Archives for the year of: 2013

Officials in California have been meeting with Michael Fullan of Ontario to learn about the impressive improvements there.

Fullan wants to turn the state of California away from the carrots-and-sticks of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

The story linked her says:

“I want California to become an alternative model to No Child Left Behind; that would be a great thing to aspire to,” Fullan said last month during an interview in Sacramento. Instead of improvement through the “negative drivers” of standardized testing and quick school turnarounds, he would shift the focus to improving instruction through “motivational collaboration” between teachers and administrators.

Fullan believes that data should be used to improve, not to punish. What a novel idea! What would our Broad trained superintendents do if they were told to help teachers and schools, not to punish them?

Good grief! Fullan’s philosophy could cause the whole miserable, mean-spirited farce of federal policy to collapse.

Want to know more about Fullan? Read this.

His ideas might be powerful enough to beat the Billionaire Boys Club. They have this one important advantage: They work.

A reader sends this comment:

While Business fails in Education, Education is certainly good for Business:

1) Quick Turnaround Teachers are funded by Walton, Dell, Gates….http://www.teachforamerica.org/support-us/donors

2) Corporate-funded CCSS http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/idUS157777+01-Feb-2012+BW20120201

3) Backed by corporate-advertising http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM_G4Y7SX3g

4) Opening new corporate marketing channels http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-industry-news/article/56868-scholastic-new-technology-programs-aimed-at-the-common-core.html

3) in corporate-funded charter schools http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/mediacenter/top-five-grantees

4) advocated by corporate-funded “front men” http://www.ctunet.com/blog/memphis-district-to-lose-212-million-to-charter-schools-by-2016

5) so corporations can steal children’s data without parental consent http://educationnewyork.com/files/FERPA-ccsss.pdf

6) So they can create more “personalized products” http://www.classsizematters.org/new-york-state-inbloom-inc-fact-sheet/

7) And them move on to PERPETUATE “corporate-takeover-of-education” policies http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2012/01/john_white_appointed_chief_of_louisiana_schools.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB

All we need now is for TV shows and Movies to start incorporating the benefits of Common Core into their character’s personalities. Actually, the whole takeover of education is almost like a movie script itself!!

A comment on the post about “Zombie Education Policies”:

Having spent years in business, I cringe at blindly applying business models to education. 360 evaluation is a business fad that will join MBOs and matrix management. I tried student evaluations. Students are usually upset over not getting a certain grade on the most recent test, angry over a detention, or at the other extreme, like the teacher and don’t want to say anything negative. I eavesdropped on two of my high school students evaluating their teachers and a “good” teacher had more to do with being lenient, funny, and good looking. It took me years to later appreciate my good teachers – not at the time the most popular. Most parents mean well, but often have only glimpses of the classroom from their child’s perspective. Often the truth is difficult and not always well received. Peers are OK, but not all peers are objective or can separate politics. Administrators may not have spent enough years in a math or language arts classroom – perhaps moving up through phys ed – to understand content and delivery. Third party evaluations are too disconnected and have conflicts of interest.

So a better solution? First, and this principle is also overlooked in business, IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT. Not all schools are failing, and then, not all for the same reason. Blanket, scorched earth solutions never work and just replace one set of problems with another. Improving upon what exists takes skill and savvy. Second, if you want to know what makes a good teacher, ask a good teacher. We all know who they are. Mentoring is by far the best system with centuries of success. Make it work. Third, start listening to teachers, not politicians, billionaires, and opportunists. The latter have other interests. Teachers, in contrast to the constant demonizing, are in the classroom everyday and want their students to learn.

The best approach to education is there is no single approach to education. Students are individuals and human. Not data points in a multi-level statistical model. Teachers know this. Will anybody else listen?

You won’t find the answer to that question in this exchange but you will see some sharply worded responses to David Greene, who has mentored many TFA recruits.

Greene has the somewhat antiquated (but true) belief that we need teachers who see teaching as a career. As he writes, “Teaching must be a lifelong career worthy of those we want to teach.”

It is odd that there are so many (including Arne Duncan and the far-right Walton Foundation) who see TFA as a systemic answer to the question. Duncan gave TFA $50 million. Walton gave them $49.5 million.

And yet in its 20+ year history, TFA has produced less than 30,000 alumi. Most of them are no longer in classrooms. Its most prominent graduates are demanding privatization of public education: Michelle Rhee, John White in Louisiana, Kevin Huffman in Tennessee.

The New York Times reports today about construction of new apartments in Philadelphia, meant specifically for teachers. The development is made possible by state and federal tax credits.

But not for any teacher. Not for the teachers who live in the community. Not for veteran teachers who have put their hearts into the community schools for 10-20 years. They already have a place to live.

No, these are below-market apartments built for Teach for America recruits, those great kids with five weeks of training who plan to leave after two years.

The project will set aside office space for TFA along with a gym and coffee shop. That way, the kids may not burn out so fast.

There is a similar project for TFA in Baltimore and Newark.

This was written by a teacher in Chicago:

An open letter to Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan

Dear Secretary Duncan:

Children gleefully line blocks end to end on a rug measuring its area, two girls huddle over a water table experimenting with liquid capacity, and several students use clay making sculptures as well as refining their small motor skills – this is the picture of a preschool where any of us would want to send our children.

As an early childhood educator, I was thrilled to hear President Obama’s strong focus on preschool education in the State of the Union address. We have a preponderance of research evidence that tells us quality early childhood education makes a difference in the learning lives of children, and providing expanded opportunities for parents and children is a step in the right direction.

Yet, there are many concerns as this policy unfolds.

It is understandable that when the government spends money on a program that there should be accountability to the public. It is a grave concern, however, that most of the policy you create uses standardized testing as the measure of success in education. A regimen of intensive testing is counterproductive and against developmentally appropriate early childhood practice. Children do not need to experience their first feelings of defeat at the hands of a test when they are three.

On the other hand, we have plenty of well-researched claims that can judge the quality of early childhood programs. The National Association of the Education of Young Children developed guidelines for accreditation that could easily be transformed into assessment of quality. I urge you, Secretary Duncan, to evaluate programs – not children.

Another concern is that the Department of Education promotes the use of testing data to drive instruction. Early childhood educators do not use standardized tests to guide our teaching. We use a wealth of well-founded knowledge of child development that we have accumulated over the years through highly respected psychologists and educators such as Montessori, Piaget, Erikson, and Dewey. We do not need tests to drive instruction – our instruction is driven by knowledge of childhood.

We also need to realize that high-quality early childhood education does not “just happen.” It takes skilled educators who fully understand child development and the needs of the whole child (social and emotional as well as academic). Please make sure that any government funded program insists on certified early childhood educators. Preschool should not be like elementary school for a reason, and it needs to be implemented by educators with specialized knowledge of young children.

I am sure you remember visiting your children’s preschool. Did it feel like the opening scenario of this letter? Were children joyfully playing and creating under the guidance and care of knowledgeable educators? This is the preschool we want for our nation’s children.

Signed,
Michelle Strater Gunderson
Early Childhood Committee Chairperson
Chicago Teachers Union

Bill Gates is wrong. American education is not “broken.”

Federal education policy is broken.

Testing children until they cry is a bad idea. It is educational malpractice.

Basing teachers’ evaluation, their salary, and their tenure on student test scores is a bad idea. It doesn’t work. It is professional malpractice. The Gates Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars trying to make it work. It doesn’t work. Arne Duncan has made it a cardinal principle of federal education policy. It doesn’t work.

Giving bonuses to teachers based on test scores is a failed idea. It has never worked. The U.S. Department of Education under Duncan put $1 billion into such programs. They fail.

Closing schools doesn’t make them better. It shatters communities and sends children to search for a school that will accept them. That’s federal policy. It’s wrong. It is wrong in Chicago and it is wrong everywhere else.

There is no such thing as a “failing school.” Schools are buildings. Buildings don’t fail. If the students in a school have low test scores, it is the responsibility of the superintendent to find out why and to supply the needed staff and resources to improve the school.

When schools struggle, it is the responsibility of the people at the top to help them, not to close them.

Federal education policy, from No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top, is broken. It has failed. It must be changed.

Richard R. Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Indiana University, compiled the following reading list to help others understand the root causes of low academic performance:

Professor Hake writes:

“Penny” commented: ”We know that poorer (lower socioeconomic) students tend to do poorer in school. How about looking at the true root cause.”

For the “true root cause” see the REFERENCE list below containing poverty-related references from my *complete* post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University

REFERENCES
Berliner, D.C. 2009. “Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.” Education and Public Interest Center (Univ. of Colorado) and Education Policy Research Unit, (Arizona State University); online as a 729 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/fqiCUA. In his abstract Berliner states: “This brief details six Out of School Factors (OSFs) common among the poor that significantly affect the health and learning opportunities of children, and accordingly limit what schools can accomplish *on their own*: (1) low birth-weight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. These OSFs are related to a host of poverty-induced physical, sociological, and psychological problems that children often bring to school, ranging from neurological damage and attention disorders to excessive absenteeism, linguistic underdevelopment, and oppositional behavior.”

Brady, M. 2012. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards,” in Valerie Strauss’ “Answer Sheet,” Washington Post, 21 August; online at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg. Note especially Brady’s crucial problem #4: “So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored-a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter” – see e.g., Berliner (2009), Duncan & Murnane (2011), Kristof (2013), Marder (2012), Neuman & Celano (2012), and my 14 blog entries on the overriding influence of poverty on children’s educational achievement at .

Duncan, G.J. & R. Murnane, eds. 2011. “Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances.” Russell Sage Foundation, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/nCkmKv. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/r3MrCh.

Kristof, N.D. 2013. “For Obama’s New Term, Start Here.” New York Times OP-ED, 23 Jan, online at http://nyti.ms/WnEhU2. Kristof wrote: “Something is profoundly wrong when we can point to 2-year-olds in this country and make a plausible bet about their long-term outcomes – not based on their brains and capabilities, but on their ZIP codes. President Obama spoke movingly in his second Inaugural Address of making equality a practice as well as a principle. So, Mr. President, how about using your second term to tackle this most fundamental inequality?”

Marder, M. 2012. “Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in Mathematics,” Journal of Scholarship and Practice 9(1): 8-25; the entire issue is online as a 2.7 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/KPitWM, scroll down to page 8. Marder wrote: “The collection of nationwide data do point to a primary cause of school failure, but it is poverty, not teacher quality. As the concentration of low-income children increases in a school, the challenges to teachers and administrators increase so that ultimately the educational quality of the school suffers. Challenges include students moving from one school to another within the school year, frequency of illness, lack of stable supportive homes with quiet places to study, concentration of students who are angry or disobedient, probability of students disappearing from school altogether, and difficulty of attracting and retaining strong teachers. Most people who see the connection between poverty and educational outcomes are confident that low-income students in a sufficiently supportive environment will learn as much in a school year as students in well-off communities.”

Neuman, S.B. & D.C. Celano. 2012. “Giving Our Children a Fighting ChancePoverty, Literacy, and the Development of Information Capital,” Teachers College Press, publishers information at http://bit.ly/ZVCsil. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/VVml0G, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. The publisher states: “This is a compelling, eye-opening portrait of two communities in Philadelphia with drastically different economic resources. Over the course of their 10-year investigation, the authors of this important new work came to understand that this disparity between affluence and poverty has created a *knowledge gap* – far more important than mere achievement scores – with serious implications for students’ economic prosperity and social mobility. At the heart of this knowledge gap is the limited ability of students from poor communities to develop *information capital.* This moving book takes you into the communities in question to meet the students and their families, and by doing so provides powerful insights into the role that literacy can play in giving low-income students a fighting chance.”

Diana Senechal has written a parody of higher education today.

This is a college philosophy class in which the reading of Kant has been replaced with clickers for answering multiple-choice questions.

I have to give satire alerts because education policy has become so wacky that almost anything may seem real.

When the ideas from our leaders get so bizarre, parody becomes difficult.

David Safier is a great blogger in Arizona who has his hands full trying to keep up with the myth-making of the charter industry in his state.

In this column, he dissects the legend of the BASIS charters. Their backers spin the story that high standards produces miraculous results that every school could match if it copied the BASIS mdl, but the reality is something else.

As Safier writes, “An obscenely well funded coalition of organizations exists to sing the praises of schools like BASIS as part of their continuing efforts to push their privatization agenda.
BASIS schools begin with a reasonably high achieving group of 6th grade students (recently they added a 5th grade). Of those 11 and 12 year olds, only one out of three will make it to their senior year. The other two-thirds withdraw, mainly because the expectations and pressure are so great, they know they won’t be able to succeed. The biggest student dropoff is from the 8th to the 9th grade. Any middle schooler who’s struggling to keep up knows the pressure and expectations will be far greater in high school as the coursework becomes increasingly more demanding and they’re required to take a number of AP courses. However, even among the ninth graders who make the cut, between 30% and 50% don’t last to their senior year.”

The promoters won’t talk about the selection process or the attrition rate.

This is a recurring theme, unfortunately, in every “miracle” school story. Education is hard daily work. Children are not transformed overnight.

Honesty and transparency should be starting points, not rare commodities.