iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Meyers

Michael Meyers

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Meyers
 

Doing the Bidding of the 'Slave Masters'

Posted: 06/ 9/11 01:24 PM ET

Hazel Dukes and Benjamin Jealous of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are the New York City teachers union's best champions.

That came through loudly when the NAACP sided with the teachers' union lawsuit to block the shutting of failing public schools in New York City and to prevent charter schools from being located in traditional public school buildings.

Charging that the smaller (public) charter schools, with mostly minority students, are better resourced than traditional public schools -- that these schools' better treatment of their students amounts to "separate and unequal" education -- the NAACP is crying, falsely, racism.

Their claims of discrimination are backed up and explained by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) president Michael Mulgrew who explains:

"In too many cases, there are smart boards, freshly painted walls and small class sizes in the charter school while in the public school there are broken blackboards, crumbling facilities and overcrowded classrooms. Separate and unequal."

If invoking "separate and unequal" racial rhetoric weren't shrill enough, the NAACP's Hazel Dukes doubled down this week with the accusation that a minority parent who questioned the NAACP's policy was "doing the business of slave masters."

A parent who wants the NAACP to side with her child getting a quality education in a public charter school is doing the business of "slave masters"?

To follow such warped logic, parents who place their kids in schools where teachers are held accountable for their charges' academic achievement -- where the kids themselves are encouraged to excel -- are supposedly keeping the race in shackles? Black children who don't want to be a part of the race fanatics' statistics of failure are by that same logic uppity and selfish.

Charter school principals and teachers who don't fit the stereotype of lousy educators, according to the NAACP's leaders, are a part of the problem -- they're "slave masters" because they have broken free of the stranglehold of union regulations that protect teachers who have become overpaid babysitters in the traditional public schools.

In the NAACP's Orwellian world, black children who do well, educators who do right by the children, and minority parents who are attentive and involved with their kids' schooling are the wrongdoers, and the unionized teachers who seek to keep open failing schools, and block the more successful charter schools from sharing space in a public school building, are the good guys.

Such racial rhetoric and double talk from the nation's oldest civil rights group is shameful and ought to embarrass them. The truth is that the supporters of high-performing charter schools are trying to save as many minority kids as they can -- one small school at a time.

Not all of them have been excellent or good enough, but some of them have been, and a lot of them are better than what the traditional public school offers minority kids. The successful charter schools should be the models of public education reform rather than the scapegoats of self-described civil rights groups.

After all, the kids who attend and benefit from the successful charters are blacks and Hispanics mostly. Likewise, the kids who are trapped in low-performing public schools are mostly minorities. Why should such schools be kept open and charter schools denied space?

The civil rights groups did not pay much attention and the charter school movement did not much matter to them until charter schools started posting significant educational gains -- and minority parents started lining up to pull their kids out of the "regular" public schools.

Today it matters a great deal, but not because the success stories are doing the "business of 'slave masters." The success stories -- too many and too few to dismiss -- are teaching us a valuable lesson: that minority kids don't have to be consigned to the dung heaps of the public school system.

Not all minority kids fit the stereotype of dropout and at-risk underachiever. They're showing us that behind certain schoolhouse doors education is taking place and turning around kids' lives -- broadening their horizons -- and removing the look of inferiority from their eyes.

Nothing succeeds like success -- it's a mantra that minority kids deserve to know intimately from personal experience. Their individual achievement is much more important to their so-called race than the NAACP's case for group victimhood.

That's because a solid education is the route to equality and instills a sense of individual dignity and pride rather than shame and blame. The staid NAACP is still stuck in the 1950s, when schools purposefully separated kids by skin color and taught minority kids that white schools were better resourced and had better-paid teachers. That was yesterday and yesterday's gone.

Today, the urban public schools, charter and non-charter, have mostly minority kids. Even urban parochial schools, less resourced than public schools with teachers paid less than the public school staffs, serve mostly minority kids who also do better than many kids in the public school system. Nobody's whining about "separate and unequal", successful urban parochial schools!

Black and Hispanic parents, whether or not they subscribe as members of the NAACP, know that education is "the" civil rights issue of our times. They know as well that their children cannot abide any further delay in getting the best schooling they can get right now -- wherever they can get it.

In some cases that must mean closing terribly, chronically failing schools. In others, it means standing in a queue to hit the charter school lottery. These mostly minority parents and I are shaking our heads at the specter of the NAACP standing in the schoolhouse door telling minority kids that the placement of charter schools in the same buildings as traditional public schools amounts to "separate and unequal" in education.

These same parents know -- as the NAACP's former executive director for 22 years (and my mentor) Roy Wilkins counseled many years ago -- that the worst thing that could happen to a multiracial nation like ours is for public opinion to become ethnically polarized and for racial rhetoric to poison the public dialogue about what is needed by way of improving our schools.

We surely don't need any racial tensions stirred, much less ignorant racial rhetoric from a self-styled civil rights organization as to how a minority parent who supports charter schools is "doing the business of slave masters."

Michael Meyers is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 60
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:14 PM on 06/26/2011
Charters may have started out as a good idea, but as for those with which I have met in my teaching experience, they do little better than the public schools that they are meant to replace. Certainly there are charters in which student performance is higher than in their nearby public school counterparts, but there are also charters in which racial and linguistic discrimination run rampant despite conscientious teachers' efforts to have equitable educational institutions.
As for the article's remark that, "charter schools are trying to save as many minority kids as they can" I am disgusted; no community needs any outside institution to swoop down, superhero-style to make what it feels are appropriate adjustments to the community or its schools. The communities in which charters are prevalent are more than capable of implementing reform and the parents in them of demanding that their students receive the equitable education to which they are entitled. To suggest that these charter organizations are more capable of providing good, quality educational services is ridiculous; too often do these outside organizations come in purporting to "save" communities that are not in need of this supposed "rescue" at all. Reform within the NYC school system needs to occur, but not by closing down schools that, with effective administration, could be reformed and would then provide the high level of education that so many City Public Schools already do and certainly not by extending the glaring inequalities in educational opportunities by opening more charter schools.
09:09 PM on 06/26/2011
Furthermore, when athletes want to improve their own abilities, they train against other athletes who are stronger than they; the charter system takes many of the “stronger” students out of the public system so that the students who remain have no positive peer examples to follow or from who to receive peer modeling. I do not mean to suggest that high-performing students be forced to stay in schools that aren’t working; rather, I am arguing for extensive reform of the city school system so that deficiencies can be truly addressed, lower-performing students receive positive examples from their higher-performing peers, and all children receive an equitable education. The charter system simply is not the answer and only further perpetrates the racism and bias against which the NAACP and other organizations have been fighting for years.
09:08 PM on 06/26/2011
Charters may have started out as a good idea, but as for those with which I have met in my teaching experience, they do little better than the public schools that they are meant to replace. Certainly there are charters in which student performance is higher than in their nearby public school counterparts, but there are also charters in which racial and linguistic discrimination run rampant despite conscientious teachers' efforts to have equitable educational institutions.
As for the article's remark that, "charter schools are trying to save as many minority kids as they can" I am disgusted; no community needs any outside institution to swoop down, superhero-style to make what it feels are appropriate adjustments to the community or its schools. The communities in which charters are prevalent are more than capable of implementing reform and the parents in them of demanding that their students receive the equitable education to which they are entitled. To suggest that these charter organizations are more capable of providing good, quality educational services is ridiculous; too often do these outside organizations come in purporting to "save" communities that are not in need of this supposed "rescue" at all. Reform within the NYC school system needs to occur, but not by closing down schools that, with effective administration, could be reformed and would then provide the high level of education that so many City Public Schools already do and certainly not by extending the glaring inequalities in educational opportunities by opening more charter schools.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
11:40 PM on 06/13/2011
The question that is not being dealt with, and needs to be, is what do we do with those students who refuse--for whatever reason--to cooperate in school.
It is clearly unfair for a willing student to be stuck in a school with so many unwilling students that teachers have not chance to teach. But--is it not equally unfair to hand vouchers to willing students and then punish public schools who are stuck with the unwilling whom the voucher schools won't touch?
How do we prevent the troublel-makers from running the school?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MsLovePeace
My Micro Bio is Empty
09:34 AM on 06/13/2011
Teach for a year. These things look much simpler than they are from the outside. Charter schools routinely expel -formally or informally-low performing students. Even Canada got rid of his ENTIRE FIRST SIXTH GRADE CLASS because they didn't seem like a crop who could make it. Black, white, green, or purple, what happens to those who are not charter school material? They become the dung in your dung heap, the children society throws away. Then, rather than society taking responsibility for this travesty, people like you scapegoat the schools for these failures. Furthermore, the tests and accountability you hail are the oppressors tools to keep the black man, the poor man, the middle class man from thinking. Why don't rich, private schools use these tests? Why do the teachers who work there say they couldn't teach the way they do if they had be accountable to state tests? Wake up brother, you are doing the conqueror's bidding. I hope you're rich.
12:30 AM on 06/14/2011
fanned and faved...from someone else in the trenches.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lynn Brown
05:54 PM on 06/14/2011
doubly fanned and faved.
04:49 PM on 06/11/2011
NEWS FLASH FOR HAZEL N. DUKES: "WE AND OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT 'SLAVES'" - therefore we have no "slave masters" nor are any of us doing the so-called business of Jim Crow era overlords.

Quite to the contrary, we are tax-paying voters who are organized constituents of the congressional district of New York and who are galvanized by the expressed purpose of advancing the opportunities of our sons and daughters.

We will most certainly make sure that you and your heavy-handed accomplices pay a painful political price not only for filing such a heinous lawsuit but also for siding with the teacher's union in an effort to handicap the options of our young people.

Moreover, only someone who claims to help African & Latino Americans, et al., under the antiquated motto of advancing "colored people" would even evoke such an anachronistic and ill-advised insult against a caring parent who merely used her 1st Amendment right to take issue with your manipulation of the NAACP to impede the success of charter school students.
02:11 PM on 06/11/2011
I completely disagree with your article. One of the greatest disappointments of many Southern blacks was the failed fulfillment of Brown vs. board of Education. Black leaders fought for a system that offered equality and equity. Instead they got the rape and pillage of their schools. The top teachers and the best students were forced into humiliating situations in order to fulfill the wording, if not the spirit, of Brown. These decisions failed to answer the most basic civil rights desire: equality, equity, and respect. Insult to injury was added with the advent of testing. If black students could not be segregated physically then extensive testing measures would be utilized to maintain academic segregation within desegregated schools. The root of the problem, though, still goes unaddressed. That, I'm sure, is the motivation for the UFT and NAACP fight. Charter schools are being used to assist our educational system in ignoring real concerns: How do we address a poverty-stricken, heavily minority population that is often filled with poorly educated children. Contrary to your belief, charter schools do not take them all. They expel the troublemakers and send them to schools like mine and to classrooms where I teach. Until we deal with an educational system that has NEVER worked successfully for African- American students then we simply continue the legacy of Brown--removing the best and the brightest and leaving those with the greatest needs behind.
PixieGirl0731
Brain cells come and go but fat cells live forever
10:28 AM on 06/11/2011
I wonder what the NAACP would say about the fact that NCLB demands that you buy textbooks from specific companies. This to me is a huge part of the problem. We have to keep buying these expansive books that are "scientific". When I went to college teaching was an art. It was a given that not everyone could teach. Now, we are going to be robots with scripted programs designed to keep people slaves to the system.
07:16 PM on 06/10/2011
all charters are are public schools where you don't have to follow union rules. given that union rules are pro teacher and hence anti student the fact that the naacp is siding with the teachers union and not minority kids is a disgrace
09:09 AM on 06/11/2011
You don't know what you're talking about.

Teachers' and students' interests overlap almost completely. That's one reason unionized schools tend to outperform non-union ones: the unions are fighting for the good of the teachers AND the students.

Some charters are unionized. Most aren't. A very, very few charters do a better job than the nearby public schools they're competing with. The vast majority don't.

Charters also tend to contribute to greater racial segregation. The NAACP is absolutely in the right on this one.
11:09 AM on 06/11/2011
"teachers and students interests overlap almost completely " you have got to be kidding me. eg1 kipp schools, non unionised -have a longer school day and year but the teachers get paid the same as in regular unionised public schools, no extra pay for the linger day or year. the interests of the kids to get a longer day and year are the opposite of the interests of the teaches to get more money. if kipp schools were unionised and they had to pay the teachers more for a longer day and year , then they would not have enough funds to exist which would be a tragedy. the interests of the kids are the opp of the interests of the union. check out the stats in nyc .test scores for charters approved by the teachers union ie they are unionised, are lower on average, than regular nyc pub schools but test scores by charters approved by the board of regents (ie non inionised ) are higher, on average, than that of regular nyc public schools. just a coincidence , i guess
02:33 PM on 06/11/2011
And why shouldn't teachers be paid for working overtime? Teaching is one of the few professions where it is really tough to get extra pay, but like the rest of the nation, our financial responsibilities fluctuate. Sometimes drastically. Wanting extra pay doesn't make you less devoted. I get paid for after school activities and I also do many things on my own time. Teachers can be both devoted and economically-wise. And unions do work for students and teachers. This relationship is difficult to separate since our roles are defined in relation to one another. Unions aren't perfect but when you witness how much and how often administrators abuse their power, you understand that unions serve a purpose.
10:38 AM on 06/13/2011
So true: As a teacher, I want one job that I can do well versus three jobs disguised as one. Becoming over extended beyond what they are qualified to do well spreads them too thin. Too often teachers, "step in" where they are not qualified. The job of teachers is to refer students in need to social services, versus trying to be the parent and psychologist for students in need. The union gives teachers a contract and I think teachers should work to that contract and stop accepting extra work thrown over the all to "teach the whole child" whatever that means on any particular day. We need to fullfill our contracts first, and then as time allows address the other stuff. While this may seem rather harsh, non-teachers would be truly amazed with what principals and others throw on the plates of teachers with little regard to their contracts. Until those antics stop, the unions have a role to play in public education.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tultican
Thomas Ultican, MEd. BS Mecahnical Engineering
06:45 PM on 06/10/2011
Charter schools are in general a horrible idea. They are undermining community development and the greatest public education system the world has ever seen. Our much unjustly maligned system is the foundation of the world's most advanced civilization ever. Charters have become the primary path of the privatizers who give scant thought to the devastation they are bringing to the future of America. No people are being more hurt by modern education "reform" than people of color who live in poverty and charters have a tendency to exacerbate that problem. I am reading things here about the schools system in New York that I find difficult to believe, but if we are getting a true picture of education in that city, then this whole mayoral control and the Joel Klein led reform is worse than a pathetic failure, it is criminal malpractice.
09:11 AM on 06/11/2011
I disagree. Charters were a good idea. They were meant to be rare, serving mostly the kids who fall through the cracks in public school. They were meant to use unionized, respected teachers who wanted to try out new approaches, as experiments to see how they'd work, and then scale up those experiments to the public schools if they were effective. And they were meant to be an extra; if funding got tight, you'd obviously close the experimental charter and put your limited resources toward the tried-and-true (and still, much more reliably effective) public school.

It's only the way charters have been implemented that's been horrible.
PixieGirl0731
Brain cells come and go but fat cells live forever
11:20 AM on 06/11/2011
I disagree with you. Charter schools ignore the truely needy students. They then criticize the students and teachers they victimize.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tultican
Thomas Ultican, MEd. BS Mecahnical Engineering
12:13 PM on 06/12/2011
I agree with you. I did put in the caveat "in general" and the reason I did that is that I am aware of a great charter school. The Pruess School on the campus at UCSD was founded as an experiment in teaching practices that might close the performance gap between students of different groupings. It was laboratory school created to augment the public school system and it has been a great success. Unfortunately the lessons learned at this school are not widely distributed because they are based on real pedagogical research and not multiple choice tests.
10:56 AM on 06/13/2011
Do you have a child would be required to attend a lousy public school? While in principle, and politically, I agree with you, when you have a child you are compelled to send to school with "children in need" (code for poor people), your own child must face issues that are beyond the pale of childhood including, violence, mulit-generational gangs, drugs, low academic achievement, and 13-14 year old children having babies. While politically you are correct, that can't be compared to dropping a child off at a low performing school everyday? I

Until the social ills that spill into schools are addressed as THE highest priority (not teacher tenure), parents of motivated students who want an academic future, will avoid low performing schools like the social diseases they reflect. Who wants to change the world on the back of their child's one chance at childhood and getting a decent education? Not me. Not most parents. Critics of charters see this as economic but it goes far beyond the economics of education and straight into the peace of mind a parent needs to drop a kid off in the morning and believe they will have a decent chance to learn something and not be afraid all day. Charters are the best work around to a failed system. So many politicos who hate charters don't face the scary decision everyday to drop their kids off at some lousy school.
04:57 PM on 06/10/2011
You were a baker with five loaves of bread and you saw 20 starving children. You gave the five loaves to five of the children (even though they could not eat it all) and you let the rest starve. And now you're proud of yourself. The difference between us is that I would cut each loaf into four (20 good size pieces), give each child a piece to keep them alive for now, and go home and bake some more bread.
05:19 PM on 06/10/2011
Our children are not pieces of bread.
05:44 PM on 06/10/2011
@bruninyc Whaaaaat? I didn't think I had to explain this, but... Like the baker in my analogy, the charter school only feeds a few kids, and lets the rest starve. By putting all those tax dollars, effort, and good practices into charter schools you help that small group but you deprive the rest of an education. Why not take all of those good things that are known to be successful and give them to the public school kids as well?
04:44 PM on 06/10/2011
Hurray, Mr. Myers for putting forth a more realistic picture from many of us - parents who are desperate for a quality education for our kids. Many of us in New York City are at a loss as to why NAACP are in a battle siding with the UFT and against the interest of students who want to learn.

There are many super achieving minority students who because of charters are getting a chance at education.

The fight between public and charters is really a division of kids who want an education and kids who do not view it as a priority. Of course the UFT wants to hold on to the kids who are academically inclined. Who doesn't?!

I beleive the future education landscape will be separated by those who wants an education and those who don't. There are many public schools that are excellent, but they are all filled. This is where charter fills the void. Many parents out of zone can go into charters because the rules of zoning are not so stringent.

The new landscape, educationally, for our children may not be all bad. If we divide the children according to abilities, it may be easier for teachers to teach and it will help all kids of all levels to succeed.

You have it right when you say that the naacp is not being fair, why should we let our high achieving minority students flounder? They need a chance at education!
06:00 PM on 06/10/2011
Both Mr. Myers and the NAACP are missing the point. Mr. Myers is wanting to save a few kids at the expense of the others, while the NAACP is willing to sacrifice all of the kids to prevent inequality. Why is no one willing to fight for equality for all of the children?
09:16 AM on 06/11/2011
The UFT, the NAACP, and the kids are all on the same side, against Bloomberg.
PixieGirl0731
Brain cells come and go but fat cells live forever
11:23 AM on 06/11/2011
What the NAACP and the UFT see is that this system is creating a new slavery. The one in education inequality.
photo
SF TKF
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
03:13 PM on 06/10/2011
Anyone who's paying attention to this issue knows that majorty of charter schools do not perform as well as run of the mill public schools do. It's a boondoggle.
11:10 AM on 06/10/2011
Hazel Dukes runs the NY NAACP. She's run it for the last 35 years. Other than the actual positions that it takes, there's no better evidence that the NY NAACP is a bankrupt institution. See, e.g.:

Former President of OTB Pleads Guilty in Theft Case
By JOHN SULLIVAN
Published: October 16, 1997

Hazel N. Dukes, the president of the New York State chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a former president of the New York City Offtrack Betting Corporation, pleaded guilty yesterday to stealing $13,000 from an OTB employee who was suffering from cancer.

In a brief appearance in Manhattan Criminal Court, Ms. Dukes, 65, admitted that she embezzled money in 1993 from the bank account of Velma McLaughlin, a former OTB employee, who had given Ms. Dukes power of attorney when Ms. McLaughlin was on disability leave as she battled leukemia.

Ms. Dukes offered no explanation for her actions yesterday, but tersely answered questions put to her by Judge Mogulescu. On the courthouse steps after the hearing, she declined to answer questions, other than to say that she agreed to the plea ''to come to a closure with this case.''
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grammasher
11:10 AM on 06/10/2011
My question is--Why are charter schools "better resourced" than public schools? Aren't charter schools funded by tax dollars? They are in Wisconsin. Why the discrepancy?

Also, I think the one thing that would make a difference in all schools is smaller schools. Warehousing children in factory schools is self-defeating. Of course, smaller schools would cost more, so I guess I won't hold my breath for that.
11:50 AM on 06/10/2011
Two reasons: first, because charter schools are the flavor of the month. The few successful ones (most are failing) receive huge private donations on top of the public money that public schools have to make do with. When they can actually claim success, charter proponents like to ignore this fact and claim that charters are more efficient because they "receive the same public funding as traditional public schools." Which is true. But many of them have lots of private money coming in on top of that.

Second, because it seems that in New York City (I don't live there, so I'm basing this on media reports), charters are treated by the mayor-controlled school system as the favored child, while public schools are the redheaded stepchild. The limited resources seem to go to the charters.