Archives for the month of: August, 2012

This is what school reform looks like in New York City after ten years of mayoral control.

In nearly 200 of the city’s 1,500 schools, at least 90 percent of the students are below the poverty line.

Four out of five of these schools have disproportionate concentrations of students who are limited English proficient or special education.

Only 31 percent of the students in these high-needs schools passed the state reading test, as compared to 47 percent citywide.

Only 45 percent of the students in these high-needs schools passed the state math tests, compared to 60 percent citywide.

Chancellor Dennis Walcott responded: “I know schools that have a variety of percentages of students, through over-the-counter or special ed or English language learners, who are knocking the socks off the ball.”

According to the NY1 story, the chancellor is referring to 21 of the high-needs schools that beat the odds. That’s 6 percent.

Next time you hear someone from the New York City Department of Education boasting about the “miracle” of mayoral control, think about these children.

Next time they tell you that “poverty is not destiny,” ask them about these schools and what the DOE did to change the odds.

After ten years of mayoral control, who will be held accountable for the system’s inability or unwillingness to meet the needs of these students?

A reader sent this analysis of the city’s data:

A recent story in NY1 examined New York City schools where 90% of the students are below the poverty line. NYC School Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, was quoted as saying that there are schools “who are knocking the socks off the ball.”
We took a careful look at the 2010-11 New York City data on elementary and middle schools and identified 153 schools where 90+% of students were eligible for free lunch. Of those schools only 3 were in the top half of the city in Math and English as calculated by the New York City progress report. PS 134 and PS 130 in Brooklyn and PS 002 in Manhattan were in the top half of students scoring at or above grade level in Math and English. In other words less than 2% of high poverty schools beat the city average and, unfortunately, not by much. In English for example the highest school was at the 65th percentile.

School ELA % Level 3 or 4 City Percent of Range
PS 134 64.4%
PS 002 52.1%
PS 130 51.6%

Digging deeper we noticed that all of these 3 schools have higher levels of student movement out of the school (ranging from 20-12% of the student population) than most elementary schools. This raises questions about how the high scores are generated. Additionally, one is not making AYP for English Language Learners.

New York City’s own data shows that schools with high concentrations of poor students are not knocking the socks off of any balls. Perhaps the Chancellor should stop spending time inventing new idioms (one knocks the cover off of balls and socks off of people, although one can sock a ball over the fence) and should start paying attention to his own data. Making up numbers and success stories will not improve schools for kids. Figuring out the supports and services that would help high poverty schools might. 

Anyone?

This could be a very long post, but this is a blog so I’ll keep it short.

Almost every day there is a new scandal about a public service that was privatized: prisons, hospitals, schools, preschool programs.

Today it is the prison half-way houses in New Jersey, which were privatized and are now plagued with drugs, corruption, and various other problems.

The New Jersey legislature wants to impose greater supervision.

Governor Chris Christie, that tower of rectitude, won’t permit it, if it includes closer supervision of existing contracts.

One of his close political associates runs half-way houses in New Jersey.

I received the following description of the appearance of Michelle Rhee and her husband at the University of Hawaii, where they lectured on “Ethics and Education.”

Rhee paused briefly from her national campaign to raise $1 billion to remove teachers’ collective bargaining rights, to strip them of tenure and seniority, and to promote vouchers and charters, to share her wisdom about American education.

One may assume that the issue of the cheating scandals in the District of Columbia was not covered in this lecture. Nor did she likely mention that she is being sued in federal court for firing a whistleblower who wanted to reveal the cheating in his school.

The report says she was asked how to replicate her “successes” in D.C.  She probably did not mention that D.C. still has the largest achievement gaps (black-white, Hispanic-white) of any city tested by the federal government.

Read on.

On August 7, 2012 Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson spoke at a University of Hawaii event co-sponsored by the William S. Richardson School of Law, and the Shidler College of Business on the topic of “Ethics in Education”.We were as shocked as you are at the title of this event, which approaches a level of surreality that might have caused Andre Breton to do a double, or triple take. Although the event was not billed as a partisan promotion of a specific ideology there were no other presenters or perspectives. The only perspectives on educational ethics the audience of about 200 heard were those of Rhee and her husband, Sacramento Mayor and and former NBA athlete Kevin Johnson.As we entered the venue, there were notecards and pens for people to write questions on. We suspected immediately, and correctly, that this was a way to weed out questions the moderator did not want Rhee and Johnson to have to deal with. Sure enough, every single question asked at the end of the evening was either framed in a pro-Rhee way, or an anti-union way. For example: “How can one teacher make a difference in a system protected by the union?” And then there was: ” How can we do in Hawaii what was done in Washington D.C.?” The latter sent a shudder down our spines, but their answers even more so.

Rhee and Johnson noted that in Hawaii, there is only one school district for all public schools, which makes the political structure more conducive to “aggressive” reforms. They stated that since Hawaii is “at the back-end of reforms” one way to move to the front end would be for Hawaii’s Governor to invite Rhee’s “Students First” organization (as other states’ Republican Governors have done) to push through reforms.

Johnson noted that Hawaii has a strong presence of Teach For America (TFA) teachers, (big round of applause) which should translate into TFA school board members, principles, and political candidates at “every key position” where they could shape policy. TFA’s concentrated efforts in districts with high drop out rates have only exacerbated the teacher attrition rate in those struggling districts’ schools. TFA programs and their accompanying accelerated teacher preparation programs have received tremendous financial backing from anti-union foundations in Hawai’i. The majority of TFA candidates are not from Hawai’i but have a genuine desire to help the poor.

Imagine the political climate that manipulates their goal to add TFA experience to their resume, their genuine altruistic notion (and youthful naiveté) that a two year commitment in a poor community benefits a struggling school, and their willingness to undermine labor gains made by traditionally licensed teachers. This scenario positions TFA candidates as unknowing union-busters within a neoliberal framework. The Hawaii DOE has guaranteed 80 teaching jobs to TFA candidates, in addition to 32 more Special Education teaching jobs over the next two years. Local teacher candidates who are paying tuition and taking additional education courses in traditional teacher preparation programs at the University of Hawaii, Chaminade University, Brigham Young, Hawaii Pacific University have not been guaranteed jobs within the DOE system, and will be competing for the remaining positions.

Both Johnson and Rhee promoted the anti-union film “Waiting For Superman.” When Johnson asked how many in the audience had seen the film, only about 20 of 200 raised their hands. Rhee told the stories of children in the film trying to get into better schools, and how their parents struggled with this, to make the point that vouchers would have paid the needed tuition. This concern over parents’ powerlessness over their children’s educational options led to a promotion for another upcoming film, this one funded by the Walden Foundation (Walmart), called “Won’t Back Down.” This film deals with the “parent trigger” in which parents can step in to privatize a failing school (by NCLB standards) have the faculty fired and reapply for their positions en masse, or create some other type of charter. No mention was made of the fact that in Los Angeles, it could in reality end with the closure of the community school, nor that chain charter schools actively recruited parents to do this.

Sadly missing was any reference to the research that has determined that, although great teachers can make a difference in students lives, the “teacher effect” is a relatively small part of student achievement, rendering efforts to blame and punish teachers as the singular or main cause of low student achievement dubious at best, and transparently political at worst. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ptsrdyxBE&fb_source=message) Rhee gave several examples of a “parent trigger” scenario. One was in Los Angeles, in which the parents were threatened with deportation, although she did not indicate how the teachers or unions would have been behind the threat.

In Sacramento, Johnson said there had been a 161 point gap in student achievement between Latino and Black versus White students. He said once the school was chartered the gap vanished, due largely to students, teachers, and parents signing a contract to turn a school around. We were not able to find the documentation of this incredible sounding turn around, but are open to seeing it. Johnson pointed to several factors for the success of his charter. Teachers could be called at 8 or 9pm to help with homework, and that every party was committed to helping students in any way possible. No one in the audience chafed at the idea of a teacher being on call during any and all of their waking hours, and many were nodding in approval at this idea.

Rhee also promoted the idea of teachers being assessed by how many extra-curricular unpaid “community contribution” hours they put in, for example, math tutoring after school, coaching a sports team, or other unpaid service after school hours. This would be combined with value added assessments utilizing standardized scores to determine how “effective” teachers are. Rhee explained that they had corrected for economic, social, and other aspects that could be factors in why some students did better than others, in order to leave these value added assessments as purely reflective of the effectiveness of teachers. It was never explained how this works, what research backs up their model, or what institutions or studies support their methods.

The moderator, Will Weinstein, who created the “ethics” series of which this presentation was a part, fawned over Rhee and Johnson all night long. His sarcasm was apparent whenever he asked a “tough” question of the couple. They obviously charmed him and the audience, made up seemingly of law and business students and faculty. This was apparent, when, after about an hour of their promoting union busting, attacks on collective bargaining, and their marveling and wonder at why Republican politicians seem so much more supportive and knowledgeable about their progressive school reforms, Weinstein jokingly asked them why they were “such right-wing conservatives” eliciting a ripple of knowing chuckles throughout the audience. They responded that they had been given a bum rap, with Michelle playing the victim of political Democrats who were in bed with unions.

This was a major theme of the evening, the obstruction that unions present to meaningful reform. Johnson gave a powerful telling of his work to convert Sacramento High from a public school a charter. He stated that the unions stepped in to oppose this, spending vast sums of money to fight against it. No context was given as to why, leaving the audience to assume it was because they opposed poor and minority children receiving a quality education. The flip side of the demonization of unions throughout the night was the way in which the actual results of Rhee’s programs were blatantly whitewashed, or barely addressed. No mention of a D.C. test cheating scandal, of the lackluster performances of charter schools, of the billionaires that back up Rhee’s attacks on teacher unions, of the lack of effective teacher training for TFA graduates (who are assumed to be better than the “bad” experienced public school teachers), and no mention of the corporate funding of the anti-union films they were promoting.

Rhee also promoted the corporate model of merit pay for the “best” (according to flawed assessment models) teachers, and punishment for the bottom-performing percentile. This corporate model known as “stack ranking” or “rank and yank” is a perfect example of how Rhee sees schools as indistinguishable from businesses. She and her husband both portrayed themselves as progressive liberals stating that charter schools needed to be heavily regulated and that failing charters needed to be closed. This qualification was obviously too little too late to establish any semblance of “balance” in their ideology.

For all their talk of accountability, no one thought to ask them who holds them accountable to prove their claims of miracles, turn-arounds, or the selfish agenda of kid hating unions whose one desire is lifetime tenure. If anyone wrote that question for them, it was not asked.

The night ended with one final anti-union joke when Johnson asked if they were out of time. Weinstein smugly responded that the Moderators Union had called and they had to wrap it up, audience applause.

The authors of this report-back are among the founders of a new annual event called LaborFest Hawaii, a celebration and examination of working class and labor history and current events, and a place where working people can assess present conditions to better organize. Our first event will focus on education with a screening of the Grassroots Education Movement made documentary “The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman.” This film is a counter-argument to Davis Guggenheim’s “Waiting for Superman” which targeted teacher unions and pushed privatization, charter schools, and the business model of education. Guggenheim advocates the same austerity-based, anti-union, anti-teacher, and ultimately anti-student reform regime championed by Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, and others.

Alabama is a deep red state. The governor and the legislature are Republican.

Yet this past spring, they rejected charter legislation, and the governor announced that he would not raise the issue in the next session.

What happened?

Veteran political observer Larry Lee explains it here.

Although charters have their strongest appeal to conservatives, they contain a contradiction.

The ALEC model legislation for charters says that the state should have a charter board that can override local control.

The idea of eroding local control for the sake of charters didn’t sit well with Alabama Republicans.

Also, every education group in the state opposed the legislation.

But at the end of the day, Alabama Republicans decided not to abandon local control of their public schools.

 

It is always important to keep your sense of perspective and not be swept  along by bad ideas imposed by superiors.

Be reasonable but do not accept the unacceptable. (The Will Smith video was first mentioned here.)

When I read the following, I was tempted to suggest that the local superintendent might order one of those Gates Foundation’s galvanic skin response monitors. But then I realized I was wrong: the purpose of the monitors is to measure excitement, but the purpose of the bobbers is to teach collaboration. I think. Maybe.

Read it and ask: laugh or cry?

This event (having to sit through the Will Smith treadmill youtube video–which, by the way, is still available for viewing by running a Google search) was nothing compared to the inservice the year before in the same district.  That motivational speaker’s presentation consisted of a discussion of our positive and negative energy, which was then demonstrated by having all 100+ of us holding a fishing bobber suspended by a chain.  We “worked to move our energy” using our bobbers in both small and large groups.  Depending on the swing and speed of the bobber, it could be determined (!!!) whether or not we we possess good, positive energy.
From the speaker’s own website: “Participants are instantly affected as they learn to bring positive energy to their relationships and daily lives.”
Thank goodness we were not tested and scored individually on the swing of our bobbers, because I was fit to be tied by the time the presentation ended.  The most disturbing thing was listening to some teachers the next day praising their own “successes” with the bobbers.  They’d actually gone home and practiced!  I, in turn, was reprimanded for my criticism regarding what I saw as the frivolous use of inservice time when I filled out my required end-of-session evaluation.  I wrote something like, “Perhaps we can follow-up this ridiculous activity by bringing in tea leaves or pulling out the old Ouija Boards.”
Oh my gosh, do you think bobbers, tea leaves, and Ouija boards will soon be teacher evaluation tools?  Egad.

Over 250 parents in Cherokee County, Georgia, signed an ad directed at their legislators to tell them:

We support our public schools.

Stop the budget cuts.

The Cherokee County public schools took a budget cut of $26.5 million this year.

If the Legislature approves charter schools, parents will fight with one another over dwindling resources and space.

 

The investigators of the D.C. cheating scandal of 2011 finally reported in and said there was cheating in only one school, the Noyes Campus.

Since the principal of that one school has already resigned, the investigation is closed.

Here’s the funny thing. The investigators decided to investigate only one school.

The USA Today series that uncovered the cheating said there were unusual erasures in more than half the schools in DC.

But the investigators decided that there was no point in investigating more than Noyes, and that everyone else had learned their lesson.

USA Today found it strange.

Coach Bob in Florida wants to know what gives. He thinks someone is stonewalling.

GF Brandenburg, who writes regularly about DC schools, says it is a whitewash.

Just look the other way.

Case closed.

Or is it?

The Jindal administration will not release any public records explaining its decisions about which schools will get vouchers and which will not.

Considering that the voucher program has made the state of Louisiana into an international laughing stock, that might be the best they can do.

Best not to let the world hear or read those discussions about whether to let children leave a failing public school in kindergarten (how is that even possible?) and enter a school where they will learn that slavery wasn’t all bad and the KKK had some positive features and evolution is a hoax.

The more people learn about the Louisiana voucher program, the more it will embarrass Mitt Romney, who is pushing to bring vouchers to every state and even wants federal funding for vouchers.

So the state has decided that the best course of action is to shroud all this nonsense in mystery.

You know, when the foreign press starts making fun of your education reforms and laughs because you are putting kids in schools where they take the Loch Ness monster seriously, it is best to keep quiet.

Louisiana is giving us a laugh a day with this voucher program.

A reader writes to set the record straight:

My comments are simply to state facts and correct the misconceptions in the responses.I was a founding member of the National Board in 1987–a classroom special education teacher from Michigan. (Yes, serving with 62 other board members like Deborah Meier, Al Shanker and Mary Futrell but mostly, a majority of teachers) In 1990, I joined the National Board as staff–the first teacher hired by the start up organization. I worked as a Vice President for the organization until 2000 and witness the launch and continual evolution of National Board Certification. In 2010, I was re-elected to the NBPTS board of directors and serve now.

The NBPTS by-laws state the the board is a teacher led board, and I serve with the most amazing NBCTs in this governance role. (I do not serve as a teacher member despite having been a nationally recognized special education teacher at one point.)

Pearson is a contractor to the NBPTS and the National Board manages that contract. Standard revisions are done by committees of a majority of teachers, assessment revisions based on those standards and scoring results are approved by the board of directors–again, a MAJORITY of teachers. This is not done by Pearson. It is done by the National Board.

I just left a two day meeting of a board committee (I was the only non NBCT) and staff meeting (again several NBCTS) talking about how to actualize the priority goal #1 of the new leadership at NBPTS: mobilize NBCTs to ensure their expertise is deployed to benefit every part of the education system to contribute to the urgency of increasing student learning. If there is anything that might feel like a takeover, it is that NBCTs are truly at the core of this organization in focus, governance, management. I couldn’t be prouder.

A reader writes to offer some corrections of a minor sort to the interview with Secretary Duncan:

When I was in high school in the South Side of Chicago, my friends could drop out and get a decent job in the stockyards or steel mills, and own their own home and support a family.”For the sake of accuracy, I would like to point out that the stockyards in Chicago were closed in 1971, just before Duncan turned 7 years old. Also, by the time he was in high school, the US Steel Southworks plant was actively slashing jobs and had already cut it’s employees by half. So, actually, even when I was in high school in the late 60s, it was apparent that neither of these employers would be providing lasting careers.

Also, while Duncan seems to want people to think he’s a South Sider from the hood, very few students drop out of U-High, the progressive secondary school at the University of Chicago Lab School that he attended (and where Obama sent his daughters). Maybe he’s referring to kids at his mom’s after-school program where he grew up in the evenings, but I would have thought he’d know that we typically say “on the South Side” here, not “in the South Side”. He sounds more like someone who visited the hood, not someone who lived in it –which he didn’t, since he grew up in the mostly upper-middle income, intellectually oriented neighborhood of Hyde Park. (My Dad also lived in Hyde Park, so I spent a lot of time there and knew many U-High students. They were very different from the students who were in gangs and those who bullied me and beat me up at my South Side high school.)