Archives for the month of: March, 2013

An incisive essay posted on Valerie Strauss’s blog explains how we can use George Orwell’s classic 1984 to understand corporate-style school reform today.

The essay, written by North Carolina teacher Chris Gilbert, demonstrates that Orwell perfectly understood how lies, repeated often, tend to be accepted as truthful. Corporate reformers say the same things over and over again, expecting that in time their echo chamber will win out. Or, as Orwell puts it, “Myths which are believed in tend to become true.”

Gilbert gives as an example the familiar reformer claim that poverty doesn’t cause poor school performance, but “failing” schools and “bad” teachers do. We have heard this in one form or another from Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan. He offers this example:

“In a recent interview with TIME, Bush was asked, “What’s the role of poverty in education?” He responded, “I would reverse the question: education impacts poverty, not the other way around.”

Implicit in Gilbert’s essay is another point: Fiction can teach us as much about the present as non-fiction, sometimes even more. It is always amazing to young people–and to readers of all ages–to discover how a work written 65 years ago speaks loud and clear to us today. One could make the same points in “informational text,” but not with the same power as in a novel like 1984. That is the definition of a classic. It speaks to us across ages and continents, across time and space. It is as alive today as when it was written.

 

This just in from organizers of protest demonstration in D.C. from April 4-7:

Campaign to Withdraw from Assessment Consortia

The Common Core was a clever plan hatched by the corporate sponsors of ACHIEVE to ensure that national standards based tests, now being completed by the federally financed PARCC and SBAC consortia, would be cemented in place for years to come. States were pressured to sign on with one of the consortia before the tests were even developed. State education officials still don’t know exactly what the PARCC or SBAC assessments will look like, though plans call for computer based testing 4 times a year with results tied to teacher evaluation. The PARCC and SBACC tests will be rolled out in full-force in 2014-2015 with millions of dollars being earmarked for schools to comply with specified technology requirements. This enormous investment in testing will be a windfall for Pearson, Wireless Generation and other profit seeking corporations. Meanwhile, kindergarten and first grade teachers in Baltimore and elsewhere report class sizes of 32+ and city schools across the nation continue to be slated for closing.

We have a very small window of opportunity to convince states to withdraw their affiliations with PARCC or SBAC. Alabama has already done so, with other states considering the same. Once the money is invested and the tests are in place it will be extremely difficult to free our nation’s schools from the testing regime. Thousands more schools will be proclaimed failures, closed and replaced with charters staffed by temporary TFA style non-union “teachers”. Furthermore, there are currently no safeguards in place to protect the privacy of student test data resulting from the PARCC and SBACC assessments.

Join a coalition of activists from Save Our Schools, United Opt Out and other groups to plan a national campaign to urge states to withdraw from the assessment consortia. Please “like” the facebook page, “Campaign to Withdraw from Assessment Consortia” (CWAC) and declare your interest in joining this coalition. Together, we will plan a range of strategies that will hopefully be effective in a very short period of time. An in-person planning meeting will be scheduled at Occupy DOE 2.0: The Struggle for Public Schools in D.C. on April 4-7. Check the Occupy DOE schedule for time and place. Also, check the campaign facebook page for news, actions and upcoming meetings.

Thank you all for your activism and solidarity,
Bess Altwerger
Save Our Schools National Action Co-coordinator

Mercedes Schneider explains the significance of the Jindal legislation–Act 1–that was declared unconstitutional by a Louisiana judge yesterday.

The state constitution says that each piece of legislation shall deal with only one subject. It was on this procedural ground that the law was declared unconstitutional.

As Schneider shows, Act 1 covered numerous subjects. Its primary purposes were: first, to destroy the teaching profession; second, to remove the powers of local school boards; third, to make the state superintendent the most powerful figure in the state; fourth, to make test scores the singular purpose of education.

Under this legislation, tenure would become hard to get and easy to lose. A teacher’s survival or termination would be tied tightly to the rise or fall of test scores. Test scores are the heart and soul of the law and are used punitively against teachers.

Not surpringly, the legislation closely tracks ALEC model laws for getting rid of tenure, making certification optional, and gutting local control.

Here is EduShyster, with her usual irreverence, telling us how to achieve true excellence:

Close public schools.

Close so many public schools that the public gives up and gets used to it.

Make grand promises.

As they sing in Chicago (not only the Broadway musical and the movie, but the actual city): “Give ’em the old razzle-dazzle, razzle-dazzle ’em.”

Learn the tricks of the school-closing trade.

Fool the public.

It works every time.

Earlier today when I posted about President Obama’s decision to name Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the CEO of the Walmart Foundation, to become the head of the Office of Management and Budget, I made the error of identifying her as CEO of the Walton Family Foundation. It was obviously a mistake, and readers quickly called my attention to it. I made the change at once. I didn’t realize that the Walton billionaires have two different foundations. In addition, members of the family give a lot of money to political campaigns for candidates and issues, always on the same side of the political spectrum.

The Walton Family Foundation has given $158 million for each of the last two years (see here and here) to support vouchers and choice and to influence public opinion on behalf of privatization.

The Walmart Foundation seems to have the mission of winning good public and community relations for Walmart. Since Walmart has a bad habit of driving small stores out of business and disrupting communities, it is important to the corporation to buy goodwill. When Walmart comes to a town or region, mom-and-pop stores die, and sometimes Main Street itself dies, emptied out of tenants who could not compete with Walmart.

This is the Nation’s description of the Walmart Foundation.

Earlier today, I posted about the battle in New Mexico over the confirmation of Hanna Skandera. Skandera wants to import Jeb Bush’s “Florida Model” of testing, school grading, charters, vouchers, and online corporations to New Mexico. She worked for Bush, Spellings, and Schwarzenegger. Her views are identical to those of Romney. Yet as the linked article points out, Skandera was invited to the White House and warmly praised by Duncan. What gives?

I am reminded that Duncan hailed Bobby Jindal’s choice of John White as state superintendent and lavishly praised him as a “visionary leader.” I am reminded that he was a featured speaker at Jeb Bush’s “summit” last year for entrepreneurs. I am reminded of March 2011, when demonstrators encircled the state Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, and President Obama was in Miami, describing Jeb Bush as a “champion of education reform.” (The school they both saluted as a successful “turnaround,” Miami Central High, narrowly escaped closure by the state for poor performance only three months later.)

I don’t understand why Obama and Duncan have not taken a strong stand against the opening of for-profit charter schools–or for that matter, any stand at all. I don’t understand why they have not campaigned against the spread of vouchers. They may be against them, but only in a soft voice.

I truly don’t understand the loyalty that Duncan (and Obama) have to the policies of rightwing Republicans, those most eager to close public schools and privatize them.

I don’t understand why Obama and Duncan embrace the destructive anti-teacher, anti-community, anti-student policies of the corporate reformers. Why aren’t they fighting those who blame teachers for the ills of society, who make testing the goal of education, who shatter communities by closing their public schools, who see public schools as profit centers and children as commodities?

A reader from New Mexico sent the following, with a link to Duncan’s warm words about Skandera.

“Ms. Skandera, NM’s Secretary of Education, Designate brought several reforms from Flordia. Governor Martinez’ education platform was the Florida Model. During her campaign AFT-NM fought long and hard to inform their members on what this model looked like. However, a large number of teachers voted for her regardless her promise to make New Mexico’s education system the same as Florida’s.

It is difficult to comprehend why teachers voted against their profession.

However, even more difficult is to accept is the “love fest” between Skandera, Arne Duncan and President Obama. Duncan and Obama cannot praise Skandera enough. I am including one of many links to show this admiration: http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/09/24/news/nm-school-reform-efforts-get-boost.html.

Many New Mexico educators, myself included, find this admiration “club” extremely insulting.”

Please read this article that appears in the latest issue of the journal of the New York State School Board Association.

It describes how many teachers, principals, and superintendents are feeling overwhelmed by the changes raining down on them.

Then comes these paragraphs:

“John King is on the wrong side of history,” author and blogger Diane Ravitch told On Board. “He is acting like a petty dictator, threatening to hurt the children to retaliate against the adults who did not do his bidding.”

“On the other hand, “If you don’t put teeth into the system, no change is going to happen,” said Allison Armour-Garb, who served as chief of staff to former Education Commissioner David Steiner and is one of the architects of New York’s accountability system.

“Although the Obama administration’s approach is research-based, the RTTT states are the first to take it to scale, Armour-Garb noted. “I’m confident that the Common Core, data-driven instruction, and teacher and principal evaluation are going to lead to improvement in student outcomes – over time.”

“Armour-Garb has a personal interest in school accountability because she is the mother of two children, 10 and 12, who attend public schools.

“In her school community, Armour-Garb tends not to bring up her professional background, which includes working on New York’s RTTT application and being a point person in developing regulations that defined New York’s APPR system. “Change is hard,” she said. “And testing and accountability are provocative topics that don’t lend themselves to a quick conversation.”

Notice that Armour-Garb is careful not to let anyone in her school community know her role in developing the onerous regulations for the state’s educator evaluator system. A wise decision. More than a third of the principals have signed a petition opposing that system, and if people were not afraid for their jobs, the petition may well have been signed by more than 90% of the state’s principals.

She is right to hide her role in this tightening of the testing noose around the necks of the state’s teachers and principals. She is a lawyer and public-policy consultant, not an educator.

While she asserts that Race to the Top is “research-based,” she fails to mention what part of it is research based. Certainly not the educator evaluation system, which has never been applied successfully anywhere. John King described it as “building a plane in mid-air.” That is not research-based.

Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the head of the Walmart Foundation, has been selected by President Obama to take charge of the Office of Management and Budget.

This is one of the most important policy jobs in the federal government. The director of OMB decides how money should be allocated, which programs should live and which should die. There are often intra-agency battles, but OMB holds the whip hand because it controls the budgetary decisions.

Burwell previously worked for the Gates Foundation.

The Walmart Foundation is not the Walton Family Foundation, but it is the same family nonetheless, known for their love of privatization, charters, and vouchers.

Paul Thomas is unimpressed by the latest study of KIPP by Mathematica Policy Research.

He firmly rejects the “no excuses” model of schooling, in which students are constantly monitored and disciplined for the smallest infractions. He believes it is classist and racist.

His main point is that the means do not justify the ends. If one’s only goal is higher test scores, they can be produced by coercion. But that is not good education. It old be akin to amputating a limg as a means of weight loss: it works but why would you do it.

Thomas quotes David Whitman, who wrote a book lauding “the new paternalism.” It is called “Sweating the Small Stuff,” a paean to no-excuses schools. (One of them, the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, may be closed because of financial improprieties by its intemperate founder [not because the school–intent on getting higher test scores–has few students of American Indian origin]). Interestingly, Whitman is Arne Duncan’s speech-writer. This explains in part why Duncan is such a big fan of “no excuses” schools. Schools for “other people’s children.”

In response to my post earlier today about the growing movement against testing–and its misuse for rewards and punishments–Robert D. Shepherd sent the following comment:

“I think that it’s empirically demonstrable that these tests aren’t even valid and reliable as tests of reading, writing, and math abilities, much less of teacher and school performance. What’s next–shall we use the tests to measure the performance of the the neighborhoods the schools are in? the cities and towns? Crazy.”

If, as Shepherd says, the tests are neither valid nor reliable, then what is happening to American children and teachers must be considered the Crime of the Century.

On the other hand, consider the next logical step, which he proposes: based on test scores, we begin closing down towns and cities and renaming them, or giving them to charter operators or emergency managers….wait, that’s already happening in Michigan.