The Stein Scholars Program had a busy fall semester, including production of three student-organized programs: [Un]Affordable Housing – The Current State of Housing in New York; SCOTUS Education Decisions; and Implicit Bias workshop.
[Un]Affordable Housing – The Current State of Housing in New York
On October 7, the Stein Scholars Program organized an event to highlight the crisis in affordable housing and suggest some proposals for change. The event featured four speakers: 1) Lynn Horowitz, an attorney at Housing Conservation Coordinators; 2) Tim McCourtney, Director of the Sarah Burke House, a transitional shelter for families experiencing domestic violence run by Sanctuary for Families; 3) Bruce Berg, Fordham University Professor of Political Science; and 4) Emily Ponder, staff attorney with the Civil Defense Practice at Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem.
Affordable housing, or the lack thereof, has become one of the most important issues in New York City. As luxury developments alter the city’s skyline and neighborhoods in all five boroughs rapidly gentrify, it is increasingly difficult for the majority of New Yorkers to find adequate housing without sacrificing an inordinate portion of their income. In recent years, a frightening development has arisen: homelessness in New York has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression.
Against this backdrop, the four speakers discussed the current state of affordable housing and its relationship to homelessness, as well as a variety of specific proposals, including how to prevent eviction and keep people in their homes; the importance of preserving rent stabilization stock; and the need to expand affordable and low-income housing options. The panelists helped the attendees understand the pros and cons of tools such as downzoning, rezoning, public housing and tax credits as a means of expanding the stock of affordable housing. The speakers also reminded students that although 90% of tenants in Housing Court are unrepresented, it is just as important to develop programs for the already homeless as it is to fund anti-eviction measures. The speakers concluded by challenging those committed to the issue to help identify solutions that balance a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach with one that implements citywide pro-tenant housing policies.
SCOTUS Education Decisions – WA Charter School Verdict Raises Public Funds Concerns
A recent decision by the Washington Supreme Court found that state legislation providing public funding for charter schools violates state constitutional requirements concerning “funding of the common schools.” The reasons why and some implications were reviewed on October 28 in the SCOTUS Education Program led by Fordham Law Professor Aaron Saiger and sponsored by the Stein Scholars Program.
Many people who know charter schools and like them will tell you that charter schools avoid the rigid parts of public schools (unions, school hours, days in school, specified curriculum, etc.) and keep only the good portions. Charters are still required to adhere to state standards and are usually closely tracked by the states in which they operate. Charter schools are also often run by private or quasi-government organizations, not by government, school boards, superintendents, administrators and unions (to name a few) and so there may be differences in how students’ needs are addressed.
Charter schools are also considered public schools – and they have a vested interest in portraying themselves as public schools. Every state statute authorizing public schools starts the same way – by defining charter schools as public schools. Why? If you are not a public school, but a private school, can you receive public funding? Probably not. It also mitigates opposition from teachers’ unions by enabling charter schools to claim that they have the same level of public accountability as the public schools, but are simply organized under a different model.
The Washington Supreme Court’s holding states that charter schools in Washington are neither “common schools” nor are they “uniform”. In other words, precisely because charter schools choose to operate differently from “common schools” (as envisioned by Horace Mann), they often present different methods, such as hours, curriculum, teaching methodology, school focus, etc. Also, because they are not like other schools, they don’t uniformly fit into the public school framework. Effectively, from the Court’s ruling, charter schools are no longer considered public schools and are not eligible for public funding.
Is this fair? Regardless of what you feel about charter schools, from a legal perspective, Professor Saiger pointed out, the Court’s ruling lacks internal consistency. First, the government runs schools and decides how to define their setup. If the government chooses to create and fund non-common schools through the general fund, it is strange to say both that the money they spend comes from the common school fund (because it is used to fund schools) and at the same time that the schools are in fact not common schools and therefore cannot be funded. And second, public schools are not at all uniform – even in the same districts! They vary greatly based on funding populations, teacher availability and many other factors.
What is clear is that Washington is not the only place playing out the charter school debate. Florida and Ohio have had similar cases. It is also not the only state considering educational and funding alternatives to fix school districts.
Implicit Bias Workshop
On October 14, Dr. Courtney Cogburn, an assistant professor at the Columbia School of Social Work and a faculty affiliate of the Columbia Population Research Center, facilitated a discussion about diversity, racism, and implicit bias at a meeting of the Stein Scholars Program. Dr. Cogburn’s workshop was an outgrowth of the conversations and meetings about race and diversity that Stein Scholars began organizing in response to the deaths last year of Eric Garner (Staten Island) and Michael Brown (Ferguson).
Dr. Cogburn asked the students to consider what makes people poor. She also asked whether bias is present at Fordham and who should be responsible for combating and eradicating it. Throughout the hour and a half conversation, questions and comments by students covered a lot of topics, such as the relationship between class and race; the implications of defining problems as individual in nature as opposed to systemic; how to identify policy and structural solutions; and the role slavery played in laying the foundation for the current state of affairs.
One student of color shared her wish that she could have a voice at the table without anyone questioning if she should be there or how she got there. Some issues raised during the workshop that are specific to Fordham Law include the low percentage of students of color, the absence of an office designated to help with their retention, the need to offer more scholarships and financial aid, and incidents of individual-blaming. At the conclusion of the workshop, students renewed their commitment to continuing the dialogue and pressing for positive, meaningful change.
