy Updike continues the story. (16 minutes)

Nikole Hannah-Jones’s investigative series on the history and enforcement of the Fair Housing laws — with more stories, research and interviews —is here.

 

CRPD ratification arguments concerning education

/ Angel Baker / Leave a comment

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) requires States to “ensure an inclusive education system” in Article 24. The United States of America (U.S.) has signed, but has not yet ratified the Convention.

Why was the U.S. Senate reluctant to ratify the UNCRPD? On December 4, 2012, the U.S. Senate considered the ratification but fell short by five votes. One of the main points of contention concerned Article 24 on Education.
On July 12, 2012 Michael P. Farris, J.D., LL.M., arguing against ratification of the UNCRPD, noted that there were two core human rights treaties, which already provided guidelines for protection of persons with disabilities: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Both of these Covenants embrace the pro-parent view of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”). Article 26(3) of the UDHR proclaims: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” This is contrary to the views later expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention.

The UNCRPD adopted concepts from the CRC, which lead to the conclusion that parental rights in the education of disabled children are supplanted by a new theory of governmental oversight and superiority. Many of those who argued against ratification believed that government agents, not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children; that all of the rights parents have under current American law will be undermined by this treaty.

In Article 7 of the UNCRC, where the relevant provisions state:“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age appropriate assistance to realize that right.” Under the UNCRPD, those that are anti-Convention state that this gives government officials the authority to substitute their views for the views of parents as well as the views of the child as to what is best in all situations. If parents think that private school or home school is best for their child, the UNCRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty to override that judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program that the officials think is best for the child.

However, this may not be true. The UNCRPD protects “parental rights and highlights the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities.” It states that children with disabilities will not be separated from their parents on the basis of their disability. Furthermore, the two proposed reservations on federalism and private conduct provide additional protection to parental authorities. This ensures that the state and federal disability law and protections are preserved.
The question is which side is right?

For more information:
U.S. International Council on Disabilities,http://www.usicd.org/index.cfm/convention

Parental Rights http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2A2E1C77-F0CF-4FE6-95A1-8624698ADF46%7D and (for) http://www.usicd.org/doc/CRPD%20MythsFacts%200719%202013.pdf

Quick Update to the Department of Justice’s Lawsuit in Louisiana Over School Choice Program

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the pending lawsuit over Louisiana’s voucher program. As some predicted, yesterday the lawsuit was dropped. However, the Obama Administration has called for a federal review of the program. It is likely this case will fade out of the conversation, but the battle over vouchers, and school choice more generally, is not over.

Here is a news piece with more information.