Archives for the month of: July, 2014

Leading Democrats have announced the creation of a new organization called Democrats for Public Education.

It will be led by Ted Strickland, former governor of Ohio, and Donna Brazile, political consultant.

Its name is a swipe at Democrats for Education Reform, which is dominated by hedge fund managers, and which funds candidates who support charter schools, Teach for America, and any other group that is antagonistic to public education.

Last year, the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling on DFER to cease using the name “Democrats,” since their program is a front for the Republican and corporate agenda.

Journalist Sarah Darer Littman is still aghast from the weeks of scandal that have rocked Connecticut and its charter sector.

“Dr.” Michael Sharpe stepped down as CEO of Connecticut’s Jumoke Charter Schools and its parent organization FUSE. Sharpe had a criminal record long ago, and his doctorate was a phony. Littman remembers how she was fingerprinted every time she took a new job.

She writes:

“Yet the members of the state Board of Education, all appointed or re-appointed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, required no such due diligence before forking over $53 million of our taxpayer dollars to “Doctor” Sharpe’s organization. Just to make things even cozier, Gov. Malloy appointed FUSE’s chief operating officer, Andrea Comer, to the state Board of Education. Comer resigned earlier this week, in order to avoid being a “distraction.” I’m afraid it’s a little too late for that.

“Rep. Andy Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, the co-chair of the legislature’s Education Committee, told the Connecticut Mirror’s Mark Pazniokas: “This is a pretty unique situation. Michael Sharpe had been tremendously successful at Jumoke Academy since about the year 2000 . . . So I think it’s fair to say it came as a big surprise to many of us that someone who had achieved so much would be claiming to have degrees that he lacks and have a past.”

“Unique situation? One has to ask oneself if Rep. Fleischmann has been living under a rock. Maybe he missed the comprehensive report by the Detroit Free Press on charter improprieties in Michigan. Or the scandals in Florida. . Or New Jersey. Or California. Or Louisiana. The list goes on.”

“But the surefire winner of the Connecticut Chutzpah Crown has got to be Jennifer Alexander, CEO of ConnCan,” who said,

“I think it is an important moment that signals a need to revisit and update Connecticut’s charter law so that it keeps pace with best practices nationally, including clarity around areas of accountability and transparency — but, I think, also flexibility and funding,” she said.

Translation: “Oops, one of our guys was caught lying, so we should make a show of ‘best practices’” Don’t you just love the reformy lingo for what the rest of us call “good government?” Orwell would have a field day with Ms. Alexander. “But in the meantime, give us more money and less regulation.”

Yes folks, I think Ms. Alexander just gave us a new definition of chutzpah.

Sarah Darer Littman bemoans the fact that our policy makers are willing to spend more on testing while many schools have no libraries or librarians.

When she said this to an elected official, he responded: “Where’s the evidence for the benefit of libraries?”

In this post, she supplies the evidence. She cited the studies showing that schools and students tend to have higher literacy if they have libraries.

Yet, as she also reports, budget cuts are closing the doors to literacy.

A teacher from North Carolina wrote the comments below. I don’t agree with his conclusion that unions are responsible for teachers’ loss of control over their work. What he describes can be found in states that never had unions, that were always “right to work.” Who is the villain of the piece? Testing companies? NCLB? I would put the blame on the accountability movement, which now belongs to Congress and legislatures. They want to know “are we getting our money’s worth?” Can’t trust teachers to tell you, must trust standardized tests.

Mr. Worley of North Carolina writes:

There was a day when teaching was considered a profession. As a profession, those who taught were trusted with the education and the evaluation of the student. I grew up in schools that worked that way. Many of you did as well.

My first few years in teaching, it was still pretty much that way. While I dreaded the work of creating fair final exams and then grading them, there was satisfaction in knowing that my kids were doing the same kind of work they had done all year, and that I was the one doing the grading of it.

What has happened?

In my 18th year of teaching now, I no longer write any finals – the state writes them all. I no longer grade any finals – a bubble reading machine does that. I no longer have to consider whether and how to set a curve on their final exam – the state does that. I no longer am even allowed to administer the final to the students I have spent a whole semester with – a teacher outside of my content area must do that. I can’t even proctor the exam.

I spend months building a relationship with my students, slowly but surely getting to know each of them, and them getting to know me. We laugh together, we struggle together, we get mad at each other sometimes. Some days are hard, some not so much, but all of them are interesting.

My favorite comment from my kids remains, “Mr. Worley, you don’t understand. I so look forward to coming to your class each day.” It doesn’t matter whether they like math or not, whether they are particularly good at math or not. In our class, we are united in the notion that our day can be better as a result of having been in math class that day. For whatever reason.

What has happened?

It’s easy to point the finger at politicians and power-wielders who have precious little understanding of just what K-12 education looks like on a daily basis. And certainly these people continue to harm public education for what appear to be selfish reasons.

But we in the education camp have to take some responsibility as well. For far too many years we allowed union representatives to dig in their heels on issues related to rethinking education. We tolerated teachers who should have been quickly removed, protecting with union rights instead of taking a stand for a high level of professionalism. And with every story in the news, trust deteriorated.

Don’t misunderstand me. I have belonged to the teachers union. I was a building representative and believe strongly in the value of collective bargaining rights.

What I’m saying is, we allowed the union to take our voice. And, as a result, we lost our place at the discussion table. Now that sentiment is generally anti-union across the country, teachers are no longer welcome to have a voice, because they don’t feel they need to welcome us. Here in North Carolina we see a state General Assembly passing one piece of vicious attack legislation after the other against educators.

At some point we, the teachers, the ones who love this profession and who are passionate about the kids we serve, need to rise up and reclaim our rightful place as professionals. I’m not sure how. I’m not sure who can or will lead such a rising. But I am certain it needs to happen soon, before public education is dismantled and turned in to a private sector business.

Because education will be dead then…

There is no secret to getting great teachers, writes Peter Greene.

Everything the reformsters do is guaranteed to drive away great teachers.

Here is the secret:

“If you really want to put a great teacher in front of every child, then you need to preserve and enhance a vision of teaching that gives teachers control over their fate, their teaching environment, and the education they provide their students. You need to preserve and enhance a vision of the profession that allows teachers to grow and excel (on their own terms). You need to preserve and enhance a vision of education’s greater purposes, which are so much more than “college and career ready” and “do well on that bubble test.” And you need to offer career pay that means they’re not always wondering how they’ll ever be able to raise a family or buy a home.”

This prize-winning story by investigative reporter Colin Woodard follows the money trail in Maine, as Governor Paul LePage seeks to make a name for himself in the world of digital learning. It was originally published two years ago, but remains relevant. Woodard dug through more than 1,000 documents that he obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and his story won the George Polk award.

In this spell-binding video, borrowed from Fred Klonsky’s blog, the Reverend Dr. William Barber speaks at the AFT convention and describes the powerful Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina. This movement has a broad social and economic agenda, and it may well bring down the hard-hearted, mean-spirited governor and legislature of that state.

Do yourself a favor. Watch it. Take hope. What Dr. Barber describes is not a miracle. It is about what we can do when we stand together. Not as Republicans or Democrats. Not as conservatives or liberals. But as people joined in a moral cause, committed to bringing justice to our nation.

Smart politicians understand that the appearance of reform is even better than real reform. Chicago Democrats have learned that lesson and turned it into an art form.

Here is an article from the Chicago Tribune that makes the point–not about schools but about crime and police. In education,”reform” means closing schools, shutting down libraries, and replacing experienced teachers with newcomers.

“Chicago Democrats a protected species on the national stage”

John Kass

July 9, 2014

Prominent Chicago Democrats have had an easy time with the national media for decades — as easy as shaking a ring of keys to distract an anxious child in church.

Former Mayor Richard M. Daley rode a bicycle in photo ops and put a few plants on the roof of City Hall, leading the national news networks to cast him as the “green” mayor, not as the absolute boss of a broken and corrupt political system that piled debt on the city and drained its future for the benefit of the insiders.

President Barack Obama appeared on the late-night talk shows as the mystical healer of America’s broken politics, not as some untested suit who held the hand of now-imprisoned bagman Tony Rezko while learning to cross Chicago’s political streets.

And Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff?

He hangs with Jimmy Fallon and they tell jokes about jumping into a freezing Lake Michigan. Emanuel is as cool and practiced a media manipulator as the fictional Frank Underwood in “House of Cards.”

But a headline of 82 people shot in Chicago in 84 hours is embarrassing to the mayor, particularly for a mayor who sees the fifth floor of City Hall as a mere stop on the road to his national political destiny.

So he held a news conference on the Far South Side this week, a familiar exercise, full of the necessary archetypes:

Wise neighborhood matrons flanking the mayor and nodding their heads in agreement. Grieving families in support, better there at his side than out on the street asking angry questions.

They talked of the need for everyone to step up to face the crisis, from community leaders to parents, federal officials, judges — everyone except, of course, the mayor of Chicago.

And he avoided the overriding question, again and again: When are we going to hire more police officers?

“Now, a lot of people will say, ‘Where were the police? What were the police doing?’ That’s a fair question, but not the only question,” the mayor said.

“Where are the parents? Where is the community? Where are the gun laws? Where are the national leaders, so we don’t have the guns of Cook County, Indiana and downstate Illinois flowing into the city?”

Rattle those keys, Mr. Mayor.

A TV reporter asked him about tired police officers who’ve been working overtime because he won’t hire more. Another reporter asked why New York and Los Angeles have lower homicide rates than Chicago.

“Well, thank you (for) your question,” Rahm said, launching into a diatribe on gun laws, rather than on police staffing.

He’s good at shaking keys. And some analysts bought his talking points, agreeing with City Hall that talking of police manpower was just too easy.

Too easy? What else is left? A miracle?

According to city data, overall Police Department staffing was about 12,250 at the start of this year, down almost 900 officers from the end of 2009. The Rahmfather has been hiring police, but not at a fast enough rate to keep up with attrition.

Just about every police officer I’ve talked to feels overworked and tired. They’re worn thin. Morale is down. That’s what month after month of overtime can do.

On Wednesday, Pat Camden, spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago, wasn’t receptive to the mayor’s policies during an interview with me and Lauren Cohn on WLS-AM 890.

“It would have been nice to hear the mayor saying, ‘Where were the police? The police are out there doing their job, and if I had more police maybe we wouldn’t have had so many shootings.’ But that’s not the way he operates,” Camden said.

There’s always money to be found when the politicians want to find it.

Some $50 million has been set aside for yet another monument to a Daley, a park named for the former mayor’s late wife. And there’s about $600 million or so for a lakefront project that includes a new athletic venue for DePaul University, although the Bulls and Blackhawks offered the use of the United Center rent-free.

And just before his last election, Gov. Pat Quinn found $54.5 million in state cash for a violence-reduction program now being investigated by the feds as a possible political slush fund.

There are not enough good-paying jobs on the predominantly African-American South and West sides. But there seems to be plenty of political cash to toss around.

Meanwhile, Democrats are encouraging waves of unskilled labor from south of the border to compete for what few low-skilled jobs still exist.

Families already savaged by decades of dependency on government programs continue to dissolve. Violence reigns. The giant street gangs have broken up into small and viperous neighborhood cliques.

Many children aren’t allowed outside. I remember a detective telling me that for such children, it’s like the “Hunger Games” out there.

But the political class in charge for decade after decade after decade — the Chicago Democrats — isn’t ever held to account nationally.

When seen in the national news, they’re about as green as forest ferns. Or they’re all about soothing old political scars and healing divisions.

Or they’re hip and they know Hollywood and can jump into icy lakes with late-night TV personalities.

All they have to do is rattle the keys, misdirect, smile and turn on the charm.

jskass@tribune.com

Reader and arts consultant Laura Chapman cites an article in today’s Wall Street Journal that reminds us that test scores are not objective.

Panels of experts and non-experts make a judgment about what is “proficient,” what is the “cut score for other labels. It is a judgment. The person in charge can adjust the cut score to make the tests harder or easier. If he wants to show that kids are really dumb, he will choose a very high cut score. If he wants to show that kids are improving under his amazing leadership, he will drop the cut score, and more kids will pass. The public is easily hoodwinked. The scores are Bunkum.

Chapman comments:

Today, the Wall Street Journal reports on the results of NY state tests (page 2, weekend).
http://online.wsj.com/articles/test-scores-are-no-sure-guide-to-what-students-know-1405122823?tesla=y

The headline is amazing: “Test Scores Are No Sure Guide to What Students Know: Results Say More About the Way Test Makers Decide to Measure Children’s Knowledge”

The graphics show performance trends in math and English, grades 3-8, before and after the new CCSS tests in math and English. Big drop in ”proficiency.”

Then the author of the article, Jo Craven McGinty, tries to explain how the new cut scores for “proficiency” are determined.

“A panel of 95 teachers divided into math and English groups (45.7 in each group?) were given “the test the students took in order of difficulty from easiest to most difficult.” Each teacher was given the task of dropping a bookmark on the test to indicate a level of performance with enough correct answers to qualify for a Level 1 “proficiency” or Level 2 (and so on). This process was repeated four times to arrive at final cut scores, meaning something like a consensus on “the threshold for each performance level.” Of course, with four iterations of the process, teachers may develop a bit of fatique, and like a hung jury may produce a 2/2 vote on the cut…No details here, but “cut” is a good name for te score.

The article is intended to convey the gist of the process, not the technicalities. For example, the teachers are not asked to determine the “order of difficulty” of the tests. That has been pre-determined, likely through statistical methods for item analysis. Teachers are setting cut scores for judgments about “good enough” or “ not good enough” for given label. The labels and cut scores function much like the old fashioned A-F rating system. As one expert said, the idea is to “send a message to kids about what is good enough.”

I think this not the primary purpose of the new testing regime. The real purpose is to reinvent the tests and scoring scale (cut scores) so fewer students appear to doing well in school and to condemn prior tests as too easy.

According to more than one expert in psychometrics, the term “proficient” is not much more than a human judgment about labeling a performance on a test.

That process is not objective, and it becomes even more complex when test items go beyond requests for fill-in-the-bubble answers. One expert is quoted in the article: “People believe they know what these labels mean. It has nothing to do with how well kids are doing. It is a way of making a judgment about how performance is going to be labeled.”

And this is the protocol that makes test scores “objective measures.” Give me a break.

There is something about corporate education reform that encourages chutzpah. Chutzpah is a Yiddish word for arrogance. Reformers think they are on the front lines of the civil rights movement. They think that making tests harder helps kids who are already struggling. They think that if the failure rate for black and Hispanic kids goes higher, these kids are getting the help they need. Please don’t ask me to explain the logic behind their train of thought. I suppose their inflated opinion of themselves leads the corporate reformers to reach absurd conclusions.

Take New York State Commissioner John King. His teaching experience is limited to three years in a no-excuses charter school where poor kids were expelled for minor infractions. Having been chosen to lead the Empire State, where only 3% of children are in charters, he has decided that the Common Core standards are his heroic mission. He has compared himself to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And just a few days ago, he said that the advocates for the Common Core were like the all-black World War II unit called the Tuskegee Airmen.

Please don’t ask me to explain the logic. There is none. In the first administration of Common Core testing, 95% of children with disabilities failed. More than 80% of African-American and Hispanic children failed. These tests have passing marks designed to fail most kids, and the burden falls most heavily on minority children. Instead of help and reduced class sizes, they get more tests. What part of this scenario would be supported by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? What part is similar to the bravery of the Tuskegee Airmen?

It makes no sense. But then, Common Core makes no sense. It was underwritten by one man, Bill Gates. It was imposed by making it a condition of Race to the Top. The tests were federally funded (an act of dubious legality). It eviscerates state and local control of education. It sets poor kids, black kids, Hispanic kids, and those with disabilities on a road to failure. What part of this terrible scenario resonates with the civil rights movement?

The only thing Dr. John King has in common with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is his last name. The current Dr. King should have the decency to refrain from comparing himself to a man who distinguished himself by his humility, his compassion, his decency, his astonishing intellect, and his genuine concern for those who had the least. He sought equity. He fought for unions, good jobs, good housing, fair wages. In my reading of Dr. King’s work, I never once encountered a passage in which he said that what black children need most is testing.