Archives for category: Administrators, superintendents

Carol Burris demolishes myths about teacher evaluation that were contained in a recent opinion piece in Phi Delta Kappan.

Frankly, it is pretty shocking to see that the editor of this journal for educators believes that standardized testing should have any role in evaluating teachers. We are already seeing a renewed emphasis on teaching to the test and more narrowing of the curriculum as teachers’ careers hinge on student scores.

It’s also shocking to see this editor agree that teachers should have no due process rights. When that happens, we can bid farewell to academic freedom and expect to see many districts where evolution is no longer taught.

The editorial criticized here just parrots the uninformed claims of the corporate reformers. Nothing proposed here will improve education. It’s guaranteed however to demoralize teachers.

Burris once again demonstrates the candor, intelligence and integrity that placed her on the honor roll as a hero of public education.

Jere Hochman runs an exemplary school district in Bedford, New York.

Before the election, he wrote an eloquent letter (which I posted though I may not have used his name) on why everyone should support President Obama.

He convinced me.

He also promised me that after the election, he would speak out about the need to change the punitive testing and accountability policies of this administration.

He is speaking out. 

The biggest problem in education today is the politicians, who are interfering in matters they do not understand, he says.

He offers excellent advice to the President, and this is only part 1.

Thank you, Jere.

Parent groups in Indiana have posted a petition on change.org calling on the elected officials of the state to respect the voters’ choice of Glenda Ritz. In early statements, the governor, the governor-elect and some legislative leaders indicated tat they would stand by Tony Bennett’s agenda, which the people of Indiana rejected. Parents called on the state’s leaders to abide by the democratic process.

This is the Indiana petition. Please sign it and circulate it on blogs and Facebook pages:

“Indiana voters elected Glenda Ritz as our new Superintendent of Public Instruction by a large margin. She received roughly 1,300,000 votes–about 100,000 more votes than the governor-elect, Mike Pence. Now, however, Governor Daniels refuses to acknowledge that our election of Glenda Ritz sent a clear message on the direction of school reform, saying instead: “The consensus and momentum for reform and change in Indiana is rock solid.” Governor-elect Mike Pence is also choosing to interpret the election results as a “strong affirmation on the progress of education reform in this state,” (Journal Gazette 11/8/12). On the contrary: when Indiana voters elected Glenda Ritz as superintendent, we rejected the top-down, corporate reform model imposed by the state. We embraced Ritz’s platform and her research-backed proposals to support and improve our public schools.”

http://www.change.org/petitions/governor-daniels-governor-elect-pence-the-indiana-state-legislature-honor-our-1-300-000-votes-for-glenda-ritz

In an article today, Indiana GOP leaders announced their determination to pursue Tony Bennett’s anti-teacher, pro-privatization agenda even though Bennett lost his bid for re-election.

Bennett’s challenger, Glenda Ritz, collected more votes than Mike Pence, the Republican who won the governor’s seat.

She won despite Bennett’s expenditure of  ten times as much as she had for the campaign.

She won despite the support of national rightwing groups promoting Bennett as the exemplar of school “reform.”

But the GOP thinks the voters didn’t really mean it, or made a mistake, or maybe the voters didn’t know what they were doing.

They hope to ignore the mandate at the polls.

Ritz has a Herculean task moving forward with a Republican governor, a Republican legislature, and laws mandating policies intended to destroy public education.

All she has on her side are the votes of 1.3 million Hoosiers.

Voters in Idaho gave Mitt Romney a landslide  but simultaneously voted overwhelmingly to repeal the “Luna Laws,” the brainchild of state superintendent Tom Luna.

This stunning victory for public education demonstrates that not even red-state Republicans are prepared to privatize public education and dismantle the teaching profession.

The Luna Laws imposed a mandate for online courses for high school graduates (a favorite of candidates funded by technology companies), made test scores the measure of teacher quality, provided bonuses for teachers whose students got higher scores, removed all teacher rights, eliminated anything resembling tenure or seniority, turned teachers into at-will employees, and squashed the teachers’ unions.

The campaign to support the Luna laws was heavily funded by technology entrepreneurs and out-of-state supporters of high-stakes testing and restrictions on the teaching profession, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The voters in this reddest of red states overturned all three of the Luna laws (which he called “Students Come First”; anything in which children or students or kids come “first” is a clear tip-off to the divisive intent of the program).

As the story in the Idaho Statesman reported:

In a stunning rebuke to Gov. Butch Otter and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna, Idahoans on Tuesday repealed the laws that dominated the pair’s agenda the past two years.

Idahoans agreed with teachers unions — which spent more than $3 million to defeat Propositions 1, 2 and 3 — that the reforms Luna called “Students Come First” and detractors called “The Luna Laws” went too far.

As GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney won a 65 percent Idaho landslide, Otter and Luna — both touted as possible Cabinet secretaries in a Romney administration — lost their signature issue by large margins.

With 99 percent of all Idaho precincts reporting:

— 57 percent opposed to restrictions on teachers unions in Prop 1.

— 58 percent voted no on Prop 2, which paid teacher bonuses based on student test scores and other measures.

— 67 percent rejected a mandate for laptops and online credits for every Idaho high school student.

The scale of the defeat reached across Idaho.

Voters in 37 of 44 counties rejected all three measures. The seven outliers — Adams, Boise, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison and Owyhee — are largely rural. Not one of Idaho’s most populous counties voted for even one of the laws.

The most important education vote yesterday occurred in Indiana.

As the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette pointed out in its editorial, this election has national implications.

Tony Bennett had become the face of rightwing reform in America.

His mission was to bring the ALEC agenda to life in the Hoosier State.

He was head of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, the group of state superintendents that were most eager to privatize public education, expand charters and vouchers, turn children over to for-profit corporations, and reduce the status of teachers.

He was honored by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute as the “reformiest” state superintendent in the nation.

The Wall Street hedge fund managers and assorted billionaires pumped $1.5 million into his campaign for re-election.

He was soundly defeated by veteran teacher Glenda Ritz.

Ritz raised $325,000 for her campaign to restore public education in Indiana.

Ritz won over Bennett by a comfortable margin of 53-47.

She got 1.3 million votes, almost 100,000 more votes than Mike Pence, the Republican running for governor, who barely eked out a victory.

Make no mistake: The people of Indiana said “no” to Tony Bennett’s radical plans to turn public education into a free-market of choice and competition, based on high-stakes testing.

The people of Indiana elected Glenda Ritz to rebuild their public school system and to wipe away the misguided, mean-spirited “reforms” imposed by Bennett.

This is a victory for the parents, citizens and educators of Indiana.

Most important, it is a victory for the children of the state of Indiana.

Now, they will have a chance to have a good education, not to be consumers in a vast shopping mall of test-based choices, not to be data points for corporations bent on turning a profit.

This teacher in Houston reviews what is happening in HISD schools.

Anyone know the HISD superintendent Terry Grier?

The teacher’s evaluation:

Another transplanted North Carolina education experience. I teach in Texas in the largest school district that has inherited one of North Carolina’s education mediums, T. Grier. In his ready, shoot, aim masterplan, all teachers are graded on the growth of their students on a year to year basis, as the statistical junkies decide that growth will be measured on EVAAS- a nonpeer reviewed performance analyis program. This is in addition to a whole slew of other tests. We personally ran into an issue where our social studies students were passing 95% of the tests or higher provided by the State, but when the results did not grow past 95% the teachers were penalized! There is no average of, say, three years performance, or a plateau of achievement where the grading stops, but a slap for high achievement – the District refused to reconsider our highly validated protests.

Teachers were baited with the prospect of “bonus” money, and assumed we were like pipe salepersons who would do more for a bigger payday. A teacher might earn up to $7,000…great, but there have also not been any raises for over 4 years. The bonus money available has been reduced by half, so the District reduced the teachers who could obtain a bonus – no senior level teachers, art, electives, nor foreign language because??? those subjects do NOT have to be tested. In our case, high performance ran into an effective ceiling. So now, bonus money has shrunk, teachers salaries have been reduced, a bait and switch incentive atmosphere has been created. Incentives in business are great, this is not business. Teachers do not get to select inputs and the inputs change, perhaps dramatically, year to year; or we average over 37 kids in a class compared to 30, but that should’nt really effect performance. It defies good science to measure unlike test groups.

Morale in our District is terrible, particularly with the school administrators who cringe when the headquarters decides on some new hoop teachers and students need to jump through. For example, we are supposed to drop students into category buckets within the first month so we can establish their goals…what sense does that make? who knows kids after a month? and then the system crashed, or dropped data or just didn’t work. Nobody holds senior administration accountable.

So fair is fair, how are Grier and the District grading themselves in the Broad competition they flaunt? 1) on the basis of how many kids take the SAT 2) how many kids take Advanced Placement courses and 3) how many more kids graduate. Fine as it goes, but a) the District paid for the SAT for all 10th graders b) it pays for any AP tests and recruited teachers and kids who were completely unprepared for this incredibly rigorous course load (SpEd kids were enrolled in some cases!) and c) created an on-line self paced Grad Lab program that is never backstopped for performance nor any real check on comprehension. There are no effective teacher unions in Texas (no strike state), so no one can blame that factor on Texas’ dismal performance of Houston’s. Maybe it is the super? From North Carolina Greenboro, then San Diego…any comments from other teachers who taught under T. Grier and dealt with the North Carolina experience?

Big political contributions have poured into a local school board race in Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

Donors in California andColorado are supporting a slate of school board candidates in that small New Jersey district.

As Jersey Jazzman explains here, the school board in Perth Amboy has been trying to oust the district’s divisive superintendent. Acting Commissioner of Education Chris Cerf has protected her, preventing the board from getting rid of her. The election provides an opportunity to fire the board and install one that will defend Chris Christie’s agenda: anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-tenure, pro-privatization.

As Jersey Jazzman writes:

It seems absurd, and yet it’s true: four wealthy Californians and one wealthy Coloradan – heavy hitters in the tech, financial, and health care sectors – have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a slate of candidates running for the school board in Perth Amboy, a city of 50,000 with a majority Hispanic population.

“According to New Jersey election records, the slate of candidates calling themselves “Better Schools Now!” has collected $64,700, mostly from sources outside of Perth Amboy. In contrast, an opposing slate, “New Vision, New Voice” has collected $7,005, with all of its donations over $300 coming from within the city.”

There is a clear pattern emerging here and elsewhere around the country: a small number of extremely wealthy individuals are pouring huge amounts of money into elections, state and local, to buy the result they want: privatization, budget cuts, anti-union policies, a compliant school board.

It happened last year in Denver and last spring spring in Louisiana; its happening now in Perth Amboy, New Orleans, Idaho, Santa Clara County (CA), Washington State, Georgia, and elsewhere.

This is not haphazard. These are takeover targets.

Time for an investigative journalist to find out who is coordinating this subversion of democracy.

A reader in NYC writes:

Diane,

People in Staten Island, which is the borough with the greatest loss of life, is getting very little assistance compared to lower Manhattan. Some areas are not getting food or water. Those people are desperate. When Bloomberg said yesterday that temps in the low 50s is not cold, I wanted to slap him through the TV since this is the same man who had a window-sized air conditioner installed in his SUV so the interior can remain cool during the summer when it’s parked outside City Hall. But the marathon will go on. I suppose if people from around the world and other parts of the US are already here, then maybe it should. But I worry for the people in our city who need the assistance of the police department. Looting is on the rise.

But I think you should know how heartless the DoE is being. Today teachers are to report back to work. The fear is that it’s for useless PD which I hope is not the case. But many are without gas and transit is still running slowly and the crowds are huge.

So what did Walcott do??? Late last night, when most people are asleep or not checking their DoE email, he announced a 10am arrival time.. I am sure the majority of teachers did not see that notice. This late start time could have been announced yesterday or the day before. It made perfect sense given the overcrowding on highways, buses and trains. The lack of common courtesy and respect for teachers is so evident. I wonder if Walcott informed his own daughter??? Walcott does not act without the mayor’s permission since mayoral control. This was a deliberate slap in the face to teachers, many of whom have lost property, living without hot water and electricity, or stuck in their high-rise apartments. Many of whom cannot find enough gas to get them to and from work. There was nothing to “prepare” for. Teachers know how to conduct a lesson on a hurricane and its aftermath. I just hope the teachers who show up today are given the courtesy to decide for themselves what needs to be done since report cards are soon due, along with any other paperwork for the ending of the first marking period, parent-teacher conferences, and of course preparing their classroom for November which usually requires new bulletin boards.

I sincerely hope they take the time to find out if any other staff or members of their school community need assistance and what they can do to help. Common Core and testing be damned!!

Jonathan Raymond, superintendent of the Sacramento City school district, has some lessons for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Friedman recently raved about the success of Race to the Top, claiming that it was preparing students for the high-skill jobs of the new economy.

Raymond says this is wrong. Race to the Top is divisive and subjects schools to derision.

It is top-down, heavy-handed and undermines the collaboration needed to make genuine improvement.

States that promise to comply with Duncan’s heavy handed mandates are “winners” while those making progress without Duncan’s script are losers.

He adds:

Meanwhile, school districts that are making real, tangible strides to increase student learning are left behind in this “race.” In Sacramento City Unified, we are turning around seven low-performing schools (called Priority Schools) through research-proven strategies for raising student achievement. Six of the seven schools have shown dramatic increases in student achievement and dramatic improvements in school culture and climate. These strategies include relevant professional development for principals and teachers; collaborative teacher planning time; data analysis and inquiry; and building strong family and community engagement. With federal funding, we could take this pilot program to scale statewide. California districts could build on each other’s successes and the gains of districts across the country. This is exactly what federal dollars should be spent on.
Yet Race to the Top’s scripted approach effectively discounts these reforms because they do not fit into the neat categories created by the prescriptive program. Moreover, forcing school districts to compete for badly needed resources is like offering a starving man food but only if he agrees to whatever strings may be attached. This is certainly the choice that school districts like ours face in California.