David Bloomfield, professor of educational leadership, law, and policy at CUNY Graduate Center and Brooklyn College, examines what he calls “the myth of failing schools.” Schools with low test scores usually reflect a concentration of students who enter the school far behind, who have disabilities that interfere with learning, who are English language learners, or who have other obstacles to overcome. The “failing schools” tend to have more of these students than other schools. Bloomfield writes that it was the policy of Mayor Bloomberg to close schools with low scores, as if this were a solution to the problems of the students. The students from the closed schools were sent to other schools that then became “failing schools.”
Bloomfield says that Mayor de Blasio has fallen for the same myth, but instead of closing schools, he has promised to turn them around with extra services within three years. He faults the Mayor for not recognizing that schools “fail” not because of their teachers or their practices but because of systemic policies. He sums up the myth as the belief that:
failure is the fault of individual schools, not the school system. His proposed solutions — community services, extra instructional time, and increased professional development, timed to a three year deadline prior to closure — treat these schools as isolated problems rather than the natural result of insidious central policies.
He proposes:
Now, the city needs to take ownership of solutions, instead of blaming the students, teachers, and principals triaged to benefit others. If de Blasio only tries to staunch the bleeding by creating a series of temporary fixes for select schools, instead of repairing the system’s inequities, his plan will fail.
One place to start would be to diminish the number of latecomer students, who are known as “over-the-counter” students and who often have more severe academic and social needs, enrolling at struggling schools. The city has already put those limits in place at Boys and Girls and Automotive high schools, but the other struggling schools need that benefit as well so that those students are spread more equally throughout the system.
Another goal should be to develop a system of choice that avoids concentrations of haves and have-nots in city schools. As stated by Baruch College Professor Judith Kafka, “Our school system already concentrates poverty. Does choice interrupt this process? It can when the school system makes integration a priority and enacts what is often called ‘controlled choice’ as described in the work of the Century Fund’s Richard Kahlenberg.” Those policies focus on admissions rules that emphasize choice and also aim to create stable, economically diverse student populations.
Real solutions will require politically difficult changes to budgeting and enrollment policies, as well as a concerted effort to help schools improve their reputations. Such solutions would involve trade-offs, and some schools would likely benefit more than others. But the varied recommendations for solving our struggling schools crisis put forth so far by Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, the New York City Charter Schools Center, and even Mayor de Blasio, fail to adequately address the systemic causes of school failure.
Few if any public schools are actually failing. This is a manufactured myth designed to fool as many people as possible for as long as it takes.
Students who live in poverty and/or who come from severely dysfunctional homes might be failing because of the environment they live in, but if teachers are doing their job and teaching, then it is up to the students to learn.
Teachers and schools are not responsible for children who come to school hungry and who are distracted by the dysfunction in their everyday lives.
The allegation that public schools are falling is a manufactured myth with an agenda behind it that has nothing to do with improving the lives of at-risk children.
The failing public schools myth is a tool that serves greedy hedge fund oligarchs or other oligarchs who have their own agenda that has nothing to do with educating children. If the agenda isn’t based on greed, then it is based on fundamentalist, far right, religious beliefs or extreme political beliefs. For instance the Koch brothers and their obsession to turn the United States into a libertarian country or the Walton family that wants to teach children the Biblical Creationism myth instead of the science of evolution.
oligarch |ˈäliˌgärk, ˈōl-|
noun
1 a ruler in an oligarchy.
2 (especially in Russia) a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence.
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Greek oligarkhēs, from oligoi ‘few’ + arkhein ‘to rule.’
Our country is a democracy. We elect a president every 4 years. I do not see a few rich people electing the president. The rich and others (including the unions) may help him get elected. I do not see an oligarchy run by hedge fund oligarchs, whoever they are. Oligarchy is a term that explains Russia and Mexico at present.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/21/charles-koch-republican-candidates-2016/26142001/
“For the first time, Charles Koch also outlined what share of his network’s staggering $900 million, two-year budget would be devoted to politics. He said only a third of that amount — roughly $300 million — would be spent directly on electoral politics in 2016, including federal and state elections. He said there’s no breakdown of exactly how the political portion of the budget will be divided.
The $300 million would rival the almost $400 million the Republican National Committee raised and spent in the 2012 election cycle.”
“Our country is a democracy. We elect a president every 4 years. I do not see a few rich people electing the president.”
No? I guess you are right after all, a few rich people only get to determine the candidates that the rest of us are allowed to vote for. But it is true that it is not the fault of the oligarchs alone.
Raj,
You are so out of touch with reality. When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United, they opened the door for billionaires to actually buy elected officials and that extends to the president.
If you start watching John Oliver, you might learn how the super rich and/or corporations buy their own puppet politicians to do their own bidding, because those elected officials have to run for reelection and that costs money, a lot of money—gross amounts of money. It has been proven that 91% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money—it has very little to do with the best and most honest candidate.
For instance, the infamous Koch brothers—now that the Supreme Court has made it legal—has already announced that they will spend $900 million during the 2016 elections to elect candidates that support their own personal libertarian agenda.
Here’s a good John Oliver video to start with.
I suggest you also read this post that reveals how corporations and the super wealthy spend their money to influence politics and court verdicts.
http://crazynormaltheclassroomexpose.com/2014/09/05/hot-coffee-reveals-the-capitalist-threat-to-all-aspects-of-democracy/
It is amazing that you are the only one in touch with reality. See the following article to see how unions spend their money:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026
The labor unions are local, state and national. When we pay dues—I paid for decades— only a small portion from each member ends up at the national level that only deals with national issues. Some of our dues go the local district branch and some to the state that spends that money for issues that take place in each state. Some of the state money also pays for lawyers to represent teachers when their due process rights—that are written into two amendments that are part of the nation’s Bill of Rights that is part of the US Constitution designed to protect our democracy—might have been violated.
There are corporate special interests at work right now that are spending millions to strip those due process rights away from teachers.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a ‘due process clause’. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
http://employment.findlaw.com/wages-and-benefits/how-does-due-process-protect-a-public-employee.html
When we point fingers at labor unions and claim they are special interests, remember that billionaires spend their money for the issues they are interested in and so do corporations. Both billionaires and corporations support their own special interests that often have to do with making even more money than they already have.
When we compare the interests of teachers’ unions to billionaires and corporations, only one of those three is a democratic organization—which one? Only one of the three is a democratic organization.
Let me remind you that in a democratic organization, the majority of members who vote decide the agenda and where the money will be spent to support that agenda.
Here’s the answer: teachers’ unions are democratic organizations (most corporations are not, and the wealthiest, most powerful individual who own the most shares decides the agenda for the corporation or the CEO the corporate oligarch hired to do it for him, and if the CEO doesn’t do what the oligarch wants, that CEO will get fired.), but in a democratic teachers’ union the dues paying members vote for our representatives from each school to represent all the teachers at the local, state and national levels, and it works the same way the US Congress works to pass legislation for the nation.
Those elected union reps at the local, state and national levels decide how the money we paid through our monthly dues will be spent to combat the special interest forces of corporate America and the billionaires who have their own money to support their own individual agendas that have nothing to do with a democratic organization like a labor union.
When teachers unions spend to protect the rights of their members, that is their job. They are supposed to represent their members, most of whom work daily in the classrooms of America. When billionaires spend even more than unions representing millions of teachers, they are seldom in touch with the reality of teaching. It is puzzling to me why they want to reduce the pensions, the benefits, the pay of teachers who earn in a year what the billionaires gain in the stock market in a day–or a few hours.
I’ve been working on a post about teacher pensions and the research I’m doing might reveal the reason why the reform movement is demonizing teachers’ unions and the public pensions teachers, police and firemen pay into and depend on in their old age.
Jeb Bush and Florida offers one example of many where the public pensions were turned over to Wall Street and/or hedge funds to manage and when the public unions wanted to know what the private sector was doing with all the money, a bill was rushed through the Florida legislature so Wall Street and the hedge funds did not have to report what they were doing with the public’s money that had been turned over to them.
I read that as much as a third of this money is being gobbled up in fees by Wall Street and the hedge funds. Public Pensions in the US hold about $6 trillion dollars and so far, Wall street and the hedge funds have spent more than $300 million getting governors and state representative elected to office who have voted to turn over $2.5 trillion of that $6 trillion dollars to them to invest but with legislation that makes is so they may be opaque and not let anyone know what they are doing with that money.
When my post comes out, there will be links to the sources where I’m getting this info. Right now, I’m thinking off the top of my memory, and not looking at the actual piece I’m working on so don’t quote me.
I think they need to demonize the teachers’ unions and their members (this also applies to the police and firemen) so they can easily get hold of that money and then scapegoat and blame public employees for whatever losses Wall Street and the hedge funds are going to cause to the public pensions that have been turned over to them.
NYC public school parent & Betsy Marshall: to borrow a term from the rheephorm lexicon—
Choice!
Ain’t it grand!
Rheeally!
😎
We are not a democracy, anyway, Raj. Our official government type is a federal republic. In a true democracy, everyone would vote on every bill. Very cumbersome. In a republic, we vote on leaders, and they vote on bills. Because we have two independent levels of government, state and national, we are a federation.
But in reality, we are in or near a plutocracy. FAR too many decisions at both the state and federal levels are made to benefit businesses and a few wealthy people.
Raj,
My dictionary (Webster’s) has a more expansive definition of oligarchy and oligarch.
Oligarchy 1. government by the few; 2. a government in which a small group exercises control, esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes; also, a group exercising such control. 3. An organization under oligarchic control.
Obviously you don’t agree.
But many people see unusual control exercised by a very few stupendously wealthy people who are billionaires. As a result of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, there are no limits on their spending to influence legislation. For example, the billionaire Koch brothers have said they plan to spend close to $1 billion to influence the next Presidential election. Now, it may be true that all people are free to spend what they want, but those who have the most will have the most influence in the selection of our elected representatives. That is not democratic.
When the same few billionaires are courted by both parties, that erodes our democracy. When one man–Bill Gates–uses his vast wealth to set the nation’s education policy (charters, testing, VAM), that’s is not democratic.
Maybe you have another word, but I don’t question those who use the O word.
We do disagree on the definition. OK that is free speech. But I do not see that Obama was elected by one or a few rich people or as some in this blog claim oligarchs. He was elected by common people like you and me and that is my opinion.
Talking about citizens united decision, I consider it to be an abomination and I have any say in it. It allowed corporations to spend at will, but also allowed unions to spend unlimited money from their treasury without getting permission from their members. I think both avenues of unlimited spending by corporations or the unions is wrong.
Like a vast majority of people like me, we are not part of a union nor part of a corporation, we are the “silenced” majority.
Unionized work force (educators in this case) has greater say than my group the “silenced” majority.
Even after all these considerations , I still think I am proud to be a citizen of one of the best nations on earth.
Since Raj is arguing from definition, I would like to call this definition point incorrect: “Our country is a democracy.”
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Not every citizen votes for laws, nor do we have a say in all governmental matters. Adams and Jefferson and Madison and our Constitution state clearly that we do not have a democracy.
Raj also claims that he doesn’t “see a few rich people electing the president.” Well, if that were the case, in each election cycle we would should not see 1 billion dollar increases for every new presidential election. However, since 2000, that has been the case. And we should not see big money candidates winning their congressional seat. Yet, for both senators and congressmen, it is well over 80% of the candidates with the most money who win the elections. While money doesn’t buy elections–there are several counter examples for that–it does help spread influence. And it is that monetary influence that makes our republic more of an oligarchy. See this study that came out a year ago: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310
In essence, while we differ from Russia and Mexico, we are more alike than Raj would have us believe.
The US is a representative democracy or a republic. I remember the far right wing wacko rep Steve King saying that the US is not a democracy and thank God for that. The libertarians really hate democracy and even would like to repeal the 17th amendment. A republic is a form of democracy. The US is not a direct democracy.
“I do not see”—
Sometimes an English clergyman who died 300 years comes in handy when an old dead Greek guy isn’t handy—
“None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.” [Matthew Henry]
So if you just shut your eyes you don’t have to “see” anything that inconveniences your POV.
Charters have 100% graduation rates. Michelle Rhee took “her” students from the 13th to the 90th percentiles. Almost 70% of NYS students, unexpectedly, failed the CCSS-aligned tests.
Perhaps it is time for some folks to ignore lessons learned in data analysis seminars:
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
¿? The Wizard of Oz. From the movie THE WIZARD OF OZ.
Required viewing at the Broad Academy’s “Advanced Data-Driven Decision-Making” class.
Or so I’ve heard from the usual unreliable sources…
😎
“I do not see a few rich people electing the president.”
Then you are blind. Willfully so, I suspect.
New York City will try to balance more schools to increase diversity and socioeconomic levels in a school. I think diverse schools serve their students well. I don’t know if there are enough middle class students in the system for this “upward modeling” to work. Charter schools siphon off some of the higher socioeconomic students which means there are fewer of them available to attend public schools. I hope the changes will help make a difference, but we will have to wait and see. New York State needs to support New York City public schools by paying what is owed to them. Large classes of impoverished students are never a recipe for success.
We should be talking about student behavior that drives a family from a school. The first year I taught, my mentor told me to remember that every parent wants tough discipline for the other parents’ kids.
Most families I encounter have chosen to enroll at a charter believing there will be less threat to their child’s safety. But then I meet a parent who can’t believe the principal calls her when her ADD diagnosed son is in a fight, expressing that kids just get in fights. This told me she could not imagine a life without physical fights.
I explained that there were schools where no one fights or they are denied admission. I also told her of my brother’s public school which expelled two kids for fighting as fighting back was not allowed, only protective moves. This amazed her. She had few comments after that.
Suspension to get derelict parents to school or restorative justice for creating social behavior are worthwhile. However, some behaviors are clearly part of a larger cultural issue and are endemic in some neighborhoods, particularly if you need to fight for survival. It is quite difficult to change, and you need systems in place that are available in a timely way.
This is an area where having money for personnel could be cost effective and mean an economically integrated school can be maintained.
This proposal makes no sense. In 2014 only 28.4% of NYC public school kids in grades 3-8 were proficient in ELA and only 34.2 in math. Once you finish moving around the over 70% of kids who are below proficient, every school will be “failing”.
Dear Raj: please stop trying to compare the economic clout of the billionaires, the corporations, all the right wing “think” tanks and the US Chamber of Commerce to the economic clout of unions. No comparison, no contest. Gates, Broad and the Waltons can outspend the unions. By federal law, unions are NOT allowed to use union dues for PACS or political campaigns. The funds for union PACS are voluntary. A form is sent to the teachers asking if they would like to donate to the PAC; if the teacher checks the yes box then money is deducted for the political campaign. If the teacher checks the no box, then no money is deducted from his/her paycheck for the PAC.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Wow. Here’s a large school district that is open to rejecting the Obama Administration “bonus pay” program:
“HISD Superintendent Terry Grier proposed Thursday that the district sharply reduce its controversial bonus system for teachers and other school employees unless the state increases funding for public education.
Grier said he remains committed to merit pay, but with limited funds, he believes it is more important to raise base pay for teachers and principals.
The proposal represents a significant change for the country’s seventh-largest school district, which has been a national leader in performance pay, despite protests from the teachers’ union.”
Bonus pay for middle class people (like teachers) is a rip-off. It’s a Wall Street idea that doesn’t work for middle class people, because middle class people need reliable income so they can plan, pay down debt, build equity and assets, etc. You’ll be much further ahead after 20 years of work with step increases than with these 5k “bonus!” winnings.
Don’t take bad financial advice from wealthy lobbyists and their politicians, and “bonus pay” is bad financial advice, unless your bonus is a million dollars 🙂
Wow…as a UK teacher seeing the UK education system going the same way as the US, I was really happy tonight to read this post and comments.
It is sad to see the same debates having the same impacts in the US as the UK, but at the same time it is nice to see sensible and moral people standing up for what is right. Let us hope we succeed for the sake of the next generation.