Archives for the month of: June, 2016

Michael R. Ford, a professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, reports that 41% of private schools that received vouchers have closed their doors since the inception of the voucher program. Milwaukee has the nation’s oldest voucher program, and anyone looking for the miracle of school choice should look elsewhere. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Milwaukee continues to be one of the nation’s lowest performing urban districts. Milwaukee has had charters and vouchers for 25 years–two generations of students. If charters and vouchers were the answer to the problems of students and schools in urban districts, Milwaukee should be a shining star of student success. It is not.

Ford writes:

Forty-one percent of all private schools that participated in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) between 1991 and 2015 failed. I do not mean failed as in they did not deliver academically, I mean failed as in they no longer exist. These 102 schools either closed after having their voucher revenue cut off by the Department of Public Instruction, or simply shut their doors. The failure rate for entrepreneurial start-up schools is even worse: 67.8 percent.

Fredrik Andersson and I discuss these data in a new article just published online in Policy Studies Journal entitled “Determinants of Organizational Failure in the Milwaukee School Voucher Program.” We frame the article in the context of public and educational entrepreneurship “with the goal of explaining the factors that put voucher schools specifically, and public entrepreneurial public polices in general, at greater failure risk.” The Milwaukee voucher case is particularly fertile ground for this line of inquiry due its long history, organizational churn, and relevance as the birthplace of the modern school voucher movement.

We test several hypotheses using a survival model and find:

Start-up voucher schools have a much higher failure rate. It takes almost ten years for a new voucher school to lower its failure risk to that of previously existing schools;

When new MPCP schools fail they tend to fail quickly, on average just 4.3 years into program participation;

Schools without a religious affiliation are more likely to fail;

Stricter program regulations led to more failure; and

Schools can reduce their failure risk by gaining market-share.

Read his research article for the full findings.

Ever wonder what it is like to teach at a Success Academy charter school in New York City? I have been contacted by several teachers who quit and told me their stories, but they were never willing to allow their name to be published. They were afraid that their future job prospects would be damaged. Here is a statement by a former SA teacher, Sasha Guiridongo, posted on her own blog and then shared with Mercedes Schneider.

What is unusual, of course, is that Sasha is not afraid to tell her story and give her name.

She didn’t last long at Success Academy. She explains why in her post. SA is known for teacher churn and burn out. That explains why Eva Moskowitz’s supporters in the Legislature were pushing hard to get a special exemption for charter teachers in the law, relieving them of the necessity of being certified to teach for three years. Since so many teachers don’t last three years, this creates a large pool of prospective “teachers,” wannabes without certification.

Sasha complains about the competition among teachers to produce the highest test scores; I had earlier heard from a leaker at SA that the charters post the names of teachers in public and rank them by their students’ scores. This is an inherently humiliating practice. They also post student test scores in public. It must be humiliating for all but those at the top.

Here is an excerpt from Sasha’s post:

I was set to join “the team” for T-School, a brainwashing series of seminars aimed to mold you into a “Success teacher” because it’s somehow different than a regular teacher. Success teachers are notregular teachers, no sir, they are above that. The seminars retaught me how to teach and fed my newfound Success ego while stealing an entire month of my well deserved summer vacation. The outcome? I was thoroughly convinced that it took a “special” kind of teacher to teach at Success and I was part of the chosen few. This mentality is what kept me there as long as I did despite looming depression due to my sudden loss of identity and free time to pursue personal passions.

I had heard horrors about SA prior to accepting the job: the long hours and pressure to perform, but coming from another charter school I had confidence that I could accept and overcome any difficulties; Besides I was coming from teaching in East New York and nothing toughens you up more than working in a school where someone is shot dead at the end of the school block during Parent-Teacher Night. So was I intimidated by SA? No. But once I began teaching as a newly baptized SA teacher I quickly realized the toxic environment SA strived to create and force feed educators who had real passion for teaching. SA had managed to create an educational environment that disregarded the well-being of the teacher. It promoted a cut-throat, monetarily incentivized corporate environment in which you prayed for the demise of your peers for an opportunity to inadvertently glorify yourself. Is this what teaching is about?

My 6 months at Success forced me to evaluate who I was as an educator and revise my motivation, a minute personal gain. Success mostly made me doubt my personal success every day. I became doubtful of the importance of teaching; if we could all be trained to be the same, think the same, and act the same then as educators we were inevitably relaying this same message to our students. Every day I relayed the message that just as all teachers had to think and act and be the same, consistency among classrooms, the same was expected of students. SA didn’t celebrate originality or praise the individual, no, SA thrived on doubt, on the inevitable fear of not doing enough, being there enough, talking enough, thinking enough, preparing enough, or absorbing enough information. The underlying message was that this doubt and fear somehow made you better because it encouraged you to take immediate action as you strived to BE THE BEST at the expense of your mental stability, of course. If I couldn’t survive here, I often thought, I had failed and I was not “one of a kind,” I was weak and had no business teaching.

Dustin Marshall won the special election for the Dallas school board by 42 votes. Marshall is a private school parent; he defeated Mita Havlick, who is a parent of children in the Dallas public schools and an active volunteer.

Marshall’s election returns control of the board to the corporate reform faction that previously hired Broadie Mike Miles, who left after three years. Miles’ disastrous reform policies pushed out hundreds of experienced teachers and demoralized the teaching staff. He set unrealistic goals, based on his test score targets.

Every vote counts.

http://educationblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/with-early-voting-results-in-marshall-leads-havlick-for-dallas-isd-seat.html/

People have wondered for thirty years: Does Donald Trump have small hands?

Frankly, I am more concerned about his refusal to release his tax returns than the size of his hands, but others are worried about his hands.

Marco Rubio brought it up during one of the debates, but he was not the first to ask this question.

This really bothers Trump. He insists his hands are not small. He doesn’t care what else you may say about him, but don’t say he has small hands!

But why have people raised this question again and again for thirty years?

Be sure to watch this video, produced by Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands PAC.

Gene V. Glass, distinguished education researcher, gives Bill Gates a short lesson about chickens and generational poverty.

Pittsburgh has been the site of a remarkable revolt against corporate reform. After years of pressure from the usual crowd of data-driven reformers, the school board majority was captured by grassroots activists–parents and educators–who wanted a different approach to education, one that was grounded in sensible principles, not a love for disruption. One of the first actions of the new board was to sever its contract with Teach for America and seek ways to collaborate with and support experienced career teachers. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh superintendent retired, and the board hired a new superintendent, Anthony Hamlet. The board was convinced that he was not a Broadie and would not seek to restore corporate reform strategies of measure-and-punish to the schools.

But now the Empire Strikes Back, as teacher Steven Singer tells the story. The ousted reformers are hoping for a comeback, and the last thing they want is a superintendent who brings stability to the public schools. So they have mounted a full-bore attack on Hamlet, because one sentence in his resume was almost identical to a sentence in a Washington Post editorial. One sentence! The critics are in full cry, screaming “Plagiarism!”

As an author and a historian, I know plagiarism when I see it. I have seen whole paragraphs and pages lifted and reprinted in books, resumes, and papers. But one sentence? I don’t think so.

Steven Singer writes about the new superintendent:

He is set to takeover the district on July 1, but a well financed public smear campaign is trying to stop him before he even begins.

Big money interests oppose him. The public supports him.

Meanwhile the media helps fuel corporate attacks on the 47-year-old African American because of criticisms leveled by a Political Action Committee (PAC) formed to disband the duly-elected school board.

It’s ironic.

Corporate school reformers criticize Hamlet for allegedly plagiarizing a single statement in his resume. Meanwhile they have plagiarized their entire educational platform!

Mayoral or state takeover of the district? Check!

Close struggling schools? Check!

Open new charter schools to gobble up public tax dollars as profit? Check!

Hamlet’s strong points are his belief in restorative justice programs for students and his commitment to community schools. Not a peep about charters.

Singer writes:

Despite community support, several well-financed organizations oppose Hamlet and the board’s authentic reforms.

Foremost among them is Campaign for Quality Schools Pittsburgh, a new PAC formed recently to make city schools great again – by doing the same failed crap that didn’t work before.

Also on the side of corporate education reform are the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Heinz Endowments. Representatives for both organizations have offered to pay for a new superintendent search if the district gives Hamlet his walking papers – a measure that probably would mean paying him at least a years salary without having him on the job.

This would also result in weakening the district’s ability to hire a new superintendent and increasing public mistrust of the electoral process. Such a move would pave the way for disbanding local control.

How generous of these philanthropies! I remember a time when giving meant providing the resources for organizations like public schools to fix themselves – not having the right to set public policy as a precondition for the donation. But in the age of Bill Gates and the philanthro-capitalists, this is what we’ve come to expect.

Even the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette has drunk the Kool-aid. In a June 10 editorial, the paper published the following statement:

“The (school) board’s failure at this essential task calls its leadership into question, and will renew calls for legislation to dissolve the elected school board and move to an appointed system.”
Finally, we have A+ Schools – an advocacy organization that at one time championed the same kinds of reforms school directors are trying to enact. However, after a $1 million grant from the Gates Foundation, the group has become a cheerleader for weakening teachers unions, privatization and standardized testing.

Against these special interests stands a public school board and a community at the crossroads. Will they give in to public pressure and big money? Or will they allow Hamlet to do the job he was hired for and attempt to improve an urban district suffering from crippling poverty and state disinvestment?

In late night negotiations, rushing to finish the legislative session, the New York Legislature reached a package deal to extend mayoral control by only one year. Part of the package creates a parallel system for charter schools, which can switch authorizers and choose one (either the State University of New York or the Board of Regents) that will give them freedom from any regulations and standards that apply to public schools. In other words, there will be one set of rules for public schools, and no rules for charter schools. This will be the first time in New York state’s history that the Legislature has officially established a publicly-funded dual school system: One sector is subject to democratic control, the other is not. One must accept (or take responsibility for) all students, the other is free to accept and reject whichever students it wants.

A one-year extension, with few or no caveats, had seemed all but cemented when lawmakers went to bed on Thursday evening. But the morning found Mr. Flanagan pushing for the funding transparency requirement, followed by the charter-school provision in the afternoon. It would effectively create a parallel system of charter schools within the city, allowing “high-performing charter schools in good standing” to switch to join the State University of New York umbrella or the Board of Regents of the State Educational Department.

Not since the era preceding the Brown decision of 1954 has a state legislature so brazenly established a two-tier system of K-12 schools.

The leader of the State Senate, John Flanagan, has made no secret of his contempt for Mayor Bill de Blasio. De Blasio helped to raise money for Democrats running for the State Senate; had they won, the State Senate would be controlled by Democrats, not Republicans. Governor Cuomo has stabbed the mayor in the back repeatedly, because he doesn’t like to share the stage with any other prominent Democrat in the state. So, the mayor had a losing hand when he asked for a three-year extension of mayoral control.

When Mike Bloomberg asked for a six-year extension in 2009, the Legislature granted it. The State Senate loved Mayor Bloomberg, because he often contributed to individual Republicans running for re-election (three years later, in 2012, the Mayor gave $1 million to the Republican campaign fund for the state senate). When Mayor Bloomberg asked for a renewal of his unlimited power over the schools in 2009, he boasted of the dramatic increase in test scores that were a direct result of his control. However, a year later, the New York Board of Regents commissioned an independent study, which concluded that the New York State Education Department had lowered the passing mark every year and test scores across the state were inflated. When they were adjusted after this revelation, the dramatic gains disappeared. NAEP scores never confirmed the boasts by Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein about “historic gains.”

If anyone remembers what all these political maneuvers over control have to do with educating one million children, please remind me.

The title of this post was written by Jose Vilson, the well-known teacher, author, blogger, and activist. His book This Is Not a Test: A New Narrative on Race, Class, and Education is a fearless examination of his encounters with racism and the larger society, and his analysis of present-day issues in education as they affect the children, his children, who are the targets of reform.

In this post, Vilson takes Dr. Steve Perry to task for his masterful showmanship and salesmanship, which has no connection to the lives of children. (The title of the post is Vilson’s.)

Vilson read a tweet from Perry, in which he wrote about his collaboration with comedian Steve Harvey and the U.S. Armed Forces in getting 200 young men to cut their braids and dreadlocks and ready them for success.

Vilson found this highly objectionable, and he wrote:

In subsequent tweets, he comes within inches of calling himself the next Messiah, stopping kids from stuttering and pulling them from gangs, stepping in for their absent fathers, and keeping them up until midnight for no other reason than his own need to set these boys straight. In subsequent tweets, he shouts down tweeters who resent his anti-Black message, chiding him for implying that dreads and braids — hair styles with African traditions — make black boys look dirty and, worse yet, unsuccessful. He continues to use this weekend experience of setting boys straight (yes, like the jail, but only with a comedian and an army veteran) to make other wild assertions about the American school system and absentee fatherhood. He admittedly spends 29 tweets extolling the virtues of depriving boys their sleep and cutting their natural hair to detractors, then makes an about face to chastise “y’all” for spending time on Twitter instead of getting to work.

How do you lead an education revolution when your ideas are so revolting?….

[A sidenote: Two years ago, Steve Perry said on air that CNN required him to cut his hair to please the white audience.]

Vilson writes:

For years, educators who’ve paid even minimal attention to the charlatan have told anyone within ear shot that he’s up to no good, one of the horsemen for the larger hedge-fund manager agenda to dismantle and give away one of the most fragile but critical institutions in our country: public education. Ideally, public education is meant to reinforce citizenship and democracy, tenets that any country on this planet should aspire to. In the late 1970s to 1980s, we came the closest to closing achievement gaps, during the height of integration and getting closer to true equity for all schools. As with all social progress, a handful of people saw black people getting their comeuppance and said “We can’t have that!” In communities of color, we know that the ideal has fallen way short of its promise. Even though we’ve seen gains in both high school dropout rates and college enrollment, achievement gaps persist, and our country’s schools across the board are more segregated than ever, creating a resource gap along with a cultural and academic gap for our most disenfranchised.
Whenever there’s a narrative gap in any community, there’s a salesperson willing to make money off the most vulnerable. Insert Dr. Steve Perry.

Our trouble is that too many people are fooled by a tie, and a penchant for inflammatory statements. I give him two more years before he has to sell monorails.

This ethos is the reason why his horrific tweet exists. If vulnerable communities allow swindlers to peddle their petulance across our hoods, we’ll continue to see his rendition of respectability politics police the ways and means that black culture exists. There’s plenty of money to be made in telling everyone black kids, specifically boys, need to be controlled and managed. That’s why so many schools militarize their pedagogy so they can remove any part of a child’s personality that would get in the way of their learning, as if personality, and not systemic racism, is obstructing students of color from learning. But, because “it’s all about results,” they invert Malcolm X’s decree and instill conservative values onto our children by any means, even if that means bringing in the actual military.
So it’s not about hair. It’s about how America perceives our humanity.

Vilson writes that dressing up and acting white is not enough to protect young men and women from the traps that are set for them:

A tape-up and a nice tie won’t keep the bullets away from our black bodies. Pulling our pants up and aligning our values to the military sounds ridiculous on its face as well. Changing our aliases to more Euro-centric names might lead to more jobs, but won’t help us keep our jobs longer than our white counterparts, much less give us that elusive promotion. Staying up past our bedtimes won’t make us more resilient; if anything, lack of sleep would add more stressors to a community already suffering from a myriad of diseases and preventable conditions. Speaking in the King’s English won’t pause the school-to-prison pipeline and the lack of wraparound supports our schools need to survive the trauma associated with their lives.

Vilson cleverly points to some of the most successful men of our time: Mark Zuckerberg, who seems never to have met a tailor; Bill Gates, who usually dresses like a schlump. He might well have added Steve Jobs, whose wardrobe apparently consisted of black turtlenecks and blue jeans.

His point:

In each of those instances, there is nothing powerful about their aura, just their institutional privilege. They’ll never be judged as less than, or be neglected the access to their generational resources. They’ll never be admonished for not adhering to the white supremacist standards Dr. Steve Perry expects of his now sleep- and hair-deprived black boys.

You deserve a laugh today!

This is a delightful and polished speech given by an eighth grader to his classmates, teachers, administrators, and families at graduation from a middle school in suburban Chicago.

Daniel Engber, a writer for Slate, reviews Angela Duckworth’s new book about “grit” and how to become grittier.

 

He first places it within the context of a genre of self-help books that are a perennial staple on the bestseller list. How to Be Successful; How to Achieve Your Dreams; How to Win Friends and Influence People. or,“Every day in every way, I’m getting better.” Or grittier. One thinks of Dr. Pangloss.

 

He then considers it in the context of current psychological theories about how to be successful, or why some people succeed and others don’t. He wonders whether the term “grit” is a synonym for old-fashioned virtues like industriousness, perseverance, fortitude, conscientiousness.

 

Engber thinks there might be better ways to improve than working on grit, for example, by improving one’s study habits or showing up for school everyday.

 

He writes:

 

“If Duckworth’s book can tell us anything at all, it’s that we shouldn’t lose our focus every time we come across a new idea in shiny packaging. It might be better if we persevered and stuck to things that work.”

 

But then, Engber may be somewhat biased. He took the grit test and discovered that he has a low grit rating.

 

“It could be that having too much strength of purpose is worse than having not enough. At least that’s what I’d like to think: I took Duckworth’s test last week and learned to my dismay that I’m among the nation’s least gritty citizens. The trait is scored from 1 to 5, and I came in at 2.9. That sounds like it could be right around the average, but in fact it’s very low. According to Duckworth’s book, my grittiness puts me in the 20th percentile of American adults—more mercurial and weak-willed, less inclined to follow through, than four-fifths of the U.S. population.

 

“That’s OK with me. As a journalist, I thrive on flexibility, flitting around from one topic to another; I don’t believe my job lends itself to grit. Mine is not the only field where inconstancy can be a virtue. If you want to win forever on the football field, or join the military, or write a book about a big idea, then it might be best to stay on target, compete in everything, and finish strong. But others find their path through mindful wavering and steer away from simple answers.”