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

The Future of Public Schools in Arizona?

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
2

Robin Hiller of Tucson’s Voices for Education writes that while it is true that charters in Arizona represent 25% of all schools in the state, they enroll only 9% of the state’s children.

The 25% number is misleading, because we have charters that have 17 students and public high schools that have 3,000. In 2008, Arizona had 1,480 ‘traditional’ K-12 and 477 charter schools. But according to the Arizona Dept of Ed and reports from each county’s superintendent’s office:
85% of Arizona students attend public schools, 9% attend charter schools, 4% attend private and less than 1% attend home schooled. If we want to fix education, we need to invest where the children are.

Another reader in Arizona writes in response to this post about “the wild west” of unregulated charters:

The situation in Arizona is distressing.  A significant number of charter schools are underperforming and depriving students of a worthwhile education.  Oversight by the state is nearly non-existent.  This article points out that some charter schools are excelling.  While that may be true of a handful of them, please do not underestimate the damage that these few schools are doing to the public school system in general.  The excelling charter schools on Arizona are largely located in upper middle class areas. They “cherry pick” students from nearby high quality public schools.  They do not offer things like free and reduced lunch, bus service, or help with the cost of uniforms or “consumable” textbooks and supplies. Their fundraising is relentless – both among families attending the schools and private sector (note the $1.5 million recently gifted by the Quayle  family to a large charter school network in Arizona).   Charter schools in Arizona are approved by the State.  There is no district involvement, cooperation, or public accountability.  Charter schools are not incubating new ideas and sharing that knowledge to improve the system at large. They are competing directly with public schools, but are allowed to play by another set of rules.  They serve a small percentage of students and no one seriously argues that this model is “scalable.”. (The Daily Star article mentions that 24 percent of Arizona schools are charter schools, but I am almost positive that the percentage of students served by charter schools is far less than that.)  The goal seems to be to have a network of strong charter schools that serves a small segment of the population while suffocating and destroying our public school system.   Just how is this “competition” a good thing?  Have we in Arizona just given up on a strong public school system?

Another reader in Arizona comments:

f you will also look at demographics in your study of charter schools of AZ, you will see that charter schools typically do not serve the students who most need the help. They serve students who already perform well in an academic setting. The AZ charter schools do not have the same demographics of special needs, ESOL, students from economically disadvantage homes, or any other challenges that face the public school system. If you compare the same students with the same type of demographics from a public school as the charter schools in AZ, you will find that the public schools still outperform the charter schools. It has been proven, even in Arne Duncan’s beloved Chicago school district, that taking a student who does not perform well and transferring them to a higher performing school or to a high performing charter school, does not guarantee success for that student. So, if the charter schools in AZ had to make their schools match the demographics of the public schools they would do no better, and probably worse. Please read the book Freakanomics. It is very enlightening.
Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Reform

A Parent’s Letter to Frank Bruni of the New York Times

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
33

I just received this comment. This parent should be invited to appear on NBC’s “Education Nation,” on Morning Joe, on Rachel Maddow, on CNN’s “Newsroom,” and on any other talk show, most of which put people on camera who have never been public school parents or teachers or principals. She is more knowledgeable than Michelle Rhee or Bill Gates or any of the other “reformers”:

Dear Dr. Ravitch,I was composing my own letter to Frank Bruni early this morning, and didn’t see your post until later. Thanks, as always, for your advocacy. Below is a copy of the letter I emailed to Mr. Bruni this morning.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Poyourow

Dear Mr. Bruni,

While I usually enjoy your opinion articles, I was dismayed by yesterday’s article on parent trigger laws. It seems to me that you do not know much about the issue and are relying for your talking points on the PR campaigns of the groups that support them, ironically not grass-roots parents’ groups but primarily astroturf groups with financial, policy, and personnel links reaching back to groups like ALEC (groups which you are certainly no fan of when it comes to their impact on other policy areas).

You seem to take for granted several ideas I would challenge you on: (1) that American public schools and teachers are failing, (2) that middle-class families should desert urban, public schools, (3) that charter schools are the answer to any problems in the current public educational system, and (4) that parent trigger laws would a helpful tool for remedying problems.

For the record, I am a parent with two children in my neighborhood public school in Philadelphia. Our school manages to hold together and serve well a coalition of low-income, blue-collar, and middle-class families with striking racial as well as socioeconomic diversity in a Philadelphia neighborhood–61% of our students are economically disadvantaged, 45% white, 45% black, 5% Latino, and 5% multiracial and other designations. We are not a rich school and cannot stage fundraisers such as the ones held by the Upper West Side public schools in NYC profiled in the NYT earlier this summer. In fact, we (and all public schools in PA) were hit hard by the education budget cuts enacted when a wave of extremist state legislators came into our state government in 2010. $1 billion has been cut from public education statewide in PA, and it has impacted our school heavily, raising class sizes while stripping the school of necessary teaching and support personnel, contracting the curriculum (music and language teachers were cut last year, and the school had no money previously for an art teacher), and leaving kids behind academically without the tutoring previously provided.

Yet our school remains strong, continuing to make AYP and to attract neighborhood parents, primarily because of the cross-class coalition using the school. Even if we haven’t raised $1 million for our school, many parents volunteer, run after-school clubs, and try to solicit community resources to help the school provide what has been eliminated because of cuts at the state level. The reward is that our children get to attend an integrated, academically sound public school in our city neighborhood that is open to all. We are part of a growing movement in several cities (including NYC) that has parents choosing to invest their time and energy in public schools, not only for their own families’ good but to strengthen the fabric of their neighborhoods and cities.

Which brings me back to your op-ed. I am a public school parent–not a teacher and not a union employee. I find the representations of the state of public education in the U.S. promulgated by films such as “Won’t Back Down” and “Waiting for Superman” to be harmful and inaccurate depictions of the current dilemmas faced by public school students, parents, and teachers.

Private schools have done a good sales job over the last decade or so, feeding the cultural panic among middle-class parents, creating anxieties in them that they cannot use the public schools and must purchase high-priced private schooling, tutoring, etc. at any price if their children are to succeed in life academically and economically. However, it is the class and educational background of parents that is the most critical variable in children’s success. While many currently make the claim (which you echo) that U.S. public schools are way behind other countries, when socioeconomic class is taken into account, American students do as well or better than the countries we say we wish to emulate. It is poverty that is our greatest problem. Middle-class children who attend urban public schools, even those in schools with very low average scores, do fine. If we want to solve the educational crisis that does exist for kids from low-income families, then creating jobs, stable health care, and an economic security net for their families is one key–and finding ways to create schools integrated by race and socioeconomic background is another–and providing appropriate funding, early childhood education, and smaller classes is a third.

The voucher, charter school, and parent trigger movements aim in precisely the opposite direction by draining public schools of funds desperately needed in this climate of scarcity and creating a two-tier system of schools, segregating kids even further by race, class, English language learner status, and disability. Indeed as the CREDO study by Stanford University shows, charter schools do not provide better educational opportunities; many provide worse. The people behind the push for parent trigger laws are not idealistic parents but chain charter operators hoping to expand their profits at the public expense–and their right-wing backers hoping to undermine our understanding of education as a public good. I hope you do some research on this topic and reconsider your opinion.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Poyourow (a usually appreciative reader)
Categories Budget Cuts, Parent trigger, Parents, Pennsylvania, US Education

The Goodness of Which We Are Capable

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
7

Thanks to my brother for calling my attention to this remarkable woman, Irene Sendler.

I had not heard of her before.

She rescued 2,500 children from certain death in the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II.

It is always important to remember that there are ordinary people who rise to do extraordinary things, who show courage at great peril to themselves, on behalf of others.

 

 

Categories Education Reform

The NY Times on the Parent Trigger

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
7

I am not going to write anything substantive about the movie celebrating the so-called “parent trigger” until I have seen it.

But the stories about it continue to miss the point about  why parents and teachers think it is a corporate-conceived and corporate-driven idea, for the benefit of corporate charter chains. Why not mention the Florida parents’ fight to stop this so-called “parent empowerment”? If it really empowered parents, why did parents oppose it?

Here is the latest example. Frank Bruni, usually a thoughtful writer, has an article in today’s New York Times. He sees the movie as part of the ongoing (and at least partially justified) critique of teachers unions. He never mentions that the two states that enthusiastically endorsed parent trigger laws (after California did it first, during the Schwarzenegger years), are right-to-work states, Texas and Mississippi. Nor did he mention the role of the rightwing group ALEC in promoting the trigger idea as a way to hasten the privatization of public education.

Instead he sees it as a righteous plea for better schools (the cloak that reformers always wear as they set out to privatize your schools). That’s exactly what the producers are hoping for, to pull the wool over people’s eyes to their privatization agenda with a soap opera set in a public school.

The tipoff is the ending quote, which is from Joe Williams, the executive director of the falsely named Democrats for Education Reform. DFER is the organization of the Wall Street hedge fund managers. Joe, a nice guy, was formerly a beat reporter for the New York Daily News.

Larry Ferlazzo, a prolific blogger and Sacramento teacher, calls Williams on his line about finding and rewarding the best teachers.

Why did Bruni end up parroting DFER? The hedge fund mangers are not education experts; they are not teachers or principals. They send their children to Andover, Exeter, Lakeside Academy, Trinity, St. Bernard’s, Deerfield Academy and Sidwell Friends. These schools don’t evaluate their teachers by standardized test scores. Why does the parent trigger lead us right back to all the other bad ideas propounded by these out of touch reformers?

 

Categories Corporate Reformers, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Reform, Parent trigger, Unions

Good Advice for Teachers

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
10

This teacher explains how she will deal with the new school year:

I have been practicing mindfulness as a way of combating much of the stress I anticipate for the coming year.
I’m not going to overthink the coming year.  It will unfold itself.  No point in stressing what hasn’t happened yet.
One doesn’t know what’s coming.  I’m starting my 13th year in pre-k in the same school.  No one is going to push me out before I’m ready to go.
What I noticed at the end of the school year last year and over the summer is that the suits have no clue what they are supposed to do.  They are working in the dark almost as much as we are.  I will insist that they provide guidance for every initiative they want me to do and ask them to model for me.  I will document every discussion we have.  I intend to have a long paper trail.
And I will teach my students as though we are at Sidwell Friends.

Categories Teachers and Teaching

More on Voucher Schools with No Standards

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
16

So now we know what true education reform looks like.

It means sending kids to schools that are no better or worse than their local public school.

It means sending kids to schools that teach them that the Bible has all you need to know about the origin of the universe.

It means sending kids to schools where anyone can teach, without any credentials.

It means sending taxpayer dollars to private and religious schools with no standards and no accountability.

Read this letter by a school board member in Louisiana.

Categories Accountability, Louisiana, Vouchers

Before the Craziness

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2012 //
4

This teacher, now retired, reflects on the madness of giving standardized tests to students in special education. She sees hope in the determination and unity of the teachers of Chicago. She also reminds us why retired teachers must stay involved and speak up for their colleagues in the classroom, especially those whose lives are being heedlessly destroyed by pointless reforms:

I was a special ed. teacher who was there before–and when– this craziness started. (Although there were always problems {& NOTHING even compares to the present-day intimidation, harassment}, I was lucky enough to be teaching when one could really teach. To get to the point–as a special ed. teacher, I had a front row seat to the suffering caused by the high-stakes tests. We had no business whatever making some of these students–who were often as many as three years behind (in reading &/or math)–take grade-level tests. We had students hide under their desks, cry, tell us they were stupid, throw pencils into the ceiling, have tantrums (In middle school!), scribble on the Scantron forms, connect all the bubbles, after filling in anything, etc. When I went to a state conference of LDA (Learning Disabilities Assn), I entered into a discussion about organizing a walk
out–that is, EVERY special ed. teacher in the STATE would walk out,
refusing to give the tests. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get a buy-in from others.
I took a class in Special Ed. Law after my first year of teaching, as I
worked in a school district where parents either: 1. wanted to do right by their children, but didn’t know how to get services or help;
2. were not readily available or were not involved in their children’s
education. So, when administrators tried to tell me, “Oh, Mrs. X, you’re just a new teacher. Johnny doesn’t really need all that help.
His parents aren’t here asking for anything, are they?” I’d whip out the rules and regs.and say,”Oh, well, we really can’t do that, according to Section 5, Part A…” I guess I could have gotten fired but, as aforementioned, it was a different world (although the superintendent–who was a real jerk–called me at home and badgered me!), and with knowledge, there was some power.However, there IS hope. Look at Chicago–FIVE THOUSAND red-shirted teachers turned the tide and brought about (and, hopefully, will continue to bring) a good first result. And they continue to show up. And parents/community organizers show up–there is going to be a rally RE: an ELECTED school board this week (City Council almost kaboshed the request for a referendum on this issue, but the people prevailed!). I can assure you that the attendance will be great.There is strength in numbers; attention will be paid.
Categories Accountability, Chicago, Special Education, Teachers and Teaching

History Repeats Itself in the Classroom

By dianeravitch
August 18, 2012 //
13

A reader comments on an earlier post written by a teacher who taught in Hartford:

I have seen this teacher’s story played out in so many schools in NYC.
She asks who will subject themselves to teaching in the most challenging of communities?
I often had that same concern. I agree.  At a point in the not so distant future, teachers will be retiring and schools will need to staff the classes.
There will be teachers available to teach in high needs schools, but despite Mr. Duncan and others who claim the best and the brightest for every classroom, what I see happening is that many best and brightest will not enter education at all.  The ones that do will have their choice of schools in which to teach and most likely most, although not all, will choose schools which may or may not have adequate resources but more importantly, respect and autonomy for teachers.
Those in the 2nd and 3rd tiers who can’t get jobs in desirable school districts will be assigned to high needs schools.  Some will stay and improve their practice after a few years.  Some will stay and go through the motions because no other job opportunities are on the horizon.  Some will stay a short time and either find a way to go a “better” school district and/or change careers and leave teaching completely.
So in the end the children who need the best and brightest teachers (whatever that really means) will most likely have teachers who are there because there was no where else to go.
O. I forgot.  The states will recruit teachers from other countries with promises of housing and support.  When the teachers discover they’ve been hoodwinked, they will be on a return flight to their home country.
History repeating itself.

Categories Education Reform, NYC

What Readers Said About CNN and Randi Kaye

By dianeravitch
August 18, 2012 //
52

I taped an interview with Randi Kaye of CNN Newsroom on Friday August 17. I was invited to do this interview in response to her earlier interview with Michelle Rhee.

I went to CNN assuming I was invited to express my differences with Rhee, who gets far more airtime than I to present her agenda of attacking US education, smearing teachers, calling for an end to tenure and seniority, and demanding merit pay, charter schools, vouchers, for-profit charter schools, for-profit virtual schools, and more testing.

But there was no discussion of my views, no opportunity to present them. Instead I faced a series of loaded questions intended to put me on the defensive (some of the worst were left out of the televised version). They were “gotcha” questions. What do you say to this? And what about that?

My early response –before the interview aired–may have led them to edit out the first line of questioning, when Randi Kaye claimed that NAEP scale scores showed the “failure” of American education. She didn’t know what an idiotic question that was. I was a member of the board of NAEP for seven years, and no one ever suggested that scale scores were grades; they are a trend line. If her question and assertion had been left in, they would have misled the U.S. public in typical reformer style, but to anyone who knows anything about scale scores, CNN would have revealed its ignorance. The editors were wise to delete it.

She claimed that a score of 250 on a scale of 500 meant that half the nation’s students had a grade of 50, which is failing. This is ridiculous. The most advanced students on the scale–those at the 90th percentile–have a scale score of 276  in fourth grade math, which means they too are failing! Clearly, someone was digging to find the most negative possible “facts” that would make American education look bad. These “facts” happened to be completely false. A scale score is not a grade, it is a trend line. And what she found inconceivable is that the scale scores are at their highest point in history for every group: whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

Folks, this woman and her researchers are totally uninformed. And they feed their uninformed views to the American public. This is what is frightening!

The even better news was the wonderful response of readers after the interview aired. Here are a few that I have gathered (and will pass along to CNN). There were many more on Twitter, and on this blog:

**************************

Watched both Kaye interviews of yourself and Rhee. Difference was that Rhee was asked how to fix while your statements were challenged. On the whole however I thought you were very successful in replying to her questions. Kaye played devil’s advocate with you unlike her interview with Rhee.

Mike Brocoum

*************************

Kaye’s interview is an example of Yellow Journalism. She tried to sensationalize an issue, using extremes, false accusations and innuendo. Unfortunately, Yellow Journalistic strategies are becoming the norm with the third estate.

There was a reason she taped your interview rather than do it live. Kaye’s agenda was not to interview but to attack public education.
Her first stat, showing teacher salaries was an attempt to show some teachers are paid much more than others. She never acknowledged that salaries are affected by cost of living issues in each region, State, and county.

Her most disturbing stunt was to read a letter from a student who obviously has some learning issues. Was this child learning disabled or perhaps a recent immigrant learning a new language? What is going on in the life of this child? Living in extreme poverty, parents? How old was this child?

Diane, schooled Kaye using details and facts. She was masterful. I don’t think I could have kept my cool like Diane did. Unfortunately, we all witnessed Kaye not listening ( watch the interview again). She wasn’t listening and learning she was getting ready to read her next prepared question and showing her next ‘gotcha’ quote.

Kaye knew she didn’t have a chance , that’s why she was reading her questions. It’s evidence she doesn’t understand the issue. If she did, she would have conducted the interview more like a discussion.

Perhaps, we can hope Kaye learned on lesson, the lesson that parroting Rhee’s Students First’s talking points comes with the consequence of looking like a fool.

************************

Exactly, in reference to the student paper…what did Randi know about him or her. Was this an ELL student or sped? Was the student receiving services? How often had this child moved: schools, towns, districts, states? What was the attendance record for this child?

This wasn’t an interview….it was an ambush.

*******************************

Diane, I think you did a great job combating Randy’s slanted questions. One important point that needs to be made is that oftentimes schools in poorer areas do not receive the funding and supporting services needed to help children to overcome the baggage that they bring to school. While testing is an important part of education, other factors need to be taken into account so that all of our children receive a quality of education.
Thank you for providing people with a more accurate picture of our public schools.

********************************

I think we just need to acknowledge that especially now, money buys speech and media time. When I look at what is happening here in New Jersey and what is conveyed in the press – whose messages – I see the messages of those with the money make it to press far faster, with more frequency and exposure than those messages of us grass roots people, unfunded, fighting to save and improve public schools. So we go everywhere – we show up where they do not and where they do. And we comment on every article, blog and post. It is tiring, but we have your amazing lead to follow and we benefit greatly from your relentless willingness to say what needs to be said ensuring all of us have a better chance at being heard. Thank you.

**********************************

Diane, you were amazing, Randi Kay is clearly biased toward Rhee. WTH is going on at CNN? Please keep fighting for our children.

*********************

I was really worried when you wrote about the interview after the taping, but after watching it, I was pleased. I know she didn’t agree with your assessments and kept pushing back opposing questions, but she allowed you to state your case very well without interruption. You did a terrific job responding, and I truly believe the way the interview was conducted allowed the audience to make its own conclusions about what to believe.

************************************

I thought you did a masterful job in the face of a clearly biased interviewer. You were pure grace under fire. You spoke the truth in spite of her deliberately leading questions, and I was cheering you on along with the other teachers in the audience who were surely watching this morning. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of public schools and public school educators. We desperately need your continued voice and advocacy.

***************************************

You were the epitome of grace under pressure. You skillfully debunked everything she threw at you with facts. I agree they cut the NAEP question because it was apparent you schooled them and it made them look bad. Hopefully, they really did learn something about the true state of education and the FACT that it is being set up for privatization. Thank you for speaking out so eloquently on school reform.

***********************************

I  just watched, and agree with your take. There is some political/financial motivation for Randi/CNN to treat the chance to hear from you as instead a chance to discredit your point of view. I had to go and find the Rhee interview Kaye did, because I had avoided it (knowing what I would hear from Rhee). I was more interested in seeing if Rhee had survived the slings and arrows, the cherry picked and invalid use of data, the portrayal of struggles as automatic assumptions of systemic failure.

Rhee got no such treatment. Even questions posed as quasi-criticisms were only softballs lobbed for Rhee to continue Students First PR. Diane gets ambushed with 1 student letter, 1 poverty stricken district/state, data is used selectively to support Kaye’s foregone conclusion, and the devastation profiteering has already caused this nation and the bulk of it’s children is ignored. Good teachers will reverse outsourcing and the undermining of the middle class family, Kaye? Really?

Rhee gets “tell us more about what you think”. CNN, Randi Kaye…do you not know Rhee’s history? How she benefits from “reform”? How ALEC really operates and what it’s legislative agenda is regarding public money to private pockets?

*********************

That was not an interview but a cross-examination. That “rheeporter” was an obvious mouthpiece for the privatizers, particularly when compared with Michele Rhee’s earlier, “soft” interview. I said as much in an email to CNN a moment ago.

As for Highland Park, MI, of course it is struggling! I lived near there as a grad student in the late 90′s and it was one of the most impoverished and dangerous areas of Detroit. Privatizing Highland Park schools does not ameliorate these other conditions which interfere with those students’ education. Why didn’t Kaye show a writing sample from an 8th grader in affluent Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Pointe?

***********************************

“a fortress of knowledge and reason”

I LOVE that description of Diane! Thanks for summing it up. Randi kept after Diane but could gain any ground.

I posted this under the earlier Mitt entry so I will re-post here on topic:

She was prepared with her material and you were unaware of what she would ask.
But because you are prepared, you answered every query solidly. It was so impressive to watch how quickly you came back with thorough responses. It was amazing to watch her continue to come back with follow-up questions, pursuing her storyline in spite of you having shot it down, time and again. She was clearly NOT interested in giving you airtime to describe privatization movement. And isn’t that the most telling of all? You articulated quite clearly (more than once) that there is an agenda of privatization using her Michigan story as your vehicle. SHE DID NOT ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. Either she is incredibly lacking in curiousity(a really bad thing for a reporter) or she is aware of the topic and they don’t want to give you the time to expand upon that issue for Saturday morning viewers to hear who might get curious about it. I am done with CNN.

**********************************

This was obviously not an objective interview. It was an insult to good and fine interviewers everywhere. I was stunned (although I guess I shouldn’t have been) by Randi Kaye’s relentless challenge of the effectiveness of public schools, keeping Diane constantly on the defense. Thank you, Diane, for taking one on the chin for all of us. You did a great job! You inspire this teacher of 35 years to keep fighting the good fight.

************************

Outstanding work Diane! You are grace under fire! I have already sent an email to CNN…first for thanking them for inviting you on the show, but then shaming them for their token gift to all of us who wrote after the Michelle Rhee interview.( Wasn’t her interview midmorning?) They could do better, they should do better! Their lack of respect for your background and education is an absolute insult to me. But.. you sure did us proud!!

*************************

Diane, you did a wonderful job! Very adversarial interview, sheesh. Also noted Rhee got even more air time in the lead-in. Well, now that they have you on tape, here’s hoping they’ll lead in some future segments with you! Many thanks!

**************************

Diane, it was clear that she was one sided and that you were put in the position to defend your position. It made her look terrible (Fox news comment is brilliant), not you. As always, I am grateful that America has you to speak the truth about what is happening to our public education system. You spoke the truth so eloquently and with great depth of knowledge. Thank you a million times over. Chris

*****************************************

They probably edited it out because it showed her ignorance of her subject matter. At least someone is paying attention.I thought it looked great. Much better than you thought, I think.I wish someone would make a commercial about her inadequacies. Why is she even an authority figure? I guess that’s like asking why elementary children always befriend the bully.

**************************************
By the way, I could hear the cheers across the country from teachers far and wide when you talked about what they really want is to be able to collaborate and work together. That is the true source
of the problem. In one district I know, the central administration puts everyone’s license on a board, and moves teachers around according to licensure, without any regard for what teams of teachers are doing well, or whether that teacher has ever taught that subject in his/her 20+ years of teaching. So much for administrators claiming they are doing what is best for the children!

*********************************************
You are correct about CNN, Diane. It is seriously attempting to remake itself as Fox Lite to boost its terrible ratings. Randi Kaye used to be a serious reporter back in her Minnesota and early CNN days, but in light of massive firings at CNN obviously has chosen to be a corporate shill. Trust CNN no more than Fox. Money is controlling the message. Try MSNBC and Current. Small voices of reason in a sea of babble.

**********************************************
CNN has been Fox-Light for quite some time! I just don’t understand, other than ALEC and their ilk, why the media has bought into this narrative. Except for Ed Schultz, it exists n MSNBC as well. It’s as if it has become conventional wisdom.

Diane, it was clear that she was one sided and that you were put in the position to defend your position. It made her look terrible (Fox news comment is brilliant), not you. As always, I am grateful that America has you to speak the truth about what is happening to our public education system. You spoke the truth so eloquently and with great depth of knowledge. Thank you a million times over. Chris

*****************************************************

She was relentless but you were a fortress of knowledge and reason, brava! It’s great to have you in the hot seat even though it must be very unpleasant. Know we’re all standing behind you.

*******************************

I watched it when it aired this morning @ 8:45 AM. I found it particularly interesting that as an introduction to your interview, Randi Kaye re-aired comments made by Michelle Rhee. I was also quite disappointed that she chose to exhibit and share a letter written by a middle/high school student who was clearly below grade level and chose to ignore your implicit points that one sample, from one district, from one school cannot adequately illustrate or messure quality education. She chose to ignore your repeated valid points regarding poverty when she had the perfect opportunity to explore and expand on that topic during the interview. It is clear to me that she had her own agenda that apparently was sanctioned by her bosses. I am surprised and disappointed by CNN. I look to them as a “voice of reason” on issues. CNN loops much of their material throughout the day, so I would think that those who missed it might be able to catch it at another time.

*****************************************

They probably edited it out because it showed her ignorance of her subject matter. At least someone is paying attention.I thought it looked great. Much better than you thought, I think.I wish someone would make a commercial about her inadequacies. Why is she even an authority figure? I guess that’s like asking why elementary children always befriend the bully.
Thanks, Diane, for being a voice of reason in this horrid ed reform debate. Despite the obvious bias in this pseudo-interview, I appreciated the fact that you answered all of her questions with facts. However, I am disheartened that CNN has become just as bad as Fox and MSNBCs disgraceful Education Nation. Apparently, the corporate profits are fueling this drive for reform, and neither politicians nor the media care about the facts.Valerie Strauss posted an excellent article about the money behind the push for charter schools. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-big-business-of-charter-schools/2012/08/16/bdadfeca-e7ff-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_blog.html#pagebreakThe information is out there. My hope is that people will wake up before the public schools have been totally destroyed.**************************************If Randi Kaye wants to hold up one student paper as an example of our failing schools, we should “hold up” her interview as an example of her failing attempt at journalism.She is just another hack “rheeporter” (thank you Alan) shilling for the corporate takeover of our country.CNN…contaminated news network
Categories Education Reform

CNN Interview: What They Dropped Out

By dianeravitch
August 18, 2012 //
64

I just watched my interview with Randi Kaye.

I am happy to say that the editors clipped out her opening question, in which she tried to use NAEP scale scores as “grades” for the U.S., , which they are not.

A scale is a trend line. It is better to see scores go up than down. The scale itself is an artificial construct (as all scales are). It is not aligned with any standards. You can’t say that a 300 is good or bad, you can only say that it is higher than 350 and lower than 400.

When scale scores go up, it is usually only by a few points. Depending on many factors, a 1-point gain may be statistically significant–or not.

Randi Kaye asserted at the opening of our interview that a scale score of 250 was “proof” that U.S. education was failing because 250 is 50% of 500. She turned that into a failing grade. She forgot to mention that students at the 90th percentile in achievement have a scale score of 276, so by her lights, they must be failing too. She just didn’t understand the numbers, nor did her editors and researchers. We battled about this for what seemed to be 3 minutes, which is an eternity on television.

They dropped that exchange, which I assume means that they realized–because of my letter yesterday–and your responses–that her question was nonsensical and made CNN look stupid.

The rest of the interview consisted of her relentless effort to “prove” that US education is failing: Look at failure in Highland Park, which was recently turned over to a for-profit charter corporation; look at American corporations outsourcing jobs to low-paying China and India, never to nations with a standard of living equal to ours; look at this hostile letter (oh, she left out the other one, from the guy who said I was not competent to talk about education).

Is CNN trying to become the new FOX?

Diane

Categories Education Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »