Archives for the month of: July, 2012

A reader sent the following comment:

For the past twelve years I have been a pre-k teacher in a public urban inner city school.  I also owned a business for twenty-five years.   I attended a public elementary school and a private high school.  I attended public, private, and online universities.

I know the difference between public good and free market. 

When I returned to teaching twelve years ago things were just starting to change.  In my district a lot of early childhood supervisors who knew a lot about early childhood retired and/or moved to other states.  The staff developer in my building told me they had seen the handwriting on the wall and were getting out while they still could.  Truthfully, I did not understand her comments.  Pre-K had been separate from the rest of the NYC DOE and I couldn’t imagine that it would change.  Teachers were supported and encouraged to use solid, child development research in creating the best atmosphere for our students.  My staff developer said, “Wait.  When they get through mucking everything else up, they will focus on pre-k.” To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention because I was free to create my own curriculum based on my children’s needs. I wasn’t worried about performance tasks and rubrics.  My students thrived. 

I did notice that in Kindergarten and other grades teachers and students were being asked to do things that, to me, didn’t make sense but it didn’t impact on me, so I more or less ignored it.  I figured I would be exempt.

Teachers would complain during lunch but since I was not immediately involved, I didn’t comment.  At first I thought they were just complaining.  Then I noticed some of the work that was being produced on their bulletin boards.  The work didn’t seem to fit what I knew were developmentally appropriate activities. 

My parents started asking for homework notebooks.  At first, my principal defended my position of no homework notebooks and encouraged family projects.  A year or two later, my principal asked if I could use a homework notebook and request projects.  That seemed reasonable so I complied.  The next year my principal asked if I could do a few worksheets just to make the parents happy.  I resisted but in the end acquiesced.

It was such a slow process that I didn’t immediately realize what was happening.  Looking back I think I was the frog in the pot of water on the stove.  If the water is boiling, the frog jumps out.  But if the water is cold and increases in temperature, the frog gets cooked.  That was me; a cooked frog.

At the same time, the Mayor decided to eliminate the Universal Pre-K umbrella that had more or less protected us from the whims of curriculum changes over the years.  Suddenly my principal had complete control.  Now I was expected to have my students reading and writing legibly by the end of the year.  My principal said my students didn’t need to nap.  It took away from academic rigor.  The fact that some of my students fell over on the carpet after lunch was ignored.  I was to wake them so they could learn.

By accident I read “The Death and Life of the Great American School  System”. I didn’t read it because I was trying to raise my voice against the system.  I had read “The Language Police” and wanted to read more about what Diane Ravitch had to say.  For me, much of what is in the book is my history.  As I read, I remembered living through much of those times.  I just didn’t realize back then that it was a carefully planned attack by people with money and power to manipulate the system for their own agenda.  Clearly, this assault on teachers and education had been going on for quite a while.

I remembered back when Sputnik went up and the battle cry was more math and more science.  How are we going to beat the Russians?  I made my mother go to a PTA meeting against her will where she spoke up for more classes in ethics and civics and fewer classes in math and science because she felt that if people couldn’t be human to each other, all the knowledge in the world wouldn’t help.  She was asked to leave the meeting and not bother to return anytime soon.

I started thinking about how my classroom had changed and how I had been slowly brought around to doing educational practices which were against what I knew to be wrong but did them anyway to keep peace and my job.  I still didn’t fully understand the big picture. 

Then I started speaking up and colleagues would just look at me and tell me it was just a small thing I shouldn’t make waves.  I read the papers.  No one was speaking out.  The dominant media had fallen in love with charter schools and public education was under fire.  I followed the stories.  At first an article spoke about how charter schools were the answer to schools that were failing.  I didn’t know any failing schools but figured there must be some and thought the charter schools might take on special needs students for whom a public school was not working.  As time passed I read more articles about how unions protect teachers against bad teaching and if only there were no unions principals could fire all the bad teachers and we would have wonderful schools.  I never saw an article opposing that reasoning.  I knew there were some teachers in my school who were not as knowledgeable as other teachers but in every profession there are some who excel and some who are just adequate and some who should find another career.  But no one talked about that.  The news stories featured only teachers.  Then the articles got bolder.  In some newspapers it seemed that reporters were given assignments to find dirt on a public school teacher and make it a front page headline.  Politicians sensing there was power and money to be made jumped on the bandwagon and reassured the public that they would do everything in their power to root out bad teachers so their children would soar academically. There was no more hiding their agenda.  It was out in the open.  Shakespeare was being rewritten to “Let’s kill all the teachers.”

I noticed after quite a while; sometimes I process things slower than most, that all the vitriolic rhetoric towards teachers was aimed at schools and teachers in low income communities.  Schools in affluent areas didn’t seem to be affected at all.  It didn’t make sense.  There must be ineffective teachers everywhere; why just in poverty pockets?

Then it dawned on me; those areas were easy targets.  Parents everywhere want the best for their children.  Poverty, crime, sometimes inadequate nutrition, family issues were not in play.  It was the teachers to blame for their child’s poor performance in school.  The politicians were going to save their children.  It was a slick marketing campaign and it worked. 

By then my voice was just a whisper against the massive voice that had been created.  I was very depressed. It saddened me because I love teaching and I want the best for my students and I see how the reformers are looking at them as OPC (other people’s children) and creating curricular that is damaging many of them to the point that they will simply drop out of school when they can rather than face continued frustration and failure. 

Then I remembered.  When we liberated the death camps after WW2, everyone said “how come no one knew?” People knew but the dominant voice made it dangerous to speak out.  Many who challenged the politicians  disappeared.  After Joe McCarthy was dethroned, people asked, “how did we let this happen?”  There were voices but again the dominant voice made it dangerous.  Those that spoke out often lost their jobs and careers were destroyed.  They sent a clear message to those who would challenge the agenda of the day.  Be quiet or risk your career.   

I hope that when this dreadful period of time in American history comes to an end it has not destroyed one of the pillars of democracy; that of a free and public education.  

In the end, historians and social psychologists will study this era for many years just as they study Nazi Germany and Joe McCarthy to try and understand how it happened.

It seems to be in our nature not to learn from history.

However, I have not given up hope.  My daughter, whom I had been asking for years to read your book (she is also a teacher) read it this summer and said, “WOW”  If she has finally found her voice, there will be others to follow.  When it’s all over people will say they knew nothing about it and how could it have happened.  Some will say, “Never Again”.

Jersey Jazzman describes the web of political and financial connections that are working together to bring for-profit virtual charter schools to the Garden State.

This is a must-read.

The more I learn about the profits and the political shenanigans that facility profiteering, the more it astonishes me.

If the American people ever figure out that their elected officials are giving away the authority to make money off educating kids and bankrupting public schools at the same time, the reform movement will be exposed for what it is: the privatization movement.

Darcie Cimarusti is a mother in New Jersey. She is not a teacher. She does not belong to a teacher’s union. She cares about public education. She became active as “mother crusader” in the last year or so, and she has demonstrated the amazing power of an informed citizen.

She has a voice and a blog. She speaks out. She does research. She is heard. She is making a difference.

When I travel and speak, people often say to me, “what can I do? how can I help? what role is there for a solitary citizen?”

In the future, I will point to Mother Crusader Darcie Cimarusti. With her one voice, she has the politicians in New Jersey reading and quaking. She is exposing the facts, and that terrifies them. She is an investigative reporter without pay or portfolio.

Read this and tell me if you agree that this is the most amazing story you have read this day, maybe this week.

There is a stink of moral corruption here. Maybe other kinds as well.

As Jersey Jazzman said in his comment on this blog, New Jersey’s school politics today is “a cesspool.”

Since Arne Duncan became Secretary of Education and unleashed the Race to the Top, almost every state has adopted laws to evaluate teachers by the test scores of their students. Most teachers know that this is unfair because the factors that have the greatest influence on students’ test scores are not within the control of teachers. Reformers tell us that teachers are the most important influence within the school on student scores, and that is right. But the teacher contribution to scores is dwarfed by the influence of family and other out of school factors.

It is also obvious to everyone but the U.S. Department of Education that when testing becomes the determinant of teachers’ evaluation, their reputation, and their careers, the results are predictable: narrowing of the curriculum, teaching to the test, gaming the system, and cheating. None of this improves education. Why would any responsible public official want to promote such behavior?

The eminent mathematician John Ewing, who is the president of Math for America, wrote a concise and slashing attack on the misuse of mathematics in value-added methodology. He writes about how teachers in Los Angeles were bullied by journalists who ranked them and then confronted them with their low scores. The journalists warned that value-added should not rely on a single measure, but they themselves relied on a single measure to create their rankings.

Ewing says that the public is being subjected to “mathematical intimidation” by policymakers and education “experts,” and that mathematicians have a duty to speak out and tell them to stop misusing their field for political ends.

Lance Hill of the Southern Institute of Education and Research reflects on the evolution of charter schools in New Orleans.

Charter schools that perform better by recruiting and retaining better students don’t exist in a vacuum: skimming the best and most profitable students affects other schools, though it is hard to detect in systems with few charters.  The systemic effects are easier to see in a “closed system” as we have in New Orleans in which 80% of students attend charters.  Every high-performing charter creates a chronically low-performing school somewhere in the system. The students that charters reject, who are high-needs and high-cost, become concentrated in a separate set of schools.  These “dumping schools” concentrate students with enormous skill deficits and disruptive behaviors, making it impossible for educators to teach and also creating an intractable non-compliant student subculture.  Privatization creates good schools by creating even worse schools.

The evidence of this “rob peter to pay paul” phenomenon is not difficult to find.  As charter schools increased in relative performance the first few years in New Orleans, the remaining state-run public schools were locked into chronic failure.  For four years in a row, the direct-run state schools posted an average 80% failure rate on the 8th grade math LEAP progression test.  This, despite the fact that the state had doubled the expenditure per pupil for a period of time and all these schools were directly run by Supt. Paul Vallas who selected the “world class” school administrators, contracted to staff the schools with the “best and brightest” teachers (TFA), and controlled the curriculum and hours of instruction.  It was clear that the every year charters would skim the best students from the remaining schools and dump the low-performing students forced on them by the lottery.

In 2007, the highest ranking official in the state takeover of New Orleans schools said in a meeting that I attended that some charters were systematically dumping challenging and low-performing students into the remaining public system. Six years after the takeover, only 6,000 of the total 42,000 students remain in non-charter dumping schools:  100% of those students are in state-run schools that the state graded as “D” or F” in 2011.  It is a wonder that New Orleanians can’t figure out why we have the highest per-capita murder rate in the nation, and school-age teens are the principal perpetrators of the most reckless of the violence.

Creating excellent schools is not the same as creating excellent school systems.  The free-market has one goal: profit.  It did not come into existence to create innovative and equitable public services.  The New Orleans Model ensures that successful schools are created at the expense of the system as a whole; one student advances at the expense of another.  If other school systems opt for the New Orleans Model, they need to do so knowing that the result will be a separate and unequal system of “college prep” and “prison prep” schools.

Lance Hill, Ph.D.

I agree completely with this reader’s comment, in response to the post about Waldorf schools. The computer has a very important role in our lives. We will call upon it daily, and in many cases, hourly, and by the minute. Many of us will spend our waking hours in front of a computer. But a computer should not be at the center of education. It is a tool and should be used as a tool. Above all, children need healthy cognitive, emotional, social and psychological development. To the extent the computer aids in that process of development, good. To the extent that it is extraneous, so be it. The computer is a tool (I repeat) and should not be our master. We should use it wisely and not allow it to use us.

As one who concentrates his study on the intersection of technology and culture, I see schools like Waldorf as an extremely positive development. We who have not grown up with computers fear that our children will not know how to use them if we don’t teach them… which is, if you look at computers today and at children today, a completely unfounded fear.Yes, there are those who see computers as the tool of the future for education but, here too, a quick look will show that computers will never succeed as the center of education. They never have… and computer-assisted learning has been around for fifty years (the programmed instruction and teaching machine people may not have had the sophisticated hardware of today, but many of the concepts were the same).Just because computers are part of our lives we don’t have to make them the center of our education, or even part of it. Personally, I do see a role for computers in schools, but I would rather get rid of them completely than make them the driving force.

Recently, the FBI raided the offices of the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, because of concerns about the intermingling of various for-profit businesses that were created by the school. The school has revenues of about $100 million or more and has spun off a number of other businesses. Apparently, the former governor Ed Rendell made some moves to seek greater accountability and transparency in the school’s booming business, but the current Corbett administration relaxed that effort.

This makes for fascinating reading, if you have any interest in how privatization works and how it is possible to become rich beyond your wildest dreams by running an online charter school for profit. The web of interlocking businesses is dazzling. For some reason, this line caught my eye: “The other person most involved in demanding more transparency from PA Cyber, former Department of Education Chief Counsel Judy Shopp, could not be reached. She left the state’s employ and is now PA Cyber’s compliance officer, also getting income from Avanti, according to financial disclosures she filed.”

The Los Angeles Times notes in an editorial that there must be a balance between testing and creativity. It points out that the Asian nations that we claim to admire for their test scores–Japan, Singapore, China–wish they could unlock the creativity that has long characterized American culture and education.

Yong Zhao has made this point powerfully in his books, especially in the one that was published just weeks ago, World Class Learners. Indeed, it is not balance he emphasizes, but the necessity of de-emphasizing rote learning and standardization. Yong Zhao argues in that book that the emphasis on high scores and on creativity are not complementary; he says that the nations with the highest test scores are lowest in entrepreneurship and creativity. The pursuit of high scores may eventually undermine the advantage that the U.S. has long enjoyed: an education system that is highly decentralized, where there is time to cultivate imagination, creativity and risk-taking. It is the American spirit. If it’s standardized, it will be destroyed.

Remember that the emergency manager in Detroit imposed a new teachers’ contract in which class sizes would be allowed to rise to absurd levels?

Remember that the contract permits classes of up to 41 children in grades K-3, up to 61 children in grades 6-12?

Remember all that?

The emergency manager just said in an opinion article in the Detroit Free Press that “it’s a good contract for our children.”

Yes, it’s always “for the chidden.”

It’s for the children when they test them and rank them by their scores.

It’s for the children when they lay off their teachers.

It’s for the children when they lay off the school nurse and the social worker and the librarian.

It’s for the children when they close their school.

It’s for the children when they privatize public education.

No matter what you think, no matter what it appears to be: It’s for the children.

The latest news from Indiana is that the state education department–which seems to be in lockstep with the rightwing group ALEC–has given the green light to for-profit online corporations to expand without accountability.

The three largest and oldest cybercharters have received a D and two Fs. But unlike public schools, there are no consequences for the cyber schools. They can keep expanding regardless of the lousy education they offer up to gullible students.

The state currently has 4,000 students in these pretend schools, and the number is expected to double or triple because of legislation passed last year that makes it easier for them to expand, increases their payment per student, and increases the amount of extra funding they get for special education students.

The spokesman for State Superintendent Tony Bennett and Governor Mitch Daniels–who seem to leading the education section of the Tea Party–make clear that quality is not a consideration, only choice. They want the families and children of Indiana to be able to choose without regard to quality.

Interesting that the defense of the cyber scams to their poor academic performance is that the students are “transient.” Of course, they are transient. That’s part of the business plan: A) lure new students; B) students get bored, drop out and return to public schools; C) Keep the state tuition reimbursement; D) lure new students.

The other interesting point in the article is that the only point of these cyber schools is to get students to take and pass the state tests. No one knows who is actually taking the test. But that is school in America today, boiled down to its essential element: pass the multiple-choice state test.

Could there be a clearer demonstration of the bankruptcy of “reform”? It has literally nothing to do with quality or accountability. It is all about profit and only about profit.