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

“The Perfect Storm [Disaster] of Education Reform”

By dianeravitch
September 17, 2019 //
15

 

This is an excellent article about “The Perfect Storm of Education Reform” by three scholars: Sheryl J. Croft, Mari Ann Whitehouse, and Vera Stenhouse.

It begins like this:

No Child left behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (rt3), and now Common Core embody over a decade of federal and state education reform purport-
edly designed to address inequities for global majority and low-income students. However, these policies have in fact expanded inequities and exacerbated a discourse of failure regarding teachers, public schools, and teacher preparation programs. Consequently, public confidence in teachers, teacher preparation pro- grams, and student performance is at an all-time low.

We contend that current reform initiatives (i.e., high-stakes testing and teacher evaluation from K-12 through higher education) are not, in fact, discrete singular efforts. Instead, they represent a confluence of systematic and orchestrated education reform efforts that are akin to storm fronts. These fronts comprise a perfect storm that is eroding the bedrock of public education in the United States through neoliberal policies.

Neoliberal principles prescribe that market forces should determine the success or failure of any entity or organization; they support a reduction in public services; and they promote choice, competition, and accountability.

Using the state of Georgia as a case study, we present three interconnected fronts: political climate change, the testing industrial complex, and the resulting mesoscale evaluation system. We propose these fronts as a means to illuminate the gulf between the stated policy intentions of corporate reformers and the actual educational outcomes for public education and teacher education.

Following our analysis of the interconnected fronts, we challenge the assertion that the alignment of the reforms will lead to the claimed outcome—that is, an in- crease of academic achievement/success and global competitiveness for students, teachers, and the United States as a whole. Instead, we assert that the orchestrated alignment is actually being experienced as an assault on the intended beneficiaries. We conclude with responses by students, teachers, and professors to the elements of the perfect storm of education reform and our recommendations for K-12 and higher education practitioners to not just stem but turn the tides.

Click to access 139_05_Croft_Roberts_Stenhouse.pdf

Categories Education Reform

Mark Weber: The Condition of Teachers in New Jersey

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2019 //
2

Mark Weber, aka Jersey Jazzman, recently completed a study of teachers in New Jersey. As you may know, Weber teaches in the Garden State, and he recently completed his doctoral studies. When he is blogging, he is Jersey Jazzman. When he produces studies, he is Mark Weber.

In Brief: New Jersey’s Teacher Workforce, 2019

Highlights:

• Teachers in New Jersey make substantially less than similarly educated workers. Further, teacher benefits – pensions and health care – do not appear to make up for the gap in wages.

• Much of the gap in teacher wages can be explained by the gender wage gap; however, college-educated women still see a decline in pay when they choose to teach.

• Teacher salaries tend to be lower in less-affluent school districts.

• New Jersey’s teachers don’t look much like the state’s student population: teachers are overwhelmingly white and female, and there is little indication the state’s teaching workforce is becoming more diverse.

Categories Education Reform

Indiana: West Lafayette Public Schools Sues the State for Taking Their Property and Giving It to Charter Industry for $1

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2019 //
12

Rocky Killion, superintendent of the West Lafayette, Indiana, public school district, is a fighter for public schools. A few years ago, he helped to launch an outstanding film about the extremist assault on the public schools by privatizers; it is called Rise Above the Mark, and it showcases the good work done in Indiana’s public schools.

Now Rocky Killion is suing the state of Indiana for permitting an “unconstitutional land grab.” The legislature passed a law in 2011 declaring that any unused schools must be sold to charter operators for $1. Rocky Killion says this is wrong. The schools were paid for by the taxpayers, and they belong to the district, not to charter operators.

WEST LAFAYETTE – West Lafayette schools, defending against any effort to takeover the former Happy Hollow Elementary, filed a lawsuit Thursday, is challenging the constitutionality of a 2011 state law that says public school districts must lease unused classroom space to charter schools for $1.

Rocky Killion, West Lafayette Community School Corp. superintendent, said no charter schools or anyone else has approached the district about Happy Hollow, built at 1200 N. Salisbury St. in the 1950s, since the building closed as a school in 2019.

But Killion said the district didn’t plan to wait to save what he called a community asset in West Lafayette.

“We believe that there is a constitutional right for taxpayers and for property owners that they own property that the state cannot come in and do a land grab without some due process,” Killion said.

“We think there’s a constitutional argument to be had here: The state can’t just go into your place and take your land or give it to a private company for a buck,” Killion said. “As the charter-privatization movement broadens in Indiana, the greater capacity this has for these private companies to come in and do this. If you think about it, public schools can’t do this. So, I think someone needs to stand up and say, ‘Is this constitutional? Should this be legal?’ I personally believe it is not.”

The legislature under Mitch Daniels, then under Mike Pence, catered to private and religious institutions and scorned the state’s public schools.

It is time that someone put their foot down and refused to go along with a blatant giveaway of public assets.

Categories Education Reform

Carol Burris and Leonie Haimson On the Air!

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2019 //
3

 

Here is news you can use! Carol Burris and Leonie Haimson now have a regular one-hour radio show on WBAI In New York. The show is called TALK OUT OF SCHOOL, and it will appear weekly. WBAI is part of the progressive Pacifica Network.

In their first show, they discussed student privacy, a subject on which Leonie is a national advocate and expert, and they analyzed current controversies about diversity, selective admissions, and racial integration, a subject where Carol has extensive experience as principal of a detracked high school on Long Island.

Leonie is executive director of Class Size Matters and co-founder of the national Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. Carol is executive director of the Network for Public Education.

Next week, Leonie will interview civil rights attorney Wendy Lecker.

Of this you can be certain, this show will be a place to hear talk that is characterized by experience, common sense, and wisdom.

 

 

Categories Accountability, Civil Rights, Class size, Corporate Reform, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, Network for Public Education, Parents, Privatization, Real Education, Students

Texas Charter Schools: Don’t Believe the Boasting and Hype

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2019 //
14

William J. Gumbert has prepared statistical analyses of charter performance in Texas, based on state data.

Charters boast of their “success,” but the reality is far different from their claims. They don’t enroll similar demographics, their attrition rate is staggering, and their “wait lists” are unverified.

Their claims are a marketing tool.

They are not better than public schools.

They undermine and disrupt communities without producing better results.

Yet Texas is plunging headlong into this strategy that creates a dual system but benefits few students.

 

 

Texas Charter Schools – Perception May Not Be Reality

Part 5: The State’s Efforts to “Privatize” Public Education in Local Communities is “Simply Indefensible”

By: William J. Gumbert

If you are a parent residing in an urban or suburban area of Texas, it is likely that you have received promotional materials recruiting your child to enroll at a privately operated, charter school (“charters”). Charters are taxpayer funded, private organizations that the State approves to independently operate schools in community-based school districts. Despite it being your students, schools, tax dollars and communities, the State has unilaterally decided that a “dual education system”, consisting of locally governed, community-based school districts and State approved, privately governed charters, is best for local communities. The State has also conveniently and unilaterally decided to share the public education funding of local communities with privately governed charters.

To conclude this series on Texas charter schools, Part 5 uses the lyrics of Robert Palmer’s hit song “Simply Irresistible” to demonstrate that the State’s politically driven and orchestrated efforts to “privatize” public education in local communities is “Simply Indefensible”. Since the song was a hit in 1988, feel free to click on the YouTube video of the “Donnie and Marie Show” below to remember the vibe.

Screen Shot 2019-09-03 at 10.26.40 PM

“How Can It Be Permissible”:

Without the approval of taxpayers and local communities: State approved charters:

  • ▪ Transfer the control and governance of public schools from local communities to privately-operated charters;
  • ▪ Divert funding from community-based school districts to privately-operated charters. The State has already provided charters with over $22.5 billion of taxpayer funding;
  • ▪ Increase the debt burden of taxpayers as charters are free to incur long-term bond debt without taxpayer approval;
  • ▪ Increase the segregation of students attending public schools in certain communities; and
  • ▪ Reduce the quality of schools in many community-based school districts as 20.4% of all charter campuses are rated as “low performing” (rated equivalent of “D” or “F”) by the State’s 2018 Academic Accountability Ratings.

    “She Compromise My Principle – Yeah, Yeah”:

    Every community has a fundamental responsibility to provide a quality public education that equally serves the unique needs of every student. As public servants, community-based school districts embrace this responsibility as all students are welcome and no student is turned away. If there is not room, community-based school districts hire more teachers and make room. In comparison, the State’s deliberate intervention in local communities allows privately-operated charters to:

    • ▪ Serve a limited number of students and NOT enroll all students;
    • ▪ Recruit the targeted students and families they desire to serve;
    • ▪ Deny enrollment to students with “discipline histories”;
    • ▪ Serve a lower percentage of “students with disabilities”;
    • ▪ Serve a lower percentage of students “at risk” of dropping out; and
    • ▪ Disrupt the education of over 12,800 “economically-disadvantaged” students due to charter closures in the last 5-years.

    “That Kind of Love is Mythical”:

    The promotion of charters is primarily coordinated by charter advocacy organizations that are intended to support and grow the charter school movement. Although not all-inclusive, these organizations train charter administrators, teachers and parents to be advocates, they assist organizations to start new charters, and they coordinate the political strategy to secure favorable support from the Legislature. But it is not publicized that these advocacy organizations are funded by private donors and fueled by privately funded “public policy” organizations that desire to “privatize” public education across Texas.

    To demonstrate parent demand and to garner political support, charter advocacy organizations have notoriously publicized a “wait list” of students. But charters do not publicize the alarming 33.8% attrition rate of students in grades 7-12 that decided to transfer to another Texas public school to start year 2017/18. Charters also do not publicize that the desires of families on “wait lists” are a lower priority than the desire of charters to expand in other regions of the State. By charters expanding in other regions, without expanding current schools to serve students on “wait lists”, charters are choosing to have families “stuck” on the wait list”. In addition, charters strategically attempt to maintain a “wait list” to ensure that their taxpayer funding is preserved as existing students transfer to community-based school districts or another Texas public school in the future.

    In Texas, the promoted (unverified) “wait list” is 141,000 students. However, taking a deeper dive, a more realistic estimate is closer to 75,000 students or an amount that is very similar to the 73,713 disciplinary students that are intentionally denied service by charters. This estimate was derived from certain enrollment statistics in a study funded by the KLE Foundation entitled: “An Analysis of Austin area Charter School Waitlists and Enrollment”. It is important to note that the KLE Foundation is also funding the expansion of charters in Austin.

    “She’s Anything But Typical”:

    In comparison to community-based school districts, charters serve the unique needs of students by:

    • ▪ Employing teachers with lower experience;
    • ▪ Deploying higher class sizes;
    • ▪ Having higher teacher turnover
    • ▪ Spending less on “student instruction”;
    • ▪ Offering fewer co/extra-curricular activities;
    • ▪ Having limited career and technical training; and
    • ▪ Closing 108 charters

    .

    “She’s a Craze You’d Endorse, She’s a Powerful Force”:

  • The charter movement is coordinated by “public policy” and “education reform” organizations that circumvent the voice of local taxpayers by strategically controlling our elected officials at the State and Federal levels. In politics, money is power and the rich and powerful support the charter school movement. As a result, many elected officials are politically motivated to endorse and support the “charter craze”. The following quote from the Texas Charter Schools Association, an advocacy organization to support and expand charters, provides an indication of the movement’s focus on political patronage:

    “Generally speaking, we have a broad enough bipartisan coalition in the House and Senate that largely will prevent anything existential happening to charters” – CEO of TCSA

    “You’re Obliged to Conform, When There’s No Other Course”:

    It is interesting that the Legislature continues to increase the transparency requirements of community-based school districts to enhance the involvement of taxpayers, but at the same time, the State forces charters upon taxpayers by unilaterally controlling the expansion and taxpayer funding of charters. In this regard, taxpayers do not receive public notice of the charters that the State approves to operate in local communities. The State does not notify taxpayers of the public funding it provides to charters and the State has ensured that taxpayers cannot prohibit or limit the bond debt incurred by charters to finance the construction of new charter schools in local communities (charters are granted the ability to incur bond debt without voter approval). Lastly, with charters having “privately appointed boards”, the State has also ensured that taxpayers cannot democratically elect the governing boards of charters and in fact, the State does not even require charters to meet in the communities they serve.

    “She Used to Look Good to Me, But Now I Find Her”:

    The original purpose of charters was to improve the educational opportunities of “economically-disadvantaged” students in urban areas and to develop and share instructional innovations to enhance the education of all students. However, the charter school movement has evolved into an aggressive, strategic and “non-cooperative” movement that is coordinated by “special interests” to “privatize” and “control” the public education system in local communities. Since charters have introduced “private business practices” into public education, the charter movement could be characterized as a “hostile takeover” of public schools and the tax dollars of Texas communities.

    “Simply Indefensible” … “There’s No Tellin Where the Money Went”:

    The charter facts are “irrefutable”;

    Charter expenditures are “inscrutable”;

    Special interests have made charters politically “irresistible”; and

    By the State providing privately governed charters with taxpayer funding, “there’s no tellin where the money went”.

    With the education of children and taxpayer funding at stake, the State’s deliberate and politically-motivated actions to “privatize” public education in local communities is:

    “Simply Indefensible”

    DISCLOSURES: The author is a voluntary advocate for public education and this material solely reflects the opinions of the author. The author has not been compensated in any manner for the preparation of this material. The material is based upon various sources, including but not limited to, the Texas Education Agency, Txschools.org; Texas Academic Performance Reports, tpeir-Texas Education Reports, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, KXAN and other publicly available information. While the author believes these sources to be reliable, the author has not independently verified the information. All readers are encouraged to complete their own review of the charter school movement in Texas, including the material referenced herein and make their own independent conclusions.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Disruption, Education Industry, Education Reform, Hoax, Lies, Privatization

Maurice Cunningham: The Waltons Create a “National Parents Union”

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2019 //
11

 

Maurice Cunningham is a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, who has a remarkable passion for tracking Dark Money.

In this post, he warns that the Walton Family has funded an AstroTurf group called “the National Parents Union,” which hopes to organize parents to demand privately-managed charter schools and to fight teachers’ unions.

Cunningham is very familiar with the Walton tactics of putting up front groups to pursue their goals. Along with other billionaires, DFER, and the now-defunct Families for Excellent Schools, they funded a referendum in Massachusetts in 2016, aimed at lifting the state cap on charter schools. Cunningham’s blogs, posted at public radio station WGBH’s website, exposed the billionaires behind that effort, and the referendum was overwhelmingly defeated.

The new “NPU” is an outgrowth of the Walton efforts in Massachusetts.

Can this one fool parents into demanding privatization of their public schools? Not likely.

 

Categories Education Reform

Bill Phillis: Will the Supreme Court Wipe Out the Ban on Public Funding of Religious Schools?

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2019 //
18

Bill Phillis of the Adequacy and Equity Coalition of Ohio fears that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, to which Trump added two religious zealots, is on the verge of eliminating the separation of church and state. This would be a huge victory for Betsy DeVos, ALEC, and the anti-government crusaders of the Right. Some states—such as Ohio, Indiana, and Florida— have already decided to ignore their state constitutions, to fund religious schools with vouchers.

The irony is that vouchers are a lose-lose proposition. The public schools—attended by nearly 90% of all pupils—lose finding, lay off teachers, cut programs. The children take away a voucher worth $5,000-$7,000 and get a worse education than their public school peers.

Bill Phillis writes:

The U.S. Supreme Court is moving toward the concept of forcing states to fund private religious schools on the same basis as public schools
 
The so-called Blaine Amendments in the constitutions of 39 states prohibit the states from funding private religious schools. Pages 235 through 238 of the Ninth Edition of American Public School Law by Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander provide a succinct and thoughtful review of the background and implication of President Grant’s proposed amendment introduced by U.S. House Speaker James G. Blaine after the Civil War.
 
U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been heard to say that the constitutional provisions prohibiting the states from funding private religious schools are rooted in bigotry. She may have picked up on Justice Clarence Thomas’ assertions in Mitchell v Helms that if states don’t provide funds to religious schools they are manifesting hostility toward religion. Further Thomas asserted that the state’s constitutional provisions were subtle devices to deprive Catholic schools of public money; thus a manifestation of anti-Catholic bigotry.
 
The James G. Blaine family was Catholic. A close cousin established the Holy Cross Sisters. Neither he nor President Grant demonstrated any anti-Catholic biases. They were just attempting to unify the country after the Civil War. Grant believed the key to unity was a “common school education.”
 
The Blaine Amendment which merely prohibited public funds from flowing to religious schools, passed the House but failed in the U.S. Senate. Subsequently many states adopted constitutional amendments that accomplished the intent of President Grant’s proposal.
 
These “Blaine” provisions in the state constitutions are in accord with the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” There is no contradiction between the states’ constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights; however, of late, the U.S. Supreme Court, contrary to earlier decisions, is advancing a different constitutional philosophy in Agostini (1997), Mitchell (2000), Zelman (2002), Davey (2004), and Trinity Lutheran (2017), all of which permit Congress and states to provide public funds to religious institutions and schools.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Montana case in which the high court in Montana ruled against vouchers on the basis of its constitution’s prohibitions. If the Court rules against Montana, the “Blaine” amendments in the 39 states could be rendered invalid.
 
Montana’s constitutional prohibition of public funding to religious schools and other religious institutions is among the most stringent “no-aid clauses” in the nation. Article X section 6 states:
(1)   The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect or denomination.
(2)   This section shall not apply to funds from federal sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.
Notwithstanding the stringent nature of Montana’s “no aid” provision, a ruling against the Montana decision would affect states that have less stringent constitutional measures.
Categories Education Reform, Montana, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Laura Chapman: The New Line on Private Charters as Spelled Out by the D.C. Establishment

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2019 //
14

Laura Chapman, our loyal reader and diligent researcher, writes:

 

If you want to get past the Dintersmith rhetoric, carefully contrived to make an appealing plausible story (with some help from Frameworks Institute.org), you need to look at the website Education 2020 (ED 2020) to see the underling incoherence (hot air) in Dintersmith’s project, and who is supporting it.

About Education 2020: “We (partners) have come together to advocate for a shared vision to advance a comprehensive education agenda that promotes universal inclusion and access to ongoing learning opportunities for everyone living in America. We call on all 2020 Presidential candidates to develop comprehensive education proposals aligned to this shared vision.”

Our coalition members (partners) include: Alliance for Excellent Education, American Federation of Teachers, Autism Society-, Center for American Progress, Children’s Defense Fund, Community Change Action, Institute for Educational Leadership, Learning Policy Institute, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National Education Association, National Public Education Support Fund, National Women’s Law Center, Reach Higher-, Save the Children Action Network, Save the Children-, Teach Plus-, The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Education Task Force, The Education Trust-, The Institute for College Access & Success, The Partnership for the Future of Learning, The United State of Women, UnidosUS-, Young Invincibles-, ZERO TO THREE.

Education 2020 offers a “Briefing Book” for this promotional activity aided by Dintersmith’s article. The briefing Book includes brief “policy pitches” offered by each of the partners, presented in alphabetical order. These policy pitches are brief, and they do not add up to a “comprehensive agenda” or reflect a shared vision. For example, there are pitches from Teach Plus and the Education Trust, both unsupportive of unions along with pitches from both teacher unions, AFT and NEA.

The Briefing Book includes this idea from the Center for American Progress: “High-quality charter schools are a valuable strategy to increase the number of good public school seats for students. But the growth of charter schools should not be an end in itself, and there are legitimate critiques of the sector that must be addressed. The next administration should take a nuanced approach to charters that includes both the expansion of good school options and the coordination across the traditional district and charter sectors to avoid potentially negative impacts.”

The Learning Policy Institute calls for these actions among others: “Monitor, support, and enforce ESSA’s equity provisions. Key indicators of opportunity and outcomes can be used to inform “equity audits” for low-performing schools to support improvement and effective targeting of resources. “ also “Provide federal funding to support state and district efforts to create greater socioeconomic and racial school diversity and fund the Magnet School Assistance Program at a minimum at parity with the Charter School Program, currently funded at $440 million.”

The Briefing Book for this promotional activity also says: Education 2020 is a coalition housed and supported by the National Public Education Support Fund (established 2009, EIN 26-3015634).
Next question: what do we know about the National Public Education Support Fund? Here is what the fund does according to IRS form 990 for 2017.

“The mission of the National Public Education Support Fund (NPESF) is to promote equitable opportunities for all children to receive a high-quality education from birth through college and career. NPESF is a network hub for EDUCATION PHILANTHROPY, policy, advocacy and practice focused on equitable systems change.” What does “system change mean?” Systems change means reforms favored and charted primarily by billionaire-funded non-profit foundations, as if these tax havens are also sources of superior wisdom about education. The National Public Education Support Fund–a network for education philanthropy”–has the following projects in motion.

A. Partnership for the Future of Learning. Previously called the New Models Working Group. This working group dates to 2009. It was launched by Bill Gates to push the Common Core and aligned tests. The working group of participating foundations had quarterly meetings in DC). The current version funds organizations that offer “a forward-looking vision and policy framework for a 21st century public school system” (more and deeper learning, grounded in the core values of equity, democracy, and shared responsibility to ensure all children are prepared for college, career, and citizenship). Progress over the year: launched a STORYTELLING and NARRATIVE CHANGE effort with a microsite and about 50 partner organizations; publication of a community schools playbook and toolkit; and expanded participation to over 100 partners across dozens of education organizations.

B. We sponsor Education Justice Network. With six national education nonprofits advocating for greater education equity and opportunity with “alignment among the partners to amplify their work on policy, research, and advocacy.” Over the past year, members have created a governance structure for the network and its activities (e.g., working groups on community schools, school finance, redesigning districts, narrative shift, and democratizing knowledge).

C. Education Funder Strategy Group. Includes more than 30 leading foundations focused on “education policy and systems change from early childhood to college and career readiness and success.” Four quarterly meetings were held on the topics of FRAMING THE NARRATIVE on public education, resource equity, systems change…8 monthly calls were held on a variety of topics.” “A special dinner was held with leaders from the OECD focused on expanding access to high quality early learning. Working groups continued to self-organize around issues including “racial equity, using research evidence for change, and social-emotional learning.” (This as the current version of the New Models Working Group started by Bill Gates.)

D. Grantmakers for Thriving Youth: We are the fiscal sponsor for foundations/funders who are investing in “non-academic youth outcomes” such as “social and emotional learning and character development.” A majority of the funders “decided to continue this collaboration over the next two years.”

There is more. The 2017 Form 990 form identifies the Alliance for Excellent Education (all4ed.org) as a related organization whose work advances …”the goal of remodeling US public education.”

Indeed. all4ed is supported by many foundations known to support public funding of privately managed schools. These are named: Anonymous, AT&T Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, GE Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, Kern Family Foundation, National Public Education Support Fund, Nellie Mae Education Foundation, State Farm, Stuart Foundation, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation.

If you want a deep dive into the policies favored and promoted by all of these interrelated projects and organizations, look at the “issues” section of the all4ed website. These are the topics for which there are recommendations.
Accountability, Adolescent Literacy, Assessments, Brown vs. Board, Career & Technical Education, College- and Career-Ready Standards, Deeper Learning, Digital Learning and Future Ready Schools, Economic Impacts, Every Student Succeeds Act, High School Reform, International Comparisons, Linked Learning, Personalized Learning, Science of Adolescent Learning, Teachers and School Leaders.

Dintersmith’s article is an example of the relatively new strategy for selling ideas, marketed by Frameworks Institute.org with a focus on inventing stories, and forwarding narratives calculated to distract attention and elicit favorable responses to hidden-from-view power players. Many of the same “philanthropies” who have promoted failed policies for schools in the last two decades are still at it with Dintersmith trying out a refreshed story line.

This is indeed revelatory of the funding behind this “vision.”

My personal view, based on the rigorous research of the Network for Public Education into the federal Charter Schools Program, is that this program should be completely abolished. The NPE report, Asleep at the Wheel:How the Federal Charter Schools Program Recklessly Takes Taxpayers and Students for a Ride, found that at least one-third of the charter schools funded by CSP had either never opened or closed soon after opening, for a loss of about $1 billion in federal funds. The CSP is currently funded at $440 million. Betsy DeVos asked for $500 million. She is using that money to underwrite the expansion of national charter chains like KIPP and IDEA and to flood states like New Hampshire, Alabama, and Texas. Given the massive funding of charter schools by foundations, no federal funding is needed. Ongoing research by NPE shows that in some states, as many as 40% of charters were failures. Every presidential candidate should be asked if they will eliminate federal funding for new charter schools and direct the funding to Title I or other programs that meet genuine needs, not satisfy billionaires’ egos. 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Nancy Bailey on The War Against Little Children

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2019 //
7

 

Nancy Bailey describes here the determined effort by policymakers to stamp out play and childhood, all in the name of teaching reading long before children are ready to learn to read.

Because kindergarten has become more advanced, preschool is seen as the time children must have prereading skills for kindergarten. If they don’t, it’s seen as a red flag. This makes teachers and parents push children to learn to read early.

Children are expected to know letters and numbers, even basic sight words. They’re supposed to be able to sit and focus on tasks for longer periods. But preschool wasn’t always about teaching prereading skills, and we should question if children that young are being pushed to read too soon.

In 2002, Newsweek published an article entitled “The Right Way to Read.” The title was conjecture. Reporters visited the Roseville Cooperative Preschool in northern California. Children there were called “masters of the universe” because they oversaw play. Children played most of the time. The school based everything on play.

Children played at a science table. They used magnifying glasses to explore flowers, cacti, and shells. They donned smocks to do art, lots of art. They were able to climb and stay active. They had access to books and a dollhouse.

There were no letters or numbers on the wall.

Director and founder Bev Bos told teachers, “Forget about kindergarten, first grade, second grade. We should be focusing on where children are right now.”

But Newsweek didn’t praise the preschool. They were there to show the controversy surrounding it.

The Bush administration had claimed research indicated that 50,000 Head Start teachers were going to have to learn how to provide explicit instruction on how to teach the alphabet, letter sounds, and writing to young children.

Not only that. Preschool teachers were to use a detailed literacy-screening test. Forty-five million was being earmarked for preschool-reading research.

Children were no longer masters of their world. Adults were in control.

Yes, the adults were in control but they made horrible decision that stole childhood and play from children.

For all the hundreds of millions and billions poured into the Great Crusade to Teach Preschoolers to Read, there has been minimal change in NAEP scores for reading, in fourth or eighth grades. Despite the pressure to raise test scores in reading, scores remained stagnant, and no academic progress was made at all for the lowest performing students since the implementation of NCLB almost two decades ago.

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Early Childhood Education, Education Reform, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Play, Testing

Los Angeles: Parent Calls on LAUSD Board to Investigate Nick Melvoin

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2019 //
9

 

Tracy Abbott Cook, a parent in District 4 represented by Nick Melvoin, testified to the LAUSD board and asked it to investigate him based on the emails leaked to Michael Kohlhaas. The emails showed that Melvoin had collaborated with opposing counsel from the California Charter School Association. Ms. Cook believes this is a violation of Melvoin’s obligation to the voters who elected him and to his ethical responsibility as a lawyer. Melvoin has two masters, she says, because his campaign was heavily funded by the charter industry.

Vigilant parents like Ms. Cook are keeping the heat on board members who favor charter schools over public schools. As voters, they expect their elected board members to represent public schools, not the California Charter School Association.

Please watch: This is what the Resistance looks like.

Categories Education Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »