Archives for category: Federal Waiver
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Dehumanization of Education

By dianeravitch
February 9, 2013 //
60

As the politicians and bureaucrats debate how to recalibrate their ideas about reforming the nation’s schools, it’s a good time to read what a teacher wrote about what Washington is doing to them. Maybe some thoughtful person could enter this into the record of the NCLB hearings. Is there no one in Congress who hears the voices of educators? Why don’t they invite real teachers, real principals, and real superintendents to testify instead of DC think tanks and state commissioners?

Heather wrote the following:

I am a teacher because of the love I had for school. I loved my teachers. I loved having fun while learning. I loved the interaction with my peers. I felt safe and successful at school…even when I made mistakes.

Politics and non-educators have changed our schools. They have turned them into businesses focused only on numbers and status. They have taken away the human component. Instead of teachers focusing on the well-being of the children, we have teachers forced to shove massive amounts of information down the throats of children who actually need love and nurturing. They have taken away the time to incorporate fun that kids need in order to develop a love for learning. Instead of doing all we can for our kids, we are told not to touch them…They are children. They need hugs and pats on the back. They need to know that it is okay to show affection and that there is an appropriate way to show it.

The kids aren’t the only ones affected by the decisions of these people who have never stepped into a classroom. The teachers are being stifled. They are feeling that their only purpose is to cram as much information into these children as possible. The teachers are beginning to crack under the pressure. They are criticized and made to feel that their opinions and professional knowledge are worth nothing.

These non-educators should step into a classroom. They would see the child who dominates the class time with their rude insolent behavior. They would see the child who crawls on the floor and cowers in the coat cubbies. They would see the kids who come in without breakfast or clean clothes. They would see the kids who crave attention and stand as close to the teacher as possible. They would see the tears and anxiety as the teacher plows through lessons.

Then let’s have these “experts” visit with parents who do not have a moment to spend with their kids but feel that it is all the teacher’s fault when their child misbehaves or earns poor grades. They should see the disrespectful manner in which some parents speak to the teachers…and that the teachers are instructed to “just take it”.

The paperwork and class interruptions should be the next on their list of observations. They should see that while there is a planning time it is often taken away due to parent meetings,team meetings,assemblies,and paperwork.

They should stay with the teachers until the teachers have completely stopped working for the day. This would involve them heading home with the teacher and managing a household while continuing their work for school.

Maybe after a visit with the kids and teachers, they would see that they have it all wrong. Schools are not all about numbers…schools are for the heart of the kids. Schools are meant to instill a love of learning that will last for life.

Until this happens, I fear that our schools will continue their journey of dehumanization.

Categories Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Federal Waiver, For-Profit, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Teachers and Teaching

Local School Boards to Duncan: Back Off!

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2013 //
42

The U.S. Department of Education is not supposed to control U.S. education.

It was created to serve schools, protect the rights of the neediest children, and coordinate funding programs, not to tell schools what to do.

One prong of the corporate reform movement seeks to strip local school boards of their responsibility, because they don’t like privatization.

The National School Boards Association listened to Secretary Duncan and a leading Republican member of Congress yesterday, then released this statement:

NSBA contact: Linda Embrey, Communications Office
703-838-6737; lembrey@nsba.org

School Board Leaders Advocate for Less Intrusive Role of the U.S. Department of Education

Alexandria, Va. (Jan. 29, 2013) – More than 700 school board members and state school boards association leaders will be meeting with their members of Congress and urging them to co-sponsor legislation, developed by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), to protect local school district governance from unnecessary and counter-productive federal intrusion from the U.S. Department of Education.

School board leaders are in Washington D.C. to take part in NSBA’s 40th annual Federal Relations Network Conference, being held Jan. 27-29, 2013.

The proposed legislation would ensure that the Department of Education’s actions are consistent with the specific intent of federal law and are educationally, operationally, and financially supportable at the local level. This would also establish several procedural steps that the Department of Education would need to take prior to initiating regulations, rules, grant requirements, guidance documents, and other regulatory materials.

“In recent years, the U.S. Department of Education has engaged in a variety of activities to reshape the educational delivery system,” said Thomas J. Gentzel, NSBA’s Executive Director. “All too often these activities have impacted local school district policy and programs in ways that have been beyond the specific legislative intent. School board leaders are simply asking that local flexibility and decision-making not be eroded through regulatory actions.”

Additionally, this legislation is intended to provide the House of Representatives and Senate committees that oversee education with better information regarding the local impact of Department of Education’s activities. The legislation is also designed to more broadly underscore the role of Congress as the federal policy-maker in education and through its representative function.

“We must ensure that the decisions made at the federal level will best support the needs and goals of local school systems and the communities they serve,” said Gentzel. “Local school boards must have the ability to make on-the-ground decisions that serve the best interests of our school districts.”

###

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Education Reform, Federal Waiver, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. education

The Problem with Choice

By dianeravitch
January 5, 2013 //
93

A reader from Oregon explains the destructive consequences of choice. School choice has been a goal of the right for decades and is now embraced by the Obama administration:

“For US education to thrive, charters must go.

“Some Win, Some Lose with Open Enrollment”. The headline in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard may seem like an occasion for joy to the winning school districts but, really, it is just terribly sad for all of us. Open enrollment across district lines is the latest and most extreme version of a school choice movement that is on a trajectory to split public education in two – one set of schools for the haves and the other for those left behind.

School choice is probably the most popular of the signature elements of the current school reform movement – and is there any reason why alternative and charter schools shouldn’t be popular? They house some of the best teachers and some of the most innovative programs; they have more opportunities for enrichment because they are exempt from many of the requirements faced by regular schools; and the parents are more involved and more able to donate time and money – the last not because they care more about their kids. Rather it is because the parents need to be able to provide transportation and often are required to agree to levels of involvement not possible for families without a car and a stay-at-home parent.

The result: one set of schools with wealthier, less diverse students and fewer kids with special needs; the other serving children more diverse in ethnicity, income and educational needs (with fewer resources and more requirements). Public education was supposed to be the great equalizer, an inclusive, welcoming place that gives all kids a chance to climb the ladder of success. But current trends create a de facto tracking system based on socioeconomic status.

Of course we’ve always had school choice. Through the 1960s the choice was public or private. Over the last few decades, however, public school districts created alternative and charter schools and encouraged them to draw their students from the surrounding neighborhood schools. In a Darwinian battle the schools would compete for students with the best schools thriving and good riddance to the losers. It is really hard to believe that school “reformers” didn’t foresee the result: the non-charters left with the most needy kids, fewer resources and, inevitably, failure.

The fact that public alternatives and charters have many good teachers and leaders and involved parents is, itself, the strongest argument against public charters and alternatives. Those are the very resources needed by neighborhood schools to make them what they need to be. And it isn’t even a zero-sum game – it’s negative-sum. Services are duplicated and shifting enrollments make long-range planning impossible.

The parents of students who choose schools outside their neighborhoods are not the problem – good parents will always look for the best available school for their children. The teachers and administrators in those schools are not the problem – many of them are among the best. The problem is the system that sends parents school shopping in the first place.

It is a system that takes advantage of the parental instinct to provide our children with the best possible education. You don’t have to be a public school hater to participate; school shopping has become a mark of good parenting for parents of all persuasions. “I can’t send my daughter to the neighborhood school,” said one mom recently. “Those parents aren’t involved.” And, sadly, what used to be a myth is creating a reality as parents like her opt out of their neighborhood schools.

If, as I suggest, we are to end most school choice, it is important to be sure that we are sending our kids to excellent neighborhood schools. To be honest, part of the reason parents have been so willing to drive their kids across town (or now to a different town) is that some neighborhood schools had become rigid, take-it-or-leave-it, hostile-to-change institutions. Parents with concerns or questions were considered pests. Though they can’t be all things to all people, our neighborhood schools need to be what many already are; nimble, responsive, welcoming neighborhood centers providing an outstanding education to all kids.

The successful innovations that charter and alternative schools have devised wouldn’t be wasted. They – including language immersion – can and should be applied in the neighborhood schools. And charters and alternatives that step up to meet the needs of high school students when regular high schools are unable to do so should be allowed to keep working with, rather than competing against, the mainstream schools.

It is a cliché that if you are attacked from both sides of an issue, you are probably correct. But school “reform” seems to call for a corollary: if there is agreement on an issue from both sides of the aisle, it must be wrong. It is truly mind-boggling that free-market educational policies – so obviously counterproductive, ineffective and unsustainable – are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The deck may be stacked against us but if we are truly committed to equity, diversity and efficiency in our public schools we’ll need keep working to convince officials, parents and educators that it is essential that we stop this suicidal intra- and inter-district competition, phase out school shopping and bring back new and improved versions of the centers of our neighborhoods – our schools.

Jim Watson, Eugene, Oregon

Categories ALEC, Broad Foundation, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Education Reform, Federal Waiver, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Obama, Privatization, Race to the Top, US Education, Vouchers

What the Best and Wisest Parent Wants for His Child…

By dianeravitch
November 25, 2012 //
5

John Dewey said it more than a century ago, and it is still true: What the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely and, unchecked, destroys our democracy. (Forgive the paraphrase, but that is close to exactly right from memory.)

Here Leonie Haimson, New York City’s leading parent advocate, gives the same advice to President Obama. She calls on him to get rid of the test-driven policies of Race to the Top, which are ruining the public schools, and stop the privatizing.

What a terrible legacy is would be for President Obama if he left the presidency four years from now with a record of having used federal funds to disestablish public education in city after city, state after state.

She says:

Instead of pauperizing, standardizing, digitizing and privatizing education, we know what works to increase opportunities for children. Just witness the sort of education Obama’s own daughters receive: small classes with plenty of personal attention from experienced teachers, a well-rounded education with art, science and music, and little or no standardized testing. By instituting these reforms in the 1970s, Finland was able to turn around its school system and now outranks nearly all other nations in student achievement. If it’s good enough for Malia and Sasha, it should be good enough for inner-city public school students in New York City or Chicago.

Categories Charter Schools, Federal Waiver, Obama, Privatization, Race to the Top, Testing, US Education

Duncan’s Weighty Responsibilties

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2012 //
16

It’s not easy being U.S. Secretary of Education these days.

Back in the old days, before No Child Left Behind, the Secretary was basically a cheerleader with a bully pulpit. He or she ran a Department that oversaw many programs but had relatively little money and no authority to change what Congress authorized.

All that changed with NCLB. Suddenly, Congress declared that it was the judge of “adequate yearly progress.” It legislated the expectations for all schools. Now the federal government was in charge of crucial decisions about issues that used to belong to states and localities.

But as 2014 grew nearer and no state in the nation was on target to get to 100% proficiency–how could the schools have failed to meet their mandated deadline–Secretary Duncan issued waivers to states that agreed to do what he said.

Secretary Duncan, of course, knows how to reform schools. He did it in Chicago, remember, which is now a national exemplar of reform. It has been saved repeatedly, not only by Arne Duncan, but by Paul Vallas. Now it is going to be saved again by Barbara Byrd-Bennett and Rahm Emanuel.

Once Secretary Duncan issued waivers from NCLB, he was in a scary role. He is now dictating the terms of school reform for the entire nation! Don’t think this is easy. Not only is it a tough full-time job, but he is the first Secretary ever to struggle with this mighty burden.

Undaunted, he is now supervising a Race to the Top for districts, so he can run them too. They too will take the bait (re, the money) and fall into line.

Arne Duncan has the job of redesigning America’s education system. It’s one he has willingly assumed. Now he has four more years to make sure that every child in America is frequently tested, preferably beginning at age 3; that a vast federal data warehouse is built with relevant information about the test scores of every child and teacher; that privately managed charters take control of most urban school districts (using New Orleans as their model); and that every teacher knows how to raise test scores every year.

What a vision. What a burden. Arne Duncan can do it.

Categories Duncan, Arne, Federal Waiver, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Teacher Evaluations, U.S. Department of Education, US Education

Just Another Nonsensical Policy in Florida

By dianeravitch
October 22, 2012 //
17

A reader responded to an earlier post about Florida’s decision to set different academic goals for children of different races:

“As a Florida teacher since 1997, I have watched our state board enact bone-headed policies that make no sense, but of all of them, the race-based variable learning goals has to be most useless and inane, not to mention anti-education and unworkable. There are so many questions about the way these standards will be applied I wonder how they expect school districts to carry them out. If a child is mixed race, are they allowed to self-identify or must they submit to a DNA test or bring independent verification like a copy of their family’s Census report? What if the parents refuse to choose a race? If a child belongs to several categories, which takes priority or will school districts be able to categorize the student in a way that is most favorable to the district? E.g. where would a poor, disabled, Spanish-speaking Asian belong? Many Hispanic identify themselves as white or black. Could their category be subdivided to reflect their individual identity? The disabled category could include a wide range of classifications from blind and deaf to autism to learning disabled. Would all of these be classified in the same way? The only saving grace I find in the whole plan is the admission that NCLB’s goal of 100% of students reading and doing math on grade level by 2014 is impossible. Is it fair with so much riding on student performance and teachers being graded on how well their students progress to grade a school with a high number of Asian and white students more harshly than a school with a large number of black, Hispanics and disabled?”

Categories Accountability, Federal Waiver, Florida, NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

An Entire State Joins the Honor Roll

By dianeravitch
October 19, 2012 //
10

I received an email from Stephen Earley, an elementary school principal in Vermont. He reminds us that the state of Vermont decided not to request an NCLB waiver. It wasn’t because Vermont likes NCLB but because the state education commissioner realized that Arne Duncan’s mandates are no better than those in NCLB.

Because the state of Vermont rejected the waiver and showed independence and critical thinking, Vermont is the first state to join our honor roll.

The honor roll is the place we recognize individuals, school boards, PTAs, districts and now a state because they support public education.

Here is Stephen Earley’s comment:

The state of Vermont withdrew its NCLB waiver request because the state refused to compromise its beliefs about what is best for children. This statement came from the Commissioner’s office at the time:

****

“However as the Vermont Department of Education has continued to negotiate for the flexibility that was promised since we started in August, it has become clear that the USED is interested in simply replacing one punitive, prescriptive model of accountability with another.

The term “flexibility” is a misnomer. Two of the more heavy handed methods the USED is still insisting on are using a single test to determine accountability, and using that test to represent a majority of a teacher’s evaluation.

We cannot continue to expend energy requesting a detailed accountability system that looks less and less like what we want for Vermont. We do not have confidence that the requirements we are being asked to meet is the formula for success. We want to move forward towards a system that is better for our schools, our educators, and most importantly, our students.”

****
The state consistently has some of the best scores on the NAEP exam, but over 70% of its schools are not meeting AYP standards now, in part because they never lowered the cutoff on the test as other states have. With such a high percentage of schools not making AYP, it might have made sense to some to jump through all of the Feds’ hoops and proceed with the waiver process. But the state board of education saw what was being demanded, and saw how harmful it would be, and ultimately (and unanimously) said no.

In addition, the state’s high-stakes test is given during the first week of October, which means that test prep and cramming are kept to a minimum, and what is emphasized is actual knowledge that can be retained over the summer.

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Federal Waiver, Honor Roll, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

New Jersey Civil Rights Groups Appeal to Secretary Duncan

By dianeravitch
October 15, 2012 //
2

Some 45 organizations in New Jersey, from parent groups to civil rights groups have appealed to Secretary Duncan to halt the damage that will be imposed on poor children and children of color as a result of the NCLB waiver to the state.

Because of the waiver, state officials will inflict even more high-stakes testing on the neediest children and their schools will be targeted not for help but for privatization.

The statement says:

To replace the NCLB framework, the State has adopted a new classification system that will reinforce racial and economic segregation and inequity in New Jersey’s public schools. The classification system uses state standardized tests, graduation rates, and gaps in achievement, to target a group of 75 “Priority” schools and 183 “Focus” schools for dramatic State-mandated intervention, including possible closings and conversions to charter schools. These Priority and Focus Schools serve overwhelmingly Black and Latino, very poor communities, and educate many students who do not speak English as a first language. The Priority schools are concentrated in some of the most distressed communities in the state and have a staggering 24% student mobility rate.

In contrast, the State has classified a group of 122 schools as “Reward” schools, based on high achievement or high levels of growth on state tests. These schools, which are targeted to receive financial bonuses, are located in the highest wealth districts in the state, serve a small percentage of Black and Latino students, have low poverty rates, few English language learners, and little student mobility. Many of these schools are magnet high schools and vocational schools, with highly selective admissions.

The blatant economic and racial inequity built into this classification system harks back to the days when such segregation and inequity were policy objectives for our State.

Categories Duncan, Arne, Education Reform, Federal Waiver, New Jersey, Segregation , Racial Isolation and Integration

When Teachers Said “NO” to Race to the Top

By dianeravitch
October 5, 2012 //
23

Anthony Cody reports that teachers in Sacramento and Fresno rejected participation in Race to the Top.

They reject the program’s heavy emphasis on testing and basing their evaluation on test scores.

Cody wonders why President Obama insists that Race to the Top is not “top down.” Of course, it is top down. It reflects what the Obama administration wants, not what teachers believe is right for their students.

Why does President Obama says he opposes “teach to the test” when his signature program compels teachers to teach to the test?

Why does President Obama claim that Race to the Top is “working” and getting results?

It is not working, it is being imposed. And it has no results other than demoralized teachers.

Categories Federal Waiver, Obama, Race to the Top, Teacher Evaluations, Testing

Waiver Madness

By dianeravitch
September 28, 2012 //
8

Washington, D.C., has announced that it will set different testing targets for children of different racial groups. According to a story in the Washington Post, this is now common practice among the states that have obtained waivers from No Child Left Behind.

The District and the states are acknowledging that children of color are so far behind their white and Asian peers that they will need more time to catch up. Actually, in D.C., black students will be expected to make more progress than white students so they can catch up with white students.

The story says:

Officials say the new targets account for differences in current performance and demand the fastest progress from students who are furthest behind. The goals vary across much of the country by race, family income and disability, and in Washington, they also vary by school.

At Anacostia High, which draws almost exclusively African Americans from one of the District’s most impoverished areas, officials aim to quadruple the proportion of students who are proficient in reading by 2017, but that would still mean that fewer than six out of 10 pass standardized reading tests. Across town at the School Without Walls in Northwest Washington, a diverse and high-performing magnet that enrolls students from across the city, the aim is higher: 99.6 percent.

Meanwhile, at Wilson Senior High, 67 percent of black students — and 88 percent of Asians and 95 percent of whites — are expected to pass standardized math tests five years from now.

Setting different aspirations for different groups of children represents a sea change in national education policy, which for years has prescribed blanket goals for all students. Some education experts see the new approach as a way to speed achievement for black, Latino and low-income students, but some parents can’t help but feel that less is being expected of their children.

The absurdity of this scenario is that D.C. and the states expect that all children will reach proficiency on normed tests. Normed tests have a bell curve. On a normed test, half will always be above and half below the mean. No matter how hard you try, a bell curve is still a bell curve. There is no district in the nation where 100% of the children are proficient. The children who are most advantaged cluster in the top half; those who are least advantaged cluster in the bottom half. This is true of the SAT, the ACT, state tests, federal tests, and international tests.

And, if you step back, you must wonder why the standardized tests–whose flaws, inaccuracies, and statistical vagaries are well known–have become the measure of all education.

No private school in the nation is subjecting its children to this mad scramble to live up to the demands of Pearson and McGraw Hill’s psychometricians.

Maybe all this seeming madness is just part of the larger scenario to declare US education a failure and find more schools ripe for privatization.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Education Reform, Federal Waiver, For-Profit, Privatization, Race to the Top, Testing, US Education
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »