Archives for category: Childhood, Pre-K, K

Robert Skeels is a pro-public school candidate in Los Angeles. He has raised $15,000. He will not get anything from Eli Broad or Michael Bloomberg.

He comments:

The LA Times asked me for a quote on Bloomberg’s $1 Million CSR donation. Here’s my response: “As a community candidate who has raised over $15,000 through myriad small contributions from local parents, community members, and classroom teachers, I find it dismaying that a single out-of-state billionaire has a greater voice in our school board election than all the working families of District 2. Where were these millions of dollars when the incumbent callously cut early childhood education, adult education, and K-12 arts last year?”

In this article, which appeared on Huffington Post, Alan Singer of Hofstra University in New York, nails the empty promises and misleading claims in President Obama’s State of the Union address. He calls it “Obama’s Mis-Education Agenda.”

 

 

 

Alan Singer writes:

I am a lifetime teacher, first in public schools and then in a university-based teacher education program. I think I do an honest job and that students benefit from being in my classes. I was hoping to hear something positive about the future of public education in President Obama’s State of the Union speech, I confess I was so disturbed by what Obama was saying about education that I had to turn him off.  In the morning I read the text of his speech online, hoping I was wrong about what I thought I had hear. But I wasn’t. There was nothing there but shallow celebration of wrong-headed policies and empty promises.

For me, the test question on any education proposal always is, “Is this the kind of education I want for my children and grandchildren?” Obama, whose children attend an elite and expensive private school in Washington DC, badly failed the test.

Basically Obama is looking to improve education in the United States on the cheap. He bragged that his signature education program, Race to the Top, was “a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year.” I am not sure why Obama felt entitled to brag. Race to the Top has been in place for four years now and its major impact seems to be the constant testing of students, high profits for testing companies such as Pearson, and questionable reevaluations of teachers.  It is unclear to me what positive changes Race to the Top has actually achieved.

In the State of the Union Address, Obama made three proposals, one for pre-school, one for high school, and one for college.

Obama on Pre-Schools: “Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program . . . I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America . . . In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own.”

I am a big supporter of universal pre-kindergarten and I like the promise, but Georgia and Oklahoma are not models for educational excellence. Both states have offered universal pre-k for more than a decade and in both states students continue to score poorly on national achievement tests. Part of the problem is that both Georgia and Oklahoma are anti-union low wage Right-to-Work states. In Oklahoma City, the average salary for a preschool teacher is $25,000 and assistant teachers make about $18,000, enough to keep the school personnel living in poverty. Average Preschool Teacher salaries for job postings in Oklahoma City, are 17% lower than average Preschool Teacher salaries for job postings nationwide. The situation is not much better in Georgia. In Savannah, Average Preschool Teacher salaries for job postings are 12% lower than average Preschool Teacher salaries for job postings nationwide.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/does-universal-preschool-improve-learning-lessons-from-georgia-and-oklahoma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Preschool-Teacher-l-Oklahoma-City,-OK.html

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Preschool+Teacher&l1=savannah+georgia

Obama on Secondary Schools: “Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering . . . I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.”

Unfortunately, P-Tech in Brooklyn, the Pathways in Technology Early College High School, is not yet, and may never be, a model for anything. It claims to be “the first school in the nation that connects high school, college, and the world of work through deep, meaningful partnerships, we are pioneering a new vision for college and career readiness and success.” Students will study for six years and receive both high school diplomas and college associate degrees. But the school is only in its second year of operation, has only 230 students, and no graduates or working alumni.

http://www.ptechnyc.org/site/default.aspx?PageID=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/nyregion/pathways-in-technology-early-college-high-school-takes-a-new-approach-to-vocational-education.html?hpw&_r=0

According to a New York Times report which included an interviews with an IBM official, “The objective is to prepare students for entry-level technology jobs paying around $40,000 a year, like software specialists who answer questions from I.B.M.’s business customers or ‘deskside support’ workers who answer calls from PC users, with opportunities for advancement.”

The thing is, as anyone who has called computer support knows,  those jobs are already being done at a much cheaper rate by outsourced technies in third world countries. It does not really seem like an avenue to the American middle class. The IBM official also made clear, “ that while no positions at I.B.M. could be guaranteed six years in the future, the company would give P-Tech students preference for openings.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/nyregion/pathways-in-technology-early-college-high-school-takes-a-new-approach-to-vocational-education.html?hpw&_r=0

Obama on the cost of a College Education: “[S]kyrocketing costs price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt . . . But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education . . . My Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.”

As a parent and grandparent I agree with President Obama that the cost of college is too high for many families, but that is what a real education costs. If the United States is going to have the high-tech 21st century workforce the President wants, the only solution is massive federal support for education. There is a way to save some money however I did not hear any discussion of it in the President’s speech. Private for-profit businesses masquerading as colleges have been sucking in federal dollars and leaving poor and poorly qualified students with debts they can never repay. These programs should to be shut down, but in the State of the Union Address President Obama ignored the problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/higher-education-for-the-_b_1642764.html

The New York documented the way the for-profit edu-companies, including the massive Pearson publishing concern, go unregulated by federal education officials. These companies operate online charter schools and colleges that offer substandard education to desperate families at public expense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html?hp

President Obama, celebrating mediocrity and shallow promises are not enough. You would never accept these “solutions” for Malia and Sasha. American students and families need a genuine federal investment in education.

Alan Singer, Director, Secondary Education Social Studies
Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
128 Hagedorn Hall / 119 Hofstra University / Hempstead, NY 11549
(P) 516-463-5853 (F) 516-463-6196

In this superb article in the New York Times, David Kirp shows how the public schools of Union City, New Jersey,succeeded despite all the obstacles of poverty.

The article summarizes his fine book “Improbable Scholars.”

Union City created excellent schools without charters and without Teach for America. And without Cory Booker or Mark Zuckerberg.

Let’s celebrate the good work of the teachers and principals of Union City!

There is growing evidence that the Common Core standards are absurd in the early grades. They require a level of academic learning that is developmentally inappropriate.

Little children need time to play. Play is their work. In play, they learn to share and to count, to communicate, to use language appropriately, and to figure things out.

A story in a NYC newspaper shows just how ridiculous the Common Core standards are when imposed on 5-year-olds: Here is a story, well worth reading, about how Common Core is being implemented in kindergartens across New York City. The headline is. “Playtime’s Over.”

Says the story:

“Way beyond the ABCs, crayons and building blocks, the city Department of Education now wants 4- and 5-year-olds to write “informative/explanatory reports” and demonstrate “algebraic thinking.”

“Children who barely know how to write the alphabet or add 2 and 2 are expected to write topic sentences and use diagrams to illustrate math equations.

“For the most part, it’s way over their heads,” a Brooklyn teacher said. “It’s too much for them. They’re babies!”

“In a kindergarten class in Red Hook, Brooklyn, three children broke down and sobbed on separate days last week, another teacher told The Post.”

How did this happen?

This article by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige explains that early childhood educators were not included on the committees that wrote the standards, and their feedback was never incorporated.

It is as if a large group of business leaders were asked to write standards for surgeons, or if surgeons were asked to devise standards for plumbers.

When you learn what these standards expect little children to do, you have to wonder if any of the people who wrote them have small children or if they ever taught small children.

I am reminded of a book that came out last year by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl called Childism, about prejudice against children. These days, we don’t put them to work in factories at 5 or 6, and we don’t beat them in public, we just make them do things that they cannot do and make them feel like failures before they turn 7.

There was a time in my life when I would have been opposed on principle to the sentiments expressed in this article. The author talks about how schooling has become a way of destroying childhood. I used to scoff at articles like this.

But no more. I see my grandson come home with the results of his spelling test. He has math homework. He is only in first grade. He goes to a wonderful public school in Brooklyn. He seems too young for the pressure. What’s the rush? He’s now doing what children in second or third grade used to do. Is this necessary? I wonder if the pressure will get stronger every year. I wonder. I wonder if schooling has changed or I have changed. Or maybe both.

We are all aware of the destructive policies that are being pushed into the schools, despite any evidence for their value and considerable evidence that they do harm.

The good news is that parents and educators are pushing back, in city after city and state after state. The resistance to overtesting, to attacks on educators, and to privatization is growing, as Mark Naison reports here

Next year, it will blossom and grow.

If you are part of a grassroots group supporting your public schools, please send me the name of your group and website.

We will continue the pushback.

From a reader who is passionate about child’s play:

Let’s talk to Arne about Play Science? We have schools in Asia setting up Play Science Institutes. They know that they need to innovate. The teacher is the one who can identify and scaffold upon the innate talents of the child. No computer program can see, feel, connect and mentor that deeply. Data is not knowledge. Metaphoric thinking is developed through three dimensional play, something one cannot develop from a two dimensional screen. It has everything to do with hand-brain co-evolution and the neuroscience of tinkering, object play, or other three dimensional forms of play. Real world problem solving necessitates nuanced metaphorical thinking, not rigid, scripted programming.

This published today in Richmond Times Dispatch

http://www.timesdispatch.com/entertainment-life/columnists-blogs/life-notes-play-is-important-for-your-kids-and-for/article_b762643b-9d18-5cda-a6b6-76f61256c2b9.html

And I think everyone here will like this one, as scripted schooling kills innovation.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0124/Toddlers-to-tweens-relearning-how-to-play

John Kuhn is superintendent of a small school district in Texas. But his voice is mighty and powerful. Those who have heard him wish he were Commissioner of Education for the state of Texas or in another position where everyone would learn from his wisdom.

Kuhn was the first person to be named to the honor roll for his eloquence and courage in support of public education.

November 02, 2012 07:21 PM CDT November 02, 2012 09:04 PM

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20121102-point-person-our-qa-with-john-kuhn-on-schools-over-reliance-on-testing.ece

Point Person: Our Q&A with John Kuhn on school’s over-reliance on testing

Comments (3)

The Dallas Morning News

Published: 02 November 2012 07:21 PM
John Kuhn, superintendent of the Perrin-Whitt school district in Jack County, northwest of Fort Worth, is active speaking out and writing critically about public-education reformers. He’s gained some fame for his oft-quoted “Alamo letter” from 2011, in which he vowed never to surrender the fight for his students. Now that more than 850 Texas school boards have signed on to a resolution against over-reliance on high-stakes testing, we asked Kuhn what that movement is all about. (This is a longer version of the Q&A that appears in print.)
You’ve said some very pointed things about education reformers, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and their impact on schools. What worries you the most?
What worries me most as both a dad and an educator is the outsized influence of test-makers, statisticians, and economists on modern educational decision-making. Unfortunately, our wizards of data are not wizards of humanity, and they have foolishly elevated impersonal forces as the drivers of education.
The education of children is above all a human endeavor. We aren’t programming answers into computers; we are inspiring and encouraging and challenging and coaxing and pushing and pulling and hoping and praying and hugging and wiping tears and watching ballgames and telling them how nice they look in their prom dresses. The value of the factory model touted by today’s educational Taylorists is quickly disproved by its absence of the holistic and humane methods employed in the best private schools. Middle class kids need and deserve more art in their lives than the arrays of bubbles they pencil in. Elite reformers want what’s best for their kids, but they often only want what’s most efficient for yours and mine.
Ultimately, I want for my kids what caring parents, like our president, want for theirs: a thorough, non-standardized education of the whole child. Today we are so busy raising test scores that we are forgetting to raise children. The little red schoolhouse is fast becoming a little red widget factory, and that’s wrong for kids and detrimental for our future well-being as a people.
To what extent are your concerns shared by other local educators?
We are nearing critical mass. I only speak for myself, but there are hundreds of Texas schools suing the state in a lawsuit that has been called “the granddaddy of school finance lawsuits.” They aren’t suing for more money but rather for sensible policies and an honest accounting by the state of the costs of its mandates. Reduced education funding sometimes happens during hard times, but reduced regulation? Our recent $5.4 billion school funding reduction came with a brand new $500 million dollar contract with the London test-shop Pearson.
There are also hundreds of school boards in Texas that have signed a resolution that says standardized tests are strangling education and draining it of its vibrancy and excitement for learners. The resolution—started in Texas—has spread to several other states. Then there are Texas parents forming groups like Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment, Texas Parents Opt Out of State Tests, and Kids Can’t Wait. School board members have organized initiatives like last session’s “Make Education a Priority” movement. Over 20 school districts are participating in the Texas High Performance Schools consortium; they will pilot a new way of holding teachers and students accountable for learning that embraces modern technology instead of tools inspired by 19{+t}{+h} century scientific management theory. They will hopefully develop a new, less punitive and misleading accountability methodology that reduces the onslaught of bubble tests that our kids face today.
Are my concerns widely shared by local educators? I would guess yes, but I can’t prove it. Many educators prefer to keep quiet and keep their jobs (which aren’t as secure as they used to be) so you won’t hear too many speak out publicly about the burdensome and sometimes near-impossible demands they face. In fact, an educator who speaks up is usually condemned fairly quickly as an apologist for the status quo. Meanwhile, the real status quo is the expensive and ineffective testing-and-labeling we’ve been doing for 30 years in Texas.
Put it in human terms. What’s not happening in the classroom today because of focus on standardized testing?
High schoolers must pass five EOC tests per year; they’re often placed in remedial classes if they don’t pass. Sophomores may be losing one or two periods for a remedial class. That’s one or two electives gone. As time passes, some will stack up tests they failed two years ago, last year, and tests they face this year. A struggler who might flourish because of a trade won’t get his hands dirty. This is one size fits all; all kids are going to college whether they want to or not.
Texas Workforce Commissioner Tom Pauken notes that Texas has a shortage of welders and plumbers, but our system is built so that students most likely to benefit from technical training won’t get it. We’re channeling would-be highly-paid technicians not into available industry-recognized certification programs but rather into schedules that feature a paucity of hands-on experiences, so they can focus on their tests.
In elementary school, strugglers lose art, recess, music, or PE. We tell at-risk students to stay in school; then we take away classes they most enjoy. When we reduced education to a competition, we condemned exploration and discovery and settled for rote proficiency.
How does this affect how a teacher teaches?
Teachers face a perverse incentive to drill and kill in the classroom and focus intensely on the narrow curriculum that is tested. Principals face the temptation to enforce scripted approaches that overemphasize test prep. Marketers are pitching materials keyed to STAAR with great zeal; districts face an onslaught of big promises: “Raise STAAR Scores Now!” Some teachers and schools resist a test-centered approach in favor of a child-centered approach; but with livelihoods on the line if scores don’t rise, it’s as if teachers are being asked to teach under hanging anvils.
Teachers and administrators agree with the need for accountability and want to be held accountable for our results. What we ask for are honest measures that take into account all factors that contribute to our success or failure. Educational outcomes do not solely hinge on teacher quality. There are home and community and funding factors in play, but accountability gurus are happy to leave those variables out of their formulas. No one but the teachers are up for criticism in their world of selective accountability.
The U.S. Department of Education has chosen to set a 100 percent standardized testing pass rate as the goal, with constant classroom duress as the main motivator for teachers and students and absolutely no pressure on legislators to provide equitable resources from school district to school district. We shouldn’t be surprised to see unintended consequences as schools struggle to attain the impossible: getting 100 percent of their kids to pass the almighty bubble test by 2014. What’s good for test scores isn’t always what’s good for kids, but our punitive accountability fetish has established test scores as the measurably more important of the two.
But aren’t there poor teachers who fail to prepare their students, and don’t test scores help establish that?
Yes, poor teachers exist. No, a poor test score doesn’t establish poor teaching. It’s not that simple. A terrible teacher in an $8,000-per-pupil school may obtain higher scores than a wonderful teacher in a $4,000-per-pupil school. Those extra funds impact outcomes by providing smaller classes, fewer leaks in the roof, more and newer instructional materials, and various supports that aren’t available at the other school.
Our current system dissuades the best teachers from teaching in our toughest schools because they will be facilely scapegoated for things outside their control. Pinning everything on the classroom teacher lets policymakers and budget writers off the hook pretty easily. Accountability only falls on teachers, and politicians laugh all the way to re-election.
What does your “child-centered approach” look like, and how does the state make sure that all students learn the fundamentals?
Tom Pauken’s approach is child-centered, with multiple paths to graduation: a math/science path, humanities/fine arts path, and a technical/vocational path. Students get ownership of their education and focus on their strengths instead of adhering to one-size-fits-all mandates from outsiders. Elementaries need a well-rounded curriculum including core classes, arts, physical education, and recess for unstructured play.
Test advocates pretend a $500 million plan to test every student every year is the only way to monitor learning and that everyone who opposes this bamboozle opposes accountability. But many of us who wish to reform reform support smart testing using sampling techniques at certain grades to save limited instructional time and education dollars.
There are many additional ways to monitor outcomes if Texans will think outside the testing contract straightjacket. Online portfolios, NAEP scores, ACT-PLAN and PSAT scores, grades and passing rates, graduation rates, college-acceptance rates, dropout rates, and student surveys are just a few that come to mind. We can also require all graduates to show they are college-ready by means of college acceptance and/or ACT/SAT scores, or show they’re career-ready by obtaining an industry-recognized vocational certification prior to graduation. This isn’t hard; it just isn’t what lobbyists want to hear.
I admit that I am not sold on STAAR. I do not agree with the allegation that I therefore oppose accountability. In fact, I want accountability even for the accountability merchants.
More than 850 Texas school boards have passed resolutions objecting to the over-reliance on standardized testing. What impact do you expect that to have in next year’s lawmaking session?
I don’t know. I suspect that voting parents calling their representatives will have more impact than school board resolutions. It was telling months ago how quickly and publicly some Texas moms rebuked a prominent testing advocate when he accused superintendents of “scaring mom” over the testing issue. Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock said in a hearing last session that officials were getting lots of phone calls from parents about overtesting. At the same time, I understand that lobbyists representing the testing firms won’t go down without a fight.
I would like to note that these resolutions were adopted by elected local trustees. In Texas schools, school board members are often parents and involved community members; they are regular folks. This is representative democracy in action—local citizens are using the resolution to let their voices be heard alongside the lobbyists in Austin. If our leaders truly want to represent their constituents, the resolution will indeed influence their actions.
Why fight? Don’t you have a lot of common ground with advocates of standardized testing — high school graduates who are prepared to go into the workforce, onto more training or onto college?
I don’t think I have much common ground with folks who set impossible targets (100 percent of students must pass their standardized tests in 2014, under No Child Left Behind) and ignore the effects of funding injustices (Academically Unacceptable districts get funded an average of $1,000 less per student than Exemplary districts). These policies don’t help kids; they help to torpedo public schools.
Texas leaders have worshipped test-and-punish technocrats for over 20 years, and yet a testing advocate recently wrote “Wake Up – Schools Are Failing.” He says the solution is to “stay the course,” i.e., more of the same. But why are schools failing after two decades with accountability hawks in charge? When will their prescriptions work? It’s telling that Texas private schools are allowed to utilize the state’s testing system but politely say, “No thanks.”
Meanwhile, the universal failure of Texas public schools is preordained for 2014 — guaranteed by those who came up with the federal accountability targets — and news of their failure will be music to the ears of some. But to many of us, the school is still the heart of the community.
Our sons and daughters still grow up in the glow of Friday night lights, just as they have for generations. We still put their pictures in the paper when they do well at the spelling bee or win an essay contest; we still burn a bonfire and crown our small-town royalty. My son and I recently looked at my dad’s yearbook photo from 1951. Dad was a Pirate, and now, 60 years later, my sons and my daughter are all Pirates, too.
Some people may want a charter school or a virtual online school for their kids, and that’s fine — but many of us simply want Texas to stop undermining our humble community schools by carpet-bombing them with tests, paperwork, and inane targets … and maybe pat our hard-working teachers on the back once in awhile, too. To me, these things are worth fighting for.
These are the same public schools that educated the greatest generation and taught the Americans who won the space race. News of their demise is greatly exaggerated.
This Q&A was conducted via email and condensed by Dallas Morning News editorial writer Rodger Jones. His email address is rmjones@dallasnews.com. John Kuhn can be reached at johnkuhntx@gmail.com.

If you believe, as I do, that standardized testing is now being misused and overused, you will be shocked to read about New York City’s latest plan to ration admission to programs for gifted 4-year-olds.

If you wanted to satirize the misuse of testing, you would come up with a plan like the one in NYC. Little children will take a test, be rank ordered, and only those who score 90% or higher are sure to win a coveted seat. Sorry, an 89% won’t make it.

When you read the editorial linked here, you may momentarily wonder if you stepped through the looking glass and into the bizarro world of testing gone mad..

Anxious parents are paying for test prep and tutoring for 3-year-olds to get ready for the big test. Children who should be playing and romping in the park are under pressure to get the right answer.

The New York Daily News usually lauds everything that comes out of the NYC DOE because of its fealty to Mayor Bloomberg, but this latest plan was too far-fetched even for the mayor’s most fervent advocates:

The News wrote:

“Preposterously, this method tries to make a superexact measurement out of completely nonscientific evaluation. Worse, consider this example:
“Sally and Billy are both 4, but Sally is one day older than Billy. They take the test on the same day. “Both get 28 questions right out of 30. Both wind up in the 99th percentile.
“But, because he is ever so slightly younger than Sally, Billy is viewed as more advanced. He gets a higher composite than Sally, and he beats her out.”

The latest research studies from Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child demonstrate how “toxic stress” can severely damage children’s minds.

Everyone needs to learn to deal with adversity, says Dr. Jack Shonkoff of the Harvard Center, and some stress is a good learning experience.

But the conditions associated with living in poverty harms children’s development.

“The same brain flexibility, called plasticity, that makes children open to learning in their early years also makes them particularly vulnerable to damage from the toxic stressors that often accompany poverty: high mobility and homelessness; hunger and food instability; parents who are in jail or absent; domestic violence; drug abuse; and other problems, according to Pat Levitt, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Southern California and the director of the Keck School of Medicine Center on the Developing Child in Los Angeles.

“Good experiences, like nurturing parents and rich early-child-care environments, help build and reinforce neural connections in areas such as language development and self-control, while adversity weakens those connections.”

This should be a required reading assignment for all those corporate-style reformers who insist that poverty is no excuse for low test scores, or that anyone who refers to poverty is making excuses for bad teachers.

Thus, when someone from TFA points to one school and says, “See, poverty doesn’t matter. High expectations are all it takes to overcome poverty,” tell them to read the work of Shonkoff and the Harvard Center on the Developing Child. Some children survive the most extreme adversity, but far more do not. Why should so many children in the richest society in the world be subjected to extreme adversity and toxic stress? The claim that charter schools can redress the harm done by living in deep poverty is shameful.

Poverty really does have an adverse impact on children’s development.