TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- According to two new reports, Judge Neil Gorsuch - President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court - has repeatedly failed to protect the rights of students with disabilities.
Gorsuch is set to testify before the U.S. Senate Monday. National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García, who taught students with special needs during her 20-year classroom career, said everyone should be concerned by the trend in Gorsuch's record.
"He's endorsed the lowest expectations for students with disabilities, and he's allowed schools to provide our highest need students with the bare minimum of an educational benefit,” Garcia said.
Reports from the National Education Association and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law point to one case as an example in which an autistic student's progress was dramatically reversed after switching schools. The parents sued the second school district, but Gorsuch sided with the district, ruling the student was only entitled to make progress that was slightly above the lowest possible standard.
Mark Murphy, managing attorney with the Bazelon Center, said Gorsuch's de minimus - or minimum standards - rulings show he is not sensitive to, or doesn't understand, the legal rights of people with disabilities.
"It really reflects really low expectations for kids with disabilities,” Murphy said. "I think it's fair to say that no parent of a child without a disability would be happy if the school district said that they only had to provide a de minimus level of education for them."
Garcia added that while parents and civil rights advocates rely on rules designed to end abusive practices, Gorsuch seems to have an antagonistic view toward agencies charged with protecting kids at risk.
"Why wouldn't you want to be on a parent's side when they say, 'We know what benefits our children because we saw it in this school, and we're not getting it in the second school.' Why wouldn't you be on the side of parents?” Garcia said.
The reports also show Gorsuch's rulings have allowed schools to use force and to isolate students with disabilities, despite studies showing that these students - especially students of color - are disproportionately subjected to the practice in schools.
get more stories like this via email
The election is less than six weeks away and Washingtonians will be deciding on a slate of initiatives, including one measure affecting funding in support of children.
If passed, Initiative 2109 would repeal a 7% tax on capital gains for assets worth more than $262,000. The repeal has support from hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who said it is a slippery slope toward a state income tax, which the state does not have.
Gabriela Quintana, senior policy associate for the Economic Opportunity Institute, said fewer than 4,000 people in the state pay the tax.
"It's a very privileged move to be able to fund these initiatives for your own needs and to not think about the impact this will have on a huge majority in Washington state," Quintana contended.
Last year, the tax pulled in about $786 million. The first $500 million collected from it goes toward schools, early learning and child care. Any additional money collected goes toward school construction.
Justin Fox-Bailey, president of the Snohomish Education Association, said the vast majority of Washingtonians who do not pay the capital gains tax will be affected if Initiative 2109 passes, especially kids.
"They're going to feel it in their communities when we give a tax cut to these millionaires and billionaires and you don't have the same access to child care, your kid's school isn't getting updated, public services are being cut or reduced," Fox-Bailey pointed out.
Washington has historically had one of the most regressive tax systems in the country and a recent report found the lowest-income 20% pay more than three times as much of their income as the top 1%.
Quintana argued the capital gains tax is vital for the state.
"We all need to play a role, including the wealthy individuals," Quintana asserted. "Repealing it will only really hurt families and children."
Ballots start going out on Oct. 18.
Disclosure: The Economic Opportunity Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Education, Livable Wages/Working Families, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Congress has one week from today to reauthorize a sweeping policy playing a big role in shaping the nation's food production system, and Wisconsin agricultural voices are paying close attention.
The Farm Bill is supposed to be renegotiated every five years. A temporary extension was approved one year ago, amid big differences about where to prioritize aid, including subsidies typically helping industrial-level farms.
Chuck Anderas, associate policy director at the Wisconsin-based Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said as the issues get sorted out, organizations like his hope lawmakers do not lose sight of the need to adequately fund conservation programs to benefit small farms.
"To neglect that is basically just picking winners and losers within the agricultural economy," Anderas contended.
Advocates are concerned about proposed language which would essentially spread conservation funding to "climate-smart" practices skeptics say only benefit big farms. The Farm Bill also covers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. House Republicans have proposed formula changes hunger-relief advocates say would amount to a $30 billion cut. GOP leaders dispute the claim, saying they would lower costs without cutting anyone's benefits.
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, Wisconsin has seen more than 20 weather-related disasters -- each resulting in at least one-billion dollars in damage -- in the past five years, four times the totals from the 1980s and 90s.
Anderas argued stronger and effective climate resiliency aid in the Farm Bill means participating producers can mitigate some of the damage.
"Even if you are skeptical about climate change, these practices infiltrate more water and hold more water in the soil and make a huge difference on the amount of water coming off of farm fields," Anderas outlined.
He added it protects natural resources, as well as infrastructure in farming communities, with local governments not having to spend as much on fixing washed-out roads and bridges.
With the current focus on the November election, analysts said it is likely Congress will approve another temporary extension of the current Farm Bill, rather than agree on a new one.
Disclosure: The Michael Fields Agricultural Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Hunger/Food/Nutrition, Rural/Farming, and Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Even in a stable economy, consumers in Wisconsin and elsewhere still express pessimism and advocates said a key federal agency working on issues like unfair business practices cannot risk losing resources needed to help consumers.
To avoid a government shutdown, Congress has to approve a new federal budget by month's end. Over the summer, House Republicans floated cuts in certain areas, including a 27% funding cut for the Federal Trade Commission.
Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said the timing could not be worse for such a move.
"We've seen people talk a lot about feeling like their costs are increased in lots of ways," Witte pointed out. "The FTC's work is really aimed at trying to lower a lot of those costs, to bring some fairness back to the process."
Last month, the agency co-hosted the first meeting of a task force about whether companies are price-gouging and the effect on consumers. GOP leaders on the Appropriations Committee said they want a financial services bill prioritizing combating terrorism-money activity, maintaining the integrity of financial markets and spurring small business growth.
Witte contends the FTC has made progress in standing up for consumers with great efficiency. She pointed to the proposed "click to cancel" rule, which would remove barriers for people worried about recurring charges for an unwanted subscription for a service or product.
"That would make it as easy for someone to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for it," Witte explained. "That proposal has gotten thousands of comments from consumers about how much time they are wasting on things like unnecessary subscriptions."
The state-level organization Opportunity Wisconsin has also cited concerns about consumer protections being gutted. It called on Congress to pass clean funding bills without extreme provisions it said would "hurt Wisconsin families." It is unclear if any of the budget ideas floated over the past several months will find their way into a final spending plan.
Disclosure: Opportunity Wisconsin contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy & Priorities, Civic Engagement, and Livable Wages/Working Families. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email