Archives for the year of: 2013

Hugh Bailey is tired of the oft-told tale of the miracle district and the “savior” who comes in on a white horse, turns around a low-performing district, then rides off into the sunset. He is writing in this case about Paul Vallas, but he is looking at the repeated stories of miracle districts (think Houston) and miracle-makers (think Rod Paige, Paul Vallas, and the list could go on.)

If only the people with access to the big media would acknowledge how hard it is to improve schools and districts. Anyone who says that it can be done easily, quickly, and on the cheap is not telling the truth. Change comes slowly or it isn’t real and doesn’t last.

Following John Merrow’s withering critique of Michelle Rhee’s tenure in D.C.,–in which he debunked all of her claimed gains– as well as his continuing effort to obtain documents about the cheating scandal, Rhee kept a low profile.

But Jersey Jazzman has tracked her down. She will appear at a statewide charter school conference in Fort Worth, Texas, next December.

The voucher program in Louisiana continues to amaze. It is a living demonstration of what happens when public officials abandon responsibility for the children and institutions in their care. Watch what happens when the state gives children a voucher for public funds and then says that whatever choice they make is okay. John White memorably said last year: “To me, it’s a moral outrage that the government would say, ‘We know what’s best for your child,’” White said. “Who are we to tell parents we know better?”

And that is why the Louisiana Department of Education sent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to the New Living Word Church school, making fools of taxpayers while abdicating any interest in the quality of education received by the children. An audit revealed that the school overcharged the state by nearly $400,000, so White has excluded the school from the voucher program and is suing to recover the money.

But the school was not excluded because of its poor education, only because of financial impropriety.

Robert Mann, a professor of communications at Louisiana State University, writes: “Would you pay $6,300 in tuition to send your child to a private school with uncertified teachers, insufficient computers and no proper classrooms, and at which the “teaching” occurred mostly by plopping students in front of televisions to watch lessons on DVDs? Of course you wouldn’t. But the Louisiana Department of Education would.”

Mann writes:

“In a moment of Orwellian inspiration, Jindal and the Legislature dubbed their voucher plan the “Student Scholarships of Education Excellence Program.”

“Despite embarrassing questions last year from legislators and the media about the school’s abysmal instruction, its lack of classroom space and the absence of qualified teachers, state Education Superintendent John White awarded the voucher slots.

“Actually, calling this Ruston fly-by-night operation a “school” is like calling beef jerky prime rib. Yet, with full knowledge that the institution was little more than a shell of a school, White and Jindal handed it more than $600,000 of your money.

“The damage to the state’s budget could have been worse. White’s department initially awarded New Living Word more voucher slots than any other school in the state. Only after the Monroe News-Star exposed the sordid mess was White forced to trim the number from 315 to 165. Last school year, the “school” enrolled only 93 voucher students.”

Why in the world would White offer more vouchers to this school than any other in the state? Maybe because the well-established religious and private schools would not accept more than a handful of students. And White needed the numbers.

And more:

“White, of course, feigned outraged – but not about the fact that he’d wasted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars subsidizing shoddy instruction. “It shows a basic lack of competence,” he said about the school, not himself. “It can’t be tolerated.”

“What White can tolerate is inferior instruction of your children via DVD. In his statement, he offered no explanation for his recklessness and incompetence.

“And of the audits (basically internal investigations conducted by two Baton Rouge accounting firms), White trumpeted them as proof that his voucher program – save for New Living Word – is an unqualified success. The headline on a Department of Education press release proudly declared, “99 Percent of Schools Show No Violation.”

“There’s just one problem with that statement: It’s patently false.”

What did the audits reveal?

“In fact, the audits revealed that the afore-mentioned standard “could not be completed for forty-nine of the fifty-one private schools reviewed.” One audit is littered with the following statement, concerning the records of dozens of voucher schools: “We were unable to perform the procedures because the school did not have a separate checking account or other procedures to account for scholarship expenditures separate from other expenditures.”

“Most of the schools were also unable to verify that their “expenditures do not constitute gross irresponsibility and are not individually enriching.” These are not insignificant findings except, apparently, to White. The state will spend about $45 million in the current fiscal year on vouchers for about 8,000 students.”

Louisiana’s problem is a lack of accountability. The state has no accountability at the top. When will John White be held accountable for the unaccountable voucher program? When will he be held accountable for the disastrous “course choice” program, that seeks to funnel millions of dollars to for-profit vendors? The highest court in the state declared unconstitutional the funding of both the voucher and course choice programs. Jindal and White will not be allowed to take money out of the public school fund to pay for their privatization plans.

What Louisiana shows for all to see is that the privatization movement is not about improving education. It is not “for the kids.” It is about money, power, and ego.

United Opt Out has consistently spoken against the abuses of testing and high stakes for students and teachers.

Here is a link to their Declaration of Independence and to other important information about them.

And here is their Declaration of Independence from corporate education reform.

 

United Opt Out National http://unitedoptout.com

page1image1104

IN OPPOSITION, July 4, 2013
The unanimous Declaration of the national United Opt Out,
When in the course of educating a nation, it becomes necessary for its people to restrain the political and private powers which have obfuscated the fundamental mission of a public system of education to, among other points, compensate for the proclivities of the Laws of Nature to separate and exclude swaths of humankind into those that have and those without.

That to secure this broad mission of a public education, Governments are commissioned by its people to serve unequivocally the explicit needs of those to be educated. It is not to relinquish control of the purposes of education to incorporated powers which deign the will of a free People to determine the means and ends of their cultural developments.

Whenever any Government or Agent of the State abrogates the responsibility to defend the general preparations of its future citizens from untoward profit-making, it is the Right of the Educated to alter or to refuse impositions, and to institute a new Education, laying its foundation on principles and powers to most likely effect their Autonomy, Freedom, and Happiness.

Love, indeed, will resolve that a public system of Education long established should not be upended for fickle and makeshift designs, and accordingly all experience has shown, that an aspirational People are disposed to trust, as certain evils are trustworthy, when impossible oaths are expressed as guarantees of accomplishment. That such promises are made by representatives of the Education State, to whom its People have become accustomed, is the most perverse injury of all.

But when a long record of exploitations and failures, in pursuit of objectives that evince a design to reduce the Educated to absolute Quantification, in effect leading to total economic Exploitation, it is their right, it is their obligation, to refuse such Education, and to provide new Custodians for their future achievement. Such has been the persistent sufferance of the Educated, particular to Inhabitants of the most meager of circumstances; and such is now the requisition which prohibits them from amending their rightful System of Education.

The history of the present Secretary of Education, of his maids of State, and sycophants in unelected offices, is a history of recurring ignorance and ineptitude, all having in ultimate purpose the reduction of the Educated to singularly objective values that are inherently valueless. It is with this Ignorance and Ineptitude that the current Government wields an inseparable Autocratic alliance between Incorporated and State interests against the wishes of the People.

To prove this, let United Opt Out submit these Facts to a candid world:

• He has refused to reduce inequality and segregation, the most unwholesome and unnecessary for a public Education.

United Opt Out National http://unitedoptout.com

page2image1104
  • He has constrained the role of professional Educators and contributed to their egregious humiliation in the face of unreasonable scrutiny from the State.
  • He has ignored significant corrective actions necessary to diminish disparities in opportunities, resources, and human capital in Education as sanctioned by the Fiscal Fairness Act.
  • For refusal to recommend other Laws or Regulations for the Rightful accommodation of large groups of students, principally second language, impoverished, and students of color, unless Schools relinquish the autonomy of Educators and control of their Curriculum, needs inestimable to them and formidable to ideologues only.
  • He condones through inadequate and narrow investigations a professional culture of Lying, Cheating, and Exploitation within School communities.
  • He has endeavored to prevent School populations from selecting refusal of specific Federal impositions that hinder local needs from an erroneous Competition for funds, such that these limited monies could not possibly repair previous and egregious breaches in support, that otherwise bind Schools and Districts to compliance.
  • For taking away our traditional public Schools in favor of Charters, altering our most valuable laws to hasten dissolutions, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Local Boards to enact control of Mayors as opposed to the People expressly.
  • For Accommodating large bodies of untrained Educators among us:
    • For protecting them, by granting certain exceptions, from qualification for any

      Educator position which they hold in the most challenging Schools;

    • For imposing Subsidies on public School systems to sponsor amateurs;
    • For shielding open Educator positions, that should otherwise be available to

      qualified candidates, for provisional Recruits.

  • He has excited insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the

    inhabitants of our cities against each other, setting as rivals the poor against the poor, to become executioners of their own friends and Brethren, to fall themselves by their Hands, to enable the affluent in escaping responsibility.

  • He has affected to render Corporations independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has exacerbated the conditions dissolving elected Boards repeatedly, for opposing with effete vacillation his encroachment on the rights of the people.
  • He has denied sufficient protections to confidential information gathered by private entities in the process of public Education; ignored the apprehensions expressed by the caregivers of the students of our public Schools therein; and perseveres in implementation of diffuse collection methods in defiance of personal Privacy.
  • For conscripting the publicly Educated into labour on behalf of Private entities to refine the instruments of our own Oppression; not for the re-investment of knowledge and resources acquired, but to enrich the remunerative coffers of speculators.
  • He has abdicated Government in the defense of public Education by declaring Accountability greater to Preservation, and waging Wars of Attrition against us.

United Opt Out National http://unitedoptout.com

page3image1104

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Secretary of Education whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Profiteer, is unfit to be the warden of a Public lavatory let alone a free system of Public Education.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Private brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their Board members to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of our Allegiance to the public in Education. We have appealed to their assumed senses of innate justice and fairness, and we have summoned them by the ties of our common citizenship to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our cooperation and camaraderie. They too have been deaf to the voices of equality and solidarity. We must, therefore, submit to this necessity, which denounces our Disobedience, and hold them, as we hold us all, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Administrators of the national United Opt Out, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the free people of this Nation for the integrity of our intentions, do, in the Name and our Authority, defiantly publish and declare, That our public systems of Education are, and of Right ought to be, Absolved from any and all Obligations, Oppressions, and Exploitations set forth only by Private and Unelected Associations; that we assert the abilities to Choose and Refuse certain Acts and Things that violate the interminable conscientiousness of professional Educators; and that as Discerning and Intellectual personnel, charged with labors few are wont or capable to do, we have full Power to secure our own professional identities, determine to Whom and under what conditions for which we are Accountable, and succeed with significant voice to govern the Laws of our work.

And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Good Sense and a Common Destiny, we mutually pledge each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor. 

 

Peter DeWitt, in his outstanding blog at Education Week, pulls apart Secretary Arne Duncan’s aggressive defense of the Common Core.

In his speech to the nation’s new editors, Duncan ridiculed the critics as though they were almost all paranoid nuts.

That is unfortunate.

Reasonable people have legitimate concerns about how the Common Core will work, and Duncan would do well to address them.

Some are worried, as DeWitt is, and as I am, that the Common Core tests will widen the achievement gaps.

He is concerned, as am I, that the chanting about rigor, rigor, rigor, does not take into account the kids who are already struggling.

He has vastly over promised what the standards are, what they will do, how they will affect children and schools.

If would be good if he knew, but he doesn’t know.

He has enlisted leaders of the business community as cheerleaders, but they are not the ones who will implement the standards.

These “national standards” have been imposed from Washington with no field trials, no demonstrations, no means of adjusting what goes wrong.

I am not going to get exercised about them because my guess–as a historian–is that we (or someone) will look back 20 years from now, and someone will say, “Remember those Common Core standards?”

And the answer will be “huh?”

The reasons?

The standards were rushed into place with minimal participation by those who must implement them.

Many states lack the technology and the bandwidth to implement the assessments.

From what I have seen in New York, the Common Core assessments are too long and developmentally inappropriate.

Many teachers have not had the professional development to do what is expected.

The U.S. is in a period of reform fatigue.

There is just so much that can be accomplished at any one time.

With so many states changing so many things, it is all more than any system can handle at the same time.

To do national standards right, the process should be done right, with more inclusion, more participation, more feedback from those in the classrooms of the nation, more willingness to listen and get it right.

More wisdom is needed to engage in this process.

We have seen a rush to get it done without regard to the implementation or the consequences for children.

It doesn’t help to ridicule those who raise questions.

 

As Antonio Villaraigosa exits the mayoralty of Los Angeles, there will be both tributes and brickbats.

Among other things, he will be remembered for his failed attempt to take control of the public schools and for his hostility to teachers, to their union, and to public education. On his watch, there was “an explosion” in the number of privately managed charter schools, a high priority for the billionaires.

He did get control of a small number of schools, raised millions of dollars to turn them into “incubators of reform,” but demonstrated that his schools performed on state tests no differently from regular public schools. Mayoral control has no magic elixir.

He fought hard to tie teachers’ evaluations to test scores, despite the absence of any evidence for doing so. He controlled the school board through his surrogates, but recently lost control when two of the candidates he supported were defeated despite the millions raised by the mayor.

This turn of events is especially surprising in light of Villaraigosa’s early career in the labor movement. His conversion is a tribute to the power of money in American politics.

We have heard in state after state that teachers’ pensions and wages must be curtailed because they–and other public workers–are destroying the economy. Those greedy, selfish teachers and principals!

However.

The Economic Policy Institute in DC reports that in 2012 the average CEO made 273 times the wages of the average worker.

Now it is very important to understand the concept of shared sacrifice. Your typical CEO might have insisted on wages 500 times that of the workers, but they graciously consented to a ratio of only 273:1.

Here are a few key findings:

“Average CEO compensation was $14.1 million in 2012, using a measure of CEO pay that covers CEOs of the top 350 firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year (“options realized”), up 12.7 percent since 2011 and 37.4 percent since 2009. This is our preferred measure.”

Also:

“From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

“Using the same measure of options-realized CEO pay, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20.1-to-1 in 1965 and 29.0-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 272.9-to-1 in 2012, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.”

Think how busy they must be outsourcing jobs to low-wage nations. Tough job, but someone has to do it.

Leonie Haimson, who is undoubtedly New York City’s most outspoken and energetic education activist, wrote a terrific critique of the New York Times’ editorial defending the Bloomberg era of education misrule.

The editorial, as she correctly notes, is a defense of the tired and failed status quo of the past dozen years.

It reads as if it had been written by “the City Hall PR machine.”

Haimson points out that  the Times ran an editorial very critical of Bloomberg’s stale education ideas on May 19, but this one appears to have been written by a different person.

Should the Bloomberg policies continue, as the Times suggests?

Almost every student in the New York City public schools attended a school system ruled by Mayor Bloomberg.

After 12 years, where is the success?

As the Times’ editorial points out, only 22% of the students who graduated in 2012 were “college-ready,” as judged by the State Education Department’s standards.

And every year, more schools are marked for closure because they are “failing.”

Isn’t all of this on Bloomberg’s watch?

Isn’t it time to hold him accountable for such paltry results?

As we have often noted on this blog, accountability is only for the little people–the teachers in the classroom, not for the mayor or the chancellor or the deputy chancellors or the legion of other well-paid administrators who make the decisions.

 

 

This letter froma teacher was written in response to the post by Marc Epstein on Big Lie Journalism in NYC:

“I began teaching nine years ago,after careers in law and business. There is a profound irony in analyzing the consequences of the so-called Bloomberg business model. While I’ve only taught during the Bloomberg tenure, I’ve seen pervasive mismanagement in my school ( and have heard similar anecdotes from teachers at other schools). The purchasing model for school supplies(books, computers,software) seems at best inept and more likely corrupt. Our school routinely overpays for supplies that are less than optimal. As for hiring incompetent,corrupt teachers, I dont think, as Mr Epstein suggests, that can be blamed on the mayor. It seems to be a combination of principals, who lack the skill sets to select,interview, and hire the best candidates,coupled with an archaic and convoluted human resources system that is baffling and counter-productive to finding the best teachers.

“If the NYC school system were a corporate entity, I would strongly urge the board to file for bankruptcy and bring in a team of turn around experts to work in concert with educators to build the best system that our current collective current knowledge allows for. Build it from scratch, much like Louis Gerstner did at iconic IBM,
The culpability for the sad state of NYC schools should be shared by the politicians, unions, teachers, administrators, and vendors.
The bankers and corporations are drooling over the prospects of privatizing education and the profound financial windfall that will accrue to those lined up to reap it (see,e.g. Joel Klein)

“The question is who can and will step up and represent the real stakeholders in this growing drama-the kids and their parents.”

The Néw York Times editorial board gave its opinion of what the next mayor must do about education, and its opinion is woefully uninformed by contact with the real world of students, teachers, principals, and parents.

Bear in mind that only 22% of NYC voters want more of the Bloomberg school reform style.

The Times thinks he might have listened a bit more to parents, although it was a central tenet of the mayor’s rule never to listen to parents.

The Times looks forward to the installation of the new, harder, more rigorous Common Core, while acknowledging that most students now are not graduating “college ready.” No need to explain or even consider how more students will succeed as tests get harder.

The Times notes the mayor’s rush to close down many schools, and thinks most of those schools deserved to die. It brazenly compares the low graduation rate at a school marked for closure, from which students and teachers have fled, to a brand-new, well-resourced small school.

The Times notes the controversy over co-location of charters into public schools, which some call “education apartheid,” and the Times thinks this is a problem only in a few “extreme” cases. The Times gives no thought to the consequence of having two public-funded school systems, one of which is free to kick out slow learners and behavioral problems while excluding children with high needs.

The best thing about the editorial is the comments that follow, most of which attempt to inject a smidgen of reality into the Times’ world.