The lone critic on the Indianapolis school board has decided not to run for re-election. Gayle Cosby asked critical questions about the board’s “reform” policy of eliminating neighborhood public schools and working closely with charter networks. Board members expressed relief that she is stepping down. Low-income residents will have no voice on the board.
A victory for the corporate reformers. Domination is never enough for them. They want total control, no dissent.
Emily Kaplan taught second-grade in a “no-excuses” charter school, and now teaches in a public school. EduShyster offered her space on her blog to explain a very serious concern about the future of children who are pushed too hard and too early to master academic skills.
Every day in the charter school began with the recitation of a creed. Every child was required to “track” the teacher (with their eyes) and to dress precisely as the rule book decreed. Behavioral expectations were ironclad.
Kaplan writes:
This school is obsessed with success. Its students chant about it daily; its walls are plastered with banner-sized recipes in bold fonts and bright colors. And its proponents claim that, because it has the highest test scores in the state, it has achieved it.
These test scores don’t tell the whole story, of course, but they are also not meaningless. The school’s youngest students— children of color from
predominantly low-income families— can do a lot. These five-, six-, and seven-year-olds who start each day by pumping their fists into the air while chanting about success are articulate in person and on the page; they are perspicacious readers and creative, rational mathematicians. The nine hours a day they spend in classrooms named after four-year colleges— where every lesson is aligned to a standard and cut-out caterpillars with their names on them publicly climb the Reading Level Mountain—enable them to attain academic milestones earlier than their peers in more traditional school environments, where children spend six-hour school days engaged in less direct instruction and more play-based, child-driven exploration.*
If the early attainment of academic skills—coupled with constant, explicit messaging about the necessity of pursuing long-term goals—were a primary determinant of long-term success, it stands to reason that the young children at this “no-excuses” school would continue, unobstructed and ahead of the curve, on their “path to success.” But they don’t.
Once children at this school reach adolescence, they struggle. Their high school entrance exam percentiles are far lower than those of their state standardized tests, and they are not admitted in large numbers to the most selective high schools. At the high schools they do attend, they struggle: in their first semester, 81% of last year’s ninth graders earned below a 3.0 grade point average. Existing evidence indicates that these students— who have spent their entire educational careers, from kindergarten onward, in classrooms named after four-year colleges, striving toward big long-term goals like Excellence and Success— aren’t graduating from college in large numbers. They aren’t Excelling, and the extent to which they are even Succeeding is debatable.
So why is this? Why do children who learn to read earlier than their peers do so poorly in ways that matter later on? Why do children for whom every aspect of their education, from kindergarten onward, is tailored toward graduating from college so often struggle to graduate from college?
Reflecting on my experiences teaching both at this school and at more traditional public schools, I find myself wondering if the methodology that enables young children to achieve so much so early actually hinders their long-term prospects. What if the struggles of graduates of “no excuses” schools reveal deficits that are not academic, but rather socioemotional? What would happen if, instead of spending nine hours a day engaged in academic tasks determined by a teacher, children were to spend a large portion of their day developing “soft skills” that would enable them to overcome the hurdles they will encounter when they’re older? What if, like their suburban counterparts, they spent large portions of their day in rigorous, developmentally appropriate activities: learning to make friends, make art, and make believe, exploring and creating their interests and their identities?
That is, what if a necessary component of improving the long-term prospects of small children from disadvantaged backgrounds is not accelerating through childhood, but purposefully lingering in it?…
Pushing children to attain academic skills they will attain regardless— while depriving them of other, more developmentally appropriate activities that would enable them to succeed independently when they are older— is short-sighted at best. Implementing a more developmentally appropriate curriculum for young children might result in lower test scores in the short term, but I suspect that its long-term effects— both in terms of test scores and more relevant measures of success— would compensate. (This solution, however, is admittedly incomplete; I suspect that in order to set children living in poverty on a true “path to success,” communities require resources and support that no school on its own is capable of providing.)
We really have very little information about the long-term effects of pushing children to behave like little soldiers and requiring them to master academic skills instead of playing and socializing.
I recall a conversation with the president of a liberal arts college a few years ago who told me that it had accepted a number of charter school graduates from one of the best charter chains. Few of them could read complex texts or interpret material that required critical thinking. That’s an anecdote, not research. But it raises questions about the value of militaristic education and whether it helps children or improves education.
The ever perspicacious Jeff Bryant points his readers to the stories to watch in the year ahead.
One is vulnerable governors, including two who have been among the worst in inflicting harm on public schools: Pat McCrory of North Carolina and Mike Pence of Indiana. Supporters of public education in both states should flock to the polls to restore public education.
Two is charter schools. There will be more financial scandals. There will be more community resistance to closing schools and handing the kids and buildings over to charter operators.
Three is the Opt Out movement. The more the federal government and states try to tamp it down, the more parents rebel and join the movement. Repression fires resistance.
Four is the Friedrichs case before the Supreme Court. If Friedrichs wins, public sector unions will suffer grievous harm.
Five is Chicago, which is a tinderbox because of Rahm Emanuel’s brutish handling of school issues and police brutality, with the emerging story of cover-ups.
In an article in Salon, Gary Sasso asks why the billionaires are so intent on funding privately-managed alternatives to public schools. Sasso is the Dean of the College of Education at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. After all, if they want to improve education, the vast majority of students in this nation attend public schools. Why aren’t they helping public schools? The reality is that charter schools drain funding from public schools, and they usually don’t get better results (if one considers only test scores). Many of them have a stern disciplinary regime that may raise test scores but does not improve education or the spirit of learning.
Sasso says that the huge disparities in income today and the erosion of the middle class explain more about educational outcomes than anything that happens in schools. Why are the 1% focused solely on the schools?
Sasso speculates:
Charter schools will never be the answer to improving education for all. It is simply not scaleable. And yet titans of industry such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad and the Walton family, and billionaires such as John Paulson who earlier this year gave $8.5 million to New York’s Success Academy charter school system, are pouring their millions into support for charter schools—millions that will not, incidentally, be invested in improving the schools that the vast majority of U.S. students attend: traditional public schools.
Can it be a coincidence that those who have benefited most from the last 50 years of steadily increasing income inequality—the top 10 percent–support an education solution that hinges on denigrating public school teachers, dismantling unions and denying that income inequality is the underlying condition at the root of the problem?
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon says that the wealthiest among us are motivated to support charter schools purely out of ideology. They are operating under deeply held beliefs that a school system run by the government smothers innovation and that teachers unions inhibit a free market system that, if allowed to operate, would result in better teachers and child outcomes. In addition, these philanthropists believe that public education has become so hidebound that meaningful change within the system is no longer possible, and that fresh ideas and programs not beholden to a system that resists change will provide programs and ideas that are more effective.
Another explanation that has been posited is that good, old-fashioned greed is at the root. After all, the wealthy did not achieve their wealth through an indifference to achieving a return on their investments—and our public school system is a $621 billion per year endeavor. For example, a recent investigation by the Arizona Republic found that the state’s charter schools purchased a variety of goods and services from the companies of its own board members or administrators. In fact, the paper found at least 17 such contracts or arrangements totaling more than $70 million over five years.
In addition, there are specific tax loopholes that make it especially attractive to donate to charter schools. Banks and equity and hedge funds that invest in charter schools in underserved areas can take advantage of a tax credit. They are permitted to combine this tax credit with other tax breaks while they also collect interest on any money they lend out. According to analysts, the credit allows them to double the money they invested in seven years.
However, applying the principle of Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best), the super-rich may support charter schools to weaken unions. That strategy increases inequality of wealth and income, especially for the poorest kids whom the charter promoters claim to be “saving.”
Sasso suggests that the best path forward for the 1% would be to focus on rebuilding the middle class, which is currently being squashed.
Rebuilding the middle class—not expanding charter schools—is the most effective path to increasing access to quality education and to giving more students the opportunity to achieve their dreams.
The leader of the North Carolina Charter Association, one Lee Teague, referred to the report on charters by the state’s Department of Public Instruction as “garbage,” because it cited the study of three nationally renowned Duke University scholars. The Lt. Governor Dan Forest is trying to withhold the report because it is too “negative.” He was hoping for something positive. The report found that charters are more segregated than public schools and less diverse.
For those who might be unfamiliar with the term “chutzpah,” it is a Yiddish word that means arrogance, or a combination of arrogance and ignorance.
P.S.: By using the term “scholars,” I am not referring to students in charter schools. I am referring to academicians who have a Ph.D. in their field of study.
This report on charter schools in North Carolina was written in 2015 by three members of the Duke faculty. It was cited in a summary written for the Legislature by the Department of Public Instruction. The DPI summary is being withheld by the Lt. Governor Dan Forest because it is too “negative.”
The original report on charters was written by Professors Helen Ladd, Charles Clotfelter and John Holbein of Duke University. It will be published in the Journal of Education Policy and Finance.
What it shows, among other things, is that charter schools are less diverse than public schools as a sector and are more segregated than public schools. Charter schools are facilitating the resegregation of the schools in North Carolina.
You can download the report here.
Sorry, Governor McCrory and Lt. Governor Forest: You may bully the DPI, but you can’t suppress the work of distinguished academics. They don’t work for you. They have tenure.
In 2015, three distinguished researchers at Duke University studied charter schools in North Carolina and found that they serve a population that is less diverse and whiter than those who attend public schools. In addition, most of the charter schools are segregated. The Duke study was cited in a report written for Legislature by the state Department of Public Instruction. The DPI report was withheld by the Lt. Governor’s office, who said it was too “negative.” Lt. Governor Dan Forrest wants the report rewritten to show the good things about charters. He is tired of so much criticism. Forest joined the state board of election three years ago, and he constantly hears criticism of charters. (Wonder why?)
The report shows:
More than 57 percent of students attending charter schools in the current school year are white, compared with traditional public schools’ 49.5 percent, the report said.
The proportion of African-American students is about the same across both types of schools. A little more than 8 percent of charter students are Hispanic, while enrollment at traditional schools is more than 16 percent Hispanic.
The report also references an April 2015 study by Helen Ladd, Charles Clotfelter and John Holbein of Duke University that showed little integration within individual charter schools. Student populations at individual charters, their study found, are predominantly white or predominantly minority.
The state is trying to suppress the report, to try to spin it to get a positive outcome, but it won’t work. The authors of the report, distinguished academics, are not going to change their findings to please politicians. The next post links to the full report.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article53438435.html#storylink=cpy
The Walton Family Foundation announced that it plans to spend $1 billion over the next five years to increase the number of privately managed charter schools. If experience is any guide, almost all of these will be non-union. This was reported by politico pro, which is behind a paywall (I inquired, and it costs $3,500 to gain access). The emphasis in this massive spending will be startups.
“Just as we were in 1997 with our first charter grants, we are inspired by the ideas and passion of our startup grantees, and we’re determined to do all we can to help them succeed. I’d like to wish you, your teams and all of the students and communities we serve a 2016 of progress and accomplishment,” Marc Sternberg, director of the foundation’s K12 program, wrote in a letter to stakeholders obtained by POLITICO.
The Bentonville, Arkansas,-based foundation is run by the family of Walmart founders Sam and Helen Walton and is a frequent target of teachers unions for its promotion of school choice efforts, including research. Since 1997, it has poured more than $385 million in 2,110 new public charter schools – or about a quarter of all charters nationally, the foundation said.
Imagine that! The Walton Family Foundation, which was created by the billions earned by Walmart, is anti-union. Walmart does not have unions. It has fought unionization and had to be pushed kicking and screaming to agree to pay minimum wages, eventually. Every member of the Walton family is a billionaire. Now, why would unions not like the Walton family? Anyone? This is a family that enjoys the wealth created by the sweat of others who are not paid a living wage. Do the Waltons sleep well at night?
The Walton family represents the face of rapacious avarice in modern America. Having made their billions, they now use them to destroy the one basic democratic institution on which generations of Americans have relied for the education of their children: The American public schools. They will use their billions to divide communities and to turn citizens into consumers. That’s the Walmart way.
To view online:
https://www.politicopro.com/education/whiteboard/2016/01/walton-foundation-to-donate-1-billion-to-promote-school-choice-065681
Hello, I just wanted to share this and see what type of response I can get. I am involved in an on going complaint I filed against BASIS ed. with the Office of Civil Rights for openly stating to myself as well as numerous other educators at their July 2014 teacher training that they DO NOT and WILL NOT modify their curriculum for students with disabilities. Since the OCR accepted and took on my complaint, BASIS has come to a settlement agreement (please be sure to understand that they are not admitting to fault or guilt) with the OCR and have been placed on a series of OCR monitored trainings and changes to their core policies in regard to the no modification policy they trained me on including section 504 and how it relates to special education. My OCR attorney has asked if I would like to start a class action law suit against BASIS, however their needs to be 100 or more families with students that have been discriminated against by BASIS either while enrolled or during the process of enrollment (e.g. being told they will not modify their curriculum for a student).
Please email me if you are interested. I will be keeping a running total of interested parties and sending out periodic emails to keep everyone posted as to how many people actually are interested. I will send out an email about every 3-4 weeks. Also, forward my email to anyone that could have possibly had this happen to their child or children. Please lets take a stand against an institution that openly trained employees to refuse modifications to students with disabilities.
Best,
Deborah Graham
dgraham222002@gmail.com
Eileen DiFranco, a retired school nurse in Philadelphia, describes an episode from “The Twilight Zone” in which a sober family man encounters slot machines in Las Vegas and becomes an addict. He can’t help himself. He gambles everything and can’t stop.
She compares this gambling fever to the charter school addiction of districts like Philadelphia. No matter how many charter schools fail, the district leaders want more of them. They are in love with the lure and promise of magic and they can’t stop. Meanwhile, the public schools suffer as do the children who attend public schools, while millions are squandered on charter schools that are no better–and often worse–than the public schools.
She writes:
With their “no excuses” mantra, highly paid charter school CEOs promise school administrators that they will bring students up to grade level in no time at all. It all sounds so attractive. And believable. School districts all over the country have been sucked in by this big, brash idea that sounds wonderful on paper, but has largely failed to deliver on its promises. This has not stopped the charter school operators from repeating their claim of educational superiority over and over again until it takes on the ring of truth.
But the reality is that the charter schools’ claims contain more “truthiness” than actual truth. According to Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a national study by CREDO that many cited to tout the superior performance of charters actually found that “less than one hundredth of one percent (<0.01 percent) of the variation in test performance in reading is explainable by charter school enrollment.”
Let’s put that alleged 0.01 percent success rate into a Philadelphia perspective. The SRC has approved charter school establishment and expansion even while the traditional public schools languish. As children are injured, or even die, as did Laporshia Massey at Bryant Elementary, or as violence occurs, as it did at George Washington High School, the fault somehow lies with the resource-starved schools and not the SRC’s addiction to the lure of charter schools.
The underwhelming performance of charter schools for an overwhelming amount of money should set off alarms. Their quick solutions to educational woes follow the logic of past failures: Just hand over the money and we’ll do it all for you. In the end, however, there is only one certainty: If something is too good to be true, it is not the truth.
Several questions need to be asked about this scenario. The first is, why would the SRC allow the majority of Philadelphia’s children to attend dirty, unsafe schools without counselors, nurses, and assistant principals while other children clearly do not? Why is there hardly any discussion about this glaring disparity?
I have a couple of answers. The first is that there is a plan afoot to break public schools deliberately so that they can be handed over to charters. Thus, the SRC and Hite are wreaking havoc by deliberately deferring maintenance and cutting staff to dangerous levels in traditional schools. This practice effectively insures the failure that is necessary to hand over the now low-performing, intentionally broken “seats” over to more “successful” charter operators who feel justified in cutting into the resources available to District schools. This is being done in a calculated way in order to break the teachers’ union, the whipping boy of modern school reform.
The second is that District leaders and politicians are trying to appease elected officials in rural areas who perceive city schools and urban children as great leeches feeding off public dollars who divert resources away from more deserving populations. For them, giving more money to ”those” children in urban areas is like throwing money into a pit. The idea in the Pennsylvania House and Senate is that throwing money at schools doesn’t fix them, although they believe that having enough money fixes just about everything else.
The third is that the SRC has become the ball carrier for hedge fund managers for whom education is a place where they can make money. The fact that school reform is being led by MBAs rather than by educators is telling.
Philadelphia public schools are dying. Who will be held accountable? The legislature? Former Governor Tom Corbett? Superintendent William Hite?
The leaders are chasing a rainbow, bright promises that have never come through for the children. They are killing a democratic institution that society depends on and needs. Can they sleep at night?
