Archives for the month of: February, 2014

One of those brilliant PR spinmeisters invented the term “turnaround” to disguise the brutality and ugliness of firing the entire staff of a school with low scores and pretending that mass firing is a method of “reform.”

 

“Turnaround” sounds like a game or a dance, something delightful.

 

The reality is that everyone who works in the school is fired–or in lesser forms of the punishment, the principal and half the staff is fired–as though they caused the low scores of children who have difficult lives.

 

This reader describes the false “reforms” imposed on English High School in Boston, which has been turned around so often that whoever remains in the building must be spinning constantly.

 

Why don’t these false reformers recognize that turmoil is not reform? That “disruption” is unhealthy for children and learning? That children and schools need steadiness of purpose?

 

The reader writes:

 

Here in Boston, The English High School, the oldest high school in the United States, was taken over by the state as a turnaround school three years ago, on the cutting edge of NCLB. That the school was not “highly successful” is indisputable – but it should be noted that the school department had programmed English High with huge numbers of ELL students, including many who were refugees from Somalia and had never attended school. Nearly all students met the federal definition of poverty; many were parenting while attending school.

 

The school had been moved from a badly designed building (students were supposed to move from class to class on escalators!) to a “repurposed” building across the city which had once housed offices for a gas utility. The rotation of Headmasters was a rogues’ gallery of people who might be associated with disfunctional leaders of third world nations – idiosyncratic, capricious, dictatorial. Many staff who could escape to better teaching positions did so, but there remained a core of excellent teachers struggling against long odds. Meeting AYP under NCLB was impossible.

 

The Boston Globe, generally supportive of any Broadish reform, published the following story, in 2012, critiquing the school department’s “turn-around” – pretty much they took any and all trendy solutions and threw them at the staff and kids.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/24/troubled_english_high_school_showing_little_improvement_after_three_tumultuous_years_under_untested_headmaster_sito_narcisse/?page=full

 

“At 33, Narcisse became headmaster of one of Boston’s 11 state-designated underperforming schools, giving him far broader authority than a typical principal. He was freed from strict union rules in hiring and firing and had the power to experiment boldly. Though he was supposed to consult with teachers and parents, both groups complained that, in practice, Narcisse launched major initiatives without involving them.”

 

After the disaster of the district “turnaround” the state took over English High. Under state receivership, not much has improved. So, the logical conclusion is that the state – which has not be able to “turnaround” English High – can remake New Bedford High school (see:http://edushyster.com/?p=4067) as well as the Dever and the Holland into schools of excellence by doing what has already failed – turn them over to inexperienced “operators” instead of career teachers with proper supports.

 

Though Massachusetts may lead the nation in scores, schools in the cities suffer from the same deforms as other systems serving poor, non-English speaking kids and the “remedies” are just as deleterious.

 

Bill Phillis, leader of the Ohio Equity and Adequacy Coalition, is a dedicated advocate for equitable funding of public schools. He reports here that charter schools–many of which are very low-performing–receive nearly $1 billion a year.

He writes:

Total payment to charter schools is $903,344,671.24 as of the January 2014 report. This is a one-year figure.

You may wish to examine the State Report Card at http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/School-Search.aspx. You must enter a charter school name in the search box on the right hand side.

Ohio has spent $1.4 billion on charters that never received a C or higher on the report card and/or scores below the average performance index score for Big 8 Urban buildings.

Initial estimates show that Ohio has spent about $1 billion on charters that have closed for a variety of reasons since the 2002-2003 school year, only 25% of that can be attributed to charters that were forced shut by state law.

As of today on the ODE website, there are 392 charter schools.

As of today on the ODE website, 151 charter schools have closed.

Bill can be reached at ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net

Late last night, I posted a commentary that connected two seemingly unrelated communications. One was an article in Slate by psychologist Laurence Steinberg, saying that our high schools are not rigorous enough, our seniors are not learning enough, and bemoaning both kids and schools. It happened to arrive about the same time as a letter in my inbox from a teacher in upstate Néw York.

I pointed out that when I was a member of the NAEP governing board (NAGB), we devoted an entire meeting to discussing the well-known problem of seniors not caring about NAEP scores. They know that NAEP counts for nothing, and many turned in blanks or doodled or made silly patterned guesses to show their disdain for being asked to take yet another test of no significance.

When Steinberg saw my post,he tweeted (I paraphrase): when given a choice between anecdote and data, I choose data.

I responded that Mark Twain said there were lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The serious answer is that before one uses data to condemn or judge people, one should evaluate the quality of the data. In this case, I can testify as a fact that the governing board studied the 12th graders’ lack of motivation to comply. We thought about offering cash or pizza parties for agreeing to take the test seriously. No one had a good answer. The data are not reliable.

Maybe the Puritans started the tradition of saying that the younger generation is going to hell. Why can’t we ever stop wailing about the kids? Whatever they are, they reflect the society they were born into. I expect great things from them, despite the obstacles we older folks place before them, despite our dysfunctional politics, despite adults’ misguided priorities, despite all the bad educational policies our kids must overcome.

At the time I wrote last night, little did I know that the teacher and the professor graduated from the same college and had long ago had a similar exchange.

The teacher wrote this morning:

“Thanks to Diane for posting my original letter and for working so hard on behalf of teachers and our students.

“I turned on the computer this morning to look for my letter and nearly fell out of my chair when I saw my name mentioned alongside a reference to Dr. Laurence Steinberg. You see, Dr. Steinberg and I exchanged a number of letters many years ago about an op-ed piece he had written in the Times. I’d used his piece in my classes back in the early 1990s and my students took great issue with it. They were, to put it nicely, mad as hell at Larry.

“[Dr. Steinberg….. can I call you Larry? The fact that I’ve bumped into you again this way in the middle of the internet after all these years is just a little weird, isn’t it? We ought to get together someday. I’ll buy you a coffee. Hell, I’ll even pay for your lunch. We both graduated from Vassar College so we can talk about the beautiful campus there when we need a break from arguing about education.]

“Suffice to say, that if I had to re-do my correspondence with Larry again there’s definitely things I would do differently. And, I’d like to think that Larry might feel the same way.

“But, Larry, Diane couldn’t be more right. Many of these tests are bogus. And, the kids know it. They’re certainly smart enough not to waste their time, especially considering the fact that we all seem to have so much less of that time nowadays.

“I’m so tired of hearing the same old cliche, “Kids today….blah, blah, blah….” After teaching in a high school for 26 years, I can say that these “kids today” are much more serious and hardworking than my own classmates back in the 1970s. They have to be. We’ve given them no choice.

-John Ogozalek”

Well, of course, there are scores of education entrepreneurs, the men and women who dream up clever ways to make profits from the field of public education. They have start-ups, they have real-estate investment trusts, they create companies to build data systems, they operate for-profit charter chains, on and on. Some get very rich. They certainly make more money than teachers, who spend their days with children.

Education Next, the journal of rightwing academics and journalists here profiles three entrepreneurs.

The three edu-entrepreneurs featured here are Larry Berger of Wireless Generation, whose company was purchased by Rupert Murdoch for $390 million;

Jonathan Harber, who created Schoolnet and sold it to Pearson for $230 million.

Ron Packard of K12, who founded the company with the Milken brothers, which went public in 2007, and now has revenues of $848 million.

It is astonishing when you think about it that non-educators profit so handsomely when teachers must work for years to reach an annual salary of $50,000.

Who adds social value?

It gives one pause, makes you think about our priorities. And think of who has the great fortunes: Murdoch, Pearson, the Milkens.

I withhold further comment.

In this post, Rebecca Radding explains why she was asked to leave at the end of her third year as a Teach for America teacher in a KIPP school in Néw Orleans.

She could not teach like a champion.

She writes:

“I was never much of a champion, to be honest. KIPP defines a successful teacher as someone who keeps children quiet, teaches children how to answer each question on a test composed of arbitrary questions, and then produces high scores on this test. Mind you, I was teaching Pre-K and then kindergarten at a KIPP school in New Orleans—and these were still the metrics by which I was being evaluated. Since my definition of a successful early childhood classroom looked very different from silence and test prep, I had to figure out how to survive. I lasted three years.”

“By year three it had become very, very difficult for me to hide my disdain for the way the school was managed. In the previous two years, I’d fought hard for the adoption of a play-based early childhood curriculum, only to see it systematically dismantled by our 25-year old assistant principal. When this administrator told us that our student test scores would be higher if we used direct instruction, worksheets and exit tickets to check for their understanding, I lost my shit. I’m sorry, but five year olds don’t learn that way.

“I was fired a week later. Well, to be fair, I was told that I *wasn’t a good fit*—most likely because I talked about things like poverty and trauma and brain development, and also because at that point I knew significantly more about early childhood education and what young children actually needed to grow and develop than the administrators who ran the school. And that made me a threat.”

She goes on to explain what it means to “teach like a champion” and why she found it increasingly impossible to comply.

This article was written by a teacher in Los Angeles. She describes the implantation of the Common Core standards. She is especially perplexed by the practice of “close reading,” which means that students are expected to comprehend text without any context or background knowledge.

She and her colleagues were disappointed by the “professional development,” which was not at all professional.

She writes:

“Our trainer started the session by apologizing sincerely for all the anxiety and confusion surrounding the rushed implementation of the Common Core State Standards in LAUSD. The first slide in her PowerPoint presentation showed the governance structure of LAUSD. At the top was the elected school board. She was letting us know that if we had issues with the Common Core State Standards, we needed to bring these up with the school board. Everyone else down the line, she implied, was just following marching orders, and it would do no good to call and harass them.

“We were lucky. When I returned to school, I found out that the math teachers had had a similar training session. However, theirs started with the trainer telling them that no “negativity” would be tolerated, and that it wasn’t a question-and-answer session. In essence, they were told to sit down and shut up and not bring up concerns about the reordering of the teaching of important concepts that is happening in math under the Common Core State Standards.

“At least we were treated like professionals.”

Then came the training about how to teach the Gettysburg Address by close reading.

The teacher writes:

“When we discussed the sample Gettysburg assessment, several teachers pointed out that the assessment offers no background on the Gettysburg Address. Students are not to be given any information about the speech, even if they are relatively new to the country. Many of us in LAUSD have students in our regular English classes who have only been in the United States a year or two, and they most likely do not know our history.

“Other students may simply not remember their U.S. history lessons from middle school, and may have forgotten who Abraham Lincoln was, or why the Gettysburg Address is important, or even that “address” in this instance means a speech and not a location.

“If a student is clueless but lucky, she might be sitting next to a student who does know this information. (All the Common Core assessments I’ve seen so far require discussion with a partner, but forbid talking to the teacher. So if you are a genius or sit next to one, you hit the Common Core lottery.)

“But those kinds of concerns are apparently very pre-Common Core, and are outdated now.

“When we asked if we could do a little pre-teaching to provide context, our trainer somberly shook her head.

“She actually said it would be best to simply give the “cold, hard assessment,” and that we need to “remove the scaffolding sometime.”

“Then I noticed a relic on the wall from the pre-Common Core era—a poster of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The Bloom’s Taxonomy chart is a pyramid. At the bottom is the foundation of all learning. As you go up the pyramid, the tasks increase in complexity (notice I did not say “rigor”).

“At the base of the pyramid is knowledge. Next up is comprehension. After that come application, analysis, synthesis, and then at the top, evaluation.

“I couldn’t help myself. I raised my hand to ask a question.

“Isn’t giving this assessment without giving the students the background—the context for the speech—kind of like expecting them to come in on the Bloom’s taxonomy chart at comprehension, without making sure they first have the knowledge?”

“Then something interesting happened. The trainer looked like I had zapped her with a stun gun for a second. She actually physically jerked. Then she recovered, and said we could discuss that after the training. (We didn’t.)”

From a reader: please sign!

A Declaration of Independence from Corporatist/Behaviorist Education

Posted on February 7, 2014

When, in the course of a teaching career, it becomes essential to break from excessively rational beliefs and schemes and to begin thinking openly and freely, disregarding the dictatorial influences of political hacks, the insidious prodding of education gurus and the bleating of complacent peers, it is necessary that the thinking educator admonish the world with the whys and wherefores of their intended independence from those scourges of productive learning, Corporations and their Behaviorist lackeys.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that education is best described as a journey, not a destination; that education is not a medicine or treatment to be inflicted upon learners; that a partnership between willing learner, skilled teacher, and supportive guardian forms the foundation of productive education; and that a democratic society sustains itself by practice of its ideals within the educational environment. Numerous corporations and anti-public education fronts—including, but not limited to, the Gates Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, ALEC, State Policy Network, Teach for America, Stand for Children, and Teach Plus— plot and contrive to dictate educational policy, conduct and beliefs. When unelected billionaires use their financial clout to promulgate a destructive vision for American education, it is the right—nay, the obligation—of every educator to break all the Windows® they can, chop down every Solution Tree that stands, consign their Common Core lesson plans to the reformatorium, and renew their commitment to student-centered instruction in order to preserve their claim to professional status, ensure their future happiness, and maintain their present sanity.

A glance at the attempts by corporatist forces to deform public education provides ample evidence that ideas and opinions formed in the business world are all too tempting to politicians who rely on corporate funds for re-election. Behold: political narrow-mindedness, focus on data rather than humanity, the tendency to blame those who teach for the ills of society, and an unwillingness to consider humane methods of instruction as acceptable alternatives to techniques of indoctrination serve as warnings to the nation’s teachers and learners that they, too, are doomed to a future of boredom and inner turmoil if they do not act against the domination of Corporations and their Behaviorist toadies in public education today.

When narrow-mindedness reaches that point where afflicted educators are shamed for considering alternatives to the shallow reasoning and attitudes taught them by the nefarious Dufour Duo, their uprising is most justified. So have I and my fellow educators suffered. We rise above this morass of ridiculous ideals today to present several of the offenses of the Corporatist/Behaviorist Cabal for consideration:

They assert a corporation’s right to legal status as individuals in order to exert unrestricted financial influence over public policy, while also enjoying exemptions from the obligations which citizens affected by those policies must endure.

They degrade democracy by excluding teaching professionals from the process of creating standards and imposing those standards without public debate.

They devalue the professionalism of teachers by demanding the surrender of all autonomy in favor of scripted lessons and prescriptive standards.

They claim without evidence that setting “standards” will transform education for the better.

They threaten the privacy of students and seek to transform public schools into another source of profit.

They demand unswerving loyalty and obedience from educators, rather than encouraging professional discourse and promoting respectful dialogue.

They vilify the professional associations of educators and encourage citizens to view teachers and other public servants as parasites on society.

They use non-profit fronts to conceal profit-seeking enterprises.

They alienate youth from their educations by placing undue emphasis on outcomes as opposed to personal investment in the process of learning.

They reduce the beauty and complexity of academic endeavor to atomistic standards as part of their crusade to deprive educators of professional discretion.

They strip seasoned professionals of dignity and destroy their morale.

We, therefore, educators of America, straightforwardly and without dissembling, appealing to the Master Instructor for the iGeneration, do, in the name—and assuming the authority— of public school teachers throughout this Land, brazenly publish and declare that we are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent of Corporate Influence; that we are absolved of allegiance to Arne Duncan and his ilk, and that all connection between educators and Bill Gates’ connivances is hereby dissolved, and that as Free and Independent Tutors, we have full power to offer learners a democratic environment, disregard the CCSS, ignore John Hattie’s latest work of fiction, and do all things that free-thinkers of the world might do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the dearly-departed Socrates, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives (such as they are after semester grading), our meager salaries and 403(b)s, and what little honor we have left after attending PLC conferences.

WE SIGN OUR NAMES…

David Sudmeier

outcave.wordpress.com

The well-publicized Vergara trial in Los Angeles has put a spotlight on teacher tenure and seniority.

The plaintiffs’s lawyers say that the “best” teachers are unfairly assigned to teach white students.

Gary Rubinstein looks at the claims and finds them statistically dubious.

For one thing, they are based on value-added measures, which are themselves of dubious scientific validity.

For another, those testifying for the plaintiffs–notably Tom Kane (who is known for his work for the Gates Foundation)–knows that the math behind his claims is shaky.

He notes that Kane testifies that 5.4% of Latino kids get “ineffective” teachers (as measured by VAM), when only 5% should get such teachers.

Hmmm. Not what one would identify as a smoking gun of discrimination.

The defendants should get a mathematician to punch a hole in these assertions.

I received a letter from John Ogozolak, a teacher in upstate New York, where the economy has long been in serious trouble, with a paucity of jobs and economic opportunity.

I decided to share it, because like him, I too have wondered what message we give our high school students. The politicians and the media constantly tell them how dumb they are, how lazy and shiftless, yet they are our future. What kind of world are they graduating into? Will there be jobs? Will they have a chance? Will there be social mobility and opportunity? Or will they find themselves slipping down into the bottom end of the economy?

John’s letter arrived only hours after I read this column in Slate by Laurence Steinberg, who studies adolescents, declaring that our high schools are a total disaster, and our kids are learning nothing, based on the fact that test scores for seniors are stagnant.

I responded to Larry Steinberg, whom I knew years ago, and pointed out that the NAEP scores for seniors are meaningless. When I was on the NAEP board in the early 2000s, we devoted a full meeting to discussing the fact that high school seniors don’t even try on NAEP tests. They know the tests don’t count towards high school graduation or college admission; they don’t count for anything, and the kids don’t care about them. They doodle on the answer page, they answer in patterns (like checking off every A), or they leave pages blank. They aren’t dumb. They know what they are doing. They are asked to jump over a meaningless hurdle, and they treat it as a joke. But the adults take their tomfoolery as evidence that they are unmotivated, possibly stupid. I don’t think the kids are stupid. I imagine how I feel when someone calls me on the phone and starts asking questions; usually I hang up, or I say something uncooperative because I don’t like to be interrupted for no reason to fit into someone else’s plan. I expect that the seniors feel the same way.

I often wonder why we have so little confidence in our young people, why we demean them so often, and why we never stop to think that they are products of our society, for better or worse. If we are disappointed in them, we should be even more disappointed in ourselves. They are our children. And let me be clear: I have met many high school students, and I have been impressed by their wit, intelligence, humor, courage, and passionate sense of justice.

Anyway, read Steinberg’s column, and contrast it with what John wrote. John is a teacher. He knows his kids. He sees them every day. He worries about their future, not because they are dumb but because our society offers them diminishing prospects and doesn’t tell the truth:

I teach 12th graders economics in what the New York Times described this past summer as the 4th poorest county in New York State.I start off the semester course trying to give the students a sense of what’s rich, and middle class and poor in this country.  The kids read from Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and we discuss the growing gap between the rich and poor in this nation.I try to make economics REAL to these young adults while connecting their experiences to some of the important theories you’d find in a typical Economics 101 course in college.  These kids are on the verge of walking out of the school and being faced with paying for college and making their way in the world.

Then…..the students and myself get walloped at the end of the course with an asinine “assessment” created from a computer bank of outdated questions that someone in an office at the county BOCES prints out.  We get a test just because some law says we have to.  You couldn’t call it a standardized test.  One version had misspelled words and even the same question repeated twice.  But, of course, I couldn’t revise the test prior to administration……because I as the teacher couldn’t be trusted.

It’s truly sick, Diane.  I’m not a believer in conspiracy theories but I have to wonder if there’s some grand scheme somewhere to numb high school students with mindless drivel and endless tests so that they don’t get around to asking the big questions….like why is their generation getting screwed.  It’s frustrating to sit back and watch this educational car crash happen.  I’ve sent letters to the Times, to the newspaper in Albany, my legislators…..  I tried writing a blog but I don’t have the time really for its upkeep among other issues. I went to rallies and held up signs…..

We still try to have some fun in class while learning.  That’s about my biggest form of protest.

The heroes of the movement to reduce standardized testing in Texas is a group called TAMSA. The unwieldy title is Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment. They are better known as Moms Ahainst Drunk Testing.

They realized that Pearson had a lock on the Texas legislature as that body passed more and more testing requirements. The legislature cut $5 Billion from the schools’ budget yet managed to find nearly $500 million for a contract with Pearson. Give credit where it is due: Pearson hired Sandy Kress, architect of NCLB, as its lobbyist. Kress sends his own children to a wonderful school that does NOT give standardized tests.

So, I hereby honor the Moms of Texas, who beat Pearson.

Here is a letter about their activities:

“TAMSA deserves the credit for HB5 that reduced end of course testing by Pearson from 15 tests to 5.

Students in grades 3-8 take 17 of Pearson’s tests.

The TAMSA slideshow provides important facts about how the Pearson lobbyists were unmasked by the moms.

http://www.tamsatx.org

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/texan-of-the-year/tamsa/”