Archives for the month of: February, 2013

Timothy Slekar here writes a scathing condemnation of Education Week, our K-12 journal of record, for acting as an uncritical mouthpiece for the Common Core State Standards.

Slekar says:

“Other than some of the blogs, EdWeek’s so called “news” is nothing more than propaganda for the corporate reformers. I pointed it out before, EdWeek and its reporters either are clueless about the difference between advocacy organizations that push propaganda and peer review research outlets or they (EdWeek and its reporters) have been purchased by the corporate reformers and have sold out their journalistic integrity.”

I hesitate to criticize Education Week because I had free rein to voice my views when I was a blogger there. Deborah Meier and I exchanged weekly letters at “Bridging Differences,” and I often wrote strong columns about corporate reform, privatization, and the disasters caused by NCLB and Race to the Top. No one ever censored what I wrote.

But I too have noticed that Education Week has become a cheerleader , not only for the Common Core, but for technology and corporate interests. As it regularly discloses, Education Week is subsidized by the Gates Foundation, which is heavily invested in the Common Core standards. Corporate sponsorship matters.

EdWeek doesn’t just report on the conferences of for-profit enterprises, it joins as a sponsor of them. I presented at the EdGrowth Summit in New York City a few weeks ago, and the participants were mostly entrepreneurs. Education Week was one of the sponsors, along with a long list of vendors and wannabe for-profit enterprises.

Its annual reports celebrate the corporate engagement in public education, with nary a critical voice to be found. The latest one is all about the use of educational technology, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on how it is implemented. But wouldn’t it be good journalism to ask one of the high-tech stars like Jaron Lanier (who wrote “You Are Not a Gadget”) or some of the other skeptics to pose some questions and challenges about the mad rush to go digital?

More and more media outlets are being subsidized by corporate interests. When I visited a state on the eastern seaboard a few months ago, a reporter from the state’s public television station told me that they no longer do any investigative journalism because their agenda is compromised by their funding.

This is a worrisome trend. The Common Core standards are controversial. Their flaws should be fully dissected. It is not good journalism to write about them uncritically and to ignore those who question their value and warn of the problems they create.

Value-added assessment is controversial. Give equal time to its critics.

So, to my friends at Education Week, consider this column not an attack, but  well-intended words of wisdom from those who want you to be a fearless bastion of journalistic integrity.

We don’t want you to take sides.

We want you to be nonpartisan, fair, and objective.

Mercedes Schneider continues her patient and painstaking dissection of the National Council on Teacher Quality board.

In earlier posts, she reviewed the qualifications of Wendy Kopp, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein and others. In this post, she discovers some real educators on the board of this organization. NCTQ is especially important because it is rating the nation’s teacher education programs.

EduShyster has a hilarious post about how to prepare Walmart workers of the future.

You know, the ones who conform and obey without question.

These are the children who work to meet the demands of a stopwatch, getting ready to punch a time clock.

Better yet, they are learning in an environment where there are no unions, long days, and white authority figures.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

When I was a child in public school in Houston, we had an annual ritual of sending handmade valentines to everyone else in the class, so that no one was left out. It was a day to express not only love but friendship and kindness.

These days, teachers don’t get the love, kindness, respect, and gratitude they deserve. A lot of tinhorn politicians have been pretending to be tough guys by disparaging those who taught them.

Please draft a short thank-you to a teacher who affected your life. Tell them how much you appreciate what they did for you. Tell them you remember them.

When I wrote my last book, I dedicated a chapter to my high school home room teacher and best English teacher, Mrs. Ruby Ratliff. I titled it “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?” I tried to imagine her contempt for the currently fashionable idea of judging teachers by their students’ test scores. Mrs. Ratliff always let us know that we were responsible for our work. She was certainly not shirking her responsibility. She was teaching character. I thank her, and I thank my high school principal Mr. Brandenburg, and my fifth grade teacher Mrs. Rose, and my college political science professor Mr. Stratton, and my mentor in graduate school Lawrence Cremin.

One thing I never forgot about Mrs. Ratliff. When I graduated high school, she gave me two lines of poetry as a graduation present: one read, “To seek, to find, and not to yield.” It was from Tennyson’s “Ulysses.” The other was “Among them, but not of them.” It was from Byron’s “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage.” The best gift ever.

Whom do you wish to shower with gratitude on Valentine’s Day? Show the love.

A reader just informed me about her blog, which describes the changes in Hawaii.

Justice Louis Brandeis long ago referred to states as “laboratories of democracy,” where new ideas could be tried out, to succeed or fail. Each state could try out social or economic experiments without peril to other states.

Now, a stifling blanket of standardization and conformity is covering the land. Read about Hawaii and you will be shocked and saddened to see the same tired ideas that are in your own state.

A reader points out that few if any children of the business leaders who signed the ad for the Common Core will be affected by what they support.

He suspects that most are sending their children to tony private schools, which do not give standardized tests and will likely ignore the Common Core, even though it is important for our survival as a nation (according to the Council on Foreign Relations).

Deborah Meier founded the very popular Central Park East schools in East Harlem.

Deborah, with whom I used to blog weekly, is a pioneer of the small schools movement, a strong believer in public school choice, and an eloquent advocate of democratic education.

The CPE schools (I and II) have repeatedly asked the NYC Department of Education for space to expand.

But instead of allowing them to grow, Chancellor Dennis Walcott is placing a new and untried charter school in the space that CPE was hoping to win.

Just more evidence that there is no “competition” in New York City between public schools and charter schools.

When people talk about the power of competition, they overlook the districts like New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, where the leadership is working for the other team.

No competition here. Our leader is throwing the game.

 

Every year since the introduction of Race to the Top, I wait in high anticipation to see whether President Obama will recognize how demoralizing this program has been to the nation’s educators. I keep hoping he will acknowledge that it has intensified the punitive effects of No Child Left Behind, that its demand to evaluate teachers by the test scores of their students has no evidence to support it, that its support for charter schools has unleashed an unprecedented wave of privatization, that its encouragement of merit pay has led to repeated failures, and that it has promoted teaching to the test and narrowing the curriculum. President Bush would have loved to get the heavy-handed accountability and privatization features of Race to the Top into his own legislation, but Congressional Democrats in 2001 would never have permitted it.

Every year I have been disappointed. (Not surprisingly, he did not take my advice, other than in his advocacy for early childhood education.)

Last night was not as bad as two years ago, when the President claimed that Race to the Top was developed by teachers and principals and local communities. He made it sound as though the administration had stumbled upon these wonderful grassroots ideas, when in fact the Race to the Top plan was designed in Arne Duncan’s office by insiders from the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the NewSchools Venture Fund and a small number of other insiders in the corporate reform movement. In fact, the design of Race to the Top was spelled out in a document released by the Broad Foundation in April 2009 (Race to the Top was announced in July 2009), and no one has ever confused the Broad Foundation with the grassroots and local communities.

Then there was the State of the Union address in 2012 when the President said he didn’t want teachers to teach to the test, and said in the next sentence that he wanted teachers to be rewarded for results and removed for not getting results. Talk about mixed messages! So teachers will be rewarded if their students get higher scores but fired if their students don’t get higher scores. But don’t teach to the tests that determine whether you get a bonus or get fired.

But on to last night.

The President was great on gun control. Not so impressive on education.

The President’s customary praise for Race to the Top was muted, which was a good sign. He said that RTTT had caused states to improve their curriculum and standards, meaning the adoption of Common Core, about which the jury (evidence) is still out.

He made a strong and persuasive plea for high-quality preschool for all, which made many people (including me) very happy.

He said something about encouraging new high-tech programs for high schools so that students are ready for the workforce, as the Germans do. It was not clear to me what new program he has in mind or how it relates to the Common Core. It was actually incoherent because in the past he has said he wants the U.S. to have the highest college graduation rate in the world, but Germany has a far lower college graduation rate than ours. So, does he want the best high school workforce training programs, like Germany’s or the highest college graduation rate in the world, like Korea?

And most puzzling of all was his rhetoric about higher education.

Here is the logic:

Higher education is very important (agreed).

Higher education costs too much (agreed).

The government won’t continue to subsidize the rising cost of tuition (why not? States have increasingly shifted the burden of college costs to students in recent years, which is why it costs more). By the way, during the last campaign, Romney’s white paper on education said the same thing: If you raise government subsidies, the universities will raise their tuition. So don’t give students any more assistance with their debts.

Colleges and universities should cut their costs (he didn’t say how; 70% of faculty in higher education are adjuncts, or “contingent faculty,” working for subsistence wages).

The federal government will publish a scorecard to identify the best combination of quality and costs, and students will flock to the institutions where they get the best deal. (So now the U.S. Department of Education will compete with the annual rankings published by U.S. News & World Report?).

Here is the scorecard, which I tried just now.

I live in New York City. I put in my zip code and asked for a list of colleges within 20 miles of my home address. I got no results.

I asked for a small liberal arts college–1,000-5,000 students–and got no results.

I put in the name of a small liberal arts college about 3 miles from my home and got no results.

Maybe it will work for you.

Ah, well, first-day bugs.

G.F. Brandenburg writes one of the best education blogs on the planet. Follow him.

He has a deep intolerance for fraud, cheating, and misrepresentation.

Here he explains in a few hundred words what is wrong with corporate reform.

 

As readers of this blog know, the corporate titans in Los Angeles have raised a huge fund to beat Steve Zimmer in his race for re-election to the LA school board. Eli Broad and his allies have raised over $1.5 million. NYC Mayor Bloomberg has tossed in $1 million to support the pro-privatization candidates.

Zimmer is the main target. It is all-hands-on-deck to defeat this good man.

This letter arrived from a parent in the Los Angeles school system. You might be interested in reading her comments on how charter schools are increasing segregation in the district:

;

Letter to the Editor: LAUSD School Board Election

An open letter to my fellow, locally-politically engaged neighbors:

  • February 8, 2013

I’m writing because many of us Mar Vistans have lived and worked alongside Kate Anderson these past few years on local political issues and I see that her list of endorsing co-volunteers is lengthy, in many cases replete with a yard sign. I’m writing because I feel that supporting her in this school board election against Steve Zimmer is a mistake. I hope you will hear me out. This is a mostly personal argument and plea; but the personal is always political and this decision matters as deeply as anything can. I am heartsick to witness the slow-motion undermining of Steve Zimmer’s incumbency.

Just for some anchoring perspective, my family comes to the public school educational game from private school. My two girls attended the well-regarded private lab school at UCLA alongside some stratospherically rich and famous folks. It was an education indeed. For middle school they rolled back down the hill to Palms Middle School, a really interesting educational setup with a high proportion of relatively scholastically advanced kids learning alongside kids not thus-identified. Our experience in this school has been overwhelmingly positive for its superior academics and true, deep opportunity for integration of socioeconomic status, class, color, nationality, learning skills, social skills – this public school in the heart of our community educates a mixture of children so diverse that I never really thought it could be possible to address such disparate needs adequately. It is an existential breath of fresh air to interact with teachers and administrators steeped in professionalism and competence.

At the same time the deprivation in our academic (and social) system is breath-taking. Comprehending the why, how and ramifications of all this provides its own well-spring of educational learning. At some point I was so upset with the Los Angeles Unified School District I even thought of running for the school board myself. I really know next to nothing about the complicated nexus of academics and politics, but it seemed that there was a need for some practical eyewitness experience.

The relevant question in addressing this step was: who is our school board member; the system may be broken but is our explicit contribution to it as well? And the answer is: no. It is not only “no”, but it turns out the man representing us, Steve Zimmer, is uncommonly good at this thankless job of LAUSD school board member (salary: +/- 47K, district, ~ 300 square miles? Š that’s a guess; it is vast for sure). He is extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable, well-versed in a vast ocean of issues and quite frankly a deep, independent thinker. One with whom I might not even agree on some of the vast panoply of hot issues. But one I can trust to have considered very carefully an issue from all sides and developed a morally-anchored, reasoned opinion. Committing to binary yeah-nay decisions on such complex issues – never mind how many there are – is not easy. It is in fact monumentally difficult to choose yes or no about a complicated question come the end of the day. Steve Zimmer is a principled thinker and he comes to decisions through a circuitous route that includes priorities that are aligned properly: with kids – ALL kids, independent of color, class, even educational achievement. He is weighing a multitude of complex, competing interests toward an end of maximizing fairness and educational excellence for the whole community. This is huge.

And I very much fear it is not the case for his opponent. She is on record and takes money from big, deep-pocketed individuals and organizations, supporting a fractious system that would divide the education of our children into “separate but equal” camps. We have done that experiment, it did not and does not work and it was even ruled illegal, a long time ago now. Charter schools and providing “choice” to parents turn out to be just another way – in practice at least – to segregate and sequester resources for one sector of society at the expense of the rest. This is no way to engage in building and sustaining community, it is divisive and simply put: unfair. It is a repudiation, to my mind, of what makes our country great: the open and available opportunity for all. Without a good, publicly-supported education, young people stand no chance of securing a satisfying place for themselves in the social hierarchy. Closing the doors on certain classes of society to schools where the most resources are husbanded, does exactly that: it dooms those on the outside to inferior opportunities.

Please make no mistake that this is exactly and precisely what the charter schools are doing in reality. They are excluding the hard-to-educate, the needy, the resource-intensive pupils in ghettos of inferior quality. Conversely, the white-lining of certain schools where only a certain slice of society is allowed to matriculate, is quite simply hiding all the cookies in a drawer to which you control access, countenancing only your own. That is the narrow solution proposed by Kate Anderson and the lock-step corporate bloc that supports her.

And it is unnecessary. It is my personal experience at least, that it is possible to educate huge swathes of amazingly disparate people excellently. They do it at Palms MS. It’s the teachers, quite frankly, though I personally define the term “teachers” to include the entire community of adults in my children’s school. They all work together as a team toward educating their charges, my children and I wish yours: librarians, vice-principals, bathroom cleaners. I couldn’t learn without all these separate needs attended to and neither can your children: they are all ‘teachers’ in a learning community as far as I am concerned.

So I am writing to my fellow local stakeholders, because it has not been my impression, working alongside many of you in various neighborhood issues, that any of us is really in the business of excluding some. All the more reason, then, that supporting Kate Anderson seems misplaced for the values it was my impression that most of us do hold. We currently have a person working tremendously hard to steer a fair line through a very complicated field of competing interests. The solutions proposed by Ms Anderson are not fair, are not reasoned, are not democratic. They are not supportable. Why, therefore, would any support her?

Thanks for hearing me out. I am of course more than willing to communicate privately about this; I really, really hope you will reconsider any hastily made or incompletely understood endorsement. I do not think non-content-driven endorsements does anyone any credit but in fairness, I think it is easy to be insufficiently familiar with the reality of the code being bantered about regarding all of this. My own experience with children in public schools has opened my eyes to some fairly ugly truths about what is happening silently, in practice. It may not be what any of us would subscribe to knowingly, but that is the point: reality happens regardless of the words ascribed to it. Roses smell the same no matter what they are named. Please do not throw any weight behind a faction that intends to exclude another from their fair share of public education resources.

Please note as well that those of us near the 405 happen to live on an LAUSD district dividing line. Palms MS happens to be outside of Steve Zimmer’s district; my older child’s local school, Venice High School, is in his district. Because we are new to this school my own personal knowledge of it is more limited. But it is clear that Steve Zimmer has thrown his weight and support behind this local High School and is very, very well-liked by parents there; it is equally clear that he offers this sort of support indiscriminately – his support and weight goes to students, all over. While I understand he has “helped out” Venice High School, it is not my impression that he has done so in a way that means any other High School has not been “helped out”. And that is (my definition of) the meaning of democracy for the people; all the people.

In short, Steve Zimmer’s incumbency is not broken: this school board member is not the problem. Electing Kate Anderson would – to coin words she uses in a slightly different context – be a ‘solution in search of a problem’. Yet our current school board representative is not a problem. He happens to have done a fine job last term. IMHO.

Please feel free to email me.

But please, most of all, please take the time to watch this debate between Zimmer and Anderson in which he demonstrates superior familiarity with educational issues, experience, a laudable, morality-driven motivation and true, deep engagement with the needs of all members of our local community:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dShAAODskKA

– Sara Roos, roos@biology.ucla.edu

;

http://venice.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-lausd-school-board-elections