Archives for category: Education Reform

Do you remember that the 1983 report “A Nation at Risk” warned about the terrible condition of America’s public schools, setting off the frenzy of “reform” that has now fermented into high-stakes testing, privatization, profiteering, closing schools, firing teachers and principals, and enriching testing companies?

Here is a description of the composition of the Commission that wrote the report:

The commission included 12 administrators, 1 businessperson, 1 chemist, 1 physicist, 1 politician, 1 conservative activist, and 1 teacher. … Just one practicing teacher and not a single academic expert on education. It should come as no surprise that a commission dominated by administrators found that the problems of U.S. schools were mainly caused by lazy students and unaccountable teachers. Administrative incompetence was not on the agenda. Nor were poverty, inequality, and racial discrimination.

Perhaps the most famous line in the report was this one:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

A reader of this blog who goes by the tag “Ohio Algebra Teacher” offered a new version of that famous line:

If a foreign country had inflicted upon our public education system what Ed Reform plutocrats and their toadying political sycophants have implemented upon it, we would have considered it an act of war.

This is a great article, written in 2015. How could I have missed it!

It was written by Salvator Babones, a professor of sociology at the University of Sydney and the Institute for Policy Studies.

He begins:

When did reform become a dirty word? Thirty years of education reform have brought a barren, test-bound curriculum that stigmatizes students, vilifies teachers, and encourages administrators to commit wholesale fraud in order to hit the testing goals that have been set for them. Strangely, reform has gone from being a progressive cause to being a conservative curse. It used to be that good people pursued reform to make the world a better place, usually by bringing public services under transparent, meritocratic, democratically governed public control. Today, reform more often involves firing people and dismantling public services in the pursuit of private gain. Where did it all go so wrong? Who stole our ever-progressing public sector, and in the process stole one of our most effective words for improving it?

At least so far as education reform is concerned, the answer is clear. The current age of education reform can be traced to the landmark 1983 report A Nation at Risk, subtitled “The Imperative for Educational Reform.” Future dictionaries may mark this report as the turning point when the definition of reform changed from cause to a curse. In 1981 Ronald Reagan’s first Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell appointed an 18-person commission to look into the state of US schools. He charged the commission with addressing “the widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system.” The commission included 12 administrators, 1 businessperson, 1 chemist, 1 physicist, 1 politician, 1 conservative activist, and 1 teacher. No students or recent graduates. No everyday parents. No representatives of parents’ organizations. No social workers, school psychologists, or guidance counselors. No representatives of teacher’s unions (God forbid). Just one practicing teacher and not a single academic expert on education.

It should come as no surprise that a commission dominated by administrators found that the problems of U.S. schools were mainly caused by lazy students and unaccountable teachers. Administrative incompetence was not on the agenda. Nor were poverty, inequality, and racial discrimination. A Nation at Risk began from the assumption that our public schools were failing. Of course our public schools were failing. Our public schools are always failing. No investigative panel has ever found that our public schools are succeeding. But if public schools have been failing for so long—if they were already failing in 1983 and have been failing ever since—then very few of us alive today could possibly have had a decent education. So who are we to offer solutions for fixing these failing schools? We are ourselves the products of the very failing schools we propose to fix.

Politico reports that Arne Duncan stubbornly clings to his belief that teacher quality can be measured by test scores and lashes out at those who disagrees. This despite the fact that several states have dropped it, several courts have suspended or ended it, and it worked Nowhere. Of course, his boook went to print before the release of the RAND-AIR study of the total failure of the Gates $575 Million program to use Arne’s VAM approach. But, the study is out, and you would think he might backtrack. But no.

Also, before the recent finding that the effect of the LA publication of teacher ratings meant that the richest families scooped up the teachers with the highest scores and the poorest kids got those with the lowest scores. And Arne forgot, but we won’t, Roberto Riguelas, the LA teacher who committed suicide after his rating was published. The LA ratings, by the way, we’re made up at the request of the LA Times and had many flaws.

Duncan accuses Lamar Alexander of “lying” or wanting to cover up poor teacher performance, but Alexander was right. The feds have zero authority to foist half-baked—and in this case, harmful and expensive—ideas on the states.

“HOW ARNE DUNCAN SEES ‘LIES’ IN EDUCATION: Arne Duncan, one of the most outspoken Education secretaries to hold the job, is out with an incendiary new book about the “lies” he says the public is fed about education and student potential.

— Duncan’s 200-plus-page read, “How Schools Work,” published Tuesday, tells how the former secretary attempted to dispel these “lies” and sell education reform while at the helm of both the Chicago Public Schools and the Education Department. The book is peppered with anecdotes spanning decades, some of them very critical of other education players. A few of the highlights are below; more from your host here.

— ‘Bare-knuckle politicking’: That’s how the Chicago native describes multiple interactions with elected officials and his attempts to “insulate” his education reform work from “political attack” and “stay above the political fray.”

— Senate HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) figures in one anecdote. Duncan says that he was left “stunned” when Alexander refused to back the administration’s pursuit of policies that tied teacher evaluations to student test scores and higher standards. “This was the Tea Party talking, pure and simple. It was as if he’d been captured,” he writes of Alexander, also a former Education secretary, and governor of Tennessee. “Senator Alexander’s stance was one of the least principled things I’d ever heard from a politician, and it showed zero political courage.”

— Alexander said in a statement to POLITICO that Duncan came to Washington to “create a national school board” and that he came to reverse that trend. “Arne and I have a difference of principle, not politics. I believe that teacher evaluation is the holy grail of education and, as governor, helped Tennessee become the first state to pay teachers more for teaching well. As U.S. Education Secretary, I challenged every state to create voluntary national education standards and accountability systems. But I told Arne on the first day he walked into my office that Washington, D.C., has no business telling states how to evaluate teachers and what education standards to set,” Alexander said.

— ‘Teacher accountability was the third rail’: That’s how Duncan described the controversy he faced around the issue, not just from Alexander, but also from teachers unions and Democrats. He writes he was “shocked” that, when conceiving the Race to the Top grant program, he found states like California and Wisconsin banned school districts from using student test scores to measure teacher effectiveness.

— “What was the lie at the center of these laws?” Duncan writes. “Was it that good teaching was immeasurable? Or was it that some teachers … preferred to claim that they couldn’t help the kids who most desperately needed their help?”

— The idea that teacher quality is the most important variable remains up for debate — a recent report on a Gates Foundation initiative that attempted to prove as much claimed its effort was largely unsuccessful. But in his book, Duncan remains committed to the idea. “The simple fact is that quality teaching matters more than anything,” he writes.”

In the education world, we have become accustomed to the intrusion of billionaires into local and state school board races, bundling money for candidates committed to privatizing—not helping—our public schools. The most prominent such group calls itself Democrats for Education Reform, but we have no way of knowing whether its contributors are Republicans or Democrats. Some of its most prominent members are billionaires who donate to both parties, depending on which candidate is likeliest to protect charter schools and low taxes.

This post in the Blog “Crooks & Liars” notes a broader phenomenon of Republican billionaires inserting their money into Democratic primaries to choose rightwing candidates.

I noted on Twitter and on this blog that Politico’s Morning Education recently published a lengthy interview with DFER spokesmen about where they plan to target their millions, which school board elections they plan to invade, without noting that DFER represents Wall Street and contains not a single educator in its midst. Politico didn’t bother to question why hedge fund managers in New York and Connecticut are swaying elections in Colorado and California. Nor did they point out that DFER was censured by the Democratic parties in both states, which said they stop calling themselves Democrats because they represent corporate interests. I don’t know nor does Politico whether DFER is actually a Republican front group with one or two show Democrats.

Politico Morning Education has NEVER interviewed a critic of Corporate Reform, has NEVER discussed the distorting effect of outside money bundled by hedge funders on state and local school board elections. Why do the Waltons—a fiercely anti-union, anti-public school family of billionaires—invest in school board elections across the nation? Why is this story NEVER reported by Politico? Why do they keep hands off the billionaires intent on privatizing public schools?

Conversely, why has Politico never seen fit to interview public school supporters other than National Union leaders? Why have they never interviewed Carol Burris or Anthony Cody or Julian Vasquez Heilig or Jesse Hagopian or the BATS?

When the Network for Public Education released a carefully researched 50-State report ranking states on their support for public schools, Politico did not consider it worthy of even a mention, let alone a paragraph with a link to the report.

What gives at Politico Morning Education?

I salute LeBron James for investing his funding in a public school, not a charter school.

Mr. James understands that the overwhelming preponderance of children in this country attend public schools, and we have a responsibility to make them work for all children. Charter schools and vouchers are an escape from the central problem, not an answer. He is way smarter than Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos or John Kasich or Jeb Bush or Rick Snyder or Rick Scott or Donald Trump or Reed Hastings or Eli Broad or any of the other billionaire builders of escape hatches that lead nowhere.

He is investing in wraparound services, as public schools do when they have the resources.

What he is demonstrating is that every public school can be its best when it has the resources to do what kids need.

We don’t need to hand public schools, their building and their public funding over to private entrepreneurs to prove what we know: Good schools are costly when kids are poor. They need smaller classes and additional resources.

This article in The Nation says exactly what I believe: “LeBron’s Education Promise Needs to Become This Country’s Promise.”

Every child should have the wraparound services, the small classes, the job training for parents, the caring environment of a family, that LeBron James’ school will offer its students.

LeBron James’s promise to the students in his school should be the promise that America makes to all its children.

I laughed when I read that Donald Trump slammed LeBron James and called him “stupid.” Trump doesn’t have the brains, the heart, or the accomplishments of LeBron James.

And I laughed again when Melania sent out a tweet congratulating LeBron after her husband mocked him. I hope she visits his PUBLIC school.

Look at what happened in Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, last week.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/08/weekends-shelby-county-tn-elections-were

“Tennessee is a pretty red state, with over 60% of the votes in the 2016 presidential election going for Donald Trump. The State Senate is comprised of 15 Republicans and 1 Democrat and the State House is split 74 Republicans to 25 Democrats.

“SO — imagine the surprise this weekend in Shelby County when Democrats won 21 out of the 26 seats up for grabs! Commercial Appeal reports that of the top 10 seats in the county, including mayor and sheriff, the Democrats managed to clinch EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

“Prior to the election, Republicans held 9 of those seats. So not only did Democrats hold onto their one, but they flipped the other 9! Blue wave? Nah – that is a blue tsunami.

“Devastating is the only way to describe the loss. A wake up call. A bullhorn.

“The newly elected Mayor, Democrat Lee Harris, won by over 10 points. In Tennessee.

“So what does this tell us as we go look forward to the midterms in less than 100 days?”

Read it and find out.

The Republican base loves Trump but the base is shrinking. There are not that many racists and haters left.

An interesting article in today’s Washington Post. I have noticed that some leftists still think that Mother Russia is run by socialists. No, it is a fascist authoritarian country run by billionaire oligarchs. Putin is probably the richest man in the world.

Now Russia has become the ideal nation to alt-right conservatives, who see it as a paradise of White, Christian power. Strange, isn’t it? Where is Joe McCarthy buried? There must be a lot of turning going on in his grave.

Christian Caryl, an opinion writer for the WaPo, wrote:

In the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s, many American leftists — including quite a few members of the Democratic Party — regarded the Soviet Union through a pink-tinted filter of earnestly held ideals. The U.S.S.R. was a “socialist paradise,” a place run by gruff but honest workers who were doing away with the economic and political injustices that plagued the United States.

The appeal of this vision was so powerful that many who clung to it had trouble confronting the brutal realities of the Soviet system. True believers dismissed the reports of famines, purges and concentration camps as capitalist propaganda, and scorned those who did the reporting as “Whites” or “reactionaries” or even “fascists” — in outright denial that many who first began to speak out about their experiences of Stalinism were ex-communists or socialists themselves.

I was reminded of those reality-averse leftists this weekend, when I saw a photo that was making the rounds on the Internet. The photo showed two older American men wearing identical T-shirts with the slogan “I’d rather be a Russian than Democrat.” Both were clearly pleased with themselves — they were clearly enjoying the feeling of trolling their presumed liberal opponents.

Yet, their prank still tells you a lot. It’s a reflection of the extent to which the Republican Party has now swung behind President Trump’s extraordinary Russophilia.

The trend isn’t new, of course. For years we’ve seen American conservatives cultivating ties with Russian counterparts who seem to embody all the cool things they can’t get at home: contempt for “political correctness,” the unapologetic defense of “Christian values” and rule by a macho strongman who sneers at journalists, gays and liberal snowflakes of all varieties.

The American right is mistaken, however, when it idealizes Putin as a defender of “conservative values.” Whatever values Putin has are entirely situational — he’ll do whatever it takes to boost Russia’s power and his own (because the two are intertwined). And clueless Republicans have given him a wonderful opening to exploit.

Take the case of Maria Butina, the alleged Russian agent who cultivated contacts with the National Rifle Association as a supposed “gun rights activist” from Siberia. Had anyone at the NRA troubled to ask, that person could have easily learned that her country has strict gun-control policies. Kremlin officials would never tolerate a genuine grass-roots challenge to that principle. But they do know what Republicans want to hear.

American evangelicals who come to Russia seeking allies in the fight against unbelief have proven equally gullible. Their official interlocutor, the Russian Orthodox Church, had a long history of collaboration with the Soviet regime, one that extends into the present. The church is less a religious community than an arm of the state, which repays that loyalty by making life hard for potential rivals. Putin would never allow evangelical Protestants or Catholics to compete in a free marketplace of religious ideas. The fact that Russian authorities have explicitly banned Jehovah’s Witnesses effectively puts the lie to any claims that Russia cares about “Christian values.” (And don’t look now — but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to agree.)

Russian religious leaders love telling their American counterparts — such as star Trump supporter Franklin Graham — how much they hate the idolatry and decadence of the modern age. Yet, the stirring sermons never seem to have much of an effect on Russia’s sky-high levels of corruption, the ubiquity of drugs and prostitution (allegedly ably abetted by the police, who run lucrative protection rackets), or the prevalence of abortion, which remains the Kremlin’s favored method of birth control. That’s a view shared by Putin, by the way — though I doubt that many Republicans are aware. At 480 abortions per 1,000 live births, Russia’s rate is more than twice as high as that of the godless United States.

I’ve even heard some especially ill-informed conservatives try to argue that Russia is a paragon of the free market — even though anyone who knows about the country’s economy can tell you that its leading business tycoons enjoy their positions at the mercy of Putin. Those who tout Russia’s low income-tax rates should keep in mind that the tax service is one of the Kremlin’s most effective tools for keeping its political rivals in line.

And what about those white nationalists such as Richard Spencer, who like to praise Russia for its alleged success at remaining the “sole white power in the world”? Actually, a visit to just about any provincial town would show idiots like him a far more complicated reality, shaped by large-scale immigration from the majority-Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. In that respect, indeed, even authoritarian Russia is wrestling with exactly the same globalizing forces that confront western Europe or the United States.

In short, the modern-day Republican romance with Russia has little to do with reality and everything to do self-delusion — making them oddly similar to those 20th-century leftists who succumbed to the fairy tales of Stalinism. You would think that Trump and his supporters would at least have the advantage of being able to learn from history. No such luck, apparently.

Send an e-mail today.

It is wrong for the New York Board of Regents and the State Education Department to Punish kids for opting out!

Children are not the property of the state. When the state abuses them by demanding that they sit for hour after hour of standardized testing, this is child abuse.

Parents have the right to say no.

Write today. Open the link to see a sample letter and addresses.

In a strong article in the New York Time, Charles Blow notes how many times Trump has singled out women and African-Americans as “dumb” or worse.

He writes:

Donald Trump has a penchant for labeling particular people. It might strike some as just another insult for a petulant urchin of a man who insults everyone with whom he takes issue. But I believe that the nature of his insults to specific kinds of people says something more about the character and nature of the man, something of which he may or may not be aware.

I believe that the fact that he so often attacks the intellectual capacity of women and minorities exposes a racial and gender bias, one that has a long history and a wide acceptance.

On Friday, Trump tweeted:

“Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!”

Lemon, a CNN anchor, was interviewing James about the school James was opening in Akron for at-risk students. During the interview, James accurately noted:

“We’re in a position right now in America, more importantly, where the race thing has taken over because I believe our president is kinda trying to divide us.”

Hover over the irony here: The man trying to help at-risk children by opening doors for them was being attacked by the man who has put children at risk by locking them in cages.

On Thursday at a Pennsylvania rally, Trump repeated the sobriquet he has assigned to California Representative Maxine Waters, calling her, “Very low I.Q. low. Low I.Q.”

This attack on a woman seems to me even more important than the racial question. Might it also have some racial underpinning? Definitely. With his history, Trump requires that all his actions be examined through a racial lens.

If these denigrations of the intelligence of Waters existed in isolation, one might well be able to write them off as fluke or coincidence, but they do not exist in isolation.

A review of the many insults Trump has spouted since he declared his candidacy finds that although he has called many people dumb, or dummies or low I.Q., the targeting of that particular insult at women, including minority women, occurs with curious frequency and is often a singular line of attack against them, rather than one of many.

He has called MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski “dumb as a rock,” “low I.Q.,” and “crazy and very dumb.”

He has called HLN anchor S.E. Cupp and political commentator Ana Navarro “two of the dumbest people in politics,” and has called Cupp “one of the dumber pundits on TV.”

He has called Republican consultant Cheri Jacobus “really dumb” and “a real dummy.”

He has called Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin “one of the dumber bloggers.”

He has said of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that she “has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me.”

He has said of the journalist Mary Katharine Ham that she “isn’t smart enough to know what’s going on at the border.”

He has called the Forbes writer Clare O’Connor a “dummy” multiple times.

He has said that Maria Cardona made Morning Edition contributor Cokie Roberts look “even dumber” than he believed she was on a news show.

He has called Arianna Huffington, founder of HuffPost, a “dummy.”

I read in these comments an overt misogyny that has long existed in this country and the world, one that seeks to undercut the seriousness and cerebral capacity of women, to render them as emotionally unsuitable for deep deliberative analysis….

“Women had campaigned actively for suffrage in America since 1848, when delegates met at Seneca Falls, New York, for the first Woman’s Rights Convention. But convincing a majority of men to empower women was a tall order. Most people, male and female alike, believed that women were biologically unfit for politics. According to one orator at a mass meeting in Albany, New York, ‘A woman’s brain involves emotion rather than intellect, [which] painfully disqualifies her for the sterner duties to be performed by the intellectual faculties.’ Even those who thought women might be capable of political activity, often decided that the family had to come first. ‘Housewives!’ announced a Massachusetts journal, ‘You do not need a ballot to clean out your sink spout.’ ”

And yet, 170 years on, we have a president of the United States questioning women’s intelligence.

Arne Duncan spent seven years as U.S. Secretary of Education, imposing bad ideas every year of his tenure.

Now, having been in charge for longer than almost anyone (except Richard Riley, Clinton’s Secretary of Education), Duncan is smearing U.S. education wherever he goes, all to promote his new book.

Nowhere does he admit that everything he did was a failure.

Evaluating teachers by test scores was a massive failure. States used teacher evaluation as an excuse to level fund their schools, leading to a national teacher shortage and massive disinvestment.

Common Core was a massive failure.

Arne’s school turnaround program was a massive failure.

Most states have dropped out of the federal testing consortia, in which Arne invested $360 million.

Expanding school choice set the basis for Betsy DeVos’ privatization agenda.

Charter schools do not get better results than public schools unless they cherrypick their students and kick out those with low scores.

NAEP scores were flat in 2015 and again in 2017, having absorbed Duncan’s failed policies.

Does he ever learn?

No.