Archives for the year of: 2013

Chancellor Kaya Henderson is closing 20 public schools in DC, displacing 3,000 children. She has abdicated her responsibilty to improve the schools and is instead following the corporate reform script: close public schools while opening more privately managed charters.

The Washington Post has an article advising parents and students how to accept the destruction of their community school. They should be offering advice on how to resist.

There is plenty of shame to go around as the privatization movement gobbles up more schools, more children, more public funding. In most cities and states, the charters do not get different results when they serve the same children. Why the rush to eliminate public schools that are community hubs?

Jersey Jazzman has decided to analyze Joel Klein’s record, since he is now one of the leading spokesmen for the corporate reform record. In this post, he looks at evidence of how New York City students fared on the NAEP compared to other cities that also take the same assessments.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that charter schools are not public schools. These rulings have been sought not by charter critics, but by the charters themselves, to enable them to avoid complying with state laws.

Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas warns African American students and their families that charters are not considered public schools by the courts when it comes to discipline policies. Student rights are protected in public schools, but with few exceptions, not in charter schools. On matters of student discipline, the courts have decided that charters are not public schools.

The same is true for state labor laws.

Just a few days ago, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that charter schools are “private entities,” not public schools, and are therefore subject to different requirements when dealing with employees. This means that teachers at charter schools “are now subject to private-sector labor laws, rather than state laws governing public workers.” Charters sought this ruling when two-thirds of the teachers at the Chicago Math and Science Academy voted to unionize. The board said that charters are akin to private contractors that win government contracts. The charter schools view this ruling as a victory because they prefer to be treated as private organizations, not public schools governed by state law. See Valerie Strauss’s report of this decision here.

When charter teachers say they have been treated unfairly and go to court, the courts typically rule that charters are not public schools. This is a link to an article I wrote for my “Bridging Differences” at Education Week. Follow the links in my article and you will see decisions by courts in several states that charter schools are not public schools. These were rulings sought b charter schools, which insisted that they are NOT public schools because they did not want to be covered by the state laws.

“In Chicago and in Philadelphia, charter schools fought efforts by their teachers to unionize on grounds that they were not public schools and thus were not subject to state labor laws. The charter school in Chicago argued in court that it was a private school, not a public school, and thus not subject to the same laws as public schools.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a charter school in Arizona was a private nonprofit corporation, not a state agency, when it was sued by an employee who had been discharged. In this case, a federal court agreed with the charter school that charters are not public schools when it comes to the rights of their employees.”

;

;

;

http://www.freep.com/article/20121224/NEWS01/312240091/As-Detroit-Public-Schools-rolls-fall-proportion-of-special-needs-students-on-rise?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage

Steve Zimmer is an alumnus of Teach for America.

He is not your typical TFA-er.

He was elected to the Los Angeles Unified school board in 2009, after seventeen years as a public school teacher.

He will be opposed by Kate Anderson, who has endorsements and major funding from the powerful charter school lobby.

Zimmer, because of his experience as a teacher, has become an outspoken, articulate supporter of students, teachers, and public education.

He has tried to slow down the value-added assessment juggernaut; he wants multiple measures.

The charter folks want to get Zimmer off the board because a few months ago, he offered a resolution calling for a higher level of accountability for charters, better auditing and reporting, more collaboration with public schools, and a moratorium on the opening of new charter schools until the new accountability measures are created.

Los Angeles is a major target for the charter lobby. It now has more than 100,000 children in charters, about 15% of the children in the district, more children than in any other district in the nation.

In light of the rapid growth of charters and their uneven performance, Zimmer said it was time to step back, establish reasonable oversight, and frame a reasonable policy for oversight and future growth.

Superintendent John Deasey said Zimmer’s resolution was “unnecessary.”

Two thousand charter parents turned out to hoot and ridicule Zimmer’s resolution.

And now the charter lobby is poised to knock him out.

Kate Anderson is a lawyer who has worked for Democratic officials. She is a mother of young children who attend public schools. She has pledged to support more charters.

Davis Guggenheim, director of “Waiting for ‘Superman,'” is holding a fund-raiser for Kate Anderson at the Sony Pictures commissary.

Steve Zimmer has the wisdom that comes from his 17 years in the classroom. He has the audacity to post on his website an article that showed that Los Angeles’ public schools outperformed the charter schools.

If the charter lobby manages to defeat him, it will be a very bad omen for the future of public education in Los Angeles.

Anthony Cody has written a crisp analysis of the differences between what corporate reformers want and what supporters of public education want.

People like Anthony and me are often told to be accommodating, to be more receptive of the corporate style ideas.

But, as Anthony shows in this article, there are genuine differences.

Public education is facing an existential threat to its existence from people who support privatization.

They do this in a clever way, by talking about civil rights while advocating privatization.

They say it’s “for the children,” but somehow there are adults who seem to benefit more than the kids.

“They can’t wait,” but it’s not their life and career that is sacrificed while they impose risky schemes.

Yes, there is a dichotomy, and we cannot quietly acquiesce.

It seems that Jersey Jazzman and I read Joy Resmovits’s article at the same moment and posted in tandem.

Readers might want to know what he thought about the changing of he guard at StudentsFirst.

New York City has been swaddled in hype and spin for the past dozen years. The mayor gained control of the schools in 2002 and he appoints the chancellor. He also appoints a majority of the school board, who serve at his pleasure. He has appointed three chancellors in a row who were not educators.

Peter Goodman, who writes a blog called Ed in the Apple, says that the next mayor should appoint a chancellor whom educators can respect. NYC has been subjected to an endless parade of reforms, initiatives, accountability measures, and reorganizations. Disruption has been the only constant. Teachers keep on keeping on.

And next year, when Bloomberg’s third term ends, a new mayor will have to figure out how to put the pieces back together again.

I posted a couple of times about John Merrow’s PBS profile of the Rocketship charter chain, but I think there is more to be said on the subject.

The chain now has seven charters in San Jose, California, and it will soon expand into many more urban “markets.” When it enters a new territory, it expects a commitment for at least five charters. It aims to enroll one million children eventually. It is presently planning new schools in Nashville, San Antonio, Milwaukee, and other cities.

Merrow’s show was well done and nicely framed. He begins with old documentary footage of Henry Ford’s assembly line and asks why we as a nation have not even able to “mass produce” high quality schools. He then shifts to Rocketship, where we see children, teachers, and parents chanting in what appears to be a daily ritual. I think they were chanting some sort of self-esteem boosting words or slogans, like “I am a Rocketship,” but I’m not certain of that.

Then we learn the following:

About 75% of the teachers are Teach for America, so we don’t expect to see many experienced teachers.

Students spend two hours a day in front of a computer, which assesses their skill levels and offers them problems adjusted to their ability.

The school has fewer teachers because of its computer time, which saves about $500,000 a year.

The founder of Rocketship is unalterably opposed to unions, because he says they would limit his flexibility.

The teachers are paid more than public school teachers, and some are paid a good deal more, though it was not explained what determined compensation.

The schools have high test scores, even though their students are low-income.

The schools offer neither art or music. They seem to be focused solely on tested subjects.

There was some talk of changing the computer labs next year, though it was not clear how.

Some of the students, especially the younger ones, appeared to be bored at the computer.

The takeaway?

These are schools for poor children. Not many advantaged parents would want their children in this bare-bones Model-T school. It appears that these children are being trained to work on an assembly line. There is no suggestion that they are challenged to think or question or wonder or create.

Bit their test scores are high.

Earlier today, I posted Wendy Lecker’s article, in which she said she was in search of one brave superintendent in Connecticut, who would stand up against the data-driven, test-obsessed climate of the times.

I have found him.

He is Thomas Starice, the superintendent of the Madison, Connecticut, public schools. Superintendent Scarice consulted with his school board, parents and the local community. He has shown leadership in responding to the state’s recently passed legislation about linking teacher evaluations to test scores.

I am happy to add Thomas Scarice to the honor roll as a champion of public education.

Like Superintendents Heath Morrison in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, and Joshua Starr in Montgomery, Maryland, Scarice has courageously stood up for the best interests of children as well as his educational ideals. His leadership has made it possible for parents and the local community to express their own concerns and values about what is best for their children.

The Madison community wants its students to be prepared to think and be creative, not just to be good test takers.

One parent in Madison, who teaches in another district, said, “We are lucky [in Madison] to have a superintendent who is pro-active, with a vision,” he said.

According to the article from the local press, Scarice’s vision “holds teachers accountable, while at the same time encouraging and supporting them to help nurture creative, adaptive thinking, was reinforced by a Madison Education Summit held Nov. 28 at the Madison Senior Center. Dozens of community members, including librarians, pre-school teachers, business leaders, moms and dads, coaches, town and state officials, and one nun, gathered to talk about the future of education in Madison.”

Here are the minutes of the December board meeting where the state evaluation system was discussed.