Archives for the year of: 2015

I was surprised to get an email from an anti-abortion group celebrating the inclusion of a provision that bans abortion in school-based health clinics. To begin with, I had not heard of this part of the bill, but then I assumed that the number of school-based health clinics performing abortions was zero. So it was a symbolic gesture, a bone to the zealots.

 

Happily, Valerie Strauss pursued this issue, and this is what she found. The language was inserted at the last minute, and it doesn’t mention the word “abortion.” It refers to a section in the Health Service Act that bans the use of public funds for abortions in school-based health clinics. The provision restates what is already law.

 

The difficulty with a bill that is over 1,000 pages is that it is akin to a Christmas tree, loaded with member items that were quietly tucked in, not always bad, like funding for libraries, after school programs.

Peter Greene is not impressed with the new form of philanthropy. The new philanthropists are not content to give money to worthy causes. No, they insist either in plastering their names for the public to see, a vanity project or paid advertising. Or they insist on controlling what they find, to make sure the recipients do as they are told. The names Gates and Broad cont to mind.

 

He writes:

 
“If you give an organization like a school or a hospital or a sports team a whole bunch of money in order to build a facility with your name on it, that’s not philanthropy. That’s advertising. Nobody looks at a building with TRUMP in huge gold letters on the side and thinks, “Wow, what a great, giving humanitarian.” Why should that work differently if, instead of building the big TRUMP building himself, he gave someone else money to do it for him?

 

“In fact, modern philanthropists have strangely confused “giving money to improve the life of human beings” with “hiring some people to do work that you want to have done.”

 

This is known as “philanthrocapitalism” or “vulture philanthropy.”

 

“Hacker Philanthropy (as laid out by Sean Parker, napster co-founder), isn’t really philanthropy at all. It’s a process of putting yourself in charge of something and then imposing your idea of a solution on the problem, confident that your outsider mindset allows you to see what the weakness is and “disrupt” it.

 

“The classic view of philanthropy, the one most commonly shared by givers who aren’t filthy rich, is that you find people who are doing something worthwhile, and you help them do it. But in current Rich Guy Philanthropy, you decide the solution you want to implement, and then you hire people direct your giving toward that goal.”

 

“So we finally arrive at a point where the word “philanthropy” means absolutely nothing at all. Hell, Donald Trump is a philanthropist. Vladamir Putin is a philanthropist. Every time I pay my phone bill, I’m a philanthropist. Apparently any time you give anybody any money for any reason, you’re a philanthropist.

 

“Look– here’s the rule. If you are giving money to somebody with the expectation that they will carry out your instructions, further your agenda, owe you compliance and assistance, or complete a project you’ve assigned them– you’re not a philanthropist. If your giving is designed to give you power or control over an aspect of public life in our country– you’re not a philanthropist.

 

“You know what else happened over the weekend? A couple dropped a check for $500,000 in a Salvation Army kettle. And then when news outlets wanted to follow up on the story, they insisted on remaining anonymous. And they didn’t tell the Salvation Army how to spend it, what to spend it on, or where to put their name on the side of the building. They just remembered how hard life was when they couldn’t get enough to eat, so they were hoping they could help other humans in similar dire straits. I may or may not love the Salvation Army, but I know an anonymous philanthropist when I see one or two.”

 

Peter has rediscovering a Talmudic principle.

 

The highest form of charity is when the giver doesn’t know who will receive his gift, and the recipient doesn’t know who gave the gift. No ego. No sense of power or control. No self-gratification.

A teacher from Denver posted this comment:

 

 

“As a teacher for Denver Public Schools, I’m keenly aware of the flip-side of so called school choice… schools choosing their students. School Choice is an outright lie.

 

“Some schools remain segregated by property values, unavailable to the vast majority of DPS students. The district actively deceives parents into believing a lottery system places students when demand exceeds available space. In fact an indeterminable number of schools are allowed to use what DPS calls SchoolChoiceTool or some garbage name for what really amounts to administrators sitting behind closed doors accepting and rejecting students based on grades, behavior records, attendance data, and standardized test scores.
“The result. DPS is more segregated for Latino students today than when the school board was intentionally segregating African-American students in the years past. DPS school choice segregates the already segregated. Income-achievement gaps are greater than in any other “reform” oriented city studied.
“As they expand and lose their ability to cherry pick the boot camp style charters foisted on Denver’s low-income communities are tanking. Principle and teacher turnover is abysmal. School Choice = inequity = buyer beware gimmick schools = chaos”

We have all recently become familiar with the idea of “close reading,” which is highly recommended by David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards and now the president of the College Board. Simply, this means that the students should be able to interpret the text without reference to prior knowledge or context. The meaning is on the page and no background knowledge is necessary. On its face, this seems odd. How would a student understand the Gettysburg Address without prior knowledge of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, “our forefathers,” slavery, and the nature of a democratic government (“of the people, by the people, for the people”)?

 

Reader Eric Brandon comments on the origins of “close reading”:

 

 

Close reading was definitely intended for fiction. The close reading that David Coleman espouses comes out of the New Criticism literary tradition, and it was definitely meant for poetry. The idea is that the meaning of the text is the words. As such, background knowledge, context, authorial intent, and so on just don’t matter much if at all.

 

Also, this type of close reading, since it instructs the reader to ignore context, history, etc. is not good for nonfiction either. Imagine students trying to make sense of the 3/5’s compromise while reading the US Constitution without references to history.

 

Textual analysis is very important, but it cannot be done in a vacuum. This is a huge problem with New Criticism. David Coleman has simply transported this problem right into the heart of the Common Core standards. What a monstrosity he hath wrought.

 

Finally, I disagree with the idea that the study of fiction and literature are extras that can be dispensed with because parents can fix this at home. If one of the goals of education is to give students the knowledge and tools to understand their own lives and cultures, then the study of fiction and literature should have a central, not marginal, place in education.

 

I would go further and advocate that students be exposed to film studies as a discipline before leaving the K-12 system. Just imagine all the videos and movies that students are watching, but no one is really giving them the sort of education that would help them truly understand what they are watching and how the creators of what they are watching are trying to affect and manipulate them.

 

There would be plenty of time to add this sort of content to the K-12 curriculum if we would just stop wasting so much time on excessive standardized testing.

The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was intended to add resources to schools that enrolled the poorest students. Its goal was equality of educational opportunity, not higher test scores. But forget about it. The goal of federal and state policy is raising test scores.

 

What about equity? What about equality of educational opportunity?

 

Read and view this portrait of Philadelphia’s filthy public schools and ask how Americans can tolerate such conditions? This is shameful.

 

Every member of the Pennsylvania legislature should walk through the schools of the City of Brotherly Love and ask themselves: Why did we cut the budget? Why are the children of Philadelphia less deserving of decent learning conditions than the children in suburban districts?

Mercedes Schneider did a neat job of locating the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It was 32 pages long.

 

The new Every Student Succeeds Act is 1,061 pages long. Nothing wrong with that, except not many people have the time to read such a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation. That is not good for democracy. When a law is so complex that educated citizens do not have time to read it, only those with a strong interest read the parts that affect them.

 

And the original bill included this clear language:

 

Near the end of the 1965 ESEA document is the following:

 

FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION PROHIBITED SEC. 604. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system.

 

Arne Duncan has certainly pushed the envelope on this one.

 

The main purpose of the original ESEA was equitable resources for the poorest students. Title I.

 

Title I has survived, but ESEA has morphed into a testing and accountability bill, especially since 1994, when states were required to develop standards and accountability systems. Then came the horrible NCLB, which created unprecedented demands for testing and accountability, enforced by the federal government with threats of cutting off federal aid.

 

Now ESSA returns to the states the decisions about how to use the results of tests, but it still mandates annual tests and 95% participation. Sadly, only 1% of students with disabilities will qualify for exemptions from state testing.

 

It has been a long journey, and it is not over yet.

 

After the passage of fifty years and many federal dollars, poor and black children continue to sit in overcrowded classrooms and to lack the basic necessities of schooling. If you don’t believe me, read this graphic portrait of Philadelphia’s filthy public schools. What suburb would permit such horrific conditions?

 

The results of the voting on a possible strike by the Chicago Teachers Union won’t be available until the beginning of the week.

 

Even if the CTU membership votes to strike, there will be a period of fact-finding. The earliest a strike would take place, if the members approve the strike, would be March.

 

Due to the lobbying of anti-union Stand for Children, a strike requires approval by at least 75% of the membership. Jonah Edelman of Stand for Children fought for that approval margin and predicted (wrongly) that the CTU would never get 75% to agree to strike. In 2012, the union vote for a strike was approved by 98% of members voting.

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune says that Rahm is in deep trouble with no sign of a life saver. And Kass says he predicted that this would happen if the Laquan McDonald video was suppressed, as it was, until after the election.

 

Kass writes:

 

A month ago I wrote a column telling you about a police dash-cam recording that could tear Chicago apart.

 

It was that recording of a white cop killing a black teenager, the cop pumping 16 bullets into the kid with the knife in his hand who was trying to walk away, the officer firing most of the shots with the young man already on the ground.
The video that might rip Chicago apart — and why you need to see it
It was kept from public view for months and months, kept hidden until Mayor Rahm Emanuel won re-election with black voter support. But it couldn’t be suppressed forever.

 

Since the video was released, protesters have taken to the streets, demanding “Rahm Resign” and the mayor became publicly weepy, telling us once again that he wanted to be a Rahm reborn, a better version of himself.

 

Who knows? Maybe he was hoping to put on that warm and fuzzy campaign sweater — the one he wore when he cut those re-election commercials to announce he’d be a kinder, more reasonable, and less imperious Rahm.

 

But you can’t play the sweater game twice. And the city can’t forget what he’s done.

 

So a month later, where is Chicago?

 

The mayor limps along, weakened, his public approval ratings underwater. New polls say what I’ve told you for weeks: That if the Laquan McDonald video had been made public before Election Day, Rahm would not be mayor today.
If police shooting video had been released sooner, would Emanuel be mayor?

 
That makes people feel as if he’s cheated them. So resentment builds against the mayor most of Chicago never really liked, but feared. And now that he’s been humbled, he’s ripe.

 

According to Kass, conventional wisdom says Rahm won’t resign. But he predicts that the months and perhaps the rest of his second term will be torture. As they said about Watergate, the coverup is what gets you.

The Journal News of the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, referred to as Lohud, has been critical of the mess that Andrew Cuomo has made with his constant meddling in education policy.

 

Today, Lohud praised Cuomo’s task force for listening to the parents who opted their children out of the Common Core testing. The number of children who opted out were about 225,000. That is a huge number of people expressing no-confidence in the state’s testing regime.

 

Lohud thinks the task force listened to parents and educators and hit all the right notes:

 

The task force released a report Thursday that accurately and even passionately captures the confusion and disarray unleashed on schools by Albany over the last several years. Consider this slap at New York’s educational leadership, which sounds like it came from a group of outside critics:

 

“The implementation of the Common Core in New York was rushed and flawed. Teachers stepped into their classrooms in the 2012-2013 school year unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the new standards, without curriculum resources to teach students, and forced to administer new high-stakes standardized tests that were designed by a corporation instead of educators.”

 

Hey, that’s what happened.

 

We messed up

 

Without naming names, the report is a pretty stunning rebuke of Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and former state Education Commissioner John King (soon to become acting U.S. education secretary), who refused to heed the legitimate and plentiful concerns of educators and parents. As a result, New York will wind up spending more than a decade rewriting education policies over and over, without any guarantee that students will be better off in the end….

 

Interestingly, the report does not explore the merits and failings of New York’s teacher-evaluation system, which is perhaps most controversial for grading teachers, in part, on student test scores. Instead, the task force recommends that test scores not be used to evaluate teachers or students until 2019-2020. (State law already bans including the test scores on student transcripts or using them to make student placement decisions through 2018.)

 

This rather vague recommendation leaves the teacher-evaluation system in place, and would likely require school districts to replace test scores with another measure for the next several years.

 

The task force did not take the next, necessary step of declaring the evaluation system a failure and calling for the development of a new system that would not only hold teachers accountable but give them the information they need to improve their performance and student achievement. But the panel covered a lot of ground in a few short weeks, and it should not be up its 16 people to solve all of New York’s problems.

 

Should Cuomo and the state Legislature move ahead with the development of new standards and testing, a new evaluation system would have to be next. Otherwise, the education wars will continue.

 

There’s no telling, at this point, whether Cuomo will endorse the task force’s work in whole or part or whether the recommendations would be carried out in such a way as to win back the loyalty of disenchanted parents and educators. We’ll likely find out where the governor stands when he delivers his State of the State address next month.

 

Unless the Legislature repeals or amends the law that was passed last June and tucked into the state budget, teachers will still be evaluated by test scores, counting for up to 50%, then local measures will not replace what the law requires. Their evaluations won’t lead to punishments, but presumably they will go onto their permanent records. Thus, for the task force’s recommendations to have any teeth, the Legislature must act to change the objectionable law. The task force’s recommendations do not trump state law.

 

Lohud credits the parents for forcing the task force to listen. Now, let’s see what Governor Cuomo does. It would be nice if he walked back his statement that he hopes to bust the “public education monopoly,” which he said right before he was re-elected.  That would be a good start, especially for the parents of more than 90% of the children in the state who attend public schools.

 

 

 

 

I posted yesterday that the Chicago Public Schools’ board of education, appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, had voted to close the last high school library in Bronzeville.

 

The librarian who was terminated wrote a comment asking if readers of the blog would sign a petition to save the library:

 

I am the librarian in question. My students staged a “read in” to protest the loss of their librarian and library (cut after next week). The CTU’s facts are correct and I am the last librarian in a historic African American school in CPS.

 

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151211/bronzeville/hundreds-of-dusable-hs-students-stage-sit-in-protest-library-closure

 

There is a petition at the end of this article – also the “read in” was witnessed and reported by the Chicago Sun Times.

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/1174223/students-launch-read-dusable-high-protest-losing-librarian