I earlier posted about Steve Zimmer’s resolution proposing a change in the Parent Trigger law to permit full information to parents, both pro and con, before taking a vote that might lead to firing the principal, the staff, or privatizing the school.
An educator in Los Angeles sent the following explanation as to why this change is necessary. Under the law as it stands, Parent Revolution can advocate to make changes, but educators at the school are under a gag order. Parents are allowed to hear only one side of the issue.
Here is why:
“The public needs to know that this law was written and introduced by Ben Austin, head of Parent Revolution. No one should be surprised that the Code of Regulations allows that:
“…..signature gatherers, school site staff or other members of the public may discuss education related improvements hoped to be realized by implementing any intervention described in these regulations.”
However, the following statement attempts to stifle the voices of anyone wanting to discuss not just the “pros” of the related improvements, but also the “cons”.
“(i) School or district resources shall not be used to impede the signature gathering process pursuant to this section.”
Would you say this is a “little” one-sided? Sadly, Parent Revolution descends on a school before anyone can launch a counter campaign. It’s almost as if Parent Revolution is afraid of allowing parents any opportunity to ask questions about the ramifications of signing the petition other than information provided to them by the signature gatherers. With LAUSD sending out a directive to teachers that basically imposed a gag order, it becomes clear that parents have been disrespected as they are never allowed to make an “informed” decision.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
It is not their decision to make.
Of course it is their decision to make. Their children are the most immediately affected. The “public” school system is the service provider to the parents of the children currently served. In a sense, each parent gets a “controlled voucher” which she uses for her child. Granted there are longer term interests involved, but those are relatively trivial compared to the “consumer rights” of the parent. At least that’s the model and metaphor I think works best. Schools are not the army, the tax collection agency, the police agency, and so forth. I don’t see each public school as much more than the local Kroger. Charters, vouchers, and the “Parent Trigger,” just formalize in a different way that intrinsic relationship between customers and service provider. Education providers serve at the pleasure of their consumers. That’s not the model that the public schools prefer, but he who pays the piper calls the tune. In private education it is obvious. If you don’t like the school you go elsewhere. When parents are locked into geographic monopolies, they deserve an increase of power over their monopoly school.
Here is where your analogy falls apart. First, in private schools, they can set rules for behavior and performance. If the kids don’t follow the rules, the school is free to kick them out. This is not so easy in public schools. Second, kids and their parents are not customers of public schools. Teachers provide a service to the common good for the whole community. The task of the teacher is to provide a finished product to the community in the future. The student, as a finished product, is expected to give back to their community by being employable and thus, the cycle continues. (I hate business metaphors as they apply to kids, btw, but think the “product” metaphor is better than the kids as customer – which implies that the customer aka kid is always right.)
When private and charter schools are required to take ALL kids, then maybe we can start comparing them to public schools.
“. . . he who pays the piper calls the tune.”
If that is the case then what about ALL of the taxpayers of the district, not just the parents of the students of a particular school who get NO CHOICE whatsoever with this absolutely absurd law??
Come on HU, you can do better than that argument.
No, Duane, it has become clear that he can’t do any better than that. People who look at the world through market filters can’t even see a society anymore, and it’s useless arguing with them about dimensions of reality and ultimate concern that they simply cannot see, or regard as “trivial”. It’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion with people who can’t tell the real world from the flatland of their Parker Brothers™ board.
The problem with your argument is that there is far less parent involvement in schools affected by “the parent trigger” than most people know or care to understand. In many neighborhoods where the trigger is being pulled, there isn’t a Kroger’s to buy food, but there are plenty of liquor stores and Pay-Day advance outlets. To imply that standard consumerism applies to areas of cities that have inverted economies is really naive, to be polite. At successful schools, there are no Title 1 or Bilingual programs, and the parents contribute to the coffers of the school with bake sales and blind raffles. The Parent Trigger is Astroturf with another gun pressed against the temple of the most disenfranchised youth in the nation. I doubt you’d park your car in areas where most of these triggers are being pulled, and by the way, I do just that every day of the year.
Your observations make a certain practical sense to me, but you are saying the parents are too ignorant, alcoholic, and irresponsible to know what they are doing when they sign. Is that your point, that these parents don’t know what’s truly good for their children, let alone themselves? If the parents were nice middle class folks, would that make the Parent Trigger fair?
I still don’t get the notion of why the public schools must be a monopoly. For police, yes. For courts, yes. For roads and water, yes. For gas and electricity, a regulated monopoly. Fire protection, yes. Public FUNDING of education, yes. But I don’t see that the public good compels a city to operate a school system. Wouldn’t vouchers be enough, I. E. subsidized tuition, be enough to fulfill the social compact?
Not at all. I am not criticizing the parents for what they are or where they live. Just because you live in a poor area doesn’t make you spiritually poor,but it does reorder the list of priorities in your life. People who arrived here illegally often are reticent about making public appearances. I’ve taught in Watts, East Los Angeles and again am in an East Los Angeles school. This one is successful, and it is largely successful because experienced teachers have been in the same school with the same kids from Kinder to High School. It is successful because teachers have been allowed to set high standards and have been hassled less by district officials about trying to enforce them than at the other schools were I taught.
The school’s structure is alien to the mucky mucks and that is why we have protection and autonomy. Much, not all, of what doesn’t work, is attributable to poor oversight by district administration. Charter schools don’t succeed without a dedicated staff any more than schools that are “blown up” by overzealous local politicians with an ax to grind. Schools work when they are encouraged to work. Beating up overtaxed and over-stressed people didn’t work in Spartacus’ day anymore than it does now. Dedicated teachers are some of the hardest working people you will ever meet. Running them away from the toughest neighborhoods in the country isn’t just wrong-headed, but extremely counter-productive. Today, being a teacher isn’t enough. You have to defend yourself at every turn from people you never will meet as well as act as surrogate parents without any parental rights. It ain’t easy, Bud, but we do it anyway.
Hu,
Please address my prior question to you as to why you believe that a small minority of taxpayers (50% + 1 of the current parents of children at a school) should have preference/more say in “pulling the trigger” while the rest of the taxpayers (an actual majority of the citizens) are left out of the process. Since all the taxpayers through time have contributed monies (and perhaps other efforts) to the construction, maintenance and running of the school, how is that equitable and/or desirable in a supposedly democratic process?
“But I don’t see that the public good compels a city to operate a school system.” Then I’d advise you to look into your state constitution to find the answer that compels the state (whether in the form of a county, city or school district-they are all part of the “state”) to provide usually “a free and appropriate education for all”.
Part of the answer, Duane, seems to me to turn on what we conceive of by “democracy.” In American democracy the rights of the minorities are supposed to be protected against the majority. If you conceive of democracy differently, then you’d better say so. The parents of children currently in the school are, of course, not in the majority of taxpayers, but their minority right to get the best they can for their kids is not cancelled out by their not being the majority of total stakeholders past, present, and future.
My state does have a constitutional provision requiring a free and appropriate education for all. That language appears to be satisfied by the many charter (and private) schools in the state, as well as home schooling. My notion is to expand vouchers as part of the means of the state’s providing that free and appropriate education. In Wisconsin, the craven Republicans recently refused to support Gov. Walkers plan to expand vouchers extensively, state wide. Only 500 more next year and only 1000 a year after than in addition to the 25000 in Milwaukee and I think Racine. Walker had to settle for what he could get under the intimidation of the unions. But, it’s a start. We’ll see whether the unions can retake the state senate there. Walker only has a margin of 15 to 13.
I have heard that deTocquville’s main criticism of democracy in America is that the majority had a tendency to ride rough shod over minority rights. He apparently saw it long ago, and it’s still a problem. There is a strain of thought that thinks that if you win a popular vote that’s a mandate to ignore the losers. I don’t see that as a responsible conception of democracy. If democracy means, “I win, you lose your rights” I just don’t think that’s fair at all.
Hu @ 10:46,
I agree with you that part of our democratic ideals do indeed attempt to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (de Toqueville’s observations not withstanding). That really should be seen as a proper function of the government (which I know you know is supposedly of by and for the people. except for now when corporate/monied interests have so completely captured the government that it is best described as fascistic): protecting the rights of all against those few monied interests.
I just don’t agree with your analysis that the parents of children in a particular school are a “minority” in the sense that you are using that term. Those “minority” (in your second sense) parents have all the right in the world to choose other schools, whether through a physical relocation, homeschooling or sending their children to a private school. They should not be afforded “special” minority rights when it comes to determining the fate of a particular school as that would then trump the rights of the other legitimate stakeholders, i.e., other taxpayers, and that isn’t right nor just.
” My notion is to expand vouchers as part of the means of the state’s providing that free and appropriate education.” Unfortunately for your notion is the fact that more likely than not your state constitution also has a clause restricting the use of government resources for religious purposes, which then calls into question the legality of a voucher program.
If we begin with the assumption (as I hope most of us do) that parents can make wise and considered decisions concerning the education of their children, why would we not want parents to see all sides of the issue?
If the question is: Do you want better schools for your children? The answer would be a universal “yes”. But if we delineate our vision of a ‘better school’, it may or may not be compatible with parents’ visions, educators’ visions, community visions, corporate visions, etc. If we are really trying to do what is best for students, the involved parties sit down and engage in meaningful discussion to find the best solution. This involves looking into what was not working and how to best resolve those issues.
Parent Revolution asks that initial question but jumps immediately to install THEIR version of a solution. It is very easy to say that a school doesn’t work effectively and point fingers at those running the school, but that isn’t the whole picture. Putting in a new staff has not changed what the underlying cause(s) of a school’s problems. but that is the first thing Parent Revolution seeks to do.
Parents should be able to make informed decisions about what is best for their children. Being pushed into signing petitions blindly without any further recourse or discussion disallows true parent involvement.
n the interview linked to BELOW, Parent Revolution leader
Ben Austin characterizes the opposition to the Parent
Trigger in Compton(December 2010) thusly:
“The teachers’ union struck back”,
He then proceeds to describe McKinley Elementary
in Compton (the target school) overall as a
child-abusing hell-hole.
(Oh really? Then why did 90% of the parents
choose to remain at McKinley… the child-abusing hell-hole…
instead of at the charter school that Parent Revolution helped
open just a block away?)
Seriously, Dr. Ravitch. You’re not going to believe this—but Austin claims
THAT the the unionized teachers at McKinley retaliated against the the
pro-Parent Trigger parents by physically torturing the children of
those parents (???!!!) while the children of anti-Parent-Trigger,
pro-evil-union parents were spared this Abu Ghraib-like physical
and mental torment.
Austin said this an interview for the far-right-wing, anti-union Choice Matters,
where he is being interviewed by Bob Bowden, who had previously made
an anti-union, pro-charter documentary, “THE CARTEL”.
Check out this link for the video:
(NOTE: the scary, unnerving tinkling piano music underscoring the urination / defecation torture story)
Next, try watching it while reading along to my transcript:
(ALSO NOTE: Dr. Ravitch, I was very precise in my transcription of this part of the interview—including all the pauses, ellipses ( … ), “uhh” ‘s, “uhhmm” ‘s, etc.. .
I did this to illustrate that Ben Austin is clearly lying his head off. Show this video
to any police detective, or anyone else trained in lie detection, and see
what they say. Compare Austin’s delivery and demeanor to that of
the interviewer Bowden, who is not under pressure to knowingly lie.
Austin is bumbling, while Bowden remains smooth.
Lying is hard work. It places intense cognitive demands and pressures
on the person who is lying, and as a result, when you get someone who
is not very effective and/or experienced in lying, you get a ridiculous, stumbling,
bumbling performance like that of Austin’s in the video.
Also, the bolding during the torture story is mine, Jack)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
TRANSCRIPT: (00:41 – 02:06)
AUSTIN: “Instead of being embraced and applauded for getting involve
in the education of their own children, (THE PRO-PARENT-TRIGGER PARENTS) were intimidated uhhh… and abused and harassed… uhhmm… and… uhmmm… we quiclkly found out that there were few… moral boundaries that the other side was unwilling to cross.
“One story in particular that was… uhmmm… jaw-dropping.. was that… uhmm… we found out pretty quickly that parents… whose… who—uhh… children whose parents signed the petitions… uhhm… were not allowed to go to the bathroom, and… when the children peed in their pants, they were sent to the… Nurse’s Office… uhh… and… that is where the parents… uhmm… parents got called in to bring in clean underwear… uhh… and that’s where the parents got hit up to give their … uhhh… to rescind their… signatures.”
BOWDEN: “Let me get this straight? In the same classroom where the parents who didn’t support the Parent Trigger petition… those students were allowed to go to the bathroom, and if your mom or dad supported the Parent Trigger, you were told, ‘Too bad. Stay there.’ ” (and thus, be forced to urinate/defecate on yourself, Jack)
AUSTIN: “That’s right. I mean it’s.. it’s… i-i-i-i-i… the-the… Things got so bad that the parents… uhhmmm… uhh… had to
—-(AUSTIN STARES DOWN AT SOMETHING… another “tell” of lying)
” … uhhmmm… sue the school district… and uhhmm… they … ”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Austin doesn’t even seem to believe the
bullshit that he’s spewing. His mind is jumping
around awkwardly… rambling about kids peeing in
their pants, then about parents forced to
bring clean underwear…
It’s like he’s trying to remember whatever phony story
that he, Gabe Rose, Pat DeTemple, and/or other Parent Rev. folks
vomited up during a secret strategy session.
In this instance at least, Austin’s a pretty unconvincing liar.
the same video is also here:
I have never seen a video where it was
more completely obvious that someone (Austin) is
lying his head off. The “uhh..”‘s,
“uhhmmm”s… pauses etc…. repeatedly’
the staring down, and looking to the side.
Again, note the contrast with cadence
and manner of the interviewer,
who is not lying.
CONCLUSION:
THIS__STORY__IS___TOTAL___AND___UTTER___BULLSHIT.
NOTE: Austin was an uncredited consultant to the
screenwriters of ‘WON’T BACK DOWN’. The urination
scene is in the movie, with the added wrinkle
that the evil unionized teacher first locked the
pro-Parent-Trigger parent’s kid in a dark closet.
When the hero mom shows up, the evil teacher
says that’s what your kid gets for you being
a trouble-maker—i.e. signing the petition,
and gathering signatures.
Sheesh!
If that ever happened in real life, the teacher
would be taken out of the school in handcuffs.
These Parent Rev. people are sociopaths, or
psychopaths who are so steeped in pathological dishonesty—
telling whatever lie they want to tell
whenever they want to tell it, so long as
it advances their agenda—that, in this
instance at least, they’ve lost
touch with reality.
I assume you all got the email from Ben Austin at about 4PM PT, June 17, saying he has a new “Truth” site posted to deflect the facts that those of us working against parent trigger, and Parent Revolution, are now in the process of gearing up to disperse through Joining Forces for Education.
We are prepared to send speakers to your groups to talk with our community members about the Walton Foundation and Heartland Institute, etc., funded initiative carried by Mr. Austin and his Parent Revolution group with the support of Grover Norquist. You can find all the information online by googling.
The resultant divisive disasters at Adelanto and Weigand schools must be stopped by educating the public about the issues. Read Austin’s’s excoriation of Diane Ravitch at his new “truth”site, and also his plan to rapidly shut down 50 more of our public schools.
Teachers and community must take a stand today to fight this plan to make our public school system a corporate investment opportunity. We have Spanish language speakers available to sit with parents and discuss the real danger of signing the Parent Revolution petitions.
Please contact
JoiningForces4Ed@aol.com
to join with us in making the public aware of the real facts of this privatization plan.
Thanks, Ellen, I was babysitting my three-week-old grandson and just learned of the new site devoted to correcting me. I posted about it before I saw your letter. They certainly make me feel important. Also, they make me laugh.
What isn’t funny is their plan to close down 50 schools and destabilize the lives of children, families, communities. So elitist.
Debunk that.
My dear fearless leader of all things re public ed….congrats on the new grandson… mine is 3 already.
Austin used the public forum on Huff Post to excoriate you…shows how his mind works, rather than a direct contact here. And as you know, for all your supporters here and beyond, to us you are extremely important.
But Austin is more than elitist. He thrives on mendacity and misdirection. Learning from this puppet masters, he only is interested in the Midas touch, not a true free market if there is such a thing, but rather a manipulated market, placing greed above lives, and his protestations which are on u-tube show a devious arrogant man.
We will spread facts throughout LA so parents can no longer be fooled.
What she has stated is all true and in the law, rules and regulations. But that is not all the story. These Triggers should never have been approved on the basis of illegal signatures. As it stands now there is no obligation to educate anyone on this. That is a very good part of the Zimmer resolution. His resolution takes care of two very important parts of this: The illegal signatures and the lack of understanding or “Informed Consent” before signing for anything. UTLA now has a fast response team activated. If anyone shows up at a school campus on LAUSD with a clipboard a call is put into UTLA headquarters and a rapid response team is going to be sent out to find out what is happening as Parent Revolution has about 50 LAUSD elementary schools in their sights. We have listened to multiple people from multiple schools explain what happens and what they did at their school including the parents and teachers from Weigand at UTLA and at the Board of Education in public explain the illegal signatures. The board went ahead anyway and now Board Member Zimmer has a proper resolution in the best interests of all especially the students as this is supposed to be about them.
It is imperative that the public be aware of the connection between Parent Revolution and Ben Austin, and their support and funding by Heartland Institute, a Grover Norquist supported group of men (one woman recently added to their all male board) whose agenda is clearly stated to be nurturing of the free market.
Their agenda is the same as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
Colleagues and I have formed a new Los Angeles group of educators and others called Joining Forces, to educate the public, rapidly, on Parent Revolution, and the vast rapid Broad Academy plan for privatizing our public schools.
Any LA colleagues are welcome to contact me at
UCLApolicywonk@aol.com
We will be meeting to form our Media and Speaker’s Bureau with in the next 10 days. We must hit the track running to inform an uninformed public.
addendum
Please use this email address to contact
Joining Forces
JoiningForces4Ed@aol.com
There is nothing wrong with Grover Norquist or with nurturing the free market. Likewise nothing wrong with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise institute. Your assumptions are not shared by the general populace, all of whom make their livings in the free market in order to hire teachers to teach their children. Public school teachers sometimes assume that the public school system is like public safety, or the roads, or the courts, but in truth it is not, nor should be. Education should be like McDonalds. You go to the one you want to get what you want. The public school systems are a service business masquerading as a government function.
Hu,
There is no such thing as a “fee market”. That is one of those “convenient” fictions that neo-liberal thinkers would want all to believe. Never has been a free market and never will be because it is the laws of the land, i.e., that allows for all market/economic activities.
“Public education should be like McDonalds”. Are you kidding? That is the last model public schools should be emulating.
i.e., the government, that allows
Public school teachers sometimes assume that the public school system is like public safety, or the roads, or the courts, but in truth it is not,
You’re wrong.
And if public schools are to be like McDonald’s , then I should not be paying taxes that are used to run public schools. It would be a service that I, one with out school aged children, would never use.
The McDonald franchise can not have one of their employees pick-pocket me.
Dr Ravitch: spot on.
Here’s the situation:
(1) Austin-influenced parents may run around collecting signatures in response to an allegation; teachers may say nothing in defense or explanation or disagreement with the allegations.
(2) There are now numerous allegations in print from parents who have signed a triggering petition, attesting that the petition was explained improperly to them, they were promised things in return for their signature, they were harassed, false outcomes were claimed.
(3) There is no mechanism for rescinding signatures.
(4) There is no mechanism for reverting a triggered school back to the district should the change turn out to be inadequate and/or different from what was claimed.
Last I looked we enjoy a brilliant constitutional system of political governance that relies on CHECKS-AND-BALANCES. This law has no checks in place, and no balance. Which begs the question: how can it even be considered “law”?
When the parents are paying the full cost of the schools — and that can be arranged if this keeps up — then it will be their decision to make.
John,
Who is being asked to support the students and staff at any particular time in the present? The parents of the current students or the public at large?
I’m not saying that a school should be able to be closed by a few parents, but parents should have a say regarding the school their child is attending. What would you say if Joe Schmo without a child in school wanted to be on the PTO? What would you say if the parents in your school sent you looking for assistance outside in the greater community when you needed help making copies and shelving books because they have a community stake in the schools, too?
I’ve got an idea. Maybe parents could go on strike with their kids. Would that be a more acceptable way to force schools to listen to parents?
Parents already do have a say by where they choose to live and raise a family.
Joe Schmoe (sic-ha ha) already can be a part of the PTO. Please show me where that is not the case. I’d think that most PTOs or PTAs would be glad to have any help they can get.
And I don’t understand what you mean/are trying to say with the following, please explain: “What would you say if the parents in your school sent you looking for assistance outside in the greater community when you needed help making copies and shelving books because they have a community stake in the schools, too?”
Thanks!
Duane,
Parents or guardians from outside of the students in the school are definitely not allowed in our local PTOs (Parent Teacher Organizations). You must be a parent of a child of the school, the principal or a teacher at the school.
What I meant is that volunteers for all of the things that take place at the school or jobs teachers need help with are filled by parents of the children at the school. Not by the public at large.
And I was trying to point out that the argument is more nuanced than it is being presented. If it is true that the parents with children at a school should not have the authority to bring about change at the school without the consent of all tax payers, then it is also true that tax payers who do not have children in the school, will never have children in the school, or who don’t use the schools should have a greater say than the parents of children forced to use the school.
Then there is a difference in how each district/school handles volunteers. I know of no restrictions (other than having to pass on a background check) on who can volunteer to help at a school in my district.
And in the statement “. . . or who don’t use the schools should have a greater say than the parents of children forced to use the school.” did you mean “shouldn’t” rather than should? And again no one is “forced to use the school”. Home schooling is always an option as are various private educational businesses, whether sectarian or whatever.
Duane,
I specifically said PTO. Members have to be parents at the school or teachers. As to the public “volunteering”, I agreed they COULD, but what if parents suggested that is where you go FIRST instead of bothering them (the ones who actually have kids in the school). How absurd would that be?
Yes, despite you continuing to insist otherwise, families are forced to use certain schools. Again, you make an argument that because some people DO have options all families have options. You DO advocate for families use public schools, right?
I think I said what I meant. At any given time, there are more tax payers NOT using a particular school as there are using it. Why should those NOT using the school have more say as to what goes on inside the school than those using the school? I believe that is a fair question. You don’t think politicians and business people should control teachers, even if they are tax payers, because they aren’t IN the trenches. Why does that all of a sudden become a spurious argument when parents use it?
Also, you better hope this guy isn’t a reflection of all those other people in the community without kids in the system (but I know there are a lot of them in my community).
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Case-Against-Public-Schools-134331813.html?fullSite=y
I know it can be difficult to tell these days, but I read that as a parody.
Yes, but Mr. McClelland has been known to say out loud what others are sayings quietly. He is just a “stand-in” for those people in the community I’ve heard myself; the empty nesters or never-nesters. But did you see some of the comments? Or perhaps they were just playing along.
If that wasn’t a tongue in cheek article I’m a monkey’s uncle. Either that or the author is downright ignorant of the function of public schools in American society.
See my reply to Jon. The point is that these “guys” exist and if they didn’t then the article would not be relevant for humor.
Cindy @ 12:50,
If that is what you consider good evidence to support your bashing of public education I have some great ocean front property over at Lake of the Ozarks in Mid Missouri for sale quite cheaply. Hurry and buy before Global Warming inundates it with the rising ocean levels.
Duane I am not bashing. Just making a point that your argument is too simplistic and conveniently fits your agenda that parents are to be seen and not heard.
Cindy,
I actually encourage parents to become further engaged in the workings of the school, but even more so to challenge the policies and practices that they consider ill advised-even those of my class room as I believe that I have very sound pedagogical reasons for teaching the way I do. If a parent doesn’t agree I have no problem sitting down with them, with or without an administrator, to discuss whatever issue they have especially if what I am doing doesn’t appear to be working for their child. It’s the parent who knows the child a whole lot better than I, why wouldn’t I listen to them?
I think you have misread what I have written as I certainly never said nor implied anything about an “agenda that parents are to be seen and not heard. If I have please show me where.
Duane,
This was your response to the fact that I said I had heard these same sentiments reflected in my community among people without an immediate interest in the schools because they do not have kids attending.
“Cindy @ 12:50,
If that is what you consider good evidence to support your bashing of public education I have some great ocean front property over at Lake of the Ozarks in Mid Missouri for sale quite cheaply. Hurry and buy before Global Warming inundates it with the rising ocean levels.”
You accused me of school bashing, which I don’t think I did, because I happened to present a different point of view or something to consider. Then you proceeded to condescend with your ocean front property and global warming statement. Again, because I happened to bring up a different point of view than yours. Even if I am the silliest, most ridiculous, least informed person on the planet, I don’t think what I said deserved your dismissive response.
I have a hard time believing, based on how you treat people here that disagree with you, that you are actually very open to parents who truly disagree with what you are doing in the classroom.
I know this is poor form (sorry!), but I’m trying to get in touch with you, Ms. Ravitch, about re-printing your Feb. 26 blog (re: Common Core). I’m a newspaper editor in rural southwest Michigan. I can email further details; I’m fine with including the blog address, credit, etc.
Ryan Lewis, you have my permission to reprint.
??? Parents _are_ paying the full cost. As is everyone else in society. That is what taxes are.
And part of the point here is: why should the parents-of-the-moment have any authority to ever even give away to private interests what is here by virtue of public investment?
That was my point.
It appears that Americans have forgotten the fundamental principles on which democracy is based. And even people who ought to know better are now chasing after red herrings.
Sara and George spell out the problem not only with the LAUSD Parent Trigger, and with Parent Revolution, but the vast problem with California Initiatives. It is time to change California law and have legislators do their jobs and not push all the multitude of poorly conceived initiatives on an under-informed voter population. 30 second sound bites by the billionaires with their corporate free market agendas, calling it all School Reform, must be diffused by real teachers giving real information to the public.
The Joining Forces Speaker’s Bureau will have ‘educator’ speakers available to talk with community groups, both English and Spanish speakers, in a matter of weeks. We will address with immediacy the rapid push of Parent Revolution to take over endless numbers of public schools in our district. Broad, Villaraigosa, Deasy, and now we hope not Ratliff too, all urge rapid school closings and they support Parent Revolution which is a corporate structure formed by free market professionals to misdirect information to their own end of privatizing our public schools..
It is only with a unified push by all local groups such as Dem Clubs, PTA, League of Women Voters, etc., that our facts and information can be made available to the public at large. The media too often does not report what our colleagues have learned through determined research.
We welcome volunteers for training for Speaker’s Bureau.
Contact us at
JoiningForces4Ed@aol.com
Here’s a quote from Parent Revolution in the L.A. Times from May 31st.
“Parent Revolution, the Los Angeles nonprofit that lobbied for the trigger law and has assisted efforts to use it at Weigand and other campuses in Los Angeles, Compton and Adelanto, said it would welcome public meetings on neutral ground and consider the other proposals.”
Well, what is neutral ground? Maybe that’s the trick that will negate the efforts to have any kind of public meeting. This is something Parent Revolution fought against in the original language and in the revisions so don’t expect them to give in on this without a major fight.
Parent Revolution must be trying to figure out what to do with themselves. Publicly, they can try to positively frame the debate using language such as “parent empowerment” and “parent choice” and “we can’t wait” and “won’t back down” and “kids can’t wait” and “this is a failing school”…but in the end, it’s just a bad idea and a bad policy. Get 50% + 1 of parents to sign a petition, cause disruption, cause parents to protest against each other, cause staff members to feel terrible about their jobs so that they update their resumes and look elsewhere, and let the kids watch as they ask their moms and dads and teachers what the hell is going on. Then, if the trigger is successful, gamble on restarting an entire community and school culture from scratch, and try to recruit people who would want to work in a school that was shot down by the trigger. You might find younger folks who want to teach temporarily, but you’ll destabalize the school, and the teaching profession. Why would any new teacher who wants to teach more than…2 years…want to ever teach in a low income school anymore?
Is this the “courageous leadership” that politicians who support Parent Revolution claim will help students or is this a misguided, short sighted law?
It’s certainly no surprise that the compromised LAUSD hierarchy has taken measures to stifle dissenting regarding their policies. Their egos were bruised in the first round of school-takers when former board member, Yolie Flores launched the initial attack on public schools, called “Public School Choice”. Parents were not interested in the rhetoric and were notoriously absent from the voting. The board and superintendent quickly scrapped the parent-involvement provisions in their process and dumped the local elections. This district and others, is all about stacking the cards to fit their interests and those of their friends, not those of the studTe of LAUSD’s many new edicts are challenged. Teachers are not to challenge authority, question it, or react in any way against it when it adversely affects their classroom. Those are the lessons we need to impart to our students? I think not!
Having been a school teacher, specialist and principal for many years, I’ll wager that what Parent Trigger means by school resources are faxes and tax-payer paid copying machines that can’t be used. I can imagine someone who’s job feels threatened heading for those machines on school hours to run a counter campaign. They can still run to Staples, have their union meetings off campus, and plan their counter campaign all they want. I think this was very considerate on the part of Parent Revolution.
Parent Trigger is illegal conversion of public property, theft pure and simple, and its promoters should be arrested for racketeering.
You are right, Ed Harris. McDonald’s can’t force you to pay taxes to pay for their service. That’s the point, but we all think education is important enough to put the state taxing power behind it. I’m talking about how to spend the money, not collect it. Vouchers would be subsidized tuition. That’s all. I am assuming that disabled students would be able to find a school. Maybe such students should get a double voucher to attract service providers. In my county there is a special school run by the intermediate school district that is reliable. The city also runs two other special schools one for delinquents, and another for kids in trouble, but lesser trouble. Vouchers could fund them too. Tuition subsidy is good enough for Obamacare, why not for schooling? Bad example, I guess. My point is that government should get out of health care AND education operations. There may be a place for funding of the indigent. Education is to develop free minds. Not so good to start that process for everyone by eliminating choice. It looks more like an effort to subjugate citizens to state power to me. To enslave kids by indoctrination in government schools. It’s not worthy of a society which puts freedom first. Education should be for the benefit of the individual first, and secondarily for the society. Not education of workers only, but education of free men and women. The public schools are now starting the testing regimen in kindergarten. Can there be ANY defense of that regimen? If parents had vouchers, they could escape. It would all fall apart pretty quickly. The CCSS depends on the existence of a captive student population. There can be no guaranteed abuse of children without a public school system. What was originally suppose to free them has become the instrument of their oppression. I see no way out except deliberate fragmentation of the system itself. Diane is trying to lead reform from within while battling the centrifugal forces from without. But genuine internal reform cannot take place because it would mean that its leaders and teachers would have to abandon their claim to monopoly status. A leopard cannot change its spots unless it becomes a different beast, and such a transformation philosophically is unlikely to happen any more than their will be mass spontaneous conversions from Islam to secular modernity, from group think to individualism. We have to make the local mosque compete with all the other faiths for adherents. Mullah Swaker and Mullah Aubry and the jihadist daughters, Linda and LG will not be in favor of having to compete on a level playing field. But this is America, not a desert shiekdom. Here freedom is supposed to reign. If you like the state controlling education go to Germany or the Gulf Kingdoms. In America we threw out kings. Let’s not restore them now under the disguise of Obama, Duncan, and Emanuel.
HU,
“Education is to develop free minds. Not so good to start that process for everyone by eliminating choice.” No one has “eliminated” choice. Each and every parent/couple can choose wherever they want to live. Now whether they can afford to live in the most posh tony district is another story but the choice is still there. Just as all have the choice to go to a gourmet restaurant or a McD’s, even though most can’t afford the gourmet restaurant, the choice is still there. So it is not the “gubmint” that is limiting the choices made by the parents.
“The public schools are now starting the testing regimen in kindergarten. Can there be ANY defense of that regimen?” None whatsoever. And many of us, probably including Mullah Aubrey and our jihadist daughters Linda and LG (and I’m not sure the gender of LG as we’ve not met) but I won’t speak for them, have been fighting the testing insanity for many years. By the way I reject your characterization of me as a Mullah as I am a free thinker who rejects all religions-you can call me an atheist socialistic commie pinko faggot bastard but save the Mullah crap for someone else although an atheistic socialistic commie pinko faggot Mullah does have a certain ring to it.
And you are wrong in stating that “We have to make the local mosque compete with all the other faiths for adherents.” No one in this country makes anyone “compete with all other faiths for adherents”. How do you come up with that nonsense other than with maybe a few swigs or tokes, eh? Not that your consumption of mind altering substances is any business of mine. But to paraphrase the comedian Lewis Black: “I took LSD when I was younger just to prepare myself to talk with today’s tea partiers”.
“But this is America, not a desert shiekdom. Here freedom is supposed to reign” YEP, NO DOUBT. Desert shiekdoms are what Amurikans love to destroy, especially if Dick the Darth Cheney has a financial interest in those countries’ wealth. YEP, Georgie the Lesser and his child protege the Obomber have followed through quite “nicely” on that one. And that freedom thingy, that’s been gone for quite some time starting with Georgie the Lesser’s illegal surveillance of the citizenry, his illegal wars of aggression, his stealing of two presidential elections, etc. . .
Hu, This post has to be one of your “best”-ha ha! Keep at it. Every now and then you do hit the nail on the head like “The public schools are now starting the testing regimen in kindergarten. Can there be ANY defense of that regimen?” But I’ve had way too much experience in talking with folks of the tea partier mindset as I live smack dab in the middle of a tea partier stronghold to not rip you a new one on much of what you write. Most tea partiers are quite genuine and friendly (maybe they wouldn’t be if I wasn’t the color I am) but very misquided and ignorant of the world outside of their mind’s fantasy realm.
Duane, I always appreciate your well-reasoned comments, but I think you should ignore Harlan. I know it’s hard, but Harlan makes no sense with his RW arguments, you’re not going to change his opinion, and he’s shown he cannot debate without insulting. Why should we have to defend ourselves on a blog where we agree with the blog premise, “a site to discuss better education for all,” when Harlan only wants to discuss education for some.
Patriciahale,
I understand where you are coming from in your suggestion. Thanks, but just as public schools must accept all comers, so do I accept “debating” all comers here on this blog.
Almost all of my friends (folks I grew up with in a Catholic parochial setting) and most the others friends that I’ve met along the way have very similar right wing free marketeer attitudes and spout much of the same. Not only that but I live in tea partier territory so I am in contact daily with this type of thinking. On a one to one basis, I attempt to show these folks, and as I’ve mentioned, most are good, down to the earth, do anything for you folks who just don’t realize how blinded they are by the propaganda machine that is the main stream media, that their thinking on various topics are misquided and illogical.
At the same time I see some of the same behaviours coming out of the supposedly more enlightened left side of the political dial-different intolerances same thing attitude-wise. I have defended HU from attacks that I felt were unfair/unkind from some on this board who probably consider themselves on the left hand side. For me, there are some things that HU brings up that really do make sense, and correspond to my “free thinking” way of being. And I know HU doesn’t need my help in defending himself as he is quite capable of doing so and I’ve seen him do it.
So, no I don’t think it is good to just ignore HU. That is shunning and I thought that that practice went by the wayside many years back.
By the way I can handle things like Mullah Swacker quite easily and rather enjoy going back and forth, but that’s because I like the mental masturbation battles-ha ha!
The tea party folks I have met are genuine and friendly too, especially the black ones, so I don’t impute racism to them, as you do. All metaphors have limits, but the comparison of the mindset of some public school teachers to the mindset of radical Islamist mullahs, still strikes me as having some validity. The Salafist, Wahabist vision of a global unified caliphate seems to me very much like the progressive, socialist view of society with the dictators serving the proletariat in charge of everything. Some women teachers seem to me to be willingly wearing the invisible burka of ideology, and all wear the hijab of ideological conformity. I even like the symbolism of the hijab as wrapping the head to prevent ideas of toleration of non-progressives (i.e. non-muslims, infidels) from entering the brain. How the metaphor can be extend to men is not yet clear to me, but it might have something to do with growing a beard. It’s always helpful to me to encounter a person in debate whose violence of language and good old-fashioned male crudity exceeds even mine. But I get all the criticism because my ideas are conservative, whereas you are a defender of the publicly funded madrassa system. At the moment I can’t quite see you as converting to a love of your enemy, the individualist and capitalist as much as you love in solidarity with your public education cadres and colleagues. But I can always hope.
Uh oh, HU, you’re in trouble by your own statement, eh! “How the metaphor can be extend to men is not yet clear to me, but it might have something to do with growing a beard.” But the whole wrapped head thing is an interesting thought experiment.
Duane Swacker: thank you for having the patience to debate all comers on this blog. It’s one of the reasons I read your postings.
IMHO, until someone can put a metric on your “sense of humor” in order to determine whether it is ‘scientifically speaking’ funny or sarcastic, I take your barbs as exemplifying the, er, recently cointed adage:
“Laughter is poison to the pompous.”
Ok, Mark Twain said it better: “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”
I look forward to more of the same mix of logic, facts and wit.
🙂
Harlan,
I’m going to chime in here. You said, ” I am assuming that disabled students would be able to find a school.”
Wrong.
I’m on the ground here in Los Angeles, and this is most certainly not what happens with Special Ed. kids in the Charter Schools. The business model is antithetical to the servicing of these and other children with different challenges.
Why?
Because once you impose a free market system, the students cease being human beings, and are instead must and only be considered as commodities… and as such are viewed from a utilitarian perspective. The non-public, for-profit school is compelled thusly:
you want to take in those students who will cost the least to educate—Spec. Ed. are the opposite, as they require I.E.P.’s, small class sizes, fully-trained and credentialed teachers… all of this costs…
while simultaneously, you want to attract the students who will produce the highest outputs… in this case, high scores on standardized tests, as the privatizers view this as the coin of the realm in judging a school’s success.
Through no fault of their own, Special Ed. kids will not produce the same scores as those students without disabilities.
You can extrapolate this further to other classes of students: English Language Learners, homeless kids, kids in foster care, kids who are disruptive, kids from low incomes, kids whose parents have little education, immigrants fleeing poverty in other countries…
All these classes have the same problem in that its much harder to to get those high “outputs” of high test scores.
That’s why the charter school applications ask suspicious questions in the sign up forms: What language is spoken in the home? What is the income of the parents? What level of education do the parents have? and on and on….
(i.e. Citizens of the World Charter Schools application form is on-line at somewhere, and it asks those questions, and talks about it having the right to make “discretionary expulsions”… translation… they can kick out whomever they want, whenever they want, without any transparency or accountability to the public.)
Keep in mind that these questions are asked BEFORE the students’ names are placed in the charter school’s lottery drum barrel? The charters claim that they are “open enrollment” and that all students have an equal shot of winning their lottery… THEN WHY DO PARENTS HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTION BEFORE THE LOTTERY EVER HAPPENS? THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT MONITORING OF THESE LOTTERIES, as in making sure that all names, rich, middle income, or poor have an equal chance of being picked.
Many charters also advertise only in English, and place their advertising in upscale communities, and gear it towards those communities.
And if one of these groups of kids—or kids who just can’t or won’t do the work, or who disrupt the class—sneaks through the charter school’s stringent filters… well, as soon as they are identified, they are kicked back into the traditional public schools, but the money doesn’t follow them—i.e. a pro-rata amount for the remainder of the school year. The traditional public schools have to take on these most challenging of students with less money, while the charters educate the least challenging with more money.
Harlan,
“It looks more like an effort to subjugate citizens to state power to me.”
I never thought I would agree with that statement, but based on some of the comments I read here, it would appear that this is the agenda of a few. Of course, we can all just up and move from our homes if we are dissatisfied with the one local school we are told we must attend. That is definitely freedom, right? Hold on, I’m searching for my mini US flag to wave while I march around my living room in my pajamas. OK, that was a huge letdown. I still don’t feel very free.
Maybe we can set up refugee camps in the best school districts. Look out East Grand Rapids. Look out Troy. Look out Dearborn Heights. Look out Livonia. Please save me a space in your WalMart parking lots. (Hey! Kudos Webster Elementary in Livonia. Your combined 3rd and 4th grade MEAP scores, despite the higher cut scores, were 100% proficiency in Math and 98.8% in Reading. Awesome! I know you had that incident where the special ed teacher abused the 4-year-old and you dragged your heels firing her, but that is water under the bridge. Oh, and I regret to inform you that I will have to move to a new WalMart parking lot – Troy is looking promising – once my child hits middle school because your Everyday Math program apparently fails to get the 6th, 7th and 8th graders ready to score above 30% proficiency when higher math skills are introduced.)
But I have to disagree that there is nothing wrong with Norquist. His attitude is no different than a lot of what I see here. Telling people what they MUST do if they want to look like a “good” Republican (no rat heads in the Coke allowed) is similar to being drawn and quartered if you don’t completely tow the public school line and being told you are not a “good” Liberal or, more appropriately, you are a whole host of other “bad” names (I really have to admire the name-calling expertise on this site and the penchant for wry condescension; attempting to fit in with the previous paragraphs and the rest of this one). Norquist is an evil, power hungry, soulless cult leader (my opinion, of course). He makes grown men (and a few women) sign his silly pledge in order to be a member of his club (cult). If you break that promise (or refuse to sign), well….just expect to have all the powers (money) at his disposal unleashed upon you to make sure you are booted out of office ASAP or never have the chance to run for office (at least not as a Republican).
Norquist (in an interview with 60 Minutes): I think to win a Republican primary– It is difficult to imagine somebody winning a primary without taking the pledge.
Cindy,
I’m having a hard time picking out whether you are being sarcastic or not at times. For example “Your combined 3rd and 4th grade MEAP scores, despite the higher cut scores, were 100% proficiency in Math and 98.8% in Reading. Awesome!” Not sure if that was sarcastic or not (if it was coming from me it would be since the first thing that I would think of if a school had those scores is that there was massive cheating involved, not to mention my fairly well known, at least here, intolerance of standardized tests being used for anything). But I think it was sarcastic in the context of big “gubmint” attempting “to subjugate citizens to state power” lead of your post.
Duane
Duane,
There was a lot of sarcasm there. I don’t have a problem with the MEAPS. They are simple or should be for any child of normal intelligence who has been taught the basics and who doesn’t freeze up when taking tests. I had my own homeschooled daughter take them this year (3rd grade). There were old tests to practice with. Before the cut scores were raised from 39% to 69%, almost everyone had 100% proficiency; no need to cheat. But, seriously,there should be no need to cheat to have most school children score proficient even at 69%.
My problem with parents who use the MEAPS to try and determine if their child is getting the best education is that they have such low standards. And as much as teachers complain about these tests, if their kids do well, they stick their chests out, too. But to highlight my conclusion about low standards, take Webster Elementary School which is a public school that apparently takes primarily “gifted” and “special ed” kids. I’m not sure what, if any, percentage are “average”. Anyway, while the school can get the kids to score 100% proficient (meaning that 100% of the kids taking the test scored a 69% or better), their math curriculum does not appear to leave them prepared to do middle school math where Livonia middle schoolers score, collectively, around 30% proficient in Math. Meanwhile “Schooldigger” reports them as the top elementary school in Michigan based on their MEAP scores.
Part of my sarcasm involves your solution to just move to where the good schools are. My idea of a good school and yours may be very different. Maybe they should be. You are a teacher and I am a parent. I don’t want to fight anymore. But I can’t seem to just sit back while teachers talk about how parents should not have choices other than pulling up roots. Also, the position that many take here would be to eliminate all charter schools (and I think regulate homeschooling out of existence) even thought many of these schools are thriving. You would throw the baby out with the bathwater just as you accuse the reformists of doing.
I completely support a parent’s right to homeschool their children. Every year I have students, some of whom are first time at a public school, and that is at the high school level, that have been home schooled. The vast majority have done quite well in my class (Spanish). But I do see a bit of a transition period, as well should be expected, that sometimes hinders the students progress, but not so much that it really affects their learning.
“But I can’t seem to just sit back while teachers talk about how parents should not have choices other than pulling up roots.” I am one who states that parents should have choices but that my tax dollars shouldn’t be going to entities that are religious, for profit and who otherwise do not have to come under the scrutiny and accountability mandates to which the public schools are subjected. I have made those choices myself and it is not easy. And I understand why a parent would resist that option. But to talk of choice and not include or slough over that option seems disingenuous to me.
And, yes I can be a bit caustic because I get quite frustrated with all the misinformation that I hear/read coming from those who wish to destroy one of what I consider the most hallowed of democratic institutions, the community public schools. I use the ocean front property gig as a tongue in cheek way of saying “I can’t believe what I’m hearing/reading from X poster so please don’t take it personally. If I have offended you, I apologize.
Duane,
No hard feelings.
Cindy
Interesting discussion of the MEAP scores. Is a 69% a real reflection of “proficiency.” At my former school we offered all seniors and juniors the opportunity to take the tests (we came in on Sunday to proctor it for them) because there was scholarship money connected with good scores. No longer. At the time I rather wondered why my principal was saying that the scores were of no interest to us and had no relevance to us. The English test looked difficult enough to me. BUT of our seniors and juniors we really required college level work with more than half of the classes in those grades being AP classes. If our standard is “real” education and real college readiness, then the MEAP may be a little too easy even at the new 69% cut scores. My belief is that every kid can be a virtuous, productive adult who understands the political principles of the country whether they have a taste for the more abstruse work involved in Algebra III, or in looking at works of literature through various critical lenses, psychoanalytic, deconstructionist, post-colonial, feminist, Marxist, as well as old-fashioned Aristotelianism. That is, I think everyone can be educated, but not everyone will want to be educated for college work. My question is whether the MEAP category of “proficiency” equates to college ready, or even euphemistically put, ‘career’ ready (i.e. non-college workforce). What do you think, Cindy?
“First, in private schools, they can set rules for behavior and performance. If the kids don’t follow the rules, the school is free to kick them out…”
Private sector employers also set rules for behavior and performance as a condition of employment. The concept is simple: Management requires measurement. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.
” Don’t measure me, I have a degree” eludes management by Capital.
Government is the Proxy for Capital.
@Harlan,
I think 69% of what I saw for Elementary school MEAPS would probably not equate to “college-ready”, but I have not looked at the HS MEAP tests. I do believe that since we are teaching the basics in Elementary school, it is extremely disturbing that proficiency levels are so low even at a 69% cut score.
I do think that the problems facing Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers starts in Elementary School, but if money can help the problem (I think it is curriculum for the most part), few people want to have their taxes increased for Elementary School improvement. Having a pretty high school with all the bells and whistles is where the sexy is.
I do know that Michigan (or our school district, anyway) implemented the NWEA tests this year, too. Don’t know how I feel about that as they are given three times per year.
It may be that the HS tests are too rigorous (AP tests and PSATs and SATs and ACTs test for college readiness) so that all those kids who know they are not going to college or aren’t cut out for it are being expected to perform at a college-ready level which skews things (I’m just thinking out loud here). But that still doesn’t explain why college professors say our kids can’t do math or write well.
It is true that the educators at a school targeted by Parent Revolution are unable to defend themselves, their school, their community or their students. I know a teacher at an LAUSD elementary school [not publicized; I am honoring the teacher’s anonymity] that related to me that in a meeting of the school’s teachers with John Deasy he ordered them to say absolutely nothing no matter what Parent Revolution said or did. This was in response to a teacher’s question about what the LAUSD central office could do to help them make a case for their work, school and community.
In other words, the leader of the ‘public school team’ was acting on behalf of the ‘Parent Revolution charter team.’ Is it any wonder that teachers have lost confidence in their superintendent?