Archives for the month of: September, 2013

Jersey Jazzman connects the dots in his review of “Reign of Error.”

He sees the connection between school and society. He writes:

“There is one chapter in this part of the book that caught me by surprise: “The Toxic Mix,” as frank a discussion of race, inequality, and segregation as I have read in some time. Ravitch’s candor stands in stark contrast to the bromides of the corporate reformers, who have pretty much left any attempts at integration out of their schemes:

(Quoting the book:)
But the wounds caused by centuries of slavery, segregation, and discrimination cannot be healed by testing, standards, accountability, merit pay, and choice. Even if test scores go up in a public or charter school, the structural inequity of society and systematic inequities in our schools remain undisturbed. For every “miracle” school celebrated by the media, there are scores of “Dumpster schools,” where the low-performing students are unceremoniously hidden away. This is not school reform, nor is it social reform. It is social neglect. It is a purposeful abandonment of public responsibility to address deep-seated problems that only public policy can overcome.****

“This may be Ravitch’s best accomplishment in Reign of Error: in defending public education, she forces the conversation back toward the structural deficiencies of our society. Real education reform can only happen when we reform America itself.””””””

I had an online interview today on the national broadcast, NPR’s “On Point.”

We had a very good discussion about the state of American education, the false claims of failure, and the solutions I proffer. We were then joined by a young woman whose name I don’t recall who used to work for Michelle Rhee’s The New Teacher Project (TNTP). She went into the familiar “attack the messenger” mode, saying that I was polarizing, that I needed to compromise, that she (or her organization) had interviewed 50 D.C. insiders, and they agree there is too much testing but are comfortable with the other corporate reform policies.

I pointed out to her that everything in my book is carefully documented, that my data is right from the US Department of Education website. She insists that charter schools are public schools, and I pointed out that when they have been taken to federal court for violating employee’s rights, they insist that they are private corporations acting as contractors and not subject to state laws.

After the program, I was forwarded some questions from listeners, and I answered them.

I had the good fortune to go to Wellesley College after spending all my K-12 days in the public schools of Houston, Texas. I am a graduate of the class of 1960.

I have never been prouder to be a Wellesley alumna than today when I learned that 40% of the faculty signed a petition to dissolve a partnership with Peking University if it fires a courageous professor who supports human rights.

I will be prouder still if I hear that the petition was signed by 100% of the faculty.

The professor whose position in jeopardy is a distinguished professor of economics at Peking University.

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote this:

Like his friend Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace laureate who has spent much of the past 25 years in Chinese prisons, Xia had few illusions about what he was getting into when he signed Charter 08, a valiant manifesto calling for human rights and an end to one-party rule in China. Since then Xia has grown increasingly outspoken in his defense of liberty and his condemnation of Communist Party censorship and persecution. So when he learned that the economics faculty at his university intends to vote this month on whether to expel him, he understood which way the wind was blowing.
 
I prepared myself for the worst long ago,” Xia told me when I reached him by Skype on Tuesday at his home in Beijing. “If I want to see constitutional democracy come to China, I must accept this. If it happens, I will bravely face it. I will not surrender; I will not back down.” In recent years he has been harassed, threatened, and followed by the police. Several times he has been detained for several days and interrogated (“Why did you sign the Charter? What is your relationship with Liu Xiaobo? What instructions have you been given by foreign agents?”) A faculty vote to oust a colleague is virtually unknown in China — the last case Xia knows of happened 30 years ago. Which means, he says, that “this is not coming from Peking University. It is coming from the central leadership.” 

If people in higher education don’t stand up for freedom of speech, human rights, and academic freedom, who will? It is hard for Professor Xia to speak out; his job is in jeopardy. It is not hard for professors at Wellesley; their jobs are not on the line. They should all sign the petition and defend their colleague at Peking University.

Media Advisory: September 19, 2013
Contact: Richard Allen Smith / rasmith@inthepublicinterest.org / (202) 327-8435
** MEDIA ADVISORY **

New Report: Shocking 65 PERCENT of For-Profit Prison Contracts Include “Lockup Quotas” and “Low-Crime Taxes” to Guarantee Profits

In the Public Interest report will expose contract language guaranteeing 80-100 percent prison occupancy and forcing taxpayers to pay a penalty for empty beds.

(Washington, DC) – On Thursday, Sept. 19 at 1 p.m. EDT, In the Public Interest (ITPI) will host a tele-briefing to unveil a new report titled “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and Low-Crime Taxes Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations.” The study will document the shocking prevalence of contract language between private prison companies and state and local governments that either guarantee prison occupancy rates (“lockup quotas”) or force taxpayers to pay for empty beds if the prison population falls due to lower crime rates or other factors (“low-crime taxes”).

Major findings of the ITPI study include:

Of the 62 private prison contracts ITPI received and analyzed, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) include occupancy guarantees and force taxpayers to pay for empty prison beds if the lockup quota is not met.
Lockup quotas in private prison contracts range between 80 and 100 percent; 90 percent is the most frequent occupancy guarantee requirement.
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia have the highest occupancy guarantee requirements, with quotas requiring between 95 and 100 percent occupancy.
WHAT: Tele-briefing to unveil “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and ‘Low-Crime Taxes’ Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations”

WHO: Shar Habibi, Research and Policy Director, In the Public Interest

Justin Jones, Former Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Alex Friedman, Managing Editor of Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

Reverend Michael McBride, Director, Urban Strategies and Lifelines to Healing, PICO National Network

WHEN: Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 – 1 p.m. EDT
DIAL: 866-952-1907
Conference ID is “PRISONS”

###

In the Public Interest is a comprehensive resource center on outsourcing and responsible contracting. It is committed to equipping citizens, public officials, advocacy groups, and researchers with the information, ideas, and other resources they need to ensure that public contracts with private entities are transparent, fair, well-managed, and effectively monitored, and that those contracts meet the long-term needs of communities.

In the Public Interest, 1825 K St. NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20006

Paul Thomas reviews “Reign of Error” in the context of what he calls Ravitch 1.0, Ravitch 2.0, and now Ravitch 3.0.

He connects it to earlier works:

“The first twenty chapters of Reign continues a tradition of other important, but too often ignored by politicians and the media, works confronting the false narratives perpetuated about U.S. public education—The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, And The Attack On America’s Public Schools by David Berliner and Bruce Biddle, from the mid-1990s, and Setting the Record Straight: Responses to Misconceptions About Public Education in the U.S. by Gerald Bracey, which followed Berliner and Biddle about a decade later.”

After describing my alternatives to the present failed policies, Thomas writes:

“Toward the end of her plan for alternative policies to reform education, while discussing the problem with privatizing schools, Ravitch sounds what I think is the most dire point confronting the U.S. and our commitment to democracy:

“The issue for the future is whether a small number of very wealthy entrepreneurs, corporations, and individuals will be able to purchase educational policy in this nation, either by funding candidates for local and state school boards, for state legislatures, for governor, and for Congress or by using foundation “gifts” to advance privatization of public education. (p. 310)

“And the problem is not “whether” this can occur, but that it is happening now.”

The teachers of Rhode Island are in a jam. Incumbent Governor Lincoln Chafee is retiring.

The Democratic primary pits state treasurer Gina Raimondo against Providence Mayor Angel Taveras.

Teachers can’t forgive Raimondo for her role in cutting their pension benefits.

It appears they may endorse Taveras even though he pink-slipped every teacher in Providence (and rehired them all), admires the no-excuses Achievement First charter chain from Connecticut (celebrated for the highest suspension rate in the state), and wants more Teach for America recruits. He is both for standardized testing and against it as a graduation requirement. Maybe. At least today. Or not.

The teachers are between a rock and a hard place.

I just received conformation that Matt Damon will introduce me when I speak at California State University at Northridge on October 2.

Wow!

Many years ago, Deborah Meier and I used to be antagonists. She was a progressive and I was a conservative. But in 2004 or 2005, we started blogging together, exchanging posts each week in which we practiced “Bridging Differences.” She (and events) turned me around. I have often said, half in jest, that anyone who spends five years blogging with Debbie Meier will eventually be converted.

I was thrilled to receive Debbie’s wonderful review of the book. Her response means a great deal to me. I look up to her as a champion of children, a lover of education, and a true apostle of democracy.

Here is a sample:

Reign of Error lays out step by step the relentless thirty year drive to ether centralize the education of the young—on one hand—or divest it entirely into privatized hands on the other. Finally, the two sides have joined forces on a strategy that simultaneously does both. While this coalition has many old roots, in its current form it began with the fanfare around the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983). Ravitch was, at that time, a supporter of this bold statement that more or less accused America’s teachers and school boards of a plot to undermine American health and welfare onthe international scene….

And in the past few years Diane’s change of mind has been a particular blessing. She hasn’t, as her preset opponents claim, done a complete switch at all—she was always pro-union, pro-public education and always for standards. Fairly traditional ones. (In fact, her criticism of Progressive educators was that so many had abandoned all standards, she believed.)

Then lo and behold: no one has pulled it all together better than Diane—over and over again in the past few years she has led the challenge to the corporate reformers—right , center and left.. Her last two books Reign of Error and The Death and Life of the Great American School System (2010) pull it altogether…..

Thanks, Diane. We all need to keep this book handy so we can whip out the citations to make our case for the kind of reform America really needs, in your own words: “to prepare citizens with the minds, hearts and character to sustain our democracy into the future.”

The latest reports from the Ohio Departmrnt of Education show that charter schools do no better–and often considerably worse–than public schools. Many are operated for-profit, but don’t admit it when they use public funds to market their wares.

Here is a report from Bill Phillis, who worked in the Ohio Department of Education. He offers an article by Denis Smith, who was responsible for monitoring charter schools until his retirement.

Here is the article by Denis Smith:

Former DOE consultant in charter school office writes about charter schools

Charters merit more scrutiny

Saturday September 14, 2013 7:16 AM

On Sept. 1, The Dispatch published “Charter schools’ failed promise,” a front-page story about the academic performance of Ohio’s public schools of choice. The story examined the results for these schools in the new state reporting system, and readers discovered that, on the whole, charter schools not only are no better than the traditional public schools they compete with, but often are far worse.

As informative as this story was, however, it failed to inform the public about the larger issues surrounding charter schools. These issues involve accountability and transparency, and they raise concerns as to whether these publicly funded and privately operated schools fully serve the public interest.

As a former public-school administrator who served four years in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools, I can address some of these issues.

The great majority of charter schools are managed by for-profit chains such as White Hat Management, K12, Imagine, Constellation, Mosaica and other entities. Ads for many of these schools this past summer included descriptors such as tuition-free and hands-on. However, the phrase charter school did not appear in any of the ads I viewed.

This lack of transparency did not serve the public.

In another example, Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo, is featured in commercials touting the benefits of ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow. In Hanna’s ad, the school is described as “Ohio’s online K-12 public school,” but again, there is no mention of the fact that it is a for-profit charter school.

The endorsement raises a question: Was Hanna compensated by ECOT – a public charter school – to serve as a paid spokesman? If that is the case, shouldn’t the commercial contain a disclaimer, particularly when public funds might be involved? Unfortunately for the taxpayers, there is no specific requirement in state law that directs ECOT or any other charter school to disclose such information, including how much they spend for marketing, administrative or other costs that otherwise are hidden in school-management company budgets. Nor is there any requirement that the board members of these schools represent parents.

A look at most charter schools will find that their unelected governing boards are populated by the management company that operates them or by friends of the school developer. And the problem is the same: Are the board members accountable to the public – the taxpayer – or the corporate interests that put them there?

A final issue lies with the overall rationale for the schools. In Ohio, public charter schools are exempt from approximately 200 sections of law – free from scrutiny in such areas as professional qualifications needed to head such schools, administrative salaries as a percentage of the budget, property management for furniture and equipment purchased with public funds, and the total percentage of school funds going into instruction.
Recently, for example, one management company insisted that the school’s furniture and equipment was its property and not that of the school. State law should be more explicit that anything tangible purchased with public funds remains public property upon dissolution of any school.

But we’ve only scratched the surface here.

In testimony before the Ohio Senate Education Finance Subcommittee in May, I made this statement:
“Unfortunately for the students enrolled, there have been all too many cases of theft, misappropriation of funds, overpayment to vendors, nepotism in the employment of siblings, spouses and children, excessively high administrative salaries against the number of enrolled students and comparative budget size.”

Based upon all of these considerations, I would encourage future Dispatch reporting to go beyond the current state report card and fixation on data-rigging and explore the areas of charter-school governance and unelected and unaccountable boards that supposedly monitor a school’s management and performance.

After all, we’ve paid for these schools, and we need to know how they’re doing in more than A-F terms.

DENIS D. SMITH
Westerville

Denis Smith is a former curriculum director in the Westerville school district and retired staff consultant in the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Community Schools. A former middle school principal, he is also a Fulbright Fellow and his cohort was one of the first to study in the People’s Republic of China after the normalization of diplomatic relations with that country.

It should be noted that Smith’s original article, as submitted to the Dispatch, included, “According to Bush Administration Assistant Secretary of Education, Dr. Diane Ravitch, ‘The scandals in public schools pale in comparison to the charter school scandals. The public sector is regulated; the private sector is deregulated.'”

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

G.F. Brandenburg is a retired math teacher who taught in the DC public schools for many years. He also has a star turn in “Reign of Error.” Here is his review
And here is part 2.

He writes:

“This book gratifies me because it lays out in a concise and organized manner much of what I and a number of other education bloggers have been trying to point out for the last four or five years. Ravitch’s clear prose is a masterful summary of the evidence that the bipartisan “reforms” being committed against public education are not only ineffective by the yardsticks held up by these ‘reformers’, but are also resegregating our schools and foisting an inferior education onto our poorest kids.”