Archives for category: Students

While I was traveling in the Midwest, visiting states like Ohio and Michigan where public education is under attack, I read Paul Tough’s new book How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I read it the way I like to read when a book is important, with frequent underlining and occasional stars and asterisks.

I found much to like in it. For one thing, Tough directly refutes the privatizers’ claim that poverty doesn’t matter. The book makes clear through the personal stories of young people he interviews that poverty has a devastating impact on their lives. Some can pick themselves up and move on, but others are destroyed by the events in their lives over which they have no control. His book is a rebuke to people like Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and Arne Duncan who repeatedly claim that poverty is an excuse for bad teachers. When you meet these young people whose lives are so hard, it is impossible to blame their situation on their teachers or their schools.

I was also impressed that Tough has evolved since he wrote the adulatory book (Whatever It Takes) about Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children’s Zone. There is certainly much to praise about what Canada has accomplished and about the comprehensive services that the Zone offers to many children and families. What struck me as odd when I was reading the book was Tough’s dispassionate account of Canada’s cold-hearted decision to dismiss the entire entering class of his first charter school. Canada tried everything to get their scores up, and nothing worked. So, at the insistence of the rich benefactors on his board, he called the kids in and tossed the entire grade out. When the kids got the boot, decisions had already been made by high schools in New York City’s Byzantine choice process, and the kids had to scramble to find a school that would take them. (When I asked Canada about this incident on television before the Education Nation audience in 2011, he denied it and claimed he had closed the entire school, which was untrue.)

The present book is roughly organized in this way. First, Tough reviews the complex scientific research that shows how young children are affected by stress and trauma. Then he writes about how the leaders of KIPP and the Riverdale Country Day School inaugurated programs to teach character. Then he describes the remarkable success of the chess team at I.S. 318 in Brooklyn. And last, he discusses programs in Chicago that are helping young people survive and make it to college.

I liked the first section best, the one that summarizes and explains the research on how stress and trauma affect the minds, spirit, and cognitive development of young people. He writes: “…children who grow up in stressful environments generally find it harder to concentrate, harder to sit still, harder to rebound from disappointments, and harder to follow directions. And that has a direct effect on their performance in school. When you’re overwhelmed by uncontrollable impulses and distracted by negative feelings, it’s hard to learn the alphabet.” What he reports about the physiological effects of anxiety and depression is important. The reformers who claim that poverty is unimportant should be required to read what Tough writes about how poverty hurts children and undermines their ability to learn. Under present circumstances, with so many families and children mired at the bottom on society’s lowest rung, with no hope of ever ascending, poverty is destiny. Anyone who dares to claim that poverty doesn’t matter should have their mouth washed out with soap and be sentenced to live in poverty for at least a month before they return to their lives of pate and cabernet sauvignon. Those who claim that charter schools and teacher evaluations by test scores can cure poverty should be sentenced to live in poverty for six months.

Some teachers have told me that they hated Tough’s book. Katie Osgood really didn’t like it. One teacher wrote to say she returned it and got her money back. I wanted to try to understand why.When I got to the section on KIPP and Riverdale, I understood why so many teachers complain. David Levin, one of the founders of KIPP, is situated in relation to his privileged upbringing. Now he pairs with the headmaster of one of the city’s most expensive, most coveted private schools to try to develop a character program.

Frankly, public school teachers are sick of reading about the miracle of KIPP. They know that KIPP has much more money than their own school. They know that Arne Duncan gave KIPP $50 million; they know that KIPP is the darling of countless Wall Street hedge fund managers who shower money on it. The teachers know that KIPP doesn’t take all the children who are in the local public schools—the ones in wheelchairs, the ones on ventilators, the ones who are behavior problems, the ones who don’t speak English, the ones just released from incarceration. They also know that most KIPP franchises are non-union, and that their teachers work 50-60-70 hours weekly and burn out. And they hate, absolutely hate, having KIPP held up on a pedestal before them.

I understand all that.

And yet I still think it is very valuable that Tough, who is admired by the privatizing reformers, makes two big points: First, that poverty matters; and second, that non-cognitive qualities may be just as important, and perhaps even more important, than IQ and test scores. The people now leading the reform-privatization movement deny both. They need to read Tough’s book.

Teachers already know that poverty affects the academic performance of their students. And they already know that character, habits and behavior matter more than test scores. Shucks, when I was a child in Houston, our public school report card had two sections: One was a list of grades in every subject; the other was pluses and minuses for conduct and behavior and other proxies for character.

In his final chapter, Tough recognizes that schools like KIPP are for the motivated, not for the downtrodden kids who have almost given up hope. Earlier in the book, he points out that Fenger High School in Chicago has been reformed again and again and subjected to every “reform” strategy, without any success. He also understands that the current obsession with evaluating teachers by test scores is not based on evidence and is likely (I would say certain) to fail.

Paul Tough understands that the “reform” ideas don’t work. They skim the motivated, the ones with “grit,” but far more children will be left behind.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Tough is smart. He knows what is going on. He knows the “reform” ideas don’t work. His book is a major indictment of current national policies. He understands that none of the school reform orthodoxies of the moment will make a difference. He recognizes that government must set an agenda that tackles the terrible conditions in which so many families and children live. Schools alone can’t do it, even with character education programs. And for those reasons, I applaud his new book.

Arthur Goldstein teaches English in a high school in Queens, New York City. If you want to know what teachers in New York City are saying, you have to read his blog. It’s funny, sad, outrageous, and honest. Here’s Arthur:

I found your piece about student ratings very interesting.

I taught almost 20 years at the English Language Institute at Queens College. Student ratings were very important—word of mouth kept enrollment very robust. I‘d come to this position from the POV of a high school teacher. As such, I insisted on homework and participation. I also gave people a pretty hard time if they didn’t do the work. For a number of years I scored 80% favorable with the students, but one year I got a bad rating. It was partially my insistence on assignments done on time, but mostly my fault—I’d selected a text that was too tough.

After that, I chose texts more carefully. I also stopped bothering students about missing homework. My scores jumped to 99% favorable, and could have hit 100 were it not for my awful handwriting. They stayed there until I quit about five years ago. So if student ratings are important, I can do that.

On the other hand, if test scores are what you want, I can teach to the test and be a total pain. When I taught ESL kids how to pass the English Regents, my Chinese-teaching colleague overheard and translated the following exchange:

“I don’t know what to do. I can’t seem to pass the English Regents.”

“That’s too bad. You should take Goldstein’s class.”

“Why? Is it good?”

“No, it’s terrible. You will hate every minute of it. But you will pass the Regents.”

I was lucky enough not to be rated by the students in that class. But they wouldn’t have been able to graduate without passing that test, so I did what I could for them. Many kids, who really did not know English, managed to pass the test anyway.

Now, I teach near-beginners the English they really need. I hassle them if they don’t participate or do the work. I call their parents, or have people who speak their languages do so. I think the kids would give me a good rating, but not 99%. However, if you put a gun to my head and demand I teach to a test that doesn’t really suit them, I’ll take another approach, and there goes my rating.

If Gates and his band of know-nothings have their way, we’ll be judged both on test scores and student ratings. I can cater to one or the other if I have to. I’ve done it.

That’s why I know a better system would be to trust me to do my job and teach my kids what they need to know. Unlike the folks at Pearson who sit in offices writing tests, I see these kids every day. I can adjust the course to their needs, and adjust the tests to their needs too.

It’s not like I run around telling “reformers” how to run their hedge funds. I don’t even know what a hedge fund is. And after ten years of “reform,” it’s clear to me that billionaires making rules about my business haven’t got the slightest notion what makes that work, let alone how to put “Children First, Ever.”

Listen to the students.

On this link there is a terrific video by two Georgia students who explain why voters should turn down a constitutional amendment on charter schools.

Georgia has over 130 charter schools.

The charter schools do not outperform the public schools.

Some local school boards have turned down new charters.

So the Governor has put an amendment to the Constitution on the ballot allowing him to create a commission to override local control. This idea comes from the corporate-controlled reactionary organization ALEC.

The state superintendent John Barge, WHO WAS ELECTED, NOT appointed by Governor Deal AS I ORIGINALLY WROTE, opposes the amendment.

So do PTAs and the NAACP and local school boards.

The amendment would set up a costly new bureaucracy.

It will cost $430 million.

It would undermine local control.

It would take money away from public schools.

It would give more money to charter schools than public schools receive.

Michael Vandveckhoven is a proud parent of a student in the public schools of Meridian, Mississippi.

This is a video that shows his son’s school. The school is half white, half black, about 40% low-income.

For someone like me, who grew up in the age of legal segregation, this is a heartwarming sight.

This is American public education at its finest. It’s not about test scores, it is about building a better society for our future.

Michael is a businessman. He is strongly opposed to charters because he worries that they will restore segregation and ruin his son’s good public school.

Carol Burris, who was recently named to the honor roll as a hero of public education, wrote a letter to President Obama. Carol understands how excessive testing is harming students and demoralizing teachers. She warns the President how this policy–at the heart of Race to the Top–will do increasing damage as it is institutionalized.

Dear Mr. President:

First, thank you for all you do.

I am writing because as the principal of South Side High School, an integrated high school in New York, I am deeply concerned about the inclusion of test scores to rate teachers that is a mandated part of Race to the Top and in the waivers. Because of this mandate, my state New York, has implemented an evaluation plan which is not respected by the majority of principals and teachers, and excessive testing against which parents are rebelling

Our high school’s philosophy has been “kids, it’s you and your teacher against the test.” If students fail an exam, we prepare them to try again. The goal is for students to take the most challenging courses they can, even if their scores are not the best. Our results have been great, with the school selected consistently as one of the top 100 high schools in the United States by Newsweek, and last year by US News and World Report.

But this student-centered, healthy approach to testing is changing now that we are forced to use student scores to evaluate teachers. In classrooms all over New York State, it is no longer “teacher and student against the test” but rather “teacher and test against the student.” How students do on the test will play a key role in deciding whether or not teachers and principals keep their jobs. Not only that, because parents are allowed by law to see the teacher’s score, it will shortly result in the public embarrassment of some teachers, based on measures of dubious value.

This approach is trumpeted as judging educators by their performance, which may resonate with some people who are not immersed in the daily labor of reaching a wide variety of students in a wide variety of ways. Although the New York model technically allows educators to earn up to 60 points for measures other than student achievement, the system is rigged so that it is nearly impossible to be rated effective or even “developing” if the test-score components are low. In short, test scores trump all.

The biggest losers of these new evaluation policies, in my school and beyond, will be students. A teacher will look at each student as potential “value added” or “value decreased” – that is as a potential increase or decrease on the score the teacher is ultimately assigned. With his or her job dependent on those students’ test scores, this teacher will now have a set of incentives and disincentives very different than in the past.

For teachers with young families and college debt to pay, the student who comes late to class, or who does not do his homework will become a threat to her job security. The troubled child who transfers in will be nervously welcomed. The student with disruptive behavior will be a threat to the scores of the rest of the class instead of a person to be understood and whose needs should be met. The score, not the well-educated child, will become the focus. The pressures will build to engage in exclusionary and non-educative practices designed to improve numbers at the cost of learning. Instead of pushing students to take physics and advanced algebra, schools will discourage weaker students so that the aggregate score for the teacher and principal does not go down.

This isn’t an argument against holding teachers accountable; it’s an argument against holding them accountable for the wrong things and in a way that will result in very negative unintended consequences. I wouldn’t want to teach in that environment, and I wouldn’t want my children or the students at my school to try to learn in that environment; but the incentives for teachers to teach to the test and teach to the best will be unavoidable.

And to what end, Mr. President? For over a decade we have engaged in increased testing with punitive consequences under No Child Left Behind. There is no evidence that the massive outlay in tax dollars and learning time has produced increased learning. SAT scores have not gone up. NAEP scores have remained flat. Remediation rates at community colleges have not gone down. Our students have not improved on international assessments. Rather than acknowledging that testing is not the lever for increased learning, the plan is now to increase the pressure. There will be consequences, but better learning outcomes will not be one of them.

There will also likely be endless lawsuits brought by principals and teachers questioning the fairness and legality of the use of test scores and these unproven evaluation systems for termination of employment. Yes, the New York State Board of Regents and others will certainly attempt to include all important factors that impact learning in their test-score-based “growth models.” But these models have serious weaknesses. The recent score that was issued was characterized as a “first attempt” at being fair by the research firm that generated them. Not a “good attempt”, not even our “best attempt”, but a first attempt. Nevertheless, the scores were disseminated by the New York State Education Department and teachers were labeled “ineffective”.

Models are intended to be simplified versions of reality, but they can be manipulated – and they will invariably leave out important unmeasured (and immeasurable) elements. Some factors beyond a teacher’s control depress students’ test scores (think here of behavioral issues, traumatic life experiences, drug involvement, or lack of home supervision). Other factors beyond a teacher’s control increase students’ test scores (think here of summer enrichment activities, private tutors, and simple parental help with schoolwork and other learning). These are nonrandom student characteristics, and the growth model’s assignment of students to teachers can be complex and problematic. Similarly, the practical decisions about these assignments are troubling. Should I continue to assign my best teachers the most challenging students, knowing that those students might pull down those teacher’s scores?
.
If teachers have a choice between working in a district with high wealth and college-educated parents or a struggling district with high numbers of students of poverty, and they know that their employment is dependent upon test scores, which should they choose? Which are most of them likely to choose? While growth models do minimize the effects of poverty on outcomes, those effects remain substantial. Accordingly, one of the many unintended consequences of the new evaluation system will be even less incentive for good teachers and principals to work with the students that need them the most.

I had hoped that your administration’s educational leader, Mr. Duncan, and you might rethink this policy. But it appears that you are going “full steam ahead”. That makes me feel sad. Last election, my husband and I gave you considerable support. This year, we are unsure who we will vote for or if we will vote for president at all.

I hope that you will rethink this misguided policy and recommend an evaluation system not based on test scores but on the encouragement of approaches to teaching that are associated with increased learning. We need policies that work to reduce racial isolation in schools and in classrooms and that encourage schools to include all students in excellent curriculum, regardless of test scores.

Great leaders have the courage to change course when they realize that their policies are misguided.

I thank you for reading. I cannot tell you how discouraged teachers and principals are across this nation. I am a 59 year old grandmother who will retire in 3 years. This policy will not negatively impact me personally. However, for the sake of our public schools and our public school children, especially our students of color and poverty, I ask that you rethink the Race to the Top requirements before horrible damage is done.

Sincerely,

Carol Burris, Ed. D.
cburris@rvcschools.org

Parent groups in New York are trying to block the release of student data to an entity that includes Wireless Generation, a technology company owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, in collaboration with the Gates Foundation.

“On Sunday, October 14, at a press conference held at the midtown law offices of Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP, attorney Norman Siegel and New York parents released a letter sent Friday to Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the New York State Board of Regents, demanding that the agreement between the NY State Education Department and the “Shared Learning Collaborative” be released, setting out the conditions and restrictions on the use of confidential student and teacher data to be provided to this limited corporation. The letter asked that parents be informed exactly what information concerning their children will be shared with this corporation, why the transfer of this data does not violate federal privacy protections, and demanding that the parents have the right to withhold their children’s information from being shared. The letter is posted at http://bit.ly/W6H2qV”

Read the background information here about Wireless Generation, Gates, etc. very important!

Nikhil Goyal is a very articulate high school senior who just published a book about what is needed in American education.

He wrote a letter to the editor of the NY Times, and his letter was so impressive that it became the focus for one of the Times’ Sunday dialogues.

That means that the Times invited readers to respond to his letter with their own.

This led to quite an interesting exchange.

The only addition I would make to the discussion is that the test results are used to bash teachers, knock public education, mislead the public about the condition of American education, and lay the groundwork for privatization.

As terrible as the overuse and misuse of testing is in relation to creativity, it is even more terrible in the way test scores are now being used to inflict damage on a basic democratic institution.

Two months into the school year, the head of the Recovery School District abruptly fired the principal of Walter L. Cohen High School as well as several teachers and announced that he was turning the school over to a charter operator called the Future Is Now.

Students reacted angrily and protested the disruption in their school. They issued their own demands, which included the funds to repair the building, reinstatement of the fired staff and a full report from the charter about its record, its test scores, suspensions, police reports, graduation rates, attrition rate and other data about its performance.

The Future Is Now is a charter chain led by Steve Barr (formerly of Green Dot in California) and real estate developer Gideon Stein of New York City, who has been associated with Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy schools.

The following exchange of letters between Tracie Washington, a prominent civil rights attorney in New Orleans, and Gideon Stein, shows the heat of the controversy. In New Orleans, the wishes of parents, students, and communities count for nothing. All decisions are made elsewhere.

From: “Tracie Washington”
Date: Oct 9, 2012 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: Walter L. Cohen High School
To: “Gideon Stein”
Cc: “Vaughn R Fauria” , , , , , , , , “Mary Joseph” , “Judith Browne-Dianis” , “Tracie Washington”

Gideon:

The problem is the presumptions made that started this web of deception and mess. That web continues, even today with Recovery School District (RSD) and FINS-Nola backdating a contract (it’s a public record folks; that’s a big ‘no,no’). Apologizing to me means little. You and your Board and the RSD did something that really is unforgiveable. You entered a community and said “I know what’s better for you and your children. I will not consult with you, but instead take over your community.” I’m saddened not because you did this. You are not a member of my community. But Black folk in this community did it to other Black folk. And yesterday, when these students were exercising civil disobedience the likes of which I had not seen from our young folk, RSD threatened them with the declaration of truancy, which is criminalization in our community.

On Sunday, the students told our community they felt like slaves. SLAVES. It’s 2012. FINS-Nola and RSD made a group of Black children feel like slaves. We have Congo Square. I guess we should have simply sent the kids there on Friday.

I don’t know how you resolve the lies told to take away the rights of these parents and students. You all have been paid. So it’s all better because now you say you’re sorry? Really.

You get to fly out of here. So it’s up to Black women to clean up this mess? My grandmother worked for $3/day and carfare so that I would not have to clean up behind white folk. Not today. This is your mess Gideon. Stick around!

I’m just sick!

Tracie L. Washington, Esq.
President & CEO
Louisiana Justice Institute
Every day without fail — Make Justice Happen
1631 Elysian Fields Avenue | New Orleans, Louisiana 70117
p 504.872.9134 | f 504.872.9878 | c 504.390.4642
Admitted to Practice in Texas and Louisiana
tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org | tlwesq@cox.net
http://www.LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org
Visit our blog and comment: http://www.JusticeRoars.org
Learn about LJI’s Project Transparency: http://www.NolaPublicRecords.org

From: Gideon Stein [mailto:gstein@finschools.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:42 PM
To: Tracie Washington
Cc: Vaughn R Fauria
Subject: Re: Walter L. Cohen High School

Tracie,

I’m replying to you and Vaughn and bcc’ing the rest of the FINNOLA board and other people cc’d on your email. First, let me state that FINNOLA is very sorry for any disruption and hurt caused to the Cohen community. As with John McDonogh, FINNOLA recognizes the important history of New Orleans schools and the unique identity that students, alumni, parents and the community all share with respect to their schools. FINNOLA is committed to working with all stake holders at Cohen to hear concerns and ensure that community interests are considered along with our commitment to providing the best possible education for children.
I spent time at Walter L. Cohen today and can report that the protests are over, the kids are back in class and we are working with the RSD and NOCP to address many of the issues raised by the Cohen students.

Sincerely,

Gideon


Gideon Stein
President
Future Is Now Schools
646.373.3888

Nikhil Goyal was invited to participate in Education Nation.

He is a high school senior in New York who recently published a book (!) about education reform.

But read what he writes about how Education Nation treated students.

Larry Ferlazzo reports on an interesting exchange about student ratings of teachers. Amanda Ripley, who is a cheerleader for corporate reform, loves the idea of trusting students to tell us which teachers are great and which stink.

Felix Salmon points out where she is wrong.

The Gates Foundation loves the idea of student surveys, of course, and several districts are already using them.

I personally have a lot of trouble with the idea of asking students to rate their teachers. It’s bad enough that teachers’ careers now hinge on their students’ test scores, but now they will be asked to win popularity contests. I don’t see this as a way to improve teaching but as a way to compel teachers to pander to students, to assign less homework, to inflate grades, and to seek student approval.

Why are so many people messing up teachers’ ability to teach?