Archives for category: Education Reform

I posted recently about the indictment in Florida of leaders of an Ohio-based charter management company.

 

This reader reacted:

 

 

“As a previous employee of Newpoint, I hope North Carolina school district opens their eyes and stops allowing NEP to open schools there. Look what has happened in Florida. In Pensacola the Director of Newpoint Academy and Newpoint Pensacola High School Mr. John Graham told us our bank account was swiped clean at the end of every month which left us with nothing to work with financially. We had terrible internet service for our technology based middle school and high school. This left our high school students unable to do class work since their whole curriculum was on line. We had no money, a dirty school, high teacher turnover, and were fed stories of how things were going to get better for four long years. From reading the newspapers from south Florida, this story of no money, high teacher turnover… repeated itself in their counties where Newpoint had schools.

 

 

 

“Now we find out, NEP is charged with grand theft, money laundering, and white collar crime in our county. NEP should have to pay Escambia County that money back. Why does the owner get away with such theft ? If you steal a blouse from a store, you get arrested and thrown in jail for it, but if you steal hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers Federal funds, you pay a fine and get away with it? All of these counties should tie that owner up in court with law suits for the next ten years!”

Martha Bruckner is the President of the National Superintendents’ Roundtable, and she is also the superintendent of schools in Council Bluffs, Iowa. She noted that the presidential candidates were ignoring education but offering many campaign promises. She decided to write an educator’s platform for presidential candidates.

 

A Superintendent’s Presidential Campaign Platform
Inspired by the campaign promises of some of our 2016 Presidential candidates, Roundtable superintendent Martha Bruckner of Council Bluffs, Iowa, writes,

 

 

“Listening to some presidential candidates makes me wonder if school superintendents could do similar things. Just announce what you will do. No plan or work needed!”

 

 

In that spirit, here’s Martha’s campaign platform:
All children will be loved.
No families will live in poverty.
All children will start school on an equal basis, economically and socially, and will be ready (eager) to learn.
All children will read by third grade, and will love reading.
Every child will love middle school and will use those adolescent years to discover his or her best future self.
No students will ever purposefully bully others, and if a student unintentionally hurts another student, classmates will help minimize the hurt and inform the misguided bully.
All students will graduate from high school after a successful 3, 4, or 5 years…whatever is most appropriate for their learning needs and styles.
Student assessment will be fair, multi-faceted, timely, informative, and will help educators discover how to best help each individual child.
Funding for schools will be sufficient.
Every teacher and school leader will be caring, talented, successful, and appropriately rewarded.
Every child will be safe, healthy, engaged, supported, and challenged.

 

 

Jim Harvey, executive director of the National Superintendents’ Roundtable responded to Martha’s platform:
Martha has our endorsement! Make America great again – Bruckner 2016!

 

The National Superintendents’ Roundtable is an association composed of experienced educators who rose through the ranks to become superintendents. They tend to represent small to mid-size districts. They are not Broadies. If your district is conducting a search for a new superintendent, contact James Harvey, National Superintendents’ Roundtable, harvey324@earthlink.net

Lara Chapman has written a valuable analysis of the religious, libertarian case for school vouchers. Thank you, Laura, for doing this prodigious research for the benefit of everyone else.

 

Laura writes:

 

 

“Long post. The author of the Friedman Foundations for Educational Choice “research,” Dr. Greg Forster ends his report–titled “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence On School Choice, Fourth Edition–with the following:
.
“Ultimately, the only way to make school reform work on a large scale is to break the government monopoly on schooling. The monopoly is not just one powerful obstacle to reform among many; it is what makes all the many obstacles as powerful as they are. The monopoly ensures that no meaningful accountability for performance can occur, except in rare cases as a result of Herculean efforts. The monopoly empowers a dense cluster of rapacious special interests resisting efforts to improve schools.

 

“Worst of all, the monopoly pushes out educational entrepreneurs who can reinvent schools from the ground up. Only a thriving marketplace that allows entrepreneurs to get the support they need by serving their clients better can produce sustainable innovation.
In any field of human endeavor—whether education, medicine, politics, art, religion, manufacturing, or anything else—entrepreneurs who want to strike out in new directions and do things radically differently need a client base.
….
“School choice has the potential to solve this problem by providing enough families (size) with enough dollars (strength) and enough choice (suffrage) to support educational entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, existing school choice programs fall short on all three dimensions. Only universal choice can open the door to the full-fledged revolution in schooling America needs in the new century. “ p. 36

 

 

“The author is preaching the gospel of the Friedman Foundation, but also a bit more. The author is a devoted believer in “universal choice,” evidently so religious schools can flourish and be tax-subsidized.

 

“I reach this conclusion from Forster’s discussion linking charters school programs to civic virtues and to religious values (pp. 30-31), and to his faculty position at Trinity International University a regionally accredited school operated by the Evangelical Free Church of America, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. His main job there seems to be serving as the director of the Oikonomia Network at the Center for Transformational Churches.

 

“The Oikonomia Network includes over 100 “theological educators theological educators and 18 evangelical seminaries” initially funded by the Kern Family Foundation. The network operations include a newsletter, website, network-wide events and “content creation.” The content creation includes “Theology that Works,” a paper written by Greg Forster that explains “how theology as a discipline can be in fruitful dialogue with the world of economic disciplines and activities.” More here. http://oikonomianetwork.org/economic-wisdom-project/

 

“Forster also has a faculty post at Acton University, where his bio says that he “has a Ph.D. with distinction in political philosophy from Yale University. He is the author of six books, most recently Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence and Can Begin Rebuilding It.” http://university.acton.org/faculty/dr-greg-forsterhttp://oikonomianetwork.org/about/

 

“Acton University’s website opens with a display of one reason to sign up:

 

“Faith & Free Market Economics.”
“Acton University is an opportunity to deepen your knowledge and integrate philosophy, theology, business, development – with sound, market based, economics. “

 

“Acton University seems to be a holding company for lecturers who offer on-line courses and also appear in scheduled face-to-face sessions for people who pay fees to participate in four days of lecture-filled conferencing. A full list of “course lectures ” is here. http://university.acton.org/2016courses The lectures are available for purchase at http://shop.acton.org/acton-university-2010-to-2013-lecture-bundle.html

 

“The Win-Win report from political philosopher Greg Forster is written as if it is a comprehensive meta-analysis of credible empirical studies that offer irrefutable conclusions. The report is not that, but the casual reader looking for all of the charter school positives will be drawn to the pretense of scholarship and miss all of the wobbles and switcheroo’s between Forster’s criteria for the inclusion/exclusion of studies and his inferences based on these studies.

 

“The author’s identification of charters with religious values reminded me that Education Next surveys, conducted since 2007, have questions designed to provide marketing insights about the connections between a preference for charters and race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, political alliance, and much else.

 

“Here are the questions in the EdNext 2008 questions under the category of Religion, which mapped responses for people who said they were “born again” offering comparisons with responses from Public School Teachers, African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. (I found no copyright on any of the Surveys)

 

“24. Do you think the public schools in your community generally promote the values that you think are most important, or do you think that the values emphasized at school often come into conflict with your own?

 

“25. In some public school districts, parents have requested that some time in each day be set aside for silent prayer and reflection. What do you think about this proposal?

 

“26. (Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of the following five questions):
“26A. How would you feel about a group of religious students organizing an after-school club at your local public school?
“26B. How would you feel about a group of Mormon students organizing an after-school club at your local public school?
“26C. How would you feel about a group of Muslim students organizing an after-school club at your local public school?
26D. How would you feel about a group of atheist students organizing an after-school club at your local public school?
“26E. How would you feel about a group of Evangelical students organizing an after-school club at your local public school?

 

 

“The 2014 and 2015 surveys had three (and ONLY three) questions about the respondents’ background.

 

“32. Apart from weddings and funerals, how often would you say that you attend religious services?

 

“33. Would you say that you have been born again or have had a born-again experience — that is, a turning point in your life when you committed yourself to Jesus Christ?

 

“34. Are you a member of a union or an employee association similar to a union? http://educationnext.org/files/2014ednextpoll.pdf

 

“The Education Next surveys are produced by Knowledge Networks, which specializes in “market research services, including survey design, information analysis, and data collection to produce syndicated reports and custom market research for a variety of FORTUNE 500 companies. Specializing in consumer research, it offers clients insight in such areas as advertising effectiveness, product development, segmentation, and media planning. Founded by Stanford researchers Douglas Rivers and Norman Nie in 1998, Knowledge Networks was acquired by global market research firm GfK in January 2012. “http://www.google.com/finance?cid=11462635

 

“About a week ago, (May 13, 2016) Peter Cunningham, whose Education Post has a partnership with the 74Million propaganda machine, cited an Education Next poll in a rant about needing to protect students from a bloated educational bureaucracy in Los Angeles.

Cunningham: Does LAUSD Want to Protect Children or a Bloated Bureaucracy?

 

“The Education Next surveys, like Greg Forster’s work parading as research, are designed and hyped to deliver propaganda and with a clear intent to tap veins of race-based and religious and ethnic prejudices. These are enlisted to rant against public schools, teachers, their unions, their salaries, the curriculum, and more. It is no accident that the Forster “study” has 14 reference citations from Education Next, and 50 others recycled from the Friedman Foundation.”

New York appears to be in resistance mode. Governor Andrew Cuomo passed a tax cap when he first took office, requiring a 60% supermajority to raise the school budget more than 2% in any year.

 

Despite the millions spent by billionaires to prove to New Yorkers that their local public schools are failing, the voters gave them a vote of confidence. 98% of districts passed their school budget, some overriding the tax cap.

 

In addition, many new school board members were elected, including supporters of the opt-out movement and teachers.

 

The current estimate, reported in this story, is that the opt out numbers were as large this year as last year, that is, about 20% of all the state’s students in grades 3-8.

 

Opt out continues to be a powerful tide, and there is no indication that it is diminishing. As long as the high stakes testing continues, so will the opt out movement.

 

 

To answer the question, I don’t know. But there are any number of people who make a career of finding answers to this question. And we Americans have always been avid consumers of the latest big idea. At present, the secret ingredient is grit, but if we interpret that in old-fashioned terms like persistence, conscientiousness, hard work, it doesn’t seem like a new idea at all.

 

Here is another view about what makes for success in life–and what does not. The authors, Christopher Chabris and Joshua Hart, teach psychology at Union College in New York. They critique a book by Yale law professors Amy Chua and her husband Jed Rubenfeld, which claims to pinpoint the secrets of success.

 

If you recall, Chua wrote a bestseller a few years ago about how to turn your children into high achievers (“Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”). She espoused a harsh disciplinary regime (“no excuses,” no fun, no wasted time). In their book, Chua and Rubenfeld identify a package of three characteristics that they say explain success: belonging to a certain ethnic group (e.g., Cubans, Jews, Indians); having a strong sense of personal insecurity; and strong impulse control.

 

Chabris and Hart say that their own research contradicts the conclusions of Chua and Rubenfeld.

 

They write:

 

“We found no special “synergy” among the triple package traits. According to Professors Chua and Rubenfeld, the three traits have to work together to create success — a sense of group superiority creates drive only in people who also view themselves as not good enough, for example, and drive is useless without impulse control. But in our data, people scoring in the top half on all three traits were no more successful than everyone else….

 

“Our studies affirmed that a person’s intelligence and socioeconomic background were the most powerful factors in explaining his or her success, and that the triple package was not — even when we carefully measured every element of it and considered all of the factors simultaneously.”

 

The trouble with all this reasoning, surveying, and speculating about success is that we operate from different definitions of success.

 

What is success? It all depends on what you value most.

 

Is it making the most money? Many who achieve billions have very unhappy personal lives.

 

Is it becoming famous? See the bit above about unsatisfying personal lives.

 

Is it achieving professional distinction?

 

Is it giving your life to a cause greater than yourself?

 

Is it being known as the most beloved teacher in your community?

 

Is it being a wonderful father, mother, friend?

 

Success depends on what matters most to you.

John Merrow is the senior statesman of education journalism. He recently wrote an open letter to the Education Writers Association and declared that this was “the golden age of education reporting.”

 

Years ago, very few reporters on the education beat wanted to be there. It was a stepping stone to a better assignment. Fred Hechinger was an exception. He was education editor of the New York Times, and he stayed. (Personal note: He was the commencement speaker at my college graduation in 1960, and I subsequently became friends with him and his wife Grace.)

 

Merrow suggests some under-reported stories: one is the relationship between the Gates Foundation and the U. S. Department of Education.

 

I would suggest an addition: the ethics of the financial contributions of the Gates Foundation to the media.

 

Paul Thomas has been writing critically about the flaws of education journalism. It would be interesting to get his take on Merrow’s comments.

Interesting times in Chicago. Frightening too. Can the nation’s third largest school district survive?

 

Mike Klonsky reports that Mayor Rahm, who does not like public schools, has proposed a 40% budget cut.

 

It is tough to teach amidst so much instability, austerity, and hostility.

 

Meanwhile, Blaine Elementary School’s dissident and suspended principal, Troy LaRaviere, was elected as president of the Chicago Principal and Adobistrators Association. Troy was suspended and may soon be fired, despite winning many awards. He has been an outspoken critic of Mayor Rahm.

 

Peter Cunningham, former deputy to Arne Duncan, accused Carol Burris and me of “attacking” Campbell Brown. He says we “attack” anyone who disagrees with us. Peter now runs a website called Education Post, where he received $12 million from various billionaires (including Walton and Bloomberg) to defend the corporate reform movement of high stakes testing, VAM, and privatization of public schools.

 

Anyone who reads my post about Campbell will see that there was no attack. I was doing my best to educate her about what grade level means and why NAEP proficient is not and should not be used as a “passing mark.”

 

Carol tweeted with Campbell. So did Tom Loveless of Brookings, who told her that she was wrong and urged her to correct her error. For some reason, Peter did not include Tom in the list of people who were “attacking” Campbell.

 

Obviously, neither she nor Peter bothered to read the links to scholarly studies and government websites included in my post.  They should. They might learn something and stop bashing American public schools and their teachers. I served seven years on the NAEP governing board. I could help them if they are willing to learn.

 

As for calling Campbell “telegenic,” that’s no insult, that’s a compliment. If you call me telegenic, I would say thank you.

 

 

Motoko Rich writes in the New York Times about the terrible results obtained by online charter schools. She focuses on the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, whose founder has become very wealthy thanks to taxpayer money and the friendship of reformers such as Governor JohnKasich and the GOP legislators in Ohio. Founder William Lager has been very generous to his friends who hold elected office.

 

A terrific business. A lousy education.

 

Five years ago, the New York Times ran a superb expose of online charters, pointing out that they are very profitable but basically scams that rip off taxpayers.

 

In 2011, the Washington Post published an excellent expose of Michael Milken’s K12 Inc, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

 

For-profit virtual charter corporations are a cynical business that exploits children and does not have educate them. It demands full state tuition to provide home schooling plus a “teacher” on a monitor.

 

I wrote about the online charter fraud in my 2013 book “Reign of Error.”

 

Numerous studies have concluded that these schools have startlingly high attrition rates, large “class” sizes, low wages, high teacher turnover, and their students very little.

 

The latest study, by CREDO, found that students lost 180 days of instruction in math for every year of 180 days in a virtual charter.

 

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy wrote about today’s article in the Times and pointed out that ECOT has received nearly $1 billion in public funding since 2002.

 

Frankly, these fake schools should be investigated by authorities, monitored, and limited to students who are unable to attend school. They should exist only as public institutions, not profit-making corporations.

As the charter industry grows, many observers have wondered how their expansion affects the public schools in the same district. A new study published by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, addresses that question.

 

Policymakers have assumed that the charter sector would provide healthy competition for district public schools. The promise originally was that they would spur innovation and efficiency, and at the same time would be accountable for results. We know from the example of Milwaukee, which has had charters and vouchers for 25 years, that none of these promises were true. Nonetheless, the claims still are repeated and all too often believed by a gullible media and public, which seldom if ever hears critical views.

 

The present study should be distributed to every news outlet, so they understand the collateral damage that charters inflict on public schools.

 

“Little scholarship has been devoted to the impact of charter schools on, one, how much revenue school districts collect through local property taxes and, two, how school districts budget that revenue.

 
“With “The Effect of Charter Competition on Unionized District Revenues and Resource Allocation,” Jason B. Cook fills this void. Cook, a doctoral student in economics at Cornell University, focuses on Ohio, home to a high concentration of both online and brick-and-mortar charter schools, and examines school budget data in the state from 1982 through 2013. In addition to confirming in detail that charter competition has reduced federal, state, and local support for district schools, Cook finds that charter competition has driven down local funding by depressing valuations of residential property and has led school districts to redirect revenue from instructional expenditures (in particular, teacher salaries) to facility improvements. Cook complements these two important findings with thorough explanations.”