Archives for category: Administrators, superintendents
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

New Mexico Teacher: Skandera Is No Friend of Education

By dianeravitch
February 24, 2014 //
34

David Aram Wilson offered this testimony at the confirmation hearings of Hanna Skandera, who is acting secretary of education in New Mexico and chairperson of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change. Skandera has been importing “the Florida model” of high-stakes testing and accountability to New Mexico. She worked for Bush when he was governor of Florida and for Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. At the hearing, Skandera was not confirmed. She remains acting secretary.

Wilson writes:

Copy of an e-mail I sent February 17, 2014 to the New Mexico State Senate Rules Committee concerning the confirmation hearings for New Mexico Secretary Designate of Education Hanna Skandera.

Honorable Senators:

My name is David Aram Wilson. I was born right here in Santa Fe, just a few short blocks north of this great building. I am speaking to you this morning as a teacher of 34 years; a 27-year veteran of New Mexico’s public schools; a Tier III teacher for 12 years; a PhD student in Bilingual Education at the University of New Mexico; a part time instructor in UNM’s College of Education; a husband of a teacher; a brother and son of a teacher; a brother-in-law and son-in-law of teachers; and the father of two public school students. In a word, I was born New Mexico and I am a qualified, licensed, and experienced educator.

The same cannot be said of the secretary designate. As you know, she possesses not even the minimum credentials for this office. State law mandates the secretary of education be highly qualified and experienced. She is neither. She does not have a degree in education. She has never been a teacher. She has never been an educational assistant. She has never been a school administrator. In fact, she has never worked in any school in any capacity for any meaningful length of time.

Yet, despite these astonishing lack of credentials, she has been in Santa Fe for the last three years, unconfirmed, making educational policy as if she knew what she was doing. Honorable Senators, she does not know what she is doing. And for that reason the students and teachers in our public schools suffer more each day due to the misguided and damaging policies she promotes, often by circumventing the legislative process.

Last year you heard testimony from the secretary designate’s advocates in the business community. They claimed that everyone, including her, is essentially a teacher, and therefore has the right and even the duty to determine education policy in New Mexico. Senators, I am a teacher and I know teachers. The secretary designate is not a teacher. Instead, she is an impostor whose illegitimate actions should not be validated by an affirmative vote of this committee.

The secretary designate has stated recently that, contrary to the perceptions of thousands of educators in New Mexico, she is not their enemy but their friend. Senators, she is not a friend of education and here are some of the reasons why:

No friend of public education would advocate assigning letter grades to schools based primarily on invalid and illegitimate test score data. Some of the best schools in the state received Ds and Fs while some of the worst received As and Bs. What’s more, the A schools have extremely low rates of poverty while the F schools have the highest rates of poverty. The B, C and D schools have rates of poverty commensurate with their letter grade. If this isn’t blaming the victims, I don’t know what is.

No friend of public education would advocate the wholesale retention of third graders who, according to dubious and subjective measures, are deemed “below grade” level in reading. Nor would any friend of education deny parents the right to challenge a retention based solely on whether their child reads on grade level at an arbitrary point in time.

No friend of public education would base teacher evaluations primarily on their students’ standardized test scores. The test companies themselves have emphasized that their tests were NEVER designed to evaluate teachers and should never be used for that purpose.
No friend of public education would instruct principals to artificially evaluate teachers lower in the fall and higher in the spring in order to demonstrate growth over time and to prove that the growth occurred because of the evaluation process. Nor would any friend of education instruct principals to place the teachers in their schools on a bell curve so that the results of the evaluations correspond to the erroneous and ungrounded assumption that most of the teachers in the school are either merely “effective” or “minimally effective.”

No friend of education would advocate for merit pay for teachers based primarily on student test scores. In Tennessee, where the only large scale, longitudinal study of merit pay was conducted, researchers found that, after the first year of implementation, teacher effectiveness actually decreased in successive years as teachers realized that the process was rigged in favor of teachers who cared not about teaching, but about teaching to the test and gaming the system.

No friend of education would neglect, ignore, and disparage the educational needs of New Mexico’s Hispanic, African American, Native American, immigrant, and non English speaking students. In a state that was the first minority-majority state and has the largest minority population per capita, her negative attitude and damaging actions toward these majority populations is astonishing.
No friend of education would submit proposal after proposal that directly contradicts what the preponderance of research has concluded about education policy and practice in New Mexico and beyond.

No friend of public education would kowtow to business interests, such as Pearson, Achieve, the Gates, Broad, and Walmart Foundations, and the various initiatives of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, of which the secretary designate is a member, that seek to siphon enormous amounts of public money destined for public schools and redirect that money to private or semi private educational institutions in which they may have a financial interest.

No friend of education would hold artificial, “kangaroo court” -style hearings around the state with the express purpose of promoting her misguided agenda while categorically denying the public the right to speak publicly about their concerns.
No friend of education would attempt to coerce the state’s 89 superintendents into signing a “petition” that would oblige them to uphold her dubious “reforms” known collectively as Students First, New Mexico Wins. Thankfully, only a handful of superintendents signed the document, which is more evidence of the fact that the opposition to her confirmation extends into the highest reaches of New Mexico’s educational hierarchy.

The secretary designate is no friend of education. Rather, she is the fox guarding the chicken coop that is Public Education in New Mexico. We need a secretary of education who is highly qualified and experienced—as per state law—and who, instead of standing in judgment of teachers, stands in awe of them and everything they do. Senators, I ask you, I implore you: vote no on her confirmation.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, New Mexico

Peter Greene: Why We Need Data Walls for Everyone

By dianeravitch
February 21, 2014 //
42

Peter Greene here rages against data walls, until he realizes that everyone should be subject to the se public shaming so they too can feel humiliated and outraged.

He writes;

“Suddenly I get it. Data walls aren’t just an indefensible abuse of children. They aren’t just a way to make school a bit more hostile and unpleasant, a way to shame and bully the most fragile members of our society. They’re also a way to acclimate children to a brave new world where inBloom et al track their data from cradle to grave and make it available to all sorts of folks. Where privacy is a commodity that only the rich can afford.

“Data walls are deeply and profoundly wrong. There is no excusable reason on God’s Green Earth for them to exist. They may represent a small battle in the larger reformy stuff war, but they are a direct assault on our students, and they should stop, now, today.”

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Data and Data Mining, Privacy and Privacy Rights

Arizona Chief of Public Schools Makes Robo-Calls Promoting Private Schools

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2014 //
34

John Huppenthal, Arizona’s state superintendent of PUBLIC instruction, is taking part in a campaign to urge parents to take advantage of tax credits to send their child to private school. He is doing it with public dollars. But, as usual, follow the money.

.

This video contains the robo-call he has made so far to 50,000 parents, touting the virtues of private schools.

Question: Why isn’t this man State Commissioner of Non-public Schools? Why is he “State Superintendent of Public Instruction?

He should be ashamed of himself. Presumably it is his job to improve public instruction in Arizona, not to urge parents to abandon it.

But, wait!!

A teacher in Arizona sends Huppenthal’s explanation:

“Below is a letter sent to all the public school teachers in AZ this week by John Huppenthal who is our elected Republican State Superintendent of Public Instruction. He is trying to dig himself out of a hole.

“According to an article in the Arizona Republic on Feb. 13, front page headline, he “recorded a series of calls touting a program that diverts taxpayer dollars to private schools. Public-education advocates, however, were outraged at the calls, which they claim are politically motivated and inappropriate given his role as the state’s top advocate for public instruction.”

“The robocalls went out to about 15,000 families in low-performing school districts in Phoenix and Tucson on Tuesday. In them, Huppenthal promotes Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts”……(we all know that’s a fancy title for “vouchers”)……”The program is open to special-ed students, children in foster care, children whose parents serve in the military, and children who attend public schools that received a “D’ or “F” grade from the State Department of Education.”

“In defending himself, he goes on to say “I’m the Superintendent of Public Instruction, not the Superintendent of Public Schools.” Say what?!! OK that makes a whole lot of reformy sense I guess.

“He is up for re-election in the fall against Democratic candidate David Garcia, who stated in the same article, “…The answer is to improve public schools, not abandon public schools.” One to watch, perhaps? We shall see.”

Yes, we will watch this election.

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Arizona

A Connecticut Superintendent Speaks Out Against Failed “Reforms”

By dianeravitch
February 5, 2014 //
29

Tom Scarice, superintendent of schools in Madison, Connecticut, has already been named to the honor roll for his leadership and vision in bringing together his community to plan for the future of Madison public schools.

Now, he steps up and speaks out again to take issue with those, like Governor Dannell Malloy, who call for a “pause” in the implementation of misguided reforms.

In a letter to his state representatives, Scarice explains that education policy must be based on sound research and experience. What Connecticut is doing now, he writes, is merely complying with federal mandates that harm schools and demoralize teachers.

If every superintendent had Tom Scarice’s courage and understanding, this country would have a far, far better education system and could easily repel the intrusions of bad policies.

Here is his letter:

January 29, 2014

Senator Edward Meyer
Legislative Office Building,
Room 3200 Hartford, CT 06106
Representative Noreen Kokoruda
Legislative Office Building, Room 4200 State of Connecticut
Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Senator Meyer and Representative Kokoruda:

As a superintendent of schools it is incumbent upon me to ground my work with my local board of education. My work must be grounded in two areas: in accurately framing problems to solve, and most importantly, in proposing solutions grounded in evidence, research, and legitimate literature to support a particular direction. Any other approach would be irresponsible and I’m certain my board would reject such shortcuts and hold me accountable.

In our profession, we have the fortune of volumes of literature and research on our practices. We have evidence to guide our decision making to make responsible decisions in solving our problems of practice. This is not unlike the field of medicine or engineering. To ignore this evidence, in my estimation, is irresponsible.

Legislators across the state have heard from, and will continue to hear loudly from, educators about what is referred to as education reforms. Webster defines “reform” as “a method to change into an improved condition.” I believe that legislators will continue to hear from the thousands of educators across the state because the reforms, in that sense, are not resulting in an improved condition. In fact, a case can be made that the conditions have worsened.

To be fair, the reforms did, in fact, shine a light on the role of evaluation in raising the performance of our workforce. There were cases of a dereliction of duty in the evaluation of professional staff. This is unacceptable and was not the norm for all school districts.
However, I would like to make the case that these reforms will not result in improved conditions since they are not grounded in research, the evidence that supports professional decision-making, like a doctor or engineer. It is simply a matter of substance. The evidence is clear in schools across the state. It is not working.

We have spent the better part of the last 12 years with a test-based accountability movement that has not led to better results or better conditions for children. What it has led to is a general malaise among our profession, one that has accepted a narrowing of the curriculum, a teaching to the test mentality, and a poorly constructed redefinition of what a good education is. Today, a good education is narrowly defined as good test scores. What it has led to is a culture of compliance in our schools.

We have doubled-down on the failed practices of No Child Left Behind. Not only do we subscribe to a test and punish mentality for school districts, we have now drilled that mentality down to the individual teacher level.

We have an opportunity to listen to the teachers, administrators, parents, and even the students, to make the necessary course corrections. We know what is coming. We’ve seen it happen in other states. We can easily look at the literature and predict how this story ends. New York, Kentucky and so forth, these states are about one year ahead of Connecticut. Why would we think it will end any differently for our state? We can take action to prevent the inevitable.

We have an opportunity. You as legislators have an opportunity. Our students and communities are counting on us.
I am pleased to see that the Governor has asserted his authority to address this deeply rooted problem. But we cannot stop there.

I ask the following:

Do not be lulled into solutions that promote “delay.” Although the problem is being framed as an issue of implementation timelines and volume, I contend that this is much more about substance than delays. Revisit the substance of these reforms, particularly the rigidity of the teacher evaluation guidelines.

As you revisit the substance, demand the evidence and research that grounds the reforms, just as a board of education would demand of a superintendent. You will find, as I have, that the current reforms are simply not grounded in research. As legislators, demand the evidence, particularly the literature that illustrates the damaging effects of high stakes test scores in teacher evaluations. Demand the evidence that demonstrates that this approach is valid and will withstand legal scrutiny. Demanding evidence is how every local board of education holds their administrators accountable.

Build on the Governor’s first steps and create even greater flexibility for local districts to innovate and create. This is 2014…standardizing our work across all schools is not the answer. That’s the factory / assembly line mentality that got public schools into this mess. We need a diversity of thought, similar to a “crowd sourcing” approach, if we are to solve the problems of the 21st century. Above all, commit to the principle that “one size fits all” does not work. We would never accept that from individual teachers in their work with students, why should we accept “one size fits all” for very different school districts across the state? There are indeed alternative approaches that fit the context and needs of individual districts. I would be happy to provide with you with our example.

You, as legislators, can create the space for innovation to thrive. Promote innovation, not mere compliance.

Revisit the No Child Left Behind waiver that was filed with the U. S. Department of Education. This is consistently presented as the trump card in any discussion involving modifications to the reform package passed a couple of years ago. We’ve been told that we cannot make changes because of promises made to the federal government. Was there a lower threshold for compliance with the No Child Left Behind waiver? Can we take a more aggressive approach for our state and not be dictated to by the federal government to this degree? This resonates at the local level and ought to at least be considered.

Finally, do not be a cynic, but be a skeptic about the common core. How can this be done?

Demand the evidence to support whether or not the standards are age-appropriate for our youngest learners. Demand the input of early childhood experts like the 500+ nationally recognized early childhood professionals who signed a joint statement expressing “grave concerns” about the K-3 standards. Or perhaps seek input right here in Connecticut from the early childhood experts at the Geselle Institute in New Haven.

Demand the evidence that supports that every child should master the same benchmarks every year when we know that all children develop at different rates.

Demand an accurate accounting of the current and, more importantly, future costs of implementing the common core and the new Smarter Balanced (SBAC) testing system.

Demand the evidence that supports coupling the common core to unproven tests. In just weeks, many students will sit for these new tests. They will serve as subjects to “test out the test.” It is quite possible that you will hear even more from parents after the tests are administered. Be proactive and seek these answers in advance of the inevitable questions you will be asked.

I want to close by stating that I personally have between eighteen to twenty more years to serve in this state and I look at these problems in a very long-term sense. What can we do now, not for this year or next, but in the long-term to be the shining example for the rest of the country that Connecticut’s public education system once was considered? I’m committed to this work and I will continue that commitment for nearly two more decades.

I ask you to seize this opportunity.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thomas R. Scarice Superintendent

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Connecticut, Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Malloy, Dannel, Race to the Top, Standardized Testing, Supporting public schools, Teacher Evaluations

Maryland Superintendents Protest Rushed Implementation of “Reforms”

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2014 //
17

Valerie Strauss reports that almost all the superintendents in the state of Maryland signed a letter protesting the rushed timetable for Arne Duncan’s favorite reforms.

She writes:

“Nearly all of the superintendents of Maryland school districts have signed a statement that criticizes federal and state education officials for forcing them to implement several major reforms, including the Common Core State Standards, on what they say is an unrealistic timetable.

“The document, approved by 22 of Maryland’s 24 superintendents from districts educating more than 800,000 students, asks for more time and resources to put the reforms in place, including the use of new Common Core tests expected in the 2014-2015 school year. The statement (which you can read here) represents the first time that such a high percentage of schools chiefs in Maryland have come together to publicly call out education officials over school reform.

“Parents, elected officials, community leaders and pundits are reacting sometimes with alarm as local school systems throughout the state deal with the challenges of implementing the many components of education reform,” says the document, obtained by The Washington Post. Carl Roberts, executive director of the Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland and a former superintendent, organized the joint statement but would not identify the two superintendents who did not sign on.

“Though affirming that they wholeheartedly support the Common Core standards as “a more rigorous path through pre-kindergarten to grade twelve for all students,” the superintendents wrote that there are serious problems with the introduction of the reforms. They specifically cited the fact that Maryland plans to continue using an outdated test — the Maryland School Assessments — while the state has shifted to a new curriculum that isn’t aligned with the old test. They also said it is inappropriate for new test-based teacher evaluations and accountability measures to roll out before the reforms have been fully put in place.”

It bears noting that Duncan’s faith in evaluating teachers by test scores has not worked anywhere it has been tried. In New York, for example, tens of millions of dollars (perhaps more) were spent to determine that 1% of teachers were “ineffective,” and that 1% might have been misidentified. The Common Core standards have not yet been validated for any purpose, except on paper. Some 500 early childhood experts have declared them to be inappropriate for the early grades.

The federal government apparently wants everyone to jump into the deep end of the pool, whether they can swim or not, and without looking to see if the pool has any water in it.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Common Core, Teacher Evaluations, Testing

Breaking News: Indiana’s Governor Pence Will Try Again to Strip Glenda Ritz of Authority

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2014 //
15

Republicans in Indiana still can’t get over the fact that the voters elected Glenda Ritz as state commissioner of education in 2012 and tossed out their idol, Tony Bennett, who outspent Ritz 10-1.

Ritz won more votes than Governor Mike Pence.

Ever since the election, Pence has tried to take away the powers of the office of state commissioner of education and transfer them to the state board of education, which he controls.

Here is the latest maneuver.

If you live in Indiana, please take action to stop this blatant power grab!

Tell your representatives to respect the democratic process.

Here is an immediate call to action for this weekend:
 

The House Education Committee will hear HB1320 at their 8:30 meeting on Monday morning. It creates a statewide student record repository which puts student records and data in the hands of the state board of education. The State Board is staffed by the Center for Education & Career Innovation (CECI), Gov. Pence’s new layer of bureaucracy designed to bypass Glenda Ritz and the Department of Education. According to the fiscal note, security issues and the sensitivity of the data could potentially require the State Board to establish a new stand alone computer system to implement the requirements of this bill. Initial estimates of such a computer system are approximately $3.7 million. Funds for the record repository would have to be appropriated by the legislature in the next budget. Student data is currently in held in the Department of Education and is the key to where federal grants and other funds flow. If this bill passes, it could change that flow to CECI instead of Glenda Ritz’s department.

Let the members of the committee know you see HB1320 as a power grab to bypass the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz and ask them to oppose it.

The members are:
Rep. Robert Behning, Chairman  (email:   h91@iga.in.gov)
Rep. Rhonda Rhoads, Vice Chr. (email: h70@iga.in.gov )
Rep, Vernon Smith, Ranking Minority Member (email: h14@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Lloyd Arnold (email: larnold@iga.in.gov )

Rep. Kreg Battles (h45@iga.in.gov)
Rep. Woody Burton,(h58@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Ed Clere (h72@iga.in.gov)
Rep Dale DeVon ( ddevon@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Sue Errington (serringt@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Todd Huston ( thuston@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Jim Lucas (jlucas@iga.in.gov )
Rep. Jeffrey Thompson ( h28@iga.in.gov )
Rep  Shelli VanDenburgh ( h19@iga.in.gov)

The House Switchboard # is 1-800-382-9842 but is not staffed over the weekend and doesn’t take messages. You may be able to call first thing on Monday morning and leave messages for all of these folks.
 
Please write to all of your friends and let them know about this bill.  We need to network. 
 
Categories Administrators, superintendents, Indiana

Breaking News: New York Teachers’ Union Votes No-Confidence in State Commissioner John King

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2014 //
78

On Saturday morning, the Board of Directors of NYSUT–the New York State United Teachers–voted unanimously for a resolution of “no confidence” in State Commissioner John King.

This is tantamount to calling for his removal.

The implementation of Common Core testing in New York state was widely recognized as a fiasco. Many legislators, including the leader of the State Assembly, have called for a delay.

King’s high-handed tactics, his refusal to listen to the public, and his lack of experience as an educator have set off widespread protests among teachers, principals, and parents.

This is the press release from NYSUT:

ALBANY, N.Y. Jan. 25, 2014 – New York State United Teachers’ Board of Directors approved a resolution Saturday that declared “no confidence” in the policies of State Education Commissioner John King Jr., therefore calling for his removal by the Board of Regents.  NYSUT’s board also withdrew its support for the Common Core standards as implemented and interpreted in New York state until SED makes major course corrections to its failed implementation plan and supports a three-year moratorium on high-stakes consequences from standardized testing.

The union’s board acted unanimously Saturday morning at a meeting in Albany.

“Educators understand that introducing new standards, appropriate curriculum and meaningful assessments are ongoing aspects of a robust educational system. These are complex tasks made even more complex when attempted during a time of devastating budget cuts. SED’s implementation plan in New York state has failed. The commissioner has pursued policies that repeatedly ignore the voices of parents and educators who have identified problems and called on him to move more thoughtfully,” said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi. “Instead of listening to and trusting parents and teachers to know and do what’s right for students, the commissioner has offered meaningless rhetoric and token change. Instead of making the major course corrections that are clearly needed, including backing a three-year moratorium on high-stakes consequences for students and teachers from state testing, he has labeled everyone and every meaningful recommendation as distractions.”

The resolution states that the board declares “no confidence in the policies of the Commissioner of Education and calls for the New York State Commissioner of Education’s removal by the New York State Board of Regents.”

NYSUT Vice President Maria Neira said the union has been sounding warning bells since 2011 about the over-emphasis on standardized testing and the state’s rushed and unrealistic timeline for introducing curriculum and assessments tied to the Common Core state standards.  She said NYSUT is seeking:

  •  completion of all modules, or lessons, aligned with the Common Core and time for educators to review them to ensure they are grade-level appropriate and aligned with classroom practice;
  •  better engagement with parents, including listening to their concerns about their children’s needs;
  •  additional tools, professional development and resources for teachers to address the needs of diverse learners, including students with disabilities and English language learners;
  •  full transparency in state testing, including the release of all test questions, so teachers can use them in improving instruction;
  •  postponement of Common Core Regents exams as a graduation requirement;
  •  the funding necessary to ensure all students have an equal opportunity to achieve the Common Core standards.  The proposed Executive Budget would leave nearly 70 percent of the state’s school districts with less state aid in 2014-15 than they had in 2009-10; and
  •  a moratorium, or delay, in the high-stakes consequences for students and teachers from standardized testing to give the State Education Department – and school districts – more time to correctly implement the Common Core.

“The clock is ticking and time is running out,” Neira said. Students sit for a new battery of state assessments in just a few months. It’s time to hit the ‘pause button’ on high stakes while, at the same time, increasing support for students, parents and educators. A moratorium on high-stakes consequences would give SED and school districts time to make the necessary adjustments.”

The resolution will go to the more than 2,000 delegates to the 600,000-member union’s Representative Assembly, to be held April 4-6 in New York City.  The resolution underscores NYSUT’s longstanding, strong opposition to corporate influence and privatization in public education and calls for an end to New York’s participation in InBloom, a “cloud-based” system that would collect and store sensitive data on New York’s schoolchildren.

New York State United Teachers is a statewide union with more than 600,000 members. Members are pre-K-12 teachers; school-related professionals; higher education faculty; other professionals in education, human services and health care; and retirees.  NYSUT is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and the AFL-CIO.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Common Core, New York, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Jere Hochman on Tom Friedman’s Column in the NY Times

By dianeravitch
January 19, 2014 //
25

Jere Hochman, superintendent of the Bedford Central School District in New York responds here to Tom Friedman’s column in the New York Times:

 

 

I could scream!
That is my reaction to Thomas Friedman’s column, “Obama’s Homework Assignment”
Mr. Friedman sees the big picture on every issue. This column is a shocker.

They put in annual high-stakes testing – that didn’t work.
They labeled districts – that didn’t work.
They tried small high schools – that didn’t work.
They diverted funds to charters – that’s not working.
They beat up on teachers – that didn’t work.
They’ve prescribed curriculum, scripts, and more testing – that’s not working.
So – why not blame parents until that doesn’t work?

Parents working three jobs don’t show up often but they want what’s best for their child.
Parents who do show up want high standards; not standardization.

Let’s see –
They cut funding for Parents as Teachers (most evidence based school readiness program there is).
No funding for early childhood, language development, and play.
No dangled RTTT grants for home visit programs.
Writing standards for 5 year olds.
Ignoring poverty.
Lowering taxes which depletes public schools and services.
Diverting funds to charter factories.
Obsessed with testing.
Broad brushing every school in the U.S. as the same.
Double and triple testing kids with disabilities and those learning English
Ignoring thousands of success stories.
Handcuffing states with egregious regulations.
Forgetting we educate every child.
Bowing to publisher lobbyists.

It’s so simple:
Attend to pre-natal and birth to five language development and play.
High standards, rich curriculum, professional development, innovative lessons, and meaningful evaluation.
Cap high school class sizes at least under 30, preferably 25
Provide comparable technology, resources, and funding in all districts
Focus on learning, not testing.
Systems thinking, not factory models.

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Budget Cuts, Class size, Curriculum, Education Reform

Breaking News: Outrage in Newark as Christie’s Superintendent Fires Principals for Opposing School Closings

By dianeravitch
January 18, 2014 //
157

On the very eve of the weekend celebrating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Newark’s state-appointed superintendent showed the citizens of Newark that they have no votes and they have no voice when it comes to the fate of their schools.

The Newark public schools have been under state control since 1995.

Cami Anderson, the current Newark Superintendent is a former Teach for America teacher and a graduate of the unaccredited Broad Academy, which is known for advocating the closing of public schools and the handover of public schools to private management.

At a public hearing called by Newark Councilman Ras Baraka to discuss school closings,  the principals of several schools spoke against their closing.

Anderson fired them for daring to dissent.

Here Jersey Jazzman describes the situation. 

He quotes Councilman Baraka, who said:

“Today Cami Anderson indefinitely suspended four Newark principals: Tony Motley of Bragraw Avenue School, Grady James of Hawthorne Avenue School, Dorothy Handfield of Belmont-Runyon, and Deneen Washington of Maple Avenue. She suspended the four principals because they spoke at a public forum on Wednesday in opposition to Ms. Anderson’s widely criticized “One Newark” reorganization plan which includes closing or “repurposing” nearly one third of Newark’s public schools.

Ms. Anderson’s action in suspending the four principals is the last straw in a chain of inept, and horribly out-of-touch decisions. The people of Newark need to hear the views of those within the school system who disagree with Ms. Anderson. The four principals have a constitutional right to speak out. The Newark school district is not a military dictatorship, and Ms. Anderson is neither an army general nor a police chief. Her behavior must be governed by the principles of our democracy.

Whatever one thinks of Ms. Anderson’s political and educational ideology, she has proven time and again that she holds in contempt the opinions of the people of Newark. From the beginning, she has not consulted with Newark’s parents, community and political leaders, or professional educators on any significant decision. Most recently, she announced and began implementing her ” One Newark” reorganization plan on the people of Newark with no consultation and no advance notice. In doing this, she ignited a firestorm of opposition from outraged citizens.

Anthony Cody watched videos of the hearing and has extensive clips from the testimony of each of the principals.

He writes as follows:

New Jersey is making headlines this month as the bullying tactics of Governor Christie have gone beyond shouting down individual school teachers, which many in the media seemed to find amusing, and into the realm of political scandal as the “Bridgegate” emails came to light.

Now Newark, New Jersey, is exploding, thanks to the attempts at intimidation by Governor Christie’s hand-picked superintendent of schools, Cami Anderson. Anderson came to Newark after working in New York City schools. Before that, she was employed with New Leaders for New Schools and Teach For America. She was trained by the Broad Academy, which literally wrote the book on how to close schools.  

Journalist Bob Braun today carries a report on the decision by  Anderson to “indefinitely suspend”  five of Newark’s principals. Braun explains:

The “incident” was a community meeting at the Hopewell Baptist Church last Wednesday where (H.G. James) spoke, praising the efforts of his students, teachers and parents.

James was one of five principals indefinitely suspended in one day by Cami Anderson, Christie’s agent in Newark. The others were Tony Motley, Bragaw Avenue School; Dorothy Handfield, Belmont-Runyon School; Deneen Washington, Maple Avenue School, and Lisa Brown, Ivy Hill School.

Four of the principals…tried to answer questions from local residents  worried about what would happen to their children as Anderson moves toward a wholesale transfer of public school assets to the KIPP Schools, a charter organization that operates TEAM Academy Charter Schools. Questions Anderson wasn’t answering.

The plot thickens when we understand what these community forums were all about. These forums were convened by mayoral candidate Ras Baraka, to give the community a voice in response to planned school closures. A video shows the principals speaking to their community.

It is not clear whether four or five principals were indefinitely suspended. It is clear that Christie, Cerf, and Anderson intend to hand the children of Newark over to charter operators, regardless of the wishes of their parents and the community. And it is clear that any school employee who disagrees will be indefinitely suspended.

This is not the way democracy is supposed to work. Public schools belong to the public, not to state officials to use as their plaything. Public officials are supposed to serve the public, not dictate to them.

The state-controlled districts in New Jersey–all predominantly African-American–are being treated like subjugated territories, in which the residents have no say about the control or disposition of their schools.

I agree with Anthony Cody: The destruction of public education in New Jersey’s state-controlled districts–deliberate and knowing–is far worse than Bridgegate. One involved an abuse of political power, an act of spite on the part of Governor Christie’s closest staff. The other involves the deliberate destruction of democracy and public education. It should be an impeachable offense.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, Broad Foundation, Charter Schools, Closing schools, New Jersey, Teach for America

Why San Diego Is the Best Urban District in the Nation

By dianeravitch
January 7, 2014 //
57

Something magical is happening in San Diego. It is a good school district. Teachers and administrators and the school board are working towards common goals.

San Diego, in my view, is the best urban district in the nation.

I say this not based on test scores but on the climate for teaching and learning that I have observed in San Diego.

It’s not the weather, which of course is usually magnificent. Los Angeles too has great weather but it is constantly embroiled in turmoil, with teachers against administrators, the school board divided, and political tensions underlying every decision and policy.

San Diego went through its time of troubles in the late 1990s and early 2000s (I wrote about it in my next to last book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, in which I devoted a chapter to the upheaval in San Diego, where corporate-style, top-down reform was birthed).

But in recent years, San Diego has elected a school board that works harmoniously with the teachers and their union. Until recently, it had a superintendent, Bill Kowba (a retired Navy admiral) who understood the value of teamwork. And with the leadership of an activist board, a new spirit of community-based reform began to take hold.

Scores went up on almost everything that was tested, but that was not what mattered most to the new (and true) reformers in San Diego. The rising test scores were the result of the new spirit of community-building that included parents, students, teachers, administrators, and the local community.

San Diego, of course, rejected Race to the Top funding. It didn’t want to make test scores more consequential than they already were.

When Superintendent Kowba retired, the San Diego school board met and immediately announced their choice of a new superintendent, without conducting a national search. The board asked Cindy Marten, one of the district’s best elementary school principals, to assume the superintendency. She was stunned, and she chastised them for not casting a wider net. But she took the job.

Cindy is a leader. She knows how to inspire and lead. She respects the work of principals and teachers, and they respect her. She also knows the importance of parent and community engagement.

Her motto, which is a playful twist on the KIPP motto is: “Work Hard. Be Kind. Dream Big! No Excuses.”

No matter how sunny the skies for the schools, no matter how harmonious the educators, parents, and children, the business community is grumpy. It can’t get over the fact that San Diego doesn’t have a brash, disruptive superintendent who wants to test the kids until they cry “uncle,” demean the teachers, and hold everyone’s feet to the fire. It can’t accept that there is any other way to lead the schools. And it can’t give up on its favorite meme that the schools are “failing” even though they are not.

These views were expressed full force recently when the San Diego Union Tribune, a deeply conservative newspaper, penned an editorial longing for the good old days when Terry Grier was superintendent. The UT can’t believe that San Diego let him go, let him move to Houston, where he is following the corporate reform script, handing out bonuses, firing teachers, using test scores as a club to beat up teachers. Talk about being a skunk at the garden party! The UT published an editorial lamenting “what might have been” if only Grier had stayed around in San Diego to do what he is doing now in Houston.

There was pushback. One board member wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that the dropout rate in Houston was nearly double the dropout rate in San Diego and commending Cindy Marten for avoiding the polarizing tactics associated with certain other unnamed superintendents.

But whoa! There are also some basic facts that the Union Tribune should have noticed. On the 2013 NAEP, San Diego’s public schools outperform those of Houston in math and reading, in grades 4 and 8. San Diego is in the top tier of urban districts; Houston is not. San Diego’s scores on the NAEP have steadily improved over the past decade. The proportion of students who score “below basic” has dropped significantly, and the proportion who score at or above proficient has increased significantly over the past decade. Why does the UT envy a lower-performing district and dismiss the solid, steady, persistent gains of its own district?

Michael Casserly, the fair-minded and careful leader of the Council of Great City Schools wrote an article for the newspaper applauding the success of San Diego and the leadership of Cindy Marten, but the Union Tribute failed to publish it.

Doug Porter of the San Diego Free Press wrote up the imbroglio and called out the UT for its humbug and hypocrisy. He aptly called his article “Facts Don’t Matter in Newspaper’s Quest to Demonize Public Education in San Diego.”

He wrote:

Talk about your cheap shots. It was bad enough when the UT-San Diego editorial board whipped up an attack on our city’s schools laden with misstatements, factual errors and a personal attack on Superintendent Cindy Marten. But when a nationally recognized education leader stepped forward to correct the record on her behalf, his response was deemed unworthy for publication.

It’ all very Orwellian; reality isn’t simply what Papa Doug Manchester tries to tell us it is. When his minions refuse to acknowledge something, the idea is for you to believe that it never happened.

One of the longest running narratives with our Daily Newspaper has been their dislike for the Board of Trustees at San Diego Unified. The paper’s ‘reform’ agenda for public education mirrors the libertarian/conservative wet dream of privatized charter schools, a change that means monetizing learning for corporate interests and creating a two-tiered system favoring the wealthier (and white) classes.

The reality that voters have elected and re-elected progressives to a school board that refuses to demonize teachers and puts the classroom first just is too much for them to handle. So this hatchet job is consistent with their refusal to acknowledge that SD Unified is making steady, determined progress (and is, in fact, a national leader among urban school districts).

Porter includes the full text of Mike Casserley’s supportive article about the steady progress of the San Diego public schools. This is my favorite line from his letter chastising the San Diego UT:

“So, pining for a previous superintendent is not only an affront to Ms. Marten but is akin to daydreaming about a former lover on your honeymoon.”

Porter makes only one mistake. He suggests that the school district engaged in “puffery” when it talked about its steady improvement on NAEP. I disagree. San Diego has made steady progress. On most NAEP measures, it outperforms other large city districts. This is a record to be proud of, not puffery.

San Diego now has the political climate that every district should have: a wise and experienced educator as leader; a collaborative relationship among administrators, teachers, the union, and the school board; a sense of vision about improving the education of every child and a determination to provide a good public school in every neighborhood. This is a vision far, far from the reformy effort to close down public schools and replace them with a free market. Unlike Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and most other urban districts, San Diego has the right vision, the right climate, and the right leadership. There is a unity of purpose focused on children that is impressive.

And that is why San Diego at this moment in time is the best urban district in the nation.

Categories Administrators, superintendents, California, Education Reform, NAEP, Parents, Students, Teachers and Teaching
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »