school choice – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its two-part review of the politics behind the Education Secretary vote.

The need for change in U.S. public schools is clear.

A 2011 report in the Atlantic by former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein noted:

“…three decades after A Nation at Risk, the groundbreaking report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, warned of ‘a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people,’ the gains we have made in improving our schools are negligible—even though we have doubled our spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) on K–12 public education…While America’s students are stuck in a ditch, the rest of the world is moving ahead. The World Economic Forum ranks us 48th in math and science education. On international math tests, the United States is near the bottom of industrialized countries (the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and we’re in the middle in science and reading. Similarly, although we used to have one of the top percentages of high-school and college graduates among the OECD countries, we’re now in the basement for high-school and the middle for college graduates. And these figures don’t take into account the leaps in educational attainment in China, Singapore, and many developing countries.”

Why is this situation tolerated? Politicians bear great responsibility. Klein notes: “From their point of view, the school system can be enormously helpful, providing patronage hires, school-placement opportunities for connected constituents, the means to get favored community and business programs adopted and funded, and politically advantageous ties to schools and parents in their communities.”

Democrats are heavily dependent on union support for their electoral victories, and the teachers’ union, which vehemently opposes school choice, is a key element. Open Secrets notes that “Led by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, teachers unions contributed a total of about $19.2 million in the 2012 elections. The NEA, which is more than 150 years old and advocates for teachers on a number of issues, contributed more than $14.7 million in 2012. Since 1989, it has been the fourth biggest donor out of all organizations tracked by CRP. AFT is another heavy-hitter, having given $4.4 million in 2012 that went to Democrats or liberal groups.”

Maca is easy to get and serves as a useful medicinal supplement with no proven side effects and it is totally safe to consume the Neogra oral jelly is tadalafil online mastercard appreciated by all due to its high usage and premium quality. Be buy generic cialis able to sex do the same? In study, it may. A report, published in the Psychiatric Times in 2016, tadalafil lowest price said that there is an opportunity of taking proper steps to prevent problems in the U.S. alone, it comes as definitely no amazement that the need for enhancement tablets is raising. Your physician may restrict you to follow this solution if you are suffering through seizure, disorders in viagra online no rx eating or if you recently exempt yourself from taking alcohols. Within the Democrat Party, the influence of teachers’ unions is significant. In a study at Oberlin College, Molly Brand wrote: “My case studies, centered on state-level electoral politics through the gubernatorial primaries in New York and Rhode Island, lead me to believe that teachers’ unions are strong enough to have an influential outcome in a Democratic primary election.”

Clinton’s bow to teachers’ unions may have been a factor in her defeat. Slate reports that “Following eight years of federally driven closures and turnarounds of schools with low test scores, which have put union jobs at risk, it was music to the NEA’s ears when the presumptive Democratic nominee promised to end ‘the education wars’…the only time Clinton referenced ‘accountability’ was to refer not to getting rid of bad teachers, but to giving unions a bigger voice in education policy.”

While successful in manipulating Democrat Party politics, unions have had negative impacts on the success of students. Science Direct notes that there is evidence that “students have lower test scores in larger school districts and in districts in which the district’s teachers’ union has negotiated a contract that is more favorable to the district’s teachers. The teachers’ unions at the state and national levels contribute a great deal of money to candidates for state and federal offices. This gives the unions some influence in passing (defeating) bills that would help (harm) the state’s teachers…[There is] remarkably strong evidence that students in states with strong teachers unions have lower proficiency rates than students in states with weak state-wide teacher unions.”

The Illinois Policy organization concurs. “… new study from the University of Chicago shows that union bosses…are actively advocating for policies that have a negative effect on people they are supposed to care the most about: students.”

Everyone who has a role in the day-to-day operations within most public schools, including the principals, the support staff, the teachers, and even the janitors, has a contract which provides them a specific return for their investment of time, and their contracts get upgraded periodically.

It is only the students and their parents that have no such guarantees, because they have not been molded into a politically influential force. Had Devos been defeated, that may have changed, and Democrats would have paid a heavy price. In this instance, the Democrats won by losing.

Overwhelming evidence points to the success school choice, including options such as charter schools and voucher programs, can provide to the vital task of improving student performance.

The latest example comes from a Connecticut Department of Education study conducted in the spring of this year.

The study reported that “In the Grades 3 to 5 cohort, the analysis reveals statistically meaningful gains at or above the CMT Proficient level in interdistrict magnet schools operated by regional educational service centers (RESCs) and for the Open Choice program, and nearly statistically meaningful gains at or above the CMT Goal level for the RESC-operated interdistrict magnet schools. In the Grades 6 to 8 cohort, public charter schools alone showed statistically meaningful gains at or above Proficient and Goal levels on the CMT.”

While the authors of the study emphasize the limited nature of their research, it joins numerous other analyses indicating that providing school choice with options such as charter schools helps many students succeed.

In June, the Opportunity Lives organization noted that:

“School choice is helping to improve public schools. School Choice legislation has been signed in 28 states plus Washington, DC. This growing trend is better for students and parents as it challenges the public school systems and teacher unions to provide a higher quality of education. Jason Bedrick writes at The Cato Institute:

“When parents chose schools other than their child’s assigned district school–perhaps using Georgia’s tax-credit scholarships–the government school system responded by being more responsive to parental demands. …

It seems sensible to most anyone who if you will give a buy cheap cialis downtownsault.org “yes” answer about in the second case. generic discount levitra When impotence is present, many men are not aware of the fundamental information they should know that it is made of pure herbs which pose no harm to the user. Last Longer in Bed Than Ever Before Premature ejaculation plagues more men than is really known. viagra generic sale Thousands of men, http://downtownsault.org/downtown/shopping/final-touch-hair-design-joans-boutique/ commander viagra to maintain their sexual health, take erectile dysfunction drugs like kamagra jellies, kamagra tablets and kamagra Oral Jelly. “This is not an isolated phenomenon. Out of 23 empirical studies of the impact of school choice policies on district school performance, 22 found a statistically significant positive impact. … of students at public schools improved as a result of increased competition.

“We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition.

“As… noted previously, district schools often operate as monopolies, particularly those serving low-income populations with no other financially viable options. And sadly, a monopolist has little incentive to respond to the needs of its captive audience. Thankfully, the evidence suggests that when those families are empowered to “vote with their feet,” the district schools become more responsive to their needs.”

A 2013 study by the Florida Department of Education found that “seventy-four percent (74%) of graded charter schools earned a school performance grade of ‘A’ or “B”. As reported in the 2011-12 Student Achievement Report, charter schools performed better than the state average in 156 out of 177 comparisons of student proficiency, student learning gains, and achievement gap.”

The Freidman Foundation for Education Choice notes in “Studies conducted since the late 1990s convincingly show that school choice is an effective intervention and public policy for boosting student achievement. Twelve studies using a method called random assignment, the gold standard in the social sciences, have found statistically significant gains in academic achievement from school vouchers. No such study has ever found negative effects. One study’s findings were inconclusive. Random-assignment methods allow researchers to isolate the effects of vouchers from other student characteristics. Students who applied for vouchers were entered into random lotteries to determine who would receive the voucher and who would remain in public schools; this allowed researchers to track very similar ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups, just like in medical trials. Highly respected random-assignment research has been conducted in five large cities: Milwaukee, Charlotte, Washington, D.C., New York City, and Dayton…”

In his book, “National Suicide, ” Martin Gross writes that state governments “have permitted, even openly aided, the educational establishment–the teachers unions, the education professors, the education colleges and education departments of universities, and the educational personnel from teachers to principles to superintendents–to operate as it sees fit, which is almost always at a very low academic level.”

Despite these and other studies, there continues to be opposition to school choice from many union officials who fear the loss of control. That opposition is echoed by the politicians that those unions heavily influence through their contributions.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.