Archives for the year of: 2013

Amy Prime is a second grade teacher in Iowa and a parent of five children. She knows how different each of her children are.

In this article, she wonders how the Common Core will work, and she draws an analogy with farmers growing corn.

Her analogy begins like this:

“It is easy to like the common core in theory. We want all of our kids to have the same skills when they graduate, right? But the problem with this idea is that our children don’t start out life the same, they don’t learn the same, and they aren’t meant to grow up to be identical either.

“We all start out as seeds but, when grown, some of us become fruits or vegetables, some trees, and some flowers.

“Imagine that there is a company that makes corn-based products. So they donate a lot of money to politicians and then convince them that our farmers are doing a poor job of growing corn. The politicians agree and then recruit a research company to decide what an ideal crop of corn would look like when grown. The people in this research company have never actually grown corn before, but they come up with criteria for what this corn should look like anyway.”

Secretary Arne Duncan would have the world believe that the Common Core standards are opposed only by extremists and people who believe in flying saucers.

But it is not true.

While much of the energy against the Common Core has come from Tea Party people who fear a federal takeover of public schools, there are also thoughtful critics on the left side of the political spectrum. I would begin by mentioning Susan Ohanian and Stephen Krashen, for starters. And I would add myself, as I am appalled by the way the standards were imposed without any trials in real classrooms and without any real discussion or debate.

For a succinct summary of the progressive argument against the Common Core, read this editorial by Rethinking Schools.

The editorial looks at the Common Core through the prism of the disaster that is NCLB. The heavy emphasis on high-stakes tests succeeded mainly in labeling schools as failing when they had high concentrations of children with high needs.

It says:

“The same heavy-handed, top-down policies that forced adoption of the standards require use of the Common Core tests to evaluate educators. This inaccurate and unreliable practice will distort the assessments before they’re even in place and make Common Core implementation part of the assault on the teaching profession instead of a renewal of it. The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core’s “college and career ready” performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.

This is not just cynical speculation. It is a reasonable projection based on the history of the NCLB decade, the dismantling of public education in the nation’s urban centers, and the appalling growth of the inequality and concentrated poverty that remains the central problem in public education.”

And the editorial concludes by saying:

“Common Core has become part of the corporate reform project now stalking our schools. Unless we dismantle and defeat this larger effort, Common Core implementation will become another stage in the demise of public education. As schools struggle with these new mandates, we should defend our students, our schools, our communities, and ourselves by telling the truth about the Common Core. This means pushing back against implementation timelines and plans that set schools up to fail, resisting the stakes and priority attached to the tests, and exposing the truth about the commercial and political interests shaping and benefiting from this false panacea for the problems our schools face.

Rethinking Schools has always been skeptical of standards imposed from above. Too many standards projects have been efforts to move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, educators, and school communities, only to put them in the hands of distant bureaucracies. Standards have often codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voices, concerns, and realities of our students and communities. Whatever positive role standards might play in truly collaborative conversations about what our schools should teach and children should learn has been repeatedly undermined by bad process, suspect political agendas, and commercial interests.

Unfortunately there’s been too little honest conversation and too little democracy in the development of the Common Core. We see consultants and corporate entrepreneurs where there should be parents and teachers, and more high-stakes testing where there should be none. Until that changes, it will be hard to distinguish the “next big thing” from the last one.”

Secretary Duncan, these are not the ravings of lunatics who watch for black helicopters in the sky. These are the observations of educators who are concerned about the well-being of children and the survival of public education. Attention should be paid.

This is the first review of my new book.

Kirkus sends out early reviews that are read by journalists, librarians, and others in the publishing industry.

This reviewer provides an accurate summary of the book. He or she got the main point and presents it succinctly here.

REIGN OF ERROR
The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools
Author: Diane Ravitch

Review Issue Date: August 1, 2013
Online Publish Date: July 21, 2013
Publisher:Knopf
Pages: 416
Price ( Hardcover ): $27.95
Publication Date: September 18, 2013
ISBN ( Hardcover ): 978-0-385-35088-4
Category: Nonfiction

“A noted education authority launches a stout defense of the public school system and a sharp attack on the so-called reformers out to wreck them.

“We’ve been misinformed, writes Ravitch (Education/New York Univ.; The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, 2010, etc.), about the state of our public schools. Test scores are higher than ever, the dropout rate is lower, and achievement gaps among races are narrowing. The only “crisis” is the one ginned up by government bureaucrats, major foundations, an odd coalition of elitists and commercial hustlers intent on privatizing education. They’ve made inflated claims about the virtues of vouchers, charter schools, virtual schools, standardized testing (and its efficacy for identifying excellent teachers) and merit pay. With no supporting evidence, they insist poverty has no correlation to low academic achievement, that abolishing tenure and seniority will improve schools, and that overhauling the entire system along business lines is the way to go. Ravitch makes her own proposals for genuine improvement, and if they are as unsurprising as they are expensive—e.g., prenatal care for all expectant mothers, high-quality early education for all, reduced class sizes and a full, balanced curriculum, medical and social services for poor children—they at least leave responsibility for the public school system where it belongs: in the hands of our elected representatives. When it comes to education, notoriously plagued by fads, it’s always difficult to determine truth. Ravitch, however, earns the benefit of the doubt by the supporting facts, figures, and graphs she brings to her argument, a lifetime of scholarship, and experience in and out of government. She’s as dismissive of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind as of Barack Obama’s Race to the Top and as critical of former Secretary of Education William Bennett as of the current Arne Duncan.

“For policymakers, parents and anyone concerned about the dismantling of one of our democracy’s great institutions.

“41 graphs. First printing of 75,000. Author tour to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C.”

A note from Diane: I will also be in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other cities.

Yvonne Brannan of Public Schools First NC sent the following comment:

“It is a tragic day in NC for our public schools, their teachers and students. The cuts to education reflect a very aggressive attack on public education. Eliminating $110 million for teacher assistants, eliminating teacher tenure, eliminating class size limits for K-3, no raise again this year, all of these unnecessary cuts wipe out three decades of steady progress. The most damaging is allowing for our hard earned tax dollars to be transferred to private schools. The privatization of public schools threatens the very cornerstone of our democracy and violates our state constitution. This is beyond comprehension and represents the worst public policy I have ever witnessed in NC History. These cuts to public education will have a direct impact at the classroom level, impacting every single one of our 1.5 million public school children. The General Assembly has abandoned the heart and soul of what makes our schools work and has set us on a course that will end public education as a common good in NC. We hope the business community will realize today that this attack on public education is an attack on our economic viability.”

As reported earlier, the far-right North Carolina legislature voted to start vouchers and to end teacher tenure.

But there was good news for TFA: the far-right Republican majority allocated $5.1 million for Teach for America. The governor’s education advisor Eric Guckian is an alum of TFA.

TFA presents itself as passionately devoted to equity, but its major funding comes from the far-right Walton Family Foundation and it is very popular with reactionary legislatures. Maybe it is because they see TFA as a ready source of low-wage teachers who won’t stay for many years and will never expect a pension.

I reported a few minutes ago that the extremist North Carolina legislature agreed to end teacher tenure. I pointed out that academic freedom will disappear. Joan Baratz Snowden, who has studied and written about the teaching profession for many years, says the consequences are even worse than loss of academic freedom.

She writes:

“Seems to me the more critical issue is not so much academic freedom (though that is important) but how no tenure will discourage talented individuals from going into teaching with such low salaries, large class sizes, no job security and the likelihood that when teachers have taught for several years and make more than beginning teachers they can just be let go so that a cheaper workforce can be employed.”

The North Carolina legislature reached agreement on a budget that initiates vouchers in 2014 and ends teacher tenure.

The Republican leadership hailed the budget deal as a huge improvement for public education, which of course it is not. Vouchers are terrible public policy that will harm the public education system by draining dollars from it to fund religious schools. No voucher experiment in the past 20 years has shown that vouchers produce better education.

As for ending teacher tenure, it guarantees an end to academic freedom for teachers. Will any teacher dare to teach a controversial book or discuss evolution?

North Carolina was once hailed as one of the most progressive southern states. Now its governor and both houses of the legislature are members of the same party, and they are extremist in their determination to crush teachers and privatize public education. Teachers’ salaries in the state are among the lowest in the nation.

A critic said this about the budget deal:

“Lawmakers chose to drain available revenues by $524 million over the next two years through an ill-advised series of tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy and profitable corporations,” wrote Alexandra Forter Sirota, director of the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center, which has been critical of the Republican-led legislature. “This revenue loss isn’t just a number on a piece of paper—it means fewer teachers in more crowded classrooms, higher tuition rates and elevated debt load for families, scarcer economic development opportunities for distressed communities, and longer waiting lists for senior services.”

Lance Hill reports that Steve Barr has hired a principal at a salary of $115,000 for a charter school with an enrollment of 13 freshman students. Perhaps the reason enrollment is so low is that Barr hyped the schools as “the most dangerous school in America” on a TV show in Oprah’s channel. Some parents pulled their kids out. But now Barr can demonstrate how he “turned around” the “most dangerous school in America.”

TeacherKen, aka our friend Kenneth Bernstein, who often comments here, reflects here on “the great pension scare.”

Ken reflects on a blog post by Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and regular writer for The New York Times. Krugman says the scare is vastly exaggerated.

The topic is particularly timely because pensions are under attack in several states and in Detroit, following the declaration of bankruptcy by Governor Snyder.

There is something unseemly about the sight of bankers and others, paid more in a year than most teachers earn in ten years, determined to cut the pensions of public servants who collect–in many states–barely $40,000 a year for a lifetime of dedicated, ill-paid service. They seem to be hankering to return us to a century ago, when teachers lived lives of genteel poverty and worked until they died.

Enthusiasts of online education are forever gushing about the prospects for high-quality, low-cost education, delivered to masses of students sitting at a computer.

In January, San Jose State announced a partnership with a firm called Udacity, and the results to date have been a disappointment. Udacity is funded by equity investors as the next new big thing. Technically, the Udacity program is not a MOOC because it is neither “massive” nor “open,” but it is a trial of the concept of online learning.

“According to the preliminary presentation, 74 percent or more of the students in traditional classes passed, while no more than 51 percent of Udacity students passed any of the three courses….The spring courses – a remedial math course, a college algebra course and an introductory statistics course – were chosen in part because of the wishes of Bill Gates, whose foundation gave the effort a grant,” university officials said.

The university will make improvements in the courses and try again. Udacity is expanding to Georgia, where “the company recently signed a major deal with the Georgia Institute of Technology to eventually offer a low-cost online master’s degree to 10,000 students at once.”