Archives for the month of: December, 2013

Some months ago, I added Steve Nelson to the honor roll of this blog because everything I read by this remarkable man made so much sense. He is the headmaster of the Calhoun School, a fine New York City private school.

Yet he isn’t looking out for the self-interest of the private schools and their pupils, but for the good of American children and our society.

In this article, Nelson surveys the media moaning over PISA scores and says that the critics have chosen the wrong target.

Our schools are not broken, he writes.

Our society is.

Here is a sample of his thinking, which I share and admire:

We don’t have an education problem in America. We have a social disease. It is as though we are starving our children to death and trying to fix it by investing in more scales so we can weigh them constantly.

Charter schools, Common Core, voucher programs, online education, Teach for America… None of these initiatives, whether financially-motivated opportunism or sincere effort at reform, will make a dent in our educational malaise, because the assumptions are wrong.

As is often the case in our “blame the victim” culture, it is generally believed that improving education will cure poverty. This invites the inference that poor education created poverty. But it is simply not true. Poverty created poor education. The victim blamers cite lazy children and bad parenting as contributors to poverty. But poverty dulls motivation and cripples parents.

And perhaps worst of all, the poor performance of our students is attributed to poor teaching and unions. I propose that today’s teachers (even the underprepared Teach For America kind) are as good or better than teachers were a generation ago. Neither they nor their weakened unions are the cause of our education problems.

It is also asserted that our place in the global economy is threatened by the poor quality of American education. But this is also backwards. Our place in the global economy threatens education, not the other way around. In the service of economic global dominance, we have sacrificed families and schools.

But we persist in our misguided efforts to “fix” education nonetheless. Education reform has been underway for many years, most energetically since No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001. I challenge any reader to provide comprehensive evidence that education has improved since then.

And I would add, though nothing need be added, that “school reform” has become a Great Distraction, a way of NOT addressing the root causes of low academic performance.

That may explain why so many billionaires and corporations love to invest in “school reform,” because it is so much more cost efficient than doing something about income inequality and wealth inequality, which are worst than at any point in the past century.

But again, Nelson says it better than I could. He writes:

Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage. Provide affordable health care for every family. End the regressive tax system that has eviscerated local communities. Provide disincentives to the multi-national corporations that have abandoned American communities while chasing the cheapest labor overseas. Put Americans to work with bold infrastructure investment. Extend the meager unemployment benefits that keep many families out of abject poverty. Stop pretending that racism is dead. Instead of telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, remove the boot heels of oppression.

Let’s do these things for a decade, and then we’ll talk about PISA scores.

Ben Joravsky, one of Chicago’s best writers on politics and education, describes here the refusal of the UNO charter chain to release financial information to the public.

He writes:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel keeps telling us that Chicago’s school system is too broke to adequately fund the schools it already has, but that hasn’t stopped him from gearing up to open as many as 21 new charter schools in the next two years. 

The mayor likes to say that he’s all about improving the choices available to parents. But before he hands the charters another nickel of our tax dollars, allow me to make a humble suggestion: How about making them disclose how they spend the money we give them, so that parents and other citizens can make even better choices?

This suggestion comes to mind thanks to the ongoing litigation pitting Dan Mihalopoulos, ace investigative reporter for the Sun-Times, versus the United Neighborhood Organization, a charter school empire with 16 schools.

Folks, this is a championship bout. Mihalopoulos’s determination to force UNO to reveal how it’s spent tens of millions of public dollars is matched only by UNO’s determination to keep that information secret.

I only wish they were teaching the details of this fight in high school civics classes—charters included—so that the leaders of tomorrow could learn how Chicago really works.

UNO is Chicago’s largest charter chain. Its founder, Juan Rangel, was co-chairman of Rahm Emanuel’s campaign committee.

Governor Quinn and the Illinois legislature gave UNO $98 million to build more charter schools.

After the news broke that some of that money was funneled to corporations owned by family, friends, lobbyists, and other politically-connected individuals, the state money was put on hold.

First, UNO’s chief operating officer stepped down; then just weeks ago, Rangel resigned.

The reporter Dan Mihalopoulos of the Sun-Times has been trying to gain access to UNO’s financial records, but he has been stone-walled.

You see, UNO is actually contracting with another corporation which is contracting with the city and the state. Both share the same offices, the same board of directors.

So, you see, the UNO charters are not public schools, they are schools operated by contract with the city and state and have no obligation to tell the public how public dollars are spent.

Ergo, the UNO charters are using the same defense used by charters in federal courts and before the NLRB. They are not public schools. They have no reason to be transparent.

Got that?

Hanna Skandera was appointed state commissioner in New Mexico three years ago by Republican Governor Susannah Martinez but has never been confirmed by Democratic legislators. She has never been a teacher, but has worked in policy positions for Governor Jeb Bush and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. (I knew her slightly when she worked at the conservative Hoover Institution as a research assistant.) Skandera is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, a small group of state superintendents who support Bush’s policies.

Skandera is insistent on imposing a teacher evaluation plan that has no research evidence behind it. In fact, leading researchers like Stanford’s Edward Haertel oppose the model proposed by Skandera. Haertel, one of the nation’s most distinguished psychometricians recently spelled out the limitations of using test scores to evaluate teachers, such as proposed by Skandera. She wants test scores to count for 50% of teachers’ evaluations.

But Haertel says:

“…..there should be no fixed weight attached to the scores in reaching any consequential decisions. Princi- pals and teachers must have the latitude to set aside an individual’s score entirely — to ignore it completely — if they have specific information about the local context that could plausibly render that score invalid.”

Skandera seems determined to press for a formula that has worked mainly to demoralize teachers, not to improve education.

I earlier announced that I would be speaking on the evening of January 16 at Fox Lane School in Bedford, New York, but registration closed at 650 people.

FYI, in my experience, there are always no-shows. I have been to several events that were theoretically “sold out,” yet there were empty seats.

So, I would encourage you to come to the event and take your chances.

The event begins at 7:30 pm and is sponsored by the Westchester-Putnam School Boards Association. Admission is free.

If you want more information, write here: mguglielmo@wpsba.org

In addition to holding a Ph.D. in research methods and teaching high school English in Louisiana, Mercedes Schneider has become infatuated with tax returns.

She has discovered that corporate tax returns tell interesting and important tales.

When she learned that the Attorney General of New York had fined the Pearson Foundation $7.7 million for becoming involved in the activities of its for-profit parent, and that the for-profit parent was allied in a business venture with the Gates Foundation, she decided it was time to study the tax returns.

She unweaves a tangled web of relationships. 

Mark Funkhouser, the director of the Governing Institute in Washington, D.C. and former mayor of Kansas City, wrote a terrific article recognizing how social media–specifically, this blog–is changing the national conversation about education.

While Funkhouser focuses on the debate about Common Core, he acknowledges that the underlying issue goes to the heart of our democracy. Blogging and social media have given parents and teachers a means of speaking back to the powerful.

This blog in particular has created a means by which those who lack vast resources of money and political power can be heard, and just as important, can find allies.

He mentions the role of the blog in supporting the Badass Teachers Association, as well as the Network for Public Education.

What he sees is that I have relied on my readers to inform me and each other as we struggle to protect our children from excessive testing and our public schools from privatization. Together, we are powerful. We are redefining democracy to allow many more voices to be heard, not just those who own the media.

Wisconsin Republican legislators in the Assembly have introduced a proposal to open many more charters across the state, as well as to increase the number of authorizers of new charters. The new charters would take funding away from existing public schools and would be non-union. This legislation continues the radical assault on public education in Wisconsin and the extremist drive to privatize public education.

At present, most of the state’s nearly 200 charter schools are operated by districts and staffed with district employees. The proposed legislation would eliminate these charters, which might become magnet schools.

Similar legislation was previously rejected by the Senate Republican caucus.

There is always hope that moderate Republicans will slow the radicals’ efforts to destroy public education in Wisconsin. In most towns, the public school is a traditional, revered institution. True conservatives don’t blow up traditional institutions.

Think about it:

“When you wage war on the public schools, you’re attacking the mortar that holds the community together. You’re not a conservative, you’re a vandal.”

― Garrison Keillor, “Homegrown Democrat: A Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America”

I posted a comment earlier from a reader in Indiana who said that the State Board of Education was set to strip State Commissioner of Education Glenda Ritz of the authority and powers of her office. Other readers from Indiana have contacted me to say that negotiations are underway between the board and State Commissioner Ritz to reach a reasonable settlement that does not destroy the powers of her office and that respects the will of the voters.

Let’s see how this turns out.

In the meanwhile, feel free to contact members of the Indiana state board and urge them to work collegially with the woman who won election fair and square.

Tony Walker – tony@walkerlawgroup.biz
Dr. David Freitas – drdavidfreitas@comcast.net
Cari Whicker – cwhicker@hccsc.k12.in.us
Sarah O’Brien – sobrien4cd@yahoo.com
Andrea Neal – aneal@inpolicy.org
Dr. Brad Oliver – brad4education@gmail.com
Daniel Elsener – delsener@marian.edu
B.J. Watts – bj.watts@evsc.k12.in.us
Troy Albert – talbert@wclark.k12.in.us
Gordon Hendry – education@gordonhendry.com

Governor Mike Pence moves to strip the State Commissioner of Education Glenda Ritz of the powers of her office.

She won more votes last year than Pence.

From a reader:

OUTRAGEOUS!!!! From the Northeast Indiana Friends of Public Education FB post:

It looks as though the State Board is going to do the unthinkable this Friday.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ALL WRITE LETTERS TO THEM NOW!

The Indiana State Board of Education is scheduled to meet this Friday, December 20 at 9:00 a.m. Months of conflict caused by Governor Pence and his appointed board members is expected to come to a head at the meeting. It is widely expected that when the board votes on new board procedures they will remove roles that State Superintendents have possessed as Chair of the board for years — that is until 1.3 million voters elected Glenda Ritz.

We are asking ISTA members and friends who care about public schools to contact the State Board of Education members immediately. Tell them that you support Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz. Let them know that you voted for Glenda Ritz because you expected her to be the Chair and lead education policy maker in Indiana.

If you are a public school educator or support professionalism, please email the board members from home and on your own personal time.

The board members and their email addresses as provided by the SBOE website are:

Tony Walker – tony@walkerlawgroup.biz
Dr. David Freitas – drdavidfreitas@comcast.net
Cari Whicker – cwhicker@hccsc.k12.in.us
Sarah O’Brien – sobrien4cd@yahoo.com
Andrea Neal – aneal@inpolicy.org
Dr. Brad Oliver – brad4education@gmail.com
Daniel Elsener – delsener@marian.edu
B.J. Watts – bj.watts@evsc.k12.in.us
Troy Albert – talbert@wclark.k12.in.us
Gordon Hendry – education@gordonhendry.com

https://ista-in.org/action-alert-board-expected-to-strip-ritzs-authority-as-board-chair-on-friday

This post reviews a study by Roland Fryer, Jr., in the peer-reviewed Journal of Labor Economics. Fryer analyzed the results of New York City’s merit pay program and found that it made no difference on several levels.

“A randomized experiment, a gold standard in applied work of this kind, was implemented in more than 200 hundred NYC public schools. The schools decided on the specific incentive scheme, either team or individual. The stakes were relatively high – on average, a high performing school (i.e. a school that meets the target by 100%), received a transfer of $180,000, and a school that met the target by 75%, received $90,000. Not bad by all accounts!

“The target was set based on a school performance in terms of students’ achievement, improvement, and the learning environment. Yes, a fraction of schools met the target and received the transfers, but it did not improve the achievement of students, to say the least. If anything, such incentive in fact worsened the performance of students….Not only that, but the incentive program had no effect on teachers’ absenteeism, retention in school or district, nor did it affect the teachers’ perception of the learning environment in a school. Literally, the estimated 75 million dollars invested and spent brought zero return!”