Archives for the year of: 2013

I never thought I would see the day when NPR ran a story complimenting a misogynist rapper for opening a charter school. This rapper, who calls himself Pitbull, writes lyrics that are too filthy to repeat on NPR or on this blog.

But there is Claudio Sanchez, reporting on the charming phenomenon that celebrities who are not educators and who apparently have no education themselves are opening charter schools! Isn’t that wonderful! Shouldn’t we all be impresssed!

Well, no, it is not that Mr. Pitbull has a heart overflowing with love of children or love of learning. He is making a lot of money. Fortunately for the readers of this blog, we have read Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader, both of whom did the sort of research that NPR did not do. Mr. Pitbull has another name: Armando Perez. In Jersey Jazzman’s article, you will see Mr. Pitbull-Perez has hired Academica, a for-profit charter chain with revenues of $158 million, to run his new charter school. Academica is owned by Mr. Fernando Zulueta, who controls some $115 million in real estate in Miami, all exempt from property taxes because his for-profit schools are “public.”

The story–and the money trail–gets way more complicated, but NPR did not see fit to discover any of the backers of Mr. Pitbull’s school.

The story gets entangled in Florida Republican politics, as Mother Crusader shows.

As always, it is a good thing to follow the money. Who is putting up the money, who is getting the money, who is making out like bandits?

But there is a lingering question: Why does anyone think it is a good idea for celebrities to open their own schools and to get public dollars for their profitable vanity project? How are we supposed to “outcompete” the globe by turning our children over to uneducated sports stars and rappers?

New York City’s charter schools are often held up as exemplary, which is the spin that the Bloomberg administration has fed the media for a dozen years. This insider says the spin is wrong.

He writes:

The current mayoral election in New York City has brought long overdue debate and discussion to the real outcomes of corporate-style management of public schools. No longer are New Yorkers compelled to listen to false and exaggerated claims about charter schools. Finally, after years of massaged data and blatantly false claims about charter schools, there is hope for an honest approach. Bill de Blasio, the progressive Democratic candidate, for mayor has committed to creating an equitable system for all children. His opponent has gone on the attack and wants to double-down on the failed education policies of Mike Bloomberg. Let’s take an honest look at charter school performance in New York City.

Do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? At some charter schools 24%-68% of the students are lost from each cohort. Up to 7 out of 10 parents at these charter schools do not see their child complete schooling at the charter school they chose. Other “high performing” charter schools suspend 25%-40% of their students a year in order to see gains in test scores. This means that each year up to 2 in 5 parents at these charter schools have their choice forcibly taken away by the very charter school they chose to send their child to. In one particularly egregious case a charter school pushed out 1/3 of its student body in order to improve test scores. If you are the parent of an English Language Learner or of a student with special needs you won’t have much choice since charter schools tend to accept very few of those students. And if they do accept your child it seems that at least some charter school chains will attrite English Language Learners and students with special needs at very high rates. So do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? Not at all.

Are charter schools in New York City accountable? In one story the New York City Department of Education under Mike Bloomberg refused to share data on special education services in charter schools. In another story a charter school chain sued New York State to prevent an audit of how it used public money. New York State backed down. Joel Klein, former Chancellor in New York City falsely claimed that charter schools “closed the longstanding achievement gap.” He made this claim even though the data showed it to be an outright lie. In 2007, when the big push to open up even more charter schools began the data showed that charter high schools had an on-time graduation rate less than half that of public schools. Even so more charter schools were opened. As many sources have pointed out little of the data that can be found for public view on the official web pages of public schools can be found on the official web pages of charter schools. The lack of transparency about schools that receive so much public money is astounding. So are charter schools in New York City accountable? Definitely not.

Do charter schools in New York City have better scores? In 2009 a report showed that students in charter schools made less progress than those in public schools. In 2010 the data showed that public schools were 24% more likely to get As or Bs on the New York City school report cards than charter schools. In 2011 yet another analysis showed that charter schools are more likely to get Ds or Fs on the progress section of the New York City school report cards than public schools. In fact, charter schools were twice as likely to get Fs than public schools. Charter high schools had half the college readiness rate of public high schools. This year charter schools saw bigger drops in performance on the Common Core exams than public schools. Additionally charter schools performed worse on average than public schools in English and the same as public schools in math. This is all the more concerning given the creaming, the extremely high suspension and alarming attrition rates. Despite these competitive “advantages” charter schools overall do worse than public schools. So do charter schools have better scores? The data says no.

Who pays for charter schools in New York City and how much? As a whole charter schools in public buildings receive almost $650 more per student in public money than public schools. When the fact that charter schools have fewer high needs student is accounted for charter schools in public buildings receive $2,200 more per student in public money than public schools. Many charter schools spend a lot more money per student than public schools. KIPP spends over $3,000 more per student. Other well-known charter chains spend $4,300 more per student than public schools. Some of these sums come from hedge fund investors and corporate managers who believe that money should determine how schools run rather than the input of parents and educators. They will donate to charter schools up until they destroy public schools. Then the donations to charter schools will stop. What is the evidence for this? Because if they really cared about providing all children with opportunity they would support Bill de Blasio’s plan to ensure that every child in New York City has access to a quality pre-K program. As James Heckman, a Nobel prize winner in economics, shows in his new book Giving Kids a Fair Chance early intervention has the greatest social and economic impact. Instead, the head of a business leaders’ group said “it shows lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers.”

Clearly the facts support Bill de Blasio. Let’s put Bloomberg’s divisive policies behind us and return to a focus on equity and opportunity in all of our schools and for all students in New York City.

Additional Reading:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15582159.2011.548242?journalCode=wjsc20 “English language learners are consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across 3 academic years.”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/20%20hcz%20whitehurst/0720_hcz_whitehurst Harlem Children’s Zone charter schools is middle of the pack in terms of student test score outcomes.
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/ an examination of charter school data.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/TTR-Hoxby-Charters.pdf notes significant flaws in a non-peer-reviewed report claiming slightly better results for charter schools in New York City.

This comment came from a mother who attended the infamous meeting where State Commissioner John King announced his intention to have a dialogue with parents, then lectured the audience for over an hour, and interrupted those who disagreed with him. Having announced five such meetings, he canceled the other four, claiming that “special interests” had manipulated the parents.

This parent says she was there.

She writes:

“….I was at the Poughkeepsie Meeting. Sat in the front row, cause I wanted to look directly into the eyes of the man who has stolen the love of school from my 9 year old.

I am a mom, I have two boys (9 and 14) and we reside in the small community of Millbrook NY. No matter if the persons who did speak were teachers, they were most likely parents too….and I trust them to be surrogate parents to my children when they are in their care 6-7 hours a day.

We are a team.

So, I suggest that every parent start attending every BOE meeting and PTA/O meeting (as I have for the last 4 years, and that’s why I was at that meeting in Poughkeepsie) to show the local districts our support and encourage them to break free of the STATES hold on our children’s love of learning and their own love for teaching.

REVOLT…..great history lesson….lets stop talking about how teachers are scared for your Jobs…implementing the CC cause you have to…and lets NOT DO IT ANYMORE.

The claim from King was that local districts have some control…and I agree, so now we should show him!!!! Some of the problem is that not enough parents understand how much power we hold in the accountability dept. But, we are educating ourselves and in turn becoming more involved whether our districts want us there or NOT.

It’s time for WE THE PEOPLE…..Teachers and Parents TOGETHER….No excuses, we are just as much to blame for this mess as anyone else. Let’s listen to each other and lets take back the importance of educating our youth.

I am writing for King’s resignation. His disrespect for anyone to have a voice showed him to be the Dictator of his “Communistic Core” and I will not be silenced….this mama bear will fight for her cubs.”

A comment from a reader in Arizona who read the earlier report about the private schools for children with disabilities that fleece New Jersey taxpayers.

The reader writes:

“AZ has just as much, if not more, corruption. The administrators for BASIS schools (a charter school, most likely invading your area) make six figures and created a for profit corporation to run their schools, so now no one knows how much they make. The bookkeeper for the school is related and lives in the Czech republic. Similar to other charters, they cherry pick their students.

What BASIS?: Nepotism and aggrandizement in charters?

We also have a state legislator, Steve Yarbrough, who runs a Student Tuition organization. An STO receives money for scholarships to private schools and sends the money to the school. Yarbrough regularly votes on legislation that benefits him, so he is able to legally pocket 10% of the funds funneled through his STO, receive rent from a space owned by him, and (surprise) act as the STOs legal counsel.

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/steve-yarbrough-landlord.html

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/model-to-avoid-arizonas-tuition-tax-credit-law

When they call AZ the wild west, they’re not kidding.”

In case you had not noticed, there is a mayoral election going on in New York City.

The Democratic candidate, Bill de Blasio, is the front-runner, currently about 40 points ahead of his Republican challenger Joe Lhota.

De Blasio has made clear that he will strengthen the traditional schools that enroll 95% of the city’s public school students. Charter school advocates are outraged that he would show favoritism to the 95% over their 5%.

Lhota has the financial backing of the Koch brothers, and he has promised to open more charter schools, following Mayor Bloomberg’s lead. Thus far, his promise to be just like Bloomberg hasn’t helped him much in the polls, but he recently released a campaign ad tying himself firmly to the issue of charter schools. When several charter schools closed for the morning so their students, parents, and staff could hold a political rally, marching across the Brooklyn Bridge, Joe Lhota marched with them. He seemed not to realize that this very action demonstrated that charters are not public schools; any public school principal who closed his or her school to march the students in a political action would be fired.

This commentary comes from an insider in the New York City Department of Education, who knows the facts about charter schools in New York City. Forget the claims; forget the boasting; forget the tales of miracle schools.

Read this:

The current mayoral election in New York City has brought long overdue debate and discussion to the real outcomes of corporate-style management of public schools. No longer are New Yorkers compelled to listen to false and exaggerated claims about charter schools. Finally, after years of massaged data and blatantly false claims about charter schools, there is hope for an honest approach. Bill de Blasio, the progressive Democratic candidate, for mayor has committed to creating an equitable system for all children.  His opponent has gone on the attack and wants to double-down on the failed education policies of Mike Bloomberg. Let’s take an honest look at charter school performance in New York City.

Do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? At some charter schools 24%-68% of the students are lost from each cohort. Up to 7 out of 10 parents at these charter schools do not see their child complete schooling at the charter school they chose. Other “high performing” charter schools suspend 25%-40% of their students a year in order to see gains in test scores. This means that each year up to 2 in 5 parents at these charter schools has their choice forcibly taken away by the very charter school they chose to send their child to. In one particularly egregious case a charter school pushed out 1/3 of its student body in order to improve test scores. If you are the parent of an English Language Learner or of a student with special needs you won’t have much choice since charter schools tend to accept very few of those students. And if they do accept your child it seems that at least some charter school chains will attrite English Language Learners and students with special needs at very high rates. So do charter schools in New York City allow parents choice? Not at all.

Are charter schools in New York City accountable?  In one story, New York City Department of Education under Mike Bloomberg refused to share data on the state of special education in charter schools. In another story a charter school chain sued New York State to prevent an audit of how it used public money. New York State backed down. Joel Klein, former Chancellor in New York City falsely claimed that charter schools “closed the longstanding achievement gap.” He made this claim even though the data showed it to be an outright lie. In 2007, when the big push to open up even more charter schools began, the data showed that charter high schools had an on-time graduation rate less than half that of public schools. Even so, more charter schools were opened. As many sources have pointed out, little of the data that can be found for public view on the official web pages of public schools can be found on the official web pages of charter schools. The lack of transparency about schools that receive so much public money is astounding. So are charter schools in New York City accountable? Definitely not.

Do charter schools in New York City have better scores? In 2009 a report showed that students in charter schools made less progress than those in public schools. In 2010 the data showed that public schools were 24% more likely to get As or Bs on the New York City school report cards than charter schools. In 2011 yet another analysis showed that charter schools are more likely to get Ds or Fs on the progress section of the New York City school report cards than public schools. In fact, charter schools were twice as likely to get Fs than public schools. Charter high schools had half the college readiness rate of public high schools. This year charter schools saw bigger drops in performance on the Common Core exams than public schools. Additionally charter schools performed worse on average than public schools in English and the same as public schools in math. This is all the more concerning given the creaming, the extremely high suspensionand alarming attrition rates. Despite these competitive “advantages” charter schools overall do worse than public schools. So do charter schools have better scores? The data says no.

Who pays for charter schools in New York City and how much? As a whole charter schools in public buildings receive almost $650 more per student in public money than public schools. When the fact that charter schools have fewer high needs student is accounted for charter schools in public building receive $2,200 more per student in public money than public schools. Many charter schools spend a lot more money per student than public schools. KIPP spends over $3,000 more per student. Other well-known charter chains spend $4,300 more per student than public schools. Some of these sums come from hedge fund investors and corporate managers who believe that money should determine how schools run rather than the input of parents and educators. They will donate to charter schools up until they destroy public schools. Then the donations to charter schools will stop. What is the evidence for this? Because if they really cared about providing all children with opportunity they would support Bill de Blasio’s plan to ensure that every child in New York City has access to a quality pre-K program. As James Heckman, a Nobel prize winner in economics, shows in his new book Giving Kids a Fair Chance early intervention has the greatest social and economic impact. Instead, the head of a business leaders’ group said “it shows lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers.”

Clearly the facts support Bill de Blasio. Let’s put Bloomberg’s divisive policies behind us and return to a focus on equity and opportunity in all of our schools and for all students in New York City.

Additional Reading:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15582159.2011.548242?journalCode=wjsc20  “English language learners are consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across 3 academic years.”

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/7/20%20hcz%20whitehurst/0720_hcz_whitehurst  Harlem Children’s Zone charter schools is middle of the pack in terms of student test score outcomes.

http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/ an examination of charter school data

http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/TTR-Hoxby-Charters.pdf notes significant flaws in a non-peer-reviewed report claiming slightly better results for charter schools in New York City

In his review of Reign of Error in Schools Matter, historian and teacher John Thompson contemplates the urgent issue of whether I hurt reformers’ feelings.

To be precise, the question posed by his review is “Should Diane Ravitch Be More Careful to Not Hurt Reformers’ Feelings?”

This is an interesting question that I have pondered these past few weeks, indeed, for the past few years.

It is true. I heard from a mutual friend (well, not so much a friend anymore) that Bill Gates was very hurt by my comments about his effort to remake American education.

He frankly could not understand how anyone could question his good intentions.

Actually I have never questioned his intentions, but I certainly question his judgement and his certainty that he can “fix” education by creating metrics to judge teachers.

He recently said that it would take a decade to find out whether “this stuff” works; in the meanwhile, teachers and principals are losing their jobs, schools are being closed, communities are being shattered–because Bill Gates got a new idea that he wanted to try out using human subjects.

I have also heard from other sources that reformers say I am “mean” or “harsh” when I say that some “reformers” have a profit motive or that their grand plans actually hurt poor minority children instead of helping them.

They are baffled that I do not admire their efforts to create charters and vouchers to allow poor kids to “escape” public schools.

I confess that I was not aware of their feelings.

As a historian, I wasn’t really thinking about their feelings.

I was thinking about the consequences  of their actions.

I was thinking about purposeful efforts to dismantle public education.

I was thinking about the constant repetition of the blatant lie that American public education is a failure.

One of the things that a historian tries to do is to correct the record. When people say things again and again, even though these things are not true, it is the job of the historian to tell the truth. If others disagree, they should put their facts on the table too.

Historians understand that debate and dissent are part of the work of understanding history.

There is not one truth, but on the other hand, you can’t just make up facts and narratives, hire a fancy PR firm, and rewrite history to suit yourself.

Are there profiteers in the business of school reform? Yes, indeed, and I document their activities amply in the book.

Meanwhile, dear reformers, please know that I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to create a dual system of publicly funded schools turns back the clock to the shameful era before the Brown decision.

And I wanted you to know that your reliance on standardized testing is a grand mistake.

I urge everyone of you to take the tests that you think are the measure of all students and publish your scores.

If you won’t take the test, if you fear the results, don’t be so vigorous in using them to label children and evaluate teachers.

And please know that your speculative plans are not “hurting the feelings” of teachers and principals, they are ruining their careers, ruining their reputations, doing real and tangible damage to the lives of real people.

Their feelings are not hurt by your theoretical reforms. Their lives are.

Brock Cohen taught for a dozen years in the public
schools and is now pursuing a graduate degree. Here
he tries to explain
the madness of local, state, and
federal mandates that crush teachers, principals and schools as
they labor under the burden of being labeled a “failing school.”
Here is a sample of how these mandates destroy schools instead of
helping them: “Most of my 12-plus years as a high school teacher
have been spent in a Title I Los Angeles-area public high school
that is perennially labeled with Program Improvement (P.I.)
probationary status. Being branded as such means continually having
to grapple with a host of federal, state, and local sanctions that,
at best, cast pall of shame over the entire school and at worst
cause direct harm to student learning outcomes. “Program
Improvement,” incidentally, is bureaucratic vernacular for
“failing,” which is ironic, since many of the California schools
designated with this term have actually been meeting or exceeding
their school-wide Academic Performance Index (API) goals for years.
I know: I don’t get it either. So what gives? “Here’s a hint: the
fundamental problem of “failing” schools isn’t lurking within the
decaying brick and mortar of dilapidated school walls. It does,
however, lurk within a dilapidated system that stubbornly refuses
to transform itself into what it should – or could – be. This
autocratic paradigm tries to paper over outdated or incoherent
curricula, abysmally low organizational capacity and scripted
“test-best” instructional mandates with a new generation of
high-stakes tests and massive rollouts of iPads. It also includes
the cynical but rosy rhetoric of school leaders and media pundits
who call for teachers and principals to work their way through this
manufactured crisis – to Teach Like a Champion! – as if balling
one’s fists and punching a concrete wall harder, harder, HARDER!
could ever serve as a template for reconstituting a building’s
framework. “The problem also lurks within an ethos that continually
fails to realize that our hallowed learning and achievement targets
actually descend into an abysmal rabbit hole. Without delving too
deeply into this abyss, let’s just say that data collection isn’t
inherently a bad thing. But the performance indicators on which
we’ve chosen to fixate have rendered the whole process pointless
and fantastically detrimental to the cognitive growth of a
generation of students. That leaders and practitioners have been
somehow coerced into believing that learning indicators are
something that can be reflected in the crudeness of high-stakes
standardized test scores reveals the extent to which intellectual
atrophy has devolved into an institutionalized norm.” Read it all
and weep for the children and those who are trying their best to
educate them.

Russ Walsh, who works at Rider University in Pennsylvania, asks a simple question:

What if Chicken Little had 70 billion dollars? Would his comical error in believing the sky is falling have been dismissed so quickly? Would the acorn of truth have been discovered and Chicken Little disgraced? Instead of making Chicken Little the laughingstock of the barnyard, would we instead be drawing up plans for “sky proof” shelters and evaluating them with standardized quality control measures all financed by Chicken Little’s largesse? Perhaps Chicken Little would decide that the public barn on the farm was substandard and he would contract out to have charter barns built. Perhaps he would finance a project to bring Common Corn to the barnyard feed, so that chickens in Mississippi would be fed the same stuff as those in Wisconsin. Perhaps Chicken Little would be lionized in the media as the great fowl hope for the future of barnyards everywhere.

What if everything the “reformers” have been saying for the past decade and more is simply wrong? Would we believe them if their claims were not backed up by the billions of the U.S. Department of Education, the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walmart family, and a pride of politicians?

No, of course not. But why do we believe them? Could it be the power of the Big Lie technique, where you say that same thing so often that people start thinking it is true.

Or does it serve the purposes of those who see a way to jump into public education as an emerging market?

Russ concludes:

Buy the book. Read it. Get angry. And then get busy spreading the word that Chicken Little has gotten it wrong again.

 

 

 

Lately, the organization 50CAN has spread from state to state, bringing bad ideas that hurt children and promote corporate control of public schools (aka privatization). The CAN strategy always begins with grading and labeling schools, so that those at the bottom are demoralized and feel like failures, no matter how hard they try.

North Carolina has CarolinaCAN, which is grading schools as the first step in destroying the school and decimating the local community, taking away its most stable institution, its public school. You can always count on a slick charter operator to fly in, pick on the bones of the public school, push out the kids with disabilities, push out the English learners, push out the kids with low scores, then boast of its great success.

Shameful, just shameful.

Pamela Grundy, a parent activist on behalf of public schools, sent her son to a high-minority, low-income school called Shamrock Gardens Elementary School in Charlotte, which she describes here.

CarolinaCAN has decided that Shamrock Gardens must be destroyed. These corporate robots, who do not know the school, have never walked its halls or met its children or teachers or parents, have given it a grade. They say it is a D- school. They give it a badge of shame. All the efforts of the children, the parents, and the teachers at the school went for nought. This CAN did what other CANs do: they operate as a corporate machine to destroy the lives of children and communities while patting themselves on the back.

In the psychiatric literature, CAN is an acronym for “Child Abuse and Neglect.” Remember that next time you hear that a CAN In your state says your local public school is rotten. Remember that they have a goal. To turn it over to a corporation.

Forgive my anger. Once again, the powerful pick on the powerless, and it makes me mad. Someone will say I was “mean” for picking on an organization that is funded by the wealthy to destroy public schools. I don’t care. I care about the children. In olden days, these know-nothings would be run out of town on a rail because of the harm they do. Now they issue press releases and get respect that they do not deserve, because so much corporate money is backing their machine.

Here is what Pamela Grundy wrote:

“The large, orange-red D-minus dominates the web page, leaping out from the white background. I’m looking at a so-called “Report Card” for Shamrock Gardens Elementary School, prepared by a lobbying group known as The Carolina Campaign for Achievement Now, or CarolinaCAN. As everyone who has ever gotten a report card knows, a D-minus is a mark of shame, a hair shy of utter failure. You get a D-minus in a class when you had no idea what you were doing or when you barely tried at all.

“Our school does not deserve that kind of grade.

“Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to the assessment of a group brought in from outside the state, which has a single staff member and whose idea of “research” seems to be a slick and shallow repackaging of readily available public information…..

“By 2012, Shamrock had become a thriving, sanction-free school with vibrant extracurriculars, strong parent involvement programs and a growing number of middle-class families who had once shunned the school but who had begun to see it as a good place for their children. My son had enjoyed six years of a marvelous education, provided by a skilled and dedicated staff who constantly went above and beyond for their students. I’d be happy to match the group of teachers who taught our 2012 testing grades against any in the state.

“Still, Shamrock continued to face plenty of challenges. In 2012, 95 percent of our tested population qualified as economically disadvantaged. Nine percent of the tested students had diagnosed disabilities, and 16 percent had yet to master English. At least 10 percent were homeless at some point during the year. Fewer than 1 in 3of the fifth-graders had been at Shamrock for all six years of elementary school, and some students had been at the school only a few months before they took the tests.

“These challenges made raising aggregate test scores tough. While the majority of our low-income students thrived, others struggled, especially those whose family instability meant frequent moves from school to school. The reading test posed particular problems because success often depended on navigating the test-makers’ verbal tricks, an especially difficult task for English language learners.

“The result: In 2012, approximately 58 percent of the state tests our fifth-graders took were scored at or above grade level (and this was before the state Board of Education’s recent decision to significantly raise the bar for testing proficiency). On CarolinaCAN’s grading scale, which closely resembles that used for classroom grades, a 58 translates to a D-minus.

“But getting 58 percent of a challenged and often transient student body to grade level or above is a meaningful accomplishment. It should not be equated to getting a grade of 58 on an exam or in a class. A high-poverty school with a 58 percent proficiency rate needs to improve. Neither its teachers nor its students deserve to be shamed with a D-minus.

“The purveyors of the A-F grading system argue that the “newfound transparency” of the system will spur teachers and parents to work harder to improve their schools. I predict a far different scenario.

“State-mandated A-F grades will intensify the focus on the narrow range of material that standardized tests cover, compounding the well-documented damage that this kind of testing has done to American education. And because they will paint a portrait that is often far more negative than reality, they will further undercut confidence in North Carolina public schools and teachers. Most families will not try to improve schools labeled with D-minuses. Rather, they will do their best to avoid them.

“It is perhaps not surprising that the proponents of A-F grading, including the American Legislative Exchange Council and CarolinaCAN’s parent organization, 50CAN, are also prominent backers of expanding charter schools and vouchers. One way to build support for charters and vouchers, of course, is to convince parents and politicians that public schools are worse than they actually are.

“If our legislators truly want to help our public schools improve, they should abandon their harmful plans for A-F grading and turn their efforts to measures that will make a positive difference in children’s educational experiences. They should restore class-size caps, reduce the number of time-consuming standardized tests and raise teacher pay to more respectable levels.”

Pamela Grundy of Charlotte is co-chair of MecklenburgACTS.org, a grassroots group working on issues of equity and excellence in Mecklenburg County public schools.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/11/3273018/how-allowing-nc-schools-to-be.html#storylink=cpy

Arthur Goldstein, who teaches at Frances Lewis High School in Queens, New York, observed the video in which John King was completely unable to maintain order when faced with an audience of angry parents. He condescended to them, which seems to be his default mode, and they responded angrily. He could not control the class. He probably wanted to expel them, but he couldn’t. They were not “bad students,” they were outraged parents and taxpayers. He forgot that he works for them. They are his boss, not his subjects.

Goldstein wrote the following about John King’s debacle.

 

John King? Or King John?

The spectacle of NY State Education Commissioner John King losing his composure while speaking to Poughkeepsie parents last week was remarkable. I’m just a lowly teacher, but even I know that’s not how you face an audience you’re trying to persuade. I tell young teachers that every time you lose your temper, you make the kids trying to distract you happy. Not only that, but you also embolden and multiply your opposition.

I don’t mean to condemn critical parents or students here. I’m simply saying that educators ought to be able to accept differences of opinion without getting emotional. There are many viewpoints I do not share with my students, but that doesn’t mean they can’t express them in my classroom. How can I engage kids if I don’t tolerate their expressing themselves?

Honestly, how can King, who deems the public schools he administers unsuitable for his kids, tell us with a straight face that they’re good enough for ours? And how dare he suggest we have no right even to ask this question?

Young teachers in my school have concerns similar to those of upstate parents. One tells me his daughter, who used to love to read, is now spending hours doing homework for which she is not developmentally prepared. He says she now cries as a result of being overburdened.

A young mom with whom I work tells me her second grader is overwhelmed by demands he do algebra. She visited his school, claimed he left something in his desk, and surreptitiously used her iPad to photograph every page of his English and math books. She says that’s the only way she can effectively help him with his homework.

These are fundamental issues that are not effectively answered by pontifications on the wonders of Common Core. In fact, I’m amazed at the format utilized in Poughkeepsie. As a teacher, one of my prime directives is to engage my audience. Were I to attempt a two-hour lecture, with a twenty-minute comment period after, my teenage audience would likely engage in open revolt. This would be particularly true if I’d chosen a topic with which they disagreed strenuously, and would be exacerbated if my presentation failed to influence them or address their concerns.

King, ostensibly our state’s foremost educational authority, showed communication and management skills that would be unacceptable in a second-year teacher. He would not have fared well under the Danielson framework city teachers now face. There can be serious consequences for teachers who fail to engage their audiences, but I’ve seen none for King.

Even worse, after this exchange, Chancellor King saw fit to cancel the rest of his appearances. I’ve seen teachers, overwhelmed by the pressures of facing 34 teenagers at a time, get up and walk away. However, I’ve never seen them cancel all future classes and get to keep their jobs.

Last I looked, we’re still a democracy, and We, the People are the ultimate voice. John King is supposed to represent us, not dictate to us. If King cannot abide by what we and our children want and need, let alone allow us to question him, he ought not to keep his job either.