It seems that Jersey Jazzman and I read Joy Resmovits’s article at the same moment and posted in tandem.
Readers might want to know what he thought about the changing of he guard at StudentsFirst.
Archives for category: StudentsFirst
While I was watching the television coverage of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, an ad came on that was very upsetting. Sponsored by StudentsFirst ad, it was a typically deceptive TV ad depicting teachers and parents who demand that teachers be evaluated by test scores. It implies that teachers are slackers and need a swift kick to get to work. If they are evaluated, they claim, this will have a revolutionary effect on the schools.
Showing this anti-teacher ad at this moment in time was utterly tasteless. Just as we are watching stories about teachers and a principal and school psychologist who were gunned down protecting little children, we have to see this tawdry ad. Given the timing, it is political pornography.
The ad is meretricious. It does not mention that the city published the names and ratings of thousands of teachers a year ago, generating anger and controversy, not any wonderful transformation. The ratings a year ago were rife with error, but all that is now forgotten in the new push to get tough with teachers.
Who are those teachers and parents in the ad with no last names? Are they paid actors? If they believe what they say, why no last names? Why no school names?
Does StudentsFirst know that most of New York City’s charter schools have refused to submit to the teacher evaluation system? May we expect to see a TV attack ad demanding that charter schools adopt the same test-based evaluation system that Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg want? Or is it only for public schools?
Andrea Gabor wrote an excellent post providing the context for ad and the stand-off between the New York City United Federation of Teachers and the city (and state). She writes:
“Governor Cuomo has threatened to withhold funding if the city and the union cannot come to an agreement by January. And Mayor Bloomberg has said that he would rather lose the money than compromise on the evaluations.
“The StudentsFirst ad and the mayor’s tough talk highlight one of several problems with the teacher-evaluation debate. While employee evaluations work when they are part of a system-wide effort at continuous improvement, they are often counterproductive when used as a cudgel against employees.
The cheerful-sounding teachers in the StudentsFirst ad not withstanding, everything about the teacher-evaluation debate has been framed in punitive terms.”
Not only has the debate been framed in punitive terms, but as Gabor points out, VAM is rife with technical issues. As I have written repeatedly on this blog, VAM is so inaccurate and unstable that it is junk science. And as Bruce Baker has written again and again, teachers with the neediest students are likely to get worse ratings than those with “easier” students.
No wonder charter schools in New York City refuse to submit their teacher ratings.
The issue now is whether the governor and the mayor, with the help of StudentsFirst, can beat the union into agreeing to a process for evaluating teachers that is demonstrably harmful and demoralizing to its members, that does nothing to improve education, and that is guaranteed to waste many millions of dollars.
Frankly, StudentsFirst should have had the decency to stop their attacks on public school teachers until the public had gotten over the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. At long last, have they no decency?
*UPDATE: Micah Lasher of StudentsFirstNY informed that the organization asked the city’s television stations on Monday morning to pull the ad, in light of the tragedy. I saw it on CNN or MSNBC on Monday night. Someone goofed. I appreciate the clarification.
Well, this is a relief:
This morning, StudentsFirst CEO Michelle Rhee drafted a memo to the organization’s senior staff — it was later sent internally to the entire StudentsFirst staff — regarding the organization’s opposition to any and all proposed laws that would allow guns in schools. That memo is printed below in its entirety.
MEMO
TO: SF Staff
FROM: Michelle
DATE: December 18, 2012
RE: Gun Control Laws
As an education reform organization, we try hard to remain singularly focused on those issues that directly affect student achievement, and to abstain from broader policy debates and political discussions that are outside our mission.
It is for that reason we did not take a position on measures like the one on the governor’s desk in Michigan that would allow guns in schools. There are organizations whose sole mission is to fight gun violence, and which are far better equipped than we to engage on these bills.
However, like many of you, I continue to be disturbed by the violence that took place last week in Newtown, Connecticut. I am disturbed by the dozens of shootings that have taken place in recent years at schools across the country.
It should go without saying that guns have no place in schools. Schools must be safe havens for teaching and learning — that is a basic obligation to children that comes before anything else.
Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that StudentsFirst must publicly oppose legislation that would bring firearms into schools, anywhere. That includes opposing SB 59 in Michigan. We urge our members to voice their opposition as well. While gun control issues fall outside our direct policy agenda, I have absolutely no reluctance taking this position. I am convinced that allowing firearms in schools cannot help advance student achievement or put the interests of students first.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is right when he says that our nation’s leaders must not let this moment pass without taking strong action.
If you have any questions about our position or our thinking in taking this position please don’t hesitate to contact Eric Lerum or myself.
StudentsFirst has decided to remain neutral on a bill just passed by the Michigan legislature to allow concealed guns in schools.
Most of the candidates supported by StudentsFirst in the recent election voted for the legislation.
“Asked about its stance, StudentsFirst spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said, ‘StudentsFirst believes that schools have to be a safe haven for kids. It is incumbent upon our elected officials to ensure that every single child is protected, particularly those under the care and direction of our public schools.'”
Most of the legislators supported by Michelle Rhee’s group are far-right Republicans. Their idea of making schools safe is to make sure that the principals and teachers are carrying guns.
Where will they keep them? In a holster at their waist? Locked in a drawer? Strapped to their ankles?
But wait! The intruder in Newtown had an assault weapon, a semi-automatic that fired six bullets a second. Shouldn’t principals, custodians, security guards, and teachers have the same weapons? This sets the stage for universal home-schooling, where of course every family would be suitably armed to prevent home invasions.
How crazy can we be?
What happens in a society when no one trusts anyone les?
What kind of world do you want to live in?
StudentsFirst likes to keep everyone guessing about its true purposes.
It wants “great” teachers but doesn’t think teachers should have any due process rights.
It either supports collective bargaining or is neutral on collective bargaining or is against collective bargaining.
It claims to be a liberal group that “puts students first” but gives campaign funds to reactionary candidates that support the Koch brothers agenda of privatization.
All of this will sort itself out over time, as the facts emerge.
Alexander Russo has a post that clarifies where StudentsFirst stands on collective bargaining. It does not support collective bargaining. It is not neutral on collective bargaining. It opposes collective bargaining.
But, wait. Two hours after Russo put up the post showing how much money StudentsFirst has contributed to campaigns to undermine collective bargaining, StudentsFirst sent him a list of how many times Michelle Rhee has said she supports collective bargaining.
What should we believe? What she says or where the money goes?
I usually ignore editorials and opinion articles about education in the tabloids of New York City because 99% say the same things: public schools are bad, public school teachers are awful or criminal or should be fired, and charter schools are all great. (By contrast, both the New York Post and the New York Daily News have excellent reporters, and the Daily News have the amazing Juan Gonzalez, who has done great investigative journalism.)
Today, however, someone on Twitter asked me about an opinion piece in the Daily News. I read it and discovered it was written by someone who said he was the father of twin daughters in kindergarten in Brooklyn. The girls were in different classes. The father is upset because he can tell that one teacher is great and the other is not. He insists that the city and the union quickly agree to the state evaluation system so one teacher can be paid more than the other.
How does he know which one is better? She assigned homework every day after Hurricane Sandy and the other one didn’t.
At the end of the article, I noted that the father belongs to a group that is part of StudentsFirst. Why was I not surprised?
A New York City blogger dissected the article, noting that the writer is a NYC Department of Health employee. The South Bronx blogger wondered what evaluation system ranks employees in that city department.
Question: why does he think the proposed evaluation system will agree with what he thinks?
This may be the best blog post of the year. Read it. It is priceless!
Welcome to Opposite Day in Ohio!
Veteran educator Maureen Reedy explains what “education reform” meant on Opposite Day.
This is the day when StudentsFirst came to the Ohio Legislature to tout the virtues of charter schools, even though public schools in Ohio far outperform charters. The bottom performing 111 schools in the state of Ohio last year were all charter schools. Opposite Day!
And when StudentsFirst claimed that great teachers could teach 100 or more children online, even though Ohio already has poorly performing online charters. Opposite Day!
And when an employee of StudentsFirst boldly claimed that teaching is not a profession. Opposite Day!
Please read. This story should be on Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow and the Newshour. John Merrow, are you there?
This Ohio blogger reports that Michelle Rhee is now advising the anti-public school administration of Governor John Kasich and the Republican legislature about how to fund education.
Given the predisposition of the leadership in Ohio, the outcome is predictable and it won’t be good for public education.
Ohio has a flourishing landscape of charters and a growing voucher program.
The charter landscape is very profitable for certain big-time charter operators, but charters do not outperform public schools. Many get very low scores.
The online charters are immensely profitable for their owners, but do as poorly for their students as online charters in other states.
Daniel Denvir has been tracking the political activities of Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst and learned that most of her support went to Republican candidates.
She pretends to be a Democrat but in state after state, she has given big money to candidates who support privatization and anti-teacher legislation..
Rhee “poured money into state-level campaigns nationwide, winning 86 of 105 races and flipping a net 33 seats to advocates of so-called “school reform,“ a movement that advocates expanding privately run public charter schools, weakening teachers unions, increasing the weight of high-stakes standardized tests and, in some cases, using taxpayer dollars to fund private tuition through vouchers as the keys to improving public education.
Rhee pretends to be bipartisan. But, as Denvir writes, “90 of the 105 candidates backed by StudentsFirst were Republicans, including Tea Party enthusiasts and staunch abortion opponents. And Rhee’s above-the-fray bona fides have come under heavy fire as progressives and teachers unions increasingly cast the school reform movement, which has become virtually synonymous with Rhee’s name, as politically conservative and corporate-funded.”
With Rhee’s money, very conservative Republicans gained a super-majority in the Tennessee legislature, virtually guaranteeing that her ex-husband State Commissioner of Education Kevin Huffman will have a free hand pushing privatization of public education.
No one knows all the sources of Rhee’s Funding, but it would not be surprising to learn that she is a front for the rightwing, anti-government Koch brothers and others of their ilk.
She is surely a hero to ALEC.
Voters in Georgia passed an amendment to the state constitution enabling the governor to set up a commission to approve charter schools over the objection of local school boards.
The margin of victory was 58-42.
This is an ALEC-inspired model law, meant to strip away the powers of local school boards.
It had major financial support from Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst, Alice Walton of the Walmart fortune, a member of the Gap family, charter school operators, and other supporters of privatization.
Critics fear that charters will restore racial segregation.
One certain result is that public schools’ budgets will be cut to pay for charter schools of uncertain quality across the state.
Chalk up a big win for the rightwing privatizers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 