Archives for the month of: October, 2012

Indiana Superintendent Tony Bennett is running for re-election. He has raised more than $1 million from supporters of an anti-public school agenda.

He just received $25,000 from a gubernatorial candidate who wants vouchers for private and religious schools with NO accountability.

Way to go in handing out public dollars with zero accountability for their use.

Just more evidence that the voucher advocates no longer even pretend that vouchers will improve education.

Their goal is to destroy public education.

Wake up, parents and citizens of Indiana.

It is not teachers who are in peril. It is the public sector.

It is the public schools of Indiana, once a source of great civic pride, now slated for demolition by a rightwing wrecking crew.

 

Most people think of Teach for America as an organization that recruits young college graduates to teach in distressed urban and rural schools.

As the organization has matured, however, it is preparing a cadre of leaders to enter political office and take the reins of power. But power for what?

In this article, TFA is shown to be leading the movement for high-stakes testing and privatization.

Clearly, there are TFA alums who don’t share this agenda. I know some.

But the question remains, why are so many TFA graduates gung-ho for policies that are anti-union, anti-professional, and friendly to privatization? And why are they so supportive of high-stakes testing, which is ultimately harmful to children and to the quality of education?

Yesterday I announced my intention to vote for President Obama, and given the choice confronting us, I will vote for President Obama.

I will vote for him despite his terrible education policy known as Race to the Top.

It is a disaster. It has all the faults of No Child Left Behind, and it is worse.

It is incentivizing the creation of more privately managed charter schools, which are more segregated than the public schools in the same district and which do not even get higher test scores. It is pushing more testing, more school closings, more destabilizing of communities, more labeling of children, more layoffs, more money spent for compliance with federal mandates.

Race to the Top is harmful to children, to teachers, to principals, and to the future of public education in America.

Education Week reporter Alyson Klein wrote an analysis of what lies ahead in a second Obama term, and it is more of the same. What is especially disgusting is that the President continues to believe that Race to the Top is a positive policy; he seems to think that it will improve public education. He has not heard anything that teachers and parents and principals across the nation have been shouting. Stop the high-stakes testing! Stop the evaluation of teachers by test scores! Stop the privatization!

Federal policy is supposed to be devoted to equity, to helping the neediest children, not to a race. What is the point of a “race” in education? Are we racing to get the highest test scores? How does that promote equality of educational opportunity?

What is even more disgusting is that your representatives in Congress are voting the funds to continue the advance of these toxic policies. Raise your voices. Let your Senator and member of Congress know that Race to the Top is racing for the edge of a cliff. Stop. Stop now.

Here is the article linked above:

What Would a Second Obama Term Look Like on Education?

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 11:28 AM PDT

President Barack Obama has talked a lot on the campaign trail about his education record—but not as much about what he would do in a potential second term.

Yesterday, the Obama campaign put out a big, glossy brochure with ideas for next steps, including:

• Cutting tuition growth in half over the next ten years; recruiting and preparing at least 100,000 new math and science teachers;
• A plan to “strengthen public schools in every community,” in part by expanding Race to the Top to school districts
• Offering states waivers from the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act;
• Using community colleges as economic development engines.

None of the ideas outlined in the brochure are brand new—and at least one of them, Race to the Top for districts—is going to happen whether or not Obama wins a second term. But it makes sense for Obama to highlight some of the proposals still on his to-do list, to give voters an idea of where he wants to take education policy.

As districts struggling to finalize their applications know, Congress has already provided $400 million for the district competition, and the U.S. Department of Education has already crafted the rules. The dollars are scheduled to go out the door by the end of the year, no matter what happens on election day. Still, if Obama is re-elected, there could be additional rounds of Race to the Top, which could conceivably go to school districts.

And granting states waivers from parts of the No Child Left Behind Act isn’t a second-term idea, it’s already well way underway. Waivers for districts in states that didn’t apply are a whole other matter.

When it comes to slowing the growth of college tuition, the Obama administration already has a bunch of ideas on the table—in fact there’s even a proposal to create yet another iteration of the administration’s signature Race to the Top franchise, this time to reward states for their efforts on higher education. So far, Congress has yet to bite, in part, I’m guessing, because of the program’s $1 billion price tag.

The proposed competition would reward states that maintain their own spending on higher education, improve alignment between K-12 graduation requirements and higher education entrance standards, and seek new ways to curb costs without sacrificing educational quality.

Mr. Obama has also floated the idea of tying some federal college aid—specifically campus-based aid programs, such as Perkins loans—to college outcomes, including graduation rates for at-risk populations, such as disadvantaged students, and the ability to keep tuition in check.

As for the math and science teacher proposal, anyone paying attention to the campaign has probably heard it—the president mentioned it in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination this summer. So that’s not a new idea either, although, so far, Congress hasn’t acted on the proposal.

The community college idea isn’t new either—it was part of a recent budget proposal. But it too, has not made it very far in a Congress bent on curbing costs. More here.

What else might be in the hopper for Obama’s second term, if it happens? Comments section is open.

– Alyson Klein

   

An article in a Nashville paper describes the discussions about vouchers in Tennessee and generally quotes voucher supporters.

Given that the Governor is a conservative Republican, given that the Legislature is Republican, given that the Legislature often passes ALEC legislation without changing a word, and given that the state has a TFA Commissioner of Education, it seems likely that Tennessee will endorse vouchers for low-income students. In time, as we saw in Wisconsin, the income limits will be lifted.

There is only one important fact missing from the discussion of vouchers in this article: Vouchers have no record of improving test scores wherever they have been tried. Not in Milwaukee, not in the District of Columbia, and not in Cleveland.

It is simply choice for the sake of choice, choice for the sake of privatization.

It was supposed to be the movie of the year.

Big stars, big budget for promotion.

All of Rupert Murdoch’s publications sang its glories.

CBS held a greatly hyped rock concert to “honor teachers” just as the film “honored teachers” (not).

NBC gave it a big sendoff as part of Education Nation.

The New York Public Library hosted a grand premiere and private showing for high society.

All to promote a film produced by a rightwing billionaire who hates public education and teachers’ unions.

The good news: Never has a lavishly promoted film sunk so fast.

It opened in over 2,500 theaters and had the worst opening week of any film in wide distribution in the past 30 years.

The box office was so bad that two weeks after opening, it was being shown in only 513 theaters.

Now, three weeks after its opening, the film is playing in 168 theaters nationwide. The weekend gross was $44,889.

Down, down, down.

These past few years, some of us have been trying to awaken the public to the goals and strategy of the privatization movement.

First, they demand high-stakes testing, and they claim they want to “reduce the achievement gap” or “it’s all for the kids.”

Second, they use the scores to give grades to schools and to declare that those with the lowest scores are “failing schools” (purposely ignoring that those with low scores are almost always located in the poorest neighborhoods and enroll high proportions of children of color)

Third, somewhere along the way, they strip teachers of every job protection so they can’t complain and do not have a seat at the table when the budget is slashed

Fourth, they welcome private management, and freely hand out public dollars to entrepreneurs, amateurs, and assorted corporations (don’t forget, “it’s all for the kids,” because “kids first,” “children first,” “students first.”)

In Texas, as the letter below shows, the Democrats are beginning to see what is happening.

The Texas legislature cut over $5 billion from the public schools’ budget but somehow managed to find a measly $500 million for Pearson’s testing regime. Pearson must have super lobbyists, like the guy who was the architect of No Child Left Behind.

Now the next legislature is likely to expand charters and vouchers.

Getting ready to finish off public education.

This letter is from Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party:

Dear Democrat,

There’s a reason that the Texas Republican platform is opposed to teaching critical thinking skills. Anyone with the ability to think can look at what Republicans are doing to our schools and realize that it’s insanity!

Last year, Republicans cut five billion dollars from public education. But they won’t be happy until they fully end public education as we know it. There’s a war against teaching and schools going on in our State, and we won’t sit by and let this happen!

 

Republican Senator Dan Patrick was recently appointed Chair of the Senate Education Committee. We know what that means for the next legislative session, because he’s already told us.

 

“This is the session for us to be bold. This is the session for us to reform public education,” Patrick has announced.

 

“Reform” is code for defund and destroy.

 

Patrick is partnering with Perry and Dewhurst to further defund our schools in a dramatic way.  They want to take money from our children’s futures and pass it to their cronies. Republicans call it vouchers, but it’s clear that their goal is not to provide better educational opportunities. Those who truly champion our children would not start by cutting over five billion dollars of support for their education.

 

It is absolutely insane and objectionable that Texas Republicans see the education of our children as a political tool and as a way to give more money to their rich buddies.

 

Every Democrat in this State needs to get out there and vote like the future depends on it because IT DOES. At the Texas Democratic Party we’re fighting against this insanity. But we need you to fight with us.

 

Yours,
Gilberto Hinojosa 

I borrowed the provocative title from a post by Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas.

Heilig wrote a post recently about Great Hearts, the charter chain that has been trying to locate in an affluent neighborhood in Nashville, thus far without success. As readers of this blog may recall, the Metro Nashville school board has turned Great Hearts down four times. For exercising discretion, the district has been punished by TFA Commissioner Kevin Huffman, who has withheld $3.4 million in state aid from the district. Huffman, of course, believes he must be obeyed because he is the all-powerful commissioner and how dare they reject his order.

Now Great Hearts want to bring multiple charters to San Antonio, and you can guess where they want to locate. As Heilig says in his title, “Hey! The Wealthy Need Segregated Charters Too!?”

An astute observer in Chicago reports on my appearance at the Chicago City Club.

As usual, I did not pull punches.

I don’t have time for that.

The amazing thing is that even though everything I said contradicted the axioms of Chicago-style “reform,” I got a standing ovation from a warm and friendly crowd of civic leaders at the City Club.

As readers of this blog know, I am agnostic about the Common Core standards, because they have never been tried anywhere.

We don’t know whether they will improve academic learning, whether they will increase the achievement gap, whether they will make any difference.

Recently the renowned scholar faced off with New York Commissioner of Education John King.

Commissioner King comes out of the charter sector and has very limited experience as a teacher or an administrator.

He believes passionately in the Common Core. So do Arne Duncan, Bill Gates and Tom Friedman.

Yong Zhao patiently explained to Commissioner King that there is no evidence for the efficacy of the Common Core.

And none for its lack of efficacy.

There is no evidence.

EduShyster is worried that Democrats for Education Reform might lose a friend in the White House if Romney wins.

After all, they are Democrats, right?

But it turns out that Ann Romney has a passion for both horses and charter schools, so DFER and SFER and all the other little -FERs should be OK.

At the end of this item, EduShyster invites readers: After what education reformer should Ann Romney name her next horse?

I don’t think there is a prize attached to the winning entry, but since we don’t work for bonuses, give serious thought to nominating your favorite reformer.