Archives for the year of: 2014

Peter Greene, high school teacher in Pennsylvania, read Anthony Cody’s article about teachers taking action, and he remembered why he had been reluctant when he should have spoken out. Then he realized that the time had come to speak up and not allow his profession to be diminished by uninformed critics.

In this post, he gives practical advice about how teachers must overcome their reluctance and become warriors on behalf of their students and their profession.

He boils it down to four principles:

Trust your judgment.

Network.

Speak.

Act.

To fill in the details, read his post.

Paul Thomas follows Anthony Cody’s previously cited post by describing the unrelenting attack on teachers, which has intensified with the use of statistically inappropriate measures.

He writes:

“As Cody notes above, however, simultaneously political leaders, the media, and the public claim that teachers are the most valuable part of any student’s learning (a factually untrue claim), but that high-poverty and minority students can be taught by those without any degree or experience in education (Teach for America) and that career teachers no longer deserve their profession—no tenure, no professional wages, no autonomy, no voice in what or how they teach.

And while the media and political leaders maintain these contradictory narratives and support these contradictory policies, value-added methods (VAM) of evaluating and compensating U.S. public teachers are being adopted, again simultaneously, as the research base repeatedly reveals that VAM is yet another flawed use of high-stake accountability and testing.”

Thomas cites review after review to demonstrate that VAM is inaccurate and deeply flawed. Yet the evidence is ignored and VAM is being used as a political weapon by the odd bedfellows of the Obama administration and rightwing governors as well as some Democratic governors, like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Dannell Malloy of Connecticut, to attack teachers. President Obama made a point of praising the Chetty study in his 2012 State of the Union address, not waiting for the many reviews that showed the error of measuring teacher quality by test scores.

Thomas writes:

“The rhetoric about valuing teachers rings hollow more and more as teaching continues to be dismantled and teachers continue to be devalued by misguided commitments to VAM and other efforts to reduce teaching to a service industry.

“VAM as reform policy, like NCLB, is sham-science being used to serve a corporate need for cheap and interchangeable labor. VAM, ironically, proves that evidence does not matter in education policy.”

Anthony Cody here describes teachers as “reluctant warriors,” as men and women who chose a profession because they wanted to teach, not to engage in political battles over their basic rights as professionals.

 

The profession is under attack, as everyone now knows. Pensions are under attack. The right to due process is under attack. The policymakers want inexperienced, inexpensive teachers who won’t talk back, who won’t collect a pension, who will turn over rapidly:

 

In years past we formed unions and professional organizations to get fair pay, so women would get the same pay as men. We got due process so we could not be fired at an administrator’s whim. We got pensions so we could retire after many years of service.

But career teachers are not convenient or necessary any more. We cost too much. We expect our hard-won expertise to be recognized with respect and autonomy. We talk back at staff meetings, and object when we are told we must follow mindless scripts, and prepare for tests that have little value to our students.

No need for teachers to think for themselves, to design unique challenges to engage their students. The educational devices will be the new source of innovation. The tests will measure which devices work best, and the market will make sure they improve every year. Teachers are guides on the side, making sure the children and devices are plugged in properly to their sockets.

 

First, the privatizers came for the schools of the poor, because their parents and communities were powerless and were easy marks for privatization. Then they came for the union and the teachers:

 

Schools of the poor were the first targets. It was easy to stigmatize schools attended by African Americans and Latinos, by English learners and the children of the disempowered. Use test scores to label them failures, dropout factories, close them down, turn them over to privatizers. But this was just the beginning. And now, as Arne Duncan made clear with his dismissal of “white suburban moms,” they want all the schools, and are prepared to use poor performance on the Common Core tests to fuel the “schools are failing” narrative.

 

Teacher unions are under ruthless attack by billionaires, who conveniently own the media, and provide the very “facts” to guide public discourse. Due process is maligned and destroyed under the guise of “increasing professionalism.” Democratic control of local schools is undermined by mayoral control and the expansion of privately managed charter schools.

 

Congress and state legislatures have been purchased wholesale through bribes legalized by the Supreme Court, which has given superhuman power to corporate “citizens.”

 

Teachers, by our nature cooperators respectful of authority, are slow to react. Can the destruction of public education truly be anyone’s goal? The people responsible for this erosion rarely state their intentions. With smiles and praise for teachers, they remove our autonomy and make our jobs depend on test scores. With calls for choice and civil rights, they re-segregate our schools, and institute zero-tolerance discipline policies in their no-excuses charter schools. They push for larger classes in public schools but send their own children to schools with no more than 16 students in a room. Corporate philanthropies anoint teacher “leaders” who are willing to echo reform themes – sometimes even endorsed by our national teacher unions.

 

Now, he says, as the truth gets out about the privatization movement and its bipartisan support, teachers are starting to fight back. They are joining the BATs, they are joining the Network for Public Education, they are speaking out, they are (as in Seattle) refusing to give the tests, they are organizing (as in New York City) to protest the low quality of the tests.

 

Join in the fight against high-stakes testing, which is a central element in the privatization movement. They use the data to target teachers, principals, and public schools. They use the data to destroy public education. Don’t cooperate. Join the reluctant warriors. One person alone will be hammered. Do it with your colleagues, stand together, and be strong.

 

 

 

 

Valerie Strauss clearly explains who were the losers in the bruising battle between the billionaires and de Blasio: students with disabilities.

In Dallas, billionaire John Arnold is supporting an initiative to turn the whole district into a “home rule district” or a “charter district.”

 

The organization that is collecting signatures has a typical reformer name: “Support Our Public Schools.” When today’s reformers say they want to “support our public schools,” it usually means the opposite. Buyer beware.

 

But what is a home rule district?

 

Wade Crowder, a veteran Dallas teacher, explains that the goal is to remove the elected school board and replace it with an unaccountable appointed board. As is usual with today’s corporate reforms, the prelude to a sweeping plan for deregulation is claims of failure, failure, failure.

 

Actually, the supporters of the home rule district have been vague about their goals.

 

But Julian Vasquez Heilig says that what is happening is a “hostile corporate takeover.”

 

If you open the link in Julian’s blog, you will see the names of the extremely wealthy people who are behind “Support Our Public Schools.”

 

None of them has a record for having supported public schools in the past.

 

They have contributed to school board races, but not to Carla Ranger, who is the most outspoken supporter of public schools on the Dallas school board.

 

Early indications are that voters are suspicious of the motives of the monied clan that wants to control the public schools their children attend.

 

Julian writes:

 

“Home Rule is an emerging story currently flying under the radar in the national and statewide Texas media. Millionaires and billionaire(s) are quietly funding a “Home Rule” hostile takeover attempt of all public schools in Dallas, Texas. Yes, that’s right… ALL OF THEM.”

 

And he adds:

 

Who is Support our Public Schools?
Who are the behind-the-scenes players in the Home Rule takeover proposal?
Who is John Arnold?
What are the steps to the Home Rule takeover in state code?
What “rules” will Dallas not be “free” from as a Home Rule Charter District?
What “rules” will Dallas be “free” from after a Home Rule takeover?
Is the Home Rule takeover really necessary?
Is a charter district takeover more democracy and local control or less?
Have a politically appointed school board and mayoral control been a successful approach?
Have charters outperformed traditional public schools across Texas?
How does the Texas and Dallas investment in education compared to peers?
If not Home Rule, what reforms should DISD and SOPS commit to?
Some of the questions addressed in the brief are more specific to the Dallas community. However, several have import for the state of Texas and public education nationally such as: Who is John Arnold? and… Have a politically appointed school board and mayoral control been a successful approach?

 

Keeping up with the billionaires and millionaires’ education privatization hobby is a lot of work. Maybe we could suggest to them that they get a regular hobby like N-scale model trains or do more snow skiing?”

 

 

This article reports on a long-term study of the lasting effects of early childhood education.

 

The article is misleadingly titled “Project to Improve Poor Children’s Intellect Led to Better Health, Data Shows.”

 

But the study involved far more than improving young children’s intellect.

 

In 1972, researchers in North Carolina started following two groups of babies from poor families. In the first group, the children were given full-time day care up to age 5 that included most of their daily meals, talking, games and other stimulating activities. The other group, aside from baby formula, got nothing. The scientists were testing whether the special treatment would lead to better cognitive abilities in the long run.

Forty-two years later, the researchers found something that they had not expected to see: The group that got care was far healthier, with sharply lower rates of high blood pressure and obesity, and higher levels of so-called good cholesterol.

The study, which was published in the journal Science on Thursday, is part of a growing body of scientific evidence that hardship in early childhood has lifelong health implications. But it goes further than outlining the problem, offering evidence that a particular policy might prevent it.

“This tells us that adversity matters and it does affect adult health,” said James Heckman, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who led the data analysis. “But it also shows us that we can do something about it, that poverty is not just a hopeless condition.”

 

Professor James Heckman, a Nobel-prize winning economist from the University of Chicago, sees the study as evidence that early childhood education does not mean a year of preschool but early nurturing from infancy that enable children to develop as healthy and happy human beings, attending to their skills, capabilities, curiosity, and engagement with others.

 

 

In an earlier post, I shared with you the fact that I took a bad fall, landed on my knee, and tore the ACL ligament. The MRI showed the damage was even more extensive than it first seemed. I not only tore my ACL, I managed to take out several other ligaments as well that provide stability. So much for enthusiasm and striving boldly into the challenges of life.

As a result, this is the new schedule: I am going to Louisville this week to accept the Grawemeyer award. I wouldn’t miss it, even if I have to use a walker and a wheelchair.

I am canceling all other speaking engagements for the balance of April and May. No Milwaukee. No Madison. No Towson University. No Honorary degree at Columbia College in Chicago.

I may be facing knee replacement surgery.

This much I promise you. I won’t stop blogging and tweeting unless I’m under anesthesia. I will not stop advocating for commonsense reforms, for respectful treatment of educators, for loving treatment of children, and the joy of learning until they pry my cold, dead fingers from my electronic devices.

EduShyster needs our help to go to Camp Philos to hear the great thoughts of such brilliant educational philosophers as Governor Andrew Cuomo, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (Michelle Rhee’s husband), Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Whatz-is-name the mayor of Denver.

She has raised $600. She needs $400 more. I made a contribution. Will you?

EduShyster promises to share with us all she learns from the deepest educational thinkers of our time.

Please go to the link in this post and make a donation. What’s it worth to you to know what our philosophers are thinking?

EduShyster

Sara Stevenson, librarian at O. Henry Middle School in Austin, published an article in the Austin American-Statesman, written as a warning to Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams. The article appeared on April 11, amd it is behind a paywall is I have no link.

Stevenson did an excellent job of reviewing the research literature on value-added measurement and warned Commissioner Williams that VAM is neither accurate nor stable. Further it is very demoralizing to teachers to be publicly shamed by these ratings. She mentions the suicide of Roberto Riguelas, a teacher in Los Angeles who committed suicide only days after his rating was published by the Los Angeles Times.

She writes:

“Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams is tasked with crafting a plan to tie teacher evaluations to STAAR test scores. The Obama administration requires states receiving waivers from this year’s impossible 100 percent passing rate on Bush’s No Child Left Behind law to incorporate student test scores as part of the state teacher evaluation formula. Williams should just say no.

“First of all, value-added measurement, or VAM, is junk science. It has been debunked in multiple studies. Researchers with the RAND Corp. concluded that there were so many cases of error and bias in the formulations that they reject using VAM for high-stakes decisions. Stanford professor Edward Haertel also warns against using these unstable measures for high-stakes purposes. Furthermore, a Vanderbilt study concludes that tying teacher evaluations to VAM undermined professionalism and demoralized teachers.”

And she concludes:

“Student success in school is multi-determined. For instance, the most important factor is socioeconomic status. This is not to say poor kids can’t learn. It’s just something researchers have proven over and over again. Therefore, you could, theoretically, take the worst teacher at Hill Country Middle School in the Eanes school district, where 2 percent of students qualify for free or reduced lunch, and her students would score higher than students of the most dedicated, selfless teacher at Pearce Middle School in East Austin, a school made up of more than 95 percent of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch.

“Considering both research and common sense, it would be harmful for Texas to tie teacher evaluation to student test scores. Imposing these criteria on Texas teachers will force the best to flee and find other means of employment. Who will risk his career to teach our neediest students? This trend will not bode well for our youngest citizens, who will determine our future.

“Texas legislators need to say no to the VAM bandwagon.”

Paul Thomas has been a consistent critic of the Obama education policies of standards, testing, accountability, choice, competition.

 

Rightly so, since those policies are no different from those of the Bush era, only worse.

 

He now wonders if the administration’s criticism of zero tolerance might be a hopeful turn.

 

But he does not note that the administration does not associate “zero tolerance” with “no-excuses” charter schools promoted by the administration.

 

The most important book on “no-excuses” charters was written by David Whitman, Arne Duncan’s speechwriter.

 

Duncan continues to praise “no-excuses” charters which practice zero tolerance.

 

The question Paul should be investigating is how often the President or the Secretary has condemned practice that their policies mandate, like teaching to the test.