Archives for category: Ohio

Will Betsy DeVos have a better understanding of public schools after visiting one? Or is she measuring it as a potential charter school?

DeVos, Weingarten lay down arms for first-ever joint school visit

https://www.politicopro.com/education/story/2017/04/devos-weingarten-lay-down-arms-for-rare-joint-visit-to-ohio-public-schools-155446

DeVos, Weingarten lay down arms for first-ever joint school visit By Caitlin Emma

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and American Federation of Teachers Presidents Randi Weingarten — longtime combatants in the nation’s school wars — will converge Thursday on a small Ohio school district deep in Trump country where amid forced pleasantries, they’ll seek to score political points.

It’s a schoolyard stare-down of sortsfor the two veterans, who are making a first-ever joint visit to several public schools in Van Wert, a rural community in northwest Ohio that went overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump.

Weingarten extended the invitation to DeVos in February with little expectation the secretary would accept after the teachers unions’ concerted efforts to sink her nomination. DeVos called her bluff, perhaps because she is under pressure to show her commitment to public schools and appearing in a midwestern Republican stronghold plays to her strengths.

The condition was that Weingarten must visit a still unidentified school of “choice” with DeVos. That visit hasn’t been scheduled yet.
“These women are mortal political enemies, bent on destroying the other’s education agenda through deployment of vast financial resources,” said David Bloomfield, a professor of education leadership, law and policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center.

“But it’s necessary for Weingarten to find favor with the Education Department,” he said. “And it can only help DeVos if she’s seen as the secretary for all schools and not just charters and private schools.”

In fact, the joint tour allows both women to press points that are critically important to them, said several policy watchers. DeVos can show rural Republicans and Democrats that she supports all schools, not just charter and private schools. Weingarten — who once stood next to a protester costumed as a grizzly bear to mock DeVos remarks about the need for guns in schools — can show she is extending an olive branch to the secretary even as she champions public education.

Thomas Toch, an education policy expert at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy and founder of the think tank FutureEd, suggested that few people in the public education sector “are still listening to DeVos and one might argue this is an attempt to address that problem.”

“Until now, she has been reluctant to say anything other than, ‘I’m for good public schools, good charter schools, good private schools.’ She repeats that frame over and over and hasn’t been willing to go beyond that. … She’s going to have to go much farther than she has to date in terms of embracing public education.”

From Weingarten’s perspective, if DeVos makes a strong commitment to public education standing next to the union leader, she might be able to say she helped DeVos soften her stance, Toch said.

Weingarten said in an interview that she hopes the trip will give DeVos a chance to learn what is working in public schools, and not just a photo opportunity. She said she also wants her to understand how Trump’s budget blueprint, which would slash the Education Department’s $68 billion budget by 13.5 percent, would hurt public schools.
“This is an area that voted for Trump, but they love their public schools and they’re really upset about the cuts to education and this polarization about public schooling,” Weingarten said. “They’re wary about [DeVos’] policies and they should be wary about her policies. They’re an attempt to dismantle, defund and destabilize public schools.”

A spokesman for the Education Department declined POLITICO’s request for an interview with DeVos. But in a written statement shared with The Blade in Toledo, DeVos said that “every parent should be able to send their children to a school that meets their unique needs, and for many parents, that is a public school. I support and celebrate all great schools.”

Kaleigh Lemaster, executive director for School Choice Ohio, a statewide choice advocacy group, said she hoped the focus of the trip would be on children, rather than a particular education option.

“We’re happy to see Secretary DeVos and Randi Weingarten visiting great public schools, charter schools and private schools because we believe that every family should be able to choose the best educational environment for their children,” Lemaster said. “This is a great opportunity for them to talk about Ohio’s schools and hopefully find agreement on what should be at the center of all discussions on education policy — the children.”

Van Wert Superintendent Ken Amstutz said he’s eager to have his school district “pull these two people together,” although he noted the Education Department has largely been in the driver’s seat when it comes to planning the visit.

DeVos and Weingarten are expected to spend the day visiting Van Wert’s high school, elementary school and early childhood center, where they’ll hear from administrators, teachers and students. They’ll hear about programs that provide students with social services and food on the weekends when they otherwise might go hungry. And they’re expected to visit with fifth graders and a high school robotics class.

Amstutz said his district has struggled financially, but he’s eager to show how teachers and students are doing innovative things with limited resources — for instance, offering a high school robotics club, which won a regional contest earlier this year.

“A lot of good things are happening in public education. I think the blinders are on and I’d just like to have her open her eyes and take a look at what’s going on,” he said of DeVos. “Maybe Van Wert will be the starting point of where this conversation takes place between Betsy DeVos and proponents of public education.”

As for the people of Van Wert, Republican Party Chairman Thad Lichtensteiger, a farmer, said he believes his neighbors will give DeVos “a fair shake.”

“Van Wert is a really conservative place,” he said. “We’re going to weigh the issues on their own merits, rather than say Trump is evil and paint anybody associated with him with that broad brush.”

An Ohio legislator has proposed lifting the income cap for private school vouchers, so that 74% of all families in Ohio would be eligible to use a voucher to attend a religious or private school.

The cost estimates of this proposal range from $70 million to $1.2 billion (if every eligible student were to use a voucher). The assumption–or hope–is that not every eligible student would use a voucher because there are not enough seats available in nonpublic schools. Presumably there would be an explosion of new private schools to take advantage of the money.

This is money that would be transferred from public schools to nonpublic schools. The public schools would essentially be defunded to favor religious and private schools.

The irony in this enthusiasm for vouchers in Ohio is that the voucher-friendly conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently released a study showing that students in Ohio who take vouchers to enroll in nonpublic schools actually lost ground academically as compared to their peers in public schools.

Does anyone in the Ohio legislature look at evidence?

Does Ohio want to destroy its future?

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy–a retired educator who served as deputy commissioner of education for the state of Ohio- asks the question that is the title of this post.

And he answers:


What educational opportunities do charters provide that would not exist if there were no charters?

Sometimes public school advocates say, “I don’t have a problem with charters, but…” A short quiz is an appropriate way to think about what the charter industry has contributed to the improvement of educational opportunities and results.

ο What innovations and best practices have Ohio charters demonstrated that are worthy of replication in the real public school system?

ο What additional and/or high quality educational opportunities are charters providing for regular, disadvantaged, career/technical students and those with disabilities that are not available in the real public school system?

ο What extracurricular activities do charter schools offer that the real public school system does not?

ο Have charters demonstrated stronger academic performance than the real public school system?

ο Have charters demonstrated a lower cost for school administration than the real public school system?

ο In view of more than 200 charter school closings in Ohio, have charters provided more stability for students than the real public school system?

ο Have the threads of fiscal fraud and corruption, funds wasted in charter closings, nepotism, inordinate profits and towering administrative salaries inherent in charterdom established a new normal in school operation?

Ohio taxpayers have been forced to invest in this $9 billion charter experiment. Truthful answers to the above questions reveal that they have, in large part, been bilked; but state officials in charge of the Statehouse continue to throw more money at this failed venture.

If you want to contact Bill for information or to support his activities, he can be reached at:

Ohio E & A, 100 S. 3rd Street, Columbus, OH 43215
ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net

I was a founding board member of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (now, Institute). It is a pro-choice organization. I opposed the decision to sponsor charter schools in Ohio, because I thought it was outside the work of a think tank. My ideal think tank would exercise independence in reviewing government policy and gain respect for avoiding doctrinaire conclusions. On that issues, I was out voted, but was not surprised when most or all of the charters we sponsored were failing schools.

I left TBF in 2009 when I realized that I no longer shared its commitment to choice, testing, and accountability.

I appreciate the fact that TBF Is more willing to acknowledge its failings than other rightwing advocacy groups.

Last July, TBF released the results of a study of the Ohio voucher program, commissioned by TBF and conducted by Northwestern professor David Figlio. Here is the full study.

The study was not an endorsement of vouchers.

The students who won the vouchers were not the most disadvantaged:

“Student selection: The students participating in EdChoice are overwhelmingly low-income and minority children. But relative to pupils who are eligible for vouchers but choose not to use them, the participants in EdChoice are somewhat higher-achieving and less economically disadvantaged.”

Voucher schools can choose their students and did not accept the neediest

“Competitive effects: EdChoice modestly improved the achievement of the public-school students who were eligible for a voucher but did not use it. The competition associated with the introduction of EdChoice appears to have spurred these public-school improvements.” This strikes me as a gargantuan leap of logic. The students who did not use the vouchers improved their test scores. But nothing in this study ascertains that they improved because of competition with vouchers. It is just as reasonable to conclude that they had better teachers than those in the voucher schools.

“Participant effects: The students who used vouchers to attend private schools fared worse on state exams compared to their closely matched peers remaining in public schools. Only voucher students assigned to relatively high-performing EdChoice eligible public schools could be credibly studied.”

The spokesman for TBF called attention to the modest gains of students who didn’t use the voucher.

So here is the logic of Ohio’s voucher program:

If you use the voucher, your academic performance will go down.

If you don’t use the voucher, you academic performance will modestly improve.

This is a bizarre argument for vouchers. Take the medicine and you will get sicker. Don’t take the medicine and you will feel better.

Why is Ohio wasting millions on a program that doesn’t work? Unless you are not in it?

A while back, Ohio Governor John Kasich proposed that teachers should be required for recertification to spend time in a business so they could understand the real world.

Sarah Guinn of The Athens “Messenger” reported that:

“Some legislators responded by proposing the Get REALS Act (Governor’s Externship for Training of Realistic Expectations of Academic Leadership in Schools) which would require Kasich to spend 40 hours of on-site observations inside a public school. The Messenger decided to do the externship for a day at Athens High School.”

Guinn took on the challenge that Kasich has so far ducked. She learned a lot. The teachers wish that Kasich would try it. He would stop loading up the schools with mandates and unnecessary tests. He might learn a lot too.

She writes:

“Natalie Bobo’s classroom is replete with a tennis shoe-filled box for anyone who may need them, a griddle she uses a few times during the year to make breakfast for students and a myriad of basic school supplies and materials — a number of which are paid for from her own pocket.

“So what else might Kasich see if he were to venture to Athens High School?

“For this psuedo-Kasich who hasn’t spent a full day at high school in almost a decade, the experience was eye-opening in a number of ways.

“Bobo, an intervention specialist, changes gears many times throughout the day. She spends three periods in her own classroom providing instruction to students who need a slower-paced class than what’s typical for their grade level, and three outside of her classroom co-teaching. Two other periods are dedicated to academic coaching and planning.

“For the periods outside her classroom, Bobo teams up with Molly Roach to co-teach two freshman English classes; one for students at a typical level, and another at college-prep. She also co-teaches social studies with Paul Kaiser.

“This is a typical day for Bobo from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., but her true hours reach far beyond what’s contractually agreed upon, as is the case with many teachers.

“Teaching is physically and mentally exhausting,” Roach said. “I am on my feet all day, lecturing, monitoring group work, jumping from student to student to give individual help. I have to attend meetings. I have to plan and write tests. I have to grade the work of 132 students. I have one 43-minute planning period during which I am supposed to accomplish all my grading and planning, make copies, enter my grades, check and answer my emails, make parent phone calls, and Heaven forbid use the restroom or call home to check on my own children.”

“She eats and works at her desk during her 30-minute lunch break, she said, and takes home folders of ungraded papers each night.”

“When you are a teacher, you get no rest. There is always someone needing something from you,” she said. “You’re never finished with your work. It feels like a treadmill on high speed sometimes.”

Take this idea and run with it. Invite elected officials to be a teaching assistant for a day. Target state legislators. They have no idea what happens in schools.

Julie Rine, a teacher in Ohio, wrote a public letter to Governor John Kasich, rebuking him for his insulting proposal to require teachers to spend a day in a business to learn about how to prepare students.

“Your proposal in the budget to require teachers to complete an “on-site work experience” with a local business as a condition of renewing our teaching licenses is baffling. Even the state legislators in your own party didn’t seem to see the value in it, and have indicated that they most likely will not support it. What exactly did you hope to accomplish by our spending time observing or even participating in a field outside of education? Despite a lot of press coverage, we were given few details about the thinking behind this mind-boggling mandate, but the director of your Office of Workforce Transformation indicated that this added licensing requirement was intended to “help teachers get a better idea for what jobs are available to students and what skills employers need”[1].

“Governor, even if your proposal does not become a requirement, you don’t need to worry. Teachers know the skills that employers value, whether the job requires a college degree or not: a willingness to work hard, to ask for clarification if a job expectation is unclear, to show up on time, to demonstrate respect when speaking to others, to take initiative and go beyond basic expectations, to work just as hard whether under direct supervision or alone, to accept criticism, to work well with others, to communicate effectively in person, on the phone, or through email. Armed with these skills, a person can be trained in any job from making a pizza to governing a state. Teachers don’t need to shadow a business person to understand what skills make a good employee. We know what those skills are.

“And you know what? We already teach those skills…”

She points out that teachers would be more effective if they didn’t waste so much time prepping for and giving tests.

She has a counter proposal:

“Governor, your proposal indicates that you think teachers are in the dark about life after high school. Frankly, we think you are in the dark about life in the classroom. Perhaps this could be remedied if you and our state legislators spent time with a teacher. Imagine if one day each year, across the state of Ohio, across all content areas and grade levels, in small schools and big schools, wealthy districts and high-poverty districts, every single state legislator and our governor shadowed a public school teacher for an entire school day. We could practice one of the life skills we both want our students to have: learning to see a situation from another’s point of view. Ohio’s teachers would know that when our legislative leaders discuss educational policies, each one of you would have had at least a one-day experience in our public schools with the students and teachers your policies will impact. Your proposal argues that it’s important for teachers to know what jobs await our students and what skills they will need in those jobs; I would argue that it is at least equally important for our politicians to know what our jobs are really like and how your policies affect our ability to educate our students in meaningful ways.

“My spending time working in a local pizza parlor would not likely improve my ability to teach, but your spending time in a classroom could improve your ability to enact policies that would have a positive impact on teaching and learning. Will you visit our classrooms? Will you talk to us? Will you listen? We will if you will. Our classroom doors are always open.”

Thank you, Julie, for expressing so well what every teacher was thinking.

Do you think Governor Kasich and Ohio’s legislators will accept your invitation? Given their penchant for telling you how and what to teach, it would be reasonable for them to spend time in the classroom.

During the Republican primaries last year, many friends of mine considered John Kasich the adult in the GIP field. When I explained his demonstrated hostility to public education, they thought I must be exaggerating.

But now the proof is there for all who are willing to learn about it.

Kasich wants all teachers to spend some time visiting businesses so they know how to prepare their students.

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/kasich-wants-teachers-to-learn-another-job-or-lose-theirs-1.747817

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich wants public school teachers to see what it’s like to work outside the classroom so they can better match their students to the needs of local employers.

“Tucked a third of the way through Kasich’s 3,512-page 2018-19 state budget is a new education mandate. If the Ohio House and Senate accepts the proposal, educators looking to get or renew a teaching license this fall would have to work at or, more likely, tour a local business.

“The plan, which prioritizes industry over pedagogy, is part of the governor’s broader plan to drive career education and marry schooling to the needs of the economy.

“It could be as simple as teachers touring local business and having those conversations … to just get a better sense of what those in-demand jobs are,” said Ryan Burgess, director of the Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation, which put together the group that developed the “on-site work experience” externships and about 20 other proposals in Kasich’s budget.

“Asked how kindergarten teachers might benefit from touring a local business, Burgess said it’s never too young to explore a career.”

So five-year-olds will “explore a career.”

Here is a better idea: How about if business leaders commit to teach for one full day in the public schools? Think of what they might learn by doing so.

Everyone who wrote to their Republican Senator urging them not to vote for Betsy DeVos got a form letter explaining why she was an excellent choice, blah blah blah. None of them referred to the fact that hers was the most contested Cabinet nomination in history, requiring the Vice-President to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Laura Chapman, our perspicacious reader and commenter, decided to annotate the canned response she got from her Senator.

She writes:

Like thousand of others, I called and wrote to my senators in an effort to stop the nomination of Betsy Devos. Here is the last reply I received from Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman. He has dual loyalties. One is to Donald Trump. The other is to Ohio’s Governor, John Kasich who has little use for public education unless it boosts the economy of Ohio.

My reply to Senator Portman follows each of his “reasons” for supporting DeVos and his reasoning about public education in Ohio.

Rob Portman says:

Dear Laura,

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. I supported Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education because during the confirmation process she committed to strongly support public education and because of her support for local control, instead of having the federal government dictate education policy at the state and local level.

Sir: Betsy DeVos did not voluntarily indicate that she has a commitment to public education. Anything resembling an expression of “commitment” had to be extracted from her and it was “voiced” only after she tried to save face. She needed to save face, having made ridiculous statements about guns for schools threatened by grizzly bears and by saying IDEA could be left up to the states. There is nothing in her resume that reflects a commitment to public education. She is the champion of for-profit education and tax-subsidized religious schools.

Portman says: I look forward to working with her to improve our K-12 public education system, make college more affordable, stand up for children with disabilities, and close the skills gap by promoting Career and Technical Education (CTE) to give young people more opportunities to succeed.

Sir: There is no evidence that she has any knowledge of what “improvement” looks like. She could not offer a coherent response to the difference between proficiency and “growth.” There is no evidence that she will stand up for children with disabilities. The school policies and practices she has promoted in Michigan allow schools to refuse enrollments of students with special needs. DeVos’s policy agenda for “Choice” means schools get to choose their students.

College affordability is an issue but there is not a clue in her testimony about how she might address that.

You imply that “promoting CTE” should be on the federal agenda and that CTE gives “young people more opportunities to succeed.” Can you cite any DeVos testimony that indicates she is knowledgeable about CTE “career pathways,” or specific skills gaps? Did she give testimony that offers a reason to believe she understands information on labor markets from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Portman says: “In addition, I do give some deference to the President choosing his cabinet, as I did when supporting President Obama’s nominees.”

Sir: In my judgment, deference should never override informed judgment about the qualifications of the nominee. DeVos is not just unqualified, she is hostile to public education.

Portman says: In the 21st century economy, a high quality education is critical to the social and economic well-being of our nation. I believe that the most important role in educating tomorrow’s workforce is played by parents, teachers, mentors, and community leaders at the state and local level. At a time when young people are leaving our state, we must work collaboratively in our communities to give students the tools necessary to compete in high demand fields in Ohio.

Sir: I respectfully disagree with your view of the purposes of public education. You have also conflated voting for DeVos and your apparent loyalty to John Kasich’s “Ohio First” educational policies (except his policies on school financing).

You restate Kasich’s parochial view that the major purpose of public education in Ohio is job preparation for “high demand fields in Ohio.” Of course, many students who are educated in Ohio will not spend the rest of their lives in Ohio. Do you regard these “leavers” as free-loaders? Will you blame educators if graduates of Ohio schools leave Ohio?

Should public education be tethered to workforce preparation for Ohio? I do not think so, especially since the economy is increasingly globalized and corporations show no loyalty to Ohio without some tax breaks. Those tax breaks do not help the budgets of public schools.

Among the many people whom you cite as having an important role in educating “tomorrow’s workforce” you omit yourself and other elected officials. You give lip-service to Ohio’s “social well being” as a purpose of education, but clearly want public education in Ohio to be tethered to workforce preparation for Ohio.

You say not a word about the most important mission of public education in the United States: preparing each generation to participate in a democratic society, especially being an informed voter.

Thank you for the form letter explaining your reason for supporting Devos as Secretary of Education and your views about the purposes of education.

I will be working to defeat you in the next election cycle.

Sincerely,

Laura H. Chapman

Teacher Matt Jablonski writes that Ohio is about to hit a full crisis in its graduation rates: 30% or more of high school seniors will be denied diplomas, as will 60-70% of students in urban districts.

This is a crisis created by the state, which has changed its tests again and again and set unrealistic standards.

What will Ohio do about the kids who don’t graduate?

Jan Resseger is the kind of activist that every community needs. She is devoted to the Common Good and she takes action. Read here about her efforts to alert and mobilize her local community to stand up against privatization.

 

She begins:

 

 

“On Tuesday, January 3, as everybody crawled out from under holiday cooking, gifting and celebrating, leaders of our local Heights Coalition for Public Education met to consider mounting some kind of local response to the existential threat of a Betsy DeVos-led U.S. Department of Education. President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Betsy Devos alarms us because her only connection with public schools has been a lifelong commitment to using her billionaire philanthropy to privatize education. We’ve all personally sent letters or signed petitions to protest Trump’s nomination of Devos to be our next education secretary, and we looked for a way to expand our advocacy to include our broader community.

 

“We crafted a sign-on letter for organizations and assigned different people to reach out to leaders they knew to see of their organizations would consider signing on. On Wednesday, we learned there was some time pressure: DeVos’s hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (Senate HELP) Committee had now been scheduled for January 11.

 

“Everything sped up. When some organizations lacked a way to meet formally to consider our letter, they polled their members. People responded by telling leaders of their organizations their own stories and their concerns about the danger of losing democratically controlled public schools whose mission it is to serve all children. One person complained: “Betsy DeVos has refused to pay a $5.3 million fine for campaign violations by her PAC in Ohio. She’s not only an anti-public education ideologue but also a scofflaw and a deadbeat to boot.” Another sent his dismay as a former longtime resident of Michigan: “Thanks for this letter. We spent most of our lives in Michigan and are very well acquainted with the anti-government, anti-public education beliefs and advocacy of Betsy DeVos. Trump could not have picked a worse person to head public education in his administration.” As they rejected the idea of expanding a school choice marketplace, many declared their commitment to improving access and opportunity in our public schools.

 

“We discovered this week that a mass of people from across our community, across Greater Cleveland, in surrounding counties, and across Ohio were delighted their organization had been given an opportunity to weigh in on this important matter that will affect our public schools, our communities, our state, and our society.

 

“On Monday, with members of the organizations that signed on, we will deliver our letter personally to the Cleveland offices of our U.S. Senators, Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman. While neither of our senators serves on the Senate HELP Committee, we are putting them on notice that we expect both of them to pay attention to next week’s Senate HELP Committee hearing on the DeVos nomination. We are asking them both to oppose the DeVos nomination when it comes before the full Senate.”

 

Open the post to read their letter.