Archives for the month of: October, 2012

The Louisiana Constitution says that the state’s Minimum Foundation Budget must be used solely for public schools.

Governor Bobby Jindal is diverting portions of that budget to pay for students to go to religious and other private schools.

The budget for public schools has seen no increase for four years.

Every student who gets a vouchers reduces the funding dedicated to public schools.

Is this a problem?

Is there an inconsistency?

What part of “public” does Governor Jindal not understand?

Dear Reader, are you tired of reading about Louisiana?

Please don’t be.

It is the future in many states.

De-funding of public education.

An explosion of vouchers and charters.

A welcome mat for entrepreneurs and online schools of dubious quality.

An official program to reduce the status and professionalism of teachers.

This reddest of red states is killing public education.

A nice summary of a bad week for John White, who was hired to implement Governor Bobby Jindal’s plan to privatize public education in Louisiana.

The blogger has an apt title for the week, referring to a delightful children’s book: John White and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

Last spring, Jindal pushed through the legislature the nation’s most sweeping voucher plan, hoping to undermine public education.

The legislation encourages charters and enacts a teacher evaluation plan that is tied to test scores and extremely punitive.

If the voucher process is any indication, privatization will move ahead with minimal regulation or quality controls.

Louisiana enacted virtually every piece of ALEC legislation. You might say that the state is the poster child for ALEC.

The state is throwing open the door to for-profit entrepreneurs or anyone who wants a piece of the public schools’ minimum foundation budget

A federal judge will decide whether the state is diverting money that was supposed to support desegregation into the voucher program.

More than half the children in the state are eligible–about 450,000 students–but only 10,000 or so applied.

The schools they will attend are mainly religious, and some lack even the rudiments of a decent education, like a curriculum, classrooms, teachers–the little things like that.

And the Jindal charterization of the state has hardly begun.

White has a herculean task, doing what privatizers like to do: handing public money over to private interests with little if any oversight.

And lots of out-of-state money flowed into Louisiana to make sure that Jindal gained control of the state board so that Jindal got just the guy he wanted to do the dirty work, and all these privatization plans would move forward, along with new contracts for–what else–TFA.

Many people with liberal causes have used change.org to launch petition drives.

In its founding, change.org declared its dedication to progressive values.

Many people were upset when change.org allowed Michelle Rhee to surreptitiously gather signatures on its site. You might sign a petition saying you want great teachers or you think teachers should be paid more, and without your knowledge or consent, you were a member of StudentsFirst. You would never get a notice informing that you had unknowingly “joined.” But you would be counted as a member.

Many were also upset that change.org hosted Stand for Children, which is anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-public education, and pro-corporate.

We thought those lapses were aberrations. But now we find that change.org is opening its doors to anti-union, anti-abortion, pro-corporate advertising. Its progressive veneer has simply disappeared. On October 24, the new policy will take effect. The news was leaked to Jeff Bryant, who wrote about it here.

Of course, that is their right. But beware. Don’t sign any petitions on that site. You never will find out what cause or group has just added your name to its membership rolls.

Just be aware that when they ask you if you support puppies and kittens, you might be signing a petition to give away public lands or to outsource American jobs or to bust a union or to support ALEC.

The Connecticut Council for Education Reform (that phrase “for Education Reform” always means “for privatization of your public schools”) urges voters in Bridgeport to pass a resolution that would eliminate their right to elect a school board.

The CCER thinks that the mayor knows best.

The mayor will know how best to close public schools and replace them with privately controlled schools that can kick low-performing students out.

The mayor knows best how to educate the city’s children.

Please, voters, abandon your rights.

The mayor knows best.

Who are these people who don’t believe in democracy?

Read Jonathan Pelto’s latest post to learn their names.

They believe in electing the school board where they live.

They don’t think that poor people and people of color can be trusted to choose those who represent them.

As Jonathan incisively asks,

Imagine if corporate executives told the American people that because Congress is, as we all know, dysfunctional, that members of Congress should be appointed by the President rather than elected by the people.

Yet that is exactly what these business people are saying.

 

 

A new report from the Annenberg Institute for School Reform asks the question: Is Demography Destiny?

Here is the answer: Yes.

The “portfolio” approach did not change the outcomes for poor kids.

Nonetheless, many districts around the nation are following NYC’s example, based on the hype and spin promoting it.

Another absurd reform that doesn’t help kids.

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

Norm Fruchter, Report co-author and AISR Senior Scholar
212-328-9252 , norm_fruchter@brown.edu

or

Phil Gloudemans, AISR’s Communications Director
401/863-3552617/257-2958philip_gloudemans@brown.edu



NEW STUDY ON COLLEGE READINESS IN NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHOWS DEMOGRAPHICS STILL DICTATE STUDENT SUCCESS
High School “Choice” Fails to Address Achievement Gap


Is Demography Still DestinyNEW YORK  — High school “choice” – the opportunity for students to select the school they prefer regardless of location – has been promoted as the most effective way to reduce a school system’s racial achievement gap and improve the quality of education.  However, a new study of the New York City school system released today revealed that this approach has not disrupted the frustratingly enduring link between students’ demographics and their educational fates across the city’s disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Entitled Is Demography Still Destiny,? researchers at Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) noted that “…in spite of the NYCDOE’s efforts to enhance both the extent of selectivity and the equity of high school choice, demography is still – and quite relentlessly – destiny in terms of the relationship between neighborhood race/ethnicity and college readiness across the city’s public school system.  Universal high school choice seems not to have provided equity of outcomes for the city’s high school students.“

High school choice, adopted by the Bloomberg administration, which restructured the public schools over the past decade into a “portfolio” district focused on this model, and replicated by school districts nationwide, was instituted to ensure that students living in disadvantaged neighborhoods are not automatically assigned to disadvantaged schools.  According to this approach, student demographics are “no excuse” for poor performance: teacher quality is the single most important determinant of student success.

The study indicates, however, that the college readiness of New York City high school graduates is still very highly correlated with their respective neighborhood. In particular, the racial composition and average income of a student’s home neighborhood are very strong predictors of a student’s chance of graduating from high school ready for college. The study shows that gaps between neighborhoods are significantly wide, including:

  • Only eight percent of students from Mott Haven graduate ready for college, while nearly 80 percent of students from Tribeca do.
  • In the city’s neighborhoods with 100 percent Black and Latino residents, no more than 10 percent of high school students graduate ready for college
  • In the Manhattan neighborhoods with the highest college-readiness rates, fewer than 10 percent of the residents are Black or Latino
  • 18 of the 20 neighborhoods with the lowest college-readiness rates are in the Bronx; the other two are located in Brooklyn
  • 13 of the 16 neighborhoods with the highest college-readiness rates are in Manhattan; the other three are located in Queens

In spite of the city’s efforts to increase equity by expanding high school choice and creating five hundred new small schools and one hundred charter schools, college readiness rates are still largely predicted by the demographics of a student’s home neighborhood.  The study indicates that the strategies of school choice and school creation are insufficient to create the equity that the Bloomberg administration had envisioned.

The researchers suggest a number of policies that would begin to address these gaps, including:

  • A more equitable distribution of in-school guidance and counseling resources to help families successfully navigate the school choice maze
  • A significant increase in the number of educational-option seats, to ensure that students of all academic levels and all neighborhoods have a fair shot at seats in the high schools that are most likely to prepare them for college
  • Heavy investment in school improvement strategies, rather than just school creation and choice, to increase the capacity of existing schools to prepare students for college.

“Without such comprehensive efforts, the vast disparity in opportunity that separates the city’s neighborhoods will persist,” states the report.

I posted earlier about a charter leader who was accused of orchestrating cheating, was fired, and was given a $245,000 settlement.

The whole sordid mess associated with Crescendo Charter Schools in Los Angeles might never have come to light were it not for teachers who were whistle-blowers.

Robert Skeels tells the story here.

Without tenure, without the protection of a union, whistleblowers get fired or never surface to blow the whistle.

Part of the faculty at the charter chain belonged to the United Teachers of Los Angeles.

They blew the whistle on a corporate culture that condoned cheating.

They thought it was wrong.

Imagine that. They thought it was wrong to give students the answers to the questions.

It was alleged that the founder of the chain ordered principals to break the seals on the standardized tests and direct teachers to teach the tests, all to get higher scores and create the illusion of miracle schools.

That is the route to fame and fortune.

But it wasn’t because there were whistleblowers.

The whole chain was shut down.

Deregulation has its perils.

I have had some good debates with friends and colleagues who support charter schools. I think there is a role for them in meeting needs that public schools cannot meet: charter schools for the autistic, charter schools for dropouts, charter schools are kids who utterly lack motivation. Charters should boast of how many low-performing kids they have recruited, not their test scores. When their tests scores are high, it usually means they are skimming or excluding the very students they should be seeking out. Charters might also be a way to test innovations, but more typically they are boot camps, which is not at all innovative. If they exist to innovate, they should be committed to collaboration with public schools, not competition. But that is not what charter schools today are about. They are about winning. And as this Pennsylvania blogger explains, some are about money.

Charters are Cash Cows

— OCTOBER 22, 2012

Charter schools are cash cows feeding at the public trough. Oh, there are a few good ones here and there, to be sure. But if there was ever any doubt that charter schools have become Big Business, take a look at the list of the largest campaign contributors in Pennsylvania. Three of the top ten on a new “Power Players” report are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into state politics to gain favorable legislation for charter schools and we need to be asking why. [Public Source, Power Players report]

Weighing in at #5 is Van Gureghian, who founded Charter School Management Inc. back in 1999 to run a school in Chester, PA, a struggling former industrial town near Philadelphia. Today Gureghian’s company operates 150 charter schools in nine states, and that first school now has half of the district’s student enrollment and is the state’s largest charter school. Gureghian was Gov. Corbett’s single largest campaign donor and served on his education transition team. This is the same guy who is fighting the state’s Right to Know laws to keep from disclosing his salary – which is public knowledge for other public school administrators – while he recently bought two Florida beachfront lots for $28.9 million. He and his wife, another Charter School Management Inc. employee, plan to build a 20,000 square foot “French-inspired Monte Carlo estate.” [Palm Beach Daily News, 2011-11-18; Also see “Soaking the Public”]

At #8 and #10 on the list are Joel Greenberg and Arthur Dantchik. Public Source, which put together the report, notes that these two “act as one when making political contributions,” and that if we “consider them as a contributing team, you must include Jeff Yass,” who would be #11 on this list. Greenberg, Dantchik, and Yass went to college together and are founding partners of Susquehanna International Group, a financial broker-dealer in Philadelphia.

Greenberg is on the board of American Federation for Children, a national group with mega-billionaire backers supporting state vouchers for private school students. Dantchik is on the board of the Institute for Justice, a law firm that promotes school choice and Yass is on the board of the Cato Institute, a think tank dedicated to limited government and free markets. [Public Source, Power Players report] In 2010, these three men started Students First PAC to channel millions of their dollars, plus those from out of state donors, into races of pro-voucher candidates. (For more on the American Federation for Children and the Students First PAC, see “It’s All About the Money, Money, Money”.)

For those of you keeping track, that makes four of Pennsylvania’s biggest campaign donors so far this year with school privatization at the top of their to-do lists. Why? Lest you think these men are dabbling in education for the sake of students, take a closer look at the Big Business of charter schools. Back in August, CNBC interviewed the CEO of a major investment company who clearly explained why charter schools are such a great moneymaker. David Brain heads Entertainment Properties Trust, which owns movie theaters, destination recreation sites, and charter schools in 34 states.

When the interviewer asked why people should add charter schools to their investment portfolios, he replied:

“Well I think it’s a very stable business, very recession-resistant. It’s a very high-demand product. There’s 400,000 kids on waiting lists for charter schools … the industry’s growing about 12-14% a year. So it’s a high-growth, very stable, recession-resistant business. It’s a public payer, the state is the payer … if you do business with states with solid treasuries, then it’s a very solid business.”

The anchor also asked if he could buy one type of real estate asset right now, what would it be, and Brain answered:

“Well, probably the charter school business. We said it’s our highest growth and most appealing sector right now of the portfolio. It’s the most high in demand, it’s the most recession-resistant. And a great opportunity set with 500 schools starting every year. It’s a two and a half billion dollar opportunity set in rough measure annually.” [CNBC, 8-15-12]

Brain also told a nice whopper when the anchor asked him if there was any investment risk due to some public backlash against using taxpayer money to pay for charter schools. He claimed, “Most of the studies have charter schools at even or better than district public education.” Actually, most of the studies have shown the opposite: charter schools consistently rank at even or worse – sometimes much worse – than traditional public schools. For example, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that students in every single Pennsylvania cyber charter school performed “significantly worse” in reading and math than their peers in conventional public schools. [Stanford/CREDO report summary, 2011] That’s a 100% failure rate. (See “Dueling Rallies” for complete details on charter school performance research.)

With such dismal results, investors really ought to be asking why Gov. Corbett’s administration keeps approving new charter school applications. Cyber charters in particular are charging taxpayers far more per student than it actually costs to educate them – to the tune ofone million dollars per day sucked from our public coffers into the pockets of charter school operators. (See “One Million Per Day”) Pennsylvania already has 16 cyber charter schools – including four approved just this past summer – giving us one of the highest concentrations in the country. Yet the Department of Education just scheduled hearings on eight new cyber charter school applications. [Post-Gazette, 10-22-12]

Gary Miron, an education professor at Western Michigan University who studies charter schools, told the Post-Gazette, “Pennsylvania, as far as I know, has the most lucrative funding for virtual schools. It’s very favorable. It doesn’t surprise me more companies and entities want to come there for virtual schooling.” [Post-Gazette, 10-22-12]

Indeed. This is not about doing what is best for students. Charter schools have become investment opportunities for the wealthy and their portfolio managers, businesses that must be protected with favorable legislation bought by strategic campaign contributions. As these charter school operators feed at the public trough, they strip our public schools of desperately needed resources. It’s time to fight back. Public education is a public good, not a cash cow.

Erich Martel taught in the D.C. public schools for many years and won many awards as a history teacher. He is now retired.

He was astonished to see that Governor Andrew Cuomo had hired De’Shawn Wright as his new Deputy Secretary of Education

Erich sent the following message:

Read this story on the departure of DC Deputy Mayor for Education De’Shawn Wright in the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/9ctpm5f ) 

I’m a retired DCPS high school teacher.  For the past 6 months, I have been working with community groups to try to stop De’Shawn Wright’s dismantling of up to 37 DC public schools (out of 120).  He “commissioned” a study by the IFF (Illinois Facilities Fund) to evaluate DCPS and DC Charter schools.  It was funded by the Walton Family Foundation.  The IFF itself is a major recipient of Walton funds (over $6 million in 2009 & 2011) and is brazenly pro-charter.

The IFF “study” used five years of student proficiency data (2007-2011) ranked by each school’s average percentage of students proficient.   Three of the years were under investigation for suspicious rates of wrong to right erasures. The report recommended that 37 DCPS schools be closed, “turned around” or transferred to charter operators.

If you want to get an idea as to what Cuomo, King and Wright have in mind, I suggest you look at these two links:

1) The strategy his staff used to divert community meetings away from the IFF recommendations by claiming that the meetings were not about the IFF, but about their “quality schools wish list.”  Next, they divided participants up into isolated, little groups to make wish lists of “quality schools” (flip charts, lots of recommendations, then everybody gets colored stickie dots to vote on their top choices, etc. – pretend community engagement). 

I also explain how to oppose this process: http://tinyurl.com/9stw9dt 

2) I wrote an open letter to Wright with 19 questions. It lists many of the improper procedures Wright employed.

See open letter and reply: http://tinyurl.com/9zak8jy

It is safe to say that Gov. Cuomo selected him in order to promote charter schools and to expand the influence of the Broad, Walton and other foundations in developing public school policy. 

Here are the two links in a twitter-ready tweet (134 characters), ready to send:

Cuomo’sNewDepSecEd-frWashDC:AgentOfFndns&ChSchls-His strategy:http://tinyurl.com/9zak8jy ManipulatesParentshttp://tinyurl.com/9stw9dt

Sam Chaltain has an excellent post dissecting Tom Friedman’s clueless column praising Race to the Top.

Sam points out that Friedman’s book The World Is Flat made the case for collaboration, not compulsion.

Sam gently explains to Friedman that Race to the Top contradicts what Friedman recommended in his best-selling book.

He concludes that Race to the Top is fundamentally flawed because it lacks both technical expertise and emotional commitment.

“…its formulas for technical expertise, such as new teacher evaluation systems (good idea) based significantly on student test scores (bad idea), move the goalposts but ignore the skill levels of the players. As international change expert Michael Fullan points out, RTTT ‘pays little or no attention to developing the capacity of leaders to improve together or as a system: it is based on a failed theory that teacher quality can be increased by a system of competitive rewards, and it rests on a badly flawed model of management where everyone manages their own unit, is accountable for results, and competes with their peers – creating fiefdoms, silos, and lack of capacity or incentives for professionals to help each other’ – in short, the sorts of habits Friedman defines as the key to becoming successful in the flat world of the twenty-first century.

….programs like RTTT reflect a technocratic insensitivity to the actual rhythms of human beings, and a complete disregard for the necessity of building a shared emotional commitment for the changes we seek (Chicago, anyone?). So whereas attaching a dollar sign to the “recommended” reforms of RTTT was an effective strategy, as was tying each state’s conditional funding under ARRA to its agreement to adopt the common core learning standards, it’s equally true that there are short games and there are long games. And what I loved about The World is Flat was its recognition that to win the long game of the current century, compulsion was fool’s gold; commitment was the gold standard.”

 

I have decided to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

As readers of this blog are well aware, I strongly oppose what he is doing to our nation’s education system. I dislike Race to the Top, which in many respects is far worse than the failed No Child Left Behind. I know how the Obama administration has outsourced its education policies to the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Wall Street hedge fund managers (the alleged Democrats for Education Reform).

But Romney’s education agenda is even worse. Obama pretends that he is not a privatizer. Romney makes no pretense. And on every other issue that matters to the future of our society, Romney would far worse. He is the face of the far-right in the Republican party, and I can’t imagine an America that yearns to return to the 1920s. The savage inequalities (to borrow Jonathan Kozol’s term) are far too great in this country already. We need a President who seeks to change them, not exacerbate them.

Today, I made my declsion known in an opinion piece at CNN.com.

This is a dangerous moment for our nation. Each of us must make the wisest choice we can for the future. I have made mine. You make yours.