Archives for the month of: August, 2017

A reader sent a letter signed by Governor Rick Snyder and the State Superintendent Brian Whiston lamenting the poor performance of Michigan’s schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Please note that the Governor makes no reference to the failure of the state’s obsession with school choice over the past 15 years.

Nor does he say anything about the proliferation of charters, most of which operate for-profit, and most of which perform worse than the public schools.

Nor does he acknowledge that the state’s education agenda is a wholly owned enterprise of the DeVos family.

Nor does he mention the disaster of the Educational Achievement Authority, into which the state of Michigan poured millions of dollars and overpaid administrators sent by the Broad Academy, only to see the EAA collapse in failure.

This is a politician who does not know the meaning of the word accountability. He is accountable for nothing and responsible for nothing. He should be held accountable not only for the Flint Water Crisis but for the dismantling of what was once a great public school system in the state of Michigan.

For shame, Governor Snyder.

Sad. Very sad.

Pasi Sahlberg tries in this article to dispel the myth that Finnish teachers are specifically “the best and brightest.” He notes that misguided education leaders have tried to devise ways to attract the teachers with the highest test scores. But, he says, that is not what Finnish education leaders do.

Finnish teacher educators do not believe that teacher quality correlates directly with academic ability.

“The University of Helsinki could easily pick the best and the brightest of the huge pool of applicants each year, and have all of their new trainee teachers with admirable grades.

“But they don’t do this because they know that teaching potential is hidden more evenly across the range of different people. Young athletes, musicians and youth leaders, for example, often have the emerging characteristics of great teachers without having the best academic record. What Finland shows is that rather than get “best and the brightest” into teaching, it is better to design initial teacher education in a way that will get the best from young people who have natural passion to teach for life.”

Those who become teachers in Finland are carefully chosen, carefully prepared, and are fully committed to a career as teachers.

Note that the term “Best and Brightest” was used ironically by the late author David Halberstam to refer to the “geniuses” from Ivy League universities who got our military mired in a pointless and ultimately failed war in Vietnam. To be the “Best and Brightest” is not a compliment.

This is an article that praises the wisdom and knowledge of experienced teachers. What is most starting about it is that it was written by Justin Minkel, who entered teaching with six weeks of training in Teach for America. TFA has made hundreds of millions of dollars based on the assertion that experience is unimportant and that their young corps members have the power to close achievement gaps and bring about the day when all children have an excellent education. No other organization has done as much to demean experience as TFA.

Yet here is Justin Minkel, who now teaches elementary school in Arkansas, writing in praise of the experienced teachers and blowing up myths about them.

He writes:

We all know what veteran teachers are like. They’re fat, for one thing. Lazy, too. They wear ill-fitting sweatshirts stained by soup, and do crossword puzzles at their desk while students run riot around the room. They contaminate the staff lounge, grumbling and grousing about “these kids” while they wait for the microwave to defrost the frozen gray lumps of their lunch.

Am I right?

The problem with this image is that it’s conjured of more fiction than fact. Most of us have at some point come across a burned-out teacher who deserved the descriptor “toxic.” But we have also known hundreds of career teachers who are unfailingly kind, brilliant, compassionate, and innovative. The ugly stereotype of veteran teachers has at its heart the cruel-spirited flaw of all stereotypes: It fails to capture the truth of the group it demeans.

Consider these three career teachers. Their example does a far better job of capturing the portrait of those teachers who devote their lives to our profession.

* Josie Robledo was my mentor when I started at P.S. 192 in West Harlem after only six weeks of teacher training. She was tough but compassionate, and she would teach my class so I could observe almost every other teacher in the school. I was terrible at teaching math, and I once froze up mid-sentence in the middle of a math lesson. It was like a bad dream-these 32 4th graders watching me with patient bewilderment, waiting to see if I would finish my sentence. Ms. Robledo had to step in and finish the lesson for me. We met at lunch that day in the staff lounge. Blinking back tears, I beseeched her, “Just please tell me I’ll get better at this.” She looked me in the eye and told me with calm certainty, “You will get better.” That was all I needed to hear.

* Ms. Armendariz has taught art to my 6-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter since they began kindergarten, as she has to a generation of students. She elicits artwork from young children, like this painting of flowers my daughter did when she was 5 years old, that always makes me stare in amazement and ask, “Wait-you made that yourself?”

* For three years in college, I did my work study in Bill VanSlyke’s 4th and 5th grade classroom, where I witnessed his humor, compassion, and dedication to his students firsthand. I saw how significant it was for many of the children simply to have the daily presence of a gentle, kind man in their daily world. I hadn’t planned to become an elementary teacher, but I became one because of Mr. V’s example. He loved teaching, and he took it seriously. He also had time in his life to be a great father alongside his professional identity. His young son and daughter went to the school, and they would walk upstairs to his classroom as soon as the bell rang at the end of the day. In the summers, he dug up garlic on his farm outside town. He provided a model for me not only of the kind of career I wanted to build, but the kind of life I wanted to have someday.

These three remarkable human beings all love what they do. They get better every year. They are constantly seeking new ideas and honing their craft. Their influence on students and colleagues is like sunlight to plants; it nurtures and sustains everyone in their reach.

All three are “veteran teachers.” And yet, they don’t wear soup-stained sweatshirts. They don’t grouse about “these kids.” They don’t, in the words of our breathtakingly unqualified secretary of education, “wait to be told what they have to do.”

Those false stereotypes aren’t just inaccurate. They justify the budget-driven practice, in many districts, of trying to push experienced teachers out of the classroom in order to hire cheaper, less experienced teachers.

It’s no coincidence that these new teachers tend to be more pliant when it comes to following administrators’ mandates than teachers who have been there for 20 or 30 years. Not only are these new teachers cheaper-“two for the price of one!”-but they also tend to be younger, less established in the community, and less likely to rock the boat by challenging questionable rules.

The reality, of course, is that you don’t get “two for one” in these devil’s bargain buyouts. You lose wisdom, expertise, and the long-term relationships with students and families that give a school its very soul.

No one familiar with our profession would deny that burnout is a real phenomenon. But I have seen first-, second-, and third-year teachers who are burned out. I have also seen teachers beginning their 30th year in the classroom who are filled with joy and a spirit of perpetual innovation that makes them seem young beyond their years.

It’s a popular notion that teachers don’t improve much beyond five years of experience. The unspoken assumption is that teaching-unlike medicine, engineering, or law-is a profession in which mastery can be reached in five years. How hard can coloring, 2+2=4, and picture books about pigs in polka-dotted dresses really be?

Experienced teachers know differently. We know how much time it takes to understand individual children and the complexity of their ever-changing minds. We know that the process by which a child learns to read can be as complicated as astrophysics.

We know there is no substitute for the fusion of knowledge and intuition that forms expertise. We have honed that expertise through hundreds of thousands of interactions with children, combined with reflection that takes place in the moment itself or days later. We continue to improve long beyond that mythical five-year figure. As a result, what we considered to be good teaching in our first five years no longer passes muster in year 10, 15, or 20.

Justin reminds us that even those who start in TFA may grow to become good teachers who respect professionalism.

Thank you, Justin.

The long-running battle over affirmative action in higher education is usually portrayed as white resentment against special preferences for blacks and Hispanics. The Trump administration appears to be appealing to that historic resentment. However, the actual battle against affirmative action today is led by some Asian American groups who think that a test-based admissions system would bolster their numbers at elite universities. Thus, if the Trump administration pursues its animus against affirmative action (after a leak about its intentions, the Department of Justice denied that it would take up this matter), the beneficiaries are likely to be Asian Americans, not whites.

The New York Times published an article describing the critique of diversity programs at universities as fundamentally unfair, as viewed by some Asian American groups. Harvard, like many other universities (but not all) seeks to maintain a diverse student body. The admissions office takes into account more than test scores. The groups that have attacked these policies believe that the proportion of Asians admitted to selective universities would be much higher if test scores were the most important or sole criterion.

It appears from the data that Harvard and other elite universities are trying to maintain a diverse student body. Asian Americans today are under 6% of the population, but consistently have about triple that proportion in the classes admitted to selective colleges.

Harvard’s class of 2021 is 14.6 percent African-American, 22.2 percent Asian-American, 11.6 percent Hispanic and 2.5 percent Native American or Pacific Islander, according to data on the university’s website.

For the Harvard case, initially filed in 2014, Mr. Blum said, the federal court in Boston has allowed the plaintiffs to demand records from four highly competitive high schools with large numbers of Asian-American students: Stuyvesant High School in New York; Monta Vista High School in the Silicon Valley city of Cupertino; Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va.; and the Boston Latin School.

The goal is to look at whether students with comparable qualifications have different odds of admission that could be correlated with race and how stereotypes influence the process. A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference some have called “the Asian tax.”

The lawsuit also cites Harvard’s Asian-American enrollment at 18 percent in 2013, and notes very similar numbers ranging from 14 to 18 percent at other Ivy League colleges, like Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton and Yale.

In contrast, it says, in the same year, Asian-Americans made up 34.8 percent of the student body at the University of California, Los Angeles, 32.4 percent at Berkeley and 42.5 percent at Caltech. It attributes the higher numbers in the state university system to the fact that California banned racial preferences by popular referendum in 1996, though California also has a large number of Asian-Americans.

The data, experts say, suggests that if Harvard were forbidden to use race as a factor in admissions, the Asian-American admissions rate would rise, and the percentage of white, black and Hispanic students would fall.

The issue is now before federal courts.

Mark Weber, aka the blogger Jersey Jazzman, is getting his doctorate in research and statistics while teaching in a public school in New Jersey. He is a sharp critic of shoddy research, especially when it comes to the fantastical claims made on behalf of charter schools.

In his latest post, he asks why CREDO, the charter-evaluating institute at Stanford University run by Macke Raymond, continues to use a metric that has never been validated.

Journalists who have little expertise in evaluating research claims eagerly take up the claim that School X produces an additional “number of days of learning.”

It happened most recently in Texas, where charter schools finally managed to match the test scores of public schools (you know, those “failing schools” for which charter schools are supposed to be the rescuers.)

He shows how the Texas study refers to “days of learning” and this is translated to infer “substantial” improvement. But, as JJ shows, the gains are actually very small, and might more accurately be described as “tiny.”

He writes:

Stanley Pogrow published a paper earlier this year that didn’t get much attention, and that’s too bad. Because he quite rightly points out that it’s much more credible to describe results like the ones reported here as “small” than as substantial. 0.03 standard deviations is tiny: plug it in here and you’ll see it translates into moving from the 50th to the 51st percentile (the most generous possible interpretation when converting to percentiles).

I have been working on something more formal than a blog post to delve into this issue. I’ve decided to publish an excerpt now because, frankly, I am tired of seeing “days of learning” conversions reported in the press and in research — both peer-reviewed and not — as if there was no debate about their validity.

The fact is that many people who know what they are talking about have a problem with how CREDO and others use “days of learning,” and it’s well past time that the researchers who make this conversion justify it.

Jersey Jazzman calls on Macke Raymond and the staff at CREDO to justify their use of this measurement. The “days of learning” inflates the actual changes, he says.

The concept of days of learning, he says, is based on the work of economist Erik Hanushek of the Hoover Institution (Stanford). It may be coincidental that he is Macke Raymond’s husband. They are both very smart people. I hope they respond to Mark Weber’s challenge.

This article appeared in The Washington Post. It is about H.R. McMaster, who is Trump’s much-admired National Security Advisor.

In the midst of a detailed discussion of the challenges in Afghanistan and the difficulty of both projecting American strength and detaching from foreign wars, the following paragraphs appear:

Among his biggest challenges was holding the attention of the president. In classified briefings, Trump would frequently flit between subjects. “We moved very quickly from news to intelligence to policy with very little clarity on which lanes we were in,” said a U.S. official who took part in the briefings. “McMaster would act like the tangents didn’t happen and go back to Point 2 on his card.”

Trump had little time for in-depth briefings on Afghanistan’s history, its complicated politics or its seemingly endless civil war. Even a single page of bullet points on the country seemed to tax the president’s attention span on the subject, said senior White House officials.

“I call the president the two-minute man,” said one Trump confidant. “The president has patience for a half-page.”

Is it his age? Is it his very poor education in a private school? Or is it that he is not interested in foreign policy? Maybe if they were discussing the Miss Universe pageant or golf, he could stay focused for more than two minutes.

Carol Anderson, professor of African-American Studies at Emory University, wrote today in the New York Times about the formula that lies behind Donald Trump’s rise and election: white resentment.

She writes:

If there is one consistent thread through Mr. Trump’s political career, it is his overt connection to white resentment and white nationalism. Mr. Trump’s fixation on Barack Obama’s birth certificate gave him the white nationalist street cred that no other Republican candidate could match, and that credibility has sustained him in office — no amount of scandal or evidence of incompetence will undermine his followers’ belief that he, and he alone, could Make America White Again.

The guiding principle in Mr. Trump’s government is to turn the politics of white resentment into the policies of white rage — that calculated mechanism of executive orders, laws and agency directives that undermines and punishes minority achievement and aspiration. No wonder that, even while his White House sinks deeper into chaos, scandal and legislative mismanagement, Mr. Trump’s approval rating among whites (and only whites) has remained unnaturally high. Washington may obsess over Obamacare repeal, Russian sanctions and the debt ceiling, but Mr. Trump’s base sees something different — and, to them, inspiring.

Like on Christmas morning, every day brings his supporters presents: travel bans against Muslims, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Hispanic communities and brutal, family-gutting deportations, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, an Election Integrity Commission stacked with notorious vote suppressors, announcements of a ban on transgender personnel in the military, approval of police brutality against “thugs,” a denial of citizenship to immigrants who serve in the armed forces and a renewed war on drugs that, if it is anything like the last one, will single out African-Americans and Latinos although they are not the primary drug users in this country. Last week, Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions put the latest package under the tree: a staffing call for a case on reverse discrimination in college admissions, likely the first step in a federal assault on affirmative action and a determination to hunt for colleges and universities that discriminate against white applicants…

That white resentment simply found a new target for its ire is no coincidence; white identity is often defined by its sense of being ever under attack, with the system stacked against it. That’s why Mr. Trump’s policies are not aimed at ameliorating white resentment, but deepening it. His agenda is not, fundamentally, about creating jobs or protecting programs that benefit everyone, including whites; it’s about creating purported enemies and then attacking them.

In the end, white resentment is so myopic and selfish that it cannot see that when the larger nation is thriving, whites are, too. Instead, it favors policies and politicians that may make America white again, but also hobbled and weakened, a nation that has squandered its greatest assets — its people and its democracy.

Professor Anderson fears that Trump’s skillful manipulation of angry whites will keep him in office.

But Trump’s current poll rating–which he does not mention–is 33%. That is his hardcore basis of angry white people. They still believe in him. They believe he will provide healthcare for everyone. They believe he has a secret plan to end the Afghanistan war. They believe he will build a great wall to keep out immigrants. They still chant “lock her up” at his rallies, which give him the inspiration to ignore the poll numbers and the general scorn heaped on him by the mainstream media.

33% is not a number that impresses his fellow Republicans. They are not afraid of him any more.

This will be a long few years. We must build and plan now to take back our country. Join the Indivisibles. Join the Flippables. Join People for the American Way. Join the ACLU. Support the Southern Poverty Law Center. Support the Education Law Center. Join the Network for Public Education.

Use democracy to support democracy! Get involved! Resist!

Regular readers of this blog know that we are following Phyllis Bush, retired Indiana teacher and a member of the Board of the Network for Public Education. Phyllis was diagnosed with cancer earlier this year, and she decided to fight it head on, with humor, the best medical treatment she could find, and true grit.

In this post, she describes her birthday, which was always a joyous occasion.

No self-pity, but a heap of determination and insight.

Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, published this overview of voucher research.

The results are in, and they show that vouchers don’t help children learn more. The most recent studies find that students are actually set back academically by vouchers. Indiana has the nation’s largest voucher program. The latest study said that students lose ground in the first two years or so. After three or four years in a voucher school, they catch up with their peers in public school. But that finding, which seemed to show that vouchers are not so harmful after all, was not what it appeared. In fact, after two years, the weakest students had dropped out and returned to public schools. So only the strongest students remained after four years.

Almost every private school that participates in Indiana’s program is religiously affiliated. As a rule, Americans don’t want tax money to subsidize religious schools.

Voucher advocates have generally dropped the claim that vouchers “save” children or that nonpublic schools are superior to public schools. Instead, they have retreated to advocating for choice. Consumerism is their fallback position. Choice for the sake of choice.

Leonie Haimson writes here about the disastrous legacy that Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg left to the New York City public schools.

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2017/08/fair-student-funding-atr-system-two-bad.html?m=1

One is called the Absent Teacher Reserve, wa pool of teachers who had been left jobless because their school closed or they were awaiting disciplinary proceedings. Now hundreds of teachers are in the lowly ATR pool, where they are treated disdainfully regardless of the reason they are unassigned.

The other policy is Fair Student Funding, which Leonie explains in her post.

The ATR pool costs the city more than $150 million per year. The Department of Education says it will assign these teachers to schools even if the principal doesn’t want them (most are experienced and thus expensive).

Arthur Goldstein thrashes the website Chalkbeat for demonizing ATT teachers. Klein used to use the very existence of the ATR pool to denounce tenure, seniority, and the union.

http://nyceducator.com/2017/08/reformy-chalkbeat-deems-paying-teachers.html?m=1

He attributes Chalkbeat’s coverage of ATR’s to their funding by Walton and other anti-teacher foundations.