Archives for category: U.S. Department of Education

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?

Paul Horton, who teaches history at the University of Chicago Lab School, wrote the following essay for this blog:

“Democracy and Education: Waiting for Gatopia?

“John Dewey arrived at the University of Chicago in the middle of the Pullman strike. He wrote his wife, still in Ann Arbor, that he had met a young man on the train who supported the strike very passionately: “I only talked with him for 10 or 15 minutes but when I got through my nerves were more thrilled than they had been for years; I felt as if I had better resign my job teaching and follow him around until I got a life. One lost all sense of the right or wrong of things in admiration of the absolute, almost fanatic, sincerity and earnestness, and in admiration of the magnificent combination that was going on. Simply as an aesthetic matter, I don’t believe the world has seen but a few times such a spectacle of magnificent, widespread union of men about a common interest as this strike business.” (quoted in Westbrook, 87). This sense of “magnificent, widespread union” represented the definition of Democracy to Dewey; it was the very core of his writing, work, and public advocacy.

“Later, after he had moved to Columbia University in New York, he had a major disagreement with a very articulate student, Randolph Bourne, about the media pressure to get involved in WWI. Bourne argued then and later in an unfinished essay entitled, “War is the Health of the State” that states thrived on war because war consolidated the state’s power and allowed it to repress any kind of dissent. Dewey was an outspoken advocate of American entry into World War I, but began to question his support after seeing several of his colleagues at Columbia fired for their outspoken opposition to the War. These serious doubts turned into deep regret when he saw that the Espionage Act was used to repress freedoms of speech and press. Respectable citizens, including many thoughtful journalists and political leaders like Eugene V. Debs were routinely thrown into jail. His serious doubts began to trouble him more deeply as he witnessed the Federal response to the postwar Red Scare of 1919, when many American citizens were deported without constitutional due process. He was so disturbed by all of this that he helped found the American Civil Liberties Union that sought to protect due process and other constitutional rights. (Ryan, 154-99)

“From the early 1920’s forward, Dewey became a vocal and articulate public spokes person for Democracy in all American institutions. He founded and led an AFT local at Columbia and often spoke at labor and AFT functions. He believed with every cell of his body that American Schools had to be the incubator of American Democracy. As the shadow of fascism descended over Europe, he became a fellow traveller with the United Front to defend the world from an ideology that had nothing but for contempt for Democracy or any notion of an open society. For Dewey, education that allowed the organic evolution of free speech and the discussion and respect for all points of view in the classroom inoculated American students from the threat of fascism.

“If he were alive today, Professor Dewey would be shocked by what he would see. In part, Dewey’s whole philosophy of Education was developed to countervail the corrosive influence of capitalism on communities and the gross economic power of giant corporations. He sought to defend individual growth and creativity and nurture the sense of public responsibility that was under assault from the pulverizing individualism of the dominant ideology of big business backed Social Darwinism.

“Dewey’s vision is now a major target of major foundations that are funding the push to privatize American Education. Major Wall Street investors and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation, among others, are working together with the Obama Administration to destroy what is left of public education in this great country. Combined, these corporations control approximately 50 billion dollars in assests.

“I will not take the time here to unpack the strategic plan coordinated by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and three people within the Department of Education who have turn their strategic plan into a public policy called “The Race to the Top.” You should read Diane Ravitch’s new book to get a clear picture of how this has all been done very legally with the help of the best lawyers that money can buy, millions of dollars thrown at the Harvard Education Department, and with tens of millions of dollars to hire the best Madison Ave. Advertising and PR firms and the best web designers (go to “PARCC” or “Common Core” online). What you need to know is that none of the people behind this plan have any respect for public schools or public school teachers.

“Like Anthony Cody, I have been insulted several times by Secretary Duncan’s Press Secretary and friends of our president who are not open to any imput from experienced teachers. Indeed, I was the subject of a veiled threat from Mr. Duncan’s Press Secretary that I describe here: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/04/paul_horton_of_common_core_con.html.

“In another case, a good friend of the President told me when I protested the Chicago School closings: “who do you think you are kidding, only 7 or 8 percent of those kids have a chance anyway.” Several weeks later when I raised the same subject again, he gave me the Democrats for Education Reform standard line that inner city schools failed because teachers have failed. He was not interested in hearing about poverty and resource starving of schools. I called him on this. The first quote sounded eerily like what Mr. Emanuel communicated to Chicago Teacher’s Union President, Karen Lewis, in a famously closed door, expletive filled meeting.

“What all friends of public teachers and public Education need to understand is that Mr. Duncan and the Obama administration listen to no one on this issue. What Republicans and Tea Party activists need to understand is that this is not about Government corruption, it is about the fact that when it comes to Education issues, we do not have a government. Governments must read and respond to petitions: our Education Department does not seek to communicate with any citizens except by tweeting inane idiocies about gadgets and enterprise. What we have is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsoring the overthrow of the public school system to bulldoze a path to sell billions of dollars of product. Other companies like Pearson Education, McGraw-Hill and Company, and Achieve, Inc. are just coming in behind the bulldozers.

“We must teach the rest of our society that democracy still matters in schools and everywhere else. The time for talking is over! We need to get into the streets and get arrested if necessary. Most importantly every one of us needs to call the same senator or congressman every day until NCLB and RTTT are dead, Arne Duncan does not have control over a penny, and all stimulus money that has yet to be distributed, is given by the Senate Appropriations Committee to the districts around the country that are the most underserved to rehire teachers and support staff. Not a penny should go to charter school construction, IT, administration, or hiring consultants from the Eli Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, or McKinsey. Not a penny should go to Pearson Education, McGraw-Hill or any form of standardized testing. All state superintendents who took trips from any Education vendor should resign, and no state should hire an administrator or superintendent at any level who does not have proper accredited certification and ten years of exemplary classroom teaching.

“Now is the time to preserve the legacy of John Dewey and teach the rest of the country about Democracy in Education or wait like sheep for Gatopia to numb us all!”

This is a story written by a mother who enrolled her son in Democracy Prep in Harlem. She is a Nigerian-born journalist. She contends that the school’s rigid discipline was excessive and that her son spent hours every day in detention.

It is a harrowing story. No doubt, Democracy Prep has another version. I welcome its response to this article. I will post it.

She writes:

“On my first visit to observe class I was struck by the robotic and monotonous style of teaching whereby teachers are programmed to literally clock every second of the class through a count down, while simultaneously monitoring every movement and body language of the young students.

“The students are supposed to respond in non-verbal coded signals called : spirit fingers – a twirling of all ten fingers in the direction of the scholar being supported – means a ‘show of support,’ brain match – is the simultaneous waving of the thumb and the pinkie – it means ‘I agree with you,’ track your speaker means ‘focusing on who’s speaking,’ pound it out – a chorus of pounding on the desks – means ‘the question is answered correctly’; and so on.

“So now I understand fully well why my 12 year old who is very creative and loves to be in motion would feel like he’s in prison; having to endure ten hours of monotonous class sessions daily without any sports activities or recess. Scholars have to eat their lunch in their respective classroom/homeroom and are only given fifteen to twenty minutes.”

And more:

“The endless list of reasons for which students can get railroaded into detention and ultimately suspension include: “not spontaneous on queue,” “clapping three times instead of twice as prompted,” “slouching over the desk,” “looking back at another student,” “talking,” “mumbling to yourself,” “fake coughing or sneezing,” “asking to go to the rest room,” “raising your hands too long,” “clearing your throat” or “breathing too hard.”

“I found this preposterous.

“So the process of suspension usually starts as follows. A teacher would declare “that’s one,” meaning a deduction, then if a student interjects “what did I do,”? The teacher would respond: “that’s two.”

“The third deduction automatically sends a student to “COLUMBIA,” the detention room managed by two African-America male coaches.

“All the Advisory/home rooms are named after a University. My son is in UCONN. I’m not sure why the detention room is called COLUMBIA. And by the way all the teachers at this charter school are white and from out of state. The school’s administrators did manage to get two coaches that are African-American from the New York City area. They are the two in charge of the detention room.”

Read the article and think about this:

The US Department of Education was so impressed by Democracy Prep that it have the charter chain $9.1 million to expand.

Question: With measures that demand total compliance, is Democracy Prep educating for democracy?

The U.S. Department of Education on its official blog asked
for help and advice in evaluating state testing systems aligned
with the Common Core. Forget the fact that the U.S. Department of
Education is barred by law from doing anything to control or direct
curriculum and instruction. How about offering your help?

Here is a suggestion posted as a comment:

“First of all let’s address the
standards you are referring to (Common Core). These standards are
ridiculous in every sense of the word! You want 6 year olds to know
what ziggurats are and a kindergartener to know what molecules are
(look at NY ELA modules)? They are developmentally inappropriate!
They are learning their name and the names of their classmates. Be
realistic. “Secondly, we are testing too much! My kids sit through
hours and hours of useless testing. Assessments are important when
they can inform the teacher on a student’s growth. Tell me how
standardized tests do this? They don’t ….the results come out 5
months after the test. They give a score, but nothing else.
Teachers can’t see the tests, so how can they see what Junior
answered? How was Junior confused? Then, there is the expectation
that a 4 year old can sit in front of a computer to take a test.
This is child abuse! It is child abuse for a 3rd grader to sit
through hours of testing. And it is in poor judgement that a
special needs student be tortured with these as well. “All of this
has resulted in kids hating school. If all they are ever told is
they are a failure, then why would we wonder why they drop out of
school? Kids need choices. Maybe they aren’t cut out to be a rocket
scientist, but would make a great carpenter. Let’s foster that
talent and stop thinking “one size fits all”. “Why do states have
to have testing? To compare with other states? To compare with the
rest of the world? How much does this testing cost? Lots! Why don’t
we take that money, put it into programs that foster economic
growth, like art and music? Offer children after school activities
that are inspiring, like music, dance, art, sports. You know,
things that are fun, but foster student worth. “We are not moving
in the right direction with education “reform”. It is causing more
problems. If you want to improve education so the US compares to
other countries, like Finland, then take a good hard look at how
they do it! We will not get the same results by trying to implement
the opposite ideas! Stop demoralizing teachers and students! You
are getting nowhere on that stationary bike!”

I recently learned that the Obama administration “monitored” me.

Two years ago, blogger Mike Klonsky tweeted that the U.S. Department of Education had a secret task force to watch me. He was ridiculed by Secretary Duncan’s press secretary in response. But now the Assistant Secretary for Communications acknowledges that he monitored me and others.

It’s no secret that I never thought much of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top. RTTT was released not long after I realized that George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind was a failure. I thought President Obama would ditch high-stakes testing and federal sanctions and chart a new course.

He didn’t. He built on the foundation of NCLB and made the stakes even higher by tying teacher evaluations to test scores. So I referred to Race to the Top as “NCLB on steroids” or “NCLB 2.0.”

I met Secretary Duncan in the fall of 2009, and we spent an hour alone talking. I talked about the failure of NCLB, the flaws of high-stakes testing, the risk of sacrificing the arts, history, and everything else because of making test scores so important. He smiled, he was charming, he took notes, we had our photo taken together. He is very, very tall. But nothing I said made a difference.

Now I learn that the Department of Education “monitored” me. Did they have the right to do that? I am not a terrorist. I don’t lead a secret organization. It’s just me, a critic of their policies.

Who else was monitored? What does it mean to be monitored? I don’t know.

It just doesn’t feel right when the government, with its vast powers, uses people to watch and monitor critics. It reminds me of Nixon’s “Enemies’ List.”