Archives for the month of: July, 2012

I recently wrote a post about Michelle Rhee’s “Olympics” ad, in which she shows a flabby man doing rhythmic gymnastics and falling down because he is in such bad shape. This is supposed to be American education, in her view.

I wrote that she was ridiculing obesity and insulting our students, our teachers,  our schools, and presenting a humiliating picture of America to the world.

A reader wrote to say that the ad is also homophobic, and on reviewing, I agree. The man in the ad is engaged in a sport that is for women only in the Olympics. He is portrayed as effete and ineffectual. This is an insulting stereotype of a gay man.

If StudentsFirst has any wisdom, it would withdraw this ad.

If you are a historian, you have to have a long memory or know where to find out what you need to know.

I remember when charters first started. One of the arguments that charter advocates made was that they would cost less; they would be more efficient and would save the taxpayers’ money. After all, they wouldn’t have all those administrators and overhead found in public schools.

But as time goes by, charters are forgetting the original promise (they never made them) and demanding parity with public schools.

That’s the purpose of the “Gates Compact,” where the Gates Foundation gives a district a big cash award if they agree to treat charters on equal footing with public schools.

And now we see charters in Pennsylvania making a plea to up their state reimbursement for tuition.

In a time of fiscal austerity, every dollar that goes to charters comes out of the budget for public education, meaning less money for public schools.

Charters are learning that the cost of education is what it is, unless you pay teachers less or make a point of having large numbers of young, inexperienced teachers who are at the bottom of the salary scale. Or, go online, in which case, students can be put in front of a computer and the virtual class size may be 50 or more, with none of those pesky brick-and-mortar expenses, like heating, cooling, custodians, a school nurse, a library, etc.

When I was interviewed on the Charlie Rose a while back, the interviewee who preceded me was the CEO of a major corporation in the high-tech sector. As I listened to him, I headed him say again and again, “We have to constantly re-invent ourselves. We re-invent ourselves every few years, or we die.”

I understand why that would be true in the fast-moving, ever-changing world of high technology.  If you don’t come up with new products, faster ways of doing things, new applications, new paradigms, etc., you are left behind, you lose, you disappear.

But this way of looking at the world and adapting to the moment is not right for every form of human endeavor.

Schools, like families and religious institutions, evolve to meet new social demands. None of these basic institutions look precisely as they did a century ago. We have new configurations of all of them. But none changes overnight. None reinvent themselves very 2-3 years. Basic human institutions require stability to function well. There must be a measure of predictability, not constant upheaval and churn.

Some people think that the unceasing changes in society promotes mental illness. I don’t know if that is true, but it sounds plausible. We are all under tremendous stress: economic, societal, environmental. We need solidity and stability in parts of our lives, not planned disruption and engineered chaos.

This teacher wrote a thoughtful comment about the need for stability.

An excellent school runs like a finely-tuned engine. There are literally hundreds of formal and informal procedures that make a school environment positive and efficient.  These procedures have been developed over time and what works in one building may not work in another, depending on such simple things as physical layout of the school, the number of staff available, the scheduling of things like lunch, recess and bathroom time, the scheduling of specials such as art, music and physical education (IF you have these), and the storage and access to teaching materials. It also depends on more complex items such as the positive behavioral intervention strategies that are used to ensure a positive learning environment in a school.  It is veteran teachers who know these finely tuned procedures.  You cannot write them down and hand them on a list to a teacher new to a school.  They have to be learned little by little with the help of experienced teachers.  Teachers are dependent upon each other.  Cooperation takes an understanding of these procedures and it takes personal knowledge and trust in other teachers. This takes time to develop and energy from both the new teacher and the veteran teachers. The higher the teacher turnover, the more energy and time spent learning, revising and teaching these procedural strategies.

One simple example from last year:  I was assigned a different classroom.  The change was from a relatively isolated room on the second floor to a room off the main entrance hall to the school.  As a teacher of students with cross categorical special education needs, I am in and out of my room often.  Many of the students need a learning space that has few distractions.  It took many extra hours and experimentation to develop a classroom layout that met the needs of the children and was also welcoming to parents and other visitors to the school.   I need my materials at my fingertips and my students need stability.  Each rearrangement of the classroom meant re-teaching procedures to students and some trial and error with materials placement.  Was educational time maximized last year?  No.  Was my stress level higher?  Yes.  Was my work load larger?  Yes.  Did it all work out OK?  Yes, because other teachers had my back, I knew all the other hundreds of small things that make this school run well, and I knew my students and they knew me.  This small change made a difference.  Imagine changing numerous teachers from school to school.  You don’t need research to answer the question of why high turnover decreases learning.  Just ask a veteran teacher.

The Minneapolis School Board closed down Cityview, one of its public schools whose test scores were too low, it replaced Cityview with a charter school, Minneapolis School of Science. The charter school has told the families of 40 children with special needs–children with Down Syndrome and autism–that they are not wanted at the school. Clearly the schools is bouncing these children to improve their test scores.

Is this what “no child left behind” means? Does it mean pushing out the most vulnerable children to inflate the school’s scores?

In a half-minute of Googling, I discovered that the Minneapolis School of Science is part of the chain called Concept Schools, which is affiliated with the Gulen charter chain. The Gulen schools are part of the nation’s largest charter chain. Most get high test scores. Most focus on math and science. They have some sort of association with a Turkish imam named Fethullah Gulen. The New York Times wrote a front-page story about the cleric a few months ago. The Gulen schools have occasionally become involved in controversy having to do with audits and ties to Turkey.

Oh, well, as long as they get high scores, who cares about all these other issues?

I periodically get letters on this blog from readers who say, “I work in a charter school and we never ask any child to leave, not ever.” I hope that some of them will respond to this story.

The Detroit Free Press ran a story about a candidate for the U.S. Senate who will have to take a big pay cut if he wins.

He currently is paid $553,000 in total compensation to oversee and fundraise for three small charter schools, enrolling 1,500 students.

If legislators and business groups are really concerned about reining in the costs of education, they should require that charter school executives are paid salaries no greater than the local district superintendent. That is, if charter schools really are public schools. I await the day when some smart researcher compiles a list of the charter leaders of the national charter chains and their salaries. For public officials, that is a matter of public record. It should be a matter of public record for charter executives, if they are public schools.

Of course, this particular executive was responsible for only three schools, not a national charter chain.

Eva Moskowitz, the head of the Success Academy chain in New York City is paid about $400,000. Geoffrey Canada, who oversees the Harlem Children’s Zone, is paid between $400,000-500,000. Deborah Kenney of Harlem Village Academy is paid more than $400,000. This is considerably more than the chancellor of the New York City public schools, who is paid $250,000.

Public education has never attracted people by the compensation it offers. Neither should charter management. The lure should  be the mission, not the money.

A reader writes:

 

I have an editorial comic on my refrigerator with two panels, one labeled 1960 and the other 2010. In both panels a boy is bringing home a failing grade. In the first panel the parents yell at the boy. In the second panel they (as well the boy) yell at the teacher.

I have taught grades k through 9. The best combination for student success is a dedicated teacher, supportive parents, and a willing student. Once when teaching second-grade I had two struggling students whose abilities were at the exact same level. One set of parents was very involved, met with me, helped their child with homework, and expected their child to succeed. The second set of parents was not involved and seemed to have a negative attitude toward school. Guess which child was on grade level a couple of years later?

Chicago has just seen another upsurge in youth violence, and different observers have different solutions.

This post by Parents Across America argues that what is needed to reduce youth violence is a closer connection between communities and schools.

It maintains that the city’s decade-long policy of closing neighborhood schools and opening charters and schools of choice has severed young people from the watchful eyes of their community.

Charter advocates argue that charters are the antidote to youth violence because they provide quality choices that save students from their failing school.

What do you think?

You will not be surprised to learn that when Michelle Rhee went to England recently, she spoke of her great success in improving the D.C. public schools.

Her secret? Finding the best teachers and firing the worst teachers.

The only problem with her narrative is that it is not true.

Her IMPACT system was imposed in 2009. Since then, the D.C. public schools have made little progress on state or national exams.

The D.C. public schools continue to have the largest black-white achievement gap of any district assessed by the federal NAEP.

It is not clear whether her method identified the best teachers or the worst teachers, but it is clear that she created a level of turnover among teachers and principals that is staggering.

A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post said:

DCPS has one of the highest teacher turnover rates in the nation. Richard Ingersoll of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that, “nationally, on average, about 20 percent of new public school teachers leave their district to teach in another district or leave teaching altogether within one year, one-third do so within two years, and 55 percent do so within five years.” In DCPS, by contrast, 55 percent of new teachers leave in their first two years, according to an analysis by DCPS budget watchdog Mary Levy. Eighty percent are gone by the end of their sixth year. That means that most of the teachers brought in during the past five years are no longer there. By comparison, in Montgomery County just 11.5 percent leave by the end of their second year, and 30 percent by the end of year five. DCPS has become a teacher turnover factory. It has a hard time keeping teachers who are committed to their school and the community it serves.

Most of the principals that Rhee personally hired have left their schools.

If the British follow her suggestions, they too can have churn without improvement.

A reader responds to a post about Rollerball and Brave New World and what we learn from dystopian fiction.

It is useful, I find, to step away from informational text and to view a society that operates on totally different principles. We can do that to some extent by reading history, but the contrast becomes even sharper when you explore a fictional society through the eyes of a deeply insightful writer.

Sometimes we can learn more about society by reading fiction than by reading informational text, even sociology. This is why we read classics: They teach us about ourselves and our society. They are classics because they have stood the test of time. You read them, and they read you.

This reader understands that we live in a world today where there are forces out to destroy the basic educational values that he (and many of us) hold dear. He sees the anti-intellectual and anti-educational and anti-child policies proclaimed as “reform” and then praised by the media. He gives us much to think about, and he needs to be reminded that he is not alone.

I have written many reflections on these issues over the years, but have shared very few of them. It seems appropriate to share this one now though since I am not alone in my thoughts….sorry for the length- not sure how to put a doc in here.Parallels to DystopiaI was never a big science fiction fan, but Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 keeps creeping into my thoughts as of late. I read Bradbury’s classic as a teenager and was bothered by his futuristic society where books are outlawed and television has replaced independent thinking. People in this Bradburian society are numb to the basic human need to connect with each other, and blind to the beauty of nature. I remember thinking how unrealistic and ridiculous the plot was. I’m not so sure about that anymore.

The book’s main character is a fireman named Guy Montag, whose job is to burn the forbidden books when they are discovered. One day he responds to an alarm where he finds an old woman who would rather be burned alive with her beloved books than give them up. He wonders why, if books are so bad, she would be willing to sacrifice her life for them. His curiosity compels him to steal a book from her house. Unable to forget about the woman, he soon questions the value of his profession and his blind loyalty to the rules. Eventually, Montag becomes a hunted fugitive and finds refuge with a small group of people committed to saving the written word.

Lately I can’t help but wonder just how far we are from Bradbury’s dystopian society where free thought is not only discouraged, but actively suppressed. I still have the freedom to put these thoughts on paper, but I do so with the knowledge that asking questions and voicing dissent is considered by many to be troublesome. People rely on their televisions for information, unaware or indifferent to the fact that they are inundated with controlled messages in the form of mainstream news. The internet, despite its distortions, still offers us a means to seek the truth through research. Sadly, most people show little desire to delve deeper than the surface of an issue. They seem content to accept simplistic, unsubstantiated claims as gospel truth, suggesting that reality and fiction are closer than we believe.

As a teacher, I notice many parallels between Bradbury’s book and current education policies. I have watched the damaging waves of education reform surge forward like a tsunami, reforming nothing but destroying everything. Misguided solutions are sold to the public as vital to our economic survival, and the only way to fix a troubled education system. Concerned citizens are asked to trust and embrace these changes while the media dutifully reinforce the message. The reliability of both the data and the methods, wielded by policy makers with their own agendas, is rarely questioned. What’s even worse is, as the collateral damage to our most vulnerable children becomes increasingly apparent, it is ignored. There is no outrage from the citizenry, no demand for fairness and compassion. The only stirrings are the stifled protests of a few brave souls. Speaking out against authority has become a rebellious act of heresy.

As a result, I find myself questioning the value of what I do, much like Montag did. My students, surrounded by poverty, violence, neglect and other social ills, desperately need critical thinking skills. Their survival depends on their ability to question and challenge the circumstances that shape their living conditions in order to visualize a better world. They need to be creative problem solvers who understand the importance of their role in humanity. It’s my role to foster these skills.
Yet, my instruction is confined and controlled by inadequate curriculum and leadership. I fail to maximize their potential or properly equip them for the struggles ahead. Instead, I teach them to regurgitate evidence from a text to support their answer on an open response question. I teach them to find the “correct” answers, pre-determined by well-paid publishing companies, leaving little room for personal interpretation and creativity. I teach them to completely fill in bubbles, and to use the process of elimination on multiple choice questions. I teach the required skills and strategies, and I record all the data. At the end of the day, I am painfully aware of an emptiness created by the craving to inspire a thirst for knowledge and a passion for self-expression. I am left craving the autonomy to teach.

When I first realized that test prep was the guiding force behind every decision our schools were making, I did not remain silent. Naively, I believed I could join the professional organizations that influence policy and reason with them. I volunteered for dozens of committees and became involved in the local and state teachers’ union. I wrote letters, sent emails, spoke at public hearings, and met with elected officials in an attempt to educate those whose misguided views were destroying the profession I love. In the meantime, however, I did far too much of what I was told to do in my classroom, even though I knew I could, and should, give my students much more.

I tried to rationalize my compliance by saying I was following directives, much like Montag was told to burn books. But I am awake enough to know that what’s happening is morally wrong, and I have crossed the line where I can simply dismiss it as part of the job. My guilt over inaction heavily outweighs my fear of risk. So I find myself becoming increasingly vocal and resistant in an attempt to advocate for my students and my profession. Some of my colleagues wonder why I want to make waves by asking questions. They tell me we cannot change things. Others join me in my outrage. But most sit by silently and fearfully, waiting for someone to give them a voice.

Montag found refuge with the “book people” while he witnessed the demise of his whole world. Likewise, I need to connect with others who want to tell the truth about the loss of humanity and reason in our schools.

I don’t know if there is a happy ending to this story. Maybe someday we can build a new and better education system from the ruins that inevitably lay ahead. All I know is that I want to be a part of that.

Another teacher writes to say: You are not alone:

I remember raising the issue of ALEC and the new VAM procedure instituted by our district at a faculty meeting last year. Out of the 50+ people present only 3 came up to me and asked me for more information. The rest seemed to think I was a conspiracy theory nut. Most had no idea what I was talking about and challenged me with the perennial “this too will pass, like all empty-headed reforms. When I pointed out that NCLB had not passed on they were silent and walked away.

I thought that I would be safe discussing these issues in a professional manner and by backing my arguments up with detailed research. Now, I’m not so naive. After years of sitting on committees and being asked to participate in district initiatives I found myself suddenly isolated and passed over and I realized that by talking about the reforms and questioning their validity I had developed a reputation as a troublemaker. With people being let go right and left I understand the fear and reticence but I don’t understand the total passivity.

My biggest fear is that teachers will be caught completely unawares and when the firings start decimating our ranks it will be too late to do much of anything to challenge the system. I have been fascinated by how people whom I respect as professionals with good common sense have jumped on the bandwagon and become cheerleaders for reforms that are clearly designed to eliminate them altogether.

Keep up the good fight! Every one of us counts at this point and more than we know.

Earlier today I posted a letter that appeared on the NYC parent blog, in which Students First was offering a gift to anyone who posted the most comments on blogs.  I made no reference to the person who wrote the letter.

It has been reprinted elsewhere, including the blog of Coach Bob Sikes in Florida. Coach Bob got a response from the letter writer at StudentsFirst. She said she was the target of a well funded campaign of hatred and character assassination, apparently because her letter had been circulated.

I don’t know who assassinated her character. I find her reaction odd because she may be a fine person but the organization she represents spends millions to vilify teachers and unions and to urge legislatures to take away any job protection for academic freedom. It also just released an ad that not so subtly ridicules obesity and gays while presenting a humiliating and inaccurate portrait of American students and teachers to the world.

I wish StudentsFirst would consider the harm they do to hardworking educators.