Archives for category: Duncan, Arne

George Will is confused about who is right and who is wrong in the battle between Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Teachers Union.

And that’s a good thing, because one would expect this doughty conservative to stand firmly, loudly, and uncompromisingly in opposition to the union.

But he didn’t.

Granted, he doesn’t know that CTU is part of the American Federation of Teachers, not the National Education Association. And he doesn’t know that the name of the NEA was settled in 1857, not just recently to deceive people and “blur the fact that it is a teachers’ union.”

Granted, he thinks the auto industry was fatally wounded by its unions, not by its shortsighted managers, who never figured out that American consumers wanted fuel-efficient cars, not gas-guzzlers.

And then too, he makes the common error of claiming that spending on education in the nation is up while “educational attainments have fallen.” One of his researchers should have looked at the latest reports of the National Assessment of Educational Progress and told him that test scores are at their highest point for every group in history.

But he then does something startling. George Will rejects the central premise of the reformers’ argument. He abandons the “no excuses” philosophy of Michelle Rhee and Arne Duncan. He says that poverty and family collapse affect students’ ability to succeed in school. He says that social order in Chicago is in disarray, even though Arne Duncan and former Mayor Richard Daley proclaimed their plan to be “Renaissance 2010.” Reminder: 2010 is past and gone. There was no Renaissance. What remains of those “reforms”? Little progress, if any, and a legacy of crumbling families and weakened communities.

Says Will:

The city is experiencing an epidemic of youth violence — a 38 percent surge in the homicide rate, 53 people shot on a recent weekend, random attacks by roving youth mobs. Social regression, driven by family disintegration, means schools where teaching is necessarily subordinated to the arduous task of maintaining minimal order.

Emanuel got state law changed to require unions to get 75 percent of the entire membership rather than a simple majority to authorize a strike. Some people thought this would make strikes impossible. The CTU got 90 percent to authorize. Lewis’s members are annoyed, and are not all wrong.

If you count only those members who cast a vote, Karen Lewis won authorization to strike by 98 percent of the members.

George Will is right. Karen Lewis’s members are “not all wrong.”

Quite an admission from the nation’s most eminent conservative columnist.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan likes to boast of the success of the turnaround model, in which the principal is fired along with at least half the staff or the school is closed. “We can’t wait,” say the reformers. Here is a report from a turnaround school.

This email came today from a high school math teacher in a “turnaround” school:

       Pushing teachers to pass everyone is a widespread practice now.   Anyone who has more than a 15% failure rate in a class, not hard to do in math, is called downstairs and asked to explain what the problem is.  At this time of decision about who will be back next year, many see fit to pass almost everyone to stay off the radar and be asked to return. 
       The new principal issues orders which are often contract violations but no one challenges her because they need to work.  I hope you understand how hard it is to do this. If you know Ms. XXXXXX, please don’t tell her I said any of this.  There used to be a television show, “Dallas.” Oilman JR Ewing’s famous line:”Once you lose your integrity, the rest is a piece of cake” is really how it is now.   Hoping the State will kill the turnaround model.  It’s not helping anyone. All of this is confidential. Like others, family needs to be cared for.  
       Grade inflation, score inflation, and social promotion all in one package. As Secretary Duncan used to say, ” We have to stop lying to our children.”
       No wonder college remediation rates remain stubbornly high. Some success.
Diane

One of my favorite bloggers is Anthony Cody. Anthony is an experienced teacher of science in California. I always learn by reading his blog “Living in Dialogue.” He recently offered his column to a teacher in Florida to explain how his or her evaluation was affected by “value-added modeling” or VAM.

The idea behind VAM is that teachers should be evaluated based on the rise or fall of their students’ test scores. Arne Duncan made VAM a requirement of the Race to the Top program, despite the lack of any studies or research validating this practice and despite ample warnings that it was invalid and would mislabel teachers as effective or ineffective. Nonetheless, many states pushed through legislation requiring that teachers be evaluated in part by their students’ changing scores. If the scores went up, they were a good teacher; if they did not, they were an ineffective teacher.

This idea was embraced most warmly by very conservative Republican governors like Rick Scott in Florida, where VAM accounts for fifty percent of a teacher’s evaluation. In the column cited here, the Florida teacher explains how it works and how absurd it is. This teacher teaches social studies to students in the 9th and 10th grades. When he/she went to get his evaluation, it turned out that the administrator had no idea how VAM would work, especially since the Florida test does not test social studies for 9th and 10th graders. At first, the teacher was told that his/her evaluation would be based on the whole school’s scores–not just the students in his/her classes–but then he/she convinced the administrator that the evaluation should be based only on those in his/her particular classes. That took a while to figure out. The teacher got the FCAT scores in May, but it took the district or state three months to prepare the teachers’ VAM using those scores.

By the end of the blog, it is obvious that the calculation of VAM is confusing, non-scientific, and inherently unrelated to teacher performance. It will be used to take away teachers’ due process rights and any protection for their freedom of speech. It is a weapon created to harass teachers. As this teacher concludes:

As someone who is not comfortable living life on my knees with duct tape over my mouth (you may have figured this out by now if you have been reading this blog for any length of time), I am not comfortable working on an annual contract. Teachers must be able to voice their concerns about administrative decisions that harm students without fear of losing their jobs. Eliminate continuing contracts and a culture of complacency, sycophants and fear will rule the schools. Senate Bills passed in state after Race to the Top state have included VAMs as a major portion of teacher evaluations all in the name of “Student Success” and “Educational Excellence” when in reality they have been immaculately designed to end the teaching profession as we know it and free state and districts from career teachers with pension aspirations. Some may brush me off as your typical history teacher conspiracy nut, but my daddy didn’t raise no sucker. VAM is a scam.

Diane

Secretary Arne Duncan has been on the road selling his idea of “RESPECT” for teachers, but teachers don’t feel any respect from the U.S. Department of Education. Teacher John Thompson has called on Secretary Duncan to apologize for the ways he has encouraged and promoted the currently hostile environment surrounding teachers.

The Metlife Survey of the American Teacher reported a dramatic decline in teacher morale from 2009 to 2011. What happened in 2009 that changed the climate? Could it have been the launch of Race to the Top? Could it have been the endless rhetoric blaming teachers for low scores? Could it have been the idea–launched by Arne Duncan–that teacher evaluation should be tied to the test scores of their students?

Things have gone downhill since then. In 2010 came the teacher-bashing “documentary” called “Waiting for ‘Superman'” which was repeatedly praised by Duncan and President Obama. President Obama even invited the children in the film to the White House. And then of course there were cover stories and Oprah appearances, and anyone who trashed public schools was considered a hero for trying to liberate children from the basic democratic institution that is so important to our society.

And the privatization of public education continues. And teachers ask how all these terrible things befell them. Historians in the future will trace a clear narrative, including No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, the rise of Tea-Party governors, and the relentless attacks on teachers and public schools. Anyone who was part of this privatization movement will be portrayed by historians as the villains of American education, the thieves intent on giving away our public schools to private sector interests.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Secretary Duncan took a strong stand against for-profit corporations invading public education and against the willy-nilly proliferation of charter schools and against those who would roll back collective bargaining and against those who want to remove teachers’ academic freedom and rights to due process? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if he admitted–based on evidence and experience– that he was wrong to push the idea that teacher quality can be measured by the test scores of their students? I can assure him that it cleanses the soul to admit error.

We can always hope.

Diane

One of the most powerful videos I have yet seen is making its rounds of the Internet.

I urge you to watch it.

Matt Farmer, a parent of children in the Chicago public schools, addresses a rally of the Chicago Teachers Union, where he “cross-examines” Penny Pritzker, the billionaire member of the Chicago Board of Education.

Farmer is a trial lawyer. He describes how he bristled when he heard an interview on the radio in which Pritzker described what Chicago students need: enough skills in reading, mathematics, and science to be productive members of the workforce. Why no mention of the arts, of music, of physical education, he wondered.

So he cross-examined Pritzker in absentia. Her own children attend the University of Chicago Lab School. Mayor Rahm Emanuel sends his children there too. Arne Duncan is a graduate.

Farmer points out that the Lab School has a rich curriculum, not preparation for the workforce. Children there get the arts and physical education there every day. The Lab School has a beautiful library, and Pritzker is raising money to make it even grander and more beautiful. He asks the absent Pritzker, “Do you know that 160 public schools in Chicago don’t have a library?”

The Lab School has seven teachers of the arts. In a high school that Pritzker voted to close, there was not a single arts teacher.

Matt Farmer goes on to quote the director of the Lab School, who opposes standardized testing and insists upon a rich curriculum. The statement by the Lab School’s director about the importance of the union bring the assembled teachers to their feet, roaring and applauding.

I hope Penny Pritzker and Rahm Emanual watch this video. People who have the good fortune to send their children to elite private schools should do whatever they can to spread the same advantages to other people’s children. When they are members of the board of education and the mayor, they have a special responsibility to do what is right for the children in their care. If they inflict policies on other people’s children that are unacceptable for their own children, they should be ashamed.

Diane

Here is a comment from a first-year teacher who knows more than the “reformers” who wrote the laws in Florida.

I can go one better — in my district here in southwestern Florida 50% of my final evaluation for the year will be based upon the test scores of children in grades 4 and 5. I taught 2nd grade this year. This is my first year at this school.So, in effect, half of my ‘effectiveness’ as a teacher is to be determined by test scores from students I’ve NEVER taught and most of whom I’ve NEVER even met.How anyone could keep a straight face and maintain any moral integrity while telling me that this is a ‘fair system’ is beyond my understanding yet this is the program that my betters in the district office produced, the state of Florida approved, and the U.S. Dept. of Education accepted as meeting the requirements of Race to the Top.How could I have added ‘value’ or subtracted ‘value’ to students I’ve never even spoken to or been with in a classroom? Osmosis?He later sent me this correction:Diane, I’m flattered that you chose to highlight my comment. Thanks! Just a slight correction — I’m not a first year teacher, just new to this school. I’ve actually been teaching for 15 years, always in Title I schools.I’m National Board Certified, hold 2 MA’s (one from NYU) and was named Social Studies Teacher of the Year for my district last year.

I fully expect my final rating to be “Needs Improvement” or “Ineffective” though, when the test scores are added in to my ‘value’, since the state saw fit to raise the bar so high for passing and they made the FCAT test far more difficult this year. My principal actually rated me ‘highly effective’ based upon her numerous formal and informal observations and review of my teaching portfolio but that only counts for half so . . . .

Looks like the writing is on the wall and it’s time to start looking for employment outside the school system. That makes me very sad and sick at heart but I don’t see anything changing for the better any time soon. After 2 years of low ratings in Florida now you lose your professional teaching certificate and can be fired at will. Everyone who can is retiring or has retired. Those of us in the middle or just starting out are just stuck.

Where are our professional organizations and unions? Why aren’t they fighting hard to help us? Inquiring minds would like to know.

In what must be the most startling development of the past month, year, and perhaps decade, the U.S. Department of Education is now launching a Race to the Top competition for districts. It has nearly $400 million to award, but as we have seen in the state-level competition, the amount of money was sufficient to compel almost every state to rewrite its laws so as to be eligible.

So with this relatively small amount of federal discretionary money, Arne Duncan has set the stage to impose his will and his flawed ideas on districts across the nation.

Districts will have to show that they have the data to track students from pre-k through post-secondary education, as well as to tie test results to individual teachers. The data systems will be elaborate and they will track everyone from age 3-21. And teachers will be held accountable!

What is worse, as the article in Education Week cited above noted, is that “districts will have to promise to implement evaluation systems that take student outcomes into account–not just for teacher and principal performance, but for district superintendents and school boards. That’s a big departure from the state-level Race to the Top competitions, which just looked at educators who actually work in schools, not district-level leaders.”

Think of it. Who will evaluate superintendents and school boards? Will they be evaluated by test scores? Will the federal government fire school boards if test scores are flat? Will it fire district superintendents and replace them? Will Arne Duncan tell school boards and superintendents to raise test scores or resign? Did anyone in Congress approve this bizarre program of federal over-reach?

Even conservative blogger Rick Hess was taken aback. As he put it, “My only reaction to reading the info on this new Race to the Top-District was, “You have…got…to…be…kidding.” It’s like they read all their admiring press clips from RTT, strenuously tuned out any criticism or lessons learned from the, um, uneven track record when it comes to implementation, and wanted to see whether they could take the hubris meter up to 11 (with apologies to Spinal Tap).”

Hess disapproves because he thinks that the new competition will result only in vague promises and punch-list compliance. I am appalled because the U.S. Department of Education should not be in the business of telling districts how to do their job. They lack the competence to do so, and by doing so they ignore decades of history, tradition, and precedent. Is it really appropriate for Arne Duncan to take control of the nation’s schools?

Has anyone at the U. S. Department of Education ever heard of the principle of federalism? Does Arne Duncan think he was appointed the national Superintendent of Schools? Is there no limit to his desire to impose his bad ideas on others? His belief in the value of standardized testing is startling, to say the least. One might even say it is faith-based.

Diane

When Secretary of Education Arne Duncan visited New Haven’s first turnaround school, he asked what was needed to encourage more teachers to leave high-performing schools for low-performing schools. Everyone who responded to his question talked about the importance of preparing teachers better for the challenges of teaching students in urban schools. They spoke of a year or more of preparation. No one mentioned Teach for America. I wonder if he noticed that.

When he asked the only teacher who had transferred from a high-performing school why she had done so, she said it was because of her desire to serve. And the following exchange ensued:

“No one becomes a teacher to get rich,” she added.

“We’re working on that,” Duncan replied.

Duncan missed the point. She was not lured to the turnaround school to get rich, but he continues to believe that money will be the incentive that brings teachers from top schools to bottom schools. He really doesn’t get it.

What is troubling about the whole article is the underlying assumption that firing half the staff was part of a successful process; that the teachers were the reason that the students had low test scores. Of course, there is no evidence that the school actually has turned around, but that’s irrelevant. The entire day of high-fives reinforced Duncan’s rock-solid belief that firing teachers is a necessary step to turning a school around. He just can’t stop patting himself on the back as he flogs this claim that firing half or all the staff is the essence of reform. In his mind, it is.

He really doesn’t get it.

Diane

Vermont decided not to apply for a waiver from NCLB.

Not because it loves NCLB. No one does.

But because Vermont education officials had their own ideas about how to help their schools.

And they discovered that Arne Duncan’s offer to give them “flexibility” was phony.

He did not want to hear Vermont’s ideas. Contrary to his claims, the waivers do not offer flexibility.

What Arne Duncan wants states to do is to agree to his own demands, not to shape their own destiny.

He wants them to allow more privately managed charters. He wants them to evaluate teachers by student test scores. He wants them to adopt Common Core state standards.  He wants them to agree to threaten and close down schools with low test scores. He has a laundry list of what he wants them to do.

Of course, this is all very puzzling since none of Arne Duncan’s mandates have a solid basis in research or evidence. In that regard, they are not much different from NCLB. You might say they represent NCLB without the timetable.

Even more puzzling is the assumption that Arne Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education know how to reform the schools of the nation. It is not as if anyone would look at Arne Duncan’s Chicago as a model for the nation. That district is once again being “reformed,” this time by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

And from a strictly Constitutional point of view, the U.S. Department of Education has never been empowered to tell schools and school districts how to reform themselves.

Quite candidly, there is no one at the U.S. Department of Education who is competent to tell entire states how to reform their schools.

So, kudos to Vermont.

A state that said no to federal control, federal mandates, privatization, and other bad ideas.

As often, I add a footnote to the original post: Bruce Baker of Rutgers alerted me to a change in governance in Vermont. The legislature just passed a bill to have the state commissioner of education report to the governor. This opens the way for business community and privatizers to exert more influence. Privatizers like to eliminate input from parents and communities, making it easier for them to get what they want.

Vermonters: Don’t let it happen.

Stay outside the consensus.

Keep Vermont and Vermont parents and communities in charge of your schools.

Diane

A while back, I read a story in the New York Times that really bothered me.

It explained that neighborhood public schools are now compelled to “market” themselves because of competition with charters. In Harlem, charters are omnipresent, and the city administration has closed many public schools to make way for charters. New York City Department of Education officials make clear their preference for charters, leaving no one to fight for or defend the public schools against their competitors. If charters want public school space, they get it, usually over the opposition of the parents and community.

But what was so striking about the story–and you have to read to the end to find this–was the contrast between the resources of the public school and the invading charter. The public school had $500 or less to market itself, with flyers, brochures, volunteers. The charter–in this case, Harlem Success Academy–spent $325,000.

Wow. How can a public school compete when the charter can expend $325,000 to persuade people to participate in the lottery?

This story made me realize that the lottery isn’t really about admission to the school. The lottery is a marketing device. By whipping up interest, curiosity, and enthusiasm, all that money produces large numbers of applicants for the lottery. The lottery is an extravaganza with balloons, the turning of the wheel, the announcement of the winners, the disappointment of the losers. The daughter of a hedge fund manager in Connecticut, who is deeply involved in the charter school “movement,” produced a documentary called “The Lottery,” to promote charters.

Marketing is part of the business plan. Public relations is part of the business plan. Promoting the idea that charters are a cure for the ills of poverty is part of the business plan. Presenting charters as “the civil right idea” of our time is part of the business plan (a cry echoed by both Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney).

In some cities, the business plan is to replace public education altogether with corporate sponsors.

It’s sad that public schools must waste money and time marketing themselves. They should be devoting themselves completely to their mission, not to competing with the charters.

It’s also sad that the corporate and philanthropic interests that push charters so insistently don’t give a thought to the damage they do to an essential democratic institution.

Diane