Archives for the month of: March, 2013

Mercedes Schneider here examines how the New Orleans Recovery School District has been falsely portrayed as a “miracle.”

It is an important national story, which the privatization movement has endlessly retold in hopes of persuading the American public that the problem with public schools is that they are democratically controlled. They want us to believe, as Arne Duncan once said, that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing that ever happened to education in New Orleans. It wiped out the public school system, destroyed the teachers’ union, and cleared the way for massive privatization.

One of the worst sins of Teach for America is that it has convinced politicians and corporate leaders that teachers need little or no professional preparation. Unlike doctors, lawyers, social workers, architects, engineers, or any other profession, teachers are allegedly well prepared to teach simply by holding a college degree and getting five weeks of training. In any other profession, this would be considered absurd. But TFA has sold our elites on this devaluation of the profession.

This reader has another view of what is really needed:

Dear Diane,

I am currently retired after teaching in Glenview, Illinois for 34 years. In the early 90’s our district was invited to create a clinical model school by the Illinois Department of Education. The idea was to develop a more comprehensive and effective method for inducting students into the profession.

Candidates applying for the program needed to have a BA, with preferably several years of post graduate employment. The program was modeled on the medical profession’s training. First year interns were placed with master teachers in three different classrooms at three different levels. During this first year, they functioned much as a traditional student teacher under the direct supervision of their mentor teachers. University classes were taken at night and on weekends.

The second and third years these interns became residents and were assigned their own classrooms, but still connected to a mentor teacher at their same grade level. This mentor counseled them through their first opening of the school year, their ongoing planning, their first teacher conferences, report cards, and closing of the school year.

At the end of two years, they received their master’s degree in education and also had two years of teaching experience. I’m sure many would say that this is too time consuming and expensive a process, but until we decide that teaching is a serious profession that demands long-term commitment, we will not produce the skilled teachers that are needed to address the needs of our children.

We currently have a system that invites anyone with a college degree and a pulse to be a teacher. So how do we think that’s going? It invites exactly the kind of contempt that we are receiving at the hands of hedge fund managers and other “reformy” know-it-alls.

Full disclosure. The above clinical model school was finally phased out of the district when the administrators and teachers who were so invested in it retired, and as new school board members were elected. That’s the other major challenge. Even when an effective system is developed, it is terrifically difficult to replicate and to sustain because the societal commitment is not there.

Sorry to go on so long, but I thought you might be interested to know that such a program was actually up and running nearly twenty years ago.

Georgia Gebhardt
Wilmette, IL

New Hampshire has become a new battleground over church-state issues. Conservatives want to divert public funding to support of religious schools.

Defenders of public education are taking action. A group called Advancing New Hampshire Public Education is a valuable resource of information and research about this stealth attack on public education. Some of those behind this project want nothing less than to dismantle public education.

A teacher writes about the pluses and minuses of the Common Core:

There are a lot of good reasons to adopt the Common Core Standards. They really do provide an excellent framework for what would would love to see our students doing: thinking, writing, finding evidence in text, justifying arguments, and persevering in problem solving.

That being said, it is clear that there are some crazy problems that will require a lot more thoughtful implementation. There is no technology to prepare for the tests. There are no curricular materials to support teachers.

There are serious problems with expectations for students in middle and high school (less so at the elementary level). There is incredible confusion over the extent to which informational text is to be integrated (do science teachers incorporate more text or do English teacher incorporate more content? Again, not as big of an issue at the elementary level.)

The biggest problem is that we are doing this in an environment of hostility between states and teachers, totally ignoring the effects of poverty on background knowledge and performance, and it is all WAY TOO FAST!

I truly view the Common Core as an overall positive development in a sea of horrific rhee-forms. It is correct to say that it is an experiment. We are still not sure if students will be able to rise to the challenge. If they do not, we fear that teachers will take the blame yet again.

Standards by themselves are great but introducing them in a toxic environment with no money to back them up is not going to work.

MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry tore into New York City Mayor Bloomberg for his latest tactic: blaming teen pregnancy for causing poverty.

Harris-Perry knows that poverty is caused by the economic structure of society, by a society that allows one man–like Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates or Eli Broad–to accumulate many billions of dollars while millions are trapped in miserable living conditions with low wages or no jobs.

Harris-Perry knows that the 1% blame the poor for their poverty.

They also blame teachers and public schools for causing poverty.

Thanks, Melissa, for nailing it.

Marc Epstein is an experienced history teacher in New York City whose school–Jamaica High School–was closed as part of the Bloomberg reform plans. Marc holds a Ph.D. In Japanese history, but he is now part of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool, a large number of teachers whoever schools were closed. The teachers now roam the system, assigned for a week at one school, then another, their skills, knowledge, and experience completely discarded.

In this article, Marc asks the unavoidable question, what happens when the reformers have won? What changes after they have abolished unions, tenure, and the public control of public education? There are many ways to write this scenario. This is Marc’s.

Gary Rubinstein noticed a burst of TFA tweets making dramatic claims. They said that a new study found that students of TFA teachers gained one year more than teachers with same experience, and that middle students gained a half year more from TFA teachers than from other new teachers.

Gary read the study and found that these dramatic claims were over hyped.

In eight comparisons, five showed no statistically significant difference.

In the middle school study, the students in TFA classrooms got two extra questions right on a 40 question test. The amazing one-year of alleged gains were based on three more questions right.

Gary concludes:

“I think that TFA needs to back off on the miracle stories. The fact is that new TFA teachers are not much better, if they even are any better, than new non-TFA teachers. Neither are that good, really. Teaching has a big learning curve, but by the time you figure it out, you generally have to wait until next year to have a fresh start with a new group. As far as alumni teachers, yes, I think they are generally pretty good. I’d let an alum teach my kids. But as good as they might be, to ignore the fact that most of the comparisons were pretty neutral and then buy into the idea that when one group of students learns a year more than another group, they will only get, on average, three more questions correct on a multiple choice math test, well that’s the kind of thing that is going to keep me investigating these kinds of claims and spreading the word.”

Krazy TA asks a relevant question: Do reformers put their own children in no-excuses schools?

He writes:

The charterites/privatizers have toned it down a bit, but remember the electrifying mantra “we want to give poor kids the same education that rich kids get”? [chant in alternating patterns with “poverty is not destiny.”]

All right then. Go to the websites of the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, Cranbrook, Harpeth Hall, Chicago Lab Schools, Sidwell Friends. If you don’t like my choices pick similar ones that suit your individual tastes. Read what they offer—I am not speaking rhetorically; I really mean go through all their offerings.

Yes, [sigh] these schools do serve some students whose SES status is not Rocketing out of the Earth’s atmosphere. But these are the kinds of schools that the children of the wealthy, well-connected, well-educated and powerful attend. These sorts of schools don’t just exist in someone’s online piece about what he would do if he were Secretary of Education.

No need for the rheephormy crowd to “make it up as they go along” like Rocketshipsters claim is necessary. They’ve got highly successful proven models right in front of them.

Charterites/privatizers: actions speak louder than words. I invoke what seems to be your highest moral imperative: put your money where your mouth is.

Oh, and I almost forgot: put your own children in your charters, not in the Waldorfs or the Cranbrooks or any of the rest. If it’s good enough for the children of others it’s good enough for yours.

Not too much to ask, is it?

What is an “eduttante”?

Here is EduShyster’s definition:

“Eduttante: /ˌedjuˈtänt/
A shill or paid spokesperson advocating strict no-excuses charters for the urban communities in which he or she does not live. Related terms: educolonialist, whiteousness.”

The eduttante raves about the virtues of a strict, military-style school for “other people’s children.”

He or she would never send one’s own child to such a rigid, punitive school.

EduShyster points out that the leading advocate of lifting the cap on charters sends his own child to a private school where there is no standardized testing.

Be sure to read the comment at the end of her post.

 

PS: Thanks to readers for pointing out that (once again) I forgot the link. Thanks to Jeff Bryant for supplying it.

This is big news.

State Senator Dan Patrick, the chair of the Senate Education Committee in Texas, wants to reduce the number of tests needed to graduate from the current 15 to “only” four or five.

At present, students in Texas must pass 15 tests to graduate. Yes, you read that right: 15.

That is more testing than any other state in the nation.

Texas is test-mad.

Maybe it is because Pearson hired the best lobbyists in the state, led by the architect of NCLB, Sandy Kress.

Kress writes op-eds in the Austin newspapers about the glories of standardized testing, but he is never identified as a paid lobbyist for Pearson.

In 2011, the Legislature cut the budget for public education by $5.4 billion (that’s BILLION), but managed to find $488 million for a five-year contract for Pearson.

This year, the state announced that it actually has a huge surplus, more than $8 billion, but there is no talk of restoring the cuts.

Methinks Senator Patrick has been hearing from parents in his district.

Methinks he may have noticed the Save Texas Schools rally in front of the state capitol on February 23, where 10,000 or more students, parents, and educators spoke out against budget cuts, high-stakes testing, and privatization.

At least he heard the part about the testing. Or so it seems.