Archives for the year of: 2013

Jem Muldoon has decided that it is time to speak and act. It is time to do what is right, not what is expedient. She wrote to tell me she has become an activist for education and will not follow orders that conflict with her knowledge and ethics. Hem is trying to find meaning and purpose at a time when public policy requires educators to do what they know is wrong.

She says, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

So she started a blog.

Here she explains how computer adaptive testing conflicts with genuine learning and is not even good testing. The kids quickly figure out how to game the system and turn it into a test of their ability to outwit the program. And here is no feedback about what they need to know.

Ah, those private companies sure know how to do it right, don’t they?

In New York City, the city’s biggest provider of tutoring services is under investigation for inflated bills and other little financial issues. Since 2006, the company has collected $87 million from the city.

The tutoring company was founded in 2005 by a 22-year-old college graduate. The firm has been investigated and sanctioned for previous financial misbehavior but the city Department of Education, controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, awarded it a new contract last November. The City Comptroller refuses to honor the contract.

David Lentini writes, after reading Dr. Martin Luther King’s words on the purpose of education:

Thank you and your reader, Diane, for sharing these quotes. I’ve often complained that the most critical element in our debates and arguments over education policy–the very definition of “education”–has been ignored almost completely. Instead we seem to treat education as something that teachers “do”. And we seem to treat what teachers “do” as a matter of technique, not substance. So, for modern Americans the meaning of “education” has degenerated into a pointless argument over pedagogy.

I call these pedagogical arguments pointless precisely because we won’t discuss what we want an educated American to look like. Sadly, most people I’ve talked to about this issue get stuck on such simplistic slogans as “job-ready” or “college-ready”, as if they have any idea what those terms mean. I’ve rarely heard anyone mention education in terms of preparing ourselves to participate in a democracy or have a good chance of living a full and happy life. Perhaps that’s not surprising, since most Americans historically have rejected education in favor of received wisdom.

Dr. King’s vision of education is soundly in the Western tradition of inquiry and discussion. His words echo the arguments of the classic thinkers and the original humanists of the Renaissance, and his fears can be found in the speeches of educators like Robert M. Hutchins and Mortimer Adler, and other social critics like Christopher Lasch, Erich Fromm, and more recently Chris Hedges. We should use their works as a guide to build a curriculum for a modern democracy. Only then can we debate the most efficient means for education.

In today’s post, EduShyster travels to Minneapolis to explain how one very young man, after a brief stint in Teach for America, managed to buy a school board seat.

Teach for America, as explained in earlier posts, managed to collect nearly $1 billion in contributions, gifts, and grants in a five year period. It is a good gig.

EduShyster says that it is very effective to buy school board seats.

She contrasts this strategy to the failed attempt to buy the entire Bridgeport, Ct., school board.

The victory in Minneapolis cost only $37,000.

The loss in Bridgeport cost the corporate reformers over half a million.

You can see where this is leading.

There are a number of people who say they are promoting “the civil rights issue of our time” even as they advocate for schools that just happen to be segregated and that have no unions to represent their employees.

Jonathan Pelto reminds us what Martin Luther King Jr. said and did by providing the audio and video clips of his final days.

He died helping black sanitation workers in Memphis organize a union.

Please take the time to watch and listen.

And if you are a teacher, show it to your students and call it “informational text” so it relates to the Common Core.

Reader Mike Dixon commented on a post about Martin Luther King Jr.‘s definition of the purpose of education:

A cynical person might suspect that corporate education reform is intended to promote exactly what MLK warned about.

Thanks to a reader of the blog for sharing this statement by Dr. King on a matter of concern to us all.

Here is a portion:

“We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

And this:

“We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character–that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living.

“If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, brethren! Be careful, teachers!”

EduShyster tries to imagine how Martin Luther King, Jr., would react to today’s corporate reform movement in education.

Would he agree with the corporate reformers that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers?

Would he agree that segregation doesn’t matter?

Would he agree that unions are an obstacle to high achievement?

Would he demand privatization as the way to close the achievement gap?

Would he throw in his lot with hedge fund managers and billionaires?

See how EduShyster answers those questions.

I earlier posted a letter from a teacher who said that charters give ambitious students a chance to escape their low-performing and disruptive peers. The teacher noted that charters recruit the best students in the poorest neighborhoods. How could anyone blame parents who want their children to be surrounded by others who are equally ambitious?

I invited readers to respond. Here is a thoughtful comment.

This reader comments as follows:

That’s interesting, because I thought one of the major apologies for charters was that they would help close the “achievement gap” by taking our neediest students and making them “competitive” with the most well-performing students.

The apologia in this post basically states as a matter of fact a criticism that charter school advocates have long-denied. At first it was “We don’t get to cherry pick. We’re subject to the same rules as public schools.” Now it is “Yeah, we cherry pick but someone has to serve the gifted students in poor communities.”

It is moving back of the goal post if you ask me. I went to Bronx Science and then to Brooklyn Tech, two of the “best” public high schools in NYC. The public schools and many others like it do a fine job of educating our brightest students.

An argument against what the teacher in this article posits is to expand the opportunities for our brightest students to go to those “specialized” public high schools. As of now, one test determines whether or not a students makes it in. The application process should be diversified with exams only being part of the measuring stick. GPA, recommendations, interviews and essays should also be part of the process, sort of like college.

We have the tools to educate the type of students described in this article. We just lack the will to make better use of them.

This day, set aside to honor the egalitarian message and life of Dr. Martin Luther asking Jr., is an appropriate time to consider the efforts by Governor Bobby Jindal to dismantle public education in Louisiana and replace it with a free market of choices, one with for-profit schools and no unions.

This plan will benefit the haves while harming the have-nots. It is an affront to the legacy of Dr. King. It will be implemented by people elected with the support of economic royalists. It is the work of elitists who shamelessly call themselves reformers as they grind the faces of the neediest into the dirt.

The Jindal plan includes vouchers, charters, for-profit online schools, and for-profit vendors, as well as a teacher evaluation that assures that few teachers will get or keep tenure. They will never have the protection of academic freedom, a concept unknown to corporate reformers.

Jindal’s state commissioner John White, who taught for two years as part of Teach for America and has never evaluated a teacher, says that the his standards will make it very difficult for teachers in Louisiana to win tenure.

In response to the new evaluation system, there is massive demoralization; the rate of teacher retirements has spiked by 25%. Superintendents say they are having a tough time replacing veteran teachers who are bailing out of White’s dystopian state.

Surely, teachers with years of experience in Louisiana public schools must think they are living in a madhouse, when the state superintendent has so little experience, and White has put the evaluation system in the hands of a 20-something with two years of teaching experience and an expired teaching license.

Meanwhile, John White has recommended a change in state board policy so that schools no longer will be “required” to have a librarian, a library or counselors. He wants the language to be changed to “recommended,” so that principals have the autonomy to decide if they want to spend their diminishing funds on a librarian or something else. Will this improve education?

Was it as a member of Teach for America or a member of the unaccredited Broad Academy that Commissioner White developed such contempt for public school teachers and American public education?

Here are the proposed changes:

Teachers, parents, and students need to know the proposed changes Superintendent John White is asking the BESE board to approve next Tuesday.

Two large changes will result in the possible removal of all counselors, librarians, and libraries.

Comprehensive Counseling (1125) no longer requires secondary schools to have counselors, only that “It shall be recommended that …” they have them. Libraries and Librarians (1705) have been reworded similarly: “It is recommended that each secondary school have [them]…” (All italics are mine.) This will allow school systems to eliminate these highly valuable and necessary individuals.

“Carnegie Unit and Credit Flexibility” (2314) allows students to earn credit in two ways. The traditional path involves passing a course with a 67 or greater. The new path is for students to demonstrate proficiency in one of three ways. 1) They can pass a nationally-recognized test, though no definition of such a test follows. 2) They can pass a locally developed test of proficiency, with, again, no definition following. 3) Lastly they can submit portfolios that meet a list of requirements to demonstrate proficiency. Students can now attend any amount of time they wish, because should they demonstrate proficiency, they can still earn the Carnegie credit.

This is only a sample of other changes.

  • · No school system is required to participate in a School Accreditation program (311) every five years and receive a classification.
  • · The school will no longer be sited for having staff not holding a valid Louisiana teaching certificate or for having physical facilities that “do not conform to the current federal, state, and local building fire, safety, and health codes.”
  • · One section (1103) states a high school student shall be in attendance a minimum of 167 days out of 182, but later Section 2314 says the minimum number of minutes required is 7,965, whic! h can be achieved in 159.3 days in a 7-period day, and in 133 days in a 6-period day.
  • · Section 2313 for Elementary Program of Studies (covering K-8) has been stripped of its suggested outline of content areas. Any school can design any curricula it deems appropriate.
  • · The section on Summer Schools (2501 and 2503) have been gutted of most of their requirements, including minimum instructional hours and class size limits.
  • · One person without a valid teaching certificate could teach hundreds of students in one class taught for one week if the school superintendent approves it.
  • · Section 1703 also allows local educational agencies to use state money to purchase textbooks that BESE has not approved.

Please contact the BESE board and strongly voice your objections to these proposed changes by Superintendent White and Governor Jindal.

No one could seriously believe those changes will improve education in Louisiana.

Vincent P. Barras, educator