Fron the Providence Journal
by Linda Borg
PROVIDENCE — After two hours of contentious discussion, the School Board voted 4 to 3 Thursday night to send out termination notices to each of the city’s 1,926 public school teachers.
More than 700 teachers jammed a high school gymnasium to tell school officials that their hearts were broken, their trust violated and their futures as teachers jeopardized.
“How do we feel? Disrespected,” said Julie Latessa, a special-needs teacher, before the vote. “We are broken. How do you repair the damage you have done today?”
Every teacher received a certified letter from the School Department on Thursday informing them that they might be terminated at the end of the school year. It also said the School Board would vote on the proposed dismissals at Thursday night’s meeting, which was moved to the Providence Career and Technical Academy to accommodate the huge turnout.
Many of the teachers were caught off guard by Mayor Angel Taveras’ decision to terminate teachers instead of laying them off. Last night, speakers questioned the mayor’s rationale: a $40-million school budget deficit and a March 1 deadline by which the School Department must notify teachers if their jobs are in jeopardy.
“This is a quasi-legal power grab,” said Richard Larkin, a teacher at Classical High School. “You want to pick and choose teachers. Well, we will not be bullied.”
More than 700 teachers turned out for the School Board’s meeting Thursday night at the Providence Career & Technical Academy, at which the board voted to terminate them at the end of the school year. The Providence Journal / Ruben W. Perez
Speaker after speaker demanded to know why they were being fired. Didn’t the teachers union sign on to the federal Race to the Top initiative? Hasn’t the union collaborated with Supt. Tom Brady on new curricula? Isn’t the union working with the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers on a new teacher evaluation?
“I’m feeling disrespected, devalued and marginalized,” said Ed Gorden. “Termination is a career-ender. You are putting a scarlet letter on every one of us.”
Teachers begged the School Board to issue layoffs rather than fire them outright because, under the layoff provisions, teachers are recalled based on seniority. There is no guarantee that seniority would be used to bring back any of the fired teachers. School leaders have been vague about exactly how seniority will play out in the case of terminations.
Before the vote, several School Board members explained their reasons for supporting or rejecting the motion to dismiss:
Philip Gould said he believes that Providence Teachers Union President Steve Smith is committed to serious and meaningful school reform, adding that if “we do this, it will be detrimental to the children of this district.”
Nina Pande said the board is faced with an extremely difficult decision and that the board was given only three days to close a $40-million deficit.
Melissa Malone, Kathleen Crain, Pande and Julian Dash voted for the motion to dismiss; Robert Wise, Brian Lalli and Gould voted against it.
Earlier Thursday, Smith called the terminations “an attack on labor and an attack on collective bargaining.”
“This is a back-door Wisconsin,” Smith said, referring to the weeklong protests in Madison by labor unions. “We don’t know why we’re being fired. The mayor says he needs flexibility. Can you buy that? I don’t know of any other district that has done this.”
Thursday night, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the possible dismissals “shocking,” and said the move will “disrupt the education of all students and the entire community.”
Superintendent Brady has said that the majority of teachers will be rehired but could not give any details until the mayor’s special panel completes its report on the city’s financial status.
Teachers who attended a meeting with Brady on Thursday afternoon left as dismayed and confused as they were when they entered the building. Many said they still didn’t understand why they were being dismissed.
“Everyone is anxious,” said Eileen Finklestein, an elementary school teacher. “We hope the School Board will make a rational decision.”
-- with reports from Richard C. Dujardin, Journal staff writer
HOW THEY VOTED:
Yes: Melissa Malone, Kathleen Crain, Niña Pande, Julian Dash
No: Robert Wise, Brian Lalli, Philip Gould
lborg@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/PROVIDENCE_SCHOOL_MEETINGS_02-25-11_MCMMBSG_v26.1bd455c.html
Showing posts with label Race to the Top. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race to the Top. Show all posts
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The last day of public school
From the Washinton Posts Answer Sheet
By Mark Phillips
And if I laugh at any mortal thing, ‘Tis that I may not weep” --Lord Byron
Summer vacations will be extended in all public schools in the U.S. this year. They will now be year-round.
This announcement yesterday by the Secretary of Education, which shocked parents all over the country, has been directly traced to the combined effects of the government programs No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. As one local teacher, now an applicant to teach on Mark Zuckerberg’s new Textbook, put it, “Now that the schools are closed, maybe we can get back to real teaching.”
A full analysis from The Institute for the Deconstruction of Twisted Logic in Palo Alto is due next week, but preliminary findings released help explain the events leading to the permanent closing of all public schools.
First, the Institute notes, there was evidently a major intelligence failure, detailed in the first chapter of the report, “Act First, Think Later.” None of the policymakers understood that their reform programs were solutions to the wrong problems.
“They were largely a solution to the problem policymakers have of needing numerical data quickly without wasting time doing a lot of research.” noted Lionel Mangrove, Institute spokesperson. “And it worked. They wasted none of their valuable time observing or listening or thinking, and got a lot of test results quickly.”
Few reforms have ever been more effective in changing statistics. Unfortunately, the real problem appears to have been low student engagement -- and the testing bombardment just made that worse. For some further understanding, read the earlier Institute report, “The Use of X-Rays and Marathon Running to Improve Lung Congestion.”
The likely effect of all of this on teachers was considered superfluous. Something had to give and a story out of Boston finally caught front pages across the country. A despondent teacher stood on the roof of his school screaming, “I’m mad as hell and and I’m not gonna take this anymore. Let’s just teach to the tests and give up the rest. Let’s give them exactly what they want!”
Soon, “Teach to the tests, the hell with the rest!” became a rallying cry for frustrated teachers throughout the country. Bumper stickers and t-shirts flourished. Eminem even wrote a hit rap song with that title and the lyrics:
“Our teaching is lousy
The laws are a scam
Test scores are rising
But we don’t give a damn
So teach to the tests
The hell with the rest
At least we’ll get funding
By the government blessed.”
The song reached No. 3 on the rap charts and won a Grammy.
Third, notes the report, almost no one noticed that more and more students just stopped showing up. One student, interviewed for 60 Minutes, stated, “When I decided to give up drugs, I knew I had to also give up tests. They were both making me homicidal. Now I’m really learning again. We hang out on Textbook, use Google and Twitter, discuss movies and books, real ideas and stuff, not that testing b.s.”
Zuckerberg’s brilliant spin-off from Facebook proved to be a colossal hit with students and teachers alike, helped by a nationwide ad campaign featuring the slogans “No Boredom on Textbook” and, “Tired of testing? Join a Textbook learning group today.” Soon, few students were showing up at school and even fewer for the tests.
The final blow was the Wikileaks report, Over the Top, based on a secret government study showing that almost 80 percent of American high schools had gone over the top, simultaneously achieving new highs in test scores, vandalism, and dropouts.
Still, the end came rather suddenly in recent weeks. It occurred to the few dedicated teachers left behind that if there were no students it was foolish to come to work. Besides, Zuckerberg was paying better, actually listening to teachers, students and parents, and, in an agreement with Amazon, providing all students with Kindles.
With no students and no teachers, the government stopped funding schools. As the Secretary of Education put it, “Let those guys foot the bill! We can use the money to improve the American family. Our great new program, No Family Left Behind, will do just that!”
Davis Guggenheim’s plans for another film, "Waiting for Close Encounters," about benevolent aliens who come from outer space after being contacted by Michelle Rhee to institute a lottery to rescue the schools, have apparently been shelved.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/the-day-all-the-public-schools.html
By Mark Phillips
And if I laugh at any mortal thing, ‘Tis that I may not weep” --Lord Byron
Summer vacations will be extended in all public schools in the U.S. this year. They will now be year-round.
This announcement yesterday by the Secretary of Education, which shocked parents all over the country, has been directly traced to the combined effects of the government programs No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. As one local teacher, now an applicant to teach on Mark Zuckerberg’s new Textbook, put it, “Now that the schools are closed, maybe we can get back to real teaching.”
A full analysis from The Institute for the Deconstruction of Twisted Logic in Palo Alto is due next week, but preliminary findings released help explain the events leading to the permanent closing of all public schools.
First, the Institute notes, there was evidently a major intelligence failure, detailed in the first chapter of the report, “Act First, Think Later.” None of the policymakers understood that their reform programs were solutions to the wrong problems.
“They were largely a solution to the problem policymakers have of needing numerical data quickly without wasting time doing a lot of research.” noted Lionel Mangrove, Institute spokesperson. “And it worked. They wasted none of their valuable time observing or listening or thinking, and got a lot of test results quickly.”
Few reforms have ever been more effective in changing statistics. Unfortunately, the real problem appears to have been low student engagement -- and the testing bombardment just made that worse. For some further understanding, read the earlier Institute report, “The Use of X-Rays and Marathon Running to Improve Lung Congestion.”
The likely effect of all of this on teachers was considered superfluous. Something had to give and a story out of Boston finally caught front pages across the country. A despondent teacher stood on the roof of his school screaming, “I’m mad as hell and and I’m not gonna take this anymore. Let’s just teach to the tests and give up the rest. Let’s give them exactly what they want!”
Soon, “Teach to the tests, the hell with the rest!” became a rallying cry for frustrated teachers throughout the country. Bumper stickers and t-shirts flourished. Eminem even wrote a hit rap song with that title and the lyrics:
“Our teaching is lousy
The laws are a scam
Test scores are rising
But we don’t give a damn
So teach to the tests
The hell with the rest
At least we’ll get funding
By the government blessed.”
The song reached No. 3 on the rap charts and won a Grammy.
Third, notes the report, almost no one noticed that more and more students just stopped showing up. One student, interviewed for 60 Minutes, stated, “When I decided to give up drugs, I knew I had to also give up tests. They were both making me homicidal. Now I’m really learning again. We hang out on Textbook, use Google and Twitter, discuss movies and books, real ideas and stuff, not that testing b.s.”
Zuckerberg’s brilliant spin-off from Facebook proved to be a colossal hit with students and teachers alike, helped by a nationwide ad campaign featuring the slogans “No Boredom on Textbook” and, “Tired of testing? Join a Textbook learning group today.” Soon, few students were showing up at school and even fewer for the tests.
The final blow was the Wikileaks report, Over the Top, based on a secret government study showing that almost 80 percent of American high schools had gone over the top, simultaneously achieving new highs in test scores, vandalism, and dropouts.
Still, the end came rather suddenly in recent weeks. It occurred to the few dedicated teachers left behind that if there were no students it was foolish to come to work. Besides, Zuckerberg was paying better, actually listening to teachers, students and parents, and, in an agreement with Amazon, providing all students with Kindles.
With no students and no teachers, the government stopped funding schools. As the Secretary of Education put it, “Let those guys foot the bill! We can use the money to improve the American family. Our great new program, No Family Left Behind, will do just that!”
Davis Guggenheim’s plans for another film, "Waiting for Close Encounters," about benevolent aliens who come from outer space after being contacted by Michelle Rhee to institute a lottery to rescue the schools, have apparently been shelved.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/the-day-all-the-public-schools.html
Monday, February 21, 2011
Is Obamma hurting or helping education
From the Washington Posts Answer Sheet
By Valerie Strauss
For two years, President Obama has been pushing school reform that has demonized public school teachers. Now he has injected himself on the side of teachers into the confrontation in Wisconsin, where the new Republican governor is trying to pass emergency legislation that would drastically cut collective bargaining rights.
Obama’s support is ironic, given that teachers’ collective bargaining rights have already been undermined by his education reform policies.
Obama, a few days ago, threw his political machine onto the side of teachers who are helping to lead a protest movement in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to cut benefits and take away collective bargaining rights from labor. Madison public schools have been closed for several days because teachers called in sick, and the state Capitol building has been filled with protesters.
The public rationale for the assault on collective bargaining rights -- which is moving to other states as well -- is based on the premise that unions are at least partly responsible for the fiscal problems states find themselves in. My Post colleague Ezra Klein shows how untrue this is in this post: “Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don’t blame the unions. Not for this recession.”
The thing is that it has become all too easy to blame public school teachers. They and their unions have become the chief villain in the “what went wrong with public education” narrative under the Obama administration. It matters not that the problems in public education found in union states are identical to the problems found in non-union states (which you can read about here in a post that looks in depth at this).
In a number of ways, Obama’s education policies have gone a long way toward undermining the position of public school teachers and, separately, their unions. The two largest teachers unions in fact did not invite Obama or Education Secretary Arne Duncan to their 2010 conventions because they have been so upset at what they see as the administration's anti-union, anti-teacher policies.
The Obama administration, through its Race to the Top competition, dangled federal money to encourage the expansion of charter schools, which are largely non-union. It has provided verbal and cash support for teacher training programs that have as their distinguishing feature not the fact that they are anti-union (which they are) but that they believe a young person with little training is “highly qualified” to teach the neediest students.
And it has made standardized tests the main measurement of students, schools and, now, teachers. This obsession has bastardized the entire learning process, narrowing curriculum, fostering cheating scandals, harming real student achievement and putting teachers in a position of being blamed for things for which they are not responsible.
The administration has squeezed unions into accepting assessment schemes that link student standardized test scores to a varying but significant percentage of a teacher’s pay -- even though research shows that outside influences play at least as much a role in how a student does on a test as a teacher. Also ignored: Research showing the unreliability of systems that use scores to evaluate how much “value” a teacher has brought to a student.
What Obama’s policies have not done to any serious degree is provide support so that teachers are properly trained and developed, and so that teacher assessments fairly evaluate whether a teacher belongs in a classroom.
The popular perception of unions is that they have flat-out fought the administration at every turn. Not true. Local unions have in fact worked with management around the country to experiment with such “value-added” systems in an effort to cooperate with management and to avoid being seen as opposing modern reform.
Such cooperation was praised by Education Secretary Arne Duncan at a conference he convened in Denver to showcase cooperation between teachers unions and management in districts around the country.
Why anyone thinks it is a positive for local unions to cooperate on an assessment model shown to have serious flaws is a mystery to me.
If Obama can help teachers unions keep their collective bargaining rights from disappearing under Republican assault, good for him and them. That doesn’t eliminate the harm his policies have done already to teachers and their profession.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/race-to-the-top/the-irony-of-obamas-help-for-w.html?wprss=answer-sheet
By Valerie Strauss
For two years, President Obama has been pushing school reform that has demonized public school teachers. Now he has injected himself on the side of teachers into the confrontation in Wisconsin, where the new Republican governor is trying to pass emergency legislation that would drastically cut collective bargaining rights.
Obama’s support is ironic, given that teachers’ collective bargaining rights have already been undermined by his education reform policies.
Obama, a few days ago, threw his political machine onto the side of teachers who are helping to lead a protest movement in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to cut benefits and take away collective bargaining rights from labor. Madison public schools have been closed for several days because teachers called in sick, and the state Capitol building has been filled with protesters.
The public rationale for the assault on collective bargaining rights -- which is moving to other states as well -- is based on the premise that unions are at least partly responsible for the fiscal problems states find themselves in. My Post colleague Ezra Klein shows how untrue this is in this post: “Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don’t blame the unions. Not for this recession.”
The thing is that it has become all too easy to blame public school teachers. They and their unions have become the chief villain in the “what went wrong with public education” narrative under the Obama administration. It matters not that the problems in public education found in union states are identical to the problems found in non-union states (which you can read about here in a post that looks in depth at this).
In a number of ways, Obama’s education policies have gone a long way toward undermining the position of public school teachers and, separately, their unions. The two largest teachers unions in fact did not invite Obama or Education Secretary Arne Duncan to their 2010 conventions because they have been so upset at what they see as the administration's anti-union, anti-teacher policies.
The Obama administration, through its Race to the Top competition, dangled federal money to encourage the expansion of charter schools, which are largely non-union. It has provided verbal and cash support for teacher training programs that have as their distinguishing feature not the fact that they are anti-union (which they are) but that they believe a young person with little training is “highly qualified” to teach the neediest students.
And it has made standardized tests the main measurement of students, schools and, now, teachers. This obsession has bastardized the entire learning process, narrowing curriculum, fostering cheating scandals, harming real student achievement and putting teachers in a position of being blamed for things for which they are not responsible.
The administration has squeezed unions into accepting assessment schemes that link student standardized test scores to a varying but significant percentage of a teacher’s pay -- even though research shows that outside influences play at least as much a role in how a student does on a test as a teacher. Also ignored: Research showing the unreliability of systems that use scores to evaluate how much “value” a teacher has brought to a student.
What Obama’s policies have not done to any serious degree is provide support so that teachers are properly trained and developed, and so that teacher assessments fairly evaluate whether a teacher belongs in a classroom.
The popular perception of unions is that they have flat-out fought the administration at every turn. Not true. Local unions have in fact worked with management around the country to experiment with such “value-added” systems in an effort to cooperate with management and to avoid being seen as opposing modern reform.
Such cooperation was praised by Education Secretary Arne Duncan at a conference he convened in Denver to showcase cooperation between teachers unions and management in districts around the country.
Why anyone thinks it is a positive for local unions to cooperate on an assessment model shown to have serious flaws is a mystery to me.
If Obama can help teachers unions keep their collective bargaining rights from disappearing under Republican assault, good for him and them. That doesn’t eliminate the harm his policies have done already to teachers and their profession.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/race-to-the-top/the-irony-of-obamas-help-for-w.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Are you there Mr. President?
From Education Week Teacher, Living in Dilogue
Peggy Robertson
When I was twelve I read a book that changed my life. It was titled Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. I read it again and again. In that book, I finally saw that someone out there understood me. Ultimately, we all desperately desire to be heard and understood. Expert teachers know this; they spend every waking moment trying to figure out what makes their students tick. We watch, we observe, we truly listen and we make changes based on our students' needs.
When I was in my twenties, and a new teacher, I read another book, The Dreamkeepers, by Gloria Ladson-Billings. It rocked my world. It made me cry. The book came at a crucial time in my career as a teacher. I worked at a school "across the tracks," in a town in southern Missouri. My students were mainly African-American and many were very poor. I, like many new teachers today, got placed in a school with high need, high poverty students. It was the best job I ever had. Gloria was the voice in my head helping me along the way. She was my mentor but never knew it. She understood.
On February 17th, I attended a presentation by Diane Ravitch here in Denver, Colorado. I wanted to have her sign my copy of her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, but I honestly couldn't do it. I was feeling so emotional and I knew I might unravel. Diane hears me; my experience is simply an echo of the voices of many educators out there today. She knows what today's teachers are going through. If Diane and I did talk, she would understand what was beautiful about my fifteen years in the education field as well as what was haunting. She would know why I am debating whether I should return to the education field or not. She reports the facts accurately. She is our collective voice. She listens.
Are you there, President Obama? It's me, Peggy Robertson, the voice of a former teacher. Are you truly listening? I must say, with respect, that it does not feel as though you are. I have felt hopeless during your presidency. This week, for the first time, I have hope. Watching the public workers of Madison, Wisconsin protest and ask to be heard made me sit up a bit straighter. The American people have a voice! I saw democracy in action. But are you listening? I now hear that they are asking you to join them. I hope you do.
But this is about more than Madison, Wisconsin. Madison is the first snowball. Once it starts rolling, it may be unstoppable. We've got a lot of mountains here in Colorado and I hope that snowball heads our way. The corporate education reform going on here is devastating.
My fifteen years as an educator were spent teaching in the elementary grades as well as supporting teachers and administrators in developing and refining effective instructional practices. During my five final years I suddenly became jaded. NCLB destroyed my spirit. I watched it's evil hand touch children, teachers, schools and districts.
I saw the strangle hold NCLB had on everyone. I tried to support teachers with all of the obstacles NCLB placed in our way. I watched Reading First fail. I saw principals come and go and schools get closed. I saw students caught in the crossfire. I saw the light go out in children's eyes when they were drilled continually for the state test. I worked with teachers who told me we needed to hurry up and help that child read (in kindergarten mind you) before a negative label was placed on that child; we were in a pressure cooker. I supported administrators in knowing what to look for when they observed and evaluated teachers; many of them did not know what they were seeing because they had not actually spent much time teaching. Or, they had spent time teaching subjects, such as Spanish, in a high school classroom and they were now being asked to evaluate elementary school teachers who were focusing on developing readers and writers. Such an irony - teachers evaluated by administrators who haven't taught what the teachers are teaching. The administrators were under immense pressure as they are today. The scores simply had to be good.
When I left the education profession I left angry. My beliefs about education had been trampled on. I didn't believe in what I was being required to do. Too much testing. Too many young children not being allowed to be children. Too much data being shoved down everybody's throats. I have stayed home the last four years with my youngest son, and I have watched the destruction of our American school system continue. My youngest child is ready to start school, and I wonder if I should re-enter the education profession. But, do I really want to enter the lion's den? I want to work in the education field again, but I also want to be heard and respected.
The current corporate reform taking over our public schools is handing us many more teachers, administrators and superintendents who will need immense support to do their jobs well. If the new administrators haven't taught, then how in the world can you expect them to evaluate teachers? How is a former army sergeant, now made superintendent, supposed to evaluate and support administrators? How is a teacher with five weeks training expected to support our neediest students? And, (lucky us) we have the Bush Institute training principals, in cooperation with Teach for America of course! It's insulting. All of it - it's a slap in the face to students, educators and parents.
It appears there is no point in getting a degree in education with the TFA program leading the way. And then we are told that our master's degrees are pointless too? I think about that every month when I pay my student loan bill. And this week, my eyes rolled back in my head when I heard that the U.S. Department of Education just gave fifty million dollars to the TFA program. The TFA program is a band-aid. And it hurts the neediest children when those teachers leave after their two-year contract has ended.
In your State of the Union Address you asked for more college students to go in to education. I'm sorry, but I seriously laughed when you said that. I would pay both my children money to stay out of the education field right now. It's a hostile environment. Teachers have to teach to the test. The new common core standards are developmentally inappropriate. Children get labeled as failures before they've even finished kindergarten thanks to the pressures of NCLB. And let's not forget that those five year olds don't get a nap or a recess or time for imaginative play. RTTT is punishing to teachers and to schools. Encourage my children to enter the lion's den to teach? No thank you. Your administration has shown no respect for educators, parents or students.
Are you listening Obama? The strangle hold of RTTT may result in the death of public education. Have you read Ravitch's book? Have you followed any of the research being shared on expert educator blogs across the country? What do you really know about TFAs? Merit pay? Value-added assessment? Standardized Testing?
News Flash - it's all bad. Why are you listening to Gates? What educational credentials does he have? It is so difficult to have a voice as a teacher. We don't have a lot of money so we can't buy the media, such as the new Media Bullpen, like Gates can. But we can march. And march we will. July 28th to July 31st concerned citizens will find their way to Washington D.C. to take part in the Save our Schools March and National Call to Action. Will you join us? Will you listen?
When I voted for you I voted with my heart and soul. I believed everything you said. I thought you heard me. I thought we had found a president that truly understood the needs of the American people. I don't believe that anymore. There has been too much damage done. We now have Arne Duncan (a non-educator) leading the way with the corporate reformers whispering in his ear. We have more testing, more teacher bashing and more children being hurt at the hands of corporate reform.
Are you there President Obama? Did you hear Stephen Krashen talk about poverty? Again and again? Did you hear that our international test scores are actually excellent when we look at the scores of the children not living in poverty? Do you really believe poverty has nothing to do with the woes of our public schools? Have you read the research? I could provide all the links but it doesn't seem necessary considering they are all over the internet on every single education blog I read. I don't think you are listening. I think it's going to take an uprising for you to hear us. Madison, Wisconsin, is speaking.
I am placing my faith in the American people. I am listening Madison, Wisconsin. I signed the letter. You are speaking for all of us. President Obama, please listen. Please renew the hope we all had when we elected you.
Peggy Robertson
Former Educator
Centennial, Colorado
Peggy Robertson taught kindergarten, first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth grade, beginning her career in Missouri and continuing in Kansas, for a total of ten years. She was hired by Richard C. Owen Publishers in 2001 to serve as a Learning Network Coordinator and spent the next three years training teacher leaders and administrators in educational theory and practice in the state of Colorado, as well as around the country during the summer months. In 2004 she was hired as the Literacy Coordinator by the Adams 50 School District in Westminster, Colorado. While working in Adams 50 she mentored teachers and administrators and supported them in the writing and implementation of school development plans.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/02/are_you_there_mr_president_mad.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d604596cdef1ba4%2C0
Peggy Robertson
When I was twelve I read a book that changed my life. It was titled Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. I read it again and again. In that book, I finally saw that someone out there understood me. Ultimately, we all desperately desire to be heard and understood. Expert teachers know this; they spend every waking moment trying to figure out what makes their students tick. We watch, we observe, we truly listen and we make changes based on our students' needs.
When I was in my twenties, and a new teacher, I read another book, The Dreamkeepers, by Gloria Ladson-Billings. It rocked my world. It made me cry. The book came at a crucial time in my career as a teacher. I worked at a school "across the tracks," in a town in southern Missouri. My students were mainly African-American and many were very poor. I, like many new teachers today, got placed in a school with high need, high poverty students. It was the best job I ever had. Gloria was the voice in my head helping me along the way. She was my mentor but never knew it. She understood.
On February 17th, I attended a presentation by Diane Ravitch here in Denver, Colorado. I wanted to have her sign my copy of her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, but I honestly couldn't do it. I was feeling so emotional and I knew I might unravel. Diane hears me; my experience is simply an echo of the voices of many educators out there today. She knows what today's teachers are going through. If Diane and I did talk, she would understand what was beautiful about my fifteen years in the education field as well as what was haunting. She would know why I am debating whether I should return to the education field or not. She reports the facts accurately. She is our collective voice. She listens.
Are you there, President Obama? It's me, Peggy Robertson, the voice of a former teacher. Are you truly listening? I must say, with respect, that it does not feel as though you are. I have felt hopeless during your presidency. This week, for the first time, I have hope. Watching the public workers of Madison, Wisconsin protest and ask to be heard made me sit up a bit straighter. The American people have a voice! I saw democracy in action. But are you listening? I now hear that they are asking you to join them. I hope you do.
But this is about more than Madison, Wisconsin. Madison is the first snowball. Once it starts rolling, it may be unstoppable. We've got a lot of mountains here in Colorado and I hope that snowball heads our way. The corporate education reform going on here is devastating.
My fifteen years as an educator were spent teaching in the elementary grades as well as supporting teachers and administrators in developing and refining effective instructional practices. During my five final years I suddenly became jaded. NCLB destroyed my spirit. I watched it's evil hand touch children, teachers, schools and districts.
I saw the strangle hold NCLB had on everyone. I tried to support teachers with all of the obstacles NCLB placed in our way. I watched Reading First fail. I saw principals come and go and schools get closed. I saw students caught in the crossfire. I saw the light go out in children's eyes when they were drilled continually for the state test. I worked with teachers who told me we needed to hurry up and help that child read (in kindergarten mind you) before a negative label was placed on that child; we were in a pressure cooker. I supported administrators in knowing what to look for when they observed and evaluated teachers; many of them did not know what they were seeing because they had not actually spent much time teaching. Or, they had spent time teaching subjects, such as Spanish, in a high school classroom and they were now being asked to evaluate elementary school teachers who were focusing on developing readers and writers. Such an irony - teachers evaluated by administrators who haven't taught what the teachers are teaching. The administrators were under immense pressure as they are today. The scores simply had to be good.
When I left the education profession I left angry. My beliefs about education had been trampled on. I didn't believe in what I was being required to do. Too much testing. Too many young children not being allowed to be children. Too much data being shoved down everybody's throats. I have stayed home the last four years with my youngest son, and I have watched the destruction of our American school system continue. My youngest child is ready to start school, and I wonder if I should re-enter the education profession. But, do I really want to enter the lion's den? I want to work in the education field again, but I also want to be heard and respected.
The current corporate reform taking over our public schools is handing us many more teachers, administrators and superintendents who will need immense support to do their jobs well. If the new administrators haven't taught, then how in the world can you expect them to evaluate teachers? How is a former army sergeant, now made superintendent, supposed to evaluate and support administrators? How is a teacher with five weeks training expected to support our neediest students? And, (lucky us) we have the Bush Institute training principals, in cooperation with Teach for America of course! It's insulting. All of it - it's a slap in the face to students, educators and parents.
It appears there is no point in getting a degree in education with the TFA program leading the way. And then we are told that our master's degrees are pointless too? I think about that every month when I pay my student loan bill. And this week, my eyes rolled back in my head when I heard that the U.S. Department of Education just gave fifty million dollars to the TFA program. The TFA program is a band-aid. And it hurts the neediest children when those teachers leave after their two-year contract has ended.
In your State of the Union Address you asked for more college students to go in to education. I'm sorry, but I seriously laughed when you said that. I would pay both my children money to stay out of the education field right now. It's a hostile environment. Teachers have to teach to the test. The new common core standards are developmentally inappropriate. Children get labeled as failures before they've even finished kindergarten thanks to the pressures of NCLB. And let's not forget that those five year olds don't get a nap or a recess or time for imaginative play. RTTT is punishing to teachers and to schools. Encourage my children to enter the lion's den to teach? No thank you. Your administration has shown no respect for educators, parents or students.
Are you listening Obama? The strangle hold of RTTT may result in the death of public education. Have you read Ravitch's book? Have you followed any of the research being shared on expert educator blogs across the country? What do you really know about TFAs? Merit pay? Value-added assessment? Standardized Testing?
News Flash - it's all bad. Why are you listening to Gates? What educational credentials does he have? It is so difficult to have a voice as a teacher. We don't have a lot of money so we can't buy the media, such as the new Media Bullpen, like Gates can. But we can march. And march we will. July 28th to July 31st concerned citizens will find their way to Washington D.C. to take part in the Save our Schools March and National Call to Action. Will you join us? Will you listen?
When I voted for you I voted with my heart and soul. I believed everything you said. I thought you heard me. I thought we had found a president that truly understood the needs of the American people. I don't believe that anymore. There has been too much damage done. We now have Arne Duncan (a non-educator) leading the way with the corporate reformers whispering in his ear. We have more testing, more teacher bashing and more children being hurt at the hands of corporate reform.
Are you there President Obama? Did you hear Stephen Krashen talk about poverty? Again and again? Did you hear that our international test scores are actually excellent when we look at the scores of the children not living in poverty? Do you really believe poverty has nothing to do with the woes of our public schools? Have you read the research? I could provide all the links but it doesn't seem necessary considering they are all over the internet on every single education blog I read. I don't think you are listening. I think it's going to take an uprising for you to hear us. Madison, Wisconsin, is speaking.
I am placing my faith in the American people. I am listening Madison, Wisconsin. I signed the letter. You are speaking for all of us. President Obama, please listen. Please renew the hope we all had when we elected you.
Peggy Robertson
Former Educator
Centennial, Colorado
Peggy Robertson taught kindergarten, first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth grade, beginning her career in Missouri and continuing in Kansas, for a total of ten years. She was hired by Richard C. Owen Publishers in 2001 to serve as a Learning Network Coordinator and spent the next three years training teacher leaders and administrators in educational theory and practice in the state of Colorado, as well as around the country during the summer months. In 2004 she was hired as the Literacy Coordinator by the Adams 50 School District in Westminster, Colorado. While working in Adams 50 she mentored teachers and administrators and supported them in the writing and implementation of school development plans.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/02/are_you_there_mr_president_mad.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d604596cdef1ba4%2C0
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Teacher hating bill picks up steam
This was a done deal the second Scott was elected despite Wise's claims of inclusveness. -cpg
From the St. Petersbug Times Gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Senate's version of legislation to change the way Florida schoolteachers are paid, evaluated, contracted and certified won approval from another committee Tuesday morning.
After nearly two hours of discussion and testimony, much of it similar to what we heard a week ago at the Pre-K-12 Committee, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education Pre-K-12 Appropriations voted out SB 736 on an 8-1 vote, with only Republican Paula Dockery opposed.
Members praised sponsor Steve Wise, R-Jacksonville, for crafting a better bill than last year's SB 6 and for being more inclusive in writing it. But some also cautioned that the bill needs more work before they're willing to back it on the floor.
"The current way it is today is unacceptable for Florida public education," said Sen. Bill Montford, a Tallahassee Democrat who also is head of the state's superintendents organization. He argued that the bill takes away teachers' confidence that they will have jobs regardless of their performance, and said it relied on evaluations that don't even exist.
"A tremendous amount of change is coming to Florida K-12. It's long overdue," Montford said. "I believe we as a Legislature can do better."
Even Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, suggested that improvements are necessary. But she suggested that the kinks could be worked out over time, saying that this legislation is "the next major logical step in education reform," building upon the state's A-Plus system.
Questions remain over how to pay for raises, for instance, and how the bill jibes with other endeavors such as Race to the Top. And the House version has yet to emerge.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/sb-736-picks-another-committee-recommendation
From the St. Petersbug Times Gradebook
by Jeff Solocheck
The Senate's version of legislation to change the way Florida schoolteachers are paid, evaluated, contracted and certified won approval from another committee Tuesday morning.
After nearly two hours of discussion and testimony, much of it similar to what we heard a week ago at the Pre-K-12 Committee, the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education Pre-K-12 Appropriations voted out SB 736 on an 8-1 vote, with only Republican Paula Dockery opposed.
Members praised sponsor Steve Wise, R-Jacksonville, for crafting a better bill than last year's SB 6 and for being more inclusive in writing it. But some also cautioned that the bill needs more work before they're willing to back it on the floor.
"The current way it is today is unacceptable for Florida public education," said Sen. Bill Montford, a Tallahassee Democrat who also is head of the state's superintendents organization. He argued that the bill takes away teachers' confidence that they will have jobs regardless of their performance, and said it relied on evaluations that don't even exist.
"A tremendous amount of change is coming to Florida K-12. It's long overdue," Montford said. "I believe we as a Legislature can do better."
Even Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, suggested that improvements are necessary. But she suggested that the kinks could be worked out over time, saying that this legislation is "the next major logical step in education reform," building upon the state's A-Plus system.
Questions remain over how to pay for raises, for instance, and how the bill jibes with other endeavors such as Race to the Top. And the House version has yet to emerge.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/gradebook/content/sb-736-picks-another-committee-recommendation
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Why I do not love public education
Another gret blog from Modern Schools. A lot of teachers have similar feelings about education. -cpg
Save Our Schools is hosting a Valentine’s Day blogging festival called I Love Public Education Blogging day. I’d like to participate, but I do not love public education. Here’s why:
I do love teaching and working with young people of all ages. Teaching is fun and inspiring, at least it was until the Ed Deformers really started to go crazy with accountability, testing, and attacking teacher compensation, tenure and pensions. I still learn a lot from my students and from my colleagues, which I really appreciate. I like the fact that education is free for all children, theoretically giving all kids the opportunity to grow and develop. Clearly, education is necessary so that people can learn the basic skills they need to survive in this world. It is also my livelihood, so I do not want to see it debased or eviscerated any further.
Herein lies the rub: Public Education has always existed as a tool for maintaining and enforcing the existing socioeconomic relations (i.e., ensuring that the rich remain rich and the rest of us have the minimal skills and attitude necessary to help them to do so). I do NOT love this most fundamental aspect of public education. The notion that education is the great equalizer is nothing but a liberal myth. It helps bolster the American Dream fantasy and it draws many do-gooder types to the teaching profession who make increasingly desperate sacrifices for “the good of our students,” and sometimes to the detriment of their colleagues. Yet the vast majority of people still end up in the same social class as adults as their parents, despite their schooling.
Certainly there is the potential for individual teachers to enlighten children and inspire them to resist the injustices in the world and to help some of them move up the social ladder, but even the very best teacher is fighting against tremendous odds. The fact is that the socioeconomic relations outside of school play a much stronger role in a child’s academic development than do the school or teacher. If we really want to see significant improvements in graduation rates and closing the achievement gap, then we need to be fighting for greater social and economic equity. We need to be organizing to take back the wealth that the rich have been sapping from us. We need stronger unions and higher pay for the 95% of Americans that are not part of the ruling elite. We need universal health care for all. We need childcare for all parents who want to work outside the home. We need mental health services and drug rehab for all who need it. We need affordable housing. We need to stop locking people up for nonviolent petty crimes like drug possession.
So for me, saving public education is about much more than just getting the billionaire (and millionaire) Ed Deformers off my back. Of course I would love to see an immediate end to NCLB and Race to the Top. It would be great if the voucher, charter-school and “choice” advocates would quit trying to raid public funds and even greater if we could start funding public schools generously instead of miserly. And it would be fantastic if we really did lower class sizes, provided adequate books and supplies, clean and well-maintained facilities. And while we’re at it, how about providing elementary teachers with a prep period or giving secondary teachers two or three prep periods so they had the time to really read all those essays and lab reports and to develop exciting new hands-on activities? How about providing full-time nurses and health clinics on campuses, reinstating counselors and librarians, arts and music? However, if we don’t also start organizing and fighting for some serious social transformations, even all these other great improvements will only help a fraction of our students to achieve at the high levels we have set for them.
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-i-do-not-love-public-education.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernSchool+%28Modern+School%29
Save Our Schools is hosting a Valentine’s Day blogging festival called I Love Public Education Blogging day. I’d like to participate, but I do not love public education. Here’s why:
I do love teaching and working with young people of all ages. Teaching is fun and inspiring, at least it was until the Ed Deformers really started to go crazy with accountability, testing, and attacking teacher compensation, tenure and pensions. I still learn a lot from my students and from my colleagues, which I really appreciate. I like the fact that education is free for all children, theoretically giving all kids the opportunity to grow and develop. Clearly, education is necessary so that people can learn the basic skills they need to survive in this world. It is also my livelihood, so I do not want to see it debased or eviscerated any further.
Herein lies the rub: Public Education has always existed as a tool for maintaining and enforcing the existing socioeconomic relations (i.e., ensuring that the rich remain rich and the rest of us have the minimal skills and attitude necessary to help them to do so). I do NOT love this most fundamental aspect of public education. The notion that education is the great equalizer is nothing but a liberal myth. It helps bolster the American Dream fantasy and it draws many do-gooder types to the teaching profession who make increasingly desperate sacrifices for “the good of our students,” and sometimes to the detriment of their colleagues. Yet the vast majority of people still end up in the same social class as adults as their parents, despite their schooling.
Certainly there is the potential for individual teachers to enlighten children and inspire them to resist the injustices in the world and to help some of them move up the social ladder, but even the very best teacher is fighting against tremendous odds. The fact is that the socioeconomic relations outside of school play a much stronger role in a child’s academic development than do the school or teacher. If we really want to see significant improvements in graduation rates and closing the achievement gap, then we need to be fighting for greater social and economic equity. We need to be organizing to take back the wealth that the rich have been sapping from us. We need stronger unions and higher pay for the 95% of Americans that are not part of the ruling elite. We need universal health care for all. We need childcare for all parents who want to work outside the home. We need mental health services and drug rehab for all who need it. We need affordable housing. We need to stop locking people up for nonviolent petty crimes like drug possession.
So for me, saving public education is about much more than just getting the billionaire (and millionaire) Ed Deformers off my back. Of course I would love to see an immediate end to NCLB and Race to the Top. It would be great if the voucher, charter-school and “choice” advocates would quit trying to raid public funds and even greater if we could start funding public schools generously instead of miserly. And it would be fantastic if we really did lower class sizes, provided adequate books and supplies, clean and well-maintained facilities. And while we’re at it, how about providing elementary teachers with a prep period or giving secondary teachers two or three prep periods so they had the time to really read all those essays and lab reports and to develop exciting new hands-on activities? How about providing full-time nurses and health clinics on campuses, reinstating counselors and librarians, arts and music? However, if we don’t also start organizing and fighting for some serious social transformations, even all these other great improvements will only help a fraction of our students to achieve at the high levels we have set for them.
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-i-do-not-love-public-education.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ModernSchool+%28Modern+School%29
Monday, February 14, 2011
Obamas education disapointment continues
From the Washington Posts Answer Sheet
By Valerie Strauss
President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan talk a lot about using “what works” in helping to improve public schools, but their proposed $77.4 billion education budget for 2012 unfortunately wouldn’t do that.
It would do the opposite if passed, but it won’t make it through Congress intact; the Republican-led House just took a meat axe to the administration’s 2011 budget (which hasn’t passed Congress yet), cutting some of the programs that Obama wants to boost.
The document, then, is really a restatement of the administration’s ineffective educational values: increased competition for funding rather than equitable distribution of resources, more dependence on standardized tests for evaluation, more punishment for lowest-performing schools and an expansion of charter schools.
The budget document boldly declares that the administration’s key education initiative thus far, Race to the Top, has achieved “difficult yet fundamental improvements to our education system.”
No, it hasn’t. There is no evidence whatsoever that Race to the Top has done anything to improve real student achievement. In fact, Duncan himself has criticized No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on standardized testing as resulting in narrowed curriculum and other problems, yet he still, inexplicably, wants more.
Is it at all surprising that people get cynical about school reform when everybody who launches an initiative declares it a historic success before the ink is dry?
In yet another example of saying and doing two different things, Duncan Monday told a group of reporters that we don’t need “another study to demonstrate the longterm benefits” of high-quality early education programs. That can only mean that he understands that these programs are seriously important in preparing kids to achieve in school. They work.
Yet the 2012 budget proposal provides a small amount for such programs in comparison to what they are spending on untested proposals. (see numbers below)
The same holds true for reform strategies that incorporate wrap-around social and health services for families living in poverty.
Obama has repeatedly singled out the Harlem Children’s Zone as a model for school reform because it does just that. When he talks about the zone, he acknowledges the important link between poverty and academic performance. But again, the budget provides little money compared to the cash it wants to provide for tests and other nonproductive initiatives. Failing to address this issue in education, when 23 percent of American children live in poverty, is tantamount to malpractice.
What the budget does make a top priority is the controversial Race to the Top competition, which offered cash for states that would enact reforms that the administration supported, including an expansion of charter schools, common academic standards and more standardized testing.
Now the administration wants to spend $1.4 billion to expand Race to the Top in K-12 but also extend the model to early learning and higher education. This includes:
a) $350 million to establish a new, competitive Early Learning Challenge Fund for states to target early childhood programs.
b) $900 million for a new K-12 Race to the Top that will extend the program to school districts rather than states, and that will include special funding for rural districts though how much is not yet known. This way, the federal government can get districts involved in Race to the Top in states that chose not to participate, such as Texas.
c) $150 million in a new initiative to increase college access and completion and, the budget document says, “to improve educational productivity,” whatever improving educational productivity means.
Here are more numbers in the 2012 proposed budget. The $77.4 billion proposed budget is an increase of about 4 percent from 2010 (the 2011 budget has yet to be approved by Congress) and includes:
*$26.8 billion in a reformed Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind (assuming that Congress agrees to reform it, which it has not yet). This funding would include:
a) *$600 million for School Turnaround Grants
b) $300 million in new Title I funding to reward schools that show the most progress in improving the achievement of at-risk students.
c) $300 million for the Investing in Innovation program (Teach for America recently got a $50 million grant from this fund)
d) $150 million in Promise Neighborhoods, "an initiative that integrates a rigorous K-12 education with a full network of support services across an entire neighborhood, so that youth successfully complete high school and continue on to college." (This is the Obama initiative modeled on the Harlem Children's Zone that the president thinks so highly of. Compare this amount to the next item.)
e) $372 million to expand effective charter schools and other autonomous public schools that achieve positive results. (The biggest study of charter schools shows that most charter schools do no better or worse than traditional public schools.)
f) $835 million to support "a well-rounded education, including reading; science, technology, engineering and math (STEM); and the humanities
g) $365 million for efforts "to promote school safety, health, and well-being."
h) $750 million to reform education for English learners.
Other programs, though, would be cut, including Career and Technical Education, which would get $1 billion, or $264 million less than last year.
You tell me what’s wrong with this picture.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/the-problems-with-obamas-2012.html?wprss=answer-sheet
By Valerie Strauss
President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan talk a lot about using “what works” in helping to improve public schools, but their proposed $77.4 billion education budget for 2012 unfortunately wouldn’t do that.
It would do the opposite if passed, but it won’t make it through Congress intact; the Republican-led House just took a meat axe to the administration’s 2011 budget (which hasn’t passed Congress yet), cutting some of the programs that Obama wants to boost.
The document, then, is really a restatement of the administration’s ineffective educational values: increased competition for funding rather than equitable distribution of resources, more dependence on standardized tests for evaluation, more punishment for lowest-performing schools and an expansion of charter schools.
The budget document boldly declares that the administration’s key education initiative thus far, Race to the Top, has achieved “difficult yet fundamental improvements to our education system.”
No, it hasn’t. There is no evidence whatsoever that Race to the Top has done anything to improve real student achievement. In fact, Duncan himself has criticized No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on standardized testing as resulting in narrowed curriculum and other problems, yet he still, inexplicably, wants more.
Is it at all surprising that people get cynical about school reform when everybody who launches an initiative declares it a historic success before the ink is dry?
In yet another example of saying and doing two different things, Duncan Monday told a group of reporters that we don’t need “another study to demonstrate the longterm benefits” of high-quality early education programs. That can only mean that he understands that these programs are seriously important in preparing kids to achieve in school. They work.
Yet the 2012 budget proposal provides a small amount for such programs in comparison to what they are spending on untested proposals. (see numbers below)
The same holds true for reform strategies that incorporate wrap-around social and health services for families living in poverty.
Obama has repeatedly singled out the Harlem Children’s Zone as a model for school reform because it does just that. When he talks about the zone, he acknowledges the important link between poverty and academic performance. But again, the budget provides little money compared to the cash it wants to provide for tests and other nonproductive initiatives. Failing to address this issue in education, when 23 percent of American children live in poverty, is tantamount to malpractice.
What the budget does make a top priority is the controversial Race to the Top competition, which offered cash for states that would enact reforms that the administration supported, including an expansion of charter schools, common academic standards and more standardized testing.
Now the administration wants to spend $1.4 billion to expand Race to the Top in K-12 but also extend the model to early learning and higher education. This includes:
a) $350 million to establish a new, competitive Early Learning Challenge Fund for states to target early childhood programs.
b) $900 million for a new K-12 Race to the Top that will extend the program to school districts rather than states, and that will include special funding for rural districts though how much is not yet known. This way, the federal government can get districts involved in Race to the Top in states that chose not to participate, such as Texas.
c) $150 million in a new initiative to increase college access and completion and, the budget document says, “to improve educational productivity,” whatever improving educational productivity means.
Here are more numbers in the 2012 proposed budget. The $77.4 billion proposed budget is an increase of about 4 percent from 2010 (the 2011 budget has yet to be approved by Congress) and includes:
*$26.8 billion in a reformed Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as No Child Left Behind (assuming that Congress agrees to reform it, which it has not yet). This funding would include:
a) *$600 million for School Turnaround Grants
b) $300 million in new Title I funding to reward schools that show the most progress in improving the achievement of at-risk students.
c) $300 million for the Investing in Innovation program (Teach for America recently got a $50 million grant from this fund)
d) $150 million in Promise Neighborhoods, "an initiative that integrates a rigorous K-12 education with a full network of support services across an entire neighborhood, so that youth successfully complete high school and continue on to college." (This is the Obama initiative modeled on the Harlem Children's Zone that the president thinks so highly of. Compare this amount to the next item.)
e) $372 million to expand effective charter schools and other autonomous public schools that achieve positive results. (The biggest study of charter schools shows that most charter schools do no better or worse than traditional public schools.)
f) $835 million to support "a well-rounded education, including reading; science, technology, engineering and math (STEM); and the humanities
g) $365 million for efforts "to promote school safety, health, and well-being."
h) $750 million to reform education for English learners.
Other programs, though, would be cut, including Career and Technical Education, which would get $1 billion, or $264 million less than last year.
You tell me what’s wrong with this picture.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/the-problems-with-obamas-2012.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Bashing Teachers and Public Schools comes from all sides
From the Washington Times Answer Sheet
By Stan Karp
Far too many people are bashing teachers and public schools. The attacks are coming from different places for different reasons, and we need to pay attention to the differences.
The parent who’s angry at the public school system because it’s not successfully educating his/her children is not the same as the billionaire with no education experience, who couldn’t survive in a classroom for two days, but who has made privatizing education policy a hobby, and who has the resources to do so because the country’s financial and tax systems serve the rich.
The educators who start a community-based charter school to create a collaborative school culture are not the same as the hedge fund managers who invest in charter schools to turn a profit, or who want to privatize our most important civic institution.
The well-meaning college grad who joins a Teach For America program is not the same as the corporate managers who want to use market reforms to create a less expensive, less secure and less experienced teaching force.
And the hard-pressed taxpayer who directs frustration at teachers struggling to hang on to their health insurance or pensions—which far too few people have at all—is not coming from the same place as those responsible for the obscene economic inequality that is squeezing both.
I’ve spent a large part of my adult life criticizing the flawed policies of public education as a teacher, an education activist and a policy advocate. But now I find myself spending a lot of time defending the very idea of public education against those who say, it should be blown up.
The increasingly polarized education policy debate is not just about whether teachers feel the sting of public criticism or whether school budgets suffer another round of cuts. It’s not even about the hot-button issues getting all the attention like merit pay or charter schools.
What’s at stake is more basic: Whether the right to a free public education for all children will survive as a fundamental democratic promise in our society, and whether the schools and districts needed to provide it are going to survive as public institutions.
Will they be collectively owned and democratically managed, however imperfectly, by all of us as citizens, or will they be privatized and commercialized by corporate interests that increasingly dominate our society?
The larger goal, to borrow a phrase from the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a political lobby financed by hedge fund millionaires that is a chief architect of the current campaign, is to “burst the dam” that has historically protected public education and its $600 billion annual expenditures from unchecked commercial exploitation and privatization.
What is new and alarming are the large strides those promoting business models and market reforms have made in attaching their agenda to the urgent need of poor communities who have, in too many cases, been badly served by the current system.
The narrative of public education as a systematic failure has been fed in recent years by shifting federal policy. It’s moved away from its historic role as a promoter of access and equity through support for things such as school integration, extra funding for high-poverty schools and services for students with special needs, and embraced a much less equitable set of mandates around testing, closing schools, firing school staff and distributing federal funds through “competitive grants” to “winners” at the expense of “losers.”
First with No Child Left Behind, and then with Race to the Top, Democrats have been playing tag team with Republicans building on the test and punish approach. Just how much this bipartisan consensus has solidified came home when I picked up my local paper one morning and saw Gov. Chris Christie, the most anti-public education governor New Jersey has ever had, quoted as saying “This is an incredibly special moment in American history, where you have Republicans in New Jersey agreeing with a Democratic president on how to get reform.”
Unless we change direction, the combined impact of these proposals will do for public schooling what market reform has done for housing, health care and the economy: produce fabulous profits for a few and unequal access and outcomes for the many.
The corporate/foundation crowd has successfully captured the media label as “education reformers.” If you support charters, merit pay, and control of school policy by corporate managers you’re a reformer. If you support increased school funding, collective bargaining and control of school policy by educators, you’re a defender of the status quo.
This is particularly true when it comes to the way the issue of poverty is being framed.
Of course poverty is no excuse for bad teaching, poor curriculum, massive dropout rates or year after year of lousy school outcomes. We need accountability systems that put pressure on schools to respond effectively to the communities they serve. And in my experience, parents are the key to creating that pressure and teachers are the key to implementing the changes needed to address it. Finding ways to promote a collaborative tension and partnership between these groups is a key to school improvement.
But the reformers’ notion that schools alone can make up for the inequality and poverty that exists all around them has become part of the “No Excuses” drumbeat used to impose reforms that have no record of success as school improvement strategies.
Instead they’re political strategies designed to bring market reform to public education.
Today we hear absurd claims about how super-teachers can eliminate achievement gaps with scripted curricula handed down from above, and how the real problem is not the country’s shameful 23% child poverty rate or underfunded schools. Instead it’s bad teachers.
Now it’s true that effective teachers and good schools can make an enormous difference in the life chances of children. And it’s also true that struggling teachers who don’t improve after they’ve been given support need to find other work.
But when it comes to student achievement—and especially the narrow, culturally-slanted, pseudo-achievement captured by standardized test scores—there is no evidence that the test score gaps you hear about constantly can be traced to bad teaching. And there is overwhelming evidence that they closely reflect the inequalities of race, class, and opportunity that follow students to school.
Teachers count a lot. But reality counts too. Reformers who discount the impact of poverty are actually the ones making excuses for their failure to make poverty reduction, and adequate and equitable school funding, a central part of school improvement efforts.
The federal government has put more effort into tying individual teacher compensation to test scores and pressing states to eliminate caps on charter schools than encouraging them to distribute more fairly the $600 billion they spend annually on K-12 education.
At the same time they want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create more tests based on the new common core standards and use those tests to implement merit pay plans.
Spending more money on standardized tests is like passing out thermometers in a malaria epidemic. People need better health care, more hospitals, and better-trained doctors, they don’t need more thermometers.
These test-based evaluation systems have the potential to seriously damage the teaching profession. Their basic assumptions are at odds with the way real schools actually work, and bending school practices to accommodate them could negatively affect everything from the way students are assigned to classes, to the willingness of teachers to serve high needs populations to the collaborative professional culture that good schools depend on for success. They’ll also require another massive increase in standardized testing.
The last issue I want to mention is charters. Today there are about 5,000 charter schools that enroll about 4% of all students. Few justify the hype they receive in "Waiting for Superman,” and those that do, like the schools featured in the film, are highly selective, privately subsidized schools that have very limited relevance for the public system. It’s like looking for models of public housing by studying luxury condo developments.
In the past 10 years, the character of the charter school movement has gone from community-based, educator-initiated local efforts to spur alternative approaches for a small number of students, to nationally funded efforts by foundations, investors and educational management companies to create a parallel, more privatized system.
This does not deny the reform impulse that is a real part of the charter movement. Many times during my 30 years of teaching at a large dysfunctional high school, I wanted to start my own school. And many of the issues that public school advocates like myself criticize in charters, like creaming, and unequal resources exist within the public system too.
But public schools have federal, state and district obligations that can be brought to bear. There are school boards, public budgets, public policies and public officials that can be held accountable in ways that privatized charters don’t allow. In post-Katrina New Orleans, where more than 60% of all students now attend unequal tiers of charter schools, there are students and parents who cannot find any schools to take them.
No one questions the desire of parents to find the best options they can for their children. But any strategy that promotes charter expansion at the expense of system-wide improvement and equity for the all schools is a plan for privatization not reform.
It took well over a hundred years to create a public school system that, for all its flaws, provides a free education for all children as a legal right. And public schools are one of the last places where an increasingly diverse and divided population still comes together for a common civic purpose in this country.
In some respects public education is our most successful democratic institution, doing more to reduce inequality, offer hope, and provide opportunity than the country’s financial, economic, political, and media institutions.
Those who believe that business models and market reforms hold the key to solving educational problems have a [reform] agenda, but:
It does not include all children and all families.
It does not include adequate, equitable and sustainable funding.
It does not include transparent public accountability.
It does not include the supports and reforms that educators need to do their jobs well.
It doesn’t address the legacy or the current realities of race and class inequality that surround our schools every day.
Where we go from here, as advocates and activists for social justice, depends in part on our ability to re-invent and articulate this missing equity agenda and to build a reform movement that can provide effective, credible alternatives to the strategies that are currently being imposed from above.
We need to reclaim not just our schools, but our political process and our public policy-making machinery, and control over our economic and social future. We don’t only need to fix our schools, we need to fix our democracy.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/why-teacher-bashing-is-dangero.html?wprss=answer-sheet
By Stan Karp
Far too many people are bashing teachers and public schools. The attacks are coming from different places for different reasons, and we need to pay attention to the differences.
The parent who’s angry at the public school system because it’s not successfully educating his/her children is not the same as the billionaire with no education experience, who couldn’t survive in a classroom for two days, but who has made privatizing education policy a hobby, and who has the resources to do so because the country’s financial and tax systems serve the rich.
The educators who start a community-based charter school to create a collaborative school culture are not the same as the hedge fund managers who invest in charter schools to turn a profit, or who want to privatize our most important civic institution.
The well-meaning college grad who joins a Teach For America program is not the same as the corporate managers who want to use market reforms to create a less expensive, less secure and less experienced teaching force.
And the hard-pressed taxpayer who directs frustration at teachers struggling to hang on to their health insurance or pensions—which far too few people have at all—is not coming from the same place as those responsible for the obscene economic inequality that is squeezing both.
I’ve spent a large part of my adult life criticizing the flawed policies of public education as a teacher, an education activist and a policy advocate. But now I find myself spending a lot of time defending the very idea of public education against those who say, it should be blown up.
The increasingly polarized education policy debate is not just about whether teachers feel the sting of public criticism or whether school budgets suffer another round of cuts. It’s not even about the hot-button issues getting all the attention like merit pay or charter schools.
What’s at stake is more basic: Whether the right to a free public education for all children will survive as a fundamental democratic promise in our society, and whether the schools and districts needed to provide it are going to survive as public institutions.
Will they be collectively owned and democratically managed, however imperfectly, by all of us as citizens, or will they be privatized and commercialized by corporate interests that increasingly dominate our society?
The larger goal, to borrow a phrase from the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a political lobby financed by hedge fund millionaires that is a chief architect of the current campaign, is to “burst the dam” that has historically protected public education and its $600 billion annual expenditures from unchecked commercial exploitation and privatization.
What is new and alarming are the large strides those promoting business models and market reforms have made in attaching their agenda to the urgent need of poor communities who have, in too many cases, been badly served by the current system.
The narrative of public education as a systematic failure has been fed in recent years by shifting federal policy. It’s moved away from its historic role as a promoter of access and equity through support for things such as school integration, extra funding for high-poverty schools and services for students with special needs, and embraced a much less equitable set of mandates around testing, closing schools, firing school staff and distributing federal funds through “competitive grants” to “winners” at the expense of “losers.”
First with No Child Left Behind, and then with Race to the Top, Democrats have been playing tag team with Republicans building on the test and punish approach. Just how much this bipartisan consensus has solidified came home when I picked up my local paper one morning and saw Gov. Chris Christie, the most anti-public education governor New Jersey has ever had, quoted as saying “This is an incredibly special moment in American history, where you have Republicans in New Jersey agreeing with a Democratic president on how to get reform.”
Unless we change direction, the combined impact of these proposals will do for public schooling what market reform has done for housing, health care and the economy: produce fabulous profits for a few and unequal access and outcomes for the many.
The corporate/foundation crowd has successfully captured the media label as “education reformers.” If you support charters, merit pay, and control of school policy by corporate managers you’re a reformer. If you support increased school funding, collective bargaining and control of school policy by educators, you’re a defender of the status quo.
This is particularly true when it comes to the way the issue of poverty is being framed.
Of course poverty is no excuse for bad teaching, poor curriculum, massive dropout rates or year after year of lousy school outcomes. We need accountability systems that put pressure on schools to respond effectively to the communities they serve. And in my experience, parents are the key to creating that pressure and teachers are the key to implementing the changes needed to address it. Finding ways to promote a collaborative tension and partnership between these groups is a key to school improvement.
But the reformers’ notion that schools alone can make up for the inequality and poverty that exists all around them has become part of the “No Excuses” drumbeat used to impose reforms that have no record of success as school improvement strategies.
Instead they’re political strategies designed to bring market reform to public education.
Today we hear absurd claims about how super-teachers can eliminate achievement gaps with scripted curricula handed down from above, and how the real problem is not the country’s shameful 23% child poverty rate or underfunded schools. Instead it’s bad teachers.
Now it’s true that effective teachers and good schools can make an enormous difference in the life chances of children. And it’s also true that struggling teachers who don’t improve after they’ve been given support need to find other work.
But when it comes to student achievement—and especially the narrow, culturally-slanted, pseudo-achievement captured by standardized test scores—there is no evidence that the test score gaps you hear about constantly can be traced to bad teaching. And there is overwhelming evidence that they closely reflect the inequalities of race, class, and opportunity that follow students to school.
Teachers count a lot. But reality counts too. Reformers who discount the impact of poverty are actually the ones making excuses for their failure to make poverty reduction, and adequate and equitable school funding, a central part of school improvement efforts.
The federal government has put more effort into tying individual teacher compensation to test scores and pressing states to eliminate caps on charter schools than encouraging them to distribute more fairly the $600 billion they spend annually on K-12 education.
At the same time they want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create more tests based on the new common core standards and use those tests to implement merit pay plans.
Spending more money on standardized tests is like passing out thermometers in a malaria epidemic. People need better health care, more hospitals, and better-trained doctors, they don’t need more thermometers.
These test-based evaluation systems have the potential to seriously damage the teaching profession. Their basic assumptions are at odds with the way real schools actually work, and bending school practices to accommodate them could negatively affect everything from the way students are assigned to classes, to the willingness of teachers to serve high needs populations to the collaborative professional culture that good schools depend on for success. They’ll also require another massive increase in standardized testing.
The last issue I want to mention is charters. Today there are about 5,000 charter schools that enroll about 4% of all students. Few justify the hype they receive in "Waiting for Superman,” and those that do, like the schools featured in the film, are highly selective, privately subsidized schools that have very limited relevance for the public system. It’s like looking for models of public housing by studying luxury condo developments.
In the past 10 years, the character of the charter school movement has gone from community-based, educator-initiated local efforts to spur alternative approaches for a small number of students, to nationally funded efforts by foundations, investors and educational management companies to create a parallel, more privatized system.
This does not deny the reform impulse that is a real part of the charter movement. Many times during my 30 years of teaching at a large dysfunctional high school, I wanted to start my own school. And many of the issues that public school advocates like myself criticize in charters, like creaming, and unequal resources exist within the public system too.
But public schools have federal, state and district obligations that can be brought to bear. There are school boards, public budgets, public policies and public officials that can be held accountable in ways that privatized charters don’t allow. In post-Katrina New Orleans, where more than 60% of all students now attend unequal tiers of charter schools, there are students and parents who cannot find any schools to take them.
No one questions the desire of parents to find the best options they can for their children. But any strategy that promotes charter expansion at the expense of system-wide improvement and equity for the all schools is a plan for privatization not reform.
It took well over a hundred years to create a public school system that, for all its flaws, provides a free education for all children as a legal right. And public schools are one of the last places where an increasingly diverse and divided population still comes together for a common civic purpose in this country.
In some respects public education is our most successful democratic institution, doing more to reduce inequality, offer hope, and provide opportunity than the country’s financial, economic, political, and media institutions.
Those who believe that business models and market reforms hold the key to solving educational problems have a [reform] agenda, but:
It does not include all children and all families.
It does not include adequate, equitable and sustainable funding.
It does not include transparent public accountability.
It does not include the supports and reforms that educators need to do their jobs well.
It doesn’t address the legacy or the current realities of race and class inequality that surround our schools every day.
Where we go from here, as advocates and activists for social justice, depends in part on our ability to re-invent and articulate this missing equity agenda and to build a reform movement that can provide effective, credible alternatives to the strategies that are currently being imposed from above.
We need to reclaim not just our schools, but our political process and our public policy-making machinery, and control over our economic and social future. We don’t only need to fix our schools, we need to fix our democracy.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/why-teacher-bashing-is-dangero.html?wprss=answer-sheet
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Sad Status Quo of Education
With a nod to Education Notes On-line, from the blog, Seattle Education
by Sue peters
The current crowd of ed reformers like to dismiss any of us who disagree with their agenda as “defenders of the status quo.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am not a defender of the status quo in public education – because the status quo is currently “No Child Left Behind” and its insidious spin-off, “Race to the Top.”
In fact, I decry the state of public education in this country right now, because a beleaguered, underfunded system has been disparaged and ravaged even further this last decade by damaging policies based on failed concepts pushed by those who want to privatize our public schools.
I do not support the status quo because the status quo is teacher bashing. I don’t support the demonizing of teachers and belittling or weakening of the profession.
The status quo is standardization and high-stakes testing which narrows curriculum and kills all creativity and joy for learning and teaching.
It is “merit pay” which lashes teacher evaluations to student test scores, and which repeated studies and common sense show doesn’t work.
It is data-manipulation to create the illusion of ed reform “success.” (See: “Standards Raised, More Students Fail Tests.”
It is the re-segregation of public schools, exacerbated by the growth of charter schools.
It is overpaid, revolving school superintendents or chancellors with no ties to the local community, often no background in education, and no plans to stick around. That is the Broad Foundation model and the cause of the recent outcry in New York when Mayor Bloomberg chose a publishing executive with no background in education to be the chancellor of New York’s schools.
The status quo is national public education policy largely determined by unelected billionaires with zero expertise in education. “Venture philanthropists” Eli Broad and Bill Gates spend millions shaping public education policy. Formers staffers from the Gates Foundation now seed the Obama Administration’s Department of Education.
“Two of Duncan’s top aides, Chief of Staff Margot Rogers and Assistant Deputy Secretary James H. Shelton III, came from the [Gates] foundation and were granted waivers by the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers.”– “Bill Gates’ School Crusade,” July 15, 2010, Bloomberg Businessweek.
Obama’s secretary of education, Arne Duncan, and former chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, are both former members of the Broad board of directors. The “Broad Prize for Urban Education” is a trophy and large cash sum awarded annually by the private Broad Foundation to school districts performing to its liking. In its 2009-10 Annual Report, Broad boasts that the trophy itself “resides at the U.S. Department of Education.”
You couldn’t ask for a better symbol of the infiltration of private corporate interests into federal government.
Have Mr. Broad or Mr. Gates been elected to public office, or to direct education policy? Do either have any expertise or experience in public education? No and no. Do either seek genuine parent input? No.
The status quo is Astroturf ed reform groups springing up like toadstools in the night, heavily funded by the same “venture philathropists” looking for a “return on their investment” and pushing the same corporate ed-reform agenda. Washington D.C. ex- school chancellor (Michelle Rhee’s new organization is apparently backed by the same wealthy interests. These organizations lobby for an ed reform agenda that we parents have no say in or may even oppose. But they have resources and media access at their disposal that ordinary parents don’t have. This is not a democratic dialogue about our children’s future when the main stakeholders — we the parents – are largely shut out of the debate.
I do not defend the current trend of sending recent college grads with just five weeks’ training and just a two-year commitment to teach in our nation’s most struggling schools which already suffer from high teacher turnover. But that is the model for Teach for America, Inc. a multimillion-dollar enterprise that is now funded by the Obama government to the tune of $50 million-plus and is arguably de-professionalizing the teaching profession.
Five weeks training does not make these uncredentialed grads “highly qualified,” despite the recent shenanigans by Congress.
I do not support the status quo that punishes teachers, principals and schools with mass layoffs, firings and closures because of student test scores, rather than addressing why some children are struggling and how else one might measure a child’s abilities and a teacher’s worth.
I do not support the status quo which is the mindset of the corporate ed reformers that schools should be run like businesses. Schools are not businesses. Their goal is not profit. The strongest schools are communities, more like families, and need to be cooperative, creative, engaging and nurturing environments.
I do not support the status quo of shameful attacks by the media on teachers and schools and the one-sided cheerleading for charter schools that fails to acknowledge the genuine proven limitations of these schools — their failure to serve children with special needs, the high attrition of kids (even a Geoffrey Canada Harlem Children Zone apparently booted an entire class of kids from a charter school because they weren’t deemed likely to do well on tests. (See: “The Myth of Charter Schools,” Brookings Institution, Nov. 11, 2010.)
I do not support the status quo which makes celebrities and “super(wo)men” out of spotlight-seeking figures like Michelle Rhee, Michael Bloomberg, and Arne Duncan, while all the real work is being done quietly by the thousands of anonymous teachers, principals, educators, parents and students, who suffer through reform after reform, trend after trend, searing budget cuts, and still manage to go on and offer a good education to many children in this nation without any national recognition.
I do not support a status quo that cuts so much from school budgets that the PTAs are left fundraising for such essentials as teachers and books, and school communities that do not have these extra resources suffer the most.
I do not support the status quo of education policies being driven by Wall Street interests and not by what’s in the best interests of our children.
I do not support mayoral control, abolishing of school boards, quashing of parent voices and end-runs around democracy.
I do not defend the federal government imposing its edicts on local school districts, suppressing local autonomy and skirting the edges of Constitutionality, which is what Race to the Top essentially does.
The research comes on the heels of a recent pledge by President Barack Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, to use $5 billion of the $100 billion in federal stimulus funds for education to press states on charter schools. “States that don’t have charter school laws, or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools, will jeopardize their application” for federal grant money, Duncan said in a call with reporters last week. Currently, 10 states lack laws that allow charter schools, and 26 others cap their enrollment.” — from: “Charter Schools Might Not Be Better,” U.S. News & World Report, June 19, 2009.)
No, I reject this status quo.
What I support and call for is: the long-term personal and professional investment in every child –which takes time and commitment, as has been demonstrated in Everett, Washington. It’s not flashy, doesn’t require expensive high-tech products, just good old-fashioned follow-up with kids, mentoring and genuine support. And an engaging curriculum.
I support small classes sizes that allow greater one-on-one interaction. I call for the parents’ voices to be the loudest in the discussion of how to run our schools. I support autonomy for schools, teachers and principals who know their communities best, and who can ensure their children are doing well, learning what they need to know and able to graduate.
I call for creative teaching, rich, varied curricula that include the arts and music and languages, science, physical education. I call for safe, decent well-maintained buildings and healthy school meals.
I call for an honest dialogue about the ravages of poverty on our nation’s children. We need to acknowledge the shameful fact that 21 percent of our children live in poverty, and that inequities in academic results are largely determined by income and home life of the child. This is not an excuse, it is a fact, and to expect teachers and schools alone to correct the deep and damaging inequalities of our society is irrational.
I call for an overhaul of school district administrations, to pare them down to the essentials, make them efficient and serving the interests of the school communities, not the whims of private foundations or vendors of standardized tests, text books or online learning products.
I call for the hiring of school superintendents and chancellors who have a local connection and commitment to the community they must serve which will in turn lead to greater accountability. I call to retain democratically elected school board members who must answer to their constituents and oversee the superintendent, and a paid position for school board so they can do their job thoroughly and well.
Public education is an integral ingredient in creating an informed public and a strong democracy. I believe we must keep our public schools free of private and political agendas and manipulations, strengthen our schools, not close them down, stop punishing and start nurturing.
If you agree that our nation needs a new vision for public education, I invite you to join a forum of parents from across the nation who are launching a new organization, Parents Across America, in New York on Feb. 7. Our keynote speaker will be education historian Diane Ravitch. The event is free and open to the public. It starts at 6 p.m. and will held at: PS/IS 89 – Liberty School, 201 Warren Street, New York, N.Y. 10282.
Help bring parents’ voices to the education debate and support progressive, positive, constructive education reforms that work.
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/why-i-am-not-a-defender-of-the-status-quo-in-education-because-the-status-quo-is-failed-ed-reforms/
by Sue peters
The current crowd of ed reformers like to dismiss any of us who disagree with their agenda as “defenders of the status quo.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am not a defender of the status quo in public education – because the status quo is currently “No Child Left Behind” and its insidious spin-off, “Race to the Top.”
In fact, I decry the state of public education in this country right now, because a beleaguered, underfunded system has been disparaged and ravaged even further this last decade by damaging policies based on failed concepts pushed by those who want to privatize our public schools.
I do not support the status quo because the status quo is teacher bashing. I don’t support the demonizing of teachers and belittling or weakening of the profession.
The status quo is standardization and high-stakes testing which narrows curriculum and kills all creativity and joy for learning and teaching.
It is “merit pay” which lashes teacher evaluations to student test scores, and which repeated studies and common sense show doesn’t work.
It is data-manipulation to create the illusion of ed reform “success.” (See: “Standards Raised, More Students Fail Tests.”
It is the re-segregation of public schools, exacerbated by the growth of charter schools.
It is overpaid, revolving school superintendents or chancellors with no ties to the local community, often no background in education, and no plans to stick around. That is the Broad Foundation model and the cause of the recent outcry in New York when Mayor Bloomberg chose a publishing executive with no background in education to be the chancellor of New York’s schools.
The status quo is national public education policy largely determined by unelected billionaires with zero expertise in education. “Venture philanthropists” Eli Broad and Bill Gates spend millions shaping public education policy. Formers staffers from the Gates Foundation now seed the Obama Administration’s Department of Education.
“Two of Duncan’s top aides, Chief of Staff Margot Rogers and Assistant Deputy Secretary James H. Shelton III, came from the [Gates] foundation and were granted waivers by the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers.”– “Bill Gates’ School Crusade,” July 15, 2010, Bloomberg Businessweek.
Obama’s secretary of education, Arne Duncan, and former chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, are both former members of the Broad board of directors. The “Broad Prize for Urban Education” is a trophy and large cash sum awarded annually by the private Broad Foundation to school districts performing to its liking. In its 2009-10 Annual Report, Broad boasts that the trophy itself “resides at the U.S. Department of Education.”
You couldn’t ask for a better symbol of the infiltration of private corporate interests into federal government.
Have Mr. Broad or Mr. Gates been elected to public office, or to direct education policy? Do either have any expertise or experience in public education? No and no. Do either seek genuine parent input? No.
The status quo is Astroturf ed reform groups springing up like toadstools in the night, heavily funded by the same “venture philathropists” looking for a “return on their investment” and pushing the same corporate ed-reform agenda. Washington D.C. ex- school chancellor (Michelle Rhee’s new organization is apparently backed by the same wealthy interests. These organizations lobby for an ed reform agenda that we parents have no say in or may even oppose. But they have resources and media access at their disposal that ordinary parents don’t have. This is not a democratic dialogue about our children’s future when the main stakeholders — we the parents – are largely shut out of the debate.
I do not defend the current trend of sending recent college grads with just five weeks’ training and just a two-year commitment to teach in our nation’s most struggling schools which already suffer from high teacher turnover. But that is the model for Teach for America, Inc. a multimillion-dollar enterprise that is now funded by the Obama government to the tune of $50 million-plus and is arguably de-professionalizing the teaching profession.
Five weeks training does not make these uncredentialed grads “highly qualified,” despite the recent shenanigans by Congress.
I do not support the status quo that punishes teachers, principals and schools with mass layoffs, firings and closures because of student test scores, rather than addressing why some children are struggling and how else one might measure a child’s abilities and a teacher’s worth.
I do not support the status quo which is the mindset of the corporate ed reformers that schools should be run like businesses. Schools are not businesses. Their goal is not profit. The strongest schools are communities, more like families, and need to be cooperative, creative, engaging and nurturing environments.
I do not support the status quo of shameful attacks by the media on teachers and schools and the one-sided cheerleading for charter schools that fails to acknowledge the genuine proven limitations of these schools — their failure to serve children with special needs, the high attrition of kids (even a Geoffrey Canada Harlem Children Zone apparently booted an entire class of kids from a charter school because they weren’t deemed likely to do well on tests. (See: “The Myth of Charter Schools,” Brookings Institution, Nov. 11, 2010.)
I do not support the status quo which makes celebrities and “super(wo)men” out of spotlight-seeking figures like Michelle Rhee, Michael Bloomberg, and Arne Duncan, while all the real work is being done quietly by the thousands of anonymous teachers, principals, educators, parents and students, who suffer through reform after reform, trend after trend, searing budget cuts, and still manage to go on and offer a good education to many children in this nation without any national recognition.
I do not support a status quo that cuts so much from school budgets that the PTAs are left fundraising for such essentials as teachers and books, and school communities that do not have these extra resources suffer the most.
I do not support the status quo of education policies being driven by Wall Street interests and not by what’s in the best interests of our children.
I do not support mayoral control, abolishing of school boards, quashing of parent voices and end-runs around democracy.
I do not defend the federal government imposing its edicts on local school districts, suppressing local autonomy and skirting the edges of Constitutionality, which is what Race to the Top essentially does.
The research comes on the heels of a recent pledge by President Barack Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, to use $5 billion of the $100 billion in federal stimulus funds for education to press states on charter schools. “States that don’t have charter school laws, or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools, will jeopardize their application” for federal grant money, Duncan said in a call with reporters last week. Currently, 10 states lack laws that allow charter schools, and 26 others cap their enrollment.” — from: “Charter Schools Might Not Be Better,” U.S. News & World Report, June 19, 2009.)
No, I reject this status quo.
What I support and call for is: the long-term personal and professional investment in every child –which takes time and commitment, as has been demonstrated in Everett, Washington. It’s not flashy, doesn’t require expensive high-tech products, just good old-fashioned follow-up with kids, mentoring and genuine support. And an engaging curriculum.
I support small classes sizes that allow greater one-on-one interaction. I call for the parents’ voices to be the loudest in the discussion of how to run our schools. I support autonomy for schools, teachers and principals who know their communities best, and who can ensure their children are doing well, learning what they need to know and able to graduate.
I call for creative teaching, rich, varied curricula that include the arts and music and languages, science, physical education. I call for safe, decent well-maintained buildings and healthy school meals.
I call for an honest dialogue about the ravages of poverty on our nation’s children. We need to acknowledge the shameful fact that 21 percent of our children live in poverty, and that inequities in academic results are largely determined by income and home life of the child. This is not an excuse, it is a fact, and to expect teachers and schools alone to correct the deep and damaging inequalities of our society is irrational.
I call for an overhaul of school district administrations, to pare them down to the essentials, make them efficient and serving the interests of the school communities, not the whims of private foundations or vendors of standardized tests, text books or online learning products.
I call for the hiring of school superintendents and chancellors who have a local connection and commitment to the community they must serve which will in turn lead to greater accountability. I call to retain democratically elected school board members who must answer to their constituents and oversee the superintendent, and a paid position for school board so they can do their job thoroughly and well.
Public education is an integral ingredient in creating an informed public and a strong democracy. I believe we must keep our public schools free of private and political agendas and manipulations, strengthen our schools, not close them down, stop punishing and start nurturing.
If you agree that our nation needs a new vision for public education, I invite you to join a forum of parents from across the nation who are launching a new organization, Parents Across America, in New York on Feb. 7. Our keynote speaker will be education historian Diane Ravitch. The event is free and open to the public. It starts at 6 p.m. and will held at: PS/IS 89 – Liberty School, 201 Warren Street, New York, N.Y. 10282.
Help bring parents’ voices to the education debate and support progressive, positive, constructive education reforms that work.
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/why-i-am-not-a-defender-of-the-status-quo-in-education-because-the-status-quo-is-failed-ed-reforms/
Get the federal government out of the business of punishing schools
From schoolboardnews.nsba.org
By Diane Ravtch
“I’m here because I’m frightened for the future of public education.”
That was the opening salvo by education historian Diane Ravitch, as she offered a spirited condemnation of many of today’s popular school reform ideas at a Sunday afternoon session of NSBA’s Federal Relations Network Conference.
As a matter of history, it’s unclear that public education has ever faced such fierce criticism as it does today, said Ravitch, a nationally recognized education author, former U.S. assistant secretary of education, and research professor at New York University.
Certainly the public schools have come under criticism before, she said. But there was a difference from today.
“Critics of public education wanted to make public education better. They didn’t want to replace it with privatization. They wanted higher standards … more funding and more equitable funding … an end to segregation. They didn’t want to get rid of public education.”
Today, it appears some school reformers are out to demoralize the education community and undermine public confidence in the public schools, she said.
They’re telling people the schools are terrible, Ravitch said. The schools are failing. Educators can’t solve any of their problems. Teachers are responsible for the failure. The schools are filled with bad teachers.
“They want to divide people who support public education,” she continued. “Then, when everybody is divided and demoralized, that’s when they’ll move in and privatize our schools. That’s just a terrible scenario.”
As Ravitch described it, the cacophony against public schools is the work of “politicians, Wall Street hedge fund managers, media tycoons, and the wealthiest in the nation who have their eyes on the ‘education industry,’ as they call it. They see an opportunity for desegregation, to put schools in the hands of entrepreneurs.”
This effort really gained momentum with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, a “toxic brand” as Ravitch described the law. By setting impossibly high standards for 2014, school reformers ensured that more and more schools would be labeled as “failing”—setting the stage for public disillusionment with public education.
“No Child Left Behind is a timetable for the deconstruction of public education in America.”
Today’s reformers no better. Ravitch criticized the Obama administration’s Race to the Top (RTTT) program for its competitive approach to reform. The federal role in education was designed to bring equity to the nation’s schools, she said, not to create a generation of winners and losers for federal funding.
“Federal funding should be available to all children … to all students in need, not those in states that happened to win a competition.”
Another of today’s popular reform ideas — the closing of low-performing schools — also is wrongheaded, she says. That practice has been used in the Chicago schools for years, but research shows that the majority of students at these schools simply end up transferring to other low-performing schools—and, on top of that, they lose any community supports that exited at their old school.
Such efforts are nothing but a case of musical chairs, she said. “No child will be helped by any of these measures. It will be accompanied by turmoil, with new schools opening with the same kids and the same problems unaddressed.”
Finally, such reforms ignore what educators have known for years — that a school’s academic success is highly linked to the number of impoverished children it serves, she said. “You keep having corporate types saying that poverty is just an excuse,” she said. But “we have 100 years of political science that says they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
So when school leaders walk out of the FRN conference later this week to visit with to lawmakers in Congress, she said, the message should be: “Stop closing schools. Closing schools is not a turnaround strategy … Fix the schools. Evaluate their needs and help them. The federal government has dramatically overstepped its bounds … Get the federal government out of the business of punishing schools.”
http://schoolboardnews.nsba.org/2011/02/ravitch-decries-reformers-seeking-to-divide/
By Diane Ravtch
“I’m here because I’m frightened for the future of public education.”
That was the opening salvo by education historian Diane Ravitch, as she offered a spirited condemnation of many of today’s popular school reform ideas at a Sunday afternoon session of NSBA’s Federal Relations Network Conference.
As a matter of history, it’s unclear that public education has ever faced such fierce criticism as it does today, said Ravitch, a nationally recognized education author, former U.S. assistant secretary of education, and research professor at New York University.
Certainly the public schools have come under criticism before, she said. But there was a difference from today.
“Critics of public education wanted to make public education better. They didn’t want to replace it with privatization. They wanted higher standards … more funding and more equitable funding … an end to segregation. They didn’t want to get rid of public education.”
Today, it appears some school reformers are out to demoralize the education community and undermine public confidence in the public schools, she said.
They’re telling people the schools are terrible, Ravitch said. The schools are failing. Educators can’t solve any of their problems. Teachers are responsible for the failure. The schools are filled with bad teachers.
“They want to divide people who support public education,” she continued. “Then, when everybody is divided and demoralized, that’s when they’ll move in and privatize our schools. That’s just a terrible scenario.”
As Ravitch described it, the cacophony against public schools is the work of “politicians, Wall Street hedge fund managers, media tycoons, and the wealthiest in the nation who have their eyes on the ‘education industry,’ as they call it. They see an opportunity for desegregation, to put schools in the hands of entrepreneurs.”
This effort really gained momentum with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, a “toxic brand” as Ravitch described the law. By setting impossibly high standards for 2014, school reformers ensured that more and more schools would be labeled as “failing”—setting the stage for public disillusionment with public education.
“No Child Left Behind is a timetable for the deconstruction of public education in America.”
Today’s reformers no better. Ravitch criticized the Obama administration’s Race to the Top (RTTT) program for its competitive approach to reform. The federal role in education was designed to bring equity to the nation’s schools, she said, not to create a generation of winners and losers for federal funding.
“Federal funding should be available to all children … to all students in need, not those in states that happened to win a competition.”
Another of today’s popular reform ideas — the closing of low-performing schools — also is wrongheaded, she says. That practice has been used in the Chicago schools for years, but research shows that the majority of students at these schools simply end up transferring to other low-performing schools—and, on top of that, they lose any community supports that exited at their old school.
Such efforts are nothing but a case of musical chairs, she said. “No child will be helped by any of these measures. It will be accompanied by turmoil, with new schools opening with the same kids and the same problems unaddressed.”
Finally, such reforms ignore what educators have known for years — that a school’s academic success is highly linked to the number of impoverished children it serves, she said. “You keep having corporate types saying that poverty is just an excuse,” she said. But “we have 100 years of political science that says they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
So when school leaders walk out of the FRN conference later this week to visit with to lawmakers in Congress, she said, the message should be: “Stop closing schools. Closing schools is not a turnaround strategy … Fix the schools. Evaluate their needs and help them. The federal government has dramatically overstepped its bounds … Get the federal government out of the business of punishing schools.”
http://schoolboardnews.nsba.org/2011/02/ravitch-decries-reformers-seeking-to-divide/
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Want kids to do better, engage them
I feel like I have been writing about this for years. -cpg
From Boston.com
by Christine Armario
The current U.S. education system is failing to prepare millions of young adults for successful careers by providing a one-size-fits-all approach, and it should take a cue from its European counterparts by offering greater emphasis on occupational instruction, a Harvard University study published Wednesday concludes.
The two-year study by the Pathways to Prosperity Project at the Harvard university Graduate School of Education notes that while much emphasis is placed in high school on going on to a four-year college, only 30 percent of young adults in the United States successfully complete a bachelor's degree.
While the number of jobs that require no post-secondary education have declined, the researchers note that only one-third of the jobs created in the coming years are expected to need a bachelor's degree or higher. Roughly the same amount will need just an associate's degree or an occupational credential.
"What I fear is the continuing problem of too many kids dropping by the wayside and the other problem of kids going into debt, and going into college but not completing with a degree or certificate," said Robert Schwartz, who heads the project and is academic dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Almost everybody can cite some kid who marched off to college because it was the only socially legitimate thing to do but had no real interest."
The report highlights an issue that has been percolating among education circles: That school reform should include more emphasis on career-driven alternatives to a four-year education.
The study recommends a "comprehensive pathways network" that would include three elements: embracing multiple approaches to help youth make the transition to adulthood, involving the nation's employers in things like work-based learning, and creating a new social compact with young people.
Many of the ideas aren't new, and leaders, including President Barack Obama, have advocated for an increased role for community colleges so the country can once again lead the world in the proportion of college graduates.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan delivered opening remarks at the report's release in Washington on Wednesday, saying career and technical education has been "the neglected stepchild of education reform."
"That neglect has to stop," Duncan said.
But the idea of providing more alternatives, rather than emphasizing a four-year college education for all, hasn't been without controversy. Critics fear students who opt early for a vocational approach might limit their options later on, or that disadvantaged students at failing schools would be pushed into technical careers and away from the highly selective colleges where their numbers are already very slim.
"Nobody who spends much time in America's high schools could possibly argue that they are focused on college for all, or ever have been," said Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "Most schools still resist that idea, instead continuing long-standing, unfair practices of sorting and selecting like an educational caste system -- directing countless young people, especially low-income students and students of color, away from college-prep courses and from seeing themselves as 'college material.'"
Schwartz said efforts should be intensified to get more low-income and minority students into selective institutions, while also strengthening the capacity of two-year colleges.
The study recommends that all major occupations be clearly outlined at the start of high school. Students would see directly how their course choices prepare them careers that interest them -- but still be able to change their minds. Students should also be given more opportunities for work-based learning, such as job shadowing and internships.
Students, the researchers recommend, should get career counseling and work-related opportunities early on -- no later than middle school. In high school, students would have access to educational programs designed with the help of industry leaders, and they'd be able to participate in paid internships.
The report notes that many European countries already have such an approach, and that their youth tend to have a smoother transition into adulthood. And not all separate children into different paths at an early age. Finland and Denmark, for example, provide all students with a comprehensive education through grades 9 or 10. Then they are allowed to decide what type of secondary education they'd like to pursue.
Barney Bishop, president and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida, said he would advocate for an approach that provides more alternatives and greater inclusion of the business community.
"The problem for the business community is where you have kids who don't have the rudimentary skills, and you have to take the time and effort to train them, get them some of the rudimentary skills, plus the special skills," he said.
Sandy Baum, an independent higher education policy analyst, said she think there needs to be more counseling in advising students about how to make the right choices.
"I don't think the problem is too many people going to four-year colleges," she said. "The problem is too many people making inappropriate choices.
"What we'd like is a system where people of all backgrounds could choose to be plumbers or to be philosophers," Baum added. "Those options are not open. But we certainly need plumbers so it's wrong to think we should be nervous about directing people in that route."
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/02/02/study_students_need_more_paths_to_career_success/?page=2
From Boston.com
by Christine Armario
The current U.S. education system is failing to prepare millions of young adults for successful careers by providing a one-size-fits-all approach, and it should take a cue from its European counterparts by offering greater emphasis on occupational instruction, a Harvard University study published Wednesday concludes.
The two-year study by the Pathways to Prosperity Project at the Harvard university Graduate School of Education notes that while much emphasis is placed in high school on going on to a four-year college, only 30 percent of young adults in the United States successfully complete a bachelor's degree.
While the number of jobs that require no post-secondary education have declined, the researchers note that only one-third of the jobs created in the coming years are expected to need a bachelor's degree or higher. Roughly the same amount will need just an associate's degree or an occupational credential.
"What I fear is the continuing problem of too many kids dropping by the wayside and the other problem of kids going into debt, and going into college but not completing with a degree or certificate," said Robert Schwartz, who heads the project and is academic dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. "Almost everybody can cite some kid who marched off to college because it was the only socially legitimate thing to do but had no real interest."
The report highlights an issue that has been percolating among education circles: That school reform should include more emphasis on career-driven alternatives to a four-year education.
The study recommends a "comprehensive pathways network" that would include three elements: embracing multiple approaches to help youth make the transition to adulthood, involving the nation's employers in things like work-based learning, and creating a new social compact with young people.
Many of the ideas aren't new, and leaders, including President Barack Obama, have advocated for an increased role for community colleges so the country can once again lead the world in the proportion of college graduates.
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan delivered opening remarks at the report's release in Washington on Wednesday, saying career and technical education has been "the neglected stepchild of education reform."
"That neglect has to stop," Duncan said.
But the idea of providing more alternatives, rather than emphasizing a four-year college education for all, hasn't been without controversy. Critics fear students who opt early for a vocational approach might limit their options later on, or that disadvantaged students at failing schools would be pushed into technical careers and away from the highly selective colleges where their numbers are already very slim.
"Nobody who spends much time in America's high schools could possibly argue that they are focused on college for all, or ever have been," said Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "Most schools still resist that idea, instead continuing long-standing, unfair practices of sorting and selecting like an educational caste system -- directing countless young people, especially low-income students and students of color, away from college-prep courses and from seeing themselves as 'college material.'"
Schwartz said efforts should be intensified to get more low-income and minority students into selective institutions, while also strengthening the capacity of two-year colleges.
The study recommends that all major occupations be clearly outlined at the start of high school. Students would see directly how their course choices prepare them careers that interest them -- but still be able to change their minds. Students should also be given more opportunities for work-based learning, such as job shadowing and internships.
Students, the researchers recommend, should get career counseling and work-related opportunities early on -- no later than middle school. In high school, students would have access to educational programs designed with the help of industry leaders, and they'd be able to participate in paid internships.
The report notes that many European countries already have such an approach, and that their youth tend to have a smoother transition into adulthood. And not all separate children into different paths at an early age. Finland and Denmark, for example, provide all students with a comprehensive education through grades 9 or 10. Then they are allowed to decide what type of secondary education they'd like to pursue.
Barney Bishop, president and CEO of Associated Industries of Florida, said he would advocate for an approach that provides more alternatives and greater inclusion of the business community.
"The problem for the business community is where you have kids who don't have the rudimentary skills, and you have to take the time and effort to train them, get them some of the rudimentary skills, plus the special skills," he said.
Sandy Baum, an independent higher education policy analyst, said she think there needs to be more counseling in advising students about how to make the right choices.
"I don't think the problem is too many people going to four-year colleges," she said. "The problem is too many people making inappropriate choices.
"What we'd like is a system where people of all backgrounds could choose to be plumbers or to be philosophers," Baum added. "Those options are not open. But we certainly need plumbers so it's wrong to think we should be nervous about directing people in that route."
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2011/02/02/study_students_need_more_paths_to_career_success/?page=2
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Race to the Top creates many losers
From the Hill.com
by Dennis Van Roekel
Many Americans, including President Obama, weren’t even born when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into outer space in October 1957. Yet everyone knew exactly what the President meant when he said during his State of the Union address, “This is our Sputnik moment.” Today the U.S. faces economic and innovative competition around the world. If we want to win the future in the same way that we won the Space Race, we must do what we did then – invest in education.
The President shined a spotlight on the importance of a long-term investment in education and recognized the critical role that teachers play in student success, calling for more respect for the teaching profession. His strong message of support for education and his call to fix No Child Left Behind is sorely welcome. However, as with many good things, the devil is in the details.
Global competition is a fact of life, but competition in education funding can have negative consequences. That’s why we have expressed concerns with funding models, like the Race to the Top program, that create winners and losers among our students. The federal government has a vital role to play in advancing the quality of education and ensuring equity and opportunity for all students.
The track record with Race to the Top calls into question this program’s ability to meet this critical objective. To date, 39 states were non-participants or losers in the Race to the Top competition. And according to the Schott Foundation for Public Education, after two years of implementation and close to $4 billion dollars, many underserved communities – Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian students, ELL students and poor rural states – have been poorly represented in Race to the Top’s distribution of resources.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was intended to provide a level playing field and equal opportunity, but the competitive nature of Race to the Top has pitted students against their peers, and educators against their colleagues. The expanded use of competitive grant policies has the potential to dangerously undermine public education, and for this reason we believe this formula must not be a part of ESEA reauthorization.
In the push to renew ESEA, we must change the punitive approach of No Child Left Behind, especially the fanatical focus on standardized tests and the unrealistic AYP requirements that brand thriving schools as failures. We should focus on schools that are in the most desperate need of transformation. That’s exactly what NEA is doing in our Priority Schools Campaign, which is engaging our members in districts across the country and identifying more and new ways to help students succeed.
In short, we need to redefine the federal role in education: moving beyond testing, labeling and punishing, and partnering with states to transform public education for all students.
Dennis Van Roekel is the president of the National Education Association (NEA).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/141537-competition-in-education-funding-hurts-students?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d48ae85d44f30e5%2C0
by Dennis Van Roekel
Many Americans, including President Obama, weren’t even born when the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into outer space in October 1957. Yet everyone knew exactly what the President meant when he said during his State of the Union address, “This is our Sputnik moment.” Today the U.S. faces economic and innovative competition around the world. If we want to win the future in the same way that we won the Space Race, we must do what we did then – invest in education.
The President shined a spotlight on the importance of a long-term investment in education and recognized the critical role that teachers play in student success, calling for more respect for the teaching profession. His strong message of support for education and his call to fix No Child Left Behind is sorely welcome. However, as with many good things, the devil is in the details.
Global competition is a fact of life, but competition in education funding can have negative consequences. That’s why we have expressed concerns with funding models, like the Race to the Top program, that create winners and losers among our students. The federal government has a vital role to play in advancing the quality of education and ensuring equity and opportunity for all students.
The track record with Race to the Top calls into question this program’s ability to meet this critical objective. To date, 39 states were non-participants or losers in the Race to the Top competition. And according to the Schott Foundation for Public Education, after two years of implementation and close to $4 billion dollars, many underserved communities – Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian students, ELL students and poor rural states – have been poorly represented in Race to the Top’s distribution of resources.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was intended to provide a level playing field and equal opportunity, but the competitive nature of Race to the Top has pitted students against their peers, and educators against their colleagues. The expanded use of competitive grant policies has the potential to dangerously undermine public education, and for this reason we believe this formula must not be a part of ESEA reauthorization.
In the push to renew ESEA, we must change the punitive approach of No Child Left Behind, especially the fanatical focus on standardized tests and the unrealistic AYP requirements that brand thriving schools as failures. We should focus on schools that are in the most desperate need of transformation. That’s exactly what NEA is doing in our Priority Schools Campaign, which is engaging our members in districts across the country and identifying more and new ways to help students succeed.
In short, we need to redefine the federal role in education: moving beyond testing, labeling and punishing, and partnering with states to transform public education for all students.
Dennis Van Roekel is the president of the National Education Association (NEA).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/141537-competition-in-education-funding-hurts-students?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d48ae85d44f30e5%2C0
Monday, January 31, 2011
Obama's State of the Union speech found lacking
I have to say I am very disillusioned with the presidents education policies. -cpg
From the blog ZhaoLearning.com
“It makes no sense”: Puzzling over Obama’s State of the Union Speech
“It makes no sense” is perhaps President Obama’s favorite phrase, using it twice in his 2011 State of the Union speech. I like the sound of it and what lies behind it—a simple way to point out the obviously illogical things that need to change. That is how I feel about the education section of his speech. It makes no sense.
President Obama wants to win the future by “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” “[I]f we want to win the future -– if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -– then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.”
How to win the race to educate our kids?
More math, more science, more high school diplomas, more college graduates, more Race to the Top, more standards and standardization, more carrots and clubs for teachers and schools, and no TV.
Why?
Because China and India “started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science;’” because “[t]he quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations;” and because “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree.”
None of these makes much sense to me because they are either factually false or logically confusing. For one, President Obama suggested that parents make sure the TV is turned off. If every parent followed his suggestion and turned off the TV, there would be no one to watch his State of the Union next year. As with everything else, there is good TV and there is bad TV. More seriously, I did some fact checking and logical reasoning and here is what I found out.
Is it true that “China and India started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science?”
No, China has actually started to reduce study time for their children, with less emphasis on math and science
I am not familiar with education in India so I will stick to China and I assume President Obama meant education in schools, not education at home. Unless he meant 50 years ago, the statement is completely false. The school starting age in China has remained the same at age six since the 1980s when China’s first Compulsory Education Law was passed in 1986. Since the 1990s, China has launched a series of education reforms aimed at reducing school hours and decreasing emphasis on mathematics. According to a recent statement from the Ministry of Education (in Chinese):
Since the implementation of the “New Curriculum,” the total amount of class time during the compulsory education stage (grades 1 to 9) has been reduced by 380 class hours. During primary grades (grades 1 to 6), class time for mathematics has been reduced by 140 class hours, while 156 more class hours have been added for physical education. In high school, 347 class hours have been taken out of required courses and 410 class hours added for electives. (People’s Daily, http://edu.people.com.cn/GB/10320480.html)
Is it true that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations?”
It depends how one measures quality. If measured in terms of test scores on international assessments, yes, but these test scores do not necessarily indicate the quality of math and science education and certainly do not predict a nation’s economic prosperity or capacity for innovation.
When he says that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations,” President Obama ignores the fact that American students performance on international tests have been pretty bad for a long time, and believe it or not, has got better in recent years. In the 1960s, America’s 8th graders ranked 11th out of 12 countries and 12th graders ranked 12 out of 12 countries on the First International Mathematic Study. America’s 12th graders’ average score ranked 14th out of 18 countries that participated in the First International Science Study. In the 1970s and 80s, America’s 12th graders did not do any better on the Second International Mathematics study, with ranks of 12, 14, 12, and 12 out of 15 educational systems (13 countries) on tests of number systems, algebra, geometry, and calculus respectively. On the Second International Science Study, American students’ performance was the worst (out of 13 countries with 14 education systems participating, America’s 12th graders ranked 14th in Biology, 12th in Chemistry, and 10th in Physics) (Data source, National Center for Educational Statistics). In 1995, America’s 8th graders math scores were in 28th place on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. In 2003, they jumped to 15th , and in 2007, to 9th place.
Obama also said in his speech:
Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers — no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
So who has made America “the largest, most prosperous economy in the world?” Who are these most productive workers? Where did the people who created the successful companies come from? And who are these inventors that received the most patents in the world?
It has to be the same Americans who ranked bottom on the international tests. Those 12th graders with shameful bad math scores in the 1960s have been the primary work force in the US for the past 40 years. The equally poor performers on international tests in the 70s and 80s have been working for the past 30 years now. And even those poor performers on the 1995 TIMSS have entered the workforce. Apparently they have not driven the US into oblivion and ruined the country’s innovation record.
Is it true that Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of public education in a generation?
Again, it depends. It depends on how one defines “meaningful.” If defined as the scale of impact without questioning whether the impact is beneficial or not, it may be true but considering the actual consequences, Race to the Top is neither meaningful nor flexible. It does not focus on “what’s best for our kids” nor spark “creativity and imagination of our people.”
I wonder if Obama knows what Race to the Top actually does because it is just the opposite of what he asks for. He says:
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny…It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
“Our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world” perhaps explains why the American students scored poorly on tests but have been able to build a strong economy with innovations.
But Race to the Top is about killing ideas and forcing students to memorize equations by imposing common standards and testing in only two subjects on students all over the nation; by forcing schools and teachers to teach to the tests; and by forcing states to narrow educational experiences for all students to a prescribed narrowed defined curriculum.
Race to the Top is precisely what he said it is not: “We know what’s possible from our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” It is nothing but a top-down mandate. Race to the Top applications required states and schools to be innovative in meeting the top-down mandates: adopting common standards and assessment, linking teacher evaluation/compensation with student test scores, offering more math and science learning, and allowing more charter schools. In the first round of competition, Massachusetts was penalized for not wanting to rush to adopt the common standards. Pennsylvania was penalized for proposing innovative practices in early childhood education (Source: Let’s Do the Numbers: Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” Program Offers Only a Muddled Path to the Finish Lin By William Peterson and Richard Rothstein)
Race to the Top is anything but what Obama says “the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” States that were desperate for cash had to use all means to coerce teachers, principals, and school boards to sign on to the application because participation of local schools was a heavily weighted criterion. And if teachers and school leaders did not agree, they risked being accused of not supporting children’s education.
And with regard to common standards, while it is true that they were not developed by Washington, but Washington definitely helped with billions of dollars to make them adopted nationwide.
Is it true that “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree?”
It depends for a number of reasons. First, different countries have different definitions of a college degree. Second, not all college degrees are of equal quality. Third, the changes in rank do not necessarily indicate America’s decline. It could simply other countries have caught up.
President Obama may be drawing the figures from a report published by the College Board recently. The report cites OCED data and suggests that “the educational capacity of our country continues to decline.” But the data actually do not support the statement.
According to the report, in 2007, America ranked sixth in postsecondary attainment in the world among 25-64-Year-Olds. It ranked fourth among those ages 55 to 64. But for the 25-34 age group, America ranked 12th. Simply looked at the rankings, America is indeed in decline. But looking at the percentages of postsecondary degree holders shows a different picture. For the age group of 25 to 64, 40.3% of Americans held a college degree. The two countries that were immediately ahead of America, Japan and New Zealand, had a lead of less than 1% at 41%. The other three leading countries were Russia (54%), Canada (48.3%), and Israel (43.6%). For the young age group (25-34 year olds), America had 40.4% and five out of the 11 countries led by about 2%. The countries with over 10% lead were Canada (55.8%), Korea (55.5%), Russia (55.5%), and Japan (53.7%). For those ages 55 to 64, America ranked fourth, but the percentage was 38.5%. The countries ahead of America were Russia (44.5%), Israel (43.5%), and Canada (38.9). Based on this data we can draw two conclusions. First America was never number one. Second, the percentage of college degree holders in America has actually increased.
How many more math and science graduates does the US need?
President Obama wanted “to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math.” This is driven by the belief that America does not prepare enough talents in these areas. But according to a comprehensive study based on analysis of major longitudinal datasets found “U.S. colleges and universities are graduating as many scientists and engineers as ever before.” The study was conducted by a group of researchers at Georgetown University, Rutgers University, and the Urban Institute. “Our findings indicate that STEM retention along the pipeline shows strong and even increasing rates of retention from the 1970s to the late 1990s,” says the report. However, not all STEM graduates enter the STEM field. They are attracted to other areas.
“Over the past decade, U.S. colleges and universities graduated roughly three times more scientists and engineers than were employed in the growing science and engineering workforce,” one of the study’s co-author Lindsay Lowell was quoted in the study’s press release, “At the same time, more of the very best students are attracted to non-science occupations, such as finance. Even so, there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM jobs.”
What America really needs?
President Obama actually got the destination right when he said “the first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.” But he chose the wrong path.
To encourage American innovation starts with innovative and creative people. But a one-size-fits-all education approach, standardized and narrow curricula, tests-driven teaching and learning, and fear-driven and demoralizing accountability measures are perhaps the most effective way to kill innovation and stifle creativity.
What America really needs is to capitalize on its traditional strengths—a broad definition of education, an education that respects individuality, tolerates deviation, celebrates diversity. America also needs to restore faith in its public education, respects teacher autonomy, and trusts local school leaders elected or selected by the people.
In addition, America needs to teach its children that globalization has tied all nations to a complex, interconnected, and interdependent chain of economic, political, and cultural interests. To succeed in the globalized world, our children need to develop a global perspective and the capacity to interact and work with different nations and cultures, the ability to market America innovations globally, and the ability to lead globalization in positive directions. That includes foreign languages and global studies.
Even the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), a direct result of Sputnik and a product during the Cold War, was broader in terms of areas of studies than conceived in Race to the Top and the blueprint for reauthorization of ESA. It included funding for math, science, foreign languages, geography, technical education, etc. Moreover, it did not impose federal mandates on local schools or states.
Heading north for south: A Chinese story for the President
A Chinese story best illustrates the danger of choosing the wrong path for the correct destination. This story was recorded in Zhan Guo Ce or the Records of the Warring States, a collection of essays about events and tales that took place during China’s Warring States Period (475-221 BC). Here is my recount of the story.
The king of the state of Wei intends to attack its neighboring state of Zhao. Upon hearing the news, Ji Liang, counselor to the king rushes to see him. “Your Majesty, on my way here, I met a man on a chariot pointed to the north,” Ji Liang tells the King, “and he told me that he was going to visit Chu.”
“But Chu is in the south, why are you headed north?” I asked.
“Oh, no worry, my horses are very strong,” he told me.
“But you should be headed south,” I told him again.
“Not to worry, I have plenty of money,” he was not concerned.
“But still you are headed the wrong direction,” I pointed out yet again.
“I have hired a very skillful driver,” was this man’s reply.
“I worry, your majesty, that the better equipped this man was,” Ji Liang says to the King, “the farther away he would be from his destination.” “You want to be a great king and win respect from all people,” Ji Liang concludes, “You can certainly rely on our strong nation and excellent army to invade Zhao and expand our territory. But I am afraid the more you use force, the farther away you will be from your wishes.”
http://zhaolearning.com/2011/01/30/“it-makes-no-sense”-puzzling-over-obama’s-state-of-the-union-speech/
From the blog ZhaoLearning.com
“It makes no sense”: Puzzling over Obama’s State of the Union Speech
“It makes no sense” is perhaps President Obama’s favorite phrase, using it twice in his 2011 State of the Union speech. I like the sound of it and what lies behind it—a simple way to point out the obviously illogical things that need to change. That is how I feel about the education section of his speech. It makes no sense.
President Obama wants to win the future by “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” “[I]f we want to win the future -– if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -– then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.”
How to win the race to educate our kids?
More math, more science, more high school diplomas, more college graduates, more Race to the Top, more standards and standardization, more carrots and clubs for teachers and schools, and no TV.
Why?
Because China and India “started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science;’” because “[t]he quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations;” and because “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree.”
None of these makes much sense to me because they are either factually false or logically confusing. For one, President Obama suggested that parents make sure the TV is turned off. If every parent followed his suggestion and turned off the TV, there would be no one to watch his State of the Union next year. As with everything else, there is good TV and there is bad TV. More seriously, I did some fact checking and logical reasoning and here is what I found out.
Is it true that “China and India started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science?”
No, China has actually started to reduce study time for their children, with less emphasis on math and science
I am not familiar with education in India so I will stick to China and I assume President Obama meant education in schools, not education at home. Unless he meant 50 years ago, the statement is completely false. The school starting age in China has remained the same at age six since the 1980s when China’s first Compulsory Education Law was passed in 1986. Since the 1990s, China has launched a series of education reforms aimed at reducing school hours and decreasing emphasis on mathematics. According to a recent statement from the Ministry of Education (in Chinese):
Since the implementation of the “New Curriculum,” the total amount of class time during the compulsory education stage (grades 1 to 9) has been reduced by 380 class hours. During primary grades (grades 1 to 6), class time for mathematics has been reduced by 140 class hours, while 156 more class hours have been added for physical education. In high school, 347 class hours have been taken out of required courses and 410 class hours added for electives. (People’s Daily, http://edu.people.com.cn/GB/10320480.html)
Is it true that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations?”
It depends how one measures quality. If measured in terms of test scores on international assessments, yes, but these test scores do not necessarily indicate the quality of math and science education and certainly do not predict a nation’s economic prosperity or capacity for innovation.
When he says that “the quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations,” President Obama ignores the fact that American students performance on international tests have been pretty bad for a long time, and believe it or not, has got better in recent years. In the 1960s, America’s 8th graders ranked 11th out of 12 countries and 12th graders ranked 12 out of 12 countries on the First International Mathematic Study. America’s 12th graders’ average score ranked 14th out of 18 countries that participated in the First International Science Study. In the 1970s and 80s, America’s 12th graders did not do any better on the Second International Mathematics study, with ranks of 12, 14, 12, and 12 out of 15 educational systems (13 countries) on tests of number systems, algebra, geometry, and calculus respectively. On the Second International Science Study, American students’ performance was the worst (out of 13 countries with 14 education systems participating, America’s 12th graders ranked 14th in Biology, 12th in Chemistry, and 10th in Physics) (Data source, National Center for Educational Statistics). In 1995, America’s 8th graders math scores were in 28th place on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. In 2003, they jumped to 15th , and in 2007, to 9th place.
Obama also said in his speech:
Remember -– for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers — no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.
So who has made America “the largest, most prosperous economy in the world?” Who are these most productive workers? Where did the people who created the successful companies come from? And who are these inventors that received the most patents in the world?
It has to be the same Americans who ranked bottom on the international tests. Those 12th graders with shameful bad math scores in the 1960s have been the primary work force in the US for the past 40 years. The equally poor performers on international tests in the 70s and 80s have been working for the past 30 years now. And even those poor performers on the 1995 TIMSS have entered the workforce. Apparently they have not driven the US into oblivion and ruined the country’s innovation record.
Is it true that Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of public education in a generation?
Again, it depends. It depends on how one defines “meaningful.” If defined as the scale of impact without questioning whether the impact is beneficial or not, it may be true but considering the actual consequences, Race to the Top is neither meaningful nor flexible. It does not focus on “what’s best for our kids” nor spark “creativity and imagination of our people.”
I wonder if Obama knows what Race to the Top actually does because it is just the opposite of what he asks for. He says:
What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny…It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”
“Our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world” perhaps explains why the American students scored poorly on tests but have been able to build a strong economy with innovations.
But Race to the Top is about killing ideas and forcing students to memorize equations by imposing common standards and testing in only two subjects on students all over the nation; by forcing schools and teachers to teach to the tests; and by forcing states to narrow educational experiences for all students to a prescribed narrowed defined curriculum.
Race to the Top is precisely what he said it is not: “We know what’s possible from our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” It is nothing but a top-down mandate. Race to the Top applications required states and schools to be innovative in meeting the top-down mandates: adopting common standards and assessment, linking teacher evaluation/compensation with student test scores, offering more math and science learning, and allowing more charter schools. In the first round of competition, Massachusetts was penalized for not wanting to rush to adopt the common standards. Pennsylvania was penalized for proposing innovative practices in early childhood education (Source: Let’s Do the Numbers: Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” Program Offers Only a Muddled Path to the Finish Lin By William Peterson and Richard Rothstein)
Race to the Top is anything but what Obama says “the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities.” States that were desperate for cash had to use all means to coerce teachers, principals, and school boards to sign on to the application because participation of local schools was a heavily weighted criterion. And if teachers and school leaders did not agree, they risked being accused of not supporting children’s education.
And with regard to common standards, while it is true that they were not developed by Washington, but Washington definitely helped with billions of dollars to make them adopted nationwide.
Is it true that “America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree?”
It depends for a number of reasons. First, different countries have different definitions of a college degree. Second, not all college degrees are of equal quality. Third, the changes in rank do not necessarily indicate America’s decline. It could simply other countries have caught up.
President Obama may be drawing the figures from a report published by the College Board recently. The report cites OCED data and suggests that “the educational capacity of our country continues to decline.” But the data actually do not support the statement.
According to the report, in 2007, America ranked sixth in postsecondary attainment in the world among 25-64-Year-Olds. It ranked fourth among those ages 55 to 64. But for the 25-34 age group, America ranked 12th. Simply looked at the rankings, America is indeed in decline. But looking at the percentages of postsecondary degree holders shows a different picture. For the age group of 25 to 64, 40.3% of Americans held a college degree. The two countries that were immediately ahead of America, Japan and New Zealand, had a lead of less than 1% at 41%. The other three leading countries were Russia (54%), Canada (48.3%), and Israel (43.6%). For the young age group (25-34 year olds), America had 40.4% and five out of the 11 countries led by about 2%. The countries with over 10% lead were Canada (55.8%), Korea (55.5%), Russia (55.5%), and Japan (53.7%). For those ages 55 to 64, America ranked fourth, but the percentage was 38.5%. The countries ahead of America were Russia (44.5%), Israel (43.5%), and Canada (38.9). Based on this data we can draw two conclusions. First America was never number one. Second, the percentage of college degree holders in America has actually increased.
How many more math and science graduates does the US need?
President Obama wanted “to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math.” This is driven by the belief that America does not prepare enough talents in these areas. But according to a comprehensive study based on analysis of major longitudinal datasets found “U.S. colleges and universities are graduating as many scientists and engineers as ever before.” The study was conducted by a group of researchers at Georgetown University, Rutgers University, and the Urban Institute. “Our findings indicate that STEM retention along the pipeline shows strong and even increasing rates of retention from the 1970s to the late 1990s,” says the report. However, not all STEM graduates enter the STEM field. They are attracted to other areas.
“Over the past decade, U.S. colleges and universities graduated roughly three times more scientists and engineers than were employed in the growing science and engineering workforce,” one of the study’s co-author Lindsay Lowell was quoted in the study’s press release, “At the same time, more of the very best students are attracted to non-science occupations, such as finance. Even so, there is no evidence of a long-term decline in the proportion of American students with the relevant training and qualifications to pursue STEM jobs.”
What America really needs?
President Obama actually got the destination right when he said “the first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.” But he chose the wrong path.
To encourage American innovation starts with innovative and creative people. But a one-size-fits-all education approach, standardized and narrow curricula, tests-driven teaching and learning, and fear-driven and demoralizing accountability measures are perhaps the most effective way to kill innovation and stifle creativity.
What America really needs is to capitalize on its traditional strengths—a broad definition of education, an education that respects individuality, tolerates deviation, celebrates diversity. America also needs to restore faith in its public education, respects teacher autonomy, and trusts local school leaders elected or selected by the people.
In addition, America needs to teach its children that globalization has tied all nations to a complex, interconnected, and interdependent chain of economic, political, and cultural interests. To succeed in the globalized world, our children need to develop a global perspective and the capacity to interact and work with different nations and cultures, the ability to market America innovations globally, and the ability to lead globalization in positive directions. That includes foreign languages and global studies.
Even the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), a direct result of Sputnik and a product during the Cold War, was broader in terms of areas of studies than conceived in Race to the Top and the blueprint for reauthorization of ESA. It included funding for math, science, foreign languages, geography, technical education, etc. Moreover, it did not impose federal mandates on local schools or states.
Heading north for south: A Chinese story for the President
A Chinese story best illustrates the danger of choosing the wrong path for the correct destination. This story was recorded in Zhan Guo Ce or the Records of the Warring States, a collection of essays about events and tales that took place during China’s Warring States Period (475-221 BC). Here is my recount of the story.
The king of the state of Wei intends to attack its neighboring state of Zhao. Upon hearing the news, Ji Liang, counselor to the king rushes to see him. “Your Majesty, on my way here, I met a man on a chariot pointed to the north,” Ji Liang tells the King, “and he told me that he was going to visit Chu.”
“But Chu is in the south, why are you headed north?” I asked.
“Oh, no worry, my horses are very strong,” he told me.
“But you should be headed south,” I told him again.
“Not to worry, I have plenty of money,” he was not concerned.
“But still you are headed the wrong direction,” I pointed out yet again.
“I have hired a very skillful driver,” was this man’s reply.
“I worry, your majesty, that the better equipped this man was,” Ji Liang says to the King, “the farther away he would be from his destination.” “You want to be a great king and win respect from all people,” Ji Liang concludes, “You can certainly rely on our strong nation and excellent army to invade Zhao and expand our territory. But I am afraid the more you use force, the farther away you will be from your wishes.”
http://zhaolearning.com/2011/01/30/“it-makes-no-sense”-puzzling-over-obama’s-state-of-the-union-speech/
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Does Race to the Top Mean more Federal Control
From the New American
by Sam Blumenfeld
Race to the Top, which President Obama glowingly spoke of in his dismal State of the Union address, is a $4.35 billion U.S. Department of Education boondoggle to get state and local education systems to adopt national reforms affecting curriculum and teacher preparation. Its stated aim is to encourage charter schools, improve teacher instruction, and get state systems to adopt common academic standards. Teacher unions don’t particularly care for the charter school idea.
But the real aim of the program is to create a national education system conducted from Washington, much like the centralized systems in Europe and Asia. The money of course is the incentive for states to comply with so-called national standards. In countries without a Constitution like our own, such national standards can be imposed on a nation whether or not the people want them. But in the U.S., states have to be bribed to give up their independence.
It should be noted that $4.35 billion is more than 4 thousand million dollars. Probably more good could be accomplished by giving 4,350 small businesses a million dollars each to spur economic growth. But that would be no more legitimate than what the federal government is now doing in education. Perhaps an exemption from taxation would be a better way to create jobs.
The funding for the program comes from the ED Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009. Instead of using that money to pay off some of our enormous federal government debt, it will be used to feather the nests of those educators who know how to compete and apply for grants as they pretend to improve education. As long as they can fill out the complicated forms showing that they are able to comply with all of the conditions set forth in the program, the money will be awarded.
The program was announced by President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. By now all but eight states have applied for the grants. Already Florida and New York have been awarded $700 million each, $500 million to Tennessee, $400 million to Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio, $250 million to Massachusetts and Maryland, $100 million to Delaware and $75million to Rhode Island. Does anyone really believe that the money will make any difference in the quality of education in those states?
If one examines the history of the federal government’s throwing money at the public schools, one finds that conditions have only gotten worse. Literacy skills have declined, math and science have seen no discernable improvement in student achievement. But we keep doing the same thing over and over again, which is a symptom of insanity
The state of Texas has refused to take part in the program. Gov. Rick Perry has said that the Obama administration’s grant program is an unacceptable intrusion in the education system of Texas, even though Texas education officials and a consulting firm financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had been working on preparing the application forms to receive a hefty grant from the ED.
“We would be foolish and irresponsible,” Gov. Perry said, “to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special-interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington.”
However, Terry Grier, Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, disagreed with the Governor. “I’m disappointed,” he said. “It was potentially a lot of money for our state. I’m not one to sell my soul for money, but I have 100,000 kids in Houston who don’t read at grade level, and I don’t agree with people who say resources don’t make a difference.”
When the Houston schools decide to adopt a good intensive phonics reading program, such as Alpha-Phonics, or Sue Dickson’s Sing Spell Read & Write, their reading problem will disappear. The money they are presently spending on reading programs that don’t work is a waste of resources. Apparently Supt. Grier has never read “Why Johnny Can’t Read” by Rudolf Flesch. It was published in 1955, probably before he was born.
The father of all federal programs to improve education is The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, signed into law by President Johnson, which has thrown several trillion dollars at education with no discernable positive results. Title One of that act, Compensatory Education, has not improved literacy among the culturally deprived minority it was supposed to help. What it did was create a Title One establishment composed of directors, assistant directors, special ed teachers in each school district. They now have a vested interest in making sure that the reading problem is never solved, because a solution would put them all out of work. The last thing these “educators” want are reading programs which would make Title One unnecessary.
As for the Race to the Top, there are no lack of critics who see it differently from the way the President or his Secretary of Education see it. The teachers’ unions don’t like it because of the emphasis on charter schools, which, by the way, are public schools with fewer rules and regulations. Diane Ravitch, a long-time critic of the public schools, said that evidence “shows clearly that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working.”
A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the Urban League, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Rainbow Push Coalition released a statement that “Such an approach reinstates the antiquated and highly politicized frame for distributing federal support to states that civil rights organizations fought to remove in 1965.”
So the Race to the Top may eventually find itself at the bottom of all of these futile reform efforts to improve education. The only real way that education will be improved is if the government gets out of the education business and leaves it up to the private sector to provide educational services to the American public. Private schools and home- schooling are thriving while the public schools struggle to teach children to read.
But even though the message is clear, our politicians are blinded by piles of money in the billions and trillions, while socialist control freaks see the government schools as the means of harnessing the young for future service to the socialist state. Sanity and reason no longer reign in American public schools. Only confusion and failure greet the children at the public school door.
The Race to the Top is in reality a race to the bottom, for more government education means more failure, more frustration, and more unhappiness for millions of American children. We should all be happy that over a million children are being home-schooled by their parents, are learning to read and write, are being taught traditional American history, and are being prepared to become the leaders of an increasingly illiterate nation. And none of it is costing the American taxpayer a dime. That’s progress!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/6074-race-to-the-top-for-more-federal-control
by Sam Blumenfeld
Race to the Top, which President Obama glowingly spoke of in his dismal State of the Union address, is a $4.35 billion U.S. Department of Education boondoggle to get state and local education systems to adopt national reforms affecting curriculum and teacher preparation. Its stated aim is to encourage charter schools, improve teacher instruction, and get state systems to adopt common academic standards. Teacher unions don’t particularly care for the charter school idea.
But the real aim of the program is to create a national education system conducted from Washington, much like the centralized systems in Europe and Asia. The money of course is the incentive for states to comply with so-called national standards. In countries without a Constitution like our own, such national standards can be imposed on a nation whether or not the people want them. But in the U.S., states have to be bribed to give up their independence.
It should be noted that $4.35 billion is more than 4 thousand million dollars. Probably more good could be accomplished by giving 4,350 small businesses a million dollars each to spur economic growth. But that would be no more legitimate than what the federal government is now doing in education. Perhaps an exemption from taxation would be a better way to create jobs.
The funding for the program comes from the ED Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009. Instead of using that money to pay off some of our enormous federal government debt, it will be used to feather the nests of those educators who know how to compete and apply for grants as they pretend to improve education. As long as they can fill out the complicated forms showing that they are able to comply with all of the conditions set forth in the program, the money will be awarded.
The program was announced by President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on July 24, 2009. By now all but eight states have applied for the grants. Already Florida and New York have been awarded $700 million each, $500 million to Tennessee, $400 million to Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio, $250 million to Massachusetts and Maryland, $100 million to Delaware and $75million to Rhode Island. Does anyone really believe that the money will make any difference in the quality of education in those states?
If one examines the history of the federal government’s throwing money at the public schools, one finds that conditions have only gotten worse. Literacy skills have declined, math and science have seen no discernable improvement in student achievement. But we keep doing the same thing over and over again, which is a symptom of insanity
The state of Texas has refused to take part in the program. Gov. Rick Perry has said that the Obama administration’s grant program is an unacceptable intrusion in the education system of Texas, even though Texas education officials and a consulting firm financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had been working on preparing the application forms to receive a hefty grant from the ED.
“We would be foolish and irresponsible,” Gov. Perry said, “to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special-interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington.”
However, Terry Grier, Superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, disagreed with the Governor. “I’m disappointed,” he said. “It was potentially a lot of money for our state. I’m not one to sell my soul for money, but I have 100,000 kids in Houston who don’t read at grade level, and I don’t agree with people who say resources don’t make a difference.”
When the Houston schools decide to adopt a good intensive phonics reading program, such as Alpha-Phonics, or Sue Dickson’s Sing Spell Read & Write, their reading problem will disappear. The money they are presently spending on reading programs that don’t work is a waste of resources. Apparently Supt. Grier has never read “Why Johnny Can’t Read” by Rudolf Flesch. It was published in 1955, probably before he was born.
The father of all federal programs to improve education is The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, signed into law by President Johnson, which has thrown several trillion dollars at education with no discernable positive results. Title One of that act, Compensatory Education, has not improved literacy among the culturally deprived minority it was supposed to help. What it did was create a Title One establishment composed of directors, assistant directors, special ed teachers in each school district. They now have a vested interest in making sure that the reading problem is never solved, because a solution would put them all out of work. The last thing these “educators” want are reading programs which would make Title One unnecessary.
As for the Race to the Top, there are no lack of critics who see it differently from the way the President or his Secretary of Education see it. The teachers’ unions don’t like it because of the emphasis on charter schools, which, by the way, are public schools with fewer rules and regulations. Diane Ravitch, a long-time critic of the public schools, said that evidence “shows clearly that choice, competition and accountability as education reform levers are not working.”
A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the Urban League, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Rainbow Push Coalition released a statement that “Such an approach reinstates the antiquated and highly politicized frame for distributing federal support to states that civil rights organizations fought to remove in 1965.”
So the Race to the Top may eventually find itself at the bottom of all of these futile reform efforts to improve education. The only real way that education will be improved is if the government gets out of the education business and leaves it up to the private sector to provide educational services to the American public. Private schools and home- schooling are thriving while the public schools struggle to teach children to read.
But even though the message is clear, our politicians are blinded by piles of money in the billions and trillions, while socialist control freaks see the government schools as the means of harnessing the young for future service to the socialist state. Sanity and reason no longer reign in American public schools. Only confusion and failure greet the children at the public school door.
The Race to the Top is in reality a race to the bottom, for more government education means more failure, more frustration, and more unhappiness for millions of American children. We should all be happy that over a million children are being home-schooled by their parents, are learning to read and write, are being taught traditional American history, and are being prepared to become the leaders of an increasingly illiterate nation. And none of it is costing the American taxpayer a dime. That’s progress!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/6074-race-to-the-top-for-more-federal-control
Thursday, January 27, 2011
State of the Union? Disapointed
I am a pretty liberal guy and I have found myself very disapointed with the presidents education policies and if the president loves South Korea so much why doesn't he move there. The excerpt below from the blog Modern Schools echos my feelings. -cpg
From the Blog Modern Schools
by Mike Dunn
The State of Education
We Need to Respect Our Teachers, Like In Asia (Micah Sittig)
Obama had more of the same when it came to education. He blamed parents saying only they “can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done,” without acknowledging the incredible impact that poverty has on student achievement, something that parents have virtually no control over. Parents who are working two jobs or evening shifts are not in fact able to ensure that the TV is turned off and that homework is completed. Often, the homework is not completed because the kids themselves are working to help keep food on the table.
He also blamed schools, saying that many do not have “high expectations and high performance.” Of course he has no way of knowing how many schools lack high expectations, as this is not currently measured by NCLB or by Race to the Top (RTTT). While NCLB tests do measure student performance in math and English, they tell us very little about the performance of the school. Nevertheless, he had a solution for this problem that may or may not exist: More RTTT which, in a moment of self-aggrandizement (or acknowledgment that there has been no meaningful reform), he called “the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation.” He also called for merit pay and an end to tenure: “We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
In a truly twisted bit of double speak he suggested that the South Korean education system was superior to ours because of their great respect for teachers. “In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders. Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect.” Aside from the fact that Obama, Duncan and all the other Ed Deformers have had plenty of time to treat us with respect and failed, this quotation is particularly eerie in its candid admission of the true role that teachers play in the capitalist economy: pumping out more workers and consumers who can enrich the bosses. This can hardly be seen as a show of respect.
So important is the role of teachers in keeping the corporate machinery running that he made a special plea to young people to go into the noble profession, appealing to their patriotism. “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child—become a teacher. Your country needs you.” Uncle Sam says, Your Country Needs You to Make a Sacrifice, a big sacrifice since that degree and teaching credential may result in a debt of $20-30,000, while teaching wages have stagnated or declined in most districts, making it all but impossible to repay that debt. Even if money is no object, there are the increasing demands of RTTT and NCLB, the pressure to make low achieving students suddenly achieve, and the increasingly vitriolic attacks by pundits. It’s hard to see even patriotism being enough to encourage someone to go into teaching under these conditions.
For the whole blog check out: http://modeducation.blogspot.com/
From the Blog Modern Schools
by Mike Dunn
The State of Education
We Need to Respect Our Teachers, Like In Asia (Micah Sittig)
Obama had more of the same when it came to education. He blamed parents saying only they “can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done,” without acknowledging the incredible impact that poverty has on student achievement, something that parents have virtually no control over. Parents who are working two jobs or evening shifts are not in fact able to ensure that the TV is turned off and that homework is completed. Often, the homework is not completed because the kids themselves are working to help keep food on the table.
He also blamed schools, saying that many do not have “high expectations and high performance.” Of course he has no way of knowing how many schools lack high expectations, as this is not currently measured by NCLB or by Race to the Top (RTTT). While NCLB tests do measure student performance in math and English, they tell us very little about the performance of the school. Nevertheless, he had a solution for this problem that may or may not exist: More RTTT which, in a moment of self-aggrandizement (or acknowledgment that there has been no meaningful reform), he called “the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation.” He also called for merit pay and an end to tenure: “We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones.”
In a truly twisted bit of double speak he suggested that the South Korean education system was superior to ours because of their great respect for teachers. “In South Korea, teachers are known as nation builders. Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect.” Aside from the fact that Obama, Duncan and all the other Ed Deformers have had plenty of time to treat us with respect and failed, this quotation is particularly eerie in its candid admission of the true role that teachers play in the capitalist economy: pumping out more workers and consumers who can enrich the bosses. This can hardly be seen as a show of respect.
So important is the role of teachers in keeping the corporate machinery running that he made a special plea to young people to go into the noble profession, appealing to their patriotism. “If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child—become a teacher. Your country needs you.” Uncle Sam says, Your Country Needs You to Make a Sacrifice, a big sacrifice since that degree and teaching credential may result in a debt of $20-30,000, while teaching wages have stagnated or declined in most districts, making it all but impossible to repay that debt. Even if money is no object, there are the increasing demands of RTTT and NCLB, the pressure to make low achieving students suddenly achieve, and the increasingly vitriolic attacks by pundits. It’s hard to see even patriotism being enough to encourage someone to go into teaching under these conditions.
For the whole blog check out: http://modeducation.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)