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

Liberia Needs Free Public Schools, not Privatization and Outsourcing of Its Responsibility to Children

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2016 //
4

Liberia is seriously considering a proposal to outsource its elementary schools to foreign investors, notably Bridge International Academies, backed by wealthy Americans.

 

This Nigerian-born, American-educated journalist and historian thinks privatization is a terrible idea.

 

C. Patrick Burrowes writes that the plan to privatize what should be a government responsibility is a boondoggle.

 

He writes:

 

Poor Liberia! Few countries in the world have been as ill served by its government officials, as Liberia has been.

 

In the 1920s, Liberia earned the opprobrium of the world when some selfish officials opted to supply laborers by force to private foreign contractors. The cries and protests of ordinary Liberians went unheeded by them, until international pressure brought an end to their heartless scheme.

 

If this government is allowed to outsource the entire elementary school system, Liberia will enter the annals of infamy once again. At stake is not just the future of education in Liberia. If this proposal is allowed to pass, it will be the beginning of the end for universal public education, a concept with roots dating back to 1647. At stake is the future schooling of children around the world.

 

The proposal must be blocked, not just as a matter of principle. It must be opposed because it is based on faulty logic. Furthermore, its advocates provide no evidence to support their radical and disruptive experiment with the nation’s school system. Instead, they offer ideological buzzwords like “privatization” and “technology.”

 

But technologies cannot teach; people do. The top three factors for ensuring student success in early childhood education are: good teachers, good teachers, and good teachers. In other words, the quality of teaching and teacher-support are the strongest predictor of quality. If successful Liberians are humble and honest, we will readily acknowledge that we owe whatever careers we have today to the foundation laid by good elementary school teachers.

 

Throughout its history, Liberia produced thousands of such dedicated and self-sacrificing educators. The late Albert Porte and Dr. Mary Antoinette Brown-Sherman are just two well-known examples. Each of us could name several others who impacted our lives directly. Those teachers worked with few, if any, advanced technologies. Yet, their impact in the lives of students was immeasurable. So, why the urgent need now for the outsourcing of curriculum delivery and classroom management by cell phones?

 

The main reason is this: The Liberian educational system over the last decade has been driven by donors’ agendas, with little systematic planning based on local needs. Donors love giving chairs, buildings and other concrete objects that they can slap their logos on for all to see. It is fine to accept those inputs, but government should have its own master plan. The plan should determine allocation of resources, not the other way around….

 

Moments arise in history that tests the honor and moral fiber of a people. The forced-labor scandal of the 1920s was one. This educational outsourcing boondoggle is another. By our actions, let us prove ourselves worthy of the respect we want from the rest of the world and from our descendants.

 

 

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, International, Privatization

Would You Pay $250,000 to Play Ed Reform Poker?

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2016 //
11

If ever you needed a reminder that the corporate reform movement is led by the super-rich, not by public school parents or teachers, this is it. The rephormer group called “Education Reform Now” is throwing a poker party to support privatization by charter and testing for other people’s children. Doesn’t that sound like fun, and it is all for a cause that will damage public schools.

 

Jonathan Pelto writes about the poker party here.
“For $250,000 you can nab 10 seats at the poker tournament, 10 rebuys (a technique for expanding your winnings), 10 cocktail tickets for non-poker players and the honor of having not one, but two, “special guests” sit at your table. [Education Reform Now hires famous people, usually sports stars and actors, to attend the event and sit and play with the wealthy donors]

 

“For $100,000 you get the same benefits, but alas, the company of only one “special guest.”

 

“Other Sponsorship levels include a $50,000 package, a table of 10 poker seats for $20,000 or a single poker seat for $1,000.”

 

Pelto includes a short and valuable glossary of the leading players in corporate reform circles.

 

Peter Greene commented on the poker game here. He notes that one seat at the table is equivalent to five years of a typical teacher’s income. He has an interesting idea:

 

” Frankly, I like the idea of the Network for Public Education or BATs buying a table or two, then sitting there making rude comments about charter schools, common core, and testing all night. But I’m afraid that my exclusive tailor, Jean-Claude Pennee, could not whip up something appropriate in time. And I’m sure it takes a certain level of wealth to set up and participate in an event like this without feeling a twinge of shame or irony. On the website for the event we can find information like this:

 

 

*Mississippi’s average per pupil expenditure is $7,890 per year while New Jersey’s is $17,620, a disparity reflected across the nation. There is a ceiling, however, on what can be achieved through traditional approaches to resource re-allocation.*

 

 

“These are exactly the same people who declare that we have to get teacher pay under control and that you cannot improve public education by throwing money at it. Yes, throwing money at the education of children across America is a waste of money, money that could be spent on much more valuable and important things. But when the rich want to spend an evening throwing money at each other– well, that’s just good sense and great fun.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Privatization, Testing

California Charter Game: Rejected by District, Rejected by County, Appeal to State and….

By dianeravitch
April 8, 2016 //
17

District officials in California have confided in me that it is virtually impossible to stop a charter proposal, no matter how bad it is or how little it is needed. If the district turns down the proposal, the charter advocates appeal to the Los Angeles County School Board, where they are often approved. In the off-chance that both the district and the county turn down their proposal, the advocates appeal to the state, where they are almost certain to win approval.

 

Here is an example.

 

Two parents proposed to open a dual-language immersion school that would teach Spanish, German, Italian, and French. The school would be called the International Studies Language Academy. The Glendale school board voted against the proposal, 5-0. The proponents appealed to the County office, which did an extensive review and turned them down, 5-1.

 

Staff at the Los Angeles County Office of Education weighed the petition as part of the Charter School Review Team, made up of county officials drawn from various departments, including the controller’s office, the curriculum department and the division of accountability.

 

County officials determined the plan “provides an unsound educational program” and that the petitioners “are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the proposed educational program,” according to the report.

 

“We’re disappointed, but know the political climate is tough for charters in the L.A. area right now,” Bonacci said in an email.

 

Similar to Glendale school board members, county officials found several faults with the school’s financial plan and deemed it “unrealistic,” in the report, highlighting how the school underestimated teacher salaries, benefits and the cost for books and materials.

 

In another instance, county officials noted that the school planned to mail bank statements directly to Academica, a Florida-based charter school operator.

 

The school’s lack of internal control in processing checks “can result in fiscal mismanagement,” the report stated.

 

Despite those findings, the petition has won support from the California Charter Schools Assn., whose manager for regional advocacy, Allison Hendrick, urged that the county board approve the appeal.

 

Ah, so the school will be managed by Academica, the political powerhouse in Florida that operates for profit. Due diligence would suggest that the California officials learn more about Academica, whose owners have assembled a vast real estate empire. In Florida, Academica had the help of a state senator who chairs the education appropriations committee. Who will help them in California?

 

Let’s see what happens to this petition, where local officials declared it to be pedagogically and financially unsound.

 

 

Categories California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Florida, For-Profit, Privatization

Jeff Bryant: April is the Cruelest Month

By dianeravitch
April 7, 2016 //
19

Jeff Bryant reviews the claims for and against the testing that has now become the central feature of April.

 

State and local officials assure us that the tests will help children, but they don’t.

 

State and local officials insist that they will close the achievement gap, but for decades they have measured it, not closed it.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

 

The tests in use today don’t help anyone but the testing corporations.

 

The results come back  in the fall or maybe as early as the summer, when the students have a different teacher or are not even in school.

 

The results don’t explain what the students got wrong so they have no diagnostic or instructional value.

 

They tell students if they passed or failed, but the students don’t know why and neither do the teachers.

 

What a waste of time and money.

 

The great puzzle is why all those officials–federal, state, and local–demand, insist, declare that students must take these useless tests. Why do they want the data when the data don’t help the students?

Categories Accountability, Data, Education Industry, Testing

EduShyster: Why Teachers at a Cleveland Charter School Formed a Union

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2016 //
5

EduShyster interviewed teachers at the University of Cleveland Prep School about why they decided to unionize. Charters have a reputation for expecting teachers to work long hours. Because of working conditions, charters have high teacher turnover.

 

She writes:

 

 

“For Jacqueline Lehane, it was the teacher demerit system at her Cleveland charter school that was the last straw. Teachers who’d been heard talking in the hallway, or whose students had been spotted with an untucked shirt, would be called out via an official email entitled *Quick Hits,* on which teachers, school and network administrators were copied.

 

*It’s just public humiliation,* says Lehane, whose *hits* included having a messy classroom after her first graders completed an art project. To Lehane, this top-down shaming was a symbol of everything that was wrong with the school. *Once I even asked a dean, ‘do people who are higher up than you treat you the way you treat us?’

 

 

“If all you know about unions is that they are protectors of the status quo, responsible for everything that’s wrong with public education, I’m guessing you have no idea how hard it is to actually organize one. By the time Lehane and her colleagues at the University of Cleveland Preparatory School, part of the I CAN network, voted 18-4 to join the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the teachers had spent two years trying to form a union. Administrators responded, first by attempting to intimidate teachers into changing their minds, then firing the teachers who they’d identified as leading the effort. Seven teachers at the school were fired as punishment—such a clear and blatant act of retaliation that the National Labor Relations Board ordered I CAN to reinstate the teachers and give them full back pay….

 

 

‘This can’t be good’

 

 

“Lehane started teaching at UCP in 2015. A week after the school year started, she found herself in front of 32 first graders, with no training. *I think it took me about an hour to figure out that there were some serious problems,* says Lehane. One of the first things she noticed was how high the teacher turnover rate was at the school. Teachers were constantly quitting, replaced by brand new teachers, some of whom weren’t even licensed to teach. Lehane was struck by how different this was from the public schools she’d attended growing up in suburban Cleveland. *My teachers were there for my three sisters and my brother, but no one ever stays at I CAN. I just remember thinking ‘this can’t be good,’* says Lehane.

 

 

“When a group of teachers at the school approached Lehane about coming to a meeting to talk about organizing a union, she was in. At that first gathering, the teachers listed off their concerns and identified problems that they thought needed to be fixed. Like the sky-high turnover among teachers. And the fact there seemed to be no accountability for administrators. Work hours and expectations were outrageous, even though teachers lacked the most basic supports and resources to accomplish what was expected of them. *It was such a relief to hear that everyone was frustrated by the same things, and that we all wanted to fix them,* says Lehane.”

 

About 90% of charter schools are non-union. Some funders underwrite them to get rid of unions. This must be very disturbing to the Walton Family Foundation, the Eli Broad Foundation, and many others who want schools to be free of unions.

 

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Teachers and Teaching, Unions

W. James Popham: The Fatal Flaw of Educational Assessment

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2016 //
31

In this article that appeared in Education Week, testing expert W. James Popham explains why the current wave of assessments are fundamentally flawed.

 

He writes:

 

Today’s educational tests are intended to satisfy three primary purposes, all of which can play a constructive role in students’ education: to compare, to instruct, and to evaluate.

 
Comparison-focused educational tests permit us to identify score-based differences among individual students or among groups of students. The resulting comparisons often lead to classifications of students’ scores on a student-by-student basis (such as by using percentiles) or on a group-by-group basis (such as by distinguishing between “proficient” and “nonproficient” students).

 

A second purpose of educational testing is instructional—that is, to elicit ongoing evidence regarding students’ levels of achievement so that better decisions can be made about how to teach those students. Test-based evidence can also help students themselves decide whether to modify how they are trying to learn.

 

A third purpose of educational testing is evaluation—that is, determining the quality of a completed set of instructional activities provided by one or more teachers. These evaluations often focus on a lengthy segment of instruction, such as an entire school year.

 

All three of these purposes, if implemented by using appropriate tests, can benefit students. The trouble is that one of those purposes—comparison—has completely dominated America’s educational testing for almost a century.

 

Why are we so obsessed with wanting to compare children? Does it really matter if your son or daughter in Michigan has a higher or lower score than someone of the same age in Texas or Maine?

 

This is the silliest possible misuse of educational testing, and the least valuable.

 

Education is not a basketball game or a race horse. It is about developing the human beings in our care to be the best they can be. Not by punishment, not by scare tactics, not by humiliation, but by the same care and support we would give to a precious flower in our garden. If you crush a flower, it never grows.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Testing

Is Your Child More than a Score?

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2016 //
28

If your child is a data point, don’t watch this short video.

 

Don’t watch it if you think your child can be summed up by a number or a test score.

 

But watch it if you see your child as a unique individual, different from every other child and precious to you.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Testing

Leader of Long Island Opt Out Explains Why She Opts Out: It is About Her Children

By dianeravitch
April 4, 2016 //
34

Jeanette Deutermann, parent leader of Long Island Opt Out, explains here why she will not allow her children to take the state tests. The interesting question she raises is, why are public officials and the media so desperate to compel students to take these tests? The tests provide no useful information to teachers or parents. Teachers are not allowed to see the questions or the answers. They are not allowed to learn what children do and do not know. The tests have no diagnostic value. The tests have a passing mark set so high that the majority of students are expected to “fail.” What is the point? Why the pressure to force children to take these useless tests?

 

 

 

 

As the debate over common core, high-stakes testing, and privatizing/profiting off our public schools rages on, one thing is clear: reformers, Commissioner Elia, and the Federal Government still do not quite understand why we opt our children out of high-stakes testing. Strip away all of the rhetoric, all the political battles, the union battles, all the money. What do you have left? A child. A child who, as young as 8, is taken into a room stripped of all wall art and colorful learning tools (as per test administration guidelines) by teachers and school administrators whose normally warm, jovial, and friendly behavior has been replaced by solemn looks of concern. Yes, some concern for themselves (how these children do on these assessments will be published in local papers, go on their permanent records, can make or break their careers, and even close their schools) but most of that concern is for that of their students, their children, whom they are charged with protecting, who are about to be thrown to the wolves. As these youngest learners take their seats, they are given stern instructions that are antithetical to a normal elementary school classroom. No speaking, no noise, no looking around, no asking for help on questions. The child begins to get nervous. This nervousness is making them feel like they have to use the bathroom, but they were just told that going to the bathroom was a big deal. The test begins. They believe this test is very important. Their parents and teachers told them not to worry, that it doesn’t matter, but they know it does. They know their teacher has been preparing them for it all year. They desperately want to please their teachers and parents. They begin reading the questions. They don’t understand what they are reading. (The reading passage is three grade levels above their own). They don’t understand the questions either. There seems to be two right answers for every question. Panic creeps in. A classmate begins crying. This causes another to cry. The teacher tries to calm them down, but the teacher herself has tears in her eyes as well. Two hours go by while the child struggles to complete questions that were designed to fail 70% of her and her classmates. She has a special education classmate that will have to endure a grueling 3 hours or more of testing, as he has double time for testing. The test is finally over. Unfortunately this is just one day. This child will have to repeat this event 5 more times over the next two weeks. The teacher doesn’t bother with normal instruction over these two weeks. The children just can’t endure any more.

 

 

Some children experience the stress of the looming tests for weeks and even months leading up to the tests. Parents report lack of sleep, stomach pains, and anxiety symptoms from their usually well-adjusted children. Some just feel the filtered down stress that is all too common in today’s classrooms as teachers are being held under a microscope while under constant attack from those looking to replace them with non-union Teach For America trained temps. Some react during homework, especially those in districts that continue to use confusing, poorly written, purposely convoluted modules. Parents are tired of hearing “I’m stupid”, “I don’t want to go to school anymore”, “I’ll never be able to do this”. Other parents refuse because of the change from a whole child education, in which arts, music, play, science, social studies and creative learning dominate the day, to one in which ELA and math prep have taken over. Most see that as detrimental and harmful to their children’s well being, perhaps with even more long-term damaging effects than the tests themselves.

 

 

You can begin to understand why a parent, ANY parent, might say “enough”. So while opting out has turned into a tool of resistance to fight back against harmful policies, a loss of local control, the corporate takeover of education and politics, a top down approach to education, and a way to force political officials to listen, at its core is the simple primal act to protect our children. The Federal Government, Commissioner Elia, and corporate funded groups like High Achievement believe that clever marketing strategies will fix the problem and get parents to forget all about the harm done to their children each and every day. They believe a few tweaks here and there should cause us to throw our children back into the shark tank of good intentions. When that doesn’t seem to work they switch gears and simply try to threaten. We have heard these threats before. Again, there is a disconnect to the understanding of what we are motivated by. Financial bribes or threats could never convince me to put my children in harm’s way.

 

 

So what can the Federal Government or State Education Department do to prevent opt outs? Not much. Parents are not their employees, and our children are not their property. They can force school officials to offer the test to every single student. Oh wait! They already do that. Every single student in New York State was offered the NYS assessments in 2015. 240,000 of them said “no thank you”, and declined to pick up a pencil. As much as it befuddles and confuses the State and Federal Education Departments, the simple reality is there is NOTHING they can do about a student who refuses to pick up a pencil and a parent who encourages, directs, and supports that action. Actually, I’m incorrect. There is something they can do. They can restore testing times to pre-reform assessments times. Two 70 minute assessments, administered in fourth grade and eighth grade. They can reverse course on common core, instead allowing educators in each state to create challenging, appropriate, and research based standards. They can allow educators to create tests so we can test what is taught rather than teach what is tested. They can remove student performance assessment measures from the evaluation system. VAM (value added measures) have been thoroughly researched and found to have no impact on improving student learning or reducing the achievement gap. They can provide alternate pathways to graduation for our special education students. Finally, they can bring equity to our schools. The achievement gap is a result of one single factor: poverty. Funding, not testing, is the only way to improve learning outcomes for our most vulnerable and highest needs children. Smaller class sizes, materials, support staff, and community school models will do what no test ever could.

 

 

My advice to Commissioner Elia and the United States Department of Education? Don’t try to stand in the way of parents protecting their children. It won’t end well. Our children are our number one priority. What’s yours?

Categories Education Industry, Opt Out, Parents, Resistance, Standardized Testing

Steven Singer: Charter Lobby Donates $50,000 to Candidate Backed by Pennsylvania Teachers’ Union

By dianeravitch
April 3, 2016 //
8

Now here is a conundrum: Why would the charter school lobby donate $50,000 to a candidate for State Attorney General who is already backed by the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the teachers’ union?

 

Steven Singer poses that question here. Pennsylvania is a state that is rife with charter school scandals. Such scandals would normally be investigated by the State Attorney General. Duh. If Josh Shapiro gets elected, let’s see how vigorous in investigating the scandals that Singer links to in his blog, and how vigorously he prosecutes the charlatans and frauds who are profiting off the gullibility of parents.

 

Singer asks:

 

 

What’s the best way to avoid a charter school scandal?

In Pennsylvania, apparently you bribe the Attorney General.

 

That may be why Students First PAC donated $50,000 to Josh Shapiro, a Democrat running for the position.

 

This political action committee is not to be confused with the infamous national group founded by Michelle Rhee. Students First PAC is a state organization that typically contributes to charter school friendly candidates.

 

And $50K is quite a chunk of change in a State Attorney General race – the office in charge of prosecuting charter schools for breaking the law.

 

 

Charter school scandals have been an almost weekly occurrence throughout the Commonwealth. Chester Community Charter School, the state’s largest brick-and-mortar organization, is under investigation for pocketing $1.2 million “in improper lease-reimbursement payments.” As Philadelphia public schools are being closed due to a miserly state budget, “nonprofit,” charter operator Aspira Inc. was caught using public money to boost its real estate holdings instead of using those funds to educate children. Nicholas Trombetta, the founder of Pennsylvania’s largest cyber charter, an institution that operates exclusively over the internet, “was charged with fraud, for funneling $8 million of the school’s funds into his personal companies and holdings.”

 

It’s easy to see how having the state Attorney General on your side would benefit an industry rife with fraud and malfeasance.

 

Shapiro, chair of the Montgomery Country Board of Commissioners, is the odds on favorite to succeed Kathleen Kane as the state’s highest ranking law enforcement officer.

 

He is running for the Democratic nomination against Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, and Allegheny Country Attorney General Stephen Zappala.

 

Despite strong corporate education reform ties, Shapiro has been endorsed by the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), the largest teachers union in the Commonwealth.

 

Categories Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Fraud, Pennsylvania, Virtual Charter Schools

Sarah Garland: Is the Era of “No-Excuses” Coming to an End?

By dianeravitch
April 2, 2016 //
40

Sarah Garland writes in the Hechinger Report about a change of direction for the Mastery Charter chain in Philadelphia. The CEO of Mastery, Scott Gordon, has decided to ease up on the strict rules of “no-excuses.” Garland believes that what Mastery does and how it works out might affect no-excuses charters across the nation.

 

I am not convinced that what happens in the Simon Gratz High School, a charter school in Philadelphia, will change the direction of no-excuses charters nationally, but it is an interesting story anyway.

 

Garland acknowledges that critics blame charters for the near-collapse of the Philadelphia public school system, but she leaves unresolved whether Mastery is the solution or the problem.

 

Garland writes:

 

 

More than 40 percent of the high school’s 280 freshmen show up reading below a fifth-grade level. Several city special-education programs are located at the school, so about a third of students also have special needs, ranging from cognitive disabilities to emotional disorders. In 2011, the year before Mastery took over, the graduation rate was 58 percent.

 
Administrators started out by instituting the no-excuses playbook, as Mastery had done at several of its other institutions. Under this approach, students are held to high expectations no matter what circumstances they come from – or what happens at home at the end of the school day. The strategies typically include strict discipline, extra time in school, drilling in math and English, and accountability for teachers and principals, usually based on testing. Administrators adopt a rigid set of rules and punishments. A top-down lecturing style is followed in the classroom.

 
At Simon Gratz, students began raising their hands in class, tucking in their shirts, and racking up demerits and detentions for the smallest infractions.

 
The new administrators also dismantled the metal detectors guarding the entrance of the building. The idea was to make it seem more like a scholarly institution and less like a prison. But in this case students and parents balked. They didn’t feel safe without the detectors, security guards, and bag checks. The school, nevertheless, came off the state’s “persistently dangerous” list as the hallways calmed down and fewer fights broke out.

 
Teachers drilled students in note-taking strategies and the standards they had to master. Test scores rose at first. But then they stalled. Gratz still wasn’t the friendly, dynamic place Mastery administrators had imagined.

 
The high expectations and rigid rules weren’t enough to erase the trauma that has scarred many kids. In the years after Mastery took over Gratz, one student witnessed her father shoot and kill her mother. Another saw his uncle shot in the head and had to drag his best friend’s body to a police car after he was gunned down in the street. An honors student was hit by a stray bullet and died. Another student accidentally shot himself.
Related: How to educate traumatized students

Gordon worried that Mastery was in danger of confirming what many critics often charge about charter schools: That while many of them may do a good job of preparing kids to do well on standardized tests and get into college, their students founder once they arrive on campus. That the mostly white leaders of urban charter networks are, at best, out of touch with the mostly black and Hispanic communities they serve, or, at worst, guilty of a paternalistic racism that undermines their mission of uplift.

 
“A mistake that we made was the assumption that schools were not successful because they weren’t well run, or they weren’t well organized, or that teachers weren’t trained and supported.”

Gordon was ready to make a change. “We were frustrated that we couldn’t break through,” he says. “We got feedback from our graduates that the … support structure that we had created for students – ‘kids will not fail’ – was not serving them once they got into the real world. The real world was not as supportive. They had to really develop the independence to manage themselves.”

 
Gordon tinkered with parts of the model, but after struggling to get it right, he decided to start over.

 
Mastery administrators introduced a new curriculum, new teaching methods, and a new disciplinary system. They hired more social workers and brought in more assistance from community organizations that help kids deal with trauma. They made training in racism and “cultural context” mandatory for all of Mastery’s teachers and administrators, across every school in the city.

 
“Often you see people who are really bold as those who might not listen,” says Kathy Hamel, a partner at the Charter School Growth Fund, a nonprofit that supports Mastery. “But [Gordon] is a very good listener, and he’s learned to listen and adapt.”

 
Mastery administrators decided that to serve their students best, they should make sure all had the option to go to college, but not insist on it. They began developing programs to support students headed into the military or to technical programs and immediate jobs. Even the charter network’s motto – “Excellence. No Excuses.” – is under review.

 
“We still believe there are no excuses for this country not to be able to provide a great education for every kid,” Gordon says. “There is no excuse; every child can learn and be successful. But I’m not sure it speaks to the soul of Mastery right now. That’s part of our job: to prepare our kids for the real world, and to recognize that there’s great promise in the world. It’s also a broken world.”

 

What do you think?

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