Archives for category: U.S. Department of Education

This article by Michael Brenner, a professor of international relations at the University of Pittsburgh, is a trenchant summary of the relentless attack on public education launched by the Obama administration and backed by billions of federal and private dollars.

Brenner begins:

“A feature of the Obama presidency has been his campaign against the American public school system, eating way at the foundations of elementary education. That means the erosion of an institution that has been one of the keystones of the Republic. The project to remake it as a mixed public/private hybrid is inspired by a discredited dogma that charter schools perform better. This article of faith serves an alliance of interests — ideological and commercial — for whom the White House has been point man. A President whose tenure in office is best known for indecision, temporizing and vacillation has been relentless since day one in using the powers of his office to advance the cause. Such conviction and sustained dedication is observable in only one other area of public policy: the project to expand the powers and scope of the intelligence agencies that spy on, and monitor the behavior of persons and organizations at home as well as abroad.

“The audacity of the project is matched by the passive deference that it is accorded. There is no organized opposition — in civil society or politics. Only a few outgunned elements fight a rearguard action against a juggernaut that includes Republicans and Democrats, reactionaries and liberals — from Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York to the nativist Christian Right of the Bible Belt. All of this without the national “conversation” otherwise so dear to the hearts of the Obama people, without corroboration of its key premises, without serious review of its consequences, without focused media attention.

“This past week, as the deadline approached for states to make their submissions to Arne Duncan’s Department of Education requesting monies appropriated under the Race to the Top initiative, we were reminded that the DOE has decreed that no proposal will be considered where the state government has put a cap on charter schools. In other words, the federal government has put its thumb heavily on the scales of local deliberations as to what approach toward charter schools best serves their communities’ interests. Penalties are being imposed on those who choose to limit, in any quantitative way, the charter school movement.

“This heavy-handed use of federal leverage by the Obama administration should not come as a surprise. After all, Obama himself has been a consistent, highly vocal advocate of “privatization.” He has travelled the country from coast to coast, like Johnny Appleseed, sowing distrust of public schools and – especially – public school teachers. They have been blamed for what ails America – the young unprepared for the 21st century globalized economy; the shortage of engineers; high drop-out rates; school districts’ financial woes, whatever.*”

Please read the entire article, and you will hear loud echoes of the many voices who have posted here: the demoralized teachers, the frustrated parents, the outraged students. We are the outgunned rearguard. And we will not be silent. Our voices will grow louder and louder as we demand an end to policies that destroy public education and demonize teachers and stigmatize students.

Join us at the first annual conference of the Network for Public Education on March 1-2 in Austin, Texas, where we will strengthen our resolve to stop the juggernaut of privatization.

Margaret Mead said it: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

Peter Greene, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania, has concocted a press release by Pearson, issued soon after it purchased the U.S. Department of Education in 2015.

In this press release, Pearson announces the release of the Common Core 2.0.

Here is a sample:

“*We’re pretty sure that Kindergarten simply isn’t early enough to start the reading process, so we are proud to announce a program that starts this important educational experience as soon after conception as possible. Our problem with backwards scaffolding has been that we stopped too soon. How can we hope to compete internationally when our newborns have not yet been exposed to a dynamic and robust reading curriculum. Phonics for Fetuses closes that gap.

*DIBELS broke new ground with its program of having small children read gibberish. But why stop there. The new SHMIBELS program will require students to write gibberish. Students must produce ten pages of lettering without creating a single recognizable word (yet all completely pronounceable). The writing will be timed and matched against the Pearson master SHMIBELS list to see if students have produced the correct gibberish and not just any random gibberish. (Note: this program is expected to help target many future USDOE employees).”

It gets better as Greene goes on. These are my favorite changes to CCSS:

“*In response to continued complaints that focus on testing has squeezed out many valuable phys ed and arts programs, we are proud to introduce the Physical Arts program. For this program, offered during one day of the 9th grade year, students will draw a picture of a pony on a tuba and then throw the tuba as far as possible.

*By pushing subject matter further down the sequence, we expect to free up the entire 10th grade year for testing. Nothing but testing, every single day, all day. With that much testing, our students are certain to become the kinds of geniuses who can trounce our historic enemies, the South Koreans and the Estonians. We anticipate this becoming a rite of passage and popular cultural milestone as families look forward with joy and anticipation to the Year of the Tests. To those critics who claim that we have not offered support in the literature for this testing, we want to note that we have closely followed the writings of Suzanne Collins and Franz Kafka.”

Who is paying for and supporting the lawsuit claiming that due process for teachers harms the civil rights of students?

Until now, all we knew was that the case was bankrolled by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur named David Welch.

That much is true, but Welch also has an advisory board that includes Russlyn Ali, who served as an assistant secretary to Arne Duncan, now working for the supposedly liberal Education Trust; and even more disturbing, Ted Mitchell of NewSchools Venture Fund, who was nominated by President Obama to be the #2 official in the U.S. Department of Education. Also on the board is Ben Austin of Parent Revolution.

The anti-due process group, anti-union group is running a well-honed PR campaign. The California Teachers Association has decided not to compete in the PR war.

” Remarkably, this one-sided communications war has been initiated by a single person – Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch, the founder of the nonprofit organization Students Matter, which brought the suit – and provides a case study of what impact a single individual can have if he has the resources, or access to them, to take action based on his beliefs.

“California Teachers Association President Dean Vogel says his organization, representing more than 300,000 teachers, has no intention of trying to counteract what he described as a campaign funded by the bottomless pockets of the “billionaires boys club….”

“The organization is a relative newcomer to the California education policy landscape. The organization has no staff on its payroll, or even its own office. Instead it is run out of its communications firm’s office in Los Angeles. Its sole purpose, as described on its website, is “sponsoring impact litigation to promote access to quality public education. Welch’s net worth is unknown, although public reports assert that he receives more than $2 million in annual compensation from the Infinera Corporation, which he founded.

“For weeks leading to the opening of the trial on Jan. 27, media outlets have received a stream of emails and announcements about the pending proceedings.

“An email sent out on the weekend before the trial opened provided possible tweets – complete with scripts, hashtags and Twitter handles – with a half dozen to draw from. Here’s one: Let’s get back to basics, starting with a great teacher in every classroom! I support @Students_Matter #VergaraTrial

“Students Matter called a news conference a few days before the trial opened, and on opening day yet another news conference was held during the lunch break with all nine students who are listed in the suit as plaintiffs in the case, along with Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy who has testified on their behalf.

“On the morning the trial opened, Students Matter emails sent at 5 a.m. by the communications firms landed in media outlets’ inboxes. Before 8 a.m. that day a news release appeared on Yahoo News with the headline “California Students Get Their Day in Court: Groundbreaking Education Equality Trial Begins Today.”

Win or lose, the goal of the campaign seems to be to smear the union and teachers.

Is it surprising that a soon-to-be-confirmed high-level official in the Obama administration is part of the anti-teacher team?

I had a very exciting day in our nation’s Capitol today.

Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers invited me to spend a day in D.C. And offered to set up meetings with members of the education committee in both houses. At the end of he day, the AFT hosted a reception.

I took the train to D.C. to avoid the uncertain weather of recent days, and spent 2 hours on the train writing blogs.

The train arrived a bit before 10, and I went directly to meet with Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Milwaukee. She is well-informed and warm; she remembered me from my last visit in 2010. I was fortunate to have an escort from the AFT to make sure I got to my meetings.

All my conversations were off the record, so all I can share is that I was very candid, and so were the members of Congress.

I next saw Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Cleveland, who is very sharp. That too was a very pleasant meeting.

Then on to see Congresswoman Rosa de Lauro, who has a key position on the appropriations committee. She is a wonderful, kind, and delightful woman.

After a fast sandwich, we went to the Senate, where I had the pleasure of meeting Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin–imagine, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin! And then we met Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, who is very impressive.

Here is the news: George Miller of California, Democrat of California, announced his resignation a couple of weeks ago. Miller was a huge fan of testing and charters, as well as an architect of NCLB. Next in line was Rob Andrews, but today he unexpectedly announced he too was retiring. So very likely the next top Democrat on the House education committee will be Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a liberal Democrat.

Things should get interesting in D.C. We have friends in high places.

On January 1, the Washington Post reported that Arne Duncan and at least one other aide pressured NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio not to choose Joshua Starr as the schools’ chancellor because of his opposition to high-stakes testing, the centerpiece of the Bush-Obama “reforms.”

Politico reports the story and notes that this is not the first time Duncan has interfered in purely local decisions.

It writes:

“DID DUNCAN PICK NYC’S NEW CHANCELLOR?: The Education Secretary lobbied against Montgomery County, Md., Superintendent Joshua Starr, the Washington Post reports: “It was an unusual move by the nation’s top education official and came in the wake of Starr’s vocal criticism of some of the Obama administration’s school reform policies.” Education Department spokesman Massie Ritsch declined to comment to the Washington Post on “private conversations between the mayor and the secretary.” The article: http://wapo.st/1cn9tr7

“–Duncan has endorsed school leaders in the past: When Rhode Island state superintendent Deborah Gist’s contract was up for a vote last summer, Duncan spoke to reporters on her behalf. [http://bit.ly/1a2h5iV] He also offered support to D.C. schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, reaching out to the mayor to keep her on permanently. [http://wapo.st/1g2CetY] And he’s never been shy about weighing in on other state and local decisions, either.”

I recall that Duncan tried to help DC Mayor Fenty win re-election so that Michelle Rhee would survive, but that didn’t work.

Duncan became involved in New York politics in 2009, when mayoral control was up for renewal by the legislature. An independent civic group called Citizens Union was about to issue a report that endorsed mayoral control but requested that the legislature change the law so that members appointed to the city board served for a set term, not at the pleasure of whoever appointed them. This would assure members a degree of independence, so they could vote their conscience. This infuriated Mayor Bloomberg, who believed that mayoral control should have no limits whatever.

I happened to be at the meeting when the issue was decided. I came to speak on behalf of set terms. Then someone read a letter just received from Secretary Duncan, explaining why set terms were a bad idea and why the mayor needed unlimited power to reform the schools as he saw fit. The recommendation to preserve independent voices was snuffed out.

As I read about the latest example of Duncan’s desire to manipulate city and state leadership so it supports his failed agenda, I thought about the two years I served in the U.S. Department of Education under Lamar Alexander, from mid-1991 to January 1993. Secretary Alexander was scrupulous about not interfering in local decision making. He used his bully pulpit, as all cabinet secretaries do, but he never tried to influence the choice of local leaders. He respected the principle of federalism. Apparently, Duncan missed the class on federalism.

Somehow I got the impression when I worked at the US Department of Education that it was illegal for Cabinet members to get involved in local elections or appointments, but I must have been wrong. Let’s just say it was generally understood to be inappropriate.

A reader has done research on the new Undersecretary of Education. The “no-excuses” charters are known for their emphasis on strict discipline, conformity, and obedience to all rules. They typically have high rates of suspension and attrition.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/09/19/newschools-ceo-ted-mitchell-my-best-idea-for-k-12-education/2/

Public school parents should know who Arne Duncan and President Obama chose to run the nation’s public school system.

This is an interview with Ted Mitchell. Like all ed reformers, he makes no mention of the actual, existing public schools 90% of your kids attend. Instead, he tells of us his dream to turn all public schools into no excuses charter chains:

FORBES: What is your best idea for K-12 education reform?

“Ted Mitchell: Well, we think of education reform in two parts. There’s education reform—that is who has maximized the current production function of education–who is doing schooling as well as it can be done given the constraints we have today. And then there’s what schools should look like in the not too distant future. What are we really aiming at? We call those education 1.0 and education 2.0.

Let’s start with education 1.0 then. Which teachers or schools would you say are doing the best job of reforming the current system? I would highlight not all charter schools but the high performing, no excuses charter schools like KIPP and Aspire. Then there are a
few that are doing the very hardest work of all, which is turning around existing schools. Those are Mastery in Philadelphia and Unlocking Potential in Boston.

They have very high expectations for everyone in the building, kids and adults. They have a culture that supports achievement and they understand that traditionally under-served kids come to school with a set of issues that aren’t their fault—they come to school hungry, they come from broken homes—and these schools take them in whatever circumstances and characteristics they arrive and say: ‘Those are things we can deal with, but they’re not excuses for underachieving.’ The results are that these schools have pretty much eliminated the drop out rate, doubled the graduation rate and doubled the college-going rate of traditionally under-served kids.”

There’s no mention of existing public schools in the entire piece. Mr. Mitchell can’t find a single US public school that merits praise or meets his requirements.

These are not the words of an “agnostic”.

According to Politico.com, the crucial #2 job at the U. S. Department of Education will go to Ted Mitchell, CEO of the NewSchools Venture Fund, the nation’s leading promoter of charter schools.

NewSchools strongly supports private sector control of public schools with dollars. It is heavily funded by Gates, Broad, Walton, and technology entrepreneurs committed to “disrupting” public education.

Arne Duncan seems determined to turn all the public schools of the nation into Chicago, where he made his reputation and left the school system in a shambles and the kids in despair.

PS: Leonie Haimson reminded me that NewSchools Venture Fund invests in more than charter chains:

She writes:

“NSVF also invests in a lot of for-profit tech companies looking to make money off data-mining and violation of student privacy.

.@edsurge on @nsvf CEO Mitchell Tapped For @usedgov

https://www.edsurge.com/n/2013-10-23-newschools-ceo-ted-mitchell-tapped-for-dept-of-ed-job”

I confess I have not followed all the twists and turns of the proposals to reauthorize the failed No Child Left Behind law. Almost everyone except its original sponsors agrees that it failed, yet Congress is locked into the same stale assumption that the federal government is supposed to find a magical formula to measure test scores and punish teachers, principals, and schools. Congress, in its wisdom, has forgotten that this school-level “accountability” didn’t exist until January 2002, when NCLB was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Having learned nothing from the failure of NCLB, they can’t now agree on what comes next.

In this story on Huffington Post, Joy Resmovits notes the irony that even Texas–yes, Texas–has asked for a waiver from the disastrous law that was foisted on the nation’s school by not only George W. Bush, and not only his advisers Margaret Spellings and Dandy Kress, but also Democrats George Miller of California and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Now, everyone laughs at the idea that 100% of students were going to be proficient by 2014. What a dumb idea to set an impossible goal. And how cruel to fire teachers and close schools that could not reach an impossible goal.

But look at this:

“Under the waiver, Texas will no longer subscribe to the much-derided “Adequate Yearly Progress” system that measures school performance and requires all students to demonstrate proficiency in reading and math by the 2013-2014 school year. Instead, it will use a new accountability system that expects 100 percent of students to be proficient in reading and math by the 2019-2020 school year.”

What’s this? The Obama administration expects “100 percent of students to be proficient in reading and math by the 2019-2020 year”?

Here we go again.

No nation in the world has 100% proficiency. Doesn’t anyone in DC have a fresh idea? Like one that has some connection to common sense.

A reader writes and offers this clarification. It still remains the case that nothing mandated by the test-obsessed DOE is based on research or evidence:

It’s not the What Works Clearinghouse that has been taken down. It’s still up and running: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

WWC does the evaluations–that’s what has been controversial because of the very, very narrow focus of their evaluation efforts.

It’s the research-to-practice website called” Doing What Works” that is no longer being supported. That was the web site that had more teacher-friendly materials and strategies. Frankly, I liked that web site and used to use it all the time for their literacy information to share with pre-service teachers. I’m quite sad that the piece that was actually useful to teachers is no longer being supported. DWW had been contracted out to AIR and WestEd — not sure if they just lost the contract, or if this is a result of the sequestration, or what. And I’m also not sure why they thought the materials need to be more “user friendly.” Some of the existing free materials are still available in the WestEd bookstore.

This was the email I had received:

From: “U.S. Department of Education”
Subject: Update on the Doing What Works Website
Date: September 20, 2013 8:29:36 PM EDT
Dear subscriber:
The U.S. Department of Education has suspended operation of the Doing What Works website. We sincerely regret this unfortunate event. You can still acquire many DWW media and materials through other channels. Please email dww@wested.org for specific instructions on how you can gain access to DWW media and materials.
Sincerely,
The DWW Team

Diane, perhaps you should post a clarification of this?

This is truly astonishing news.

Valerie Strauss reports today that the U.S. Department of Education sent out an email announcing the suspension of the “What Works Clearinghouse,” a site where the Department publishes reports about research and shows “what works.”

Valerie Strauss notes: “I won’t mention the irony in the fact that department spends millions on school reform that has no proven record of success but ran out of cash for its Doing What Works website.”

Ironic, indeed, because almost everything the Department supports as part of its “Race to the Top” has no research to support it. The Department’s insistence that teachers should be evaluated, to a significant degree, by the test scores of their students is not supported by research. The Department’s support for performance pay, based on test scores, is contradicted by decades of research. The Department’s insistence that schools of education be graded by the test scores of the students taught by their graduates has no support in research. The Department’s lavishing of millions of dollars on charter schools has mixed support, at best, in research; judging by the results from Ohio, the Department should stop the proliferation of charter schools. The Department’s quiet acquiescence to the proliferation of vouchers has no support in evaluations or research. The Department’s silence in response to budget cuts to essential services has no basis in research. The Department’s promotion of standardized testing in the early grades and even pre-kindergarten has no basis in research. The Department has placed no priority on reducing class size, even though the “What Works Clearinghouse” has found that smaller classes benefit high-needs students.

Is it any wonder that the Department decided it could no longer afford to keep open a website that shows no support for its own misguided policies?