Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.

I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.

I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)

The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.

I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.

Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.

Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.

I understand all that.

And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.

Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.

In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.

Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.

Parent Revolution, the organization handsomely funded by the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Foundation, has finally gotten a charter conversion in the state of California, nearly two years after the law was passed.

Some victory: In a school with 600 plus students and 400 families, only 286 parents voted for the charter; when some changed their mind and tried to rescind their vote, they were told by a judge that they could not take their signature off the petition.

Only those who supported the charter were allowed to vote on which charter operator would run the new charter. That reduced the number of eligible voters to180.

Of the 180 who were eligible, only 53 voted on which operator would win control of their public school.

The winning operator received a grand total of 50 votes. That is 1/8 of the parents in the school. That is less than 15% of the parents in the school.

In the linked article above, no mention is made of the fact that the Adelanto school district had a charter that was closed last year because its operators engaged in funny business with the public’s money.

There are few investigative writers in education journalism these days. It is disturbingly rare to find writers who look behind the press releases, the hype and spin.

One place that cries out for investigative journalism is Louisiana, the locus for the most extreme privatization schemes. The governor is now imposing the New Orleans model on the entire state, and many hold up New Orleans as a national model. That means wiping out public education.

So here is an excellent article that does what journalists are supposed to do: Matthew Cunningham follows the money. He looks closely at the money flowing into the state school board races. In 2007, the total spent was about a quarter million dollars. In 2011, it was multiplied by ten times, to $2.6 million. Read the article to see where the money came from.

Pennsylvania legislators were moving to adopt a “charter reform” bill that would have benefited charters mightily.

In response to the loud outcry from supporters of public education, some Republican legislators switched sides at the last minute and the bill died.

There are indeed serious injustices that need to be corrected–like the outrageous over-funding of cyber charters–which cost taxpayers about $1 million a day.

This post explains why the bill failed and why it deserved to fail.

The bill will be back, and so will the supporters of public education.

Keep your eye on Pennsylvania.

An English teacher in Rhode Island writes:

I’m a great teacher. I’m waiting for the opportunity, at the ripe old age of 49, to switch careers. My heart is broken. I am deluged with PLC’s, SLO’s, dog and pony lesson plans that go nowhere, and impossible observations that require me to make my students lie through their teeth. I’m tired of the “idiocracy” that states things like “the SAT is an achievement test” and that “all children can learn” without providing qualifiers and quantifiers. I am waiting for the hammer to fall when I get caught not teaching the new Common Core Curriculum because I’m ignoring it and teaching to the curriculum I created that works VERY well. If I have to learn one new acronym I’m going to eat a bullet. Rhode Island is being run into the ground by a Broad Academy robot. Teachers in my district are running scared, the administrators are capos, the union has been neutered, and the school board couldn’t find it’s hiney with a flashlight. All of this “educational reform” is just making us chase our tails; it’s not letting us teach.

Listen to the students.

On this link there is a terrific video by two Georgia students who explain why voters should turn down a constitutional amendment on charter schools.

Georgia has over 130 charter schools.

The charter schools do not outperform the public schools.

Some local school boards have turned down new charters.

So the Governor has put an amendment to the Constitution on the ballot allowing him to create a commission to override local control. This idea comes from the corporate-controlled reactionary organization ALEC.

The state superintendent John Barge, WHO WAS ELECTED, NOT appointed by Governor Deal AS I ORIGINALLY WROTE, opposes the amendment.

So do PTAs and the NAACP and local school boards.

The amendment would set up a costly new bureaucracy.

It will cost $430 million.

It would undermine local control.

It would take money away from public schools.

It would give more money to charter schools than public schools receive.

This blog lists the websites and bloggers in Indiana who oppose state superintendent Tony Bennett. That’s easy. It includes every parent group in the state and everyone concerned about the future of education.

Which leaves the important question: Who supports Bennett? Well, big corporations. Advocates of privatization. People who hate unions. Groups that want to strip teachers of their profession and turn them into at-will employees like the greeters at Costco. The fake group called “Stand for Children,” also known as Stand on Children. Wall Street hedge fund managers. Online corporations hoping to make lots of money by recruiting students to homeschool while the corporation profits.

This election will be a referendum on whether Indiana wants to give away public education to private interests. It will happen unless the public wakes up and says no to privatization, yes to the common good.

The most important voice in state education policy today is the American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC.

ALEC has 2,000 state legislators as members, and dozens of corporate sponsors, including the biggest names in business.

Here is an excellent summary of ALEC’s legislative priorities.

ALEC writes model legislation. Its members carry it home and introduce it as their own in their states.

ALEC promotes charters and vouchers.

ALEC likes the parent trigger.

ALEC likes it when the governor can create a commission to approve charters over the opposition of local school boards.

ALEC favors unregulated, for-profit online schooling.

ALEC wants to eliminate collective bargaining.

ALEC doesn’t think teachers need any certification or credential.

ALEC opposes teacher tenure.

ALEC likes evaluating teachers by test scores.

You should learn about ALEC. Read up on it. It is the most influential voice in the nation on education policy.

http://ahuntingtonteacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/tony-bennett-selling-big-lie-about.html

Tony Bennett Selling the Big Lie about Need for Hoosier Teacher Accountability
In 2010,

Tony Bennett and the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) introduced relaxed teacher qualifications known as REPA. A slideshow presented by Bennett stated the need for REPA was a grade of “D” for “policies affecting teaching quality”. This grade was given by the National Council for Teaching Quality (NCTQ).

The grade of “D” was endorsed by NCTQ’s technical panel. Tony Bennett sits on the technical panel of NCTQ.

The NCTQ’s report was described by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) as “so fundamentally flawed it is not worthy of your engagement.” The AACTE went as far to call the report “unprofessional” in its obvious attempt to deteriorate traditional education.

Perhaps the NCTQ’s report and Indiana’s grade of “D” for teaching quality policies would have never gained much merit except for a strong endorsement that followed by a group known as Chiefs for Change.

The Chiefs for Change have only eleven members. Tony Bennett is one of them.

In sum, much of the turmoil surrounding the need for greater teacher accountability is because Bennett has said teachers need improvement and endorsed his own statement saying so.

Bennett has a history of disregarding public opinion, or even the law, for that matter, and forcing through his plan to dismantle public education. This also might explain language found here at the IDOE website:
Final RISE rubric ratings did not sufficiently differentiate teacher performance (61% Effective, 30% Highly Effective) or identify specific teacher strengths and weaknesses (67% of teachers received no rating lower than “effective” on all 19 RISE rubric competencies). When all the data is analyzed in the fall, these ratings are unlikely to accurately reflect actual teacher and student performance.
Bennett’s mind is stuck in a bell curve; a percentage of students must always be failing, a percentage of teachers must therefore also be failing. Bennett’s goal in Indiana is to continually fail a portion of students, teachers, and schools for the sake of privatization.

Teachers have not bought into the RISE evaluation system that creates:
· a detrimental “teach to the test” atmosphere.
· greater focus on only select students, especially “bubble” students.
· an environment of competition, not cooperation, among colleagues.
· teacher flight from schools most in need.
· less qualified teachers who do not stay in the profession.

The RISE evaluation has nothing to do with improving instruction. Bennett purposefully took away funding for advance degrees to create funds for merit pay. (Lest we forget, Bennett stood idly by while Daniels cut $300 million from Hoosier school budgets. This shortfall was felt most by teachers, who on average have taken huge pay cuts. In my district, teachers have taken between a 12% and 20% pay cut over the past three years.)

As one commenter said, (Bennett is) driving down teacher’s salaries and forcing them to fight over what spare money is left. Then he is telling the public he rewards the best teachers with merit pay.

Perhaps that is why Bennett also had to include this on the IDOE webpage:
Increased collaboration and conversation promotes overall satisfaction with the new evaluation system and belief that the new system raises student achievement.
This quote is reminiscent of one attributed to Joesph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Indiana, it is time for a change. How can Bennett think he is putting students first by continually putting teachers last? A teacher’s working conditions are the student’s learning conditions. Bennett’s denigration of the Hoosier teacher results in the denigration of all public education students.

It will take years to fix the damage Bennett has wreaked on Hoosier schools. Four more years of Tony Bennett’s policies and the damage may well be irreversible.

We need a new superintendent who will work with teachers, not against them. Glenda Ritz needs your support. She does not have the million plus dollar funding from huge corporations that will profit from Bennett’s privatization efforts. For Ritz to claim victory, it will take a grass roots effort from every citizen who cares about public education in Indiana. Get out the vote for Glenda Ritz.

In response to an earlier post, a reader suggests a simple way to evaluate the oft-repeated assertion tat low test scores are caused by bad teachers:

I wonder why the reformers don’t try this experiment: Take the staff of an underperforming school and switch them for a year with the staff in a high performing school. Let’s see if the results are that different.

I say try it for three years. Compare the results in both schools. Good idea.

I have heard this proposed many times. With privatizers in control of so many districts and states (e.g. Louisiana, Tennessee, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Indiana, Maine, Pennsylvania), this should be easy to arrange.