Archives for category: Discipline

 

Steven Singer presents a hypothetical but nutty analogy. He opens this post with a teacher pulling out a gun and shooting a student in the head. The principal hears the gun shot, runs to the classroom, sees the body on the floor, and is about to reprimand the teacher but quiets down and leaves when he realizes that the other students are working diligently. The teacher has used this extraordinary method to encourage students to work harder. Her method is effective. Why mess with success?

This is his commentary on a study that proposes that public schools should absorb the lessons of the no-excuses charter schools. If harsh discipline works for them and produces higher test scores, isn’t that what all schools should do?

Is this what parents want?

Are high scores the goal of education?

I am reminded of something I wrote about a study by Roland Fryer in which he concluded that while bonuses don’t seem to produce higher scores, aversive policies do. For example, pay a teacher $4,000 in the beginning of the school year, and if the teacher’s students don’t get higher test scores, take the money away. That works. I suggested another method that might work, using the aversive method: tell economists that if their predictions are wrong, you will cut off one of their fingers.

 

 

Peter Greene, like Steven Singer, is unimpressed by Sarah Cohodes’ claim that no-excuses charter schools have solved the problem of low scoring students. Discipline! SLANT! No excuses! Look at the teacher! Walk in a straight line! Thats what the black and brown kids need.

“Cohodes opens with a quick recap of charter history, then lays out the problem with measuring charter effects– selection bias because charter students have chosen the charter. But good news– the selection bias problem is completely solved by charter school lotteries. Except (she acknowledges) not everybody chooses to enter the lottery. And the lottery only applies when schools are over-subscribed. But maybe we can find comparable groups of non-charter students to compare charter students to. Which is hard. Cohodes seems to conclude this kind of research is really hard to design well. So she used some lottery studies and some observational studies in her research. And, having scanned the research, she drops this right in this intro section:

“The best estimates find that attending a charter school has no impact compared to attending a traditional public school….

”Let’s go to the headline material. Essentially, she finds that No Excuses charters set up in neighborhood served by very struggling public schools show a big gain in test scores. But here I will get into specifics, because she cites in particular the KIPP schools and the charters of Boston. Yet Boston charters have been found to come up very short in sending students on to complete college.

“The No Excuses practices that Cohodes zeros in on are ” intensive teacher observation and training, data-driven instruction, increased instructional time, intensive tutoring, and a culture of high expectations.” Not being able to narrow the list down is a problem– if I tell you that my athletic program gets great results by having athletes exercise for two hours daily, drink high protein shakes, breathe air regularly, and sacrifice toads under a full moon, it will be easy to follow my “research” to some unwarranted conclusions. Cohodes’ list is likewise a hugely mixed bag.

“Longer school day and school year is obvious. More time in school = getting more schooling done. A culture of high expectations is meaningless argle bargle. And the teacher training and “data-driven” instruction boils down to the same old news– if you spend a lot of time on test prep, your test results get better.

“Cohodes also notes that the worse the “fallback” school results, the greater the charter “improvement.” In other words, the lower you set the baseline, the more your results will surpass it.

“She doubles back to look at how charters relate to the surrounding public schools, again kicking the tires on the research to test reliability.

“She notes that there are two ways for lottery charters to cream the best students from the community. One is to manipulate the lottery, which she doesn’t think happens (for what it’s worth, neither do I, mostly because it’s not necessary). The second is to push out the students the school doesn’t want. But she is missing two more– make the lottery system prohibitively challenging, so that only the most motivated families can navigate it. And advertising allows charters to send a clear message about which students are welcome at their school. And nobody works those creaming tricks like No Excuses schools, with their highly regimented and oppressive treatment of students….

”And the criticism that I found myself leveling at very page finally surfaces here:

Given that the overall distribution of charter school effects is very similar to that of traditional public schools, expanding charter schools without regard to their effectiveness at increasing test scores would do little to narrow achievement gaps in the United States. But expanding successful, urban, high-quality charter schools—or using some of their practices in traditional schools—may be a way to do so.

Emphasis mine. If you think that closing the achievement gap is nothing but raising test scores, you are wasting my time. It’s almost two decades into this reform swamp, and still I don’t believe there’s a person anywhere sayin, “I was able to escape poverty because I got a high PARCC score.” Using the Big Standardized Test score as a proxy for student achievement is still an unproven slice of baloney, the policy equivalent of the drunk who looks for his car keys under the lights, not because he lost them there, but because it’s easier to look there.

It’s really not that hard to raise test scores– just devote every moment of the day to intensive test preparation. What’s hard is to raise test scores while pretending that you’re really doing something else.

Let’s consider a thought experiment in which further expansion focuses on high-quality charters. What would happen to the achievement gap in the United States if all of those new charter schools were opened in urban areas serving low-income children, had no excuses policies, and had large impacts on test scores like Boston, New York, Denver, and KIPP charters?

Yes, I want to say, and let’s consider a thought experiment in which pigs fly out of my butt. However, she continues

Expanding charters in this way certainly could transform the educational trajectories of the students who attend. But if we consider the US achievement gap as a whole, it would have a negligible effect.

What she wants to see is an expansion of charter practices expanded to public schools, and she sees ESSA as a policy tool to do it. But what practices? Expanded school time? That would take too much money for policy makers to support. Relentless test prep at the expense of broader education? No thanks. High expectations in the form of heavy regimentation, speak-only-when-spoken-to, treatment? Pretend that student socio-economic background and the opportunity gap are not really factors? That seems just foolishly wrong. Besides the questionable morality of such an approach, a vast number of parents simply wouldn’t stand for it. And how would we replace the mission of public education– to educate all students– with the mission of No Excuse charters– to educate only those students who are a “good fit.”

 

 

 

 

Bill Honig, former State Superintendent of Education in California and owner of the Honig Vineyard, has closely studied the Republican Tax Plan and found that it is even more harmful than originally presented.

He writes:

The GOP/Trump tax cut bill is a much more massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and low income families than reported–essentially borrowing from the future, taxing the working classes, and cutting needed services to finance an unnecessary tax cut for the wealthy who are already living high on the hog and receiving an unprecedented share of post-tax income.

“For the full FAQ sheet http://www.buildingbetterschools.com/2017/12/26/faq-for-gop-trump-tax-bill/ Text below.

“FAQ on the GOP/Trump Tax Cut

“How Large Is It?

“Most reporters and commentators characterize the GOP/Trump tax cut legislation as a $1.5 trillion bill. That’s not remotely accurate and seriously underestimates the magnitude and severity of the recently passed law. According to the latest Congressional Budget Office analysis, the ten-year effect of the legislation is a net $3.9 trillion tax reduction (more than 2 ½ times what is being reported) even after you subtract the elimination of $1.3 trillion of corporate deductions from the total of $5.2 trillion in total tax cuts.

“Who Benefits?

“The tax reductions overwhelmingly benefit mega-wealthy families and corporations. Many of our most well-off citizens will annually pocket tens of thousands of dollars and some even millions while everyone else receives meager tax breaks or in some cases immediate higher taxes. Tax cuts which do help middle and low income families in 2018 (inflated to be in time for the 2018 elections) diminish over time until they are eliminated. According to Tax Policy Center, ten years from now 83% of the cuts will go to the top 1% and 53% of American families will suffer a tax increase–a classic case of bait and switch. In contrast, the corporation cuts are permanent.

“Do the wealthy really need such a large tax break so that they can buy another mansion, a bigger yacht or jet, throw another party, buy another designer outfit, or pad their bank accounts while tens of millions of families living paycheck to paycheck receive a pittance or get taxed? Republican mega-rich donors must think so because they drove the whole perverted process by which the tax bill was passed.

“Who Pays?

“Middle and low income families. The $3.9 trillion net tax cuts in the GOP bill are paid for by;

“borrowing $1.5 trillion or more by increasing the federal debt–a burden on our economy and our children in years to come;
“raising $2.1 trillion in taxes on mostly middle-class and working-class families by eliminating the personal exemption, changing the inflation measure, capping state and local tax deductions (which primarily affects the upper-middle class in blue states), and some other miscellaneous deductions; and
“cutting $314 billion from health care by eliminating the mandated Obamacare contributions which will have the added harm of increasing premiums by 10% and dropping 4-9million people from medical care.
“Thus, this tax cut bill is a much more massive shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle-class and low income families than reported–essentially borrowing from the future, taxing the working classes, and cutting needed services to finance an unnecessary tax cut for the wealthy who are already living high on the hog and receiving an unprecedented share of post-tax income.

“What Happens to Inequality?

“This country is currently suffering from dangerously high levels of inequality not witnessed since the Guilded Age and the Roaring Twenties–the latter period followed by the Great Depression of 1930’s caused primarily by the failure to pass down to workers enough wages to sustain demand. A multitude of research has shown that high levels of inequality stunt economic growth and opportunity. At present, the top 1% own 40% of US wealth which is more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90% and receive almost 20% of yearly income which is about twice as much as the share of the bottom 50% of families. The GOP/Trump tax plan will make this bad situation much worse.

“Was There Any Bi-partisan Support?

“Not one Democratic senator or member of Congress voted for the GOP/Trump tax plan, so broad support is absent. Because the GOP congressional leaders rushed the drafting of the bill behind closed doors flouting normal procedure with no public hearings, there are many errors and hidden rip-offs creating fertile soil for gaming the tax code by such methods as turning individuals into corporations. Last minute loopholes and outright looting were obtained by lobbyists such as the pass-through write-off for real estate trusts which benefit real-estate moguls such as President Trump and his family. The real cost of the bill may turn out to be much higher and borrowing could exceed $2 trillion.

“How Extensive is the Collateral Damage?

“Severe. Existing budget rules, unless changed (good luck), mandate large and growing cuts to Medicare due to the increased deficit–$25 billion in 2018 and over $400 billion in the next ten years. GOP’ers are already using the existence of a larger deficit to refuse to fund health services for 9 million children under the CHIP program, insisting on public health cuts for millions of other children and calling for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and medical and basic research. Republican leaders and President Trump are also proposing wide-spread reductions in other public services. For example, the proposed GOP budgets reduce federal funds for public schools while the GOP tax bill gives wealthy private school parents a significant tax break–in effect subsidizing private schools at the expense of the public school sector. This is consistent with many Republican politicians and the President’s expressed hostility to public education and encouragement of privatization of our public schools.

“Will There Be Enough Growth to Offset the Increased Debt?

“Nope, or minimal at best. GOP arguments that that the tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves by causing higher economic growth which will increase tax revenues to pay for a substantial portion of the larger deficit have been debunked by almost every reputable economist and the federal financial advisors who forecast minimal growth from the cuts. Furthermore, if there turns out to be greater revenues from greater growth, they are necessary to pay for current Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security future obligations. To divert them to the un-needy wealthy now means cuts in these programs later.

“Was There A Reversal of Settled Tax Policy?

“The GOP tax bill violates elementary standards of good policy by creating different classes of winners and losers. For example, for the first time in our history, tax legislation overwhelmingly favors those who earn through capital over those who earn from wages.

“Does the GOP Rationale for the Tax Bill Withstand Scrutiny?

“No. The major selling point of the GOP is the assertion that reducing the corporate rate will substantially increase growth and workers will receive sizable benefits from that growth. That contention is also disputed by the vast majority of economists, the official scoring reports and the history of tax cuts and tax increases. Bush II cut taxes and subsequent growth was weak; Clinton raised taxes and subsequent growth was spectacular which flies in the face of the GOP theory.

“The GOP’s specific argument that wages will rise significantly because giving corporations more cash and lower taxes will cause them to invest, which will increase productivity, which will then be shared with their employees, doesn’t hold water. According to recent reports such as the one by the Economic Policy Institute each assumption is false. Corporations currently are awash with cash, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are at their peak, the corporate tax share of federal revenues has plummeted (the wage share has skyrocketed) and yet large-scale investment hasn’t occurred. No surprise there. Investments are made based on projected demand. Availability of cash and tax rates play a small part in those decisions. More importantly, productivity gains during the past decades have not been shared with workers.

“Instead, the increased profits for most firms have been used to buy back shares to raise stock prices, balloon executive pay, and increase distributions to shareholders. That same overall pattern occurred when billions of dollars were repatriated in 2004. A repatriation holiday allowed corporations to bring back billions of overseas profits at a lower rate. The 15 companies that brought the most profits back to the U.S. used them to buy back shares instead of boosting investment, and actually ended up cutting jobs and slightly lowering their research and development spending. Why would corporate behavior change this time around? Experts say it won’t. Even the most optimistic predictions suggest that only a small percentage of any increased cash or profits from corporate tax cuts will be given to wage earners.

“For individuals, one of GOP’s more discredited arguments is that the super-wealthy pay the lion’s share of taxes so if taxes are cut they will have to receive most of the benefits. That’s nonsense. It’s true that the rich pay a large percentage of income taxes because, unlike most families, their before tax incomes have grown substantially during the past decades. However, the canard that these rich families pay almost all of federal taxes is demonstrably false. Income taxes constitute less than half of federal taxes. Payroll taxes are a third. The wealthy pay no payroll taxes on income just over $100k which means for mega-earners most of their income is exempt from payroll taxes. Corporate taxes were at record low levels in 2016 at only nine percent of federal tax receipts. There was no shortage of ways to ease the tax burden on the middle class without providing the rich with a windfall, if that’s what the GOP and the president wanted.

“Were There Much Better Ways to Stimulate Economic Growth and Increase Wages?

“Failure to bolster demand by sharing profits with workers is the most likely reason for low investment. Worker’s wages have been essentially flat for decades.

“If the goal was to increase wages, the tax plan could have just given wage earners a larger share of the tax breaks directly, reduce their payroll taxes, or invest in rebuilding the US. Growth strategies which aim at increasing demand or direct investment result in much higher growth than trickle down measures.

“Particularly galling is the lost opportunity to re-build America. If we are going to borrow over a $1 trillion, wouldn’t it have been fairer and much more productive to invest it in fixing our roads, bridges, ports, fire and flood protection, airports, schools, and power grids instead of giving an unneeded windfall to the rich? In fact, the GOP could have chosen to invest in infrastructure without increasing the debt by just closing the corporate loopholes agreed to in the bill and not giving a whopping tax cut to the richest Americans. The economic payoff from building infrastructure is multiples higher than tax cuts skewed to the ultra-wealthy and corporations, with the added benefit of creating jobs and improving the health and safety of the nation. Unfortunately, any proposed GOP/Trump infrastructure plan for 2018 will be woefully short of funds because of the heavy debt borrowing to finance tax cuts for the rich.

“Were Corporations‘ Taxes Higher Than Other Countries?

“The GOP’s other argument made is that the US corporate tax rate of 35% was among the highest in the world and non-competitive. They contend that lowering it to 21% will attract investment from foreign companies or US companies threatening to leave. Actually, because of loopholes, our effective tax rate was 23%–already below the world average and thus competitive. Since most loopholes in the GOP tax bill weren’t changed, effective tax rates will plunge to 9% according to a UPenn-Wharton estimate, basically giving corporations a free ride. Since corporate taxes as a share of total taxes are already at historic lows, further lowering of their rates shifts that much more of the tax burden to the middle and working classes. Furthermore,, even if foreign corporations invest here, why would we think that these companies would act differently than domestic companies in allocating a decent share of profits to workers?

“How Much Do Foreigners Benefit?

“Corporate shareholders, most of them wealthy will do very well under this GOP/Trump tax bill. Unfortunately, nearly a third of them are foreigners, mainly millionaires and billionaires, so the effect of the GOP tax plan is to borrow from the future and tax the middle and working classes in order to ship large amounts of cash out of the country. Make America Great, indeed?

“Is This the Best Time for Massive Tax Cuts?

“Finally, with unemployment low and a potential recession on the horizon this is not the time to add to the debt and disarm our ability to fight a downturn when it arrives.”

This is a stunning and shocking expose by Mercedes Schneider, who has corresponded with a teacher at one of the Bay Area Rocketship charters and fed her documents about standard practices and policies. This is a scary documentation of child abuse.

A small sample:

“In a description of the “charter school nightmares” blog, “rkshp employee” notes the following:

“More about my school. We have:

no cafeteria
no school nurse
no on-site custodian
no school library
school is 7:45 – 4 PM (8.25+ hours) daily
recess is 15 minutes
lunch is 15 minutes and kids are not allowed to talk during lunch
every student (from pre-K to 5th grade) has mandatory computer class for 90 minutes a day

“In another post, “rkshp employee” notes, “Our 3 principals are all TFA (Teach for America) alum.””

This is worse than Dickensian.

If we had a functioning Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, it would launch an immediate investigation.

This is child abuse. Why do parents put their children in these absive institutions?

Mitchell Robinson teaches music education at Michigan State University. He read Elizabeth Green’s fawning article about Eva Zmoskowitz and her Success Academy charter chain, and he blew a gasket.

He is equally mad at Green and Moskowitz for reasons you will understand if you read his post.

Basucally, he is furious that two non-educators are touting a model that can never be “scaled up” because it depends on culling students.

He writes:

“I’m still trying to understand what’s so “innovative” about Ms. Moskowitz’s approach to teaching. Is it innovative for your “model teachers” to scream at little kids when they act like…little kids? Is it innovative to expel more students of color than your neighborhood public schools do? Is it innovative to be against “poor kids…get(ting) medical, nutritional and other services at school“? I’m struggling with how anyone, including Ms. Green, could consider Eva Moskowitz’s approach at Success Academy to be innovative–but then, I’ve only been teaching for 37 years, and attended a state university for my undergraduate degree in education.

“I am beyond tired—beyond exhausted, really—of persons who have never taught anyone anything lecturing the rest of us who have about what we are doing wrong, how stupid we are, how lazy we are, and how they know better than we do when it comes to everything about teaching and learning. How about this, Eva and Elizabeth?–instead of pontificating about things you are equally arrogant and ignorant of, why don’t you each go back to school, get an education degree, or two, or three, get certified, do an internship (for free–in fact, pay a bunch of money to do so), or two, or three, then see if you can find a job in a school. Then, teach.I don’t care what you teach; what grade level; what subject. But stick it out for at least a school year. Write your lesson plans. Grade your papers and projects. Go to all of those grade level meetings, and IEP meetings, and school board meetings, and budget negotiation meetings, and union meetings, and curriculum revision meetings, and curriculum re-revision meetings, and teacher evaluation meetings, and “special area” meetings, and state department of education meetings, and professional development in-services, and parent-teacher conferences, and open houses, and attend all those concerts, and football games, and dance recitals, and basketball games, and soccer matches, and lacrosse games, and honor band concerts, and school musicals, and tennis matches, and plays, and debates, and quiz bowl competitions, and marching band shows, and cheerleading competitions, and swim meets.Then do it all 10, or 20, or 30 more times, and let me know how you feel about someone who never did ANY of these things, even for a “few lessons“, telling you how stupid, and lazy you are, and how you’re being a “defender of the status quo” if you’re not really excited to immediately implement their “radical, disruptive” ideas about how to “save public education.”

Andrea Gabor is the Michael Bloomberg Professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York. She is also a deeply knowledgeable scholar of corporate education reform. She debunked the alleged “New Orleans miracle” in the New York Times.

In this post, she expresses her concern about the fawning praise for Eva Moskowitz’s charter schools and explains why Eva’s charter schools are not a model for public education.

She writes:

It is we—that is American citizens—who should be terrified because Success Academy is entirely in-sync with the Trump era. It is unapologetically anti-democratic, anti-union, segregated and relentlessly test-driven. And, it should be noted, the CMO has not yet graduated a single high school student.

At a time when we are facing an existential threat to our democracy—one enabled by a decades-long obsession with standardized tests that narrowed curriculum and helped kill off civics education—the championing of Success Academy by writer as influential as Elizabeth Green, she is the founding editor of ChalkBeat and author of Building a Better Teacher, is worrying indeed.

Let’s be clear. Judging by its roster of 46 schools, there are potentially thousands of families who are happy with the education Success Academy provides, and many more who might have been if they had won the network’s lottery—though parents have complained of the CMO’s harsh, and even abusive, ‘boot-camp-like” culture—see here and here. Indeed, hundreds, if not thousands of children have been pulled out by their families (or forced out) because of the network’s strict demands for behavioral compliance and its single-focused pursuit of high test scores…

But Green fails to address key questions about the kind of education Success kids get—and at what cost. She certainly doesn’t question whether the ever-changing, bubble-in test-scores are the best—or even a good–measure of learning. While she acknowledges giving up on democratic control of schools and districts, she never considers the historic, foundational role of public education in a democracy—and the civic cost of autocratic education systems. Nor does Green consider the successful public-school networks amid what she, rightly, describes as the crushing bureaucracy that has often stifled New York City schools—even though she has published stories about them!

Green also glosses over—and, in some cases, omits entirely—the considerable problems with the Success Academy model, including widespread creaming and credible allegations of abusive behavior toward children. Although Green’s own book points out that the best teachers have years of experience, she says not one word about Success Academy’s high teacher attrition rate. Some Success Academy schools lose over half of their teachers each year; few last more than three years.

Gabor writes that there are excellent models within public education of success, and she refers specifically to the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which has used a progressive model of education with great results.

Gabor despairs of those who think that democracy is the problem, and charter schools are the answer. To give up on democracy is to fall into the snare of the Trump agenda. Let the authoritarian leader solve all problems.

Why anyone believes that a strict authoritarian school is just right for all or most American children is a puzzle. It may be right for some, but it is not a model for public education.

Eva Moskowitz loves to fight. She is doing it “for the kids.” She loves to defy authority. She enjoys facing off against the mayor and knocking him flat. She likes to break dishes and make noise. She sees herself as the ultimate rule-breaker, the epitome of defiance against the people in charge.

Writing in the New York Times, Lisa Miller of “New York” magazine reviews Eva’s memoir and puts her finger on the central paradox of the woman and her charter chain: How could Eva celebrate her own defiance while running schools built on the principle of unquestioning obedience to authority? How long would Eva have lasted in one of her own schools?

Miller finds the author unable to reflect on her life or her work. She is right and her critics are wrong, and she has the test scores to prove it.

“The Education of Eva Moskowitz” advertises itself as memoir, but it does not deliver on what memoirs promise, which is to say, self-revelation. Indeed, it hardly offers any kind of revelation at all. This is a shame, because the super-politicized world of education policy could use a sympathetic interpreter right now. Are charter schools the ultimate evil or the optimal solution? Do teachers’ unions protect kids or preserve entitlements? Are standardized tests useful, or are they racist, classist and corrosive to morale? There are no right (or single) answers to these questions, but a smart memoir from a passionate and iconoclastic advocate for children might serve as one insightful guide through the morass.

“Moskowitz is not the person for this job. Her instinct is to be adamant (and the inverse, thin-skinned). She is adamantly in favor of standardized tests. She is adamantly against teachers’ unions. She believes that a recent movement toward “community schools,” in which poor kids can get medical, nutritional and other services at school, is “nonsense,” and she rebuts the whole concept with an example of a Success student who was “hospitalized with a stroke but able to do her homework….”

“The Success Academy schools have been very successful in certain ways for certain kids, but unless their founder can talk clearly and sympathetically about the tangle of dysfunctions besetting public schools — including segregation, poverty, class, inequality, the effects of wealthy donors and unions on the education system and the disparate expectations of the stakeholders within it — she will always be just a local crusader with a chip on her shoulder.”

Jan Resseger read Rebecca Mead’s article about Success Academy charter schools and wondered: Can a no-excuses tightly-disciplined school be considered progressive?

“Mead’s subtitle names a contradiction at the center of Moskowitz’s educational theory: “Inside Eva Moskowitz’s Quest to Combine Rigid Discipline with a Progressive Curriculum.” Even as Moskowitz defends the rigid and punitive discipline for which her schools are famous (In Mead’s piece, Moskowitz is quoted as defending the suspension of young children out of school as an important way of impressing a lesson on children and their parents.), Moskowitz claims John Dewey, the father of progressive education, as a guide to what happens in her schools. Moskowitz describes her curriculum as an example of progressivism—“circle time on the classroom rug; interdisciplinary projects that encompass math, science, social studies, and literacy.” The question that underlies Mead’s analysis is whether it is possible to run a progressive school with no-excuses discipline.

“While on one level Mead entertains Moskowitz’s rhetoric about progressivism, Mead seems puzzled by the circle time on the classroom rug: “In the second-grade classroom in Queens, the gridded rug seemed less like a magic carpet than like a chessboard at the start of a game. Within each square there was a large colored spot the size of a chair cushion. The children sat in rows, facing forward, each within his or her assigned square, with their legs crossed and their hands clasped or folded in their laps. Success students can expect to be called to answer a teacher’s question at any moment, not just when they raise their hand, and must keep their eyes trained on the speaker at all times, a practice known as ‘tracking.’ Staring off into space, or avoiding eye contact is not acceptable.”

“Like students at progressive schools (and all kinds of public schools, actually), students in Success Academies go on field trips. And Mead visits a room where Kindergardeners are taken to play with blocks: “The school has dedicated a special classroom to the activity, and shelves were filled with an enviable supply of blocks. The walls of the room were decorated with pictures of architectural structures that the students might seek to emulate, from the Empire State Building to the Taj Mahal. There was also a list of rules: always walk; carry two small blocks or hug one large block; speak in a whisper.” Unlike free-play at progressive early childhood centers—with dolls, and blocks, and easels and paint, and clay or PlayDoh—block time at the school Mead visits is a specific activity provided by the school in a “block” room to which the entire class of children is led for an assigned period.”

What makes a school “progressive?”

Why is Eva Moskowitz eager to be called “progressive”?

Can “progressive” pedagogy flourish in an atmosphere of authoritarian discipline?

We know that Trump likes to get away to the golf course every weekend, preferably at one of his own resorts. He is not used to working long days, every day.

Neither does Betsy DeVos. Probably, when people are so rich that money is never an issue, they fail to develop the habits and grit needed to put in a full day’s work, every day.

Matthew Chapman, a video game designer and science fiction writer from Texas, discovered that Betsy doesn’t like to work very hard. It is just not her thing.

He writes:

“In her short tenure of office, DeVos has dismantled protections for campus rape survivors, rolled back support for students with disabilities, and gutted relief programs for victims of for-profit student loan scams.

“However, while not rolling back important civil rights policies, it seems that what DeVos enjoys doing most in her day-to-day duties is … absolutely nothing.

“A FOIA request and subsequent report by the watchdog group American Oversight, aptly titled “Unexcused Absences,” revealed some startling numbers on how often DeVos simply doesn’t show up for work:

An analysis by American Oversight found that during that period — which stretches from February 8th to July 19th — DeVos only completed a full day of work 67% of the time.

“The report found that over those five and a half months, DeVos took 15 days off, 21 half days off, and 11 long weekends — during a time period that included 113 federally mandated work days.”

What kind of a message is DeVos sending to students and teachers? A large part of the job is showing up. Although considering what she does when she shows up, maybe she should stay home more often.

A large group of parents wrote a letter of complaint to Eva Moskowitz about the harsh discipline at their Success Academy school in her new space, which appears to attract a white, middle-class enrollment. They objected to the no-excuses code, which they say broke their children’s spirit.

Here is the parents’ letter.

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2017/10/hudson-yards-success-charter-parents-to.html