Archives for category: Poverty

I don’t understand this story.

It says that “civil rights groups” demand that Arne Duncan turn down a request for a waiver from a group of districts in California.

Since high-stakes testing invariably ends up with poor and minority kids at the bottom of the bell curve, it is hard for me to understand why civil rights groups would demand more of it.

Since accountability typically means that schools enrolling the neediest kids get closed, why would civil rights groups want more of it?

Since high stakes accountability invariably means that those who teach the most vulnerable children are likely to be fired, why would civil rights groups want more of it?

One possible answer to the puzzle is that Democrats for Education Reform is listed as a “civil rights group.” DFER is an organization created by Wall Street hedge fund managers to promote more charter schools and more testing (but not necessarily for those who teach in charter schools). Just recently, the California Democratic Party singled out DFER and StudentsFirst as fronts for Republicans and corporations.

Maybe this letter to Duncan is DFER’s revenge on California. (DFER recommended Duncan to Obama for his job as Secretary of Education.)

The market-based reforms of the past dozen years have failed. Now they are the status quo, imposed on the nation by NCLB and Race to the Top, will hurt our nation’s children and undermine public education for all children.

The Bush-Obama policies are bad for children, ad for teachers, bad for principals, bad for schools, bad for the quality of education, and threaten the future of public education in the United States.

WARNING TO OTHER NATIONS: DO NOT COPY US.

The question is: Will the zealous reformers listen? Or will they continue their path of destruction.

The Broader Bolder Approach to Education reviewed the academic progress in the cities that aggressively adopted market reforms–New York City, D.C., and Chicago–and found that these districts UNDERPERFORMED in comparison to other urban districts.

The “reforms” imposed by Michelle Rhee, Michael Bloomberg, Joel Klein, and Arne Duncan actually harmed children who needed help the most. They are not “reform.” They are misguided, inappropriate interventions, like using an axe to butter your bread or shave.

Here are excerpts from the BBA report:

“Pressure from federal education policies such as Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, bolstered by organized advocacy efforts, is making a popular set of market-oriented education “reforms” look more like the new status quo than real reform.

“Reformers assert that test-based teacher evaluation, increased school “choice” through expanded access to charter schools, and the closure of “failing” and underenrolled schools will boost falling student achievement and narrow longstanding race- and income-based achievement gaps. This report examines these assertions by assessing the impacts of these reforms in three large urban school districts: Washington, D.C., New York City, and Chicago. These districts were studied because all enjoy the benefit of mayoral control, produce reliable district-level test score data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and were led by vocal reformers who im- plemented versions of this agenda.

“KEY FINDINGS

“The reforms deliver few benefits and in some cases harm the students they purport to help, while drawing attention and resources away from policies with real promise to address poverty-related barriers to school success:

*Test scores increased less, and achievement gaps grew more, in “reform” cities than in other urban districts.

*Reported successes for targeted students evaporated upon closer examination.

*Test-based accountability prompted churn that thinned the ranks of experienced teachers, but not necessarily bad teachers.

*School closures did not send students to better schools or save school districts money.

*Charter schools further disrupted the districts while providing mixed benefits, particularly for the highest-needs students.

*Emphasis on the widely touted market-oriented reforms drew attention and resources from initiatives with greater promise.

*The reforms missed a critical factor driving achievement gaps: the influence of poverty on academic performance. Real, sustained change requires strategies that are more realistic, patient, and multipronged.

For the full report, please visit

boldapproach.org/rhetoric-trumps-reality

Kay McSpadden writes frequently about education issues in North Carolina. Here she explains why the Tennessee bill to cut welfare benefits to families if their children didn’t get high test scores was a disaster. Fortunately, key Republican legislators put a halt to it and it never came to a vote.

I try not to read comments on blogs, other than this one, where I read them all.

But I couldn’t help read the ones that followed Kay’s compassionate post and was appalled by several, especially this one:

“I’m not going to profess to be a Christian scholar Joe, but would you cite for me one passage where Jesus calls on people to forsake their own family in order to take care of someone else’s family?”

Wasn’t there something called the Golden Rule?

North Carolina has some awful legislation of its own, hurtling toward passage. Right now, there is one that will remove any due process protections for teachers (aka, “tenure”). Who will dare to teach about evolution or anything controversial? The angry commenters will drive them out.

Believe it or not, the Chicago Tribune published one of the best articles I have read about the disaster that is called education “reform,” but in fact is education destruction.

I say, believe it or not, because the Tribune has been one of the nation’s loudest cheerleaders for the policies that this column decries.

Robert C. Koehler is a syndicated columnist, not an education specialist, but he sees clearly the damage that the education destruction movement–NCLB and Race to the Top–is doing to students and our society.

His column is titled “The Warping of Public Education.”

He writes:

“…high-stakes testing, in tandem with “zero tolerance,” militarized security and sadistic underfunding, has succeeded in warping public education beyond recognition, especially in low-income, zero-political-clout neighborhoods. And the result is kids in prison, kids on the streets, kids with no future.”

And he concludes:

“The time has come to declare an end to this entire era — of militarized racism, violent solutions to everything, the ever-widening schism between “us” and “them.” Any politician who kowtows to this simplistic agenda, or “bargains” with it, has made himself or herself irrelevant to a sustainable and healthy future, and should be declared thus.

“We have to undo the damage that has turned public education into a crisis. That means dumping the pretend science of high-stakes testing and valuing rather than criminalizing students of color; it also means moving from punishment- to healing-based systems of maintaining order, taking police and armed security guards out of the hallways and learning to value and respect young people more than we value metal detectors and surveillance cameras.

“Before we can do anything else, we have to get our future out of the pipeline.”

A reader sent these late-night reflections to me:

“I drifted off to sleep last night, the phrase “No Child Left Behind” kept ringing in my ears. It sounds so noble… No – Child – Left – Behind – surely that is good for our country. Yet, at the same time my eyes were closing, the disturbing aparthied maps that Jersey Jazzman posted were flashing before my eyes.

In the corners of my mind, memories of 1984, by George Orwell churn. Newspeak (the removal of negative terms from language) reappears today. “Newspeak is engineered to remove even the possibility of rebellious thoughts—the words by which such thoughts might be articulated have been eliminated from the language.”
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/section11.rhtml

Samples: Newspeak Reform Dictionary and Guide to Phraseology:

“No Child Left Behind”
Phrase meaning: self-explanatory
Reality: Yes, there are many children left behind. Can we find them in these maps?
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/03/school-closings-new-apartheid.html

“AchieveNJ”
Word meaning: Achieve – attain; realize; accomplish
Reality: “AchieveNJ doesn’t even make the attempt to correct SGPs for poverty!”
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/03/nj-ed-commish-cerf-wrong-on-poverty.html

“Community Engagement”
Word meaning: Oh… forget about the real word meaning… what difference does this section make?
Reality: “DONT allow the opposition to frame the standards or the new tests negatively: In particular, get in front of any opposition that seeks to characterize the new standards and assessments as a “one-size-fits-all” approach…”
http://www.achieve.org/

“Education Reform Toolkit”
Reality: School Closure Guide by the Broad Foundation

“Privacy”
Reality: “States must collect, coordinate, and use K-12 and postsecondary data to track and improve the readiness of graduates to succeed in college and the workplace…follow students through K–12 into postsecondary AND THE WORKFORCE and establish feedback loops to the relevant stakeholders…” (emphasis mine)
http://www.achieve.org/P-20-data-systems

What would George Orwell have to say about this today?”

LG, a longtime reader, wrote a letter to Senator Stacey Campfield (R) in Tennessee, who sponsored the legislation to cut the welfare benefits of poor families by as much as 30% if their children don’t raise their test scores. The legislation is inherently discriminatory, she writes, because it singles out poor families for punishment.

This raises interesting questions. How about increasing taxes on wealthy families whose children don’t raise their test scores? Senator Campfield would get way more letters from them! And people would begin asking who made the tests so important. And whether they should be used to mete out punishments and rewards. That would be a boon for the anti-testing movement.

LG writes:

Dear Senator Campfield,

Thank you for your reply.

This is a radical solution for a very important issue. How can anyone reconcile this same targeting strategy for middle and higher income families whose children are in the same academic position?

What is proposed in this bill is discriminatory in that it does not solve academic performance issues by making some rules for some of the people to follow while leaving the others to continually fail in schools. Where is the incentive for middle or upper level income families?

A large concern is for the children at lower income levels who have not yet been identified as having learning disabilities. As you said, no system is 100% perfect, including child study services. Some children may not be identified as learning disabled for years–should their families be punished by this?

I would think a better bill would target the inequality in our economic infrastructure. Apply more oversight to the assistance programs to help people get out of situations of poverty. Provide opportunities for employment, and offer health care for families who struggle. Stop discriminating against the poor and provide solutions to aid in their upward mobility.

If this is about holding parents accountable, why hasn’t this bill been piggy-backed with parental accountability for all income levels? To make any solution about money on all levels is also flawed because people with access to money may try to “buy” results or intimidate those reporting grades. The poor do not have the luxury of “buying” their way out of anything. What your bill proposes is segregating the population into haves and have-nots and then creating different rules for the have-nots. This solves nothing in the way of making positive changes in academic progress.

Instead, hold parents accountable for communicating with schools or attending parent sessions by other means. If a parent is abusive toward a child, there are laws protecting the child. It is difficult to prove if a parent is uninterested in the academic well-being of a child, but perhaps there could be requirements for ALL parents of academically-struggling children by law that do not involve financial burdens.

This bill is anti-American, and should not be pursued. As a public servant, it is your responsibility to find another way to reach these students. Singling out low income families is discrimination, no matter how good the intentions behind the act.

Here’s more about the Tennessee proposal to cut the welfare benefits of families if their children don’t make progress on state tests.

155,000 families will be affected if the bill passes.

Is this value-added right-to-eat?

The main sponsor of the bill has no children.

I knew it was Ebenezer Scrooge.

Here are the names and contact number for the committee in the Tennessee legislature that will decide whether to cut the welfare benefits of families whose children get low test scores.

Please contact them, in the name of decency.

Just when you think that things couldn’t get any worse, some legislator comes up with the meanest, cruelest, dumbest idea yet.

Tennessee is considering legislation to cut the welfare benefits to families if their children get low test scores.

Some exceptions are carved out, but the basic idea is that the kids need a carrot and stick approach. Or more likely, a whip. The kids need to be afraid that their family won’t eat.

That’ll fix education.

Who are these people?

Do they have an ounce of charity in their hearts?

Do they have any religion? Any sense of humanity?

Will they sleep well at night knowing that someone went to bed hungry because of a law they passed?

Matt D Carlo evaluates Néw Jersey’s
decision to take over the Camden school district.

Di Carlo says it may have been justified or not.

But state officials did not make their case.

Sounds like Chris Cerf should hire a statistician.