Archives for the month of: June, 2012
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Parents Vs. Goliath

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2012 //
3

This morning, parent groups in New York City are leading a protest against high-stakes testing at the headquarters of Pearson. They call their action “a field trip against field tests.” It happens to be a professional development day, so many parents plan to bring their children. Half a dozen different parent groups are coordinating their plans. Among other planned highlights of the demonstration, there will be a marching band!

They hope to inspire parents in other cities and across the nation.

The parents are demonstrating against the Pearson field tests that will be administered in schools across the city and the state this month, wasting another day of instruction to help develop test items for future tests. Pearson needs the field tests for its purposes but the parents don’t want to see more time spent on testing to prepare for more testing.

Yesterday parent activists discovered that Pearson had created a Facebook page called “Parents Kids & Testing.” They began bombarding the site with their comments, which disappeared as soon as they were posted. One parent wrote that her comment was still up, after thirty-six minutes, “maybe they are sleeping,” but soon wrote to say that it was gone. Soon there was a contest to rename the Pearson Facebook page, and one suggestion was “The Black Hole,” to identify the fact that any dissident comments would soon be gone. So many of the Parent Voices continued the game, posting their comments of outrage and watching a faceless person on Facebook delete them.

Another parent soon made the connection from Pearson to Students First, and she recounted her Twitter exchange with that group, which was purposely confusing “learner-centered” education (computer instruction) with “child-centered” education (engagement of the teacher with children’s individual needs and interests).

“Is it wrong that I’m a little excited to have more Pearson b.s. to debunk?
In a similar vein, I just picked a fight with @studentsfirst on Twitter re an article they Tweeted on “learner-centered” education. Not to be confused with CHILD-centered education, which presupposes the humanity of both the student and the teacher, learner-centered education replaces teachers with computers that can deliver “individualized” content. http://gettingsmart.com/news/digital-learning-is-critical-for-move-to-learner-centered-instruction/ I mean….REALLY? How could I not?

What does all this mean? It means that parents–the sleeping giant–have been awakened. If their movement against high-stakes testing continues to build, the conversation will change. They will not sit idly by as their children’s education is sacrificed to the insatiable need for more and more testing, producing more and more data, and less and less education.
Diane
Categories Parent Groups, Pearson, Testing

The Obama Campaign Wants to Know

By dianeravitch
June 6, 2012 //
11

A reader told me that she received an email from the Obama campaign asking her how the administration’s education policies have affected her.

I received the same email, as have, I assume, thousands or millions of others.

So, yes, please tell the campaign how Race to the Top has affected you.

Let them know how their policies have pushed state legislatures to pass teacher-evaluation systems that are unproven, inaccurate, unstable, and punitive.

Let them know how teachers will be evaluated based on the test scores of students who are chronically absent.

Let them know how teachers will be evaluated based on the test scores of students they never taught.

Let them know that the rankings produced by these systems are arbitrary and capricious.

Let them know that the merit pay programs they have spent $1 billion to promote have universally failed to affect student achievement.

Let them know that test scores are not synonymous with good education.

Let them know that charters have evolved into a means of undermining public education, which is the bedrock of our democratic society.

Let them know that teachers want to collaborate with their colleagues, not compete with them for dollars.

Let them know that you expected Secretary Duncan to complain when your state cut the budget for the arts, for libraries, for class size reduction, for higher education, and you were disappointed that he was silent.

Let them know that you have been disappointed that Secretary Duncan has not spoken out forcefully and often against state laws that strip teachers of any job protections because such laws remove academic freedom from teachers.

Let them know that the high-stakes testing that the Obama administration has insisted upon is hurting your children and changing their education into a daily drill for the next state test.

Let them know that you might want for your children what the Obama girls receive at the Sidwell Friends school–a rich curriculum and teacher-made tests, small classes, and good facilities for learning and teaching.

Let them know how the Obama education policies have affected you.

They need to know.

Diane

Categories Obama

After Wisconsin

By dianeravitch
June 6, 2012 //
13

The question before the June 5 recall election in Wisconsin was whether big money would be enough to carry Governor Scott Walker to victory.

Now we know. Money was more than enough.

When I heard the results last night, I was disappointed but not surprised. The polls were discouraging, and they were right. People power was not sufficient to overcome the enormous advantage that Walker had as a result of the millions of dollars that poured in from out-of-state people. Walker had become the poster boy for the hard-right, having stripped collective bargaining rights from working people and demonized their unions.

What hope is there for the future? Plenty. We know from history that bad ideas may prevail for a time, but with enough work, even the worst of autocracies and regimes die. Bad things don’t last forever. They don’t die by themselves; they don’t collapse. They die because of determined, relentless opposition from those who understand what is at stake for their children and their society and who are willing to take personal risks to stand up for what is right. Fools, liars, miscreants, authoritarians, and evil-doers are eventually exposed (this list of adjectives describes many of those now in power, here and elsewhere–it is not a personal reference to Walker).

There will be another election, and next time those who seek a better society for their children and everyone else’s must do more to win popular support.

Walker’s victory was a tremendous loss for our nation. It will embolden the hard right to renew their mean-spirited attacks on those who do the daily work of serving the public. It will embolden those members of the 1% to keep pouring millions into the coffers of those who protect their privilege.

The work of educating the public now begins again. The change will happen. It is up to each of us to do what we can, when we can, where we can, how we can, to make it happen.

Diane

P.S. There is a light in the midst of the darkness. The Democrats seem to have captured control of the Wisconsin Senate by one vote. They won’t be able to roll back any of Walker’s destructive legislation, but they can stop further damage to education, children, and the environment.

Categories Wisconsin

Will Technology Cut the Budget?

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
6

The answer to this question, says this reader, is no. Libertarians and folks on the right believe that technology will make it possible to replace teachers with machines. Machines don’t need health care or pensions. And their salaries don’t go up in a step schedule. When the machines get obsolete, you junk them. With teachers, you can’t just toss them aside, unless your state passed a law banning seniority and tenure.

This is the reader’s comment:

As a technology professional, I guarantee that technology is not a way to save money in education.

I do think it can be a way to improve instruction in some subjects, and to allow kids more options if they are willing to self-direct and take responsibility for their own learning. For example, an ambitious kid who wants to learn Mandarin in a school with no Mandarin teacher and no other students who want to learn Mandarin could do so online, on school time, using school resources, while guided by a non-Mandarin speaking teacher. I wholly support this. This is far different from expecting that you could put 100 or even 40 random students in a room and expect that by the end of the year they will all be able to communicate in basic Mandarin.

People think that technology (unlike teachers) doesn’t eat; that is, that it has an initial purchase price and then you don’t have to keep paying for it. Ask yourself how many private organizations of 200 or 2000 people do so without a large in-house technology staff. Ask yourself how many schools have enough amperage in their electrical systems – let alone outlets – to handle all those computers, and the inevitable air conditioning that follows. Ask yourself how much new batteries cost and how often they’ll have to be replaced. Ask yourself what will happen at this school on the days the internet is down.

And these ridiculous ratios of students to teachers online miss other important realities. If students are going to write essays, they have to be graded by humans. 200 essays is a lot to grade whether you are in the same room during the day or not. I suppose we could save money for a decade or two by outsourcing the grading of our english essays to India… would be quite interesting to see how our use of written idiom changes as a result!

Diane

Categories Technology, Computers

What Are Our Priorities?

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
5

A reader on my Education Week blog Bridging Differences sent the following comment:

Examining the PA governor’s budget for 2012-2013, testing monies have increased from $32 million to $52 million, while dual enrollment payments have gone from $7 million to 0 (funds that enable talented high school students to take community college courses). Elementary science funding has also gone from $7 million to 0 (it’s not on the test!) and funding for teacher professional development has been reduced from $21 to $6.4 million. Funding to PA state universities has gone from $444 million to $330 million. Obviously, this is not a tests-instead-of game, but it’s interesting to see where the priority changes are.

Diane

Categories Education Reform

A Tireless Advocate for Public Education and Equity

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
1

One of the wonderful rewards of my travels is that I have met people in every community who are staunch defenders of public education. Most want to help but they don’t know how. In part, this is because there is no national organization leading the charge to stop privatization. But nonetheless, there are many people who soldier on, writing, speaking out, rallying their forces, and undaunted by the size of the challenge.

One of those people, whom I am privileged to call a friend, is Jan Resseger. Jan is a (lay) Minister for Public Education and Witness for the United Church of Christ. She is a fearless and tireless advocate for public education and for equity. She has a passion for justice and a deep and loving concern for people. She understands in a visceral sense that a decent society must sustain vibrant public institutions. She has posted her commentaries on education here. One that is especially powerful is here.

I don’t recall exactly when I met Jan, though I know it was by email. We exchanged many emails before I met her. She came to New York City to tape a short video about education issues, and we chatted. I told her that I was puzzled by a phenomenon that occurred time and again. When I went out to speak, especially to teachers, I would describe the forces that are now demonizing teachers and promoting privatization; to me, it is a somber, almost depressing message. Yet teachers would thank me profusely, and some said, “You have given me the strength to go on.” I asked Jan, “Why are they thanking me for giving them such bad news?” And she answered simply, “You have validated their truth.” I have kept that answer with me, in my heart. It explained so much about what I was doing and what I had to keep doing.

Just yesterday, I was part of an email blast from Jan in which she explained that her focus for the rest of this year would be to stand up against the injurious concept of competition, that has invaded our discourse about education. Instead of focusing on what children need, we focus on who will win the race. But I’ll let her say it:

I have decided this year I am going to make it a priority to challenge those who persist in framing public education as a race or a competition.  Competitive thinking is so pervasive that we all fall into it without even noticing.  This year I am going to make myself think about it.

My biggest beef is with the Administration’s transformation of Title I from a formula program that delivers federal funds (admittedly so small relative to the need that these dollars don’t accomplish what I wish they did) to schools with large numbers of or concentrations of students in poverty.  The goal of this program is to help those schools meet the students’ needs.  Title I was created back in 1965 as the cornerstone of the War on Poverty.  Its context was expanding civil rights for children who had been shut out or left out or left behind.  The current Administration and Congress have frozen the Title I formula program in the last two budgets and re-directed the money into competitive programs like Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants in which the states or districts with the best grant proposal writers can help their states or districts be winners. That means, of course, that a lot of states and school districts and schools are the losers.  If you have winners, you always have losers and I don’t think any state or school district or school that serves children in poverty ought to lose the chance to serve those children.  You may think this particular issue is way too deep in the weeds of policy to worry about, but for me it is a big, heartfelt worry—and let me warn you, I’ll be mentioning it again and again this year as part of my personal campaign against competition.

So, think about getting on her list. You will be glad you did. You can reach her at ressegerj@ucc.org

Diane

Categories Education Reform

Don’t Trust the Lists of “Best” Anything

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
6

I enjoy reading Michael Winerip in the New York Times every Monday. He always finds a way of writing about education issues that avoids jargon and goes to the heart of the matter. He demonstrates every week that a probing intellect is of greater value than any sort of metrics one can devise when judging education initiatives.

This past Monday, Winerip looked at the practice of creating lists of “the bests.” He closely analyzed the Newsweek list of “the nation’s best high schools.” He pointed out that 37 of the top 50 high schools on its list of 1,000 high schools had selective admissions.

As he puts it: “Best in, best out, best school.”

Winerip shows that many of the “best” schools have small numbers of students who are Hispanic, black, or low-income. Some of the “best” schools are located in affluent communities. Says Winerip: “Clearly, best schools would do best not to get bogged down serving students considered un-best.”

But then comes the coup de grace. Only 2,000 of the nation’s 26,000 high schools sent data to be included in the judging. So any high school that joined the “contest” had a 50% chance of being named as one of the best high schools in the nation.

What a joke! The only reason Winerip can think of for creating these lists is that they sell magazines and boost circulation.

He concludes that he is not opposed to schools with selective admissions: “My concern is that the lists are stacked. Schools with the greatest challenges can appear to be the biggest failures. At a time when public education is so data-driven, that kind of thinking can cost dedicated teachers and principals their jobs.”

So next time you see a list of “the best,” be wary. Schools are not teams in a football league. The qualities that make them successful may not reside in the measures. A school may be beloved and successful without meeting the criteria established by Newsweek or some other organization. Let us not be slaves to data.

Diane

Categories Education Reform

Is Blended Learning a Silver Bullet?

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
27

I just read that Indianapolis has okayed the opening of 19 new charter schools based on the concept of “blended learning.” The schools will lean heavily on technology to reduce the teaching staff and save money while promising higher test scores.

Embedded in this approach is the belief that computers do a better job of teaching basic skills than live teachers. Or that vast sums of money can be saved by dividing instruction between computers and teachers.

The article includes claims about test score gains that resulted from blended learning. Was there more or better test prep? Do the students have the knowledge and skills to think critically, to read thoughtfully, or just to pick the right bubble? It will take a while longer before we know.

But in the meanwhile, there was a major study of technology in education by the federal government that has been almost completely ignored. The bottom line: There is no evidence for blended learning as a superior approach to education. Maybe there will be some day, but there in none right now.

My old-fashioned brain says that what matters most in a classroom is a teacher who engages in a deeply human way with students: to encourage them, enlighten them, inspire them, teach them. There is a place in every classroom for technology. I use it every day. And certainly students can use their computers to do research and writing and explore.

But in the current environment of high-stakes testing, computers are geared to passing the tests.

And that’s not teaching. That’s testing. The end of education is not to pass tests, not even to get higher scores.

The goal of education is to lead us out from our ignorance; to develop our humanity; to give us the tools to take control of our life.

For that, a teacher is still the best of all technologies.

Diane

Categories Blended Learning, Testing

Should Duncan Apologize?

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2012 //
5

Secretary Arne Duncan has been on the road selling his idea of “RESPECT” for teachers, but teachers don’t feel any respect from the U.S. Department of Education. Teacher John Thompson has called on Secretary Duncan to apologize for the ways he has encouraged and promoted the currently hostile environment surrounding teachers.

The Metlife Survey of the American Teacher reported a dramatic decline in teacher morale from 2009 to 2011. What happened in 2009 that changed the climate? Could it have been the launch of Race to the Top? Could it have been the endless rhetoric blaming teachers for low scores? Could it have been the idea–launched by Arne Duncan–that teacher evaluation should be tied to the test scores of their students?

Things have gone downhill since then. In 2010 came the teacher-bashing “documentary” called “Waiting for ‘Superman'” which was repeatedly praised by Duncan and President Obama. President Obama even invited the children in the film to the White House. And then of course there were cover stories and Oprah appearances, and anyone who trashed public schools was considered a hero for trying to liberate children from the basic democratic institution that is so important to our society.

And the privatization of public education continues. And teachers ask how all these terrible things befell them. Historians in the future will trace a clear narrative, including No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, the rise of Tea-Party governors, and the relentless attacks on teachers and public schools. Anyone who was part of this privatization movement will be portrayed by historians as the villains of American education, the thieves intent on giving away our public schools to private sector interests.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Secretary Duncan took a strong stand against for-profit corporations invading public education and against the willy-nilly proliferation of charter schools and against those who would roll back collective bargaining and against those who want to remove teachers’ academic freedom and rights to due process? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he admitted–based on evidence and experience– that he was wrong to push the idea that teacher quality can be measured by the test scores of their students? I can assure him that it cleanses the soul to admit error.

We can always hope.

Diane

Categories Duncan, Arne, Obama, Teachers and Teaching

Was I Mean to Eli Broad?

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2012 //
15

This morning my former colleague Mike Petrilli at the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute wrote a paean of praise in honor of billionaire Eli Broad. He began it by saying:

It wouldn’t be super-hard to poke fun at Eli Broad. (Diane Ravitch did a mean-spirited version of that when she called him and his peers “The Billionaire Boys Club.”) Here’s a man who made his fortune  building tract housing in the ‘burbs,  who micromanages grants down to the penny, a man who names more than a few things after himself (the Broad Prize, the Broad Fellows, and his latest museum project, simply The Broad). He’s the 1 percent of the 1 percent of the 1 percent, and not ashamed of it, either.

I was surprised to hear Mike say that it was “mean-spirited” of me to refer to him and Bill Gates and the Walton Family Foundation as members of “the Billionaire Boys’ Club.” They are billionaires and they are guys. So I wrote Mike and asked him if I had said anything that was inaccurate, and he said, no, nothing inaccurate, just mean-spirited.
I admit I didn’t realize that people as powerful as Eli Broad (“the 1 percent of the 1 percent of the 1 percent”) were so sensitive to criticism. If I offended him, I am truly sorry. I don’t aim to offend.
But I hope that he will give some thought to how his actions affect the lives of other people, people he will never meet. Certainly he is not sensitive to the pain that he causes parents and communities when he sends out graduates of his Broad Superintendents’ Academy to close down their neighborhood schools. No matter how much they cry, he doesn’t hear them.
And he doesn’t give a hoot when parents and educators complain that the people he trains have an unpleasant habit of taking control of the state or district political machinery and short-circuiting democratic control of public education. For a chilling reminder of the Broad methods, read this account of a letter from a former employee of the New Jersey Department of Education.
I wouldn’t want Eli Broad to think I was mean-spirited in describing him and his foundation. I didn’t intend to be mean at his expense. In turn, I wish he would be sensitive to the feelings of parents and educators who love their local public school and don’t want anyone to turn it into a charter run by outsiders. I know it is hard for extremely wealthy people (“the 1 percent of the 1 percent of the 1 percent”) to put themselves in the shoes of the “little people,” the people who are pulling down $40,000 or $50,000 or even $70,000 a year. It’s hard for a triple 1-percenter to imagine why such people care so much about their school or their job or their career or having a decent pension for their old age. But, Mr. Broad, if you should read this, please remember: They have feelings too.
Diane
Categories Broad Foundation, Corporate Reformers, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Ravitch, Diane, Walton Foundation
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »