Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Devos Confirmation

It may be helpful to provide source documents to substantiate points made, so that people are being well-informed by reading the forums... to that end, I will share the following (others may have more to share):
1) The DA "About Us page" has a "History/Timeline" which points to Nevada legislation: Revised Statute 392A, updated to 388C.
2) The Nevada legislation can be found several places online. Findlaw is one of these: Nevada Revised Statutes Title 34 Education. This shows Charter Schools defined and governed by 388A, Achievement Charter Schools defined and governed by 388B, University Schools for Profoundly Gifted Pupils defined and governed by 388C.
3) In their State publication for charter school compliance,
CHARTER SCHOOL - Reporting Requirements Manual - July 2016, 388A (Charters), 388B (Achievement Charters), and 388C (University Schools for Profoundly Gifted Pupils) are all mentioned.

This type of research and sharing of source documents may also be helpful in regard to discussion points on DeVos and the US Department of Education.

To be fair, the Reuters special report also stated Alongside a special report such as this, it may be helpful to see a summary of charter laws by State (similar to information available on the web summarizing such things as gifted legislation by state, homeschool legislation by state, etc).

The Reuters special report was written in 2013... this was under different administration. Time will tell what changes DeVos may make to the US Department of Education, and what changes the US Department of Education may make to DeVos.

From the DA's home page:


As for some charter schools targeting low income students, this fact is irrelevant to the fact that many charter schools are bending and breaking laws to avoid taking students who won't make them look good. Ideology doesn't change facts.

"Alaska, Delaware and North Carolina, for instance, permit charter schools to give admissions preference to students who demonstrate interest in their particular educational focus. Some schools use that leeway to screen for students who are ready for advanced math classes or have stellar standardized test scores."

Reminds me of the charter in our area which REQUIRES calculus in order to graduate. So they are effectively cherry picking students who are motivated and bright enough to complete calculus. The school is grades 6-12. In the middle school, many kids have IEPs but I noticed that in the high school, none of them do. So is the school making things so difficult for kids with special needs that they drop out and go back to their regular public school? Or are they getting kids off IEPs? What turned me off was that at the presentation they stated that they give kids 2 1/2 hours of homework per night, even in the middle school. So they are cherry picking only kids who are highly motivated. From reading reviews from parents/students, they give poor grades to the students who don't perform, those kids become demoralized, and drop out. The charter is one of the top rated schools in the state, but that's because they have only good students, not necessarily because their instruction is all that spectacular.

It appears these sources agree.

Agreed, ideology does not change facts... however it may influence which subset of facts one chooses to focus on... while other facts may be overlooked or ignored.

Fact 1: The context of this article was a special report on difficulties which some students of low SES may have in applying to charter schools, due to complex application requirements.

Fact 2: The report states "Many..." and "Most..." charter schools have a simple application process. In other words, the complex application processes outlined/detailed in the report would not apply to "Many... " and "Most..." charter schools.

Fact 3: The anecdotes provided in the report are not necessarily provided in the context of the applicable laws. Therefore in several instances it is difficult to know whether a law is being bent, a law is being broken, or the author does not like or agree with the law.

Fact 4: The article does not provide statistics regarding the number of students/families facing burdensome application processes or the number of schools employing application processes which may be burdensome.

Observation: The article appears to be written emphasizing persuasion, and uses anecdata... rather than being written to objectively and impartially inform, using statistics. This is not to discredit the article. There is good and bad in everything, and the article is pointing out that charters are not necessarily a panacea... it indicates areas where further investigation/research could be done, to provide more information/facts.

Compare/Contrast:
report - "Many charters, backed by state law, specialize in serving low-income and minority children."
post - "charter schools targeting low income students"
"Specialize in serving" tends to have a positive connotation; "Targeting" tends to have a negative, almost predatory, connotation.

As mentioned upthread, the present US education system was developed under previous administrations. It remains to be seen what changes DeVos may make to the Dept of Education, and how the Dept of Education may change DeVos.

Some may say your post is a positive example of a parent being empowered to make the decision regarding the type of learning environment which would - or would not - be a good "fit" for their child.

As previously mentioned, the present US education system has developed under previous administrations. It remains to be seen what changes DeVos may make to the Dept of Education, and how the Dept of Education may change DeVos.

This report from the ACLU showed that 21% of SoCal charter schools had discriminatory admissions policies. And this is only admissions policies. We don't know what they were doing once the students were enrolled (e.g. requiring donations, which is a common practice and happened at the charter my son attended for a year).

But you could have found this yourself if you'd really been interested in statistics. Instead, you attacked the Reuters article and wrote a message that tried to make things look blurry.

I'm not defending the status quo by any means. But the "choice" movement is a fiction whose goal is to gut public education in favor of privatization. If allowed to continue as people like DeVos seem to want, it will turn education into a profit center or an arm of the brand of religion the DeVos's and Falwell promote.

Meaningful reform that benefits the US as a whole won't happen when the people driving changes are acting for the wrong reasons (i.e. self interest).

The "choice" proponents lie and obfuscate in order to advance their goals. The twisting of facts on this thread is an example.

1) What, specifically do you see an "attack"? Please note that my post states "This is not to discredit the article..."
2) I presented 4 facts on the article. Do you disagree with any of the facts which I presented on the article?
3) I presented 1 Observation on the article. Do you disagree with the observation on the article?
4) I presented one compare/contrast regarding phraseology in the article/report and your post.
5) To clarify, in what way did my post "make things look blurry" to you?

Some may say it is a rather big allegation to claim that the goal of educational "choice" is to gut public education.

As an alternative, some may say the goal of educational "choice" is to provide an option or opportunity which may be right for some students; Unfortunately among both government and private sector there may be found individuals whose focus is not benefiting the students (and by extension, their families) but may be on such things as benefiting/growing data collection, research, etc.

Under a previous administration, Common Core was ushered in, with book companies, test companies, and technology providers standing to profit greatly... Pearson and Gates come to mind.

I would seek reforms which "benefit each student" rather than "benefits the US as a whole" as I see the latter as being somewhat nebulous.

It is possible that "outsiders" may make positive reforms which empower parents and students. The current educational system was built under prior administrations. It remains to be seen what influence DeVos may have on the US Dept of Education, and what influence the US Dept of Education may have on DeVos.

Which "choice" proponents? What goals... are they concrete, written, measurable goals? Which facts have been twisted on this thread?

I see us agreeing:
- There is good and bad in everything.
- More students/parents would like to benefit from educational "choice"; Demand exceeds supply; There are waiting lists and lotteries.
- Some people/companies/government benefit from educational "choice".
- Educational "choice" is not a panacea.
- More information/data/statistics may be needed.
- More oversight/accountability may be needed.

I'm uncertain whether we agree:
- Some students benefit from educational "choice".
(This reminds me of the Star Thrower, by Loren Eiseley) To clarify, is it your position that the students most likely to benefit are those students who you believe do not need further educational benefit?

We may disagree:
- Whether further educational oversight/accountability should be accomplished bottom-up or top-down.. through State legislation... Federal legislation... grassroots parent efforts... etc... or a combination of approaches depending upon local circumstances.
- Whether an "outsider" may provide more options for parents/students. (To clarify, my view is: time will tell... I cannot predict this.)

Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states.

I don't really mean that with any snark intended, by the way.

Also-- the post above that one is an example of what I mean--




I have observed personally both with my own child and many like her-- charter schools and private schools often feel that they simply don't have to-- when it comes to appropriate educational opportunities, appropriate accommodations, or even basic safety or removal of disability-based barriers to access.

They truly don't think that the federal laws about such things apply to them in the first place. This IS precisely what such schools are obligated for once they accept federal funding.


I don't see the federal bureaucrats as my enemies. They've got the backs of families like mine, and I've been able to leverage that to get my child an education in the public school system as a result of knowing what those laws say, and insisting that schools have those obligations. I've encouraged them to consult their own attorneys and to reach out for the help of the feds, in maintaining compliance. Not advice-- just saying that it has definitely worked for me.

Without someone who is willing to BACK those laws (like OCR), kids like mine have got nothing preventing schools from telling us to pound sand, we're too much trouble.

You'll have to take my word for it-- they can, and they DO.

I think that this is central to the discussion. Because it answers the question of why decentralization, local control, etc. is not necessarily a great idea.

She...


did?



I'm seriously confused about this. My understanding is that the DeVos children all attended private schools. As did Mrs. DeVos herself, I believe?

Her major goal seems to be to get more kids access to religious schooling who might otherwise find this out of reach, and she would prefer to do it through vouchers funded by taxpayers. I object to this for several reasons, only one of which is the non-establishment clause, but I think that is not an entirely unimportant factor.

She has also made statements in support of removing any oversight from charter schools-- to free them from standards regarding content, teacher certifications, and/or financial oversight, even of local or state norms. This has been a disaster in most instances-- not just in Michigan, where Mrs. DeVos has implemented some of these policies, but anywhere else that it has been attempted.

The fact is, she hadn't considered that there is an ongoing concern about which standard is appropriate as a goal to meet for each public school student-- one year of "growth" for a student, or a standard of grade level "proficiency"?

It seems to me that anyone qualified for this job-- heck, any parent HERE-- could have answered that question without one bit of preparation. Just by offering their opinion and thoughts on the subject.

This question is particularly germane to those whose children are atypical for one reason or another. In other words-- OUR kids, both those who are 2e and those who are gifted without disability.