Melissa Harris-Perry did this review of the Tony Bennett grade-fixing scandal in Indiana. This is the kind of mainstream media attention that is helping to unravel the corporate reform narrative.
Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
Bruce Baker brilliantly explains here why he won’t use the term “corporate reform.”
The strategies now being imposed on the schools have failed when applied in corporate settings, he writes.
He looks at the use of two now-popular “reform” ideas in education: the portfolio model and evaluation by results.
The portfolio model is based on the belief that schools should compete, and that those in charge should close the ones that don’t have high test scores while adding new ones.
Baker shows that when Sears tried the portfolio model, it was a disaster.
Units competed with one another, and each one thought only about what was good for its own survival.
There was, as one would predict, the worst kind of competition for survival, with cream skimming.
The overall results were devastating to the corporation.
When IBM tried to reverse its declining fortunes, it adopted a competitive employee rating system.
This too was a disaster.
(Edwards Deming could have predicted these disasters, but that’s another subject.)
So, Baker argues that current education reform should not be called “corporate reform” because good corporations would never do what the “reformers” now insist upon.
But, I will continue to use the term “corporate reform” because I think he proves the point that I make.
The bad ideas now infesting public education came from the corporate sector, where they failed.
They are failed corporate ideas that are being imposed on public schools, where they also fail.
It is important to understand why they failed in the corporate world, because it helps to explain why they are failing in the education world.
So I will continue to refer to the “reformers” as corporate reformers because it captures the origins of their bad ideas.
They are the people insisting upon the portfolio model, upon teacher evaluation models that turn teaching into a metrical exercise, upon data as the goal of education, upon turning everything into a metric, upon closing community schools, upon lowering standards for entry into teaching. They are the people who think that Big Data can solve all problems, even those that can’t be measured. They are the people who say “you measure what you treasure,” although they sometimes say, “you treasure what you measure.” And they say, “if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it.”
If someone has a better term than “corporate reform,” I’m all ears.
I received the following email today from Senator Mitch McConnell.
He really needs to get some people on his staff who can read and understand education research.
It is not that hard.
So should Rand Paul, Lamar Alexander, and the other senators who are pushing vouchers.
He would learn, for example, that students in voucher schools have not outperformed students in public schools anywhere.
He doesn’t mention that in this letter, so maybe he does know it and doesn’t care.
He would learn that voucher schools appear to have a higher graduation rate because they have a huge attrition rate.
For example, in Milwaukee, 56% of the students who started vouchers schools in ninth grade dropped out before reaching graduation.
So, the 44% who did not drop out were more likely to have a higher graduation rate than the public schools that accepted the dropouts from the voucher schools.
Why do these so-called “conservatives” want to destroy their own community’s public schools? There is nothing conservative about that.
Conservatives protect traditional institutions.
Conservatives protect their community.
Conservatives are not anarchists.
Funny they don’t mention that vouchers have never been approved in any referendum. Voters don’t want their public dollars to go to religious or unregulated private schools.
McConnell writes:
We, as conservatives, know that the government is not the best place to do a lot of things. Although, if government must take action, we prefer that the most local level of government addresses an issue.
Sometimes, every level of government creates obstacles to success. I consider it a priority in the United States Senate to remove those obstacles and help citizens, taxpayers and parents succeed.
That is why I am fighting hard for more choice and freedom in our schools.
School choice and parental control are issues I hold dear, which is why I am proud to join my friends Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tim Scott, Lamar Alexander and others at an important school choice forum.
Every child, whatever their background and no matter where they live, deserves a great education and a chance to succeed in life. Unfortunately, Washington and the entire education establishment are failing our kids.
Every decision that Washington has made in recent years seems to bring more power to the federal government, leaving less control for local schools and parents.
However, school choice is working where it has been allowed to replace the education establishment. Here are a few facts about school choice and the positive consequences of a successful education:
In Washington, the voucher program increased the graduation rate by 21 percent.
By 25, the average high school dropout earns $18,796 per year. On the other hand, the average college graduate with a bachelor’s degree is earning $26,699 per year and will earn nearly 100% more over their lifetime than a high school dropout.
How do we get more young Americans to earn bachelor’s degrees instead of becoming another dropout statistic?
The answer is school choice, and I will continue to fight alongside my colleagues in the Senate to expand the control that parents have over their child’s education.
You can also help by making sure I can keep fighting in Washington. Fighting for choice in education. Fighting for local control of schools. Fighting for parents and taxpayers.
The Badass Teachers Association has produced a series of videos to explain the intricacies and deceptions of corporate reform.
The first laid out the corporate reform strategy.
The second examined the Broad superintendents.
The third looks closely at the legacy of Michelle Rhee.
The thesis that ties them together is that “reform” is a house of cards built on lies that will inevitably fall down, as houses of cards tend to do.
Nancy Flanagan taught music in Michigan for many years. She now blogs at Edweek.
In this post, she dissects a new reformy idea called “the opportunity culture.” The bottom line is that if you are in the top 25% of teachers, determined by test scores, then you should teach larger classes and get paid more. This is Bill Gates’ and Michael Bloomberg’s dream.
Nancy is at her best in this column. You deserve a break today. Read it and enjoy the absurdity of this latest gambit.
Here is a small sample of Nancy’s post:
“How did this exciting window of opportunity emerge? Public Impact explains:
“Only 25 percent of classes are taught by excellent teachers. With an excellent teacher versus an average teacher, students make about an extra half-year of progress every year–closing achievement gaps fast, leaping ahead to become honors students, and surging forward like top international peers.”
“That’s a whole lot of leaping and surging. Unfortunately, it’s based on a faux statistic, sitting triumphantly on a pyramid of dubious research, prettied up with some post-modern infographics. Like other overhyped blah-blah of “reform”–the “three great teachers in a row” myth, for example, or nearly every “fact” in Waiting for Superman–it’s a triumph of slick media slogans over substance. A quick look at the Opportunity Culture Advisory Team tells you what the real purpose of the OC is: cutting teachers, privatizing services, plugging charters and cultivating a little astroturf to cover the scars.
“The Opportunity Culture’s bold plan begins with a policy recommendation: Schools should be required by law to identify the top 25% of their teachers. Then, once that simple task is completed, OC suggests ten exciting new models for staffing schools, beginning with giving these excellent teachers a lot more students (plus a merit pay carrot) and ending with enlisting “accountable remote teachers down the street or across the nation” who would “provide live, but not in-person instruction while on-site teammates manage administrative duties and develop the whole child.”
Mark Naison, one of the founders of the Badass Teachers Association, here explains that the foundational idea of the privatization movement is a lie.
Naison writes:
“Public School Failure- “The Big Lie” on Which Current Education Policy Rests
“As someone who has worked in the Bronx for the last 45 years, it drives me crazy to hear business leaders denounce public schools as the one failed institution in an otherwise thriving society. Hello! During the 1970’s, when factories in the Bronx closed, business districts shuttered, banks refused to make loans and landlords abandoned and burned buildings that once held nearly half a million people, leaving the southern portion of the borough looking as though it suffered aerial bombardment, the public schools remained open, serving traumatized students with a shrinking array of resources. And these same schools were there ten years later when a crack epidemic hit the Bronx, providing a refuge from flying bullets and war torn streets.
“That the academic performance of these schools suffered as a result of serving batteeed communities with limited resources is hardly surprising, but let us not forget they were there, on the ground, when private businesses ran away because they could not operate in such conditions.
“And the teachers!! The Bronx teachers who went to work among burned out cars and vacant lots and crack vials and flying bullets were the Bronx’s unsung heroes, valiantly serving children living in a war zone, helping young people abandoned by the rest of the country achieve a measure of self confidence and success at a time when few cared what happened to them
“And now, the Arne Duncans and Wendy Kopps and Bill Gates of the world have the nerve to blame these same schools and teachers for the so-called “achievement gap” and the persistence of poverty and inequality in the United States. In a time when our biggest corporations have downsized and outsourced, exported jobs, and driven down wages, the public schools have actually done a better job upholding the living standards of Americans and defending it’s best traditions, than their private sector counterparts.”
Mark D Naison
Professor of African American Studies and History
Fordham University
“If you Want to Save America’s Public Schools: Replace Secretary of Education Arne Duncan With a Lifetime Educator.” http://dumpduncan.org/
In one of the comments on the blog, a reader posted critical comments about the Connecticut Policy Institute.
The executive director of the institute, Ben Zimmer, asked me for the opportunity to respond. I agreed.
I checked the webpage of the CPI, and note that it is in favor of charter schools in poor districts, using test scores (“effectiveness”) to evaluate teachers, using an A-F grading system for schools, and imposing a third grade reading exam and a graduation exam. Most of these are policies that I have criticized on this blog. Charter schools do not get better results than public schools except when they skim the best students and exclude those who might lower their test scores; evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students is a very poor measure of teacher quality that I have called “junk science” because of its recognized inaccuracy and instability; the A-F grading system introduced by Jeb Bush in Florida is incoherent and constantly reshuffled, but still incoherent; after a dozen years of NCLB, I conclude that reliance on testing is a demonstrated failure if the goal is either excellence or equity. The fact that CPI holds up not only Massachusetts as a model but Jeb Bush’s Florida and Mitch Daniels’ Indiana is a strong indication of the policy goals of the organization.
But as readers know, I post entries that I don’t necessarily agree with, and even entries that I clearly disagree with.
I am happy to post Ben Zimmer’s response here.
Zimmer writes:
Dear Readers of Professor Ravitch’s Blog,
This morning Professor Ravitch posted a blog entry reproducing a comment from an online forum. The comment critiqued a recent op-ed I wrote on teacher certification in Connecticut (http://www.ctmirror.org/op-ed/2013/06/30/vallas-certification-debacle-reveals-shortcomings-education-reform-efforts). I welcome and appreciate Professor Ravitch drawing attention to my op-ed and the work of the Connecticut Policy Institute. But the comment she reposted does not accurately represent my position and puts forward unfounded critiques. Professor Ravitch has kindly offered me the opportunity to respond.
Amidst a barrage of all-caps tirades and ad-hominem insults (“assclown” was my particular favorite), the post appeared to make three actual points: 1) That my opposition to teacher certification laws means that I support lowering standards for educators; 2) That my opposition to teacher certification laws is grounded in “bogus” studies; and 3) That I am a hypocrite for opposing teacher certification laws when I hold a B.A. and J.D myself. I will respond to each point in turn.
Point 1
The notion that I support lowering standards for educators is a complete mischaracterization of my position. Indeed, in order to make this point the author literally fabricates quotes – for instance, the author quotes me as stating that degrees in education are “worthless,” a word that never appeared in my op-ed (nor did anything approximating it). On the contrary, I believe education degrees can be a very valuable credential for teachers. But I do not believe that they are the only valid credential.
The teaching profession is enhanced when professionals from a diverse set of backgrounds are eligible to apply for positions. Right now, in Connecticut, someone with a PhD in physics or history with experience teaching college-level seminars in their field would be prohibited by law from teaching an equivalent seminar at a public school. I do not believe this restriction or ones like it further the goal of promoting the highest quality teaching possible.
Furthermore, when state laws require individuals in any profession to obtain a degree from a particular department in a particular university, that department becomes insulated from competitive pressures and accountability. Departments of education have an important role to play at higher education institutions. But the quality of those departments would be enhanced if they had to compete for aspiring teachers based on the quality of training they provide.
Point 2
Research suggests that paper certifications are not valuable predictors of teachers’ effectiveness. Rigorous studies confirming this include studies put out by the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf) and labor economist Tim Sass (http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/pdfs/Alternative%20Certification%20and%20Teacher%20Quality%2011.pdf).
Point 3
It is perfectly consistent to oppose teacher certification laws while holding advanced degrees myself. I fully support teachers obtaining advanced degrees and I also support schools / districts encouraging teachers to obtain advanced degrees – insofar as those degrees actually help teachers teach more effectively. What I oppose is legal requirements limiting teachers to certain particular advanced degrees. In most professions – even ones where possession of advanced degrees is the norm and it would be difficult to get a job without one (e.g., university professors, engineers, business executives, government officials, non-for-profit administrators) – there are no laws limiting professionals to particular degrees.
That said, teaching is not the only field where state laws mandate particular certifications or licenses. In many of those other fields, the laws are similarly problematic. This is something that the Connecticut Policy Institute has studied and written on at some length: http://www.ctpolicyinstitute.org/content/CT_Policy_Institute_Regulation_Paper.pdf.
One other profession where state laws limit applicant pools to individuals who hold a particular degree is the law. Though I hold a J.D. myself, I would be the first to say that licensing laws for lawyers have many of the same problems as they do for teachers – they are less about actual qualification and more about insulating established bureaucracies from outside reform and protecting the economic interests of existing lawyers and law professors. Aspiring lawyers are forced to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to attend law schools that often teach things unrelated to the practice of law. Meanwhile, law students’ debt-financed tuition heavily subsidizes the salaries of law professors who earn more than their peers in the rest of academia even though they produce articles that are equally abstract and infrequently read. This New York Times article offers an interesting exploration of these problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/after-law-school-associates-learn-to-be-lawyers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Conclusion
I know that teachers have at times felt vilified by the “education reform” movement. Personally, I firmly believe that teachers are part of the solution, not part of the problem. But we also should acknowledge that the teaching profession – like all professions – is not perfect. There are certain structural features of the teaching profession as currently constituted that limit its ability to realize its full potential. I believe we should reform those features.
I welcome constructive dialogue with any of you on these issues. You can email me at ben.zimmer@ctpolicyinstitute.org, or call the Connecticut Policy Institute office at 203-404-0235.
Best,
Ben Zimmer
Executive Director
Connecticut Policy Institute
Executive Director
Connecticut Policy Institute
A reader sent the following commentary on reformers’ efforts to lower standards for educators and to welcome people without professional preparation and credentials to teach in and administer the nation’s public schools and charter schools. His response was prompted by a post about teachers in Arizona with online degrees. He writes:
“Arizona teacher: “I have seen staffs comprised of high school graduate teachers who bought their degrees online and took not one college level course.”
To the Arizona teacher… destroying the profession of teaching and filling it with unqualified faux teachers is not a bug in the privatizers’ “reform” model, it is a feature.
I just found this from the Connecticut Policy Institute—a “think tank” and “a non-partisan research institute on Connecticut economic policy and education reform” that fronts for for-profit business interests that are trying to profit from the privatization of education. To do this, they put out bogus “studies” and “policy papers” in support of these business interests’ practices and approaches to privatized education:
In this op-ed, Ben Zimmer defends Vallas’ lack of credentialing, but goes one further.
Not only should there be no credential requirement for Superintendents, THERE SHOULD BE NO CREDENTIALING OR EDUCATION REQUIREMENT OF TEACHERS (???!!!) as well as ADMINISTRATORS.
————————————————————–
Ben Zimmer: “With a few exceptions, Connecticut law requires teachers to have a degree in education, meaning many talented people who didn’t decide to become teachers until after completing their educations have difficulty doing so.
“This serves the economic interests of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs, but does not advance the goal of obtaining the highest quality teaching and administration possible.”
————————————————————
Don’t you get it? If the government entity in charge of education requires thing like ohhh… bachelor’s degrees, or even 2-year community college associate degrees… or even one single college course… well, you’re just “serving the economic interest of existing teachers and administrators by limiting competition for their jobs.”
Those teachers who’ve actually achieved these “worthless degrees” will bring along with them accompanying demands for a decent salary, health benefits, retirement, etc…. AND WHO NEEDS THAT when you’re trying to make a profit… err… excuse me… make “transformational change” in education?
Oh, you don’t believe this? Well, Connecticut Policy Institute’s “studies and papers” have “proven” all of this to be true… that you need nothing more than a high school diploma to teach in K-12 schools.
Zimmer goes on:
————————————————————
Ben Zimmer: “As the Connecticut Policy Institute has discussed in our papers on education reform, there is no evidence linking certification regimes to teachers’ or administrators’ effectiveness in increasing student achievement. They simply serve to limit the recruitment pipeline of outstanding educators and keep the antiquated education administration departments of the state university system in business.”
————————————————————–
An organization fronting for business interests that want to profit from the privatization of education—some of them charter school chain CEO”s making $500,000/year or more (Geoffrey Canada)—has its spokesman attacking education departments—some of them Ivy League universities… most of them having turning out quality teachers for 100-150 years or more—as only being “in business” to advance the selfish financial interests of their administrators and professors that work in them. They are deliberately blocking “outstanding educators” from entering the field because they are out for themselves, and not the students’.
Wow! I”m so glad someone’s finally blowing the lid off this!
But then look at this assclown Zimmer’s bio at Connecticut Policy Institute:
http://ctpolicyinstitute.org/about/bio/ben-zimmer/leadership
He proudly touts his own education credentials:
———————————————————————-
“Ben received a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he specialized in business law and economic policy, and a B.A., magna cum laude with highest honors in history, from Harvard College.”
———————————————————————-
But Ben, I thought those high-falutin’ things like degrees didn’t matter. Aren’t those “J.D.’s” and “B.A.s” and “magna cum laude’s” just worthless pieces of paper spit out by “antiquated” entities that are only trying to keep themselves “in business” to pay the undeserved salaries of the folks who work in them?
No, no, no… you see in Ben’s world, rigid requirements like… oh… years of post-secondary education, or even passing a certification test…. those things only matter in OTHER careers or professions. They don’t matter in the realm of K-12 education… as his noble “kids first” organization, Connecticut Policy Institute, has produced studies and papers” have “proven” that.
No, according to Ben, teaching is like working the fry machine at McDonald’s… just let anyone in the door—education and credentials be damned—to have at it and compete for the job, then just keep the ones who do it best. And THAT is how you end up with a staff of what Ben describes as a nation of “outstanding educators.”
Got that?
You see the way to get better teachers in front of kids is just simple… so simple that those antiquated ed departments full of money-motivated hacks have been missing it for over 150 years.
The way to fill our country’s schools with “outstanding educators” is to lower or even eliminate the standards and requirements for becoming one.
That’s it!!!! Why hasn’t anyone thought of that until now?
What’s that, you say? The highest achieving nations like Finland and South Korea don’t operate that way? In those countries, becoming a teacher is as difficult and demanding as becoming a doctor?
Well, that would never work here in the United States.
This is a clever, sharp video about corporate reform.
It comes with the endorsement of the notorious BAT teachers.
It is the first of a series explaining the nefarious role of the privatization movement and its pretense to be “for the kids” as it destroys their community public schools.
If this is a sample of the BAT work, we can expect that the house of cards will be toppling soon.
The reformers who impose bad ideas on kids and schools take themselves very seriously. They don’t like to be reminded that all their policies fail, and that their work is a house of cards.
This is a twist. Boykin Curry, a major hedge fund manager and Wall Street power broker, sent out an email endorsing Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced ex-governor who is running for City Comptroller.
Curry was happy with Spitzer when he was governor because he was very supportive of charter schools.
Spitzer resigned the governorship after it was revealed that he paid prostitutes on numerous occasions. Now he is trying to make a political comeback by running for City Comptroller. His opponent, Scott Stringer, is Manhattan Borough President; Stringer appointed the brilliant, independent Patrick Sullivan to serve on the city’s board of education. The majority of the board is appointed by Mayor Bloomberg and acts as a rubber stamp. Sullivan usually is the only member who asks questions. Imagine that!
Curry is on the board of Democrats for Education Reform, a hedge fund group that raises big bucks to support politicians who want more charters; he is also on the board of Public Prep charters and the Alliance for School Choice.
Spitzer is not popular on Wall Street because he made his name by beating up on the financial industry.
But he is a reliable friend to charters.
