Archives for the month of: November, 2012

I should have reported this sooner, but other election returns distracted me.

Jeb Bush’s latest privatization scheme suffered a major setback at the hands of Florida voters.

He and his allies pushed Amendment 8 to allow public funds to flow to religious schools. As usual with “reform” measures, this one had a misleading name. It was about “religious freedom,” but voters recognized it was a voucher scheme and they rejected it overwhelmingly.

Other bad news for the Bush machine: Tony Bennett, the head of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, was whipped.

Tony Luna pushed Bush’s expensive but profitable (for tech companies) ideas about mandatory laptops for every student and mandatory online courses, as well as merit pay and union-demolition. Happily, the Luna laws were crushed and repealed by Idaho voters.

David Sirota, an author and talk-show host, here analyzes the election results and says they exposed the Big Lie of the corporate reform movement.

The public is not hankering to privatize their public schools.

The corporate leaders and rightwing establishment dropped millions of dollars to push their agenda of privatization, teacher-bashing and anti-unionism. They lost some major contests.

I will be posting more about some important local races they lost.

We have to do two things to beat them: get the word out to the public about who they are and what they want (read Sirota).

Two: never lose hope.

Those who fight to defend the commons against corporate raiders are on the right side of history.

Nothing they demand is right for children, nor does it improve education.

Carol Burris demolishes myths about teacher evaluation that were contained in a recent opinion piece in Phi Delta Kappan.

Frankly, it is pretty shocking to see that the editor of this journal for educators believes that standardized testing should have any role in evaluating teachers. We are already seeing a renewed emphasis on teaching to the test and more narrowing of the curriculum as teachers’ careers hinge on student scores.

It’s also shocking to see this editor agree that teachers should have no due process rights. When that happens, we can bid farewell to academic freedom and expect to see many districts where evolution is no longer taught.

The editorial criticized here just parrots the uninformed claims of the corporate reformers. Nothing proposed here will improve education. It’s guaranteed however to demoralize teachers.

Burris once again demonstrates the candor, intelligence and integrity that placed her on the honor roll as a hero of public education.

There is a new blogger in Memphis. Thus we get the low-down on how parents were treated by the “reformers.” Read this. The condescension is startling. The local Portfolio Manager (!) let everyone know that public hearings give them a chance to vent. Eventually, the parents will understand that wiser heads than theirs are making all the decisions.

As you may recall, Tennessee is on its way to privatizing large numbers of schools across the state because it suffered a double whammy: it “won” Race to the Top funding (more charter schools, more punitive teacher evaluations), and it has a super-conservative Governor, legislature and state commissioner. All bad news for public schools.

Soon after the elections, the mega-corporation K12 convened a conference call with investors to boast about the opening of new markets for virtual charters in Georgia and Washington State.

K12 is the company founded by the Milken brothers to sell online schooling for-profit.

It is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Its CEO, Ron Packard, has a background at McKinsey and Goldman Sachs. Last year, he was paid $5 million.

The academic results of its schools are poor. The National Education Policy Center reviewed K12 and found that its students fare poorly in relation to test scores and graduation rates. The NCAA won’t accept credits from one of its online schools. The New York Times wrote a blistering critique of K12.

But K12, like some other charter operators, makes campaign contributions (as it did in Georgia), and the politicians care more about those contributions than about the children of their state.

Louisiana plans to test 3- and 4-year- olds. This is out-of-control testing fanaticism. We have come to expect extremism in Louisiana. The state is placing its bets on high-stakes testing and privatization.

Andrea Gabor, who writes about business and education, interviewed early childhood specialists in Louisiana. They think the people making the new laws and policies have no idea about child development. As one says, they think that there is no difference between a 10-year-old and a 3-year-old.

Camika Royal, a historian of education and Teach for America alum, write a provocative post in which she called on people to stop using the term “achievement gap.” In her original post, she said the term is offensive and demeaning and explained why. The post generated many responses. I invited Dr. Royal to respond to her critics, and she does so here:

Some have tweeted me and/or commented on my original post about my objection to the term “achievement gap.” The post originally appeared on good.is and was reposted on the Philadelphia Public School Notebook’s blog. Some readers thought that my issue with the so-called achievement gap is just about words. It is not. My concern is neither. I am not the language police or the thought police. People may say what they want and think how they please.

However, there is a consequence for every choice we make. If we are serious about giving under-resourced and historically marginalized students the education they deserve, the narrative of education reform must shift, and our dialogue must honor all voices and perspectives, not just the loudest voices or the ones with the most money behind them.

Not only is the phrase “achievement gap” offensive (which is the least of my concerns), it is also inaccurate because of its inherent Anglo-normativity. Like so many other things in American life and culture, it suggests that whatever White people do is right and whatever everyone else does is wrong, incomplete, abnormal, and/or “the other.”

This is why when people suggest the difference in test scores between Whites and Asians is an “achievement gap” that supposedly disparages Whites, thus disproving the argument of Anglo-normativity, it does not. Even within the comparison of White and Asian students’ test scores, Whites’ test scores are seen as normal and Asians’ high test scores are seen as exotic and exceptional, hence the model minority myth. Both the so-called achievement gap and the model minority myth are racist constructs.

I realize that the label “racist” is strong and hard for some to digest. It isn’t my intention to offend by sharing this truth. Sometimes, the truth hurts. And our modern iteration of racism is so covert, insidious, and subtle that often people who benefit from it are usually completely unaware of it.

As for my blanket use of “White folks” in my original post, I apologize to those I offended by suggesting that there are no intra-racial differences among White people. There is a difference between Whites who are anti-racist advocates, White allies, those who advocate multicultural efforts, those who “don’t see color,” etc. If you believe the lie that we are post-racial in this country, then everything I am writing will seem as foreign as Klingonese.

I don’t think that education reformers use the term “achievement gap” cynically. I think they really believe they are working in the best interests of children. And to be clear, the so-called “achievement gap” and the work that goes into it are not only racist but also elitist.

What extends from the notion of the “achievement gap” is a messiah complex that fuels people rallied around “saving” children from themselves, their families, and their communities. Education reformers’ messiah complex manifests in the belief that the end (a “shot” in life via high test scores) justifies the means (mechanized and routinized instruction, ignoring or dismissing community input and cultural contexts, steam-rolling the concerns of veteran educators, etc.).

This messiah complex compels top-down reforms and resists partnerships with parents and listening to communities because these reformers truly believe they know best. Education reform fueled by martyrdom and the messiah complex is missing the mark. One of my mentors, Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, said recently, “Catching up is made nearly impossible by our structural inequalities.” In agreement with her and with you, Dr. Ravitch, I believe that until education reform corrects structural inequalities teeming in under-resourced, historically marginalized communities, education reform will continue to fall short of its goal.

As for Teach For America’s quest to close the so-called “achievement gap,” I received a message on Friday that the organization discussed my article on its monthly national call with its president. According to the message, TFA’s president agreed with my article and said the organization should no longer use the phrase “achievement gap.” This is a small yet significant victory.

Changing one’s language is just the beginning of the shift. Changing organizational thinking must then be tackled; then the actions can be changed. I am stunned but glad that TFA is examining itself for the ways it may be blocking its own mission. I was also impressed that TFA was willing to engage in a conversation with its employees and Twitter followers about my article. It tweeted my article along with the question, “What does everyone think?” One of my fellow TFA alums responded by tweeting, “I think she was a selection mistake.” It’s cool, though. I know a hit dog will holler.

The Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C., is one of the nation’s leading advocates for privatization of public education. Its leader, Jeanne Allen, was an education policy analyst at the rightwing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, before she founded CER in 1993:

The Center for Education Reform has long advocated for charters and vouchers. It has nothing to say about improving public schools, only that they should be replaced by private management or vouchers.

CER is closely allied with other conservative groups committed to privatization, like ALEC, the Heartland Institute, Democrats for Education Reform, and Black Alliance for Educational Options. CER claimed credit for helping to write the Heartland Institute’s version of the parent trigger law, which served as a model for ALEC.

If you want to track the advance of privatization, keep your eye on the Center for Education Reform.

This is CER’s take on the 2012 elections (to see the links, go to the CER website):

The Center for Education Reform Analysis:
How Education Reform Fared on Election Day

WASHINGTON, DC – The Center for Education Reform analyzed Tuesday’s results through the prism of education reform. Our EDlection Roundup provides our analysis on races up and down the ballots, including:

The White House: The Center congratulated President Obama and offered thoughts about how he could refocus education issues in his second term.

Governors: Two states, North Carolina and Indiana, will be inaugurating reform-minded Governors. They join the 23 other states who are also led by reformers. Is yours one of them? See our Governor grades.

Senate Races: We take a look at the results of four Senate races where candidates were strong reformers, and where two – Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) – were victorious.

Ballot Initiatives: There were education reform ballot initiatives in Georgia, Idaho, and Washington. We look at the results, which included a decisive victory in Georgia.

Superintendents: We examine the results of Superintendent races, with a special look at the disappointing defeat of Tony Bennett, a stalwart reformer.

###

CER, since 1993, is the leading voice and advocate for lasting, substantive and structural education reform in the U.S. Additional information about the Center and its activities can be found at http://www.edreform.com.

The Center for Education Reform
(tel) 800-521-2118 • 301-986-8088 • (fax) 301-986-1826
cer@edreform.comhttp://www.edreform.com

This parent offered testimony to the Néw York City Council, explaining the incoherence of reform in Néw York City. She described how the Mayor dissolved geographic districts and replaced them with a structure that no one understands, a structure that leaves parents out in the cold. Her comments about the “Children’s First Networks” created by the Bloomberg administration are especially valuable, because the Boston Consulting Group has urged similar networks as a “reform” for the Philadelphia school district. This post explains what Néw York City parents think about these networks.

Please read:

Honorable Robert Jackson
Chair, Education Committee
New York City Council
250 Broadway
New York, NY 10007

November 6, 2012

Dear Chairman Jackson,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my testimony on the NYC Dept of Education’s networks for school support.

I am a parent of two children in public schools in Manhattan. I have been an active member at my daughters’ schools having served as a PTA officer, an SLT member, and a volunteer environmental educator. I am also the current President of the Community Education Council District 2, although this testimony does not reflect the opinion of the Council.

Since the Mayor took control of the system, organizational structure has changed at least three times. In the process, the old structure based on the 32 community school districts, whose existence is mandated by the State Education Law, has been nearly dismantled, leaving only two people: District Superintendent and the District Family Advocate. The series of reorganizations has made it very difficult for parents to know where they can get assistance beyond their own schools, and created transition periods during which school administrators were unable to figure out where to go for help on anything from enrollment to budgeting. The constant reorganization has also made it nearly impossible to assess the effectiveness of any one organizational structure because none has been in existence long enough for thorough evaluation.

The current organization of Children First Networks is perhaps the worst of all the structures. Schools in a given network or cluster seem to be selected rather randomly. Within a network there may be elementary, middle and high schools from all five boroughs. While my understanding is that principals choose a network to join, the resultant networks still seem to lack cohesion of any kind. Such lack of cohesion makes me wonder how effectively the network leaders can communicate information among the member schools and more importantly how well they can deliver pedagogical support.

Most parents are not aware of the existence or the role of the networks. For those parents who are concerned about issues beyond their schools, such as mandated curriculum, the opaque and unnecessarily complicated organization of networks and clusters makes it extremely difficult for parental involvement. If parents are familiar with the networks, it is unclear how exactly network leaders support their school or to whom they report and how they are supported. In the pre-Mayoral control era, there was a clear line of command: teachers to principals to district superintendents to the Chancellor. Under the current CFN system, principals do not report to the network leaders, who themselves do not seem to report to anyone.

The performance of network leaders also seems highly variable. For instance, during the introduction of the Special Education initiative in spring of 2012, some network leaders were effectively communicating accurate information to principals while others were not disseminating the right information. Ultimately, it was the students with IEPs who suffered from the confusion and the miscommunication. Unfortunately parents were left clueless as to how to improve communication, because they do not know their school’s network leader, who was responsible for miscommunication.

Furthermore, for a network leader to be effective, s/he must be an educator, professional developer, financial manager, and a business manager. In other words, the network system expects network leaders to do everything a district office used to do with a full staff. It is unreasonable to assume we can find a person who can excel in all these areas, not to mention more than a hundred such persons for all the networks. Speaking with principals, I am under the impression that many network leaders are not equipped to manage all the aspects of their jobs well enough for principals to receive the support they need.

Finally Hurricane Sandy illustrated all too well the limitation of the CFN in a disaster. I believe that assessing the damages to the buildings and needs of affected schools, developing plans for relocation, determining closure and reopening of schools, and communicating with principals, teachers and families would have been done much more efficiently if the schools were organized by geography of the community school districts. Our Superintendent in District 2 knows his principals and his schools in the District. In fact, he was in communication with many of the principals and assisted those whose schools lost power or flooded. Our District Family Advocate has the capacity to efficiently communicate with schools in District 2. If the Superintendent were empowered to make decisions regarding schools in his District with consultation directly with the Chancellor, I believe we would have avoided a great deal of confusion and anxiety among families, teachers and principals.

I strongly believe we should return to organizing schools by the community school districts. Grouping schools by geography builds stronger communities among parents and educators alike. I also believe community school district offices should be staffed appropriately beyond the Superintendent and the District Family Advocate to provide support to schools and assistance to families. We need an organization that makes sense, easy to grasp, and most of all builds a stronger community.

Thank you.
Shino Tanikawa

.

__,_._,___

This post was written by a young teacher in New York City. A law school graduate, she teaches special education in the Bronx in one of he city’s poorest neighborhoods. She requested anonymity, for obvious reasons.

She asks: Is it worse to be called a bitch (by a student) or to be treated like one (by politicians and bureaucrats)?

She is what The New Teacher Project would call an “irreplaceable.” When the New York City Department of Education released the names and ratings of thousands of teachers earlier this year, she was rated 99%. She was not at all happy. She wrote a protest against the whole rating system (which organizations like TNTP love). She knew that this year she might be on top, and next year at the bottom. And she knew that many of her colleagues with low ratings were hardworking teachers who did not deserve to be humiliated. When people wrote to congratulate her, she thanked them and said the ratings meant nothing.

Her new post expresses her outrage towards the system and the politicians who shortchange teachers and students.

She asks, Why do teachers have to buy their own supplies? Why must they beg or borrow the most basic resources?

She understands why a student may call her names, but why does society?