Archives for the month of: July, 2013

This comment is a response to an earlier post about an unscrupulous charter operator who continues to get new charters, despite his history of failure.

This teacher writes:

“I’ve lived this nightmare. I was a teacher at Techworld Public Charter School in DC back in the early 2000s. We had an incredibly dedicated staff of mostly young teachers, an innovative plan to integrate technology into a rigorous curriculum, and kids who wanted to learn. We also had corrupt adults behind the scenes who led the school into scandal and financial ruin. It ended badly, despite the teachers’ best efforts.

“The real problem is that it SOUNDS great to have a school unfettered by oversight and district administration. But without that layer of local administration and oversight, unscrupulous businessmen can rob the school blind and building administrators can quickly get in over their heads.”

Mark Naison, one of the founders of the Badass Teachers Association, here explains that the foundational idea of the privatization movement is a lie.

Naison writes:

“Public School Failure- “The Big Lie” on Which Current Education Policy Rests

“As someone who has worked in the Bronx for the last 45 years, it drives me crazy to hear business leaders denounce public schools as the one failed institution in an otherwise thriving society. Hello! During the 1970’s, when factories in the Bronx closed, business districts shuttered, banks refused to make loans and landlords abandoned and burned buildings that once held nearly half a million people, leaving the southern portion of the borough looking as though it suffered aerial bombardment, the public schools remained open, serving traumatized students with a shrinking array of resources. And these same schools were there ten years later when a crack epidemic hit the Bronx, providing a refuge from flying bullets and war torn streets.

“That the academic performance of these schools suffered as a result of serving batteeed communities with limited resources is hardly surprising, but let us not forget they were there, on the ground, when private businesses ran away because they could not operate in such conditions.

“And the teachers!! The Bronx teachers who went to work among burned out cars and vacant lots and crack vials and flying bullets were the Bronx’s unsung heroes, valiantly serving children living in a war zone, helping young people abandoned by the rest of the country achieve a measure of self confidence and success at a time when few cared what happened to them

“And now, the Arne Duncans and Wendy Kopps and Bill Gates of the world have the nerve to blame these same schools and teachers for the so-called “achievement gap” and the persistence of poverty and inequality in the United States. In a time when our biggest corporations have downsized and outsourced, exported jobs, and driven down wages, the public schools have actually done a better job upholding the living standards of Americans and defending it’s best traditions, than their private sector counterparts.”

Mark D Naison
Professor of African American Studies and History
Fordham University
“If you Want to Save America’s Public Schools: Replace Secretary of Education Arne Duncan With a Lifetime Educator.” http://dumpduncan.org/

Can you imagine that the governor of your state would tell teachers which books they are allowed to assign or use in class?

Can you imagine that the governor of your state would tell college professors which books they are allowed to assign or use in class?

Can you imagine that the governor of your state would use his power to try to audit and close down a program at a university because its director dared to criticize him?

Well, all of these things happened in Indiana when Mitch Daniels was Governor.

And this, dear readers, is why teachers need tenure, to protect them against thuggish politicians who want to control what teachers are allowed to teach. It is called “academic freedom.” Yes, teachers need academic freedom. Otherwise some very important historical controversies, some basic scientific ideas, and some major novels will never be taught for fear that someone will be offended.

 

This video, made by the Badass Teachers Association, is part of a series that will dissect the corporate reform effort to privatize American public education. This one describes the work of the Broad-trained superintendents. They are like educational kudzu; once one is installed, they soon surround themselves with other Broadies, as they are known. Some states, like New Jersey and Louisiana, swarm with Broadies. But they are not invincible; some communities, like Sumter, South Carolina; Rockford, Illinois, and Wake County, North Carolina, have gotten rid of them.

The unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy imbues would-be urban superintendents with a market-reform philosophy. They leave their few weeks of “training” with a determination to close public schools and turn the kids and public property over to private corporations to open deregulated charters.

Peter Buffett, son of billionaire Warren Buffett, is not happy with the philanthropic giants that have decided to save the world.

In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Peter Buffett writes what he has learned about Philanthropic Colonialism:

“People (including me) who had very little knowledge of a particular place would think that they could solve a local problem. Whether it involved farming methods, education practices, job training or business development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting what worked in one setting directly into another with little regard for culture, geography or societal norms.”

Now he realizes that philanthropy has become a vehicle to assuage the guilt of the super-rich, who can “give back” instead of actually doing anything to change the structural income inequality that creates the problems the rich want to solve:

“Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left. There are plenty of statistics that tell us that inequality is continually rising. At the same time, according to the Urban Institute, the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government sectors. It’s a massive business, with approximately $316 billion given away in 2012 in the United States alone and more than 9.4 million employed.

Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups.

As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.

But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over.”

I don’t think that any reader of this blog knows Peter Buffett.

But if you do, please tell him that his father added $30 billion to Bill Gates’ $30 billion, and that this money is being used to privatize American public education and to dismantle the teaching profession.

Tell him this money is being used to tell states that teachers should not be paid more for extra degrees or experience.

Please tell him that this money is being used to impose Bill Gates’ wrong ideas about how teachers should be evaluated.

Please tell him that this money is being used to reduce everyone to a data point.

If we could get just one intelligent billionaire on our side, we could stop the other ones in their tracks.

Why? Because they are doing exactly what Peter Buffett described in this article. Engaging in Philanthropic Colonialism. Imposing their idea of what works in institutions about which they know nothing and where they have little or no experience. Furthermore, they are using “education reform” to claim that poverty doesn’t matter. They are “conscience laundering” and hurting the children of the poor by denying them the very real reforms they need: small classes, experienced teachers, a full curriculum with arts, physical education, and all the other studies that belong in schools, and a genuine national effort to reduce poverty and segregation.

Frank Breslin is a retired teacher. He taught English, German, Latin, and social studies for forty years.

In this article, he writes that Chris Cerf “is driving a stake through the heart of public education by his maniacal insistence on perpetual testing.”

Breslin writes:

Welcome to New Jersey, Land of Standardized Testing and Education’s Brave New World. Without relentless testing of the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, students cannot hope to survive, let alone prevail, in the Darwinian jungle of this world. So, at least, runs the advertising copy.

Yet, as crucial to survival as these basic skills are, there exists the danger that we can lose our perspective concerning these tests. Amid the incessant drumbeat that the basics alone should be taught and frequently tested, we can neglect the very things to which these basics are basic!

The question, of course, is “Basic to what?” If this question isn’t answered, New Jersey’s students will, indeed, not survive —not because of not learning the basics, but rather, having learned them alone, they needed far more, which they couldn’t get, because it was never offered.”

Please understand the context. New Jersey is one of the highest performing states in the nation on the NAEP.

In fourth grade reading, New Jersey ranks second in the nation, behind Massachusetts.

In eighth grade reading, New Jersey is in a three-way tie for first place with Massachusetts and Connecticut.

New Jersey has a specific problem of low academic performance in its poorest and most racially segregated school districts.

Yet Chris Cerf insists that all public school students must submit to endless rounds of standardized testing.

Breslin says the consequences are devastating to the quality of education: Christopher Cerf is literally ruining education in New Jersey.

Breslin writes:

Teaching only the basics is the rankest of follies, since one would be taught only to crawl, but never to run; be given only the building blocks, but no idea of what to do with them; be able to survive, but not know the things worth surviving for.

“Yet this is precisely what is occurring in New Jersey today. Chris Cerf, commissioner of education, in essence is saying: “Away with everything except tests and preparing for them! What isn’t tested isn’t important and needn’t be taught! And to make sure that teachers teach to the test, they’ll be graded on how their students perform!”

Breslin suspects that Cerf’s demolition of education in New Jersey is a purposeful, calculated effort to destroy public education so that parents in the cities and the suburbs are so disgusted that they clamor for charters, where teachers and students will be free of Cerf’s testing mania.

He is on to a big idea here. Politicians who want to privatize public education, like Cerf and Christie, are tightening the regulations on public schools, choking them with testing, demoralizing their teachers, at the same time they offer privately managed charters as a refuge from their own policies. in this way, they create a public demand to abandon the public schools that their policies have made unbearable.

They must be stopped. There must be non-stop exposure of their war on learning, their war on communities, their war on public education.

Frank Breslin’s terrific article is a good beginning.

In one of the comments on the blog, a reader posted critical comments about the Connecticut Policy Institute.

The executive director of the institute, Ben Zimmer, asked me for the opportunity to respond. I agreed.

I checked the webpage of the CPI, and note that it is in favor of charter schools in poor districts, using test scores (“effectiveness”) to evaluate teachers, using an A-F grading system for schools, and imposing a third grade reading exam and a graduation exam. Most of these are policies that I have criticized on this blog. Charter schools do not get better results than public schools except when they skim the best students and exclude those who might lower their test scores; evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students is a very poor measure of teacher quality that I have called “junk science” because of its recognized inaccuracy and instability; the A-F grading system introduced by Jeb Bush in Florida is incoherent and constantly reshuffled, but still incoherent; after a dozen years of NCLB, I conclude that reliance on testing is a demonstrated failure if the goal is either excellence or equity. The fact that CPI holds up not only Massachusetts as a model but Jeb Bush’s Florida and Mitch Daniels’ Indiana is a strong indication of the policy goals of the organization.

But as readers know, I post entries that I don’t necessarily agree with, and even entries that I clearly disagree with.

I am happy to post Ben Zimmer’s response here.

Zimmer writes:

Dear Readers of Professor Ravitch’s Blog,

This morning Professor Ravitch posted a blog entry reproducing a comment from an online forum. The comment critiqued a recent op-ed I wrote on teacher certification in Connecticut (http://www.ctmirror.org/op-ed/2013/06/30/vallas-certification-debacle-reveals-shortcomings-education-reform-efforts). I welcome and appreciate Professor Ravitch drawing attention to my op-ed and the work of the Connecticut Policy Institute. But the comment she reposted does not accurately represent my position and puts forward unfounded critiques. Professor Ravitch has kindly offered me the opportunity to respond.

Amidst a barrage of all-caps tirades and ad-hominem insults (“assclown” was my particular favorite), the post appeared to make three actual points: 1) That my opposition to teacher certification laws means that I support lowering standards for educators; 2) That my opposition to teacher certification laws is grounded in “bogus” studies; and 3) That I am a hypocrite for opposing teacher certification laws when I hold a B.A. and J.D myself. I will respond to each point in turn.

Point 1

The notion that I support lowering standards for educators is a complete mischaracterization of my position. Indeed, in order to make this point the author literally fabricates quotes – for instance, the author quotes me as stating that degrees in education are “worthless,” a word that never appeared in my op-ed (nor did anything approximating it). On the contrary, I believe education degrees can be a very valuable credential for teachers. But I do not believe that they are the only valid credential.

The teaching profession is enhanced when professionals from a diverse set of backgrounds are eligible to apply for positions. Right now, in Connecticut, someone with a PhD in physics or history with experience teaching college-level seminars in their field would be prohibited by law from teaching an equivalent seminar at a public school. I do not believe this restriction or ones like it further the goal of promoting the highest quality teaching possible.

Furthermore, when state laws require individuals in any profession to obtain a degree from a particular department in a particular university, that department becomes insulated from competitive pressures and accountability. Departments of education have an important role to play at higher education institutions. But the quality of those departments would be enhanced if they had to compete for aspiring teachers based on the quality of training they provide.

Point 2

Research suggests that paper certifications are not valuable predictors of teachers’ effectiveness. Rigorous studies confirming this include studies put out by the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf) and labor economist Tim Sass (http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/pdfs/Alternative%20Certification%20and%20Teacher%20Quality%2011.pdf).

Point 3

It is perfectly consistent to oppose teacher certification laws while holding advanced degrees myself. I fully support teachers obtaining advanced degrees and I also support schools / districts encouraging teachers to obtain advanced degrees – insofar as those degrees actually help teachers teach more effectively. What I oppose is legal requirements limiting teachers to certain particular advanced degrees. In most professions – even ones where possession of advanced degrees is the norm and it would be difficult to get a job without one (e.g., university professors, engineers, business executives, government officials, non-for-profit administrators) – there are no laws limiting professionals to particular degrees.

That said, teaching is not the only field where state laws mandate particular certifications or licenses. In many of those other fields, the laws are similarly problematic. This is something that the Connecticut Policy Institute has studied and written on at some length: http://www.ctpolicyinstitute.org/content/CT_Policy_Institute_Regulation_Paper.pdf.

One other profession where state laws limit applicant pools to individuals who hold a particular degree is the law. Though I hold a J.D. myself, I would be the first to say that licensing laws for lawyers have many of the same problems as they do for teachers – they are less about actual qualification and more about insulating established bureaucracies from outside reform and protecting the economic interests of existing lawyers and law professors. Aspiring lawyers are forced to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to attend law schools that often teach things unrelated to the practice of law. Meanwhile, law students’ debt-financed tuition heavily subsidizes the salaries of law professors who earn more than their peers in the rest of academia even though they produce articles that are equally abstract and infrequently read. This New York Times article offers an interesting exploration of these problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Conclusion

I know that teachers have at times felt vilified by the “education reform” movement. Personally, I firmly believe that teachers are part of the solution, not part of the problem. But we also should acknowledge that the teaching profession – like all professions – is not perfect. There are certain structural features of the teaching profession as currently constituted that limit its ability to realize its full potential. I believe we should reform those features.

I welcome constructive dialogue with any of you on these issues. You can email me at ben.zimmer@ctpolicyinstitute.org, or call the Connecticut Policy Institute office at 203-404-0235.

Best,

Ben Zimmer
Executive Director
Connecticut Policy Institute

Amanda Shaw writes here about what happened when students were allowed to write without the threat of a test hanging over them. She is a full-time elementary school teacher of music, who also helps students learn to write. In this post, she describes an experience that reminded her why she loves teaching. Imagine giving students the freedom to be creative!

I received this comment after writing that Moses had to take his people into the desert for 40 years because a new generation had to be born who would think as free men, not slaves.

Kathy wrote this:

Dear Diane: Learning how to think like free people/educators and not slaves really is the central message. I am hoping you have a slew of press appearances when the September book debuts. I know that will be physically taxing so please, everybody send Diane the required energy because we desperately need you to broadcast loud and clear. This may be our collective last chance to really get the word out. The corporate culture of NCLB and the advent of Common Core are the new Jim Crow but this incarnation is attacking the growth and development of every USA child. Crippled citizens won’t take this nation forward and neither will an oligarchy nurtured in a wave of not very good, (segregated by color and class) private and charter schools. This is a democracy where we receive our possibilities from one another, a gift and a responsibility. Kathy

Kathy, I need your good wishes, and even your prayers. Given my age, I need all the energy you can send my way.

There will be many speaking engagements, many opportunities to explain to the public what we should be doing instead of demonizing teachers and public education.

Hopefully, even some TV time, though I don’t know about that yet. Until now, the privatizers have commanded the air waves.

I promise I will stand up for you, I will fight for you.

I can’t do it alone.

I need you.

I need all the Badass Teachers.

I need everyone to speak up, act up, act out, in defense of children’s right to a childhood; in defense of a noble profession, which is being destroyed by heedless politicians; in defense of public education, which is an essential institution in a democratic society.

You may find this hard to believe, Kathy, but I think the tide is turning.

I think the whole ed reform project is collapsing in slow motion.

Not only is the public awakening to the damage the “reformers” are doing, but every one of their ill-founded ideas has failed.

Thus far, they have “succeeded” only in demoralizing teachers and principals, closing public schools by the dozens, and turning education into nothing more than testing and test prep.

We will win, because we are on the right side of children and of education and of democracy.

Tim Slekar is a teacher educator and a fearless firebrand, known for his work @the chalkface and for some very pointed videos. He recently became dean of teacher education at a college in the Midwest. His college president asked for his opinion of the recent report of the National Council on Teacher Quality, which lacerated teacher education in America by reviewing course catalogues and reading lists, not by personal campus visits.

Tim gave the president his candid opinion. Read what happened. It will surprise you.