Archives for the month of: March, 2013

Jersey Jazzman reports that Governor Christie has decided to take control of the Camden school district.

Camden is the fourth school district in the state to be taken over.

Paterson, Newark, and Jersey City are already controlled by the state.

JJ writes:

“Let’s be clear: Paterson has been under state control for 24 years, Jersey City for 22 years, and Newark for 18 years. Golly, what do you think all these places have in common?”

He shows in a graph that these districts have very few white students. So what’s the goal?

And so the plan is clear: take over the schools, starting where there aren’t many white kidsStarve them of funds, then declare them “failures,” and install your cronies. Thetakeover of Camden’s schools has been in the works ever since California billionaire Eli Broad installed his puppets into the NJDOE. Tomorrow is simply the culmination of a long-term plan.”

What has been the result of these state takeovers? From the point of view of the students, nada.

Again, quoting JJ’s powerful post:

“If anyone has any evidence that disenfranchising local citizens and local parents leads to better school outcomes, please let me know, so I can debunk it as a load of crapNo school district ever got better by taking the local community out of its decision-making process. It’s shameful that Chris Christie, a tool of the ruling class, dares to tell the parents of Camden that he knows better than they do what needs to be done for their children.”

Look at it this way. Instead of closing a school here or there, or a dozen or two dozen schools, the governor simply seizes the whole district. It is his to play with. Some democracy.

As the mayoral election of 2013 approaches, New York City parents and students are speaking up about what is most important to them. They got hold of an old school bus, painted it blue, and are driving around the city to raise awareness among other parents and students.

The article linked here shows how parents and their children are trying to inform voters and the candidates about their opposition to high-stakes testing and their desire for a well-rounded education, including art and music.

The low point of the article–hilarious really–is when a spokesperson for StudentsFirst, which has no roots in New York City, pooh-poohed the parents’ and students’ concerns:

“Ms. Boyd of Students First New York dismissed the bus trip. “A lot of what they’re doing is political theater, rallying parents around issues that are nuanced and complicated with not a lot of explanation, and then going forward saying, ‘Look, these are parents’ issues,’ ” she said.”

Governor Jerry Brown of California gave a brilliant state of the state speech in January, where he pledged to change fundings of public schools so that more money went to children with the greatest needs.

It sounded reasonable. It costs more to educate a child who can’t speak English than one who can. It costs more to educate a child with disabilities than one without them. It costs more to educate children with high needs.

But a Los Angeles Times poll finds that only half of the public support the idea of spending more for those with the highest needs.

This raises the question: Do we really believe in equality of educational opportunity? Or do we feel that it is okay that schools for children from affluent families have more resources than those for children of the poor?

Yesterday I ran a post about an editorial in the Chicago Tribune. The editorial touted the results of a poll which the newspaper conducted in partnership with the Joyce Foundation. The poll purportedly supported privatization, merit pay, evaluation of teachers by test scores, and every other failed nostrum of the Rahm Emanuel-ALEC crowd.

But a Chicago parent group called PURE (Parents United for Responsible Education) says that the Tribune poll is a fraud. It underrepresented parents of children who attend public schools and it underrepresented African Americans. Based on PURE’s findings, the poll shows what white Chicagoans think that the children of black Chicagoans need.

According to PURE’s analysis, the poll was skewed towards privatization and it did not report its own findings accurately:

Who responded:

  • 50% of those polled were white. Less than 9% of CPS students are white.
  • 30% of those polled make more than $ 75,000 a year. 87% of CPS students are from low-income families that qualify for federal free or reduced lunches.
  • 43% of those polled do not know a Chicago Public School teacher or teachers’ union member. Really?

Of course, the Trib claims that results were “weighted” to assure a mix consistent with city demographics…but then, like Mayor Rahm, most of the white people in Chicago send their children to private schools.

Key results the Trib decided not to tell you about: 

  • The most popular answer to their question about what to do about underperforming schools was “devote more resources while keeping the staff intact” (37%). The least selectedanswers were “close the school and transfer students to a higher-performing school” (only 6%) and “allow an experienced nonprofit to come in and run the school” (18.8%) (question 24).
  • Nearly as many people think the CPS budget should be balanced by raising taxes on businesses as by closing schools. Oops! (question 31).

Fresh from his skiing vacation in Utah, Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he is closing 54 public schools because he wants all the children in Chicago to get a quality education. So he closing the schools of 30,000 children.

May we see a show of hands? How many people believe that at the end of Emanuel’s term of office, all children in Chicago will have a quality education? Is he hiding his secret recipe?

To add insult to injury, he channels the father of public education, Horace Mann, in calling education “the great equalizer.” Mann was not talking about charter schools or academies or religious schools. He was talking about public schools.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, fresh from his skiing trip in Utah, and showing a bit of windburn on his face, held a press conference to explain that it was a “difficult” decision to close 54 public schools and disrupt the lives of 30,000 children.

Mayor Emanuel’s children will not be affected, fortunately. They attend the elite University of Chicago Lab School, where President Obama and Secretary Duncan sent their children. It is the same school attended by the children of former CPS board chair and billionaire Penny Pritzker.

I have no beef with people who send their children to private or religious schools, so long as they pay for it themselves and don’t ask the public to pay for their children’s private education. But it is hypocritical to believe that your own children need small classes, experienced teachers, a broad curriculum, a vibrant arts program, but the children of others who are less fortunate do not. The public can’t and won’t pay for the fine opportunities at elite private schools, but those who are in a position of power–like Obama, Duncan, Emanuel, Pritzer, and many others who call themselves “reformers”–should want the same for Other People’s Children. They should fight for it. They should exert their energies to demand equality of educational opportunity and stop promoting second-class education for Other People’s Children.

This is what John Dewey meant when he wrote: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”

When I was in North Carolina last week, I spoke in Raleigh at an event pulled together on short notice by NC Policy Watch, a state watchdog for the public interest. As it happened, I spoke just a few days after State Senator Phil Berger introduced a horrendous piece of legislation that he claimed would produce “excellence,” by removing all job protections (i.e., due process) for teachers), by tying teacher pay to test scores (aka merit pay), and by removing any salary increments for those who earn a master’s degree or have additional years of experience. Everything tied to test scores. (The video is here.)

While there I learned that it takes a teacher in North Carolina fourteen years of teaching to reach a salary of $40,000 a year.

When I hear stats like this, I grind my teeth thinking of the pundits and think tank gurus who collect six-figure salaries advocating that teachers should be cut down to size and have their benefits reduced and their salaries tied to student test scores.

I loved my time in Raleigh. The cherry blossoms were in bloom (it was snowing in New York), the audience was enthusiastic, and the best gift of all was this wonderful editorial that I received in my email today. When there are editorial writers like this one, a man who clearly understands the futility of what is now called “reform,” and the damage that the so-called “reformers” are doing to the education profession and to our nation, my faith is renewed that the privatizers and teacher-bashers won’t win. At some point and it will not be long, the public will get it too.

An article in the Wall Street Journal goes on a rant against critics of standardized testing. It was written by a charter school advocate in Texas and a professor at ultra-conservative Hillsdale College in Michigan. The authors are shocked that so many parents and local school boards in Texas want to reduce the number of tests needed to graduate high from 15 to only three or four.

They insist that American students are really incredibly stupid and the best way to make sure they gain the wisdom of the ages is to demand more of Pearson’s multiple choice tests.

You can see that they really care about the Higher Things because they drop names like Homer, Milton, Melville, and Shakespeare. They also drop some references to the Founding Fathers.

Two things are odd about this article (in addition to the fact that the statistics they cite were based on a telephone survey of 1,200 students, who were asked multiple-choice questions and had no reason to take the survey seriously).*

First, when American students were classically educated, many eons ago, as the authors yearn for, they were not taking any standardized tests. None. Zero. Zip. They were writing essays and examined orally by their teachers. It seems the authors yearn for the good old days of 1910, when the high school graduation rate was about 10%.

And then there is the irony that the authors are the sort who usually rant about the importance of respecting parental choice. Why do they deny the choice that so many Texas parents so clearly and passionately want: an education where more time and resources are devoted to teaching, not testing?

Gosh, with more time for teaching and learning, the students would actually have time to read Homer, Shakespeare, Melville, and Milton, instead of test prep.

*Full disclosure: I was co-chair of the organization that commissioned the survey and co-authored the introduction. The organization, named Common Core, has no connection to the Common Core State Standards. It was created to advocate for the liberal arts and sciences, not for testing them. I resigned from it in 2009.

P.S. a comment below points out that Hillsdale College attracts many home-schoolers who do not take batteries of standardized tests annually.

Mike Klonsky describes the devastation that will befall communities in Chicago as their schools are abandoned. What will happen to the children? Mayor Rahm Emanuel decided to be in Utah when his plan to devastate black communities was released.

Few charter schools have received as much attention and accolades as the American Indian Model Schools of Oakland, California.

Politicians and pundits flocked to the school to sing its praises and to heap honor and recognition on Ben Chavis, its leader. Chavis flaunted his “no excuses” style and his disdain for liberal softies. His schools had some of the highest scores in the state so it was hard to argue with success.

As the media took turns lionizing Chavis, they failed to notice that he had managed to lose the American Indians and to tilt the enrollment heavily towards Asians.

But Chavis encountered another problem last year when an audit revealed that some $3.8 million or so of the schools’ funds had ended up in businesses controlled by him or his wife. That was a problem.

Last week, the Oakland school board revoked the charter, but only by a vote of 4-3. Three members of the board were willing to overlook the financial issues because of the schools’ high scores.

Chavis may be gone but he is not forgotten. Even as the charter was revoked, conservative pundit John Stossel was still holding up Chavis as a model educator. Stossel is a union hater. I wish he would explain why so many of the union hating states are at the bottom of the national tests.