Archives for category: US Education

Michelle Rhee is is a one-person PAC. She is raising hundreds of millions of dollars from rightwing billionaires and foundations and corporations to subsidize her program.

What is her program? Destroy teachers’ unions; eliminate tenure and seniority; privatize public education. Having failed to transform the public schools of the District of Columbia, she now wants to privatize public education everywhere.

When I was in Chattanooga, Tennessee, I learned from a Democratic state senator that Rhee had poured $105,000 into a race between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Democrat. The difference between them? The conservative Democrat supports vouchers. My informant said, “Candidates here will jump through hoops for a contribution of $1,000. Getting $105,000 is unimaginable.” Rhee bought the election. The voucher-loving Democrat won. He added: Most of Rhee’s money goes to conservative Republicans.

She is trying to buy a seat in Connecticut now. A reader writes:

Rhee’s fraud of an organization has nothing to do with students, teaching or learning. It is a political lobbyist group that secretly slithers around the nation passing our billionaire donated cash to influence and bribe politicians. Her dirty donations push the privatization, anti-union, anti-public school, collective bargaining busting, teacher trashing dogma down their throats. Here she is a pariah and getting her money is the kiss of death here in CT:

http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/10/01/michelle-buy-yourself-an-election-rhee-returns-to-undermine-democracy-in-connecticut/

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/is_michelle_rhee_trying_to_buy_a_seat_in_the_5th/#comments-31483

I spent the last three days in Austin and had a great time. I’ll write about it on the flight home. I’m sitting on the JetBlue flight and the doors will close in 3 minutes.

Thought you might want to see this interview with me and Evan Smith. Only 24 minutes.

I take it back. I posted this as the doors were closing. When I landed, I learned that the link didn’t work. I wrote the producer and found out that it won’t go live until October 18, when the show airs. At that time, I’ll post the link and make sure it works.

Several readers, including parents in this district, have sent me a copy of this letter written by Don Sternberg of Wantagh Elementary School in Long Island, New York.

Sternberg wrote a letter to the school’s parents at the start of the school year telling them about how the politicians and bureaucrats at Albany were messing up their child’s education.

He wrote:

What we will be teaching students is to be effective test takers; a skill that does not necessarily translate into critical thinking – a skill set that is necessary at the college level and beyond. This will inevitably conflict with authentic educational practice – true teaching.
Unfortunately, if educators want to survive in the new, Albany-created bureaucratic mess that is standardized assessments to measure teacher performance, paramount to anything else, we must focus on getting kids ready for the state assessments. This is what happens when non-educators like our governor and state legislators, textbook publishing companies (who create the assessments for our state and reap millions of our tax dollars by doing so), our NYS Board of Regents, and a state teachers’ union president get involved in creating what they perceive as desirable educational outcomes and decide how to achieve and measure them. Where were the opinions of teachers, principals, and superintendents? None were asked to participate in the establishment of our new state assessment parameters. Today, statisticians are making educational decisions in New York State that will impact your children for years to come.

Standardized assessment has grown exponentially. For example, last year New York State fourth graders, who are nine or ten years old, were subjected to roughly 675 minutes (over 11 hours) of state assessments which does not include state field testing. This year there will be a state mandated pre-test in September and a second mandated pre-test in January for all kindergarten through fifth grade students in school. In April, kindergarten through fifth grade students will take the last test [assessment] for the year.

Excessive testing is unhealthy. When I went to school I was never over-tested and subsequently labeled with an insidious number that ranked or placed me at a Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 or Level 4 as we do today. Do you want your child to know their assigned ‘Level’? What would the impact be on their self-esteem and self-worth at such a young age?

Inevitably, he said, teachers would look at students as more or less desirable because what the students do will affect the teachers’ evaluation scores.

He urged parents to do their part, but he laid the blame for this massive distortion of educational purpose where it belongs: on the State Commissioner of Education, the Governor, and the Legislature.

The new system is a mess. It is an outrage. It is a crime against education and against children. Parents need to know what the state (and federal government) is doing to their children. They need to know how good schools and good teachers are being demoralized.

Donald Sternberg is a hero of public education. He joins our honor roll.

If every principal explained to the parents what the state is doing to their children and the harm being inflicted on them, we would turn this nation’s failed corporate education policies around and let our educators educate.

Washington, D.C., has announced that it will set different testing targets for children of different racial groups. According to a story in the Washington Post, this is now common practice among the states that have obtained waivers from No Child Left Behind.

The District and the states are acknowledging that children of color are so far behind their white and Asian peers that they will need more time to catch up. Actually, in D.C., black students will be expected to make more progress than white students so they can catch up with white students.

The story says:

Officials say the new targets account for differences in current performance and demand the fastest progress from students who are furthest behind. The goals vary across much of the country by race, family income and disability, and in Washington, they also vary by school.

At Anacostia High, which draws almost exclusively African Americans from one of the District’s most impoverished areas, officials aim to quadruple the proportion of students who are proficient in reading by 2017, but that would still mean that fewer than six out of 10 pass standardized reading tests. Across town at the School Without Walls in Northwest Washington, a diverse and high-performing magnet that enrolls students from across the city, the aim is higher: 99.6 percent.

Meanwhile, at Wilson Senior High, 67 percent of black students — and 88 percent of Asians and 95 percent of whites — are expected to pass standardized math tests five years from now.

Setting different aspirations for different groups of children represents a sea change in national education policy, which for years has prescribed blanket goals for all students. Some education experts see the new approach as a way to speed achievement for black, Latino and low-income students, but some parents can’t help but feel that less is being expected of their children.

The absurdity of this scenario is that D.C. and the states expect that all children will reach proficiency on normed tests. Normed tests have a bell curve. On a normed test, half will always be above and half below the mean. No matter how hard you try, a bell curve is still a bell curve. There is no district in the nation where 100% of the children are proficient. The children who are most advantaged cluster in the top half; those who are least advantaged cluster in the bottom half. This is true of the SAT, the ACT, state tests, federal tests, and international tests.

And, if you step back, you must wonder why the standardized tests–whose flaws, inaccuracies, and statistical vagaries are well known–have become the measure of all education.

No private school in the nation is subjecting its children to this mad scramble to live up to the demands of Pearson and McGraw Hill’s psychometricians.

Maybe all this seeming madness is just part of the larger scenario to declare US education a failure and find more schools ripe for privatization.

A reader in Indiana appeals for help to stop the ALEC-inspired takeover and privatization of public education in that state:


Tony Bennett is the lead character in Alec’s plan to privatize public education. Alec has always been populated by nearly every Indiana state senator and representative, but these past few years have seen Indiana overly represented with State Representative Dave Frizzell as president of the board of directors and a Senator Jim Buck as a member of the board. The recent education reform laws were word for word the laws that Alec wrote several years ago. Tony Bennett and these radical conservatives have set the stage for a disgusting takeover of public education. They know that Mike Pence will be elected governor and with a GOP legislature they will implement a school corporation take over law. With that in hand they will take over Indianapolis Public Schools and possibly try for Gary and Fort Wayne. These people are worse than disgusting; they will say anything to discredit and dismantle public education to see their dream of bringing in corporate education. Sadly there are some Democrats that help with this such as former Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson and several Dem legislators who have bought into the Arne Duncan style of Democrats for Education Reform. Indiana is being sucked into a black hole and the educators are screaming for help. We need national attention which would bring some bigger dollars to help Bennett’s opponent, Glenda Ritz get elected. Diane help us, please spread the word of this dire situation!

Yesterday I posted an interview in which President Obama expressed his views about education.

I wanted you to read it in its entirety without my comments.

Here are my comments.

First, the President acknowledged that he was not a very good student when he was in school. He said that he was “mediocre.” Several readers have asked: Does the President think that his teachers should have been fired because he didn’t try? Did he have bad teachers? Were they responsible for his poor performance or was he?

Second, the President lauded the idea of merit pay, paying teachers more if the test scores of their students go up (and firing them if they don’t). No one has told him that merit pay has failed wherever it was tried. No one has told him that it failed in Nashville in 2010, it failed in New York City in 2010, it failed in Chicago last year. Yet his administration has allocated $1 billion for more merit pay. Why doesn’t someone tell him?

Third, the President said that teachers in Denver are very happy to be paid more for performance. No one explained to the President that the Denver ProComp plan contains extra pay for taking on harder assignments, and that the Denver teachers opposed the pay-for-scores legislation that was imposed on them by the faux reformers two years ago. But Denver has little to show for its “reforms.” Denver is no national model. Read Gary Rubinstein’s post on the unimpressive results in Denver. The scores in Denver (which is what the President means by “results”) remain well below the state average.

Fourth, the President referred to class size. He said that he talked to teachers in Las Vegas who were unhappy that their classes at the opening of school had 42 students, and it took a few weeks to get them down to 35-38. The President didn’t say whether he thought that it was okay to have 35-38 students in an elementary school class. I wish the reporter had asked whether any of the classes at Sidwell Friends have 35-38 students.

Fifth, the President lauded his administration’s Race to the Top as he talked about “results,” but he seems unaware that it has no evidence to show that it will produce results. States and districts are now spending hundreds of millions of dollars to tie teacher evaluations to test scores, and not one of them can show that schools are better or kids are learning more because of this unproven method. Where are the successes? Not in DC, which has been practicing Rhee-form since 2007 and is still one of the nation’s lowest performing districts; not in Chicago, where teachers recently struck over poor working conditions and lack of necessary resources for students; not in New York City, where the scores collapsed in 2010 after the state acknowledged that it had gamed the testing system; and not in New Orleans, where an almost all-charter system is ranked 69th of 70 districts in the state and 79% of the charters are rated D or F.

Sixth, the President says he really likes charter schools. But nowhere does he acknowledge that charters are recreating a dual system of publicly funded schools in the nation’s cities and are now starting to expand their “market” into affluent districts where there are no “failing” schools. Nor does he acknowledge that numerous studies find that charters don’t get different results than public schools if they serve the same students. Why does he want two systems, one regulated, the other deregulated? I wish the reporter had asked those questions.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

The President has many more pressing issues to think about, both foreign and domestic. He wants to win the election.

But he is woefully misinformed about his own education policies, about the absence of evidence for them, about the lack of results, about the harmful effect they are having on students and teachers and the quality of education, about the shared assumptions of Race to the Top and the failed No Child Left Behind. He doesn’t seem aware that his own policies require “teaching to the test,” which he says he opposes.

He has not heard the voices of teachers and parents. He is not changing his policies. They will fail as No Child Left Behind has failed because they are based on flawed assumptions about teaching and learning, and because they are based on carrots and sticks.

Carrots and sticks work for donkeys, not for professionals.

This is a good article. Unspoken, or only hinted at, in this very conservative newspaper, is that strikes are effective.

When employers treat workers shabbily, a strike is justified.

When working conditions are intolerable, a strike is justified.

When management engages in harmful practices–like closing schools and handing the kids over to private entrepreneurs–a strike is justified.

The hidden message: Teachers of America, get your comfortable shoes ready.

Protect the children in your care.

Defend public education against privatization.

Strike reluctantly, but strike if you must.

Only one error here: Chicago’s teachers have had 17 years of “top-down disruptions” (aka, “reform”) not just 10.

OPINION
September 23, 2012, 6:25 p.m. ET
A Gold Star for the Chicago Teachers Strike

After 10 years of top-down disruptions, teachers showed the power of collective action by those who work in schools.

By KAREN LEWIS AND RANDI WEINGARTEN

After more than a decade of top-down dictates, disruptive school closures, disregard of teachers’ and parents’ input, testing that squeezes out teaching, and cuts to the arts, physical education and libraries, educators in Chicago said “enough is enough.” With strong support from parents and many in the community, teachers challenged a flawed vision of education reform that has not helped schoolchildren in Chicago or around the country. It took a seven-day strike—something no one does without cause—but with it educators in Chicago have changed the conversation about education reform.

These years of dictates imposed upon teachers left children in Chicago without the rich curriculum, facilities and social services they need. On picket lines, with their handmade signs, teachers provided first-person accounts of the challenges confronting students and educators. They made it impossible to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable conditions in many of the city’s public schools.

Teachers and parents were united in the frustration that led to the strike. Nearly nine out of 10 students in Chicago Public Schools live in poverty, a shameful fact that so-called reformers too often ignore, yet most schools lack even one full-time nurse or social worker. The district has made cuts where it shouldn’t (in art, music, physical education and libraries) but hasn’t cut where it should (class sizes and excessive standardized testing and test prep). The tentative agreement reached in Chicago aims to address all these issues.

Chicago’s teachers see this as an opportunity to move past the random acts of “reform” that have failed to move the needle and toward actual systemic school improvement. The tentative agreement focuses on improving quality so that every public school in Chicago is a place where parents want to send their children and educators want to teach.

Its key tenets:

First, use time wisely. The proposed contract lengthens the school day and year. A key demand by educators during the strike was that the district focus not just on instituting a longer school day, but on making it a better school day. Additional seat time doesn’t constitute a good education. A well-rounded and rich curriculum, regular opportunities for teachers to plan and confer with colleagues, and time to engage students through discussions, group work and project-based learning—all these contribute to a high-quality education, and these should be priorities going forward.

Second, get evaluation right and don’t fixate on testing. Effective school systems use data to inform instruction, not as a “scarlet number” that does nothing to improve teaching and learning. One placard seen on Chicago’s picket lines captured the sentiment of countless educators: “I want to teach to the student, not to the test.” If implemented correctly, evaluations can help Chicago promote the continuous development of teachers’ skills and of students’ intellectual abilities (and not just their test-taking skills).

Third, fix—don’t close—struggling schools. Chicago’s teachers echoed the concerns of numerous parents and civil rights groups that the closing of struggling schools creates turmoil and instability but doesn’t improve achievement. Low-performing schools improve not only by instituting changes to academics and enrichment, but also by becoming centers of their communities.

Schools that provide wraparound services—medical and mental-health services, mentoring, enrichment programs and social services—create an environment in which kids are better able to learn and teachers can focus more on instruction, knowing their students’ needs are being met. Chicago, with an 87% child-poverty rate, should make these effective—and cost-effective—approaches broadly available.

Fourth, morale matters. Teachers who work with students in some of the most difficult environments deserve support and respect. Yet they often pay for their dedication by enduring daily denigration for not single-handedly overcoming society’s shortcomings. These indignities and lack of trust risk making a great profession an impossible one.

In a period when many officials have sought to strip workers of any contractual rights or even a collective voice, the Chicago teachers strike showed that collective action is a powerful force for change and that collective bargaining is an effective tool to strengthen public schools. Chicago’s public-school teachers—backed by countless educators across the country—changed the conversation from the blaming and shaming of teachers to the promotion of strategies that parents and teachers believe are necessary to help children succeed.

It is a powerful example of solution-driven unionism and a reminder that when people come together to deal with matters affecting education, those who work in the schools need to be heard. When they are, students, parents and communities are better for it.

Ms. Lewis is president of the Chicago Teachers Union. Ms. Weingarten is president of the CTU’s national union, the American Federation of Teachers.

A reader sees how the pieces of the reform movement fit together:

I think that all the double-speak is just to divert attention away from the major process of dismantling education that has been taking place across the country, and the smoke and mirrors is to conceal the intention to ultimately declare brick and mortar schools obsolete and teachers expendable and unnecessary. Effectively, the goal is to not have teachers anymore.

One online teacher I work with put it this way recently, “We’re just glorified graders now.” Honestly, for a teacher, there is no glory when your job boils down to just grading. But politicians, corporate reformers and companies like Pearson and K-12 seem to think that education can be reduced to presenting material on a screen and testing, and that they can train virtually anyone to be graders.

Actually, online, you can set it up so that tests are self-administered and automatically generate grades, so currently instructors are grading papers, class discussions, group projects, participation, etc. and I can see how that might one day be considered superfluous to the powers that be.

Count on Stephanie Simon of Reuters to get the story that eluded every other reporter.

She is the one that got the inside story on Louisiana, TFA, and for-profit investors.

Now she has the scoop on Chicago.

The strike in Chicago is not about money.

It is a national story.

It’s about the survival of public education.

Read her story.

Jamie Vollmer is the author of the famous Blueberry Story. He was working for an ice cream company that won recognition for making the best ice cream in America. Buoyed by success, he would go to conferences and decry the sorry state of American education, based on what he knew of business.

One day, when speaking to a group of teachers, someone asked him what his company would do if he got a shipment of damaged blueberries. He promptly replied that the shipment would be thrown away. The teacher responded, we don’t throw away any of our blueberries, we take them all.

Vollmer had a transformational experience, an epiphany. And he became a champion of public education.

Here he discusses what he calls “notesia.” Nostegia is a combination of nostalgia and amnesia. Please send this link to every reformer you know. Send it to editorial writers and business leaders. Send it to Arne Duncan. Send it to Condi Rice. Let it go viral.