Charlotte Danielson is the leading guru of teacher evaluation. Alan Singer asks who she is, what is her background, and why will so many teachers be evaluated by her rubric.
Archives for the month of: June, 2013
This arrived in my email. It came from a retired school teacher in Nebraska. He said the retired teachers will not sit by and watch the capture of our public schools by corporations. The retires helped to defeat a charter bill in Nebraska.
He wrote:
Hi Diane
Just received the following letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson with a request that I send it to the good people in New England. Please help with this task.
My Dear New England Friends,
I hear that billionaires are attempting to take over our public schools. Do not let them do that. Our schools are not for sale. Here are words I used when lecturing and writing about New England’s public school gift to the United States:
“I praise New England because it is THE country in the world with the freest expenditure for education. Starting with the first planning of the colonies, New England may have been the first in the world to take an initial step for education. The initial step might have been resisted as the most radical of revolutions. New England’s step decided the start of the destiny of the United States. Here, the poor man whom the law does not allow to take an ear of corn when starving, nor a pair of shoes for his freezing feet, is allowed to put his hand into the pocket of the rich, and say, “You shall educate me, not as you will, but as I will: not alone in the elements, but by further provision, in the languages, in the sciences, and in the useful and elegant arts. The child shall be taken up by the state, and taught, at the public cost, the rudiments of knowledge, and all the results of art and science.”
My fellow New Englanders, tax the billionaires Gates and Waltons and other billionaires who want your schools. With your democratically elected school boards, educate your children in the arts and sciences. Do not let the rich limit your children’s education to specialized tasks for the purposes of the wealthy.
Best wishes from a former school master.
Ralph Waldo Emerson.
One of the major “reforms” of the Bloomberg administration was to wipe out the idea of neighborhood schools for students in high school and middle school. The mayor believes in the free market.
It sounds better in theory than in reality.
In a city with 1.1 million students, this is no easy matter.
Read about it here.
Experienced journalist Natalie Hopkinson is alarmed by the popularity of the idea that black children need a different kind of education than white children.
She is especially concerned about the KIPP model:
“As it built into a national network, KIPP students’ test scores soared, attracting media attention, and then millions in corporate and public support. It seemed, they had perfected the “formula” for student success– at least for poor, black and brown kids anyways: Long hours, militaristic discipline, constant and scientific assessment, and teachers working around the clock. For many deep-pocketed reformers, these elements have become the gold standard for how “urban” students can and should learn. Public schools that do not show similar “results” are being privatized or closed.”
The KIPP model, she says, “is creating two permanent tracks of schooling: one for the wealthy and one for the black and brown, and poor. It also raises questions about what public schools should be for poor and black children. Are they organic, self-sustaining parts of the urban fabric? Are they charities? Are they for-profit companies?”
She worries about the creation of a class divide: “Wealthy and middle class schools are all about developing an independent voice and passions, exploring ideas and creativity. It treats children as individuals of innate value with powerful destinies to be realized. Many charters franchises (throw in the for-profit B.A.S.I.S.) often emphasize compliance, repetition, “drill and kill.” I am uncomfortable sending my child on that track. So how could I advocate it to other people’s children who happen to look like mine? Why should we allow such policies to be applied to the whole traditional neighborhood system?”
Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson has proposed the end of neighborhood schools.
All district schools and charter schools will be part of a pool. Or something.
Reformers don’t like neighborhood schools. They like a free market where everyone chooses and no one has any loyalties.
Michigan has abolished district lines and schools advertise for students. They waste money on radio and TV ads, trying to poach students from each other.
This is the business approach. Typically, what happens is that students apply, but schools choose.
Karran Harper Royal, a parent in New Orleans, said this about the Newark plan:
“No assigned neighborhood school can be restated as no guaranteed right to the school closest to your home if that is indeed your choice. Parents should push back on this plan to ensure that they retain the right of first refusal to the school nearest their home. This is not a positive innovative practice, it is a way to segregate children by ability, income and parental motivation. Despite the claims in the article, this is not successfully implemented in New Orleans. The children with the highest needs now face chronic instability in their school placement.”
About 40,000 children attend public schools in Newark. About 12,000 are in charters. Charters are clearly favored. Parents get that. “Reform” means get rid of public education.
An interesting comment at the end of the article:
“Anderson also said she hopes the district and charter schools can pool their resources and work together to renovate aging district-owned facilities with financing only charter schools can currently access.”
Wait a minute: “financing only charter schools can obtain.” Why are charters co-located in public schools if they have easy access to facilities financing? Why are district-owned facilities “aging”? Couldn’t some of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million fixed up the schools?
And by the way, how will it improve education if neighborhood schools are wiped out?
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.”
Katie Osgood teaches children in a hospital setting in Chicago. Here she responds to a comment from a charter advocate who insists that charter schools are no different from magnet schools:
Osgood writes:
In regards to magnet schools, I have always believed that there are equity issues surrounding this practice. However, they were begun with integration in mind and do tend to be, at least in Chicago, our most integrated schools (but with an overrepresentation of white/middle class students). Most that I know of do not have tests to get in, they are random lotteries (Maybe you are thinking of selective enrollment??). Magnets are also unionized schools with local school councils (democratic voice in community school governance for parents, teachers, community members and in high school, students) and some do provide special education services similar to neighborhood schools. They are staffed with fully-certified, experienced teachers and use proven creative curriculum and specialty programs. Their demographics tend to look like this:
http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=610363
Charters are another beast altogether. They are almost without exception highly-segregated schools that tend to look like this: http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=400033 There is no democratic voice, the teachers are often not unionized (although this is changing in Chicago, one school at a time), and many use questionable practices like hiring many uncertified teachers, having scripted curriculum, and using cruel, borderline corporal punishment “no excuses” discipline.
I would love for ALL schools to look more like magnets. I do not want all schools to look like charters. Charters provide low-quality education for low-income students of color. And that is wrong.
Ron Berler has written about his year in a so-called “failing school” in Norwalk, Connecticut.
The school has a dedicated staff trying its best to raise the achievement levels of students who enter school far behind. Yet it is a “failing school” because no matter how much progress the students make,the children are still not as “proficient” as those in nearby affluent New Canaan.
Berler has a new book out, called “Raising the Curve,” explaining the utter failure of No Child Left Behind.
He wrote this note to me:
“The Title 1 school I wrote about — Brookside Elementary, in Norwalk, Conn. — is 0-for-NCLB. This past school year, the local school board cut $5.9 million from its budget, and applied 80 percent of those cuts to the city’s 12 struggling elementary schools. At Brookside that meant, among other things, eliminating the school’s literacy specialist and shuttering its 15,000-title library every other week. The Brookside principal and the Stamford, Conn., schools superintendent called it “a crime.” I wish this story had a happy ending. It doesn’t.”
It is popular treatments like Berler’s that will help the American public understand that public education is not “broken,” but federal education policy is broken and should be completely scrapped and rewritten to address real problems.
Providence and the state of Rhode Island allowed a school to use developmentally disabled students to do manual labor for little or no pay.
Both the city and state received a stern letter from the Civil Rights Division of the U. S. Department of Justice.
“Both Providence and the state allowed the Harold H. Birch Vocational School to operate a “sheltered workshop” that segregated kids with disabilities from other students and denied them the opportunity for integrated employment when they completed their schooling, according to a letter from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Birch obtains contracts with private businesses to perform work, such as bagging, labeling, collating, and assembling jewelry,” the letter stated.
“One former student stated that she was required to spend a much greater portion of her school day in the workshop, including full days, when the workshop had important production deadlines.”
Steve Zimmer proposed the following resolution to the Los Angeles Board of Education. His goal is to make sure that parents are fully informed and protected against stealth campaigns to trick parents into handing their school over to a charter operator or firing the staff.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District
OPEN SESSION ITEMS
Board Resolutions For Initial Announcement
1. Mr. Zimmer – Comprehensive Information for Parent Initiated School Transformation (For Action June 18, 2013, 12 p.m.)
Whereas, The Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District recognizes the essential role of parents and legal guardians in every aspect of their child’s public education and in the successful transformation of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District;
Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 (The Parent Empowerment Act) allows for parents at persistently lowest achieving schools to trigger options for school transformation if over 50% of parents or legal guardians at a campus sign a petition calling for the implementation of one of four interventions;
Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 only allows parents and legal guardians who sign the petition to vote for the selected transformation model;
Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 does not currently require public meetings or other mechanisms to ensure accurate and balanced information about school performance or transformation options be provided to all stakeholders during the petition process;
Whereas, Two District elementary schools have been transformed through this process in the 2013-14 school year and the Board assumes there will be several attempts to transform District schools in the 2014-15 school year;
Whereas, Very limited information about the school and monitoring of the signature gathering process was presented to the Board for 24th Street and Weigand Avenue Elementary Schools;
REGULAR MEETING ORDER OF BUSINESS
333 South Beaudry Avenue, Board Room 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Public Comments on Items to be Discussed at This Meeting
The public can address the Board at the commencement of the meeting in the Board Room on any item that is described in this notice or other issues under the purview of the Board of Education. At the conclusion of the closed session portion of the meeting, announcements required regarding actions taken by the Board of Education will be made in the Board Room.
—-
Bd. of Ed. Regular Board (CS) Meeting – 1 – Order of Business, 9:00 a.m., 06-18-132.
Whereas, The Board has not adopted specific policies and guidelines for receiving petitions and validating the transformation process; and
Whereas, The Superintendent has not issued clear guidelines for principals and school site personnel regarding protocols and operational procedures for each stage of the parent trigger process; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District directs the Office of General Counsel and the Superintendent to submit the following information to the Board for each future transformation petition that is presented to the Board:
1. Independent verification of the signatures and the signature gathering process
2. Evidence of public notice and a summary of information presented at a public meeting held in the school community detailing accurate information about the school and the
available options for transformation
3. An analysis of five years of school data
4. A summary of interventions attempted at the school site and an analysis the success or failure of these attempted interventions
5. An analysis of school report card data and/or school climate survey data;
Resolved further, That the Superintendent bring guidelines and operational procedures for school site personnel to use during parent trigger processes for review by the Board at the first scheduled business meeting of the 2013-14 school year; and, be it finally
Resolved, That the Board urges the Superintendent and Office of Government Relations staff to seek legislative changes to California State Education Code 53300-53303 that will better serve all parents and legal guardians in the transformation process. These changes should include, but not be limited to:
1. Provisions that ensure all parents and legal guardians (not solely those who sign the petition) be allowed meaningful participation in all aspects of the transformation process and vote on the transformation option;
2. Provisions that ensure accurate and independently verifiable information about school performance and transformation options that are available to all parents; and
3. Provisions that safeguard against manipulation of families in the process and validate training of all Parent Empowerment Act signature gatherers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 