Archives for the year of: 2015

Over the weekend, I attended a board meeting of the Network for Public Education. Xian Barrett, a teacher in Chicago on the board, made a startlingly perceptive comment over lunch. He said to me, “The reformers are often right when they describe the problem, but they are always wrong when they offer a solution.”

You won’t find a better, clearer demonstration of this axiom than this post by Peter Greene.

Peter analyzes the “social justice” argument for charters and choice. Reformers are right, he says, when they charge that schools in poor communities are often grossly inadequate:

“Reformsters start here with the premise that non-wealthy non-white students must be rescued from the terrible schools that are inextricably tied to poor support, poor resources, poor staffing, poor neighborhoods, and the lousy local control that leads to all of these poor inputs.”

But their reforms save a few while making things far worse for the majority.

“This problem is even more damaging in schools that are already underfunded and under-resourced. Losing money to charter-choice systems just makes the troubled school that much more financially distressed. So to “rescue” these ten kids, we are going to make things even worse for the ones left behind.

“The charter-choice system, as currently conceived and executed, promises a possible maybe rescue for some students while making the vast majority of non-white non-wealthy students pay for it, while simultaneously lulling policy makers into thinking that the problem is actually being solved, all in a system that allows charter operators to conduct business without being answerable to anyone.

“The problem (see First Part) is real. The solution being inflicted on public education is making things worse, not better. It is making some folks rich and providing excellent ROI for hedge funders, but neither of those outcomes exactly equals a leap forward in social justice. There’s a whole argument to be had about charter booster motives; I figure that some are in it because they believe it will work better and some are in it because they believe it’s the last great untapped well-spring of tax dollars. Ultimately, their motivation isn’t as important as this: their solution will not actually solve anything.”

Blogger and retired teacher G.F. Brandenburg wrote–after reading this post–that Peter Greene “may be the best blogger in America.”

The New York Times reported in the Sunday paper that 158 families accounted for half of the money contributed to candidates for President in 2016.

Guess we can’t talk about the 1% anymore. Someone, quick, do the math: What % is 158 families as compared to the total number of families in the U.S.? I would do it myself but I don’t have time to google the total number of families. 138 of those families are funding Republicans, 20 are funding Democrats.

So if 158 families basically are the funding base of American presidential politics, are we a democracy? an autocracy? an oligarchy?

They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.

Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.

These donors’ fortunes reflect the shifting composition of the country’s economic elite. Relatively few work in the traditional ranks of corporate America, or hail from dynasties of inherited wealth. Most built their own businesses, parlaying talent and an appetite for risk into huge wealth: They founded hedge funds in New York, bought up undervalued oil leases in Texas, made blockbusters in Hollywood. More than a dozen of the elite donors were born outside the United States, immigrating from countries like Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and Israel.

But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.

In other words, they are using their contributions to elect officials who will protect their wealth from taxation and who will “shrink entitlement programs,” the programs that benefit other Americans.

John Ogozalek is a high school teacher in upstate New York. He has taught for nearly 30 years.

He writes:

Secret Service agent Jerry Parr died Friday. He was the agent who on March 30, 1981 shoved President Reagan into the armored limo amid a spray of assassin’s bullets. But more importantly, it was Parr who recognized moments later that the president had actually been shot, then diverted the limo to the nearest hospital It was that quick thinking that is credited with saving Reagan’s life. Parr also broke the rules that day.

“Doctor Ruge, President Reagan’s personal physician, later told me that he probably would have gone in three or four minutes if we hadn’t gotten him to the hospital,” Parr later recalled. “So the decision was right to take him to the hospital when everything in your training says take him to the White House where it’s safe, don’t take him to the hospital where you don’t know what’s going on.”

A real education involves teaching not just the rules but helping our students learn the wisdom to recognize when it’s time to break those rules, too. That’s what agent Jerry Parr understood back in 1981. And, this is the vital concept that many of the so-called school “reformers” seem to have missed as they create a one-size-fits all, top-down, standardized school system. John B. King, the new Acting Education Secretary for the entire nation, seems particularly wedded to an authoritarian model of education, where students are taught to obey without questioning, without ever breaking the rules. Suspend ’em all! See Diane’s “A Revealing Looking at John King’s Roxbury Prep Charter School” https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/07/a-revealing-look-at-john-kings-roxbury-prep-charter-school/ Also, https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/09/charles-p-pierce-of-esquire-gets-it

And, it’s not just our children who are being muzzled in this brave, new educational world. How many of us teachers have been told by the “reformers” to just shut up and follow their orders? Read the module, parrot the script, give the test, all in lockstep. And, of course, anyone who questions this top-down authority is marked for career destruction. Too many teachers have been bullied into submission. What a sad lesson for our students.

It’s also not the sort of lesson previous generations of Americans were taught. Take, for example, the evidence in Stephen Ambrose’s account of front line GIs during World War II, Citizen Soldiers. What really won the war, according to Ambrose, wasn’t the top line generals, sitting comfortably far away from combat. It was the independent thinking and willingness of the typical citizen soldier to sometimes even break the rules that made the difference.. The “Greatest Generation” was smart and tough. Many of those soldiers were also wise asses. I can only imagine how they would mock us because of the SNAFU we have created in our public schools today.

The United States of America was created by rule breakers. It’s right in the Declaration of Independence: ” But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

Of course, this is NOT the sort of independent thinking that John B. King will be promoting anytime soon. No, John King is such a good….follower.

According to an article in The Progressive, Dr. Ben Carson likes to say that American children were better educated in the 1830s.

As “proof,” he offers questions from an exam given to children in Kansas, which asks obscure questions that few college graduates today could answer.

Carson then identified the following questions from the test:

· Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

· Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865.

· Show the territorial growth of the US.

· Name and locate the principal trade centers of the US.

· Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.

· Describe why the Atlantic Coast is colder than the Pacific at the same latitude.

Impressive questions! Kids really knew all that?!? Dang, they really were smart! And we are really dumb!

Well, it is true that the few schools that existed at all in those days emphasized fact-memorization. This is a good example of the kinds of facts considered most important (along with the height of various mountains, the names of the biggest oceans, etc.).

Most such questions today would likely be part of “Trivial Pursuits.”

Similar exams and questions from 19th century textbooks have been used for decades just as Dr. Carson is now using these test questions.

These are not examples of the decline of American education, for many reasons.

First, because so few children were in school at all in the 1830s. Most schools were in session for only a few months a year. Most children who were in school ended their education at grade 8 or earlier. There were very few high schools, except for private schools for the children of the elite.

Second, because the ability to memorize what you were taught and parrot it back on a test is not an example of the decline of American education.

My bet: 99% of the student in the 1830s who took a Common Core test today would fail. Maybe 100%.

– See more at: http://progressive.org/news/2015/10/188346/debunking-ben-carson-we-werent-better-educated-1830s#sthash.0nLGdqFU.dpuf

Joshua Katz teaches math at University High School in Orlando, Florida. From all reports, he is much loved and respected.

He made a short, soundless video to welcome his new students.

He explains in plain language how to succeed in math and in his class.

It is nice to be reminded that there are great teachers in our public schools, who put children first and ignore the nattering nabobs of negativism in the corporate reform movement who want to take away his pension, his healthcare, his job security, and judge him by his students’ scores on standardized tests.

In response to the post about the “school-to-prison-pipeline, a frequent commenter who signs as Raj, submitted the following comment. It begins like this, you can read the full comment after the original post:

Raj wrote:

This is what ACLU says:

“WHAT IS THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE?

The “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to the policies and practices that push our nation’s schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This pipeline reflects the prioritization of incarceration over education. For a growing number of students, the path to incarceration includes the “stops” below.

Failing Public Schools

For most students, the pipeline begins with inadequate resources in public schools. Overcrowded classrooms, a lack of quali­fied teachers, and insufficient funding for “extras” such as counselors, special edu­cation services, and even textbooks, lock students into second-rate educational envi­ronments. This failure to meet educational needs increases disengagement and dropouts, increasing the risk of later court­involvement. (1) Even worse, schools may actually encourage dropouts in response to pressures from test-based accountability regimes such as the No Child Left Behind Act, which create incentives to push out low-performing students to boost overall test scores. (2)

Zero-Tolerance and Other School Discipline

Lacking resources, facing incentives to push out low-performing students, and responding to a handful of highly-publicized school shootings, schools have embraced zero-tolerance policies that automatically impose severe punishment regardless of circumstances. Under these policies, students have beenexpelled for bringing nail clippers or scissors to school. Rates of suspensionhave increased dramatically in recent years—from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2000 (3) — and have been most dramatic for children of color.

Overly harsh disciplinary policies push students down the pipeline and into the juvenile justice system. Suspended and expelled children are often left unsupervised and without constructive activities; they also can easily fall behind in their coursework, leading to a greater likelihood of disengagement and drop-outs. All of these factors increase the likelihood of court involvement. (4)

As harsh penalties for minor misbehavior become more pervasive, schools increasingly ignore or bypass due process protections for suspensions and expulsions. The lack of due process is particularly acute for students with special needs, who are disproportionately represented in the pipeline despite the heightened protections afforded to them under law.

Raj,

This is an excellent contribution to understanding the “school-to-prison-pipeline.” Thank you.

For most students, the pipeline begins with inadequate resources in public schools.

Overcrowded classrooms. Bill Gates and Arne Duncan have both said that class size doesn’t matter, and that great teachers can teach larger classes than they have now. Mayor Bloomberg even suggested that a “great” teacher could teach double the number currently assigned, which would mean a class size of 50-70 students. Surveys repeatedly show that both parents and teachers want small classes, and research shows that the greatest benefit of small classes goes to the neediest students, who need extra attention with the teacher.

A lack of qualified teachers. State after state has been staffing the neediest schools with inexperienced, unqualified teachers from Teach for America. There would be more qualified teachers if state legislatures raised teacher pay, stopped cutting pay raises for experience and additional relevant degrees, and stopped fighting due process for teachers. Such actions literally drive teachers out of their chosen profession.

Insufficient funding for “extras” such as counselors, special edu­cation services, and even textbooks, lock students into second-rate educational envi­ronments: The ACLU hits the nail on the head. So much money is diverted to testing and test prep and consultants, and not enough is appropriated for the services and personnel that meet the real needs of students. You understand that underfunded schools do not choose to be underfunded. Decisions about funding are made by the Congress, the state legislatures and governors, and district leadership. The blame for the shortage of these resources in the schools that enroll the most vulnerable students must be placed squarely on federal, state, and local leadership.

Even worse, schools may actually encourage dropouts in response to pressures from test-based accountability regimes such as the No Child Left Behind Act, which create incentives to push out low-performing students to boost overall test scores. Test-based accountability, including NCLB and the Race to the Top, increase the numbers of students who fall into the STPP. The emphasis on testing and the consequences for failing to teach a bar set too high discourage the students in the bottom half of the bell curve (all standardized tests are normed on a bell curve). The Common Core tests have shifted the norm so that 65-70% of students “fail.” If students fail and fail and fail, they give up. What shall we do for them?

The next section of the ACLU statement aptly describes “no-excuses” charter schools:

Zero-Tolerance and Other School Discipline

Lacking resources, facing incentives to push out low-performing students, and responding to a handful of highly-publicized school shootings, schools have embraced zero-tolerance policies that automatically impose severe punishment regardless of circumstances.

Charter schools, especially of the no-excuses variety, have higher suspension rates than public schools. They engage in harsh disciplinary policies that are not allowed in public schools. They can push out students for minor offenses.

Raj, thank you for this useful description of the “school-to-prison pipeline” by the ACLU.

We should all take heed.

Arne Duncan, who is talking about the STPP today at 4 pm EST on Sirius “Urban View” could reduce the pipeline by abandoning high-stakes testing and cutting off federal funding for “no-excuses” charter schools.

Each and every child should be able to enroll in a school with a humane and caring environment.

A reader sent this comment:

My 4 year old comes home from her third day of kinder (which is her 3rd day of public schooling ever) and says: “I failed the gym test today. I didn’t know any of the answers.” She can’t read yet mind you. ‪#

Who do you think is getting a call on Friday morning? Followed by nasty emails to the Superintendent, our Regent, Roger TIlles, and new NYSED Commish Elia. This only strengthens my resolve to fight the madness that is NYS public elementary school testing. We fought this for the last few years to prevent this; to prevent our youngest from being exposed to high stakes tests used to evaluate her teacher BEFORE she can even read. Make a 4 year old unease on her third day. Who does this?

Angie Sullivan teaches kindergarten students in Las Vegas. Many of her students are poor. This was the discussion at the last board meeting. The board decided to spend $613,325 on more testing.

“The last thing African American students need is additional testing.

Vegas is facing a crisis. A severe and drastic teacher shortage in urban Vegas.

African American students are more likely to have no teacher.

We are missing teachers. 30,000 kids without a teacher? The school named after Martin Luther King has 8 licensed teachers and everyone else is temporary. A staff of 70 substitutes?

But we will add more testing to already at-risk kids?

African American Victory schools had an almost 100% White Administrative Staff show up this evening to ask for more testing.

An administrator speaking to the board just claimed: kids are sad when they cannot be tested? Really?

Does the school board really believe that more data of any sort will be key to improvement?

More testing is useful? Formative or summative?

This teacher will state clearly. This is a tragedy.

I would love to see the full deal. And who this vendor really is that just sideswiped the usual vendor approval process. Who is connected to this vendor and to this deal? Garvey brought the legality up several times. Good point. Voted yes anyhow.

No teachers. No teachers. No teachers.

Where is the additional support? This is supposed to help a teacher who does not exist? This will help the substitute?

Not negotiating in good faith.

Yes to testing? No to teachers.

Great example how priorities are skewed and how bad choices are made.

If you dont help kids – which is work done by skilled labor – all the data in the world is useless. It is people on the ground who love kids – who will turn schools around or help at-risk kids.

Bad mistake.

Tragedy.

And legislators – the board blamed you several times this evening for not giving them much time. Seems they do not value you either. They routinely blame you. They blame me too.

Join the club.”

“Angie.”

SomeDam Poet writes poems—some might say doggerel—almost daily. They are consistently witty and wise.

Here are his/her thoughts on economists (with apologies to the great economists who understand that the classroom is not a factory or a field and that children are not units of production or widgets):

“Economists are like psychics”

Economists are like psychics,
This cannot be denied.
Cuz if, by chance, they get it right,
It’s greatly AMPLIFIED!!

But mostly, they just get it wrong,
And utter not a word
For them to actually point this out
Would really be unheard.

And when their goof’s so blatant
They really can’t ignore it,
They simply claim they “found a flaw”
And “makeup will restore it”

And another:

“What if?”

What if false were true?
What if night were day?
What if economists knew
About the things they say?

The “Department of Education Reform” at the University of Arkansas published a study touting the stupendous results of “no excuses” charter schools, where students are subjected to strict discipline and intense test prep.

The National Education Policy Center engaged Professor Jeanette Powers of Arizona State University to review the study, and she criticized it strongly. Subsequently, the study was revised and then reviewed again.

Professor Powers still find the claims to be inflated.

“The primary (and repeated) claim of the report is that “No Excuses” charter schools can close the achievement gap. Powers explains that the underlying research that this report relies upon only supports the more limited and appropriate claim that the subset of No Excuses charter schools have done relatively well in raising the test scores of the students who participate in school lotteries and then attended the schools. The claim that these schools can close the achievement gap is supported by nothing other than an arithmetic extrapolation of evidence that comes with clear limitations.

“A common and well-recognized problem in charter school research is “selection effects.” That is, parents who choose “No Excuses” schools may be more educated, more engaged in the school-selection process, and differ in other significant ways from those parents who did not choose such a school. This would logically be a major concern for oversubscribed “No Excuses” schools, but the findings cannot be generalized to all parents.

“Over-subscribed schools that conduct lotteries for student admission are, one would assume, different from less popular schools. Nevertheless, Cheng et al. imply that the findings can be generalized to all No Excuses charter schools.

“The prominent and oversubscribed “No Excuses” schools are often supported by extensive outside resources. Offering an extended school day, for example, may not be financially feasible for other schools, and the scaling-up costs of doing so are not addressed. A charter that takes the No-Excuses approach yet lacks the additional resources should not be assumed to show the same results.

“The sample of schools included in the studies Cheng et al. analyzed is largely drawn from major urban areas in the Northeast and is small, particularly at the high school level.”

Find Powers’ original review and follow-up review of the “No Excuses” charter report here.

The original Arkansas report is currently available at the following url:
http://www.uaedreform.org/no-excuses-charter-schools-a-meta-analysis-of-the-experimental-evidence-on-student-achievement

The republished version of the Arkansas report is currently available at the following url:

Click to access OP226.pdf