Archives for the month of: October, 2012

It seems that charter school teachers need a special sort of post-graduate degree. The charters respect the credential enough to want their teachers to have one, but they “can’t wait” for the time it takes to get one from a traditional school of education. Besides, the traditional programs waste time on stuff like sociology and cognitive development, and don’t give enough time to teaching test prep.

In New York City alone, there are now two programs to churn out masters’ degrees for charter teachers. One, called Relay, started at Hunter College when David Steiner was dean (Steiner briefly served as state commissioner of education after starting the program at Hunter for KIPP and other charters). The other is a collaboration between Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academies (formerly known as Harlem Success Academies) and Touro College in Manhattan. Both were created specifically for charter teachers and focus more on classroom technique than on theory, history, the foundations of education, cognitive psychology, research, etc. that are typically part of a masters or doctorate in education.

Touro College, Moskowitz’s partner,  has a checkered history. Recently the college was criticized for paying its president nearly $5 million a year, more than the presidents of Harvard or Columbia. Five years ago, the college was accused of selling diplomas, taking money to change grades, and being a diploma mill; some admissions officials were indicted. One college official went to jail for accepting bribes.

Whatever. As online programs proliferate, as authorities allow almost anyone with a shingle to manufacture degrees, we may reasonably expect two results: Diplomas will com to mean nothing at all, since they are so easily obtained from ersatz entities; or discerning employers and institutions will recognize that some diplomas mean nothing at all.

This is a strange story from Los Angeles.

The leader of a charter school chain had to resign when confronted with evidence he encouraged principals and teachers to cheat on tests. Allegedly, I must add.

The schools were closed down.

But then he got a $245,000 going away gift..

Anyone understand this?

The perils of deregulation? The risks of high-stakes testing?

What’s with the bonus pay?

The blogger known as Students Last usually writes parodies.

But the last Presidential debate made him turn serious.

Both candidates said they “love teachers.”

Yes, everyone really, really loves teachers.

Students Last couldn’t stand the fake love and wrote this:

We know you come to this site for a laugh but some things are just NOT funny. Here’s a non-satirical editorial from Students Last.
————
How nice to be told by the presidential candidates, during their last debate, that they “love teachers.” Too bad it’s bullshit, like the flowers a woman gets the day after her abuser gives her a black eye. And it’s not just the candidates who are “loving” teachers to death. America itself has, at least as of late, quite the abusive relationship with teachers – claiming to love teachers but repeatedly disrespecting them in a myriad of ways. What teachers need is fewer meaningless words and a helluva a lot more deeds of respect.

When teachers tell you that standardized testing is robbing instructional time, narrowing curriculum and encouraging cheating but you act like their concerns are a ploy to avoid accountability, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When you hold education conferences and there are no public school teachers on the panel but there are five CEO’s, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When the solution to turning around a failing school is to fire half the staff, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When you accuse teacher unions of protecting child molesters, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When teachers tell you that generational poverty hangs over the lives of their students like an impenetrable fog dampening desire, fostering anger, distracting young minds and you think they are making excuses, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When you refer to teachers as “professionals” but then dilute their ranks with those who have ten-watts of enthusiasm and five-weeks of training, shoving them into the neediest schools where they cut their teaching teeth on defenseless children, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When the most well-known names in education today are people who taught for three years or….never, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When, despite teachers’ knowledgeable objections, your idea of measuring teaching and learning is to administer more and more flawed bubble exams to younger and younger students, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When you laud the test results of charter schools that cherry pick their students, receive extraordinary private funding, create an aura of fear with high suspension rates coupled with the expulsion of under-performing students, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

When those who make policy send their children to private schools while shoveling mounds of unvetted nonsense onto the overburdened shoulders of public schools, you are NOT showing love to teachers.

Perpetrators of domestic abuse tell their victims they love them and moments later clench their fists, preparing to strike another blow. So candidates, so America, hold onto your amorous bouquets and stop mouthing words you clearly do not mean or understand.

“Love” us less. Respect us a helluva a lot more.

As a former DCPS teacher from 2008-2012, this system stressed me out so much so that now I’m on 6 different medications. Teaching is the least respected profession in this country, which is sad considering teachers go to college to earn a degree to teach, pay this high price tuition, get a teaching position, deal with the day to day issues with students, raise other peoples children, pull money out of our pockets for supplies, trips, food, absorb their problems, deal with an administration that says things like “you teachers ain’t s#%t”, and the likes of all I just stated. And yes, someone of position told me and another teacher to our face that “you teachers ain’t !@#$. The way I see it, the school system overall is doomed to fail….is that what the people up top want? I think so. Some things are set up to fail and unfortunately teachers are too. I was set up.

While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.

I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.

I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)

The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.

I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.

Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.

Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.

I understand all that.

And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.

Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.

In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.

Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.

My first impulse was not to write about the debate last night. But then a reader contacted me to ask why I hadn’t written anything. I oblige.

The debate was about foreign policy, supposedly, but the candidates still managed to restate their talking points about education.

I was hoping they wouldn’t mention education because neither of them says anything that is accurate. They are out of touch with what is happening in the schools and seem to have no clue about what is needed.

Mitt Romney still claims credit for the Massachusetts reforms, even though they were enacted 10 years before he was elected, and even though his own education platform today rejects the Massachusetts reform strategy of more funding, higher standards for teachers, and improved standards and assessments. His reform strategy today can be summed up in one word: privatization. Also, attack teachers unions and any certification for new teachers. And no new federal aid to reduce student debt in higher education. Also, he wants the banks to regain control of student loans because they were making huge profits before Obama took it away from them.

President Obama, thank God, did not mention the much-loathed Race to the Top, but he said that his policies were working, which is absurd. He talked about gains and results, and no one but Arne Duncan seems to know where those gains and results are. The biggest results of Race to the Top are the demoralization of the nation’s educators and the steady advance of privatization. The biggest result of the Common Core standards is an explosion of new testing, reaching all the way down to kindergarten and even younger. Our children shall eat, live and breathe tests, from birth to the end of their education, and the massive data warehouses will track their every move.

When educators vote, they will have to look at other issues, not the one they know best. Neither of the candidates has a realistic vision of the damage that their policies–actual and proposed–are doing to the nation’s schools and children.

A federal judge in Louisiana called on TFA State Commissioner of Education John White to explain why his voucher program should be allowed to take public funds from a school district that is using its funding to comply with desegregation orders. The judge wants to know why he should not enjoin the implementation of the voucher program.

As we have seen in other states, vouchers and charters intensify segregation, but that is not a concern to Governor Bobby Jindal and Commissioner White.

This should be interesting.

Parent Revolution, the organization handsomely funded by the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Foundation, has finally gotten a charter conversion in the state of California, nearly two years after the law was passed.

Some victory: In a school with 600 plus students and 400 families, only 286 parents voted for the charter; when some changed their mind and tried to rescind their vote, they were told by a judge that they could not take their signature off the petition.

Only those who supported the charter were allowed to vote on which charter operator would run the new charter. That reduced the number of eligible voters to180.

Of the 180 who were eligible, only 53 voted on which operator would win control of their public school.

The winning operator received a grand total of 50 votes. That is 1/8 of the parents in the school. That is less than 15% of the parents in the school.

In the linked article above, no mention is made of the fact that the Adelanto school district had a charter that was closed last year because its operators engaged in funny business with the public’s money.

Voters in one of Louisiana’s high-performing school districts are angry that their public schools will lose funding to pay for Governor Bobby Jindal’s harebrained voucher scheme, which sends students to backwoods fundamentalist schools that teach religious doctrine.

Jindal insisted that this could not possibly be true, that the vouchers were drawing money from someplace else, not from local taxes. Where does he think taxes come from? Is there a reserve fund in the bayou?

This blog calls him out for trying to hoodwink smart people. In fact, the schools of St. Tammany Parish stand to lose more than $2 million to satisfy the governor’s ideological wishes.

Apparently stung by a series of public meetings in St. Tammany Parish, during which school board members laid out the damage that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s education agenda is causing to public schools, the governor “launched an offensive last week to say local tax dollars are not actually being used to help pay for some students to go to private schools,” according to Advocate columnist Mark Ballard.

The governor’s attorney told Ballard that “No local funds, not one dime of property ad valorem taxes or of property taxes or of any millages, any taxes, can be traced” to a student attending a private or religious school because of Jindal’s voucher scheme.

That artfully worded dodge conceals the fact that the state funds the vouchers in part by holding back money that would otherwise be sent to local school systems. As Ballard writes, “The state writes a check to the private schools and discounts local school districts the same amount.”

That amount includes money approved by local taxpayers for teacher salaries, school construction or other local education needs.

This is a golden oldie. Imagine reading something written long, long ago, like three whole years.

This was written by G.F. Brandenburg, retired DC teacher. His blog is skeptical of Rhee and her misguided fixes. Here he questions the claims of Jason Kamras, who was named US Teacher of the Year in 2005 and became a favorite of Michelle Rhee. He designed Rhee’s IMPACT system, which has thus far produced no test score gains and is still under construction.