Archives for the month of: September, 2015
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Wendy Lecker: Shame on Governor Malloy

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2015 //
3

Civil rights attorney Wendy Lecker excoriates Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy for favoring privately-managed charter schools over underfunded urban public schools.

Lecker thinks Malloy should be guided by some recent court decisions.

“Charter schools want it both ways. To get taxpayer dollars, they want to call themselves public schools. However, they do not want to educate the same children as public schools, or be subject to the same rules. Courts are beginning to challenge this duplicity. In Texas and Arizona, courts have ruled that charters are not entitled to the same funding as public schools. Now, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that charter schools are not public schools at all and it is unconstitutional to divert any money intended for public schools to them.

“Central to the Washington court’s decision was the connection between public schools and local democracy. The court noted that local control is the “most important feature” of a public school because it vests in local voters the power, through their elected agents, to run the schools that educate their children.

“Charters in Washington are authorized by state agencies and governed by unelected boards. The court concluded that charter schools are not true public schools because they are “devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operation.”

“This ruling follows another major decision by Washington’s Supreme Court, holding the legislature in contempt for failing to adequately fund its public schools, and fining it $100,000 a day.

“The refusal to fund public schools and simultaneous willingness to divert money to privately run charter schools has parallels to Connecticut.
In January, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy will have to defend the state’s failure to fund our public schools as the CCJEF schoolfunding trial he has failed to thwart finally begins.

“While spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to prevent children in underfunded school districts from having their day in court, the Malloy administration has aggressively expanded privately run charter schools and funded them at levels higher than schools in our poorest districts receive. Charter schools receive $11,000 per pupil annually from the state, while children in Bridgeport public schools, for example, receive less than $9,000 per pupil annually in ECS funding. New Britain Schoolsreceive less than $8,000 per pupil. Connecticut charter schools also tend to serve less needy, therefore less expensive-to-educate, students than their district counterparts.

“Moreover, the state, in violation of its own laws, concentrates charters in a few districts, forcing those financially strapped districts to pay additional millions to the charter schools for special education and transportation.

“The Malloy administration applies a double standard to charters on one hand and underfunded public schools on the other. As I have documented, the State Board of Education routinely reauthorizes charter schools despite their failures, while poor districts are subject to state takeover despite the state acknowledging that the districts’ troubles are financial (bit.ly/1JeRAaX). The SBE even blindly handed over tens of millions of dollars to a convicted embezzler/charter operator,Michael Sharpe.”

Meanwhile the Malloy administration does nothing to alleviate segregation in charter schools.

Connecticut, like Washington State, has a strong tradition of local control.

Lecker says the courts will have to step in to protect the children of Connecticut from the neglect and indifference of the Malloy administration.

Categories Charter Schools, Connecticut, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Funding

Gary Rubinstein: This Is the Book That TFA Does NOT Want You to Read

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2015 //
15

Gary Rubinstein, a former member of Teach for America, now a career math teacher in Stuyvesant High School in New York City, has become one of the most formidable critics of TFA, albeit a critical friend.

Here he describes a new book, Teach for America Counter-Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out, which consists of chapters by disillusioned TFA, including himself, describing their experiences.

He was stunned to learn that TFA responded to the book, before its release, by saying that “only” 20 people contributed chapters, out of the 50,000 satisfied TFA alumni.

I guess you might say the same about any critical book: Rachel Carson was only one person out of millions of satisfied users of DDT. Ralph Nader was only one person complaining about unsafe automobiles. Jane Jacobs was only one person griping about what high-rise projects were doing to her city. Jacob Riis was only one person complaining about the living conditions of poor people. On and on.

We should all wait for a book written by at least 30,000 people.

Categories Teach for America

Shocker: Kevin Johnson and His “Secret Government” in Sacramento

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2015 //
36

This article by Dave McKenna is an investigative report centered on the activities of Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento (husband of Michelle Rhee). Johnson was a major basketball star back in the day, and he seems to have a bright political future.

But the article says there are troubling details about his political shenanigans that may cause problems for him.

It is amazing how many of his problems are connected to the charter industry.

McKenna writes:

Johnson is husband to Michelle Rhee, the controversial school-privatization activist, and there is considerable evidence that their shared desire to turn public schools into engines of profit for private actors is what has driven much, if not most, of Johnson’s more recent wrongdoing. Despite, or perhaps because of, this, he’s enjoyed the profile and appointments of a national figure on the make: public appearances with President Barack Obama, portrayal as a latter-day Metternich by The New York Times, and the patronage of serious players like Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates.

A new scandal, though, is putting Johnson’s rise at serious risk. It involves the mayor replacing civil servants with private citizens funded by the Wal-Mart empire and tasked with the twin purposes of working to abolish public education and bring in piles of cash for Kevin Johnson.

The rising star, it seems, set up a fake government—and some people are starting to notice.

Categories California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Walton Foundation

New York: The Fight Over Cuomo’s Punitive Test-Based Evaluation Rules Is NOT OVER!

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2015 //
19

Fred LeBrun of the Albany Times-Union says the battle over Cuomo’s teacher evaluation plan is not over yet. What the Regents adopted last week was an extension of emergency regulations, and there is still a 30-day period of public comment. In fact, they can’t be made final until the November meeting. In the meanwhile, parents and educators can keep up the pressure and keep planning for the biggest opt out in American history next spring. Suppose they give a test and no one takes it?

LeBrun writes:


There was a simple if potent resolution on the agenda of the state Board of Regents meeting last week calling for final passage of the onerous new teacher evaluation system Gov. Cuomo rammed through the Legislature earlier in the year. 

A vote was taken of the 16 Regents, and it was widely reported in the media that they had done their duty and given, if reluctantly and after much debate, final approval as the law required them to do by a vote of 10 to 6.

In fact, that wasn’t the case at all. They did their duty alright, but it wasn’t to give final approval.

What the Regents voted to do instead was quite clever, a lovely little avoidance procedure.

They proposed three new amendments to the emergency regulations they had passed back in June drafted by the state Education Department as dictated by the law. These new amendments of themselves offer some small relief for teachers and schools — a brighter shade of lipstick — but their real value is elsewhere.

What the Regents actually approved was an extension of the emergency regulations triggered by the proposed new amendments, that restarts a 30-day public comment period. Emergency regs have a shelf life of 90 days.

Because the comment period would extend beyond the date for the next monthly Regents meeting, a vote isn’t possible on the new emergency regs to make them final until the November meeting.

So what, you ask? Well this: what the Regents managed to do is find just enough wiggle room in a tightly scripted law to kick the can down the road and basically approve nothing at all. At least, not yet.

Nothing stops them during the November meeting from introducing another amendment or two, and resetting the clock again.

Before you know it, the Legislature is back in session where the real relief must come, as the Regents, parents and educators know full well.

The only permanent fix for a bad law is to change it.

The 10-6 vote, incidentally, reflects just how frustrated the Regents are, and perhaps reflects as well as the internal split on just how radical a change is needed to the law. Six refused to endorse a bad law even by extending emergency regulations.

The majority subscribed to the view that lousy law though it is, there was a risk to federal aid and a vulnerability to litigation by failing to approve interim regs. So Cuomo’s signature teacher evaluation law remains in limbo and still fluid.

All this buys time for those who seek major revisions in the teacher evaluation law, and joined at the hip, the state’s reliance on high stakes standardized tests.

High among those eager for change are the Regents themselves, who are becoming strident about reasserting their legal role as the proper policy makers for education in the state. A role that has been usurped by the governor.

The Regents have certainly gotten an earful from educators in the field and get it that the system is beyond broken; it’s in shambles. It needs a complete overhaul and not just cosmetic change.

Categories New York, Teacher Evaluations

Peg Robertson Eviscerates “Teach Like a Champion”

By dianeravitch
September 21, 2015 //
46

Peg Robertson has been teaching for 19 years in elementary schools in Colorado. To say that she is a passionate teacher would be an understatement. Peg is the founder and leader of United Opt Out.

Can you think of a better person to review Doug Lemov’s “Teach Like a Champion”? Lemov’s book is the Bible of pedagogy for no-excuses charter schools. It is used as a canonical text in the Relay “Graduate School of Education,” where successful charter teachers train new charter teachers how to get higher test scores.

To Peg, teaching is an art and a craft, not a science. To Lemov, teaching is a process that can be standardized to achieve the goal of education, which is higher test scores. To Peg, the goal of education is to inspire a love for learning, curiosity, and wonder.

To be fair, Peg reviews only half the book. She read half, then started writing because she disagreed so strongly with Lemov’s advice.

A few snippets:

“To be honest, after reading over 100 pages of the book (there will be a follow-up blog when I finish reading the entire book), I have to say it’s incredibly shallow and simplistic – yet the scary part is the dictatorial demand to keep everything shallow, uniform and simplistic. And as mentioned above, Lemov’s beliefs about “teaching like a champion” are beginning to co-opt what true educators really understand about teaching, child development, and engaging learners. This book is a great primer for reducing learning to uniform and robotic student behavior which is easy to “track” (Lemov’s word – not mine) and manage, in order to get the results that you want. And the results that they want are high test scores. Lemov is clear in stating that this work is gauged via state test scores.

“True learning is incredibly messy, but with an inherent structure in place to support the messiness. Those of us with vast experience in public education know this. And we also know that in order for true learning to occur, we must embrace the messiness, while all along keeping a structure in place to allow for the ebb and flow of learning. We create routines and structures, with student input, to foster an environment which supports student engagement, student learning styles and interests, all the while making certain that our teaching is developmentally appropriate and meeting the needs of each learner. If we have the necessary resources, the autonomy to teach, and a class size that allows for us to address each child’s needs – amazing things can happen. If children have food, healthcare and books in their home we can move mountains. However, in this day and age – having everything necessary for all public school children to thrive mentally, physically, academically and emotionally – is rare, if not non-existent.”

Here are her examples of what learning should be:

“In the 90’s I had great autonomy to teach. The inquiries and projects my students completed would not even be possible under today’s testing conditions. Several of my classes opened restaurants – we literally opened a restaurant in our classroom and charged for meals. We designed the restaurant, shopped for the ingredients at the grocery store, and we made the pasta from scratch in our classroom. Students applied for jobs at the restaurant. We took reservations for parents and district staff to come and eat! Another example was with a sixth grade class in which we created a partnership with a nursing home. Each sixth grader had a friend at the nursing home where we visited weekly to plant flowers, read, sing, and develop relationships with these women and men at the home. The sixth graders interviewed their friends, researched the corresponding time period, and wrote biographies. I had a fourth grade class who researched activists across the country who were making changes in their communities. These students really wanted to know how they could give back to the community. We created our own service learning project and gathered food for food banks and worked at the food banks and served at a soup kitchen. We canvassed the neighborhoods gathering canned goods and other items to support families in need. I had other classes who raised money to end landmines that were harming children – we researched these countries and read about the impact on children and created a public campaign to end the landmines. What is interesting about all of these inquiries and projects is that we could connect them to every facet of our day – math, science, social studies, language arts, music, art, and on and on. Those are just a few of the learning opportunities my students had….”

“On page 12 Lemov states, “Few schools of education stoop to teach aspiring teachers how to train their students to pass out papers, even though it is one of the most valuable things they could possibly do.”

Wow. I don’t even know what to say to that. Perhaps the best thing to say is that that statement pretty much exemplifies the depth of the entire book. Honestly, reading the book and watching the videos is terribly depressing.

The sections I have read in the book so far deal with getting students to answer questions and making sure that the answer is (god I hate this word) “rigorous.” Students must answer questions and if they can’t answer the question they must repeat the answer after another student or the teacher gives the answer. At one point in the book (p.92) he shares an example of a student who doesn’t parrot back the answer and he states that the child will have to come in at recess because this is a “case of defiance.” So – not “parroting” back an answer is defiant? Defiance is defined as a daring or bold resistance to authority or to any opposing force. I personally wouldn’t parrot it back because I’d find it insulting. I’m not a dog who needs to repeat a trick in order to be “trained.” If this is considered defiant I fear for the child who feels the need to scream and throw these worksheets in the trash.”

There’s much more of Peg’s explanation of her keen disapproval of the Lemov model. You will enjoy the review. Meanwhile, I await part 2.

Categories Charter Schools, Standardized Testing, Teachers and Teaching

Schneider and Greene: Arne Duncan Cheers Low Test Scores, Says Teachers Have Been Lying to Students

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2015 //
70

There he goes again!

Arne Duncan loves, loves, loves to say that schools and teachers have been lying to our kids. They are really very dumb, and yet they have been getting promoted, going to college, and they are not prepared for college! Their teachers lied to them! Their schools lied to them! Now, as we see the collapse of test scores on the Common Core tests, we know the truth: Our kids are dumb!

I seem to recall that when President-elect Barack Obama named Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education, he pointed to the dramatic improvement in test scores in Chicago. Those test score gains were not true. They actually were a lie. So Arne Duncan knows something about dummying down standards and telling lies to parents.

But let Mercedes Schneider and Peter Greene tell the story of what Arne said in Pittsburgh, where he seem positively exuberant about the atrocious scores on the Common Core tests in Pennsylvania. You would think that after more than six years of his being Secretary of Education, he might be accountable for the decline of test scores. When will he be held accountable? Readers of this blog know, because I have written about it many times, that the scores fell because the two testing consortia (PARCC and SBAC) aligned their cut score (passing mark) with NAEP proficient, which is out of reach of most students. Since NAEP began testing in states in 1992, only in Massachusetts have 50% of students ever reached NAEP proficient.

Here is Mercedes. Mercedes points out that Arne has made a point of enrolling his own children in schools that don’t use the Common Core or its tests. So he will never ever know the truth about his own children.

Here is Peter.

Peter asks:

Could it be that the BS Tests do a lousy job of measuring a narrow slice of actual student achievement, and that the cut scores aren’t set in any way that would reflect meaningful educational information, and that none of this has anything to do with being ready for college or success, and that the whole process is so infected with politics (which is in turn infected with the moneyed interests of book publishers, test manufacturers, privatizers, and profiteers) that it has nothing to do with education at all.

Duncan thinks failing scores mean something because they support a conclusion he has already reached– that education is being ruined by terrible lying teachers, and that only his friends (who stand to make a mint from all this upheaval) can save the day. And Duncan isn’t smart enough to know the difference between a mountain of education excellence and a giant pile of bullshit.

Categories Common Core, Duncan, Arne, Standardized Testing

Arthur Camins: Why Schools Cannot Cure Poverty

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2015 //
17

Arthur Camins, who writes brilliantly about education, left a comment about a post he wrote a few years ago. It is as timely now as it was then.

Arthur is the Director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education (CIESE) at the Stevens Institute of Technology where he leads the Center’s curriculum, professional development and research work.

Camins explains why schools could not cure poverty. Sure, some students will doggedly persevere and elevate themselves out of the bottom of the income distribution.

But most students will remain poor and hopeless.

Camins writes:

“Not long ago, an otherwise healthy friend of mine almost died when a localized, microbial infection advanced into full-blown blood poisoning, or sepsis, which is characterized by multiple-organ dysfunction. Only a last-minute intervention saved his life.

“Hospitals treat blood infections with powerful antibiotics, coupled with a multitude of strategies to maintain organ function. They recognize that supporting the essential organs is a critical care necessity, even as they work to resolve the underlying infection.

“Medical professionals understand that a successful treatment plan must address both proximal and distal issues, and that systemic illness must be treated systemically. Indeed, such an approach is now standard operating procedure.

“In stark contrast, the current narrative of education reform says that by focusing on the apparent symptoms (e.g. low test scores and too few students prepared for college and career) and treating single organs, such as teacher evaluation and compensation systems, we can cure the causal infection (poverty). In the early 1990s, there was surge of interest in systemic change in education; however, those efforts were short lived in the face of complex problems and mounting impatience for a quick fix.

“Attempts at systemic change gave way to market-driven competitive solutions and a singular focus on measuring outcomes. We abandoned systemic change for symptomatic change.

“To stretch the metaphor a bit, I would argue that the issues that often plague high-poverty schools — such as an overabundance of inexperienced teachers, low expectations among staff and even among families, insufficient challenge and rigor, inequitable distribution of facilities and resources, and inadequate evaluation processes — are akin to the organs. Their prolonged ill health may exacerbate the disease, but they do not cause it.
As with sepsis, we cannot ignore the organs and simply treat the symptoms of poverty’s infection. As with strengthening human organs damaged by microbial driven infection, we need to build up educational systems so that schools and their students are less vulnerable to the effects of poverty. We can give students a fighting chance.”

He then goes on to identify four school-based reforms that would make a difference.

But he knows those changes are not enough to have a significant impact on reducing poverty.

“The more successful school systems to which the United States are most frequently compared have less skewed income distributions and greater supports for students and their families — a more systemic approach. Our most important investment would be in creating well-paying jobs so that families have stability. In addition, the security of universally available health care, pre-school, after-school and summer programs would bring to poor students, what is a natural part of the lives of their wealthier, and typically more successful, peers. The systemic success of these supports depends not just upon their individual quality, but rather upon their purposeful coherent implementation though community-wide collective action. Finally, we need to abandon the delusion of the last several decades that separate but equal schools are possible at scale. Instead we need to actively promote and incentivize schools that are racially and economically integrated.

“Let’s not forget to use the strongest medicine to fight the real infection, poverty. Let’s not imagine that by getting more accurate measures of educational organ failure, or by propping up one or another organ that we can cure the disease. As a nation we need to do more than that. I think we know what to do, but so far, we never have. In place of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” we now seem to have a war on schools and teachers in the name of ending poverty. We can’t save the patient without attacking the infection. It’s time.”

– See more at: http://www.arthurcamins.com/?p=90#sthash.tzc6P0o5.dpuf

Categories Poverty

California Promises a “Dramatic” Change in Helping Schools

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2015 //
57

This sounds hopeful. California has established a new agency to help and monitor struggling schools, and it will be led by a veteran educator, Carl Cohn.

I know Carl Cohn. He is the paradigm, the exemplar of a sensible and wise leader. He opposes punitive measures. He understands that what matters most is capacity-building and that requires collaboration and trust.

Here is a snippet from the interview linked above:

Cohn says:

“I think this is a dramatic departure from the past. Most of those other efforts were driven by state capitols and the federal government, but this is a major departure. The reason that I’m involved is that it is an opportunity to prove that the state of California has it right to emphasize teaching and learning and support for schools as opposed to embarrassing and punishing and shaming, which is what some have been all about since No Child Left Behind.

“This isn’t a new version of previous CDE [California Department of Education] efforts at intervention. It’s a completely new philosophy and execution independent of the state bureaucracy. It’s designed to listen to people in the field and to bring them together around improvement. It also draws heavily on the principle of subsidiarity where those at the local level actually know better how to rescue kids that we care about. So, I see this as a fundamental departure from what we’ve done in the past.

“Question: How does that look different on the ground? I’ve got the 30,000 foot view.

“Sure, I think as opposed to a lot of dictates and mandates coming from Sacramento, we start with the idea of collaboration, which is very different from what we’ve seen in the past. We start with best practice that is developed and honed at the local level. The idea is a powerful one in that you actually spend time in these places that have been labeled as failing, and you build their capacity.

“In the past, it was a lot of one-off luminaries coming in and regaling people with their skill set, how to reach poor kids, how to reach ELs. In stark contrast, this is about embedding people in schools so that once you leave after an extensive period of time, the locals have the capacity to better serve kids who are poor, kids who are in foster care, kids who are learning English, kids who have special needs. Very different on the ground than what we have seen in the past.”

Categories California, Education Reform

Politico: Ohio Critics Complain that Too Many Were Allowed to Pass Common Core Test

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2015 //
24

Here is an interesting item from Politico.com:

OHIO FACING COMMON CORE CRITICISM: Critics say the Ohio State Board of Education is practicing some fuzzy math on the Common Core, having voted earlier this week to depart from general benchmarks on the PARCC exam. Students who are “nearing expectations” according to PARCC benchmarks will be given a promotion of sorts in Ohio, where they’ll be considered “proficient.” If Ohio stuck with PARCC’s benchmarks, about a third of students would be meeting standards, according to the early data, which includes only students who took the online tests. The board’s change roughly doubles the number of students meeting standards. “This discrepancy should give pause to parents, community leaders and policy makers who expect transparency in Ohio’s transition to higher standards and new tests,” Karen Nussle, executive director of the pro-Common Core group Collaborative for Student Success, wrote [http://bit.ly/1gvjPer] in a memo earlier this week. It “suggests that Ohio has set the proficiency bar too low and undermines the promise of ensuring kids are on track for college and career.” The Cleveland Plain Dealer has more on the change: http://bit.ly/1iSCOBq.

Now, if I understand the critics correctly, they truly wanted 2/3 of all students to fail. They are disappointed that the state board of education created a level called “nearing expectations” that raised the proportion of students who met standards.

The critics thought that Ohio had watered down the “rigorous” standards of the Common Core and PARCC. They want more kids to fail! No excuses!

Begin with the fact that no one knows whether the Common Core or the PARCC/SBAC tests measure “college and career readiness.” How could anyone know? No one has actually gone on to college or career after using these standards and tests.

Maybe the tests have set their passing mark so high that most kids will fail them every year. What will we do with the kids who never get promoted? And the kids who never graduate from high school? Will students be allowed to advance if they have not met the “proficient” level of PARCC? Proficient on PARCC is aligned with proficient on NAEP. In no state other than Massachusetts have 50% reached proficient. That’s over a 23-year time span, since NAEP started assessing the states in 1992. If the same pattern is reflected in the schools with PARCC and SBAC, only 1/3 of students will ever be promoted or graduate. Maybe it might rise to 40%.

Will this generation of students stay in the same grade in school until they drop out? New kids will keep coming into kindergarten. At some point, one of these deep thinkers should think through the logic of their demands. Why are they so insistent that 2/3 of students must fail? Have they ever looked at the research on how children are affected in their motivation to try when they fail and fail and fail?

Maybe the Common Core and the tests measure who will be ready for an elite Ivy League university. But what about the students who plan to go to a state university or a community college? How do the tests measure readiness to work as a nurse, a construction worker, a retail salesperson, a medical technician, or any of the other occupations that will create the most new jobs (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) in the next decade?

Categories Common Core, Standardized Testing

David Gamberg: What Is Worth Fighting For?

By dianeravitch
September 20, 2015 //
3

David Gamberg is the superintendent of the Southold Public Schools and the Greenport Public Schools, two small contiguous districts on the North Fork of Long Island. I have visited the elementary school in Southold and was wowed by the student garden and by the musical groups. These are schools and communities that care about their children, not just their test scores. Large proportions of students in both districts opted out of state testing last spring.

Gamberg spoke out against the Common Core standards and testing to his local newspaper. When Governor Cuomo announced that the Common Core was “not working” and that he would appoint a commission to find out why, Gamberg agreed that the standards and tests are not working. He worried that the Governor’s commission might not be independent.

He said:

The group might not sufficiently represent educators’ beliefs, Mr. Gamberg cautioned, if Gov. Cuomo hand picks the members.

“We need a completely independent commission, not one that is constructed by the governor who has no right nor position to do so,” he said. “When we look to bring expertise into the equation, we should be the ones developing and finding those individuals.”

In this video on YouTube, Gamberg addresses the faculty and staff at the opening of school and poses a question: What is worth fighting for? The answer: public education. He discusses the philosophy of the districts he leads, which prioritize children and their needs and help them grow into responsible adults. He offers no bonuses or threats to his staff. He knows they are working as hard as they know how to meet common goals, focused on the students in their care.

David Gamberg is a stand-up superintendent and leader.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Common Core, Opt Out, Parents, Standardized Testing, Supporting public schools
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »