Archives for category: Poverty

Remember all the times that “reformers” like Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Wendy Kopp, and Joel Klein have said that the answer to poverty is to “fix” schools first? Remember their claims that school reform (more testing, more charters, more inexperienced teachers, larger classes, more technology) would vanquish poverty? For the past decade, our society has followed their advice, pouring billions into the pockets of the testing industry, consultants, and technology companies, as well as Teach for America, the over-hyped charter industry, and the multi-billion search for a surefire metric to evaluate teachers.

But what if they are wrong? What if all those billions were wasted on their pet projects, ambitions, and hunches, while child poverty kept growing?

The latest study, reported by Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post, shows a staggering increase in child poverty across the nation. The majority of public school students in the South and the West now qualify for free or reduced price lunch. By federal standards, that means they are poor.

The United States has a greater proportion of children living in poverty than any other advanced nation in the world. We are #1 in child poverty. This is shameful.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once remarked on the phenomenon of “feeding the horses to feed the sparrows.” In this case, the horses are the educational industrial complex. They are gobbling up federal, state, and local funding while children and families go hungry, lacking the medical care, economic security, and essential services they need. Instead of helping their families to become self-sufficient, we are fattening the testing industry. Instead of assuring that their schools have the guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, and librarians the children need, our states are stripping their schools to the bare walls. Instead of supplying the arts and physical education that children need to nourish body and soul, we let them eat tests.

Every dollar that fattens the educational industrial complex–not only the testing industry and the inexperienced, ill-trained Teach for America but the corporations now collecting hundreds of millions of dollars to tell schools what to do–is a dollar diverted from what should be done now to address directly the pressing needs of our nation’s most vulnerable children, whose numbers continue to escalate, demonstrating the utter futility and self-serving nature of what is currently and deceptively called “reform.”

Once these futile programs have collapsed, once they have been exposed as hollow (though lucrative) gestures, we will look back with sorrow at the lives wasted, the billions squandered, the incalculable damage to our children and our society.

Someday we will say, as we should be saying now, that we cannot tolerate the loss of so many young lives. We cannot continue to blame teachers, principals, and schools for our collective abandonment of so many children. We cannot allow, and should no longer permit, the income inequality that protects the billionaires while neglecting the growth of a massive underclass. The age of the Robber Barons has returned. Good for them, but bad, very bad, for America.

Carole Marshall is a retired teacher in Rhode Island who explains how State Commissioner Deborah Gist’s insistence on standardized testing has discouraged educators and students across the state. The most pernicious effect of this policy, Marshall shows, has hurt poor and minority youngsters the most.

In an article in the Providence Journal, Marshall writes:

The Oct. 15 Commentary piece (“R.I.’s diploma system brings out the best”) by Deborah Gist, Rhode Island’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education, is yet another demonstration of her ability to say what she wants to be true, as if the saying of it makes it true.

Among the many half-truths and untruths in her screed is the insinuation that students who score badly on the New England Common Assessment Program tests, i.e. urban students, have been subject to “years of poor, inadequate education,” while students who do well have teachers who, by contrast, “provide great instruction that engages students on many levels and teaches key academic skills.”

This malicious slur on urban teachers is the ultimate in hubris from a young woman who spent a handful of years teaching in an elementary school and since then has glided up the professional ladder on the shoulders of right-wing politicians and millionaires like Jeb Bush and Eli Broad. If there are any urban teachers who didn’t know what the commissioner thought of them before, they know now.

I left urban teaching before I had planned to for one reason only: I could not be a participant in what top-down, standardized testing does to destroy education in urban schools and, by extension, the lives of students who are already hanging on by a slender thread to the dream of a successful middle-class life.

Before the systematic destruction began, I would have held my school, Hope, up against any other school in the state in terms of who was providing great instruction. Hope’s faculty included a significant number of advanced degrees, Ivy League graduates, and national-board-certified teachers. With the support of then-Commissioner Peter McWalters, we taught literacy across the curriculum, shared rubrics for scoring work, and created a system for student portfolios. We were doing the slow, careful job of building a climate characterized by rigorous, accountable learning.

Then high-stakes testing arrived on the scene and to nobody’s surprise, urban schools’ scores were worse than the scores of suburban schools; the same pattern repeats itself year after year in every corner of this country.

Why? There are a host of extremely well-documented reasons for this. To name just a few: Urban schools have a hugely disproportionate number of students who are new to the language; a hugely disproportionate number of students with learning disabilities; and large numbers of students with serious behavioral problems, including those sent from their suburban districts to group homes in the cities.

That is in addition to the reality that students from impoverished environments are often handicapped by circumstances beyond their control, such as vocabulary deficits, health problems, unstable homes, hunger, and the list goes on. We can all wish these conditions didn’t exist, but we can’t, as Commissioner Gist likes to do, simply ignore them away. Throwing tests at urban students does nothing to solve their problems. The disparities will only grow wider as mandatory test preparation steals more and more time from real education in urban schools.

On the subject of test prep and teaching to the test, Commissioner Gist is correct about one thing: “schools with students who perform well on state assessments do not focus on test preparation.” Pretty tautologically obvious in my opinion; the schools with students who perform well have no reason to focus on test preparation.

On the other hand, in the schools that are being threatened with closure solely on the basis of test scores, you can be sure administrators are not just sitting around, waiting to lose their jobs. The specter of low scores powerfully encourages test preparation and teaching to the test.

This year, the turn-around company hired for $5 million to raise scores in Providence schools hired tutors who spent every school day during the month of September prepping 11th graders for the NECAP assessments.

The students were missing their regular classes every day, even in subjects like physics and foreign languages, so that the schools could show improvement. Suburban parents would never have allowed this; urban parents were not informed.

Students are disingenuously told that this is all happening for their own good. Any reader of this newspaper who truly believes that the testing juggernaut is about benefiting the students is sorely uninformed.

The textbook publishers who sell the test and test-prep materials will make their billions, the so-called turn-around companies will make their millions, and carpetbaggers like Ms. Gist will continue blithely along their career paths, leaving behind wrecked schools and crushed dreams in the cities.

Carole Marshall taught at Hope High School for 18 years, retiring in 2012. Before that she was a business correspondent for the Observer of London and taught journalism at Fairleigh Dickinson University and the University of Rhode Island.

Elaine Weiss of the Broader Bolder Approach appraises the dichotomous views of Michelle Rhee and me.

Which is fact and which is fiction?

Come to the Economic Policy Institute in D.C. this Friday at noon to hear these issues discussed. I will be there with Elaine Weiss and Randi Weingarten.

A reader sent these comments:

“The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” ― Voltaire.

Schools can not end poverty by simply making sure all students are “career and college ready”. As long as the rich and powerful continue take most of the wealth for themselves, we will have poverty. Wealth is finite.

Instead of looking to schools to solve the problem, “we are likely to find that the problems of housing and education, instead of preceding the elimination of poverty, will themselves be affected if poverty is first abolished.” –MLK

Before I had my own blog, I shared a blog called “Bridging Differences” with Deborah Meier, hosted by Education Week. We had a great run of five years, and then I started this blog. Since then, Deborah has had exchanges with various conservative thinkers.

Currently, she is trying to “bridge differences” with Michael Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. In this post, Mike argues that the best way to end poverty is to persuade young people to get married and wait to have children until they are able to take care of them financially. Since no one knows how to do that, he maintains that the best cure for poverty is “great” schools.

He suggests that those “on the left” have given up on social mobility. I am not sure whether he believes that schools–rightly organized–will facilitate social mobility or will end poverty, as he seems to use the terms interchangeably, at one point referring to the schools as “the great equalizer,” at other times suggesting that it is upward mobility (for some) that he expects schools to promote. Mike makes clear that he opposes raising the minimum wage or increasing income transfers. So that leaves schools with the burden of either ending poverty or increasing social mobility, whatever, since nothing else can do it, in his view.

Of course, the schools have always provided a path to upward social mobility for some, but the problem is that many millions of children and families are stuck in poverty. It seems unlikely that the schools alone can push that large number down. No matter how many “No Excuses” charter schools open, there will still be many millions trapped at the bottom, while a huge share of the national income flows to the top 1% and the top 5%.

Mike’s answer: Fix the schools!

My answer: Improve every school, open health clinics attached to schools, provide free pre-natal care to all women who cannot afford it, make pre-K universal, make sure that schools serving the poorest kids have the resources for small classes, social workers, psychologists, librarians, the arts, and a full curriculum, just like the kids in affluent suburbs. And change the tax structure so that income inequality is reduced.

I might also note that many young people who have graduated college now find themselves unable to get a good job because so many middle-class jobs were outsourced by our corporate leaders. So you will find college graduates working at minimum wage–or slightly above it–in Starbucks or selling iPads or working in jobs that don’t require a college diploma.

I look forward to Deborah’s answer.

In the meanwhile, here are some interesting comments:

Leo Casey of the American Federation of Teachers wrote as follows:

If you are serious about reducing, let alone eliminating, poverty, there is a historical record that needs to be addressed. From the New Deal to through the 1970s income inequality and poverty in America were reduced, with two very significant periods of change – the New Deal, especially Social Security, reduced immensely the numbers of elderly people living in poverty, and the Great Society reduced the numbers of mothers and children living in poverty. The rate of poverty was cut almost in half between 1960 (from about 22% to 11%) and the beginning off the Reagan years. With the Reagan years, poverty climbs once again (now hovers around 15%). Of course, these are aggregate numbers – there are many more children living in poverty (1 in 4) than adults. This is also related to general income equality: there is a period of the reduction of income equality, beginning with the New Deal and extending through the 1970s, followed by a great increase in income inequality beginning in the 1970s and extending to the current period. Timothy Noah’s The Great Divide has a pretty comprehensive analysis of these trends. Two factors are particularly important: the effects of ‘the race to the bottom’ initiated by economic globalization, in which unionized jobs in industry were exported abroad to low wage, authoritarian nations such as China where workers could not form independent unions to improve their pay and working conditions, and the related decimation of industrial unions that supported middle class jobs in the United States.

My old mentor and colleague, Michael Harrington, who had a few things to say about poverty {-; never tired of saying that the best anti-poverty program was a job.

Debbie’s pessimism, if I read her correctly, is whether there is a political will to reduce poverty and income inequality in the United States. There is no great secret on how to do it; the question is whether there is a political will to address a problem that falls so heavily on the backs of women and children, particularly of color.

Leo

 

I was interviewed by Jake Silverstein of the Texas Monthly and we talked
about testing, accountability, poverty, and what’s happening today. It is a very good interview, I think. He asked interesting questions.

 
Funny side note: my birth name was Silverstein but my parents
changed it to Silvers by the time I was in kindergarten. I don’t
think Jake and I are related because Silverstein was not my real family
name either. My grandfather had a different name, the story goes,
when he came from Europe as a young boy in 1858, but then he worked for a grocer in Georgia named Silverstein and took his name. Sounds crazy, but
that’s the story we were told by my father. Another story that I heard, which was confirmed by surviving family members, is that my grandfather ran the commissary on Henry Ford’s plantation in Georgia. But when Mr. Ford found out that he had a Jew on the property, he kicked my grandfather out. Then he opened a kosher butcher shop in the Savannah central market (who knew there were enough Jews in Savannah to support a kosher butcher shop?). Neither the shop nor the old market exists anymore. I never met my grandfather; he died long before I was born. But I digress.

This is what Democratic nominee Bill de Blasio told the Association for a Better New York. This is an organization of powerful people, many in the real estate industry. They have been cool to him in the past. This speech won a standing ovation, according to this morning’s New York Times.

How many elected officials in your city or state would say what de Blasio said here:

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 4, 2013

BILL DE BLASIO’S SPEECH TO THE ASSOCIATION FOR A BETTER NEW YORK

Remarks as Prepared

New York, NY – A year to the day after introducing his bold tax plan to fund universal pre-kindergarten and expanded after-school programs, Democratic nominee for mayor and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio returns to the Association for a Better New York today. De Blasio will lay out his comprehensive vision to tackle income inequality and end the Tale of Two Cities, bringing New York together as one city.

Good morning.

I want to thank ABNY for hosting this discussion and inviting me to attend once again.  Throughout its history—from the fiscal crisis through today—ABNY and its members have provided a forum for discussing the challenges facing our city.  

I want to thank Bill Rudin for his leadership of ABNY, and his longstanding commitment to the City of New York.

It is an honor to come before you, as I did exactly one year ago today.  Then I called for real, concrete change to fight the growing economic inequality in our city.  I made the case that we needed new ideas and new resources to produce that change.

Today, I want to talk about how we can work together to make that vision a reality.

I want to start with the plan I described to you one year ago.  I believe we must guarantee every child in our city a quality pre-kindergarten education and every middle school student a safe after-school environment that keeps them on-task, off the streets, and out of harm’s way.

And I strongly believe we must back up our commitment with real dollars — a modest tax on those earning more than a half-million dollars a year.

As I said a year ago, these investments are not only critical for those who are struggling, but will help all New Yorkers — because we all benefit when the middle class is growing, and more of our fellow citizens are lifted out of poverty. 

Over the course of this past year, our case has only grown stronger. 

We have seen President Obama and Governor Cuomo elevate the importance of early education as the key to transforming our education system – and transforming young lives in the process.

We have seen studies by the National Bureau of Economic Research that show that providing free pre-kindergarten to families in need is among the most effective means of reducing income inequality, increasing social mobility, raising college graduation rates, reducing crime, and increasing wages. 

That’s why the plan I announced here a year ago has become a centerpiece of my vision for progressive change in New York.

But this investment won’t simply set those children – our children — on the right path for a brighter future.  It sends a signal to families across our city that beyond the skyscrapers and high-rises that paint our magnificent skyline we haven’t forgotten what New York City is really about, a city of neighborhoods. 

A city that understands our economic might isn’t measured solely by the number of millionaires who call New York home, but by the promise that every family has a shot at living and working and raising children in our five boroughs.

Throughout this campaign, I’ve spoken about New York becoming a Tale of Two Cities – one that has worked very well for our city’s elite but one that’s left millions of everyday New Yorkers behind. 

And while we certainly don’t begrudge our fellow New Yorkers their success, we also can’t ignore those who struggle to find good jobs and quality schools, those who can’t find affordable housing and needed health care, those who don’t have access to early childhood and after-school programs that set our children on the right path, and keep them there.

Make no mistake.  When so many New Yorkers are being priced out of their own city, it’s not merely another problem for us to consider.  It’s a crisis of affordability – a crisis that’s reached a tipping point in the years since the Great Recession. 

At the same time Wall Street has not only recovered to its pre-recession levels, but managed to set new records, nearly half of our city lives below or near the poverty level.

This affordability crisis is different from the soaring crime we faced twenty years ago, different from the turmoil that followed 9/11. But it is no less urgent, and requires no less commitment on the part of our city’s leadership to address.

It is felt by parents speaking in worried whispers after their kids have been put to bed, parents who are living paycheck to paycheck, with nothing left over. It is felt by working single moms who have to cast aside nervous thoughts of their children’s whereabouts during those long hours after school lets out, but before their work day ends. It is felt by once solidly middle class families who are being squeezed by skyrocketing housing costs.

This crisis can be seen starkly in the changing nature of New York City’s jobs landscape.  Our city has a quarter million more jobs than it did in 2000—and for that I give Mayor Bloomberg his share of the credit.

But 200,000 of those jobs are in a handful of low wage sectors, sectors like retail and food service where the average pay is less than $28,000 per year. Meanwhile, we’ve shed more than 50,000 middle class jobs in that same time frame.

The combination of low-wage jobs and a housing market that fails to produce sufficiently affordable homes has created painful outcomes.  Just one stunning example — 28% of families in our homeless shelters include at least one employed adult.  

Think about it:  these are thousands of our fellow New Yorkers who work hard at their jobs, have families with children, but have no home.  

It is a foundational American principle that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to make a life for your family. But now, for too many New Yorkers, that dream is in danger of slipping away.

As many of you know, I’ve been talking about these issues over the course of this election, and calling for a dramatic change in direction.  However, my opponents in this campaign don’t think we need a course correction.

They choose to accept – or else willfully ignore – the income inequality that threatens the foundation of who we are as New Yorkers.

I have a different point of view.  I don’t accept this as our destiny.  I am committed to tackling this crisis.  I know we can solve this crisis of affordability, and we will, but only if we work together. 

We cannot resign ourselves to the mindset that says rising inequality is a necessary byproduct of urban success.  Instead we must recognize that the economic insecurity steadily creeping steadily up into the middle class is a threat to our city’s long-term future and something we must urgently address.

There is nothing divisive about acknowledging the struggle so many New Yorkers face.  It’s not class warfare.  As my old boss Bill Clinton would say, it’s arithmetic. And it’s reality, the daily experience facing so many across New York. 

And before we can address this great challenge, we first must be honest with ourselves.  We must first admit that the affordability crisis exists – and then resolve, together, to do something about it.

Many of today’s policies have sidestepped the problem – or even made it worse.

City and State support for CUNY—that great engine of middle class strength—has declined sharply, leaving students to pick up the tab through higher tuition. 

We’ve lost more than 30,000 seats in our after-school programs since 2008, depriving young people of safe, supervised alternatives to the lure of gangs and violence. 

And while the Bloomberg administration’s New Housing Marketplace plan was admirable and is on track to reach its goal of 165,000 new or preserved units of affordable housing, we are in many ways treading water, barely producing enough new units even to offset the affordable homes we lose in any given year.   

Housing costs in New York City are at an all-time – with average rent having just crossed $3,000 per month for the very first time. 

We need fundamental change that addresses the struggle of millions of New Yorkers – policies that take dead aim at this Tale of Two Cities.

Instead of giveaways that disproportionately favor luxury housing, I have laid out a plan for hard and fast rules to require construction of new affordable homes for working and middle class New Yorkers.

Instead of pouring billions of dollars into unnecessary and overly generous tax incentives for big corporations, we need to invest in small businesses, in workforce training, and in CUNY—the most reliable pathways for those seeking a shot at entering the middle class.

Instead of an economy that generates poverty-wage jobs, we need to raise the wage floor so that working families on every step of the economic ladder can make ends meet and see a way up.

That’s real change. That will make a difference not just for a fortunate few—but for hundreds of thousands of families who have felt shut out of our economy for far too long.

It’s big thinking – that’s true.  But thinking big is what we New Yorkers have done throughout our history.

And it’s time to think big again, and change our approach so that opportunity is something that is open to everyone.  We cannot expect prosperity to trickle down from the top; that is a philosophy that’s failed time and again.  Instead, we must build opportunity from the ground up.

I give Mayor Bloomberg great credit for recognizing the need to diversify our economy from its over-reliance on the finance sector, and for strategic investments to create jobs to offset the decline of traditional manufacturing.

The administration’s emphasis on expanding New York’s research universities as a magnet for talent, growing the tech sector and launching the applied sciences initiative, helping to bring back and grow New York City’s film and television industry, and spurring a rebirth in the next generation of manufacturing have all created jobs, diversified our tax base and made our economy more resilient.  

These policies were important, and we shouldn’t step back from them — and we won’t.

But while all of those efforts were necessary, alone they are not sufficient to meet today’s economic crisis. 

Where these policies have come up short is that they have failed to provide meaningful opportunities for the majority of New Yorkers.

Today too few graduates of our public high schools and our CUNY system are finding employment in these emerging industries.  And the vast majority of our unemployed and underemployed citizens are cut off from opportunities in these rapidly growing fields.

We can do more to fuel the growth of each of these sectors while ensuring more New Yorkers are filling these jobs.   

That’s why in the Tech sector, I’ve proposed: a dedicated 2-year STEM program at CUNY to connect more graduates of our public university system to jobs in the tech industry; a scholarship that encourages tech graduates from CUNY to stay in New York City after graduation to grow companies or start new ventures;
and 14 additional industry-linked Career and Technical Education high school programs aligned with job growth projections. 

We must move forward with the Brooklyn Tech Triangle plan and replicate that model, to build new economic development hubs across the City. 

To grow the film and television production sector and to create more opportunities for New Yorkers in it I’ve called for: a New Film, Post-Production and Animation School at the Brooklyn Navy Yard; tripling the enrollment in the Made in NY Production Assistant Training Program; creating a “Film & TV Lab,” modeled after the EDC’s successful “Media Lab” for Film Production, Post-Production, and Animation; and bringing more production to Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.

We must continue to re-envision manufacturing in New York City.  Manufacturing was once the backbone of New York’s middle class economy. Today, the average annual wage for a manufacturing worker is over $53,000.

In Brooklyn, the number of manufacturing jobs – after decades of decline — has increased in the past three years. 

Advanced manufacturing firms, touting new technologies, like 3D printing, are rediscovering what made New York such a successful manufacturing hub in the past: our density, our diversity, our shipping infrastructure, and the innate talent of our people.

To allow these firms to grow and thrive, we must: tighten restrictions in the zoning code to strengthen the city’s 16 Industrial Business Zones; change zoning laws to meet the surging demand for live-work spaces and mixed-use development; replicate the success of the Brooklyn Navy Yard on other City-owned industrial land; expand support for manufacturing by investing in maritime and transit infrastructure, and digital connectivity that increases the value of Industrial Zones; and scale up workforce development programs like Brooklyn Workforce Innovations that connect unemployed and underemployed New Yorkers to the industrial jobs of the future.   

Our workforce development programs must be more about quality than quantity.  If all we’re doing is placing New Yorkers in minimum wage jobs — with no opportunity for upward growth and mobility — then quite frankly we are all failing. 

That is why I have laid out a plan for strengthening the way we train our workforce – by: integrating community-based organizations into a city-wide workforce development system; expanding use of apprenticeship programs in major city construction and service contracts to give opportunities to New Yorkers in all five boroughs; reinvesting $150 million annually in CUNY, and ensuring every city high school is connected to a specific college, or a specific company or sector; and establishing a job creation coordinator to oversee all workforce development programs in the city.

In addition to supporting these emerging sectors, we need to continue to nurture immigrant entrepreneurs who have always been at the heart of New York City’s thriving neighborhood economies. To do that I have proposed: creating economic development hubs in at least twelve immigrant and low-income neighborhoods, these would be one-stop shops in multiple languages that bring together all of New York City’s business development services in accessible neighborhood locations; establishing a $100 million revolving loan fund for neighborhood entrepreneurs; giving local businesses, including immigrant small businesses, a second-shot at City contracts — this would let local firms match the price offered by a lowest responsible bid, encouraging local business, while still getting the best deal for the taxpayer; and ending City Hall’s fine assault on small businesses by banning quotas, utilizing warnings instead of financial penalties for first-time and minor violations, and making the appeals process for small business owners easier to navigate.

We need to do all of these things to continue to grow and diversify New York City’s economy.

But most fundamentally, we need to do more for the millions of New Yorkers who work long hours for low wages and who suffer the most from New York’s affordability crisis.   

We must raise the wage floor by: expanding our Paid Sick Leave law to include hundreds of thousands of working New Yorkers not currently covered, because you shouldn’t lose a day’s pay to take care of a sick child; passing a real living wage law that says if you are receiving city subsidies you are going to creating good paying jobs for New Yorkers; cracking down on wage theft that is all too prevalent in our economy; and supporting efforts to raise wages and improve conditions in low-wage sectors like the fast-food and carwash industries, where workers are struggling to assert their most basic rights to come together and bargain collectively for higher wages. 

For nearly a century, unions have provided the most secure path for Americans in low-wage jobs to join the middle class and it can and must be that way again.

In addition to creating good jobs for New Yorkers, we need to tackle the root of our affordability crisis – the rising cost of housing. 

That’s why I have proposed an ambitious plan to build or preserve 200,000 new and preserved units over the next decade— that will put affordable housing in reach for more families in every neighborhood. 

We will get there by converting a system based on incentives that have yielded too little, to one based on clear requirements for affordability.  We need a stronger hand to make sure development will create and preserve places for a diverse range of families to live and raise their kids.  

When the public action of rezoning creates huge new value for developers, we will require, not simply encourage, the production of affordable housing.

Taken together, the elements of this platform amount to a very different vision for our city. 

It is a vision that says we need a City government that recognizes itself as an instrument to lift people up, and to truly foster opportunity for all.

Look, I know not everyone in this room agrees with every part of my plan.

But I know we all share a set of values – that every child deserves a first rate education; that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to earn a wage that can support a family; that people should be able to live in the same neighborhoods they’ve spent their lives.

And most of all we all share a belief:  that New York City is the greatest city in the world – not simply because of our economic might and stunning skyline and vibrant culture, but because we are a city that leads the nation and the world in remembering that we are bigger and stronger and better as a city when we make sure everyone has a shot. 

So today let’s go forth – together – and resolve that the Tale of Two Cities will be in our past and that building one city will be our future. 

Thank you.

 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan blasted critics of Race to the Top and his “reforms” as “armchair pundits.”

Anthony Cody writes about his remarks here and reproduces part of his remarks (not the part where he boasts of his many “accomplishments” as Secretary of Education). I expect he made no reference to the high levels of demoralization among teachers and principals documented by the annual MetLife survey. But, hey, disruption is part of the plan, right? Pushing out the veterans is not counted a bad thing in Arne’s play book. He likes the nimble kids who stay two years, then leave.

Does Duncan think that teachers and principals are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers who have demonstrated the futility of value-added assessments like Linda Darling-Hammond (candidate Obama’s education advisor in 2008) are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers like David Berliner, who has studied the effects of poverty on academic achievement for decades, is an armchair pundit?

I guess he means me. I have studied the history and politics of American education for more than forty years. It is true that I believe what Duncan calls “reform” is a disaster that is demoralizing teachers and principals, harming communities, and doing incalculable damage to American education. I explain why I believe this in my new book, “Reign of Error.” I document everything I write.

I would like Secretary Duncan to explain why he thinks that more testing and more standardization and more charter schools is better than placing his bets on the research-based recommendations in my book.

I would like him to explain why the Obama administration’s education policies are so closely aligned–nearly identical–to the failed NCLB policies.

Looking for common ground.

In this post, EduShyster takes on Joe Nocera, columnist for the Néw York Times. As pundits are inclined to do, he relies on anecdotes and a discredited study to pronounce that teacher education is the cause of our nation’s educational decline.

Please let Joe know that our nation’s schools are not declining. Please, someone, send him a copy of my book.

Forget it, I will ask my publisher to do it.

It is fine for columnists to declaim about education, but they should have the facts before they do, not anecdotes

Matt Bruenig has written in many journals. He also has
a blog, where this post appeared. He analyzes a fairly
straightforward question: Can schools end poverty? The column is a
commentary on the “reformers” who say that we can’t end poverty
until we fix schools, or something to that effect. We have heard
the same statement from Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein,
Bill Gates, and others. Duncan says that even the President agrees.
Bruenig analyzes these three statements:

  1. Education is a way to end
    poverty.
  2. Education is the best
    way
    to end poverty.
  3. Education
    is the only way to end
    poverty.

He starts his short analysis with
this statement: These are all false, but since number
three is the one Rhee and Duncan and the education reformer crowd
pushes, let’s start there. It is flatly not the case that to end
poverty you need to alter education. Americans should know this.
Starting from the 1960s, we
as a society cut outrageously high rates of elderly poverty by
71%
. We did that by sending old people checks called
Social Security. We also know from international data that
low-poverty countries get that way through tax and transfer
schemes, not unlike Social Security (I, II).
If you are saying nothing but education will dramatically cut
poverty, when things other than education absolutely will and have,
you are an enemy of the poor. You are contributing to a discursive
world where people ignore the easiest, most proven ways to cut
poverty.
If this is true, and I think it is, all the
energy and billions expended on school reforms that are totally
lacking in evidence–like VAM and merit pay and privatization of
public funds–is a handy distraction from meaningful ways to end
poverty.