Archives for category: Teachers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

TFA Goes Global, Destroying the Teaching Profession and Unions Worldwide

By dianeravitch
April 26, 2016 //
19

While you were sleeping, Teach for America turned into Teach for All. It has located its program in nearly 40 countries around the world.

 

Teach for All poses the same problems in India, China, and Estonia as in the U.S.:

 

It undermines teachers’ unions, and it offers poorly trained recruits as a substitute for well-prepared teachers.

 

I received an email a few weeks ago from a teacher in India, who complained that the recruits from Teach for All were replacing unionized teachers and professionals. Why hire a certified and well-prepared teacher who hopes to make a career of teaching when you can get a low-wage member of Teach for All, who will be gone in 2-3 years, will never expect a pension, and will work 60-70 hours a week?

 

This may be the worst of all American exports.

Categories Education Industry, International, Privatization, Teach for America, Teachers, Unions

Allie Gross: Detroit Charter School Fires 8 Teachers Without Explanation or Warning

By dianeravitch
April 21, 2016 //
4

Allie Gross has been reporting on the misadventures of the charter industry in Detroit in the Metro Times.

 

This week, she wrote about a charter school, University Academy, that fired eight teachers without any explanation or cause. When teachers have no union, the school doesn’t need to give any explanation about why teachers are fired.

 

Last fall, Allie wrote about the $3.5 million that Michigan doled out to charter applicants who never opened a school.

 

The latter article includes a useful summary of the U.S. Department of Education’s very costly investment in the charter industry:

 

In 1995, four years after the first charter school law was enacted, the U.S. Department of Education started its Charter Schools Program grant. The general gist of the initiative was state education agencies could vie for funding and then host their own competitions for sub-grantees who wanted to create or expand charter schools.

 

The goal of the grant is two-pronged: 1. It aims to expand the number of “high-quality” charter schools across the nation and, 2. It seeks to evaluate the effects of charter schools. The first aim is achieved through three types of grants that the U.S. Department of Education asks state education agencies to offer: planning grants, implementation grants, and, lastly, dissemination grants.

 

That first year the department gave out just over $4 million; today it doles out upward of $125 million. According to the Department of Education, the federal government has spent more than $3 billion on the charter sector in the past 20 years.

 

Michigan received $23 million from the program in 2007 and in 2010 decided to apply again, this time asking for $44 million. By this point the state had 240 charter schools, and as the application explained, there was an expectation of growth. Just a few months earlier lawmakers decided to lift the cap on the number of charter schools university-authorizers could sponsor.

 

This predicted expansion was highlighted in MDE’s application, as was the goal of ensuring authorizers would have high quality operators to choose from when they weren’t burdened with a cap.

 

In 1995, the same year that the Charter Schools Program grants started, Michigan opened its first charter school, a National Heritage Academy in Grand Rapids. Today, NHA, which was started by billionaire J.C. Huizenga, is the state’s largest charter school operator, with 48 different schools across Michigan. This multi-site, for-profit model has proliferated in Michigan — currently, 79 percent of Michigan’s charter schools are run by for-profit charter management organizations — and cracking this monopoly was a stated goal in MDE’s application. Specifically Michigan explained how “planning funds” could help level the playing field and empower grassroots community groups with charter school ideas.

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Detroit, Education Industry, For-Profit, Michigan, Privatization, Teachers, Unions

Peter Greene: Teacher Pipeline is Running Dry

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2016 //
43

Peter Greene read the annual UCLA survey of college freshmen and discovered a depressing fact: the proportion of students planning to major in education has dropped precipitously.

“The percentage of probable education majors stands at 4.2%, the lowest percentage ever since the question was first asked in 1971. And that 4.1% comes at the end of a fifteen-year decline– at the turn of the century, the figure hovered around 11%.” [Just a guess, but I expect that the difference between 4.1 and 4.2 is a typo.]

Now it is possible that future teachers are getting their major in a subject they plan to teach and will go to graduate school for teacher education. But it is also true that future elementary teachers often major in education since they expect to teach many subjects.

But the shrinking enrollments have been reported in both undergraduate and graduate education programs.

Greene writes:

“Many local districts and many states have done their utmost to make teaching as unattractive as it could possibly be. No respect, no autonomy, low pay, no job security, poor work conditions, no control over your professional fate, and treated as if you’re a child. What could be more appealing?

“I keep waiting for Free Market Acolytes to read the writing on the wall. After all, the invisible hand is very clear on this– when people don’t want to buy what you’re selling, when people do want to take your job under the conditions you’ve set, that is a clear sign that you have undervalued the merchandise.

“It has always been an oddity of teacher-related education policy– there is always the presumption that teachers must be teachers, that they cannot choose to be anything else. This is not true. People may choose to be teachers. Or they may choose not to be. Right now, a whole lot of college freshmen choose not to be.

“If you want to buy a Lexus for $7.95 and nobody will sell one to you for that price, that is not a sign of a automobile shortage. If you want to hire a surgeon to cut your grass for $1.50 an hour and nobody will apply for the job, that is not a surgeon shortage. If you want people to become teachers under the current job conditions (and that is a large-ish if because it’s possible that some folks think it would be easier to run education if teachers would all just go away), and fewer and fewer people are biting, that is not the sign of a teacher shortage– it’s a sign that you need to make your job more attractive. This seems obvious to me. We’ll see if anybody in power can figure it out.”

Heckuva job, Arne Duncan! Bill Gates! Eric Hanushek! Raj Chetty! Michelle Rhee! Campbell Brown! Democrats for Education Reform! StudentsFirst! Students Matter! And the rest of the corporate reformers!

Categories Teacher Shortage, Teacher Tenure, Teachers

Washington State: The Democrats Who Betrayed the Public Schools

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2016 //
18

Parents and educators in Washington State have fought a long battle to keep charter schools out of their state. There have been four referenda; the first three rejected charters. In 2012, however, Bill Gates and a few of his other billionaire friends put together a fund of $15 million, give or take a few million, to promote a new charter vote. In the other side were school boards, PTAs, teachers, the NAACP, and other civic groups defending public education, whose resources are minuscule compared to Gates & friends. The referendum passed, by less than 1%.

 

Its te opponents sued to block the law, saying that charter schools are not public schools. The Washington state Supreme Court agreed with them.

 

Undaunted, the monied interests have continued their pressure to get public funding. Leave aside the fact that Gates could support charter schools with his spare change.

 

Now on the legislature is ready to satisfy Gates and the other entrepreneurs. Most disturbing is to see that Democrats are enabling the diversion of public money from public schools to privately managed charters. Hopefully, the group’s that led the successful lawsuit will go back to court and challenge this trick again.

 

A reader in Washington state sent this news, with a list of the Democrats who double crossed parents and children to satisfy Bill Gates and friends:

 

 

“It is just terrible to see what is happening in Washington state. For starters, the Supreme Court declared I 1240 unconstitutional on September 4. Charter schools had plenty of time to transition students into public schools, but they refused to close their doors.

 

 

With the support of the Washington Charter Association and a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for $2.1M- charter schools remained opened- and they did so by having the state’s superintendent of public instruction corrupt Alternative Learning Rules.

In January, Steve and Connie Ballmer contributed $250K to a charter PAC. These dollars are being used to fund TV ads, polls, robo calls etc.

 

 

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=V0FTSEMgIDExMQ====&year=2016&type=continuing

 

 

Students were constantly getting bussed to the state’s capital and charter supporters literally camped within the state’s capital. We’ve been told 22 lobbyists filled the halls of the state building.

 

 

SB 6194 got passed out of the R. controlled senate. The House had compelling testimony and would not allow the bill out of committee.

 

 

Title-only bills got passed out of committee. These bills have NO text and are intended to support charter schools and do an end-run around the state’s constitution.

 

 

Larry Springer drafted different legislation, and , less than 24 hours later the bill was on the House floor for a vote. The House holds a slim majority and, with the support of 9 Democrats, SB 6194 got passed out of committee. Here are the turn-coat Dems:

 

1. Judy Clibborn: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/judy-clibborn/

 

 

2. Christopher Hurst: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/christopher-hurst/

 

 

3. Ruth Kagi: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/ruth-kagi/

 

 

4. Kristine Lytton: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/kristine-lytton/

 

 

5. Jeff Morris: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/jeff-morris/

 

 

6. Eric Pettigrew: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/eric-pettigrew

7. David Sawyer: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/david-sawyer/

 

 

8. Tana Senn: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/tana-senn/

 

 

9. Larry Springer: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/larry-springer/

 

 

10. Pat Sullivan: http://housedemocrats.wa.gov/legislators/pat-sullivan

 

 

The bill will not satisfy the Supreme Court. Legislators know this and don’t care. Chad Magendanz made a speech and called for 2000 charter school students to protest next year.

 

 

I’m confident the charter “fix” will not pass constitutional muster. Here is what Paul Laurence (attorney that argued and won I 1240):

 

 

“But attorney Paul Lawrence, who represented those who filed the lawsuit challenging charters, said switching to lottery funds is just an accounting trick.

 

 

“That doesn’t strike me as any different from paying it out of the general fund,” Lawrence said. “I don’t really see that that accomplishes a fix.”

 

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/house-approves-bill-to-keep-charter-schools-open-clearing-way-for-passage/

 

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Parents, Supporting public schools, Teachers, Washington State

Students in Douglas County, Colorado, Protest High Teacher Turnover

By dianeravitch
March 13, 2016 //
6

Students in Douglas County, Colorado, walked out and picketed to express their outrage at the high rates of teacher turnover in their school. Teacher turnover may be caused by the demoralizing policies enacted by the state and the district. Colorado teachers have suffered since 2010 under State Senator Michael Johnston’s legislation to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores. DougCo has had a conservative school board, which destabilized the schools.

 

A boisterous crowd of 100 or so students walked out of Ponderosa High School on Wednesday morning to highlight what they say is an excessive departure rate among teachers at the school and within the Douglas County School District.

 

They waved signs on school property that read “We love teachers” and “Keep DCSD Great,” while chanting “best teachers, best students.”

 

Several passing drivers honked their horns in support.

 

“We don’t find it fair that our teachers are leaving the district, and we want to know why,” said senior Lisa Culverhouse, who was skipping math, English and Spanish to rally with classmates. “We hope the district will realize it’s a problem — students want to be heard….”

 

Courtney Smith, president of the Douglas County Federation, said teacher morale has never been lower. She counts the teacher evaluation system — which she said was mostly about “uploading evidence” rather than true assessment of teaching skills — among the chief problems.

 

Good work, Senator Johnston. When does your promise of “great schools, great principals, great teachers” come to pass? How much longer shall we wait?

 

 

Categories Colorado, Corporate Reformers, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers

Teacher: Why I Hate Pearson

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2016 //
291

The following comment was posted by a frustrated teacher in Florida, who has had to take a Pearson exam again and again. In the past, 86% of applicants passed the exam on the first try, she writes. After Pearson revised the exam in 2014, only 24% passed on the first attempt.

 

 

 

 

“Hello, Diane:

 

 

“I came across your blog after making a search using the following words: Why can’t I pass the Florida Educational Leadership Exam 3.0 (FELE 3.0)? I read one entry in your blog that made me realize I may not alone, and inspired me to share my own experience dealing with Pearson. I thank you deeply for your blog and the opportunity to share. I have been trying to find an answer to my question for exactly 12 months. I took the FELE 3.0 four times since last year and have not been able to pass one of its four sections. I am retaking it again this coming week. The exam used to be three subtests, but Pearson or the state split the last subtest into two parts, which are deemed today the most difficult by Florida university professors. I was able to pass that subtest and the second subtest the first time around. My battle a year later is still trying to pass the first subtest of this state exam.

 

 

“I have been a teacher in Florida for 13 years. I am certified in two areas. I wanted to pursue my master’s degree for several years and finally was able to do so in the summer of 2013 by enrolling into a two year educational leadership program at a local state university. Throughout my two years of study, every single one of my professors found me to be a very intelligent candidate. They shared their observations about my research abilities and commitment and constantly told me I was a great student. I aced every single one of my courses with 100%, except for one where my final passing grade was a 96%. For two years, I thought I was doing great, until I sat to take the mandatory and upgraded Florida Educational Leadership Examination 3.0. The university will not grant me my diploma until I pass that exam.

 

 

“The new exam has been around since January 2014. They call it the FELE 3.0 to differentiate it from the previous FELEs. I found out that about 86% of candidates who sat for the older FELEs used to pass the exam the first time. Now, only 24% of candidates taking the new FELE 3.0 passed the first time in 2015!! Yes, Pearson and the State of Florida made the test more rigorous, but give me a break; only 24% are passing this exam the first time?! The rest of us keep taking subtests of the exam several times, with some of us missing the 200 mark within 10 points or much less. In my case, I have failed it by 3 points twice! Several of my classmates from a year ago are still struggling with passing some subtests of the test as well. In the meantime, Pearson is laughing its way to the bank.

 

 

“The infuriating thing about my experience is that:

 

 

“1. Every time I sit for the subtest, I have to pay Pearson the entire exam fee of $225, as if I’m taking the entire 7-hour exam all over again. I am only taking a two-hour subtest. They lower the fee for the third subtest because it is the one most candidates are not passing, but those of us having to retest on other sections have to pay the full fee.

 

 

“2. I have to remain enrolled at the university and paying tuition until I pass the exam (no one can give me a straight answer to the question: Is this a state or university policy? They keep giving me the run around.) In the meantime, I owe Sally Mae $70,000 so far for a master’s degree I have not yet finished because I fail the state exam by a few points. Yes, $70K. No kidding.

 

 

“3. I have to wait a minimum of 3 weeks to find out how I did in the test, which increases the amount of wait time (and keeps me longer in limbo).

 

 

“4. Pearson charges you $75 if you want to know what questions you missed, but don’t offer any guidance as to how to prepare better to pass the next time. On top of that, you have to wait longer, 31 days, to sit for the exam after doing this. (They really milk it.)

 

 

“5. I have had to find my own resources to study from (basically national research and studies I find on the web) since the exam is so new and nothing like the older one. Most of the FELE resources I’ve had access to, including one seminar I had to pay on my own, are outdated).

 

 

“6. When I contacted the state twice to find out where I can study from (because my university had no clue), they gave me a list of reference books. I bought every single one of them, spending a lot of money on books that have vast information. I don’t know what to pinpoint and what is it I am still missing that is making me fail by 3 points! My professors are at a loss too. I found out the second time when calling the state that my calls are re-routed to Pearson, who refused to tell me who they were. I only know it was Pearson because of the area code of the number, which is in Andover, Massachusetts.

 

 

“Most people know that, because of all the major changes the Common Core State Standards brought to education, everything else has changed, including how schools are expected to be managed. Now, administrators are called to be instructional leaders rather than the building managers they once were. This is fine with me; I agree with all of that. I agree that rigor needs to be increased in most classrooms and that students must be challenged. I welcome school reform, but not at the expense of companies getting richer from those who cannot afford to continue taking exams and taking loans until they pass a state requirement that doesn’t really measure the real-time success of an aspiring administrator. I am not OK with an organization such as Pearson getting rich from unsuspecting graduate candidates.

 

 

“I am getting ready to take the exam again for the fifth time this coming week. Will I pass it? Will I not? If the exam is rigged to the point that African Americans and Hispanics cannot pass it, then I am royally screwed. I am Latina and black. Here I am, with my career in limbo because I cannot pass a Pearson exam by three miserable points. I really want to know what the hell is going on. I would like to see more people with my experience come forward and speak out. Something needs to be done about this.”

 

 

Categories Accountability, Pearson, Standardized Testing, Teachers

Los Angeles: How the Biggest Charter Chain Fights Unionization

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2016 //
16

Investigative reporter George Joseph writes in “The Nation” about the battle inside Los Angeles’ largest charter chain over whether teachers should be permitted to form a union.

A group of teachers at Alliance College-Ready Public Schools announced their wish to form a union last spring. Since then, the charter chain has fought them to prevent their efforts from succeeding.

This is a crucial battle for Alliance because its CEO is Daniel Katzir, who was executive director of the Broad Foundation for a decade. The business model for the Broad charter plan depends on having a non-union workforce with steady turnover and long working hours.

Broad’s goal of getting half the children in L.A. into charters would be disrupted if the teachers at Alliance were allowed to go union. Now Alliance is pulling out the stops to turn parents against a union and to intimidate teachers who might want to join.

And, of course, the chain insists it is private, not public (despite its name), and therefore not required to honor fair labor practices. When you read about the management ‘s tactics, the only missing ingredient is the Pinkerton private detectives, who were hired by management in the 19th century to infiltrate unions, disrupt them, and break up labor protests.

Categories Los Angeles, Teachers, Unions

Florida: School Employees Do Not Give Up Their First Amendment Rights

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2016 //
12

Wendi Lowrey, a speech pathologist in Orange County, was transferred out of her school (where her own child is a student) and reassigned because of her comments on social media. She wrote about education policies in general, not about her school or her district. She was warned to stop speaking or writing but she continued to exercise her right to speak and write outside school hours, on her own computer.

 

She contested the transfer, and an arbitrator ruled in her favor. Yes, Wendy does have Frst Amendment rights. So do you.

 

 

Categories Education Reform, Florida, Teachers

Wendy Lecker: Why “Personalized Learning” Is Neither

By dianeravitch
February 23, 2016 //
21

Superintendents in Connecticut (CAPSS) have endorsed the idea of putting children in front of machines and calling it “personalized learning.” As Wendy Lecker shows in this post, this machine work is neither “personalized” nor is it “learning.”

 

How can a machine be more “personal” than a human?

 

 

Lecker writes:

 

 

In CAPSS’ incoherent version, schools will no longer be age-graded, students will design their own curricula and progress when they develop “competencies” rather than completing a school year. Rather than being grouped according to age, students will be grouped according to “mastery.” In order to progress to the next level, children will have to undergo four standardized tests a year.
Of course, any system that depends on standardized tests for advancement cannot be “personalized.” In addition, the CAPSS plan institutionalizes tracking; a harmful educational practice rejected by the Connecticut State Board of Education. Worse still, CAPSS’ version of tracking, where there is no age-grading, would humiliate a student who fares poorly on standardized tests by grouping her with children years younger than she.
The CAPSS muddled vision also proposes students not necessarily learn in school, meaning that much learning will be conducted online; a method with little evidence of success.

 

What should school look like?

 

 

If we are concerned with our children’s development into healthy responsible citizens, then personalization should mean that schools should focus on relationships — with humans, not computers. Relationships with teachers and other students are the key to keeping students engaged and in school. A longitudinal study of diverse California high schools confirmed previous research that students who feel connected to their teachers improve academically, engage in less risky behavior, and are more likely to complete high school.

 

Another recent study comparing “personalized learning” to a control group in traditional schools found that students in the control group “reported greater enjoyment and comfort in school, and felt their out-of-school work was more useful and connected to their in-school learning.” As Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw recently observed in the New York Times, “after 30 years as an educator, I am convinced that the ideal experience for a student is a small class that fosters personal interaction with a dedicated instructor.”
The need for human interaction to promote effective learning is rooted in brain development. As neuroscience expert Adele Diamond has written, the brain does not recognize a sharp division between cognitive, motor and emotional functioning. Thus, research has shown that feelings of social isolation impair reasoning, decision-making, selective attention in the face of distraction and decreases persistence on difficult problems….

 

A truly “personalized” education would ensure small classes with supports for every need; and a variety of subjects to develop students’ interests as well as their cognitive, motor and social capabilities….

 
Our children are complex, multi-dimensional beings who need deep and rich experiences to develop properly. They are not characters in a video game who just need enough points to jump to the next level. Anyone who cares about healthy child development should reject CAPSS’ narrow and de-personalized vision of learning.

 

 

“Personalized learning” on a machine is an oxymoron.

 

 

 

 

Categories Connecticut, Teachers, Technology

Andy Hargreaves: England Adopts the “Business Capital Model,” with Disastrous Results

By dianeravitch
February 22, 2016 //
9

Andy Hargreaves is a professor at Boston College whose work has won wide recognition, including the 2015 Grawemeyer Award.

 

In this article, he contrasts the schools of Scotland–which value teacher professionalism and collaboration–with the schools of England, where conservative ideologues have imposed the “business capital model.”

 

He writes:

 

Scotland values a strong state educational system run by 32 local authorities that is staffed by well-trained and highly valued professionals who stay and grow in a secure and rewarding job. Teachers serve others, for most or all of their working life, in a cooperative profession that supports them to do this to the best of their abilities.

 

England no longer values these things. About half of its schools are now outside local authority control. England offers a business capital model that invests in education to yield short-term profits and keep down costs through shorter training, weakened security and tenure, and keeping salaries low by letting people go before they cost too much.

 

By comparison, Scotland models what is called professional capital: bringing in skilled as well as smart people; training them rigorously in university settings connected to practical environments; giving them time and support to collaborate on curriculum and other matters; and paying them to develop their leadership and their careers so that they can make effective decisions together and deliver better outcomes for young people.

 

Hargreaves writes that the business model is in retreat:  The evidence of high-performing nations such as Canada, Singapore and Finland hasn’t been on its side, and countries like Sweden that followed the free-school business model, and saw their results collapse, are reversing course.

 

The business model works on three assumptions, none of which improves education or teaching:

 

First: Teachers are already paid too much. When given the chance, cut their salaries.

 

Second: Professional development is a waste of time. Better to rely on incentives and sanctions that professional growth.

 

Third: (Echoing our own Michelle Rhee) Collaboration is greatly overrated. Better to have teachers compete.

 

Hargreaves asks:

 

So what is it to be for England: the vanguard or the guard’s van of teacher change? With or without free schools, academies and chains, where does England want its teaching profession to go next – to be one that can make high-quality judgments in an increasingly complex environment, or to be a standardised occupation that is flexible and cheap?

 

Sounds familiar to American readers, who have seen the same failed and noxious policies imposed here by corporate “reformers,” who don’t give a hoot about teacher morale.

Categories International, Teachers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »