Archives for the month of: May, 2017

Tim Slekar followed up his earlier post with an announcement that the war against the teaching profession in Wisconsin has reached a new low.

He declared a victory for the far-right ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, which writes most of the “model laws” to privatize schools and eliminate the teaching profession).

Well today “they” did it. “They” opened the door to deprofesssionalization and authorized the use of emergency licenses to address the “shortage” and placed our most vulnerable children in a defenseless position.

Instead of truly addressing the EXODUS of teachers and the miserable conditions driving teachers out of the profession “they” simply created a pathway into our classrooms for unlicensed and unqualified personnel.

Of course “they” won’t admit this. In fact, “they” already have “talking points” in case someone dare question the integrity of devaluing the teaching profession.

Now let’s be very clear about how these emergency license rules will really play out in schools across the state.

The most qualified teachers will end up in the most affluent areas.

Emergency licensed teachers will end up in high poverty areas.

School districts with money will hire licensed teachers and require specialized licenses for teachers in fields such as special education.

School districts without money will hire emergency certified people and use the new emergency rules to get around the specialized license requirements for fields such as special education.

ALEC will have won another victory because the cost for teachers will be significantly reduced.

And over time, more and more license reductions will eventually result in a deprofessionalized field and our children will suffer as novices with no sense of the professional, ethical, social, and moral obligations required to be a teacher take over our classrooms.

Can we let this happen?

Does anyone seriously believe that we can have a better education system by hiring unlicensed teachers?

Tim Slekar, dean of education at Edgewood College in Milwaukee, warns of the strategy that corporate reformers are using to undermine and destroy the teaching profession.

They say there is a shortage. They ignore the fact that the “shortage” is caused by the exodus of experienced teachers due to policies that create intolerable working conditions. They then say that the “solution” to the manufactured shortage is to eliminate entry requirements for teachers, thus lowering the bar to anyone with a college degree.

He writes:

It is happening all across the country. Policy makers, pundits and idiots keep screaming teacher shortage. And, in the same breath advocating and putting forth policies that do away with teacher licensing. Why?

First the BS answer: Allowing license flexibility or doing away with teaching licenses altogether will fix the shortage and if “we” don’t do something fast children will face empty classrooms.

The TRUTH: Softening teacher license policies or doing away with the license altogether will kill the profession of teaching.

Its that simple. Yet trying to get media and policy makers to understand this seems almost impossible. Trust me. I have been trying for 4 months.

Now it’s up to you. Take what you learn below. Call your legislators. Call your local media. Chain yourself to a tree naked. Oops. That was supposed to say “chain yourself to a naked tree.” Do whatever you can to get this ALEC backed attack on the profession of teaching to the people.

This article in Truth-Out was written in 2014, but it remains timely. It shows the driving force behind privatization: Greed. It contains only one error: it suggests that this is a Red State phenomenon. But there are Democratic governors who have taken large sums from the financial industry and turned into champions of school choice, such as New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut’s Dannel Malloy.

Privatization fuels fraud and corruption, while eviscerating the public good.

“In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott has made growing for-profit education one of his top priorities. And, in doing so, he helped out his political buddies and donors while screwing over Florida’s students. One of the biggest winners in Scott’s privatization push, for example, was an ALEC-linked company called K12, Inc. that actually got an “F” from Florida’s education department.

“In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Corbett has given huge legal contracts for defending his state’s voter ID suppression law to some of his top donors. Corbett is also trying to privatize Pennsylvania’s state liquor stores, a move that would mean big bucks for corporate allies like Walmart and Sheetz, a local gas station chain.

“And in Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder has handed prison food services over to corporate giant Aramark. While the move has meant big bucks for Aramark, the report suggests it’s been an absolute disaster in every other possible way. Meals are infested with maggots, employees have been caught having sex with inmates, and now there are reports that one Aramark employee actually tried to hire a prisoner to kill someone for him. All in all, not a pretty picture.

“These horror stories are a perfect example of why privatization is such a bad idea.

“Ultimately, private corporations are only interested in making money and are only really accountable to their shareholders, not “We the People.” The way they see it, it doesn’t matter if prisoners have to eat rotten meat, if students get a crappy education, or if for-profit hospitals like the ones in Texas don’t have proper staffing. All that matters is making a quick buck, and if that means screwing over the public, then so be it.”

Jack Covey reports:

There’s even a FACEBOOK ALERT (with time and place) and a smorgasboard of progressive groups listed:

https://www.facebook.com/events/214194042403398/

ALERT: Paul Ryan will be at Success Academy in Harlem on Tuesday, May 9th (TOMORROW!).

Fresh off of voting to take away health care from millions of Americans, Paul Ryan is coming to NYC tomorrow! Because Paul has done so much for our kids’ education and for the health care of working families, we want to make sure we give him a nice warm welcome.

Join us at 11:00 between W 117th and W 118th Street on Malcom X Blvd and make sure Paul knows exactly what we think of him — bring your signs, memes, songs, and chants!

#ExcuseMeMrSpeaker
#NoRyanNYC
#NoAHCANYC

The discussion about this is great as well:

https://www.facebook.com/events/214194042403398/?active_tab=discussion

Gary VanDeaver is a conservative member of the House of Representatives in Texas. On most of the hot-button social issues, he is a hardline conservative.

But Representative VanDeaver of New Boston, Texas, opposes vouchers.

He is well informed and he is looking out for the best interests of his constituents. What the story does not mention is that Rep. VanDeaver, before he ran for office, was a teacher, a principal, and superintendent of schools in his home town, New Boston. He understands what it means to offer “school choice” in a small rural community.

“When it comes to one centerpiece conservative initiative – allowing tax-subsidized vouchers for students to enroll in private schools – VanDeaver says absolutely no way.

“In my district, public school is the community,” said VanDeaver, of New Boston, a town about 25 miles from the Arkansas border where the Lions high school football stadium has 3,500 seats, nearly enough for every resident.

“If we do anything to pull those students away, then we’re harming those communities,” said VanDeaver, 58, after joining an overwhelming majority of the GOP-dominated state House this month to reject school vouchers…”

Rural Republicans have helped to sink vouchers in every legislative session, despite the support they get from the Governor, Greg Abbott, and the Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick.

The combination of rural Republicans and urban Democrats has blocked vouchers again and again. They get passed in the state Senate, and they never come to a vote in the House.

That, plus the vigorous activity of Pastors for Texas Children, has prevented the voucher movement from succeeding in Texas.

Eva Moskowitz has become a favorite of the Trump White House and the Republican Party.

Speaker Paul Ryan will visit her schools tomorrow.

“House Speaker Paul Ryan is planning to visit a Success Academy charter school in New York City on Tuesday, sources with knowledge of the visit told POLITICO New York.

Ryan’s visit will be the latest in a series of high-profile visits by Republicans to the city’s largest and most controversial charter network. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has visited Success Academy 1 in Harlem, and Ivanka Trump visited the same school shortly after the presidential election in November.

“Success CEO Eva Moskowitz was briefly on a short list to serve as education secretary under President Donald Trump, and Trump has praised the the city’s charters, likely referring to Success, since taking office. One of Success’ top donors, John Paulson, was an adviser to Trump during the campaign.

“The network’s boldface-named visitors and supporters also happen to be unpopular figures in deep blue New York City.

“Moskowitz has expressed interest in running for mayor for years, but her recent affiliation with the leaders of the national Republican party will likely complicate any future bid. She has been attacked by her longtime foes in the city’s teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers, for her ties to the Trump administration. Moskowitz has also been criticized by her staff for not speaking out against Trump policies that are unpopular in her schools.

“Ryan is a longtime supporter of charter schools.

“Spokespeople for Success and Ryan did not respond to requests for comment.

“This story first appeared on POLITICO New York on May 8, 2017.”

To view online:
https://www.politicopro.com/education/whiteboard/2017/05/paul-ryan-to-visit-success-academy-school-in-harlem-087403

Phyllis Bush, retired teacher, active member of the board of the Network for Public Education, learned last month that she has cancer.

She decided to blog about it because writing about it helps her cope. Her blog also displays her wit, her wisdom, and her courage.

Her blog is called “Kind of a Big Dill.”

In this installment, she reports the latest news from her oncologist. She plans to take her grandsons to a Cubs’ game, and she contemplates the likelihood of being bald, and what she will do about it.

Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana, is now president of Purdue, a soft landing for a politician with no academic bona fides. He has continued his assault on the academic integrity of the university by arranging the purchase of online “Kaplan University,” a for-profit business built on test prep.

The University Senate passed a resolution opposing this move, and Daniels said they felt bad about being left out of the decision-making process. Purdue paid $1 for the flailing online business.

Read about the deal in the Washington Post here:

Read today’s Politico education edition for more on this story.

Text of Faculty Senate resolution:

To: From:
Subject: Disposition:
Whereas,
Senate Document 16-19 4 May 2017
Purdue University Senate
Senators Alan Beck, Tithi Bhattacharya, Evelyn Blackwood, Elena Coda, Cheryl Cooky, Alan Friedman, Alberto Rodriguez, and Laurel Weldon
Resolution on the Purdue Purchase of Kaplan University University Senate for Discussion & Approval
Faculty governance and faculty control of curriculum are the lifeblood of any healthy University.
As, unfortunately, the unique nature of the announced purchase by Purdue of Kaplan University resulted in a violation of both of those central tenets.
1. No input was sought through regular faculty governance before this decision was made.
2. No assessment of the impact on the academic quality of Purdue, now or in the future, was made.
3. No transparency was demonstrated in this process.
4. No impact study has been taken of effects on faculty, curriculum, students and staff at Purdue.
5. Faculty governance and academic freedom at what will become the “New University” is not assured by the Purdue agreement with Kaplan.
6. The Faculty has already requested, in writing, that the administration use the Senate’s Academic Organization Committee when considering any re-structuring of programs or the creation of new ones at any campus.

Be it resolved that

Based on these violations of both common sense educational practice and respect for the Purdue faculty, we call on the President and Board of Trustees to include faculty in all aspects of decision-making regarding the proposed “New University” and to rescind any decisions, to the degree possible, made without faculty input.

Sponsors:
Alan Beck, Tithi Bhattacharya, Evelyn Blackwood, Elena Coda, Cheryl Cooky, Alan Friedman, Alberto Rodriguez, Laurel Weldon

In the Politico report this morning, you will also learn there about the Trump administration’s efforts to tamp down the fears that Trump was preparing to cut off capital funding of HBCUs, in grounds of “equal opportunity” (no favoritism based on race), which he seemed to imply in a recent signing statement.

Watch for Betsy DeVos’s commencement address at historically black Bethune-Cookman University in Florida on Wednesday. Undoubtedly she will praise the virtues of school choice since that is her only thought.

Steve Nelson writes here about the erroneous assumptions behind the New York Times’ article on the “broken promise of school choice,” posted earlier today.

I was especially happy to see this article, because I sensed something awry about the Times’ article, and Nelson nails it.

By the Times’ definition, the schools that select the most accomplished students are the “best” schools, and the non-selective high schools are “bad” or “not good” schools.

These are false assumptions, he says. And he is right. If a school cherrypicks the best students with the highest scores, then the school will have a high rating based on its students’ test scores and academic accomplishments. Both public and charter schools have recognized this truism, but the media should have the sense not to buy it.

This is the same fallacy that lies behind the U.S. News & World Report rating of high schools: the best schools are those that weed out the weak students or cull the best ones. The best high school might be the one that takes all students and helps all of them reach their full potential.

Nelson writes:

The first assumption is that there are easily identified “good” schools and “bad” schools – or, more diplomatically, “less good schools.” Readers are asked to stipulate, for example, that Stuyvesant High School is a “good” school – a really “good” school – and that Herbert H. Lehman High School in the Bronx is a “bad” or “less good school.” The “good” schools are more selective, whether by entrance exam or grade point average and the “less good” school are less selective, often to the point of being a last resort for students who fail to gain entry into a “good” school.

The assumption is categorically false. Stuyvesant is assessed as “good” on the basis of the relatively conspicuous achievements of its students, particularly as measured by graduation rate and college placement. The further assumption is that Stuyvesant’s faculty and program were the critical variables in achieving those ends. Accepting those assumptions then leads to the final, implicit assumption resting under all this statistical clutter; that exposing more students to Stuyvesant’s faculty and program would bring similar results, thus helping solve the education reform problem.

Stuyvesant may or may not be a “good” school by other, more meaningful measures, but it is certainly not a “good” school because its carefully culled flock performs precisely as the culling process would predict. Many kids who get into Stuyvesant might do quite well if they didn’t go to the school at all.

At the other end of this delusional continuum, Herbert H. Lehman is considered a significantly “less good” school because its graduation rate is about half of Stuyvesant’s rate and its graduates seldom matriculate at highly selective colleges. Herbert H. Lehman may or may not be a “less good” school by other, more meaningful measures, but it is certainly not a “less good” school because its very different culled flock performs precisely as the culling process would predict. I propose that you might take all of Stuyvesant’s faculty members and switch them with Lehman’s faculty members, and the results would not be substantially different.

This meaningless game plays out in the private school world and in higher education too. Highly selective schools attract students who are most likely to succeed, based on factors from privilege to preparation, and the schools are then considered fabulous by virtue of the glittering credentials of the students they selected. Not a dollop of meaning in that self-fulfilling prophecy of pretense.

It doesn’t mean that Choate and Exeter or Harvard and Stanford are lousy. It merely means that they are not “good” just because they admit only the most successful students. As many honest observers note, even within the lofty confines of the most selective colleges, undergraduate classes at Yale are not necessary better than, or even as good as, undergraduate courses at SUNY Binghamton…

When viewed through this clearer lens, the article, and the process, is a farce of Shakespearian proportions. Young children are sifted through a bureaucratic sorter, spilling out in relatively unchanging proportions to the “good” schools and “less good” schools depending on their predictors of success. This process, however earnestly designed or studiously analyzed, simply perpetuates the glowing or dim reputations of the schools where the children are dropped.

This in essence is the mirage of school choice in all its fraudulent glory. By rigging the system, by cruel attrition, by statistical sleight of hand, the choice movement is simply sifting kids through a similar sorter, leaving the false impression that the plutocrat-funded, heavily-hyped charter schools are “good,” and the increasingly deprived district schools are “less good.”

Instead of sifting and sorting America’s least advantaged children through these arcane systems, we should be investing in early childhood experiences, ameliorating poverty, facing racism honestly, and providing generous support to the least privileged among us.

The New York Times published a lengthy article about New York City’s complicated and byzantine high school admissions process, which was launched 14 years ago to give choice to every student. With few (if any) exceptions, neighborhood high schools were a thing of the past. Students went to school fairs and scanned a lengthy catalogue to review the offerings of hundreds of high schools across the city. Zip code mattered not at all. Some schools had specific entry requirements, such as a difficult entrance examination or a talent audition. Most were open admissions. Now, a generation later, the results are in:

Under a system created during Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration, eighth graders can apply anywhere in the city, in theory unshackling themselves from failing, segregated neighborhood schools. Students select up to 12 schools and get matched to one by a special algorithm. This process was part of a package of Bloomberg-era reforms intended to improve education in the city and diminish entrenched inequities.

There is no doubt that the changes yielded meaningful improvements. The high school graduation rate is up more than 20 points since 2005, as the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio has built on Mr. Bloomberg’s gains. The graduation gap between white and black or Hispanic students, while still significant and troubling, has narrowed.

But school choice has not delivered on a central promise: to give every student a real chance to attend a good school.

Fourteen years into the system, black and Hispanic students are just as isolated in segregated high schools as they are in elementary schools — a situation that school choice was supposed to ease.

The average black or Hispanic student attends an elementary school where 80% of his or her classmates are black or Hispanic.

The average black or Hispanic students attends a high school where 79% of his or her classmates are black or Hispanic.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

Within the system, there is a hierarchy of schools, each with different admissions requirements — a one-day high-stakes test, auditions, open houses. And getting into the best schools, where almost all students graduate and are ready to attend college, often requires top scores on the state’s annual math and English tests and a high grade point average.

Those admitted to these most successful schools remain disproportionately middle class and white or Asian, according to an in-depth analysis of acceptance data and graduation rates conducted for The New York Times by Measure of America, an arm of the Social Science Research Council. At the same time, low-income black or Hispanic children like the ones at Pelham Gardens are routinely shunted into schools with graduation rates 20 or more percentage points lower.

While top middle schools in a handful of districts groom children for competitive high schools that send graduates to the Ivy League, most middle schools, especially in the Bronx, funnel children to high schools that do not prepare them for college.

The roots of these divisions are tangled and complex. Students in competitive middle schools and gifted programs carry advantages into the application season, with better academic preparation and stronger test scores. Living in certain areas still comes with access to sought-after schools. And children across the city compete directly against one another regardless of their circumstances, without controls for factors like socioeconomic status.

Ultimately, there just are not enough good schools to go around. And so it is a system in which some children win and others lose because of factors beyond their control — like where they live and how much money their families have.

The New York City public schools are highly segregated. The demographics are challenging. According to a report from The Century Foundation, the city school system is predominantly black and Hispanic (and has been since 1966, when whites became a minority): As of 2015, citywide student demographics2 were 27.1 percent black, 15.5 percent Asian, 40.5 percent Hispanic, 14.8 percent white, and 2.1 percent identified as “other.” Nearly 77 percent of students were classified as living in poverty, while 12.5 percent were identified as English language learners, and 18.7 percent as students with disabilities. With a total enrollment of 1.1 million students, of whom only 14.8% are white, it is hard to see racial balance, except in isolated instances, because the opportunities are limited.

The choice system is difficult to maneuver, even with the help of a guidance counselor. Eighty thousand students apply to 439 schools, broken up into over 775 programs. When Michael Bloomberg took office as mayor, the city had 110 high schools, most of them enrolling thousands of students. Most students went to their zoned high schools. Bloomberg eliminated zoned high schools and embraced small high schools, with the support of the Gates Foundation.

Rare is a 13-year-old equipped to handle the selection process alone.

The process can become like a second job for some parents as they arm themselves with folders, spreadsheets and consultants who earn hundreds of dollars an hour to guide them. But most families in the public school system have neither the flexibility nor the resources to match that arsenal….

The citywide graduation rate for all kinds of high schools is 72.6 percent, according to the Education Department. But that average masks sharp variations between schools based on their admissions methods. When Measure of America analyzed the rate for each method, it found that selectivity and graduation rates declined essentially in lock step, and that as graduation rates fell, the students were more likely to be poor and black or Hispanic…

Kristen Lewis, one of the directors of Measure of America, said the data revealed, in essence, two separate public school systems operating in the city. There are some great options for the families best equipped to navigate the application process. But there are not enough good choices for everyone, so every year thousands of children, including some very good students, end up in mediocre high schools, or worse…

An analysis by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School found that half of all students who got top scores on state tests came from just 45 middle schools out of more than 500. And 60 percent of students who went to specialized high schools came from those same 45 schools. None of those middle schools are in the Bronx.

The Times’ article focused on a middle school in the Bronx called Pelham Gardens. About 95 percent of the middle school’s students are black or Hispanic, many of them the children of Jamaican immigrants or immigrants themselves. Most of them come from poor families…

Last year, 146 seventh graders at Pelham Gardens took the state tests. On the English exam, 29 passed, which requires a score of at least 3 out of 4. Fifteen did that well in math. Only seven scored at least a 3 on both tests.

This means that a majority of the children had no real chance of getting into the most selective schools, like Manhattan/Hunter Science High School or Townsend Harris High School in Queens, where students must have a 3 or higher on the tests. The high school directory lists 29 programs in the city that did not accept anyone with a score lower than 3 on the math exam.

In a system with 1.1 million students, change is difficult. School segregation tends, inevitably, to mirror housing segregation. Housing segregation tends to reflect family income ad deliberate government policy decisions made decades ago when locating large housing projects. The choice plan assumed that students would be freed form the constraints of their zip code and that choice would promote desegregation. As the article shows, it has not.