Yesterday I opened my Twitter account to discover that Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education claimed that I likened school choice to the Nazi invasion of Poland.
This was absurd, so I wrote a post about it.
I find that the best way to respond to outrageous attacks is to put them into the sunlight, the mighty disinfectant.
Happily, Jersey Jazzman figured out who wrote the post for Jeb Bush’s Foundation and explained the long and interesting back story.
This editorial in the Battle Creek Enquirer is exactly right. High-stakes testing is ruining education.
Testing kids more and blaming their teachers doesn’t improve education.
The editorial rightly points out that Michelle Rhee–the advocate for high-stakes testing and every punitive measure she can dream up–is no model for Michigan.
Her teacher evaluation system in DC has produced no dramatic improvement.
Nor will she ever admit that the DC schools still have the largest achievements gaps in the nation.
When I see an editorial like this, I am reminded that the American people have not lost their minds.
But our policymakers in states like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, and a few other states most certainly have.
A report by the York County Community Foundation proposes that the answer to the county’s educational needs is an all-charter school system. York county schools have below average performance and many students are impoverished.
The study group cited the inflated claims of New Orleans charter boosters and decided that York county could achieve great things by copying the New Orleans model.
Had they done a bit more research, they would have learned that the New Orkeans Recovery School District is the lowest ranked district in the state of Louisiana, and that two-thirds of its charter schools received a grade of D or F for academic performance.
Eliminating public education does not solve the problems of poverty.
Tomorrow February 22 is the day the superintendent of the Seattle schools will decide whether to punish the teachers at Garfield High who refused to administer the MAP test. They are conscientious objectors. They are defending their students against malpractice. They have bravely defied orders to do what they know is wrong.
Today is a day to send emails to the superintendent. Urge him to stand with his teachers. Encourage him to do the right thing. He too can be a national hero. Seattle can join Selma, Seneca Falls, and Stonewall as a symbol of resistance to unjust authority. Also, like them, it starts with an S.
In a stunning surprise, the federal Commission on Equity and Excellence dismissed the reforms of the Bush-Obama era and called for a fresh approach. What is remarkable about the commission report is that the members were appointed by Secretary Duncan. Its members include a solid bloc of corporate reformers, but clearly they did not prevail.
Quite frankly, I was expecting a reprise of the corporate reformer mantra: more charter schools, more vouchers, more competition, more inexperienced teachers, more testing, and more online learning will end the deeply rooted poverty in our society and lift all boats. Test more often, fire more teachers, lower standards for entry into teaching, close more schools.
But this commission did not echo the popular and failed nostrums of the past generation.. It demanded more resources for the neediest students, better prepared teachers, early childhood education, health and social services, and a deliberate effort to reduce segregation.
Since 1983, when “A Nation at Risk” was published by another federal commission, the policymakers at the state and national levels have followed the formula of testing, accountability (read: punishment), and choice. With what results? After three decades, we now have a raging, destructive movement to privatize public education, bash teachers, remove their academic freedom, replace them with temps, and use standardized tests to judge and punish teachers, principals, and schools.
The heroes of this “movement” are entrepreneurs, foundation executives, and think tank thinkers, who express contempt for public schools and those who work in them. We are on our way to creating (re-creating) dual school systems in cities across the nation and giving public dollars to schools that are free to exclude the neediest students. A “movement” that talks incessantly about results and data-based decision-making has become impervious to the meager results of its own policies and has now turned into an ideological war against public education.
Secretary Duncan should read the report of his commission. For the first time in 30 years, a federal commission tells the nation what it needs to hear. We can expect the corporate reform leaders to ignore the report.
This, quite frankly, is the agenda President Obama’s supporters had expected in 2008. Will he listen?
The New York Times’ lead editorial on February 19 was a slashing critique of online colleges.
The editorial ripped apart the hype and spin about these colleges.
Their attrition rates are 90%. And, “courses delivered solely online may be fine for highly skilled, highly motivated people, but they are inappropriate for struggling students who make up a significant portion of college enrollment and who need close contact with instructors to succeed.”
Furthermore, research shows the high failure rates at these cyber-institutions:
“The research has shown over and over again that community college students who enroll in online courses are significantly more likely to fail or withdraw than those in traditional classes, which means that they spend hard-earned tuition dollars and get nothing in return. Worse still, low-performing students who may be just barely hanging on in traditional classes tend to fall even further behind in online courses.”
If the online colleges are such a bad deal for adults, think how awful cyber-charters are for children. Children need human contact, not just bells and whistles or a disembodied voice.
Yinzercation, one of the best blogs in Pennsylvania, has an alarming post.
The Pittsburgh Public Schools have given a $2.4 million contract to two consulting companies to deal with the district’s equity and financial issues.
Some of this was underwritten by the Gates Foundation, as well as local foundations (Gates gave Pittsburgh a large grant to install a new teacher evaluation system).
One of the two companies is Bellwether, whose partners include the TIME columnist Andrew Rotherham and also Andy Smarick.
Andy is well known for his hostility to public schools. He believes in charterizing public education.
Other members of the firm were formerly associated with Bain & Company, Mitt Romney’s old firm.
Looks like Pittsburgh will join the urban districts that are closing public schools and handing the kids and money over to private enterpreneurs.
It would be great to see one example of an urban district anywhere in the U.S. where the corporate reform policies have produced a better school system, one that works for all kids.
Kathleen Porter-Magee of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains here why the anti-testing movement is wrong. She describes what she calls four “myths.”
Myth #1: teachers should be allowed to teach what they want, or “let teachers teach.” This is a very bad idea, she says, because teachers will have low expectations if you don’t tell them what to do.
Myth #2: emphasizing testing causes “drill and kill” instruction. Nothing could be farther from the truth, she says, because the really successful students are those who get engaging instruction. Don’t pay attention to the hundreds of millions of dollars that districts and states are spending on test prep materials.
Myth #3: tests can’t measure what really matter. What they do matter is very important so don’t worry that they don’t measure everything. Of course, very few people say that tests should not be used, but that they should not be used for rewards and punishments. When used diagnostically, they can be helpful. When used for high-stakes, they corrupt instruction.
Myth #4: standardization doesn’t work. Porter-Magee likes standardization.
It would be easy to knock down each of these “myths” and her facile answers.
The real danger of high-stakes testing is that they ruin education. Children cannot be standardized. Each one is unique. Yes, standards are helpful as guidelines but not as rigid prescriptions. The greatest dangers of high-stakes testing are that they narrow the curriculum only to what is tested. They encourage states and districts to game the system. They promote cheating (e.g., D.C.). They are based on the pretense that standardized tests are scientific instruments. They are not. They are prone to statistical error, random error, human error, measurement error. No one’s life should hinge on these fallible instruments.
Porter-Magee should google Campbell’s Law and study it. Also, read Daniel Koretz’ book “Measuring Up.”
This is the 17th in Mercedes Schneider’s reviews of the board of the National Council on Teacher Quality. In this post, Schneider posts grades for all the board members. She includes links to the earlier posts.
She has undertaken this mission because the NCTQ has assumed the role as the arbiter of the quality of teacher education programs in the U.S. Like any other sector, there are undoubtedly good ones and bad ones, but that is not the question Schneider poses in this series. Instead, she has set herself the task of evaluating the evaluators?
She asks such questions as, are they qualified to judge teacher education programs? What is their relevant experience? Have they ever been a teacher? Do they have knowledge and understanding of teacher preparation? Do they have financial conflicts of interest? Do they approach this assignment free of bias?
NCTQ includes some of the leading stars of the corporate reform movement. The organization was created by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in 2000 to promote alternatives to teacher education programs, which TBF disdained. In 2001, as the organization struggled to survive, then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige gave it $5 million.
Today, as Schneider points out, NCTQ struggles no more. It is handsomely funded and it is partnering with US News to evaluate the nation’s schools of education. Many, suspecting NCTQ’s bona fides or good will or bias, have refused to cooperate.
In Los Angeles, Robert Skeels is running against Monica Garcia, the school board president.
Garcia and two other candidates (including Kate Anderson, who is opposing Steve Zimmer), have received $1 million from NYC mayor Bloomberg, $1.5 million from Eli Broad and friends, and $250,000 from Michelle Rhee’s group.
Here is what Skeels says, responding to another reader, as he watches the massive campaign fund grow:
“…the ratio of plutocrat to union spending in this race is in orders of magnitude. All bidders indeed. My campaign has raised $17,245.22 with just contributions from working class families and community members of $25—$50. One big check from AALA of $500. UTLA hasn’t even sent me their promised $300 check yet. But these billionaires are giving my opponent millions upon millions to offset some phantasmagorical union advantage? You’re more than a liar Mr. U., you’re a shill for power and privilege. Essentially, just a single donor to the CSR corporate slush fund has more say over the election than all the families in my district. That’s some kind of democracy.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 