Archives for category: Education Reform

Austin Beutner wants to convert Los Angeles into a “portfolio district.” He is not an educator, which qualifies him to reform the nation’s second largest school district, imposing ideas gleaned from the corporate sector, where he spent his career, buying and selling get, opening and closing, without knowing anything about the businesses he oversaw.

What is a portfolio district?

This is an article that appeared in Chalkbeat a year ago, explaining the concert of a “portfolio district” and some of the billionaire-funded Reformers promoting it.

The billionaires have funded an organization to bring “portfolio models” to 40 cities in 10 years. They begin their discussion by acknowledging that “very little works in education reform,” which is an accurate assessment.

They go on to claim that Denver, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. are breakthrough districts whose successes should be spread. Not many people other than Reformers would look on D.C. as a model district; what’s it is best known for during the Rhee-Reform era is covered up cheating scandals, graduation rate scandals, and politicized data. D.C. has the largest achievement gaps of any urban district tested by NAEP. Jeanne Kaplan has written numerous posts about Denver’s bad habit of massaging the data. New Orleans has a highly stratified district, in which 40% of the charters are rated D or F by the state and highly segregated. Louisiana, under reform control for at least a decade, recently dropped on NAEP and is one of the lowest performing states in the nation (and New Orleans is one of its lowest performing districts).

Here are Powerpoint presentations assembled by one of Beutner’s shadow government firms that is paid for by Broad and others – Kitamba, the one that worked with Michelle Rhee in Washington, DC. This is from a “how to” conference in Texas on portfolio districts. Look at the power points associated with the workshop called “How to Thoughtfully Manage Your Portfolio,” especially slides 10 and 11. This explains exactly how it works – closing schools, turning schools over to charters. Assembled were big thinkers, failed Superintendents and consultants brought together to discuss the Reform strategies, which have worked nowhere. Jeanne Kaplan has written numerous posts about Denver’s bad habit of massaging the data.

This is a heartening article posted by BardMAT program in Los Angeles.

Those of us who feared that the younger generation would become indoctrinated into reform ideology can take heart. They have maintained their sense of balance and their ethics.

Read this article.

Let’s consider why so many young educators today are in open rebellion.

How did we lose patience with politicians and policymakers who dominated the education reform debate for more than a generation? ……

Recall first that both political parties called us “a nation at risk,” fretted endlessly that we “leave no child behind,” and required us to compete in their “race to the top.”

They told us our problems could be solved if we “teach for America,” introduce “disruptive technology,” and ditch the textbook to become “real world,” 21st century, “college and career ready.”

They condemned community public schools for not letting parents “choose,” but promptly mandated a top-down “common core” curriculum. They flooded us with standardized tests guaranteeing “accountability.” They fetishized choice, chopped up high schools, and re-stigmatized racial integration.

They blamed students who lacked “grit,” teachers who sought tenure, and parents who knew too much. They declared school funding wasn’t the problem, elected school boards are obstacles, and philanthropists know best.

They told us the same public schools that once inspired great poetry, art, and music, put us on the moon, and initiated several civil rights movements needed to be split, gutted, or shuttered.

They invented new school names like “Green Renaissance College-Prep Academy for Character, the Arts, and Scientific Careers” and “Hope-Horizon Enterprise Charter Preparatory School for New STEM Futures.” They replaced the district superintendent with the “Chief Educational Officer.”

They published self-fulfilling prophecies connecting zip-coded school ratings, teacher performance scores, and real estate values. They accepted Brown v. Board as skin-deep, not as an essential mandate for democracy.

They implied “critical thinking” was possible without the Humanities, that STEM alone makes us vocationally relevant, and that “coding” should replace recess time.They cut teacher pay, lowered employment qualifications, and peddled the myth anyone can teach.

They celebrated school recycling programs that left consumption unquestioned, gave lip-service to “student-centered civic engagement” while stifling protest, and talked up “multiple intelligences” while defunding the arts.

They expected their critics to look beyond poverty, inequality, residential segregation, mass incarceration, homelessness, and college debt to focus instead on a few heartwarming (and yes, legitimate) stories of student resilience and pluck.

They expected us to believe that a lazy public-school teacher whose students fail to make “adequate yearly progress” on tests was endemic but that an administrator bilking an online academy or for-profit charter school was “one bad apple.”

They designed education conferences on “data-driven instruction,” “rigorous assessment,” and “differentiated learning” but showed little patience for studies that correlate student performance with poverty, trauma, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the decimation of community schools.

They promised new classroom technology to bridge the “digital divide” between rich, poor, urban, and rural, as they consolidated corporate headquarters in a few elite cities. They advertised now-debunked “value-added” standardized testing for stockholder gain as teacher salaries stagnated.

They preached “cooperative learning” while sending their own kids to private schools. They saw alma mater endowments balloon while donating little to the places where most Americans earn degrees. They published op-eds to end affirmative action but still checked the legacy box on college applications.

They were legitimately surprised when thousands of teachers in the reddest, least unionized states walked out of class last year.

Meanwhile……

The No Child Left Behind generation continues to bear the full weight of this malpractice, paying a step price for today’s parallel rise in ignorance and intolerance.

We are the children of the education reformer’s empty promises. We watched the few decide for the many how schools should operate. We saw celebrated new technologies outpace civic capacity and moral imagination. We have reason to doubt.

We are are the inheritors of “alternative facts” and “fake news.” We have watched democratic institutions crumble, conspiracy thinking mainstreamed, and authoritarianism normalized. We have seen climate change denied at the highest level of government.

We still see too many of our black brothers and sisters targeted by law enforcement. We have seen our neighbor’s promised DACA protections rescinded and watched deporters break down their doors. We see basic human rights for our LGBTQ peers refused in the name of “science.”

We have seen the “Southern strategy” deprive rural red state voters of educational opportunity before dividing, exploiting, and dog whistling. We hear climate science mocked and watched women’s freedom marched backwards. We hear mental health discussed only after school shootings.

We’ve watched two endless wars and saw deployed family members and friends miss out on college. Even the battles we don’t see remind us that that bombs inevitably fall on schools. We know know war imposes a deadly opportunity tax on the youngest of civilians and female teachers.

Against this backdrop we recall how reformers caricatured our teachers as overpaid, summer-loving, and entitled. We resent how our hard-working mentors were demoralized and forced into resignation or early retirement.

Our collective experience is precisely why we aren’t ideologues. We know the issues are complex. And unlike the reformers, we don’t claim to have the answers. We simply believe that education can and must be more humane than this. We plan to make it so.

We learned most from the warrior educators who saw through the reform facade. These heroes breathed life into institutions, energized our classrooms, reminded us what we are worth, and pointed us in new directions. We plan to become these educators too.

Bravo! Brava!

Linda Lyon is a retired U.S. Air Force officer who now lives in Arizona, where she was elected president of the Arizona School Boards Association. Her blog “Restore Reason” is not only reasonable but insightful and brilliant.

Her latest post dissects the claim that people who are concerned about poverty are somehow way out there as “socialists.”

She writes, and I quote in part,

I was recently in a public forum on education when a school board member asked me whether my call to address inequities in our schools was a call for the “redistribution of wealth”. I told him local control dictates that our Governing Boards, representing the communities in which they live, are best positioned to decide how to allocate district resources for the maximum benefit of all their students. I hoped, I said, they would do that.

His question though, caused me to think about this term, and why it seems to be a lightning rod for conservatives. Social scientist researcher Brené Brown believes it is because of the “scarcity” worldview held by Republicans/conservatives. “The opposite of scarcity is not abundance” she writes, “It’s enough.” Basically, “they believe that the more people they exclude from “having”, the more is available to them.” And, in this binary way of thinking, the world is very black and white (pun sort of intended), e.g., if you aren’t a success, you’re a failure, and should be excluded. Of course, this sort of mindset is a gold mine for those who fear-monger to garner support for their exclusionary agendas. “We’ve got to stop the illegal hoards from coming across the border” the narrative goes, or “they’ll be stealing our jobs and elections.”

I offer that the redistribution of wealth can also flow the other way as with the privatization of our public schools. Those who already “have” are redistributing the “wealth” of those who “have not”. They do this by encouraging the siphoning of taxpayer monies from our district public schools, for charters, home and private schools. Once slated for the education of all, our hard-earned tax dollars are now increasingly available to offset costs for those already more advantaged.

In Arizona, approximately 60% of our one million public K-12 students qualify for the free and reduced price lunch program, with over 1,000 schools having over 50% of their students qualifying. As you might guess, schools with the highest number of students qualifying for “free and reduced” are located in higher poverty areas and with few exceptions, have lower school letter grades. Zip code it turns out, is an excellent predictor (irrespective of other factors) of school letter grade. According to a study by the Arizona Partnership for Healthy Communities, “Your ZIP code is more important to your health than your genetic code” and a life-expectancy map for Phoenix released three years ago, “found life expectancy gaps as high as 14 years among ZIP codes.”

Clearly, when it comes to inequities in our public schools, the “public” part of the equation is at least as important as the “schools” part. In other words, the problem is bigger than our schools and must be dealt with more holistically if it is to be solved. Poverty is obviously a big part of the problem and is nothing new. What is relatively new, is the purposeful devaluation of concern for the common good and the marketing of privatization as the solution to all our problems.

Privatization has not however, proven itself to be the panacea for fixing our “failing schools”, rather, it is exacerbating their problems. In Arizona, all forms of education privatization (vouchers, tax credits, home schooling, for-profit charters) are taking valuable resources out of the public district school system while delivering mixed results. We’ve also seen countless examples of shameless self-enrichment and outright fraud with taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, some 80% of Arizona students are left in underresourced district schools, many of which are seeing (not by accident), their highest level of segregation since the 1960s.

Noliwe M. Rooks, director of American studies at Cornell University and author of “Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation, and the End of Public Education, coined the term “segrenomics” to define the business of profiting from high levels of this segregation. In an interview with Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post, Rooks said that, “Children who live in segregated communities and are Native American, black or Latino are more likely to have severely limited educational options. In the last 30 years, government, philanthropy, business and financial sectors have heavily invested in efforts to privatize certain segments of public education; stock schools with inexperienced, less highly paid teachers whose hiring often provides companies with a “finder’s fee”; outsource the running of schools to management organizations; and propose virtual schools as a literal replacement for — not just a supplement to — the brick and mortar educational experience. “ She went on to say that, “The attraction, of course, is the large pot of education dollars that’s been increasingly available to private corporate financial interests. The public education budget funded by taxpayers is roughly $500 billion to $600 billion per year. Each successful effort that shifts those funds from public to private hands — and there has been a growing number of such efforts since the 1980s — escalates corporate earnings.”

This shift of taxpayer dollars from public to private hands is clearly a redistribution of wealth. Worst of all, in Arizona, it is a redistribution of wealth with little to no accountability nor transparency. Private, parochial and home schools are not required to provide the public information on their return on investment. And make no mistake, this investment is significant and continues to grow. In 2017 alone, taxpayer dollars diverted from district schools to private school options, amounted to close to $300 million. About $160 million of this, from corporate and personal tax credits with the other $130 million from vouchers. All told, according to the Payson Roundup, “vouchers have diverted more than $1 billion in taxpayer money to private schools. These dollars could have instead, gone into the general fund to ensure the vast majority of Arizona students were better served.

Larry Cuban was asked this question by a reporter. His answer was no, because part of the job of a teacher is to conduct surveillance of students and to monitor their work.

“..Maintaining order and constant surveillance of students has been, historically, what teachers have to do in order for students to learn. Before there were computer devices and monitoring software, teachers walked up and down aisles of desks and around the perimeter of the classroom inspecting what students were doing.

“It was the job of the teacher to know that students were working on what the teacher asked them to do.

“In my judgment, when a teacher looks at student screens while a lesson is underway, there is no invasion of student privacy. It is simply what teachers do as part of their role in guiding student learning.”

He does not engage in the issues that most concerns readers here: the mining of student data collected by the software corporation as students work and the relentless drive by tech companies not only to monetize personally identically information, gathered without the knowledge or consent of students, but the effort by those corporations to replace expert teachers with technology.

There was widespread publicity when First Daughter Ivanka Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the Wilder Elementary School in Idaho. Some of the local media were less than enthusiastic, mentioning high school student protests and low test scores. Some even pointed out that the district bought the iPads with funding from a program created during the Obama administration.

A teacher wrote to the blog to explain the back story. I won’t use her name, but you can find it on her comment that appears on the blog.

Just like every story on the internet, there is a different side to this. The iPads aren’t the enemy here. The real issue is a small district with no checks or balances allowing one person to be in power. If you want an inside look at what this district is going through, please continue reading otherwise please understand the iPads started out and were intended to offer amazing opportunities for the students. I’m not here to sell iPads but what they did for this community was very positive until one man with all the power decided to jump on a band wagon without doing his due diligence and researching the affects.

These iPads were granted to the district through the ConnectEd grant. The way the grant was written the iPads were going to help the students connect with the local community doing real life projects and helping in the community. They came with a complete overhaul of the infastructure, and the ability for students to be connected to the internet at home, while traveling for sports or their long FFA trips. Teachers were trained through a certified teacher trained on Apple product to teach the teachers how to take their lessons and add a new level of thought and creativity using technology.

Then the superintendent who has complete power in the district wanted to run for state superintendent and the Idaho State Department of Education began a personalized learning initiative. He thought if he could be the best in the state and get this started first and be ahead of the game then that would be really all he would need to get the win and become state superintendent. He expected the teachers to completely drop what they were doing and begin teaching this way over night. Teachers were being asked to completely compromise their curriculum and drop standards to make it easier for students to just focus on the “big rocks”. Students were getting Spanish credits in the high school for using DuoLingos app. At the end the students still couldn’t speak or write simple Spanish. If teachers questioned the methods they would receive poor evaluations, have to change classrooms for no reason or be asked to complete tasks that weren’t necessary or that no other teacher was asked to do.

Student and parent frustrations are through the roof. Parents and teachers were being denied the ability to talk to the board. In the high school wing all but two teachers left last year along with the IT guy, the secretary, the migrant/homeless liasion, the ELL teacher, and some sped staff all left. This is a very small district that graduates between 25-30 kids each year. That is a lot of staff turnover. The stress in the building is unhealthy because one man has all the control and he can’t/won’t change now or all that he has been hyping up will look like he is lying. A huge majority of the staff couldn’t stand seeing students having to use the iPads this way. But suggestions, ideas or possible improvements are deemed as insubordination.

I believe it is the superintendent’s connections through the Apple grant that brought Trump and Cook out there. Cook needs Trump to be onboard to continue the “ConnectEd” type initiatives and to stop the tariffs on the company and the local superintendent needs the media to confirm how good he is to the Idaho public as a “I told you we were good but you (public) didn’t listen” . He lost the election by a very large margin.

Not only was I a teacher that left, I was one of the tree people that wrote the middle-high school Apple grant. This isn’t how any of us intended for the iPads to be used, ever. I can’t begin to tell you how proud I am of the students that spoke up. I miss them terribly and felt like I am weak because I’m not mentally strong enough to stay and fight for them and protect their education. Suggestions on ways to fight are greatly appreciated!! These are absolutely amazing students they deserve much better.

Robin Lake is one of the key figures in the Center for Reinventing Public Education, which is generally recognized as the inventor and chief promulgator of the “portfolio” district, in which the central board is supposed to open and close public schools, charter schools, and every other kind of school like a stock portfolio. Recently she wrote a post at The 74 (Campbell Brown’s site) saying that she was not a reformer.

Peter Greene dissected the logic behind Lake’s argument, which is sometimes hard to follow. Who’s stereotyping whom?

Lake says she no longer knows what the term “Reformer” means.

To which Greene responds, “True that. One of the implicitly insulting parts of the “reformer” narrative has been that only they are really interested in making schools better, and the people who have actually dedicated their entire careers to working in schools somehow have no desire to make things better.”

He is troubled by her insistence that “reformers” are not a monolithic group, coupled with her implication that those who resist “reformers” are a monolithic group. Which they are not.

He adds:

Sigh. But here we go. Lake segues into a call for the reformy flavor of the month– Personalized [sic] Competency Proficient Mass Customized Algorithm Driven Learning Education. She does a better job than many of describing it in glowing glossy terms. Oh, and as always, change must happen right now. Staying still is not an option, just as it wasn’t an option for Common Core or teacher test-based accountability or turnaround/takeovers or charters etc etc etc.&

It occurs to me that Lake could avoid the reform monolith perception by not using the same old used-car-salesman pitches. In fact, as I look around at all the reformy folks who are suddenly fans of Personalized [sic] Competency Blah Blah Blah Learning Tech Product, I’m thinking another way to avoid the perception that “reformers” operate in one unified block would be to NOT all come out in favor of the exact same Next Big Thing at the same time.

He closes. By offering an olive branch:

Lake’s desire to seek out new types of discussion is fine, but– Did I mention that this is published at The 74, a website established by reform supporter and teacher union hater Campbell Brown. Ms. Lake, let me invite you to cross some boundaries and publish elsewhere. Drop me a line and we can work something out here.

Gary Rubinstein, once deeply embedded in the world of Teach for America, is a close observer of the world of top-Down, billionaire-funded corporate reform. In the past, he wrote open letters to leading reformers and some responded.

Lately, he has noticed an effort by reformers to rebrand themselves. Now, one of the leading practitioners of “reform” posted an article on the main reform website saying she does not want to be called a Reformer anymore. She rejects the label. But she disparages those who object to “Reform” as “stand patters.”

He writes:

The ‘reformers’ had a pretty good run. From about 2008 until just recently ‘reformers’ had their way. With Race To The Top they got states to invent complicated, though supposedly objective, ways to measure teacher quality by analyzing standardized test scores. Bill Gates funded many studies to show that this was working. But after ten years, it became clear that the ‘reformers’ didn’t really know much about improving education and maybe they didn’t deserve to have the steering wheel anymore.

But people don’t give up power easily. So they changed their strategy. They ditched the toxic Michelle Rhee — last I heard she was working for Miracle-Gro. They set up some propaganda websites, like The74, and got a new leader, Campbell Brown. Then Campbell Brown was out and not really replaced by anyone.

Not all ‘reformers’ agreed on all issues. Some liked vouchers and private schools, some didn’t. But what all ‘reformers’ had in common was the belief that the main obstacle to education improvement in this country is people, including the majority of teachers in this country, who are defenders of the ‘Status Quo’.

But the term ‘reformer’ was still out there and, to teachers especially, it means that someone who knows little to nothing about education who is making top-down decisions that will result in students learning less. So some ‘reformers,’ realizing that they had a tainted brand, began abandoning the term.

It seems the term “Reformer” has become toxic. But the money backing “reform” is so huge that it just keeps stumbling forward, certain about what other people should do, loaded with money and power, but without any examples of success.

The city supervisor of San Francisco wants to take Mark Zuckerberg’s name off the city’s only public hospital. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan made a gift of $75 million to the hospital, where Dr. Chan once worked. Maybe they could just rename it the Dr. Priscilla Chan Hospital.

Citing Facebook’s mishandling of user privacy and its use of an opposition research firm to discredit critics, San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin is pushing to remove Mark Zuckerberg’s name from the city’s public hospital.

The hospital was renamed Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital in 2015 after the Facebook CEO and his wife contributed $75 million to the hospital’s foundation.

Peskin on Tuesday asked the city attorney to outline a procedure for removing Zuckerberg’s name from the hospital. (Though it formally bears Chan’s name, the hospital often calls itself just “Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center” in signage.) In his remarks, Peskin cited the Cambridge Analytica scandal — in which the political data firm obtained the personal information of as many as 87 million Facebook users without their consent — and revelations in a recent New York Times article about Facebook’s hiring of a political consulting firm to discredit activists critical of the company. The social network, according to the Times, sought to cast some criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic, while Facebook’s consulting firm was also accused of tactics tainted with anti-Semitism.

“It is not normal for private entities to use that information to spread, and in this case anti-Semitic, conspiracy theories on platforms they control,” Peskin said at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. “It is not normal for Mark Zuckerberg and (Facebook chief operating officer) Sheryl Sandberg to refuse to accept responsibility and to publicly distance themselves from acts that they have personally instigated. … This is about the integrity of institutions and spaces that are overwhelmingly funded by public money and taxpayer dollars.”

A spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the office has received the request to look into the matter and does not have a policy position on the issue.

The city has moved to rename some public structures before, such as Justin Herman Plaza on the Embarcadero, but removing Zuckerberg’s name from the hospital may trigger a dispute because of a naming agreement Zuckerberg and Chan reached with the hospital, which is owned and operated by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. The agreement, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2015, says the hospital is to be named the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center for 50 years. The $75 million gift is believed to be the single largest contribution by private individuals in support of a public hospital in the United States.

“It is customary in hospital capital campaigns to provide naming opportunities in honor of major philanthropic gifts, as a critical strategy for raising awareness for the project within the community and for garnering action from other community members and philanthropists,” the resolution said.

The resolution does not explicitly address what would happen if the naming were revoked. When asked whether the hospital, if the city were to seek to remove Zuckerberg’s name, would have to give the money back, a hospital spokesman said he “couldn’t offer an opinion on that.”

Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital is the only public acute-care hospital in the city, serving about 108,000 people each year. Chan, Zuckerberg’s wife, previously worked there as a pediatrician.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

In a written statement, hospital CEO Susan Ehrlich said Zuckerberg and Chan’s contributions have helped the hospital acquire new technology to serve patients, renovate the building and improve patient care.

“In acknowledgment and appreciation of that gift, our hospital now carries their names,” Ehrlich said. “Naming is an important convention in philanthropy that encourages additional donors. … We are honored that Dr. Chan and Mr. Zuckerberg thought highly enough of our hospital and staff, and the health of San Franciscans, to donate their resources to our mission.”

In a bizarre decision, the Louisiana Department of Education honored some highly selective charter schools in New Orleans for Equity.

https://www.nola.com/opinions/2018/11/how-did-schools-known-for-their-gatekeeping-get-designated-equity-honorees.html

“Lusher Charter School is selective admission and, on top of that, has a notoriously complex application process. Lake Forest Elementary Charter School’s application process is also hard by design. Benjamin Franklin High School is highly selective. Neither do those schools provide bus transportation, opting instead to offer bus tokens that can be used to take RTA.”

Andre Perry, former charter leader in NOLA, now at the Brookings Institution, said:

“There is no way,” he said, “that a school that has a history of not accepting everyone should get an equity award. C’mon, it makes no sense.”

“Based on the criteria for the award,” Perry said, “schools with a sordid history of exclusionary practices can qualify for an equity award. That’s just backwards.” He said that, instead, the selective admissions schools should be praised based on “how rapidly their populations are moving to look like the number of school-age children in the city.”

Maybe the state meant to commend these selective schools for high test scores and mistakenly put them on the Equity list.

I have recently been bombarded by comments, many from the same person, insisting that Trump had exactly the same punitive border policy regarding family separation as Presidents Obama and George W. Bush.

The Washington Post fact-checked this claim and found it to be false.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker (Glen Kessler and Salvador Rizzo) reviewed Trump’s recent interview with that newspaper and as usual found many distortions, lies, made-up non-facts. For example, it is not Democrats who are blocking Trump’s big beautiful Wall, but Republicans, who quite sensibly refuse to waste $25 billion on Trump’s signature promise.