Archives for the year of: 2013

A reader comments on an earlier post about a conference tomorrow in Chicago that will discuss TFA and the privatization movement.

She writes:

“Diane, it is not only ex-TFA members. I am also one of the presenters at the conference, representing traditionally trained teachers in New Orleans who now struggle to find employment. We also have parents, students, and community members who have suffered from the corporatization of public education presenting at the conference. We are an inclusive group that has come together to work against the takeover of our schools and communities, because we all must unite in order to defeat the privatization agenda.”

The commenter who calls himself or herself “Democracy” says the following about the Reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as NCLB):

“Bill Mathis correctly points out that education legislation pending in the Congress “would still ‘disaggregate’ test results by ethnic affiliation and income levels so as ‘to shine a light’ on the disparities and inequalities of educational opportunities and outcomes.” He adds this: “These inequalities have been well-documented for the last half-century.” And yet, they persist.

The problem is that proposed legislation does nothing to address the inequities. To provide substance would “require politicians and inside the beltway actors to actually press for funding equal to the mandates. It would require significant investments in job, community and comprehensive educational support systems.”

Over at the Center for Education Reform, resident crackpot Jeanne Allen dispenses some horrifically bad information and advice on education “reform.” Allen claims (incorrectly) that “65 percent of America’s K-12 student population that is failing and falling through the cracks” (she must not read anything about NAEP scores or disaggregated PISA scores).

Allen says that “the federal role should be one of assessment and data gathering,” and “there must be firm consequences for federal spending at state and local levels” because “local control is a hallow theme when it is school board groups and teachers unions doing the controlling.” Yet, when it comes to charter schools, Allen wants no accountability whatsoever.

Allen demands merit pay for regular public school teachers based on student test scores, even though there is no solid research to support it. As Mathis notes, “test-based evaluation systems have such a high error rate that their use in teacher evaluation is unstable.” This troubles Jeanne Allen not at all. But then, the Center for Education Reform gets its funding from conservative organizations like the Arnold, Bradley, Broad, Kern, Milken, and Walton Foundations, and from the Gates Foundation.

To cite but two examples, the Arnold Foundation is a right-wing organization founded by a hedge-funder who resists accountability and transparency in derivatives markets but calls for them in education. Its executive director, Denis Cabrese was former chief of staff to DIck Armey, the Texas conservative who now heads up FreedomWorks, the group that helps to pull the Tea Party strings and gets funding from the billionaire arch-conservative Koch brothers.

And the Walton Foundation focuses on “competition”, “charter school choice,” “private school choice,” and teacher effectiveness. It funds groups like Teach for America, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (whose board of directors includes Rick Hess and whose advisory board includes a KIPP founder, a Walton board member, and education blatherer Andrew Rotherham) and the Charter School Growth Fund (interestingly, Kevin Hall sits on the board of both this group AND the Charter School Authorizers and was previously the “Chief Operating Officer of The Broad Foundation” and “worked at…Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Teach For America.”).

The corporate-style “reformers” – and their Republican and Democratic allies – care not for addressing the real inequities in American public schooling.

And that truly is a shame.”

It was bound to happen.

Teach for America recruits thousands of very smart young men and women and trains them to think like members of TFA, believing that high expectations and high energy will suffice to close the achievement gap.

With so many well-educated TFA corps members, there was bound to be a movement to think differently about TFA’s methods, its claims, and its ambitions.

On July 14, dissident members of Teach for America will gather to debate the role and future of TFA.

As this article in The American Prospect explains,

“Despite the endless outcry, no one has ever staged a coordinated, national effort to overhaul, or put the brakes on, TFA—let alone anyone from within the TFA rank-and-file. On July 14, in a summit at the annual Free Minds/Free People education conference in Chicago, a group of alumni and corps members will be the first to do so.

The summit, billed as “Organizing Resistance Against Teach for America and its Role in Privatization,” is being organized by a committee of scholars, parents, activists, and current corps members. Its mission is to challenge the organization’s centrality in the corporate-backed, market-driven, testing-oriented movement in urban education. 

“The goal is to help attendees identify the resources they have as activists and educators to advocate for real, just reform in their communities,” says co-coordinator Beth Sondel, a 2004 TFA alum who is now a PhD student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin. Though the organizers don’t have pre-set goals, possible outcomes range from a push for school districts not to contract with TFA to counter-recruitment of potential corps members away from the program.”

TFA attracts bright, idealistic young people with the promise that they can be agents of social justice and that their future leadership role in other sectors will change attitudes towards education. But these same bright, idealistic young people have noticed that the leaders trained by Teach for America are key proponents of union-busting and privatization. They have observed TFA alums like John White, the advocate for Bobby Jindal’s extreme reactionary agenda in Louisiana, the goal of which is privatization. They have noted that Kevin Huffman is faithfully serving the far-right governor of Tennessee in his efforts to strip teachers of collective bargaining rights, eliminate tenure, and remove any pay increases for advanced degrees and years of experience. They are no doubt uncomfortable being in league with Michelle Rhee, now raising money for Republican candidates in state races and pro-voucher Democrats.

Where will the internal dissent go? Will it matter? Will TFA listen?

This conference shows how hard it is to create a corps of young people who will obey and conform, when their education has encouraged them to think for themselves.

Jeff Bryant of the Education Opportunity Network congratulates Arne Duncan for saying that there was “no excuse” for states that fail to fund their schools.

Jeff was quick to point out that the “no excuse” mantra is customarily used by Duncan and other corporate reformers to blame teachers for low test scores.

It is refreshing to hear the same rhetoric directed at governors and legislatures that abandon their responsibility to fund public schools.

Bryant writes:

“In his statement to the Pennsylvania officials overseeing the Philadelphia mess, Duncan urged, “We must invest in public education, not abandon it.”

“So yes, “No excuse.”

“When valued neighborhood schools are shuttered with no more justification than a press release, there’s no excuse.

“When public school administrators are forced to cut learning opportunities that keep students safe, healthy, engaged, and supported. No excuse.

“When teachers and parents have to speak out to prevent larger and larger class sizes…

“When students walk out of school because their favorite subjects and teachers are cut…

“When whole communities have to turn out into the streets to protest the plundering of the common good…

“No excuse. No excuse. No excuse!”

The holy grail for corporate reformers is cost-cutting that produces profits. Their hope is that if schools replace teachers with technology, the districts save money, and the tech companies strike it rich.

As David Sirota writes, districts (especially those with Broad-trained superintendents) are pouring millions into iPads, tablets, etc., in hope that students will learn online and be tested online. at the same time, class sizes will get larger as the teacher becomes a monitor, supervising rather than teaching. Even districts that have suffered budget cuts and lost essential services will somehow find the money to invest in technology.

Win-win-lose.

Win for those who sell technology.

Win for those who want larger classes taught online.

Loss for the kids, who need a human teacher to help them and explain.

New York City parent activist Natalie Green Giles saw an uncanny resemblance between the Hunger Games and the city’s education policies.

She writes:

The Hunger Games in the NYC Public Schools

June 2013

By Natalie Green Giles

We have just finished the annual rite of our Hunger Games here in our New York City public schools. Our games go on for six days, not counting the weeks (in some cases months) of prep to get ready for them. The reaping, as always, selected all of our third through eighth grade public school students, from our 32 districts, some as young as seven years old. We parents hope it doesn’t get younger, but the ominous signs are starting to point that way.

Families know the drill at this point, but it has been getting worse. The Capitol–City Hall and the DOE in coercion with the Albany education leaders and lawmakers–must have felt rumbles of rebellion and decided that it wasn’t enough to just use our children as pawns in the political game of legacy-making and privatization: this year they went and up’ed the challenge and made the games harder, knowing that the tributes and their coaches (teachers) wouldn’t have enough time or the right tools to train, and that some kids would have a much harder time surviving in this arena. They, of course, had to make sure that the whole world could see the Capitol’s power, authority, and ability to control and humiliate, so they still made sure they could fire the teachers based on the scores of the tributes (even though by now we all know the metrics are based on a terribly flawed methodology). They try to make these scores public so that we can cheer for the top performers and deride the low scorers. The Capitol also makes sure we know that they will come and shut down a schools if not enough of its kids survive the arena with a passing score. It’s a way of keeping us standardized and conformist. It’s an easy way for them to keep track of us, just giving everyone a number. We wouldn’t want society to start nurturing creative and independent thinkers who might cause a rebellion in the future.

Once again, the careers from District 2 showed off their lifelong training; we heard recently how the majority of rising kindergartners getting the gifted and talented seats came from that esteemed district. We already knew that the fourth graders and seventh graders from the wealthier district often had a lot of private coaching, but many families now spoke of hiring tutors and sending their four-year-olds to test prep programs, just to be sure their kids were armed as best as they could be. You can’t blame them. The competition is fierce in the arena, and we know not everyone can win. There are just so many seats available in the good schools, especially in the good middle and high schools.

Then there are the gamesmakers. They go by the name of Pearson. Beware of them. They are being paid tens of millions of dollars alone this year from the testing contracts they have signed with the Capitol, and they are ready to put in whatever obstacles are necessary if it looks like the children are getting too comfortable. Starting fires, creating fierce mutant animals, or turning down the temperature to freezing in the arena? That’s nothing. Now they have ramped up what was a 180-minute test to 270 minutes—three straight days of 90 concentrated minutes (bathroom breaks are discouraged), reading passage after passage after passage, sometimes throwing in crazy stories about pineapples and hares. It could drive a tribute to the point of madness. Or worse—it could make them hate reading and writing with all those boring passages that don’t reflect life in their own district and with everything out of context. And to really trip us up, they make mistakes in their scoring. They sometimes tell kids who performed well that they didn’t make the cut. Who knows what last minute perils those gamesmakers at Pearson will throw in for the upcoming tests? Who knows what dangers await our children? Not even the Capitol, it seems.

And yes, all of Panem watches and reads about the games, but we are not actually allowed to ever see the tests or know what the correct answers are (or know what our children got wrong). But the games nonetheless are a political spectator sport, and media companies benefit mightily, as newspapers and other media outlets cover the drama of the arena and everything leading up to it. And when the final scores come out? That’s the real feeding frenzy. But no one media company benefits as much as Rupert Murdoch’s. He has a subsidiary called Wireless Generation. Check them out.

We parents want to rebel but we don’t know how. We suffer every year along with our chosen children, but go along with it because we are forced into believing that the Capitol knows what’s best—more so than even parents and educators. So we acquiesce and let our children go without real learning for weeks and months while they get prepped for battle. We let our children endure the days of testing, with all the stress and pressure and anxiety it causes. And then we watch as our children lose even more instructional time after it’s all over, because their teachers are then taken away to grade the tests for days at a time. (Oh—and by the way– the schools now have to pay the bill for the coverage while their teachers are away.) A few families were brave enough to “opt out” of testing this year—keeping their kids out of the arena or telling them not to fight when they got there (i.e., leave the test blank)—but we’ve heard that there will be severe consequences for those kids and their schools. But maybe it’s time for us to be brave. Maybe it’s time to fight against what we know is just plain wrong. Before it gets even worse. Before the games are scheduled for more than six days a year.

Think about it–when the stakes are so high and so misguided that our children’s educational reality begins to mirror a dystopian fantasy, what do we really have to lose?

Responding to another reader, Robert Shepherd challenges the claim that reformers want a free market in schooling:

“We are NOT seeing the emergence of free market alternatives to public schools. We are seeing is crony capitalist alternatives dependent upon federal and state regulation and the public dole that could not possibly survive in truly free markets. It doesn’t matter whether it originates on the right or the left or what rhetoric it uses, tyranny is tyranny. It’s a NewSpeak version of the language of classical liberalism that is being used to defend what is actually happening. It’s incredibly naive to buy into the rhetoric in the face of the realities. Let’s see: Pass a federal law that ensures that almost all public schools will fail. Require states to provide alternatives. Have the Secretary of Education, now a private citizen, found an online virtual school to provide those alternatives, one that depends upon the same taxpayer dollars but siphons off a lot of those into private profits. There are eight million stories in the Naked City, and this has been one of them. The others have much the same general form.

“If that’s what you think of as the creation of free market alternatives, then you have started mainlining the Soma.”

Robert Mann, a professor of communications at Louisiana State University, tries to imagine how Bobby Jindal and John White would react if they heard that Headstart centers kept sloppy records and couldn’t pass an audit.

He writes:

“Imagine if almost every one of those schools could not produce any records to prove that their expenditures did not constitute “gross irresponsibility or gross individual enrichment.”

“What do you think would be the reaction of Louisiana Republican leaders?

“What if the audits of these Head Start schools were littered with the following statements: ”We were unable to perform the [investigative] procedures because the school did not have a separate checking account or other procedures to account for [government related] expenditures separate from other expenditures.”

“Can you imagine the outrage we’d hear from Gov. Bobby Jindal and state Education Superintendent John White?

“Well, what if similar audits turned up showing the same kind of sloppy record keeping at almost every private voucher school in Louisiana? What do you imagine the reaction would be to that?

“Well, we don’t have to imagine.”

It is okay by them if voucher schools keep bad records. It doesn’t matter at all.

No problem. Just throwing taxpayer dollars out the window with no accountability at all.

But when most voucher schools could not produce the records needed to be audited, John White shrugged it off.

John White wrote a letter to the editor to defend his record and praise the sweeping, bold, innovative reforms that he has led.

Mercedes Schneider subjected White’s letter to a severe fact check and found it deficient, especially in relation to basic accuracy.

She cuffs him about the head and says:

“Reformers like White thrive on promoting the false dichotomy that “disagreeing with me” equals “a return to the old days.” Another reformer false idea is that everything about the past ways of functioning is “bad” and the “bold, new, sweeping reforms” are automatically “good.” Not so. Critically-thinking individuals consider what works, whether from past or present. It is a shame that I find myself having to defend such a basic idea.

“You are the one playing the game, John White. You write a letter thinking that people will divorce your words from your previous deceptive behavior. You think that the public does not read the other pages in the newspaper, including the pages on your voucher program failure and fraud. You fail to realize that your distorted words only provide fodder for more blog postings for the likes of me. Rest assured, people will read this and share it in other social media settings. They will see you once again as the deceiver that you are. They will once again see through the emptiness of your words.”

A new survey shows that Philadelphia has the highest poverty rate of any of the nation’s 10 largest cities.

28% of the city’s people are poor, as are 39% of its children. The national child poverty rate is 23%.

Now we know from reformers that poverty is no “excuse” for low test scores, but we also know from the reality-based world that low income is highly correlated with low test scores. If you want to learn more, read Richard Rothstein’s “Class and Schools,” or google Helen Ladd’s “Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence.”

Thus, it makes no sense to strip the city’s schools of the arts, physical education, librarians, guidance counselors, social workers, and every other support personnel. These children desperately need a good education.

The state of Pennsylvania has a constitutional obligation to educate its children.

And the state thus far has cynically told Philadelphia to extract more taxes from its impoverished population. That is worse than no answer. That is negligence of a high order.

When the next election comes round, the people of Pennsylvania should hold accountable those who inflicted harm on the state’s most vulnerable children.