Archives for the month of: January, 2014

Who owns American public education? Until a decade ago, we might have answered: the public. Or the states. Or the local school boards.

Now, the likely answer is: the U.S. Department of Education.

Or the Gates Foundation, which seems to own the U.S. Department of Education.

But there may be another answer (this is not a multiple-choice test, and there is more than one right answer): Pearson, the megalith corporation that produces curriculum, textbooks, tests, owns the company that accredits teachers (EdTPA), owns an online charter corporation (Connections Academy), and owns the GED.

Here is an interesting and very long discussion of Pearson’s plans for the future. It involves us all.

This amazing video from a TED talk by a confident teenager named Logan LaPlante has had more than 3.6 million views on YouTube.

In his view, the main purpose of education should be to help students become “happy and healthy.”

He describes his own unique version of schooling–which he calls “hackschooling.” It is homeschooling of a sort, using the Internet to delve into whatever interests him. It is not for everyone, only for those who are very self-motivated, curious, energetic, and industrious.

But what I see in his talk is a plaintive and passionate protest against the factory model, industrial age in which he cram information and instructions and tests down the throats of bright young people and expect them to like it. They don’t.

How will we adjust to the hackschoolers? How will we change our mindset to encourage them instead of crushing them? Or can we?

An organization called Public Impact in North Carolina has this cool new idea–actually, not so new, because Bill Gates has been pushing it for a few years: What if school districts selected only the most excellent teachers, fired the bad teachers, and increased the class sizes of the really excellent teachers? Then the really excellent teachers could make more money, the school system would have fewer teachers and would save money. It is a win-win-win! Right?

But what if the excellent teachers are only excellent when they have 28 students in their class and stop being excellent when they have 36?

What if they have 36 students and 10 of them are English learners and 8 have disabilities? Will they still be excellent teachers if they don’t have classroom aides?

Public Impact calls this idea the “Opportunity Culture.” It is a chance to have only excellent teachers in every classroom. It is a chance to cut costs by increasing class size.

The reactionary Legislature in North Carolina loves this report.

Are you surprised that the report was subsidized by the Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation, with advice from the Gates-funded Teach Plus and the Gates-funded Educators 4 Excellence. The latter two groups consist of young ex-teachers who want large classes and more money.

What do you think?

Bob Braun reports that three of the Newark principals who spoke against school closings were reinstated, and two were assigned to the central office.

The national reaction to Anderson’s “indefinite suspension” of the five may have led to the reinstatement of the three. It seems they did nothing worse than disagree with the plan to close down public education in a substantial part of Newark, which violated their principles.

The state-appointed superintendent for Newark, Cami Anderson, plans to privatize one-third of Newark’s public schools. The public, which has had no voice in school policy since 1995, reacted with outrage.

Legislation was introduced in the state legislature to stop the school closings.

The mayoral candidate leading the fight against the closings, Ras Baraka, is ahead in the polls.

Chris Christie’s efforts to hand the public schools over to private charter operators has hit some speed bumps and may eventually run into a brick wall if the state legislature supports the people of Newark.

Peter Greene, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania, here reviews Arne Duncan’s friendly chat with two teachers. In this chat, he assures them that Bill Gates does not have a seat at the table. Just look at that table! Do you see Bill Gates? No, all you see is Arne and two teachers. Proof! Bill Gates definitely does not have a seat at that table.

Peter reminds us that there are people–like you and me–who see the world as it is, and not as the masters of the universe want us too.

Were you fooled by Arne’s guileless reassurances.

Or did your spleen explode, like Peter Greene’s?

Anthony Cody comments on a startling conversation between two teachers and Secretary of Education Duncan.

The conversation appears on a video.

One of the teachers asks him about the role of philanthropists such as Eli Broad and Bill Gates in setting education policy.

Consider this astonishing exchange:

“Lisa Clarke:

“One of the particular questions we’ve heard teachers ask is if corporate-based philanthropists are playing too heavy a role in public education, and if there’s a corporate agenda at the Department.

“Arne Duncan:

“I think that’s a very important question of what role does philanthropy or the corporate side have, and anyone who thinks that those who are major donors to education, or those giving a lot, have a seat at the table in terms of policymaking, nothing could be further from the truth.”

Read that line again.

“Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Then read Anthony Cody’s description of how Bill gates paid for every aspect of the Common Core standards that Arne vociferously advocates.

“Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Others can parse how many seats Eli Broad has at the policy table, but it would be hard to find someone who thinks he has none.

John Savage, a freelance journalist and former teacher, reviewed “Reign of Error” in the “Texas Observer.”

I liked the review for many reasons.

First, because Savage liked the book. That pleases every author.

Second, because the first article I ever published appeared in the “Texas Observer,” a gritty liberal journal that covers Texas politics. The article was called “My Ghetto and Yours,” and it was about growing up Jewish in Houston. It appeared, I think, in 1961. I think I was lamenting how little I knew of the big world outside Houston. I haven’t read it since 1961, so I can’t be certain what I wrote but I feel pretty sure I launched my writing career by stepping on toes. I think that it would be called “juvenalia” if it ever appeared in a collection.

Tom Loveless had the nerve and courage to publicly rebuke OECD for giving a distorted view of Shanghai’s test scores on the latest international test (PISA). He said that the tests excluded significant numbers of children from migrant families, and OECD ignored this practice.

I posted both his articles on the subject.

The director of OECD said Tom Loveless was wrong.

The Néw York Times wrote up the controversy, and the story left no doubt that China gamed the system, and OECD looked the other way.

Tom told the Times:

““They are presenting Shanghai in the best possible light” as “a paragon of educational equity, and that’s not accurate,” said Mr. Loveless, who objects to PISA’s comparison of Shanghai to other major world economies. “It’s such a unique system, I wouldn’t compare it to anybody,” he said in an interview.”

Congratulations, Tom, for calling out an obvious wrong.

In 2011, David Brooks heard me speak at the Aspen Ideas Festival, where I talked about a life course approach to improving the lives of children. Days later, he published an article criticizing me for saying that testing and choice were inadequate to overcome the problems of kids who live in poverty.

At the time, he was still enthralled by the idea that charters were a systemic answer to these problems..

But –mirabile dictu!–Brooks has a column today recanting his earlier views. He actually says it takes a generation to raise a child.

He writes:

“….we’ve probably put too much weight on school reform. Again, reforming education is important. But getting the academics right is not going to get you far if millions of students can’t control their impulses, can’t form attachments, don’t possess resilience and lack social and emotional skills.

“So when President Obama talks about expanding opportunity in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, I’m hoping he’ll widen the debate. I’m hoping he’ll sketch out a stage-by-stage developmental agenda to help poor children move from birth to the middle class.”

This is a sign of real progress for those of us who have argued that the “reform movement”–focused on testing, charters, and vouchers– is a distraction at best and a threat to the survival of American public education at worst.

A teacher in the UK describes what happens when superiors demand that he or should hit their predicted targets, without respect to reality.

It begins:

“The Secret Teacher

“Some years ago I was called by my head of department to discuss the grades I’d predicted for a year 11 class. They were aspirational and realistic. I was told to change them. My forecast was not in line with school targets for A*-C so if I didn’t change them I would be “targeting failure”. I changed them.

“I’ve got young kids, a mortgage and could do without the stress of a capability procedure. Morals don’t pay the bills. The class achieved close to my original prediction. I was admonished over my underperformance and the inaccuracy of my predictions – the predictions which weren’t actually mine at all.

“Following so far? Good. Because that’s target-driven education; a farce.
This September, Birendra Singh, who spent five years observing science teaching in three unnamed London schools, told BBC News that “the rate of cheating suggested in [my] small study may be indicative of a bigger picture”. He was right. It’s epidemic.

“We’ll go to epic lengths to fiddle controlled assessment. We’ll enter whatever number we need to make the spreadsheet turn green regardless of whether a kid has done the work. Until recently, we’d lie about pupils’ speaking and listening scores (easy pickings – nobody ever checked) to boost them to a C. In short, we remove every last scrap of accountability from the pupil and pull every trick in the book to make sure “they achieve their potential”.

“The result? There’s a demographic of our children with little cognitive link between hard work and achievement – that hard work leads to achievement. It doesn’t matter if you work hard or not, you’ll get the grade anyway and we’ll parade you under the banner of “improving standards”.