The Math Wars Revisited: Lisa, Why Doth I Love Thee....

...let me count the ways.

Below, Lisa Donlan, parent activist from District 1 on the Lower East Side, leaps into the fray of the discussion raging on the math wars over at the NYC Ed News listserve, where some trashing of constructivist education has been going on.

Philosophically, I am a constructivist, but recognize it requires small classes and some assistance that goes beyond one teacher. And lots of time for kids to explore and learn by trial and error. But in times of test prep mania, there is almost no chance. Interesting that the initial Klein choices were Diana Lam and then Carmen Farina, major constructavist operators. (When Carmen went from big C district 15 Supe to taking over Region 8 there were just a few cultural clashes with my district (14) which had a very old hat teaching philosophy - like from the 5th century.) But they were dogmatic and considered any resistance or questionning their dogma heresy.

So, how did I teach long division? Any way that worked. I remember how I learned it by rote but never had a clue as to what was going on. If you asked me what 356 into 15,000 was, I had I could only get the answer by the long tedious method.

And I got a 98 on the geometry regent and was the only one at Jefferson, which had some pretty heavy hitters, to get a 100 on the advanced algebra regent. So I was no slouch. But it goes to show you the fallacies of standardized tests. Yes, we had test prep and I pored through old regents to study, but never really understood basic arithmetic.

But in my 6 week wonder course in the summer of '67 that turned me into an instant teacher, one instructor did Base 2. And then Base 5. And Base 8. That was an aha moment. I began to see the relationships. Thus, I can tell you in 3 seconds that the answer would lie south of 50 and north of 40. And a few seconds later be able to say it was south of 45. And have multiple ways of making that guess. That gives me an instant advantage before I even start the long division and in fact may not have to do it altogether.

Over the next few years, I really learned math by teaching it. One of my other AHA moments was when I was teaching division of fractions where you reverse the denominator and actually saw an explanation in the math book as to why that worked. I ate this stuff up.

I tried to communicate these nimble ways of looking at numbers to my kids, using charts and number lines. Paperless tests. Did I neglect the times tables? Not at all, as they are the key to so much. But if they couldn't remember them I at least wanted them to have the tools to be able to figure them out. And I taught them the 9 times table trick of reversing 0-9 vertically. Just in case.

So, now it it time for Lisa Donlan to take over with this wonderful piece based on her experiences as a parent:

I really am loathe to join in on the Math Wars, but after biting my tongue for dozens of posts, I feel I need to share my experience with the constructivist model as used to teach my own two children and their school mates.

The approach yielded a rich and fruitful learning experience for both of my kids, who have gone on to perform well on tests and in traditional math classes in HS and college.
Today both kids like math, have an ease with computation and a deep understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts they are learning and using.

It may be significant that besides working extensively with staff in this area, their schools also put a lot of energy into training and explaining the approach to parents. As result many of us became informed partners, who could actually help with homework and support the pedagogy.

I can say that the numerous workshops and hands-on math activities parents participated in turned our initial tendency to push back on this new (to us) way of seeing mathematics and see it instead through our children's eyes. The tendency to distrust or critique a different way of seeing number - of adding or dividing, for example, could very well could have worked to undermine the teacher's authority and perhaps negatively affect our children's learning. I could only imagine it might be hard for a child to feel open to a methodology his or her parents are (even unconsciously) undermining at home.

Did my kids spend a lot of time "mucking around" with numbers and manipulatives , drawing and grouping, skip counting and breaking down, even creating emotional relationships with numbers? Did they routinely spend 10 minutes to do what I could do in 2?

Yes. Oh, yes.

Did they eventually learn the traditional methods and algorithms, math facts and times tables, formulae and equations, and learn to perform short cuts for times tests?

Also yes.

For instance they were eventually able to learn how to do the long division I had been taught as a child, and they also learned the very different method their father had been taught in France. Over time, they amassed a multitude of tools to choose from to figure out life's math problems.

When I hear the frustration and critiques of many parents over constructivist math, I sometimes feel the way I do at the soccer field watching kids play.

Very often the kids will dribble too much and lose possession of the ball, make mistakes in tactics, technique and strategy as they learn and experiment, take risks and solve problems.
The adults I see often watch these players with the critical eye of pro game fans, expecting 8 year olds to juke like Ronaldo, or 12 year olds to play like little Drogbas.

It hard not to act like an arm chair coach, or an arm chair math teacher, when we watch our little ones try out new skills.

We would never take a block out of a four year olds hand and show her the right way to build a tower.

We allow her to experiment and learn from the successes and failures of play and mucking around.

Just as there is no right way to make a mask or draw a face, I think there are many ways to learn about and interact with the world, and that includes math.

Like anything else, when a methodology is taught well and deeply and consistently it can work quite well, including child centered developmentally focused pedagogy.

This is only my own personal and anecdotal experience, but I think it highlights just how unlike a business is the business of education.

I am not an educator by training, but there does not seem to be one way, a one-size-fits-all, right or wrong, efficient way to teach all kinds of young minds.

Lisa Donlan


Deborah Meier threw in these comments, where she endorses the concepts of the New Math which is what I was really talking about above:

How would you have them "measure" results?

As in the reading wars, we argue about (I think) all the wrong issues. Neither bad math teaching nor bad teaching of reding is what's wrong with American education--although the way we get stuck aguing about these may well be the problem.

Until we solve the depth vs breadth question in math, and stop our obsession with everyone taking advanced algebra/calculus we're stuck with bad math programs. Best of all I liked the "new math" of the 60s an 70s--which were abandoned too soon - largely because of parental complaints like yours! No subject on earth raisesd more hackles--by mathemticians and/or parents.

I like TERC's effort, if not their solution. But then I truly think that the only important thing to teach is a "love" of looking for patterns in numbers , and other patterns as well. We could teach the useful--practical--stuff in 4th grade if we hadn't messed it up by rote learning before that--and you probably think the opposite!! And we can actually both point to experts and evidence. But what we dare not argue about is "purpose".

It's always bound to create a stir! But I'm sorry to see Class Matters get into either of these wars.

Deb

PEP Reports from Eterno and Sullivan

ICE/TJC presidential candidate James Eterno, a chapter leader who defends his school and teachers to the hilt, reports on the Panel for Educational Policy (the joke Board of Education) meeting in Queens last week. Joel Klein said kitchy-koo to James and Camille's 4 month old daughter Kara.

JAMAICA TELLS PEP ABOUT BUDGET CUT IMPACT

Then there were two

Patrick Sullivan, Manhattan PEP parent rep, gives his report on the NYC Public School Parent blog. Patrick has been joined by Bronx parent rep Anna Santos in standing up to BloomKlein.

http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2009/11/doe-demands-consultants-get-additional.html


Excerpt: Across the city, people school leadership teams are working hard to close growing budget gaps while the Chancellor and his team are squandering millions of dollars.
A contract with Hanover Foods to provide canned ravioli to schools passed 9-3. I voted against the contract because new DOE specifications resulted in only one bidder and a price increase of 41% amounting to $1.1 million in additional cost over three years. While nutritional standard are important, the upgrade was not significant enough to warrant the additional expense. For example, we were told the new specifications called for lower sodium but the reduction was minimal: from 880 mg per serving to 770.

A NY1 report had this nugget:
"The fact that there is only provider of ravioli is kind of absurd," said Panel for Educational Policy member Patrick Sullivan. "We are clearly doing something wrong, and my concern here is that we have to be aggressively taking cost out. Not looking for ways, or acting like we have abundant funds to be buying gourmet ravioli."

Sometimes it is fun to watch the reporters as they have to listen to these farces. Keeping a straight face is tough.

Francis Lewis HS CL Arthur Goldstein, an ICE candidate for the UFT high school executive Board, also attended and we expect a report from him soon. Arthur and James were featured in a recent NY Post piece on their schools. See Goldstein and Eterno: ICE Chapter Leaders in the NY Post

By the way, check out the activity of the ICE/GEM activist crew vs the Unity machine in just about every venue. (See my previous post on the DC union strategy.)

The Maddening Logic of the AFT/UFT and now DC

Candi Peterson has a laid off teacher report from DC. Here is the section that makes critics of the Weingarten/Mulgrew policies want to scream.

Depending on whose version you believe, many laid off teachers who attended the November 5 hearing voiced their concerns that the hearing did not go well. There were reports that there were many objections to the Washington Teachers' Union's defense. In a WTU Building Representative November 10 meeting that I attend at McKinley last week , WTU Field Representative Anita Corley stated publicly that the WTU's legal arguments appeared weak because they did not want to alert DCPS lawyers to the strategy that the WTU would ultimately use in arbitration. When I heard this as a rationale, I actually couldn't believe what I was hearing. I couldn't help but thinking what it if the judge rules that the WTU cannot go to arbitration ? Then what ?

Sound familiar, UFTers? Welcome to the world of AFT/UFT defensive posturing, Candi. Get used to this logic. We've been seeing this for a long time here in NYC. We just finished working on a new ICE Update that addresses this issue:

What is it that makes our Unity leadership so prone to wrong moves at every turn? Their failures result from a core Unity philosophy that changes the traditional role unions are supposed to play in defense of their members, opting instead for a partnership with management in exchange for a false sense of insider status. Thus, their main battle becomes trying to win a seat at the table for themselves, while shutting out the concerns of the rank and file. This is no mere tactic but a transformation of the nature of the concept of unionism, wherein the major concern becomes selling so-called “reform” programs to a victimized membership: bonuses based on testing, rating teachers based on test scores, closing schools, open market system, support for charter schools at the expense of public schools, etc. This partnership is a losing proposition for the membership — a strategy of always playing defense, not with a goal of winning better working conditions, but of trying to minimize the losses. This debilitating strategy is an adherence to a core philosophy that is often called “New Unionism.”

Jay Matthews Tribute to Jerry Bracey

Many trashers of the ed deform crowd love to make fun of Jay Matthews. But his tribute to Jerry Bracey, one of his arch educational enemies, was truly touching. Bracey died recently just before the release of the annual Bracey Report. Matthews writes:

The last person to receive one of his infamous emails questioning the ancestry and sanity of the recipient should frame the thing and put it on a wall. I don't know anyone else in our community of education wonks who matched him in passion, honesty and wit. The 2009 edition of the Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education proves it.

The annual Bracey report has been a big event the last 18 years for those of us fascinated by schools and by Bracey's refusal to buy into the buzz words that we drop into our own writing and speeches without thinking, like chocolate chips in the cookie batter. Phrases such as "high quality schools," "global challenge" and "widening achievement gap."

Fortunately, Jerry had finished a draft before he died, so his friends, author and blogger Susan Ohanian and Penn State education professor Pat Hinchey, applied the finishing touches with help from Jerry's wife, Iris.

I was in the midst of a couple of email exchanges with Susan when she got the news of his death and saw the shock and anguish soon after she got the news. That they all got out this report so soon is a tribute to their work.

It was good to read this from Matthews, who we hope may be "getting it."

He also makes a powerful case for remembering that impoverished students are going to need more than just great teaching and longer school days to reach their academic potential. Their health and family problems also drag them down.

His victim in this part of the report---Jerry often does his best work when he is shooting at a living, breathing, well-known target--is New York Times columnist David Brooks. I am sure Brooks will never again make the mistake in his May 7, 2009, column, resting his argument for the superiority of tough-love, no-excuses inner-city schools on data for one year, one grade and one subject at the Harlem Promise Academy, and failing to give enough credit to the unusual medical and nutritional support that program provides.

Mayoral control of schools, the second issue, was a much easier target for Jerry. Nobody was ever better at sifting the data. His Ph.D. from Stanford, the birthplace of psychometrics, came in handy. He looks at the results from Chicago and New York City, the best-known examples of school systems run by mayors, and reveals that their test score jumps do not match the ones in the more reliable National Assessment of Educational Progress.

But in case Matthews doesn't reform, save these posts on Matthews by NYC Educator:

More Expert Analysis from Jay Matthews

More Expert Ideas from Jay Matthews

I Don't Understand Education, but I Know What I Like

I don't much read the Washington Post, but every now and then someone sends me or links to another Jay Matthews story and I marvel at how someone so uninformed can make a living writing about education. This week Jay is happy that unions are slowing their opposition to charters.

Teachers Selling Lesson Plans? I'm Buying

As a teacher, I was at my best in front of an audience. But I was lousy at lesson planning in an empty room. I would be at home trying to think of creative ways of presenting things like the difference between the short a and long a (I used to act out the roles of the letters, the poor short a suffering from an inferiority complex). Or creative ways of teaching times tables (I used to light a match and hold it until a child finished reciting the entire table for the one number, the goal being for him to finish before I burned my finger - the sharpest kids got the 8x table, the hardest one in my opinion).

I was one of those teachers whose creativity was stimulated when I was in front of kids. Not always the best way to teach.

I was best at performing, not planning, while some of my colleagues were able to create sharp plans but lacked a certain spark in the presentation. I was always confident that I could take just about any material and tweak it to my style. Like an actor on stage performing a script. So though I rail against rigid scripted programs like "Success for All" I hungered for some scripts I could modify and work from. In my ideal world of teaching, I would have had one or more partners who did the writing while I did the performing. Or marked the homework. It would have been a good deal, as I was comfortable being in front of kids for hours at a time. As long as I had the material. But teaching was never really collaborative in the world I lived in.

So, it was interesting to read on the front page of the Sunday Times, (the attention things teachers do seem to be getting incredible scrutiny) that teachers are putting their lesson plans up for sale. Some school districts are saying they own the rights to teacher lesson plans. Then there's this:

Some purists think that undermines the collegiality of teaching. Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones. Joseph McDonald, a professor at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University, said the online selling cheapens what teachers do and undermines efforts to build sites where educators freely exchange ideas and lesson plans.

“Teachers swapping ideas with one another, that’s a great thing,” he said. “But somebody asking 75 cents for a word puzzle reduces the power of the learning community and is ultimately destructive to the profession.”

I wonder if Professor McDonald has noticed that the ed deformers are trying to turn teaching into a commodity. It's all about competition and merit pay and performance of kids. Dog eat dog. So, why shouldn't teachers take advantage while they can? After all, what is coming is one script for the entire country. Every single teacher will be doing the same exact thing at the same time of the day.

Even way back then in my days, many teachers wrote books based on their experiences and I bought loads of them. So how is that different from using the internet to sell lesson plans?

So yes, I would buy some lesson plans and curriculum designed by real teachers to save me the time and anguish of having to write them.

Koss Comments on Teaching to Test

From today's NY Daily News, thanks to Rachel Monahan. Note the following incredibly disingenuous quote from DOE spokesperson David Cantor: "This is the first time I've heard the argument against testing used to explain students' failure on tests as well as their success."

As Mr. Cantor is a regular reader of this blog (and others, I'm sure, such as Ednotes and Time Out for Testing), his statement that he's never heard the argument against testing (such as the NYS 3-8 or NYS Regents) as explaining their failures on tests (such as NAEP or CUNY placement) is absurd, to say the least. Unless, of course, he's arguing the meaningless point that success on a given test means non-failure on that test, but that's nothing more than sophistry for the uninformed masses. There is simply no shame at Tweed -- whatever they feel like saying, they simply say. It is so Karl Rovian, it's positively creepy.

By the way, where has anyone heard or seen ANY story indicating that the current obsession with testing is leading to success other than that measured by those same tests (or other metrics like graduation rates that can and are being manipulated by the same people administering the tests)? Are SAT scores going up? How about Intel Science Fair performance? NAEP scores? College readiness as measured by folks like CUNY? Once you get our kids out of the clutches of Klein and his likes, are they really doing better in other academic venues? Does anyone know of a single study that demonstrates how much better off our public school grads are once they are beyond high school thanks to all this standardized testing? How about even at the high school level -- are more kids scoring high passes (over 85%) on Regents exams than they used to? Are more of them taking and passing the Physics or the highest level of Math?

To paraphrase Mr. Cantor, "This is the first time I've heard the argument for testing used to explain students' success in college and beyond." Regrettably for the DOE, reality is not simply whatever they decide to say it is.

Steve Koss


Daily News Story is here.

Dear Dumb Bob Compton

After hearing Bob Compton on yesterday's Brian Lehrer show make some statements about education that were right in line with the ed deformer crowd, I posted this:

Reknowned Arizona Charter School Asks Disruptive Students to Leave

My comments led to this comment from Compton:

Bob Compton, Exec Producer 2 Million Minutes said...

Thanks for the post, Norm.
I don't think I'm manipulative, although I am trying to foster improved education for our children.
Guess "dumb and dumber" is your answer. :-)
Every child has the potential to be well-educated - not every child aspires to that goal.
I'm working, at my own expense, to inspire, and perhaps scare just a bit, more kids into striving for a better education - for their own life-long benefit.

Dumb Bob :-)

Dear Bob,

I don't think for a minute you are really dumb. If you are not manipulative, then you are misguided. We all agree that every child has the potential, but you yourself said that some are not right for the Basis school. I bet more than some. You said they should be in an alternative setting. Better to spend your time and money working on figuring out how to do that in a meaningful way.

Your points about finding good schools in India and China are off base in that students are weeded out. As they are here too, by the way. For your next film, why not find the worst schools and figure out what's wrong with them and how to fix them.

So much of what you had to say about education in your brief time on the program was so off base that I can imagine numbers of teachers pulling their hair out in frustration. Luckily, I don't have enough hair to pull out, so I just gnashed my teeth. I'll send you the dental bill.

PS: I hoped you enjoyed your time with Uncle Joel at that private screening.

Check out what Bob has to say at: http://www.2mminutes.com/

Bogus Charges Hurt Effort to Remove Teachers Who Should Be Removed: Teacher says, "Take a lap (run)"

....sees words twisted into asking a student to "sit on his lap." DOE turns it into sexual harassment charge and 2nd year rubber room assignment.

"I have something that I normally say. I say take a lap and sit on your spot. Students are assigned floor spots. This young lady said, 'Oh, I have to sit on your lap?' and I said, 'No, you heard what I said. You'll take a lap and then sit on your spot,'" Smith said.

See NY1 report.

It is cases like these (and there are so many of them) that undermine and discredit any move to get rid of teachers who should be removed and makes all teachers dig in their heels to assure their protection.

Some may cast doubt on the teacher's version, but I don't doubt he is telling the truth because of the stories coming in.

A teacher at my old school served 15 months in the rubber room and was completely exonerated for a case of having her words twisted. She told a child that if he didn't do his homework he would never get it (the concept they were learning) and unless he did his work he would never learned. She was removed because of a charge she said black kids would never learn. Of course, the principal hated her because she spoke her mind about the mindless policies of the principal.

Last week I attended the 3020 hearing of another teacher, who also resisted this same principal's machinations and was railroaded. She is coming on the completion of her third year in the rubber room. She is charged with putting her hand on the shoulder of a child who had been repeatedly running out of the room pushing her into her seat. In doing so, they claim her finger caught the shirt and 2 buttons came off (her buttons could have been lost). The principal seized on the opportunity and urged the parent to call the police. Thus, a teacher who had been in the school for 22 years with absolutely no record of any incidents, was taken out of the school in handcuffs by 5 police.

At the hearing, large sized photos of supposed bruises were shown. The child's mother testified they were taken by the principal immediately after the incident. We all looked intently for any sign of a bruise, but there were none. By the way, the child had been coming to school with the remnants of a black eye and the teacher had been calling for an investigation before this incident. The child been out of school for weeks and the teacher had talked to the mother as recently as the afternoon before the incident. The principal did nothing.

It came out that the police were totally sympathetic to the teacher, especially after a detective went to the school and investigated. I spoke to the cop a few weeks later. I'll paraphrase what he said: this is clearly trumped up and the principal was behind it. The parent testified that a group of cops sat around her in a circle and urged her to drop charges.

The teacher was released and should have been back in the school soon after. But the DOE is pursuing 3020 charges. Think of what this case is costing them. They pay the teacher 3 years salary to sit in the rubber room, pay the costs of the investigation, bringing in witnesses, pay the DOE lawyer, pay at least 500-800 bucks a day or so for the hearing officer, some of whom sometimes take a nap, as reported by the NY Times' Jennifer Medina yesterday, who I invited to join me at one of the upcoming sessions in this 3020 open hearing and she said she just may do so. (Teachers must request in writing an open hearing before it begins if they want witnesses.)

And then there are those 20 math teachers at Bronx High School of Science where these vendettas go on all the time.

Tenure protection anyone?

Until the DOE stops the witch hunts engaged by principals using the lack of oversight by the DOE, any attempt to make it easier to remove bad teachers will meet stiff resistance. Offer those teachers out of classroom positions (maybe in the press office of Tweed, which has plenty of room). There are certainly things they can find for people to do and it will be much cheaper in the long run.

Hoxby Hocked: Headline-Grabbing Charter School Study Doesn’t Hold Up To Scrutiny

We reported on the Hoxby charter school story supposedly showing that NYC charter schools are succeeding beyond expectations on Sept. 24. Caroline Hoxby Has a Dog in the Race

Caroline Hoxby, who conducted this so-called "study," is not an impartial academic researcher. She's a longtime, high-profile proponent of free-market "solutions" and privatization. Her work should not be treated like credible academic ...

Now comes another critique of Hoxby's methods. Also read Aaron Pallas at Gotham:

New York City Charter Lotteries: Hey, You Never Know

View it in your browser.

Headline-Grabbing Charter School Study Doesn’t Hold Up To Scrutiny November 12, 2009 Reviewer finds serious statistical flaws in research on NYC charter schools Contact: Sean Reardon, (650) 736-8517 (office); (617) 251-4782 (cell); sean.reardon@stanford.edu Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@colorado.edu Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu BOULDER, Colo. and TEMPE, Ariz. (November 12, 2009) -- A recent report on New York City charter schools found achievement results at the charters to be better than comparison traditional schools. But that report relies on a flawed statistical analysis, according to a new review. The report is How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement and was written by Caroline Hoxby, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang. When it was released in late September, it was enthusiastically and uncritically embraced by charter advocates as well as media outlets. The Washington Post offered an editorial titled, "Charter Success. Poor children learn. Teachers unions are not pleased." The editorial's first paragraph reads: "Opponents of charter schools are going to have to come up with a new excuse: They can't claim any longer that these non-traditional public schools don't succeed. A rigorous new study of charter schools in New York City demolishes the argument that charter schools outperform traditional public schools only because they get the 'best students.' This evidence should spur states to change policies that inhibit charter-school growth. It also should cause traditional schools to emulate practices that produce these remarkable results." The editorial argues throughout that the study provides unquestionable evidence that charters result in improved student achievement. It ends, "Now the facts are in." The New York Daily News was no less effusive: "It's official. From this day forward, those who battle New York's charter school movement stand conclusively on notice that they are fighting to block thousands of children from getting superior educations." Because of the declared importance of the new report, we asked Professor Sean Reardon to carefully examine the report's strengths and weaknesses for the Think Tank Review Project and write a review that would help others use the study in a sensible way. Reardon, like the report's lead author Hoxby, is a professor at Stanford University. He is an expert on research methodology. The Hoxby report estimates the effects on student achievement of attending a New York City charter school rather than a traditional public school. A key finding, repeated in press reports throughout the U.S., compares the cumulative effect of attending a New York City charter school for nine years (from kindergarten through eighth grade) to the magnitude of average test score differences between students in Harlem and the wealthy New York community of Scarsdale. The report estimates this cumulative effect at roughly 66% of the "Scarsdale-Harlem gap" in English and roughly 86% of the gap in math. In his review, Reardon observes that the report "has the potential to add usefully to the growing body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of charter schools." New York charter schools' use of randomized lotteries to admit students to charter schools offers the possibility that the study of those schools can roughly approximate laboratory conditions. But Reardon points out that the report's key findings are grounded in an unsound analysis -- an inappropriate set of statistical models -- and that the report's authors never provide crucial information that would allow readers to more thoroughly evaluate "its methods, results, or generalizability." Reardon's review notes these shortcomings in the report: In measuring the effects of charter schooling on students in grades 4 through 12, the study relies on statistical models that include test scores from the previous year, measured after the admission lotteries take place. Yet because of that timing, those scores could be affected by whether students attend a charter school. As a consequence, the statistical models "destroy the benefits of the randomization" that is a strength of the study's design. (The use of a different model makes the results for students in grades K-3 more credible, he notes.) The report's claims regarding the cumulative effects of attending a New York City charter school from kindergarten through eighth grade are based on an inappropriate extrapolation. It uses a weaker criterion for statistical significance than is conventionally used in social science research (0.05), referring to p-values of roughly 0.15 as "marginally statistically significant". The report describes the variation in charter school effects across schools in a way that may distort the true distribution of effects by omitting many ineffective charter schools from the distribution. Reardon explains that, as a result of the flaws in the report's statistical analysis, the report "likely overstates the effects of New York City charter schools on students' cumulative achievement, though it is not possible -- given the information missing from the report -- to precisely quantify the extent of overestimation." This, as well as the lack of detailed information in the report to assess the extent of that bias, make it impossible for readers to know whether the report's estimated charter school effects are in fact valid. "Policymakers, educators, and parents should therefore not rely on these estimates until the bias issues have been fully investigated and the analysis has undergone rigorous peer review." According to Professor Kevin Welner, director of the University of Colorado at Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC): "Readers of this review will understand that, while Hoxby's charter school study is a contribution, it has significant flaws and limitations. Unfortunately, the editorial reaction of otherwise-respectable media outlets trumpeted the New York City findings as the final and faultless word on charter school performance. In fact, the study used inappropriate methods that overstate the performance of the charter schools it studied." Welner notes that the Think Tank Review Project also recently reviewed another charter school study, released in June by Stanford's CREDO policy center. That study encompassed 65-70% of the nation's charter schools. "Our review pointed out a number of limitations but also noted the relative strength and comprehensiveness of the data set, the solid analytic approaches of the CREDO researchers, and the important fact that the CREDO results were consistent with a large body of research showing charter schools overall to be performing no better than (and perhaps worse than) traditional public schools," Welner says. But he added that "the CREDO and Hoxby reports used different designs and covered different schools. They are not directly comparable, nor are we able to say which is 'better.' Neither report is definitive or without notable weaknesses." Welner concludes, "the important thing to understand is that if, after an appropriate reanalysis of the data, we still find that New York City's charter schools are in fact bucking the national trend, the sensible next step is for researchers to explore the causes rather than to jump to broad conclusions that fly in the face of the overall research base. It would be irresponsible to use the NYC results -- even if they were valid and reliable -- to drive policy in places throughout the U.S. where charters are apparently underperforming their competition." Find Sean Reardon's review on the web at: http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-How-New-York-City-Charter Find the NYC report by Hoxby and her colleagues at: http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/ CONTACT: Sean F. Reardon Associate Professor of Education and (by courtesy) Sociology Stanford University (650) 736-8517 (office); (617) 251-4782 (cell) sean.reardon@stanford.edu Kevin Welner, Professor and Director Education and the Public Interest Center University of Colorado at Boulder (303) 492-8370 kevin.welner@colorado.edu Gary Miron, Professor of Education Western Michigan University (269) 599-7965 gary.miron@wmich.edu About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the University of Colorado at Boulder Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) and the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. EPIC and EPRU collaborate to produce policy briefs in addition to think tank reviews. Our goal is to promote well-informed democratic deliberation about education policy by providing academic as well as non-academic audiences with useful information and high quality analyses. Visit EPIC and EPRU at http://www.educationanalysis.org/ EPIC and EPRU are members of the Education Policy Alliance (http://educationpolicyalliance.org).

New Report Challenges Charter School Civil Rights Policy

For Immediate Release


*New Report Challenges Charter School Civil Rights Policy*

Los Angeles-November 12, 2009-
A new civil rights report raises important issues about the Obama Administration' s central emphasis on the rapid expansion of charter schools, pointing out that although there are outstanding and diverse charters, there is also a vacuum of civil rights policy shown in both previous research and current on-going studies.

The Civil Rights Project report, *Equity Overlooked: Charter Schools and Civil Rights Policy, *by Erica Frankenberg and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, provides a much-needed overview of the origins of charter school policy; examines the failure of the Bush Administration to provide civil rights policies as charters rapidly expanded with federal and state aid; outlines state civil rights provisions, and highlights the lack of basic data in federal charter school statistics. UCLA Professor and Civil Rights Project Co- director Gary Orfield commented, “Choice can be either a path toward real opportunity and equity or toward segregated and unequal education. If charters are to be a central element in educational reform, then basic civil rights policies must be an integral element of the Obama policy.” The CRP, a non-partisan national research center based at UCLA, will issue, next month, an analysis of the educational effects of charters and the detailed patterns of diversity and segregation across the nation.

*About The Civil Rights Project at UCLA**

*Founded in 1996 by former Harvard professors Gary Orfield and Christopher Edley Jr., the Civil Rights Project/*Proyecto Derechos Civiles* is now co-directed by Orfield and Patricia Gándara, professors at UCLA. Its mission is to create a new generation of research in social science and law, on the critical issues of civil rights and equal opportunity for racial and ethnic
groups in the United States. It has commissioned more than 400 studies, published 14 books and issued numerous reports from authors at universities and research centers across the country. The Supreme Court, in its 2003 *Grutter v. Bollinger* decision upholding affirmative action, cited the Civil Rights Project's research.

Contact:
CRP office at (310) 267-5562; crp@ucla.edu Erica Frankenberg at
frankenberg@ gseis.ucla. edu Genevieve Siegel-Hawley at gsiegelhawley@ ucla.edu

posted at:
http://www.civilrig htsproject. ucla.edu/ research/ deseg/equity- overlooked- repo
rt-2009.pdf

Renowned Arizona Charter School Asks Disruptive Students to Leave

Whoopee!! The Basis School is featured and the filmmaker, Bob Compton, just answered Brian Lehrer's million dollar question. Some students do not have the make-up for intense academic work, he thinks. What happened to "no excuses?"

Pay for teachers are differentiated. They are all very talented. Put some of these talented teachers in the average NYC high school and they would run screaming.

Just push the students harder is the key. Load them with work and they will succeed. Let me point out that this is not the average student just about anywhere.

The filmmaker is a venture capitalist. He went to India and China and saw wonderful high schools. Does he think the average child in India or China, where they weed them out way before high school, is what he is seeing? Can this guy be any dumber? Or is he just a manipulative ed deformer?

You can only see this film at www.2mminutes.com. Go and have a few laughs.

Teachers are the best indicator.....blah, blah, blah

I just heard it again on NPR in a Beth Fertig report:

Someone she was interviewing said, "Teachers are the best indicator of whether a child will succeed or fail." No follow-up or questioning of whether there is any basis to this claim, other than the usual, "research shows." What research shows? I bet my pension that whatever research that shows Teachers are the best indicator of whether a child will succeed or fail can be countered by just as much research that shows that socio-economics is the best indicator of whether a child will succeed or fail. I guess I wasted my 15 minute conversation with Fertig last week trying to point out just how ridiculous this statement is.

Should we measure the success or the failure of the current state of investigative education reporting based on the quality of the individual reporters? I've heard plenty of excuses from reporters that there are staff cuts and the papers don't support investigative reporting.

Try this one out and fill in the blanks:

[Policemen, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, add your own] are the best indicators of whether a [crime victim, war, patient, defendant, add your own] will succeed or fail.

By the way, have you seen the stories on the Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was, aside from everything else, considered an incompetent doctor. He supposedly saw an average of one patient a week and his supervisors discussed how to get rid of him but did nothing because, as one supposedly said, "You know how hard it is to get rid of a doctor."

So where's the race to the top in the health care debate about removing bad doctors? It all goes to show that the blame the teacher mentality is all part of THE PLAN also [Obama Supports Demise of Public Option in Education] to undermine public education.

If you clicked on the link above to my posting on THE PLAN, make sure to go to Perimeter Primate's great post.

Yankee Parade Brings Back Memories

This must be "student gets out of prison" story week. (See "So, You Get a Phone Call, Revised").

The Yankee parade reminded me of the parade 10 years ago. I was in a district job at the time and asked for the morning off. I stopped by my old school on the way. In one of those coincidences that seem so crazy, in walked a former student looking for me. Call him "M". He had just been released from a 7-year prison term, which he had served after a parole violation from a previous 7-year term. He must have been about 31 or 32 years old. He went in at 15. Half his life in jail.

We chatted and I told him I was on the way to the Yankee parade. "You took us on a trip to the Yankee parade," he said. Memories came flooding back. It was 1978. I was teaching a 6th grade class and we had a trip planned that day. So we made a pit stop to see the parade. We stood at the barriers on lower Broadway and waited for the Yankees to go by. Crowds were sparse, but loads of ticker tape was floating down. Everyone was so friendly and the kids had a blast rolling in the masses of paper. Three or four flatbed trucks sent zipping by and we barely saw Reggie Jackson. Maybe 30 seconds.

These trips were the cement that glued relationships together between the kids and myself as the shared experiences created bonds that created a true classroom community. That was a special class because I had moved up with them from the 5th grade, so knowing all the kids and them knowing me made the opening of school particularly easy. Except for "M", who had not been in my class the year before. He wasn't a bad kid but just never shut up and was constantly calling out and making wise-ass comments. The first couple of weeks were rough for us and I had to get control of the situation. So one day I told him to tell his mother I was coming over the next afternoon to talk about his behavior. They lived in the projects. M opened the door when I knocked with a look of shock and surprise on his face. Surprisingly, rather than be unhappy, he seemed pleased that I came. That gave me some important insight into his character. I sat down in the living room with his mom, a very big woman. I told her that there was a lot to like about M, who could be very funny – when you weren't trying to teach – but he had to get control of himself. M sat there grinning ear to ear.

After that day we were pals. It wasn't only his behavior that changed. Mine did too. I began to tolerate his remarks and laughed openly at them. I often retorted and the kids loved what became a sort of routine between us. M became one of my favorite students of all time.

Randi and Rhee, Two for Tea

Leonie Haimson wrote at nycednews:

Michelle (Take no prisoners) Rhee, head of DC schools and former media darling, is now in hot water, given her mismanagement of the budget, teacher layoffs, and the like. Rhee also recently announced her engagement to Kevin Johnson, former NBA player, charter school head and current mayor of Sacramento. See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/11/michelle_rhee_kevin_johnson_pu.html

In today's WaPost, Jay Mathews, education columnist, nominates Randi Weingarten to replace her if Rhee decamps for California. Excerpt:

From the pen of Jay Matthews (who will be writing the ICE/TJC campaign lit):

She [Randi] is a practical and imaginative leader who likes to defy conventional wisdom herself. She endorsed Republican George Pataki for re-election as governor of New York in 2002. She set up union-run charter schools in New York despite many union members distaste for that reform. She even signed a contract with the New York City school system allowing payment of teacher bonuses if students's test scores rose, another no-no to many unionists.

Most importantly, running the D.C. schools would give her a chance to demonstrate in the most visible way her oft-expressed view that teacher unions are just as committed to raising the achievement of students as anybody. She has already accepted money from big charter school supporters many of her members do not like, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, for her union's new program to encourage teacher innovations.

Read it all at:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/11/dcs_next_schools_chief_how_abo.html


One commenter was astounded:
Are you sure you're feeling ok Mr. Mathews? Because I can't remember reading anything filled with so much tortured logic and deluded thinking in my life. Of course Randi Weingarten will never be the Chancellor of the DCPS but thanks for letting all of us know that she's a lesbian. That's always an important consideration in matters like this. Certainly it's an area where Michelle Rhee is want.

Matthews, who is so often laughed at by educators, may be onto something as he lays out the full sellout of the AFT/UFT. Aside from the sexual orientation issue, the ideology of Rhee and Randi is not as far off as some people might think.

By the way. How could Randi do all these things so many teachers in her own union don't want? The answer is the Unity Caucus dictatorship that makes people like Putin jealous. Can he match 100% of the Exec Bd endorsed by one party?

Obama Supports Demise of Public Option in Education

One of the fascinating aspects of the health care debate has been over the offering of a public option to reduce costs while at the same time the Obama administration has been promoting policies (charters, etc) that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the public option in education. Here, in a series of posts over the last few days at the Schools Matter blog, we see the plan to undermine public education (and of course to destroy teacher unions) laid out by a former Bushie in early 2008. Now ask yourself: exactly what is the AFT/UFT doing in response? Think: who needs public education, let's get our share. Thanks to Michael Fiorillo for finding this gem (and don't forget, GEM in NYC right now is the only organized opposition to THE PLAN.)

Kenneth Libby in Friday's post laid out the plan to eliminate the public option in education in this post:

From the Vault

This is part of an essay written in early 2008 by AEI/Fordham's Andy Smarick, a former Bush II Domestic Policy Council member tasked with K-12 and higher education issues:

Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering's way forward: First, commit to drastically increasing the charter market share in a few select communities until it is the dominant system and the district is reduced to a secondary provider. The target should be 75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each should begin with a solid charter base (at least 5 percent market share), a policy environment that will enable growth (fair funding, nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps), and a favorable political environment (friendly elected officials and editorial boards, a positive experience with charters to date, and unorganized opposition). For example, in New York a concerted effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other potentially fertile districts include Denver,Detroit,Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington, D.C.

Third, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other areas. Fourth, engage key allies like Teach For America, New Leaders for New Schools, and national and local foundations to ensure the effort has the human and financial capital needed. Last, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each community and working with authorizers to close the charters that fail to significantly improve student achievement.

In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality charter growth and the development of a public school marketplace marked by parental choice, the regular startup of new schools, the improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.

As chartering increases its market share in a city, the district will come under growing financial pressure. The district, despite educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided adult-to-student ratio, the district's per-pupil costs will skyrocket.

At some point along the district's path from monopoly provider to financially unsustainable marginal player, the city's investors and stakeholders--taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected officials, and editorial boards--are likely to demand fundamental change. That is, eventually the financial crisis will become a political crisis. If the district has progressive leadership, one of two best-case scenarios may result. The district could voluntarily begin the shift to an authorizer, developing a new relationship with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet the new conditions. Or, believing the organization is unable to make this change, the district could gradually transfer its schools to an established authorizer.

You can practically check off each of Smarick's suggestions for a pro-charter policy environment, particularly in places like Los Angeles. The general silence of Right-wing education "reformers" (hell-bent, in reality, on destroying and privatizing public education) is not a coincidence - they're largely happy with Obama/Duncan's education agenda.
Welcome to "third way" centrism.


More Schools Matter articles on charters:

After Years of "Innovation," NJ Charters Perform No Better Than Poorest Public Schools

The Real Effects of Corporate Charter Schools on Public Schools

CEO Pay in Charter School Chains

Gloucester Parents Stage Protest Against Crooked Charter School Approval

Did Mulgrew Abandon ALL UFT Resistance to Judging Teachers On Student Data?

This Gotham Schools report on the Tisch/Moskowitz/Mulgrew/Williams panel last week had a few tidbits:

Tisch calls on charters to take on city’s worst high schools

Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch yesterday called on city charter school operators to move away from elementary education and take on the problems of fixing large failing high schools.

Speaking at Hunter College, Tisch said that charter schools have benefited from being the political “darlings” of the city and state, blessed with the most qualified teachers and some of the highest-achieving students. Instead, Tisch said, charter schools need to branch out to serve more struggling high school students, English language learners and special education students.

Tisch also said that she was confident that the ban on linking student achievement data to teacher tenure decisions, a state law observers speculate may disqualify the state from the competition, would not be renewed after it sunsets in June. “I do not believe there is an appetite legislatively to extend or prolong that law,” Tisch said.

Mulgrew, the president of the teachers union which originally fought for the insertion of the law into the state budget, did not contradict Tisch’s projection.

We have always maintained that the law was a farce in the first place because an nontenured teacher can be let go for a bad haircut. The law gave no real protection but was all about PR from the union to the members. So Mulgrew's abandonment of the law means nothing. What needs to be questioned was the strategy in the first place, a strategy that wasted political capital and became a national issue used by the ed deformers to attack the power of teacher unions. If you are going to get slammed anyway, then try to get a law that really provides protection.

Then there is the other contradictions on the part of the UFT when it comes to narrow data being used to measure teachers and schools. Support for merit pay, even if not for individual teachers - yet! The UFT cooperation in the Gates project to come up with ways to measure teachers (they say beyond standardized testing) will lead to that anyway.

thousands of retirees who rely on electronic pension payments have had funds involuntarily withdrawn from their accounts

Statement by UFT President Michael Mulgrew:

We have been informed that thousands of retirees who rely on electronic pension payments have had funds involuntarily withdrawn from their accounts. The city comptroller's office and the Bank of New York Mellon, who oversee the payment process, must move immediately to restore the funds and make anyone who was harmed whole. We are calling on the city and state to begin an immediate investigation into how this could have happened.


Gotta run. See if anything's left.

Election Post Mortem: John Liu is the Bomb

I'm not all that big on the voting process, given the fact that the choices we have are so narrow and the people who run need to raise so much money.

Voting is the least involvement (choose from amongst the very poor choices being offered by the wealthy oligarchy and go away for the next 4 years) and it is just not enough.

But given the election results, there is already speculation about the 2012 mayoral election.

Quinn? A Bloomie suckup. DeBlasio has a history of accommodating Bloomberg. Liu gives no quarter. And has the guts to do it. He showed up at the CPE founding convention and seems willing to lay waste to Bloomberg on education and other issues.

How gratified to read in yesterday's Times: ...when the mayor tried to meet with John C. Liu...Mr. Liu could not find time on his schedule, a highly unusual slight.

Liu told the reporter, "A long time ago, the people of New York decided there would be no king nor a monarch in New York City."

DeBlasio, on the other hand, who will be a major rival of Liu in jockeying for position, did meet with Bloomberg, despite the fact Bloomberg had called for the abolition of the office of Public Advocate.

Thus the landscape of the next 4 years was laid down the day after the election. I'm betting on Liu being smart enough to be as tough as anyone could get on Bloomberg, while DeBlasio already showed Bloomberg will have an easier time with him.

Watch the attacks on Liu start real soon. Anthony Weiner caved at the first hints of a Bloomberg assault. Liu will not be such an easy mark.

--------
Educate, Organize, Mobilize

From some of my young radical friends, the themes of educate, organize, mobilize (when necessary.) The first 2 are ongoing.

I take the same view of lobbying by individuals and groups with small constituencies. One of my friends talks about going to Albany to lobby against the charter school cap. Sure, why not try and compete with billions of stimulus funds. On the other hand, have thousands behind you with the ability to educate, organize and mobilize and you have another thing altogether when you try to lobby. Call it "muscle."

The UFT has all the elements in place to do this effectively but they don't educate their members or the public on the major issues (what they do is propagandize). They do minimal organizing in terms of the long term. An educated and organized membership would look at the operation they run and laugh. And they only mobilize for a narrow agenda once in a while. The UFT "muscle" in terms of results for members and the schools is fairly tiny.

Bloomberg and Weingarten to Tie The Knot

When I saw this old picture of BloomGarten over at NYC Educator, where Schoolgal is running a contest for the best caption (some good ones already, so get in there before the deadline), I was reminded of this piece in the Feb. 2002 Ed Notes hard copy edition.

Bloomberg and Weingarten to Tie The Knot

In an attempt to forge an alliance that would result in a fast track towards a new teachers’ contract, UFT President Randi Weingarten and Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced their engagement. Shocked members of the press bombarded the happy couple with questions. “I know he’s short,” said Weingarten. “But I’m shorter.” “Michael and Randi have had a wonderful relationship for a long time,” said a UFT spokesperson. “She was even his date at a dinner a few years ago. And the sweater gift---that was the clincher.” As part of the engagement agreement, the Mayor’s 22 year old daughter Emma will become the new Chancellor. It was also announced that the UFT & Bloomberg, LP will merge into a new firm to be called BLUFT.

The couple will live in the fancy penthouse digs atop the new UFT headquarters near Ground Zero, enabling both to walk to work. “Michael won’t have to take the subway anymore,” said Randi. The expected savings on the train pass have graciously been donated by Bloomberg towards the new contract.


While perusing the Feb. 02 edition, I came across some other stuff to share:

Delegates Vote to Shut Lights, but Not to Turn Them Back on

In a wondrous display of democracy, Randi Weingarten asked delegates at the Jan (02) DA if they wanted the lights shut so they could better see the wondrous slide show of the wondrous new downtown buildings. For the next 20 minutes, delegates got some much needed sleep. Unfortunately, the lights were turned back on suddenly without a vote being taken, an indication of how the union leadership manipulates democracy for its own ends. Delegates were outraged at being awaken so suddenly. Ed. Notes sponsors the following resolution:

RESOLVED: all future Delegate Assemblies be held in the dark. Union leaders would no longer waste time and money trying to pull the wool over the eyes of delegates.

There was actually some serious stuff in there, especially on the governance issue, where we trash Randi for supporting mayoral control. I put one piece up on Norms Notes:

Ed Notes on Governance, c., Feb 2002

Here are the jokes from that issue (why do you think people read Ed Notes at the time, for my brilliant insights?)

This comes from a Catholic elementary school. Kids were asked questions about the Old and New Testaments.

In the first book of the bible, Guinessis, God got tired of creating the world, so he took the Sabbath off.
Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree. Noah’s wife was called Joan of Ark. Noah built an ark, which the animals come on to in pears.
Lot’s wife was a pillar of salt by day, but a ball of fire by night.
The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with the unsympathetic Genitals.
Samson was a strongman who let himself be led astray by a Jezebel like Delilah.
Moses led the hebrews to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients.
The Egyptians were all drowned in the dessert. Afterwards,
Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten amendments.
The seventh commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery.
Moses died before he ever reached Canada. Then Joshua led the hebrews in the battle of Geritol.
The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.
David was a hebrew king skilled at playing the liar. he fought with the Finklesteins, a race of people who lived in Biblical times. Solomon, one of David’s sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.
When Mary heard that she was the mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta.
When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus in the manager.
Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption.
Jesus enunciated the Golden Rule, which says to do one to others before they do one to you. He also explained, “a man doth not live by sweat alone.”
It was a miracle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance.
The people who followed the lord were called the 12 decibels. The epistles were the wives of the apostles.
One of the oppossums was St. Matthew who was also a taximan.
St. Paul cavorted to Christianity. He preached holy acrimony, which is another name for marriage.
Christians have only one spouse. This is called monotony.

NEW READING TEST REVEALED
Here are some more words that will appear on this year’s reading tests. Start preparing your children now!

Coffee (n.), a person who is coughed upon.
Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much weight you have gained.
Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
Esplanade (v.), to attempt an explanation while drunk.
Willy-nilly (adj.), impotent
Negligent (adj.), describes a condition in which you absentmindedly answer the door in your nightie.
Lymph (v.), to walk with a lisp.
Gargoyle (n.), an olive-flavored mouthwash.
Flatulence (n.) the emergency vehicle that picks you up after you are run over by a steamroller.
Balderdash (n.), a rapidly receding hairline.
Testicle (n.), a humorous question on an exam.
Rectitude (n.), the formal, dignified demeanor assumed by a proctologist immediately before he examines you.
Oyster (n.), a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddish expressions.
Circumvent (n.), the opening in the front of boxer shorts.
Pokemon (n), A Jamaican proctologist.

A Tiny Norm Sound Bite: Obama Gets Tough on Teachers – What Does That Mean for NYC?

I spoke to Beth Fertig for about 10 minutes and chewed her ear off and about 5 seconds got used in this story. (David Bellel sent me the audio but I am not sure how to upload it.)

She didn't exactly use what I would have chosen, but I appreciate her effort to tell this story. What I stressed was the absurdity of trying to measure teachers, considering how almost no other job is being measured: cops (# of arrests?), firemen (volume of water out of the hose), reporters (# of words written or spoken), politicians (least amount of money stolen or wives cheated on. )

Her report talks about the 43% raise teachers got under Bloomberg, but I pointed out that a chunk of that is for a longer work day and not really a raise.

When she asked about the state law barring test scores for being used for granting tenure and how outraged Joel Klein was I pointed out that the law was irrelevant and everyone (but the press) understands that since non-tenured teachers can be fired if the principal doesn't like the way they cut their hair. This didn't make the cut.

By the way, when Obama talks about the firewall separating teacher evaluation from student results, how about his own performance so far? Mr. Obama, tear down that (fire) wall!!


http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/143870

Obama Gets Tough on Teachers – What Does That Mean for NYC?

by Bert Fertig

NEW YORK, NY November 05, 2009 —President Obama is praising Wisconsin for changing its law to allow student achievement to be used to evaluate teachers. The president visited Madison, Wisconsin yesterday, to promote his Race-to-the-Top fund which will award over $4-billion in total to states in exchange for reforms. As WNYC’s Beth Fertig reports, that puts pressure on New York, just as the city and the teachers union are negotiating a new contract.

REPORTER: Schools Chancellor Joel Klein talks often about the importance of getting better quality teachers.

KLEIN: President Obama himself has pointed out time and again it’s not race, it’s not poverty, it’s not zip code, it’s the teachers you’re getting that’s going to determine the quality of your education and we’ve got to get right on that in America.

REPORTER: Klein was furious last year when the state legislature passed a law preventing student test scores from being used to determine teacher tenure. And that law has come under renewed scrutiny now that the Obama administration is tying billions of dollars in education grants to specific reforms.

Obama didn’t mention New York in his visit to Wisconsin yesterday. But he alluded to states with so-called firewall laws.

OBAMA: Now here’s what a firewall is. It basically says that you can’t factor in the performance of students when you’re evaluating teachers. That is not a good message in terms of accountability.

REPORTER: Obama went on to praise Wisconsin and California for changing their laws. He also singled New Haven, which negotiated a new contract with its union that uses student performance in part to evaluate teachers.

The chancellor of New York’s board of regents believe the state will be elligible for the extra $4 billion in grants, because the law against using data to determine tenure sunsets in June. But with the city negotiating a new contract with the teachers union, some say this is a prime opportunity to look at new ways of evaluating teachers.

WILLIAMS: What the president has done is raise the bar in terms of expectations for mayors and school boards around the country about what it takes to negotiate reform minded contracts.

REPORTER: Joe Williams is executive Director of Democrats for Education Reform. He says one weakness in New York City’s contract with the teachers union is the rating system. A teacher can only be given a satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating.

WILLIAMS: If we want to have a system that’s filled with excellent teachers it would be nice to have a designation for excellent teachers. Right now the best we can hope for is satisfactory. I have my own kids in the system, it would be nice to know they have better than satisfactory teachers that are in there.


REPORTER: But city teachers don’t trust principles to rate them and they think the mayor puts too much stock in test scores. Some think their union has already bent over backwards to cooperate.

The United Federation of Teachers is working with the Gates Foundation to study what makes an effective teacher. Volunteers will be video taped and surveyed, and test scores will also be taken into account.

Norm Scott is a retired teacher who runs an opposition faction within the United Federation of Teachers. he says the union has compromised in other ways:

SCOTT: They’ve proven it by merit pay. They’re opposed to individual merit pay but they put the foot halfway in door by allowing for schools to be judged by merit pay.

REPORTER: And the union won a 43 percent raise over Bloomberg’s tenure in exchange for a longer work week. The UFT notably stayed out of this year’s mayoral race by not endorsing Bloomberg’s Democratic opponent.

That might make it difficult for the mayor to get too demanding in the next contract - especially when a $5 billion deficit prevents the city from offering teachers any sweeteners. Which is why instead of measuring effectiveness, the mayor might focus on something else: namely, the so-called absent teacher reserve.

More than a thousand unassigned teachers are still on the city’s payroll as subs because they lost their positions and other principals won’t hire them. The chancellor has called for a time limit to hire these teachers, to weed out the bad ones, but the union says there are also many good teachers in the pool.

For WNYC I’m Beth Fertig.

Join the Campaign Against K-2 Testing From TOFT

From Jane Hirschmann, Time Out From Testing

Hi, Norm, how are you? We are moving ahead on our Campaign Against K-2 testing before the DOE brings it in after the New Year. they have an RFP out for a math test and told us that they hope to have it in place in January.

I was wondering if you could ask people through your blog to go to our website at www.timeoutfromtesting.org and sign our online petition.

In addition, since parent/teacher conferences are coming up next week in the elementary schools, could you ask folks to download our parent letter and set up tables in the school to get parents to sign these letters? We have thousands already abut need thousands more. Here is the info:

Below is a link to a letter (in English and Spanish) of opposition to K-2 standardized testing. We need people to help us organize this letter-signing: make copies of the letter, have adults sign the letter, COLLECT the letters and then get them back to us. If you can help with this effort, that would be terrific!

We have found that parent-teacher conferences are a great time to get the letters signed. Parents set up a table in the school lobby (with permission from the principal) and ask parents to sign as they come into the school.

We also have a link to a resolution for SLTs and PTAs to pass and sign, stating their opposition to K-2 standardized testing in their schools. We ask that you get your school's PTA and SLT each to pass and sign this resolution, and then to give us copies.


Parent Letter in English:
http://www.timeoutfromtesting.org/k2testing_parentletter.pdf

Parent Letter in Spanish:
http://www.timeoutfromtesting.org/k2testing_sltpta_letters_spanish.pdf

Thanks so much,
Jane

The Morning After Winners (Thompson) and Losers (Bloomberg, UFT and Anthony Weiner), Updated

Updated Thurs. Nov. 5, 10pm

From the NYTimes today:

Said one top Bloomberg campaign adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect internal discussions: "If a poll had come out showing that the race was within five points, Barack Obama would have swung into town, the United Federation of Teachers would break for Thompson and Mike Bloomberg would not be mayor today."


Addition to loser list: Obama- See below under Losers

The big winner, and maybe the only winner in the mayoral election, was Bill Thompson. 51% to 46%. Add the other anti-Bloomberg candidates and it's a statistical tie: 51-49%.

All along I felt he was running for the 2013 race. Everyone declared him a loser from the very beginning. The obvious issues: Bloomberg was pretty popular and his money. But Thompson also ran an inept campaign, refusing to really go after Bloomberg on his education record and other issues. When Giulianni pulled the race card while campaigning with Bloomberg standing at his side, Thompson showed no fight back. A lot of the enthusiasm for Thompson that existed was due to anti-Bloomberg feeling.

Ed Notes was predicting from the get-go that Thompson didn't want to go overboard, preferring to husband his resources for the next time. And I felt that the lack of the UFT endorsement was a sort of quid quo pro, where he pretty much figured he would get it in 2013 in his face-off with Anthony Weiner, who the UFT despises. Thompson is now the most viable candidate in 2013 and has 4 years to build a war chest.

The losers:
The big loser is Michael Bloomberg. Listen to news reports and he's almost a laughing stock. Jeff Greenberg on Imus calculated what he spent per vote (I think it was thousands) and suggested Bloomberg should have just gone around in a Brinks truck and hand out a thousand dollars to everyone who promised to vote for him and he could have saved $50 million. (Thanks to Leonie, I realize he meant applying the thousand dollars a vote to the margin of victory. He could have spnet 50,000,000 by giving a thousand doilars each to 50,000 people who promised to vote for him. My math still may stink, so check it.)

By the way, if Bloomberg had donated the 100 million he spent for class size reduction in the 100 worst schools in the city he would have done a lot more to improve education for a great number of kids than anything else he's done in his education deforms. Remember what happened in Ed Koch's third term. May the same fate befall Bloomberg.

The other big loser is the UFT, which sat on the sidelines (see comments below). Their performance should cause as much embarrassment as Bloomberg faces. The numbers come out to their worst nightmare. At the debates over the Thompson endorsement at the October Delegate Assembly, the UFT leadership made the case that Thompson was a sure loser and at most could move the needle only 3 points. Let me do the math: subtract 3 from Bloomberg and I get 48%. Add 3% to Thompson and I get -- let me see now, it comes to 49% for Thompson. Thus, every time another idiot policy comes out of Tweed or out of the mouth of Bloomberg, every single teacher in the system should think about these numbers.

When the UFT folded on term limits in rejecting an ICE proposal at the October 2008 Delegate Assembly, Paul Egan also made a lame case, as I reported on my blog: In opposing the ICE amendment to the term limits resolution, UFT District 11 (Bronx) rep Paul Egan made the astounding argument that if each individual in the room went home and called their city council rep that would have a greater impact than if the UFT as an organization took a stand and pressured the reps to deny Bloomberg another term of office."

Will the election results affect the upcoming internal UFT elections? ICE/TJC will make sure to remind the members how Unity Caucus and Mike Mulgrew put Bloomberg in office.

(See the Ed Notes report from Philip Nobile on the Oct. DA:
Endorse Thomson Resolution Trashed at DA Fearful UFT Leaders Surrender to Bloombergs’s Reich)

Another big loser was mayoral wannabee Anthony Weiner, who folded like a cheap suit when faced with a few measly attacks from the Bloomberg machine. Counting on Thompson being the sacrificial lamb and would get swamped to the extent he would not be a viable candidate for mayor in the future (call it the Ruth Messinger syndrome), Weiner figured to be a shoo-in in 2013. In fact he could have beaten Bloomberg this time and maybe even handily. Look for a mea culpa, but his jelly fish spinelessness will not easily be forgiven.

Obama is also a loser here. He shunned Thompson while campaigning 5 times for Corzine. How embarrassing is that? What kind of message does it send to Democrats? Obama favors the millionaires like Bloomberg and Corzine over working politicians who came up through the ranks like Thompson.

ICE members comment on the election

Michael Fiorillo
The election results demonstrate the moral and political bankruptcy of the Unity Caucus, and particularly Randi Weingarten.

She was in many ways the chief enabler of Bloomberg's weak victory. Had she fought the overriding of term limits, had she exposed the fraud of Bloomberg's and Klein's educational regime, had she endorsed Thompson (admittedly, far from a perfect candidate), the entire political climate in the city might be perched on the edge of movement and change, and the axe might be a little further from teacher's necks. Instead, she took the craven route of sucking up to power.

Well, movement and change is going to happen regardless. Bloomberg's popularity and political support has been shown to be a Potemkin Village. If there is any validity to the Third Term Curse, then he is likely to soon become the most hated man in NYC.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Loretta Prisco

Certainly, Thompson was not all we wanted, but at least we would have a had a shot of having a more compassionate school system, kinder to kids and teachers. The media declared Thompson a loser a long time ago which seriously effected his ability to attract money and volunteers. If only our union...


Out of Oakland
The Perimeter Primate has left a new comment on your post "Comments on UFT and Bloomberg Embarrassing Win":

Yesterday I heard on the news that Michael Bloomberg had spent about $100 million on his campaign.

With a net worth of $16 billion (the most recent Forbes figure, making him world billionaire #17), the amount of money Bloomberg spent on his campaign was the equivalent of $312.50 to someone with a net worth of $50,000. In other words, it was a chunk, but not all that much -- relatively speaking of course.

I'm so sorry that the campaign finance laws of this country are permitting the wealth of this person to rule NYC. I'll keep my fingers crossed that more and more New Yorkers give him absolute hell for the next four years!

Comments on UFT and Bloomberg Embarrassing Win

Did Thompson run a campaign that could have won?

A couple of things were obvious during the long slog to today's Bloomberg "win." To have Thompson come so close is astounding and the closeness given the spending is almost being painted like a loss by the TV press. 5 points. Here are two emails that rolled in on ICE mail:

So from a position of weakness; not endorsing Thompson, we end up with a Bloomberg win by less than fifty thousand votes. Nice move UFT, excellent strategy to stay on the sidelines.
.......

Remember when [UFT Legislative Rep] Egan said that [at the Oct. DA] UFT endorsement would mean only a 3 pt.bump for Thompson?

I always questioned whether Thompson was running for mayor this year or in 2013. The catalogue of incompetencies in the campaign seemed astounding. He seemed to amble through, husbanding his resources and the UFT non-endorsement of one of their long-time buddies almost seemed like a plan. "You're still our candidate for mayor. Just not this year."

The NY Times had an interesting article on the campaign, with this dig at Thompson:

Three weeks before the election, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani made an appearance with Mr. Bloomberg before a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn.

Whatever message they had hoped to convey was drowned out by Mr. Giuliani’s speech, in which he suggested the city could not afford to return to the bad days before 1993, when the city’s first black mayor reigned, adding, “And you know exactly what I’m talking about.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who had prided himself on lowering the city’s racial temperature, was furious. The mayor’s advisers recognized the statement could become a nightmare if Mr. Thompson’s campaign exploited it deftly.

Mr. Thompson’s advisers pleaded with him to seize the opening.

“I talked to the Thompson campaign and said, ‘This is the decisive moment, it may be the best opportunity to change the race,’ ” a Democratic leader said. But Mr. Thompson refused to make a big fuss about the statement. He addressed it only in passing, relying on surrogates to take on the mayor. The Bloomberg campaign braced itself. But the storm never came.

Many always thought that Anthony Weiner could have won and today it is clear he could have. But no guts, no glory as he backed off at the first sound of unfriendly fire out of the Bloomberg camp.

In many ways, what the campaign was selling was a charade. Inside the campaign, pollsters and consultants fretted over surveys that showed New Yorkers angry over term limits, anguished over the economy and eager for change. Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election numbers were alarmingly low for a two-term incumbent. <>

Mr. Tusk started to hold daily meetings about how to knock Mr. Weiner out of the race, unleashing a two-pronged attack: making on-the-record statements belittling his record and encouraging embarrassing articles in the New York dailies. Negative articles began appearing, the most colorful of which purported to show that Mr. Weiner had skipped votes in Congress to play hockey in Manhattan.

Despite angry denunciations of what he called a smear campaign, the congressman slowly lost his will to take on the mayor.

On May 26 Mr. Weiner announced he would not run, and Mr. Tusk and Mr. Wolfson held a celebratory dinner at Peter Luger’s, splitting an $85 porterhouse steak.

When Weiner shows up at our doors in 3 years to announce he is running for mayor, give him the boot for his "no guts, not glory" philosophy.