Archives for the month of: September, 2013

This comment was just posted in response to an earlier piece today:

 

I’m also a money manager and have noticed the same phenomena remarked upon by your correspondent.

It is certainly true that moneyed oligarchs, their children, or their friends never have to suffer the consequences of the education mayhem they are unleashing. They are chefs that do not eat the cooking. They know the answers and are not interested in the facts of what is actually happening.

The main impulse for what they do is self-aggrandizement. For example, when you create a charter school, you typically create a board so that your friends can burnish their resumes and feel like they are giving back. If you give enough money, like a Bruce Rauner or a Pritzker, you get your name engraved and maybe even displayed in lights outside. Of course, you also get clout with city by having created a nice shiny object that the mayor can point to come election time.

How do you stop this? I don’t think you’ll ever change the minds of the top dogs, but if you change the narrative among the people they associate with, then you will start to see “education reform” as no longer being something that people want to automatically be associated with. Make it controversial and toxic. For example, get the message through that all of the reforms don’t actally work and are counterproductive. Spread publicity about the fraudsters, shysters, and boodlers in the “education reform” industry. Continually remind them of the deeply disparate racial impact of their policies, and that most minority communities seem to want their community schools and don’t see them as failures. Get them to interact face to face with the people they’re hurting by spreading information, canvassing, marching, and protesting in wealthy communities, for example in Lincoln Park and Lakeview in Chicago.

 

The New York Times published an online debate about what is needed next in NYC.

Pedro Noguera, Geoffrey Canada, So Stern and I weigh in.

Who is defending the status quo? You decide.

Randi, Dennis, I have a B.S. in Biology from UCLA and have
a M.S. from Texas A&M University. I decided to go into
public school teaching to share my love of science with children .
However, ever since I entered the public schhols in NYS, I have
been placed in the most economically challenged school districts
(South Bronx and now Newburgh NY). My evaluations based upon
observations have been, so far, glowing over the fifteen years I
have been teaching Chemistry and Living Environment, but my
students performance is dismal (especially in Chemistry) because
they either simply don’t care or they were placed in a course that
was above their academic ability. I also feel that my
administrators are giving me the most behaviorally difficult and
academically challenged students and with the new evaluation taking
effect, my tenure will be threatened. At the same time, my district
is giving the honors students to novice teachers straight out of
college or those with the inside connections despite seniority. As
a result, I am very frightened that in two years, I will be deemed
ineffective and my employment threatened. I am 55 years old with
virtually no further prospects for future employment. I strongly
feel that this is all by design to defame high salary teachers and
dismiss them. I told my colleagues when this all was mandated that
we have lost the protection that tenure was supposed to protect,
namely, the firing of teachers that aren’t part of the “good old
boys club” which is patently obvious in my district-those teachers
who went through the district or are married into it (or are lower
in the salary scale) are given the best students and those that are
not of the former are given the worst students. Is there any
recourse I have? I am convinced that the local, state and national
unions will only afford one a token gesture of support to teachers
in my plight for the sake of politics. Can you help a teacher put
out to pasture too soon?

A teacher in North Carolina left this comment:

NC has requested a waiver that even though we are now on the new evaluation system (which, interestingly, is continuously being reworked (Home Base) because Pearson is still getting kinks out—-possibly another one of those airplanes being built in the air)—anyway, the waiver would allow that even though the online evaluator system (which I assume factors in test scores) is up and running (sort of) that it not be used to make personnel decisions until 2016-2017.
It seems to be the era of mandates that are impossible, and then a series of waivers to get out of them. It seems like a parent making ridiculous parameters for children, but then constantly giving passes to work around them.
Most want to still blame everything on W. I cannot accept that. What is going on right now has nothing to do with W, directly speaking. There was an opportunity, I am assuming, to move away from NCLB and instead we are even deeper into that type of mandating and waivering (wavering).
Platitudes never seem viable. To me they just indicate posturing on the part of decision-makers.
While it may be wiser to vote for Democrats in NC in you are pro-public school, I am still waiting for Democrats to take ownership in some of the troubles we are seeing.

Add to that—while teachers can always improve, I will say that as an institution public school is far more sophisticated than any reformer would ever want to admit. I read over the stack of IEPs yesterday provided to me by the special ed teachers (because I am on the team of teachers who teach the children and therefore need to know about accommodations, modifications, behavior patterns etc) and I was thinking to myself that no matter what kind of undergraduate education a young graduate has had, a building full of inexperienced educators (such as a charter could be—not sure that they ever have been), could not possibly offer the services to special education students that a well-established public school can. The problem is right now there are ideas that want to treat everyone the same. And we are risking throwing out the baby with the bathwater in a big way. A big, expensive way. We gotta figure this out. And we can’t just blame it on W.

I was invited to write about the changes that the next mayor of New York City should. Make in the education system.

This is what I wrote.

I begin thus:

“My grandson starts second grade in a Brooklyn public school, so I hope to see real change in the city school system, not just for his sake but for the benefit of all the 1.1 million students.

“By real change, I mean a new vision for education. I mean a shift away from the failed policies of the past decade that have turned our public schools into testing factories.

“Today, our schools are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on testing and test preparation that should be spent instead on reducing class size, enriching the curriculum, and giving extra help to the students who need it.

“Polls show that only 1 in 4 New Yorkers think the schools have improved after a decade of heavy-handed testing and accountability. They are right.”

Meanwhile Chancellor Dennis Walcott has been speaking to business groups and penning opinion pieces warning that any deviation from the status quo of high-stakes testing, closing schools, and privatization would be a disaster.

Hopefully, a new mayor will bring fresh ideas.

The status quo of the past decade has left too many children behind, while destabilizing communities and demoralizing teachers.

It is time for a change.

John Marzulli of the New York Daily News reports that the ex-project manager of the South Bronx Classical Charter School is suing the school for $1 million for firing her for reporting financial and academic wrong-doing.

She allegedly told supervisors that the school was billing the city for special education students who were not enrolled and that some exams were plagiarized.

She also complained that children were punished by withholding food from them.

Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters reports that the school was awarded an A by the city on its latest report card:

She writes:

 South Bronx Classical Charter allegedly defrauded public  funds by charging DOE for special ed kids no longer attending, cheated on the state tests and withheld food from kids as punishment; yet got an A on NYC progress reports.   

The school claims to develop “citizens of impeccable character.” 

Lester Long, the ED and principal, who was allegedly informed of the fraud and shrugged his shoulders, is a former investment banker according to Wikipedia. 

The charter school was allowed to expand into the middle grades and to replicate and open a second school, S. Bronx Classical Charter II by SED and the Regents, despite the fact that it was reported in 2012 that between 20 and 40 percent of students originally enrolled in the school left before they were tested, and no new students replaced them. 

 

Moreover, in its site visit dated June 2012, the DOE charter office noted that the “school should continue its efforts to reach compliance with the amended 2010 NYS charter law requirements related to the enrollment and retention of at -risk student populations… …its enrollment of students with IEPs is below CSD 12 averages with a special education population of 5.4 % compared to CSD 12’s average of 18.3 %, as is the school’s population of ELLs (7.7% compared to 19% in the district.)”

The visitors also mentioned the high level of turnover of teachers and excessive reliance on inexperienced TFAers.

In another case reported in the DN in 2012, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was  investigating the suspension of Christian Charriez, 6, a special-needs student, who was suspended four times – the last time his parents told that he had to receive a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Principal Lester Long said the school invited Christian back to school and contacted his mother multiple times, but a letter from the family’s lawyer shows the school was contacted multiple times without response.”

 

A letter from a teacher in Los Angeles about the decision to spend $1 billion to buy iPads.

“How could the bond oversight committee actually approve this deal when we (a specific school in LAUSD) still have classrooms with chalkboards, desks from the 1950s, an internet infrastructure that constantly lets us down – we can NEVER play video because there is never enough bandwidth, a library with a book collection that has an average copyright date of 1989, only 4 library books per pupil, 10 computers in the library with an average age of 2006, 48 students in a 10th grade English class, 45 students in a biology class, no art classes, no vocal music classes. What we could use instead of ipads is every classroom is a smart classroom, new desks that kids can actually fit into, multiple computer labs, a new, larger, tech friendly library with at least 14 books per pupil, art classes, wood shop, computer labs, the list goes on. What is going to happen is before the entire roll out of ipads, LAUSD is going to realize either by their own admission or a lawsuit that this experiment is not going to work. Also, voters within the boundaries of LAUSD are never going to vote for another bond measure. Therefore, this specific school will not be getting ipads nor new construction, new books, new desktop computers anytime soon.”

Two nations were influenced by our thinkers and example:
Finland and Chile. Finland learned its lessons from John Dewey. Its
schools are child-centered. It prizes the arts and physical
education. It has no standardized testing. Its schools are noted
for both excellence and equity. It is a top performer on
international tests. Chile learned its lessons from Milton
Friedman. It has vouchers and testing. Its schools are highly
segregated by social class. The quality of education is highly
dependent on family income. Students in Chile are rioting to demand
free public education. No one considers Chile a model. Which
direction are we going? Why? Whose ideas are dominant
today?

In this article published at The Daily Kos, the writer describes Bill de Blasio’s forceful demand for a moratorium on new charter “co-locations.”

As the author explains, “co-location” is a euphemism for a hostile appropriation of public space, which is given rent-free to private charter operators, some of which have billionaires on their board.

When a charter school is “co-located” with a public school, “Kids attending then ‘co-located’ neighborhood schools are kicked out of their classrooms and forced into yet more crowded classrooms. Charter schools don’t pay rent, often get the best facilities, and cherry pick the use of ‘shared space’.  They often reject students who don’t fit in their managers’ model of the right sort of student.”

He writes:

The charter school movement was originally a progressive idea – let local parents try to build local alternate schools.  Let a thousand classrooms bloom.  Fair enough.  

But this nice warm hippy concept has been hijacked and industrialized and capitalized and even securitized by the neo-cons.  Bloomberg (not parents) led the push for charter schools here. His cronies at the Department of Education led the revolution from above. By last year there were 125 elementary and middle school charter schools in New York City.  Charter schools now account for over 5% of NYC’ students. But parent demand didn’t create these schools; all were manufactured by administrative fiat. And almost none of these schools were built anew – the space was stolen from neighborhood schools.

And he adds:

Actually almost  all parents would choose the same thing – a sound neighborhood school. And by subsidizing charter schools Bloomberg diverted billions of Dollars that could have made neighborhood schools stronger.

The promise of charter schools was that their existence as an alternative would give parents a choice.  The theory was that management of existing system would make improvements to compete with the new schools.   But in NYC parents aren’t really given a choice. Billions of dollars of real estate has been expropriated from neighborhood schools and given to Charter Schools. The neighborhood schools are robbed in a deliberate effort to make the Charter Schools seem more attractive. It’s only natural that when given the choice between a starved carcass of a neighborhood school or an a shiny new floor in a charter school, some parents choose the latter.  Bloomberg has his thumb on the scale. He has sabotaged neighborhood schools, not strengthened them.

If de Blasio is elected and follows through on his promise to be a mayor for all the children–especially the neglected 95% who do not attend charter schools–he could become a national leader in the fight to restore sanity and common sense to education policy.

The writer says:

De Blasio could be New York City’s next Mayor.  He can use the office to not only reverse Bloomberg’s failed educational policies but as a national podium.  He can fight to end NCLB, to end the “Reign of Testing Terror”, to end the misuse of Charter Schools, and for reasonable universal pre-k.

DINOs like Rahm Emanuel and NY Governor Cuomo still think they should talk about closing failing schools.  Neighborhood schools are being closed in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc. Maybe if New Yorkers elect de Blasio we can also send a message to Congress and Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama.

The National Opportunity to Learn campaign has created a game called Charterland, based on the popular children’s game Candyland.

Test your skills. Would you make it to the finish lime?