Archives for the month of: June, 2013

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

Why did Wendy Kopp hail Philadelphia’s “progress” on the same day that the state-run School Reform Commission slashed the city’s public school budget to the bone, eliminating librarians, arts programs, athletics, and counselors, stripping bare an impoverished district? Maybe she was confused. Or misinformed. Or maybe she meant it.

Kopp quickly apologized but Philadelphia journalist Daniel Denvir thinks it was no accident. He sees the same kind of thinking displayed daily in the acts of PennCAN, the spinoff of the privatization group called ConnCAN, then 50CAN. These groups are “flush with cash,” although the students and families of Philadelphia are not.

He says, “The doomsday budget is morally unacceptable. It must become politically impossible.”

Two low-performing for-profit Imagine charter schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana, were supposed to close because of their poor academic records. But instead of closing, they are merging with Horizon Christian Academy, where students will be encouraged to apply for vouchers.

Karen Francisco, the editorial page editor of the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, says that we now know that school “reform” has nothing to do with accountability as this move enables failing charters to evade any accountability for their performance.

Meanwhile, some public schools in Indiana are closing because of budget cuts.

A reader offered the following comments on the relationship between Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Broad Foundation:

“There is no way Duncan limited testing when he was in Chicago because it would have impeded the corporate education reform agenda.

Arne Duncan was on the board of the Broad Foundation while he was the leader of Chicago schools. The modus operandi of Broad Foundation is deception. It is the method of implementing the Broad Foundations anti-democratic agenda.

On Page 10 of the 2009/2010 Broad Foundation Annual Report http://tinyurl.com/6w5sps2
it says:

“Prior to becoming U.S. secretary of education, Arne Duncan was CEO of Chicago Public Schools, where he hosted 23 Broad Residents. Duncan now has five Broad Residents and alumni working with him in the U.S. Department of Education.”

On Page 35 of the same annual report it says:

“The election of President Barack Obama and his appointment of Arne Duncan, former CEO of Chicago Public Schools, as the U.S. secretary of education, marked the pinnacle of hope for our work in education reform. In many ways, we feel the stars have finally aligned.

With an agenda that echoes our decade of investments—charter schools, performance pay for teachers, accountability, expanded learning time and national standards—the Obama administration is poised to cultivate and bring to fruition the seeds we and other reformers have planted.”

Arthur Goldstein is at his satirical best as he paints a darkly outrageous vision of the future, after the testing and privatization movement has finally achieved all its goals.

All the teachers have been fired (except for the Gates-funded “Educators for Excellence”), charter operators have taken over the New York City school system,, and Walmart happily trains all the students who couldn’t pass those rigorous new tests. And the new mayor eliminates term limits and elections.

Over protests by teachers and students, the Rhode Island state board of education gave state Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist a two-year contract extension.

Teachers objected to Gist’s top-down management style. Students opposed Gist’s insistence on using a standardized test as a requirement for graduation. Gist had the support of Governor Lincoln Chafee, Secretary of Education Duncan, and the business community.

Gist is a member of Jeb Bush’s ultra-conservative Chiefs for Change, which supports test-based accountability, charters, vouchers, and other market-based strategies.

Mercedes Schneider asked the state auditor for reviews of charter schools. Her exchange and the information she received show how little accountability exists.

The original rationale for charters some 20+ years ago was that they would get relief from regulations in return for accountability for results.

That was before anyone understood that charter supporters would use political muscle and campaign contributions to evade any accountability. Or that charters would become the deceptive leading edge of the privatization movement, cleverly packaged as “saving poor kids from failing schools.” Their own failure is carefully disguised.

Last year, a terrific documentary was produced about the extraordinary chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. The film is called “Brooklyn Castle.” Its producer and one of the star players were on the Jon Stewart “Daily Show,” and the chess program was also featured in Paul Tough’s book “How Children Succeed.”

The chess program at this inner-city middle school is phenomenal. Most of the players are black and Hispanic. They work very hard, and their team has won more chess championships than any other school in the nation. The teachers are fantastic. If you see the film, you will be reminded about why public education is a treasure in America.

The strange thing about the film is that it starts off as a somewhat conventional tale about poor kids who overcome the odds and succeed, but midway through the film, it turns into a struggle for survival as the kids and teachers learn that the city cut their budget. Somehow, the students sell enough candy bars and dream up enough gimmicks to pay heir way to the next championship, and life goes on. But at the end of “Brooklyn Castle,” you understand how precarious this project is. There is no funding from Bill Gates or Eli Broad or the Walton Family for one of the most inspiring stories in American education today.

Well, it has happened again. Mayor Bloomberg cut the budget, and there is no money for after school programs like the chess team at I.S. 318. Unless the kids can raise $20,000, the famous chess team is dead.

About a month ago, Eva Moskowitz held a fundraiser for her Success Academy charter school chain and raised $7 million in one night.

Wouldn’t you think that just one of those hedge fund managers would adopt the chess program at I.S. 318?

I have insisted again and again that the Common Core standards should be field-tested so that we could learn what works and what needs fixing. Here is a comment from a reader describing how Common Core works. I hope we get other reviews from teachers as the standards and tests are rolled out. Teachers, please send your comments if you have implemented the Common Core in your classrooms.
*******************

The teacher writes:

“Next week I will finish my first year teaching the CCSS to Title I primary students, most of whom were ELL and about a third ESE students.

Asked last August by my then principal to take on a “remedial” class of all the students who had failed to meet the end of year requirements of the previous primary grade the year before, I was concerned about the long-term effects on my employment due to VAM but interested in the challenge of helping these struggling children.

My overall assessment of the CCSS for primary grades is that although the standards themselves were not far from my own expectations and traditional teaching style nor were they impossible to use for planning, teaching, and assessment, the stated outcomes were not developmentally appropriate nor realistic and there’s the rub.

Coupling these standards with high stakes testing will lead nowhere but to disaster. I was able to bring the majority of my students to what used to be considered an acceptable part of the continuum for “end of grade” in reading and mathematics. All but 2 of my students made an easily measurable “year’s growth” as determined by 3 separate and different assessments required by my state and district. But they were not at the CCSS determined level. So where does that leave us?

My district created an end-of-year computerized math assessment to pilot with the primary cohort that taught CCSS this year, basing it upon the coming PARC assessments that will be in place in 2 years. Unsurprisingly, most students in the district fell into the middle range of around 50% or below.

Leaving aside the problematic nature of devising some questions for 5 – 7 year olds that were written to trick the students (higher order thinking? please. . . it’s just trickery to these literal-minded little ones) what, exactly, did this assessment do? Did it “prove” that the students had or had not mastered the mathematical standards? Impossible since for many standards there was only one question. Did it “condition” the students to the process of taking online tests? Maybe, if you think that a primary student can understand what that process is or care what it is. Why, exactly, are districts and schools doing this kind of assessment? Can anyone say?

We were encouraged to review the test questions after the fact. My students eagerly dissected the questions and were able to select the correct answers quite readily in the atmosphere of the classroom workshop, which we had used all year, and they were able to articulate their reasoning without issue. So did they “master the standards”, as evidenced in our classroom work routine or did they fail to “master the standards” as measured by the one shot, computerized, multiple choice test? I think we all know the answer the reformers would give despite the fact that I have 10 months of work assembled in portfolios that do show the “mastery” of the standards quite clearly. But those portfolios don’t count, do they?

Reading was no different. Using measures that for the last dozen or so years placed them squarely where they should be at the end of grade but now, due to CCSS decree, says they are way below expectations, tells me what? I already knew quite well, from many years of experience, that children learn to read at different rates and times. CCSS makes no allowance for that at all. They made a year and a half of growth yet they are still considered a half-year behind. Hmmm.

CCSS declare that “students will . . . .” So we are left with a system that reforms by fiat. And students who last year were considered at grade level are suddenly half a year or more behind, simply by declaration of the CCSS authors, with no consideration given to the fact that they weren’t subject to the ruling by fiat levels of success the previous year. How is this declaration and raising of the bar differ in any way from the misguided fiats of NCLB that declared all students would read on grade level by 2014?

The authors and supporters of CCSS are not willing to “weaken” their vision in any way nor are they open to revision, discussion, or compromise so I don’t see how it would be possible to maintain any kind of moratorium to “get things right”. I’m disappointed and saddened that so many professional organizations seem to want to ignore this simple fact and pretend that their calls for moratoria will have any effect at all.

By the way, I’m very proud of my students and I feel that we accomplished more than we set out to do this year, no matter what the CCSS say. My children love science and reading and math and writing and are leaving me with their sense of wonder and excitement about the world and their own learning intact. I wonder myself if that means that I’m the endangered species here? CCSS says “yes”.

This is a terrific article, written by David Patten, an Ohio teacher of history and government.

Patten begins this way:

“I have found it! After little thought and less reflection, I have found the answer to the problems of American public school education. Best of all, my solution will cost no money, save the taxpayers millions of dollars, and produce a well-educated citizenry. The solution is simple: eliminate any and all high-stakes proficiency testing and unleash the power of the teachers to do what they do best — educate our children.”

It gets better and better.

This is David Patten:

“From the moment I was hired to teach history and government in the North Olmsted schools to the moment, years later, when I walked away, I had the audacity to believe that I had been hired for my expertise. I taught the entire range of students, seventh through 12th grades. No matter what the age or ability level, I actually believed that I had something to convey to my students and that I could truly refine thought and inspire learning. And why not? I graduated summa cum laude with a 4.0 GPA in two majors. I was already a published writer and had traveled extensively. Given those brazen assumptions, to me the textbook was a mere afterthought, a reference. State and district curriculums were only skeletons, and I would flesh them out. My students would learn through hundreds of pages of highly detailed learning packets that I wrote. I also created slide shows and, later on, PowerPoints, which dovetailed with the information contained in the packets. These tools formed the basis of class discussions, thus touching all the learning styles. The students read the packets, learned visually and learned orally. It did not stop there. Projects that I created became a hallmark for many of my classes. My students would write historical fiction along with modern and historical position papers. They would participate in “great debates,” their own teaching projects, a historical magazine project and a world geographic magazine project. Last, there were the required reading books. Books such as “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,” “Son of the Morning Star,” “The Prince” and “Treblinka” were read and thoroughly analyzed through lengthy class discussions.”

Please read it. You will be glad you did.

.