Archives for category: Duncan, Arne

Matt Taibbi really doesn’t like Tom Friedman. He has written several articles taking Friedman apart, both for his writing and his thinking.

What educators have learned about Friedman is that he has no first-hand knowledge about schools and teaching. Whatever he writes seems to be based on conversations with Bill Gates or Arne Duncan. It’s a shame that a journalist who is so out of touch does not take the time to meet with teachers and principals and students, or take a few days in public schools to learn about their challenges and their accomplishments. Until he does, he should not write about what is happening in education–because he is uninformed–and should not offer advice about what ought to be done to improve education–because he is misinformed.

Here is the great journalist Juan Gonzalez interviewing CTU President Karen Lewis and Professor Lois Wiener on Race to the Top. Arne Duncan, and privatization.

Many of us have wondered whether President Obama hears the voices of teachers. Many have wondered whether he understands that educators–not only teachers, but principals and superintendents–despise Race to the Top and see it as a calculated effort to undermine professionalism and advance the privatization agenda. And many have wondered whether the President knows that he may be jeopardizing his re-election by turning off an important part of his base.

I would add to all this wondering that a lot of us will have to swallow hard, forget our passion for education, and vote for Obama. The alternative is too alarming to contemplate.

Mark Naison, who blogs regularly, has written an important column about these issues, which I reprint here:

How to Lose a Close Election

Virtually ever poll now has President Obama and Mitt Romney embroiled in an extremely close race. The President could very well win this election; but he could also lose. And if he does lose, I will have to go back to something I first started saying nearly three years- namely that turning off the nation’s teachers with educational policies which silence their voice, and put them under extreme stress, is not only bad for the nation’s schools, it could cripple the President’s re-election efforts.

Many of you have read some of my blog posts which made this argument, and have seen the “Dump Duncan” petition which I helped to draft which called on the President to remove his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, incorporate the nation’s teachers into Education Policy discussions, and stop requiring schools to ratchet up the number of standardized tests to receive federal funding.

But what you haven’t seen, or known about, is my private efforts to engage people close the president in conversation about teachers disillusionment, efforts which were totally unsuccessful. The President’s inner circle, from what I could gather, refused to bend on support for Race to the Top and Secretary Duncan. They were not only convinced that these policies would end up improving the nation’s schools; they felt that the political gains to be made in terms of support from large funders and influential journalists was far greater than any losses that would occur in terms of teacher enthusiasm, particularly since they knew the largest teachers unions would support the President no matter what policies he chose to implement.

Now, at crunch time, when it’s too late to change course, I can tell you that this judgment was a severe miscalculation. Not only have the President’s policies failed to narrow testing gaps by race and class, they have contributed to teacher morale in the nation to be the lowest it has been since pollsters began measuring this trait. But the political consequences may have been even more serious than the educational ones. Most teachers will probably end up voting for the President, but from what I have seen, in both New York and around the nation, they will not be manning phone banks, canvassing in their neighborhoods, travelling to swing states on the weekends and generally giving time, money and energy to assure the President’s election the way they did in 2008.

Many pundits attribute the Obama victory in 2008 to an incredibly strong “ground game” composed of huge numbers of volunteers, as well as paid staff, working to get out the vote in battleground states. Many of those individuals, including me, my wife, and many of my friends, were teachers, professors and school administrators. During this election, I know of few, if any educators putting in that kind of heroic effort, almost entirely because they are feeling betrayed by the President, indeed, by the entire Democratic Party, on educational issues, even though they support the President’s positions on reproductive freedom, gay rights, taxation and medical care.

There is no way of knowing whether the phenomenon I am describing is will be a “game changer” in this election. But based on what I have seen in 2008 and in this campaign, there is a chance it could be. And if it is, the Obama brain trust has no one to blame but themselves, because they have had ample opportunity to change course, and indeed have been pleased with by many of their supporters to do just that.

Mark Naison
October 22, 2012

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/

Anthony Cody has a stunning article this week about what is happening in Louisiana.

The expansion of vouchers and charters will facilitate the re-segregation of the schools, he predicts.

Governor Jindal eliminated all funding for public libraries in his new budget.

The TFA Commissioner has put a young and unqualified TFA alum in charge of teacher evaluation.

The freight train of reform (aka privatization) is running full blast in that unfortunate state.

Arne Duncan will be there any day now to congratulate Governor Jindal on the progress made in “reforming” the schools.

And lots of thanks to the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Netflix founder Reed Hastings, and Teach for America for turning the clock back to 1950 and calling it “reform.”

As readers of this blog know, I am agnostic about the Common Core standards, because they have never been tried anywhere.

We don’t know whether they will improve academic learning, whether they will increase the achievement gap, whether they will make any difference.

Recently the renowned scholar faced off with New York Commissioner of Education John King.

Commissioner King comes out of the charter sector and has very limited experience as a teacher or an administrator.

He believes passionately in the Common Core. So do Arne Duncan, Bill Gates and Tom Friedman.

Yong Zhao patiently explained to Commissioner King that there is no evidence for the efficacy of the Common Core.

And none for its lack of efficacy.

There is no evidence.

Poor Tom Friedman! Everyone who knows anything at all about education knows that Tom has egg all over his face. They are either angry at him or laughing at him. He made such a fool of himself with his over-the-top (the same one we are racing to) praise of Race to the Top. If he had ever talked to a real educator, he would have not have praised Race to the Top. Instead, he would have written about Libya or Syria. But, no, he chose to act like Arne Duncan’s PR flack, repeating Arne’s favorite lines and doing no fact-checking.

Fortunately we have EduShyster, who has done the fact-checking. The result of this laborious activity is that E.S. is worried that both Tom Friedman and Arne Duncan have extremely low value-added scores. Before long, both may be replaced by someone young, innovative, and data-driven.

Remember that the LA Times created a firestorm in 2010 when it created value added ratings for teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District and released the names and ratings of thousands of teachers. Arne Duncan said it was a good idea, but many researchers warned that the ratings were volatile, inaccurate, and unstable. And others saw a violation of confidentiality as well as ethical issues. In the aftermath, a teacher named Roberto Riguelas committed suicide, and his family said he was depressed to see what he thought was an unfair rating of his work.

New York City released the teacher ratings earlier this year, and again there were many complaints about inaccuracy. This time, Bill Gates published an op-Ed opposing the practice on grounds that it makes it impossible for supervisors to counsel teachers when their ratings are published.

Be all that as it may, the Los Angeles Times is now suing LAUSD for access to teachers’ names so they can release their ratings again.

I am still trying to understand what the newspaper thinks it is accomplishing, what purpose is served other than selling papers.

Some 45 organizations in New Jersey, from parent groups to civil rights groups have appealed to Secretary Duncan to halt the damage that will be imposed on poor children and children of color as a result of the NCLB waiver to the state.

Because of the waiver, state officials will inflict even more high-stakes testing on the neediest children and their schools will be targeted not for help but for privatization.

The statement says:

To replace the NCLB framework, the State has adopted a new classification system that will reinforce racial and economic segregation and inequity in New Jersey’s public schools. The classification system uses state standardized tests, graduation rates, and gaps in achievement, to target a group of 75 “Priority” schools and 183 “Focus” schools for dramatic State-mandated intervention, including possible closings and conversions to charter schools. These Priority and Focus Schools serve overwhelmingly Black and Latino, very poor communities, and educate many students who do not speak English as a first language. The Priority schools are concentrated in some of the most distressed communities in the state and have a staggering 24% student mobility rate.

In contrast, the State has classified a group of 122 schools as “Reward” schools, based on high achievement or high levels of growth on state tests. These schools, which are targeted to receive financial bonuses, are located in the highest wealth districts in the state, serve a small percentage of Black and Latino students, have low poverty rates, few English language learners, and little student mobility. Many of these schools are magnet high schools and vocational schools, with highly selective admissions.

The blatant economic and racial inequity built into this classification system harks back to the days when such segregation and inequity were policy objectives for our State.

Yesterday I was on an NPR program interviewed by Michel Martin. I followed Arne Duncan, Margaret Spellings, Michelle Rhee, and Alberto Carvalho, the Miami superintendent.

Duncan said that Race to the Top did not require teaching to the test. Spellings praised NCLB.

Carvalho explained why he tried to help schools get better instead of closing them down. He said in several cases, he replaced the principal and made other changes, and the school improved.

Rhee took exception. She said that leaders should not tolerate failing schools. And she used this odd metaphor. She said–and I paraphrase–“if you take 10 shirts to a dry cleaner, and they scorch seven of them, why would you go back to that cleaners?”

So a school is like a dry cleaners, and children are like shirts. Teachers scorch the shirts.

Last month, at the GOP convention, Jeb Bush said that choosing schools was like buying milk. Some people like whole milk, some prefer 2% or 1%, or buttermilk or chocolate milk.

What metaphor will we hear next? The school is like a car-wash where the parents pick up their kids at the end of the line? Who makes up these silly lines? Is it some high-priced PR firm?

Being last, I had to try my best to set the record straight. So much to do, so little time.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.

Because of Race to the Top, most states are now evaluating teachers based in significant part on student test scores. The American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education say that the methodology for doing this is inaccurate and unstable. The ratings bounce around from year to year. Such ratings reflect which students were in the class, not teacher quality.

Because of Race to the Top, more states are permitting privatization of public schools.

Because of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, all schools are labeled by their test scores.

Because of Race to the Top, there is more teaching to the test, more fear and anxiety associated with testing, more narrowing of the curriculum, more cheating.

Because of Race to the Top, many schools in poor and minority neighborhoods will be closed.

Because of Race to the Top, many principals and teachers will be fired.

Is this what President Obama meant when he referred to the “results” of his Race to the Top? It explains why Romney applauded it and specifically hailed Arne Duncan.

This reader has a different view of Race to the Top:

In addition to the intimidation and demoralization of teachers, Race to the Top is having its intended results: the destabilization, fragmentation and privatization of the public schools.

In their public utterances on education, Obama and Duncan are frauds, but the education reform complex is being managed by very intelligent and far seeking -venal, but far-seeking – people. They know exactly what they are doing, and more often than not are getting their way.