You might find this interesting. People from different points on the political spectrum speak out on what’s ahead in education in 2016. I don’t think any working teachers or principals–the real experts–were invited to add their views.

Categories Education Reform

25 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Chiara says:

January 7, 2016 at 1:14 pm

“Dale Russakoff, reporter for The Washington Post and author of The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?

Reason for despair: My primary reason for despair is the polarized state of relations between reformers and defenders of the status quo in public education. ”

Ugh. That’s really loaded language for a reporter. Especially since she’s despairing that two sides won’t work together.

She might start out by not labeling everyone who questions the dominant ed reform narrative as a “defender of the status quo”.

Reply
- Dienne says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm
  
  That’s why I don’t understand why THE PRIZE got such high praise from public school defenders. Yes, it’s a good cautionary tale about what happens when you mix billionaires and politicians with big egos with a big pot of money and public schools. But her attitude throughout is that teachers, and especially their unions, are the problem. Clearly, public schools are failing and clearly something needs to be done, just that Zuckerberg, Cerf, Anderson, Christie et al got their egos too involved. But she commends them for trying, especially poor, misguided Zuckerberg whose heart is clearly in the right place.
  
  Reply
- Raj says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 1:25 pm
  
  Chiara,
  
  “defender of the status quo” can be replaced by “No change at any cost movement”. Will that be OK with you?
  
  Reply
- 2old2teach says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 2:09 pm
  
  Raj, I can hear the groans and see the rolling eyes as some guru’s answer to some education problem was forced on them. Districts could save a lot of money if they developed a careful vetting process for new initiatives that included input from educators including their own. Buying into someone’s marketing campaign without careful and thorough independent review is foolish. Teachers are subjected to these initiatives frequently. Somehow the idea that perhaps the ideas could be integrated into what is already working frequently is ignored. All your summer planning can get tossed out the window as the latest toys are rolled out as replacements. As a special education teacher since I never knew who or what I would be teaching with certainly (even in high flying districts) I had less to throw out. I was always left to learn or develop curriculum on the fly.
  
  Reply
  - Susan Lee Schwartz says:
    
    January 7, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    
    Love your answer to the clueless one.
  - 2old2teach says:
    
    January 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm
    
    I try, but sometimes I’m just trying. 🙂
- Threatened out West says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm
  
  Raj, the “reform” system is now the status quo. “Reforms” have been going since the early 1990s. 25 years is definitely status quo.
  
  Reply
- MathVale says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 7:58 pm
  
  I’m trying to figure out who defends the status quo. It seems like Reformers have had increasing control of schools for the past 30 years at least since “A Nation at Risk” stoked good ole American fear and paranoia. I cannot do any innovation or adaptation without running into a standard, test, metric, or mandate. Teachers have not been able to truly teach without the constant interference from too many bosses – mostly billionaires and politicians or academics outside a classroom.
  
  Reply
pbarret says:

January 7, 2016 at 1:20 pm

One time I got sick of Diane Rehm having education “experts” on her panels but never a teacher. I wrote her and said the way she can tell if she has a real teacher on her show is if the teacher had to get a sub for that day. (I might have added: and brought papers to grade in the green room). One day, by golly, she did. It was great.

Reply
James Harvey says:

January 7, 2016 at 1:44 pm

I do see Linda Darling-Hammond and the president of NEA here. Still, what a peculiar introduction to the article: The year “has seen greater attention on areas traditionally dismissed as nonessential: things like early-childhood education, after-school programs, and project-based learning.”

A bizarre claim. Educators thought these things were nonessential? I don’t think so.

Reply
- Dienne says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 1:55 pm
  
  NEA and, I’m sorry to say, LD-H sold out the the rephormers a while back. You won’t hear much different from either of them than you’d hear from Bill Gates or David Coleman.
  
  Reply
- Threatened out West says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm
  
  Neither of those are teachers. Neither of those represent me, a working teacher with 15 years experience.
  
  Reply
Susan Lee Schwartz says:

January 7, 2016 at 1:52 pm

OF COURSE REAL EXPERTS ARE NOT TALKING ANYWHERE… silenced by the conspiracy AT THE VERY BEGINNING. READ Anthony Cody, “when teachers voices are silenced which Diane posted here.
http://www.livingindialogue.com/the-auto-tuning-of-teacher-voices-viva-and-the-360-report-on-education-accountability/
and as Ihave said in a recent post on this site *

The organized plan to demonize teachers and replace them with novices who only stay a few years, guarantees that a school will fail. THIS IS THE ROOT OF DESTRUCTION. Less talk and generalizations about ‘failing schools’ and a good hard look at THE PROCESS , where top -down control makes it impossible for teachers (like those who write here) To DO WHAT THEY KNOW HOW TO DO, what they want to do… make LEARNING HAPPEN.
I
have not heard ANY candidate or leader or person, anywhere, discuss the PLOY/ TACTIC/ PROCESS to remove the practitioners so that the institution will collapse.
http://www.perdaily.com/2011/01/lausd-et-al-a-national-scandal-of-enormous-proportions-by-susan-lee-schwartz-part-1.html

THIS is still the hidden cause of failure. I know because I was there in the nineties, a celebrated educator in NYC when the principals began a concerted effort to end the tenure of the most experienced professionals— ostensibly as a way to bring down the costs. I actually saw (in boxes in the district office hallways,—when I was incarcerated in a rubber room,— bulletins directed to principals offering guidelines on how to prevail when teachers challenge and demand their rights!

I also know why the loss of civil rights in the educational workplace is NOT A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION!

With all the blabber and blarney about “school failure” and the alphabet soup: CC,VAM NCLB, ESSA— and ‘choice’ in the form of vouchers & charter schools (positively Orwellian), there is NO ONE, and no media, who is actually confronting the FACTS AND THE REALITY of what is happening as we HEAR IT ON THIS SITE!

Reply
drext727 says:

January 7, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
Why would they invite an educator to the conversation? They know it all.

Reply
Chiara says:

January 7, 2016 at 2:14 pm

Raj
January 7, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Chiara,

“defender of the status quo” can be replaced by “No change at any cost movement”. Will that be OK with you?

Well, no, but I’m glad you brought up “cost” because this is more of what she wrote:

“One example is the dire financial state of school districts in cities where charter schools are growing rapidly. When children leave traditional public schools for charters, the dollars leave with them, and districts are unable to downsize as quickly as the money exits. Districts in Newark, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit, are facing budget crises that have major consequences for learning, and they still educate more than half the children in those cities.”

So that would be the cost of ed reform – existing public schools face budget crises because now there are two systems instead of one, except no one admits it or addresses it because we’e very invested in pretending both sets of schools are benefiting, when that is not true.

There’s a cost. It’s not “plus/and” and it’s not “win/win”.

Reply
- Raj says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm
  
  Chiara,
  
  Now that you have brought up cost, can you please explain why New York State public school performance (NAEP 2015) is below national average, but the money spent per student is the highest in the nation. Money spent is approximately 80% more than the national average. Should the parents in New York State demand more from the school districts instead of spending their time on opt out?
  
  Massachusetts spends more than the national average but less than New York State and shows the best overall NEAP score.
  
  Dire financial state in school district is caused by the inability to reduce staffing (you stated above) by the school districts as and when students use their feet to go to charters reducing the demand on the public school districts.
  
  This is a simple concept of matching resources to the demand. If you are a private business, you reduce staff as the need changes to survive. If you are an individual you reduce your life style and reduce expenses. You cannot pass on your living expenses to someone else.
  
  But school districts are insensitive to this concept because they have the authority to increase taxes in many areas. Should the school districts live within their means as you and I have done all these years? Please explain this phenomenon.
  
  May be we should demand all testing including NAEP testing be banned in this country that way no one can pose such questions.
  
  Reply
- KrazyTA says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 5:26 pm
  
  Chiara: how soon they willingly and studiously forget/deflect/bury.
  
  “The Blueberry Story: The teacher gives the businessman a lesson.” (Originally appeared in EDUCATION WEEK, XXI, #25, March 6, 2002)
  
  Link: http://www.jamievollmer.com/blueberries.html
  
  Just one way to approach fiscal issues: there are immense “savings” in public education if you slash-and-burn at the classroom/school level (e.g., salaries, positions, pensions, SpecEd, ELL, etc.) but—who is bearing the cost and burden of those “savings”? And are those “savings” in line with assumptions about the goals of education, and definitions of what constitute genuine learning and teaching, and shared ideals about democracy and social mobility and equity?
  
  I know, I know: another commenter on this blog is sure to paint me with the “metaphysical” brush but [IMHO] the real objection is to the cost of putting this observation into practice—
  
  “I want to oppose the idea that the school has to teach directly that special knowledge and those accomplishments which one has to use later directly in life. The demands of life are much too manifold to let such a specialized training in school appear possible […] The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgement should always be placed foremost.”
  
  ¿😳? I know, I know, whoever made such a sweeping statement is obviously devoid of any originality or grit or mathematical understanding and would surely flunk the lowest level course in “data analytics.”
  
  BTW, someone help me out here with the above quote: Did that Albert Einstein fella ever do anything out of the ordinary or make any contribution whatsoever to science or math?
  
  😎
  
  Reply
- Threatened out West says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm
  
  Raj: Try teaching in Utah sometime. My state spends the least amount of money in the country, and it shows. Our NAEP scores are only fair, and we have enormous class sizes (30 to 40 is not seen as excessive in all grades) and incredibly burnt out teachers, along with falling-apart buildings and no supplies.
  
  The only reason Utah isn’t at the bottom of the NAEP scores is that we’ve had a pretty homogeneous population until recently, with parents who did a lot to supplement their kids’ educations, and teachers who, frankly, are superheroes, and put a ton of time and money into teaching.
  
  Reply
- MathVale says:
  
  January 7, 2016 at 8:18 pm
  
  Raj, Apparently, if you a business like a bank, car company, or disgruntled rancher defending twinkles in the gift shop of a wildlife refuge, you ask taxpayers to bail you out if “need changes”. Simply cutting staff is a much criticized, often short term solution to a struggling business. If a business is taking a new strategic direction, maybe staff are cut judiciously. But if a company is simply cutting costs, that could be a signal of poor long term health or lack of strategy. Look at Yahoo recently. They will not be around in ten years barring a miracle. Same with Sears as another example. Companies may recover, but more often then not, they die or are bought. Unless in a systemic downturn like a recession, layoffs often only get rid of “poor” performers, the good people who quickly leave, and everyone else has an eye on the door. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion – been there.
  
  Reply
  - 2old2teach says:
    
    January 8, 2016 at 12:11 am
    
    It is rather simpleminded to think that all a school system has to do is cut staff. (Johnny really doesn’t need an aide when he is in regular language arts class, does he? What possible difference could it make if each class has five more students?) They still have the same infrastructure needs and costs. That is, of course until so much revenue has been drained from the system (by charters?) that they have to cut programming and close buildings. No one needs art or music or a library, right? How long can it possibly take a custodian to clean the bathrooms?
Greg says:

January 7, 2016 at 2:16 pm

Yes, it seems charter schools a-r-e the new sub-prime mortgages http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/are-charter-schools-the-new-subprime-mortgages.html Here we are hoodwinked again by the corporate powers preying on whatever they can, often through loopholes or corruption.

Reply
Duane Swacker says:

January 7, 2016 at 6:55 pm

Don’t know if I can force myself to read that article. I used to subscribe to the Atlantic when it actually had some journalistic integrity, oh about 20 years ago.

Reply
Thesrtistformerlyknownastitleonetexasteacher says:

January 7, 2016 at 7:52 pm

Raj, you do realize the NYC at least is a very expensive place to run schools right? That adds in cost. Lots of ELLs, special ed, and expensive real estate.

But bringing up cost; how much is Eva making? Doesn’t that cost bother you? How much is she costing due to her “free rent” that other schools pay for with her sucking off their budget?

Troll.

Reply
ponderosa says:

January 8, 2016 at 12:34 am

Does Raj decry the high expenses of elite private schools like Sidwell Friends? I guarantee you we’d be able to do a lot more at my public school if we had the resources of Sidwell Friends. I vote to double the resources currently allocated to public schools. I want a co-teacher to work with me everyday in each of my seven classes. That way one of us could deliver the main lesson, while the other could work in small groups with the struggling (or gifted) students. Why should only rich kids get this kind of deluxe treatment?

Reply
Miriam says:

January 8, 2016 at 11:41 am

Fascinating read. As you mention, they did NOT solicit input from the experts–working teachers and administrators. That is really too bad.

Also, they did not solicit ANY input about special education (or advanced students–thankfully mentioned by Amanda Ripley)–even as students with disabilities make up 13-14% of our student population and advanced students make up perhaps 10%!

Surely, there is much to be despairing and hopeful about those groups of students. As you know, I continue to write and work to fix special education (especially as that contrasts with education for gifted students) Surely, a contribution on those students would have enhanced this series.

Thanks for sending it out on your blog and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Reply