Archives for category: Race to the Top

The Washington Post has a good article about the aggressive way that the Obama administration has imposed its education agenda in the past three+ years.

The article notes, almost in passing, that there is no evidence for the success of any part of this agenda. No one will know for many years whether the Obama program of testing, accountability, and choice will improve education.

When reading the article, it is easy to forget that the U.S. Department of Education was not created to impose any “reforms” on the nation’s schools. It was created to send federal aid to hard-pressed districts that enrolled many poor children.

When the Department was created in 1980, there were vigorous debates about whether there might one day be federal control of the schools. The proponents of the idea argued that this would never happen. It has not happened until now because Democrats and Republicans agreed that they didn’t want the other party to control the nation’s schools.

But now that the Obama administration has embraced the traditional Republican ideas of competition, choice, testing and accountability, there is no more arguing about federal control. Republicans are quite willing to allow a Democratic administration to push the states to allow more privately managed schools, to impose additional testing, and to crush teachers’ unions.

Republicans would never have gotten away with this agenda at any time in the past three decades. The Democrats who controlled Congress would never have allowed it to happen.

Who would have imagined that it would take a Democratic President to promote privatization, for-profit schools, evaluating teachers by student test scores, and a host of other ideas (like rolling back the hard-won rights of teachers) that used to be only on the GOP wish-list?

The conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute has published a paper commending President Obama for standing up to teachers’ unions.

The paper compares President Obama’s support for school choice and evaluation of teachers by test scores as a “Nixon-to-China” paradigm shift.

In other words, the paper suggests, Obama’s education policy has done a full pivot, aligning it with the traditional GOP agenda.

Can anyone explain this?

You have heard the news by now that the strike is over. I was lecturing in Chattanooga and meeting with leaders of the community from 2 pm until now. My brother tweeted to ask why I was behind the curve. Oops, offline.

Pundits and commentators will be poring over the Deep Meaning of all this for weeks and months to come. There will be countless articles about Lessons Learned.

Personally, I think we have a good idea already about why the teachers went on strike. No, it wasn’t greed or money. The compensation piece was more or less settled before the strike. Pundits and talk-show hosts who take home hundreds of thousands a year will express outrage that teachers–teachers!–might make $80,000. I ask you, who adds more social value–a first grade teacher in Chicago or a talk show host on national radio or TV?

Why did they strike? After 17 years of reform and disrespect, they were fed up with the bullying. They were tired of the non-educators and politicians telling them how to teach and imposing their remedies. Reform after reform, and children in Chicago still don’t have the rich curriculum, the facilities, and the social services they need.

They were sick of the incessant school closings. They were sick of seeing charter schools open that get wildly uneven results yet are praised to the skies by Arne Duncan and now Rahm Emanuel. They knew that the charter schools are non-union and that the Mayor will use them to break the union.

In the end, the union pitted itself against Rahm Emanuel, Arne Duncan, Chicago’s business and civic leadership, and the Race to the Top. It took on the most powerful forces in the city, and yes, even President Obama, who remained neutral.

And by taking a stand, by uniting to resist the power elite, these teachers discovered they were strong. They had been downtrodden and disrespected, but no longer. They put on their red T-shirts and commanded the attention of the nation and the admiration of millions of teachers. Powerless no more, they showed that unity made them strong. 98% voted to authorize the strike, and 98% voted to end it.

The union was fortunate in having Karen Lewis as its president. She was one of them. She had taught chemistry in the Chicago public schools for more than 20 years. She is one of the few–perhaps the only–union leader in the nation who is Nationally Board Certified, a mark of her excellence as a teacher.

Not only is she a teacher through and through, she is a graduate of Dartmouth. She is neither impressed nor intimidated by the elites who flaunt their Ivy League credentials. Hers are as good as theirs. Maybe better. She is a woman of valor.

Karen Lewis gave courage to her members, and they gave courage to her.

The strike is one of the few weapons available to the powerless. Without the union, the teachers would have been ignored, and the politicians would be free to keep on reforming them again and again and again.

The strike transformed the teachers from powerless to powerful.

The teachers said, “Enough is enough. With us, not to us.”

Regardless of the terms of the contract, the teachers won.

Thank you, CTU.

This reader sees ominous signs as his school complies with the demands of Race to the Top:

Race to the Top is diverting teacher know-how, skill, talent, passion, etc to numbers crunching and reporting. taking valuable time away from figuring out how to teach well. We are heading rapidly to where the only people who will be able to get a deep enough education to be capable of being in charge of anything in the world will be those who can go to private schools.

Race to the Top is a misnomer – it is Crawl off the Bottom because it does not allocate any”measurable” value to AP classes, college credit offerings. art or music. Our numbers are measured by scores on academic tests. To comply with Race to the Top, we have to give our students a “pre-test” at the beginning of our classes this September, a test designed for students to fail because it is similar to what they will take as final exams at the end of the year. the point being to show improvement, but it means students all over NYS are starting off their year by massively taking tests they will fail miserably on, per requirement of NyS’ compliance with RTT.Every teacher I know learned in their earliest classes & experiences, that testing to show failures is VERY bad pedagogy.

And to keep things in perspective, 60% of the federal budget goes to war & defense, compared to 2% to education. The rest of the cost of public schooling is carried by state & local governments. is that the kind of support that will allow this generation to run the country any better? I don’t think so.

John Thompson has a good article at Huffington Post asking why President Obama did a “Nixon-to-China” maneuver with education.

That phrase “Nixon-to-China” comes up again and again, and Thompson makes a telling point: It describes a political decision, not an education policy. The President’s education policy is indeed very little different from that of the GOP. As Thompson puts it, “It is a political gamble designed to beat up on two of the Democrats’ most loyal constituencies, teachers and families with children in urban schools, to show the “Billionaires Boys Club” that the administration could be tough on its friends.”

Is this a wise political strategy? “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s “reforms” opened the door to Scott Walker’s and John Kasich’s attacks on collective bargaining. Worse, Duncan and President Obama mostly stayed silent as workers fought back in Wisconsin and Ohio. Had the administration joined with workers, perhaps the Wisconsin recall election would have been won. Regardless, if the administration remains silent in Chicago, fed-up teachers could stay home in droves. That would be a case of chopping our noses to spite our faces, but it would be understandable if teachers allowed our outrage to rule.”

Hopefully, the President has told the Mayor to settle, and to do so without humiliating the teachers.

But the question will remain: Why is the Obama administration wedded to the carrot-and-stick policies of the GOP? Why is it so devoted to handing public schools over to private management despite the lack of evidence that private managers in non-union schools are more successful than public ones?

This is my analysis of the strike, posted on the website of the New York Review of Books.

Norm Scott, a retired teacher who is a blogger and film producer (“The Inconvenient Truth Behind ‘Waiting for Superman'”), wrote a provocative explanation of the Chicago strike and its political implications.

He says that President Obama can’t support the Chicago teachers because they are striking against his Race to the Top policies. And he can’t oppose the teachers because he needs the votes of teachers in the election. So he supports the kids.

Count on Stephanie Simon of Reuters to get the story that eluded every other reporter.

She is the one that got the inside story on Louisiana, TFA, and for-profit investors.

Now she has the scoop on Chicago.

The strike in Chicago is not about money.

It is a national story.

It’s about the survival of public education.

Read her story.

http://withabrooklynaccent.blogspot.com/2012/09/press-statement-on-chicago-teachers.html


Press Statement on Chicago Teachers Strike
Dr Mark Naison, Fordham University

The Chicago Teachers strike is an incredibly important development because it is a the first time a union local has threatened to strike against education policies pushed by the Obama Administration through its Race to the Top initiative, policies, in my judgment, that have had incredibly destructive consequences for Urban school systems and distressed urban communities

The policies pushed by Rahm Emmanuel, which are being simultaneously implemented in New York and many other cities, involve evaluating teachers and schools on the basis of student test scores, closing schools whose test scores fail to meet a certain standard and firing half their staffs, replacing public schools with charter schools, some run as non profits and some run for profit, and trying to weaken teacher tenure and introduce merit pay

The first three components have been already introduced in Chicago and the mayor wants to intensify them and legnthen the school day. The union is saying enough is enough.

I support the union in taking this stand for the following reasos

1. Closing schools, many of which have been a bulwark of neighborhoods for generations, has been a complete disaster. It has destroyed one point of stability in the lives of young people who have precious little. It removes teachers who have been a part of students lives. It is not an accident that Chicago has seen a serious uptick of violence since Emmanuel became mayor. Young people in distressed neighborhoods need to see community institutions strengthened and teacher mentors protected. School closings and staff turnover take away needed anchors

2. Rating teachers and schools on the basis of student test scores, and threatening to close schools and fire teachers if the proper results aren’t achieved have not only ratcheted up stress levels in schools, they have led to the elimination of art music, sports, school trips and even recess for test prep. The result is that more and more teachers hate teaching and more and more young people hate school, increasing the drop out rate in neighborhoods which desperately need schools to become community centers where young people want to go. The union wants to make schools welcoming places where students want to come by reducing class size, and bringing back sports and the arts, and strengtheining struggling schools rather than closing them. That makes a lot of sense to me

3. Favoring charter schools over public schools has resulted in the systematic creaming off of high performing students by the charters and the warehousing of ELL and special needs students, along with students who have behavior issues, in the remaining public schools. The result is that overall academic performance in the district has not improved

4. Removing teacher tenure and job protections has resulted in the most talented teachers leaving the city system or trying to move from low performing schools to high performing ones where they are less likely to be fired. The result is an accentuation of racial and economic gaps in performance

Basically, what the union wants is to strengthen neighborhood schools an invest in making them places where students are nurtured and want to come, rather than stress filled test factories which the Emmanuel plan and Race to the Top guarantees

The union, in this instance is far better advocate for the children
of Chicago than the mayor

I am available for interviews on my cell all weekend (917) 836-3014

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/

At the Democratic National Convention, Arne Duncan renounced many of his own policies.

He came out in opposition to teaching to the test, although his own Race to the Top demands it (he never mentioned Race to the Top.)

He denounced the millionaires and billionaires who are supporting the charter school movement and privatization of public education (he didn’t mention that either).

He didn’t mention that he wants education colleges to be graded by the test scores of the students of their graduates.

He didn’t mention merit pay, into which his Department of Education has pumped nearly $ billion.

He didn’t mention the proliferation of for-profit schools.

He didn’t mention that he campaigned with Newt Gingrich to rally support for Race to the Top.

He didn’t mention that he called Bobby Jindal’s choice for state commissioner a “visionary leader,” who now promotes vouchers and the disestablishment of public education.

We should be grateful, I suppose, for what he did not mention.