Archives for category: Race to the Top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I won’t go into the baggage associated with Bill Ayers. During the campaign of 2008, his name came up again and again and was hurled as an accusation against candidate Barack Obama.

I recall Sarah Palin saying that Obama was guilty of “palling around with terrorists,” or words to that effect.

I did not approve of or condone what he did in the 1960s.

Bill Ayers is not the same person he was forty years ago. Today, he is a respected education thinker. But then, none of us is the same person we were 40 or 20 or even 10 years ago.

People grow and change. If they are willing, they learn.

Ayers has written a letter to President Obama that expresses the views of many educators today.

He calls on the President to rethink his policies.

He reminds him of the great advantages that the University of Chicago Lab School offered to the Obama children, the Ayers children, the Duncan children, and the Rahm Emanuel children even now.

Isn’t this what we should want for all children?

Now that President Obama has been re-elected, supporters of public education must redouble our efforts to end educational malpractice and rejuvenate American education.

It’s time to stop the privatization of public education.

It’s time to stop using invalid methods to judge teacher quality.

It’s time to stop high-stakes testing.

It’s time to stop closing schools.

It’s time to stop teaching to the tests.

It’s time to end the obsession with data and test-based metrics.

It’s time to support students and teachers and public schools.

It’s time to enrich the curriculum with the arts, history, civics and foreign languages for all children.

It’s time to think about what’s good for children, what will really improve education, and what will truly encourage creativity and ingenuity.

It’s time to think about reviving the spirits of educators and the joy of teaching and learning.

The election is over. The struggle for the heart and soul of American education continues.

The states unlucky enough to “win” Race to the Top funding are arriving at a startling conclusion: Race to the Top mandates cost more than the money that was awarded to the state and the districts.

Ken Mitchell, a superintendent in Rockland County, New York, did the math.

Mitchell determined that school districts in his county are spending far more than they receive as they try to implement the mandates. When you consider that Governor Cuomo enacted rigid tax caps on every public school district in the state, it means that costs (for Race to the Top) are soaring at the same time that the district cannot raise new sources of revenue. The result: layoffs, program cuts, larger class sizes.

Mitchell writes that in six districts in his county, the cost of RTTT implementation will be $11 million, but the revenues will be only $400,000. This is a deficit of more than $10 million that must be covered by district funds. Where will the money come from?

When you consider that there is no research base to support the initiatives demanded by the Race to the Top, this is, as he puts it, “a grand and costly experiment that has the potential to take public education in the wrong direction…” That is putting it politely.

The word is getting out. Race to the Top has no research base. Race to the Top is a burden on the states that “won” the money.

It will be a burden on the districts that have the misfortune to “win” funding.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles were wise to refuse to sign on to their district’s application.

If they won, the district would soon by laying off teachers to pay for consultants and experimental programs of no value.

Race to the Top makes guinea pigs of the nation’s public schools and their pupils.

I will vote for Obama despite this terrible program.

Jonathan Raymond, superintendent of the Sacramento City school district, has some lessons for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Friedman recently raved about the success of Race to the Top, claiming that it was preparing students for the high-skill jobs of the new economy.

Raymond says this is wrong. Race to the Top is divisive and subjects schools to derision.

It is top-down, heavy-handed and undermines the collaboration needed to make genuine improvement.

States that promise to comply with Duncan’s heavy handed mandates are “winners” while those making progress without Duncan’s script are losers.

He adds:

Meanwhile, school districts that are making real, tangible strides to increase student learning are left behind in this “race.” In Sacramento City Unified, we are turning around seven low-performing schools (called Priority Schools) through research-proven strategies for raising student achievement. Six of the seven schools have shown dramatic increases in student achievement and dramatic improvements in school culture and climate. These strategies include relevant professional development for principals and teachers; collaborative teacher planning time; data analysis and inquiry; and building strong family and community engagement. With federal funding, we could take this pilot program to scale statewide. California districts could build on each other’s successes and the gains of districts across the country. This is exactly what federal dollars should be spent on.
Yet Race to the Top’s scripted approach effectively discounts these reforms because they do not fit into the neat categories created by the prescriptive program. Moreover, forcing school districts to compete for badly needed resources is like offering a starving man food but only if he agrees to whatever strings may be attached. This is certainly the choice that school districts like ours face in California.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles has steadfastly refused to allow its members to be evaluated by the test scores of their students. Unlike the district leadership, UTLA understands that scholars have found that value-added assessment is inaccurate, invalid and unstable. By this method, excellent teachers may be labeled “ineffective,” and poor teachers who teach to the test may be labeled “effective.”

Despite intense pressure by the Los Angeles Unified School District leadership and the federal government, UTLA has insisted that its members should be evaluated by evidence-based methods, not by “value-added assessment” that has not been proven to work anywhere.

UTLA refused to sign off on the district’s request for $40 million in Race to the Top funding, which would have subjected its members to value-added assessment.

UTLA recognizes that accepting $40 million for RTTT would eventually cost the district hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the federal government’s mandates. This has been the experience of other districts, where teachers have been laid off and class sizes have increased solely because of compliance with RTTT requirements.

Because it has remained true to principle, because it insists on evidence-based evaluation, because it insists on honest accounting for the public’s dollars, UTLA is a hero of public education and joins the honor roll.

Valerie Strauss has a good post by Michael Pons about vouchers in Chile. The main effect seems to have widened the divide between rich and poor.

One correction I would offer to Pons. The testing and accountability framework for federal policy (No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top)  is no better than the voucher approach (Romney). In fact, the testing and accountability framework sets the stage for vouchers by the following scenario:

1) set an impossible goal of 100% proficiency or every child must raise his/her scores every year to the extent that the computer predicts

2) grade every school A-F based on test scores

3) convince the public that American education is failing because it can’t meet unreasonable targets

4) privatize the schools that are graded C, D or F

This is actually a process, not a choice of one policy or the other.

Choosing between NCLB/RTTT or vouchers is like choosing whether you prefer to be hung or shot.

The testing regime is part of the privatization plan.

Matt Taibbi really doesn’t like Tom Friedman. He has written several articles taking Friedman apart, both for his writing and his thinking.

What educators have learned about Friedman is that he has no first-hand knowledge about schools and teaching. Whatever he writes seems to be based on conversations with Bill Gates or Arne Duncan. It’s a shame that a journalist who is so out of touch does not take the time to meet with teachers and principals and students, or take a few days in public schools to learn about their challenges and their accomplishments. Until he does, he should not write about what is happening in education–because he is uninformed–and should not offer advice about what ought to be done to improve education–because he is misinformed.

Here is the great journalist Juan Gonzalez interviewing CTU President Karen Lewis and Professor Lois Wiener on Race to the Top. Arne Duncan, and privatization.

Many of us have wondered whether President Obama hears the voices of teachers. Many have wondered whether he understands that educators–not only teachers, but principals and superintendents–despise Race to the Top and see it as a calculated effort to undermine professionalism and advance the privatization agenda. And many have wondered whether the President knows that he may be jeopardizing his re-election by turning off an important part of his base.

I would add to all this wondering that a lot of us will have to swallow hard, forget our passion for education, and vote for Obama. The alternative is too alarming to contemplate.

Mark Naison, who blogs regularly, has written an important column about these issues, which I reprint here:

How to Lose a Close Election

Virtually ever poll now has President Obama and Mitt Romney embroiled in an extremely close race. The President could very well win this election; but he could also lose. And if he does lose, I will have to go back to something I first started saying nearly three years- namely that turning off the nation’s teachers with educational policies which silence their voice, and put them under extreme stress, is not only bad for the nation’s schools, it could cripple the President’s re-election efforts.

Many of you have read some of my blog posts which made this argument, and have seen the “Dump Duncan” petition which I helped to draft which called on the President to remove his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, incorporate the nation’s teachers into Education Policy discussions, and stop requiring schools to ratchet up the number of standardized tests to receive federal funding.

But what you haven’t seen, or known about, is my private efforts to engage people close the president in conversation about teachers disillusionment, efforts which were totally unsuccessful. The President’s inner circle, from what I could gather, refused to bend on support for Race to the Top and Secretary Duncan. They were not only convinced that these policies would end up improving the nation’s schools; they felt that the political gains to be made in terms of support from large funders and influential journalists was far greater than any losses that would occur in terms of teacher enthusiasm, particularly since they knew the largest teachers unions would support the President no matter what policies he chose to implement.

Now, at crunch time, when it’s too late to change course, I can tell you that this judgment was a severe miscalculation. Not only have the President’s policies failed to narrow testing gaps by race and class, they have contributed to teacher morale in the nation to be the lowest it has been since pollsters began measuring this trait. But the political consequences may have been even more serious than the educational ones. Most teachers will probably end up voting for the President, but from what I have seen, in both New York and around the nation, they will not be manning phone banks, canvassing in their neighborhoods, travelling to swing states on the weekends and generally giving time, money and energy to assure the President’s election the way they did in 2008.

Many pundits attribute the Obama victory in 2008 to an incredibly strong “ground game” composed of huge numbers of volunteers, as well as paid staff, working to get out the vote in battleground states. Many of those individuals, including me, my wife, and many of my friends, were teachers, professors and school administrators. During this election, I know of few, if any educators putting in that kind of heroic effort, almost entirely because they are feeling betrayed by the President, indeed, by the entire Democratic Party, on educational issues, even though they support the President’s positions on reproductive freedom, gay rights, taxation and medical care.

There is no way of knowing whether the phenomenon I am describing is will be a “game changer” in this election. But based on what I have seen in 2008 and in this campaign, there is a chance it could be. And if it is, the Obama brain trust has no one to blame but themselves, because they have had ample opportunity to change course, and indeed have been pleased with by many of their supporters to do just that.

Mark Naison
October 22, 2012

Mark D Naison
Professor of African American Studies and History
Fordham University
“If you Want to Save America’s Public Schools: Replace Secretary of Education Arne Duncan With a Lifetime Educator.” http://dumpduncan.org/