Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

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.

Pedro Noguera, my colleague at New York University, took my place as blogging partner with Deborah Meier at “Bridging Differences.”

In his latest column, Pedro says that it is not enough to recognize that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have failed. It is necessary to shape a new agenda.

Pedro offers these three elements to a new agenda.

1. “The federal government should call for the creation of a comprehensive support systems around schools in low-income communities to address issues such as safety, health, nutrition, and counseling. This should include the expansion of preschool and after-school programs and extended learning opportunities during the summer.” Since the federal government is unlikely to fund what is needed, states and localities should develop public-private partnerships to make it happen.

2) “The federal government must support a new approach to assessment that focuses on concrete evidence of academic performance—writing, reading, mathematical problem-solving—and moves away from using standardized tests to measure and rank students, teachers, and schools.”.

3) “The federal government needs to call upon the states and school districts to undertake careful evaluations of struggling schools to determine why they are failing to meet the needs of the students they serve before prescribing what should be changed. Instead of simply closing troubled schools such a strategy would require a greater focus on enrollment patterns (i.e. have we concentrated too many “high-needs” students in a school?) and ensuring that schools have the capacity to meet the needs of the students they serve rather than merely judging them under the current accountability systems.”

I heartily agree with Pedro’s diagnosis. If children are not healthy, if they are hungry, their ability to learn is negatively affected. The value of preschool and after-school programs is well-established. In state after state, these programs are being cut, while testing is expanded. I would go even further, as I do in my book, and say that class-size reduction must be part of the new vision, especially where the children with the greatest needs are enrolled.

The problem here is that we can’t get federal or state policymakers to change course unless they recognize that the present course–the strategy of high-stakes testing, accountability, choice, and school closings–has failed. I note that Pedro does not mention the Common Core standards, which has now become the linchpin of federal school reform.

Going forward, I think, requires that we persuade President Obama that Race to the Top is not working and must be replaced by a new vision. Pedro has well described the outlines of that vision.

But we can’t assume that the President will change course until he recognizes that four more years of the Bush NCLB strategy won’t help our children or improve their education. Twelve years is enough. It’s time to think anew.

David Sirota, an author and talk-show host, here analyzes the election results and says they exposed the Big Lie of the corporate reform movement.

The public is not hankering to privatize their public schools.

The corporate leaders and rightwing establishment dropped millions of dollars to push their agenda of privatization, teacher-bashing and anti-unionism. They lost some major contests.

I will be posting more about some important local races they lost.

We have to do two things to beat them: get the word out to the public about who they are and what they want (read Sirota).

Two: never lose hope.

Those who fight to defend the commons against corporate raiders are on the right side of history.

Nothing they demand is right for children, nor does it improve education.

There is a new blogger in Memphis. Thus we get the low-down on how parents were treated by the “reformers.” Read this. The condescension is startling. The local Portfolio Manager (!) let everyone know that public hearings give them a chance to vent. Eventually, the parents will understand that wiser heads than theirs are making all the decisions.

As you may recall, Tennessee is on its way to privatizing large numbers of schools across the state because it suffered a double whammy: it “won” Race to the Top funding (more charter schools, more punitive teacher evaluations), and it has a super-conservative Governor, legislature and state commissioner. All bad news for public schools.

Soon after the elections, the mega-corporation K12 convened a conference call with investors to boast about the opening of new markets for virtual charters in Georgia and Washington State.

K12 is the company founded by the Milken brothers to sell online schooling for-profit.

It is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Its CEO, Ron Packard, has a background at McKinsey and Goldman Sachs. Last year, he was paid $5 million.

The academic results of its schools are poor. The National Education Policy Center reviewed K12 and found that its students fare poorly in relation to test scores and graduation rates. The NCAA won’t accept credits from one of its online schools. The New York Times wrote a blistering critique of K12.

But K12, like some other charter operators, makes campaign contributions (as it did in Georgia), and the politicians care more about those contributions than about the children of their state.

The Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C., is one of the nation’s leading advocates for privatization of public education. Its leader, Jeanne Allen, was an education policy analyst at the rightwing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, before she founded CER in 1993:

The Center for Education Reform has long advocated for charters and vouchers. It has nothing to say about improving public schools, only that they should be replaced by private management or vouchers.

CER is closely allied with other conservative groups committed to privatization, like ALEC, the Heartland Institute, Democrats for Education Reform, and Black Alliance for Educational Options. CER claimed credit for helping to write the Heartland Institute’s version of the parent trigger law, which served as a model for ALEC.

If you want to track the advance of privatization, keep your eye on the Center for Education Reform.

This is CER’s take on the 2012 elections (to see the links, go to the CER website):

The Center for Education Reform Analysis:
How Education Reform Fared on Election Day

WASHINGTON, DC – The Center for Education Reform analyzed Tuesday’s results through the prism of education reform. Our EDlection Roundup provides our analysis on races up and down the ballots, including:

The White House: The Center congratulated President Obama and offered thoughts about how he could refocus education issues in his second term.

Governors: Two states, North Carolina and Indiana, will be inaugurating reform-minded Governors. They join the 23 other states who are also led by reformers. Is yours one of them? See our Governor grades.

Senate Races: We take a look at the results of four Senate races where candidates were strong reformers, and where two – Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) – were victorious.

Ballot Initiatives: There were education reform ballot initiatives in Georgia, Idaho, and Washington. We look at the results, which included a decisive victory in Georgia.

Superintendents: We examine the results of Superintendent races, with a special look at the disappointing defeat of Tony Bennett, a stalwart reformer.

###

CER, since 1993, is the leading voice and advocate for lasting, substantive and structural education reform in the U.S. Additional information about the Center and its activities can be found at http://www.edreform.com.

The Center for Education Reform
(tel) 800-521-2118 • 301-986-8088 • (fax) 301-986-1826
cer@edreform.com • http://www.edreform.com

San Diego had a bond issue on the ballot. It passed handily.

It appeared to be a great victory for public schools.

But unknown to many, there was a sweet deal tucked into the bond issue.

The district will get $2.8 billion in loans, but $350 million is set aside for charters.

Decisions about how to allocate the money will be made by a committee, this article says, dominated by representatives of the charter industry.

Here is another name to add to the billionaire boys’ club: Irwin Jacobs of Qualcomm. This La Jolla billionaire believes that most students in the San Diego schools should eventually be in a charter school. Jacobs gave $80,000 to the campaign for the bond issue in San Diego. He was also one of the biggest contributors to the Obama campaign.

Another true believer in privatization of public education.

Ronnie Greco, who is leader of the Jersey City Education Association, joins our honor roll of heroes of public education.

Ronnie refused to sign Jersey City’s application for a Race to the Top grant for $40 million.

Ronnie quickly figured out that not a penny of the $40 million would solve any problem that Jersey City public schools have.

It would not be used to improve teaching and learning conditions.

It would not be available to reduce class size.

It would be used to impose merit pay, which has never worked anywhere.

It would be used to find and fire “ineffective” teachers, based on unproven test-based measures.

It would be used to implement top-down mandates devised in Washington, D.C., by the U.S. Department of Education.

The issues in Jersey City are no different from the issues that led to a strike in Chicago.

It is tough for a union leader to say no to a big federal grant because the media will blame him (or her) for turning down “free” money.

But Ronnie figured out the trap.

The money comes with strings that get fashioned into a noose for teachers.

The money will not reform the schools of Jersey City.

The money will not help the children of Jersey City.

The schools of Jersey City have been under state control for 23 years.

For 23 years, the state of New Jersey has failed the children of New Jersey.

The teachers of Jersey City work under difficult conditions.

They are heroes.

And their leader, Ronnie Greco, joins our honor roll for his courage, insight, wisdom, and conviction–all qualities in short supply today in our public life.

 

Two teachers have started a campaign to take their message to the White House: stop the Race to the Top!

The message of their campaign:

Give all students the same education your girls are getting! Abandon Race to the Top and stop privatizing public schools.

Join them!

Earlier, I published a post about Students for Education Reform, linking to a post by EduShyster.

SFER is a junior version of Democrats for Education Reform, the group formed by Wall Street hedge fund managers to promote privatization and high-stakes testing.

EduShyster here says that the credit for investigative reporting goes to Stephanie Rivera, a student at Rutgers, who plans to be a teacher and often engages in dialogue with her peers at SFER and TFA. Her website is called Teacher Under Construction.

EduShyster writes:

Actually all of the credit for “digging” goes to Stephanie Rivera, a student at Rutgers. She posts regular updates about SFER on her blog, Teacher Under Construction, and has done an amazing job of reaching out to SFER members and getting them to talk openly about things that don’t seem quite right about a student group.
SFER has been under the radar so far but that’s only because they haven’t done much.

That will soon change though. Students from SFER’s chapter at Whitworth University in Washington state, a private, virtually all white school, lobbied ardently for the state’s new charter law, including going door to door. I suspect that here in Massachusetts, where the charter lobby will file a bill in the coming months to eliminate the cap on charters in our poorest cities, it will be students from Smith and Harvard who provide the ground troops…

I can’t help but admire the evil genius that came up with this concept. Students across the country, who are utterly sincere in their passion and zeal, are being lined up behind the privatizers’ policy agenda. Ask questions and you’re accused of “attacking students.” Yet the students who make up the bulk of SFER’s membership don’t seem to know anything about their national organization’s funders, its positions or of the implications of those positions.