EdML Blog

Es tiempo para que los líderes Latinos confíen en sus constituyentes y apoyen sus selecciones educacionales.

En su libro del 1968 “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, el educador Brasileño y filosofo Paulo Freire escribió, “el confiar en la gente es la condición previa para cambio revolucionario. Un humanista puede ser identificado más por su confianza en la gente, que lo envuelve en la lucha, más que mil acciones de su favor sin la confianza”.

Pero muchos campeones de la comunidad Latina, en las palabras de Freire, “substituyen monólogos, slogans, y comunicados con el dialogo”; y “atentan liberal al oprimido con los instrumentos de domesticación”. Latinos—como cualquier otro—no necesitan que se les diga que debe de hacer o que debe de creer. Nosotros necesitamos estar equipados con las herramientas necesarias para alcanzar nuestro potencial humano máximo.

Pero sobre todo lo demás, nosotros necesitamos que confíen en nosotros mientras navegamos nuestro propio camino hacia la liberación.

Si se puede buen un slogan efectivo para César Chávez y el United Farm Workers Union en los 1970’s, perro ahora ha sido mal usado tan comúnmente que ha perdido la mayoría de su significado real. Por ejemplo, cuando coros de “si se puede” se pueden escuchar en asambleas dirigidas por las uniones de maestros—los cuales rechazan el derecho de los padres de escoger lo que ellos creen es la mejor opción educacional para sus hijos—tiene mas que ver con negar posibilidades de los niños que ninguna otra cosa.

A pesar de las preocupaciones de Latinos en respecto a la retórica del presidente Donald Trump en relación a la inmigración, muchos Latinos continuar priorizando educación sobre todo lo otro. De acuerdo al Pew Research Center, el mejorar el sistema educativo esta al tope de la lista de prioridades de Latinos en el 2017. esto no es sorpresa para esos de nosotros en cualquier lado del debate de la selección de escuela.Nosotros todos estamos de acuerdo que la educación publica está fallando a demasiado de nuestros niños más vulnerables, y que algo debe de cambiar. En lo que no estamos de acuerdo es en quien confiamos para que haga los cambios.

Muchas encuestas y sondeos demuestra que la mayoría de Latinos prefieren selección de escuela. Aun así muchos líderes latinos bien intencionados van a continuar negándoles esa libertad de escoger. En lugar ellos insisten que nuestra comunidad debe de mantenerse unida en solidaridad para apoyar los distritos escolares corridos por el gobierno, Estos líderes proclaman, entre otras cosas, que las escuelas charter y programas de comprobante discriminan y fueron creadas por comunidades afluentes y predominantemente anglosajones para tratar de segregar a los Latinos y Negros pobres.

Pero aun si se demostrara que escuelas charter y programas de comprobante que tienen mejores resultados en desegregación que distritos escolares tradicionales, no cambiaría repentinamente estos mismo oponentes a campeones de de selección de escuela. No cambiaría sus lealtades presentes hacia uniones de maestros y otros aliados.

Freire insiste que comunidades se organizan para pelear por sus derechos y liberación. Aun así, Freire advierte que sin confiar en la gente en su “persecución de de afirmación propia” aun lidere bien intencionados se—en vez de liberal—frecuentemente sin saberlo se convierten en ellos mismos en opresores. Freire dice “cualquier situación en la cual ‘A’ objetivamente explota ‘B’ o obstruye su persecución de afirmación propia como persona responsable es una de opresión”.

Solidaridad, de acuerdo a Freire, no es tanto la combinación de causas (i.e. inmigración, derechos de LGBT, inclusión, etc.) para obtener más influencia a través de masas de gentes mas grandes. En cambio Freire insiste en que la solidaridad es el apoyo dado a individuos para ayudarle a través de su lucha de liberación propia, y que los líderes de la comunidad apoyen este proceso de liberación a través de dialogo y confianza—no dictando con monólogos y slogans. Freire continúa diciendo que, “El atentar de liberal al oprimido sin su participación reflectiva en el acto de liberación es el tratarlos como un objeto… es dirigirlos hacia la trampa populista y transformarlos en masas que pueden ser manipuladas”.

Freire no esta sin sus propias trampas. Su lente marxista puede oscurecer ideas importantes sobre la dignidad humana. Pero mucho de lo que el tiene que decir sobre el típico de liberación puede iluminar a mis hermanos y hermanas quienes al presente no apoyan selección de escuela.

Esos que aun no están convencidos deben de confiar en la gente para hacer sus propias decisiones en si quieren participar en el programa de selección de escuela, así como apoyarlos en solidaridad verdadera peleando a su lado. Esto solo puede pasar si la educación es considerada como distinta a los otros asuntos de “solidaridad”.

La educación y futuro de los niños Latinos ya no puede ser mantenida reten por buenas intenciones basadas en definiciones falsas de solidaridad.

Post originally posted on El Conquistador Latino Newspaper

Zeus Rodriguez, fundador de Hispanics for School Choice y ex presidente de la escuela St. Anthony en Milwaukee, la escuela K-12 Católica más grande en los Estados Unidos, es presidente de Education Matters—Latino.

It’s time for Latino leaders to trust their constituents and support their educational choices.

In his 1968 book, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire wrote, “trusting the people is the indispensable precondition for revolutionary change. A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust.”

But too many champions of the Latino community, in Freire’s words, “substitute monologue, slogans, and communiqués for dialogue,” and “attempt to liberate the oppressed with the instruments of domestication.” Latinos—like everyone else—don’t need to be told what to do or what to believe. We need to be equipped with the tools necessary to reach our full human potential.

But above all else, we need to be trusted to navigate our own path towards liberation.

Si se puede was an effective slogan for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union in the 1970’s, but it has now become so commonly misused that it has lost most of its real meaning. For example, when chants of “si se puede” can be heard at teacher union led rallies—which reject a parent’s right to choose what they believe is the best educational option for their children—it has more to do with denying possibilities to children than anything else.

Despite Latino concerns in respect to President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding immigration, many Latinos continue to prioritize education above all else. According to the Pew Research Center, improving the educational system tops the list of Latino priorities for 2017. This is no surprise to those of us on either side of the school choice debate. We all agree that public education is failing too many of our most vulnerable children, and that something must change. What we disagree on is who we trust to make that change.

Many polls and surveys demonstrate the clear majority of Latinos support the idea of school choice. However, many well-intentioned Latino leaders will continue to deny them that freedom to choose. Instead, they insist that our community must stick together in solidarity to support the government run district schools. These leaders proclaim, among other things, that charter schools and voucher programs discriminate and were created by the affluent and predominately Anglo community to try to segregate poor Latinos and Blacks.

But even if charter schools and voucher programs were shown to have better results of desegregation than traditional district schools, it wouldn’t suddenly change these same opponents to champions of school choice. It wouldn’t change their current loyalties to teachers’ unions and other allies.

Freire insists that communities organize to fight for their rights and liberation. However, Freire warns that without trusting the people in their “pursuit of self-affirmation” even well intentioned leaders will—instead of liberating—often unknowingly become the oppressors themselves. Freire says, “Any situation in which ‘A’ objectively exploits ‘B’ or hinders his and her pursuit of self-affirmation as a responsible person is one of oppression.”

Solidarity, according to Freire, is not so much to combine multiple causes (i.e. immigration, LBGT rights, economic inclusion, etc.) to attain more influence through larger masses of people. Instead, Freire insists that solidarity is the support given to individuals to help them through their struggle of self-liberation, and that the community leaders support this liberation process through dialogue and trust—not dictating with monologue and slogans. Freire goes on to say that, “Attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects…it is to lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be manipulated.”

Freire isn’t without his own pitfalls. His Marxist lens can obscure important ideas about human dignity. But much of what he had to say on this topic of liberation can enlighten my hermanos y hermanas who don’t currently support school choice.

Those who are still not convinced should trust the people to make their own decisions on whether to participate in a school choice program, as well as stand with them in true solidarity by fighting with them. This can only happen if education is regarded as distinct from the other “solidarity” issues.

Our Latino children’s education and future can no longer be held hostage by good intentions based on a false definition of solidarity.

Originally posted on The Hill

When two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, decided to vote against the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s pick for U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, it wasn’t a surprise.

If the last nine years as an education reformer have taught me anything, it’s that—regardless of party affiliation—the status quo will not go down without a bitter fight.

Senators Collins or Murkowski do nothing to support my rights as a parent or my children’s educational success.

In her statement rejecting DeVos, Collins said she was “troubled and surprised” about DeVos’s “lack of familiarity” with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Murkowski also voiced her concerns about a nominee “who has been so immersed in the discussion of vouchers.”

It seems Collins is ignorant of DeVos’s record on special needs advocacy. Murkowski’s primary concern is DeVos’s history of supporting parental choice, but that’s a important plank of her own party’s platform.

Beginning in 2011, as chairwoman of American Federation for Children (AFC), Betsy DeVos led an aggressive effort to pass Wisconsin legislation that would provide the necessary programatic funding for students with special needs who chose private schools in Milwaukee. That bill finally passed in 2016.

When AFC first proposed this special needs bill, Milwaukee already had a thriving school choice program that was serving thousands of children with special needs. However, most of these schools had no way of funding many of the additional and costly services these children required, until DeVos’s advocacy helped remedy that. While ultimately successful, AFC and its ally’s efforts to support these children and their schools were aggressively opposed by many in the government-run school systems.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was established as a critical response to most government-run schools systems’ refusal to educate children with disabilities. Now that same opposition is not only trying to falsely claim that DeVos doesn’t understand or care about educating disabled children, but would like to cheat parents out of their right to send their children to a school that best serves their needs—special or not.

To level false allegations regarding DeVos’s knowledge and experience is unethical, but to deny parents the right to choose what’s best for their children is immoral.

Originally posted on The Hill.