Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
« Older Entries

How to Explain US “Reform” to B-School Friends at Oxford

By dianerav
May 19, 2013 //
2

What if you were a product of public schools and found yourself years later getting a graduate degree in business management at Oxford University? Your British friends are very taken with ideas like accountability and competition. Maybe they saw “Waiting for Superman” and they too want to close the achievement gap.

What would you tell them?

Susan Altman found herself in that situation and she explains it here. This is a young woman with a keen sense of values. She has had a good education.

This is how she begins the explanation:

“Data isn’t everything.

“Did anyone here get really fired up for practicing the GMATs? Would your 9 year old self have loved school if you practiced 3rd grade GMATs all day, every day? Of course not. Testing is miserable, uncreative and doesn’t inspire us to be lifelong learners.

“The education reform movement is driven by a vision of the world that isn’t grounded in the messy (and potentially wonderful) reality of education. Instead, these policies come from a world of numbers, data, and a deep, compulsive desire for statistics. Which is fine if you are running a business and profit is the only outcome. But education is not a business. Test scores are not currency. And doing well on a test does not serve as proxy measure for “received a high quality education.”

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers

This Man Loves Disruption

By dianerav
May 18, 2013 //
40

Clayton Christiansen loves disruption.

He loves the idea that almost everything familiar to us will die and be replaced by competition.

Many corporate reformers swear by him. They think disruption is creative.

I wish they would get out of our lives and make money selling something other than disruption.

Categories Closing public schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit

How Corporate Reform Discourages Prospective Teachers

By dianerav
May 18, 2013 //
12

I have heard repeatedly in the past few years that teachers don’t want student teachers in their classrooms. The teachers are so focused on raising test scores that they can’t take the time to mentor the younger generation, and they are afraid to lose ground if they let a student teacher try a practice class. Consequently, the opportunities for the would-be teachers to get student teaching experience are closing up. This is not a problem for Teach for America, whose recruits get five weeks of training, but it is a huge problem for those planning a career as an educator and eager to get classroom experience before they enter into the profession.

This comment from a reader confirms the stories:

I am currently enrolled in a MAT program in Chicago, and I have been following your blog closely for quite a few months. One side of the story that I think is missing is how all these corporate reforms and testing have a negative impact on preservice educators. With teachers held to such high accountability, it seems that less are willing to have us preservice teachers come observe or work with them. With isat testing going on, my classmates and I have had very little success setting up observation times at schools. This is something that we have all been struggling with (even when testing is not happening). These observation hours are required for our degree. Also, I have heard anecdotes from a student teacher a year ahead of me about how the teacher is so concerned with testing that she would not let the student teacher teach.

I doubt that “reformers” and proponents of accountability think about how these high stakes measures make it difficult for preservice educators to learn the craft of being a teacher. The time spent observing, helping, interviewing students and teachers, and teaching are invaluable experiences for us and teach us so much about being teachers, but current reforms make these experiences hard to come by. I think a shared sentiment among my classmates and I is frustration. We want to be successful, prepared educators, but it feels like we have to jump through hoops and beg for time in schools. If we really cared about preparing quality educators, it should not be so difficult to get into schools, to see. feel, and experience the real deal.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Teachers and Teaching

The Flea, the Grasshopper, and the Frog: A Reformy Tale

By dianerav
May 18, 2013 //
14

Our first reform fairy tale was Chicken Little. This one is the story of the Flea, the Grasshopper, and the Leap-Frog, who were invited by the King to pass a test to win the Princess.

It is with humor, satire, and fairy tales that we unmask the foolishness that dares call itself “reform.”

Categories Corporate Reformers, Humor

Ed Berger: How to Defend Our Public Schools

By dianerav
May 18, 2013 //
5

In this post, Ed Berger explains the collaboration among stakeholders that is needed to defend our community public schools from marauders and vandals. He identifies the vandals.

The vandals all have the same goal: Destroy public schools. They call it “reform,” and anyone who stands up to them is called “a defender of the status quo.” They forget that they are the status quo.

Categories ALEC, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

UTLA: Endorse Monica Ratliff

By dianerav
May 16, 2013 //
5

This comment came from a teacher in Los Angeles:

I (UTLA member) just wrote to UTLA leadership about their totally inane “dual endorsement” in the current school board election, and suggesting that they change it to a full endorsement of Monica Ratliff. I will post my letter below. If any UTLA members reading this agree, please express your sentiment to UTLA leadership also.

—————————

Dear UTLA Board of Directors (and other UTLA officers),

I have been a teacher (and UTLA member) in LAUSD since 2002. Thank you for your work on our behalf.

The composition of the LAUSD school board can make a lot of difference to both the quality of education in the district, as well as our rights as teachers, etc. It is good and correct that UTLA gets involved in school board races, makes endorsements, etc. Most of your endorsements make sense. (For instance, supporting Zimmer in the recent primary, and opposing Monica Garcia.)

However, I must honestly say, that I am totally befuddled by your current dual endorsement (for the same seat) in the current school board election of May 21. IMO that dual endorsement makes no sense at all, is a total waste of member’s union dues and/or PACE contributions (if either or both are being used in the race), is not at all helpful to the future of the district, and appears so inane, that it could only give UTLA a negative reputation.

First of all, it makes no sense to endorse both candidates in a two-way race, in which only one can win. One endorsement cancels out the other. (Did you hear of anyone endorsing both Obama and Romney in the 2012 presidential election? Endorse both Bush and Gore in 2000? I did not. That would not have made any sense, and neither does your dual endorsement.) Is UTLA member money being used to support both candidates, so that they can run negative ads against each other? Just imagine! (If any member money, whether dues or PACE, is being used to support both candidates running against each other, that is a very irresponsible waste of member’s money, and certainly will not encourage people to join PACE.) If you cannot make up your mind who to support in a two-way race, then the thing to do is to be neutral, to support neither. You cannot support both candidates in a two way race. That is simply ridiculous, I don’t know how else to put it.

That said, I don’t know why you would be undecided. The choice in the race seems very clear, just as clear as Zimmer vs Anderson in the primary, with the same forces at work. There should be no doubt who UTLA should support.

On the one hand there is a candidate who is a teacher and UTLA member, who seems to have many good ideas about education, Monica Ratliff. She is fully endorsed by the new PAC of Diane Ravitch, “Network for Public Education” , as their first endorsement. (Please read about that endorsement here.) (I would suggest too, that UTLA recommend to its membership to join and contribute to Diane Ravitch’s PAC, to help fight off the big money coming in from the likes of Bloomberg, Gates, Broad, etc.)

The other candidate, Antonio Sanchez, is a lawyer with no background in education. He is heavily supported by the exact same coalition that threw big money behind Kate Anderson and Monica Garcia in the primary, led by the likes of Michelle Rhee, Bloomberg, Gates, Broad, etc., as well as our nemesis John Deasy. They are now putting that same kind of money behind Sanchez. They must have a reason for doing so. He must have promised something to them in return for that kind of support. Please read this article about a $350,000 donation to Sanchez from Bloomberg, via Villaraigosa’s school PAC.) (In case anyone reading cannot access that article in the LA Times, I will paste the article at the bottom of this e-mail.)

There really should be no question who UTLA and teachers should support in this race—a teacher, on our side, and the side of the children of the district, supported by Diane Ravitch, or a lawyer heavily supported by our enemies, John Deasy and the corporate “reformers” who are destroying education in this country.

The make-up of the new LAUSD school board can make a lot of difference in what transpires in this district in upcoming years. UTLA has had a positive influence on the process in the past, supporting candidates like Bennett Kayser and Steve Zimmer, and opposing the likes of Monica Garcia. UTLA could really make a difference this time too, by immediately ending the totally absurd “dual endorsement”, and throwing its full weight and influence behind Monica Ratliff. There is only just over a week left in the race. Please make that change today, and do what is right to try to positively influence the future of LAUSD.

———————
Note: in looking at my letter as pasted in above, I see that ont only formatting such as bold and italic has been lost., but the hyperlinks as well. So I will paste the links below.

Diane’s new PAC (I hope that all readers here join, as I have):

http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/

Her endorsement of Monica Ratliff in the current LAUSD school board race:

http://www.networkforpubliceducation.org/2013/05/our-first-endorsement-monica-ratliff-a-teacher-for-los-angeles-school-board/

LA Times article about big money from the corporate “reformers” going to Sanchez:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school-board-money-20130425,0,6967603.story

(if anyone reading wants to read the LA times article but has trouble accessing it, let me know in a response here, and I will paste the text in a follow-up post.)

Categories Corporate Reformers, Los Angeles

North Carolina: Public Schools and Students Endangered by Radical Agenda

By dianerav
May 14, 2013 //
36

Legislation is advancing in North Carolina that will harm the state’s underfunded public schools and strike a blow against its beleaguered teachers.

North Carolina is a right-to-work state, so there is no collective bargaining, and teachers have no voice in policy decisions about education.

Among the worst of the new bills is a proposal to fund a voucher/tax credit program, removing $90 million from public schools so that 1% of the state’s 1.5 million students may attend private and/or religious schools.

Another bill would strip away due process rights from teachers, so that teachers would have no right to a hearing if fired, no matter how many years of experience they have.

The new legislation would restrict eligibility for preschool, reducing the number of children who may enroll, and remove class size limits for some elementary grades.

Make no mistake (President Obama’s favorite expression, mine too): this legislation will save money in the short run but will cost the state far more in the long term. The Legislature is planning not only to harm public education, but to harm the children who benefit by being in preschool and in classes of reasonable size.

Former Congressman and State Superintendent Bob Etheridge said: “To the folks now running our state government in Raleigh, education reform is just another code word for cut, slash and burn.”

Governor Pat McCrory, who supports the radical anti-teacher, anti-public education agenda, has just named Eric Guckian as his Senior Education Advisor. Guckian was regional director of New Leaders in North Carolina (which recruits “transformational” leaders) and before that, was executive director of Teach for America in the state. He has been a consultant for the Gates Foundation and worked with KIPP. The following comes from the Governor’s press release:

“I am honored and humbled to serve as a member of Governor McCrory’s team,” said Guckian. “This is a critical time for education in our state, and I’m looking forward to working with committed teachers, leaders and community members to ensure that all of North Carolina’s students, regardless of circumstance, achieve an excellent education that will put them on the pathway to a better life; a life of honor, prosperity and service.”

Guckian joins John White in Louisiana and Kevin Huffman in Tennessee as TFA alumni in state-level positions serving reactionary administrations.

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Class size, Corporate Reformers, North Carolina, Privatization, Teach for America TFA, Teacher Tenure, Vouchers

Chicken Little and Corporate Education Reform

By dianerav
May 13, 2013 //
8

A new blogger enters the national scene!

This blog is devoted to fairy tales and other simple legends that show the fallacies of the corporate reform movement.

This post is about Chicken Little. Remember Chicken Little? He was hit on the head and went to tell the world that the sky was falling.

There are many other great fairy tales, Dr. Seuss tales, myths, etc. to explain the current madness of “reform.”

The one that comes to mind immediately is “the emperor’s new clothes.” Just guess who the emperor is? Who will tell him the truth.

What is your favorite tale that strips bare the pretensions of those who think that testing will close the achievement gap, that privatization is the way to advance equity, and that constant battering of teachers will attract better people into teaching?

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Global Education Reform Movement

Paul Vallas’ “Nixon-to-China” Moment

By dianerav
May 12, 2013 //
38

I posted a few days ago about a panel discussion in New York City where Paul Vallas made this startling statement: “We’re losing the communications game because we don’t have a good message to communicate.”

He spoke bluntly of the “testing industrial complex.”

Here Valerie Strauss briefly reviews Vallas’ role in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans, where testing and privatization were key elements of his reforms. It is difficult to see any of those districts today as a template for reform of the nation’s schools. Chicago is in dire straits, As is Philadelphia, and the only thing sustaining the myth of New Orleans is a massive disinformation campaign by the funders of privatization.

I know Paul Vallas and there was a time about a decade ago when I thought he was the most promising leader of school reform in the nation. I was impressed by his energy and his quick intellect.

Because he is so smart, I hold out hope that he might be the first of the “reform” A-team to see the light, as I did around 2005.

By his remarks at the forum cited in the links, he recognizes that teacher evaluation by formula is a mess. From his Philadelphia experience he may have learned that privatization is no solution. He inaugurated the nation’s most extensive experiment in privatization a decade ago, and it failed.

Now Vallas has another chance to get it right, this time in Bridgeport, Connecticut, a small district compared to his previous assignments.

Will he lead the way away from the failed status quo? Will he be first to renounce the failed status quo?

Categories Chicago, Corporate Reformers, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Privatization, Vallas, Paul

NEPC Grades ALEC Score Card for State Policy

By dianerav
May 10, 2013 //
1

The National Education Policy Center is an invaluable resource. It keeps tabs on the half-baked research that pours forth from advocacy groups pretending to be think tanks.

Its latest report reviews ALEC’s “report card” on the states.

You will not be surprised to learn that he states with the highest scores are those with vouchers, charters, and unregulated home schooling.

Its ratings are similar to those of Michelle Rhee. The “best” states are not the ones with the best education, but the ones that match ALEC’s ideology. The highest marks go to states that are abandoning public education for a free-market model of private providers.

Categories ALEC, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, National Education Policy Center, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56,820 other followers