Archives for the month of: September, 2012

Paul Thomas is an articulate and prolific critic of the status quo of free market reforms.

In a new article, he analyzes the nature of “no excuses” schooling and why it fails.

Thomas says that the debate about metrics is irrelevant. Getting higher test scores and graduation rates, he argues, doesn’t matter so much as how those rates are produced.

He writes:

The education reform debate is fueled by a seemingly endless and even fruitless point-counterpoint among the corporate reformers—typically advocates for and from the Gates Foundation (GF), Teach for America (TFA), and charter chains such as Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)—and educators/scholars of education. Since the political and public machines have embraced the corporate reformers, GF, TFA, and KIPP have acquired the bully pulpit of the debate and thus are afforded most often the ability to frame the point, leaving educators and scholars to be in a constant state of generating counter-points.

This pattern disproportionately benefits corporate reformers, but it also exposes how those corporate reformers manage to maintain the focus of the debate on data. The statistical thread running through most of the point-counterpoint is not only misleading (the claims coming from the corporate reformers are invariably distorted, while the counter-points of educators and scholars remain ignored among politicians, advocates, the public, and the media), but also a distraction.

Since the metrics debate (test scores, graduation rates, attrition, populations of students served, causation/correlation) appears both enduring and stagnant, I want to make a clear statement with some elaboration that I reject the “ends-justify-the-means” assumptions and practices—the broader “no excuses” ideology—underneath the numbers, and thus, we must stop focusing on the outcomes of programs endorsed by the GF or TFA and KIPP.

Instead, we must unmask the racist and classist policies and practices hiding beneath the metrics debate surrounding GF, TFA, and KIPP (as prominent examples of practices all across the country and types of schools).

Whether you agree or not, Thomas’s views deserve a wide hearing.

Let’s discuss what he says. Let’s think about it.

My friends at The Chalkface have thrown themselves into the fight to support public education, with a radio show, videos, and blogs.

Now they let you know–in language you won’ t hear from me–about the latest reformer attack on teacher education. The reformers want Arne Duncan to ignore the objections of major institutions of higher education. They want him to adopt regulations that would judge teacher education programs by the test scores of the students of their graduates.

Got that. The test scores of the students taught by the graduates of these institutions.

This is guaranteed to make teaching to the test the official doctrine of American education, top to bottom. It means imposing NCLB on higher education.

It is absurd. It is reckless. It is ___________. (Fill in the blank.)

I posted the previous report about a meeting at the White House with Pennsylvania leaders because I thought you should read it. I felt frustrated reading it. I met at the White House in June 2010 with Roberto Rodriguez, Rahm Emanual and Melody Barnes, who was then the head of the Domestic Policy Council. I said all the same things. All they wanted to talk about was how Race to the Top would fix everything, the $1 billion they planned to spend on merit pay, and the sure success of tying teacher evaluation to test scores. I told them how disheartened teachers were by their whole approach, that they had aligned themselves with the GOP agenda. I warned that they would lose the 2010 elections if they didn’t get a different agenda. I told them that what they were doing would not succeed and would have terrible consequences. They didn’t listen.

The issue with the Obama team is whether they do anything differently.

Now they are pushing Race to the Top down to the district level. They refuse to accept that Race to the Top is no different from what the GOP would do, except for vouchers. I am glad that Larry Feinberg made that point.

The fact that you met with the “office of outreach” shows that this was a meeting intended to give you the impression that they were listening.

What matters is not that they invited you to the White House. Not that they heard you out.

What matters is will they do anything differently?

What signal, if any, will the White House give to show that they understand that Race to the Top is an extension of NCLB? It is NCLB on steroids.

If a Republican President had proposed Race to the Top, exactly as it is, Democrats would have fought it, made the President modify it, insisted on Congressional hearings before letting it go forward, demanded evidence before it was implemented.

None of that happened.

When I met Arne Duncan in the fall of 2009, just the two of us, I asked him why he was going around the country to campaign for RTTT with Newt Gingrich. His answer: “Because the President told me to.”

My advice: Judge them and all politicians by what they do, not what they say.

Yinzercation

YINZER NATION + EDUCATION = YINZERCATION

The Elephant at the White House

— AUGUST 31, 2012

So there we were at the White House. Forty “education leaders” from Pennsylvania invited to meet with President Obama’s senior policy advisors as well as top staff at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). The room contained district superintendents, school board members, principals, college presidents, education professors, representatives from a host of education associations, a super-PAC school privatizer, educational consultants, and various non-profit directors. And one elephant.

This elephant in the room fittingly started as a Republican beast, but has gained so much traction with Democrats over the past decade that it could just as well have been a donkey lurking there in the corner. Whatever its animal form, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was casting a pretty big shadow and it was time to talk about the consequences of labeling our public schools as failures, high stakes testing, and the demonization of teachers.

And so during the first discussion session, I stood to address Roberto Rodriguez, the President’s senior policy advisor on education. I reminded him of what I had told him back in March, when I implored the White House to stop participating in the national narrative of failing public schools. (See “What I Told the White House.”) And then I gave him the view from the ground here in Pennsylvania where our grassroots movement has been fighting massive budget cuts, to let him know what it looks like when our country stops believing that public education is a public good. When it chooses to cut teachers, tutoring programs, nurses, special ed, school buses, music, art, foreign languages, and even Kindergarten.

NCLB has created a culture of punishment and fear, with student “achievement” measured by highly problematic standardized tests that don’t begin to assess real learning, and teachers evaluated on those test scores and little else. It has narrowed the focus in our schools to reading and math, jettisoned real education in favor of high stakes testing resulting in a plague of cheating scandals, and nurtured a system of “teaching to the test” on top of weeks of school time spent on test taking and nothing else. NCLB set a pie in the sky target of 100% proficiency for all U.S. students by 2014, and as that deadline has approached and the proficiency bar has moved ever higher, more schools have “failed” and more teachers have been blamed.

All this supposed failure and blaming has served as convenient cover to gut public education in states like Pennsylvania, where Governor Corbett and the Republican controlled legislature acted as fast as they could to slash $1 billion from public schools, install voucher-like tax credit programs, and privatize struggling districts, handing their schools over to corporations run by their largest campaign donors. But they had plenty of help from the other side of the aisle, because faced with the relentless media barrage of the failing-narrative, far too many people have lost confidence in public education as a pillar of our democracy.

And this has been happening all across the United States, with the backing of mountains of ultra-right superPAC money and ALEC-inspired legislation as well as major new foundation players including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation. This is truly a national battle, and we can’t win this fight isolated in our trenches. We need tone-changing leadership from the top.

My report from the grassroots met with a rousing round of applause from attendees and was followed by a series of equally urgent remarks. Larry Feinberg of the Keystone State Education Coalition warned that President Obama’s policies have looked nearly identical to Republicans on education (with the exception of vouchers, which he does not support) and that he may backfire at the polls with teachers and educators. Feinberg sits on the Haverford school board, a wealthy district near Philadelphia, and reminded the President’s staff that middle-class students in well-resourced schools actually score at the top on international tests. We are ignoring poverty while adding ever more testing, which will drastically expand yet again this year in his district and many others. Similarly, Susan Gobreski of Education Voters PA argued that we ought to have a new national narrative of equity, and that we have choices and need to help the public see that we can make different ones.

For their part, the White House advisors and senior USDE staff seemed to agree. Roberto Rodriguez emphasized that we “need more investment in public education, not less” with a focus on early childhood education, curriculum, wrap around programs, and parent engagement. He reported on the 300,000 teaching jobs lost in recent years, noting the economic implications for the U.S. and warned that sequestration – which will happen if congress does not head off looming mandatory budget cuts this fall – will mean billions of dollars cut to Title I, special ed, higher ed, and other student programs.

Massie Ritsch, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the USDE, talked about the fact that NCLB will be up for renewal next year, and that we here at the community level need to keep talking about “the lunacy that this law has allowed to perpetuate.” Yes, those were his actual words. Think about that. Of those Americans who say they are very familiar with NCLB, nearly half now say that the law has made things worse in this country (and only 28% say it’s better). (See “What the Polls Say.”) And here was the top brass at the USDE agreeing, calling the fallout from this federal law “lunacy.”

Deborah Delisle, USDE Assistant Secretary noted that 30 states have now applied for NCLB waivers to gain some flexibility in dealing with its ever more stringent requirements. However, Pennsylvania is not one of them. Many in the room expressed serious frustration with Governor Corbett’s apparent preference to have our schools labeled failures and refusal to seek relief through the waiver program. And it was readily apparent that the PA Department of Education declined to send anyone to this White House forum, which was hardly a meeting of Corbett’s political foes (after all, Students First PA was there: that’s the group that funnels superPAC millions to the campaigns of legislators who promise to deliver vouchers and give away public funds to private and religious schools through tax credit schemes.)

Delisle also commented on the polarizing effect that NCLB has had on our nation. It has created a climate in which those who embrace the corporate-marketplace-inspired reform mantra of choice, competition, and test-based accountability smear professional educators and public school advocates as “defenders of the status quo” who only care about union perks and not children. But this educational “reform” movement of the past decade has been a bit like the king’s new clothes. A wide swath of America has lined the parade route – Republican and Democrat alike – loudly cheering for the king’s beautiful new royal robes of privatization, but there’s nothing there covering his privates.

This “reform” movement is premised on a false idea that American schools have been in steady decline for the past forty years, which is not supported by the evidence. Despite ample data to the contrary, these reformers continue to insist that our students are falling further and further behind their international peers and promote the NCLB inspired narrative of failing public education. (For an excellent analysis of the data, see Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.) What’s more, they accuse those who point out the obvious – that privatization is not working, that charter schools and tax credits are draining our public coffers of desperately needed resources, that we have to address the astonishing high rate of child poverty – of being satisfied with the persistent racial achievement gap and using poverty as an excuse.

We are at a cross-roads with public education in our country. If we are going to get serious about making sure that every student has the opportunity to attend a great public school – “A school,” as Assistant Secretary Deborah Delisle said, “that every one of us would send our child to” – then we have to get serious about restoring this country’s belief in the public good of public education. It’s time to name the elephant in the room, have a serious conversation about overhauling NCLB, and make the choice to adequately and equitably fund our public schools.

Are online schools doing a good job? Some readers have written to defend them.

The research is clear that students in online schools get lower test scores and have lower graduation rates. And see here. The virtual schools collect more tax dollars than it costs them for each student. Online instruction may be just right for some students, like the home-bound, or the athlete in training for the Olympics, or the child actor with no time to go to school, or some other special cases.

But the online corporations have an incentive to recruit more and more students, because each student represents profit to them (and revenue if the company is a non-profit). That explains why every time you turn on your computer, there is an ad for an online school. The name of their game is recruitment, because in addition to low test scores and low graduation rates, they also have high attrition rates.

This came in response to an earlier post:

I taught online PE. I had a student state they ran a mile in 3 and a half minutes. 0 accountability in online PE programs