This blog on Texas education contains posts on accountability, testing, K-12 education, postsecondary educational attainment, dropouts, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, environmental issues, Ethnic Studies at state and national levels. It also represents my digital footprint, of life and career, as a community-engaged scholar in the College of Education at the University of Texas at Austin.
Sobering report on the labor market that the Class of 2016 faces out of the Economic Policy Institute. Here's a quote that suggests how our economy has gotten re-structured.
The high share of unemployed and underemployed young college graduates
and the share of employed young college graduates working in jobs that
do not require a college degree underscore that the current unemployment
crisis among young workers did not arise because today’s young
adults lack the right education or skills. Rather, it stems from weak
demand for goods and services, which makes it unnecessary for employers
to significantly ramp up hiring.
The solutions are ones that are important for adult workers, as well, as follows: Keep interest rates low as the economy strengthens; raise the minimum wage; enforce labor standards and most definitely by providing a path to citizenship for undocumented students.
What I would add to this is that we need to get involved in politics at all levels—local, state, and national—though most particularly at the state and local levels. If we wait for the feds to "save us," that's a long shot. Not that there isn't always also a federal agenda for good policies, but rather that we need a two- or three-part strategy. One engages national, the other state, and a local strategy that is community anchored and organic.
I've written elsewhere on how we need to grow our own teachers instead of outsourcing what amounts to work and opportunity for education management organizations that get our communities' hard-earned tax dollars for an education that is still not about the culturally relevant education that our communities want and need (see this morning's previous post).
Let's start setting up our own indigenous, grassroots institutions that can result in job-creation strategies locally. We need not only to grow our own teachers as I have suggested elsewhere, but we need to grow our own everything—principals, administrators, city council members, arts leaders, business leaders, scientists, architects, and so on. This is an intentional, assets-based framework that draws on the strengths and talents of our communities that through partnerships and the intelligence, wisdom, and experience that resides within to articulate a fresh vision and strategy that is anchored in the identities, lives, and structures of opportunities that exist organically in our communities.
Check out this Saturday school that we've opened up here in Austin. It is the result of a public, public, private (nonprofit) partnership. Here is a KLRU/PBS video that captures the overall initiative succinctly titled, "Academia Cuauhtli Works to Bridge History with Language.” Due to the initiative of one of our members, Dr. Emilio Zamora who also sits on the Hispanic Quality of Life Commission, was able to set up a funding stream that will soon result in a paid internship to help us with this effort. Several student volunteers in our group have now also decided to pursue masters and doctoral degrees such that our very presence as university faculty, community members and advocates, has resulted in a pathway into advanced degrees.
Just like with our food, or our best nutrition, we also need to go organic with our educational institutions. We need to rediscover grassroots democracy in and for our times—and with the schooling of our children and youth at the center.
Summary: Young high school and
college graduates were hit hard in the Great Recession. While young
graduates’ economic prospects have brightened in recent years, they
still face elevated unemployment rates and stagnant wages. Many
groups—including young graduates of color, as well as young high school
graduates entering the workforce—face particularly difficult economic
realities. This report looks at trends in unemployment, underemployment,
and wages of young high school and college graduates to paint a picture
of the economy facing the Class of 2016.
Not surprising, but notable disconnect in a Florida report titled, “New Education Majority" between parents and schools. On the one hand are the parents who express the following:
A majority of poll respondents said that
when their children make it to college, it is largely due to the
student’s and family’s efforts, while only about 15 percent said the
school’s role was the most important factor.
Then you have those that are ostensibly serving these communities of color faulting them for what they see as families not valuing education. This article points out correctly just how faulty this perception is. As I've written previously, with few exceptions, all parents care about their children's well-being and success. The issue is rather whether schools can even apprehend this caring and respond in an effective manner, on the one hand, and the extent to which parents can translate their caring into effective practices that promote academic achievement. That's why we need schools to partner with parents and community-based organizations that can help address what turns out to be a systematic disconnect. Wade Henderson of The Leadership
Conference Education Fund indicates as much:
“Too often, the prevailing dialogue faults
families of color for bad educational outcomes instead of grappling
meaningfully and seriously with the need for the system to make
different policy choices."
My only quibble with this piece and by extension, the title of the report is with the title and reference to the "new majority." As a sociologist, I must point out that the term, "majority," doesn't refer to numbers but rather to power. That is, a group can be a numerical majority but still lack cultural, political, economic, and social power—and thusly, be a minority. The concept of majority-minority relations points out those that are in, as opposed to those that are not, in power along all of these dimensions. Stated differently, simply being a group that is large in numbers doesn't automatically equate to or mean that they call the shots on the education they receive. Repression and Anglo conformity can still occur. Why aren't we a bilingual or multilingual nation by now if minority groups hold power? That said, this new, numerical majority—which is itself not actually new, but part of the very national landscape out of which majority-minority relations have been forged—has a voice and an important perspective on what a quality school can be. Adequate school funding, highly qualified, anti-racist teachers, and a rigorous multicultural/ethnic studies curriculum is what should begin finding a home in our public education system if parents' and communities' sense of possibility is to take root.
Growing critically conscious teachers: A social justice curriculum for educators of
Latino/a Youth offers an alternative route along the lines suggested above. This is an organic, community-based alternative that invests in the talent that resides
in our communities. To seriously re-order our priorities and effectuate change, we need our community institutions to partner with school districts and universities in order to get the teachers our children need and the education our communities deserve.
All
royalties will go to our national organization, the National Latino/a
Education Research and Policy Project (NLERAP) in support of our grow
your own Latin@ Teacher Education Institutes Initiative in 5 cities in 5
states at present. Contributors: Carmen Mercado BarbosaAdele Arellano,
Jennifer Ayala, Margarita Margie Ines Berta-Avila, Julio Cammarota,
José Cintrón, Barbara Flores, Melissa Rivera, and Louie Rodriguez.
Thanks to Sonia Nieto, Christine Sleeter, and Antonia Darder for the
foreword, afterword, and blurb, respectively. Angela Valenzuela c/s
Modes of thought| For the first time, classrooms in public schools are filled mostly by
nonwhite students. The concerns of minority parents could change
American schools and education policies.
Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/FILE
America’s public schools are a snapshot of a changing America:
Since 2014, for the first time in the country’s history, a majority of
those in public schools have been students of color.
That’s more
than just a statistic. The rise of this “new majority” promises to have
sweeping effects on American schools over time. The voices and interests
of these students and their parents will need to be better woven into
the decisionmaking that affects United States classrooms, many education
experts say.
What’s their emerging message? In part it’s in keeping with the
age-old desires of families everywhere: a good education in safe
schools. But it’s also a call for greater equity in school quality – a
longstanding sore spot in America’s education system that’s growing
harder to ignore. And for some in this new majority, the definition of a
good education includes shaping lessons that truly embrace diversity.
Consider just this one finding from a new poll of black
and Latino parents: The sense of racial bias was so strong for some
parents that a quarter of Latinos and a third of African-Americans
agreed with the statement, “Schools in the US are not really trying to
educate Black/Latino students.”
“The quality is not the same due to less
funding,” a Latino parent said of schools serving primarily students of
color, during a Chicago focus group tied to the poll. The parent said
the money gap means “less teachers, less technology available … and less
overall academic opportunities.”
And opportunity is the goal for
these new-majority parents. Judging by the poll and focus-group
responses, they want their kids held to rigorous standards and
expectations, and they’re ready to do their part to prod their children
forward. They just want schools to be up to the task at hand.
“Will
states and school districts rise to the occasion and build a K-12
public education system designed to address the educational needs of
students of color? Or will they shirk their duty … and condemn a
majority of public school students to a future with little to no
promise?” asks Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership
Conference Education Fund, in a report on the poll results.
What parents see
Mr.
Henderson’s group is the research and education arm of a large civil
rights coalition, and sponsored the new poll for a report titled, “New Education Majority:
Attitudes and Aspirations of Parents and Families of Color.” The
survey included 400 black and 400 Latino parents and guardians of
school-age children, interviewed by phone in March by the polling firm
Anzalone Liszt Grove Research (ALG).
More than three-quarters in
the poll said schools in low-income communities – often those with many
African-American or Latino residents – receive less funding than schools
in wealthy communities. Parents who believed there are racial
disparities in the quality of education attributed it primarily to this
lack of funding. The next two factors they pointed to: lower teacher
quality and overall racial bias.
“I’ve seen it so many times
before. They don’t offer to black schools what they offer to white
schools,” an African-American parent told a focus group in Philadelphia.
In
all, 6 in 10 Latinos and 8 in 10 African-Americans in the survey said
schools serving their group receive less than schools in white
communities.
The vast majority also believed students should be
challenged more and that low-income students should be held to the same
or higher expectations, because of the importance of education as a path
out of poverty or limited opportunities.
The call for better
schools and greater equity comes at an important moment in national
education policy. States are working to refine their school
accountability systems within the parameters of the new federal
education law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law replaced
the law known as “No Child Left Behind,” giving states greater
flexibility in how to ensure strong schools.
As is often the case
with polls of parents, more than 8 out of 10 said the school their
children attend is good or excellent. But even within this question, the
backdrop of racial equity lurked. Among African-Americans whose child
attended a school that is mostly white, 94 percent rated the school
highly, compared with 75 percent of those whose school was mostly black.
When asked an open-ended question about what factor is most important to make a great school, half cited good teachers.
Considering new priorities
The
poll results may help broaden education policy agendas. In the dominant
narrative around education reform, “a lot of the debates that we hear
about … just don’t reflect what these new-majority parents have to say,”
says Liz King, director of education policy for The Leadership
Conference Education Fund. “The hemming and hawing about opt-out
[related to standardized testing], for example, we just don’t see that
as a priority concern.”
A majority of poll respondents said that
when their children make it to college, it is largely due to the
student’s and family’s efforts, while only about 15 percent said the
school’s role was the most important factor.
But such family support is not always top of mind for educators at struggling schools.
In
a high school in Florida that had some of the worst outcomes, an
intervention leadership team at first thought of the families as largely
unemployed and not particularly valuing education. The team believed
that, in turn, this caused the children to not aspire to higher
education.
After they surveyed the students, they found quite the opposite, according to an account by Rebecca Carlo, then-coordinator of a Florida project working with struggling learners.
Nearly
all the students believed attending school beyond high school was an
important goal, and more than 9 out of 10 said their family supported
their educational goals and encouraged them to keep trying when things
were difficult.
“Too often, the prevailing dialogue faults
families of color for bad educational outcomes instead of grappling
meaningfully and seriously with the need for the system to make
different policy choices,” notes Mr. Henderson of The Leadership
Conference Education Fund in the report, which acknowledges that the new
majority includes Asians and Native Americans, who are likely to be
included in future polls. “We cannot hope to build the public education
system all children deserve without including the parents and families
of the students who will most benefit from a truly high-quality
education.”
But to truly engage with families in Latino and
African-American neighborhoods to ensure equity will require a deeper
dive into the subtext of the poll, said Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade, a
longtime teacher in largely Latino East Oakland, Calif., and a professor
at San Francisco State University, during a panel discussion following
the poll’s release April 11.
When parents of color call for
“rigor” in education, for instance, they aren’t necessarily calling for
more academic tests. “You can’t be engaged in academically rigorous
education without being engaged in a culturally relevant education,” he
said. “For us, the inclusion and centrality of valuing our culture,
valuing our history … is by definition what we mean by academic rigor.”
The Reverend William J. Barber delivers here a brilliant defense of public education and its central importance in furthering the goals of democracy. This is a must see. Thanks to Dr. Julian Vasquez-Heilig for sharing.
Sarah Biondello and me at the Marriott Marquis,
Washington, D.C. Monday, April 11, 2016
Thanks to Teachers College Press: You're the Best!
by Angela Valenzuela I want to express my gratitude toSarah Biondello, Acquisitions Editor at Teachers College Press, for shepherding our co-published manuscript, Growing Critically Conscious Teachers: A Social Justice Curriculum for Educators of Latino/a Youth, to completion. Before Sarah, the now retired Marie Ellen Larcada, was a true friend and motivator. For us in the National Latino Education Research and Policy Project #NLERAP, this has been a long journey much of which is captured in the manuscript. NLERAP's signature project is a grow-your-own Latin@ teacher initiative, a grassroots and grasstops effort still under way in 5 cities in 5 states with our most robust site being at Cal State Sacramento that along with El Puente and the El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice in Brooklyn, New York, have both inspired this dream of a right to self determination of our communities with teacher education—armed with a community-based, social justice consciousness—residing at its core. The book conveys a model for this in terms of a community-anchored framework, a method, curriculum, and pedagogy.It offers a clear structure that we hope will inspire communities throughout the nation to undertake similar grassroots initiatives. Although we focus on the Latin@ community, it is directly translatable to diverse communities everywhere. It is not enough for our teachers to simply command knowledge and skills. They must also optimally possess the kind of dispositions that research has found not only "works" for minority youth, but majority, as well. This is a community-oriented, social justice approach that addresses the achievement gap squarely not by looking at what children lack, but by considering how we can—to borrow from Dr. Esteban Díaz—create "positive zones of success" instead of "negative zones of failure." As articulated within, teacher's work is a collective endeavor, ideally situated as part of a larger, grander vision as historically articulated by our communities that continue to challenge hegemonic curricula and oppressive, institutional structures that "subtractively school" our youth, leaving them academically vulnerable to academic failure. That is, under the rhetoric of assimilation or Americanization, they continue to eviscerate our children's home-based languages, cultures, and identities much to their academic detriment. If there is anything that we've learned from this work, it's that there are no short cuts. Growing our own teachers and future leaders is a slow and patient process, yet we are truly all the better for it. Once an initiative like ours "takes root" in your communities whereby the precise stakeholders that stand to benefit from this grow-you-own teacher model are invested, the sky is the limit. We can grow our own teachers, our own graduate students, our own professional class, our own business leaders, our own intellectuals, our own social justice warriors and as a consequence, a brighter future.
Again, TC Press, you're the best! You can purchase the book here.
Check out this important piece on charter school expansionism in the U.S. This is an interview of Dr. Preston Green whose research pulls down the curtains on the ever-expanding charterization of public education. Akin to the unregulated system of subprime mortgage loans that created a bubble in the market by eliminating "mortgage-originator risk," the charter school agenda is similarly doing so by removing the caps on the expansion of charter schools in states across the U.S., as well as by simultaneously allowing for multiple (unregulated) authorizers. This sounds like a well-greased way to run away with taxpayers' hard-earned money if you ask me. You should read the whole article, but here are a couple of pertinent excerpts on the problem and the solutions:
Green: There is an intense push to increase the number
of charter schools in Black, urban communities, where they’re very
popular because of the dissatisfaction with traditional public schools.
Because of this desire for more educational options, these communities
are more likely to support policies that could lead to charter school
bubbles forming. In fact, I would argue that we are at “ground zero” for
the formation of such bubbles. Supporters of charter schools are using
their popularity in black, urban communities to push for states to
remove their charter cap restrictions and to allow multiple authorizers.
At the same time, private investors are lobbying states to change their
rules to encourage charter school growth. The result is what we
describe as a policy “bubble,” where the combination of multiple
authorizers and a lack of oversight can end up creating an abundance of
poor-performing schools in particular communities.
Solution?
Green: If we’re going to have
multiple authorizers, we have to impose standards to ensure that they do
a good job, because without those standards there is really no
incentive for them to ensure that these schools are operating in an
acceptable manner. I should also mention putting sanctions in place to
prevent the really squirrely practice of “authorizer hopping,” where
schools are closed by one authorizer and then find another authorizer,
which has happened quite a bit in places where oversight has been really
weak, like Ohio. Further, authorizers should guard against predatory
chartering practices, including fining students for discipline
violations.
I concur with Dr. Green that the present discourse on so-called "choice" exploits poor folk's desires for a higher quality education for their children. And many of these families and communities are black and brown. Here in Austin, 100 percent of the charter schools are located in East Austin, on the other side of the non-affluent side of town. Zero are located west of I-35. If they're good enough for that side of the highway, then they should be good enough for the other side, too, yet you don't see west siders clamoring for their children to get in. To the contrary, public schools work for them.
So why don't our public schools work for all of our children? The short quick answer is the politics of education that the charterization of public education does not resolve. In fact, by postponing for yet another generation children's and communities rights to their own self determination and pretending to operate blissfully outside of the logic of the very competitive, market-based, system that privileges whites, capitalists, and the upper class, they perpetuate a diminished sense of democracy. There are, of course, always exceptions, but that's the point: They're exceptions.
Check out this earlier piece, too, for more arguments on the poor policy direction that charterization represents:
Here is a quote of mine from that blog post that I think still offers an alternative to charterization:
We
as a society will be paying the cost of this "de-form" for decades if
we as a public don't get involved. Stop complaining about public
schools and get involved. Run for office. Talk to your board members.
Attend board meetings. Exercise your democratic rights; don't forfeit
them to a business or corporation. Be an agent of change and help
preserve our democracy.
With
“The Big Short” doing well in theaters — a film about the near collapse
of the financial system because of the bursting of a housing and credit
bubble — here’s a piece that asks the simple question: “Are charter
schools the new subprime loans?” The post by Jennifer Berkshire refers
to a new study by
four academics titled, “Are We Heading Toward a Charter School
‘Bubble’?: Lessons From the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.” This is a Q &
A with Preston C. Green III, the lead author of the report and the John
and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education at the University of
Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. Berkshire, a freelance journalist
and public education advocate, worked for six years editing a newspaper
for the American Federation of Teachers in Massachusetts. She writes
the EduShyster blog, where this first appeared.
(The other three authors of the report are Bruce Baker of Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey; Joseph Oluwole of Montclair State
University; and Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin at Madison Jennifer Berkshire: It’s unusual to see the words “hair-raising” and “academic study” in tandem, but your new study
merits that marriage. You and your co-authors make the case that, just
as with subprime mortgages, the federal government is encouraging the
expansion of charter schools with little oversight, and the result could
be a charter school “bubble” that blows up in urban communities. Do I
have it right? Preston Green: The problem of
subprime mortgages began in part because the government tried to
increase homeownership for poor people and minorities by enabling
private entities to offer more mortgages without assuming the risk.
Under the old system, the mortgage originator was still at risk if the
mortgage went into default. With subprime, they were able to spread that
risk by selling the mortgages on the secondary market. You had all
these mortgage originators that could issue more mortgages without
careful screening because they no longer had skin in the game. Now how
are charter schools similar to subprime? In the charter school context,
charter school authorizers are like mortgage originators. Berkshire: There’s a great moment in the new movie The Big Short
when Selena Gomez turns to the camera and explains to the world what
collateralized debt obligations are. Here’s your opportunity to do the
same, but for the convoluted world of charter school authorizing. Green:
Promoters of charter school expansion are calling for an increase in
independent authorizers, such as nonprofits and universities. Supporters
of charter school expansion believe that multiple authorizers will
issue more charters, in part, because they are less hostile to charter
schools than school districts. However, our research suggests another
reason that multiple authorizers result in more charter schools:
multiple authorizers are like mortgage originators with no skin in the
game. In other words, these authorizers don’t assume the risk of charter
school failure. That means that if something happens with the charter
school, the authorizers don’t have to clean up the mess. Multiple
authorizers may also weaken screening by giving charter schools the
chance to find authorizers who “won’t ask questions.” In fact, CREDO has
found that states with multiple authorizers experienced significantly
lower academic growth. CREDO suggested that this finding might be due to
the possibility that multiple authorizers gave charter schools the
chance to shop around to find authorizers who wouldn’t provide rigorous
oversight. Berkshire: Your paper raises the
spectre that a charter school “bubble” may be forming, particularly in
urban areas where these schools are expanding the most rapidly, and
often with the least oversight. Can you explain how a charter school
bubble would form? And how can I bet against it? Green:
There is an intense push to increase the number of charter schools in
Black, urban communities, where they’re very popular because of the
dissatisfaction with traditional public schools. Because of this desire
for more educational options, these communities are more likely to
support policies that could lead to charter school bubbles forming. In
fact, I would argue that we are at “ground zero” for the formation of
such bubbles. Supporters of charter schools are using their popularity
in black, urban communities to push for states to remove their charter
cap restrictions and to allow multiple authorizers. At the same time,
private investors are lobbying states to change their rules to encourage
charter school growth. The result is what we describe as a policy
“bubble,” where the combination of multiple authorizers and a lack of
oversight can end up creating an abundance of poor-performing schools in
particular communities. Berkshire: What’s fascinating and frankly disturbing about your research is how well
the subprime analogy fits, down to the edu-equivalent of predatory
lending practices in particular communities. But it seems important to
point out that these bubbles have their origin in worthy policy goals,
like increasing home ownership, or sending more kids to college. Who
would be against that? Green: Who would
be against that? That’s the power of the choice argument. Folks in poor
communities and Black, urban communities obviously want better
opportunities for their kids. And I don’t blame them for really pushing
for better options. But I do feel that there are people taking advantage
of their desire to get better opportunities by pushing forward more
options for charters without ensuring that these schools are
sufficiently screened. The argument that I hear all the time that drives
me crazy is: “Obviously this is a good choice. Look at all the parents
who are standing in line.” That’s just evidence that people want a
better education. That doesn’t mean that they’re actually getting it.
What I’d love to see happen is that we have programs and oversight in
place to ensure that their choices have meaning. I’m afraid that we’re
going down a path right now where we may not be setting up those
mechanisms to provide those assurances. Berkshire:
You make a provocative argument that what could ultimately cause the
charter bubble to burst in these communities is lawsuits, including
those filed by parents against charter schools on civil rights grounds.
Explain. Green:
You’re already starting to see that happen. In New Orleans, for
example, charters have been sued for failing to provide students with
disabilities with an education. This is such a problem that the U.S.
Department of Education issued a guidance letter
last year reminding charter schools that if they receive federal money,
they also have to comply with federal statutes such as Section 504 or
Title 6. You may also start seeing state constitutional challenges, like
we saw in Washington state. Where I see this playing out is that if you
have too many charters or options that aren’t public having a negative
impact on the education system as a whole, you may start seeing
challenges in these communities saying that the state is failing to
provide children with a system of public education, or that the options
provided aren’t of sufficient quality to satisfy the state’s obligation
to provide a public education. The assumption is that if kids fail to
get an education in a charter school they can return to the traditional
system. But what happens if you don’t have that option? You may soon see
that develop in all of these urban settings. The really scary scenario
that I could see happening is that you end up with all of these options
that aren’t traditional public schools with insufficient oversight by
the authorizers and no real pressure to get these schools to perform
well. Berkshire: The paper ends with some very
helpful suggestions about steps that might be taken to avert a charter
school bubble. Since the subprime mortgage crisis taught us that your
advice will be completely ignored, I want to give you the opportunity to
share here. Green: If we’re going to have
multiple authorizers, we have to impose standards to ensure that they do
a good job, because without those standards there is really no
incentive for them to ensure that these schools are operating in an
acceptable manner. I should also mention putting sanctions in place to
prevent the really squirrely practice of “authorizer hopping,” where
schools are closed by one authorizer and then find another authorizer,
which has happened quite a bit in places where oversight has been really
weak, like Ohio. Further, authorizers should guard against predatory
chartering practices, including fining students for discipline
violations. Berkshire: As someone who predicted
the subprime crisis (who didn’t???), I’m going to go out on a limb and
predict how this paper will be received. You, sir, will be characterized
as an “anti-charter ideologue.” Is that an accurate description? Green:
I used to be much more pro charter than I am now. I was really, really,
really pro charter. I see my research as explaining the systems aspect
of charters. I look at how these schools fit into the system of public
schools, and at what terms like “public” and “private” mean in terms of
oversight and student rights. This particular paper lays out how
instances of fraud and mistreatment of students can happen
systematically—how they’re embedded in the system and not just examples
of rogue charter school operators.
Valerie Strauss covers education and runs The Answer Sheet blog.
Explore the struggle of the Chicano
movement as the Mexican-American community in Austin, TX unites to fight
for quality education, equal representation, and respect for their
diverse culture. Through first person interviews, hear how these
individuals placed the goals of the community first and made a lasting
impact through empowerment, sacrifices, accomplishments and failures.
Visit the Website: http://video.klru.tv/show/austin-revealed/
Episode #102 / Length: 56 minutes
In a recent New York Times piece,
Nick Confessore explores why Donald Trump has proven so successful with
whites. His piece, while admirable in many ways, obfuscates the role of
race in Trump’s rise and the white working class abandoning the
Democratic Party.
One theory for why whites
are leaving the Democratic Party is because Obama is not progressive
enough. This impression has been heightened by recent comments made bySusan Sarandon, who said she wasn’t sure if she could vote for the similarly centrist Hillary Clinton in a general election.
The simple answer is no. A vast political science literature shows that
racism is indeed what is causing whites to leave the Democratic party.
Explanations that obscure the importance of race simply cannot explain
the voting patterns of white Americans.
Here is a great scholarship resource guide for undocumented youth by MALDEF.
Note their disclaimer:
"This is an informative resource guide for students, parents, and educators. MALDEF is not a direct provider of the scholarships on this list. f you are interested in any of the scholarships listed here, please contact the organization directly using the information provided. Thank you."
