Commentary on the Keegan/Darling-Hammond Debate

I'm glad Sean Ahern joined me (two older guys in a sea of 20-somethings) at the Linda/Lisa Obama/McCain ed advisor debate webcast sponsored by NYCORE at NYU last night.

The actual debate was at Teachers College a few miles north. Glad it was as I was ready to run up and strangle them both. Lisa and her trumpeting of the Klein/Sharpton/Rhee EEP's was despicable. But Linda was fairly hapless in her responses, especially when she sidestepped Lisa's attempt to pull her into the "TFA is wonderful" trap. The host of the NYU session, Bree Picower, pointed to the NYCORE focus this year on making the Neo-liberal connections to the ed debate. Lois Weiner has written extensively on this and was the featured speaker at one of our Teachers Unite forums last year and she will be doing a session with Meghan Behrent (TJC and ISO) at an upcoming forum. Sean nails many of the points that were nagging at me during the debate. But first a few caveats. I am guessing the term "liberal" Sean uses more commonly refers to Democratic Party liberals, often misnamed as "the left," which is not the real left, who are just as disparaging of this group as Republicans. Neo-liberals in the classic European sense, so aptly dealt with by Naomi Klein in "The Shock Doctrine" are total free marketers and just off the edge of neo-conservatives. The neo-liberal world wide agenda with respect to education is not just esoteric stuff we're spouting but has a direct impact on what is going on in your classrooms. Understanding this stuff becomes increasingly important to explain the role unions like the AFT/UFT and NEA play in this scenario, all too often lining up on the wrong side.

Heeeeere's Sean

The achievement gap was trotted out early on as the games began. Which team would control the ball? True to form Lisa positioned herself behind NCLB and the "civil rights community" who supported uniform assessments. (Test score inequality is now the only form of inequality considered legitamate for media attention, that is unless poor Black and Latino homeowners are being blamed for the financial crisis)

Linda pooh poohed the notion of filling in bubble sheets. Lisa quickly turned the tables on the liberals. All those flaky alternative assessments are just liberal glosses over the gap, and it's the gap (stupid!) that needs to be reduced. Will the liberals be hoisted on their own petard? Pre-school education for all countered Linda bravely. Lisa countered, where's the evidence supporting the additional $ for pre-school? Where are the test scores! Show me the money. in neo liberal neo conservative America, test scores are equated as proof of value added or value lost. Finally, corporate cost accounting has landed on the head of the educrat nincompoops. Everyone can see how well corporate accounting has served the nation, why not extend it to education?

Linda countered but tepidly, pointing to the success of NJ which lead the way in school funding reform, granting equal state funding to all schools in the Garden State. She only stuck a toe in this big pond. Why not take a dive in?

My question, How can the 'achievement gap be reduced when the wealth gap and the race gap widens? Why are educators heeding, in effect, Cheney's favorite injunction to "stay in their lane" and not making connections? Linda Darling Hammond barely acknowledged the connection in her reference to NJ. Isn't making connections what educators are supposed to do ? And if the leaders of education won't make the connections, then who will?

Lisa lined up with Rhee in DC and NYC with thinly veiled union bashing, but no mention of Chicago's much longer 'reform 'effort? Why?

Could it be that Bill Ayers might come up as one of the proponents of Chicago's reform? Oops, that's not part of the script since McCain is using Ayers to bash Obama. But before all the liberals line up to defend Ayers supposed redemption through educational service, think twice. Ayers was wrong about the "Revolution" in 1968, and yes folks, he's wrong again about school "reform" in Chicago. Like Mr Magoo, Ayers makes a mess of everything wherever he goes but always comes out on top and always manages to be the center of media attention. Are we being played again by a media show that features false leaders, pushes them forward as the change agents, thereby discrediting change or even revolution in society and in education?

Peace,
Sean

Bailing Out the Foes of Public Education

This article dovetails the politically and ideologically based ed reform movement (as opposed to education driven) with the current bailout mania. Note how Price starts with "A Nation at Risk" in 1983, which is exactly where Vera Pavone and I started with our review of Kahlenberg's Shanker bio (see sidebar for a pdf). Shanker's embrace of ANAR was a key element in the downhill spiral of the UFT/AFT in its alliance with the business community.


Bailing Out the Foes of Public Education
Quoting Friedman All the Way ...

By TODD ALAN PRICE

We live in dubious times when staunch deregulators howl for vigorous and immediate regulation.

Lessons from the past

In 1983, the release by the Reagan administration of the report A Nation at Risk, launched over two decades of attacks on public education by right wing foundations and corporate pundits. Teachers and students were ill equipped to defend against the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute, just a few of the many shock troops aiming their sights on the public schools.

The document stated that we were losing the battle against economic powers such as Japan, "unilaterally disarming ourselves" by miseducating youth.

In a previous Fighting Bob article, Demolition Reauthorization, it was described how "some of the loudest critics of public education, the Hoover Institution, the Fordham Foundation, the Aspen Institute, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation and Fortune 500 corporations everywhere have partnered with the federal government in an effort to, they claim, save our public schools."

The strategy employed so successfully in this all out blitz of the media by supposedly august foundations and think tanks is to attack the public schools, try and drain them of funds through tax payer vouchers to private schools, then to 'save' the remaining public schools, placing them under increased regulation, and when they fail, restructure them and reopen them as newly reconstituted charter schools.

The collapse of the banking, investment and housing industry draws similar parallels.

More

The "Teacher Agenda" Defused

You hear the phony ed reformers say it all the time: schools are currently set up for adults (teachers) than for kids. What a load of bull. Like they really are setting things up for kids rather than the corporate work force. Exactly who are the people who fight for lower class size? In all my years in the system I found teachers were often the fiercest fighters for their kids.

A post today from guest blogger Yo Mis over at NYC Educator addresses this brilliantly.

Recently, at an event dubbed “Ed Challenge for Change,” certain Democratic politicians had a fine time denouncing teachers’ unions. Most curious, I thought, was Colorado State Senator Peter Groff, who complained that when the adult agenda meets the children’s agenda, “the adult agenda wins too often.” This statement led me to ponder what, exactly, is the “adult agenda” in education. Let’s assume that the “adult agenda” is roughly the “teacher agenda,” as I cannot imagine what else Sen. Groff could possibly mean.

Make sure to read the entire thing. It is Superb! I'm not sure there's any better way to say this.

One of the corrolaries is their line "schools should be for children, not adults (teachers)".

But is their agenda "for children" really favorable to children or the imposition of a privatized, business, competitive model on schools and children? How have children benefitted from the chaotic reorganizations of the BloomKlein years? How do they benefit from credit recovery? Or seat time? Or easier tests?

How do the mostly innocent students benefit from walking into a police state every morning through metal detectors?

Eduwonk Gets Wonked - Et tu NY Times?

Vera Pavone responds to the NY Times triple whammy on Sunday and Monday. As an example of the kind of reporting that doesn't fit the Times' agenda, check out these companion pieces posted at Norm's Notes.

The St. Petersburg Times reports:
60 of 67 Florida districts walk away from fed funds to reward teachers for performance pay.

Teacher Paul Moore's piece on the closing of Florida's once star charter school.

Florida has weak unions and had a pro-corporate governor and 8 years to experiment. How come all the schemes that are coming apart at the seams in the sunny state are ignored by the national press? The Times' former NYC lead ed reporter Abby Goodnough became the Miami bureau chief a while ago. See any stories in the Times about the "results" of the corporate model in Florida? Don't hold your breath.

Guest Editorial
by Vera Pavone

The NY Times Open Ed page of March 10 delivered a one-two punch from Andrew Rotherham (Eduwonk in photo paying tribute to Eduwonkette) and David White (Lexington Institute).

In an introduction to Rotherham’s diatribe against teacher unionism he talks about the success of teachers at two Denver schools in challenging “how time was used, hiring and even pay,” which “ran afoul of the teachers’ contract”.

“While laws like No Child Left Behind take the rhetorical punches for being a straitjacket on schools, it is actually union contracts that have the greatest effect over what teachers can and cannot do. These contracts can cover everything from big-ticket items like pay and health care coverage to the amount of time that teachers can spend on various activities….Reformers have long argued that this is an impediment to effective schools.”

Of course “reformers” here refer to people who want to micromanage teachers, get them to buy into the latest corporate-backed educational program, and force them to work harder and longer. What is the impediment? Are the reformers referring to the number of classes that a teacher teaches? the five-day workweek? the ability to have a free lunch period and preparation periods, a summer vacation, a limited work day?

“Most contracts are throwbacks to when nascent teacher unionism modeled itself on industrial unionism. Then, that approach made sense and resulted in better pay, working conditions and an organized voice. Yet schools are not factories. The work is not interchangeable and it takes more than one kind of school to meet all students’ needs. If teachers’ unions want to stay relevant, they must embrace more than one kind of contract.”

It is the “reformers” who are turning schools into factories (large and small) by insisting on programs that emphasize education-as-test-preparation, high stakes testing, mandated programs, pacing requirements, room arrangements, scripted learning, and adherence to the latest educational jargon. In order to complete the task these “reformers” have colluded with union leaders in various schemes to marginalize and then get rid of experienced teachers whose wealth of skills and knowledge is the only bulwark against this new corporate factory school model.

Rotherham cites how New York City and its union are moving in the right direction by modifying the contract in having a “pay for performance” program in 170 schools and allowing charter schools to have longer days. And he shows how Randi Weingarten has jumped on board by inviting Green Dot to bring their charter outfit to New York.

So, we have it!

Reform equals longer school days plus merit pay.

Most of all reform equals the evisceration of the union contract and unionism itself while at the same time forcing the factory model on teachers and children. And UFT president Weingarten’s support of charter schools and willingness to give up contractual protections for teachers makes her “relevant”, that is, useful to those who want to undermine a truly effective educational system.

White, in “Educators or Kingmakers?” whines about teacher unions determining educational policy because of their political power. Too bad, he says, because the union agenda is often counter to interests of students and teachers. Citing “research”, White claims that (1) union contracts protect ineffective teachers, which leads to poorer student performance; (2) unions fight against merit pay which means that teachers who would stay if they were paid more for performance are deciding instead to leave; (3) unions are against the policy of school choice which improves student achievement.

There have been many challenges to the research claims of the well-funded foundations that teacher quality and school choice are the key elements in improving education. What is truly appalling is that the Times basically ignores these challenges, but what is even more appalling is the silence of UFT leaders.

The day after these op-ed pieces appeared there was a full-page ad paid for by the “Center for Union Facts” on page 15 of the Times which calls teacher unions the biggest bully in schools: “Teacher unions bully principals into keeping bad teachers, scare politicians who support school reform, and block efforts to pay great teachers higher pay.”

It is clear who the bullies are: The corporate backed foundations, eduwonks, and educational “experts” who use dubious statistics and studies to manufacture “facts”, and the politicians and their appointed underlings who take credit for manipulated test scores and push a self-serving agenda.

Teachers have become increasingly demoralized because of the climate of dishonesty and fear that permeates the vast majority of our schools and undermines their ability to teach. Our union leaders have chosen to play a very weak defense, letting these bullies run over our members, and allowing them to destroy public education.

Vera Pavone, an ICE founding member, is a retired secretary and former teacher and had 2 children who attended NYC public schools.

Photoshopping by Eduwonkette at http://eduwonkette2.blogspot.com/2007/09/eduwonk-salutes-eduwonkette.html

ED NOTE: See the companion pieces preceding and following this one on how the NY Times is viewed by current and former teachers in the NYC school system.

Does "Education Week" Violate Journalistic Standards?

Education Week, a national weekly read by the Ed cognoscenti, has been accused by Deborah Meier, David Marshak, Philip Kovacs, Susan Ohanian, Jerry Bracey, William Spady of violating journalistic standards by humping a point of view that backs the kind of insanity we've seen here in NYC. They sent a letter and want others to join them. Read this important letter at Susan Ohanian's place.

I had my own recent bout with an Ed Week editor when they printed an article biased in favor of a report on teacher quality by Britain's Sir Michael Barber who was embraced by Bloomberg/Klein for his half-baked policies in England (now under some repudiation – I'll check it out in an upcoming trip to London.)

An article called "Teaching Quality Matters" states (my emphasis):

The world’s top-performing school systems and those coming up fast have a lesson to teach the others: Put high-quality teaching for every child at the heart of school improvement....

Neither resources nor ambitious reforms have been the answer to the need for school improvement, say the authors, Sir Michael Barber and Mona Mourshed of McKinsey & Co., the London-based consulting firm responsible for the report. They point to “massive” increases in spending and popular reforms—prominently, class-size reduction and decentralization of decisionmaking—that have failed, they say, to much budge the needle of student achievement many places.

You know. The old line about all you have to do is fix teacher quality and you overcome all (I'll write more on this soon.) But then again, the UFT's Randi Weingarten, the Clintons, et al. all sign on to this bull.)

I sent the following letter to the editor, who I've spoken to a few times in the past (and have some sympathy for, as she was once trapped in a train station for hours with nothing to read but Education Notes.)

I was wondering if Michael Barber, a noted trasher of class size as a factor, cited specifics of the studies he cites? He says many places. Did he give one example? If not, shouldn't he be challenged to do so instead of being allowed to leave the impression that class size reduction doesn't work?

I received this reply:

There are a few references in the report, but it is not really a scholarly work. I don't have it with me. I think his argument rests more on the fact that there has been a lot of class size reduction in places where achievement has stayed relatively flat, such as in many U.S. school systems. I think that is generally true, although you could certainly argue that classes need to be still smaller. I didn't have much space to offer challenges and had to give what space I had to people assessing the general worth of the report, which you should be able to get on the Web. You might a letter to the editor if you think his conclusions are misleading.

"Generally true?" "Many US school systems?" How about which ones? Where's the actual research to cite this, not that I trust research, which can be slanted in so many ways. But Ed Week is part of the cabal against spending real money on Ed reform – is is so much easier and cheaper to blame the teachers. How about Ed Week calling for an accurate study (like we really need a study to tell us that much smaller classes, which I bet the elite critics pay a fortune to assure their own kids experience - like Bloomberg's kids going to Spence with 14 in a class) instead of adopting the "generally true" standard of research.

The article, which you can read in full here, did include the following bone:

David P. Baker, who has extensively studied the results from international math and science tests, praised the study for clear conclusions that hold the possibility of pushing policymakers in valid directions. He said his own research showed that countries that reduced the spread in teacher quality tended to have higher test scores. At the same time, the Pennsylvania State University professor said the report might have taken better account of the effects of social disadvantage, which has a profound influence on school performance [the Richard Rothstein view].

I never wrote that letter to the editor, but I think now is a good time.
Here is a list if you wan to join the party.

Virginia Edwards, Editor and Publisher gined@epe.org
Gregory Chronister, Executive Editor gchron@epe.org
Lynn Olson, Project Editor for Quality Counts lolson@epe.org
Karen Diegmueller, Managing Editor kdieg@epe.org
Mark W. Bomster, Asst. Managing Editor mbomster@epe.org

A Web of Intrigue

UPDATED Tuesday, Feb. 19, 9 pm

Is there a vast neoliberal conspiracy to impose a market-based system on urban public schools in partnership with the business community leading to a move toward privatization, the weakening of teacher unions, and placing the focus of blame on the teachers (schools are looked at as failures because of poor teacher quality) and their contracts (seniority rules are worse than a tornado ripping through a school)?

Are we moving toward placing the control of public education into the hands of privateers and policy wonks whose basic knowledge of education comes from having once attended school (like letting someone who was once in the hospital with a sore throat perform operations)?

Are we seeing a further exacerbation of an already existing dual school system – one urban running under market forces that shut out parents and teachers; one suburban where elected school boards make decisions?

Has much of this agenda been driven by the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party? Research-based blogger Eduwonkette posted a web of connections between the various policy wonks backing the corporate takeover of urban school systems and has the Rotherham gang over at Eduwonk so worked up they are screaming for her head and trying to smoke her out of her anonymity. She fingers some members of Rotherham's Education Sector Board:

Jonathan Williams (Accelerated Charter School of Los Angeles); Bruno Manno (Vice Chair, Annie E. Casey Foundation); Ted Mitchell of the New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF).

So they all know each other, sniffs Rotherham.

I like Ed Trust West head Russlynn Ali, we've eaten together, had drinks, she's met my wife, seen my children, she used to work with Kevin Carey who now works with me, I think we share funders but I'm not sure...we both dislike the designated hitter rule...

Touchy, touchy, touchy. Our man doth protest too much. The last must be a subliminal reference to their being designated hitters gunning for the end of public oversight of public schools - but only for people in poorer, urban communities - wouldst they dare set foot with their market gimmicks in Scarsdale?

Rotherham, a major apologist for whatever mayhem BloomKlein perpetrates on the children, teachers and parents in the NYC school system says this in his bio:

Rotherham previously served at The White House as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy during the Clinton administration. He managed education policy activities at the White House and advised President Clinton on a wide range of education issues including the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, charter schools and public school choice, and increasing accountability in federal policy. Rotherham also led the White House Domestic Policy Council education team...

We've run critiques of Obama's ed policy, but anyone doubt the Clinton connections to the attacks on public education? And of the slavish support of the UFT/AFT teachers union. (Explanation for their role in all this to come at a future date.)

Eduwonkette has clearly touched a nerve, with Rotherham shooting back with:

I'd also take it more seriously if she took a look at all the similar relationships around, just say, ed school accreditation, teacher certification, NCLB opposition, etc...etc...etc...

When you're caught with your pants down, attack. This looks like a nice project to keep him busy. While he's doing it, he should make sure to add up the dough each side has - maybe Bill Gates and Eli Broad will throw a few mil into the Educator Roundtable or Susan Ohanian for balance.

With some of the attacks on Eduwonkette being less than sophomoric ("she takes money like those girls we used to talk about in high school") one has to wonder if the ole boy policy wonks are just plain embarrassed that a girl can be so much smarter than them.

For your reading pleasure: The Corporate Surge Against Public Schools