Archives for the month of: August, 2013

At his resignation press conference, Tony Bennett said the stories in the media about his actions in Indiana were “malicious and unfounded.” He said that Governor Rick Scott and powerbroker Jeb Bush wanted him to stay, but he didn’t want anything to distract from educating the kids of Florida.

Bob Sikes, who reported the story in his blog, wondered why Bennett was so quick to resign: “Bennett’s quick surrender is out of character. Moreover, if the story that has evolved out of his emails is indeed “unfounded, malicious and politically motivated,” he would have been vindicated in soon order. Especially with the powerful education reform industry ready to go to the mat for him.”

Sikes speculates that “Bennett probably knows that more will be coming out and couldn’t tell Scott and Bush the entire story last night. Remaining would embarrass them and quite a bit of damage has been done already. Today was his last day in the sun he used the opportunity to beat his own drum with sanctimony.”

A couple of years ago, I was on a panel discussion about school reform in NYC. To one side of me was a young man of maybe 23 or 24 who was remarkable. He knew everything. He had taught for 18 months and had learned everything there was to know about teaching and how to reform schools. I should have been impressed, but found his arrogance annoying.

He was representing a group of other young teachers who call themselves Educators4Excellence,. They are funded by the Gates Foundation. They think that teachers should be evaluated by test scores of their students. They believe in merit pay. They oppose tenure or any kind of job security for teachers.

They just received another $3 million from the Gates Foundation. For rising young stars, it pays better than teaching to be an Educator 4 Excellence.

As state superintendent in Indiana, according to this news story, Tony Bennett sent a lot of business to Charter Schools USA. When Bennett moved to Florida, his wife got a job with Charter Schools, USA.

Whether she was qualified is irrelevant. Public officials should not only avoid conflicts of interest but the appearance of a conflict of interest. If Florida has any ethical standards, this situation would not be permitted. Charter Schools, USA, is a for-profit chain.

I was invited to contribute an article of 500 words to a special issue of Scientific American. I assumed that most of the other articles would be unalloyed cheerleading for the wonders of technology. So I decided to talk about both the promise and the perils of technology.

I have seen teachers doing amazing things with the Internet. I have gone to conferences where thousands of teachers were learning how to use technology creatively. I know that technology, in the hands of inspiring teachers, can bring learning to life and empower students to self-direct their studies.

But it is in my nature to look at questions from all angles. That is what is known as critical thinking.

So I wrote about three ways in which technology may be a danger to education.

First is the for-profit online charter school, which provides a poor substitute for real education but is quite profitable.

Second is the use of computers to grade essays, which severs the teacher-student relationship and mechanizes what should not be mechanized.

Third is the effort to impose Big Data on school issues, assuming that inputting enough data will somehow tell teachers what each student needs.

I end thus:

“Here is the conundrum: teachers see technology as a tool to inspire student learning; entrepreneurs see it as a way to standardize teaching, to replace teachers, to make money and to market new products. Which vision will prevail?”

Jersey Jazzman noticed that the proportion of students rated as proficient by New York’s State Education Department is very nearly identical to the proportion in the population of the state with a four-year degree.

It occurs to him that the phrase “college and career ready” is phony. It really means “ready for a four-year college degree.”

Should students be failed unless they are ready to get a four-year bachelor’s degree?

This is nuts.

Many good jobs do not require a four-year college degree.

Some graduates with a four-year degree are waiting on tables or selling Apple products for $12 an hour.

Why should New York state penalize students who will be doing important work for society and earning a good living as plumbers, electricians, construction workers, and other careers?

He observes: “…this is all about making the public education system look as bad as possible, so privatizers can move in and teachers unions can lose power. It’s a political agenda; it has nothing to do with education. “College and career ready,” like “achievement gap” and “x months of learning,” is a useless, phony phrase designed to set the parameters of the debate in a way that favors those who would blame our country’s serious problems almost exclusively on our public schools. Be on your guard whenever you hear it used – you’re probably being conned. “

 

 

Mercedes Schneider argues that corporate reform is driven by ideology and greed, not evidence or the pursuit of better education.

She looks at the recent NCTQ report, which had no evidence for its large claims, and at vouchers and course choice in Louisiana. Vouchers have failed, but their champions won’t admit it. Course choice is ll about dollars, nothing more.

Without big money on offer, she writes, corporate reform would disappear: “If there were no six-figure salaries to accompany their ideological push, the likes of John White would be out of the door.”

A reader posted this comment:

“In Gainesville a school called Einstein Montessori received an “F.” It is a charter school specifically created for children with reading disabilities. They gave the children with reading disabilities and their teachers an F because they didn’t do well enough on a reading test!!! It is insanity and dispicable! Parents must be the ones to make this stop!!!”

Despite the excuses for his actions, despite the efforts by his friends to defend him, despite the fact that the Fordham Institute named him “the reformiest reformer” in 2011 for his full-throated support of testing and privatization, Tony Bennett resigned today as Florida superintendent of education.

He resigned because of the email trail showing he manipulated Indiana’s opaque A-F grading system to raise the grade of a charter run by a major GOP donor.

No doubt, he will have a soft landing in the corporate or foundation world, where the “reformers” rule. Or maybe a high-level job at the U.S. Department of Education.

Politico’ Morning Education Blog reports a setback for inBloom. Notice the come-on: free now, not later:

INBLOOM OFF THE ROSE? — Another state has pulled out of using the Gates Foundation’s $100 million technology service project, inBloom. The withdrawal further shrinks the project after other states pulled out in part because of concern about protecting students’ privacy. Guilford County, N.C. told POLITICO on Wednesday that the state decided to stop using the service, which is designed to hold information about students including names, socioeconomic status, test scores, disabilities, discipline records and more in one place, and ideally, help in customizing students’ education.

Guilford schools’ departure doesn’t put the project in any kind of jeopardy, inBloom said, although Louisiana withdrew in April and other states once affiliated with the project no longer are. That leaves New York, two Illinois districts and one Colorado district as firm participants for now; Massachusetts is on the fence. At first inBloom will be free, but by 2015 states and districts using it will be charged $2 to $5 per student for the service.

Sandra Stotsky was in charge of developing the outstanding academic curriculum frameworks in Massachusetts in the 1990s. She served on one of the committees that participated in the shaping of he Common Core. She certainly believes in standards and testing. She is now one of the most outspoken critics of Common Core. In this article, she explains why. She believes that the insistence on one-size-fits-all will lower standards, not raise them.