Archives for the month of: September, 2012

The Chicago Teachers Union strike has encouraged many educators around the nation, who are fed up with the virulent attacks on them by people who couldn’t manage a classroom for ten minutes. Or five, maybe.

Judging by the comments I am getting, CTU has lifted the spirits of teachers who were feeling as though no one would stand up to the shellacking they were taking.

CTU has stood up.

And we can expect counter-attacks. They have started. I read one news story fired by about 50 comments saying, “Fire them, fire them all.” I wonder if the people who write such letters have ever taught. I know the answer. I read a conservative blogger who predicted that the CTU would fold because the public thinks they are paid too much already.

The strike raises issues for teachers everywhere and for union locals everywhere.

What is the best strategy to ward off the corporate reform attacks?

Confronted with ceaseless attacks on public education, on the teaching profession, and on the right of unions to exist, what should unions do?

Should they collaborate or should they fight?

This post launched a heated discussion.

I am not a union member. I have never belonged to a union. But growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, I learned that the right to belong to a union is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. Supporting the right of working people to bargain collectively was not at all controversial.

Today it is. Today unions are under fire, even from Democratic leaders like the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Los Angeles.

What should unions do?

This reader comments:

I am surprised that this post has accepted the “reformers” moving of the goal posts so readily and assumes that it is commonly accepted. The purpose of unions is to advocate for members’ working conditions and pay. The “reformers” have used slick rhetoric to convince gullible people that the purpose of the union should be to “reform” schools. I don’t buy that at all. As has so often been stated, my working conditions are your child’s learning conditions. We can also work for school improvement but that is not our primary mission and if we accept the “reformers” re-imagining of our mission then we are setting ourselves up for accepting blame for failures caused by them.

For the last 16 years I have been involved quite deeply in both the AFT and the NEA (we have a cooperative union in Florida) and I have been a building rep for 14 of my 16 years as a teacher. I’ve visited my state legislature, written letters, called, rallied fellow teachers and worked the phone banks for GOTV. The first half of my career was spent in NYC. The second half in Florida, a right to work state. Unionism is vastly different in the many states that have adopted right to work, with little opposition or pushback from the national unions that it decimates and destroys. Why is that?

I’ve never bought the idea that it is our responsibility to conform ourselves to whatever our opposition chooses for their own comfort level in the hopes of preventing them from being even more extreme. The positions advocated in this post are exactly why we are in the situation we are in: an adoption of the Clinton-era “triangulation” strategies that supposedly reach compromise by taking the position of your opponent and making it your own. Thus we have Dennis Van Roekel and Randi Weingarten agreeing to VAM junk science, echoing the rhetoric of the “reformers” that schools are mess and in need of saving, and the list goes on and on.

I look at our colleagues in Australia and around the world who rally to shut down the entire school system when they are threatened with harmful, ridiculous reforms and then I compare that to American teachers who are an endangered species as public education is brought to the brink of extinction and I ask why aren’t we out in the streets? If you really believe that being nicer, quieter, and more accommodating will win this war then I refer you to the great Frederick Douglas who taught us that power never accedes ground without a fight and those who decry the battle are asking for a storm of change without the thunder and lightning that accompany it.

We are teachers. If our membership and the public are unaware of union history and the important gains procured through the labor movement then we must teach them these things. If we truly believe that truth and knowledge are the keys to good citizenship then we need to use these tools to further our ends. Playing old-school political games that no longer work will do nothing but hasten our end.

From a reader in Maine:

I’ve always thought that teachers should suggest a better approach–Getting a percentage of their students’ incomes after high school graduation.  The logic is that teachers who add value will produce students who make more money; therefore, to align incentives property, the teachers should get a cut of the incomes from their graduates.

Just think how much Steve Jobs’s estate owes California’s teachers! 🙂

Glen Brown is a teacher and poet.

In this post he explains why he does not trust Advance Illinois, Stand for Children, or other pseudo-reform groups that do not respect teachers or value genuine education.

He writes:

Carefully examine the goals of public education. They are not the goals of Stand for Children and Advance Illinois. A teacher does not make a sale or earn a profit. A teacher works with children and young adults.  Though we all want the best instruction for our students and children, we do not have to consider riding along with this prevailing wave of attacks on teachers’ autonomy and their rights by corporate factions and their entrepreneurs, such as Jonah Edelman’s Stand for Children and Robin Stean’s Advance Illinois.  Why? Because waves will crash to shore no matter how you ride them.

 

If you add the scores on standardized tests for five years in a row, can you tell who the best and worst teachers are?

No.

But that’s the theory behind value-added assessment.

The idea is that an “effective” teacher raises test scores every year. The computer predicts what the test scores are supposed  to be, and the teacher who meets the target is great, while the one who doesn’t is ineffective and should be shunned or banished.

But study after study shows that value-added assessment is rife with error. As this paper from the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association shows, value-added assessment is unstable, inaccurate and unreliable. Teachers who get high ratings one year may get low ratings the next year. Teachers are misidentified. Data are missing. The scores say more about which students were in the classroom than the teachers’ “quality” and ability to teach well.

Teachers of the gifted are in trouble because the students are so close to the ceiling that it is very difficult to “make” them get higher scores.

Teachers of special education are in trouble because their students have many problems taking a standardized assessment. A teacher wrote me last year to tell me that her students would cry, hide under their desks, and react with rage; one tore up the test and ate the paper.

Teachers of English language learners are in trouble because many of their students don’t know how to read English.

A superintendent in Connecticut wrote me to say that his state department of education is pushing the Gates’ MET approach. I urged him to read Jesse Rothstein’s critique. In fact, the MET study won the National Education Policy Center’s Bunkum award for research that reached a conclusion that was the opposite of its own evidence.

For a fast and accurate summary of what research says about value-added assessment, read this article by Linda Darling-Hammond.

VAM is junk science. Bunk science.

Just another club with which to knock teachers, wielded by those who could never last five minutes in a classroom.

Count on Stephanie Simon of Reuters to get the story that eluded every other reporter.

She is the one that got the inside story on Louisiana, TFA, and for-profit investors.

Now she has the scoop on Chicago.

The strike in Chicago is not about money.

It is a national story.

It’s about the survival of public education.

Read her story.

When Mayor Rahm Emanuel is talking about youth crime, he assigns responsibility to parents and families for the values and attitudes and behavior of what he calls “gang bangers.”

When he talks about schools, however, he forgets that parents and families have any influence on how students behave and the effort they are willing to expend on their studies. All of a sudden, teachers alone control test scores, no one else.

Jamie Vollmer is the author of the famous Blueberry Story. He was working for an ice cream company that won recognition for making the best ice cream in America. Buoyed by success, he would go to conferences and decry the sorry state of American education, based on what he knew of business.

One day, when speaking to a group of teachers, someone asked him what his company would do if he got a shipment of damaged blueberries. He promptly replied that the shipment would be thrown away. The teacher responded, we don’t throw away any of our blueberries, we take them all.

Vollmer had a transformational experience, an epiphany. And he became a champion of public education.

Here he discusses what he calls “notesia.” Nostegia is a combination of nostalgia and amnesia. Please send this link to every reformer you know. Send it to editorial writers and business leaders. Send it to Arne Duncan. Send it to Condi Rice. Let it go viral.

Jessie B. Ramey attended a meeting at the White House with a delegation of Pennsylvania educators.

Ramey wrote an open letter to Roberto Rodriguez, President Obama’s education advisor, asking the White House to stop berating educators and public education.

Based on the story in The Atlantic claiming that Michelle Rhee is “taking over the Democratic Party,” it becomes imperative for President Obama to distance himself from Rhee’s anti-teacher ideas.

Does President Obama support charter schools, like Rhee? Yes.

Does President Obama support for-profit schools, like Rhee? He hasn’t said.

Does President Obama worry about a dual school system in American cities, with charters for the haves and public schools for the have-nots? We need to know.

Does President Obama want entire school staffs to be fired because of low test scores? He said no at the Convention but he supported the firing of the staff at Central Falls High School in Rhode Island and his Race to the Top turnaround strategy supports mass firings. Does he approve or disapprove?

Does President Obama truly want to stop the odious practice of teaching to the test? Will he explain how teachers can avoid teaching to the test if their pay and their job depends on student test scores?

President Obama must let the nation’s teachers know that he is with them. He can do so by disassociating himself from Rhee’s anti-teacher agenda, as well as from policies pushed by his own Race to the Top.

And he could go to Chicago and tell Rahm Emanuel to settle with the teachers and do what is right for the children of Chicago.

State Representative Marci Maxwell is a hero who joins our honor roll for bravely standing up for public education.

She  wrote an article in which she urged voters to reject an initiative to authorize charter schools in Washington State.

She pointed out that the state’s voters have turned down charters three times previously.

Bill Gates and other billionaires and entrepreneurs are funding this effort topet voters to approve charters.

In other states, legislatures have approved charter legislation without going to the voters. Some have used ALEC model legislation, others have been influenced by campaign contributions. But it’s rare that voters have a chance to express their views about creating a dual system of schools dividing a limited amount of public funds.

Thank you, Rep. Maxwell, for helping to educate the public.

Steve Zimmer, a board member of the Los Angeles Unified School District, is a hero for public education. He joins the honor roll.

He has stood up to the powerful privatization lobby, which wants to hand more and more public schools over to private management.

Zimmer has the temerity to ask where the charter movement is going in Los Angeles. What is the end game? Who is looking out for the 86% of students who are not in charters? What are the consequences of “co-location” (i.e., giving charters free space in a public school, taking classrooms, facilities and resources away from the public school students)?

Zimmer has offered a resolution calling for greater oversight of charter schools in the city and requiring that the charters present the same data as public schools.

Zimmer points out that the 232 charters in the city of Los Angeles enroll 14.5% of the district’s students, yet the board approves charters without more than five minutes of deliberations.

Only 7 of the city’s 232 charters participate in the LAUSD data system, making it hard to know who they are serving and what they are doing.

He notes that charters are supposed to be incubators of innovation, yet they share nothing with public schools, and the board has no process by which to evaluate and share any best practices incubated in charters.

He notes that charters serve only 1/3 of the proportion of students with moderate-to-severe disabilities as compared to the public schools in the districts.

He wants the LAUSD superintendent to “issue a comprehensive report to the Board about the benefits, challenges andresponsibilities of being the largest charter authorizer in the world.”

He recommends a commission to “provide detailed recommendations to the Board about charter authorizations, renewals, amendments, Proposition 39 allocations, authorizing guidelines and issues of governance and oversight.”

Two charter chains object to his proposal. They want no constraints on their ability to continue expanding and drawing down public funding away from public schools without any oversight. It works for them. They claim Zimmerman wants to hamstring their growth. But in fact he is calling for responsible  oversight of public-funded institutions.