Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute in D.C. is the member of the “reform” movement for whom I continue to hold out hope. Mike is intelligent–as are other members of the “reform” movement–but unlike most of the others, he is known to question his assumptions from time to time. He occasionally challenges himself and takes a tiny step away from the other advocates of privatization, teacher-bashing, and test-driven ideology. He also has young children and will soon see the consequences on his own children of the terrible ideas that the movement is promoting. I have a fantasy that one day–maybe 10 years from now, maybe sooner–Mike will announce that he has had a change of heart. He will announce, as I did, that he was wrong, that education is about far more than test scores, and that great teachers are not defined by their ability to raise test scores. But that’s my fantasy, and it may never happen.
So here is Mike’s view of 2014. He calls his post “2014: The Year of Universal Proficiency.” His point is that No Child Left Behind included an absurd and impossible command that all schools must be proficient by 2014. That not only did not happen but it will never happen. He wisely warns against setting impossible targets.
He suggests instead that we aim for reasonable targets, for example, that the entire nation reach the proficiency levels achieved by Massachusetts on NAEP:
He writes:
So here’s a modest proposal: Let’s aim to get to 292 within six years. That would be an incredible accomplishment—reaching Massachusetts-level math achievement for the country as a whole. Still, let’s be clear: Just half of the Bay State’s eighth graders are proficient in math; the numbers for minority and low-income students are much, much lower. Even big gains leave us far from “universal proficiency”—much less “universal college and career readiness.”
***
Schools nationwide have been labeled as failures for not getting 100 percent of their students to proficiency. Many of these schools contributed to the nationwide progress that’s discernable on NAEP. Such schools deserve our praise, not our scorn. And they deserve wiser policymaking going forward. Shall we make it a resolution?
Now, here comes my advice to Mike Petrilli: For all schools to reach the levels of Massachusetts, their states would have to make the same grand bargain that Massachusetts legislators and educators made, beginning in 1993: The state agreed to add $2 billion to spending for education in return for educators accepting standards and a testing system (MCAS). The state equalized funding across districts. The state raised standards for entry into the teaching profession. The state invested in early childhood education. Massachusetts developed what most observers (including the Fordham Institute) considered the best state standards in history, English, science, and mathematics.
What did Massachusetts not have: Common Core standards (not yet created); a multitude of charter schools (there were only 25 in the whole state).
There are many other reasons for Massachusetts’ success, including its economy, its many fine colleges and universities, and its long tradition of support for education.
Will other states follow the Massachusetts’ example? Will they dramatically increase spending on public schools? Will they set high standard for entry into teaching? Will they equalize funding to raise up the low-performing schools? Will they invest in early childhood education? Will they put a low cap on the number of charters?
Since these things are not likely to happen; since many states are cutting education budgets; since many states are inviting unqualified entrepreneurs to run schools; since many states have low standards for entry into teaching, it is highly unlikely that all states will equal the NAEP performance of Massachusetts.
Frankly, I don’t think that setting a test score as our national goal is even a worthy goal. I prefer a goal that says “all children will enter school healthy and ready to learn.” And a goal that says, “All families will have food security, access to medical care, and a decent place to live.” And a goal that says “All teachers will be well prepared and well qualified by training and education for the teaching profession.” And a goal that says, “All schools will have a rich curriculum for all children and qualified teachers to teach that curriculum, including the arts, history, civics, geography, mathematics, the sciences, foreign languages, and physical education.” And, all schools will have the staff and resources they need for the children they serve.
If we met those goals, the test scores would take care of themselves.
Besides, there is something unworthy about the idea of directing our national aspirations to meet targets created by the standardized testing industry.

Somewhat off-topic, but I hope worth considering is how CCSS and its attendant programs will “gamify” teaching. Think about the structure of the CCSS standards, the use of testing and big data, and teacher performance metrics, now consider this from yesterday’s WSJ:
A key quote:
I’m asking you as if your opinion here matters. In fact, it does not. All evidence suggests that your work one day will operate like a videogame to be conquered, rather than a craft to be perfected.
The high-level name for this trend is “gamification,” an ugly neologism that has seen terrific hype and terrific backlash in Silicon Valley over the past few years. The term refers to transferring the features that motivate players in videogames—achievement levels, say, or a constantly running score—into nongame settings. Gamification systems are possible because much of what we do in the workplace is conducted through software that can track our productivity, constantly measure our value and apply incentives that prod us to do better.
LikeLike
Congrats to the WSJ but they’re behind the curve. I’m fascinated with game theory and have made it a hobby of mine since first coming across it about six years ago. Game theory is deeply involved in behaviorism (or economics related to human behavior).
Some organizations have been involved in gaming for a while. For example, some (I said some not all) charter schools have deeply manipulated the game. In states where schools get “grades”, the schools look at the formula and figure out how to get the grade they want through manipulation of statistics or the student body composition.
As a teacher now subjected to some mysterious algorithm in a VAM system, one might see how to manipulate the numbers. It becomes a game to get the best test scores which does not necessarily imply better teaching or more meaningful lessons. As a history teacher in high school, I can tell you that CCSS does not promote teaching history but rather literacy. So I could teach far less history and get better scores! So, I’m playing a game and abdicating my true responsibilities to some degree.
I thought such systems made it obvious that gamification would happen. But I guess it’s all about getting the scores and there’s no concern (aside from flat-out cheating, unless one is in DC) about what it took to get those scores.
LikeLike
great comment!
LikeLike
It always makes me nervous to hear, “If we did X, the test scores would take care of themselves.” That would be true if the assessments we were using were valid and well-designed. However, one of our problems since Day One of NCLB has been poorly designed tests which require their own separate preparation. Simply producing students who are well-educated is not good enough, and hasn’t been good enough for over a decade.
LikeLike
Very true about Massachusetts pre-Common Core. California would also be held up as an example, if it were more well-known how our gains have also been realized across demographic groups, including a very large surge in English-learners the past 10 years. Likely a higher immigration of ELA-learners here in CA vs. MA.
But the story is the same. Wasting billions and throwing out a decade or more of success in both MA and CA (and other states) chasing the Common Core “dream.”
LikeLike
Diane, question: What is so important about everyone getting a score of 292 on the NEAP? How do NEAP scores translate into human qualities?
LikeLike
Quick add: I understand that Chris Christie and Bill Gates scored very well on their tests.
LikeLike
Point and irony noted!
LikeLike
Good question. It is also not at all clear what 292 means in terms of proficiency in Math and English.
LikeLike
It’s amusing to see that some people actually think that these tests are valid measures of ability in reading, writing, literary interpretation, vocabulary, grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling.
LikeLike
very darkly amusing
LikeLike
Robert:
The question was serious and goes with the mention of any of these scores – even for well designed tests like the NAEP and the PISA. Duane’s position is too extreme for me and essentially says that you cannot usefully measure any multidimensional phenomena on a uni-dimensional scale. That said, the information content of “292” is next to zero.
LikeLike
Disgustingly, sickly amusing in a Marquis de Sade way, to be an itty bit hyperbolical.
LikeLike
Duane:
What do you mean? I assumed that you would ask the same or similar question.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The same question occurred to me and at about the same time the answer which, would be absolutely nothing, the score of 292 means nothing for all the reasons noted by Wilson and so frequently (others might say sickeningly) reiterated by me on this blog. But we get new visitors every day so there is probably always someone who hasn’t heard about or read Wilson and his never refuted nor rebutted studies (just had to get the two R words in there somehow.)
LikeLike
Bernie, these tests purport to measure reading ability. Now, what is reading ability? Well, it is made up of a lot of distinct knowledge and skills, including
ability to decode graphemes quickly and accurately (with automaticity);
ability to decode via lexcial (whole word) reading the common sight words in the language;
morphological fluency (ability to decode quickly and accurately compound words and words formed from bases or roots to which the common inflectional and derivational affixes have been added);
grammatical fluency (ability to process quickly and accurately language using the full range of common syntactic forms, including the common syntactic argument structures or theta roles);
ability to decode quickly and accurately via lexical reading a base lexicon of high-frequency non-function words;
lexical knowledge (vocabulary);
familiarity with common idioms and metaphorical schemata;
ability to comprehend quantifications in their common forms;
ability to comprehend common formal relations (such as negation; identity, or synonymy; inclusion, or hyponymy; compatibility; and incompatibility, or disjunction);
ability to comprehend common non-formal relations;
ability to comprehend common property attributions;
ability to recognize and use appropriately common text features such as titles, headings, bullets, call-outs, footnotes and endnotes, boldfaced terms, and glossary items;
fluency in comprehension of common discourse-level structures such as thesis statements, summaries, transitions, and clausal and sentence-level relations;
automaticity of appropriate processing of various common elaboration forms such as examples, anecdotes, quotations, analyses (breaking the thing into parts), cause-and-effect, enumeration, classification, and definition (of many different types);
ability to process and subject to informal critique inductive, deductive, and abductive inferences;
ability to comprehend language employing common figures of speech and rhetorical techniques;
ability to orient to a text conceptually based upon implicit recognition of its genre(s) and mode(s) and formation of appropriate expectations as a result of such recognition (I’m reading a fable or a lab report here);
ability to orient to a text conceptually based upon implicit recognition of its social context, speech act type, and purpose(s);
ability to respond appropriately to the those sound-related features of the language that convey meaning;
and, importantly,
possession of common world knowledge prerequisite to comprehension (what writers in various knowledge domains typical assume that readers already know).
And that’s a VERY rough list, off the top of my head, put together quite quickly. Let me emphasize that much of what I have listed, above, is knowledge or ability acquired and employed implicitly, not explicitly. The sort of teaching that attempts to make this stuff explicit or to test it explicitly is usually as wrong-headed as it would be to try to teach a child to walk by having him or her memorize the names and describe the functions of the muscles and bones in his or her legs and feet, the neural structures that control those, and so on).
The high-stakes tests do not BEGIN to test for all this. Using them is like deciding whether someone is a good baseball player based upon his or her ability to lace up a pair of athletic shoes. Reading is MUCH, MUCH more complex than these test makers have any notion that it is, and the particular strengths or weaknesses that a given reader are not captured by these silly tests.
LikeLike
Robert:
That is a useful breakdown of what goes into reading proficiency. I have never developed a reading test, but I am pretty sure that if there was a legitimate need, then you could develop such a test quite easily. (Whether the test was “High Stakes” or not is another question.)
I would have assumed that the folks who developed the NAEP ELA test started with a list such as yours – Diane suggests in her book that these tests were developed very carefully by folks with strong backgrounds. Do you have a different perspective on these particular tests?
LikeLike
And, Bernie, if you think at all carefully about these matters, you will soon recognize that beyond a very elementary level, there are many, many different ways to be a good reader, that beyond a very elementary level, there is no such thing as a single thing called “reading ability.” Reading a romantic lyric poem and reading an abstract of a scientific study are activities as distinct as playing Bach and playing the stock market. You can call them both playing, if you want, but you are just confusing things if you take that at all seriously.
LikeLike
Robert:
Yes it is multifaceted so you are correct up to a point. But as I have said before, we have to state first and foremost the purpose for the assessment. So if you want to include reading lyric poetry and reading abstracts of scientific papers then you will need a longer test than if you chose one or other. However, it seems to me that there would be a general consensus that reading a newspaper article and/or a magazine article might well serve to ensure the basics have been mastered – assuming that we are talking about MS and HS students.
LikeLike
cx: ability to comprehend common formal operations and relations (such as negation; identity, or synonymy; inclusion, or hyponymy; compatibility; and incompatibility, or disjunction)
LikeLike
It’s not as easy as you might think, Bernie. There are a lot of reading tests that are widely used that simply aren’t valid measures because they don’t test for all this and don’t recognize that beyond a very elementary level, there is no READING, there is reading sub 1, reading sub 2, . . . reading sub n, where one of these is the complex of knowledge and ability necessary to read, say, the typical Dylan Thomas poem, which is different from that which is necessary to read the typical Willie Yeats poem–very, very different.
LikeLike
As I said, Bernie, there’s a LOT on my list that is quite significant that isn’t tested for at all–significant in the sense that knowing where a kid is in one of these areas might distinguish him or her signficiantly from other types of readers (instead of assuming that there is this single thing called reading ability and that everyone has more or less of it).
LikeLike
Robert:
I only have a layman’s grasp of the intricacies of reading, but I would bet that many of the separate “skills” you mentioned are positively correlated – though undoubtedly not perfectly correlated. Other skills might be Guttman like – mastery of one is associated with mastery of another skill but not vice versa.
Bottom line, while I agree that a “good” test is going to be difficult to develop and definitely needs true subject matter experts, it is not impossible. The big questions remain why you want to assess and what you want to assess.
LikeLike
You say, Bernie, “if there were a legitimate need,” and you say a lot there. This summative testing (and the preparation of kids for the tests) is far too crude and is mostly a distraction from those matters that we as teachers ought to be attending to. The deform crowd has no notion how dramatically this testing mania has distorted curricula and pedagogy. Teachers who might be thinking about the interest that little Yolanda showed in snakes and about what resources might be cobbled together to build upon that and so to help make her an intrinsically motivated learner are, instead, at a “data chat” after school, going over the numbers with the AP and getting a training on the new test prep software. All this is sickening. It’s a cancer on our schools.
LikeLike
Robert:
I guess I am focused on the other end. If I am an employer what should I assume about a HS graduate when it comes to reading a manual or understanding a written work procedure? If I am choosing between applicants for a job or a place at a demanding college, what should I use? And then there are the intermediate level decisions. Should all 8th graders move on to High School? Should all students be in the same ELA or Math class?
LikeLike
The big questions remain why you want to assess and what you want to assess.
That’s an extraordinarily astute observation, Bernie. Those are the questions that have not been addressed.
Here’s one thing that people ought to be thinking about: You develop methods for determining whether that high-school kid is self-motivated to learn anything. Has his or her schooling met the prime directive to produce an intrinsically motivated learner?
And then, when you find that the answer is, usually, “No. It hasn’t,” you ask yourself, “Why?” and “What should we be doing differently given this failure?”
And the answer to that question will not be, “We should increase the number of standardized tests currently taken by 3rd graders in North Carolina (36) by a factor of ten.”
LikeLike
Robert:
Whenever the question of testing comes up here, I have asked the same questions and made essentially the same comments.
I actually was astonished when I had to take the GREs as part of applying to US Graduate Schools. But once here I realized that the variance in preparation and capabilities of students and the rigor and grading standards by college and major was pretty large and that some sort of level setting measure, no matter how crude was useful for selection committees. This is why the scene of the selection committee at the Harvard Law School in “Legally Blond” is so pointed – at least for me.
It lasts a minute:
though the preceding scenes of her prepping for the LSATs are also important.
LikeLike
Robert:
Here is the fuller clip:
I never checked as to what a 179 on the LSATs means.
LikeLike
Bernie: The GRE is not a very good predictor of grad school success:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bn8yZXdPM1wC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Kaplan+and+Saccuzzo+gre+weakly+predictive&source=bl&ots=bUM8cm9Qq4&sig=7BPyIQQcmPr-dQnOD0pAM4urRfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CeXUUrGeF7LOsATG14CgBA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Kaplan%20and%20Saccuzzo%20gre%20weakly%20predictive&f=false
LikeLike
Robert:
Boy you are night owl. Last one and then I have to go to bed.
This type of research is very difficult because of the restriction of range problem which leads to an underestimation of the relationship.
That said, I suspect that they use LSATs and GREs as cross checks. Elle Woods, in the movie, also got a 4.0 GPA. The high LSAT score means that the Fashion Major was no longer as heavily discounted. When I designed recent graduate recruiting criteria for a very large consulting firm, we used combinations of GPAs (adj by major) and SAT scores and extra curricular activities as initial screening criteria. It was essential given the number of applicants. Subsequent turnover studies showed that if you ignored the SAT scores turnover was more likely.
In my case, I was applying before finals and we didn’t have anything comparable to a GPA. Everything hung on your final set of exams which were taken after 3 years and which were rolled into a single summary measure. Now we are talking about high stakes.
LikeLike
Bernie, a young man of my acquaintance recently took the LSAT. A perfect score is 180. A 179 is at the 99.9th percentile. I have no idea how predictive the LSAT is of success in law school. I do know that the SAT and the GRE are pretty terrible predictors.
LikeLike
Thanks. Good for him Presumably he was not a fashion major (or in a movie) so the high score was not as essential. While the US does not really need more lawyers, I hope he finds a way to add value for the rest of us.
LikeLike
The U.S. does not need more lawyers. Precisely what I told him. He has a superb mind for science and great mathematical ability. A shame to waste those. He is not committed to going to law school, and I am pleased at that! You’ve doubtless heard the bit about replacing lab rats with lawyers because a) lawyers breed faster, b) researchers sometimes become emotionally attached to the lab rats, and c) there are some things that lab rats just won’t do.
LikeLike
Piggybacking on what Robert said about the components measuring reading ability, even if all things are equal, the background information that is “assumed” is geared towards white, middle class, test takers. That alone puts inner city and rural children at a disadvantage. Outside experiences do matter. That is why programs such as universal PreK, plus enrichments activities such as field trips and assemblies, etc., are so important. That’s why focusing on learning a set curriculum, assuming all children come from the same starting point, just widens the gap.
I remember taking a vocabulary test in college using words from the inner city, such as piece, wasted, fin, hooptie, sawbuck, etc., and not getting a single answer correct. I also remember student participation at an all black school and the culture shock I experienced (I was eighteen and the children would stroke my long, straight hair – I was a culture shock to them as well).
All is not equal.
LikeLike
Bernie, it would be one thing if people were envisioning some sort of reading baseline test to establishing some sort of minimal competence–perhaps a test of decoding ability, but the deformers are putting together tests that are supposed to measure the most significant elements of the entire range of the “English language arts” enumerated in the CD$$ in ELA. My list should indicate some of the glaring lacunae in that plan as laid out, just for one domain, reading. This is not the place to go into the many, many problems with the CC$$ in ELA as written. I have done this elsewhere. One major, quite general one–people end up teaching to the test–doing explicit instruction of the abstract skills on the bullet list. Wrong from the start. Doing that dramatically distorts curricula and pedagogy, and the opportunity cost of such an approach is very, very high indeed because it pushes out better teaching. The advocates of the CC$$ in ELA and of these new tests don’t seem to understand the extent to which that is so–the extent to which people end up “teaching the list” instead of taking coherent approaches to curricula. The deform approach doesn’t do what the deformers think they are doing.
LikeLike
Forgive the typos in that last post, which was written too hastily.
If the standards-and-testing approach (CC$$ in ELA + PARCC or SBAC) were causing to happen anything like what the advocates of this approach think is and will happen as a result of it, then I could come on board. People always talk generalities when they tout this approach (“kids need to grapple with more complex texts”) and forget that the CC$$ in ELA are a particular bullet list of skills that are tested, a list that has not been subjected to critique and that drives pedagogy and curricula in specific ways that are highly questionable.
LikeLike
I like your comparison of CCSS to a bullet list. It immediately brought to mind a supervisor standing in a classroom checking off the teaching skills demonstrated. All we have to do is check off each standard and, by golly, we will produce an educated (wo)man!
LikeLike
THE CC$$ ARE a bullet list. What else would you call them?
LikeLike
Bernie, don’t assume the current tests created by Pearson are valid. Besides the middle class bias, some of the questions and answer choices are absurd. If the teacher is unsure of the correct answer on even a third grade test, then something is wrong. Over the years, more than one test question has been thrown out, and sometimes even whole exams (and that was pre CCSS). Don’t forget the recent reading passage about the “Tortoise and the Pineapple”, a ridiculous story with even more inane questions. This is for both the NYS ELA and Math assessments. I’m sure other states have similar problems.
Don’t assume anything.
LikeLike
Ellen:
I don’t believe I was making any assumptions about the content, construct or predictive validity of the Pearson Tests. I was, based on Diane’s exposition in RoE, assuming a measure of content and construct validity to the NAEP tests. But there I am certainly open to Robert’s views on the ELA assessments. I am pretty comfortable with what I have seen on the Math NAEP tests – though I still would like to see a complete item analysis and the algorithm for constructing the aggregate scores.
As for your point about effort and commitment, I agree. It is as true for HS as it is for College and Grad School. However, these behavioral traits are necessary but not sufficient for success. The same goes for demonstrated levels of “academic ability”. It is necessary but hardly sufficient.
LikeLike
It’s all a package – ability, task commitment, what’s happening in your life outside school, your specific interests, whether the teacher is interesting or boring, whether the tests are reasonable, whether the assignments are doable, – a lot goes into the making of a student.
LikeLike
One more item – task commitment is a better predictor of success in college and graduate school. The rigors of law school also require a large amount of task commitment. (And Robert, don’t despair, law school could be a jumping off point to other professions, not just law.)
Luckily, colleges use SATs and other tests as a starting point. My older daughters did not do fantastic on their SATs, but went to a good college anyway. My oldest, who has an excellent career as a project manager, failed her computer science class (programming), but is excellent in her every day computer usage for her job.
Numbers and grades do not necessarily mean success or failure.
LikeLike
This particular kid wants to save the world. I am grateful for that. It needs some saving. He’s trying to figure out ways to help poor people reclaim blighted urban landscapes for experiments in post-consumer-economy self-sufficiency. In other words, he wants to teach people how to grow and can beans, make and repair shoes, build a chair, entertain themselves with storytelling, and so on.
LikeLike
Robert, I hope he finds his niche. In Buffalo we have community gardens and some families are raising chickens, right in the city, and some of the suburbs, too. Survivalist techniques might also come in handy. Or perhaps he can have his own TV show on PBS.
It’s wonderful to be young and idealistic.
LikeLike
“There are many other reasons for Massachusetts’ success, including its economy, its many fine colleges and universities, and its long tradition of support for education.”
America’s Richest (and Poorest) States – 24/7 Wall St, Massachusetts was ranked the 6th wealthiest state in the US.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/19/americas-richest-and-poorest-states/
6. Massachusetts
> Median household income: $65,339
> Population: 6,646,144 (14th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 6.7% (16th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 11.9% (11th lowest)
“Massachusetts was one of just four states with a significant increase in median household income between 2011 and 2012. Last year, median household income rose to $65,339, from $64,311 the year before. The many colleges and universities in the Boston area are a major source of high-paying jobs in the state. Nearly 28% of working residents in Massachusetts were employed in education, health care or social assistance, the most in the nation. Additionally, just 3.9% of the state’s population lacked health insurance last year, lowest of all 50 states and well below the 14.8% figure nationwide. This may be partly because of the state’s own health care reform measures, passed in 2006. These reforms are often seen as a model for the federal government’s 2010 Affordable Care Act.”
The economic reality of the those states below the median for household income, and for those with the greatest unemployment rates and percentage living below the poverty line will face far greater challenges than did Massachusetts’ on improving their educational systems as well as the quality of life for their residents.
LikeLike
The percentage of adults holding a bachelors degree or above is higher in Massachusetts than any other state. These are the parents of many of the children who do so well on the tests.
Holding Massachusetts as the ideal is akin to rewarding teachers who teach only the brightest students because they’re doing so well with them.
Maybe it would be better to look at the states having the most success with students in the lower half of the socioeconomic scale.
LikeLike
You might want to add population density to the list. Massachusetts has one of the highest of any state at over 850 residents per square mile. My state has fewer than 40 residents per square mile. Rich and dense means that the state can take advantage of scale economies in education far more effectively than a poor sparsely populated state like my own.
LikeLike
He still doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get poverty. He doesn’t get that standards or no standards, test score goal or no test score goal, there will STILL be children born to poor families, to illiterate parents, to parents who speak little or no English, to teenage parents without parenting skills, and that these factors WILL impact learning of students not yet even born. He doesn’t get that 1 in 4 kids in this country live in poverty, and he doesn’t get that poorer schools are vastly under-resourced and have a steeper uphill climb than schools with “only” 25% or less poverty. We as a society don’t address in inequities in the system, yet the policymakers in their ivory towers magically expect results just because they set such a high bar.
How can such a supposedly smart guy NOT GET IT? /rant
LikeLike
I think he gets it. THEY get it. The bottom line just remains the bottom line for them. It’s much more lucrative to focus on absurd practices that skate past skeptical eyes with the misnomer of “reforms” and enable entrepreneurs and corporations to raid the public education coffers, than it would be to help people out of poverty by paying the working poor a livable wage.
LikeLike
Diane, you are much more optimistic about Michael Perilli’s ability to change his mind than I am.
When I saw the childish video of him and his Gadfly performers from Fordham, I looked up their credentials, which obviously soooooo highly qualified them to be influential in education reform.
Mr. Perilli has a BS in Political Science. That’s it!
The rest of his staff have the following, mostly Bachelor’s level degrees:
Public Policy, Finance, Business Administration, Public Administration, Arts, Economics, International Relations.
Since then, I have looked up educational backgrounds on many education reformers, with similar backgrounds. Hardly and educator among them. Almost NONE!
Obviously, education degrees are not valued, research in education is not valued, ignored and ‘Anybody Can Teach’ is alive and well.
Since we are flooded with public policy and political science ‘Know-it-ALLs’ at foundations, charter schools, TFA, BOE, USDoE…. my STRONG recommendation is that universities make those fields increasingly broader to include courses in psychology, Early Childhood Ed, academic content, special ed, behavior analysis, education law, differentiation, sociology, Reading, Math, etc.
Until we influence those minimally educated PoliSci majors who rule our profession, or stop their uninformed, unprofessional power over teachers, children and parents, we are screwed. Education has become THE FIELD to enter and rise to the top as EXPERTS with little education and knowledge.
Why are they not rushing to do the same to fields of Medicine, Engineering or Law?
I almost wish they would. That boil would pop instantly and maybe they would go back to school and get a Real Job!
Only in Education do we allow such undereducated folks to run the show. Lead by the richest undereducated man in the world.
Diane, the $$$ is in their favor and will never run out. What other jobs can a BS in PoliSci get and earn good $$?
LikeLike
HAH,
I agree with your observation that too many of those in the corporate reform “movement” are without any experience in education other than their own as students. Can the lack of education, qualifications and/or experience substitute for being qualified?
Regarding:
“Only in Education do we allow such undereducated folks to run the show.”
I would suggest that it is not so much that those of us in education have “allowed” it as it is that those ill-qualified “reformers” have hijacked education for their own purposes. And that’s where:
“Lead by the richest undereducated man in the world.
Diane, the $$$ is in their favor and will never run out.”
becomes prophetic.
LikeLike
Petrilli is a first-order charlatan….
LikeLike
Yes, 100% kids passing is like declaring that we will be 100% crime free or something absurd like that. Basing a federal program on an assumption which was clearly a lie on the order of, the earth is flat, shows ignorace beyond belief.
Thanks to Mike Petrilli for bringing attention to this. Until this lie is upended publicly by the federal government, who pitched it to begin with, there can be little progress.
LikeLike
I say, “GIVE Mike Petrilli ALL those tests to take, under the same conditions as kids (no bathroom break), post his scores for ALL those ridiculous tests, and rank him. In fact, put his scores in the mix with the students’ scores and see what he gets.”
LikeLike
Seems we had Mr. Petrili rather speechless in an impromptu Twitter debate on Common Core this AM:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40uncommoncali%20%40educationgadfly&src=typd
Could not respond to question re: California and Common Core
His comment about “cut scores” was baffling, really reaching for straws. It would cost CA almost nothing to change cut scores (demarcations for “proficiency”) on current CA Star tests vs. spending billions so CA could somehow get Common Core tests with lower cut scores?
Guess he’s in effect saying, “(wink wink) California would artificially appear to have a lot more proficient kids simply because the cut scores are lowered under Common Core.”
How satisfying. However, CA could lower its own cut scores and save billions in the process. Thanks anyway.
It’s a “common” refrain with pro-Common Core folks. End up arguing against their own arguments when it comes to CA.
LikeLike
UnCommon CA~
How can we surprised that M.Petrilli was not able to speak well on specific topic. He is good at BS-ing about fixing poverty in US, performing juvenile skits for YouTube, demanding large class sizes,and pretending to be an EducationExpert.
He has NO CREDENTIALS other than BS in PoliSci. People must have assumed he knew educational psych. Info, and testing info.
Did anyone ask him if he ‘ can see Russia’ from his office?
LikeLike
And for what is it that this 50% will all be ready if only they can attain that magic number? There must be some guarantee of some ultimate future if they are all to strive for a ranking that will put them in this illustrious group? How do you convince a population that is basically rooted in the present to plan for this glorious future? I’m assuming that they will do better on the “marshmallow experiment” as they get older, but what if their life has said to them take it when you can get it because it isn’t going to be there tomorrow?
LikeLike
“I’m assuming that they will do better on the “marshmallow experiment” as they get older, but what if their life has said to them take it when you can get it because it isn’t going to be there tomorrow?”
Great description of environmental impacts on executive functions, such as impulse control and delayed gratification! It runs along the same lines as locus of control, which kids in poverty tend to attribute to external factors, since they have so little power over their environments. Very insightful!
It sure makes you wonder how they will ever internalize a different perspective, when their ongoing deprivation is compounded by being constantly subjected to the imposition of authoritarian discipline in military style boot camp charter schools.
LikeLike
With all due respect to the owner of this blog, I think Mr. Petrilli is engaged in an old debate trick known in military terms as a “defensive preemptive strike.” He’s simply setting us up for the next big cage busting achievement gap crushing unrealistic goal.
A variation is common on the entertainment circuit. A stand-up comic first launches into self-deprecating humor, then once he/she has won the sympathy of the audience, everyone else is fair game for the worst sort of mean-spirited ‘jokes.’ That is, the self-deprecation becomes an excuse for the worst sort of ill-humored nonsense imaginable.
Critical to the charterite/privatizer agenda is the EduSuperhero with fantastical [almost magical] goals who rides in to save the day. The only difference between yesteryear and now is that the time between one edufad and edufraud and the next is considerably shortened.
Here’s a startling, er, “business-minded” suggestion: how about sustainable educational improvement in genuine learning and teaching that takes longer but lasts longer too? How about rejecting the notion of EduSuperheroes and their unrealistic but oh-so-sweet looking aspirational goals that need instant fixes like $1 billion for iPads that are already dated?
Main objection by cage busters everywhere: where’s the $tudent $ucce$$ in that?
Good question? Only if the query makes ₵ent¢ to you.
Rheeally!
For the rest, not so much.
Really!
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
LikeLike
“there is something unworthy about the idea of directing our national aspirations to meet targets created by the standardized testing industry.”
Perfectly said!
LikeLike
amen to that
LikeLike
I battle cynicism and nature skepticism when it comes to the faux reformers. Today’s piece by Jay Matthews in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/i-may-not-agree-with-diane-ravitch-on-school-policy-but-i-will-always-listen/2014/01/12/d9af9930-78d6-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html) suggests we use the Reign of Error reform agenda as the framework for debating reforms that make a difference. Matthews does not embrace all the recommendations, but he acknowledges that the recommendations “make sense” and relate to matters that truly impact learning. We should never dismiss or exclude those who may disagree – especially when we are focused on problem solving and real accountability, and most importantly, when we focus on student learning.
LikeLike
Thanks, Sharon, for your comments. When Jay Mathews pointed out that some of my proposals were too expensive, I told him that no one ever asks how much it will cost when the President–whoever he is–wants to go to war. When there was a flurry of talk about bombing Syria, no one asked, “How much will it cost?” We have spent billions and billions in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the thousands of young people whose lives were lost. Wouldn’t we have been better off if we had invested in our children?
LikeLike
I think it is important to get the scale of expenditure correct. We do spend several hundred billion dollars a year on education. Brookings estimated that lowering class size by one student would cost at least 12 billion dollars a year, and we do have to ask if that is the most effective way to spend those resources.
LikeLike
TE, I agree that it’s important to get the scale of the expenditures correct. According to the Brown University Cost of War project, the committed expenditures for the “Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan are between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. Let’s take the lower number.
There are 132,656 K-12 schools in the United States. So, cost of the wars = 30 million dollars per school, or about 52 thousand dollars PER KID.
LikeLike
“We have spent billions and billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . ”
Actually it’s trillions and trillions.
Big, no make that HUGE difference!
LikeLike
TE,
Do you have a reference for that Brookings estimate?
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
Not only a reference for Brookings, but also a reference for the source of information that Brookings cited for that calculation –or did that belief/think tank come up with that themselves?
LikeLike
I find internet search engines to be extremely useful in these situations. Here is the link to a Brookings paper where this figure is used: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/05/11-class-size-whitehurst-chingos
The back of the envelope calculation is given in a footnote which, with Dr. Ravitch’s indulgence, I will reproduce below
“Presently there are 3.2 million teachers serving 49.3 million students in the public schools, which corresponds to 15.3 students for every teacher. Decreasing the pupil/teacher ratio to 14.3 would require hiring 226,000 additional teachers, which at $55,000 per teacher would cost $12.4 billion/year in salary costs alone.”
They also note that 1) pupil/teacher ratios are typically smaller than class size because of teachers in specialized roles and 2) this is a very conservative estimate and give as an example the paper Douglas N. Harris, “Toward Policy-Relevant Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Sizes: Combining Effects With Costs,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(1): 3–29 (2009).
LikeLike
It’s impossible to get an accurate calculation of class sizes and student-teacher ratios with that formula because it includes teachers in special education classes. In many locations, the max ratio is 1:4, such as for kids with autism, so that severely skews their numbers.
LikeLike
Cosmic,
Folks do the best they can with the information available. Do you think the actual figure is something more like 24 billion per student or 6 billion? On what basis would you make your estimate?
LikeLike
To put that into perspective, the 12.4 billion figure that TE mentions is $90 K per school. Sounds like a lot less when you put it that way, doesn’t it?
And that 12.4 billion is 1.81% of the 683.7 billion-dollar 2010 U.S. defense budget (that is 683.7 billion dollars) NOT including special expenditures for the wars.
LikeLike
It sounds like a lot less until you multiply it by the number of schools.
I liked your translating costs into per pupil expenditure. Given the national average expenditure per pupil of about $12,742, the wars cost us the same amount as we spend to educate on educating a cohort of students in high school.
LikeLike
Good catch, Robert!
LikeLike
I thought he divided the total by the number of schools. Why then multiply it?
LikeLike
Dividing makes it smaller, multiplying makes it larger. Still the same number.
LikeLike
TE,
“the wars cost us the same amount as we spend to educate on educating a cohort of students in high school.”
Tis a sick, very sick society that would spend an equal amount on death and destruction as it does on educating a cohort of students in high school. When you put it in those terms, well, let’s say you didn’t help your argument any.
LikeLike
I am not trying to make any argument at all, just provide perspective on the scale of expenditures. Numbers lose their scale when we do not have experience with them. Thinking about high school graduating classes this year and next year and the year after that is more concrete.
LikeLike
I can understand that, thanks!
But it sure left an opening for me that I couldn’t resist-ha ha!!
LikeLike
Duh. I guess you are saying that you must promote the larger figure in case, God forbid, people start thinking that lowering class size is not so expensive after all. Gotta spin those statistics to be in line with the, “Smaller classes, we say NO!” refrain of Petrilli et al, huh?
One major missing element to all of this is that class size is yet another local matter, decision and expenditure, not a federal expense.
LikeLike
Resources are resources no matter where the spending authority comes from.
LikeLike
Nope. It’s just more smoke and mirrors.
LikeLike
I would like to know where these classes with a 15:1 student to teacher ratio are…cuz I’ve never seen one! And as it’s an average, there have to be many with far fewer, and with far more. As just about every teacher I know at all levels has at the very least 22 students and as many as 38, I just don’t see where those small classes are. I know the references say FTE, but I also know that districts report office staff etc as part of the number used to determine student to teacher ratios…”well, they have an effect on students, too” was a quote I personally heard. I can not believe that there is ONE person who has ever stepped inside a classroom for more than a few minutes that would say class size does not matter.
LikeLike
Tracy:
There are many caveats to the pupil teacher ratio – though the ones you propose are new to me. Here is a pretty standard summary.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/snf200910/tables/table_04.asp
The NCES’s School and Staffing Survey provides a more detailed breakdown by subject – though it is always very slow to report the latest numbers.
LikeLike
Tracy,
The question is not if class size matters, but if reducing class size is a better way to spend resources than universal pre-k or some other investment that everyone knows has a positive impact on education.
LikeLike
Tracy,
Ignore the corporate “reform” pushers here who deny the fact that class size matters. There’s a lot of research supporting your contention: http://www.classsizematters.org/research-and-links/#
LikeLike
I have not seen anyone who says class size does not matter. The question is if that is the most effective way to help students.
LikeLike
We are not having an either or discussion. We know pre-K is important, but if we do nothing else, I would be surprised if we can maintain noticeable long term effects. Smaller class sizes can make it easier for a teacher to teach, but if society as a whole does nothing to address wider social issues, our efforts will be affected. It is all intertwined. In many cases it will be individual districts that are making the decisions as to how best to educate their children with the available resources. Who knows what will happen if we establish a way to more equitably fund our schools. What should be addressed at the federal level; when and what is the concern of state and or local authorities?
LikeLike
Tracy,
My guess is that most P-12 educators would say that school districts should stop wasting so much money on testing and test prep materials and invest that in reducing class sizes. Unfortunately, few ask P12 educators for their input or even care what they think. TE and Bernie are not P12 educators and have no clue what “the most effective way to help students” might be.
Funny, many of the very same people who fight against reducing class sizes have chosen to have small families. Most Americans think 2.6 as the ideal number of children to have:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx
LikeLike
Which is more effective: universal pre-k or reducing class size by two students?
LikeLike
CT:
Tracy asked a question about pupil teacher ratios and I pointed her to a pretty reliable DOE resource. Do you have a better resource to suggest to Tracy?
LikeLike
CT:
Actually no American – except I guess the folks at Gallup – said that 2.6 children is the ideal number to have. The largest % of those 45+ said 2 was the ideal number. And a majority (57%) said the ideal number was 2 or 3.
That said, I have no idea what this factoid has to do with class size.
LikeLike
What’s more effective, your arms or your legs? Don’t make education into a fire sale.
LikeLike
The effectiveness depends on what you would like me to do. Running I would go with the legs. Writing I would go with the arm (if you include the hand).
Not sure what that has to do with education spending policy though.
LikeLike
Leave P12 education to genuine P12 educators.
LikeLike
I have been in many classrooms and schools and, like Tracy, I have never seen a general education classroom with ratios as low as those reported.
LikeLike
They do not make real clear who they are including as teachers in Bernie’s chart. Are they including special education professionals? Averages really are affected by outliers. I suspect that the data is skewed by small specialized groups and possibly by those being consider as teaching staff, but there is no way to tell.
LikeLike
You can’t get the average student-teacher ratio when it is determined by dividing the total student enrollment of the school by the total number of full time teachers, which is the typical formula.
For example, in elementary ed, that means you are counting teachers who work full time but do not have their own classrooms, because they see kids from every classroom, one class at a time, once or twice a week, such as Art, Music, and PE. Some Special Ed teachers work part of the time in resource rooms and part of the time in general education classes facilitating inclusion. When Special Ed teachers work in their own self-contained classrooms, their class sizes are considerably lower because that is required by law.
This issue came up in Chicago last spring, when the same formula was used to determine “under-utilization.” so that the district could close 49 schools –and open 21 new charters over the next two years. Some elementary schools that had several classes of autistic children with 1:4 teacher:student ratios, as required by law, were deemed under-utilized. They were definitely not under-utilized but this formula determined that they were, so they were shut down.
LikeLike
Bernie. Look at the graph that says, “Average Ideal Number of Children Per Family.” The actual question Gallop posed is beneath that, as well as the 2013 answer labeled on the graph, 2.6
I had up to 30 children in my all day Kindergarten class and I worked 9 am to 6 pm, 50 weeks per year. Parents would regularly say to me, “I don’t know how you do it. I can’t even handle one child” –or two or three. Parents who have children in school know how important size is, and most choose to have just two or three children themselves because that’s more manageable for families. It’s more manageable for teachers to have fewer kids, too, so they can give children individual attention and differentiated instruction.
LikeLike
TE, you write, “I have not seen anyone who says class size does not matter.” I guess, then, you haven’t seen this:
LikeLike
@TE:
Americans spend more on deodorant each year than the figure you cite for reducing class size. And they spend more than six times as much on soda. And eight times as much on beer.
So, is that “the most effective way to spend resources?”
LikeLike
Consumers are spending their own money and thinking about how to do it effectively all the time. Should governments not try to get the most value for money?
LikeLike
To determine teacher to student ration they take the total number of students and divide by the goal number of faculty. If there are a large number of special ed students, plus a large number of services, the ratio appears low, yet class sizes are larger than the “score”. It also makes average student expenditure seem larger than it really is – due to extra staffing for certain student populations. The average child actually gets less than an average amount. That’s why cities like New York and Buffalo, with lots of students with special needs, appear to be spending money recklessly, without increasing results (as per achievement testing and graduation rates).
LikeLike
Back in 2001, the deformers came up with a BRILLIANT idea:
All you would have to do is create standards and test those and hold people accountable for raising the test scores, and by 2014, all kids would be proficient in math and reading.
And now, they have rolled out their completely new BRILLIANT idea:
All you have to do is create standards and test those and hold people accountable for raising the test scores, and by [date unspecified], we will “get to 292 within six years.”
WOW! What original thinking!!! Why didn’t we try that before! Well thought through, Mike.
LikeLike
Yikes. Sorry. Correction to that post:
Back in 2001, the deformers came up with a BRILLIANT idea:
All you would have to do is create standards and test those and hold people accountable for raising the test scores, and by 2014, all kids would be proficient in math and reading.
And now, they have rolled out their completely new BRILLIANT idea:
All you have to do is create standards and test those and hold people accountable for raising the test scores, and we will “get to 292 within six years.”
WOW! What original thinking!!! Why didn’t we try that before! Well thought through, Mike.
LikeLike
These Brilliant Ideas keep coming because they bring in $M for the CorpEdReformer$, easily implemented through punitive and life-altering measures, controlled by tightening the VAM noose randomly using manipulated standardized tests cut-off scores. Social Engineering at its best, for the wealthiest profiteers and their army of undereducated political science majors.
Brilliant!
LikeLike
Petrelli says that during the past decade of deforms, average scores have “shot up” by 4 or 5 points, “almost half a grade.”
This is amazing progress? And it is attributable to the standards and the tests?
Give me a break. I would have to look at this, but I suspect that such tiny changes are within the statistical error in the test scores and so mean NOTHING.
The deformers want to have it both ways. They want to point to the PISA scores and say, “The sky is falling. We need Common Core and PARCC and SBAC and VAM.” And they want to say that NCLB has made a difference, for the current deform policy is simply
Son of NCLB: The Nightmare Is Nationalized
LikeLike
The “Scream” film franchise included, I think, three sequels. One hopes that the standards-and-testing farce, being of even less educational value, will die with the second one.
LikeLike
Where’s Chuckie when you need him???
LikeLike
What about NYS (pre CCSS) when test scores did go up, so the Regents (without telling a soul) decided to change the passing rate on the yearly assessments so more children (many who had been proficient since day 1) were no longer “passing”. Now with Common Core, the passing rate was purposely set to fail 70% of the students.
The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get.
LikeLike
“. . . are within the statistical error in the test scores and so mean NOTHING.”
Robert, you had to know this one is coming, eh!
That statistical error is a penny to the dollar that are all the other epistemological and ontological errors that render the whole process and any resulting conclusions completely invalid. And guess who proved that? Yep Noel Wilson in his in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
LikeLike
I should have said, Duane, “and so, by the deformers’ own metrics, the difference in these scores is within the statistical error of the scores and so means nothing.” I certainly concur that these tests do not measure what they purport to measure. Where is the independent validation of them? There is none.
LikeLike
I know you know, I was just having a little fun with ya! But at the same time getting my daily dose of Wilson interjected into the mix here-ha ha!
LikeLike
Ultimately, a normal child progresses one year for each grade. Thus, their test scores should remain stable from year to year. Expecting a two or three year growth is unrealistic. When I see test scores rise like a meteor, then I am suspicious. There were a few times I was involved with a program that explained a higher than normal result. Once when I was involved with an incredible full day summer school program, the other when I worked with an amazing reading teacher who helped create a generation of avid readers. However, most of the time, I wonder. (And sometimes, I know.)
Often, a student would be treading water, trying to maintain their spot in the pool. If, all of a sudden, they start lapping the other swimmers from the back of the pack, there has to be a good explanation.
And that’s what the State Ed is looking for – exponential student growth. It’s not going to happen with the CCSS.
LikeLike
Robert~
What in carnation does Petrilli know?
His Gadfly video would not even be worthy of SesameStreet or Sprout TV. He ‘learned’ every psychobabble, eduSpeak,ToxicTesting topic on the job! They don’t teach this to BS PoliSci students.Has no other formal education.
The YouTube video is a disgrace! Sophomoric! Then he has the gall to try to write so-called scholarly advice about ‘how to succeed in poverty without really trying’.
What a windbag, light weight & near-do-well. Too bad, he is able to pull this off and other undereducated PoliSci majors think he’s Brilliant.
I just hope he has enough self-control to save us all from sending out a Selfie. Remember, poor ‘ol AW.
LikeLike
H.A. Hurley: He’s young and obviously quite bright. Perhaps Diane Ravitch’s hopes for him are justified–that he will outgrow this callow hubris. I must say that Diane is much more generous to him that he was to her in the video, above, which says, “Diane’s become a kook,” which outraged me, frankly, because Diane Ravitch is one of the most careful thinkers we have about education policy, and her ideas are almost always worth considering, based as they are in deep scholarship and experience. The Fordham Institute bills itself as a “think tank,” but it’s actually a PR firm. It puts together canned pieces (“let’s hear what real educators are saying about this; we’ve brought together a group of paid spokesmodels. . . .”)
LikeLike
Mike. I’ve been working out this past week. Over that week, the circumference of my biceps has “shot up” by a quarter of a nanometer.
LikeLike
Actually, setting lofty but virtually unobtainable goals goes back to 1989, when the first President Bush called an “Education Summit”, which no educators were invited to attend, and politicians laid the groundwork for the “America 200” education goals, renamed “Goals 2000” under Clinton. The first goal was that all children would “start school ready to learn.” They then did virtually nothing to help children under age 5 to become ready.
It got worse under Clinton and his “Welfare to Work” program. I worked as the Director of a few child care centers during that era and, when poor parents obtained minimum wage jobs, after a very short time, they became ineligible for government subsidies that covered the cost of child care. They needed child care in order to work, but they didn’t earn enough money to be able to pay for it themselves, so they would have to pull their kids out of the very programs that were helping their children to become ready for school. Many were ineligible for Head Start, too, because their income didn’t qualify as poverty level then, so I saw a lot of poor families with young children falling through the cracks.
LikeLike
Indeed. And when the first Prez Bush floated the idea of national standards and national tests, he was practically eaten alive for making such an outrageous suggestion by people right, left, and center. Just about everyone thought that an OBSCENE overreach, and he quietly put the notion aside.
But the creepy forces that wanted this invariant, top-down, centralized, totalitarian approach turned to devising plans, behind the scene, to get what they wanted by other means–first by a federal mandate that the states create the standards and tests (NCLB) and then through federal blackmail (waivers from NCLB requirements and RttT). And so we got the transparently equivocating “state” in “Common Core State Standards.” Calling it so fools no one.
“And be these juggling fiends no more believed, That palter with us in a double sense.” –William Shakespeare, Macbeth
LikeLike
Yes, and don’t forget that this is has all been based on the 1983 manufactured crisis, “A Nation at Risk.”
LikeLike
Diane –
As a Massachusetts resident, I appreciate the shout-out to all we are doing well when it comes to our public schools. The burden rightfully belongs to us, as the oldest public schools in the nation are found here in Boston – the first public school, Boston Latin School, 1635; the Mather School, first public elementary school,1639; first public school system 1647; the first public high school, English High School, 1821.
Though our politics may be liberal, we New Englanders are conservatives in the sense of being unwilling to give up our traditions – there is a large sense of history here – our Puritan forebearers often seem to be looking over our shoulders. I think this abundance of caution and the high level of education of many Massachusetts residents has kept the state as a whole safe from the worst of the “reform ideas”.
The story is different in the cities however. City schools are under-resourced, buildings are in disrepair, students are poor. The state has 76 charter schools; the city of Boston has 39 of them. Other urban communities who are host to these parasites follow the usual demographic – schools defined as failing under NCLB – low income, minority students, large numbers of ELL’s. Lawrence, recently placed under state receivership, has 7 charter schools. Springfield has 5. The wealthy suburbs close to Boston – Newton, Brookline, Dedham, Wellesley, Milton – have none.
Yes, teachers in Massachusetts are highly unionized – and in the cities regularly demonized for being so. In response to the recent controversy over MATCH charter schools failing to pay tutors a minimum wage, (see: http://edushyster.com/?p=3609) a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe, neatly capturing this mindset, opined this “solution”:
“Instead of relying on young people fresh out of college, as Match does, perhaps the answer is for the BTU to offer its retirees the opportunity to do what they love and excel at — teaching young people — a couple hours a day… There is no question about their expertise, and, given their generous pensions and full health coverage, retirees can afford to provide this essential service for the honorarium that schools can offer. It’s an opportunity for the BTU to shed its undeserved reputation for truculence and promote a win for both its members and the students of Boston.” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/01/08/retirees-could-fill-these-posts/dXf6VDrQ9Elyh7QjqgbxQI/story.html
Our “generous” pensions are 94% self-funded, coming from an 11% witholding during our teaching years. We pay 25% of our health coverage as do all city employees. Truculent retirees are supposed to tutor for honoraria at an organization which is inimical to public education and has assets of more than $32 million? Match Charter started out in 2009 with 94 freshman, graduating 30 seniors in 2012 for a 4-year graduation rate of under 32% – guess they really need those tutors, eh?
Makes me mad enough to spit!
LikeLike
Both those articles were scary. Nobody should work in the public schools without earning a decent wage and nobody should be expected to work more than forty hours a week (unless paid over time). That includes college students or retirees. The descriptions of their jobs made them sound like indentured servants. And if schools need paraprofessionals, they need to hire them.
Is this how Charter Schools save money? I can’t imagine a public school putting up with this nonsense. Even if the participant is willing, the precedent they are setting is harmful to education. If they are working a full school day, they should get at least a substitute teachers pay, plus more if they work after school.
I don’t care if the “volunteers” think they are missionaries, charter schools should not be allowed to abuse young or old people. If they want to give their lives to the poor – become a priest or a nun. If they want to go into education, they should get the proper renumeration.
LikeLike
Ellen:
Every small business person I know works more than 40 hours without thinking about overtime or watching the clock. In 25 years of running a professional firm, we never paid overtime to our professionals – that was part of the job description. Hourly staff, of course, were paid overtime. On the other hand, we recognized that professionals also should not have to punch a clock as long as they assumed full responsibility for getting the work done. If a deadline or deliverable was going to be missed then we expected the professionals and other staff to raise the issue and we collectively would do what needed to be done. You only have my word for it, but we had great staff and great loyalty.
LikeLike
Bernie – teaching doesn’t stop at the end of the school day. There are papers to grade, lesson plans, reflections on how the students are doing to determine instructional techniques, etc. Being a teacher is all consuming.
However, there is a difference between a teacher voluntarily staying after school to help a student and “volunteers” being assigned to work 50 to 60 hours a week for less than minimum wage. I’m sorry – that’s abusive and should not be allowed.
LikeLike
Why anyone listens to Mike Petrilli is beyond me…
He has some very weird ideas (some would say racist/misogynistic/sexist ones)… including, as he told Deb Meier in an EdWeek blog post, that we don’t really have a poverty problem, we have a parenting problem… that the reason there is so much poverty is that we have too many fatherless families, and that women could fix that problem if they didn’t have babies until they find a ‘marriageable male’, because two MARRIED parents working 60hrs (total – the man working 40 hrs and the woman working 20) at minimum wage (plus “perks” like food stamps and childcare subsidies) takes them above the ‘poverty line’ and so of course, their kids will be better off and do better at school and will find the pot of gold at the end of the upwardly mobile rainbow and live happily ever after, with the value-added benefit of not being a drain on the (neglible and over-burdened) social safety net and contributing at the same time to the plutocrats’ pile of riches ….
Here’s a reply to that position… http://thinklearnspeak.com/mike-petrilli-21kyr-family-3-finding-way-poverty/
LikeLike
From his comments you have to wonder if he’s ever met someone living in poverty, let alone been in their homes and worked with their children. It’s easy to make sweeping statements, it’s not so easy if you are the one in the trenches.
My suggestion – keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
LikeLike
Michael Petrilli is a huckster. He has absolutely no shame, and he makes outrageous claims. For example, he says he’s ““one of the nation’s most trusted education analysts.” That’s a grotesque distortion. Sort of like saying that Sean Hannity is a “trusted” source.
He says, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, that “our education system is tattered. Some of it is fine, but too much is mediocre or worse.”
He says “our suburban schools are just getting by. They may not be dropout factories, but they’re not preparing anywhere near enough of their pupils to revive our economy.” As if public schools CAUSED the Great Recession and piled up deficits and debt in the first place.
Petrillli is all-in on vouchers, saying that “one of the best ways to get more bang for the education buck is to strap it to the backs of individual kids and let parents decide which schools deliver the best value for money.”
Petrilli prescribes more “rigorous academic standards and tests” for the public schools. He says that we“should rate schools on an easy-to-understand scale, ideally from A to F, as Florida started doing under Governor Jeb Bush.” Sure. Let’s rely on Jeb Bush.
As a parent active in opposing the Bush agenda in Florida noted, “People are starting to realize that Jeb and his reforms are not good for children and not good for schools. They are meant to privatize public education.”
This should be no surprise. Petrilli has written that “Republican governors like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, and Scott Walker are demonstrating real reform.” Huh? Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who hates public servants, including teachers, with a passion? John Kasich of Ohio? Even his Republican colleagues don’t like his education ideas. Chris Christie of New Jersey? Christie opposes equitable school funding in favor of “closing low performing schools, adding more charter schools and introducing merit pay for teachers.” And Mitch Daniels in Indiana? Did Petrilli not know about Daniels’ A-F school grading scandal?
Petrilli is a conservative charlatan. He calls himself an “analyst,” but he’s a very poor one. Given what he’s written and what he stands for, is he really “intelligent?” Is he “able to learn and understand things” and does he “reflect good judgment or sound thought?”
LikeLike
I don’t have any faith in Fordham Institute or Michael Petrilli; and they operate Education Next in Massachusetts that spits out headlines through UPI such as “Teachers are pricey”….
This is a quote from Mr. Z. waterman and I totally agree with his description:
quote: “Ze’ev Wurman says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Fordham evolves from being a supporter of choice, to a supporter of national standardization, to a supporter of centralized command and control. Is it something in the Washington, DC, water system?”
LikeLike
Jean Sanders~
There is something in our water system, blood stream, DNA, psyche, drive, value system, belief, 24/7 propaganda, survival, training, reinforcement, frontal lobe, requirements, mandates, laws……..it is $$$$$$, by any means necessary!
Damn the Poor, vulnerable, less educated, mild, meek, shy, respectful, kind, honest, children, teachers, elderly…….
Not just in DC anymore!
LikeLike
H A Hurley: I just went back to your words on Jan 15; then I posted a new comment just below your words (Diane Ravitch on the Fordham Institute/Petrilli blog)
LikeLike
I know I keep writing on an older topic but Fordham Institute has another article up today. I don’t believe as Diane does that Petrilli will do any better as head at FI.
this is my comment I left today (Friday ) on the Fordham Institute site.
“are you saying that when I first objected to NCLB that I was unprincipled? Does that mean that I am now “principled” if I take your viewpoint? Why do you assume that anyone who objects to common core (and the expensive, experimental tests that have no proven reliability or validity) is now “hardening” in their views? Does it have any connection to the Petrilli comments about “backlash”? Do you understand the political process at all? Your attitude from Bush is “bomb the teachers colleges” because all the teacher unions are “terrorists”… then you take tactics that support your own world view. I only regret that Senator Kennedy offered so much of the bipartisan “compromise” for NCLB — in Massachusetts we didn’t realize we were being led off to the slaughter house.
quote: “growing and hardening principled opposition to Common Core.
LikeLike