Op-Ed
Child Watch: No ESEA Bill is Better Than a Bad One
By Marian Wright Edelman
NNPA Columnist
For 50 years Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) has been the primary source of federal funding targeted to schools to serve poor children. Its purpose has been to raise achievement for poor children through extra support to their schools to help meet their greater educational needs. Sadly, from the beginning, states didn’t keep their end of the bargain.
In 1969, the Washington Research Project (the Children’s Defense Fund’s parent organization) and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. partnered with others and examined federal audit reports on how Title I funds were being used.
Our report, Title I: Is It Helping Poor Children?, found the answer to our question was a resounding “No.” Rather than serving the special needs of poor and disadvantaged children, many of the millions of dollars Congress appropriated had been wasted, diverted, or otherwise misused by state and local education agencies.
Title I funding was often being used as general aid and to supplant – rather than supplement – state and local education funds, including for construction and equipment unrelated to Title I goals. For example, Fayette County, Tenn. used 90 percent of its Title I funds for construction of a predominantly Black school despite a recent federal court order that the school system desegregate, and Memphis used Title I funds to purchase 18 portable swimming pools in the summer of 1966.
The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) subsequently conducted several other major studies that reinforced the importance of federal accountability for money targeted to help children most in need, especially poor children and children of color. In CDF’s first report, Children Out of School in America (1974), after knocking on thousands of doors in census tracts across the nation and interviewing many state and local school officials, we found that if a child was not White, or was White but not middle class, did not speak English, was poor, needed special help with seeing, hearing, walking, reading, learning, adjusting, or growing up, was pregnant at age 15, was not smart enough, or was too smart, then in too many places school officials decided school was not the place for that child.
It is crucial that a strong Title I program reach the children in areas of concentrated poverty if and when ESEA is reauthorized. Unfortunately, the House Education and Workforce Committee, charged to lead in moving an ESEA reauthorization bill in the House of Representatives, just approved a bill (H.R. 5) in a party line vote that fails to target the needs of the poorest children by adding a “portability” provision assuring these children less help. AASA, The School Superintendents Association, and many others join us in opposing the portability provision.
The portability provision in H.R. 5 would move us backwards by distributing the same amount for a poor child regardless of the wealth of the district or school she attends. This will unravel the intent of Title I by taking resources away from children in areas of concentrated poverty and offering extra resources to schools and districts with a few poor children who may not need them. The poorest students in schools with the highest concentrations of poor children need extra help to combat poverty’s barriers.
Compounding this huge backwards step, H.R. 5 also removes strong accountability provisions required to make sure the children who need help most will actually be helped.
It is morally indefensible and extraordinarily expensive that we have 14.7 million poor children in our country – 6.5 million of them living at less than half the poverty level. All of these poor children exceed the combined residents in all 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia.
That more than 80 percent of Black and almost 75 percent or more of Latino public school students are unable to read and compute at grade level in 4th and 8th grades and, if they reach 9th grade, 3 in 10 do not graduate within four years is a cause for extreme alarm and focused attention. Without targeted federal funding with accountability, the poorest children will lose out.
Poor children are not the only ones at educational risk. Special measures are needed to protect English language learners, children and youths with disabilities, children of color, and children and youths who are homeless or in our child welfare and juvenile justice systems. States and school districts must target resources to address achievement gaps for these vulnerable groups of children. The federal government must hold states accountable for making sure they make progress towards grade level achievement targets, high school graduation, and college and career preparation.
The mistakes of the past should not be repeated and children and our nation need us to move forward, not backwards. No ESEA bill is better than a bill that has poor children subsidize the education of wealthier children.
Marian Wright Edelman is president of the Children’s Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.
###
Commentary
California Respects the Power of Your Vote
As California Secretary of State, I do not take the progress we have made over the years lightly. My staff and I hold sacred the obligation to ensure that our elections are safe, free, fair, and accessible to all. Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.
By Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D.,
California Secretary of State
Californians can confidently claim this: California has made more significant reforms to our election laws and expanded voting rights than any other state.
The relevance of this accomplishment deepens as we prepare to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act next year. This landmark legislation began to undo our country’s long history of voter suppression, intimidation, and disenfranchisement that far too many Americans experienced at the polls for decades.
My own parents, who were sharecroppers, were denied their right to vote in the Jim Crow era South. Before moving to Los Angeles from Hope, Arkansas, my parents, David and Mildred Nash, could not vote. My father was an adult with six children before he registered to vote and was only able to exercise that constitutional right for the first time here in California.
As California Secretary of State, I do not take the progress we have made over the years lightly. My staff and I hold sacred the obligation to ensure that our elections are safe, free, fair, and accessible to all.
Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.
To meet that deadline without a hitch, California requires elections officials in all 58 counties to turn in their official results by a certain date. This year, that date was Dec. 6.
By law, every eligible voter in our state receives a vote-by-mail ballot. This ensures all registered voters can exercise their right to vote.
Whether you placed your ballot in a designated drop-off box, voted by mail, or cast your ballot at a polling center, votes are safe and secure. And we allow voters to sign up to receive text message, email, or voice call notifications about the status of their own ballots by using the Where’s My Ballot? tool. To learn more or to sign up, paste this URL in your web browser: https://california.ballottrax.net/voter/
The ballots of Californians who voted by mail are also protected. The United States Postal Service partners with the State to make sure ballots are delivered on time. All mailed-in ballots are sent by First Class mail with a postage paid envelope provided to every eligible registered voter.
Election Security is our No. 1 priority. That’s why my office designed and implemented a program to back up that commitment. For more information, visit this URL: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election-cybersecurity
Additionally, California takes preventive actions to make sure our voting technology keeps our elections safe and protects everyone’s votes.
For example, county voting systems are not connected to the internet, which protects them from cyberthreats. The State also performs regular and rigorous testing to make sure the voting systems are working optimally, and only authorized personnel are granted access.
Staff members are also given phishing and cybersecurity training.
VoteCal, the state’s centralized voter registration system, is also key. The system is regularly updated, and it is used as a resource for counties to verify voter signatures.
California also provides security at all counting locations and makes sure ballot drop-off boxes are secured and monitored.
And all election processes are open to observation during specified hours.
In my role as Secretary of State of California, there is nothing more important to me than defending our democracy.
I am committed to safeguarding voting rights, and to leading our state in upholding the highest democratic standards by implementing policies and practices that Californians and all Americans can trust and look to for instruction and hope.
You can contact the California Office of the Secretary of State at 1-800-345-Vote or elections@sos.ca.gov with inquiries or to report suspected incidents or irregularities. Additional information can be found at www.sos.ca.gov and the office’s social media platforms:
Instagram: @californiasos_
Facebook: Facebook.com/CaliforniaSOS
X: @CASOSVote
Activism
COMMENTARY: PEN Oakland Entices: When the News is Bad, Try Poetry
Strongman politics is not for the weak. Here in the U.S., Donald Trump is testing how strongman politics could work in the world’s model democracy.
By Emil Guillermo
As the world falls apart, you need more poetry in your life.
I was convinced on Tuesday when a weak and unpopular president of South Korea — a free nation U.S. ally — tried to save himself by declaring martial law.
Was it a stunt? Maybe. But indicative of the South Korean president’s weakness, almost immediately, the parliament there voted down his declaration.
The takeaway: in politics, nothing quite works like it used to.
Strongman politics is not for the weak. Here in the U.S., Donald Trump is testing how strongman politics could work in the world’s model democracy.
Right now, we need more than a prayer.
NEWS ANTIDOTE? LITERATURE
As we prepare for another Trump administration, my advice: Take a deep breath, and read more poetry, essays and novels.
From “Poetry, Essays and Novels,” the acronym PEN is derived.
Which ones to read?
Register (tickets are limited) to join Tennessee Reed and myself as we host PEN OAKLAND’s award ceremony this Saturday on Zoom, in association with the Oakland Public Library.
Find out about what’s worth a read from local artists and writers like Cheryl Fabio, Jack Foley, Maw Shein Win, and Lucille Lang Day.
Hear from award winning writers like Henry Threadgill, Brent Hayes Edwards and Airea D. Matthews.
PEN Oakland is the local branch of the national PEN. Co-founded by the renowned Oakland writer, playwright, poet and novelist Ishmael Reed, Oakland PEN is special because it is a leader in fighting to include multicultural voices.
Reed is still writing. So is his wife Carla Blank, whose title essay in the new book, “A Jew in Ramallah, And Other Essays,” (Baraka Books), provides an artist’s perspective on the conflict in Gaza.
Of all Reed’s work, it’s his poetry that I’ve found the most musical and inspiring.
It’s made me start writing and enjoying poetry more intentionally. This year, I was named poet laureate of my small San Joaquin rural town.
Now as a member of Oakland PEN, I can say, yes, I have written poetry and essays, but not a novel. One man shows I’ve written, so I have my own sub-group. My acronym: Oakland PEOMS.
Reed’s most recent book of poetry, “Why the Black Hole Sings the Blues, Poems 2007-2020” is one of my favorites. One poem especially captures the emerging xenophobia of the day. I offer you the first stanza of “The Banishment.”
We don’t want you here
Your crops grow better than ours
We don’t want you here
You’re not one of our kind
We’ll drive you out
As thou you were never here
Your names, family, and history
We’ll make them all disappear.
There’s more. But that stanza captures the anxiety many of us feel from the threat of mass deportations. The poem was written more than four years ago during the first Trump administration.
We’ve lived through all this before. And survived.
The news sometimes lulls us into acquiescence, but poetry strikes at the heart and forces us to see and feel more clearly.
About the Author
Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. Join him at www.patreon.com/emilamok
Bay Area
In the City Attorney Race, Ryan Richardson Is Better for Oakland
It’s been two years since negotiations broke down between the City of Oakland and a developer who wants to build a coal terminal here, and the issue has reappeared, quietly, in the upcoming race for Oakland City attorney. Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.
By Margaret Rossoff
Special to The Post
OPINION
It’s been two years since negotiations broke down between the City of Oakland and a developer who wants to build a coal terminal here, and the issue has reappeared, quietly, in the upcoming race for Oakland City attorney.
Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.
Richardson has worked in the Office of the City Attorney since 2014 and is likely to continue current City Attorney Barbara Parker’s policies managing the department. He has committed not to accept campaign contributions from developers who want to store and handle coal at a proposed marine terminal in Oakland.
Retired Judge Harbin-Forte launched and has played a leading role in the campaign to recall Mayor Sheng Thao, which is also on the November ballot. She has stepped back from the recall campaign to focus on her candidacy. The East Bay Times noted, “Harbin-Forte’s decision to lead the recall campaign against a potential future client is … troubling — and is likely to undermine her ability, if she were to win, to work effectively.”
Harbin-Forte has refused to rule out accepting campaign support from coal terminal interests or their agents. Coal terminal lobbyist Greg McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committee “SOS Oakland” is backing her campaign.
In the 2022 mayor’s race, parties hoping to build a coal terminal made $600,000 in contributions to another of McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committees.
In a recent interview, Harbin-Forte said she is open to “listening to both sides” and will be “fair.” However, the City Attorney’s job is not to judge fairly between the City and its legal opponents – it is to represent the City against its opponents.
She thought that the 2022 settlement negotiations ended because the City “rejected a ‘no coal’ settlement.” This is lobbyist McConnell’s narrative, in contrast to the report by City Attorney Barbara Parker. Parker has explained that the City continued to negotiate in good faith for a settlement with no “loopholes” that could have allowed coal to ship through Oakland – until would-be coal developer Phil Tagami broke off negotiations.
One of Harbin-Forte’s main priorities, listed on her website, is “reducing reliance on outside law firms,” and instead use the lawyers working in the City Attorney’s office.
However, sometimes this office doesn’t have the extensive expertise available that outside firms can provide in major litigation. In the ongoing, high stakes coal litigation, the City has benefited from collaborating with experienced, specialized attorneys who could take on the nationally prominent firms representing the City’s opponents.
The City will continue to need this expertise as it pursues an appeal of the judge’s decision that restored the developer’s lease and defends against a billion-dollar lawsuit brought by the hedge fund operator who holds the sublease on the property.
Harbin-Forte’s unwillingness to refuse campaign contributions from coal terminal interests, her opposition to using outside resources when needed, as well as her uncritical repetition of coal lobbyist McConnell’s claim that the City sabotaged the settlement talks of 2022 all raise serious concerns about how well she would represent the best interests of Oakland and Oaklanders if she is elected City Attorney.
-
California Black Media4 weeks ago
California to Offer $43.7 Million in Federal Grants to Combat Hate Crimes
-
Black History4 weeks ago
Emeline King: A Trailblazer in the Automotive Industry
-
California Black Media4 weeks ago
Gov. Newsom Goes to Washington to Advocate for California Priorities
-
California Black Media4 weeks ago
California Department of Aging Offers Free Resources for Family Caregivers in November
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of November 27 – December 3, 2024
-
Activism4 weeks ago
OCCUR Hosts “Faith Forward” Conference in Oakland
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Richmond Seniors Still Having a Ball After 25 Years
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Butler, Lee Celebrate Passage of Bill to Honor Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm with Congressional Gold Medal