Archives for the month of: February, 2015

Robert Pondiscio hit a hornet’s nest when he wrote in defense of the Common Core standards for kindergarten. In this post, which was released by DEY (Defending the Early Years), its director Geralyn Bywater McLaughlin, responds to Pondiscio.

 

 

She writes:

 

 

 

Last week, Senior Fellow and Vice President for External Affairs at the conservative Fordham Institute, Robert Pondiscio published a critique of our recent report Reading Instruction in Kindergarten: Little to Gain and Much to Lose. His essay “Is Common Core too hard for kindergarten?” was published in the Common Core Watch blog at the Fordham Institute. After reading his essay, a few things are quite clear.

 

First, it is not surprising that the critique comes from this corner – the Fordham Institute has been a key player promoting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In fact, the Gates-funded Fordham Institute, which has been rating education standards for years, has been pushing the CCSS even in places where they have rated the existing state standards higher than they have rated the CCSS.

 

Second, it is surprising how our paper and our position have been completely misunderstood by Pondiscio. Not only does he dismiss early childhood expertise out of hand, he misrepresents our arguments. This is even after participating in an hour-long panel discussion on KQED’s Forum with one of the report authors, Nancy Carlsson-Paige, Ed.D. Pondiscio further debases the intellectual competence of early childhood educators when he describes our researched-based advocacy report as “complaints”.

 

Pondiscio writes that our report “complains” that “expecting kindergarteners to read is ‘developmentally inappropriate’”. In fact, we agree that many kindergarteners do learn to read. It is precisely something that we expect. Our deep concern is over the CCSS expectation that ALL children learn to read in kindergarten. As we state in the report, “Many children are not developmentally ready to read in kindergarten, yet the Common Core State Standards require them to do just that. This is leading to inappropriate classroom practices.”

 

Pondiscio describes our position as simply stating the “Common Core is too hard for kindergarten”. He uses this reductive phrase “too hard” repeatedly throughout his essay. In fact, our argument is much more nuanced than that. We do state, “When children have educational experiences that are not geared to their developmental level or in tune with their learning needs and cultures, it can cause them great harm, including feelings of inadequacy and confusion.”

 

To bolster his critique, Pondiscio offers a link to a chapter in a book published by Scholastic (no author given) that references a study by researchers Hanson and Farrell (1995). We were able to find this study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education in Chicago, though it is not clear if this research was published in a peer-reviewed journal. We shared the research with a trusted education researcher who responded that it is difficult to evaluate this “poor and old piece of evidence,” as some important technical information is missing – such as the standard deviations – making it hard to estimate the size of the claimed effects.

 

Pondiscio writes that “If teachers are turning their kindergarten classrooms into joyless grinding mills and claiming they are forced to do so under Common Core (as the report’s authors allege), something clearly has gone wrong.” Here, Pondiscio contributes to the on-going national narrative of teacher-bashing. The onus here is on the teachers, he claims, not on the misguided CCSS or the pressure from school administrators, district superintendents and state departments of education to produce high-scoring test results.

 

It is insulting for Pondiscio to imply our intended message is “children should not be reading by the end of kindergarten, or that they will read when they are good and ready.” We clearly state that there is a normal range for learning to read. We know that many children learn to read at five, four or even three-years-old. Many will learn to read in kindergarten. That is not a problem. We also understand quite fully that learning to read is highly individualized and that it is part of the craft of good teaching to know your students well and to understand why, how and when specific supports are needed. The CCSS one-size-fits-all, lock-step expectations do not allow for teacher judgment. We know that the CCSS has led to a shift in reading assessments that have been around for a long time. For example, reading experts Fountas and Pinnell used to suggest that ending kindergarten in the A-C of books range was okay. Now, with the CCSS-informed shift, if a student has not progressed past level B by the beginning of first grade, he is designated as requiring “Intensive Intervention.”

 

There is much more to refute in Pondiscio’s essay, though we have given him enough of our attention. To read more on the issue, we suggest Susan Ochshorn’s response to Pondiscio here.

 

Geralyn Bywater McLaughlin, Director

Defending the Early Years (DEY)

James Kirylo explains here why his son will opt out of the PARCC test. He reminds his local school board that State Superintendent John White has often defended vouchers by saying that parents know what is best for his child. Kirylo says he knows what is best for his third-grade son: not to be subjected to hours and hours of pre-testing and testing. He wants him to love learning, not to be subjected to a grueling regime of finding the right answer. Kirylo happens to be an expert in early childhood education who has written frequently about developmentally appropriate education. Now, as a father, he is acting in the best interest of his child.
Remarks to Tangipahoa School Board
Amite, Louisiana

Why my Son will Opt Out of PARCC
(Enough: Stand Up, Speak Out, and Opt Out)
By

 

James D. Kirylo

While I am a professor of education, I don’t come here to speak in that official capacity, but, rather, as a parent with two children attending a public school in the state of Louisiana.

The theme of my remarks is related to Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Careers (PARCC) testing, and standardized testing in general, obviously politically charged interrelated topics.
But, then again, education is political at its core, no more exemplified when Governor Jindal was for Common Core before he was against it, and not to be outdone, Senator Vitter was against it, before he was for it, to be back against it. And, now more recently, the Governor and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), headed by Chas Roemer, are in a cat fight regarding PARCC testing, with many others now jumping into the fray.
And so, of course, it should not be any great wonder that so many people around the state are scratching their collective heads regarding Common Core and PARCC, no more tangibly experienced by teachers, felt by the parents, and imposed on our children.
I think it is fair to say Common Core should be taken with a relative grain of salt simply because some of it just makes no doggone sense. For example, it is not uncommon my Antonio, a third grader, will ask me how to do a particular homework math problem, and I will have no earthly idea how to do it. So I respond to him, son, please explain to your teacher that your daddy doesn’t know how to do this one. And, I jokingly suggest to my wife that his teacher probably doesn’t know how to do it either that is why she sends it home to see if the parents can figure this thing out. Because it makes no doggone sense to her either. And so it goes.
To the central point of what I want to share, which is to let this board know that my son will be opting out of PARCC testing. There are many reasons for this decision, some of which I will communicate here.
Wasn’t it Mr. John White, the unqualified Louisiana Superintendent of Education, who said on more than one occasion that parents know what is best for their children? Well, I can unequivocally tell you that opting out my child from PARCC is best for him. I encourage other parents to do the same. And, parents, don’t let anyone coercively tell you different, with a bullying tactic how opting out will negatively impact schools’/teachers’ scores. You have the right to opt out. And opting out of PARCC does not mean one is agreeing to take some other replacement standardized test.
The issue for me here is not only the PARCC assessment tool, which is symptomatic of a warped system, but, rather, the critical concern is also the entire testing industrial complex that is poisoning our schools. There are those who claim these standardized tests as they are currently being used are what strengthen our accountability system. But, I say that is misguided thinking coming from a bully pulpit that is using these tests in an effort to shamelessly control schools, teachers, parents, children, and entire communities.
My son is very conscientious child, and his teacher recently shared with me that he likes to think through things, loves to read, and is doing well. That brings this father much joy that what he is doing at school is the same what does at home. As I have told my two young boys, my other one, Alexander, who is in first grade, I have no interest in them focusing on getting an A. They don’t need that artificial burden.
Rather, what I am interested in is that they try their best, faithfully apply themselves, listen to the teacher, and question the teacher. There are two principal tasks of the teacher. First, a teacher must work diligently to tap into the natural curiosities a child brings to the class. Second, and perhaps most importantly, a central goal of the teacher is to inspire. Why? Because inspiration moves us. Inspiration is the fuel that feeds the learner to fall in love with learning. If and when a teacher does that, the world is a child’s oyster.
As I understand it, part I of PARCC is scheduled to take place March 16-20. During the course of the week, eight year old children will endure over 6 hours of testing. But of course, that is not enough of testing. Enter in Part II of PARCC, which will take place May 4-6 in which students will endure another 3 hours and 30 minutes of testing.
That is not to mention, that between that time ILeap will occur on April 14 and 15, where these same eight year old children will yet endure another 2 hours and 45 minutes of testing. And let’s not forget the Mock Testing that is to occur. Add up all those hours, and that comes to over 11 hours of testing. In a span of three months, an 8 year old will spend more hours subjected to standardized testing, which translates more than what I withstood throughout my entire K-12 schooling experience.
Of course, this does not include the months of testing practice, testing talk, and as we get closer to testing days we will have balloon send offs, pep rallies, and the like. These dog and pony shows are really not for students, but for the adults involved in the system who are under tremendous pressure, running on scared on how they will be judged by this perverted system. Perhaps, as the thinking goes, if we have a pep rally, the child will be “motivated” to do well on the test, and then our school will get a good grade. After all isn’t education all about ratings, scores, and percentages.
But, it doesn’t stop there. We tell children to get enough sleep, eat right, and frighten the daylights out of them on how important these tests are. What I speak is not hyperbole; this is reality.
As a result of this fabricated environment, young children are unnecessarily under great stress, fearful, dealing with bouts of panic, crying spells, apathy, sleeplessness, and depression, playing havoc on their self-worth and motivation, ultimately equating that schooling is simply about passing a test, leading some to even drop out. And the most affected are the poor, the ones without a voice. Make no mistake, these created conditions fall right in the lap of policy makers, many of whom chief among them sit on BESE, and enforced by the school board such as this one, and applauded by many others holding public office.
Evidently, BESE has become so blind to the poison they are injecting into our youth that they don’t even see our children anymore. Peter Sacks is spot on in his brilliant book, Standardized Minds (1999), “The accountability crusade has been dramatic and emotionally wrenching for many, and yet it operates with utter, bureaucratic coldness” (p.68)…. Regarding her son’s achievement on a standardized test, one parent put it this way: “Teachers were mesmerized by the numbers…They were in awe of him. Because he did so well on the test, in a way they didn’t see him. They saw him as his test scores” (p. 65).
For the last approximate 20 years, Education Week, publishes an annual Quality Counts State by State Report Card. What did Louisiana receive this year on K-12 Achievement? D- (49th in the nation). Every year for the past near two decades, the state of Louisiana has been hovering in that score range. And every year, we then predictably respond with more of the same rhetoric that centers around preparing for standardized tests. Except each year it becomes more heightened, more emphasized, more high stakes, and a whole lot sicker.
This is madness. I imagine all of us are familiar with the definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. This definition is credited to Albert Einstein, who, by the way, would have been labeled a failure in an era of high stakes testing.
And speaking of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and now moving into Race to the Top Program, which is linked to Common Core and PARCC, Dr. Diane Ravitch, one of the most respected education scholars in the nation, puts it this way, “After 13 years of federally mandated annual testing, how could anyone still believe that testing will improve instruction and close achievement gaps?” (https://dianeravitch.net/2015/01/12/why-did-civil-rights-groups-demand-standardized-testing/)
Well, I don’t, Dr. Ravitch. Excellent teachers, don’t. A plethora of concerned parents, don’t. And, high achieving countries, don’t. But, obviously, Dr. Ravitch, it appears that many policymakers in the state of Louisiana still do.
Let’s be clear, standardized testing has extraordinarily narrowed the curriculum, even has dumbed it down, impelling teachers to simply focus on prescribed areas of certain disciplines that will be tested. As a consequence, the arts in all its forms have greatly been deprived; the same for physical education; social studies and the sciences have received less attention; and, particularly for the very young, the idea of play and recess has been dismissed as frivolous. Clearly, the joy of learning is being systematically sucked out of curious children in a schooling environment that is riddled with fear (Solley, 2007).
Of course, assessment has its place in school. That is not being questioned here. And the ultimate goal of assessment is to improve teaching and learning. But, when it comes to our obsession with standardized tests, they have not only harmed quality teaching and meaningful learning, but also have chased good teachers away.
This is not to mention, the costs of them, so much so that the standardized testing industrial complex is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. We often hear that school systems are short of monies. My response to that is, no; they are short of priorities in which many dollars, much time, and much energy places its trust in the testing industry.
In the final analysis, it is no wonder, therefore, that numerous professional organizations, educators, and researchers from all over the world have admonished such a system. But more importantly, a sleeping giant called parents are waking up to this madness, and proclaiming, “Enough!” And that is why I am here.
Many will say, okay, what is the solution. I understand that. And there is no one solution, no one silver bullet, but collectively there are alternatives. However, before talking solutions, we need to be sure that there is an awareness of a problem.
Particularly among many in policy making positions, it appears that awareness is as dim as a small pen flashlight running on a weak battery. Many don’t see the problem. One can’t work on solutions, until awareness is more forcefully illuminated. And once that happens, the lighted path toward solutions will be guided by what can be.
In the end, our current system fundamentally functions by promoting competition, which inherently fosters a system of winners and losers, a system in which some are in and some are out. This kind of system is perpetual.
However, on the other hand, I don’t view a system of schooling as one that is steered by competition; rather, I view schooling as an endeavor in which learning is the focal point, in which cooperation and collaboration is the anchor, and in which the entire community works in concert to transform its citizenry.
In closing, it is for these reasons and others my son will be opting out of this testing madness. Parents all over the country are opting out, including a growing number in Louisiana. In addition, teachers all over the country are also joining forces, and saying enough and are refusing to administer something they know is developmentally inappropriate.
I strongly urge parents all over this parish to join me, to join the chorus of parents around this state, and proclaim enough, and opt out. I urge my colleagues at Southeastern Louisiana University, Louisiana State University, and other universities to speak out more forcefully, and say enough.
As I see it, we have two choices here: We can either continue to submit to the narrative of an unqualified state superintendent, a power hungry Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), and an out of control testing industry, all of which is backed by corporate greed, in an effort that arrogantly promotes a system that is poisoning our youth….or….We can listen to the voices of scholars who have conducted thoughtful research, consider the position statements of numerous educational organizations, listen to the voices of thousands of teachers, and pay attention to the crying out of our youngsters, all of whom are saying enough, urging a different direction…I choose the latter every single time. Thank you.

 
References
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Solley, B. A. (2007). On standardized testing: An ACEI position paper. Childhood Education, 84(1), 31-37.

This video, shown on PBS, documents a wonderful story: Two high schools in Birmingham, Alabama, collaborate to produce “To Kill a Mockingbird.” One high school is all-black, the other is all-white. We are reminded that desegregation peaked in the 1980s, according to the UCLA Civil Rights Project.

 

The video shows high school students working together to present the play. The video devotes more time to the historical setting of the book, the realities of life in Birmingham and the segregated South than to the production. This is not a disadvantage but a strength because the play and the novel are set in time. The video includes film footage of the segregated South in the 1930s (which the book portrays) and the 1950s (when the book was written and the civil rights movement was on the march). It includes film footage of civil rights protests in Birmingham, when the police loosed dogs on black demonstrators. It interviews black and white adults about life under segregation. It includes clips from the film that starred Gregory Peck and home-made films from local families. It interviews the actors who appeared in the 1962 film and the students who appear in the play today. It raises the irony of white families who trusted black servants to raise their children yet would not allow black children to attend the local schools or universities.

 

It is a must-see, partly for the ideas of the play, but mostly for its realistic portrayal of segregation then and now and for the reactions of today’s students. It is an important story about our history, our past and our present.

Melissa McMullan, a teacher in Long Island, explains in this comment how deeply insulting Governor Cuomo’s plan for teacher evaluation is. Will he listen to reason? Will he insist on crushing the morale of every teacher in the state? Why?

McMullan writes:

“I have been a teacher for thirteen years. I graduated with highest honors from Rutgers University, earned my masters degree from Queens College, graduating with honors and begun work on my PhD to help me become a better teacher. The teacher I am today is not the teacher I was yesterday, nor is she the teacher I will be tomorrow. I learn every day from students, families, colleagues, professional development, research and my own mistakes. In thirteen years, former students of mine have become writers, teachers, philanthropists, doctors, nurses, mechanics, beauticians, small business owners, etc…

“My employment as their teacher has been carved from a relationship I have built with the district that employs me. The district I graciously serve. I am a public servant. I do not take this assignment lightly.

“Governor Cuomo is holding state aid to public schools hostage. His ransom? Using eleven hours of tests, that the state scores, and converts to teacher ratings, assigning a great many teachers, including myself, ineffective. One score. Six days of testing to remove a teacher who works 12 hours a day, gives her students her cell phone number so she can help them with homework at home and invites Spanish-speaking parents in to the classroom to explain, in Spanish, the value of reading and writing. A teacher who will stop at NOTHING to push her students forward. Passing rates on the state test vary year to year from 72% to 83 % depending upon how the state wants teachers to be perceived from year to year.

“Governor Cuomo and the New York State Board of Regents want to use test scores it assigns to my students, against me, their teacher. This is not the role of assessment. Assessment has a single purpose – to inform instruction. Its responsibility is to let students, teachers and families what students know, and what they do not know. Under the Governor’s proposed plan, these scores would warrant my removal from the classroom, violating the agreement that my school district and its community have established with me, by using children as its weapon of choice.

“We get no feedback from these scores. No view into what our students know or don’t know or what we as teachers have taught well nor what we have not. But it costs millions of dollars to implement each year.

“As a mother, I will not permit my own four children to be used as pawns against their teachers. The only way we can stop this abuse of power is to refuse to permit our children to be used as pawns.

“The cornerstone of public education in the United States is the local community school district. Allowing scores the state assigns our children after six days of testing to be used to remove teachers we have placed in their classroom is an unacceptable, egregious overstepping of power. We have power as parents to protect our children from harm, and we have an overwhelming responsibility to keep the over-reaching powers of the state from reaching into our children’s classrooms.”

This post, written by Joseph Ray Lavine, gives an account of Anthony Cody’s speech at the University of Georgia. Cody told the audience that programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top had squandered billions of dollars, and that methodologies like “value-added measurement” could not measure what mattered most in education. Teachers want students who can engage in critical thinking, collaboration, and who can persevere, but the testing regime does not promote or encourage these qualities, nor can it measure them. We are not raising the bar, he said; we are actually lowering expectations by relying so heavily on high-stakes testing.

 

Cody recently published a book about the Gates Foundation and its influence on current failed reforms. The book is “The Educator and the Oligarch”; it describes his exchanges with the foundation and his efforts to persuade it to change course.

Michael Klonsky here gives us an update on the Chicago mayoral election, which is a week away.

 

Will Rahm get away with his unprecedented closure of 50 public schools to make way for privately managed charter schools?

 

Klonsky quotes an astute observation by Stephanie Simon of Politico.com:

 

If Rahm can get re-elected after fighting the teachers’ union, after closing 50 schools in mostly black communities, by expanding privately managed charter schools, by attacking tenure, and tying teachers’ evaluations to test scores, it will embolden other Democratic mayors to act like Republicans. (Last point was mine, not hers!)

Readers of this blog learned here on February 12 that Chris Christie of New Jersey told Republicans in Iowa that he had “grave concerns” about the Common Core. Today, the Washington Post ran the story, with some juicy additional details.

 

How did I get the news before the Washington Post? The blog has readers in Iowa who sent the story as soon as it happened. Thanks to all readers for being my eyes and ears across the nation!

 

Reporter Lyndsey Layton pulled out this fabulous quote from Governor Christie’s recent past:

 

And Christie’s Feb. 9 comments about the Obama administration were quite different from what he said 18 months ago, when he appeared in Las Vegas at a summit organized by KIPP, a national chain of charter schools. Christie, who supports charter schools, was interviewed at the summit by David Bradley, the owner of the Atlantic Media Company.

 

This is what Christie said at the August 2013 event:

 

“We’re doing Common Core in New Jersey and we’re going to continue. And this is one of those areas where I’ve agreed more with the president than not, and with (Education) Secretary (Arne) Duncan. They haven’t been perfect on this but they’ve been better than a lot of folks have been in terms of the reform movement and I think that part of the Republican opposition that you see in some corners of Congress is a reaction, that knee-jerk reaction you see that’s happening in Washington right now, that if the president likes something, the Republicans in Congress don’t and if the Republicans in Congress like something, the president doesn’t. It is this mindset in D.C. right now that says we have to be at war constantly because to not be at war is to show weakness and to show weakness is to lead to failure and I just don’t buy that.”

 

A spokesman for Christie did not respond to a request on Tuesday for an explanation of the change of position.

 

An interesting sidelight of the story in the Post:

 

Though Christie alleges it has been a federal problem, the federal government plays no role in implementing academic standards: It is prohibited by law from getting involved in curriculum decisions or teaching methods.

 

So, class, how many think that the Obama administration’s Race to the Top “played no role” in promoting the Common Core? How many think that federally-funded tests (PARCC and SBAC) have no bearing on curriculum decisions and teaching methods?

 

A show of hands?

 

Meanwhile, back in the Garden State (aka New Jersey), parents and teachers are in open rebellion against the PARCC testing of Common Core. Will Governor Christie speak up?

 

 

 

 

Oh, here we go again. Somebody is always banning something, and now it is the AP U.S. history course, on the grounds that it has an anti-American, unpatriotic slant. I haven’t seen the course and can’t weigh in on the facts, but it is troubling to see state legislatures deciding questions of history. That is not the right forum. Controversial issues should be resolved by competent scholars. of whom there are many. Typically, in history, there is not a right answer (even if the multiple-choice test-makers think so); in history, there are interpretations and debates. Students should be aware of those debates, not given pre-fab right answers.

 

An Oklahoma legislative committee overwhelmingly voted to ban Advanced Placement U.S. History class, persuaded by the argument that it only teaches students “what is bad about America.” Other lawmakers are seeking a court ruling that would effectively prohibit the teaching of all AP courses in public schools.

 

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Fisher (R) has introduced “emergency” legislation “prohibiting the expenditure of funds on the Advanced Placement United States History course.” Fisher is part of a group called the “Black Robe Regiment” which argues “the church and God himself has been under assault, marginalized, and diminished by the progressives and secularists.” The group attacks the “false wall of separation of church and state.” The Black Robe Regiment claims that a “growing tide of special interest groups indoctrinating our youth at the exclusion of the Christian perspective.”

 

Fisher said the Advanced Placement history class fails to teach “American exceptionalism.” The bill passed the Oklahoma House Education committee on Monday on a vote of 11-4. You can read the actual course description for the course here.

 

For other lawmakers, however, Fisher is thinking too small. Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern (R) claims that all “AP courses violate the legislation approved last year that repealed Common Core.” She has asked the Oklahoma Attorney General to issue a ruling. Kern argues that “AP courses are similar to Common Core, in that they could be construed as an attempt to impose a national curriculum on American schools.”

 

Advanced Placement courses are actually developed by a private group, the College Board, and are not required of any student or high school. They are the primary way that student can earn college credit in high school. Taking advanced placement course can save students money and are generally seen as a prerequisite to admission to elite colleges. A representative from the College Board called the claims by Fisher and others “mythology and not true.”

 

Other states are engaged in the same battles. Colorado jumped into this one, and high school students walked out to protest political interference in their studies.

 

Common Core and AP courses tend to get mixed into the same controversies, because the lead architect of the Common Core happens to be the CEO of the College Board. There is a lesson here about the need to keep politics out of curriculum-making. On both sides of the issue. To the extent that the curriculum is determined by politics, not by scholarship, our nation’s children are dumbed down and deprived of their right to learn.

 

 

 

 

David Sirota, crack investigative journalist, sent out a notice that he is a character on a sitcom that debuts tomorrow night:

 

 

Friends:

 

Some fun news – Wednesday night, 2/18, the awkward teenage sitcom version of me will make his debut on ABC’s primetime sitcom, “The Goldbergs.” That’s right, the recurring character is named David Sirota and is a mostly-true-to-life replica of me as an early teenager. Apparently, tomorrow show will also feature (hugely embarrassing!) real-life clips of me as a teenager, to show just how accurately rendered the sitcom character is. Check local listings for when the show airs in your area, set your DVRs – or find it on Hulu.

 

A bit of background if you happen to be interested: Adam Goldberg, the creator of the show and the central character, is one of my closest friends since middle school. We grew up together in the suburbs outside Philadelphia, where the show takes place. Apparently, you will see my spazziness and my insane obsession with the Philadelphia 76ers on full display in the show.

 

For laughs, I’ve attached a photo I took during a recent visit to the set – it shows me and the actor who plays me. It’s surreal to watch myself become a sitcom character – especially on a 1980s show after I recently wrote a book about the 1980s. But I can echo what Adam has told reporters about the sitcom rendering of his own family: as ridiculous and embarrassing as the sitcom version of me is, the character you’ll see on the show is probably a LESS ridiculous and embarrassing version of the actual teenage me. Hard to believe, I know – but it’s true.

 

I hope you will tune in – it’s a really funny sitcom, and a good ride back to a bygone era.

 

D

Teach for America is reducing its corps members in Memphis, according to Chalkbeat.

“The organization is projecting placements of 110 new recruits in Memphis-area schools during the 2015-16 school year, down from 185 last year….

“TFA’s presence has not been without controversy. While school administrators in Memphis have struggled to find and keep qualified math and science teachers to work in some of its lowest-performing middle and high schools, local hiring of young, mostly white TFA members coincided with layoffs of many older black teachers amid significant budget cuts.

“Local teachers’ union officials have maintained that TFA recruits aren’t qualified and equipped to teach students in low-income environments.

“The district is required to pay TFA a $5,000 annual fee per recruit, most of which comes from a $90 million grant awarded to the district in 2009 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. That money – designated for programs that improve teacher effectiveness in Memphis schools – soon will run out.”