Archives for the month of: September, 2015

Jersey Jazzman, aka Mark Weber, is an expert on Newark school reform. As a teacher, researcher, and blogger, he has reported and analtzed every twist and turn of the Newark story.

Who better, then, to fact check Dale Russakoff’s new book, “The Prize,” which tells the story of what happened to Mark Zuckerberg’s gift of $100 million to reform the schools of Newark. The gift came in response to a request by them-Mayor Cory Booker and newly-elected Governor Chris Christie.

It is a good read and an important review. I wish Russakoff had interviewed Mark Weber.

Andrea Gabor, the Michael R. Bloomberg Professor of Business Journalism at Baruch College in New York City, has recently written about the disappointing results of the chartering and privatization of almost every school in New Orleans.

Jonathan Alter was unhappy with her article in the New York Times because he is a fervent believer in the privatization of public education by charters.

The irony, as Gabor notes, is that she and Jonathan were classmates at the Francis W. Parker School, a noted private progressive school in Chicago many years ago. The “no-excuses” charters that Alter so admires are nothing like the Francis W. Parker School.

If you have read Lawrence A. Cremin’s The Transformation of the School, a magisterial history of progressive education, you know that Francis Parker preceded John Dewey as the “father of progressive education.” Here is the thumbnail sketch of the man who started the progressive education movement: Francis Wayland Parker (October 9, 1837 – March 2, 1902) was a pioneer of the progressive school movement in the United States. He believed that education should include the complete development of an individual — mental, physical, and moral. John Dewey called him the “father of progressive education.” He worked to create curriculum that centered on the whole child and a strong language background. He was against standardization, isolated drill and rote learning. He helped to show that education was not just about cramming information into students’ minds, but about teaching students to think for themselves and become independent people. This is the spirit that infused the school where Andrea Gabor and Jonathan Alter were both educated.

But now Jonathan Alter is a rabid advocate of “no-excuses” charters that look nothing at all like the Francis W. Parker School. Also, Alter is a fierce opponent of teachers’ unions. Generally, progressives support unions, because they understand that unions build a middle class and enable working people and poor people to raise their standard of living. That is not Alter’s perspective. He seems to think that having union-free schools is a recipe for success, even though there is no evidence for his belief and much evidence to the contrary (think Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, three unionized states that are the highest scoring states on NAEP).

In this post, Andrea Gabor gives some homework lessons to her former classmate.

Alter’s biggest mistake is that he fails to see public school systems as, well, systems. Even if he’s right that the “top quintile” of charter schools perform very well, that’s virtually meaningless from the perspective of creating a better system. There are good public schools as well as good charters, after all. A 20-percent success rate is meaningful only if you can show a path to scaling that success in a practical way.

The two questions we should be asking are: A) What is the best method by which to improve all schools? B) If, as in New Orleans, charter schools are used as Trojan horses for turning public schools into dumping grounds for the weakest students and, eventually, eliminating public schools altogether, what is the cost of doing so—to kids and to our society?

There is growing evidence that the market model of large-scale public-school replacement by charter schools—one based on a competitive race for limited philanthropic funding for whoever produces the highest test scores—is a zero-sum game that can only work by sidelining the most vulnerable kids.

Gabor goes, point by point, through the problematic nature of the New Orleans story.

I hope Jon Alter sits down with his former classmate and gives some more thought to his extreme views, which echo those of Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, ALEC, and the Koch brothers.

Destroying our nation’s public schools is not a liberal goal, or should not be.

The following post was written by Amy Frogge, an elected member of the Board of Education in Nashville. Frogge is a lawyer and a strong supporter of public dchools. She was elected in a campaign where corporate reformers outspent her 5-1. She has been openly critical of “no excuses” charter schools, especially Nashville Prep, founded by Ravi Gupta. inthis post she responds to a post written by Gupta, accusing her of wanting to censor a book used in his school in seventh grade. Gupta has plans to open more charters in Mississippi.

Amy Frogge writes:

WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS POST IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.

Today I was attacked (again) by Ravi Gupta, the head and founder of RePublic Schools, which operates several schools in the district, including Nashville Prep. This time, Mr. Gupta was upset about a private email I’d written to MNPS administrators (the email was forwarded to Mr. Gupta) in which I reported that young students at his school are reading a wildly inappropriate book. In my email, I commented that Nashville Prep should be closed. Mr. Gupta has now sent out a blog post trying to focus attention on me and detract from the issue at hand; he contends in his post that I am trying to conduct a “book burning.” In response, I feel the need to explain the full context of my email. Anyone who knows me understands that I am not a fan of corporate education reform or of so-called “no excuses” charter schools.

However, Nashville Prep stands out in its treatment of children. The book at issue is quite stunning in its rhetoric and descriptions of explicit sexual encounters; I will detail that below.

However, complaints forwarded to me about this school over the last two years are even worse. Here, precisely, is why I have become very upset and frustrated about Nashville Prep:

Nearly two years ago, a parent approached me after a board meeting, crying. She had come to our board meeting as a last-ditch effort, because she had been unable to help her daughter, who was a 10-year-old student at Nashville Prep. She told me her child had become depressed and anxious because of the extreme no-excuses disciplinary procedures at the school, and she needed help removing her child from the school. She had tried to bring her concerns to the attention of the Office of Innovation (which oversees charter schools), but she said her concerns were ignored. She maintained that she had trouble navigating the withdrawal/enrollment process because no one seemed to be in charge of process for charter schools.

Shortly thereafter, three additional parents stepped forward to raise more disturbing complaints about Nashville Prep. The complaints, which were all very similar in nature, primarily centered on extreme, militaristic disciplinary policies, which parents contended affected students’ well-being.

Complaints from the parents included the following:

-Students at Nashville Prep are not allowed to use the restroom when needed (even young girls just starting their menstrual cycles). They are punished for simply asking to go the restroom off-schedule, for spending more than 2-4 minutes in the restroom, or for looking at themselves in the mirror.

-Lunch is taken away from students as punishment.

-Students are punished for even mentioning being too cold in the classroom in winter.

-Students are “inspected” when they enter the school each morning, and students have been forced to wait in line in the pouring rain while teachers stand under the front school awning to “inspect” them.

-Students are punished for not “eye-tracking” the teacher (keeping their eyes on the teacher at all times).

-Students are taken off school grounds without parental consent.

-Administration of the school is poor. Students are marked absent when present, and report cards often contain incorrect grades.

-One student received a demerit for saying, “bless you” when a classmate sneezed. He also received detention (1) for saying “excuse me” while stepping over another child’s backpack and (2) for picking up a pencil for a classmate.

-Another student was punished for “egregious” behavior, and when the parent inquired about the behavior, the teacher said the student “laughed out loud” during class.

-Students are told not to talk to students on in-school suspension because administrators want “student[s] to feel like they are in jail.”

-Students are punished for expressing any emotion at all when they receive demerits. Even when they don’t understand why they are being punished, they cannot inquire about the punishment. If students are not completely submissive and unquestioning, they receive a second demerit. One parent compared this treatment of children to a “slave code.”

-When students are allowed to go outside during lunch, they are not allowed to sit and talk. They must move around, as one parent put it, “like what one would see in a prison yard.”

-Nashville Prep has refused to allow some students to withdraw.

-Nashville Prep uses shaming measures to control students: Children who receive a certain number of demerits are required to wear tags on their clothing as a shaming measure so that other children will laugh at them.

-According to one parent, demerits are so common that on one day, about 100 of the approximately 300 students were on some type of suspension. Also, appeals of demerits are no longer allowed, so students who are corrected inappropriately are not allowed to voice their concerns.

-Students are not allowed to participate in enrichment activities, such as art or music, unless their standardized test scores are high enough.

-Parents have claimed their children have undergone personality changes as a result of the “no excuses” discipline. One parent claimed that her child, who typically was outgoing and outspoken, became very withdrawn and stopped communicating or expressing herself, even at home, for fear of being punished. The parent complained that “kids don’t have a voice” and “kids can’t be kids” at Nashville Prep.

Another parent went so far as to claim that some students at Nashville Prep are “suicidal.”

– School staff members are not held to the same standards at students.

According to one parent, teachers and administrators sometimes are disheveled, arrive late, and act in a disrespectful manner toward parents.

-Middle school children must do homework until 9 or 10 pm each night.

Nashville Prep parents have used extreme language in describing treatment of students at the school:

One parent described school leadership as a “dictatorship . . . like Hitler.” Multiple parents referenced jail and prison when describing the school. One parent said students there are “denied any form of autonomy and independence, . . . denied any right to think or have independent opinions, and denied . . . use [of] their cell phones on the bus even when the bus [is] running very late.” A social worker who was a parent at the school said that the treatment of students at the school amounted to “abuse” and “neglect” under her professional standards.

Another parent wrote this account of what happened to her daughter after the parent questioned the school’s discipline policies:

“The very next day after I made my phone call expressing my opinion that I didn’t agree with many of the disciplinary tactics incorporated by the school because not all children respond to negative reinforcement, and that [my child] in particular responds better to some positive reinforcement, the unthinkable took place. When I picked my child up from school that evening she was brutally broken, broken down and crying as she reached her hand out to me in a tear soaked face and shaking, she stated ‘mommy I made a terrible mistake by picking this school.’ I have never seen [my child] in crisis mode, ever. Gravely concerned I asked her to truthfully tell me what happened. She proceeded to tell me that she was cited for ‘no grit’ and ‘demerited’ repeatedly because she would not sit erect with the bottoms of both feet planted on the ground. This situation quickly snowballed as she was then cited [for] ‘lack of grit’ and multiple demerits for ‘not tracking.’ Eventually instead of recognizing they were breaking down my child, they intensified the corporal punishment (which is illegal) by pulling her out of the classroom for nearly the ten hour school day and isolating her. When the teachers walked in to check on her in isolation she was finally so broken she had put her head down on her desk. The teachers interpreted this as disobedience and then made her STAND UP FOR FOUR HOURS. I remind you that my child had never been in trouble previous to this and had all ‘A’s and ‘B’s’ on her report card, as well as many high compliments written from the teachers.”

Another child fell on concrete at the school, sustaining a severe concussion. He asked to call his parent, but the school would not allow him to do so. He was finally allowed to get an icepack from the front office, but was so frightened of the disciplinary tactics at the school that he sat through the rest of the school day with a severe concussion. The parent was never notified.

I tried to address these complaints through appropriate channels and informed the MNPS administration and specifically Alan Coverstone, who oversees our charter school office, of these parent complaints. The complaints were dismissed in strange ways. When I asked for an independent investigation, the investigation consisted of allowing Ravi Gupta to write a lengthy written response discrediting all of the parents. MNPS administrators did not visit the school as part of the investigation, nor did they interview teachers, school administrators and others involved.

Then last spring, Teach for America, operating under new leadership in Nashville, terminated its contract with Nashville Prep, alleging that the school was bullying teachers. However, TFA needs charter schools to survive in Nashville, because the district is cutting the ranks of TFA in half this year. The new head of TFA was subsequently fired (presumably for terminating the contract), negotiations ensued, and the TFA contract was ultimately reinstated with some concessions. Meanwhile, in the midst of controversy over TFA (which the school has kept carefully hidden), a former Nashville Prep teacher came forward to raise more concerning allegations about the school, which I won’t detail here because they are currently under investigation.

And all of this leads me to the book. This week, another parent came forward with allegations about poor student treatment which were similar to those raised by the other parents who have contacted me in the past.

However, she also raised a new allegation. She told me that Nashville Prep is requiring twelve-year-old students to read the book, City of Thieves, aloud in class. The book contains lengthy passages which are crass and, frankly, pornographic in nature. The book contains explicit descriptions of sexual acts and includes language like this: “c*nt,” “f*ck,” “c*ck,” “p*ssy,” “a*s,” “s*ck me off,” “whoresons,” “sprayed a liter of c*me inside her,” “sh*t,” “b*tch,” and much more. (Believe me, I’ve left out the worst parts.) Whoever assigned the book made a half-hearted attempt to censor some of the foul language, but left plenty of bad language and details intact, including passages that degrade women and glorify casual sex. For example, words like “f*ck” are still included throughout passages distributed to students, and one passage (which students apparently read out loud in class) contains this line: “You two about to f*ck in the bushes?” Here’s another passage that was left in: “Have you ever been with a redhead? Oh wait, what am I saying, you’ve never been with anyone. The good news is they’re demons between the sheets. Two of the three best f*cks of my life were redheads. Two of four, anyway. But the other side of the coin, they hate men. A lot of anger there, my friend. Beware.” The parent who raised this complaint said that teachers ask the students to read this book out loud and skip over the bad words in the process, so clearly, teachers are aware of the content of the book.

I am not easily offended, and I’m not opposed to older students reading more adult books that have been carefully vetted, if parents are informed and provide permission. However, I can’t imagine who, for even a moment, would believe that this particular book is remotely appropriate for twelve-year-old students. Furthermore, the school has both photocopied and edited the book, which appears to be a clear copyright infringement. Many charter schools do not buy books and use photocopies instead, I suppose to save money.

Once again, MNPS’ Office of Innovation dismissed these complaints, even those regarding copyright. I am, frankly, angry that our own Office of Innovation thwarts parents and does not take seriously even allegations of this nature. Nashville Prep is protected because it produces high test scores. I believe the higher test scores are due primarily to the increased amount of time students spend in class (extra hours each day and three hours daily in summer) and teaching to the test.

But one must ask:

What’s the real cost of these test scores? And then, of course, there’s the political angle. Folks like Gupta are good at raising money and are eager to attack those who question their practices.

If this were a zoned school, our board could monitor and correct problems of this nature. But we have no oversight whatsoever of these matters when it comes to charter schools. Charter schools have full curriculum autonomy (they can teach anything they want) and autonomy over all disciplinary practices. This is a case of incompetent leadership coupled with zero oversight. Is this really such a great idea?

The passing marks (cut scores) on the Smarter Balanced Assessment were set last November. They were set in such a way that most students were certain to “fail.” The SBAC predicted that most students would fail. The executive director, Joe Wilhoit, quoted in the article below, predicted that “over time, the performance of students will improve.” Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. It is a dirty trick to play on students. The cut scores are close to the “proficient” achievement level in NAEP. In twenty-three years of testing the states, Massachusetts is the only state in the nation in which 50% of students reached the proficient level. That indicates that it will be many years–if ever–until half of the students are able to reach these absurdly high cut scores. If they are used for promotion and graduation in the future, most students will not be promoted and will not graduate.

Catherine Gewertz of Education Week wrote:

In a move likely to cause political and academic stress in many states, a consortium that is designing assessments for the Common Core State Standards released data Monday projecting that more than half of students will fall short of the marks that connote grade-level skills on its tests of English/language arts and mathematics.

 
The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium test has four achievement categories. Students must score at Level 3 or higher to be considered proficient in the skills and knowledge for their grades. According to cut scores approved Friday night by the 22-state consortium, 41 percent of 11th graders will show proficiency in English/language arts, and 33 percent will do so in math. In elementary and middle school, 38 percent to 44 percent will meet the proficiency mark in English/language arts, and 32 percent to 39 percent will do so in math.

 
Level 4, the highest level of the 11th grade Smarter Balanced test, is meant to indicate readiness for entry-level, credit-bearing courses in college, and comes with an exemption from remedial coursework at many universities. Eleven percent of students would qualify for those exemptions.
The establishment of cut scores, known in the measurement field as “standard-setting,” marks one of the biggest milestones in the four-year-long project to design tests for the common standards. It is also the most flammable, since a central tenet of the initiative has been to ratchet up academic expectations to ensure that students are ready for college or good jobs. States that adopted the common core have anticipated tougher tests, but the new cut scores convert that abstract concern into something more concrete.

 

Smarter Balanced is one of two main state consortia that are using $360 million in federal funds to develop common-core tests. The other group, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, is waiting until next summer—after the tests are administered—to decide on its cut scores. Smarter Balanced officials emphasized that the figures released Monday are estimates, and that states would have “a much clearer picture” of student performance after the operational test is given in the spring.

Glenn Ford of Black Agenda Report explains clearly why black parents should opt out.

He understands that high-stakes testing is designed to fail most children and that black children will be failed by tests made artificially “rigorous.”

He knows that the ultimate goal– once a dream for rightwing Republicans–is privatization, which is already firmly implanted in many urban districts.

White parents won’t tolerate this scheme, and he says, black parents shouldn’t either.

It is a scam, he says.

“The movement by parents to opt their children out of high stakes testing is growing by leaps and bounds, but remains largely white and suburban, despite the fact that Black folks are the primary targets of the destructive testing regime. Almost two decades ago, the corporate world began pouring millions of dollars into a massive campaign to split the two pillars of the Democratic Party: teachers unions and Black voters. It began as a mainly Republican strategy to divert public funding to private school vouchers – an idea that was never very popular among Black parents. But, corporate Democrats discovered that public education could be privatized even more effectively – and much more profitably – through chartering the schools. Charter schools are a capitalist’s dream, in which the public provides all the money, private companies get rich contracting services, teachers are deprofessionalized and deunionized, and Black parents lose all democratic rights concerning their children’s education.

“In one of the great ironies of recent U.S. history, the Democratic Party took the lead in what had begun as a Republican project to vilify teachers and privatize schools in Black neighborhoods. High stakes testing became a weapon guaranteed to fail the students, fail the teachers, fail the neighborhood schools, and fail entire school districts in largely Black cities. Everybody loses except the hedge funds and other billionaire investors in the charter school marketplace. These are the people whose interests President Obama has served for the past six and a half years. Obama became the biggest public school privatizer of all time, wielding executive power to force the states to establish more charter schools or lose federal education funds.”

Resist!

Sing no sad songs for the nine charter schools that are ruled ineligible for public funding by the Washington State Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision.

Mercedes Schneider reports that the charters raised $14 million from their friends in the 1% community, enough to keep them going for a year while their friends figure out a way to circumvent the court’s ruling.

We will see how committed their billionaire allies are to charters after one year, or whether their real commitment is to privatization of public money intended for public schools whose doors are open to all.

The latest from Nevada, where the ACLU-Nevada is already suing to block vouchers. Another suit is filed:

ALERT! Public School Parents And Children File Lawsuit To Declare Nevada Vouchers Unconstitutional
Vouchers Violate Nevada Constitutional Ban on Diverting Public School Funding to Private Schools

Today, five parents whose children attend Nevada public schools filed a lawsuit challenging the State’s new voucher law – Senate Bill 302. The lawsuit claims that the voucher law violates the Nevada Constitution’s explicit ban on using public school funding for private schools. The lawsuit also seeks to permanently block the State Treasurer from implementing the voucher program.

In enacting SB302, the Nevada Legislature authorized the most expansive program of private school vouchers in the United States. The voucher law directs the State Treasurer to deposit funds appropriated by the Legislature for the operation of the Nevada public schools into private accounts to pay for private school tuition, online classes, home-based curriculums and related expenses, tutoring, transportation to and from private schools, and other private expenses.

The parents and students filed the lawsuit, Lopez v. Schwartz, in the First Judicial District Court in Carson City. More public school parents and their children are expected to join the lawsuit in the coming weeks.

Educate Nevada Now (ENN), a campaign of The Rogers Foundation, assembled a team of experienced Nevada and national attorneys to ensure that Nevada law protects and advances education opportunities for all children. ENN is supporting this lawsuit because it addresses using public funding for private schools, an issue of vital importance to all Nevada public school children and taxpayers – and one that must be resolved by the Nevada courts.

“The Nevada Constitution makes it crystal clear that the funding provided for our public schools can only be used to operate those schools, and not for any other purpose,” said Justin Jones, an attorney with Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin LLP, Nevada-based pro bono counsel for the plaintiffs. “The voucher law, by taking funding out of the public schools to pay for private school tuition and other private services, blatantly violates this explicit mandate enshrined in our state constitution.”

The parents and students contend that the voucher law violates the Education Article of the Nevada Constitution in three ways:

⦁ The voucher law by its terms diverts funds earmarked by the Legislature exclusively for the operation of the public schools to pay for private schools and other private expenditures.

⦁ The voucher law reduces State-guaranteed funding for the public schools below the level determined to be sufficient by the Legislature in the biennium budgets.

⦁ The voucher law allows public school funding to pay for private schools that do not have to comply with the “uniform” non-discrimination, education performance and accountability standards all Nevada public schools must follow.

The parents filed the lawsuit to prevent loss of funding from their children’s public schools to pay for private schools. Under SB302, even families who can readily afford to pay the full cost of private school tuition are eligible to receive public funds. The voucher law will reduce funding for the public schools while at the same time requiring those schools to educate a higher concentration of high needs children, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students at risk due to family and neighborhood poverty, homelessness, transiency and other disadvantages.

“The voucher law undermines our uniform system of public schools which the Legislature is constitutionally obligated to maintain and support with sufficient funding,” said Sylvia Lazos, Policy Director for Educate Nevada Now. “This lawsuit does not challenge the right of parents to choose a private or religious school for their child. But it does seek to ensure that public school funding is not diverted and depleted by subsidizing that choice.”

The complaint filed today complements the lawsuit filed by ACLU-Nevada last week to block the use of taxpayer funds for religious schooling but raises a separate and independent basis under the Nevada constitution for invalidating the voucher law.

In addition to the Wolf, Rifkin attorneys, David Sciarra and Amanda Morgan of the non-profit Education Law Center (ELC) in Newark, NJ, and Las Vegas, a partner in the ENN campaign, are representing the students and parents. They are also represented pro bono by Tamerlin Godley, Litigation Partner, and associates from Munger, Tolles and Olson in Los Angeles.

Read the complaint.

http://www.educatenevadanow.com

Howard Blume reports the Common Core test results in the Los Angeles Times.

Across the state, 44% of students scored at grade level or better in English, while 34% did so in math. In L.A. Unified, the figures were 33% in English and 25% in math.

State and local officials said they were prepared for the low scores. The questions are more difficult than on the state’s previous test and, for the first time, students took the exam on computers. The test is linked to a new set of learning standards, called Common Core, that have been adopted by 42 states.

I don’t know who decided to describe the passing mark as “grade level,” but that is erroneous.

The following item appeared this morning in Politico.com’s education edition:

– “I guess it’s ironic or something that the only public school that will be open in Seattle tomorrow is a charter school,” tweeted [http://bit.ly/1VMDdnj ] education researcher Robin Lake, a nod to the Washington state Supreme Court ruling late last week that the state’s charter school law is unconstitutional.

What is even more ironic is that Robin Lake (of the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington), which advocates for charters and “portfolio districts” and is Gates-funded) continues to refer to charter schools as “public schools” even after the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that charter schools were not eligible for public funding because they are not “common schools” (public schools), as defined in the state constitution, not answerable to an elected board but to a private board.

Apparently the Center on Reinventing Public Education does not accept the ruling of the state’s highest court as meaningful or definitive. What part of the ruling do they not understand?

Relay “Graduate School of Education” is not a real graduate school of any kind. It has been accredited in a few states to award “master’s degrees” even though it has no one on its faculty with a doctorate, engages in no research, has no library, and has no relationship to the advancement of knowledge in education. It was created by charter operators to teach future charter teachers how to control classes and how to raise test scores. Its “faculty” consists of charter teachers, mostly from Teach for America, some of whom claim that they raised test scores more than anyone else in their city. Its deans do not have doctorates in any field of study, although a few say they are working towards earning a doctorate. I admit my own bias; I earned my Ph.D. at Teachers College, where my mentor was Lawrence A. Cremin, the greatest historian of his generation, and where every faculty member had a doctorate. Research and the advancement of knowledge was one of the goals of graduate education. Then. It was expected that graduate students would learn about the sociology, economics, history, and politics of education. Then. They would conduct research and earn a degree based on the quality of their research. Then.

Here is Laura Chapman’s observation:

Here is another sad thing about Relay. NY state was the first to accredit the program and President Obama/Arne Duncan approved of it as a model for other to follow.

A colleague once attended McDonald University in order to show the public exactly what the training methods were. He did not last long. They kicked him out, but not before he got some insight into the cult of standardization and cost-cutting.

Relay is the educational equivilent of McDonald University. It is a franchise operation for charter schools that want fully standardized cost effective education achieved by processing children through a mental meatgrinder to have the same puppet-like response to the teachers questions, on time, and with the right posture, gait, hand placement. Before McDonald and Relay the guru of this version of training was B.F. Skinner.

http://www.relay.edu/blog-entry/doe-recognizes-relay-federal-plan