Archives for category: Race to the Top

A reader described the start of the new school year. It began on a sad note:

School started for me yesterday.  We had twos of professional development which meant our principal and a few other suits lecturing us about what we needed to do to keep our school from closing.  At one point the principal said, “if you have a problem with what I’m telling you, maybe this isn’t the right school for you”  very nice on the 2nd day of the new school year.
Today our local superintendent came for a minute.  He seems very sad.  He looked defeated.  He came to wish us well and tell us that NY state is now deciding which schools live or die.  NYC is no longer in the loop.  He said he doesn’t agree with the state but the bottom line is that everything hinges on the results of the ELA and Math state exams.  He said it didn’t look promising.
I work in an urban school with a high percentage of challenging children.  Each year as more children go to Charters we get those who nobody wants.   The numbers of elementary students are declining while the numbers of middle school are increasing as Charters cherry pick the best students and leave us the rest.
This is not considered.  ELA and Math scores only will decide our fate.
To have our Superintendent so defeated before one child has set foot into my school this year is troubling.  He said he just wanted to be honest with us.
What a way to start a new school year.

I first met Bill Clinton in Little Rock in 1984.

When he was President, I heard him speak on many occasions.

I never heard anyone speak as eloquently about the challenges in K-12 education.

Tonight, I watched his boffo performance and was once again wowed by his ability to get deeply substantive and at the same time, chatty and personal.

The man truly has a gift of oratory.

He briefly talked about education. He talked about the importance of bringing down the cost of college and student loans.

He didn’t mention K-12.

I listened closely.

He didn’t mention Race to the Top.

Maybe it was an oversight but I doubt it.

How can you talk about cooperation and shared responsibility in the same breath with a “race” to “the top” for our children?

How can you say “we are all in this together” while you are telling children that they have to race to see who is best at taking tests and the poor kids almost always are the losers?

Eli Broad made billions in the home mortgage business and the insurance business (AIG).

He runs a foundation that specializes in education reform, medical research, and art.

One assumes he does not tell the medical researchers what to do or the artists what to create.

If only he had the same modesty about education.

He thinks he knows what works.

School choice. Test-based accountability. Merit pay. Business-style management.

None of his favorite nostrums are supported by research or evidence.

No matter.

Now he plans to expand to generate even more “disruptive,” “entrepreneurial,” “transformational” leaders of your schools.

He boasts about listening to no one and plunging ahead.

It worked for him in the home mortgage business, though he was long gone when millions of people lost their homes.

It worked for him at AIG, but he made his billions before that giant collapsed.

Now Broad trains school leaders in his unaccredited “academy.”

They learn his principles.

His Broadies are leading districts and states.

Some are educators, some are not.

Some are admired, some are despised.

But the question remains, who elected Eli Broad to reform the nation’s schools?

He is like a spoiled rich kid in a candy shop, taking what he wants, knocking over displays, breaking jars, barking orders.

America’s public schools are not his playground. Or should not be.

How can he be held accountable?

And who will pick up the pieces when his latest fancy blows up like AIG?

By all accounts, the election of 2012 will be close.

For educators, the stakes are high.

Mitt Romney supports every kind of privatization, from charters to vouchers to full-time online schools, and he has no problem with for-profit schooling.

His agenda threatens the survival of that most basic of democratic institutions, the public school.

Educators supported President Obama when he ran in 2008. They enthusiastically embraced him as a true change agent, expecting that he would make major alterations to the noxious federal law No Child Left Behind.

But after his election, instead of calling for a major change in NCLB, he launched his Race to the Top, which builds on the flawed strategies of NCLB. Although President Obama has won the endorsement of the NEA and the AFT, many of the nation’s nearly four million teachers are discouraged by his policies. If they sit home or if they are lukewarm, he could lose the election.

We can’t let that happen.

So I am doing my part by writing a short speech that would win educators back. If he uses this speech, he would win the election. He could incorporate the following into his acceptance speech at the Convention in Charlotte or use it on a subsequent occasion:

“I want to address a few words to the nation’s hard-working teachers and principals, to its dedicated leaders and school board members. You hold the future in your hands. Your work will determine whether America is a great society, a just society and a creative society in the future.

“I know you have been disappointed in my approach to education. I know that teacher morale is at a low ebb. I know there is far too much pressure to teach to the test. That degrades the joy of learning.

“I know that most of that pressure comes from mistakes we made when we launched a ‘Race to the Top.’

“I know now we were wrong.

“Judging teachers by the test scores of their students is wrong. I understand now that this method doesn’t work. I apologize to you for letting it happen.

“You know that I have spoken out repeatedly against teaching to the test. I would not want this for my children, and you should not want it for yours or the children in your care. This is mis-education.

“Our country is now spending billons of dollars on testing and test preparation that should be spent in the classrooms of America, bringing back the 300,000 teachers who lost their jobs. reducing class sizes, restoring libraries, and providing services directly to children.

“Our nation must out-innovate the world and it won’t happen by picking a bubble on a standardized test. It will only happen if we encourage critical thinking, free inquiry, and a sense of wonder and imagination in every classroom.

“We want our students to lead the world in their love of learning. We want them to be the best in creativity. We want them to know history and foreign languages, science and mathematics, literature and geography. We want them to rexperience the liberating power of the arts. And we want them to have physical education every single day so that they are healthy and fit.

“One more thing. I realize that we were wrong to require states to allow more privately-managed schools as a condition of getting money from the Race to the Top.

“Through our mistakes, we inadvertently unleashed a movement to privatize our nation’s public schools and to turn them into for-profit centers for equity investors and technology corporations.

“This is unacceptable. Folks on the right have wanted to privatize our schools for half a century. We can’t let that happen.

“When we look around the world, we see that the top-performing nations have great public systems. We do not want to revive a dual school system in our nation’s cities, dividing up our public funds between a weakened public system and aggressive charter chains.

“And so I am directing my Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as of this day to cancel the Race to the Top. The fact is that learning is not accomplished in a “race.” Races are fine on the sports field, but not in the classroom. Learning is accomplished because of the patient effort of students, teachers, principals, parents, and communities working together.

“From this moment on, the U.S. Department of Education will dedicate its efforts to improving public education; to supporting equality of educational opportunity; to enforcing the civil rights of our students; to funding the districts where need is greatest; to strengthening the research and information that we need to upgrade our schools; and to recognizing that the primary responsibility for reform lies with the states and districts that are closest to the problems.

“Yes, we must improve public education. But we must do it in ways that make our communities and our democracy stronger. We must do it in ways that respect the dedication of our educators. And we must do it in ways that recognize that many children and families need extra help because of the burdens of poverty. We must do what we can to lift those burdens and to bring about the greatest of American goals: equality of educational opportunity.

In response to a post defining a failing school, Paul Thomas tweeted a definition of current school reform, as exemplified by the ruinous policies of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. It is called “ouroboros.”  See here for further explanation.

After a decade of No Child Left Behind and three years of Race to the Top, officials are getting much better at identifying “failing schools.”

Now we know.

A failing school is one with low test scores and low graduation rates.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (i.e., poverty).

A failing school enrolls large numbers of African American and Hispanic students.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are English language learners and new immigrants.

A failing school has disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities.

Based on current federal policy, these are the ways to “turnaround” these failing schools.

Fire the principal; fire half or all of the teachers; turn the school into a charter school under private management; close the school.

What, specifically, is done to address the educational needs of the students? See previous sentence.

Bruce Baker has another brilliant analysis, this time gauging the validity of school ratings just released by the state of New York. A thumbnail sketch: New York is stiffing its neediest schools and districts.

Here are the takeaways:

1. The waiver process is illegal. It is not the prerogative of any federal official–not even a cabinet member–to decide to disregard a federal law and to substitute his own policies for the ones in the law. If the law stinks, as NCLB does, revise it. That’s the way our legal system works. Once the precedent is set, any future cabinet member may decide to change the laws to suit his or her fancy. That’s wrong.

2. New York state released a list of schools in relation to their “performance.”  Surprise, surprise! Here is what Baker discovered:

Notably, schools in “good standing” are lowest BY FAR in % of children qualified for free lunch, percent of children who are black, or Hispanic, and are also generally lower in percent of children who are limited in their English Language Proficiency. Race and poverty differences are particularly striking!

In short, the Obama/Duncan administration has given NY State officials license to experiment disproportionately on low income and minority children – or for that matter – simply close their schools. No attempt to actually legitimately parse “blame” or consider the possibility that the state itself might share in that blame.

AFTER ALL, NEW YORK STATE CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN ONE OF THE MOST REGRESSIVE STATE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY! 

The third takeaway is that the state violates its own funding formula and underfunds all schools, but especially the schools that enroll the neediest students.

…the current New York State school foundation aid formula is hardly equitable or adequate for meeting the needs of children attending the state’s highest need districts. But to rub salt in the wound – FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE HAVE CHOSEN TO DISREGARD ENTIRELY THEIR OWN WOEFULLY INADEQUATE STATE AID FORMULA.

Even worse, when the Governor and Legislature have levied CUTS TO THAT FORMULA, they have levied those cuts such that they disproportionately cut more state aid per pupil from the higher need districts. As of 2011-12, some high need districts including the city of Albany had shortfalls in state funding (from what would be expected if the foundation formula was actually funded) that were greater than the total foundation aid they were actually receiving.

That’s the title of an excellent new article by Kristina Rizga in Mother Jones.

Rizga spent a year embedded at Mission High School in San Francisco and got to know some of the students and teachers well.

According to the federal government, Mission High School is a “failing” school.

Rizga got there expecting to see “noisy classrooms, hallway fights, and disgruntled staff. Instead I found a welcoming place that many students and staff called “family.” After a few weeks of talking to students, I failed to find a single one who didn’t like the school, and most of the parents I met were happy too. Mission’s student and parent satisfaction surveys rank among the highest in San Francisco.

She found a “failing” school where the majority of the 925 students are Latino or African-American or Asian-American, a school where 72% of the students are poor. She also discovered that 84% of the graduating class went on to college, higher than the district average.

But it is a failing school!

Of course, the feds would love to close the school and do a “turnaround.” But the principal, relatively new to his job, the teachers, and the students don’t want to lose their job.

If you need convincing that NCLB is a disaster for our schools, and that the “turnaround” demands of Race to the Top are equally harmful, you will enjoy this article.

It is the wisest in-depth journalism that I have seen on education issues in recent memory.

This just in.

The Florida Education Association and two named teacher-plaintiffs sued to block VAM because the process is confusing and the state has provided inadequate guidance.

A judge agreed with the plaintiffs. The state education department will either appeal or have to redo the rules and clarify the way VAM is supposed to work.

This teacher-evaluation stuff is complex, poorly thought out, and endlessly divisive.

It is being foisted on states across the nation–thank you, Race to the Top–without any clear evidence that it works.

No one knows whether VAM identifies the worst teachers or those unlucky enough to get difficult students or those who are good at teaching to the test.

District after district will be thrown into unnecessary turmoil.

A few teachers will be thrown out, and they may not be the “bad” teachers.

And the cult of data worship will grow stronger.

 
 

Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News writes today that President Obama has been terrific on education reform issues: he has challenged teachers’ unions, pushed for merit pay, encouraged the expansion of charter schools, and used billions of dollars in stimulus funds (via Race to the Top) to promote an agenda that either President Bush would envy. In its editorials, the Daily News has stridently defended charters, testing, and accountability, and has led the charge against the teachers’ union. The billionaire owner of the Daily News, Mort Zuckerman, is on the board of the Broad Foundation, which avidly promotes school closings and privatization.

So imagine Josh’s disappointment that the President is now kowtowing to those teachers unions and saying that more money will solve the problems. He writes, “So count me disappointed that Obama is campaigning for reelection with education rhetoric that is ripped right out of a dusty old Democratic Party playbook.” Wow. A Democratic President actually sounding like a Democrat on education.

Josh wonders why the President doesn’t stick up for his strong testing-and-accountabiilty and school choice agenda. Why doesn’t he boldly admit that his program is not all that different from Romney’s? (There are two big issues where they differ: Romney supports vouchers, Obama doesn’t; Obama wants to help students with their crushing student loans, Romney doesn’t.) UPDATE: (One other major difference: Romney thinks anyone should be allowed to teach, without any certification or standards, and you can bet that he will continue the Republican assault on teachers’ unions.)

Josh implies that the President is reaching out to teachers and their unions and supporters of public education because–guess what?–it is an election year. With a few more eloquent speeches, maybe he can persuade them that his agenda has some resemblance to the traditional Democratic view that schools should have adequate resources, that teachers have a right to bargain collectively, that the federal government has a responsibility to promote equity (not competition), and that school choice is the rightwing plan to privatize the public schools.

Well, it is good to hear the rhetoric. That’s a change. We can always hope that he means it. But that, of course, would mean ditching Race to the Top and all that absurd rightwing rhetoric about how schools can fix poverty, all by themselves.