June 2011 Archives

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has issued a warning to state-level school leaders telling them:

I am writing to urge you to do everything you can to ensure the integrity of the data used to measure student achievement and ensure meaningful educational accountability in your State. As I'm sure you know, even the hint of testing irregularities and misconduct in the test administration process could call into question school reform efforts and undermine the State accountability systems that you have painstakingly built over the past decade.

He goes on to say,

The successful implementation of Title I and other key programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) relies heavily on using data that are valid, reliable, and consistent with professional and technical standards.

The letter then describes a series of steps the Department of Ed wishes states to take to ensure the integrity and security of test data.

Unfortunately, Mr. Duncan is missing the biggest threat to the validity of the data being secured. It is the very high stakes that his policies place on these test scores. We have the Department of Education pushing the increased use of test scores for significant portions of teacher evaluations and pay, through Race to the Top, policies that reward or punish schools of education for the test scores of their graduates, and of course, the continued labeling of high-poverty schools as failures based on test scores. All this creates intense pressure to increase test scores, which, no doubt, accounts for Mr. Duncan's concern about test security. As was recently seen in Washington, DC, under Michelle Rhee, increased pressure to boost scores often leads to cheating.

But even in the absence of outright cheating, attaching such high stakes to test scores has the effect of decreasing their value as indicators of learning. As Campbell's Law states, "The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

Harvard scholar Daniel Koretz explained the problem in detail here two years ago.

As I explain in more detail in Measuring Up, a test is a small sample of behavior that we use to estimate mastery of a much larger "domain" of achievement, such as mathematics. In this sense, it is very much like a political poll, in which the preferences of a very small number of carefully chosen people are used to estimate the likely voting of millions of others. In the same way, a student's performance on a small number of test items is used to estimate her mastery of the larger domain. Under ideal circumstances, these small samples, whether of people or of test items, can work pretty well to estimate the larger quantity that we are really interested in.

However, when the pressure to raise scores is high enough, people often start focusing too much on the small sample in the test rather than on the domain it is intended to represent. What would happen if a presidential campaign devoted a lot of its resources to trying to win over the 1,000 voters who participated in a recent poll, while ignoring the 120 million other voters? They would get good poll numbers if the same people were asked again, but those results would be no longer represent the electorate, and they would lose. By the same token, if you focus too much on the tested sample of mathematics, at the expense of the broader domain it represents, you get inflated scores. Scores no longer represent real achievement, and if you give students another measure--another test, or real-world tasks involving the same skills--they don't perform as well. And remember, we don't send kids to school so that they will score well on their particular state's test; we send them to school to learn things that they can use in the real world, for example, in later education and in their work.

We have seen evidence of this in New York, where it appears that schools became better at teaching what would be on the high stakes tests, causing these scores to rise. Meanwhile, actual student learning, as measured by the low-stakes National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test did not increase.

All the test security in the world does not make this problem go away. Attaching high stakes to test scores makes these scores unreliable as valid indicators of student learning. If Secretary Duncan and President Obama are sincere when they say they do not want educators "teaching to the test," they should stop pursuing policies that make teacher pay and job security dependent on these scores.

This is one of the messages we will be taking to Washington, DC, at the Save Our Schools March on July 30th.

What do you think? Does making test data more secure ensure its validity? Or do the high stakes we attach to the data destroy its value?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest post by John Thompson

This is the second of two connected posts. Read the first here.

Richard Elmore and Elizabeth City have described three possible futures for public education. I see two of them as nightmares, but Elmore's and City's most hopeful scenario is one of schools that foster "controlled engagement," or the "frog gets a GPS." Under their model, "schools set the learning destinations and map out the best pathways to those destinations," and adults and students, together, create a broader learning environment.

Nancy Flanagan, a former Michigan Teacher of the Year and blogger, and Jal Mehta of the Harvard Futures of School Reform have also described likely paths for our schools. Flanagan and her teacher friends anticipated three scenarios:

1. "The Brilliant Temp model," where "teaching becomes a competitive short-term career for our best and brightest grads, who will last in the classroom as long as the job market for professional work keeps them there." In that scenario, "teacher training becomes truncated and limited to 'tools.'"
2. "The Teacher as Technician model, where the person in front of the room (or, more likely, cost-effective virtual room) is following pre-set 'protocols' to dump content into kids' heads, then testing for memorization."
3. "The Teacher as Skilled Professional model." In this age of "accountability," such an outcome might seem unlikely, but it has happened before. As Linda Darling Hammond explained, medical schools were once primitive institutions, but instead of abandoning them, we used evidence-based methods to teach doctors to become skilled professionals.

Mehta also described two models where "reformers" were victorious. Under scenario #2, "reform from the outside in,"choice continues to proliferate. New schools would be created from scratch for x number of fortunate students. Mehta speculated that these new entrants into the world of education "could end up the majority power in the top 100 systems." He could not speculate, however, how many of those experiments would work, and what percentage of students would still have access to an education under such a system.

Under Mehta's scenario # 4, "technological reinvention," there would be even more choice, "-- not just choice among schools as we know them, but choice among all the pieces that comprise an education." This brave new world would hold the same great promise for the winners of our grand educational competition, but it would be a dystopia for others. How many families of our most difficult-to-educate students, for instance, would be able to assemble and coordinate such a portfolio of options?

Mehta's hopeful scenarios, however, would mesh perfectly with Flanagan's and Darling Hammond's visions. Under Scenario #1, "the International Path," we would change in three ways:

"a) we'd move from taking teachers from the bottom 40 percent of the distribution to the top third; b) we'd move away from our world-leading emphasis on testing and external accountability in favor of support and capacity building; c) teachers unions would need to take on a professionalized role in addition to a strictly bread and butter one."

For me, Mehta's fourth possible path, #3 "Marrying School and Social Reform," is the most promising one. This has the advantage of being an old idea, based on a huge body of social science. The new element would be moving from "an aspirational ideal" to "a more concrete set of practices--inter-agency collaborations or teachers housed in schools explicitly responsible for helping students with problems that extend beyond schools."

Mehta explained we are now in "a 'schools only' moment, despite mountains of evidence of the inefficacy of schools alone" in creating educational futures for kids. By addressing that reality, we could point the way towards a synthesis of Flanagan's and Mehta's visions.

Obviously, "Brilliant Temps" and "Teachers as Technicians" would be unfit for either the "International Path," or for "Marrying School with Social Reform." On the other hand, we must wonder how long skilled professionals will continue to put up with the indignity of being the scapegoat for a broken system. It would be a great honor for educators, though, to be part of the GPS for students leaping into the 21st Century. To borrow an old metaphor, unless we expect to find a GPS laying on the beach, teachers like Flanagan, and scholars like Elmore, City, and Mehta, must work together to design one.

What do you think of the scenarios provided here? How can we guide our schools forward?

John Thompson was an award winning historian, with a doctorate from Rutgers, and a legislative lobbyist when crack and gangs hit his neighborhood, and he became an inner city teacher. He blogs for This Week in Education, the Huffington Post and other sites. After 18 years in the classroom, he is writing his book, Getting Schooled: Battles Inside and Outside the Urban Classroom.

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest post by John Thompson

In an earlier contribution to the Harvard Futures of School Reform, Richard Elmore described "the dismal, glacial, adult-centered, congenially authoritarian, mindless soup in which our children spend the bulk of their days." I assume he was mostly describing failing schools, that tend to be high-poverty. I wish he had also acknowledged the excellent teaching that occurs in many inner city and lower-poverty classrooms. Elmore was clearly accurate, however, in recounting "how little the monolithic beast of American secondary education has been affected by the bright, high-minded optimism of professional reformers."

In a concluding essay for the Harvard Futures series, Elmore and Elizabeth City wrote, "with rare exceptions, schools currently treat the digital revolution as if it never happened." They then described three possible futures for our public schools. Two of them would be tragic, but it would be an honor for a teacher to participate in a third.

Elmore's and City's first scenario was "fighting for survival," or "turtle gets a laptop." Schools would continue to be run in much the same way as they are today, as more learning technology is implemented. Under scenario #1, schools would simply add more computers without rethinking the way they do business, and they would increasingly become "custodial institutions, isolated from the lives of their students."
　
Elmore and City called scenario #3 the "open access to learning," or the "caterpillar learns to fly." This presumably would be the brave new world of "disruptive transformation" which Frederick Hess and Clayton Christensen proclaim. Under this scenario, "schools are on their own, competing with other types of service providers and learning modalities for the interest and loyalty of students and their parents." Once schools gave up on playing "the determining role in what constitutes knowledge," a golden age of learning would supposedly flourish. Technology would allow a family to "combine services from two or three different organizations into a learning plan for its children." Under this free market system, "schools as we presently know them, would gradually cease to exist and be replaced by social networks organized around the learning goals of students and their families."

Before we get carried away with this vision, let's return to Elmore's previous article, where he also described a high school class with "four students asleep with earbuds in place." Six students are carrying on a conversation unrelated to class. The teacher attempts to engage the class in a discussion, and four students respond. "The remainder of the class sits silently, staring into space, waiting for the bell to ring."

"Open access learning" might be wonderful for the class' four most determined learners. But Elmore and City offered no suggestions how the students who are "staring into space" would get there from here. Neither did they speculate as to the number of more difficult-to-educate students who would learn to fly like a butterfly. And what would happen if disruptive innovation blew up our K-12 system, and new "learning modalities" were unable to miraculously accommodate all students?

Also, the rationale behind NCLB-type accountability is that we already have plenty of schools offering unlimited access to learning for top students, and their performance is so great that it hides students who are left behind. After all, isn't American culture already the ultimate institution of "open access learning" for students and adults who have already learned how to learn? Don't our kids already have unlimited access to digital social networks, whether or not they have been taught how to function in them?
　
Elmore's and City's hopeful scenario #2 would be "controlled engagement," or "frog gets a GPS device." Under its "controlled engagement," "schools set the learning destinations and map out the best pathways to those destinations. Technology becomes less about adult control."

Under that scenario:

Teachers are less gatekeepers of knowledge, and more knowledge brokers. School leaders become less managers of instruction, and more entrepreneurs connecting their organizations to the broader learning environment. Schools become less places where students go to learn from adults, and more places where adults and students get together to enter a broader learning environment. But schools still play an important role in determining what constitutes 'knowledge' and 'learning' for students.

John Thompson was an award winning historian, with a doctorate from Rutgers, and a legislative lobbyist when crack and gangs hit his neighborhood, and he became an inner city teacher. He blogs for This Week in Education, the Huffington Post and other sites. After 18 years in the classroom, he is writing his book, Getting Schooled: Battles Inside and Outside the Urban Classroom.

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

We are just over a month from the Save Our Schools March on Washington, DC, and I have been asked how we got to this place, where we are motivated to protest. So here, with links to relevant posts from this blog, is the story, from my perspective as one frustrated teacher.

In September of 2008, I posted blogs about the education platforms of candidates McCain and Obama.

I did not endorse Obama publicly on my blog, but I organized a fundraiser of educators, and knocked on doors in my neighborhood with campaign literature.

A year after the election, in November of 2009, I had grown very dissatisfied with the direction the Department of Education had taken. Race to the Top doubled down on many of the worst aspects of No Child Left Behind, demanding that states increase stakes attached to standardized tests in order to qualify for funding. I posted an Open Letter to President Obama, and created a Facebook group called Teachers' Letters to Obama, to collect additional letters from others. In the next two months, more than a hundred letters were collected. I shared a number of the letters as blog posts here, including these:

Teachers From Across America Write to Obama

Teachers Letters Reveal Our Reality: Is Obama Listening?

Teachers Blog their Letters to Obama

Letters to Obama: One Teacher Writes

Is This Really Reform? A Teacher Writes

Letter #103: Bring Me All Your Dreams

Jesse is Walking to Washington

The entire collection of letters was published here, and copies were sent to President Obama and Secretary Duncan. I heard nothing from the White House, but got back a polite thank you letter from someone at the Department of Education. But no substantive response was heard, until one of the members of our group, Marsha Ratzel, made a connection with someone in the Department of Ed, who set up a phone call for our group with Secretary Duncan himself. We spent a couple of months discussing what we wanted to tell him, as a group, and selecting a dozen representatives from around the country. The phone call was, however, an exercise in frustration. You can imagine a dozen people, each one with a burning need to communicate, and such a short time available. We shared our ideas as best we could, but there was no meaningful response.

We spent last summer engaged in more discussions about what we wanted instead of current policies. I offered a Teachers' NEWPrint for reform as an alternative to the Department of Education's Blueprint for the reauthorization of ESEA. We came up with Seven Principles to guide reauthorization, which we sent to members of Congress.

In November of last year, I engaged in an extended dialogue with a Teacher Ambassador Fellow from the Department of Education, and described our continued frustration over their policies.

I again pointed out the mismatch between Secretary Duncan's words and the Department's policies.

In December I carried a guest blog from a Florida teacher who wrote encouraging teachers to march on Washington. I decided that he was right, and it was time to get involved. So I joined up with Jesse Turner and others working on the march. I carried letters like this one, from a former teacher named Peggy Robertson : Are you there Mr. President? Madison is Calling.

March of this year was rather strange. The month began with President Obama sharing the stage in Florida with former governor Jeb Bush, whom he described as a "champion of education reform." l

This, unfortunately, was largely consistent with the administration's policies.

At the end of the month, however, President Obama surprised us all with comments at a town hall that undermined his own policies. He said:

Too often what we've been doing is using these tests to punish students or to, in some cases, punish schools. And so what we've said is let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense; let's apply it in a less pressured-packed atmosphere; let's figure out whether we have to do it every year or whether we can do it maybe every several years; and let's make sure that that's not the only way we're judging whether a school is doing well. Because there are other criteria: What's the attendance rate? How are young people performing in terms of basic competency on projects? There are other ways of us measuring whether students are doing well or not.

I asked teachers and parents to offer letters to President Obama asking him to bring his policies in line with these beliefs. We created a petition, and as of today, more than 1,600 have signed it. We have collected more than 200 messages expressing our views, and sent them to the President and First Lady, and to Secretary Duncan. They are available for download here.

I also challenged President Obama to bring his Department of Education into line with his own beliefs. This prompted a somewhat heated exchange with the Department, who insisted that Duncan and Obama were "on the same page." I followed up with some questions addressing what I viewed as the disconnect, and my blog carried the Department of Education responses. This blowup was covered in the pages of the New York Times.

In my concluding post about this exchange (The Department of Education Cannot Unring the Bell Obama Struck) I did my best to summarize the key ways in which President Obama's own beliefs are undermined by his Department of Education's policies.

In May came Teacher Appreciation week, which led Secretary Duncan to offer up his Open Letter to America's Teachers. I posted my own response immediately, and then also reported on the response from others that poured in wherever the letter was posted, including the Department of Education's own web site. This response was noted in the New York Times, which at last acknowledged that there is a genuine debate over the future of our schools.

This month, I posted a blog drawn from the more than 200 messages teachers and parents submitted related to President Obama's comments on March 28. These reflected a deep frustration with the way teacher support has been taken for granted by this administration. We are now just over a month away from the Save Our Schools March in Washington, DC. This is our chance to show where we stand, with our voices and our physical presence. We will gather on the Ellipse, in the front yard of the White House. We will hear leaders like Diane Ravitch, Jonathan Kozol, Deborah Meier and Pedro Noguera, and supporters like Matt Damon join together to march around the White House. Our message will be clear. We want our public schools to be fully supported, not undermined. We want our schools, teachers and students honored for real learning, including creative arts, history, science and civics - and we want an end to the practice of attaching ever-higher stakes to standardized tests.

It has been a long journey, from the time almost three years ago when I joined with millions of teachers in supporting the candidacy of Barack Obama. I have sought dialogue every step of the way. When the Department of Education said they wanted our ideas, we spent months developing solutions rooted in our experiences in the schools. We have gone too far down this road to be ignored now. We will be at the White House on July 30th. Will we be heard?

What do you think of this journey? Will you march in DC on July 30th? What will your message to President Obama be?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 2:29 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest post by John Thompson

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), is a Gates-funded organization dedicated to data-driven, market-oriented "reform." It sees itself as a part of a coalition for "a better orchestrated agenda" for accountability, choice, and using test scores to drive the evaluation of teachers. Its forte is publishing non-peer reviewed opinion pieces under the guise of "policy analysis."

The latest NCTQ opinion piece, "Teacher Quality Roadmap," (downloadable here) seeks to shape Los Angeles school policy. The worst part of the latest attack on teachers is its saber-rattling statement that "economists recommend that districts routinely dismiss at least the bottom-performing 25% of teachers eligible for tenure." In fact, their source simply articulated a "thought experiment" and pulled the 25% figure out of thin air. Moreover, the source, "Assessing the Potential of Using Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making Tenure Decisions," was a study which was also funded by the Gates Foundation. The study acknowledged its findings were mixed and would "reinforce views on both sides of the policy divide over whether VAM estimates of teacher job performance ought to be used for high-stakes decisions like determining tenure."

The L.A. Times, however, implied that the NCTQ buried its lede. The Times headline proclaimed that L.A. is wasting $500 million on "pointless training." It did not question where those numbers came from, however. I had hoped that journalists' suspicions would have been raised by the study's footnote. The closest thing that the NCTQ came to revealing its methodology was their explanation that the $519 million figure came from subtracting a "possible payroll, which simply compensated for experience," from "the current payroll." The report's mysterious caveat was, "This figure is intended for illustrative purposes only."

But the LAUSD also provides extra compensation for Advanced Placement, for National Board certification, peer review, and instructional coaching. The NCTQ offered no evidence questioning the effectiveness of those programs. On the contrary, it only reported the results of a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of masters courses. And defending itself from Diane Ravitch's criticism, the NCTQ scaled back their complaint even further, explaining, "L.A. doesn't just reward degrees...it tags 'credit' onto pretty much any activity with an intellectual bent, including a teacher's trip to a museum or to the opera. Earning these 'credits' is virtually the only way to earn higher pay ..." Had the "Teacher Quality Roadmap" showcased the problems associated with that narrow criticism of that district, it could have helped improve L.A. schools. I wonder how much national coverage would have been generated by such constructive criticism, however.

So what was the NCTQ saying, and why was it saying it?

The study asserted that good students, especially from top-ranked universities, make more effective teachers. But, apparently, the process of reading, writing, and exchanging ideas is only effective if practiced in undergraduate, not graduate programs?!?!

The "Teacher Quality Roadmap" then used Teach for America as an illustration of the type of teachers that should be recruited. It downplayed the part of the study, however, where L.A. principals expressed the lowest levels of satisfaction for TFA candidates and for must-transfers. (The original report said that principals were even more dissatisfied with TFA candidates than must-transfers. The report that is now on the Web shows that dissatisfaction with TFA is second only to must-transfer teachers. The difference is whether it was appropriate to include Not Applicable responses in the chart.)

To be fair, paying teachers for graduate degrees is similar to pay for performance, because neither have been proven to be effective in increasing student performance. The value of both is in their roles within comprehensive systems for attracting, developing, and retaining talent. The NCTQ, however, seems to prefer recruits who find monetary incentives to be more attractive than potential teachers who are more motivated by the exchange of ideas.

Strip away the rhetoric, and the NCTQ only presented three sets of evidence. Firstly, it showed that a specific part of L.A.'s compensation system should be reformed. It presented no evidence, however that its preferred policies would be more effective than National Board certification, peer review, or other ways of building teams of instructional coaches.

Secondly, the study showed that it is not that hard to fire LAUSD teachers for ineffectiveness, but that principals do not believe the process is worth the effort. And even if due process prevented principals from firing more than two teachers per school, as suggested by the report, that practice would result in 60 times as many teachers being dismissed. In other words, the NCTQ's dangerous "reforms" would not be necessary if principals had been provided the capacity to do their part of the job of improving teacher quality.

The study's third set of evidence could have been invaluable had it been presented in an intellectually honest manner. The "Teacher Quality Roadmap" shows that the majority of L.A. principals in low-poverty schools are satisfied by the quality of their teacher pool. But only 25% of principals of schools where 91% or more of their students are low-income are satisfied with the applicants they would use to replace ineffective teachers. Similarly, nearly two thirds of those principals were stuck hiring the majority of their teachers in August or September. But that sad statistic was more than twice as bad as the numbers reported by principals of schools where only 3/4ths of their students are low-income.

By the way, the subtitle of the report is "Improving Policies and Practices in LAUSD." I wonder why the NCTQ did not attempt to do what it claimed it wanted to do. Why did it not study the actual problems faced by the LAUSD, and offer evidence-based solutions for them? Why did it try to equate an eccentric problem with a flawed aspect of L.A.'s system with a national debate on the best way to recruit, develop, and retain teaching talent? I also wonder why the press has not tried to explain why there was such a great disconnect between the NCTQ's recommendations and its actual evidence.

Any person who loved or loathed this latest report should check out the NCTQ web site and take a look at its other reports. Regardless of the district they are describing, their studies use almost identical words to describe the same policies. The problems are always the same - education schools, due process, not enough performance pay, and the failure to use enough standardized testing when evaluating teachers. And that gets us back to the NCTQ's commitment to an "orchestrated agenda." The names may change, but the NCTQ's villains and solutions do not.

John Thompson was an award winning historian, with a doctorate from Rutgers, and a legislative lobbyist when crack and gangs hit his neighborhood, and he became an inner city teacher. He blogs for This Week in Education, the Huffington Post and other sites. After 18 years in the classroom, he is writing his book, Getting Schooled: Battles Inside and Outside the Urban Classroom.

What do you think? Are journalists at the LA Times and elsewhere doing due diligence in their reporting? Or are they contributing to the "orchestrated agenda" described here?

image used with permission, by John Thompson

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It has been a year and a half since I wrote an open letter to President Obama, and started a project called Teachers' Letters to Obama. Back in December of 2009, I sent a package of 107 letters to the President and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (downloadable here).

Sadly, there has been no change in education policies, and the administration seems more determined than ever to enforce policies that attach ever higher stakes to standardized test scores.

On March 28 of this year, as President Obama began looking towards his reelection in 2012, he held a town hall meeting at a high school. A student named Luis Zelaya asked him if he could help reduce the many tests students were forced to take. The President responded with words that reminded us why teachers had supported him so actively back in 2008. But the words did not correspond with his policies, so the organizers of the Save Our Schools March created a petition, which states:

Our public schools need support. President Obama understands what his daughters need -- occasional low stakes tests used to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and a rich learning environment with lots of engaging projects. Unfortunately the policies of the President's Department of Education are moving us in the wrong direction, towards more tests, with even higher stakes.

If we continue down this path, schools will be completely driven by tests. Scarce resources will be spent on huge expenditures for computers, tests and scoring software, and precious school time will be wasted. Our students will become ever more focused on tests, and less on authentic learning.

With this petition we ask President Obama to bring his education policies in line with the vision he shared on March 28, at the town hall meeting. We invite him to endorse the principles of the Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action, and to speak at our rally in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2011.

To date, 1,570 people have signed this statement, and we have received more than 200 statements expressing their views. These letters have been compiled, and sent to President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. They can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Reading them over, there is a clear sense that emerges. Teachers and parents feel abandoned - even betrayed - by this administration. We were there for you in 2008, President Obama. Where are you now when we need you?

Michael Billingsley 

I strongly supported the election of President Obama in 2008. I am a college professor and was able to rally legions of students in support as well. However, if the decisions of his nominated representatives continue to favor high-stakes testing for teacher and student accountability, I will find a new candidate to support in 2012. Please Mr. Obama, get it right on this one. Make the tough decisions and back up the platform for which you were elected.



Caryl Crowell

In a few weeks, I'll be introducing teachers to the Common Core Standards at the request of my county's Regional Support Center, under the County Superintendent of Education's office. I do so with very ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, I support the new focus on comprehension of a variety of texts at all grade levels, something missing under NCLB, and the emphasis also on writing across the curriculum. On the other hand, I've visited the Department of Education's site and read the blueprint for the implementation of the Core Curriculum Standards. I know what's coming - even more onerous testing that we currently endure - something our students, teachers, and schools don't need to tell us how our children are learning. If the current blueprint stands without significant changes as specified in this petition, I won't be able to cast my vote for President Obama when he runs for a second term.



Carolyn Spence 

Dear President Obama, 
I am in my 39th year as an elementary level educator. I am presently a literacy specialist at a Title I school. A majority of our students speak another language and many enter school without the benefit of preschool. Our children hail from many cultures and are wonderful in so many ways. With the onslaught of high-stakes testing, many of them spend their early academic years labeled as "lagging behind". Can you imagine being 7 or 8 and already "failing"? Our teaching staff is motivated and works hard in spite of the challenges our children face at school and at home.

We understand the need for accountability and monitor our students' progress closely. But I worry that if we use high stakes testing data to make judgments about a teacher's effectiveness, good teachers will abandon the schools that need them the most. They will not want to be labeled "failures" and will preserve their careers by teaching less needy populations. That would be a tragedy. We don't need more bureaucracy. We need a society that truly values education and understands that meeting the needs of all children is not a recipe to be legislated by distant parties. I know you think in depth about all the challenges that face our nation. This issue of high stakes testing must be re-examined at the federal and state levels. Please help us!



Nancy Healy

I was a teacher for 30 years and worked hard to foster the kind of learning environment you said you want for your daughters. I felt accountable for every child in my class and measured their progress often, not with a state-mandated grade level test but with assessments based on the content I had taught. When NCLB became law and the consequences of inadequate yearly progress (measuring two unequal groups of students) became dire, I was forced to abandon the methods I believed in for fear my students would not do well enough on the tests. When I moved on to two different charter schools to help with aligning curriculum to the state standards I saw the same results--less innovation and more standardization resulting in less inspired teaching. I decided to opt for early retirement in 2009, discouraged by what I saw happening in Washington. I was hopeful, Mr. President, that you could change the direction of NCLB. But the message from the Department of Education has not been encouraging. Please endorse the principles of Save Our Schools.



Sharon LaCroix-Andersen 

Please put a stop to this forced school consolidation. Our town is being forced to close our 2 small elementary schools of in support of a large school. Please show me the data, studies and research that supports that a larger school with larger classes, increased busing, decreased teachers is in the best interest of our children. Please put a stop to the consolidation.

 




Judith Becker 

I supported your campaign and I supported my daughter who trained volunteers for Young Democrats in Stockton, Ca. I am retired from teaching in elementary school in one of the "low-performing" schools. We missed our goal by a tiny percentage in this high-stakes testing charade. We are not teaching science or social studies due to your policies. You do not seem to grasp what you are doing to the poorest students. I am very angry and disappointed.






What do you think of the sentiments expressed here? How do you feel about the way that the Obama administration is handling the nation's schools?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Teacher Jim Owens was chosen by the 435 graduating seniors at Gainesville High School to address them and their families, and delivered this speech to an audience of 5,000 on June 5, 2011.

Testing. Testing 1,2. Just like school, no? Always testing. Can you hear me in the cheap seats? Look at you! You're radiant. You look brighter than ever today. You look like you've learned something. It must be the cap. What do you think, should we make it and the gown the SCHOOL UNIFORM for next year? Think of the photo ops. That would show the rest of the world what education looks like in America.

I am deeply, deeply honored to be speaking to you today, to have been invited BY YOU, the students, on this very special occasion. There is no honor that this humble profession of mine offers that I would ever, or could ever, value more ...not even ... Merit Pay!

My name is Owens. Not Mister Owens. Not Jim. Just PLAIN Owens. That's what the kids call me and have for years. I must confess, it felt a little brisk at first, like an enthusiastic slap on the back. Until I realized it was a gesture of cordiality, whereupon I embraced it with affection. Should you too, in the future, feel inclined to call me Owens, by all means, do so.

I teach thinking skills. I do not teach to the test. I'm the guy who teaches your children to think outside-of-the-box. I do not teach your children how to think. Would that not be indocrination? Would that not be brainwashing? I provoke thought, at least I try to. I rather suspect that's why your children invited me to speak today: to provoke you. I shall do my utmost not ... to disappoint them.

Thinking skills. What's that? Well, that depends on whom you ask. If you ask the people who WRITE the tests, thinking skills might look something like this: If Chinese workers can produce and ship a television for $50, what would it cost to import a million televisions from China. A. $50,000 B. $500,000 C. $5,000,000 D. $50,000,000 or E. Insufficient factors to compute. For instance: how many American jobs will be lost? How will those lost jobs affect the middle class? How will rising unemployment affect the sale of televisions? The ONLY thing I can guarantee you, for sure, is that option E will NOT be on the test.

A more interesting question, I think, might be: If we've been testing for the past decade or two and our children, in world competition, are supposedly falling further and further behind, could it be that testing isn't helping? We are currently testing every grade from third to eleventh, and I understand we'll soon be testing the second grade too. Did you ever wonder what all this testing must cost?

According to education expert Diane Ravitch, "the CEO of Kaplan (a major supplier of tests and test prep materials) said on a PBS program that his business had grown from annual revenues of $70 million in 1991 to $2 billion in 2007 'on the back of testing growth of all kinds.' The other major testing companies - McGraw-Hill's CTB division, Pearson's Harcourt Assessment, and Houghton Mifflin's Riverside unit - would not disclose their revenues." I wonder why? THINKING SKILLS.

In the midst of FCAT testing this past March, WESH 2 news in Orlando reported that Pearson had earnings from FCAT over the past four years of $250 million dollars. That's just here in Florida, folks. I wonder if the testing companies lobby our legislators? I wonder what names they lobby under? I wonder if their contributions finance campaigns to "improve education" through more testing? THINKING SKILLS.

The tests themselves are just the tip of the iceberg. That $250 million doesn't include all the money our schools pour into test-prep materials, testing coaches, and computers. YES, computers. NOW we're required to administer the test on computers. That should make grading a good deal cheaper. I wonder if the savings will be passed on to the taxpayers, or if they'll simply go into the company's profits? THINKING SKILLS.

It would take a team of accountants from Goldman Sachs to figure out what testing is costing us here in Florida, alone. Now THAT would make an interesting research project for seniors, don't you think? I understand that we're soon to have an End of Course civics test. I wonder if there will be any questions on that test about accessing public documents? THINKING SKILLS.

Did you ever wonder what your children DO WITHOUT at school, on a daily basis, thanks to all this testing? For starters, they eat frozen food that gets warmed up by a severely reduced staff of cafeteria workers, and they eat it out of STYROFOAM trays with plastic SPORKS. I'm embarrassed when exchange students from other countries contrast their cafeteria food with ours. One of my students asked an exchange student from Germany this year if, at his school, students could go off-campus for lunch. The question baffled the German student. He couldn't understand why anyone would want to. He said that the cafeteria food at HIS school, in Germany, was really good and a whole lot cheaper than restaurant food. Compared with other first world nations, our children are notoriously unhealthy, largely DUE TO DIET. I wonder if there's any correlation between poor diet and low-test scores. I guess that would depend on who's paying for the research. THINKING SKILLS.

Did you ever lift your child's book bag? I don't think you ever did? I believe IF you HAD, you would've emailed or called your school board to complain that most of your child's textbooks are too large to fit in the tiny lockers available at school. Do you R-E-A-L-L-Y think a textbook that's as large as a phone book and as heavy as a brick needs to be so lavishly produced that it costs a hundred dollars and more? Have you any idea how many of your tax dollars go for textbooks? Did you know that the companies that publish the tests publish the textbooks too? Do you think the illustrations and the glossy pages INSPIRE students to read? The test scores certainly wouldn't bear that out! THINKING SKILLS.

Did you know that your children have nowhere to clean up after phys. ed. and go to class sweaty afterwards? With lockers too small for their books, they have nowhere to hang a coat either. When winter days warm up in the afternoon, students fold up their coats and lay them on the floor next to their desks, floors we can't afford to mop, much less wax, more than ONCE a year. We have fewer custodians today at GHS than we had when the school was 30% smaller.

Does your child stand slump shouldered? Does he lean forward as if he were carrying a sack of bricks? Is he eating greasy breadsticks for lunch because they're the most filling and the least expensive choice available?

What could POSSIBLY be more important than providing our children with an environment that's clean, comfortable and attractive and a lunch that's nutritious and tasty? What's more important than that?

Getting into college? Did you know that according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 1992, more than 60% of college graduates are unemployed or working jobs that do NOT require a college degree? 60%! Did you know that students in the United States who graduated from college a few weeks ago owe an average of $24,000? Did you know that the 100% Bright Futures Scholarship at University of Florida now ONLY covers 75% of tuition costs? And that's tuition alone. That's not books or board or anything else. Proposed tuition increases will reduce that 100% scholarship to 60% this fall. The 75% scholarship will only cover about 35%. Did you know that of the students who remediate more than one course at Santa Fe only 2% of them eventually get a 4-year degree? Did you know that only 4% of them ever get a 2-year degree?

If you're ready for college, if you're anxious to get there, if you know what you want to study, by all means, go and go immediately. College can be a life-changing experience. It was for me, and I could never, never, ever imagine not having gone. But times were different, very, very different then. I changed my major every semester for two years. I'm not sure I could justify that expense in today's economy.

If you're uncertain, if you're tired of school, if you're only going because you can't think of anything else to do, RECONSIDER. Work for a while. Discover what it takes to be independent. Pay your own bills, all of them. You'll learn more from that experience than you will in your first year of college, far more, given your present state of mind. You'll learn what it takes to get a job and keep one. You'll learn what you DON'T want to do. You'll learn what you MIGHT want to do. And, if and when you go to college, you'll go with a PURPOSE and a DETERMINATION you don't presently have. Mature students, students with real life experiences, are ALWAYS among the most serious students on campus.

Holy smokes, Owens, don't you have any GOOD news? I was saving it for last. Let me tell you a story, a short one. Thirty-three years ago Marco graduated from high school. He DIDN'T go to college. He took a job with a tree trimmer as a helper. He applied for a lineman's position with Clay Electric, and when a position opened up, he jumped on it. He trimmed trees, on his own, on the side, after work and on the weekends. He saved his money and bought ten acres in the woods. He set up a sawmill on it. Nothing fancy, just a big saw and a shelter to keep it out of the weather. ALL those tree trunks his clients DIDN'T want, he cut into lumber. He got an architect to draw him the plans for a house. On a tree-trimming job he met a contractor who was building a barn for the same client. Marco showed the plans to the contractor. The contractor redlined the structures that were problematic. Marco offered the contractor $20 an hour to help him on the weekends. After work, Marco worked on the house by himself or with his wife. He used the BEST lumber; he had LOTS to choose from. He spared no expense on labor; it was primarily his own. Within two years, he and his wife had a two-story, five-bedroom, 2700-square-foot house. They've raised four kids in it. A couple of months ago he showed me an album, two of them actually, that his wife had put together of photos she had taken of every stage of the construction. The house is a beauty, the workmanship only a Wall Street banker could afford, and the albums are a HISTORY of their ADVENTURE. They NEVER had a mortgage. They NEVER paid interest. Their investment was NEVER in jeopardy. Their home has appreciated several hundred percent over the years, and it's worth far, far more than that to them, because they built it with their own hands, TOGETHER.

Primarily through testing, we have spent the last thirteen years undermining your confidence and stifling your ingenuity. I'm pleased to report that we have not been entirely successful. I have seen signs of intellectual life, more than I've seen in several years, among several of you. There are lots of ways to learn, and testing suits a very small percentage of you, actually. I don't know how Marco would've fared on an AP physics test or the FCAT science test, for that matter. All I know is that right off the top of his head he can think of a dozen ways to load a tree trunk of several tons onto a trailer ALL BY HIMSELF; and if the situation is unique and none of those twelve ways work, I'm willing to wager he'll come up with a thirteenth way that does. I said, "Marco, how did you learn all this?" He looked at me like I was crazy. He's not what you'd call a METACOGNITIVE thinker. He doesn't spend much time thinking about his thinking. In fact, he doesn't spend any time on that at all. He said, "I don't know. I just watch somebody do it, and I try it myself." I said, "But what if it doesn't work?" He said, "I keep tryin' until it does."

What MORE do you need to know? THINK about it. Draw your OWN conclusions. You will NOT be tested on this material. School is OUT, my friends. Let your education BEGIN.

Jim Owens: I'm 61 years old. I have a Master's Degree in English Language and Literature from the University of Chicago. At Gainesville High School, I teach seniors thinking skills (in the Cambridge Program) and humanities, two academic electives that meet jointly.

I've been teaching for twenty-one years. Before that, I knocked about to see a little of the world. I worked as a trackman and a brakeman on the railroad, as a deckhand on the Great Lakes and the Inland Waterways, and Deep Sea as an able-bodied seaman. I waited tables at Antoine's in New Orleans. I was a pitchman in fairs and carnivals, selling magic. My wife and I traveled and lived in South America for three years selling balloon animals in the street.

My teaching style, pedagogically speaking, is highly unorthodox, which is why, I suspect, students enjoy my classes.

What do you think about the lessons Jim Owen left with his graduating students?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last week, in the pages of the New York Times, Diane Ravitch went after the most sacred of cows of the education "reform" movement -- the supposed "miracle schools" that prove the reforms actually work.

Columinist Jonathan Alter offered a rebuttal that was carried in a media outlet owned by leading education "reformer," New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. But his approach was to attack Diane Ravitch, and had little substance. It was immediately rebutted by dozens of commenters (including me -- see here.)

Duncan himself was compelled to respond -- the only thing more significant would have been if Obama himself had responded. And in his response, Duncan presumed to speak for teachers, saying, "Diane Ravitch is in denial and she is insulting all of the hardworking teachers, principals and students all across the country who are proving her wrong every day."

Jonathan Alter has been on the defensive since, and his performance in a debate with Diane Ravitch on David Sirota's radio show yesterday was unconvincing. You can listen here to the Wednesday, June 8 show.

Other education "reformers" like Michael Petrilli of the Hoover Institute have responded by actually defending Ravitch on the merits, and trying to walk balk some of the preposterous mandates of NCLB to more realistic levels -- again, met with a chorus of comments that demand real reform.

The remarkable thing in this event is not simply the fact that there is a debate here. It is how one-sided the debate has become. The "reformers" all seem to be sponsored flacks, and I am seeing virtually NOBODY speak up in defense of their project. Alter tweeted "the point of Diane's column was to discredit the progress those teachers have made." So far as I know, no teachers have spoken up to say they were offended.

When reporters pointed out the huge negative response that Arne Duncan's letter to teachers got a month ago, press secretary Justin Hamilton responded that "It's disappointing to hear that someone feels that way, but we don't think that's how the broader teaching community feels about it."

So here is a challenge. I would really like to hear from any educators - people actually working in our schools, and not on the payroll of Michael Bloomberg, Arne Duncan, or Bill Gates, who take issue with Diane Ravitch's critique of education "reform."

If there is a silent majority out there, as the Department of Education seems to think, here is your invitation to speak up. I offer the comment space below, and if you would like to write a full blog post, I offer that as well, without censorship or editorializing.

And if you agree with Diane Ravitch, please say so as well.

What do you think? Has the debate over education "reform" become one-sided? Are there teachers out there who support the policies of the Department of Education?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Wall Street Journal recently carried a report about a study that found that students are often affected by the stress that adults working with them are experiencing. In a time when education "reform" and budget cuts often seem to be making schools more stressful, this seems like a very significant issue. I wrote to one of the researchers, Catharine Warner, and asked her to explain more. Here are her answers.

What were the key findings of your study?

We find that just as adults' workplaces can affect their well-being and stress levels, so also does children's "work" at school. The classroom environment, particularly a lack of material resources and teachers' perceived respect and support from colleagues, is associated with children's learning and emotional problems. Specifically, fewer material resources and lower levels of perceived respect are associated with more problems, as rated by children's teachers.

How did you make these discoveries?

These findings are part of a larger project examining children's mental health within the school context. We used statistical analysis (multi-level regression) on a large data set of 10,000+ first-grade children across schools in the United States to extrapolate these findings. We focused on indicators of classroom environments and their effects on children's mental health.

How does stress affect learning?

Our findings indicate that stress in the classroom environment affects children's likelihood of exhibiting learning problems (difficulties with attentiveness, task persistence, and flexibility), externalizing problems (frequency with which the child argues, fights, disturbs ongoing activities, and acts impulsively), problems interacting with peers (difficulties in forming friendships, dealing with other children, expressing feelings, and showing sensitivity, or internalizing problems (presence of anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, and sadness in the child). These findings suggest that stress - in the form of negative classroom conditions - negatively affects the way children pay attention in class, stay on task, and are able to move from one activity to another.

Take, for example, few material resources - classrooms that lack essential materials for learning, like textbooks and learning materials, adequate heating and air conditioning, an absence of graffiti and trash are going to produce negative feelings in children, perhaps even a loss of a sense of value and importance. Learning everyday in a dilapidated environment may have negative effects on the way children value education and on their ability to stay on task in the classroom.

The mechanisms through which the classroom environment affects learning are still unclear - whether the stress is passed from teacher to student or students directly are distressed by classroom conditions like a lack of resources. But, improving the classroom environment certainly has the potential to improve the learning and emotional problems children exhibit at school.

Did you see an impact on the level of stress experienced by students from accountability systems -- such as from pressure to perform well on tests?

This is not examined in our study. There is not a specific measure of pressure to perform well on tests available with these data, and this is something that would likely vary as much by children's perception of pressure (at home or at school) as by the classroom and the extent to which an individual teacher pressures children to perform. We do know that teachers' reports of interference due to excessive administrative paperwork is connected to externalizing problems in children. So, perhaps children know they can misbehave if the teacher is not available, whether she is attending administrative meetings and replaced by a substitute or whether she is absent authoritatively even while present physically as she takes care of administrative tasks required for the school. The increased attention to test scores and monitoring as a result of NCLB may place heavy administrative demands on teachers. This may be an example of how stress in relation to test performance is passed from teachers to students. Not our study, but other scholars note that in response to questions about NCLB, teachers cite inadequate resources to accomplish goals, negative effects on teacher morale, and attention diverted from more important issues (Sunderman et al. 2004), which takes the joy from the learning environment. These findings have implications for issues associated with teacher reward systems and pay-based performance related to children's test scores- it's possible that would cause more stress for teachers that could possibly be passed along to students. But, this is not examined in our study.

Is there any relationship between the income level of those enrolled and the level of classroom stress?

This is a complicated question, and there are a few ways to answer it. Children with lower socioeconomic status (income, parental education/occupation) are more likely to attend schools with poorer classroom environments - more stress. In short, low income children are more likely to encounter stressful classroom environments. Additionally, excluding classroom environment from the equation, children's socioeconomic status has an important and significant effect on their likelihood of exhibiting mental health problems at school. However, results did not suggest that the stressful classroom conditions had any worse effect on the mental health of low-income children compared to high-income children.

How are current budget cuts affecting this phenomenon?

I can't comment on this in terms of findings from our study. My guess would be that budget cuts are affecting multiple aspects of the classroom environment, from the appearance to the total FTEs and support staff at schools. These factors are going to negatively affect the classroom environment, However, our study does not compare schools with higher budgets to schools with lower budgets or examine the effects of budget cuts on the classroom environment.

Can you project into the future as to how this may affect these first grade students as they grow up?

No, but this would be an excellent question for additional research - to understand the cumulative effects of classroom environment on children's mental health, and subsequently, the way in which mental health problems in elementary school may affect children's educational trajectories. Other studies indicate that children's first grade experience can really set the stage for their future outcomes (Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 1997, 2005), so I would suggest that these formative experiences and problems can have lasting effects.

Were there any patterns or insights into practices that are being used to reduce or mitigate stress for children or teachers?

We did not address potential solutions or their success in our study. This would be a different type of analysis. I do think there are practical solutions that can be applied to these findings - most obviously, improving the material resources available to children and the physical environment that surrounds them, but this is not a new finding for educational policy. What's interesting here is that while we so often test the extent to which expenditures affect children's test scores, there is little research examining the ways that material resources or increased expenditures matter for children's mental health. In terms of other solutions, we find that material resources, support from colleagues, the number of children performing below-grade level in the classroom, excessive paperwork, and low standards at the school all affect aspects of children's mental health. I would think that including elementary teachers and administrators in thinking of how best to reduce these kinds of strains in the classroom is a great way to start.

What do you think of this research? How have you seen stress affecting children?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

@anthonycody

It has happened again. An "education reformer" has used the pages of corporate media to go on the attack against a leading critic, Diane Ravitch. And lived to regret it. Jonathan Alter, an MSNBC commentator and former Newsweek columnist, penned an op-ed two days ago in the Bloomberg website. Titled, "Don't Believe Critics, Education Reform Works," the piece was long on ad hominem attacks and short on substance.

I wrote a response and posted it on the site - and was soon joined by scores of others, almost all scathing. (Note -- comments on the piece were closed off after about 24 hours). Then came the next round of responses, on the blogs of educators around the country.

Alter has been given a shellacking he will not soon forget. And the paragraph that perhaps inspired the most heat was the one where he quoted Arne Duncan, who said,

"Diane Ravitch is in denial and she is insulting all of the hardworking teachers, principals and students all across the country who are proving her wrong every day."

I don't know about principals and students, but teachers have put Arne Duncan on notice that he does not speak for us. In fact, this episode brings to mind Duncan's unfortunate and poorly received paean to teachers a month ago during Teacher Appreciation Week.

It is getting very tough for education "reformers" to air their views without finding that they have the effect of kicking off a counter-reaction far more resonant than their original statement.

Last fall, Waiting For Superman director Davis Guggenheim invited teachers to share their reaction to his movie with him, and got a similar lambasting.

Why do they write these things? It is a sign that critics like Ravitch are making a dent in the "education reform" narrative. She is especially devastating, because she focuses on the heart of the mythology the "reformers" have offered to justify their policies. This Alter hit was provoked after Ravitch unspun the latest "miracle schools" that supposedly prove poverty doesn't matter, and that high expectations and accountability are the keys to success. Ravitch knows that it takes on-the-ground facts to defeat a mythology, and provides them in her writing.

But the response has outweighed Alter's weak attack tenfold. And the response is far more authoritative than his original bluster. Dozens of teachers are stepping up, as did Alice Mercer, to point out how education reform policies actually affect their schools.

Teachers are not letting people like Arne Duncan or Jonathan Alter pretend to be experts on education any longer. We are here to speak for ourselves, and for our students.

And we are coming to Washington, DC, July 30th, to make sure our voices are heard.

Here is the response I posted to Alter's piece myself:

Wow! I consider myself a "fellow traveler" with Dr. Ravitch, but I did not realize that our central thesis was that teachers could do no better. I think we can do much better, but the path our "education reformers" have chosen is not the way.

I have worked in the high-poverty schools in Oakland, California, for the past 24 years, 18 of them as a classroom teacher. I have a firsthand understanding of what works, and what does not. Making a fetish out of test scores, and spending endless hours poring over test score data, does not work. It just makes teachers focus narrowly on test scores at the expense of real learning. Labeling schools as failures and firing key staff does not work, it just creates an atmosphere of fear -- but that seems to be one of the key weapons in the "reform" arsenal.

Alter asserts that reformers do not deny the reality of poverty. On the contrary, they do. Otherwise, how would we have a system that demands 100% of our students reach proficiency in a few short years? How would we have a system that requires Special Ed and English Language Learners be given the same tests and meet the same expectations as students without these disadvantages?

I wish Jonathan Alter would take a job for a single semester at an urban middle school. Take on the accountability for students that you write about so glibly. Then come back and tell us how you wish to be held accountable.

We WILL do better when we let go of the illusion that mandates and tests will improve our schools. That we can simultaneously improve an institution while systematically denigrating and disempowering the professionals who work there. We will do better when we recognize the importance of stabilizing a teaching staff, and giving them time and space, and respect for the critical collaborative work they need to do to improve. We will do better when we fund our schools properly, so they do not have to choose between a library and a nurse. Or worse yet, where they have neither. We will do better when education policy makers take the time to listen to people who work in our schools, and not 'reformers' funded by billionaires.

Update: Diane Ravitch will debate Jonathan Alter on David Sirota's Denver radio show, at 7 am Denver time, 9 am Eastern time, on the morning of Wednesday, June 8. You can listen live online here, or catch the podcast later here.

What do you think of the dust-up caused by Alter's hit piece? Is your voice as an educator going to be given any weight by the media?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The fourth and final video in our special series of Save Our Schools video spots has been released. We do not have a big budget - just a lot of heart. So when we wanted to share some positive messages about why we are marching this summer, we went to YOU, to ask for images and video footage to help show how we are supporting students, parents, teachers and schools, and build awareness of the Save Our Schools March this coming July 30th. The amazing Tom and Amy Valens, who produced the documentary "August to June," have crafted these images into these videos. Please watch the latest: "Here's to Our Schools!"

If we had millions of dollars, we would pay for these videos to be broadcast far and wide. But we only have ourselves - so please help out by sharing these videos with your friends, post them on Facebook, and any other way you can think of.

Below are the earlier videos in this series.

Parents may end up being the deciding force in determining the direction of our nation's schools. Will we continue to use an ever-larger share of instructional time and scarce dollars for more and more tests? Will we continue to starve local public schools and expand semi-private charter networks? Or will we reclaim the institution of public education for future generations? These short videos have been created to build awareness of the Save Our Schools March, coming up July 30th in Washington, DC.

Two weeks ago I shared the third video in the series, celebrating parents.

The second in the series has been the biggest hit so far.

And here is our first video, released two weeks ago in honor of Teacher Appreciation Week:

What do you think of our videos? Can you help us share them?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend