A reader sent us a link to a poll in the Portland Oregonian.
The question is whether the Portland Public Schools were right to pass up applying to get the federal funding.
Good for Portland!
Maybe the school system figured out that the money is not discretionary and that the mandates that come with RTTT will cost districts more than whatever money it brings to the district.
Here is the poll:
The Oregonian has a new poll asking the community if PPS was right to give up the RTTT grant:
Bruce Baker is one of my favorite bloggers. He is smart and irreverent. He is not awed by big names. He actually was a teacher before becoming a researcher. He has the technical skill to crack the statistical analyses that others generate to make spurious claims. Unlike many with the same skill set, he is willing to call a phony a phony. You might say he is our Premier C.D. (Since I have taken a personal pledge not to use vulgarisms on this blog, I will give you a clue to help you figure out what a C.D. is; it is a Cr-p Detector).
In this post, Bruce shows what nonsense The New Teacher Project report “The Irreplaceables” is.
TNTP, you may recall, was founded by either TFA or Michelle Rhee, depending on whom you heard from last. Its purpose was to stock urban districts with shiny new teachers (like TFA) to replace those burned-out veterans with low expectations. Although TNTP is an advocacy group that seeks and wins contracts from urban districts, and although it has a self-interest in certain policies, it nonetheless turns out studies and reports to support its self-interest (fire bad old teachers, hire and retain new teachers). It is not surprising that advocacy groups crank out self-serving “studies,” but it is surprising that the media so often takes them seriously, sort of like taking advice from tobacco companies about the wisdom of smoking.
In his analysis of the latest bit of TNTP puffery, Baker demonstrates how unstable value-added measures are. He reviews the ratings for thousands of NYC teachers and finds that there are very few who remain in the top 20% every single year. In fact, he discovers only 14 in math and 5 in ELA out of thousands of teachers! He writes, “Sure hope they don’t leave.”
EduShyster has done it again.
This time she nails the Boston Globe.
This is the Boston Globe’s dream as expressed by its lead education writer:
“There’s a lot at stake in the takeover of the Gavin by UP Academy. If it succeeds at raising student achievement with an identical student population, then the main complaint of charter school critics will lose its resonance. If relatively inexperienced teachers can do what veterans can’t — namely turn around a school where only one out of four students performs at grade level — then the public cry for longer school days, merit pay, and stricter teacher evaluations will grow louder.”
How great would that be? If the test scores go up at Gavin, now taken over by UP Academy, every inner-city school could have teachers with high expectations but no professional training. All that is needed is a four-year degree, preferably from an Ivy League college or university. Every teacher could be judged by the rise or fall of student test scores. All unions would be abolished. No tenure, no seniority, just test scores. That solves all problems, right?
EduShyster explains the secret of UP’s success.
This just in from a teacher in Nebraska. The state did not get any Race to the Top funding, and therefore didn’t “win” money that would cost them more to implement than they “won.” It is taking a “wait and see” approach to Common Core standards. It doesn’t want the U.S. Department of Education to tell Nebraskans what to do. It doesn’t have any charters.
The state is trying to do what is best for children. Imagine that! The public schools are supported by the public.
Is Nebraska still part of the United States? How did we overlook the amazing common sense that still exists there? Good luck to Nebraska in keeping the privatizers at bay.
I realized when I read this letter that Nebraska belongs on our honor roll as a champion of public education. It supports its public schools. It lets teachers teach. It has not rushed to do the latest thing. It has thus far ignored the privatizers.
Welcome to the honor roll, Nebraska! Stay strong!
Come to Nebraska. A state led by a common sense dept. of education and a smart, reasonable teachers’ union. We don’t rush to jump on every new educational bandwagon (Nope, we didn’t get any Race to the Top money and the verdict’s still out on Common Core–we’re one of the few ‘wait and see’ hold out states) and try to comply with mandatory standards while doing the least amount of damage to our kids. We aren’t averse to change–indeed, we’re always looking to be on that cutting edge, however, if we’re going to spend hard earned tax dollars, it had better be worth it. I’m a high school special education teacher and co-teach algebra and geometry. I work with a tough population and my school isn’t perfect. Lots of hard work. But the difference is that public education is supported in our state. We have no charter schools. I feel appreciated by my students, my co-workers, parents and administration just about every single day. Now, it’s not a Shangra-la…I DO work with teenagers, many with behavior dsorders, and don’t always agree with administration or co-workers. Our state legislature passed a law and implented a state-wide test many educators aren’t crazy about. We are under the same gun to improve test scores as any other state and that can be stressful. However, we are encouraged and celebrated whenever we infuse creativity, active learning, and technology into our classrooms. In a nutshell, we’re held accountable, the state testing is a pain and possibly a waste of time, but overall I feel the higher ups try to stay out of our way as best as they can. The biggest threat to our educational system here is out of state money with an agenda to privatize education and run it like a business–a fate experienced by other states. I only hope we can fight them off and maintain what we have.
Leonie Haimson has some excellent ideas about where to make budget cuts and how to raise revenues to protect children in the looming fiscal crisis.
Haimson is executive director of Class Size Matters in New York City and has long been the city’s leading parent activist. Her ability to analyze research and budgets is astounding. Her courage in fighting for students and parents is unmatched.
Leonie Haimson was among the first people to be placed on the honor roll as a champion of public education. She was one of the original founders of Parents Across America.
She is a tireless and effective advocate who makes a difference in improving the lives of children.
Pedro Noguera, my colleague at New York University, took my place as blogging partner with Deborah Meier at “Bridging Differences.”
In his latest column, Pedro says that it is not enough to recognize that No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have failed. It is necessary to shape a new agenda.
Pedro offers these three elements to a new agenda.
1. “The federal government should call for the creation of a comprehensive support systems around schools in low-income communities to address issues such as safety, health, nutrition, and counseling. This should include the expansion of preschool and after-school programs and extended learning opportunities during the summer.” Since the federal government is unlikely to fund what is needed, states and localities should develop public-private partnerships to make it happen.
2) “The federal government must support a new approach to assessment that focuses on concrete evidence of academic performance—writing, reading, mathematical problem-solving—and moves away from using standardized tests to measure and rank students, teachers, and schools.”.
3) “The federal government needs to call upon the states and school districts to undertake careful evaluations of struggling schools to determine why they are failing to meet the needs of the students they serve before prescribing what should be changed. Instead of simply closing troubled schools such a strategy would require a greater focus on enrollment patterns (i.e. have we concentrated too many “high-needs” students in a school?) and ensuring that schools have the capacity to meet the needs of the students they serve rather than merely judging them under the current accountability systems.”
I heartily agree with Pedro’s diagnosis. If children are not healthy, if they are hungry, their ability to learn is negatively affected. The value of preschool and after-school programs is well-established. In state after state, these programs are being cut, while testing is expanded. I would go even further, as I do in my book, and say that class-size reduction must be part of the new vision, especially where the children with the greatest needs are enrolled.
The problem here is that we can’t get federal or state policymakers to change course unless they recognize that the present course–the strategy of high-stakes testing, accountability, choice, and school closings–has failed. I note that Pedro does not mention the Common Core standards, which has now become the linchpin of federal school reform.
Going forward, I think, requires that we persuade President Obama that Race to the Top is not working and must be replaced by a new vision. Pedro has well described the outlines of that vision.
But we can’t assume that the President will change course until he recognizes that four more years of the Bush NCLB strategy won’t help our children or improve their education. Twelve years is enough. It’s time to think anew.
Joy Resmovits has a good article at Huffington Post describing the growth of charter school enrollments and the absence of adequate oversight.
Currently, about 5 percent of all American students are enrolled in these privately managed schools. In some urban districts, the proportion is much larger. The districts with the greatest number of students in charters are New Orleans, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Kansas City, and Flint, Michigan. In 25 districts, at least 20 percent of students attend charters.
With the support of a bipartisan combination of President Obama, Congress, conservative governors, and rightwing groups like ALEC, these numbers are sure to grow. And the privatization of one of the nation’s most essential public services will continue.
The article mentions that local school boards “argue” that charters reduce their funding. That’s not an argument, that’s a fact. When students leave to attend charters, the public schools must lay off teachers, increase class sizes, cut programs. The more charters open, the more the public schools decline, especially when they lose their most motivated families and students. This is not simply a matter of transferring money from Peter to Paul, but crippling Peter to enrich Paul.
If charters had a stellar reputation, the logic might be on their side. But there are few studies that show charters outperforming public schools even on the crude measure of test scores. With only a few outliers, most studies show that charters do not get different results when they have the same kinds of students.
Chester-Upland, Pensylvania, schools may be an example of what happens when well-funded charters (funded by the district’s own revenues) grow as the host dies. The CU schools have been under state control for nearly 20 years. The local charter is not only thriving but providing handsome profits for its founder. Meanwhile the public schools, having lost half their enrollment to the charter, are dying. A state emergency manager just issued a lengthy report with high benchmarks for future success.
The plan calls for school closings and sets goals for academic gains. The bottom line in this plan for recovery is that the public schools will be extinguished if they can’t meet ambitious targets:
““If the district fails to meet certain scholastic performance goals, such as federal annual progress targets, by the end for the 2014-15 school year, the plan calls for the schools to be run by external management operations such as charter schools, cyber charters, and education management companies.”
Is this the future of urban education in the United States? Will this be the legacy of the Bush-Obama education program?
Ronnie Greco, who is leader of the Jersey City Education Association, joins our honor roll of heroes of public education.
Ronnie refused to sign Jersey City’s application for a Race to the Top grant for $40 million.
Ronnie quickly figured out that not a penny of the $40 million would solve any problem that Jersey City public schools have.
It would not be used to improve teaching and learning conditions.
It would not be available to reduce class size.
It would be used to impose merit pay, which has never worked anywhere.
It would be used to find and fire “ineffective” teachers, based on unproven test-based measures.
It would be used to implement top-down mandates devised in Washington, D.C., by the U.S. Department of Education.
The issues in Jersey City are no different from the issues that led to a strike in Chicago.
It is tough for a union leader to say no to a big federal grant because the media will blame him (or her) for turning down “free” money.
But Ronnie figured out the trap.
The money comes with strings that get fashioned into a noose for teachers.
The money will not reform the schools of Jersey City.
The money will not help the children of Jersey City.
The schools of Jersey City have been under state control for 23 years.
For 23 years, the state of New Jersey has failed the children of New Jersey.
The teachers of Jersey City work under difficult conditions.
They are heroes.
And their leader, Ronnie Greco, joins our honor roll for his courage, insight, wisdom, and conviction–all qualities in short supply today in our public life.
Two teachers have started a campaign to take their message to the White House: stop the Race to the Top!
The message of their campaign:
Give all students the same education your girls are getting! Abandon Race to the Top and stop privatizing public schools.
Join them!
Will anything change in Obama’s second term?
More testing, more charter schools, more school closings?
Joy Resmovits asks around for Huffington Post.
She says that if Duncan should leave–which is unllikely–he might be replaced by Rhee.
That’s enough to make you appreciate Arne.
Maybe the purpose of the rumor is to make you like Arne.
