The Relay “Graduate School of Education” is a hoax, as the article below argues. It is not a graduate school at all. Its location is a post office box. It has no scholars, no researchers, no faculty other than charter teachers. It is a trade school for teaching tricks of test-taking and how to control black and brown children and teach them to obey orders without questioning.
Despite the opposition of legitimate teacher education professionals, the Malloy administration in Connecticut has approved the Relay “Graduate School of Education” to offer faux degrees. This undermines the teaching profession and demeans legitimate degrees and certification.
Before the decision was announced by the Malloy administration, Jonathan Pelto cited a recent article by Professor Lauren Anderson, chair of the Education Department at the prestigious Connecticut College.
Anderson warns the public and state officials not to approve the “Relay Graduate School of Education,” which is a program that trains teachers how to raise test scores and maintain no-excuses discipline. Its Bible is Doug Lemov’s “Teach Like a Champion.” Relay is selling itself as an answer to the shortage of well-prepared teachers of color, but its rigid and limited methods do not deliver on that promise, nor do they produce well-prepared teachers of any color.
She wrote that the Relay proposal
is being framed as a solution to minority teacher recruitment and an engine for ameliorating educational inequities. In fact, Relay is no panacea for our pipeline problems, and instead represents the tip of an approaching iceberg that threatens the education of the state’s most under-served students and sells short the very teachers to whom we owe the best preparation, support, working conditions, and compensation available.
WHAT IS RELAY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION?
First, it is not a graduate school in any recognizable sense. It is a charter-style network of independent teacher preparation programs created by the leaders of three prominent charter school chains (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First), primarily as a means to bypass traditional teacher education. Relay has recently set up shop in New Haven, where it has reportedly enrolled a cohort of candidates who will finish its one-year program this academic year, despite the fact that it has not received approval as a preparation provider.
Its “campus” address is a PO Box; its offices are co-located in a partner charter school; its faculty are unnamed and not required to hold degrees comparable to teacher educators elsewhere; and its nationwide curriculum has been critiqued for emphasizing methods that are reductive and control-oriented, rather than research-based and conducive to critical thinking.
In short, Relay would lower the bar for teacher preparation in Connecticut, increasing the likelihood that students in districts such as Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven would receive teachers who have not met the same standards of preparation as those in more affluent districts.
WHAT IS THE HARM IN APPROVING RELAY?
For candidates in targeted districts, the harm would come from providing a program that doesn’t honor their potential as professionals and would not be deemed acceptable preparation for those certified and employed elsewhere in the state.
For students in targeted districts, the harm would come from providing their teachers with preparation that is based on a reductive, behaviorist view of teaching and learning, and that emphasizes the kind of techniques shown to narrow the curriculum and adversely affect students’ socio-emotional development. For targeted districts and the communities they serve, the harm would come from partnering with a provider that has no credible research base to support its claims to effectiveness or to indicate that it will improve minority teachers’ retention in urban schools. For the public, the harm would come from establishing a pathway into teaching that is not accountable to the profession or state in ways that most other programs are.
To call Relay a “graduate school of education” is an insult to legitimate graduate schools of education. It is a hoax. It has no campus; it has no research; it has no scholars; it has no library. Its methods are behaviorist and limited. It should be sold as a trade school for future charter teachers, not a “graduate school of education.” It undermines the education profession by giving fake credentials to ill-trained “teachers” and sending them to high-needs schools where children deserve well-qualified, well-prepared teachers.
IMO, it’s proof that the American higher learning system is under oligarch control. The oligarchs’ employees claimed, exactly that, in Philanthropy Roundtable. The busy work, by faculty and administrators, preparing for accreditation, is like fiddling with menus, while the Titanic sinks. How are university accrediting bodies, different than the useless bond rating agencies, during the 2008 financial Armageddon?
But somebody has to hire these “teachers”.
the painful, painful truth
Cross posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Connecticut–HOAX–Gover-in-General_News-Diane-Ravitch_Education-Vocational-Technical_Educational-Crisis_Reform-161103-127.html#comment626887
with this comment: Here’s a film “Defies Measurement” https://vimeo.com/122720631
THAT YOU SHOULD see, so you know what is happening UNDER OUR NOSES.
Puckett has done a superb job of creating a clear, comprehensible picture of the complex forces that are crushing public education. If you get frustrated with trying to explain the complex and crushing forces arrayed against what we know works in education, this film is a great resource. It is not sensationalized, it’s not super-slick and it’s not hyperbolized. It is a calm but relentless and clear raising of the alarm and showing what we know to do well, and how we are being taken down a failed and fruitless road. Watch this film. Share this film. Spread the word about this film.”
Another insidious aspect of this (that I haven’t seen mentioned before) is that “graduates” of Relay will likely not be hired by traditional public schools when they inevitably leave their charter schools for better employment.
So, in other words there will always be an ample supply of potential staff for the charters, because they won’t be hired anywhere else.
The new ESSA rules for traditional, publicly-funded colleges of education link accreditation to student test scores. Here’s how it goes: the teachers graduate, and their students’ test scores are linked back to that college through a state-run data base. Then, if those test scores don’t show growth, the schools lose their accreditation. The states are required to pay for more systems and administrators to create and then monitor this new metric, another unfunded mandate, to add to the other RTTT unfunded mandates. As noted, school spending in the majority of states has not recovered since the recession, and any upticks go toward creating more state machinery to comply with policies such as these. Since student growth using test scores is the ONLY metric Relay uses to grant degrees, the new ESSA law encourages and financially subsidizes these new “alternate” colleges of ed schools and further penalizes state schools that are still trying to actually educate students.
Yet, so many faculty in all disciplines within public universities, remain silent. Departments, other than ed., will fall like dominos, after the ed. departments. As an external affairs manager of a Gates Foundation-funded organization wrote, at Philanthropy Roundtable, “…reformers…declare ‘We’ve got to blow up the ed schools.’ “
As an ardent public school supporter (and teacher) from across the Pacific, I nevertheless still can’t grasp the utter hatred that so many of my US colleagues have for “Teach Like a Champion”. Is it not possible to separate Lemov’s charter school-supporting ideology from the – as I see it – fairly straightforward and transparent observations he has made about the “mechanics” of good teaching?
Are techniques like cold calling and tracking really so “racist”? I have used these, and others, in my own teaching, but in a fairly nuanced manner, taking into account every child’s background and situation. A “no excuses” approach in my classroom involves encouraging all children to participate, but at their own level and pace, and certainly making allowances for those children who, for intrinsic reasons, really do need to just sit at the side and watch. Indigenous Australian children, for example, prefer to learn by watching silently, and it would be a pretty insensitive teacher who refused to accept those parameters.
Sorry to be a little off topic, but I really would appreciate more discussion in forums like this on Lemov’s work.
“Are techniques like cold calling and tracking really so “racist”? I have used these, and others, in my own teaching, but in a fairly nuanced manner, taking into account every child’s background and situation.”
There is nothing nuanced about the way Lemov’s techniques are used. The racist comments probably arise out of the fact that these techniques are used in rigidly controlled, no excuses type charter schools, which are predominantly located in poor minority communities. You will not find well off, predominantly white communities subjecting their children to these regimens.
How (or why) did Relay get accreditation?