Archives for category: Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ohio: Kasich Vetoes Bills, Hurts Children

By dianeravitch
July 7, 2017 //
11

John Kasich likes to be unpredictable.

One minute, he plays the moderate, sane Republican in contrast to irresponsible, impulsive Trump.

Then he acts in Ohio and shows that he doesn’t have a clue about education, the most important responsibility and budget item in every state.

Stephen Dyer of Innovation Ohio writes:

“While Gov. John Kasich’s line-item veto of the Ohio Legislature’s freeze on Medicaid has rightly eaten up much of the veto discussion, Kasich also vetoed 11 different education provisions in House Bill 49 — the state’s beinnial budget. For a complete rundown, look here. But I would like to focus on a couple things.

“CHARTER SCHOOLS

“In several of the vetoes regarding charter schools, Kasich said he struck the provision because it was unfair, or treated schools differently, or lowered standards. My issue with this reasoning is, well, that’s kind of been the story of Ohio’s charter school system. Ohio charters have been treated differently, held to lower standards and been unfairly funded at the expense of children in local public schools since 1998.

“So why the sudden call to conscience? I don’t know. But let me take a few of the vetoes in turn.

“1) He vetoed a provision that would have allowed charters to count student growth as 60 percent of its student achievement measure rather than the current 20 percent. He claimed this was because it would hold charters to a lower standard than local schools. But that’s only true if you believe that student growth is not as effective a measure as straight performance. And while there are real concerns with how student growth is calculated and used, putting more emphasis on that measure could encourage schools to spend more time with more students rather than just focusing on high fliers whose high scores would help a school’s rating more than growing the lower scoring students. That’s not a horrible public policy outcome. And we have always held charters to different standards than local schools — that’s been part of the point with charter law and criticism of it.

“2) He vetoed a provision that would have allowed sponsors that were stripped of their ability to sponsor schools this school year to sponsor them again this year if they scored 3 out of 4 or higher on academics. His reason? Because they would still score poorly on the other bureaucratic measures under which they are now evaluated. But this is exactly the problem the legislature was trying to address — you have some of the highest rated sponsors for academics (arguably the most important of the three charter school sponsor measures) unable to continue sponsoring schools because they don’t meet the bureaucratic measures. Instead, with his veto Kasich essentially is putting a greater emphasis on whether a sponsor fills out forms correctly than whether the schools they oversee serve kids well. I fail to see how that outcome upholds quality for kids.

“SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING

“Several of Kasich’s vetoes would directly harm the funding for kids in local school districts.

“1) He vetoed a provision that would have helped ease the removal of Tangible Personal Property (TPP) tax reimbursement payments to districts, forcing many districts to deal with much steeper cliffs. He claimed schools have had enough time to cope with this loss. Kasich has never really understood why removing this formerly $1 billion a year payment for kids in local schools was so detrimental. I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate misunderstanding) of the 2005 law that eliminated the TPP. In exchange for the elimination of the TPP (which went mostly to kids in school districts), the state agreed to make school districts whole with Commercial Activity Tax payments until a real replacement could be developed. It’s that last part of the agreement whose promise Kasich broke in 2011 when he decided to eliminate the reimbursement payments, cutting funding to kids in local school districts by $1.8 billion in that budget. The last year before Kasich, the TPP payment was $920 million. Now it’s all but gone. Which is why when lawmakers claim they’ve increased funding to schools, they NEVER include this lost revenue. Anyway, Kasich’s draconian adherence to this false narrative about TPP continues to be one of his greatest failings. And kids will suffer for it.

“2) Kasich vetoed a couple provisions that would have allowed school districts to apply for state matching funds for new buildings at lower local share matches if they phased them in over time. He claimed this would have created inequities among districts. Which is a nice sentiment, but the whole reason the legislature did this is because of the current system’s inequities. Some districts are caught in a nether zone where they are considered too “wealthy” for a big state match, but also too poor to fund the whole thing — hence the current inequity. However, if they could go for a smaller bond issue, kids in those districts might be able to access the same new buildings as many other districts in the state. Again, this punishes districts who are neither wealthy nor poor, but are less wealthy than the wealthiest.

“HOSING APPALACHIA. AGAIN.

“Throughout Kasich’s turn in the Governor’s office he has found new and creative ways to hurt rural Appalachian schools. When he developed what was supposed to be his signature “Achievement Everywhere” school funding plan (a plan that was dumped unceremoniously by his own party), the plan disproportionately hurt rural Appalachian districts. He used school funding formulations that would downplay the poverty in Appalachia. And now he vetoed a provision that would allow school districts to give state tests in paper rather than computer formats. Rural Appalachian districts simply don’t have enough computers to give tests over computers effectively or efficiently. We also know that kids who take paper tests tend to do better than those who take them on computers. So Kasich is forcing kids in mostly rural Appalachian districts to take more time taking tests and in a format that’s biased against them. All in the name of what? “Standards”?

“Part of his decision I think stems from Kasich’s sharing of the school reform bias toward assessments that show kids doing worse. I’ve discussed this before, but just because kids to worse on a test doesn’t mean that test is more accurately assessing their proficiency in a subject. Does anyone honestly believe that a test showing that only 1/3 of students are proficient readers is a more accurate read of how kids are doing than one that suggests 85 percent are?”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Testing

The NEA Demands Accountability and Transparency from Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2017 //
32

The National Education Association passed a resolution on charter schools on July 4, 2017, which is appropriate because public schools are the foundation of democracy.

Add this to the resolution passed last year by the NAACP.

And the statement by Black Lives Matter in opposition to privatization of public schools.

And the statement endorsed by the Network for Public Education, saying that charter schools are “a failed experiment” and calling for an immediate moratorium and eventual absorption of them into school districts.

And together, you begin to see the growing backlash against private management of public money in schools that select their students and are exempt from most state laws.

This is the NEA statement:


Adopted by the 2017 Representative Assembly
July 4, 2017

Introduction

Charter schools were initially promoted by educators who sought to innovate within the local public school system to better meet the needs of their students. Over the last quarter of a century, charter schools have grown dramatically to include large numbers of charters that are privately managed, largely unaccountable, and not transparent as to their operations or performance. The explosive growth of charters has been driven, in part, by deliberate and wellfunded efforts to ensure that charters are exempt from the basic safeguards and standards that apply to public schools, which mirror efforts to privatize other public institutions for profit.

Charters have grown the most in school districts that were already struggling to meet students’ needs due to longstanding, systemic and ingrained patterns of institutional neglect, racial and ethnic segregation, inequitable school funding, and disparities in staff, programs and services. The result has been the creation of separate, largely unaccountable, privately managed charter school systems in those districts that undermine support and funding of local public schools. Such separate and unequal education systems are disproportionately located in, and harm, students and communities of color by depriving both of the high quality public education system that should be their right.

As educators we believe that “public education is the cornerstone of our social, economic, and political structure,” NEA Resolution A-1, the very “foundation of good citizenship,” and the fundamental prerequisite to every child’s future success. Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee Cty., Kan., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). The growth of separate and unequal systems of charter schools that are not subject to the same basic safeguards and standards that apply to public schools threatens our students and our public education system. The purpose of this policy statement is to make plain NEA’s opposition to the failed experiment of largely unaccountable privately managed charter schools while clarifying NEA’s continued support for those public charter schools that are authorized and held accountable by local democratically elected school boards or their equivalent.

I. NEA supports public charter schools that are authorized and held accountable by public school districts. Charter schools serve students and the public interest when they are authorized and held accountable by the same democratically accountable local entity that authorizes other alternative school models in a public school district such as magnet, community, educator-led or other specialized schools. Such charters should be authorized only if they meet the substantive standards set forth in (a) below, and are authorized and held accountable through a democratically controlled procedure as detailed in (b) below.

a. Public charter schools should be authorized by a public school district only if the charter is both necessary to meet the needs of students in the district and will meet those needs in a manner that improves the local public school system. Public charters, like all public schools, must provide students with a free, accessible, non-sectarian, quality education that is delivered subject to the same basic safeguards and standards as every other public school, namely, in compliance with: i) open meetings and public records laws; ii) prohibitions against for-profit operation or profiteering as enforced by conflict of interest, financial disclosure and auditing requirements; and iii) the same civil rights, including federal and state laws and protections for students with disabilities, employment, health, labor, safety, staff qualification and certification requirements as other public schools. When a charter is authorized in a public school district that has an existing collective bargaining agreement with its employees, the authorizer will ensure that the employees will be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Those basic safeguards and standards protect public education as a public good that is not to be commodified for profit.

In addition, charter schools may be authorized or expanded only after a district has assessed the impact of the proposed charter school on local public school resources, programs and services, including the district’s operating and capital expenses, appropriate facility availability, the likelihood that the charter will prompt cutbacks or closures in local public schools, and consideration of whether other improvements in either educational program or school management (ranging from reduced class sizes to community or magnet schools) would better serve the district’s needs. The district must also consider the impact of the charter on the racial, ethnic and socio-economic composition of schools and neighborhoods and on equitable access to quality services for all district students, including students with special needs and English language learners. The impact analysis must be independent, developed with community input, and be written and publicly available.

b. Public charter schools should only be authorized by the same local, democratically accountable entity that oversees all district schools such as a locally elected school board or, if there is no school board, a community-based charter authorizer accountable to the local community.

Maintaining local democratic control over decisions as to whether to authorize charters at all, and if so, under what conditions, safeguards community engagement in local public schools. A single local authorizing entity also ensures comprehensive consideration of whether each option, and the mix of options offered in a district, meets the needs of students and the community as a whole given the resources and facilities in the district. A single entity also permits effective integrated oversight of all schools, including charter schools, and a central mechanism for identifying and sharing successful innovations throughout local public schools.

The overall goal of the authorization and review process must be to improve the education offered to all students. That goal cannot be accomplished with a diffuse authorization system, comprised of multiple different entities, with differing partial views of the students served by a district and the overall scope of its educational offerings.

The local authorizer also must ensure that parents are provided with the same information about charters that is provided to parents about other district schools, as well as information about any significant respects in which the charter departs from district norms in its operations including the actual charter of the school.

The state’s role in charter authorization and oversight should be limited to ensuring that local school districts only authorize charters that meet the criteria in (a) above and do so by way of a procedure that complies with (b). To that end, the state should both monitor the performance of districts as charter authorizers and hold districts accountable for providing effective oversight and reporting regarding the quality, finances and performance of any charters authorized by the district. In addition, the state must provide adequate resources and training to support high quality district charter authorization practices and compliance work, and to share best authorization practices across a state. States should entertain appeals from approvals or denials of charters only on the narrow grounds that the local process for approving a charter was not properly followed or that the approval or denial of a charter was arbitrary or illegal.

c. Unless both the basic safeguards and process detailed above are met, no charter school should be authorized and NEA will support state and local moratoriums on further charter authorizations in the school district.
II. NEA opposes as a failed and damaging experiment unaccountable privately managed charters. Charters that do not comply with the basic safeguards and standards detailed above and that are not authorized by the local school board (or its equivalent) necessarily undermine local public schools and harm the public education system.

The theory that charter competition will improve public schools has been conclusively refuted. Charters have a substantial track record that has been assessed in numerous research studies. Those studies document that charters, on average, do no better than public schools in terms of student learning, growth or development. And those charters that do perform better are not incorporated into district-wide school improvement efforts.

In fact, at their worst, charters inflict significant harms on both students and communities. Of the charter schools that opened in 2000, a full fifth had closed within five years of opening and a full third had closed by 2010. Because the very opening of charters often prompts cutbacks and/or closures in local public schools, these alarmingly high charter closure rates subject students and communities to cycles of damaging disruption. Such disruption can leave students stranded mid-year. Even closures that occur at the year’s end disrupt students’ education and unmoors communities that previously had been anchored by the local public school.

Charters that are not subject to the basic safeguards and standards detailed above also open up the local public schools to profiteers. Such charters operate without any effective oversight, draining public school resources and thereby further harming local public schools and the students and communities they serve.

Finally, one particular form of unaccountable privately managed charters deserves specific discussion. Fully virtual or online charter schools cannot, by their nature, provide students with a well-rounded, complete educational experience, including optimal kinesthetic, physical, social and emotional development. Accordingly, they should not be authorized as charter schools.

III. Organizing Communities for Quality Public Education
NEA stands for our students wherever they are educated. Relegating students and communities to unaccountable privately managed schools that do not comply with the basic safeguards and standards detailed above has created separate systems of charters that are inherently unequal. To counter the threat to public education of such charters, NEA supports both communities organizing for quality public education and educators working together to improve charter schools.

a. NEA supports communities that are working to hold charters accountable whether that work takes the form of state legislative initiatives, local school board resolutions and actions, or efforts to raise local awareness of the need for charters to comply with the basic safeguards and standards detailed above. NEA also will support state and local efforts to preserve public school funding and services by eliminating such funding and services from unaccountable privately managed charters that do not comply with those basic safeguards and standards.

b. NEA believes that all educators deserve the right to collective voice and representation, and that an organized workforce is a better guardian of quality standards for students and educators alike. For that reason, state affiliates that seek to organize charter schools may continue to seek NEA’s assistance in those organizing efforts.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Privatization

Wendy Lecker: How Chicago Targeted Black and Latino Schools and Communities for Destruction

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2017 //
8

This article is an excellent analysis by civil rights lawyer Wendy Lecker of the deliberate destruction of public education in black and Latino neighborhoods in Chicago.

Chicago has purposely sacrificed the needs of black and Latino students while protecting and enhancing the needs of white students. We have to bear in mind what Rahm Emanuel told CTU leader Karen Lewis when he was first elected: about a quarter of these kids are uneducable. Everything else flows from that assumption.

Open the article to read the links. The most astonishing point noted here is that Chicago’s public schools OUTPERFORM its charter schools!

Lecker writes:

“Chicago is this nation’s third largest city, and among its most segregated. Recently, several unrelated reports were released about education policy in Chicago that, together, provide a vivid picture of the divergent views policymakers of have of public education; depending on who is served.
As reported by researchers at Roosevelt University, between 2009-2015, Chicago permanently closed 125 neighborhood schools, ostensibly because of low enrollment or poor performance.

“The standard Chicago used for low enrollment was 30 students to one elementary classroom — an excessively large class size, especially for disadvantaged children.

“The school closures occurred disproportionately in neighborhoods serving African-American, Latino and economically disadvantaged students. Professors Jin Lee and Christopher Lubienski found that Chicago’s school closures had a markedly negative effect on accessibility to educational opportunities for these vulnerable populations. Students had to travel longer distances to new schools; often through more dangerous areas.

“School closures harm entire communities. As Georgia State Law Professor Courtney Anderson found, where neighborhood schools were a hub for community activities, vacant schools become magnets for illegal activity. Moreover, buildings in disuse pose health and environmental dangers to the community. Vacant buildings depress the value of homes and businesses around them, increase insurance premiums and insurance policy cancellations. In addition, the school district must pay for maintenance of vacant buildings.

“Although Chicago claimed to close schools to save money, the savings were minimal — at great cost to the communities affected.

“At the same time Chicago leaders closed 125 neighborhood schools, they opened 41 selective public schools and 108 charter schools; more than they closed. Chicago charter schools underserve English Language Learners and students with disabilities, and have suspension and expulsion rates ten times greater than Chicago’s public schools. Even more astounding, despite the self-selecting and exclusive nature of charters, researcher Myron Orfield found that Chicago’s public schools outperform charters on standardized test passing and growth rates in both reading and math, and high school graduation rates.

“The Roosevelt University researchers found that the expansion of Chicago charter schools devastated the public school budget, contributing to massive cuts of basic educational resources in Chicago’s public schools. Moreover, many of these new charters have remained open despite falling below the “ideal enrollment” standard used to close neighborhood public schools.

“The education policies of Chicago’s leaders force its poor children and children of color to attend under-resourced schools, often at a great distance from their neighborhoods, on a pretext of under-enrollment and poor performance. Officials fail to consider the devastating effects school closures have on educational opportunities or on the health of entire communities.

“Chicago promised to use the proceeds of the sales of vacant schools to improve those neighborhoods. Yet, city leaders instead used those funds for school capital projects. A WBEZ investigation found that Chicago’s new school construction and additions disproportionately benefit schools that serve white, middle class students, even though white students are far less likely to suffer overcrowded schools than Latino students, whose schools do not see the benefit of capital spending.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Chicago, Civil Rights, Closing schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, Fraud, Privatization, Racism

Bill Phillis: We Need The Separation of Church and State

By dianeravitch
July 4, 2017 //
24

Bill Phillis retired years ago as a Deputy Commission of Education in Ohio. He is passionate about equitable funding for the public schools. He has been relentless in exposing the raids on the state treasury by private profiteers like ECOT and for-profit charters. He founded an organization called Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy. If you live in Ohio, you should join his work.

Bill Phillis is a tireless warrior for public schools. Like almost everyone who fights for Democratic public schools, he is unpaid. He fights because of his convictions, not his wallet. The reverse is true for corporate reformers. Take away the hundreds of millions behind their malevolent privatization movement, and it would collapse.

I name Bill Phillis to the honor roll of this blog. He is a hero of public education.

He said this about the recent Supreme Court decision, which will divert more money from public schools to religious schools:

“U.S. Supreme Court rules Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri is entitled to public funds for non-religious purposes

“The June 26 ruling in the Missouri case probably will not affect how Ohio does business with churches and parochial schools, but it does provide another wrecking ball to help knock down the wall of separation between church and state. Although it is a narrow decision, it paves the way for further mischief.

“Ohio provides several tax-funded perks for parochial schools-auxiliary services, administrative cost reimbursement, transportation and vouchers. Ohio already is at the very top of the nation in tax support for private parochial schools. The state provides more tax dollars per student to private schools than many public schools receive.

“Companion bills (SB 85 and HB 200), pending in the legislature, would greatly accelerate public support for a parochial education.

“The nation’s founders had good reason for erecting a wall between church and state. Many of them had firsthand knowledge and experience regarding the mischief inherent in mixing the two. Both church and state lose when the two become intertwined. Public support of one’s faith trivializes it. The dominate faith community tends to have undue influence on government. Iran is a good example of a country with no wall between church and state.

“The wall in the United States need repairs, not further demolition.”

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Ohio E & A, 100 S. 3rd Street, Columbus, OH 43215
ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Honor Roll, Ohio, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state

KIPP-Houston Rips Off Poor Parents

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2017 //
26

Charter schools lain they are public schools. They are not. What public school is part of a corporate chain? What public school operates for profit? What public schools charges fees for service?

The KIPP schools in Houston have been charging fees to poor parents. Now that the scam has been exposed, KIPP refuses to refund the money to parents who need the money far more than the multi-million dollar KIPP organization does. KIPP sgoukf ask its patron, the rightwing Walton Family Foundation, for a few more dollars, enough to reimburse the needy families that it ripped off.

The Houston Chronicle writes:

“Mary Courtney was one of KIPP Houston’s biggest advocates, even as she had to borrow money from relatives to keep up with payments to the charter school.

“She drove to Austin during School Choice Week, talking to lawmakers about why they should better fund charter schools. She volunteered on campus. She paid thousands in fees so her boys and other students could have access to books and science materials.

“But that was before she realized the fees she was paying were optional, something never mentioned by teachers or principals or on the fee agreement forms that the schools – KIPP Liberation College Prep and KIPP PEACE Elementary – tied to student registration. Now, Courtney and several other KIPP Houston parents are furious because they believe they were duped by the charter nonprofit system into paying for what they believe should be a free public education.

“At no time if I thought the fees were optional would I have paid for them, especially when I’m struggling to put food on the table or clothes on my children’s backs,” Courtney said. “It’s a lot to ask of a single parent, and it’s wrong for them to allocate fees from parents, especially knowing the demographic area where a majority of their school campuses are.”

“A Texas Education Agency investigation last year, a copy of which was obtained by the Houston Chronicle, found KIPP Houston schools violated the Texas Education Code by collecting millions of dollars a year in unallowable student fees. Its mostly low-income and minority families paid hundreds of dollars per student each year for things such as reading materials, classroom supplies and parent associations.”

KIPP Houston joins the Wall of Shame for taking advantage of poor families. KIPP should fully refund the money it illegally collected from parents.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Houston, KIPP Charter Schools, Wall of Shame

Charles Pierce: “Education Is Not A Damn Marketplace!”

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2017 //
27

There is one super-smart columnist writing in Esquire, and his name is Charles P. Pierce.

He gets it.

Unlike the editorial boards of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, he understands that schools don’t get “better” by competing.

He understands that what is called “reform” these days is a massive failure.

He knows that charter schools, despite the boasting, despite the hundreds of millions squandered on them, don’t get better results than public schools and usually get worse results.

He has been paying attention.

In district after district, public schools are outperforming charter schools.

Will someone tell the Walton Family?

Will someone tell Eli Broad and Reed Hastings?

Will the editorial writers wake up anytime soon?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Competition, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Failure, Privatization

Michael Hynes: Our Insane Obsession with Testing

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2017 //
7

Dr. Michael Hynes, superintendent of the schools in Patchogue-Medford on Long Island (New York) really knows what “whole child education” is. I wish he were advising Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, who throw the term around, as in “whole child personalized learning.” Hynes could set them straight.

They could start by reading this article, which appeared in Newsday.

Hynes recommends this startling documentary about “hypernormalization.” Unlike Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, he knows what “whole child education” means.

He writes:

The hypernormalization of public education has been creeping into our schools, becoming the official party line with a federal mandate of testing our children to death with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation required that students in grades three through eight be tested every year in English Language Arts and mathematics. The later incarnations of the law have only upped the testing ante by making high test scores such a priority that a school’s existence might well depend on making the mark.

This means that what most of us consider “normal” is no longer normal. School days filled with reading, writing, math, science, social studies, playing outside, working out problems with friends, art, music and taking an occasional trip are no longer normal. If we compared our public school experience from 25 years ago with the “new normal,” we witness children losing the ability to play in the classroom (when true learning takes place), the significant decline of recess and the loss of social and emotional experiences that benefit all children. This new normal is teach less and test more. And because of the high stakes attached to the tests, schools are forced to focus on academic outcomes at the expense of a child’s social and emotional growth. Under this hypernormalized model, teachers now rank and sort children based on a proficiency model instead of how much growth each individual child might show…

I recognize that the obstacles in achieving a new healthy normal are huge, as our politicians at the state and federal levels, along with so-called reformers and business opportunists who have reaped financial profits from this system, continue to praise and fund a high-stakes, test-driven school model.

But make no mistake: This new normal, as research has shown, is taking an unacceptable toll on our children. Focusing on the whole child, regardless of scores, is what desperately needs to become our newer normal.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Education Reform, Testing

James C. Wilson: The Intellectual Arrogance of So-Called Reformers

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2017 //
55

James C. Wilson reflects here on the intellectual arrogance of people who know nothing about education but decide they should reinvent it. The list of the arrogant would include certain foundations and philanthropists, certain legislators and other elected officials, and a long list of sheltered think tanks.

They all went to school so they think themselves qualified to redesign it. They never performed surgery, so they stay out of the operating room. But they do not hesitate to tell teachers how to teach.

He begins:

“Individuals with expertise in engineering, medicine, and business believe their achievements entitle them to think their area of knowledge extends outside their profession. The recommendations that they make in subjects outside their area of expertise are examples of misplaced intellectual arrogance. Achievement in a particular field takes numerous years of study and many years of direct professional experience in that specific field in order to develop a truly knowledgeable level of understanding. It is arrogant, even for people with great personal achievement, to honestly believe they have a significant understanding of complex issues outside of their field of education and professional experience.

“This intellectual arrogance has never been demonstrated more clearly than in recent pronouncements concerning education in America. Brilliant people in diverse fields outside of education feel perfectly comfortable making judgments and policy recommendations about education that impacts millions of students as well as educational professionals. Their audacity is appalling and their ignorance is inexcusable. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda have announced their goal to prepare 80 percent of American high school students for entrance into universities. Eli Broad, another billionaire, gives money to school districts with the clear expectation that they will implement his business-based plans…Similarly, mayors have their own ideas about how to improve student achievement, notably without any substantive research to support them. George Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy used testing to determine the success of schools, however testing in itself, has not provided solutions to educational achievement. Arne Duncan and President Obama pushed merit pay and charter schools when substantive research does not support either of these policy initiatives. Trump’s DeVos hasn’t a clue about educational research as her feeble efforts have ably demonstrated. The advocacy for these already repudiated initiatives reflects a lack of understanding of the ultimate impact on students and educational professionals.”

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Broad Foundation, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Failure, Fraud

SomeDAM Poet: “The Midnight Blog of Diane Ravitch”

By dianeravitch
July 1, 2017 //
18

Thank you, dear Poet. I blush. And I laughed out loud.

“The Midnight Blog of Diane Ravitch” (apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Hear ye, my teachers, of techy wares
The “teaching” inventions of billionaires
Of testing and Cores
Political whores
And a blogger with passion who really cares

She said to her friends, “If the billionaires roll
By software or hard, from your towns tonight
Hang a lantern aloft from the tall flag-pole
At the public school, as a signal light —
One if by Gates and two if by Broad
And I, on the opposite side of the road,
Ready to blog and spread the alarm
Through every American village and farm
For the parents and kids to march arm in arm

Then she said “good night” and with a blogger’s adieu
Warned to “Be watchful of ‘privatize’ clue’”
Just as the wealthy were meeting with pols
And paying the think-tanks and internet trolls
For “proof” that their methods were “tried and true” —
The Common Core and the testing too —
That only THEY know what to do
A propaganda that was magnified
By billions of dollars, far and wide

Meanwhile, her friends, through blogging and tweet
Wander and watch with eagle eyes
Till they read of the program to “personalize”
The learning, by students with tech, for sure
The smell of a hardware and software cheat
By usual folks, with their usual lies
Peddling wares at the techy store

They hoisted the lanterns up the poles
At the public schools, throughout the land
To the top of the masts, hand over hand
Unbeknownst to the blogger trolls
On the internet sites (paid as planned
By billionaires, who worshipped Rand)
Up the flag-pole, so steep and tall
The highest flagpole of them all
They raised the lanterns above the trees
Where Diane Ravitch saw with ease
And moved to action from the call

A flurry of blogs and a trumpet of tweet
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark
And beneath from her fingers, in passing a spark
Struck out by a blogger both fearless and fleet
That was all! And yet through the gloom and the light
The fate of a Nation was riding that night
And the spark stuck by the blogger in flight
Kindled the Land into flame with it’s heat

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the brutish billionaires tired and fled–
How the parents gave them piece of mind
(And not of the peaceful restful kind)
Chasing the billionaires down the lane
Then crossing the field to emerge again
Under the trees at the edge of the school
To banish forever the billionaire rule

So through the night, she persevered
And so through the night went her cry of alarm
Through every American village and farm
A cry of defiance and not of fear
A voice in the darkness a knock at the door
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For borne on the night wind of the Past
Through all our history to the last
In the hour of darkness and peril and need
The people will waken and listen to hear
Of the ominous danger of billionaire greed
Threat to democracy that we hold dear

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Testing

A Proud Graduate of Indianapolis Public Schools Laments “A Sad Day”

By dianeravitch
June 30, 2017 //
4

Shannon Williams is proud to be a graduate of the Indianapolis Public Schools. She now writes for the Indianapolis Recorder, where she published this article about the current plan to shrink the district.

She writes:

There are countless emotions tied to Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), and even more emotions now associated with the district due to the proposal to close or repurpose three of its high schools.

It is a lot to analyze — even for the most astute. Nonetheless, IPS is a major issue, and quite honestly has been a major issue for many years.

I am a proud product of IPS. I wear my time in the district as a badge of honor, not as something I am ashamed of, like many expected of my peers and me at the time, and like some people expect of the current students. Public schools. Even then, so many years ago, there was a stigma associated with the district. That stigma has continued; some years are worse than others, but there has seemingly always been a stigma attached to the district.

In the past, the stigma often came from people outside IPS’ administration and staff. Now, some people wonder if the district’s powers-that-be are actually the ones who look adversely at its student population.

“Arlington High School is located at 46th and Arlington. John Marshall is at 42nd and Post Road. These are areas with primarily Black and Hispanic families — they are impoverished areas. To close schools in some of the city’s most impoverished neighborhoods is a clear (indication) that you don’t care,” James Turner said passionately. Turner spent his entire formative years as an IPS student. He was also so dedicated to the district that he and his wife made the decision to enroll their children in IPS. In addition, Turner worked for the district, first as special needs assistant, then a graduation coach and later as dean of students.

In addition to the elimination of schools in neighborhoods that desperately need them, Turner thinks centralizing Indianapolis high schools to a handful of locations can be a safety hazard for students.

“You have students from Haughville, 42nd and Post Road, Hillside — all these kids will be at the same school. There will be neighborhood beef amongst the students because not all neighborhoods get along; some kids represent the places they live and are willing to fight for their neighborhood. There will be safety hazards — even for the students who are there simply to learn.”

In 2014 Turner ran a compassionate grassroots campaign for a seat on the IPS board of commissioners. He was defeated, but he remains committed to “ensuring the safety and success of our babies” by staying engaged in news impacting IPS’ students.

She wonders why no one like Turner was invited to be part of the Task Force that made these recommendations. She wonders why the Task Force was composed of big business types and big names, with no one from the community.

Good question. No one on the Task Force had an emotional tie to the Indianapolis Public Schools. They looked at them as a business deal. They didn’t understand the value of neighborhood schools. They didn’t care about “legacy” schools, where older siblings and parents went to school. They also don’t care about public education.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Indianapolis, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »