Teaching and Learning in Hostile Times

@ The Chalk Face

2012-02-27T16:57:00.000-05:00

Talking to Your School Board

2012-02-15T16:03:00.000-05:00

Presented to Bellwood Antis School Board, 2/14/12

I am concerned about the future of education in our schools.

Pennsylvania schools are about to adopt a teacher and principal evaluation system that will use the high stakes test scores of children in determining the so called “effectiveness” of our teachers and principals. As you can read in the hand-outs that I have provided (digitally), this will do nothing positive for our children, teachers and principals. There is not a shred of research that supports such a drastic policy decision.

This board needs to understand that teaching to pass ANY high-stakes tests does not provide children with a quality teaching and learning experience.

I am speaking to the board tonight because I fear for the amazing teachers my children have had over the years. For example, last year and this year my daughter has had truly gifted teachers. She comes home and talks about what they did in school without any prompting. She eagerly shares papers and projects completed during the day. She asks questions about the things she learned during the day. She is using technology (on her own) to investigate other questions. She writes her own books. In other words, she in fully engaged.

Here is my Question for the board. What has happened over the last two years that has produced a hunger for learning in my child?

The simple answer is that her teachers care deeply about learning and have helped her develop a love for learning.

This is the heart of quality teaching and it will never be measured on a test. There is no statistical operation capable of measuring a teacher's ability to instill a love for learning.

If Bellwood and other Pennsylvania schools adopt this evaluation system, my daughters’ teachers (IN FACT ALL THE GOOD TEACHERS) will have to change their approach to teaching and learning.

If the pressure for high test scores and the insane notion that "we" should hold teachers accountable for test scores continue to drive policy discussions concerning teacher effectiveness, the most valuable experiences associated with learning will be dismissed. The drive for test scores will suck the life out of teaching and learning.

The politicians and others that are pushing this new evaluation system have decided that they know what's best for our children. This top-down, condescending view of teachers, parents and local schools is disheartening.

If we (citizens, parents, business owners, community members and you the members of this board) care about the quality of our schools, then we need to be talking about the love for learning -- not test scores.

I am asking that The Bellwood-Antis School Board to (and this is directly from the Board’s webpage), “Provide for the education of all children and Set district policies and regulations” that oppose the use of test scores as an evaluation tool for our teachers and principals. Doing anything else would be disregarding all the evidence and research on teaching and learning and the valid use of test scores.

Footnote

This past October, on Long Island New York. 1330 principals (over 73%) signed a position paper in which they refused to allow themselves and their teachers to be evaluated by high stakes test scores and refused millions of dollars in Race to the Top funds. WHY? Because this is what leaders do! What will all of you do?

Thank you for your time.

Pennsylvania Parents Helping Public Schools

2012-02-10T09:47:00.000-05:00

Dear Pennsylvania Parents,

We need to take back our public schools. After ten years of No Child Left Behind and PSSAs are you ready for a change? Have you had enough with high stakes testing? Are you tired of watching the great teachers in your districts reduced to test prep managers? Does, “because it’s on the PSSAs” make you cringe? Do you even know what AYP means? Did you know that comprehensive research has demonstrated that PSSA testing can actually hurt kids physically, psychologically, and academically? Did you intend for your child’s scores to be used as experimental data? Did you consent to the research methods being used on your child? Have you had enough?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then you might want to know that Pennsylvania law allows parents and children the right to “opt out” of PSSAs. Directly from the PA Code, “If upon inspection of State assessments parents or guardians find the assessment in conflict with their religious belief and wish their students to be excused from the assessment, the right of the parents or guardians will not be denied upon written request to the applicable school district superintendent, charter school chief executive officer or AVTS director.”

Specifically, you must make an appointment with the school to review the PSSA test, sign a confidentiality agreement, review the tests, and write a letter that simply states that participation in PSSAs violates your religious principles. If you’re not sure how PSSAs violate religious principals please be aware that after 10 years of PSSAs childhood anxiety disorders have dramatically risen. Children have been denied a fully comprehensive education. Our children are being used to provide data that will label the child, teacher, school, administrators, and community a failure. This data is being sold to Washington think tanks and other data management organizations. Tax money (our money) has been diverted to testing and data management companies instead of schools and children. What religion supports such a system?

So before March Madness (PSSA testing) begins please take some time to seriously consider the future of your child’s education. Remember, our children only get one chance at a quality education. The PSSAs and the culture of high stakes testing have denied a generation of children a quality education. It is time to put an end to this punitive system. It’s time to allow our teachers to get back to what they do best—teach. It’s time to demand that our public schools be given back to us. It’s time to make sure our children receive the education they deserve. It’s time to OPT OUT!

Sample Letter

Dear Superintendent,

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Code Title 22 Chapter 4, section 4.4 (d)(5) I am hereby exercising my right as a parent to have my child excused from any State standardized testing because of religious and philosophical beliefs.

Tim Slekar is an administrator with http://unitedoptout.com/. This grassroots organization is committed to ending punitive high stakes testing and restoring local control of public schools.

Quitting Teaching?

2012-02-09T12:41:00.001-05:00

The passage below was a response to Anthony Cody's blog. Very Sad!

Ken Bernstein

9:58 AM on February 9, 2012

This morning I sat in a faculty meeting as our principal explained why we all had to be focusing on Common Core in what we do, even when our courses are not directly part of the Common Core.

I will be 66 in May. I am already on Social Security. For a number of years I have tried to stop the steamroller of education deform that is destroying American public education. I look at the students arriving at our high school who after constant testing for NCLB and narrowing of curricula to focus on raising test scores have trouble thinking clearly, do not know how to write (it is not tested) and lack basic background knowledge in American History and Civics. I talk with colleagues in our Science department who have similar concerns.

Right now I wonder why I am even trying to make a difference. There is less and less respect for what we teachers do, we are being given directions by those who do not seem to understand real learning, and what is being imposed serves to alienate further the natural learning instincts of students.

I wonder if any of the efforts I have expended outside the classroom have made a whit of difference.

I wonder why I knock myself out to serve my students both with my school commitments and my commitments to trying to educate those outside of school systems of what teaching and learning really are.

I see the unions making early endorsements of an administration whose education department has in my opinion been hostile to teachers and real education, and in bed with the corporatizers.

I feel as if I am trying to bail out a tanker that is sinking using a teaspoon.

We are losing public schools.

We are losing democracy.

At moments like this I think I am glad my wife and I decided not to have our own children.

I fear for the future of our nieces and nephews.

I fear for the future of the children I teach.

I am now very close - VERY CLOSE - to giving up on being a teacher, because it is becoming impossible to be the kind of teacher I must be to keep my sanity.

I had planned to teach at least until I was 70.

Now? Like many of my compatriots, I am inclined to take the buyout offered by my system and do something else for the money I still need that does not so much break my heart.

I am far from alone.

Opt Out Report Card

2012-02-06T16:43:00.000-05:00

Attached below are my son's PSSA scores from last year. He was promoted to 6th grade and was placed in the high sections of Math and Language Arts. NS = No Score. Blank =Blank

We are so proud of him. We decided to hang his PSSA scores on the refrigerator for the past 6 months. Yes you can OPT OUT and be promoted and placed in the "high" sections.

Pennsylvania Public Schools Making Connections

2012-02-02T11:52:00.000-05:00

According to the official statements from the Pennsylvania Department of Education, reading and math are not the only important subjects. From the state...

Remember to make connections!

Success in school involves more than just reading and mathematics. Children can master these other skills by engaging in activities outside the classroom. Practicing music, for example, can build skills that will be valuable throughout school and life. Remember that taking trips to a museum, a show or a concert is a positive way to strengthen your child's overall education

What the the Pennsylvania Department of Education is really saying!
However, as a state PA will only provide for reading and math instruction. All the other stuff that actually matters needs to occur "outside the classroom." We just can't afford to help all children in Pennsylvania. If you care about your kids, you the parents or guardians will need to take over from now on. Music, art science history and all that other stuff is now your responsibility.

Problem
What about the children that don't have the resources available to them to "make connections?"

Solution
Not a problem. There is not enough room at the top for all of Pennsylvania's children. Besides, who will work at discount department stores if all children receive a rich and powerful education that "makes connections?"

Like making the connection that children in lower SES ranks don't really have a chance in PA!

Bad Press and Bad Research

2012-01-25T14:55:00.001-05:00

From the Associated Press

"A growing body of research demonstrates the dramatic difference effective teachers can play in student lives, from reducing teenage pregnancies to increasing a student's lifetime earnings."

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/01/25/490916usteachertenure_ap.html?tkn=TPYFQq7jmvS6yMTkCE%2FQSdJ%2Bvbnjzi4xGsxP&cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

One seriously flawed study done by reformer economists does not make " growing body of research!"

10 years of NCLB means it’s time to Occupy the DOE

2012-01-12T16:44:00.002-05:00

This year marks the tenth anniversary of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB was and is the most aggressive intrusion of federal authority into a core issue that is constitutionally the responsibility of the states. However, NCLB passed with almost unanimous support from all political parties. Why?

Because, according to the supporters, NCLB was going to close the historic achievement gap between low income and minority students and middle class white students. It would make sure all students received a superior educational experience. It was going to hold all teachers, administrators and schools “accountable” for closing this gap. It would also hold schools and teachers accountable for all student achievement. And it promised that this would be completed by 2014.

Instead, after ten years and according to the accumulated empirical evidence, NCLB has actually caused a widening of the achievement gap. It has narrowed the curriculum to mostly test prep practice with a shortsighted focus on discreet reading and math skills. It has forced teachers to stop teaching and “prep” kids for tests and has pushed administrators into the position of data managers instead of instructional leaders. It has forced the closing of some community based schools and has actually ushered in a new form of segregation—poor and minority students are the most likely to have their schools reorganized with a bare bones scripted curriculum or to have their schools closed and then forced to attend a charter school that in all likely hood is no better and maybe worse than their original community based school. Also, for the middle and upper middle class students, their 10 year experience with NCLB has literally left them behind. These students are now 50% more likely to need remedial math and writing courses upon graduation from high school. In other words, NCLB has cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, practically destroyed America’s public education system and caused our children to lose ground academically— an absolute disaster.

Therefore I need to ask the community some questions. Parents. Why do you put up with this? Have you thought about opting out? Teachers. I know you know better. Why do you spend hours prepping for invalid tests? This is not really teaching (or why you became a teacher). Principals. Where is your leadership? Your teachers need you to call the kettle black. Superintendents. Why do you continue to do black flips in a system that, in the end, will dissolve any need for your type of educational expertise? School Boards. Why the silence as your community schools are being dismantled and property values decrease each year in direct correlation to NCLB scores?

How much longer will we allow this disaster to continue? Parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards please step up and end the unwinnable game. Our children’s future and the future of American democracy are at stake. Join us March 30th – April 2nd as we Occupy the DOE .

Vouchers: The inappropriate, unethical and perhaps illegal

2011-10-28T15:47:00.006-04:00

In the run up to Senate Bill 1 (Voucher Bill) various citizens decided to make their opinions heard. Supporters and detractors called their Senators or emailed them. According to some insiders the volume was unprecedented. Awesome. Citizens doing their job. Regardless of your position, the idea that the citizens were active is something worth applauding. Right?

No. According Senator Eichelberger, the detractors of SB1 should have had their ability to express their concerns limited to an appropriate time and place and carried out with the appropriate hardware. As you can see from his blog post below, the Senator found it offensive that public school employees would take time during their break, or lunch, or on their way to work, or while on the commode to contact his office. According to the Senator if your working for the state you have no right to address your government. Interesting. However, what if these calls were from teachers during the school day and from a district phone? Is this really "unethical" or "illegal?" The state hired these teachers to advocate and do right by their students. It would seem to me that advocating for children during the hours of school is perfectly legal, maybe even mandatory.

However, what about the Senator? What was he doing during work hours at the expense of the taxpayers using taxpayer facilities? He was advocating breaking the law by passing an unconstitutional bill that would take resources from children, teachers, and schools. Seems a little unethical too. Hypocritical?

"I got some very interesting calls and emails today from public school folks. It is worth noting that many of the calls and emails came from school employees while on taxpayers time and using taxpayer funded equipment. Certainly, any citizen has the right to address their elected officials, but using public resources to advance their personal agenda is inappropriate, unethical and perhaps illegal. Many of the people who pay their salaries and bought that equipment do not share their views." Senator John Eichelberger

If you have time during "appropriate, ethical and legal" times maybe you can let the Senator know how much you appreciate his advocacy for the corporate education reformers and his disdain for public school employees. http://senatoreichelberger.com/contact/

Pennsylvania and Vouchers: Now What?

2011-10-27T12:24:00.002-04:00

FYI. Senate Bill 1 passed yesterday. Pennsylvania is a step closer to implementing a school voucher program. What? Everybody else is doing it. Shouldn't we?

No we should not. The facts are simple. Vouchers don't help kids in poor schools. Vouchers don't make neighboring schools better. Vouchers cost taxpayers more money.

However, all of this doesn't matter when you understand this fact. Proponents of vouchers don't really care if they "work." Voucher supporters' real motivation is to dismantle the public school system and replace it with a totally privatized system of education. PERIOD!

Now what? Time to write or call your local representative in the House. What should you say? That's up to you but here is what I said in an email to my local representative. Copy, paste, modify and send.

Dear Representative Stern,

I am sure you know that I am disappointed by your colleagues in the Senate. However, I hope that your position on the constitutionality of a voucher program remains strong. The rhetoric coming out of Senator Eichelberger is absolutely disgraceful and his disdain for teachers speaks volumes about his priorities to the children of Pennsylvania.

If there is anything I can do to help please let me know. I am not a politician but I do know a little bit about the "facts" and public education. And the facts about vouchers point out that they don't help anyone and in the end (when public education is gone) they will destroy "our" local communities.

Go and ask the people of Bellwood if they support a movement that will eventually suck the soul (the public school) from their community.

This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue. This is a values issue. Do we value our local public schools that support the cultural life of their respective communities? If we do, then we cannot create a voucher program that has all intentions of expanding into the entire system of public education. This is not about helping children. This is about dismantling the public schools of Pennsylvania. This is about giving up on the ideal that all children in Pennsylvania deserve a free, well rounded, and powerful education.

Your Friend,

Tim

School Board Candidate: My Responses to the Press.

2011-10-13T16:47:00.004-04:00

As I mentioned in a previous blog, I am actively trying to get elected to my local school board. Somehow I managed to get my name on the ballot in the May primary (by 1 vote). This was quite an accomplishment considering my community's suspicions about my motivation to be on the school board.

Quickly. Last year, according to "some people," my sole motivation was ending the annual Christmas concert. Funny, but a true story.

Well now that it is officially election season, the local newspaper sent me a few questions concerning my desire to be a member of the Bellwood-Antis School Board. The news director is compiling the responses of the candidates for a future print issue.

But why wait? Below are the questions and my responses. Christmas aside, I actually would like to win a seat so I worked pretty hard on my responses.

1. What is the biggest issue facing the Bellwood Antis school board and what can be done to resolve it.

There are two major issues facing the Bellwood-Antis SD that are deeply connected. First, our elected officials are pushing for more charter schools and a voucher plan that will allow any child to attend a private school at the expense of the taxpayers (you). The other related issue—The current Bellwood Antis school board consists of members that have no idea that the privatization of our school system is at stake. To make matters worse, there are other members of the board that actively support the same elected officials that believe public schools should be “selectively dismantled.” If elected I would first alert all the residents of the Bellwood-Antis School district of the threat to our community and our public schools. I will also do what ever it takes to make sure that the Bellwood Antis school board is responsive to the educational needs of the community and I will never support any legislation that weakens or threatens the existence of the Bellwood-Antis public schools.

Citizens need to realize that our public schools are the hearts of our local communities and that if they are dismantled the souls of our communities will be compromised.

2. Do you think school boards should have the ability to use exceptions to the Taxpayer Relief Act, or should any proposed taxes over the limit be up to a voter referendum?

The easiest way to get votes is to say no. However, this simple answer takes away the civic responsibility of the school district’s stakeholders (children, parents, teachers, and community members) to address the school board on important financial decisions. The Tax Payer Relief Act or any law that takes away the ability of local stake holders to make their own decisions seems condescending and a violation of the basic principles of self government. If the community of Bellwood, through discussions with the school board, wants to make financial adjustments to the school budget then why would anybody be in favor of limiting the ability of the citizens to make these decisions?

3. How would you help improve or maintain proficient academic standards while dealing with tight budgets in this economy?

Once you get rid of the PSSA (NCLB) system, PVAS, and Keystone Exams (Exit exams) a magical thing will happen—tight budgets disappear. We spend millions of dollars on standardized testing and managing data systems that have no academic benefit. Teachers are forced to prepare kids to pass meaningless tests that take away time from learning history, science, art, music, and physical education. Since the implementation of NCLB and PSSAs our students’ academic abilities have actually decreased. Over 50% of freshmen entering college need remedial math and writing even though they scored “proficient” on their PSSAs. National research on NCLB has even concluded that the amount of money spent on tests, testing, data systems, and the government bureaucrats paid to oversee the testing systems would have been better spent on school personnel and real resources (not test prep materials and coaches). Excellent teachers and staff, knowledgeable administrators, a strong curriculum, and engaged parents will better prepare our children academically and cost less than the meaningless PSSA system and the future Keystone exams.

4. What do you think about approaching vendors and businesses to sponsor school activities as a way to produce additional revenue for the district?

5. What do you think about approaching businesses for naming rights to district facilities as another way to raise revenues?

Questions four and five are too related to answer separately. A better question would be, why do public schools need to approach businesses as sponsors and for naming rights to generate “revenue?” If there is a revenue problem then the state is not living up to its constitutional obligation to, “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.” However, if local businesses and vendors want to support their community public schools financially then that should be negotiated. I will say that when a community (people and businesses) supports their local public schools both the children and the community benefit.

What do you think? Do I have a chance?

Corbett, Rhee and Astroturf

2011-10-13T07:38:00.004-04:00

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/tom-corbett-pennsylvania-_n_1007821.html

The reforms aim to foster competition among schools and motivate improved student performance.

"We can't guarantee their success, but we owe all students a fighting chance," Corbett said in a statement Tuesday. "We're talking about our children and we owe it to them to reform the system."

Can someone please tell Governor Corbett that vouchers will "guarantee" mass failure and potentially collapse our public education system? He is right that we need to "reform" the system. However, why not use reforms that are supported by research instead of the corporate reforms that have been demonstrated repeatedly to fail children, parents, teachers and communities?

"The bipartisan support this proposal has received speaks to the need for the kind of transparent, rigorous and fair accountability system this would create in Pennsylvania," Rhee said in the statement. "Similarly, our grassroots members support the measure in that it expands educational opportunities for all children regardless of family income by allowing great charter schools to thrive and expand."

Also, can someone tell Michelle Rhee that StudentsFirst is an astroturf organization?

How to privatize public education in 12 easy steps.

2011-10-07T14:11:00.003-04:00

Morna McDermott McNulty

Associate Professor

College of Education

Towson University

1) Manufacture a crisis and instill public fear. Waiting for Superman. (LINK: www.waitingforsuperman.com)

2) Create a rallying cry for the need for ACTION to save citizens from some danger- which involves eliminating those posing a threat. In this case, public educators. Bring in your own “private” troops (Blackwater? No. Teach for America and people trained at new “innovative leadership centers”)

3) Create a system which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. High stakes testing policies which will doom schools and children to failure. A convenient way to “prove” the grounds for #’s 1 and 2.

(LINK: http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=614)

4) Use of “savior” language-sound bite messages which co opt terms that average people identify as favorable such as “innovation,” “reform,” and “choice.”

5) Deflect the FACTS with spectacular dog and pony show media blasts and hide the truth under glossy presentations of the agenda. Disguise this ideology of greed under the umbrella of “freedom” and “saving children.”

6) Create legislation that politically and financially benefits the stakeholders of those same policies by forging under the table alliances between big business and state legislators. See ALEC exposed (LINK: www.alecexposed.org).

7) Launder these policies through seemingly beneficial non-profit agencies and corporate philanthropy where the origins cannot be traced easily.

8) These same corporations now open for profit charter schools and online schools and other “options” in lieu of “failing public education.” When children attend these “schools” the per pupil funding that would have gone to support the local public schools is now funneled into the new for profit alternative. (LINK: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/966046/-Education-the-ALEC-Way)

9) Make inside deals with the textbook and testing companies that these schools will use. Billions of dollars of profits to these companies while public schools languish from lack of resources. Mandated testing forces schools to redirect monies to testing that could have otherwise been spent on hiring teachers to reduce class size or provide needed learning materials. (LINK: http://fairtest.org/exposing-myths-high-stakes-testing)

10) Hide and twist the data that shows that charter alternatives perform NO BETTER than their public counterparts (see step 5). LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/education/23charter.html

11) Manipulate legislation in ways that benefit “choice” alternatives so that certain populations of students who would make their schools “look bad” can be denied access to those schools and can be provided with ample resources that could have also improved public schools if only THEY had the funds. See “model” bills proposed by ALEC at http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Privatizing_Public_Education,_Higher_Ed_Policy,_and_Teachers

12) Public schools, as result of steps 1-10, would now in fact be failing and as a result, the free market ideology prevails and can feel justified in their actions. The cycle back to step #1 is now complete. Public education now becomes Education Incorporated.

Journalism Please!

2011-10-01T08:38:00.002-04:00

Letter to the Editor to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that was ignored.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11266/1176904-298-0.stm

"The competition that charter schools create for traditional public school systems is good and should help to improve educational quality, according to state Education Secretary Ron Tomalis."

There is not a shred of educational, economic, or social science research to support Tomalis' claim that competition between charter schools and traditional public schools improves educational quality. However, there is a significant amount of research that essentially suggests that Tomalis has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and is really just peddling propaganda.

There is a time to point out the things our public officials say when they are untrue. I have done this consistently over the years. However, it might be nice if just once, the "press" actually did their job and stopped telling us what officials have said and actually challenged our officials on the stupid things they say. As an example, the quote above comes from a "story" (Education chief: Variety is important) that is nothing more than a PR piece for the Corbett administration's plans to dismantle the public school system. The entire article is devoted to informing the public what Tomalis is saying. Not once does the Post Gazette actually challenge Tomalis.

Examples: "The secretary said charter schools are becoming such a popular choice that if all of the students were in one district, it would be the second-largest in the state." He said school districts should create more innovative programs to keep or bring back students. That's competition. That's exactly the way you want it to work...."

And interviewing Thomas Gentzel, executive director of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, does not help because he opposes Tomalis. Gentzel might be pitching his own propaganda. We in the public don't need to know what the Hatfields and the McCoys are saying. We need to know who's statements are supported by research and empirical evidence—we need journalism.

Pennsylvania School Board Candidates: What do They Believe?

2011-09-30T13:09:00.001-04:00

I decided to compile this list of questions because I rarely hear a candidate for school board even brush up against these topics. However, from my perspective, what other questions really matter? Please feel free to copy, paste, and shove down the throats of any candidate for school board in your district.

Questions for Pennsylvania School Board Candidates

1. Do you believe in the concept of public education (free and equal educational opportunity for all)?

2. Are the district children receiving the best education possible and how do you know?

3. What research supports the curriculum and instruction used in the schools?

4. Can you identify any waste in the district? Please describe.

5. What are vouchers?

6. How will vouchers impact the school district?

7. Have you given any campaign contributions to politicians that support vouchers? If yes, why?

8. What is the relationship between PSSA scores and real estate values?

9. Should Pennsylvania ask for a waiver to “opt out” of NCLB requirements? Why?

10. How much will it cost Pennsylvania to implement the Keystone Exams?

11. Will the Keystone Exams guarantee that district students are ready to graduate?

12. Should sports, music, and other school related activities that are non-academic be financed with taxes or should students “pay to play?”

13. Explain the use of Value Added Measures in determining effective teaching.

14. Tell me about reliability and VAMs.

15. How much does it cost Pennsylvania to collect data and determine PVAS values?

16. What is a PVAS value and should you even care?

17. If you don’t know the answers to questions above then why are you running for school director?

School Board Candidates: What do They Believe?

2011-09-30T13:00:00.001-04:00

Questions for School Board Candidates

1. Do you believe in the concept of public education (free and equal educational opportunity for all)?

2. Are the district children receiving the best education possible and how do you know?

3. What research supports the curriculum and instruction used in the schools?

4. Can you identify any waste in the district? Please describe.

5. What are vouchers?

6. How will vouchers impact the school district?

7. Have you given any campaign contributions to politicians that support vouchers? If yes, why?

8. What is the relationship between NCLB tests scores and real estate values?

9. Should our district ask for a waiver to “opt out” of NCLB requirements? Why?

10. How much will it cost our state to implement the Exit Exams?

11. Will the Exit Exams guarantee that district students are ready to graduate?

12. Should sports, music, and other school related activities that are non-academic be financed with taxes or should students “pay to play?”

13. Explain the use of Value Added Measures (VAM) in determining effective teaching.

14. How reliable are VAM scores?

15. How much does it cost our state to collect data and determine VAM values?

16. If you don’t know the answers to questions above then why are you running for school director?

Value Added vs Experience.

2011-09-14T14:33:00.002-04:00

From The Wall Street Journal on line.

At Frederick Douglass Academy in Harlem, principal Gregory Hodge uses the value-added results to alter instruction, move teachers to new classroom assignments and pair weak students with the highest performing teachers. Mr. Hodge said the data for teachers generally aligns with his classroom observations. "It's confirming what an experienced principal knows," he said.

Question. If an "experienced principal" can do the job then why don't they? I know. They're too fracking busy sifting through data instead of being instructional leaders. Also, how much do company's like SAS Institute Inc. make on Value Added Data Systems? I'll bet you taxpayers pay more for these data systems than the they would for an "experienced principal."

Pittsburgh Teachers Can Relax

2011-09-13T15:30:00.001-04:00

Yunz Pittsburgh Teachers Can Relax an at. See below.

Arizona has reached an agreement with federal officials to stop monitoring classrooms for mispronounced words and poor grammar from teachers of students still learning the English language.

Explaining Opposition to High Stakes Testing

2011-09-11T16:16:00.007-04:00

The"Opt Out" movement is growing. Petitions are being signed. Australians and New Zealanders have joined. And still some just don't truly understand why we are opting out. An important group that needs to understand that this movement is in support of public schools are school leaders. Below is my attempt to explain why I will not let my children take high stakes tests. Feel free to use or modify for your purposes. Just change the names of people and places to fit your localities. :-)

Dear Dr. Toth (Superintendent),

I'm sure you know my opposition to PSSAs (NCLB) and the Keystones (Exit exams). However, my guess is that you don't fully understand why. It has nothing to do with a fear that my children will experience failure. My kids are fine.

My disdain for the testing culture is centered on the fact that testing and the data the testing provides are the weapons being used by "reformers" that want a privatized system of education. The standards and accountability movement was never really about making public education stronger. It was designed to "prove" public education was failing and provide leverage for the voucher, charter, and private school movement. It's a beautiful strategy on the part of the "reformers" because it has convinced our own neighbors that our public school and the taxes being used to support it are being wasted.

Their (reformers) new narrative portrays all teachers, administrators, custodial, and support staff as lazy and overpaid. The data provided by standardized testing feeds the propaganda machine that sucks away the support communities typically provide neighborhood public schools.

I'm not against standards and rigor. I'm against a system that defines standards and rigor as standardized tests and takes the power away from neighborhood schools in defining and delivering a truly rigorous experience in learning. You, the other administrators, and the teachers are the professionals with the knowledge and experience and expertise. I want all of you to be able to do your jobs. Don't worry about "accountability" as defined today. We (parents and community members) will hold you accountable (That's our responsibility as engaged citizens). Don't let politicians being funded by McGraw Hill, Pearson, ETS etc, decide what's best for our community. Again, as a community, that is our responsibility.

I am convinced that our neighbors, if given the alternative narrative (truth) that the Bellwood-Antis School District (actually all public schools) is slowly being dismantled by forces that don't care about our community and only care about using public dollars to make a profit, will never allow this to happen. Except for a few, the citizens of Bellwood-Antis (My town) love their community. And if given the opportunity they would rally around the schools because the Bellwood Antis School District is the center of this community.

Kind Regards,

Tim

Extra reading:
http://zhaolearning.com/2011/07/17/ditch-testing-part-5-testing-has-not-improved-education-despite-all-the-costs/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/the-honest-public-educati_b_814340.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/the-shock-doctrine-case-s_b_856053.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/pennsylvania-selectively-_b_869841.html

Pennsylvania Senator Casey supports NCLB and next Generation Assessments

2011-08-31T21:22:00.002-04:00

I moved up a level. Finally, a call from Casey's DC office. According to the legislative aide, Senator Casey supports the re-authorization of NCLB and looks forward to "next generation" assessments. When I explained that Pennsylvania teachers and parents might not be that supportive of the Senator's position, his aide pointed out that DC can't just give money away without any accountability measures. When I explained that the National Academy of Sciences found NCLB, accountability and incentives to not work and may have even set education back she told me that "next generation" assessments will remedy the poor tests being used in states for NCLB purposes. I asked her if these new assessments have been validated and checked for reliability issues. I didn't get much of a response. I asked her if it was Okay for drug companies to release new drugs to the public as soon as they have been formulated. Of course she said no. These drugs would have to be tested to see if they actually work and if they cause unwanted side effects. I asked her why Senator Casey supports using tests that have no established validity or reliability on children, teachers , and schools? She said I had a good point. She then wondered when some research might be conducted on teaching and learning. I almost lost it.

Below is the email I received after the phone conversation.

Hi Dr. Slekar,

It was good to talk with you today. As I said, you raised some very important issues with No Child Left Behind that have concerned the Senator for some time. While we may not agree on everything, I look forward to talking through these issues and gathering your feedback as the Senate moves forward with NCLB reauthorization.

Best wishes,

NCLB is a State Issue?

2011-08-27T16:20:00.004-04:00

This is latest in my ongoing communications with Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey's office. In the reply from Casey's office you'll see that they are trying to say that NCLB and RttT and all of the forced standardized tests are "state issues."

So even though the state testing is Federally imposed it's a state issue. Huh? Feel free to contact the Senator's office. Maybe you'll have better luck than me.

Dear Ms. Bierly,

It has now been six months since we (Michele Gray and I) met to talk to you about Senator Casey's position on high stakes testing. This is my third email reminding you that we still have not heard anything from the Senator's education staff. We hope that the Senator is still interested in our cause to restore American public education and take it away from the corporate reformers that are trying to dismantle our public schools using high stakes testing. If the Senator is interested we have now started a national movement to have parents "Opt Out" of state tests this school year. It seems we can no longer wait for elected officials to listen to teachers and the parents of public school children. This is sad.

Please visit
http://unitedoptout.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/264594250218348/?notif_t=group_r2j
http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/
http://parentsacrossamerica.org/

As you know, the movement to dismantle public schools is a bipartisan effort. Therefore, from our point of view, it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican. This may come as a surprise to Senator Casey (since he typically receives support from public teachers and working class parents). But the Senator can no longer assume he has a voting block locked up. If he is supportive of the high stakes culture of testing and corporate reform then he is no different than any Republican candidate. I hope Senator Casey and his education staff find time to respond to our constant attempts at beginning a constructive dialogue.

Thank you for your time,

Tim

I will get back to you Monday. This is really a state issue. We are limited in what state issues we can get involved in. My cell is 8142216567 if you want to reach me next week. Talk to you Monday. Thanks for the email. Kim
Kimberley Bierly
Regional Field Representative
U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey Jr.
814-357-0314 office

From Opt Out! No Punches Here.

2011-08-19T11:37:00.003-04:00

http://www.facebook.com/groups/264594250218348/

As long as corporations dictate the testing and assessment requirements, grading teachers based on test scores, and fund schools based on those test scores, THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE. All the schools are held to the same BS, so how will you find a school with "alternative" settings? You have choice now...you can go private.And in most districts, you can reassign, choose a magnet, or choose your teacher. PRIOR to NCLB public schools were about teaching the whole child, having a multitude of choices within the school, places of innovation...that's what schools looked like BEFORE NCLB and FCAT here in Florida. No one, NOT ONE PARENT, ever clamored for assessments because we gave them REPORT CARDS, and had WEEKLY TESTS, and ASSESSED kids meaningfully. Many of you speak as if none of this was happening before. Did any of you attend public schools growing up? Did your parents ever wonder or ask for standardized tests or not trust your teacher or look at your report cards? Did you just float through willy nilly?

This whole mess was just a drummed up battle cry to freak out the public as most people were very happy with their NEIGHBORHOOD public schools. The schools doing poorly then are the same ones now...they are in impoverished areas and we don't, as a nation, want to address that so we criminalize every school, teacher, union, etc. Believe me, education and teaching was joyous prior to this. Teachers are still trying but this atmosphere of testing, testing, testing, and "teachers are evil" make it difficult to even want to get up in the morning. So we take more money out, raise class sizes, narrow the curriculum, fail MORE kids, more kids are dropping out than before NCLB, and then the public believes what the corporate and libertarian idiots have always wanted them to believe--we need to close public schools. Congratulations...you have bought into the propaganda. Read The Shock Doctrine... Rosemarie Jensen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/the-shock-doctrine-case-s_b_856053.html

MSNBC Did Not "Make the Grade."

2011-08-15T11:18:00.002-04:00

Dear MSNBC,

After watching MSNBC's "Making the Grade" with Tamaron Hall, I was disappointed that teachers and others fighting the take over of public schools were not part of the conversation. The special left out a significant piece of the discussion concerning the corporate reform movement that has devastated public schools, teachers, children, and communities. I'm sure you were aware that on the weekend of July 30th over 5000 concerned citizens assembled in Washington to protest the corporate takeover of public schools (Save Our Schools http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/ ). There were many high profile people that would have helped "Making the Grade" more informative to viewers. The viewers would have had a chance to hear about the "real" problems facing our public schools. It would be well worth the time if MSNBC would interview some of the SOS organizers and speakers for a reaction to the special. If MSNBC really wants to "Lean Forward" there is large group of us that can help MSNBC truly take a "Forward" position on issues dealing with public education. Please feel free to contact me anytime.

Kind Regards,

Tim

I Am More Than a Test Score

2011-08-11T16:57:00.002-04:00

Dear Mom and Dad,

It's almost back to school time. I've been thinking about the coming year. I know I'm not an expert, but after seven years of going to school, something seems wrong. Don't misunderstand me. I love seeing my friends and I can't wait for football season, but I'm just not looking forward to sitting in a classroom again. I mean it's been seven years and it seems like every year it just keeps getting worse. I'm not sure how to explain it, so I thought I would just list the things that I am talking about -- what I prefer and what I prefer not to

I prefer to engage in real learning.
I prefer not to spend the first five months of school preparing for tests.

I prefer to have gym, art and music classes.
I prefer not to sit and listen all day long.

I prefer to look forward to going to school.
I prefer not to get nervous when I'm in school.

I prefer to read interesting books and go on field trips that help me connect what I'm learning in school.
I prefer not to spend most of my time on boring math and reading assignments mostly preparing for tests.

I prefer to have teachers that are allowed to teach more than just to the test.
I prefer not to have my teachers be afraid to teach.

I prefer to have assignments that are interesting, hands on, help me discover, make me ask questions, and allow me to be proud of my work.
I prefer not to dread going to school.

I prefer to have the materials, books, equipment and technology I need in all of my classes.
I prefer not to have so many students in my classes that I become a number.

I prefer to take the tests my teachers make -- ones that grade me on my abilities, efforts and participation.
I PREFER NOT TO TAKE STANDARDIZED TESTS!

There's more but I think you get the gist. I'm hoping that you will help me take the dread out of school this year. I have heard people talking and they say that only parents can make a difference. Will you please do something? Can you talk to my friends' parents and see if they will help? I need you, my teachers need you, we can't make the changes needed without your help. I can't take one more year of being treated like a test score .

Love,

Your child.

P.S. I almost forgot to ask. Can our school be like the one President Obama's daughters attend? I saw him talking about how they don't spend the year preparing for tests. That would be so cool.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/i-am-more-than-a-test-sco_b_921279.html

United Opt Out

2011-08-06T17:34:00.003-04:00

Let us begin the "selective dismantling" of the high stakes testing industry and the punitive policies aimed at destroying public schools. Please visit the new Website and Facebook site devoted to organizing a national boycott of standardized tests and rebuilding our public schools.

Time to take away the data. Without it, the deformers have nothing.

My kids are not data!

Please visit.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/264594250218348/
http://unitedoptout.com/

Jeb Bush: No Clue

2011-08-05T09:11:00.003-04:00

"This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Our nation’s destiny is at stake. As policy and funding discussions take place, leaders in both parties must work together to reward what matters most: student achievement." Jeb Bush

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60651_Page2.html#ixzz1U9z8Xb00

Can't disagree with the first statement. Second statement might be true. Third statement SOS (not Save our Schools) Same Old Shit!

The reformers are going to continue to use their same arguments to try to ram their reform platform down the throats of Americans. We must continue to provide the alternative narrative (It's not about achievement stupid. It's about love, deep learning, and community).

Test Confidence: Sabotage!

2011-07-25T17:20:00.002-04:00

I was wrong. I can read more about people who defend testing in the wake of "cheating" scandals

“Even the hint of testing irregularities and misconduct in the test administration process could call into question school reform efforts and undermine the state accountability systems...." Arnie Duncan

"Test score data will be the life blood of new systems for rating teachers and schools. A lack of public confidence in the integrity of testing could deal a serious blow to this agenda." Bill Turque

However, as Mr. Duncan and Mr. Turque acknowledge, once the public loses trust in testing systems the game is over. Can anyone say, "Sabotage?"

I said Sabotage not Cheating: Another Reason to March

2011-07-25T13:39:00.006-04:00

Just like my last post on why I'm marching, I found inspiration in a short reading session. I can't read one more defense of testing in the wake of all the cheating scandals. These people just don't get it. Read the quote below.

"Of course, the worst idea of all is to cheat in the first place. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation for all involved. Students and their parents get inaccurate information about their learning. The same bad information feeds into decisions about student placement, instructional priorities, and curriculum decisions. Policymakers are misled about the efficacy of reforms and funding strategies. Even the public—which pays for high-quality tests to measure student achievement—gets ripped off. It’s time that parents, educators, policymakers, and all concerned demand that the high-quality tests they pay for yield the high-quality information that all concerned need. That’s a good idea." Gregory J. Cizek

This paragraph could have started out, "High stakes testing is a lose-lose-lose situation for all involved." And maybe the end with, "It's time that parents, educators, policymakers, and all concerned demand that the high stakes testing they paid for be obliterated. That’s a good idea. "

I wonder if Professor Cizek will be at the Save Our Schools (SOS) march? I wonder how he would react to actively sabotaging tests—not cheating!

SOS Invitation to Senator Casey

2011-07-19T13:55:00.002-04:00

Below is my note to Ms. Kim Bierly (PA Senator Robert Casey's contact). Maybe we should all send personal invitations to our elected representatives.

Dear Ms. Bierly,

It has now been almost 5 months since we (Michele Gray and I) met with you to talk about Senator Casey's position on standardized testing, NCLB and Race to the Top. We have heard nothing. I hope this is just a communication error.

Maybe the Senator can come to the The Save Our Schools March (http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/) which will be held in Washington, D.C. July 28-31. You can check the website for more details. I also wanted to invite Senator Casey to my presentation at American University on Friday, July 29th in the Anderson Computing Complex, Room B12 at 1:45 pm. I will be delivering a workshop for parents on how to "prefer not to," opt out, or boycott No Child Left Behind testing (PSSAs) in the 2011-2012 school year. The workshop is based on my HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/rejecting-standardized-tests_b_822014.html) from February that started the boycott movement. The blog has been reposted and shared thousands of times, featured in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/march-madness-my-name-is-luke-and-i-refuse-to-take-your-test/2010/12/20/ABdSAYN_blog.html), and prompted CNN and FOX to cover my boycott of NCLB testing.

Hundreds of parents across the country have contacted me for advice on how to organize boycott efforts in their states. I have worked with these parents and was recruited to present a workshop at the SOS march. Hopefully you and Senator Casey can see the importance of the March as the only real grassroots effort to truly advocate for public schools, children, parents and communities. Hopefully the Senator can stop by.

Regards,

Tim

It's Not Cheating. It's Sabotage.

2011-07-18T15:41:00.002-04:00

After thinking about my last post where I imagined educators consciously "cheating" on state tests as a form of protest, I now believe that teachers and administrators must actively engage in a form of civil disobedience. "Irregular erasure patterns" -- it's that simple.

In a warped sense, educators in Atlanta, Philadelphia, D.C. and all the other places where testing "improprieties" took place should be thanked. Although these educators engaged in unethical behavior, they revealed the one thing education reformers fear most -- the system being used to dismantle public schools has an Achilles' heel.

What's the one thing the market-based reformers hold sacred? What's the one thing the entire high-stakes testing regime can't live without? Data! The destructive system (high stakes testing) must collect reliable and "objective" data. Data is the gasoline that powers the engine of reform. Without it the entire system shuts down. Why do you think there is so much "disbelief" at cheating on state exams? Why are so many education officials like Secretary Duncan "shocked?"

It has nothing to do with being surprised that it was happening. Cheating and gaming the system were guaranteed outcomes of this pernicious system -- Campbell's Law.

They're upset because their plan for dismantling the entire system of public education is totally reliant on the appearance of "objective" measures. The system that supposedly informs taxpayers about the quality of their local schools needs "objective data" -- test scores. Without these "objective " test scores the list of draconian sanctions mandated by reformers cannot be applied to community-based public school systems. Once the data is tainted, it can't be used. It's that simple.

Teachers and administrators have the ability destroy the entire high stakes testing, market-based, standards-driven system.

How can they do this?

First, all teachers and administrators must go to http://www.change.org/petitions/a-declaration-of-professional-conscience-for-teachers and sign Goodman's (1990) Declaration of Professional Conscience for Teachers!

Last, teachers and administrators must uphold all the sentiments of the Declaration. That's it. Too simple? Need a little more detail? Specifically teachers and administrators must

"accept the responsibility of evaluating our pupils' growth. We will make no long- or short-range decisions that affect the future education of our pupils on the basis of a single examination no matter what the legal status of the examination."

In other words, teachers and administrators can no longer be part of a system that uses high stakes tests. If they work in systems that employ the use of high stakes tests then they must engage in acts that thwart the use of single measures. Teachers and administrators must take part in a systematic and planned operation of sabotage.

It is time to end the nightmare. How much more harm has to be done? How many more lives have to be ruined? Our public schools can no longer be sites for unethical testing and experimentation on young minds. Teachers and administrators can no longer take inhumane orders. Teachers and administrators must thwart the market driven, high stakes testing regime.

"It is certainly foolhardy and idealistic. But what if the power to test and measure was stripped away?" Shaun Johnson

Teachers and administrators engaging in a conscious act of sabotage -- "irregular erasure patterns" -- does this push the boundaries of ethical behavior beyond our comfort level?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-d-slekar/its-not-cheating-its-sabo_b_901045.html

Stop labeling teachers, label the lawmakers

2011-07-05T12:43:00.001-04:00

Dear Editor,

The age of accountability should be renamed the age of blame, when teachers wear the scarlet letter for the failings of a nation. We send teachers into pockets of poverty that our leaders can’t or won’t eradicate, and when those teachers fail to work miracles among devastated children, we stamp ‘unacceptable’ on their foreheads.

I ask you, where is the label for the lawmaker whose policies fail to clean up the poorest neighborhoods? Why do we not demand that our leaders make “Adequate Yearly Progress”? We have data about poverty, health care, crime, and drug abuse in every legislative district. We know that those factors directly impact our ability to teach kids. Why have we not established annual targets for our legislators to meet? Why do they not join us beneath these vinyl banners that read “exemplary” in the suburbs and “unacceptable” in the slums?

Let us label lawmakers like we label teachers, and we can eliminate 100 percent of poverty, crime, drug abuse, and preventable illness by 2014! It is easy for elected officials to tell teachers to “Race to the top” when no one has a stopwatch on them! Lace up your sneakers, Senators! Come race with us!

Teachers are surrounded by armchair quarterbacks who won’t lift a finger to help, only to point. Congressmen, come down out of those bleachers and strive with us against the pernicious ravages of poverty. We need more from you than blame. America’s education problem is actually a poverty problem.

If labels fix schools, let us use labels to fix our congresses! Let lawmakers show the courage of a teacher! Hold hands with us and let us march together into the teeth of this blame machine you have built. Let us hold this congressman up against that congressman and compare them just as we compare our schools. Congressmen, do not fear this accountability you have given us. Like us, you will learn to love it.

Or maybe lawmakers do such a wonderful job that we don’t need to hold them accountable?

Did you know that over the next five years, Texas lawmakers will send half a billion dollars to London, to line the pockets of Pearson’s stakeholders. That’s 15,000 teacher salaries, sacrificed at the altar of standardized testing. $500,000,000 for a test! I’m sure it’s a nice test, but it’s just a test. I’ve never seen a test change a kid’s life or dry a kid’s tear. Tests don’t show up at family funerals or junior high basketball games. They don’t chip in to buy a poor girl a prom dress. Only teachers do those things.

If times are desperate enough to slash local schools’ operating funds, then surely they are desperate enough to slash Pearson’s profits. Lawmakers, get your priorities straight. Put a moratorium on testing until we can afford it. Teachers are our treasure – let’s not lose the house just so we can keep our subscription to Pearson’s Test-of-the-Month Club. We have heard Texas senators often talk about the teacher-to-non-teacher ratio in our schools. Lawmakers, they are ALL non-teachers at Pearson. Don’t spend half a billion dollars that we don’t have on some test that is made in England.

Parents are so fed up with standardized testing that hundreds are now refusing to let their children test. They do not want their children run through this terrible punch press. They do not want standardized children. They want exceptional children!

Let me tell you Texas’s other dirty secret – some schools get three times the funding of other schools. Some schools get $12,000 per student, while others get $4,000. Did you know that every single child in Austin is worth $1,000 more than every single child in Fort Worth? Do you agree with that valuation? Congress does. They spend billions to fund this imbalance.

Now the architects of this inequity point at the salaries and staff sizes at the schools they have enriched to justify cuts at schools that have never been given enough. State Sen. Florence Shapiro, of Plano, says, essentially, yes, but we’re cutting the poor schools by less. Senator, you don’t take bread away from people in a soup line! Not even one crumb. And you should not take funds away from schools that you have already underfunded for years. It may be politically right to bring home the bacon, but ain’t right right.

Legislators, take the energy you spend shifting blame and apply it toward fixing the funding mechanisms. We elected you to solve the state’s problems, not merely to blame them on local government. After all, you have mandated local decision-making for years. Your FIRST rating system tells school boards that their district’s administrative cost ratio can be no higher than 0.2 percent. And over 95 percent of school districts in Texas are in compliance with the standard you have set. At my school, our administrative cost ratio is 0.06 percent – so could you please stop blaming me?

If 95 percent of schools are compliant with the administrative cost ratio indicator in the state’s financial rating system for schools, then why are state officials saying we have too much administration? We have the amount of administration they told us to have! Either they gave us bad guidance and we all followed it, or they gave us good guidance and just need someone other than themselves to blame for these cuts.

Is this the best we can do in Texas? I wish they would worry about students half as much as they worry about getting re-elected.

These same senators have a catchy new slogan: “Protect the Classroom.” I ask you, senators: who are we protecting the classroom from? You, that’s who. You are swinging the ax; don’t blame us for bleeding wrong.

They know that their cuts are so drastic that school boards will have no choice but to let teachers go, and I can prove it: while they give press conferences telling superintendents not to fire teachers, at the same time they pass laws making it easier for ... you guessed it ...administrators to fire teachers. Which is it, senators?

If we don’t truly need to cut teachers, then don’t pass the laws that reduce their employment protections. And if we truly do need to cut teachers, then go ahead and pass those laws but quit saying teacher cuts are the superintendents’ fault. Here’s the deal: I can accept cuts, but I cannot do anything but forcefully reject deceit.

Politicians, save your buck-passing for another day. We need leadership. Get to work, congressmen. Do your jobs, and find the revenue to fund my child’s education.

Sincerely,

John Kuhn, father of three, Perrin

http://mineralwellsindex.com/opinion/x1281108295/Letters-to-the-Editor-April-10-2011

Why I am Marching in the Save Our Schools March on July 30.

2011-07-01T14:18:00.003-04:00

I was thinking about why I am marching on July 30^th, and after reading all the reasons offered by so many I almost remained silent. I didn’t want to rehash all the great rationales offered by the many activists and bloggers. So I decided to do a little reading first. Maybe find something interesting. Something to inspire. Within seconds I came across, “To win a grant in the U.S. Department of Education's new Race to the Top competition for early-childhood education aid, states will have to … craft appropriate standards and tests for young children….” Michele McNeil

Did I miss something? Because the last time I checked, testing children under the age of nine was considered a waste of time because of issues dealing with reliability (according to testing experts). Did something change? Did I miss an announcement? Have statistical gurus at the Department of Education found a way to control for unreliability? Yes? No? Because according to the new guidelines, applicants for this round of RttT funds will, “Develop and administer kindergarten-readiness tests. . . .” Just when you thought it could not possibly get any worse, leave it to Duncan, Obama, and the U.S. Department of Education to announce more reforms that will absolutely destroy the souls of our youngest children. Sorry. But WTF?

So yes, I am marching for all the great reasons that others have already said.

I am marching for Luke (my 11-year old son) and Lacey (my 8-year old daughter).

And now I am marching for our most vulnerable and precious gifts—our youngest children!

Good Teachers and Good Doctors: How do you Know?

2011-06-09T10:28:00.004-04:00

"At least 99 percent of both teachers and principals rated as 'satisfactory' in 2009-10, according to the state Department of Education. Tomalis said he finds that hard to believe given that many students are still not scoring at grade level in reading and math."

Can anybody help Secretary Tomalis? He seems unable to believe that even in the hands of "satisfactory" teachers some children still have trouble in school.

Secret. Some of the best heart doctors in the country practice medicine in Pittsburgh and some of their patients actually get worse after seeing these doctors. Maybe we should design a new rating system for Cardiologists. How is it possible that these Doctors are considered "satisfactory" when some of their patients don't get better?

PSEA likes Testing: Did anybody ask theTeachers?

2011-06-07T12:28:00.002-04:00

"Pennsylvania's largest teachers union has issued its strongest endorsement to date for using student test scores in evaluating teachers, and proposed a streamlined dismissal process for educators and principals."

http://articles.philly.com/2011-06-06/news/29625627_1_largest-teachers-union-teacher-performance-evaluation

How do you even begin to address this opening statement? Since its release I have been bombarded with emails from teachers (in PSEA) that are vehemently opposed to using high stakes test scores in their evaluations. According to these teachers this issue was never even presented to them as something to consider. So how does the union "endorse" something without the teachers' approval? How does the union "endorse" this after the release of the research last week from the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine?

Teachers in PA, you need to call your union reps today.

Meeting AYP and Not ready for College

2011-06-06T15:54:00.004-04:00

According to Education Week, students are graduating from high school and then going directly into remedial Math, Reading and Writing Courses. Given the release of the research last week from the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine this should really come as no surprise. We have tortured, I mean tested a generation of kids in Math, Reading, and Writing and the end result is more kids need to be remediated. In other words, NCLB is and was a complete disaster.

However, leave it to Pennsylvania to blame it on teachers. Ron Tomalis, Pennsylvania secretary of education, thinks, "to improve the K-through-12 experience, the Corbett administration would use various means, including tenure reform, to weed out unqualified teachers."

So according the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, the data demonstrate that a focus on "accountability," "AYP," and the high stakes testing regime, does not prepare students for college. But in Pennsylvania (according to Tomalis), students are not ready for college because of "unqualified teachers."

Welcome to the Keystone State!

Pennsylvania Cutting Education and Spending More on Market Reforms

2011-06-06T12:27:00.002-04:00

"Gov. Tom Corbett's administration is working to develop two important elements of his public education agenda - a new A-to-F grading system for public schools and merit pay for teachers, officials said."

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/548220/Corbett-targets-teaching-measure---.html

Really? Is this the same Corbett that just proposed cutting over $500 million to public education and is reducing the State's contribution to State supported institutions of higher education?

The question I wish somebody would ask-Mr. Corbett how do you plan on paying for the grading system and merit pay? Or maybe better-Mr. Corbett did you know that "your" plan for education is the exact same plan being pushed through in Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin? So is it really "your" plan?

Regardless of the answer to these questions is the reality that these programs will not change public education for the better. 20 plus years of research have demonstrated that merit pay doesn't work and actually cost taxpayers more money in the end. And a grading system will have no effect on the outcomes in local schools. Research has demonstrated that the majority of the public actually approves of their local schools. Grading systems tend to be imposed by "outsiders" and when used as a stick can lower the property values of local communities.

Mr. Corbett, take "your" plan for education and ask for a refund. You've either been conned or you haven't actually taken the time to do any research into "your" proposed programs.

Race to the Top Saved: Why?

2011-06-06T10:25:00.006-04:00

The hard-fought agreement followed months of wrangling between Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, who aimed to significantly curtail domestic discretionary spending, including for K-12 education, and the Obama administration, which sought to shelter education and other priorities.

HOWEVER, Race to the Top competitive-grant program, will be financed at $700 million.

If you’re not convinced that the dismantling of public schools is a bipartisan agreement then how do you explain continued funding for RttT in the current budget “crisis.” We are willing to cut Head Start (a program with a least some research that demonstrates positive outcomes) but when it comes to funding a competition that creates losers and has no research to support its use how does this survive the cuts? The answer. Both parties must agree. There is so much agreement between parties that funding for the expansion of standardized testing was saved.

This is why we all need to stop playing for our political team (Democrat or Republican). Both parties are supportive of destructive policies aimed at gutting public education. It is now time to be a citizen of your community first—save you community-based public schools!

Who’s Bashing Teachers and Public Schools and What Can We Do About It?

2011-06-06T10:17:00.001-04:00

By Stan Karp

The short answer to this question is that far too many people are bashing teachers and public schools, and we need to give them more homework, because very few of them know what they’re talking about. And a few need some serious detention.

But the longer answer is that the bashing is coming from different places for different reasons. And to respond effectively to the very real attacks that our schools, our profession, and our communities face, it’s important to pay attention to these 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 are broken.

The educators who start a community-based charter school so they can create a collaborative school culture are not the same as the hedge fund managers who invest in charter schools because they see an opportunity to turn a profit or because they want to privatize one of the last public institutions we have left.

The well-meaning college grad who joins a Teach for America program out of an altruistic impulse 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.

In my home state of New Jersey, there’s a man named David Tepper who manages the Appaloosa Hedge Fund. Last year, Tepper made $4 billion as a hedge fund manager. This was equal to the salaries of 60 percent of the state’s teachers, who educate 850,000 students. But Gov. Christie rolled back a millionaire’s tax and cut $1 billion out of the state school budget, so people like Tepper would have lower taxes. It’s not only impossible to sustain a successful public school system with such policies, it’s also impossible to sustain anything resembling a democracy for very long.

What’s at Stake

I’ve spent a large part of my adult life criticizing the flawed institutions and policies of public education as a teacher, an education activist, and a policy advocate. But these days I find myself spending a lot of time defending the very idea of public education against those who say, sometimes literally, it should be blown up. Because the increasingly polarized national debate around education policy is not just about whether teachers feel the sting of public criticism or whether school budgets suffer another round of budget cuts in a society that has its priorities seriously upside down.

It’s really not even about the hot-button reform issues like merit pay or charter schools. What’s ultimately at stake is more basic. It’s whether the right to a free public education for all children is going to 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, collectively owned and democratically managed—however imperfectly—by all of us as citizens. Or will they be privatized and commercialized by the corporate interests that increasingly dominate all aspects of our society?

The corporate reformers’ 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.

This is not some secret conspiracy. It’s a multisided political campaign funded by wealthy financial interests like hedge fund superstar Whitney Tilson and rich private foundations like Gates, Broad, and Walton. And it’s important to keep this big picture in mind, even as we talk about specifics like merit pay and charters, because these issues are the dynamite charges being put in place to burst the dam.

What is really new and alarming are the large strides that 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 the shifting of federal policy away from its historic role as a promoter of access and equity in public education through support for things like school integration, extra funding for high-poverty schools, and services for students with special needs, to a much less equitable set of federal mandates around testing, closing schools, firing school staff, and distributing federal funds through competitive grants to “winners” at the expense of “losers.” Taken together these policies, embodied first in NCLB and now in a “Race Over the Cliff,” have helped create an impression of public education as a failure that is steadily eroding the common ground it needs to survive.

Democrats have been playing tag team with Republicans to build on the test-and-punish approach. Just how much this bipartisan consensus has solidified came home to me when I picked up my local paper one morning and saw Gov. 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.”

Under NCLB this bipartisan consensus used test scores to move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, schools, and districts to state and federal bureaucracies. Test score gaps have been used to label schools as failures without providing the resources and strategies needed to eliminate the gaps.

Today a deepening corporate/foundation/political alliance is using this same test-based accountability to drill down further into the fabric of public education to close schools, transform the teaching profession, and increase the authority of mayors and managers while decreasing the power of educators.

What we’re facing is a policy environment where bad ideas nurtured for years in conservative think tanks and private foundations have taken root in Congress, the White House, and the federal education department, and are now aligned with powerful national and state campaigns fueled with unprecedented amounts of public and private dollars.

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 hardly a surprise in a media culture that allows FOX News to call itself “fair and balanced,” but it does make intelligent debate about education policy more difficult.

Confronting Poverty

This is particularly true when it comes to the way the issue of poverty is being framed.

One lesson I’ve learned over the years is that school power comes in many pieces. And these pieces, large or small, can be used to promote social justice. Not only on big issues like funding equity or federal and state policy, but also daily inside our classrooms in the choices we make in our teaching, assessment, and curriculum practices; in the relations between our schools and the communities they serve; and in the way our unions advocate for the needs and rights of our students and families along with our own interests as teachers.

Serving schools with high numbers of students in 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. 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 kind of collaborative tension and partnership between these groups is one of the keys to school improvement.

But the idea that schools alone can make up for the inequality and poverty that exist all around them has increasingly become part of the “no excuses” drumbeat used to impose reforms that have no record of success as school improvement strategies. In fact, many are not educational strategies at all, but political strategies designed to bring market reform to public education. We used to hear that the “single most important school-based factor” in student achievement was the quality of the teacher. Now even the school-based qualification is being left out. Instead we’re hearing absurd claims about how super-teachers can eliminate achievement gaps in two or three years with scripted curricula handed down from above, and how the real problem in schools is not the country’s shameful 23 percent child poverty rate or underfunded schools. Instead, it’s bad teachers.

Now it’s absolutely 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 and opportunities to do so need to go manage hedge funds or do some other less important work.

But when it comes to student achievement—and especially the narrow kind of culturally slanted pseudo-achievement captured by standardized test scores—there is no evidence that the test score gaps you read about constantly in the papers 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, and “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 pressing states to tie individual teacher compensation to test scores and eliminate caps on charter schools than encouraging them to distribute more fairly the $600 billion they spend annually on K-12 education.

Instead, at a time when corporate profits and economic inequality are at their highest levels in the history of the country, the U.S. secretary of education says that schools must get used to the “new normal” and do more with less. For Arne Duncan and Bill Gates, cutting education budgets is not a problem, it’s an opportunity. They are now traveling the country proposing that schools save money by increasing class sizes, ending pay for teachers’ experience and advanced degrees, closing schools, and replacing real classrooms with virtual ones.

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.

No Value in ‘Value Added’

At this point spending more money on standardized tests to track academic achievement gaps 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.

There is no research that shows that paying teachers to raise test scores improves student achievement, raises graduation rates, increases college participation, narrows academic gaps, or produces any of the positive school outcomes that policy makers say they seek.

Test-based teacher evaluation systems have the potential to seriously damage the teaching profession. The National Academy of Sciences found 20 to 30 percent error rates in “value-added” ratings systems based on their own dubious premises. Teachers in the bottom group one year were often in the top group the next and vice versa. The same teachers measured by two different standardized tests produced completely inconsistent results. The basic assumptions of these testing systems are at odds with the way real schools actually work. 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 and the collaborative professional culture that good schools depend on for success. They would also require yet another massive increase in standardized testing to deal with the fact that less than 25 percent of teachers in most school systems teach math and language arts, which is what most states currently test.

When you add the practice now under way in cities like Los Angeles and New York of publishing these psychometric astrology ratings in the paper next to the names of individual teachers, you have a recipe for community chaos and educational tragedy.

These plans are not about helping schools develop better systems to support teacher effectiveness; they are obstacles to it. For example, in Maryland, the Montgomery County Education Association negotiated a professional growth system that included test scores as one part of an evaluation process that looks at student outcomes, classroom performance, professional responsibilities, advanced degrees, and other factors. The process requires all new teachers and teachers who’ve been identified as struggling to work with well-trained teacher coaches over a two-year period to improve their practice and results. The system has resulted in a significant increase in teacher quality, including decisions, jointly supported by the union and administration, to remove several hundred teachers from the classroom over a period of years. But last year Maryland won a Race to the Top grant that, under federal pressure, requires 50 percent of teacher evaluations to be based strictly on test scores. The grant threatens to destroy a successful system developed by collective bargaining that actually works to improve results for teachers and students.

The Changing Character of the Charter Movement

The last issue I want to discuss is charter schools. As you know if you’ve seen Waiting for “Superman,” charter schools are being hailed as a kind of new magic reform bullet.

Charter schools have an interesting history that has often been overlooked in the current debate. The first charter schools were initiated by Albert Shanker and the American Federation of Teachers in New York City in the late ’80s and ’90s. They were originally designed as teacher-run schools that would serve students who were struggling inside the regular system and would operate outside the reach of the administrative bureaucracy and the highly politicized school board. These first charters also drew on early rounds of small high school experiments initiated by teachers or community activists as alternatives to large comprehensive high schools. But, after a few years, Shanker became concerned that the charters and small schools were fragmenting the district, creating unequal tiers of schools serving different populations of students with unequal access, and also weakening the collective power of the teachers’ union to negotiate with the administration about districtwide concerns. So he pulled back at a time when there were still very few charters. Instead, he and other union leaders focused on the standards movement, which for them became the primary engine for reform.

But charters continued to grow slowly. Individual states, beginning with Minnesota, began to pass laws to promote the formation of charters, partly as a model of reform and partly as the construction of a parallel system outside the reach of both teachers’ unions and, in some cases, the federal and state requirements to serve and accept all students. And this charter movement gradually began to attract the interest of political and financial interests who saw the public school system as a socialist monopoly ripe for market reform.

In the past 10 years, the character of the charter school movement has changed dramatically from community-based, educator-initiated local efforts to create alternatives for a small number of students to nationally funded efforts by foundations, investors, and educational management companies to create a parallel, more privatized system.

Today there are about 5,000 charter schools in the United States that enroll about 4 percent of all students. Although charter laws are different in each state, in general charter schools are publicly funded but privately run. 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.

The most complete study of charter school performance, by Stanford University, found that only 17 percent of charter schools had better test scores than comparable public schools and more than twice as many did worse. And, unlike charter schools, traditional public schools accept all children, including much larger numbers of high-needs students and students without the heroic, supportive parents seen in the film. In most states charters do not face the same public accountability and transparency requirements that public schools do, which has led to serious problems of mismanagement, corruption, and profiteering.

Charter school teachers are, on average, younger, nonunionized, and less likely to hold state certification than teachers in traditional public schools. In other words: less expensive.

As many as one in four charter school teachers leaves every year, about double the turnover rate in traditional public schools. The odds of a teacher leaving the profession altogether are 130 percent higher at charters than traditional public schools, and much of this teacher attrition is related to dissatisfaction with working conditions.

Charter schools typically pay less and require longer hours. But charter school administrators often earn more than their school district counterparts. Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone and Eva Moskowitz of the Harlem Success Academy, two schools featured in the film, are each paid close to half a million dollars.

This is not to deny the reform impulse that is a real part of the charter movement. Many times during my 30 years of teaching at my large dysfunctional high school in Paterson, I wanted to start my own school. And many of the issues that public school advocates like myself criticize in charters—like the tracking, 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 to pressure and hold accountable in ways that privatized charters don’t allow. In post-Katrina New Orleans, where more than 60 percent of all students now attend unequal tiers of charter schools, there are students and parents who cannot find any schools to take them.

In too many places, charters function more like deregulated “enterprise zones” than models of reform, providing subsidized spaces for a few at the expense of the many. They drain resources, staff, and energy for innovation away from other district schools, often while creaming better prepared students and more committed parents. This is especially a problem in big city public systems that urgently need renewal and resources but are increasingly being left behind with the biggest challenges. Nowhere have charters produced a template for effective districtwide reform or equity.

No one questions the desire of parents to find the best options they can for their children. But at the level of state and federal education policy, charters can provide a reform cover for dismantling the public school system and an investment opportunity for those who see education as a business rather than a fundamental institution of democratic civic life. This doesn’t mean charter school teachers or parents are our enemies. On the contrary, we should be allies in fighting some of the counterproductive assessment, curriculum, and instructional practices raining down on all of us from above. We should find more and better ways to integrate charters into common systems of accountability and support. Where practices like greater autonomy over curriculum or freedom from bureaucratic regulations are valid, they should be extended to all schools.

But any strategy that promotes charter expansion at the expense of systemwide improvement and equity for all schools is a plan for privatization, not reform.

What Are We Fighting For?

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. It took campaigns against child labor, crusades for public taxation, struggles against fear and discrimination directed at immigrants, historic movements for civil rights against legally sanctioned separate and unequal schooling, movements for equal rights and educational access for women, and in more recent decades sustained drives for the rights of special education students, gay and lesbian students, bilingual students, and Native American students. These campaigns are all unfinished and the gains they’ve made are uneven and fragile. But they have made public schools one of the last places where an increasingly diverse and divided population still comes together for a common civic purpose.

But the system’s Achilles’ heel continues to be acute racial and class inequality, which in fact is the Achilles’ heel of the whole society.

Those who believe that business models and market reforms hold the key to solving educational problems have, as noted, made strides in attaching their agenda to the urgent need of communities that have been poorly served by the current system. But their agenda does not represent the real interests or the real desires of these communities:

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 does not 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 reinvent 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.

Because, in the final analysis, what we need to reclaim is not just our schools, but our political process, our public policy-making machinery, and control over our economic and social future. In short, we don’t only need to fix our schools, we also need to fix our democracy.

Stan Karp (stan@rethinkingschools.org) is a Rethinking Schools editor. This is the edited transcript of a talk given in Portland, Ore., last December, sponsored by the Portland Association of Teachers and Portland Area Rethinking Schools.

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/25_03/25_03_karp.shtml

My Adventure Running for Schoolboard.

2011-05-21T13:47:00.002-04:00

Preface: The election was last Tuesday. I made the ballot by one vote.

Yes. I am running for school board. Why? Because, once again I have to back up my rhetoric with actions. Plus, I am no longer willing to watch my local community-school get squashed by the market driven reforms being thrust upon it. If our school goes down I want to go down with it.

There is a quick story as to how I became a candidate. In the winter, two of our board members stepped down, creating temporary vacancies. A call went out to the local community for volunteers. I got a little nudging from "friends" but I made the decision to put name in pretty much on my own. Walk the talk.

The process for replacing board members that step down is relatively simple. You submit your name and resume and explain your desire to be considered. You then appear in front of the current board and answer some school board-related questions. If the current members find you acceptable and they vote for you, you're in. I completed all the necessary paperwork and received confirmation that I would be considered as a candidate.

The following week I was at the elementary school dropping off some materials for my daughter when I was stopped in the hallway. According to this person there were a lot of people supporting me. The term would only be for four months until the general election, and considering my background as an educator, I felt relatively confident in my chances of being selected by the remaining board members.

However, one week before the interviews I was informed by a friend that I was not going to be selected. "How could that be? I hadn't even had my interview," I thought. The current board didn't really know anything about me except for what was on my resume -- or so I thought. I pressed my friend for information: "Why? What was the problem? How was it possible to be eliminated before even interviewing?"

That's when living in a small, conservative (and I don't necessarily mean that in a derogatory manner) town smacked me upside the head. According to my friend, even though some community members liked my background in education, I had a major problem. You see, according to some in the community, along with being involved in little league baseball and football and being a member of the PTO, I am also a liberal college professor, most likely an atheist, and I probably have plans to get rid of the Christmas play. I looked at my friend in disbelief.

He then told me how he launched into an hour-long promotion of my education related qualifications and how I actually have really great ideas when it comes to public education. But he said his listeners had serious hearing problems. In truly conservative towns, right wing rhetoric is typically viewed as unbiased news -- absolutely factual! Therefore, since I actually do work at a college as a faculty member, I must be an unabashed liberal, atheist, and Christmas warmonger (according to the leading news agencies -- right wing radio).

Anyway, after pondering this new professional reputation, I attended the interview process the following week. I gave great answers related to public schools and what's best for children and communities that value public schools (I kept my disdain for Christmas a secret), but in the end I only received one of the four votes needed to be selected to finish out the terms of the vacating school board members. Oh well. It wasn't like I didn't have enough to do at my university job -- advocating socialism and the destruction of all religions.

However, after a month I received a strange call one morning from a standing school board member (a no vote for me). He told me that he had just filed his paper work for re-election and found out that I wasn't running. He wondered why. I told him very simply that since my "interview" with the board and finding out my reputation in the community, I was not going to run in the election. I told him I did not stand a chance at winning. Then it happened again (small town politics). According to this person, he now wished that he had voted for me and that "other community members" were hoping I was going to run. I just listened and thought, "Really? What about Christmas?"

The caller also volunteered to help me file paper work, collect signatures and "not hold it against" me that I was registered Democrat. My new supporter lived up to his word and within three days we had collected all the necessary signatures. I took all my paper work to the courthouse and filed it with the elections office and in five days I received confirmation that I was an "official" candidate for school board. Now what? Hand-shaking? Baby-kissing? Christmas in April celebration?

No. My next experience came in an official looking envelope addressed to "school director candidate Timothy D. Slekar." I didn't take the time to look at the return address so when I opened the letter I was a bit surprised. The letter was from the local Tea Party. According to the letter, the Tea Party was gathering information on all local candidates for school board. Along with this letter was a questionnaire. The Tea Party wanted me to answer their questions concerning my ability and desire to run for school board. If I answered the questions the Tea Party would post my responses to their website so community members could make some kind of judgment concerning my candidacy for school board.

After reading the questions it was obvious that the Tea Party had no objective intention to "gather information." They were looking for certain answers to their loaded questions. Considering that my reputation as an intolerant atheist was already known, I decided to answer their questions anyway. I'm sure they were looking for me to proclaim my hatred of taxpayers, my love of unions, and to finally come clean about my intentions for the Christmas play. However, I decided to play my own game and below are my answers to the Tea Party school board candidate questionnaire. I also decided that since I had taken the time to answer their questions that they should answer some questions for me. So after you read my responses you can see my questions to the Tea Party.

What are the main responsibilities of a school board, and what would your priorities be?

Local School boards serve the community. The community includes all members—children, parents, taxpayers, business owners, etc. My main priority would be to help establish communication between all these constituents and focus our discussions on how the community can support the main mission of the public schools.

Right away defining the mission of the community schools is a priority. Our community schools’ function in American society has been corrupted over the last 30 years. The schools are not the property of the federal government or businesses that have a single-minded idea about the function of schools—to supply compliant workers and obedient citizens.

It is time to get back to the roots of public education—providing a rich learning experience rooted in the classic liberal arts that prepares children for life in a democratic society.

Cite personal experiences that qualify you to set and direct a school curriculum.

I have spent the past 21 years as an educator at the elementary level, middle school level, and college level. I have developed curriculum at each of these levels and I have conducted and published research on issues dealing with teaching and learning. Also, I am a constant reader of education research and I am readily able to provide a rich analysis of educational programs that involved either the new development of curricular materials or judging the merit of existing curricular materials. Not that this matters much, but I also have a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Maryland.

Cite personal experiences that qualify you to develop and direct a multi-million dollar budget.

In my current position as Head of the Division of Education, Human Development, and Social Sciences I have spent the last three years developing and directing a $500,000 budget. This budget is also part of Penn State Altoona’s “multi-million dollar budget.” My combined duties of managing my Division budget in concert with the College budget has helped me develop a budget philosophy that continually looks for efficiencies, but keeps the core mission of providing the best educational opportunities for our students as my guiding principle.

Do you support every line item in the current budget? Are there essential items that could be provided more efficiently? Are there non-essential items than can be eliminated?

If anybody has a defined answer to this question then they are politically pitching an election gimmick. Community based school districts are constantly changing as society changes. I can answer generically that, yes, there are essential items that could be provided more efficiently and that there are non-essential items that can be eliminated. However, I am not in a position to judge specifics. I need to look at the total operation and investigate all the budget items and determine how the budget promotes excellence in education. If I find items that do not support the mission of helping all children thrive in a democratic society then I would be willing to discuss these items.

The student population has been declining and is projected to decline, while the cost of administration has been increasing. How do you propose to reconcile this?

Those darn statistics always have a way of being used by the messenger to make a point that supports a certain political position. A declining student population is only true for certain districts. In fact this question doesn’t even bother to identify where there is a declining population. Should readers assume a declining population in all of Pennsylvania, the suburbs of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, or locally? Even if you mean locally, can you be more specific? Well at least I’ll be specific. In Bellwood where I am running for school director student demographics seem to indicate nothing—no growth and no decline. As to whether the cost of administration has increased in Bellwood at the moment I don’t have those statistics so I can’t confirm or deny the cost has risen. I do know that Bellwood has eliminated one administrative position for next year. This will save the district around $100,000.

Cite two steps you would work to implement and to improve communications between the school board and the public.

Personally I would be willing to be available on some kind of regular basis at a local establishment so that the public can come and talk directly to me about issues or concerns they have about the community school system. However, the public has the responsibility of making their concerns known. This democratic system requires participation. Griping over coffee is fine but it will never amount to policy changes. The community based public school system can only function when residents are fully engaged in the democratic discourse available to them in the form of public school board meetings. I have no ability to force residents to take their responsibility as a citizen. I can only remind them that if they have something to say then “put down the coffee and call me or come to the meetings.”

How was last year’s, one-time federal stimulus money spent by the district;and should it have been used differently?

The answer to this question involves understanding that the stimulus money was a one-time deal. Therefore how it was used is no longer an issue. It’s gone! Speculating on how it might have been used differently would be a dishonest act of politicking. Since the money is already spent why criticize how it was spent? Doing this requires no courage because it’s easy to criticize something that’s already been done. I’m sure candidates for school director can come up with ways to spend last years stimulus money that might make potential voters happy, but that’s all it would be is political pandering with no real consequences because if elected there is no promise to keep because spending the stimulus money is totally hypothetical. There is no stimulus money. Why would I try to spend something that doesn’t exist anymore?

Do you believe the total cost and design of all recent district construction projects can be justified?

Do you believe there is a method of determining whether district construction projects can be justified? If so, please share it with me in case I win the election. That would be a really handy tool. As for the design, I am not an architect so I am not qualified to judge the design to cost effectiveness equation. As a visitor to the newly renovated elementary school (Myers Elementary) I don’t have any problems with its aesthetics. The renovations are not ugly in my opinion. Internally the design seems to support a sense of community and the learning spaces appear to support good teaching. I have also heard “over coffee” that a lot of parents are very proud of “their” school. I have also overheard others “over their coffee” question the need for the renovations. My guess is that this is common. Depends with whom you speak.

Are there any lessons have you learned from the mistakes of the current or previous school boards?

I am not in a position to answer that question if it applies directly to a particular school board. If you want to know if school boards make mistakes then that seems like a pretty silly question. All forms of democratic institutions make mistakes. That’s the beauty of democracy and self-government. The ability to admit the fallibility of a government institution seems central to democratic ideals. If it was without fault then as a form of government it would not be democratic. There would be no need for active participation by the citizens—only subservient obedience. That’s what makes a community based school system worth having—it provides community members a true forum to practice living in a democracy. If you take away the public school system then you take away a piece of democracy. If elected I will always advocate for the community based public school system. The schools are the souls of our communities and a gauge on our willingness to continue to experiment with self –government.

Now that I have answered your questions, would you mind answering a few questions related to the Tea Party and its support of community based public schools?

How do community-based public schools support the concept of self-government?
Does the Tea Party support community-based public schools?
If so, can you detail any Tea Party efforts to strengthen local schools?
What would a Tea Party candidate offer a community-based public school if elected to the board?
Does the Tea Party support the expansion of charter schools?
If the Tea Party is for budget restraint in public spending, why do Tea Party candidates largely support school voucher bills when vouchers have been demonstrated over the last 10 years to actually increase the burden on local taxpayers?
Does the Tea Party support limiting collective bargaining agreements that enable teachers to advocate for budget items that help children?
Why does the Tea Party care about school board members when most visible Tea Party candidates openly advocate for policies that would harm community-based public schools?
If the Tea Party believes in the concept of self-government, why do so-called Tea Party candidates take monetary donations from groups that are hostile towards policies that promote citizen voice over corporate interests?

Candy Crowley and Education

2011-05-04T12:35:00.001-04:00

CROWLEY: Joining me now, Democratic senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. He was the superintendent of Denver's public schools, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, he is the former education secretary and former president of the University of Tennessee, Randi Weingarten is president of the American Federation of Teachers and CNN education contributor Steve Perry is the founder and principal of Capital Prep Magnet School in Hartford, Connecticut. Thank you all for being here.

Let me throw out to you just the overarching question, I think that I personally was sort of appalled when I saw how the U.S. stacked up against other education systems around the world of 38 countries, we're about 14th, very middling. What are other countries doing that we're not doing? Just jump ball.

WEINGARTEN: So, we actually had an international summit sponsored by the secretary of education just this past month to think about just that, with many of the countries that out compete us at that summit. And what they are doing they focus on preparing teachers like we prepare doctors in this country. They focus on the support in classrooms. They look at teachers as the president has often said as nation builders and with a lot of stature.

We do things where, you know, we think a charter school here will work. Let's focus on testing one day. Let's focus on charter schools one day. We do the silver bullet theory. They do the theory of really growing knowledge.

BENNET: We have not recognized how the world has changed around us both in terms of our delivery of education and the international delivery. So when the last president became president George Bush, the second George Bush, we led the world in the production of college graduates. Today, ten years later, we're 12th or 15th in the world. That's how fast it's changed. And we're running a system right now that's producing from children in poverty only nine college graduates out of 100 kids.

So my view is that, you know, if we were given a blank sheet of paper to redesign the system, we wouldn't design the system we have today. One of the things we do is figure out how to much better support people that want to teach in our country.

CROWLEY: Either one of you, it seems to me that we don't really have time here to -- an entire generation is being lost in an educational system that's not just serving them badly, it's serving the nation badly.

PERRY: Well, what we've done is we've designed schools to support the needs of adults, not the expectations that the country puts on its children. So we've created working conditions that are most conducive to the adults. We have 6 1/2 hour school days. We have an eight month school year, all of which is counter to what children need.

So one things that we're not doing that other countries are doing, and successful schools in this country -- because we need not leave this country, we have very successful schools in this country -- we haven't put children first.

CROWLEY: Let me just -- I just want to give these figures to our audience. 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science, 25th in math. We must be doing something -- what is glaring here?

ALEXANDER: Well, let's think about what we're doing right. What we're doing right is by any standard we have almost all the best colleges and universities in the world, almost any standard. We should change our elementary and secondary system and make it more like our colleges which is to say create independent schools, we call them charter schools, and let the money follow the children to any school that fits the needs of those children. If they need to be there from 6:00 in the morning to 6:00 at night and on Saturday they can select that school. That would help.

WEINGARTEN: So, let me just jump in here, Senator. Because the senator has had tremendous amount of experience in terms of education. But that's -- but what the other countries are doing right is that they are actually focusing on making sure that all kids have a decent shot at education. They are not doing the kind of silver bullet theories we do in the United States.

(CROSSTALK) ALEXANDER: The silver bullet theory is not giving -- if you give a poor kid a ticket to a good school, that's not a silver bullet, that's an opportunity.

WEINGARTEN: But what I'm saying is when we look at the evidence, look at the evidence, we have some incredibly great schools in the United States of America and we have some really terrible schools. But if you look at the evidence of what works, what works is having a strong group of teachers and principals working together collaboratively.

Having a real good curriculum that -- where we're engaging kids in a real way and trumping poverty, not making excuses for it. But these other countries in the world don't have independent charter schools.

(CROSSTALK)

ALEXADNER: Why don't you let a poor kid have a ticket to a good school, at Hartford for example.

PERRY: Why is it -- if you believe what you said, then why is it that the teachers unions are the first in line to stop children from leaving failed schools? Why is it on a regular basis your organization stands in support of the teachers in failed schools. If we put children first, if we put children first, than what we don't care where they go to school, we just care they go to a good school.

We need your organization and others to stand with the education reforms and say children are first, every day, and regardless of what we think the school is or how hard the teachers are working if they are not producing shut the school down period.

WEINGARTEN: Actually, we've done a lot of those shut the schools down for the last 20 years and it hasn't worked. But on the ground right now as we're talking in Washington, there are cuts in school budgets throughout the country. So kids are losing out in terms of music. They are losing out in terms of sports. They are losing out in terms of arts. They are losing the kind of activities that they need to engage them.

The issue is...

ALEXANDER: Why don't you let them then go to a school that has music and arts.

PERRY: One of the reasons that we have that...

(CROSSTALK)

WEINGARTEN: We need to have the finances in schools so we can help all kids, not some kids. The bottom line is...

PERRY: That's not the issue. One of the issues, as a principal who is... WEINGARTEN: Steve, one more -- can I just finish one more point, which is that the point that you're raising about these kind of alternatives, there are studies now that say that 80 percent of these alternative schools, the charter schools are not performing as well as public schools.

PERRY: But that's not the only alternative. And as somebody who is on the front line and who does have the responsibility of maintaining a local budget, I think that one of the best things to happen in education has been the budget crisis because it requires us to hook into ourselves and make decisions and realize that what's driving the cost of education is not football practice, it's not band practice it's the personnel. And if you have people who get guaranteed increases regardless of whether or not they do anything well, then that's what drives the cost.

CROWLEY: Let me -- I'll come back and start with you, Senator. We're going to take a quick break here because I want to get down to some of the specifics because we're talking teacher pay here. You started out about talking about respect for teachers. I think I've heard that for 30 years in Washington about how we have to have more respect for teachers, we have to elevate that career choice. And I want to talk a little bit about how you all want to go about doing that. We'll be right back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: We're back and talking education reform with senators Michael Bennet and Lamar Alexander, as well as Randi Weingarten and Steve Perry.

Thank you all again. Let me start with you, Senator, because you did start out -- I promise you, since "Nation at Risk," and I remember doing a story about "Nation at Risk," and said, you know, if a foreign country had done to our schools what we're doing to our schools, we would have declared war, essentially. Here we are, we are still talking about we have to find a way to make this an elevated career path. How do we do it?

BENNET: Well, I would argue -- I said the other day on the Senate Floor that if the hundred senators in the Senate faced the same odds for their kids that kids in poverty face, I guarantee you, we wouldn't be hanging around the Senate Floor for very long, we would be going home to figure out how to get our kids into the finest schools with faculties that are doing the work that we were talking about earlier.

One of the things that I think we need to do is under and, and this is a positive thing about our country, we need to understand that finding people that are willing to do the same job for 30 years of their life is going to be really hard to do in the 21st Century. We used to do that. We take the best British literature student in her class and we'd make her a teacher for 30 years, because we wouldn't let her do anything else.

That's no longer the case. I'm very interested, as a result, and I've been thinking about how you think about compensation over a seven- or nine-year period of time, you know, in the classroom. Today we've got a system designed with a very low current wage. But we say, if you hang around for 30 -- or if you're there for 30 years, we'll give you a pension for your retirement.

Well that incentive structure may have made sense at one time. It probably makes less sense today for new people that are coming to the profession.

CROWLEY: Do you think that the system, as it currently is, protects bad teachers? Would you admit that?

WEINGARTEN: I think that the system -- I think that right now whereas there's no epidemic of bad teachers, we've got to do a lot better job at the preparation, the support, the nurturing, and then if somebody can't teach, ushering them out. And we have...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: If we're 14th around the world and our...

WEINGARTEN: Wait, wait, let me...

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: It is teachers. We can't just say that we live in a country where we have bad parents.

WEINGARTEN: Let me finish.

CROWLEY: Let me have her just finish.

WEINGARTEN: It's not -- we don't have bad parents. And we don't have an epidemic of bad teachers. What these other countries do is that they do what our new teachers have just told us they want. They support and nurture.

Teaching is not like speed-dating. You can't just plop somebody in and say, do it, and then if they don't get the test scores that one wants, to usher them out of the profession. We have to nurture and prepare.

Having said that, we have to evaluate and we have focus on performance. Steve is right about that. And the AFT has been focusing on how we do evaluations in a way that doesn't shield incompetence, but also doesn't allow management to have an excuse not to manage.

PERRY: The problem with many of us, principals in particular, like I am, is that we spend a year or two sword-fighting with the organizations that protect them to make sure that we have dotted our I's and crossed our T's to get rid of this teacher.

That teacher is responsible on the low end for 120 students. So that teacher is the Algebra I teacher, and she's not very good. Then all of the children who had her for Algebra I do not know what they need to know. We can't get that year back.

So what we need you to do...

WEINGARTEN: Steve, we are doing in Connecticut -- in Connecticut, we are doing the kind of innovation in terms of legislation that actually will help us identify, people are doing a good job, and if they are not, to help them, and if they are still not, to usher them out of the profession.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Let me interrupt both of you at this point only because, you know, if you're the mother of the child, and the teacher that you want to help, your don't want your child with that teacher that needs help, you want it with a teacher that knows what they are doing.

WEINGARTEN: Right. But, Candy, the issue becomes what's happening right now is that there in the countries that outcompete us, in the schools that do well, it is a joint venture where what I'm suggesting here is that, as a former classroom teacher, you cannot just say to somebody, OK, just do everything we're asking you to do with every single child without help.

And what we're talking about and what Singapore has done so well is that they focus on evaluation and they focus on continuous improvement. That's the kind of stuff that they did, that Michael did in Denver. That's the kind of stuff that we need to do throughout the country and we can do it.

(CROSSTALK)

PERRY: Just real quickly, if I could say practically, when I have a teacher, for instance, who falls asleep in class and I try to fire this individual, and it takes me four to six months to fire them, and I have to counsel them and deprive them of the support, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about people not doing their job, and us trying to get rid of them.

WEINGARTEN: But, Steve, we are changing that.

CROWLEY: Let me call a time on this.

WEINGARTEN: We are changing that. And you know that and I know that.

CROWLEY: As you can see, there's always a conflict with the unions versus, you know, what people want to do to get better teachers in. So let's put it on the table, what's out there? I know you all have been working up on Capitol Hill in terms of federal legislation, federal reforms. What's the single best reform you all think is doable at the federal level right now?

ALEXANDER: Well, if you hadn't said federal level, I could have answered that.

(LAUGHTER)

ALEXANDER: Because the whole...

CROWLEY: Well, $71 billion, you ought to be doing something with that.

ALEXANDER: Federal spending on elementary and secondary education is about 10 percent of the whole package. And action is in the classroom and in the community. The holy grail of elementary and secondary education is teacher evaluation and principal evaluation.

How do you -- how do you evaluate a good teacher? And especially how do you relate student achievement to teacher performance? We're in the Model T phase of that. We don't know how to do it very well. Michael did it in Denver. BENNET: Not very well but it's getting better.

ALEXANDER: Well, but we tried it in Tennessee, lots of people are trying it. But we need to focus. The Gates Foundation is funding that. Tennessee is moving ahead on it even today as it was 20 years ago. But that's what we need to do to attract and keep the best teachers in the classroom.

I'm not talking about kicking people out. I think it's more important to keep good people in, and to find out who they are and reward them, pay them well, and you have to have differentiated pay and pay some more than others to do that.

CROWLEY: Senator Michael Bennet, Senator Lamar Alexander, Randi Weingarten, thank you, and so much, Steve Perry as well. I have to have you back because I'm not sure we have solutions but we do know what the problems are.

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Yes, we started the conversation anyway. Thank you all so much for joining us.

We'll be right back.

Vouchers aren’t Free.

2011-04-25T12:55:00.000-04:00

For those of you in Pennsylvania that support Senate Bill 1, I hope you clearly understand that if you do not have children or your children are out of school you will still be paying taxes. In fact, your tax bill may increase with the passage of Senate Bill 1. Senate Bill 1 is a voucher bill. Easily explained, this bill would allow school children in any local public school system to take “their” state and local allotment of tax dollars and use it to pay for a private education. That’s it. No reduction in taxes is part of Senate Bill 1.

The reality of this legislation is that if you live in Williamsburg and pay taxes, you will continue to pay taxes. However, if a child in Williamsburg decides to leave the public school system and take “their” allotment of tax dollars to a private school, you (a taxpayer of Williamsburg) continue to pay taxes. Voucher programs are not funded by some magical pot of money. Taxpayers pay for them! Now though, you will be paying taxes for other people’s children to go to private schools. Your tax dollars will leave your community school system and be used to finance private schools. Your community school loses money that would be used to support educational and extra-curricular activities (field-trips, books, technology, athletics, etc.).

On top of the fact that community public schools will lose per-pupil funding is the fact that voucher programs have been researched extensively. Do voucher programs increase student achievement? No. Do voucher programs inspire healthy competition? No. Do voucher programs help alleviate the tax burden on property owners? No. Do voucher programs damage community public schools? Yes!

This is why we all need to stop playing for our political team (Democrat or Republican). Both parties are supportive of destructive policies aimed at gutting public education. It is now time to be a citizen of your community first. And as citizens of local communities we need to stop the dismantling of our community based public schools.

My Huffington Posts.

2011-04-17T21:58:00.003-04:00

If Not Now, When? If Not You, Who?
Teachers, 'If Not Now, When? If Not You, Who?'

How to Boycott NCLB in 90 Seconds
How to Boycott NCLB in 90 Seconds

Teachers, This One Is for You
Teachers, This One Is for You

It's All My Fault?
It's All My Fault?

The Night the Lights Went Out on Friday
The Night the Lights Went Out on Friday

Do Not Judge, Do Not Condemn
Do Not Judge, Do Not Condemn

Good Teacher Gone Bad
Good Teacher Gone Bad

Rejecting Standardized Testing With The Bartleby Project
Rejecting Standardized Testing With The Bartleby Project

Education DEFORM and Media Hearing Loss
Education DEFORM and Media Hearing Loss

The Honest 'Public Education Crisis' Narrative
The Honest 'Public Education Crisis' Narrative

Value-Added Measures vs. the Love for Learning
Value-Added Measures vs. the Love for Learning

Educators and communities should say no to Corbett education cuts.

2011-04-17T20:49:00.001-04:00

State Department of Education spokesman Steve Weitzman was quoted as saying, “The presumption of steady, unbroken revenue increases year after year no longer is feasible. The day of reckoning has come.” What exactly does he mean by the day of reckoning?

Well it has nothing to do with actually spending less on education. Yes, the Corbett administration plans on cutting $589 million dollars from public school appropriations. And these cuts are going to devastate local school budgets. However, between maintaining the worthless PSSA system and implementing a set of new initiatives, the Corbett administration may end up actually spending close to $1 billion dollars.

The Corbett administration supports funding a voucher system that has been demonstrated (across the country) to not raise achievement test scores and ends up costing taxpayers more money, developing a grading system for public schools that may decrease property values, implementing the Keystone exams that national research has shown adds nothing to a child’s education, and creating a merit pay system for teachers that will end up narrowing the curriculum and ending teacher collaboration. Therefore Corbett’s plans for public schools will end up costing taxpayers more than the $589 million dollar cut.

Schools and communities need to speak up. Local schools are making significant cuts to programs that benefit children and the communities they serve. But why should they if the Corbett administration plans on actually spending more on it’s own politically driven initiatives that are specifically designed to destroy the public school system? I guess the “day of reckoning” is really facing the fact that this administration is going forward with a market-driven reform strategy that will destroy local community schools.

Why do politicians keep bashing public school teachers? by Jo Chiparo

2011-01-31T09:23:00.000-05:00

Bashing of teachers is the favorite subject for politicians these days. Their rhetoric follows the same theme: The country is falling behind in education because of bad teachers.

I have read statistics stating that Asian students are more advanced in math, science and reading than students in the USA. If this is true, we must be diligent in examining ways to raise these scores. However, it can be for several reasons other than bad teachers.

I would better respect politicians if they would be honest, and instead of saying teachers have crippled education, say they want to eliminate the way education is structured in the U.S. by placing all blame on teachers and replacing public education system with charter and private schools.

Would problems be solved in a fair and proper manner by doing away with all job security and rewarding with merit pay? And if teachers are going to be rewarded for their successes, how is this going to be determined?

Most teachers know that merit pay will not work. Favoritism and cheating would play in the scheme of the situation? Morale among teachers would plummet, and the country's best and brightest would choose careers in other fields.

As for the old adage that bad teachers can't be fired, it is false. It is more difficult and takes more time to fire a bad teacher who is on tenure, but it can be accomplished.

In no way am I upholding a bad teacher. When there is a problem with a teacher, it should be dealt with through proper channels in a fair and proper manner.

I take offense at the remark Gov. Mitch Daniels made in his State of State address when he said "class size is virtually meaningless" for a good teacher. It is true and I agree that a teacher with excellent discipline techniques can manage a classroom more efficiently than a teacher who doesn't display those special talents.

Picture being in a classroom with 32 kindergarten or first-grade children. No matter how efficient the teacher, that is far too many children dropping pencils, having to use bathroom facilities, talking, crying because of a stomach ache or suffering from ADDH. Add this situation to children who have a limited English vocabulary or who come from a troubled home and you have a chaotic atmosphere.

Another misnomer is when our students are compared to Asian students. The programs are structured differently; furthermore, the whole culture is different. It is comparing apples to oranges.

One of my best friends is of Chinese ancestry but was raised in Indonesia. Her goal was to come to America and study at Wayne State University to earn a master's degree in chemistry, which she did. (That is the goal of many foreign university students.)

She came from a disciplined family. Throughout her school years, her parents made her rise each morning at 4:30 to study two hours before breakfast. After school, she studied another two to three hours.

When she entered junior high school, students in her class were funneled into two directions -- an academic program or vocational program. The programs are known under the acronyms of SMA for those who can continue academic studies and SMK for those who study vocations preparing for work. She was chosen for the academic program.

Following high school, it is extremely difficult to be accepted to an undergraduate college in Asia. She said she met with several hundred other students in a large gymnasium. She was accepted, but only a couple hundred were allowed to enroll in college -- the cream of the crop you might say.

This is one of the reasons that students in Asia study so diligently. They know they have a small chance of being accepted to a university.

The education program in China is also different than the U.S. I have read they gear their education toward tests starting in primary and going on to university level. It is thought that this suppresses personal and professional development.

Much different, the United States concentrates on development of personality and practical skills. We emphasize individuality. Scholarships are awarded to students who not only have academic skills but who have taken part in social activities and have been active in community service.

Also in our educational structure, students with learning disabilities take tests -- such as the ISTEP in Indiana -- along with top students. These tests measure a teacher's and a school's success.

In the book "The Learning Gap," written by Harold Stevenson and James Stigler, they say, "We (Americans) pride ourselves in providing a popular education for all students and not just an education for a select few. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the more representative American samples obtain lower average scores."

Stevenson and Stigler write that differences in Asian and American education are "parental attitudes toward schooling, children toward learning and society toward education."

Another factor Stevenson and Stigler pointed out is that Asian elementary students have frequent breaks during the day for playing vigorously. American children often have only one recess during the entire school day. Also, Asian students have a longer school year and are not away from academics a long period at a time.

Before the education system of the U.S. is channeled to Charter and private schools, perhaps more research should go into these many differences.

Once again, no one should uphold bad teachers and the U.S. should continue to strive for better education, but teachers should not be scapegoats for all woes of education.

From statistics I have seen, Charter schools are not showing improvement over public schools. Some scores are better, some scores are worse and some are about the same.

If this whole purge against teachers is to lower pay and exclude seniority, perhaps politicians should be the first to take an initiative for a lower pay scale and term limits.

Jo is a staff reporter for the Greene County Daily World. She can be reached by e-mail at tojo631@sbcglobal.net .

http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1698740.html

Test scores and economic competitiveness. By William J. Mathis

2011-01-24T11:24:00.001-05:00

What does international economic competitiveness have to do with kids’ test scores?

Not much.

If we look at it from a jobs perspective, 70 percent of United States jobs require only on-the-job training, 10 percent require technical training, and 20 percent require a college education.

Although the Obama administration claims that the jobs of the future will require much higher and universal skills, the Washington D.C.-based Brookings Institution says that the country's job structure profile will remain about the same. The proportion of middle skill jobs (plumbers, electricians, health care, police officers, etc.) is not expected to decline.

In stark contrast to the school reform rhetoric, the dramatic job slowdown will be in the more highly skilled jobs.

The cry reaches fullest volume when talking about science, math and technology training. This is where we are supposedly behind the “economically competitive” needs for the 21st century.

Unfortunately, only one-twentieth of United States jobs require science and math backgrounds. For these positions, there are three times as many qualified applicants as there are available positions. Far from any shortage, the United States produces 25% of the world’s most talented youth.

The problem is not the failure to “supply” a sufficient number of qualified applicants; it is with the failure of the “demand” side of the equation to supply enough high tech jobs. Underemployment or unemployment among the college educated afflicts 13% of people with bachelor’s degree people and 9% of those with post-graduate training.

Paradoxically, the universal ascent of technology requires less proficiency – not more -- for most jobs. For example, flashing items under a scanner requires less skill than hand- keying in prices. Despite the economic downturn, if the objective is to be internationally competitive in science, math and technology, then the private sector has to invest in these types of jobs. The numbers demonstrate they have not.

Contrary to the simplicity of the sound bite, the drivers of national economic competitiveness show a much more complex and nuanced connection with education. The United States fell from its usual first place in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) competitiveness index to fourth in the latest ratings (China is 27th). The reason for this fall was not education. Rather, it was macro-economic instability.

The nation’s economic swoon has a whole lot more to do with sub-prime mortgages, exporting manufacturing jobs to low wage countries, debt, and the cost of two wars than it does with increasing our over-supply of highly trained, under-employed high tech people.

Having sound institutions, well-maintained infrastructure, market efficiency and business efficiency are among the more direct and influential factors in global competitiveness. In the WEF’s “Twelve Pillars of Competitiveness,” only two relate to education (health and primary education; higher education and training).

The Forum warns against cutting expenditures in basic education -- which, despite temporary federal bail-outs, is exactly what the states are doing. For higher education, where the United States has traditionally shined, the Forum speaks of teaching “adaptability.” However, adaptability is not a trait often associated with the ever-increasing push for high stakes standardized testing.

Furthermore, predicting, standardizing, teaching and testing the hard skills that will be essential in the work force 20 years from now require a level of economic divination that is more prophecy than rational policy-making. Our best knowledge is that soft skills such as versatility, adaptability, using evaluative information, and encouraging a wide range of talents are far more important to national, economic and personal development than the mastery of certain cognate.

To be sure, many proponents for the new standardized tests claim they test higher-level skills. Such claims have been common in the past. The record, however, doesn’t support the claim.

High stakes standardized tests narrow and dumb the curriculum. Social studies, science, art and music instruction have been reduced by a third in some states. If it is testable in a standardized way, it is unlikely to measure the knowledge, flexibility and creativity needed for a new and uncertain age.

Finally, if international test scores are your measure of interest, as the recent report on PISA points out, high scoring nations and school systems are characterized by equal opportunities for all children. [In the latest PISA results, American students overall earned generally average scores in reading, science and math, though scores in high-income areas had top scores.]

Unfortunately, the United States has become the most inequitable of the developed nations -- a very dubious number one ranking. The simple arithmetic shows that we will remain low-scorers as long as we perpetuate huge economic disparities and inequalities in the quality of schooling we provide. Number one ranked Finland has 3% poverty while the United States has over 25% poverty.

It is the scores of our most needy children that pull our national average down. One of the reasons that other nations are catching up and surpassing us is because they are building their middle class while the United States is pursuing policies that destroy theirs.

The highest scoring international states have high resiliency scores, which is based on the link between socioeconomic levels and test scores. That is, do children boot-strap their way up through education? The United States has among the worst resiliency rates.

Thus, education as the road to the American dream is becoming more of a dead-end. Further, when families and students fall into poverty in the United States, they tend to stay there far more than they do in other countries.

Yet as a matter of policy, the reforms promoted by both Republican and Democratic politicians explicitly or implicitly claim that the achievement gap (and thus equality) can be closed by dint of privatization, more efficient pedagogy and market based reforms. The research to date shows that even under the best of circumstances, such reforms simply do not have that much educational or social power.

So what does international competitiveness have to do with kids’ test scores? Not much.

But if we obsess on test score ratings and test based accountability systems as our key to international competitiveness, we will not only fail to be economically competitive, we will fail in the plain measures of equality, decency and fairness that are essential for a democracy and a civilized society.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/test-scores-and-the-economy-ar.html

Why 'Inside Job' bests 'Waiting for Superman' on school reform. By Kevin G. Welner

2011-01-17T12:50:00.000-05:00

Over the past couple months, I’ve been asked to participate in a few panel discussions about Waiting for Superman. The film presents a stark, moving portrayal of the denial of educational opportunities in low-income communities of color. But while the movie includes statements such as "we know what’s wrong" and "we know how to fix it," viewers of the movie are hard-pressed to identify those causes and solutions -- other than to boo and hiss at teachers’ unions and to cheer at the heroic charter school educators.

So in the panel discussions we try to make sense of that simplistic black-hat/white-hat story. We argue about whether the movie offers a fair and complete picture (it doesn’t even come close, unfortunately). But we never get to deeper issues about what’s wrong and how to fix it.

I thought about that when leaving a showing of the other prominent documentary currently showing, called Inside Job. It offers an explanation of how the current economic crisis came about, describing the securitization of mortgages; the extraordinary leveraging of assets; the regulatory capture by Wall Street leading to minimal enforcement of federal regulations -- a deregulation intended to spur innovation; and the fraud, greed, hubris and general belief among hedge fund titans and others in the financial services world that they are infallible.

The film also points out the growing and now extreme inequality of wealth distribution in the United States. "The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 -- up from less than 9 percent in 1976."

Consider those final three items: (1) the advocacy of deregulation in order to free up innovation, (2) hubris and general belief among hedge fund titans that they are infallible, and (3) increased wealth inequality.

If Superman had explored these issues instead of bashing unions and promoting charters, moviegoers might have walked away understanding a great deal about why the families it profiled and so many similar families across America face a bleak educational future.

The movie certainly showed scenes of poverty, but its implications and the structural inequalities underlying that poverty were largely ignored. Devastating urban poverty was just there -- as if that were somehow the natural order of things but if we could only ’fix’ schools it would disappear.

Rick Hanushek is put forth, saying that if we fire the bottom 5 to 10 percent of the lowest-performing teachers every year, our national test scores would soon approach Finland at the top of international rankings in mathematics and science. But no mention is made of the telling fact that Finland had, in 2005, a child poverty rate of 2.8 percent while the United States had a rate of 21.9 percent. That gap has likely gotten even bigger over the intervening five years.

Rather than addressing these poverty issues, Superman serves up innovation through privatization and deregulation. We’re shown charter schools that give hope to these families. But what we’re not told is that the extra resources and opportunities found in these charters are funded in large part with donations from Wall Street hedge fund millionaires and billionaires.

Problems of structural inequality and inter-generational poverty are pushed aside in favor of a ’solution’ grounded in the belief that deregulation will prompt innovation, all the while guided by the infallible judgment of Wall Street tycoons. It’s no wonder that Inside Job better explained the school crisis than did Waiting for Superman.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/why-waiting-for-superman-shoul.html

Why Teachers Go Bad. By Larry Strauss

2011-01-09T15:24:00.000-05:00

Communism, terrorism, bad teachers -- the new enemy of freedom, finally getting the recognition they deserve.

Ineffective. Disorganized. Boring. Lazy. No class control -- or too much control. Bad things go down in those classrooms. Fights break out. Things get vandalized. Minds get wasted. So do millions of dollars of public funding.

Of course, you're not one of those bad teachers -- and neither am I, though I have often thought that there is at least a little bad teacher in all of us and that one of the greatest challenges of being an educator is guarding against those impulses. I suppose I should speak for myself on that account.

I have never seen or personally heard of anyone entering the teaching profession for the purpose of stealing money from the tax-payers and sabotaging the lives of children. They all seem to start out with the right intentions.

Like Mr. D who came to our school with passion and energy and a desire to rewrite the destinies of his at-risk students. He taught English and drama gushing with his love for literature and creative expression. He threw himself into the work and set out to mount a production of Romeo and Juliet from the ground up with virtually no budget and a drama class of more than 30 students none of whom had ever before been in a school play. They were students who had been incarcerated, who had been expelled from other schools, sometimes for assaulting teachers and administrators. He worked long hours and the results were stunning. The rest of the faculty watched the performance in awe. It contained moments that transcended the lives of everyone involved, even though the original Romeo had disappeared two days before the production (on the run from gang rivals, according to his associates) and Mr. D had to find a last-minute replacement -- who performed the role with a script in hand.

Mr. D was never the same after that play. By the next fall he'd become sullen and temperamental. He missed days, then weeks of school, lost control of his classes and curriculum and found himself in combat with disgruntled students. One day he completely lost it and was taken from his classroom in handcuffs. A sad and sobering day -- especially for those of us who remembered what he'd been like before Romeo and Juliet. We understood that this over-extended overly-passionate too-thin-skinned soul-fried man wasn't so different from any of the rest of us. He'd made mistakes, lost his way. He might have had personal problems we weren't aware of. Maybe we could have given him more support. Perhaps he would have survived or even prospered in a different situation with less challenging students and more external structure in the school. On the other hand, he had done serious damage to our students by not really teaching them for a few years. He probably shouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

Like those aging burn-outs. That's the kind of bad teacher I'm most afraid of one day becoming -- once effective, even inspiring, but having let it all slowly slip away. We had a math teacher, Mr. T, around that same time as Mr. D, who taught probabilities by playing cards and shooting craps with students and letting them sleep and come in and out of the room as they pleased. If anyone demanded some real math instruction, he would direct the student to a table with tattered math books and say, "Do some problems." He was in his thirty-second year with the school district. More recently our school received a must-place social studies teacher, Ms. B, who showed animated movies and gave students rudimentary worksheets of seemingly arbitrary subject matter which they would pass around and copy from each other when they weren't talking on their cell phones, braiding and trimming hair, polishing sneakers, practicing graffiti or snoozing.

Perhaps I'm idealistic to believe that either of them had ever been effective teachers but in other cases I've witnessed the devolution: first the complacency, then the exhaustion, a year or two with particularly recalcitrant students, over-heated and/or freezing classrooms, combative administrators, nasty parents, a personal crisis or two -- then they go into survival mode. I am determined never to let it happen to me -- but I think it would be arrogant to believe that it couldn't have or couldn't still.

Now that bad teachers have been identified as a public enemy, the fear of becoming one makes new teachers particularly susceptible to the fraud that if students are quiet and obedient -- and can bubble enough right answers once a year on a test -- then they must be learning. That belief can create surreptitiously bad teachers who control students without really teaching them very much.

An even greater challenge for new teachers is defending themselves against the collective resistance and seemingly intractable disinterest and apathy of students. It is easy to interpret this as an unwillingness to learn. There is, of course, a profound subtext to this behavior. The overwhelming majority of students want, somewhat desperately, to be made to work hard and get and smarter -- though the students themselves may not fully understand this. I have seen teachers allow the apathetic bravado and feigned recalcitrance to erode the integrity of a curriculum and surrender to a career of low expectations and uninspired instruction.

There are probably many ways to succeed as a teacher, with differing combinations of temperament, talent, knowledge, pedagogy and even luck. But the most essential element might be empathy. Unless a teacher understands what it is like for his or her students -- the tedium of school, the fear and anxiety of life, the insecurity and narcissism and exhaustion of the adolescent culture -- it may not be possible to reach them in a meaningful way.

I was lucky. Having myself been a marginal-to-bad high school student, I have always understood the quick-triggered boredom, the tortured restlessness and pent-up rage, and the vexation at adult authority that so many of my students feel. That understanding -- above everything else -- has kept me from losing my effectiveness.

Without empathy -- and, for that matter, without a sincere affection for the students -- I don't see how anyone can endure six hours a day in a classroom.

It's what I've admired -- empathy and a love of students -- in the teachers who've inspired me. For those in education and government who are infatuated with objective measurements, I'm not sure there will ever be an accurate one for empathy or love -- but perhaps the testing industry ought to make an effort.

Meanwhile we should have more empathy for struggling teachers. Right away! Eradicate that pervading sink-or-swim attitude. Get over the false belief that more mandatory training and test-driven pressure will improve the quality of teaching. Re-direct those resources into a real, extensive, meaningful and sustainable support system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-strauss/why-teachers-go-bad_b_806231.html

Is Boycotting Tests a Solution to the Ruinous Culture? by Shaun Johnson

2011-01-07T18:29:00.000-05:00

In my last post about how testing ruins elementary education, a lively debate with readers ensued. One commenter in particular wondered about solutions for the so-called "ruinous" culture I noted in the title. I thought about it over the last couple of weeks and there was one idea that sort of took over the rest. I couldn't get anywhere else without acknowledging and unpacking it. So, I'm going to run it by readers here and see what reaction it gets. A bit of a disclaimer first: This idea or solution to some of education's testing woes is purely hypothetical. But I feel like I have to start somewhere before walking it back. And maybe this has been proposed already to tremendous failure or resistance. Here we go anyway.

What would happen if tests were boycotted? Seriously. Imagine if a bunch of parents and community members got together and refused to allow their students or children to take the state tests. I can envision waves of parents requesting that their children sit it out in the media center. Perhaps parents who stay at home can offer childcare services to those that work, keeping their children home during testing week. Set up a play date or a field trip to a museum. Would this not seriously compromise the ability of education leaders and reformers, those who believe quite erroneously in the ultimate power of quantitative metrics, to use these measures to make every decision? Yes, it would, and then we can finally have an adult conversation about viable alternatives.

Without those precious test scores, hands would be forced. Natural inclinations -- nay, addictions -- to weights and measures could drive leaders into frenzies. Would they barge into schools and demand immediate assessments? Would they pull children aside in the hallways and drill them with math questions? I can see the suits standing in the school's foyer, reading aloud short passages about plant fertilization, and asking anyone within earshot if they understood the author's purpose. Men in ties, on their knees in front of a class on their way to art, are asking in desperation, "Oh why won't you just choose an answer? Someone tell me, is it A or B?"

Before this gets even weirder, I must admit that the most likely and logical outcomes would be losses of funding and jobs. No melodrama, just pink slips and program cuts until the mess is sorted out. Indeed, the power of a boycotting tests would come from universal participation. Many schools or communities, quite understandably, would be too cautious to participate. Those few that do refuse testing would only be setting themselves up for more pain, as they become scapegoats for such insolence.

Without much research on my part, a testing boycott driven by parents and community members is the only real interesting solution I can think of right now. It is certainly foolhardy and idealistic. But what if the power to test and measure was stripped away? What if the data was simply withheld or held hostage? Nothing is more personal to those without much power -- the students -- than what they know and how they feel. Those in power, however, covet that information the most. Considering what many leaders have done for or to schools so far, perhaps they don't necessarily deserve it. I completely understand that the hands of teachers, principals, and even superintendents are tied. I don't have children of my own, but I do know that as an educator, some kind of resistance like this can only come from parents and other members of the school community. I also know that as an educator, our time to draw these harsh lines is running out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-johnson/a-solution-to-the-ruinous_b_804208.html

We Cannot Solve the Problems with Tests by Creating MORE of Them By Anthony Cody

2011-01-05T08:32:00.001-05:00

Albert Einstein once famously said "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." Our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, is proving that in spades. In his recent op-ed in the Washington Post, Duncan acknowledges widespread dissatisfaction with standardized tests, and the way they have narrowed the curriculum. He then asserts that these problems will disappear under his guidance:

That is why many people across the political spectrum support the work of 44 states to replace multiple choice "bubble" tests with a new test that helps inform and improve instruction by accurately measuring what children know across the full range of college and career-ready standards, and measures other skills, such as critical-thinking abilities.

So we will fix the problem of over-reliance on tests by producing new and improved tests, which we can then rely on even more.

Dr. Stephen Krashen offered a cogent rebuttal to Duncan on the Answer Sheet, where he pointed out:

The plan presented in the Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform calls for an astonishing amount of testing, far more than we have now with No Child Left Behind. The only people I know who support the testing plan have spent very little time in schools, haven't read the Blueprint, or just aren't listening to real education professions or students. Or all three.

We are about to make a mistake that will cost billions and make school life (even more) miserable for millions of teachers and students. The only ones who will profit are the testing companies. We should be talking about reducing testing, not increasing it.

Wolf Blitzer of CNN interviewed Duncan yesterday, and pressed him to respond to Krashen's critique - which he did by restating his assertions:

Teachers, parents, students want real information. They need to know, are students learning? Where are they improving? Where are they not? Where do they need more help?

Those next generation of assessments are going to help us to get there. That leadership is being provided at the local level, not by us in Washington.

As Krashen pointed out in Schools Matter,

According to the Department of Education Blueprint, it will include summative (end of year) testing, interim testing, and will encourage testing more subjects. Since the Blueprint also calls for value-added testing, we can also expect pre-tests at the start of the school year. And this "leadership" comes from Washington, from the Department of Education, not for the local level.

We are being told that we can fix the problems with tests by making them more frequent, and more able to measure critical thinking. My problem is I have no confidence that this is true. I believe there are economic interests at work here - powerful and wealthy publishing companies who will greatly profit from a whole new generation of assessments, who are pushing for this behind the scenes. I do not believe that we will get less teaching to the test when we give the tests more often, and attach even more importance to them by tying teacher evaluations and pay to them. This is nonsensical. I have not seen the new tests being generated by the consortia, but I do not believe that any test that is mechanically graded, or even graded by low-paid humans, can successfully measure critical thinking and problem-solving.

Duncan calls for a greater investment in teachers, but the Federal government is not in a position to fund teachers, so this talk is cheap. Teachers are funded at the state level, and many states are facing huge deficits, and we are about to see a further disinvestment in schools and teachers. Meanwhile, for all his talk of local control, the next generation of tests will essentially be another unfunded federal mandate, because federal funding will be made contingent on their adoption by states. And these tests will impose a significant NEW expense on school systems across the country, just at the time when the bare bones of our schools are being dismantled due to budget cuts.

There may indeed be bipartisan support in Washington, DC, for Duncan's agenda. But as the costs for these tests become apparent, I believe leaders at the local and state levels will see the choices that we are being forced to make. We must connect the dots here. Billions of education dollars spent on tests are billions taken away from the classrooms where learning actually occurs. And more tests will NOT improve the trouble we have with over-reliance on testing.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/01/the_trouble_with_tests_you_can.html

America’s disdain for its children By Valerie Strauss

2011-01-04T06:53:00.000-05:00

Americans don’t really think very much of their children. Not really.

Yes, we love our own children, and sometimes the kid next door. But a look at the education world as we enter 2011 reveals how little we really care about childhood and the importance of creating the conditions in which young people can grow and learn in safe and secure and smart environments.

If we did actually give a hoot about kids:

*We would never tolerate a poverty rate among children of 21 percent.

That’s one in five kids who live in poverty, or nearly 15 million children in the United States who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, currently pegged at $22,050 a year for a family of four.

And that, of course, doesn’t include the kids who live in families of four who make $22,051 a year. Or $22,052. In fact, research shows that families need an income of about twice the poverty level to cover basic costs, so at that rate, 42 percent of American children live at or close enough to the poverty level so that basics aren’t being covered.

*We would never pretend that any single institution, especially public schools, can overcome the problems caused by a life in poverty. Reformers would stop staying that citing poverty as a problem is “an excuse.”

Don’t, please, write me and tell me that I am offering teachers an excuse not to work hard. You know I’m not.

Acknowledging that poverty matters means that we have to counter its effects when children come to school -- making sure they eat, can see, hear, aren’t exhausted – and more broadly, address the causes of poverty on a societal level.

*We would stop our hypocrisy over standardized tests.

On one hand we admit that they are too rudimentary to be used for any high-stakes decisions.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in 2009 at the National Education Association’s annual conference: “I understand that tests are far from perfect and that it is unfair to reduce the complex, nuanced work of teaching to a simple multiple choice exam. Test scores alone should never drive evaluation, compensation or tenure decisions. That would never make sense."

And on the other, we use them for high-stakes decisions anyway.

When the Los Angeles Times published so-called “value added” test scores to rate teachers in the city’s public schools last summer, Duncan said, “What’s there to hide? In education, we’ve been scared to talk about success."

*We would not demonize teachers, but rather treat them as professionals.

This means paying them a professional salary, ensuring that they have professional training (not a summer crash course), giving them a large role in what happens in their own classrooms, and finding fair ways to evaluate teachers so that those who don’t belong in a classroom can be removed.

*We would stop thinking that we can tell anything about really young kids by subjecting them to silly tests and recognize the value of learning through play. Quality pre-kindergarten would be a national priority.

*We would stop underfunding public school systems.
We hear plenty about how much public money is being wasted, and, certainly, one can always find places where it is. But the bigger problem is that public systems are being starved. Some systems have cut out a day of school each week because they can’t afford it, and there is talk in California about cutting an entire month out of the public school calendar.

This is nothing but sickening.

*We would never allow the public school system to be dependent on the good will of private citizens or foundations.

*We would stop pretending that charter schools are the be-all and end-all of public education.

Yes, yes, some of them are tremendous schools. But most of them aren’t any better than their local traditional public school, and many have less “accountability” than traditional schools, but you couldn’t tell that by listening to some school reformers and wealthy funders.

*We would stop pretending that teachers unions are the cause of all of the ills of public education, and accept the common-sense refutation that the problems are the same in states without teachers unions. You don’t have to love unions to accept this reality.

*We would really try to consider what kids need and think.

For example, we know that for biological reasons, teenagers fall asleep later at night, and one study showed that students attending high schools with later start times were less likely to report being sleepy during the day. But we stick to early start times anyway.

*We would remember that the public school system is our most glorious civic institution. Yes, it needs to be improved, but not in the way we are doing it now. We would, in fact, inject humanity into public schooling. Somehow we’ve let that slip away.

Add up all of this, and then tell me how much America really likes its children.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/americas-disdain-for-its-child.html

Quality Education, By Any Means Necessary. By Larry Strauss

2010-12-30T18:30:00.001-05:00

Amid the very contentious debate about reforming public education, some of us have to enter classrooms every day and deliver instruction to students who cannot wait for systemic change--and while I greatly admire the passion and knowledge and intelligence sometimes represented in this ongoing debate I have little faith that any of this will be resolved any time soon and, alas, even less faith that it will be resolved to the benefit of my students.

So for now, at least, and probably for some time to come, I pledge--and hope other teachers will join me--to be a subversive educator. That is, to provide quality education for our students, by any means necessary.

I am not suggesting rebellion for its own sake. Where policy supports quality education, I will obediently adhere. But, like many of you reading this, I have been doing this long enough to know that (notwithstanding the many fraudulent claims of those who have no direct contact with our students) putting students first--I mean really placing their interests ahead of all others--is very often at odds with what we are told to do in our classrooms.

Subversive educators have for decades toiled in secrecy, sometimes at great risk, to provide their students with an education that is enlightening, awakening, and inspiring. I would not be the teacher I am today without the inspiration of my subversive colleagues. I would not, in fact, be a teacher at all.

Putting students first often involves great risk. I have had the good fortune to spend my career in South Los Angeles where many high schools have a significant number of unfilled positions and where, barring serious student or parent complaints, administrators rarely keep track of the antics of their teachers. I understand that many teachers in other places operate under much closer scrutiny and far more stringent limitations. To those I say, do what you reasonably can.

Administrators and politicians and union leadership may claim that there is no disparity between what they tell us to do and what is best for students--but we know that is often not the case. When I began teaching I had a colleague who--whenever he was asked to do anything outside his classroom, professional development or otherwise--would ask, "How is this benefiting my students?" A simple question but a profound guiding principle. He did not show up to work each day to support the ambitions of administrators or politicians. Neither do I. Therefore:

* I will teach students. I will not teach "testable material." Increasing student test scores has never been a morally defensible goal. What students need is to become culturally and scientifically literate, to learn to think critically and do research and synthesize data, to become both open-minded and skeptical, to respect themselves and others and love learning, to understand whatever they read and be able to articulate themselves with clarity and confidence. Some of that might be measured, to some degree, by standardized tests but when their scores become ends unto themselves, then we have sold out ourselves and our students.

* I will not recognize so-called sub-groups. I may differentiate instruction in an attempt to address different ability levels and learning styles and temperaments, but I will not calculate a moment of instruction to address the specific movement of any particular students between so-called achievement levels. I will work with equal ambition toward the advancement of all students, even those who have already demonstrated mastery (and whose improvement, therefore, would not boost my school's API or AYP).

* I will teach with the same dedication regardless of whether what I am teaching will be tested at all. Originality of thought, for example, cannot be measured on a multiple choice tests. Neither can the development of a literary or rhetorical voice. Wherever possible, I will let student interests and passions influence what I teach them--indifferent as standardized tests may be to such considerations.

* I will not permit those who know nothing about my students to dictate how and what I teach them. This includes people in government and in the text book industry. I remain open-minded and will consider any and all suggestions that might benefit my students.

* When I do use a text book (as opposed to an original source), I will teach students how to critique the text book and understand the political and economic context within which it was devised and guide them to recognize bias in everything they read and see and hear, including what I say.

* I will spend my own money and resources on what students need--to the degree that I can afford to--even if my union encourages me not to.

* I will not, except in extreme circumstances, withhold instruction from my students in order to advance the interests of my union. I will stay at school late to help students though I am not paid to do so. I will be available via Email and telephone to assist my students, also for no additional pay. If my colleagues and I vote to strike, I will not cross the picket line, but I will remain accessible to my students via Email and telephone and continue to write college recommendations and assist seniors with their personal statements, etc.

* I will assist struggling teachers--whether or not I am assigned to or paid for it--but I will also assist my administration in any way I can to purge my school and the system in general of egregiously and intractably incompetent colleagues. It is a crime not to report child abuse--the same penalties should apply to educational mal-practice.

* I will not treat my students like inmates. I will not enforce rules that are unnecessarily oppressive. I will respect them and empower them with a voice. I will be demanding. I will insist on decorum. But I will be reasonable. I will encourage students to question authority--mine included.

Teaching should be pure joy. That so many of us are frustrated and alienated--some to the point of despair--is intolerable. We can end the suffering by making 2011 the year of the subversive educator. And if we can all conspire together on behalf of students (why not make this the decade of the subversive educator?), then maybe we can save the system; we can be the reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-strauss/2011-the-year-of-the-subv_b_802449.html

Standardized snake oil. By Marion Brady

2010-12-15T07:50:00.001-05:00

I was, generally speaking, a fairly well-behaved kid. I’ve no reasonable explanation, then, for burning a hole in the wall of the one-room school I attended in the late 1930s.

It wasn’t an original idea. A precedent had been set by somebody who’d come and gone before I arrived at Union School the previous year as a third grader. He (I can’t imagine it was a “she”) had heated the steel rod used to stoke the fire in the stove until it was red hot, pressed the end of it against the white-painted interior wood wall near the entrance door, and pushed until it burned all the way through. The result was a very neat black hole about the size of a marble.

The blackened area around the hole looked a little like fetching eyelashes.

One cold winter morning, arriving at the tiny school after the nearest neighbor had added fresh coal to the fire and gone, but before anyone else had arrived, it occurred to me that a similar hole three or four inches to the left of the existing hole offered an interesting possibility. Using a black crayon, I could add eyebrows to good effect.

I got the hole done, but not the eyebrows. Sixth grader Naomi arrived, saw the still-smoldering new "eye," and waited at the door to tattle to the teacher.

Confronted by high authority, my eyes-with-eyebrows project seemed less than wise, much less funny. I vaguely recall responding to Miss Woods’ observation that I could have burned the school down by mumbling something about the big community tin drinking cup hanging on a nail beside the nearby water cooler. I think I suggested that it provided the necessary insurance against disaster.

She didn’t buy it. I was sent home and told to come back with my mother or father, or both.

In the years since I burned that hole, I’ve stayed connected to schools and schooling as a student, teacher, administrator, college professor, writer of texts and professional books, contributor to academic journals, education columnist for newspapers, blogger, visitor to schools around the world, and consultant to publishers, states and foundations.

And for the last 20 years, I’ve done my best to burn holes in the myth that standardized tests are a means to the end of improving America’s schools. I haven’t the slightest doubt that if the testing tail continues to wag the education dog, it will kill the dog and with it the ability of future generations to cope with their fates.

It’s not that America’s schools don’t have really serious problems. They certainly do. And I’m not talking just about big, inner city institutions surrounded by blight, encircled by barbed wire, entered through metal detectors, patrolled by cops, and churning out dropouts, future prison inmates, and other social problems.

There are many of those, but I’m not singling them out. As a mountain of research makes clear, what ails them is primarily long-term poverty and the myriad problems poverty spawns. That’s a matter I’m not qualified to write about, but for those who think test scores actually mean something important, I’ll note in passing that Finland always ranks near the top, and their child poverty rate is less than 3%, while America’s rate is over 20% and climbing rapidly. Those who believe skilled teachers can level the education playing field enough to erase that difference in the quality of the material they’re given to work with aren’t just not in the game, they’re not even in the ball park.

Yes, include those blighted urban schools as a target of my criticism, but include also America’s many well-ordered schools in quiet, leafy suburbs. Include schools in top-scale ZIP codes that have been adopted by venture capitalists who see to it that every hint of a need is instantly met. Include schools where, before opening bells, Benz, Bentley, and BMW doors swing open and kids slide out to be greeted by name by headmasters and faculties. And include schools where chauffeur-driven limousines deliver their body-guarded charges because school policy forbids noisy arrivals by helicopter. (Yes, there are such schools.)

Consider as failing every school – public, charter, private, whatever – that assumes that corporately produced, standardized tests say something important about something important. Using test scores to guide education policy makes about as much sense as using the horoscope of whoever happens to be Secretary of State to guide US foreign policy.

That standardized tests are a useful tool for guiding education reform is a myth, pure and simple – a myth constructed from ignorance and perpetuated by misinformation, or conjured from hope and reinforced by cherry-picked data.

I grew up in Appalachia where the old adage, “You can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear” was familiar speech. Standardized tests are a “sow’s ear.” The only things they can measure accurately are random bits of information stored in short-term memory.

But even if every kid remembered everything taught, it’s hard to imagine a more wasteful use of teacher and learner time and taxpayer money than preparing for and taking standardized tests.

When the world changed little or not at all from generation to generation and nearly everyone was illiterate, unaided memory was essential. What needed to be known existed in the memories of the elders, and the young, living in that static world, either learned it from them or suffered the consequences.

That era is long gone. It’s over. Finished. It began to end when writing was developed, and its demise proceeded with the invention of the printing press, cheap books, photography, moving pictures, television, the Internet, search engines, and other means of information gathering and archiving. In today’s world, tests of unaided memory are about as useful as (insert another Appalachian slang expression having to do with the anatomy of boar hogs).

Standardized, subject-matter tests are worse than a waste. We’re spending billions of dollars and instructional hours on a tool that measures one thought process to the neglect of all others, wreaks havoc on the minds and emotions of teachers and learners, and diverts attention from a fundamental, ignored problem.

That problem? Longshoreman and college professor Eric Hoffer summed it up a lifetime ago. Because the world is dynamic, the future belongs not to the learned but to learners.

Read that sentence again. Then read it again. Even if standardized tests didn’t cost billions, even if they yielded something that teachers didn’t already know, even if they hadn’t narrowed the curriculum down to joke level, even if they weren’t the main generators of educational drivel, even if they weren’t driving the best teachers out of the profession, they should be abandoned because they measure the wrong thing.

The future belongs not to the learned but to learners. American education isn’t designed to produce learners, and the proof of that contention is the standardized test.

America’s system of education is designed to clone the learned. And motivated either by ignorance or greed, the wealthy and powerful, using educationally naïve celebrities as fronts, are spending obscene amounts of money to convince politicians, pundits, policymakers, and the public that this is a good and necessary thing.

Thus far, they’ve been wildly successful. If they’re not stopped, those now sitting in our classrooms won’t just witness America’s descent into Third World status, they’ll accelerate it.

On a somewhat lighter note, and in the spirit of the season, below is a link to a free gift – a complete, down-loadable book. It’s not my new What’s Worth Learning?, but it’s perhaps more appropriate for days made busy by holiday preparation: http://www.marionbrady.com/documents/TheRoadtoHell.pdf

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/standardized-snake-oil---.html#more

The Real Lessons of PISA By Diane Ravitch

2010-12-14T14:28:00.000-05:00

Dear Deborah,

When the results of the latest international assessment—the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA—were released, our national leaders sounded an alarm about a national "crisis in education." Our students scored in the middle of the pack! We are not No. 1! Shanghai is No. 1! We are doomed unless we overtake Shanghai!

President Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan warned ominously that our nation was having a "Sputnik moment." We have fallen behind the global competition in education, they cried, evoking comparison with the Soviet Union's launch of a space satellite in 1957. At that time, the media and the politicians predicted that the Soviets would soon rule the world, and we know how that turned out.

Now the politicians would like to use the latest test scores to promote their "reform" agenda for the schools: more charter schools, more reliance on competition and free-market strategies, more testing, more use of test scores to evaluate teachers, more firing of principals and teachers, more closing of low-scoring schools.

Our leaders in Washington would have us believe that they know how to close the achievement gap and how to overtake the highest-performing nations in the world. PISA proves that they don't.

Consider the two top contenders on PISA: Shanghai and Finland. These two places—one a very large city of nearly 21 million, the other a small nation of less than six million—represent two very different approaches to education. The one thing they have in common is that neither of the world leaders in education is doing what American reformers propose.

According to the OECD, the international group that sponsors PISA, the schools of Shanghai—like those in all of China—are dominated by pressure to get higher scores on examinations. OECD writes:

"Teaching and learning, in secondary schools in particular, are predominantly determined by the examination syllabi, and school activities at that level are very much oriented towards exam preparation. Subjects such as music and art, and in some cases even physical education, are removed from the timetable because they are not covered in the public examinations. Schools work their students for long hours every day, and the work weeks extend into the weekends, mainly for additional exam preparation classes...private tutorials, most of them profit-making, are widespread and have become almost a household necessity."

OECD points out that more than 80 percent of students in Shanghai attend after-school tutoring. It remarked on the academic intensity of Chinese students. Non-attention is not tolerated. As I read about the "intense concentration" of these students, I was reminded of the astonishing opening event of the Beijing Olympics, when 15,000 participants performed tightly scripted routines. It is hard to imagine a similar event performed by American youth, who are accustomed not to intense discipline, but to a culture of free expression and individualism.

Interestingly, the authorities in Shanghai boast not about their testing routines, but about their consistent and effective support for struggling teachers and schools. When a school is in trouble in Shanghai, authorities say they pair it with a high-performing school. The teachers and leaders of the strong school help those in the weak school until it improves. The authorities send whatever support is needed to help those who are struggling. In the OECD video about Shanghai, the lowest-performing school in the city is described as one where "only" 89 percent of students passed the state exams! With the help sent by the leaders of the school system, it eventually reached the target of 100 percent.

Finland is at the other end of the educational spectrum. Its education system is modeled on American progressive ideas. It is student-centered. It has a broad (and non-directive) national curriculum. Its teachers are drawn from the top 10 percent of university graduates. They are highly educated and well prepared. Students never take a high-stakes test; their teachers make their own tests. The only test they take that counts is the one required to enter university.

Last week, I went to a luncheon with Pasi Sahlberg, the Finnish education expert. I asked him the question that every politician asks today: "If students don't take tests, how do you hold teachers and schools accountable?" He said that there is no word in the Finnish language for "accountability." He said, "We put well-prepared teachers in the classroom, give them maximum autonomy, and we trust them to be responsible."

I asked him if teachers are paid more for experience. He said, "Of course." And what about graduate degrees? He said, "Every teacher in Finland has a master's degree." He added: "We don't believe in competition among students, teachers, or schools. We believe in collaboration, trust, responsibility, and autonomy."

Since I have not visited schools in either Shanghai or Finland, I am certainly no expert. It was interesting to watch the short videos about their schools, found here. It is also interesting to consider what these two very different systems have in common: They place their bets on expert, experienced teachers and on careful training of their new teachers. They rely on well-planned, consistent support of teachers to improve their schools continuously.

These two systems are diametrically opposed in one sense: Shanghai relies heavily on testing to meet its goals; Finland emphasizes child-centered methods. Yet they have these important things in common: Neither of them does what the United States is now promoting: They do not hand students over to privately managed schools; they do not accept teachers who do not intend to make teaching their profession; they do not have principals who are non-educators; they do not have superintendents who are non-educators; they do not "turn around" schools by closing them or privatizing them; they do not "improve" schools by firing the principal or the teachers. They respect their teachers. They focus relentlessly on improving teaching and learning, as it is defined in their culture and society.

The lesson of PISA is this: Neither of the world's highest-performing nations do what our "reformers" want to do. How long will it take before our political leaders begin to listen to educators? How long will it take before they realize that their strategies have not worked anywhere? How long will it be before they stop inflicting their bad ideas on our schools, our students, our teachers, and American education?

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/12/the_real_lessons_of_pisa.html

Jesse Turner: Welcome to the Great American Public School Awakening!

2010-12-01T14:00:00.001-05:00

Last year I walked 400 miles in 40 days to protest the NCLB/RTTT policies. This year I am walking again, but I am bringing a few friends with me. I am not waiting for Superman, or some dynamic leader to fix public education. Instead I am walking to Washington DC again. What our public schools need most is an Awakening of the American People. An awakening is no simple task before us. The purpose of public schooling in America is enormously complex. Every once in a while, we as a people lose sight of the purpose of schooling in America. As a country we have not had a serious conversation around the purpose of education in over 150 years.

I intentionally use the term awakening because in many ways our great nation has been asleep in regards to the purpose of our public schools. The last time such a conversation was had was when the great Horace Mann fought for the very idea of a public education. He led our nations' noble fight to establish a free public school system. Horace Mann had a great vision called the "Common School Movement." It is his vision that eventually became an American awakening. It was his life's work. His vision focused on building a quality public school system that would educate not only the poor, but would also attract the sons and daughters of the very wealthy. His vision was driven by equality. Indeed the yardstick for public education would eventually become equality. While it was never perfect, equality did become the legal measure of public schools in our great nation. We have a legal history that goes back over a hundred years attesting to this fact. Mann dreamed of a system that inspires the spirit of democracy and a sense of morality. Education was the very means of preserving our democracy. The leadership of his day, on the other hand - much like today, was less inspired by morality and democracy. They did however love the idea of a competitive workforce, (ironically not much has changed). In order to sell the idea of public schools Mann had to compromise, and sell both a competitive workforce and moral citizens. Some of us today refer to this as Horace's Great Compromise. In essence this is America's covenant with a free public education. Although it was a compromise, the moral yardstick of our public school system remained equality until the legislation of No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind lacked any moral compass from the start. This law reduces equality to a test score. It assumes no federal responsibility in obtaining equality. This current education reform has discarded our yardstick of equality. Simply put, the one and only indicator to measure academic success under NCLB is the test score on a standardized measure. Astonishingly NCLB claims to focus on closing the achievement gap while effectively taking the focus off equity issues. It has shifted the focus to outcomes on standardized testing as public schooling savior. Policy makers, politicians, and many of our educational leadership no longer focus on issues of race, poverty, and those Savage Inequalities that Jonathon Kozal so effectively writes about. Standardized testing is seen as the means to end inequality. Policy makers point fingers of blame at parents, teachers, schools of education, even students themselves. In my mind the very weakness of NCLB reforms are driven by their fear that America is losing its economic edge in this global world. In their mind democracy and morality come second. Sadly in some circles it may even be seen as a hindrance.

We once again have the unique opportunity to revisit our public school covenant. This awakening will be driven by two questions: Is the sole measure of a child that of a test score?

Is the ability to compete in the workforce the most important outcome of our public schools?

If the answer is a resounding yes, then indeed all that matters is a test of basic academic skills in math, reading, and writing. Unequivocally, I believe that as Americans we expect so much more from our public schools. Morality matters to Americans. In particular it matters to the parents and caregivers of the children in our public schools. Character counts in America. Without a doubt the very principles of democracy matter a whole lot to the people of our great nation. NCLB has thrown the balance so far out of whack that the very fabric of our nation is in danger.

This awakening is so much more than NCLB. It is more than a simple test score, or even education reform. This awakening is about a covenant that has been broken. It must be fixed. In order to do this we need a movement that returns us to a conversation around our nation's public schooling covenant.

Some people naively think parents, teachers, and Americans in general are not ready for this kind of discussion. On the contrary, I believe this is what Americans are born to do. I plan on bringing this conversation to our people. I have great faith in Americans and their do the right thing attitude when push comes to shove. With NCLB push has come to shove. For this reason I walked 400 miles from Connecticut to Washington D.C. this past summer. It is why I am walking again next year. While my simple metaphor to begin this awakening was "Children Are More Than Test Scores" it really must be so much more. It must be a call to action. A call to reclaim our schools; reclaim our schools from fear. We need to return to Horace Mann's vision of purpose.

My walk ended this year on Labor Day on the campus of the American University. Those sitting at our presentation didn't want this to be the end. Instead we said, it is only the beginning. All of those present had followed my walk from Connecticut to D.C. (via the internet) since I started out in May. We knew we wanted to continue this conversation beyond test scores. So began our conversation around a balanced and fair assessment system. This will be a system that respects children, teachers, and local schools. This on-going conversation opens the door to the awakening. We as a group, parents, teachers, and academics, have been working hard on planning a series of actions against NCLB, (SOS's March/Teach-in July '11).

America and our public schools need every voice. We need to elevate this conversation to something more than the failure of NCLB. We must be reminded that public schools are at the heart of what makes us America. I think it is imperative to move congress, the senate, and the White House, but first of all we need to move the people of America. The rest will follow.

It is to the people of America I make this call, to the Mom's and the Dad's, the builders and the firefighters, the nurses and the teachers, you are our voice, our hope. I have always thought that each and every one of us can be the hope for each other. Together our voice is loud and clear, and only together can we move mountains.

I am not pessimistic these days. I am not fearful that the day is in danger of being lost. I am convinced this wakening is already happening. No congress, or senate, not even the president can stop this conversation now. We are beyond the tipping point. There is a choice, either get out of the way, or come ride our wave. I love the idea that every tidal wave has its origins in a single drop of rain. Are you part of the coming tidal wave? What is holding you back? Hold on this is going to be one heck of a ride. Teachers and parents come join us in Washington DC. It is your voice that is often missing in this extremely important discussion. Employees of public schools, the teachers and principals of the schools that we all cherish, are very vulnerable in all of this. They and their unions are the targets of so many of the current reformers. They can very easily be dismissed or moved, at the drop of a hat. You are unique. You can do something powerful by speaking up for someone who is crying inside. The teacher or principal that you've known forever may be too fearful to speak up. I call upon you all, especially grandparents, retired teachers and principals. You are the powerful potential.

It was Abraham Lincoln who shared: "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong".

Rather than tell people what to do, I prefer to say "Why not come join us in Washington DC this July 28th to July 31st, and become a pivotal part of the Save Our Schools Awakening." To connect with this, please join our group, Children are More than Test Scores.

Standing by those that stand right!
Jesse P. Turner,
West Hartford, CT

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/11/jesse_turner_welcome_to_the_gr.html

Eliminating Recess Hurts Kids When Testing Pressure is Too Great, We All Lose By Nicholas Thacher

2010-11-22T11:54:00.000-05:00

The suburban New England town in which I run a small elementary school has just been obliged to eliminate morning recess for its public school children. This has, as one can readily imagine, caused a lot of palaver, dissension, anger, anxiety, and finger-pointing. Our excellent superintendent had the unenviable task of moving from one acrimonious evening meeting to another in the opening weeks of our school year, trying to explain why, since standardized-test scores haven't met the designated benchmarks, the schools have been mandated to eliminate morning recess and force the children to spend their midmorning time swotting up on their academic skills.

This is the "trickle down" of the federal No Child Left Behind Act and a commonwealth that takes occasionally justifiable pride in its challenging standards for its public schools. The thinking is that more minutes in the classroom will enable the youngsters to sharpen their minds and raise their scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS tests.

This is not a new idea, but it's a patently boneheaded one—a virtually perfect example (like the recent anti-bullying legislation cobbled together by the Massachusetts legislature) of why establishing educational policies from on high is a pointless practice, however well-intentioned. It puts me in mind of the safety stickers mandated for child strollers: "Remove Child Before Folding." But this is no joke, and it is definitely not funny.

Any child, parent, or teacher can explain why keeping young kids at their desks from 8 a.m. to lunchtime is a poor idea. Even the stegosaurus, reputed to be "so dumb as to only be dimly aware that it was alive," must have understood the importance of physical exercise. The latest research on learning and cognition, summarized in a recent New York Times Magazine article online, gives increasingly persuasive evidence that exercise and fitness have positive effects on the immature human brain. According to Charles Hillman, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois: "Just 20 minutes of walking" prior to a test raises a child's score, even if the child is otherwise unfit or overweight. The latest studies, using MRIs to measure children's brains, show that fit children have significantly larger basal ganglia, the portion of the brain that aids in maintaining attention and "executive control."
Let's forget the worship of standardized testing, however well-intentioned. Let's just consider, for a moment, what school is going to feel like for all the little boys and girls imprisoned in my town's elementary schools.

Of course, correlation isn't necessarily causation, and it isn't breaking news—at least in the teaching profession—that children who periodically get a little exercise are apt to be more alert when they return to a less active classroom setting. And good teachers and good schools have for centuries been well aware that more learner-based, active engagement in the classroom leads to stronger academic performance in the long haul.

Tragically, the kids in the public school classrooms in my town are about to learn what the phrase "the long haul" really means. It means their opportunity to burn off calories and energy, to practice the social skills that lead to successful interaction with peers in a relatively unstructured setting, to master the challenge of a long slide or a swing set or simply to take a moment, like Prince Hamlet, to study the clouds or listen to the wind—all of these learning opportunities have been hammered out of their dreary mornings on the anvil of No Child Left Behind. A long haul, a long road, a long march.

I'd like to propose that we forget the pointless bickering, the finger-pointing, the ascribing of blame to this federal administration or that state mandate. This just doesn't pass the proverbial smell test. It's a kind of educational pornography that Justice Potter Stewart would have identified in an instant. Let's forget the worship of standardized testing, however well-intentioned. Let's just consider, for a moment, what school is going to feel like for all the little boys and girls imprisoned in my town's elementary schools, what it's going to feel like for all those teachers who are devoting their lives to the unbelievably arduous challenges of running a classroom.

In other words, let's give them all a break. Their lives—and, ultimately, the increasingly decaying fabric of our national culture—will be the better for it.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/11/17/12thacher.h30.html?tkn=PTSFRO2P0qY4g7nMWnVYL0An7uKcvX1to1h%2F&cmp=clp-edweek

'Ready to Learn' Equals Easier to Educate, by Alfie Kohn

2010-11-18T22:50:00.001-05:00

The phrase "ready to learn," frequently applied to young children, is rather odd when you stop to think about it, because the implication is that some kids aren't. Have you ever met a child who wasn't ready to learn -- or, for that matter, already learning like crazy? The term must mean something much more specific -- namely, that some children aren't yet able (or willing) to learn certain things or learn them in a certain way.

Specifically, it seems to be code for "prepared for traditional instruction." And yes, we'd have to concede that some kids are not ready to memorize their letters, numbers, and colors, or to practice academic skills on command. In fact, some children continue to resist for years since they'd rather be doing other kinds of learning. Can you blame them?

Then there's the question of when we expect children to be ready. Even if we narrow the notion of readiness to the acquisition of "phonemic awareness" as a prerequisite to reading in kindergarten or first grade, the concept is still iffy, but for different reasons. For one thing, researcher Stephen Krashen points out that "about three-quarters of children who test low in P.A. [phonemic awareness] appear to have no serious problems in learning to read."[1] For another thing, the premise that one must be ready to start by a certain age is contradicted by evidence that children who don't learn to read until age 7 or even later tend to make rapid progress and are soon indistinguishable from those who learned earlier.[2]

Thus, "readiness to learn" may have more to do with a schedule that's convenient for others -- or, worse, with preparation for standardized testing -- than with what is necessary or even desirable for a given child. Perhaps the phrase is an attempt to put a positive spin on what is really just developmentally inappropriate practice. In any case, I fear the effect is to set up children (or their parents) for blame when certain goals aren't reached. "Well, what did you expect? This child arrived in our classroom not ready to learn."

Sometimes, though, readiness is invoked not as a justification for premature instruction but as a criterion for admission to a selective school or program. Only those certified as "ready to learn" are deemed eligible. For the moment, let's ignore the moral implications of making 4- or 5-year-olds compete for access to an elite educational setting. When the demand exceeds the (artificially scarce) supply, the decision is usually made to choose the most advanced children, the "smartest," the readiest.

But why?

Presumably because they will be the easiest to teach.

Martin Haberman, who coined the phrase "pedagogy of poverty," related a conversation he had with his grandson's kindergarten teacher at a selective school. "Wouldn't it make more sense to admit the children who don't know their shapes and colors, and teach them these things?" he asked. The teacher looked at him as if he were "leftover mashed potatoes," but he persisted:

"Next year my grandson, who is already testing in your top half, will have had the added benefit of being in your class for a whole year. Won't he learn a lot more and be even further ahead of the 4-year-olds who failed your admission exam and who have to spend this year at home, or in daycare, without the benefit of your kindergarten? Will the 4-year-old rejects ever catch up?"

This question did even less to endear him to the teacher, but Haberman by now had realized what was going on more generally, and he summarized his epiphany as follows: "The children we teach best are those who need us least."[3]

As it happens, I had stumbled across this truth while thinking about education for a very different age group. Some years ago I was weighing the relative predictive power of high school grade-point average against that of the SAT or ACT. Some critics emphasize (correctly) that these exams are much less useful than grades at predicting college performance, but I was at pains to point out that grades have their own problems and in any case it would be more sensible to lump them together into a compound variable called "gradesandtests", which fails to predict anything other than future gradesandtests; it tells us nothing about who will be creative or a deep thinker or excited about learning or happy or successful in his or her career.

But even this reframing of the discussion failed to challenge the premise that I, too, seemed to share with more conventional participants in the colloquy about college admission. The eminent psychologist David McLelland, known for his theory of achievement motivation, delivered a public lecture at the Educational Testing Service in 1971. This talk was devoted primarily to raising pointed questions about the value of intelligence tests (Do such tests predict "who will get ahead in a number of prestige jobs where credentials are important"? he asked rhetorically. Sure. And so does "white skin.")

In an almost offhand way, McClelland then issued what struck me as a truly provocative and profound challenge. Why, he asked, do we spend time trying to figure out which criteria best predict success in higher education? Why are colleges looking for the most qualified students? "One would think that the purpose of education is precisely to improve the performance of those who are not doing very well," he mused. "If the colleges were interested in proving that they could educate people, high-scoring students might be poor bets because they would be less likely to show improvement in performance."[4]

Of course that's not how most colleges see the purpose of education. Like other institutions that get to choose whom to admit, they're looking for the applicants they think are ready to succeed. When you boil it down, that means excluding those who most need what they have to offer.

It's one thing to admit this guiltily, and something else again to build an admissions industry -- from kindergarten to graduate school -- around an unapologetic attempt to find the students who will be easiest to educate.
_______________________________

1. Stephen Krashen, "Low P.A. Can Read O.K.," Practically Primary, vol. 6, no. 3, 2001: 17-20.
2. Stephen Krashen and Jeff McQuillan, "The Case for Late Intervention," Educational Leadership, October 2007: 68-73.
3. Martin Haberman, Star Teachers of Children in Poverty (W. Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995), p. 80.
4. David C. McClelland, "Testing for Competence Rather Than for 'Intelligence,'" American Psychologist, January 1973, pp. 6, 2.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alfie-kohn/ready-to-learn-easier-to-_b_785362.html

The Gini Index and Educational Achievement By Walt Gardner

2010-11-15T16:48:00.000-05:00

With reformers relentlessly demanding that schools produce measurable outcomes, it's curious that the Gini Index is rarely mentioned. I say that because what Italian statistician Corrado Gini wrote in 1912 has direct relevance to today's debate.

Sometimes referred to as the Gini coefficient, it measures the range of income inequality in a society from 0 (no inequality) to 1(total inequality). Sweden, for example, has an index of .23, while Namibia has .7. The U.S. has one of the world's worst Ginis for an industrialized country at .468 in 2009. This is not surprising since wealth is being reconcentrated in the upper one percent of the population in a way not seen since the Gilded Age.

The change has not escaped the attention of commentators. In his Nov. 7 New York Times column, Nicholas D. Kristof wrote that the U.S. "now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana" ("Our Banana Republic"). Echoing this view, on Nov. 8, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely based on a sample of 5,000 people, including young and old, men and women, rich and poor, liberal and conservative. They found, among other things, that "Americans reported wanting to live in a country more like Sweden than the United States" ("Spreading the wealth").

The implications for schools are inescapable. Researchers have repeatedly emphasized the effects that poverty has on performance. According to UNICEF, the U.S. already had the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world long before the latest Census Bureau report showed that one in five children are now living in poverty. Overall, the share of Americans in poverty climbed to 14.3 percent in 2009, the highest level since 1994.

If Gini were alive today, he would find great material for his index. When any society is characterized by a high index, it is bound to exhibit the kind of socioeconomic differences that impact schools. Students can overcome their backgrounds, but they tend to constitute a small percentage of the overall population. That's why it makes little sense to compare test scores of one country with the test scores of another. Just as Zip codes serve as a reliable predictor of scores on standardized tests, so too does a country's Gini serve an equally valuable purpose.

This does not mean that inspired teachers can't help students from chaotic backgrounds. As Richard Rothstein recently explained in his keynote at ASCD's 2010 Conference on Teaching and Learning ("One-Third Agenda Won't Close Gaps"), teachers are the most important in-school factor in achievement. But teachers are not miracle workers. By themselves, they cannot compensate for the deficits that students bring to the classroom. These out-of school factors play a disproportionately large role in academic performance. The Harlem Children's Zone recognized the distinction. That's why it provides its students with wraparound services, which are underwritten by wealthy philanthropists.

In light of these facts, I have a proposal. Require that whenever test scores are published, the Gini index must be published with them. After all, federal law has long mandated that stocks may not be sold to the public without a prospectus. Why should test scores be any different? They are evidence of investment in public education. The more relevant information taxpayers have, the better able they will be to make judgments about the performance of schools.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2010/11/the_gini_index_and_educational_achievement.html

De-legitimizing public education. by Marion Brady

2010-11-11T08:07:00.000-05:00

The quality of American education is going to get worse. Count on it. And contrary to the conventional wisdom, the main reason isn’t going to be the loss of funding accompanying economic hard times.

Follow along and I’ll explain:

Step One: Start with what was once a relatively simple educational system. (For me, it was a one-room school with 16 or so kids ranging in age from about 6 to 15, and a teacher who, it was taken for granted by the community, was a professional who knew what she was doing.)

Step Two: Close the school, build a big one, buy school buses, open a district office, and hire administrators to tell teachers what they can and can’t do.

Step Three: When problems with the new, more complicated system develop, expand the administrative pyramid, with each successive layer of authority knowing less about educating than the layer below it.

Step Four: As problems escalate, expand the bureaucracy, moving decision-making ever higher up the pyramid until state and then federal politicians make all the important calls.

Step Five: Give corporate America - the Gates, Broads, Waltons, etc. - control of the politicians who control the bureaucracy that controls the administrators who control the teachers.

Step Six: Pay no attention as the rich who, enamored of market forces, in love with the idea of privatizing schools, and attracted by the half-trillion dollars a year America spends on education, use the media to destroy confidence in public education.

Step Seven: As a confidence-destroying strategy, zero in on teachers. Say that they hate change and played a major role in the de-industrialization of America and the decline of the American Empire.

Step Eight: As the de-professionalization of teaching and the down-grading of teachers progress, point to the resultant poor school performance as proof of the need for centralized control of education. So, what’s next?

I don’t have a clue. But if I were forced to guess, I’d say that what’s next is whatever the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable - eyes fixed no farther than the next quarter’s profit - want to be next. They’ve been wildly successful thus far.

It’s possible, of course, that education policy next year will be just another excuse for partisan warfare, with little or no change in the status quo. Or it may be that some small congressional caucus will stick a wrench so firmly in the legislative gears that the simplistic, reactionary
education "reform" machine built by corporate America, sold to Congress, and showcased by non-educator-educators like Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, will simply grind to a halt.

What particularly grieves me is that, whatever happens, it won’t be a consequence of any real understanding of education. Neither will it cause the education establishment itself to take seriously what Erica Goldson said in her June valedictory speech at Coxsackie-Athens High School in New York:

"We are so focused on a goal, whether it be passing a test, or graduating as first in the class. However, in this way, we do not really learn. We do whatever it takes to achieve our original objective.

"Some of you may be thinking, "Well, if you pass a test, or become valedictorian, didn't you learn something? Well, yes, you learned something, but not all that you could have. Perhaps, you only learned how to memorize names, places, and dates to later on forget in order to clear your mind for the next test. School is not all that it can be. Right now, it is a place for most people to determine that their goal is to get out as soon as possible.

"I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system."

And whatever happens next won’t support and encourage educators to get a spine. They need to scream bloody murder at stupid policy, reject inappropriate use of market forces, point out mainstream media educational naiveté, and demand that policymakers listen before serving up dysfunctional programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

And when they do so and are dismissed as self-serving whiners who don’t want to be held accountable, they should take to the streets in protest.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/de-legitimizing-public-educati.html#more

How to Sell Conservatism: Lesson 1 -- Pretend You're a Reformer. By Alfie Kohn

2010-11-09T23:33:00.001-05:00

If you somehow neglected to renew your subscription to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, you may have missed a couple of interesting articles last year. A series of studies conducted by two independent groups of researchers (published in the September and November 2009 issues, respectively) added to an already substantial collection of evidence showing that "people are motivated to perceive existing social arrangements as just and legitimate."

As is common with social psych studies, all the subjects were college students, so extrapolate to every other member of our species at your peril. Still, in a variety of different experiments, everything from the formula used by a university for funding its departments to unequal gender arrangements in business or politics was likely to be regarded as fair simply because, well, that's how things are already being done. Subjects also tended to prefer the taste of a beverage if they were told it was an established brand than if they were told it was new.

If possession is nine-tenths of the law, then existence apparently is nine-tenths of rightness. At the same time, though, we seem to enjoy the smell of fresh paint (as Sartre put it). There's something undeniably alluring about the new-and-improved version of whatever product we're used to buying -- as long as the product itself hasn't changed too much. We may be seized by an urge to throw the bums out every other November, but don't ask us to question the two-party system itself. After all, if that's how things are done, it must be for good reason.

For a shrewd policy maker, then, the ideal formula would seem to be to let people enjoy the invigorating experience of demanding reform without having to give up whatever they're used to. And that's precisely what both liberals and conservatives manage to do: Advertise as a daring departure from the status quo what is actually just a slightly new twist on it.

But conservatives have gone a step further. They've figured out how to take policies that actually represent an intensification of the status quo and dress them up as something that's long overdue. In many cases the values and practices they endorse have already been accepted, but they try to convince us they've lost so they can win even more.

This phenomenon is easiest to notice in the realm of public policy. It's pretty obvious to all but the most doctrinaire libertarian that the financial cataclysm of 2007, from which we've yet to recover, was a direct result of inadequate regulation of the investment banking industry. (Even Ayn Rand protégé Alan Greenspan admitted that his faith in the free market was, er, somewhat misplaced.) This failure to regulate, in turn, reflects a sneering distrust of government that has been carefully cultivated at least since Ronald Reagan took office 30 years ago. And of course it's not limited to banking. The private sector's license to function with minimal oversight seems to have played a leading role in one recent disaster after another: the catastrophic BP oil spill, the deadly West Virginia mine explosion, the recall of half a billion eggs following a salmonella outbreak, and the San Bruno gas line explosion, to name only the most prominent examples from only the last half year.

Yet those who have drunk the ideological Kool-Aid -- a lot more than tea is served at these parties -- portray themselves as revolutionaries by virtue of demanding even further restrictions on the ability of democratically elected officials to regulate corporate conduct in the public interest. By framing the primary threat to our well-being as Big Government, conservatives succeed in marketing as something qualitatively new and different what is actually a ramped-up version of the very free-market dogma whose consequences we've been experiencing for quite some time.

Interestingly, this same artful maneuver also shows up far from the domain of Goldman Sachs and BP. Consider the way children are raised in our culture. I think it can be argued that the dominant problem with parenting isn't permissiveness; it's a fear of permissiveness that leads us to be excessively controlling. For every example of a child who is permitted to run wild in a public place, there are hundreds of examples of children being restricted unnecessarily, yelled at, threatened, or bullied by their parents, children whose protests are routinely ignored and whose questions are dismissed out of hand, children who have become accustomed to hearing an automatic "No!" in response to their requests, and a "Because I said so!" if they ask for a reason.

But traditionalists -- who, when it comes to children, include a discouraging number of political liberals -- have persuaded us to ignore the epidemic of punitive parenting and focus instead on the occasional example of overindulgence -- sometimes even to the point of pronouncing an entire generation spoiled. (It's revealing that similar alarms have been raised for decades, if not centuries.) To create the impression that kids today are out of control is to justify a call for even tighter restrictions, tougher discipline, more punishment. And, again, this is billed as a courageous departure from contemporary parenting practices rather than identified for what it is: an intensification of the control-oriented model that, as I've argued elsewhere, has already done incalculable damage.

Consider, finally, the case of education. Seymour Papert, known for his work on artificial intelligence, began one of his books by inviting us to imagine a group of surgeons and a group of teachers, both from a century ago, who are magically transported to the present day. The surgeons visit a modern operating room and struggle to understand what's going on, but the teachers feel right at home in today's schools. Kids, they discover, are still segregated by age in rows of classrooms; are still made to sit passively and listen (or practice skills) most of the time; are still tested and graded, rewarded or punished; still set against one another in contests and deprived of any real say about what they're doing.

Those tempted to point defensively to updates in the delivery system only end up underscoring how education is still about delivering knowledge to empty receptacles. In fact, snazzier technology -- say, posting grades or homework assignments on-line -- mostly serves to distract us from rethinking the pedagogy. Interactive whiteboards in classrooms amount to a 21st-century veneer on old-fashioned, teacher-centered instruction.

But enter now the school "reformers": big-city superintendents like Joel Klein and, until recently, Michelle Rhee; big-money people like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and a batch of hedge fund managers; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his ideological soulmates who preceded him in the Bush Administration; Waiting for 'Superman' director Davis Guggenheim; and the reporters, editorial writers, and producers at just about every mass media outlet in the U.S. School reform, as these people understand it, and as I've discussed in a previous post, involves a relentless regimen of standardized testing; a push to direct funds to charter schools, many of them run by for-profit corporations; a weakening of teachers' job protection -- and the vilification of unions that represent teachers -- so that those who have failed to raise their students' test scores can be publicly humiliated or fired; threats to shut down low-scoring schools; initiatives to dangle money in front of teachers who follow orders and raise scores, or even in front of certain (low-income) students; and a contest for funding in which only (some) states willing to adopt this bribe-and-threat agenda will receive desperately needed federal money.

This business-style version of reform is routinely described as "bold" or "daring" -- in contrast to the "failed status quo," which is blamed on the teachers' unions. (With education, just as with parenting, even people who are reasonably progressive on other issues suddenly sound as if they're auditioning for Fox News.) There's much to be said about each of the policies I've listed, but for now the point to be emphasized is that, just as with the Tea Partyers who rally to stop the "tyranny" of mild federal checks on corporate power, or the parenting writers who urge us to "dare to discipline" our children (even though 94 percent of parents of preschoolers admit to spanking their children), the school reformers are in fact accelerating what has already been happening over the last couple of decades.

Even before the implementation of what should be called the Many Children Left Behind Act, states and school districts were busy standardizing curricula, imposing more and more tests, and using an array of rewards and punishments to pressure teachers and students to fall in line -- with the most extreme version of this effort reserved for the inner cities. Before anyone outside of Texas had heard of George W. Bush, many of us had been calling attention to the fact that these policies were turning schools into glorified test-prep centers, driving some of the most innovative teachers to leave the profession, and increasing the drop-out rate among kids of color.

Yet the so-called reformers have succeeded in convincing people that their top-down, test-driven approach -- in effect, the status quo on steroids -- is a courageous rejection of what we've been doing.

Here's what would be new: questioning all the stuff that Papert's early 20th-century visitors would immediately recognize: a regimen of memorizing facts and practicing skills that features lectures, worksheets, quizzes, report cards and homework. But the Gates-Bush-Obama version of "school reform" not only fails to call those things into question; it actually intensifies them, particularly in urban schools. The message, as educator Harvey Daniels observed, consists of saying in effect that "what we're doing [in the classroom] is OK, we just need to do it harder, longer, stronger, louder, meaner..."

Real education reform would require us to consider the elimination of many features that we've come to associate with school, so perhaps the reluctance to take such suggestions seriously is just a specific instance of the "whatever is, is right" bias that psychologists keep documenting. At the same time, traditionalists -- educational or otherwise -- know that it's politically advantageous to position themselves as being outside the establishment. Our challenge is to peer through the fog of rhetoric, to realize that what's being billed as reform should seem distinctly familiar -- and not particularly welcome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alfie-kohn/how-to-sell-conservatism-_b_767040.html

Waiting for sanity in education reform. By George Wood

2010-10-29T13:08:00.001-04:00

This fall brought not only the start of another school year but plenty of noise about schools as well. A movie, a manifesto, and a mayoral election in Washington D.C. all amplified the ongoing debate about who the real education reformers are. Noise and more noise.

Thank goodness for the sane voices that arose in the midst of all this. There is Diane Ravitch with her continued campaign that brings us back to what is really at stake when filmmakers try to bend public opinion. And Mike Rose, always close to the ground, reminding us of what school reform really involves.

Now comes the news that, in light of whatever is going to happen on Nov. 2nd, the Obama administration is looking for ways to work with the next Congress and has targeted, among other things, No Child Left Behind.

Yikes.

With the level of animosity and acrimony currently filling the airways it is hard to imagine that Congress and the president will do anything together, let alone the long overdue overhaul of NCLB. I worry about the common ground they might actually reach: grading teachers by student tests scores, breaking unions, putting every kid in a charter school. None of these strategies has been proven as a recipe for the schools our children need and our communities deserve, but lack of evidence has never stopped us before.

With all of this in mind I have decided to trek off to Washington this weekend and join Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity. Why? Because I want to talk to some folks and see if they might accept a few basic principles around what it would take to shore up our public school system. I want to see if they are willing to take seriously the Jeffersonian ideal that public education is vital to a healthy democracy, and the notion that now, as much as any time in our history, we need such a system of public schools.

I haven’t been invited to speak at the rally, but if Stewart calls, here is what I might say:

“America’s public schools are a national treasure and it is past time that we started treating them as such. Every one of you here today probably has a schoolteacher to thank for the fact that you can read, add, and think rationally. A teacher who opened your mind to new ideas, who helped you speak that mind and listen when others spoke theirs. It’s a great system, and it opens its doors to every kid no matter their race or nationality, no matter what language they speak or if they can speak at all, no matter rich or poor, motivated or not, whole or impaired.

“We have spent too much time the blaming our schools for all that ails us. Sure schools could do better—but so could the banks, big business, and Congress. Schools, our teachers, and our kids, are not responsible for the economic strains our nation feels; or for the loosening bonds that threaten the civil discourse our republic requires. They are, however, part of the solution to these threats to our social security. But only if we come together on a few things in the name of a saner approach to making sure every kid has a good public school to attend.

“First, we have to admit that as much as schools can do, they can’t do it alone. It is hard for a child who is homeless, hungry, or in pain to heed the lessons of her teacher. America should, as part of education policy, work to see that every child is safe and secure, has good medical care, a roof over her head, and food in her stomach.

“Second, we must all admit that there is no doing a good school system on the cheap. America is 14th among the 16 industrialized nations in how much we spend on our kids’ education. But it is not just how much we spend, it is where we spend it. In the Harlem Children’s Zone, a project that considers all of what it takes to raise a child, the charter schools are spending one-third more than the public schools in the city, and they still are struggling.

"This is not a condemnation of that important work—it just means we should admit that we are going to have to invest heavily and in a targeted way if we want our schools to work for all our kids.

“Third, over 90% of our schools are good old regular public schools—not a charter or a choice, just where kids go to school. If we are serious about every child having a good school, it won’t be by creating a few fancy alternative schools. It will be by improving all of our schools.

“Fourth, we already know what works. All our schools--charters, magnets, public--have had successes, but we don’t seem to learn from them. Successful schools are places filled with good teachers who are well supported, where strong connections are built with students and families, where kids do real work not just read textbooks or listen to lectures, and where kids are evaluated by what they can do not by what test question they can answer. They also are places not segregated by social class.

“So what would a sane person, perchance a sane Congress, do to help and support our kids and schools? Hate to be simplistic, but here you go—We have to shore up our safety net for all kids to have access to health care, food, and shelter; use federal resources to get dollars to kid in the most need; and focus on all schools using the lessons learned from our most innovative and successful schools and getting the regulations and rules that prevent this change out of the way.

“This is what I wish for my school, your school, all schools. We don’t need Superman. We just need some sanity.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/waiting-for-sanity.html

This Boy's Life. by Kaydonna Wolfcale

2010-10-28T12:34:00.000-04:00

Within the first hour of life, Ryder held his strong head up and looked around at his new world. He didn't even seem like a baby; he was mature-looking, heavy and huge. Over the next few months, he grew fast. He was wearing 24-month clothes at six months.

My son was advanced in everything he did. He rolled over the first time at five weeks (got it on video!) and he crawled, walked, ran and jumped long before he was supposed to.
Ryder_n.jpg

He had muscles, strong bones and a strut just like his daddy. By 12 months, he could jump flat footed up each step on the porch.

At his 18-month checkup, Dr. Young asked what words he could say. I said, "He can say everything. He talks in sentences." My English-teacher sister said, "He can even conjugate verbs!"

Some mornings I would read him 15 books before 9:00 a.m. He could "read" some of the books too--he had lines memorized from his favorite videos, and had a "Handy Dandy Notebook" that he carried around, like Steve in "Blue's Clues." He was amazingly smart and had an unbelievable memory and creativity.

At 21 months, he knew all his ABCs (out of order) and numbers and could identify shapes. He didn't go to preschool. I was a kindergarten teacher staying home to raise my babies.

Then, he turned five. Nine months later, he started kindergarten. He was very independent and happy to start to school. It was time and he was ready! Such a tough, strong confident little dude. And kindergarten was fine. His teacher said he was "wonderful." He already knew everything he needed to know. Ahead of so many others in his class.

During first grade things started to change. He started to not like school. Homework was hard. He would cry and say he had a stomach ache. I would take him to school and not be able to get him out of the car. He would cry and say he was sick.

Many times he said, "My teacher only likes the girls." I knew the worksheet/paper-pencil curriculum was geared more to girls, but Ryder was excited about reading chapter books and loved the magic tree house books. We bought the whole set at Wal-Mart! Although he didn't really love school, he made good grades. During this first grade year, his beloved Grammy lost her long battle with cancer.

Second grade was great. His teacher was young, fresh out of college and pretty! He loved her and she loved him - no question about it. He still made good grades in school. He applied for a motocross race to be held in Texas Stadium. Part of the application was a copy of his report card and a referral from his teacher. I remember thinking he would be the smartest kid entering the race!

Then third grade--an absolute disaster. Worksheet after worksheet after worksheet. My smart little boy was slowly disappearing. I am totally against medicating a child to concentrate - but we were suddenly in desperate survival mode, wondering if medication was our only option. The timed math fact pages-- three a night! --were driving us insane. He just couldn't memorize the math facts and the pressure of timed tests was almost abusive.

He HATED to read--but had to meet the Accelerated Reading goals or he would be left behind when the class took the AR reward trip to Wonderland Park. So he met his goal - but hated every single story. He was overwhelmed by reading test-prep worksheets. Most of the grades on those worksheets were failing. He did pass the high-stakes TAKS test that year - but he hated school so much, many nights he would cry himself to sleep. I collected over 1,000 test prep worksheets, most with failing grades--all completed in a single year.

Frustrated, we left public school and enrolled Ryder in a private school. The advertisement sounded too good to be true --everything I believed in, aligned with research-based best practice. His 4th grade teacher told me, in the second week of school, what a terrible student Ryder was. She had a class full of troublemakers and he was one of them. His work quickly went downhill. I didn't even recognized his handwriting; it was worse than it had been in first grade. Suddenly it seemed my son had some kind of problem. Learning disability? Dyslexia? What? Why is he suddenly a failure?

Thank goodness for sports and motocross. It was good for Ryder to come home and get on his motorcycle and go as fast as he could, flying over huge jumps. He won hundreds of trophies, racing all over the country. He loved baseball and made the All-Star teams in 3rd and 4th grades. Sports were always his stress relievers and where he found success.

He survived 5th grade with a kind, easy-going teacher. By 6th grade, it was clear that it was time to go back to public school. The private school had fewer resources and teachers lacked training. All three of my boys are rough and tough small-town country boys and seemed out of place in the private school.

We transferred to another school. Suddenly, success with all three kids-- a complete turnaround! The best part was the extra activities. Ryder got to play drums in the band! He loved playing percussion and really enjoyed band class. But when he didn't pass the TAKS math test and barely passed reading, he was informed he would have to take study hall instead of band. Instead of computer class, he would need two math classes. We still loved our new school, especially the athletic program. But mid-football season, I got a call from the doctor: the MRI results were in, the summer elbow injury was worse than we knew. No more 7th grade football, as the damaged growth plate needed weeks of 100% rest.

I also got a note from one of his favorite teachers, "Ryder is not trying in school. After he stopped playing football, he just quit trying in class." My first thought was to discipline him. But then I realized--everything he loves to do has been taken away: football, motocross, drumming. Because he's left-handed, he was having a hard time doing his school work. When he was finally allowed to use his left arm again, it was just in time for TAKS test season.

During track season Ryder, who never complains of pain, started to complain that track was ruining his knees--that he couldn't run fast any more. A few days before the first track meet, I e-mailed the coach and much to my surprise he replied, "Ryder can't go to the track meet. He didn't pass science. We were counting on him helping our team, we are very disappointed." I didn't know--a surprise, and an embarrassment.

His reading and language arts teacher was concerned he might be dyslexic. I asked that he be tested. But a school committee decided to not test him for dyslexia. I went to see the principal. who said Ryder was getting better on his benchmark tests. If he passed the test, we would know he does not have a problem.

The next day I sent a written request demanding that he be tested. But the TAKS test came before the dyslexia test. He didn't pass two of his TAKS test.

Two weeks before the end of 7th grade he was finally diagnosed as dyslexic--two weeks before 8th grade. There is only one dyslexia specialist, so as an 8th grader he went to her class at the elementary school for an hour and a half. He didn't want to go to the elementary school. He didn't want help. He just wanted to be left alone at this point.

Ryder was supposed to be at his dyslexia class at 7:15 each morning in the elementary school. He HATED the class. He was learning letters and sounds and cursive handwriting--all "baby stuff." He was angry about having to go.

It doesn't look like he will get to play football this year. Several times, he has said he wished he could go back to band class. His friends are having so much fun and he loves to play the drums. Because of his TAKS test scores, he isn't allowed to take band class.

We discovered he had major growth plate damage to both knees. Running track really did ruin his knees. There is now a possibility he will never get to play football again. All of his classes are to improve his academics in order to pass the tests. He now believes there is no way he can pass 8th grade. He can't do motocross, because he can't use his knees until they heal. This is a tough season for my awesome, talented son-- 8th grade is a very important year. He is learning to be a teenager. He needs a success.

If only I could rewind to the days last spring when he told me "track is ruining my knees." I keep thinking about the time when the coach sent Ryder to run--for punishment--the mile. He took the punishment, running that mile after two months of excruciating pain in his knees.

The dyslexia? I recently voiced my concerns about Ryder sitting in little kindergarten chairs learning letter sounds. The teacher very quickly said she would end the extra class. What a relief! Suddenly, Ryder was excited to get to school again. At his 504 meeting a few weeks ago, his reading teacher told me he could read on an 8.6 reading level. He still has a hard time getting his work done and he doesn't like to read, but the teacher said he actually reads better than a large percentage of his classmates.

Does he really have dyslexia? Or burn-out? Or high-stakes test-induced dyslexia that began in third grade? His K/1/2 teachers all told me they remember his great reading and writing abilities. What happened in 3rd grade?

I know everything happens for a reason, but it's been very hard for a mother to watch her son go from smart, athletic and so successful to being a kid whose potential has been denied.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2010/10/this_boys_life.html

Demonizing Public Education By Diane Ravitch

2010-10-26T15:47:00.001-04:00

I reviewed "Waiting for 'Superman'" for The New York Review of Books. I thought the movie was very slick, very professional, and very propagandistic. It is one-sided and very contemptuous of public education. Notably, the film portrayed not a single successful regular public school, and its heroic institutions were all charter schools.

There are many inaccuracies in the movie. One that I describe in my review is Davis Guggenheim's claim that 70 percent of 8th grade students read "below grade level." He has a graphic where state after state is shown to have only a small proportion of students reading "on grade level" or "proficient." The numbers are based on data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But Guggenheim is wrong. NAEP doesn't report grade levels. It reports achievement levels, and these do not correspond to grade levels. Nor does he understand the NAEP achievement levels or just how demanding NAEP's "proficiency" level really is. To score below "proficient" on NAEP does NOT mean "below grade level."

NAEP has four achievement levels.

The top level is called "advanced," which represents the very highest level of student performance. Students who are "advanced" probably are at an A+; if they were taking an SAT, they would likely score somewhere akin to 750-800. These are the students who are likely to qualify for admission to our most selective universities.

Then comes "proficient," which represents solid academic performance, equivalent to an A or a very strong B. Guggenheim assumes that any student who is below "proficient" cannot read at "grade level." He is wrong.

The third level is "basic." These are students who have achieved partial mastery of the knowledge and skills necessary to be proficient. This would be equivalent, I believe, to a grade of C. Many (if not most) states use NAEP's "basic" as their own definition of "proficient." This is because they know that it is unrealistic to expect all students to be "A" students.

* "Below basic" is the category that appears to be what Guggenheim means by his reference to "below grade level." But in 8th grade reading, 25 percent of students are below basic, not 70 percent. If Guggenheim knew what he was talking about, he might have said that 70 percent of 8th grade students were unable to score the equivalent of an A, but that would not be an alarming figure. It would not be a very dramatic story had he said, in sonorous tones, "25 percent of our 8th grade students are 'below basic' in reading, and that figure includes students who are learning English and students with disabilities."

He also erred in setting up charter schools as the singular answer to the nation's education problems, especially since he admits that only one in five charters gets "amazing results." The actual number that get amazing results is far smaller. In the CREDO study to which he refers, it is 17 percent, not 20 percent, closer to one in six, that outperform a matched neighborhood public school. Not all of those one in six get "amazing results," just better results than a nearby comparable school. I was told by Professor Ed Fuller at the University of Texas, who studies Texas charters, that only a couple dozen charters out of 300 in the state get "amazing results," and that many more get "abysmal" results. But you won't hear anything about that in this polemical film.

There are excellent charter schools, as there are excellent public schools. I saw one last week when I visited the KIPP flagship school in Houston, a K-12 school set on 35 acres. But it polarizes the national discussion to treat public education as a failed institution, as this film does.

The aggressive movement to lionize charters and to demonize public schools is scary because there is so much money and power pushing this agenda. I urge you to read this account by Barbara Miner, who is deeply suspicious of the billionaire hedge fund managers and foundations behind this movement. It disturbs me that the CEO of Participant Media, one of the main producers of the "Waiting for 'Superman' " film, was previously the CEO of a chain of for-profit post-secondary institutions, a sector that is now under fire in Congress for its shoddy recruitment practices and its high default rates on federally funded student loans. The man behind the other producer, Walden Media, donates heavily to conservative think-tanks, which promote privatization, vouchers, and school choice.

How socially useful is it to destroy public confidence in an essential public institution? Shouldn't we work together to improve the schools, rather than handing over our children to the private sector? I know it is the vogue now to privatize public libraries, public hospitals, public parks, prison facilities, and other public sector institutions. What will be next on the chopping block? But why give away public schools to the private sector? The private sector does not get better results on average than the public sector, not (according to NAEP) for black students or Hispanic students or urban students or low-income students. But even if it did, we should be wary of undermining one of the bedrock agencies of our democracy. This meretricious film offers fake answers for real problems.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/10/dear_deborah_i_reviewed_waitin.html

Study: Children Need Time to Develop By Pamela McLoughlin

2010-10-21T08:02:00.001-04:00

If you’re pushing preschoolers to read and write, you might want to reconsider and rewind back to basics, experts said Thursday.

In a nation “consumed with sooner and faster,” including in education, young students are being pushed academically at the expense of developing crucial social and problem-solving skills, Gesell Institute of Human Development Executive Director Marcy Guddemi said Thursday, in announcing results of a three-year study.

Guddemi, who highlighted the study at a press conference as the institute prepares for its 60th anniversary year, said children are developing at the same rate neurologically as they did when Dr. Arnold Gesell did his pioneering work in the 1940s, yet, they’re being pushed to do everything sooner.

A statement from the institute also announced the honorary award they were to give to Edward Zigler, founder of Head Start, Thursday night.

Guddemi said children who learn to read by age 4 have no advantage by third grade over children who master reading at 5 or 6 years old. Instead, they miss out on developing other strengths, she said.

“You can’t push developmental milestones,” she said. “Children have sets of abilities that are definitively bound by their developmental level. Those developmental abilities of a child are directly related to their success at processing the information given to them and to perform the tasks asked of them.”

The results of the fast track approach haven’t brought better test scores, she said. Rather, studies show children feel like failures now by pre-K age, are being expelled at four times the rate of children in kindergarten through 12th grade and have not fully developed qualities such as persistence, creativity, cooperation and communication, “that are necessary in the adult job market,” Guddemi said.

Gesell Institute’s national study on children’s development drew on a nationwide sample of about 1,300 3- to 6-year-olds from 53 schools in 23 states, from a variety of demographic and economic backgrounds.

Guddemi said quality early education programs for ages 3 to third grade, the years defined as early education, are essential in providing proper experiences and exploration, rather than to learn more letters earlier.

Guddemi said “Unfortunately, in an effort to close achievement gaps,” parents and schools have embraced a philosophy that earlier is better.

In response to the study, the institute is encouraging schools to reshape their curricula to incorporate more age appropriate activities and asking that school administrators become better educated in early childhood fundamentals through Gesell professional development programs.

Mayor John Destefano Jr., who proclaimed Thursday as “Gesell Institute Leadership and Discovery Day,” said New Haven prides itself on providing good early childhood education—noting a renewed focus on pre-K here 10 years ago—and said the city school system looks forward to “continued collaboration” with Gesell Institute.

He said education is key to violence reduction.

Gesell Institute of Human Development, founded in 1950, is an independent, non-profit organization that is based on the work of Gesell documenting infant and child growth and development during the 1900s. Gesell was founding director of the Yale Child Study Center in 1911.

http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2010/10/15/mct_childrendevelopmenttime.html?tkn=RLOFM9nx43w3jh6/ykI8gSCkyhMiaS2wNvM9&cmp=clp-edweek

The Chamber of Commerce's flawed 'Superman' school reform guide. By Valerie Strauss

2010-10-20T08:07:00.001-04:00

In a shameless act of movie flacking, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce just published a guide for business leaders on school reform that is linked to and reinforces the skewed vision of public education portrayed in the movie “Waiting for Superman.”

Meddling in an area about which it obviously doesn’t know much, the chamber issued a guide called “The Superman Approach: A business leader’s guide to effective education reform.”

The guide mimics the movie in extolling charter schools and test-driven data while portraying teachers unions as evil. It does this in part by comparing what the mild-mannered Clark Kent would do with his more dynamic alter-ego, Superman (obviously forgetting that the two are actually one and the same and that the superhero uses both approaches).

It really does this, addressing the business leader who reads this as an 8-year-old; I’m not making it up:

“What would Clark Kent do?
• Support local bond drives to provide more dollars for schools without demanding reforms in exchange
• Hold a “principal for a day” event for area CEOs to learn about the inner workings of a school
Some of these aren’t bad ideas, but they aren’t game changers.

So, what would Superman do?
• Work to increase the caliber of leader "

This would be funny if the chamber wasn't powerful by virtue of being the world’s largest business federation.

The folks at the chamber obviously think they are serving the interests of their millions of members, helping to fix broken schools so that America will have the work force it needs for the 21st century, but the way it proposes to do this will actually hurt the public schools, and, therefore, the rest of the country.

Says the guide:

“Traditionally, we in the business community, like most other partners, have taken something of a “Clark Kent” approach to helping our students and schools. We’ve been supportive and encouraging by mentoring children, sponsoring special events and field trips, donating supplies, and funding scholarships. These are all worthwhile activities that should be continued—but they’re not enough.”

The guide argues that the public school system, the country’s most important civic institution, should be run like a business, a philosophy championed by some of the most high-profile school reformers today.

It would be a good idea if it could work, but it can’t, because teaching children of all varying abilities and backgrounds and isn’t like selling shoes. Business people can wish it were all they want, but education is a far more complicated process that can’t be reduced to spreadsheets and charts of data.

The effort to do so -- now being supported by the Chamber of Commerce, some of the country’s biggest philanthropists, and the Obama administration -- is weakening the public schools and, ultimately, will make it harder to build a dedicated cadre of effective teachers and improve the achievement rates of minorities.

It has been said many times on this blog, but the key elements of this sort of reform path have no grounding in research. You can see a point by point critique of the Superman movie here, and here, a thorough analysis of what Superman would have done (and why the film’s director Davis Guggenheim really should have called it Waiting for Batman).

The guide summarizes all of the initiatives that, together, are effectively taking the public system down the dangerous road to privatization. Some examples:

*The guide portrays charter schools as the answer to education’s troubles. It takes no account of the largest study on charter schools conducted so far, which showed that most charter schools are no better or worse than their neighborhood traditional public schools.

Do charter schools have more flexibility than traditional schools? Yes, they do, but, interestingly, most of them aren’t innovative at all.

There is no reason that the traditional schools, which educate some 95 percent or more of the nation’s children, can’t be reformed to serve all children. And in fact, some of the most innovative schools are within traditional systems. The picture of regular school districts as all hide-bound disasters is a myth, just as is the notion that charter schools are the answer.

The guide points to as a fine example of a school system the one in New Orleans that has been under reconstruction since Hurricane Katrina. That system, unlike any other in the country, consists primarily of charter schools.

*The guide calls for alternative routes to teacher certification and lauds programs such as Teach for America, which takes new college graduates, trains them to teach for about five or six weeks, and then sends them into the country’s toughest schools, apparently to perform wonders on a wave of enthusiasm and optimism.

Some of these young people do, in fact, accomplish extraordinary things under the toughest conditions, but the vast majority leave teaching after a few years. It takes at least a few years for a teacher to become truly effective, research shows. So where does that leave the kids?

The continued, unprecedented assault on the country’s teachers is driving out the very best ones, and, incidentally, is exactly the opposite approach of the very countries that school reformers like to hold up as models, such as Finland.

How many times have you heard that we should do what Finland did to improve our system? Well, if we did that, we’d stop blaming teachers and we’d elevate the profession, not tear it down. That’s what the Finns did.

There is much, much more that is wrong with the guide and the approach it takes to reform; for example, it calls for paying teachers according to student achievement, for example, even though there are many other factors that affect a student's progress beside the teacher.

But but read it for yourself, here. And then start to really worry, because the forces arrayed against traditional public schools are getting stronger every day.

And don't let anybody fool you. That's not a good thing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/chamber-of-commerces-flawed-su.html#more

Real Public Education Principles. by Anne Geiger

2010-10-14T12:05:00.000-04:00

In knowing the great strength and legacy of public education in the United States, we the American people seek to implant these principles ....(this is where "best teachers," "best principals" and "excellence" come in...)

#1 Principle: Children are our most important treasure. The education of children in our public schools will be based on egalitarian, democratic principles, and built on community, not "supply and demand."

#2 Principle: Teachers are our most important human resource. We will develop, empower, support, and sustain the best teaching force on the planet. We will ensure that they are highly educated, led by exceptional instructional leaders, and evaluated in fair and comprehensive ways.

#3 Principle: Public schools are our most important avenues for creating and sustaining a healthy society and vibrant economy. Our public school system in partnership with families and communities will work to educate our children by meeting their individual needs, unleashing in them creativity, resourcefulness and their own unique abilities, instilling in them rich knowledge across subjects and expertise in the arts and world languages, and equipping them with the skills needed to think, innovate, contribute, and lead fulfilling lives. Standardized testing will be one tool among many, NOT a singular, disproportionate way of measuring success.

#4 Principle: Community is our most important civic framework for protecting, supporting, engaging and empowering our children. To provide the conditions for success, we will work to ensure that all children and their families, no matter where they live, will have access to green parks, nutritious food, high-quality health care, bountiful books, robust communication networks, safe transportation, vital commerce and strong community infrastructure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/the-reform-manifesto----point.html#more

How to save schools right now: Let teachers teach. By LouAnne Johnson

2010-10-11T12:44:00.000-04:00

We don’t have to wait for Superman to save our public schools. We can save our schools ourselves. Right now. Without firing the teachers or disbanding their unions. Without creating more standardized tests. Without pitting schools against each other in a race for dollars which should rightfully be divided equally among the school-age children of this country.

As with many complex problems, the answer is a simple one -- so simple that it is overlooked.

The answer can be stated in seven words that even a child could understand: Train teachers well -- then let them teach.

The problem with public schools isn’t lack of parental support or computers or equipment. It isn’t an overabundance of television or junk food or violence. Those things contribute to the problem.
No argument. And money is helpful. But throughout the world, there always have been students who learned to think and read and write with very limited supplies, sometimes without a classroom or textbooks, without standardized tests, without merit pay for their teachers. Those students learned because their teachers were permitted to teach.

Most American teachers are good at their jobs -- when they are allowed to do their jobs. And that is the primary problem with our public schools. Teachers are not allowed to teach.

Or rather, they are told how to teach in such great detail and required to document what they are teaching in such great detail and expected to spend so much time teaching students to pass the tests that will prove the teachers have paid such great attention to detail that the teachers don’t have time to teach the information and skills their students need.

Money isn’t the answer.

Teachers appreciate being well-paid, but most of them don’t enter the profession for the money and that is another reason why so many people misunderstand the situation. Many people work for their paychecks.

Of course, teachers appreciate being paid for their work, but most of us are willing to work for far less than we could earn elsewhere because we are passionate about the work we do. We know how important it is to educate the next generation of Americans. We don’t work for paychecks -- we work for pupils. Paying us more will make us happier but it won’t make us better teachers.

Better training and preparation make us better teachers. Objective observation and helpful feedback make us better teachers. Mentoring and staff development and sharing best practices make us better teachers.

Mediocre teachers don’t need to be fired. They need to be observed and mentored and properly trained. They need to be supported by administrators and peers and parents. They need the opportunity to watch excellent teachers in action. They need to be given the time and the tools to become good teachers -- and then if they still can’t or won’t do the job, it’s time to say goodbye.

Firing bad teachers is expensive, and firing teachers doesn’t solve the problem. The solution, again, is simple: The colleges and universities who prepare mediocre teachers, and the state licensing bureaus who license those mediocre teachers, need to be held accountable.

It is their job to train and evaluate teachers so that when those teachers are licensed and hired, they are prepared to do their jobs well. Teacher training programs and licensing bureaus need to establish and uphold high professional standards. Which brings us to the final piece of the problem puzzle.

Teachers aren’t treated or viewed as professionals by their fellow Americans, most of whom believe that because they once attended school, they are now qualified to teach school and to tell teachers how to do their jobs. Very probably, those same people have flown in airplanes, undergone surgery, or paid somebody to prepare their tax forms. Yet they don’t feel entitled to provide instruction to their pilots, doctors and accountants.

Licensed American teachers hold earned bachelor’s degrees in either a secondary content area or in elementary, childhood or special education. In addition, they have completed between two and four years of postgraduate study, including an internship or field experience comparable to the internships of medical doctors where they learn how to do their jobs under the guidance of experienced mentors .

After completing their academic programs, teachers undergo criminal background checks and apply for licensure, at their own expense. They spend days taking hundreds of dollars worth of tests -- again at their own expense -- to prove that they have the basic skills (math, science, reading, and writing) and the content knowledge (English, social studies, visual arts, mathematics, and so on), and the pedagogical expertise (zone of proximal development, designing assessment rubrics, differentiating instruction, engaging the amygdala) required to do their jobs.

Don’t know what the zone of proximal development is or how to identify it? Don’t know how to design an assessment rubric or how to differentiate instruction effectively? Haven’t got a clue how to grab the attention of an adolescent amygdala?

Then you probably aren’t a teacher.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/how-to-save-schools-let-teache.html

I Am Furious, and It Keeps Me Running. By Diane Ravitch

2010-10-05T15:46:00.001-04:00

You asked what keeps me running, which I assume means how I find the energy to stay on the road week after week, speaking to teachers, parents, school board members, and concerned citizens. These days, I am running because of an inner rage at the attacks on teachers and public education. I see one of our most important public institutions under siege by people who want to privatize it, turn it into profit centers, and treat children as data points on a chart. This is wrong, and it will end badly. Critics say I defend the status quo, but nothing could be further from the truth. The status quo is awful, but the demonizing of teachers and the vilification of public education are even worse.

Last week, I was in Los Angeles. I spoke to L.A. teachers, who were shamed by the Los Angeles Times' disgraceful release of test-score data and ratings of 6,000 elementary teachers as more or less effective. I had previously believed that such ratings (value-added assessment) might be used cautiously by supervisors as one of multiple measures to evaluate teacher performance. The L.A. Times persuaded me that the numerical scores—with all their caveats and flaws—would drown out every other measure. And, in fact, the L.A. Times database contained only one measure, based on test scores.

And so I concluded that value-added assessment should not be used at all. Never. It has a wide margin of error. It is unstable. A teacher who is highly effective one year may get a different rating the next year depending on which students are assigned to his or her class. Ratings may differ if the tests differ. To the extent it is used, it will narrow the curriculum and promote teaching to tests. Teachers will be mislabeled and stigmatized. Many factors that influence student scores will not be counted at all.

The latest review of value-added assessment was written by New York University economist Sean Corcoran. He examines value-added assessment in Houston and New York City. He describes a margin of error so large that a teacher at the 43rd percentile (average) might actually be at the 15th percentile (below average) or the 71st percentile (above average). What is the value of such a measure? Why should it be used at all? Please read this important and well-written study.

While I was in Los Angeles, a teacher committed suicide. Rigoberto Ruelas, 39, had taught 5th graders for 14 years. He was known as unusually dedicated and caring; he worked in a gang-ridden, impoverished neighborhood. Most students in his school were English-language learners. Friends and family said he was depressed by the poor rating he received in the L.A. Times. No one will ever know what caused him to despair and take his own life. Colleagues and former students wrote beautiful tributes to him. They thought he was a wonderful teacher.

It's worth noting, however, that Los Angeles Deputy Schools Superintendent John Deasy said that Mr. Ruelas had a "great performance review" from his supervisors, but Mr. Deasy couldn't release the personnel records because they are confidential. So only the test scores were released to the media, not the laudatory reviews by professionals who observed his work.

Now I hear that more districts, prodded on by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Race to the Top principles, want to release value-added rankings. More teachers will learn that they are subpar or superior when judged by flawed, dubious, inaccurate measures.

How many other ways can we discover to ruin teachers' reputations and encourage teachers to abandon their profession? Why isn't there a public outcry that such tactics undermine professionalism and the quality of education? When will we learn that we have turned education into a numbers racket, and we may lose the best teachers along with the worst?

In this week after NBC's one-sided slam against teachers, unions, and public education, I am furious. And it keeps me running.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/10/dear_deborah_you_asked_what.html

Why won't Congress admit NCLB failed? By Monty Neill

2010-10-01T14:08:00.001-04:00

The 2010 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll on U.S. schools reminds us that Americans do not believe that the federal No Child Left law helps improve education. The 2008 Kappa survey found that four out of five people think classroom-based evidence of student learning, such as grades, teacher observations, or samples of student work (the most popular), provides a more accurate picture of student work than do student test scores.

The United States is virtually alone among nations in testing in so many grades. Top-ranked Finland barely tests at all, while Singapore tests in a few grades. That’s the range among nations with better results than the U.S. on international exams, graduation rates, and increasingly college entry and completion.

Research shows that NCLB causes curriculum narrowing, intense teaching to the test, and worsening school climate. The rate of progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress has declined since the law was implemented, while it’s clear now that scores on state tests are greatly inflated. Testing even more with slightly different exams, which the federally-funded state testing consortia aim to do, is not a solution.

But the real issue is Congress’ reluctance to rethink its assumptions.

Why is Congress so unwilling to recognize the research and public opinion, and overhaul the most basic fact of NCLB: Its reliance on standardized tests to judge and control schools, and if President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have their way, teachers as well?

Why won’t Congress recognize that high-stakes testing has failed, and move in new directions?

Certainly not all members of Congress think alike, but here are some key factors behind the unwillingness to change:

Most important, the de facto alliance among corporate groups such as the Business Roundtable, a growing list of high-tech and hedge-fund billionaires, a few large foundations (Gates, Broad and Walton among them), Duncan's Education Department, and major national media has spent tens of millions of dollars and used extensive networks to promote their ideas.

They have created the new status quo of test-based accountability and increasing privatization, which they promote as “reform” even though it doesn’t work.

Second, too many students are not getting a good enough education, and these students are overwhelmingly poor, of color, speak English as a second language, or have a disability. The victims of the policies that produced this situation demand change.

The choice, however, was never between do nothing or focus on high-stakes testing. Better options have always existed. But these have been under-financed, not supported by the most visible and wealthy sectors in society. They also are more complex, not simplistic like tests, making them harder to sell with sound bites – as if the mind and learning were simple!

Testing is a cheap “fix.” Genuinely improving schools and teaching, and overcoming the poverty and segregation that are still the most significant factors in student outcomes, are expensive, complex and politically difficult. Too many members of Congress – and their state counterparts - are willing to accept the cheap way out, even if it is no solution at all.

If you believe NCLB’s approach is not working, you are in good company. Voters are beginning to reject educational ‘deform,’ the defeat in the D.C. Democratic primary of Mayor Adrian Fenty, who installed Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, being the most visible. Your voice is essential to making Congress respect the will of the people, not the will of the elites promoting the failed policies of high-stakes testing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/why-wont-congress-admit-nclb-f.html

Merit Pay Fails Another Test. By Diane Ravitch

2010-09-29T15:20:00.001-04:00

One of the signature issues of businesspeople and conservative Republicans for the past 30 years has been merit pay. They believe in competition, and they believe that financial rewards can be used to incentivize better performance, so it seems natural for them to conclude that merit pay or performance pay would incentivize teachers to produce better results.

Note that they assume that most people—in this case, teachers—are lazy and need a promise of dollars to be incentivized to get higher scores for their students. It never seems to occur to them that many people are doing their best (think people who play sports, always striving to do their best without any expectation of payment) and continue to do so because of intrinsic rewards or because of an innate desire to serve others. Teachers should certainly be well compensated, but not many enter the classroom with money as their primary motivation.

Although teachers need and want higher pay, they are strongly opposed to individual merit pay. They know that it destroys the collaboration and teamwork that are essential to the culture of the school. They know this even though few of them are familiar with the work of W. Edwards Deming, the business guru, who warned American business against ratings and merit pay. (See Andrea Gabor's The Man Who Discovered Quality, Chapter 9.) Deming said it nourishes rivalry and short-term planning, while undermining morale and long-term planning.

Few people realize that merit pay schemes have been tried again and again since the 1920s. Belief in them waxes and wanes, but the results have never been robust.

Now we have the findings of the most thorough trial of teacher merit pay, conducted by first-rate economists at the National Center for Performance Incentives. Many people expected that this trial would show positive results because the bonus for getting higher scores was so large: Teachers in the treatment group could get up to $15,000 for higher scores.

After a three-year trial, the researchers concluded that the teachers in the treatment group did not get better results than those in the control group, who were not in line to get a bonus. There was a gain for 5th graders in the treatment group, but it washed out in 6th grade.

Bottom line: Merit pay made no difference. Teachers were working as hard as they knew how, whether for a bonus or not.

But to what effect? The very next day after the release of the Nashville study, the U.S. Department of Education handed out many millions of dollars for merit-pay programs across the country and announced its intention to spend $1.2 billion on merit pay.

Ideology trumps evidence. The enduring puzzle is why the Obama administration clings so fiercely to the GOP philosophy of incentives and sanctions as the levers for change, despite lack of evidence for their efficacy.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/

Turning schools into robot factories. By Joanne Yatvin

2010-09-24T13:33:00.001-04:00

I never miss reading the newspaper comics. Not for entertainment, but because I think their creators are some of the most intelligent and well-informed people on the public scene. As a group, they have mastered the subtleties of language, politics, philosophy, and human behavior.

Right about now I am struck by how many comics are dealing with the beginning of the school year and how uniform their messages are: Children aren’t happy about going back to school.
This is not good-natured humor. It reflects pretty accurately the feelings I hear expressed by my grandchildren and the other children I meet.

Although the excitement of new clothes and school supplies seems to soften the blow, the thought of being confined all day to over-crowded classrooms and hard seats and allowed to speak only after raising one’s hand is not a pretty prospect. Unfortunately, this picture gets uglier every year as demands for more and harder work increase, and the old respites of recess, art, music, and physical education disappear. By law, adults get breaks during their workday, but not children.

As a teacher educator and educational researcher, I have been visiting classrooms for years, and, for the most part, I don’t like what I see. Many of the once excellent teachers I know have been reduced to automatons reciting scripted lessons, focusing on mechanical skills, and rehearsing students for standardized tests. The school curriculum has become something teachers "deliver" like a pizza and students "swallow" whole, whether or not they like mushrooms.

Kindergartens that used to be places for children to learn social behavior, songs, dances, and poetry; how to build cities with blocks, play store, and express feelings with crayons and paint, are now cheerless cells for memorizing letter sounds and numbers. In one kindergarten I visited last year, children recited all the words in their little books without ever recognizing that they were part of a story.

In a first-grade classroom, I watched children march in circles at mid-morning, waving their arms because there was no longer a recess to refresh their bodies and spirits. Still, there was time enough for them to shout out the sounds of letters in chorus everyday and to memorize the words "onomatopoeia" and "metaphor."

In the upper elementary grades I saw both English and math taught by formulas. Students were given a list of the parts of a standard essay, told to use them in order and to begin with a question or a surprising statement. They were also taught the formula for dividing by fractions (as if anyone ever does such a thing) and the Pythagorean theorem (useful whenever you want to know the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle).

Many school districts have also adopted summer homework policies, usually requiring students to read a prescribed list of books. This past summer my grandnephew, who is entering 9th grade, had to write a legal brief defending or condemning Martin Luther, although he had not been taught anything about that writing form or that famous man in 8th grade.

With the new Common Core Standards, created by experts who will never be tested on them, school life will grow even more onerous.

Algebra has been moved down to the 8th grade, and geometry, always a tenth grade elective, is now required of all ninth graders. Wordsworth’s "Preface to the Lyrical Ballads," which I read as a graduate student, is on the 9th grade recommended reading list. Although, the knowledge, skills, and books in the standards are, on the whole, academically valid, they are scheduled to be taught to students two to four years too young to understand or appreciate them.

All this has happened because the politicians who now control America’s schools have adopted the worst aspects of European and Asian education, which were designed to maintain social class boundaries in those societies.

Out of a misguided belief that students’ test scores represent a country’s economic health and, perhaps, out of wounded pride; our leaders appear determined to convert our once great public schools into robot factories and to extinguish the brilliance and imagination that have fueled our country’s greatness for more than 200 years.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/elementary-school/-this-post-was-written.html