Archives for category: Education Reform

Last week, the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University released a report declaring that the market-driven reforms in the New Orleans schools were a success. The formula for success: Get a big hurricane to wipe out a large swath of your city, close down the public schools, fire all the teachers, eliminate the union, get the federal government and foundations to pour in huge sums of money, and voila! A miracle! The miracle of the market!

When watching an illusionist at work, keep your eye on the action. Watch his hands. Or watch what else is happening (I saw an illusionist last year in Las Vegas and still haven’t figured out the tricks he pulled off while everyone watched his hands).

Watch the master illusionists at the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University. They said that the New Orleans corporate takeover was a roaring success. They said it in 2015. They said it again in 2018. Guess what? On the same day that they published their latest study, Betsy DeVos gave them a $10 Million grant to become the National Research Center on School Choice! What a happy coincidence!

Unfortunately for the ERA, Mercedes Schneider figured out the Big Trick.

You see, after the hurricane in 2005, the state created the Recovery School District (RSD) and took control of most of the NOLA schools, turning them over to charter operators. The best schools, however, remained under the control of the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB).

The RSD is all-charter. Forty percent of the charters are failing schools. The white kids go to the top-rated charters. The failing schools are almost all-Black.

The best schools in New Orleans are the OPSB schools, some of which are selective-admission charter schools. Not surprisingly, the selective-admission schools have the highest test scores.

The ERA pulled a fast one. In its report, it combined the results of the less-than-stellar RSD with those of the high-performing OPSB.

Schneider titled her post: “How to Make New Orleans Market Ed Reform a Success: Hide RSD Failure Inside an OPSB-RSD Data Blend.”

She writes:

“The problem here is that OPSB schools were never taken over by the state, which means that the New Orleans “failing school” narrative does not include these schools, and that whether they be direct-run or converted to charter schools, OPSB schools have test-score advantages over the “failing” RSD schools taken over by the state. Moreover, a number of OPSB schools are selective-admission charter schools (see also here and here), which gives even more advantage over state-run RSD schools (and which puts a snag in the “open school choice for families” narrative).

“It is the OPSB advantage that allows researches to combine post-Katrina, OPSB and RSD data and actually hide the lack of progress that state-run, all-charter RSD has made, all the while selling a generalized version of New Orleans market-ed-reform success to the public. I have seen this ploy in the past from the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) in its efforts to conceal low ACT composite scores of RSD schools that it was supposed to take over and reform right into higher test scores, and I am seeing it here in the Harris-Larsen study.

”OPSB schools are not only chiefly responsible for the results in the Harris-Larsen study; OPSB schools are concealing the mediocrity (at best) that was the RSD, state-takeover-charter-conversion experiment…”

As it happens, David Leonhardt of the New York Times today published the second part of his two-part encomium about the apotheosis of the New Orleans schools, due entirely to the miracle of the market. Ironically, his article is titled, “A Plea for a Fact-Based Debate About Charter Schools.” Ironic, because he swallows the charter propaganda whole. He apparently doesn’t know that the “miracle” was the result of merging the RSD scores with the OPSB scores. He never acknowledges that 40% of the RSD schools are failing and segregated. He is right, however, that it is time for a fact-based debate about what happened in New Orleans, and his two articles did not contribute to that debate.

Watch the illusionists. Great tricks. Don’t be fooled.

Is it just me, or is it the case that Trump’s switch from “would” to “wouldn’t” is a distinction without a difference? I’m speaking, of course, about his recent obsequious performance with Vladimir Putin.

In the midst of denying that Russia hacked into our presidential election, he said, with great profundity, “Why would Russia want to do that?”

He thought he hit a grand slam in Helsinki until he watched cable news on the flight back to D.C. some of his aides persuaded him that many people understood him to mean that Russia did not hack into our election, even though his own intelligence services were certain they did.

To make things right, Trump said he meant yo say “wouldn’t,” not “would.”

He misspoke.

He meant to say, “Why wouldn’t Russia want to do it?”

Unless I am very much mistaken, the new wording is even more damning than the original.

“Why would Russia want to do that?”

“Why wouldn’t Russia want to do that?”

Do you see a change of meaning, a reversal?

I don’t.

Arthur Goldstein reports here that Mark Janus, who sold out unionized workers by lending his name to a Supreme Court case against unions, has left his public-sector job to work for the conservative public policy think tank that funded the case. For the speed with which he sold out, and for his eagerness to harm working people, Mark Janus is hereby added to the blog’s “Wall of Shame.”

“Mark Janus, who lent his name to the anti-union lawsuit to screw American working people, has scored a really cool gig with a right-wing think tank. This should be a lesson to us all. It really pays to be the first one to sell out your brothers and sisters nationwide. You collect your union-negotiated retirement benefits, get some cool job sitting around an office somewhere, and you don’t really have to do anything ever again. Was this a deal he made in advance? I don’t see why not.

“So Janus has really paid off for Janus. It’s only the rest of us who will suffer. You see, if you actually study history, you find that Americans do better when they are unionized, not occasionally, not sometimes, but always. You find that unionized workers make more money than non-unionized workers, and you find that non-unionized workers make more money too when union flourishes.

“You will also find that union has been rolled back since Reagan was President. This is part of a concerted anti-union program in the United States and it’s sorely reduced the number of unionized workers. Now when government boasts of job creation it’s often as not jobs that pay minimum wage and come without health insurance or any benefits whatsoever. In fact, many crappy fast food jobs make you sign disclaimers that you won’t jump ship for other crappy fast food jobs. This removes the possibility of the competition that Republicans argue will improve the economy.

“We are a selfish country, and we choose to be that way even when we are screwing ourselves. We have a national news network that caters to the needs of the uber-rich. It’s somehow managed to persuade a great swath of the country that they too might be uber-rich one of these days, and that they therefore must support rules that expand the rights of the uber-rich.

“Of course, that’s not the only way you manipulate the public. You manage them through racism and xenophobia. You make them terrified of Muslims. You make a big thing out of not allowing them entrance to the United States, unless they come from countries with which you do business, in which case they’re fine. You then ignore all terrorist acts committed by white people, because if you demonize white people there goes your base. How are we gonna Make America Great Again if we contend the characters on Leave It to Beaver were terrorists?

“It isn’t easy to get people to act against their self-interest. Fox couldn’t exist, for example, if American hadn’t done away with The Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present both sides of an issue, rather than simply spout right-wing propaganda. But we’re way down that road now, and it will take a sea change to turn back.

“Janus contended he had to leave his First Amendment rights at the door when he went to work. In reality, unions have separate political funds. I contribute to one. Even though I sometimes disagree with UFT endorsements, I want union to be able to fight things like the Constitutional Convention. Now that we’re in an actual existential crisis, I want union to be able to fight even more…….”

Max Boot is a conservative foreign policy expert. This article appeared in the Wash Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/07/20/how-i-miss-obama/

“How I miss Barack Obama.

“And I say that as someone who worked to defeat him: I was a foreign policy adviser to John McCain in 2008 and to Mitt Romney in 2012. I criticized Obama’s “lead from behind” foreign policy that resulted in a premature pullout from Iraq and a failure to stop the slaughter in Syria. I thought he was too weak on Iran and too tough on Israel. I feared that Obamacare would be too costly. I fumed that he was too professorial and too indecisive. I was left cold by his arrogance and his cult of personality.

“Now I would take Obama back in a nanosecond. His presidency appears to be a lost golden age when reason and morality reigned. All of his faults, real as they were, fade into insignificance compared with the crippling defects of his successor. And his strengths — seriousness, dignity, intellect, probity, dedication to ideals larger than self — shine all the more clearly in retrospect….”

Well, here is some good news.

Mercedes Schneider reports that the net rate of charter school growth is declining. The number of charter school closings is rising, and the number of new schools is slowing.

“Market-driven ed reform is a story of races to close gaps. However, there is one ed-reform gap that appears to be closing, with the gap closure no doubt undesired:

“The national rate of charter school closures is notably gaining on the rate of charter school openings.

“In spring 2018, the ed-reform publication, Education Next, published an article about the decline in charter school annual net growth (number of new charter schools minus number of charter school closures per year) since the 2013-14 school year. The graph below ends with the 2016-17 school year. Note that EdNext reports that the data from this graph comes from another ed reform org, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS).

“As of this writing, NAPCS has two reports available focused on charter school enrollment, one from 2016-17 and one, from 2017-18. In 2016-17, NAPCS reported that across the nation, 329 new charter schools opened in fall 2016 as 211 had closed by spring 2016, for a net gain of 118 additional charter schools in 2016-17. The total number of charter schools open nationally in 2016-17 was 6,939, which yielded a gain of 1.7 percent (118 / 6,939), somewhat shy of the 2.3 percent EdNext listed in its spring 2018 graph, and on the lean end of the rounded “2 percent” presented in NAPCS’s 2016-17 report.

“But let us give the benefit of the still-embarrassing doubt to EdNext, who may have received more precise data from NAPCS, with both pro-charter orgs understandably motivated to present this loss in the best possible light. A dim light at a best of 2.3 percent, but worth a couple more lumens than the 1.7 percent based on the data in NAPCS’s 2016-17 report.

“Going beyond the data in the EdNext report: In 2017-18, NAPCS loses more lumens: 309 new charters opened across the nation in fall 2017 even as 238 had closed by spring of 2017, yielding a net gain nationally of 71 additional charter schools in 2017-18. Given that NAPCS reported 7,038 charter schools in operation in 2017-18, the net gain was 1 percent (71 / 7,038), which NAPCS reported spot-on as 1 percent.”

Mercedes observes that the tortoise seems to be gaining on the hare.

Tim Slekar of the podcast “Busted Pencils” interviews Carol Burris about privatization and the future of public education in the Trump-DeVos era.

https://bustedpencils.com/episode/episode-67-charter-schools-and-progressive-values-a-lesson-for-democrats/

What should progressives do?

What is happening to our country?

The Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to strip funding from election Security.

The GOP House voted this morning, 217-199, to zero out election security funding. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer couldn’t believe it: “Surely we can rise above pandering to party and Putin to act on behalf of our freedom and our security.”

And House Democrats broke into chant of “USA! USA!”

November can’t come soon enough. This is an existential crisis and our democracy is literally at stake.

This isn’t just Trump or Trumpism and we can’t count on “true conservatives” or Never Trumpers to do the right thing. The Republican Party is corrupt to its core. They’d rather be traitors and open the door to Russia’s help than lose their grip on power.

Vote.

VOTE.

Eugene Robinson, staff writer for the Washington Post, wrote this today:

Before this harebrained and reckless administration is history, the nation will have cause to celebrate the public servants derided by Trumpists as the supposed “deep state.”


The term itself is propaganda, intended to cast a sinister light upon men and women whom Trump and his minions find annoyingly knowledgeable and experienced. They are not participants in any kind of dark conspiracy.

Rather, they are feared and loathed by the president and his wrecking crew of know-nothings because they have spent years — often decades — mastering the details of foreign and domestic policy.


God bless them. With a supine Congress unwilling to play the role it is assigned by the Constitution, the deep state stands between us and the abyss.


Witness, with horror and shame, Trump’s disgraceful performance on the world stage during the past week. The lowest of several low points was his joint appearance Monday in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who smirked with obvious glee as the president of the United States soiled himself. Metaphorically, I mean.


Trump said that Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and other officials had told him “they think” Russia meddled with the 2016 election. But Putin issued an “extremely strong and powerful” denial when the two leaders met privately, and Trump concluded that “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia. Coats fired back within hours, issuing a statement that reiterated the intelligence community’s consensus view, which is not “we think” but “we know.” Trump’s ridiculous claim Tuesday that he meant to say “wouldn’t” instead of “would” amounted to nothing more than a moment of comic relief.




Thanks to a New York Times article published Wednesday night, we now know that the nation’s top intelligence officials briefed Trump in detail about the Russian meddling on Jan. 6, 2017 — two weeks before his inauguration.

According to the Times, the officials shared with Trump powerful evidence that the interference, meant to boost Trump’s chances of winning, was ordered by Putin himself.
So we know that when Trump casts doubt on Russia’s culpability, he’s not speaking from a position of ignorance. It’s not that intelligence officials have asked him to take their conclusion on faith. They’ve shown him the goods. He’s just lying.


Who were the anonymous sources for the Times story? I have no idea. But if I had spent a career fighting for my country in the secrets world, and I heard my president give more credence to the former KGB officer who rules an undemocratic Russia than to his own intelligence chief, I would be angry.


And if I had also heard my president welcome what he called an “incredible” offer from Putin — that he would allow special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to observe questioning of the 12 Russian spies he indicted last week if Russian authorities were also allowed to interrogate Americans they speciously accuse of crimes, including a former ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul — I would be furious and alarmed. I would have to wonder about the loyalty of my commander in chief. And I would have to think about my duty to the nation.


Russian officials have said publicly that they are ready to begin implementing agreements reached by Trump and Putin during their two-hour private meeting, which only one Russian and one American translator were allowed to attend. But according to The Post, in an article also published Wednesday night, high-ranking U.S. diplomatic and military officials did not know what those agreements were.


Did they reach some sort of understanding about nuclear arms? About Syria? About Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea? If you worry, as I do, that Trump may have intentionally or unintentionally given away the store, you have to root for the deep state to find out what transpired in that room — and find ways to reverse, or at least mitigate, the damage.
Is Trump so obsequious to Putin because his ego will not allow him to acknowledge that the Russian strongman helped him beat Hillary Clinton? Or does Putin have something on him?

We will get answers at some point, but we can’t ignore what we appear to be seeing right now: ongoing collusion, between Trump and Putin, to impede and denigrate the Mueller investigation. It’s happening before our eyes.
Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the president does not serve the best interests of the nation?


In this emergency, the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher duty. It’s called patriotism.
Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive,

A few days ago, I posted teacher Stuart Egan’s description of the attack on public schools in North Carolina, which identified the malefactors who are luring kids to charter schools, religious schools, cyber charters, and home schools, driving down public school enrollment to 81%.

Egan received a response from a staff member of the North Carolina Department of Instruction, which is led by Mark Johnson, former TFA who marches to the tune of the Tea Party and has no conscience of his own, no vision for the 81%, no concern about the quality of education in the state’s charter or religious schools. How does TFA find the people who advocate and act so strongly against public schools that enroll the majority of students? Will TFA ever be held accountable for them?

Here is the comment:

“This is so spot on. Everyone should translate ‘choice’ into ‘undermining of public schools’, because that is exactly what it is. The most sickening part is how low-income families and those of children with disabilities have been targeted, cajoled, hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing that choice automatically equates to quality. (Anyone who considers themselves conservative should be outraged at this profound misuse of their tax dollars.)

“Unfortunately, I get to witness this erosion and implosion every day at DPI. I just met another of my colleagues whose job was eliminated by the General Assembly’s draconian cuts and our puppet superintendent’s ‘just following orders’ approach. It was so sad to see this person, who was providing passionate, competent and knowledgeable support to eastern NC schools trying mightily to serve their markedly low-income populations, tossed aside in this ponzi scheme to dangle ‘school choice’ in front of needy families. It’s like eliminating the road crew that is fixing potholes and cracks on I-95 and using the public’s money to build a flimsy expensive two-lane highway right next to it that has no markings, guardrails, speed limits or enforcement (with full kickbacks going to the private paving company). ‘Hey mom and dad — let your kids ride on this shiny new road because you’ll have a choice, and we all know choice is better!’

“EdNC put out an excellent article a few days ago: https://www.ednc.org/2018/07/11/steep-cuts-to-north-carolinas-education-agency-hurt-low-performing-schools-the-most/. It perfectly spells out the absurdity in our agency and our feckless leadership. We’re told ‘shh, be quiet; this is a sensitive time’ for all our colleagues who were laid off, when in reality there should be a loud leader fighting for his folks every step of the way, even if the jobs could not be saved. You see, that’s how the damage really occurs here in our agency — not by vocal or visible action of those who ultimately have to answer to their supervisor every day, month and year, but by the SILENCE and joint inaction of the only ones in the agency who AREN’T supervised. The superintendent has no official boss and writes no annual work plan like the rest of us; instead, he gets a four-year ride and won’t have a whiff of accountability for another two and half years, long after the damage has been done. Meanwhile, scores of good people continue to walk out the door, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and the Public Schools of North Carolina will continue to suffer for it.”

The Supreme Court’s Janus decision said that people who don’t want to pay dues to a union are not required to do so. The assumption is that non-members can get the benefits without paying any dues.

But when a union in Owensboro, Kentucky, asked if it could remain a member without paying dues, the Chamber of Commerce said no. No freeloaders!

Fred Klonsky has the letter here.

I recently got a comment on the blog from someone who said, “why should I have to pay union dues to teach?” I told him he was right. He should not be required to pay union dues. He should also not expect to get the pay raises negotiated by the unions or the health and pension benefits. No reason for him to pay dues.