July 2011 Archives

Wow. What a day. Friday the temperature had hit about 104, but Saturday was breezy and cooler, topping out in the mid-90s. We had a couple of tents behind the stage for all the speakers and performers, and folks started to arrive. We had a little time to fill between the first band and the rally kickoff, so I arranged for some teachers to read some of the messages we had gathered from Teachers' Letters to Obama, and our more recent petition to the President. We also shared the wonderful videos made for Save Our Schools by Tom and Amy Valens.

Then the rally kicked off, with some recognition of the outstanding work done by our state-level information coordinators and volunteers. The contingent from Wisconsin entered the park en masse, with their red and blue signs. I started to work to help make sure the next speakers were ready when it was their turn, assisting a fantastic young man by the name of Troy Grant. There was a buzz by the back of the staging area as Matt Damon arrived, and was surrounded by fans and photographers. He stood for 45 minutes in the hot sun out there speaking to reporters and fans. Then he came into the hospitality tent, and continued to field questions for the next hour plus. When I greeted me, and told me he has read my blog, I was happy - and when I saw his thoughtful comments, and listened his powerful speech, I know he has a far deeper understanding of education issues than any other celebrity I know of. When Lisa Goldman took a photograph of me with Matt and his wonderful mother, Nancy Carlsson Paige, Matt said, "Does that mean I get into your blog?" So this is for you, Matt!

And here is Matt Damon's excellent speech on video, thanks to Dan Brown over at Teacher Leaders Network.

I got to spend a bit of time with some of my other heroes, Deborah Meier, Diane Ravitch, Jonathan Kozol, Linda Darling-Hammond and my old friend from college, Pedro Noguera. The funniest moment of the day came when a report grabbed my elbow and asked me "Are you Jonathan Kozol?" I wish I had a photo of Dr. Kozol and myself standing together to illustrate the absurdity of that question.

The biggest thrill was seeing folks arrive from all over the country. I met activists Marian Wagner and Noam Gundle from the state of Washington, Phoebe Ferguson and Karran Harper Royal from New Orleans, Adam Heenan, Walter Goodwin, Dr. T. Lee, Susan Ohanian, with her yellow t-shirt reading "Arne Duncan, In Need of Improvement!" and so many more I could fill this page. Names I have only seen before on Facebook, or on Twitter, or as participants in webinars, or at other blogs, introduced themselves and shared excited impressions of the day.

Here are some videos that have started coming in:

Jonathan Kozol's speech:

From Oklahoma City:

From Madison:

And proud Texan JOHN KUHN!

Of course the speeches ran long, and we had too many of them, though it is hard to know what could have been cut. I heard bits and pieces of them, and am looking forward to the videos - because I was so busy I missed most of what was said. The march took off a little before three, maybe half an hour late. Spirits were high - and taking a look at some of the coverage this morning, I think that is the biggest takeway message. When people are beat up and vilified, it tough not to get demoralized, even when you know you are being wronged. But when you begin to stand up, and speak up for yourself, all of a sudden you find people are there with you.

Valerie Strauss carried Matt Damon's speech today. He closed by saying:

This has been a horrible decade for teachers. I can't imagine how demoralized you must feel. But I came here today to deliver an important message to you: As I get older, I appreciate more and more the teachers that I had growing up. And I'm not alone. There are millions of people just like me.

So the next time you're feeling down, or exhausted, or unappreciated, or at the end of your rope; the next time you turn on the TV and see yourself called "overpaid;" the next time you encounter some simple-minded, punitive policy that's been driven into your life by some corporate reformer who has literally never taught anyone anything. ... Please know that there are millions of us behind you. You have an army of regular people standing right behind you, and our appreciation for what you do is so deeply felt. We love you, we thank you and we will always have your back.

Thank you, Matt. Thank you Diane, Deborah, Jonathan, Jesse Turner, Pedro, and about five thousand more, who stood together with us yesterday and changed the future for our schools.

What do you think? Will you come the next time we do this?

Photo credit: Lisa Goldman, used by permission.

[Editorial note: Education Week Teacher is not affiliated with the Save Our Schools event; the views expressed in this opinion blog do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions]

Posted by Anthony Cody at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

For me, the journey to today's Save Our Schools March started when I wrote an open letter to President Obama raising serious questions about where we are headed with education reform in America. Those questions have still not been answered.

Yesterday I had a chance to ask Arne Duncan a question, after his "Working Toward 'Wow'" speech. What I asked him was this:

I worked in high poverty schools in Oakland for 24 years. The turnover rate for our interns is 75% after three years. Your proposal for the reauthorization of ESEA continues to label the bottom 10% of our schools as failures. Under these circumstances, who will choose to teach in these high poverty schools? Doesn't this contribute to the crisis in our profession?

Though Secretary Duncan responded, I did not get an actual answer to my question, as to who will choose to teach in these schools.

Here are some more questions we must ask.

No Child Left Behind was a huge national experiment based on the so-called Texas Miracle, which turned out to be a hoax.

When current policies are questioned we are told similar stories about schools that supposedly are "beating the odds," and thus prove what is possible.

The National Academy of Science recently released a report that showed that nearly a decade of test-based reforms have shown no positive effect on real student learning. Study after study shows that paying teachers for test scores does not work - even to raise those scores. Evaluating people based on test scores has not worked. Closing schools and firing people to improve schools has not worked. When will the Department of Education begin basing its policies on sound research rather than exceptional cases, many of which turn out to be poor models in any case?

Over a year ago, Secretary Duncan and President Obama praised the decision by the administration to fire the entire staff of teachers at Central Falls High School. Though there was a subsequent agreement that reversed this decision, morale plummeted, student disrespect for teachers increased and teacher turnover rose. How is this any sort of a strategy for school improvement?

Many of the core elements of Race to the Top and the Blueprint are related to test scores. Department of Ed policy calls for the linking of teacher evaluations and pay to student test scores. The Blueprint calls for tracking of student test scores of teachers according to the place they were prepared. We still have the threat of reconstitution hanging over the bottom tier of schools, attended exclusively by children in poverty. All based on test scores. In March, President Obama described the tests that Sasha and Malia take as "low stakes." All these changes RAISE the stakes on the tests, for teachers and schools. How does this move us towards the "less pressure-packed environment" the President has advocated?

Yesterday Secretary Duncan suggested that teachers be paid as much as $150,000 a year. Afterwards, some National Board certified teachers from Detroit told me that as a result of the latest crisis, they are about to LOSE $15,000 to $20,000 in pay and benefits. What fiscal planet is Secretary Duncan on? And since he has no capacity to actually impact teacher pay, what difference does it make in the real world when he says our pay should be increased?

How about supporting processes that empower teachers to take leadership? How about real support for teacher action research? How about leveraging collaboration to reduce turnover and build stability? How about building teacher accountability on a foundation of real responsibility and agency, rather than bribes and threats? How about policies that reduce, rather than accelerate, racial and economic segregation?

We have been asking questions like this for more than a year, and the answers we get are maddeningly devoid of insight.

The answers to the challenges facing our schools will not be heard from Secretary Duncan. He has been given many chances to respond, and all we get is nonsense. We want answers and today, we are marching to the White House to demand them.

Note: Blogger Alice Mercer will be providing streaming audio from today's events around the country, starting at 11 am. Find out more here.

What questions would you like answers to? What must we do to get our concerns heard?

image by Anthony Cody, used with permission

[Editorial note: Education Week Teacher is not affiliated with the Save Our Schools event; the views expressed in this opinion blog do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions]

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:43 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Alfie Kohn has been at the forefront of the resistance to test-based reforms for more than a decade. As we approach the Save Our Schools March this Saturday, I asked him to share some thoughts about the challenges we face.

When many of us point out the narrowing of the curriculum that has been the result of high stakes testing, we are told that the next generation of tests, which the Department of Education has invested $350 million to develop, will be far better at measuring complex thinking. What do you think of this?

First, history alone should make us skeptical about the claim that DOE is going to reverse course; as far as I know, there's zero precedent for meaningful assessments sponsored -- or even encouraged -- by federal officials.

Second, the cast of characters currently in Washington makes that claim even less credible. Arne Duncan knows nothing about the nuances of assessment and he's surrounded by Gates Foundation people and others who are at the heart of the corporate "reform" movement that has actively supported the ultra-high-stakes use of lousy tests.

Third, any test that's standardized -- one-size-fits-all, created and imposed by distant authorities -- is inauthentic and is likely to measure what matters least. If these people were serious about assessing children's thinking, they would be supporting teachers in gathering information over time about the depth of understanding that's reflected in their projects and activities. Do the folks at DOE even realize that you don't need to test in order to assess?

Fourth, there's every indication that whatever assessments are created will continue to be the basis for rating and ranking, for bribes and threats. A high-stakes approach, in which you use your power to compel people below you to move in whatever direction you want is at the heart of the Bush-Obama-Gates sensibility (see NCLB, Race to the Top, etc.). And that will undermine any assessment they come up with. We saw that in Kentucky and Maryland a dozen years ago: "Accountability" systems destroyed performance-based assessments. It's sort of like the economic principle about currency known as Gresham's Law: Bad assessments will drive out good assessments in a high-stakes environment.

Much of your work has focused on student motivation. How do you see high stakes testing affecting students' motivation to learn?

There are two things going on here. First, literally scores of studies have shown that extrinsic inducements tend to undermine intrinsic motivation. The more you reward people for doing something (or threaten them for not doing it), the less interest they tend to have in whatever they were made to do. Dangle money or higher ratings in front of students -- or teachers -- for producing better results, and you may get better results temporarily, particularly if the measure is superficial. But their interest in doing it will likely decline, which means this controlling approach isn't just ineffective -- it's counterproductive.

Second, the problem isn't just with the (manipulative) method; it's with the goal. The high stakes here aren't designed to improve learning, at least in any meaningful sense of the word. They're designed to improve test scores. Those are two completely different things, and they typically pull in opposite directions. Pressure people to raise scores, and the classroom will be turned into a test-prep center. Such an environment will likely make anyone's passion for learning (or teaching) evaporate.

How might we approach enhancing the motivation of teachers to teach well?

You can't "motivate" people other than yourself. You can make them do certain things by bribing or threatening them, but you can't make them want to do it. In fact, the more you rely on extrinsic inducements like merit pay or grades, the less interest they're likely to have in doing those things. What we can do is support teachers' intrinsic motivation by bringing them in on decision making, by working with them -- so they, in turn, will work with students -- to create a culture, a climate, a curriculum in which a passion for teaching and learning is nourished.

I wrote an article a few years ago called "The Folly of Merit Pay," and I ended it as follows: "So how should we reward teachers? We shouldn't. They're not pets. Rather, teachers should be paid well, freed from misguided mandates, treated with respect, and provided with the support they need to help their students become increasingly proficient and enthusiastic learners."

This week John Merrow said he hoped people would "go to the rally ready to argue for specific changes in schools -- not just 'holistic education' and the like, but specifics." How would you respond to his request?

Actually, "holistic" education -- along with other adjectives such as "progressive" or "learner-centered" or "constructivist" -- isn't just a vague slogan. It denotes very specific and, in my opinion, sensible and research-backed practices. Of course it takes awhile to explain what they are and why they make sense, so we'll always be at a disadvantage compared to people who speak in sound bites about "bold reform," "raising the bar," "accountability," "tougher standards," and so on. Those are the people we ought to be pushing for specifics: What exactly do you have in mind, pedagogically speaking, beyond bullying teachers and kids to get higher scores on bad tests?

In any case, those of us with a commitment to progressive education are protesting the outrageous policies being foisted on our schools precisely because they make it so difficult to do what makes sense for children. It's precisely because of our desire for meaningful teaching and learning (about which we can be as specific as you'd like) that we oppose the heavy-handed, top-down, test-driven, corporate-styled policies that get in the way.

Incidentally, when ordinary people took to the streets in Cairo and elsewhere in the Middle East, I wonder if John Merrow wagged his finger at them and piously advised them that they ought to have a fully formed plan for democratic government before protesting.

What do you think is the significance of the Save Our Schools March?

We are living through what future historians will surely describe as one of the darkest eras in American education -- a time when teachers, as well as the very idea of democratic public education, came under attack; when carrots and sticks tied to results on terrible tests were sold to the public as bold "reform"; when politicians who understand nothing about learning relied uncritically on corporate models and metaphors to set education policy; when the goal of schooling was as misconceived as the methods, framed not in terms of what children need but in terms of "global competitiveness" -- that is, how U.S. corporations can triumph over their counterparts in other countries.

There will come a time when people will look back at this era and ask, "How the hell could they have let this happen?" By participating in Saturday's march, by speaking out in our communities, we're saying that we need to act before we lose an entire generation to this insanity. The corporate-style school reformers don't have research or logic on their side. All they have is the power to impose their ignorance with the force of law. To challenge their power, therefore, means we need to organize. We must make sure that the conversation about the how's and why's of education is driven by educators.

In short, we have to take back our schools.

Alfie Kohn is the author of 12 books on education and human behavior, including The Schools Our Children Deserve, Punished by Rewards, The Case Against Standardized Testing, and, most recently, Feel-Bad Education.

What do you think of Alfie Kohn's perspective? Have our schools lost their way?

[Editorial note: Education Week Teacher is not affiliated with the Save Our Schools event; the views expressed in this opinion blog do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions]

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest post by John Thompson

On the eve of our Save Our Schools March, we should look anew on the "reform" wars. The S.O.S. March will highlight educators' ideas for improving our schools. To save and improve our schools, teachers and school administrators must show that we have the better ideas for helping our kids. But we should also remember that we will be rallying at a time when data-driven "reform" is on the ropes.

The devastating indictment of bubble-in accountability by the National Academies of Science did not get the attention it deserved. But the cheating scandals in Atlanta, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and elsewhere have. And they are just the tip of the iceberg of corruption.

A lower-profile method of cheating by using "credit recovery" to pad graduation rates also has been documented in Colorado and New York City. Even so, the NAS reported that graduation rates have declined by 2% due to test-driven accountability. Even Rupert Murdoch's New York Post is telling uncomfortable truths about the way that New York City pressures schools to just pass kids on, and when more stringent Regents Examination rules are adopted next year, another of the city's educational "reform" miracles will disappear.

Speaking of Murdoch, his plans for schools seem to be headed down the path of his soulmate's educational agenda. Joel Klein has shown his true colors and hitched his career to that of Murdoch's News Corporation. In doing so, he follows in the footsteps of Michelle Rhee, who is now joined at the hip with Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.

Similarly, Klein's NYC, and Rhee's D.C. have joined the "Texas Miracle" and Alan Bersin's supposed miracle of reform in San Diego in proving to be mirages. It is too soon to write off the Duncan Administration's Race to the Top and School Improvements Grants as failures. The press, however, is covering the difficulties faced by states in implementing their RttT promises. There has been coverage of a successful turnaround that was more than a decade in the making, and the good start made in turning around a school that got rid of a fifth of its students. But where are the stories of high-dollar turnarounds and transformations that worked with the "same kids in the same building?"

Speaking of which, the press is covering the actual charters that claimed that they were closing the achievement gap without "creaming." Although social scientific research has shown that the overwhelming majority of charters do no better than regular schools, and many have a worse record, their advocates pointed to charters in New York City and New Orleans which were supposedly producing better outcomes. The New York Times, however, has blown a hole in those claims for that city by documenting the way that three high-profile charters used disciplinary policies, and student application information to deny access to more difficult-to-educate students. The Times also showed how the city's "choice" program for regular schools also increases segregation.

On the other side of the country, Los Angeles charters are showing the logical conclusion of the "reform" vision. Due to long hours and the unbending commitment of charter leaders to their ideology, L.A. charters have a teacher turnover rate of 50% per year.

And at Aspen, "reformer" Jonah Edelman articulated the billionaires's solution for closing the achievement gap. They rammed through a law in Illinois which was designed to give the mayor the unilateral power to increase the school year without increasing salaries. Acknowledging that "trying to lengthen the day while paying people no more is obviously going to stress them," the accountability hawks have tried to engineer better teachers who are impervious to stress. So, they funded a personality screening test for Chicago teacher applicants, TeacherFit. It screened out teaching candidates who did not answer correctly when asked how they felt about working extra hours without pay. TeacherFit had "blacklisted" 30% of applicants before publicity forced the district to back off from it.

The expose that documented the most horrific abuses and the worst ways of pushing kids who are more challenging out of charters was The American Independent's documentation of the "brutal" disciplinary systems of the New Orleans State Recovery District. It drew upon work by the Southern Poverty Law Center showing how these charters "react to minor rule violations by forcibly handcuffing children to furniture, brutally slamming them, banishing them from their schools and cutting short their education."

As we approach the Save Our Schools March on July 30th, teachers will rightfully be stressing the contributions that we make to real reform. By now, the public and the press are recognizing that it is the educators who are protecting our students from self-righteous zealots.

I will not be able to make the S.O.S March in D.C. I regret not being able to meet some of the teachers who pioneered professional development programs such as National Board certification and peer review evaluation and mentoring systems. I wish I could meet in person the Teachers of the Year who I read in the edusphere. Above all, I will miss the chance to swap best practices with my colleagues.

But, I will attend our S.O.S. rally that day in Oklahoma City. We will gain strength by knowing that educators are gathering across the country. We should also gain confidence by recalling the string of defeats that have been suffered by "reformers" who want to turn our schools into test prep factories responsible solely to the Market. Now is the time to gather our courage, and strike hard to put away the "reforms" that threaten public education, as we continue our efforts to serve our 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.

What do you think? Are the phony reforms on the ropes? Are real solutions going to be given a chance?

[Editorial note: Education Week Teacher is not affiliated with the Save Our Schools event; the views expressed in this opinion blog do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions]

Posted by Anthony Cody at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Marion Brady offers us some words to chew over this morning:

Kids can't be taught to think better using tests that can't measure how well they think.

The logic should be obvious. What gets tested gets taught. Complex thinking skills -- skills essential to survival--can't be tested, so they don't get taught. That failure doesn't simply rise to the level of a problem. It's unethical.

This is the reason so many of us are so fed up that we will take our own money and time to go to Washington, DC, next week to protest.

Test-based accountability has taken our schools and made it their central mission to increase test scores. No Child Left Behind did this through labeling of entire schools as failures, and the Obama administration has doubled down, demanding that states tie teacher pay and evaluations to test scores.

Teachers are in an inescapable ethical bind. We know that the tests do not measure critical thinking.

As a science teacher, I believe that the essence of science is the exploration of the natural world. It is all about inquiry - asking good questions, and then using all the tools we can muster to investigate and answer those questions. To get a student to behave as a scientist, the key is to put them in the role of a scientist. Challenge them with open-ended questions. Find out what THEY are curious about and inspire them to wrestle with that so they can truly understand it.

Great teaching is about provoking curiosity among our students, and then using that innate inquisitiveness to drive learning in a discipline. I think this is true for every subject, not just science. Great history teaching is about provoking student curiosity about the past, and getting them to investigate the evidence to develop explanations of what really happened and why. Great math teaching is about delving into puzzles of one sort or another, helping students understand clever ways to manipulate numbers to do wonderful things. And English teaching at its best is provoking students to read, to wonder, and to express themselves in ways that can be shared with others.

In each case, this provocation works best when it is driven by spontaneous discovery and innovation. The best teachers are constantly scanning the environment for hooks that we can use to catch student interest. I remember one year we were studying insects and a student brought in a particularly large potato bug. I created a challenge on my web site - could anyone find one that was bigger? We even had a visit from the local newspaper as a result.

I used explorations with dry ice to drive a whole series of investigations, getting students to come up with their own questions as the basis for our investigation.

The objective with this approach is to get students to develop their ability to ask good questions, to design thoughtful experiments that will yield solid data, and to explain their results, using evidence from their research and experimentation. This is critical thinking applied to science.

I have not seen a standardized test that measures this. Instead we get questions that are best prepared for by memorizing things in one way or another. There is nothing inherently wrong with memorization. There is nothing wrong with learning much of what is tested. But it is not our highest calling as teachers. It is not the reason I became a teacher. And when it is defined as our goal, it systematically devalues and undermines the sort of learning I have described here.

That is why I am standing up at the Save Our Schools March on July 30th, with as many of my colleagues and allies I can gather. Please join us!

What do you think? Do high stakes attached to standardized tests put teachers in an ethical bind? How can we respond?

[Editorial note: Education Week Teacher is not affiliated with the Save Our Schools event; the views expressed in this opinion blog do not reflect the endorsement of Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education, which take no editorial positions]

Images by Anthony Cody, used with permission.

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today I am sharing a guest post by Moira Saucedo, who is the mother of a special needs student in the Arlington County Public Schools, in Arlington, Virginia.

by Moira Saucedo.

My interest was sparked by a June, 2011 notice on Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's website of a $500,000 grant to the Future Is Now Schools, (FIN) a charter schools management organization founded by Steve Barr. FIN has been recently re-branded (some say divorced) from the LA-based Green Dot Public Schools, founded by Barr, and from Green Dot America, an effort by Barr to open charter schools nationally. The purpose of the grant is "to provide national support for the use of a scaled-down collective bargaining contract and to amplify the voice of reform-minded teachers in select cities by sharing organizing expertise."

The "scaled-down collective bargaining contract" phrase gave me pause. Our nation has just gone through a harrowing year of stripped-away collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), and rollbacks of pensions and benefits. Since the mid-term elections there have been increased attacks on workers in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, Tennessee, Idaho and Florida. Was this grant concrete evidence of Bill Gates jumping on the anti-union, anti-collective bargaining bandwagon?

The Instigator
Steve Barr is a former community organizer, Democratic Party fundraiser, and co-creator of "Rock the Vote". He turned his attention from politics to the education reform movement in the late 1990s when he came out to California and met Don Shalvey, founder of California's first charter school. Don Shalvey is now on the Board of Green Dot Public Schools, and he is also the Senior Program Officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Shalvey and Reed Hastings, who had just founded Netflix, were about to start up a ballot initiative in California that would greatly expand charter schools. Barr decided to help them. But he convinced Shalvey and Hastings to do something different from many charter school operations-- not to immediately think of the teacher unions as the enemy. He said, "You cannot go into a 100% unionized industry with non-union labor." The California Teachers Association has been organizing the Green Dot Public Schools, quietly, since the early 2000's. This campaign is still controversial within UTLA and CTA, so there's not been a lot of publicity around the effort. But Green Dot, and now FIN, seem to be working with the NEA and AFT to "create a climate of common trust with teacher unions, forged in mutual respect" (according to the Green Dot Public Schools website).

In August 2000, Barr started up the Amino Leadership Charter High School, at the edge of Lennox, a poor, mostly Spanish-speaking community near the LA Airport. Subsequently Barr asked Los Angeles United School District to give his Green Dot Public Schools organization control of Alain Leroy Locke High School, which is at the edge of the Watts neighborhood. When the district refused, Barr took over the school and reopened it in the aftermath of a school riot between two cliques. Locke is currently eight small, separate Green Dot schools, each with a different focus but all with the stated goal of readying students for college. Green Dot Public Schools expanded and now consists of 17 charter schools in high-poverty neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and one UFT-organized high school in the Bronx. The model used is to takeover turnaround schools, using public funds that follow the student and philanthropic financing.

It's All In The Fine Print
What does a Green Dot Public Schools union agreement look like? Only a few centralized policies are included: salary, health care, class size, and number of workdays. Teachers are paid 10-14% more than their counterparts at traditional public schools and they are given explicit input into decision-making authority in setting school policy to include the school's budget, calendar, and curriculum, which is determined at the bargaining table. Teachers can teach what they want, how they want, as long as students pass quarterly assessments. There is no tenure, seniority preference, or probationary period for new teachers, and all teachers work under the protection of just cause discipline and dismissal. In addition, teachers work "a professional work day," rather than defined minutes. Barr stated in a March, 2011 New York TV news channel interview --he is now organizing a second FIN school in the Bronx--that a professional work day means teachers are expected to work on site till 5 pm. So, the 10-14% "increase" in pay is, in fact, compensation for the increase in hours teachers are expected to work.

You Say Tomato
Are charter schools with unionism baked in a good thing? NEA, which wrote a fairly positive article about the Green Dot Public Schools in a March 2010 issue of NEA Today, says that different charter schools implement unions in different ways. Unions can be dictated by state policy, or they can be part of the school design, as in Green Dot schools. What often matters is what's in the CBA, and how it's implemented and enforced. Much is made of the brevity of Green Dot CBAs, but it seems likely that over time, more language will be added.

Bob Chase, former President of NEA, defined New Unionism as being as strong an advocate for the professional side of education as for the economic and social well-being of its members. Steve Barr also speaks of New Unionism, in this New York Post article,

If you're creating a new system you need a new unionism. If we're more streamlined and we have less bureaucracy we should pay the teachers more - which we do. We want our teachers to be part of the decision-making so they feel they have more say in the game. We want them to also commit to being more accountable: you don't have a job for life no matter what you do. Everybody is going to know we serve the kids first not the teachers first. There's no minutes or hours in our day - it's a professional contract and we require a professional workday. There's also "just cause" instead of tenure - which most businesses have. It gives you some protections but it's not an end-all.

Can I Get A Witness?
Barr has also said of his new FIN schools that they will 'explore using a lot of technology in classrooms to augment traditional instruction' in what he calls a 'hybrid model'. What does that mean? Fewer teachers? Less-qualified teachers? Higher total student loads? A trend toward a virtual charter like Florida Virtual School?

There is a lot to admire about Steve Barr; his drive, his passion for improving the poorest of the poor schools in minority neighborhoods, the taking on of high schools, when many people feel that low-performing students after 9th grade are a hopeless case. But the FIN Board is comprised of the usual hedge fund managers, investment bankers, real estate developers, cable network owners and lawyers. There are no educators on the FIN Board. Apparently they like their CBAs short and to the point, and are going to get $500,000 from Bill Gates to keep them that way.

What do you think of the scaled down bargaining agreement? How do you feel about the Gates Foundation funding efforts to "amplify the voices of reform-minded teachers"?

image by Moira Saucedo, used by permission.

Posted by Anthony Cody at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Jonathan Kozol has been a tireless advocate for civil rights in education for the past five decades. His book, Savage Inequalities, was a call to conscience for the nation. He will be among the speakers at the Save Our Schools March and Rally in Washington, DC, on Saturday, July 30th. I asked him to explain his reasons for marching this summer.

You published Savage Inequalities back in 1992. What has happened to the level of inequity in our schools in the two decades since then?

The inequalities are greater now than in '92. Some states have equalized per-pupil spending but they set the "equal level" very low, so that wealthy districts simply raise extra money privately. And, even within a single urban district, parents in rich neighborhoods cluster together at a single school, then hold fund-raisers for that school, using celebrities to pull out a wealthy crowd, and raise as much as half-a-million dollars in a single night. No one forces them to share this money with the schools for poor kids that might be just three blocks away. The system is more savage now than ever.

Our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, is fond of saying that "Education is the civil rights issue of our time." Is he right about that?

Arne Duncan is recycling exactly the same slogan George W. Bush invented. On its face, it sounds benign. But, in reality, Duncan's policies run directly counter to the purposes of civil rights. He doesn't lift a finger to address the glaring fact that public schools for black and Latino kids from coast to coast are now more wildly and shamefully segregated than in any year since 1968. I walk into high schools, with as many as 3,000 students, from Chicago to Los Angeles, from Dallas to Miami, from Denver to New York, and in an entire day I might see ten white students. It's like the bull in the China shop. Duncan pretends it isn't there. But, by his passivity, he's hammering the final nails into the coffin of Brown vs. Board of Education. Meanwhile, he's eagerly doing "Plessy v. Ferguson," pretending he knows how to make separate and unequal schools into bastions of success by relentless testing and humiliation of the teachers.

Separate and unequal didn't work 100 years ago. It will not work today. And anyone like Duncan who attempts to tell us otherwise is guilty of historical myopia.

How do you see the rise of charter schools affecting racial and economic segregation in our schools?

Charter schools are far more segregated than most other public schools. This was pretty much predictable. Charter schools with names like those I see repeatedly -- "Black Success Academy," "African-American Academy for Leadership and Enterprise" -- are not likely to attract too many Irish or Italian kids. On the opposite side, trendy new white charter schools with upper-class, vaguely artsy innuendo in their names -- I call them "the woodsy Walden schools" -- are obviously targeted at children of a social/racial category that does not include the kids of immigrants from Mexico or Ethiopia.

The "niche" effect of charter schools guarantees a swift and vicious deepening of class and racial separation. President Obama -- who was educated in very good and integrated schools and sends his children to an integrated and exclusive private school -- is now acting on the belief that consciously and unashamedly segregated charter schools represent the answer to the race-gap in America.

The president wouldn't send his own kids to these kinds of schools. Why does he think they're good enough for black and Latino kids whose parents did not go to Harvard Law School?

A related point: The testing agenda that Duncan is perpetuating is segregative and divisive in yet another sense. In inner-city schools, where principals are working with a sword of threats and punishments above their heads -- for fear that they'll be fired if they cannot "pump the scores" -- they inevitably strip down the curriculum to those specific items that are going to be tested, often devoting two-thirds of the year to prepping children for exams. There's no time for arts or music or even for authentic children's books like the joyful works that rich kids still enjoy. No time for Pooh and Eeyore and The Hungry Caterpillar. "What help would lovely books like these be on their standardized exams?" Instead, the kids get pit-pat readers keyed to the next miserable tests that they'll be taking.

So culture is starved. Aesthetics are gone. Joy in learning is regarded as a bothersome distraction. "These kids don't have time for joy, or whim, or charm, or inquiry! Leave whim and happiness to the children of the privileged. Poor kids can't afford that luxury." Even good and idealistic inner-city principals tell me that they feel they have no choice.

So NCLB, in itself, adds a whole new level of division on the basis of a child's economic class or race. An apartheid of the intellect. One class enjoys the treasures of the earth and also learns to ask demanding and irreverent and insightful questions. The other class is trained to spit up predigested answers.

It's not surprising that so many corporations are driving this agenda. It helps to guard their interests. Their tacitly admitted goal is to see the inner-city schools produce the kind of narrowly skilled but basically conformist grown-ups who have few critical abilities and will fill their bottom-level job-slots. Meanwhile, the children of the C.E.O.s get to frame the questions that will shape the future.

Why have you decided to participate in the Save Our Schools March on July 30th?

I'll be in Washington for S.O.S. because I'm sick of begging members of the Senate, even those among them who have been my friends for years, to move two inches in the right direction. I'm tired of complaining. And I'm too old to bite my tongue and mute my words out of politeness and respectfulness for politicians who tell me in private that they share my views about the practices and policies that demean our teachers and threaten the survival of our public schools, but then refuse to stand up and denounce these policies in public.

I think, like many of my oldest friends and youngest allies who will be at S.O.S., it's time for us to get up off our knees in front of this enormous juggernaut and stop bargaining for crumbs. I've begun to see a movement of resistance growing now for several years. I've seen courageous teachers speaking up and reaching out to others. And I've seen the tide of activism start to rise, and surge, among our students and the parents of those students.

I think a moment of critical energy has suddenly emerged. But moments like this come and go unless we seize them at their height.

What do you hope will come out of the march and conference?

Energy! A willingness, in myself and others of my generation, to listen to the younger teacher-activists who've been out in there in the trenches for a while now -- the gutsy teachers from L.A. and Brooklyn, and El Paso and Detroit, to give a few examples. I'd also like to see us shaping new, inventive strategies and broader coalitions. I'd like to see the stirrings of a dynamic movement like the one that changed my life in 1965 when I walked out of my classroom in the last week of the year to join my students and their angry parents in a protest struggle that led us to the streets (and, in my own case, into jail) -- a tiny portion of the fight for civil rights that shook this nation to its core.

Do I think we need that kind of struggle once again? In honesty, I do. And I hope that I will live long enough to be a part of it.

What is one thing you would do to improve education for all students?

Teachers always ask me that. But I learned in 1968, when I first met Paulo Freire, literally on a mountainside in Mexico, not to think I always know the answer. What I tend to do these days is to urge these teachers to look to older and more seasoned teachers like my good friends at Rethinking Schools. "Ask Stan Karp. Ask Bob Peterson. They know more that I do. They're still in the classroom."

Anyway, they'll all be there at S.O.S. And Debbie Meier. And Linda and Diane. And Matt Damon, a morally relentless man whom I tremendously admire. And so many young folks who will carry on this struggle as long as it takes to save our schools and spare us from the mania of testing. This will be a gathering like no other we have seen in many, many years. I hope a tidal wave of advocates and teachers join us.

-- Jonathan Kozol

What do you think of Jonathan Kozol's reasons for marching? Are you with him?

Image by Jonathan Kozol, used by permission.

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

On Thursday I shared an interview with education historian Diane Ravitch on the controversy surrounding the video of Jonah Edelman, CEO of the non-profit advocacy group Stand For Children. She discussed how a number of supposedly grassroots groups like this have cropped up and had a significant impact on education policy. She listed several groups, including one called Teach Plus.

I did a bit of digging to find out more about the role Teach Plus played supporting Senate Bill 1, passed this spring in Indiana. I found out that Stand For Children was responsible for active support of the law, including sponsoring polls that showed public support for the idea of basing teacher pay and layoffs primarily on "student academic growth."

So there is the big footprint of Jonah Edelman's Stand For Children. But what was the role of Teach Plus? In this New York Times article in May, Behind Grass-Roots (sic) Advocacy, Bill Gates the story leads off by describing how teachers were organized by Teach Plus to testify before the Indiana state legislature in favor of Senate Bill 1.

I want to take a close look at the role of Teach Plus, which was influential in changing state laws regarding the way teachers are evaluated and the way they are laid off. An April press release from Teach Plus states,

We are pleased to announce that SB 1, an omnibus teacher quality reform package, has become law in Indiana. It transforms teacher evaluation and licensure, adds new teacher leadership roles in the evaluation process, and requires performance--rather than seniority--as the basis of teacher layoff decisions.

The release goes on to say:

Teach Plus Policy Fellows were first to draw attention to the problem of seniority-based layoffs more than a year ago. Their advocacy led to the formation of a task force on layoffs and, ultimately, a change to the Indianapolis Public Schools teachers' contract. The contract provision--adopted in spring, 2010--introduced performance into the decision-making process when staff reductions take place. The new provision has saved the jobs of large numbers of high-performing young teachers this spring, but it only applied to teachers in the first five years of their careers. The new law requires that all layoff decisions will be made in the best interest of students.

So this was the impact of Teach Plus. Let's take a closer look at the policy brief the group prepared, The Domino Effect, which was the basis for this lobbying.

The brief begins by laying out the problem. State policy calls for the "transformation" of schools that have been designated as failures, and this means the dismissal of up to half of the teachers at these schools. Teach Plus is generally supportive of this approach, stating:

The focus of this policy is right: ensuring that the best teachers are in the schools that need them the most. Implicit in the strategy of changing the staff is the assumption that teachers bear some--though not all--responsibility for the learning that occurs or does not occur in a building. Indeed, research shows that teachers are the most important school-based variable in student achievement

But this means LOTS of teachers will be fired.

New management in a takeover has the option to dismiss many more teachers--as many as the entire staff. Simple math reveals a stunning picture: A quarter of all IPS (Indianapolis Public Schools) secondary teachers will likely lose their current jobs as state intervention takes effect.

Teach Plus does not question the wisdom of such a disruptive and draconian approach to school reform. The policy brief does not point out the lack of success this approach has had in Chicago, or anywhere else in the country. The key recommendation of the policy brief is this:

Teachers dismissed from takeover schools should not have guaranteed jobs in schools that remain a part of IPS. Teachers who have been displaced should be required to apply for vacant positions in other schools. Displaced teachers should only be able to apply for vacant positions and not positions currently held by other teachers. Teachers with more seniority should not have the right to bump less senior teachers out of their positions. Without a change to the current state laws, IPS will be required to keep the most senior teachers, regardless of their performance.

The intent of this is made clear in the brief's conclusion:

The domino effect that stands to push hundreds of promising young teachers out of their current positions will inevitably spiral to negatively impact students and their communities.

The problem they are attempting to solve is that many young teachers will likely be swept away as these draconian school "transformations" occur.

The law, Senate Bill 1, eliminates an advisory board of the division of professional standards, and states the following:

A school corporation shall implement the plan beginning with the 2012-2013 school year.

(b) A plan must include the following components:

(1) Performance evaluations for all certificated employees, conducted at least annually.

(2) Objective measures of student achievement and growth to significantly inform the evaluation. The objective measures must include:

(A) student assessment results for certificated employees whose responsibilities include instruction in subjects measured in statewide assessments; and

(B) methods for assessing student growth for certificated employees who do not teach in areas measured by statewide assessments.

I have several problems with this. First, we have a heavily funded group bringing forward teachers to reinforce their policy perspective. This creates the appearance of widespread support for practices which are highly controversial within our profession.

Second, Teach Plus has embraced the practice of widespread staff firings as a wise strategy for school improvement. Experience and research do not show this to be effective. On the contrary, this takes our most challenged schools and subjects them to further trauma and disruption, to no good end.

Third, Teach Plus has attempted to create policy that would shield "promising young teachers" from the brunt of these firings. There is a great deal of evidence that teacher effectiveness, on a wide range of indicators - not just test scores - increases as teachers gain experience. Why should we embrace policies that favor "promising young teachers," many of whom may be interns who have only a two-year long commitment to the classroom, over more experienced teachers?

Fourth, the law that resulted from this lobbying by Stand For Children and Teach Plus mandates that test scores be a significant part of teacher evaluation, and does away with the professional advisory board that informs the legislature about these issues.

This is what has been done by these groups in the state of Indiana. I do not believe this serves the interests of the children of Indiana, or has the effect of improving the teaching profession. I think teachers and parents need to organize OURSELVES to speak up on these issues, because otherwise we have groups such as these representing themselves as our voice in the policy arena.

What do you think of Senate Bill 1 in Indiana, and the role of Stand For Children and Teach Plus?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday I shared some reactions to a video making the rounds, in which Jonah Edelman describes the way his non-profit organization, Stand For Children, maneuvered to get legislation enacted in the state of Illinois. This seems to represent the sort of money-fueled policy that education historian Diane Ravitch has been warning us about, so I asked her for her thoughts.

What do you think that Jonah Edelman's remarks reveal about how education policy is being shaped in states across the country?

I attended the Aspen Ideas Festival but did not go to Edelman's session, which was titled "If It Can Happen There, It Can Happen Anywhere: Transformational Education Legislation in Illinois." Edelman shared the billing with James Schine Crown, a financier in Illinois. I watched the video and read the transcript. Edelman was very candid in describing the hardball political tactics that Stand for Children used to push through legislation that diminished the collective bargaining rights of teachers. But above all, he used a massive financial political kitty to woo friends and allies to his side. This is not merely an interesting anecdote about Illinois politics, but reveals tactics that are now being employed in states and districts across the nation by small numbers of very well-funded people. Groups like Stand for Children, Education Reform Now, and Democrats for Education Reform are connected to some of the wealthiest individuals in our society; their boards include a disproportionate number of Wall Street hedge fund managers. I don't know why hedge fund managers are so interested in controlling education policy, but there is no doubt about their eagerness to commit large sums of money to get rid of due process, seniority, and collective bargaining, and to tie teachers' evaluations to test scores. There is nothing inherent in being a hedge fund manager or a successful entrepreneur that would make one an education expert, yet these guys seem determined to revise state laws as they relate to teachers. The part I don't understand is why they think that what they are doing will improve education.

What do you think of the policy agenda embodied in the legislation his group was able to enact?

The intent of legislation like that pressed by Edelman is to make the job of teachers contingent on the test scores of their students, to remove job protections, and to turn teachers into at-will employees, who can be fired if they displease their principal. This approach will of course make test scores even more important than they are now. More teachers will teach to standardized, multiple choice tests. Untested subjects, like art and music, will get less time or disappear, unless tests are devised for everything. More resources will be diverted to test preparation. Unfortunately, there may be more Atlantas, as teachers and principals try to save their jobs. It is really a very wrongheaded understanding of education. I wonder if people who support legislation of this kind ever taught in a public school, ever attended a public school, or ever enrolled their own children in public schools.

Stand For Children, his non-profit, describes itself as an "innovative, grassroots child advocacy organization." What do you think about the role groups like this are playing in education policy?

Stand for Children, like Education Reform Now, Democrats for Education Reform, TeachPlus, and various other "reform" organizations are committed to a course that is anti-education. They are not grassroots organizations. They should be described as "astroturf" organizations. Look over their board of directors, and you will see a large number of Wall Street executives, high-tech entrepreneurs, and others who have little or no experience in public education. I don't understand their animus towards one of our society's most vital public institutions, nor do I think they realize that they are responsible for creating public hostility to the teaching profession. If they understood it, why would they do it? It makes no sense. Some of these groups are funded by the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Broad Foundation, so what we are really seeing is a well-planned and well-executed effort to change public education by the wealthy and powerful.

How can teachers and parents have an impact in the policy arena when confronted with this sort of machinery at work?

Those who, like Jonah Edelman, are currently having a huge impact on state laws and federal policy are doing this because of the enormous wealth that they can summon up for political campaigns. But what they don't have is grassroots support. They don't have the support of teachers, whose lives and professions are being impacted negatively by their actions. And they certainly don't represent the children or parents. They represent the monied elite, whose resources are essential to political campaigns. The only way to respond and have an impact is to inform the public about the real consequences of these laws, and about the money that is behind the changes. Parents and teachers must work together and mobilize to save public education and the teaching profession from those who are now using their wealth to pull the levers of power. They have no evidence to support their agenda, nor do they have the will of the people.

Diane Ravitch will be joining us at the next Save Our Schools Teach-in, scheduled for 8 pm Eastern, Thursday, July 21st. We do not have any big corporate donors - or small ones for that matter, so we are going to do a day-long fundraiser for the Save Our Schools March - which is just around the corner. You can register for free - and slots will be reserved for those willing to organize house parties of five or more to participate. Sign up here - and kick in a donation to a genuine grassroots movement on behalf of our students.

What do you think about Diane Ravitch's thoughts on this matter?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

When people like Diane Ravitch talk about the billionaires taking over education policy, they are sometimes dismissed as being alarmist, or even of promoting conspiracy theories. But a recent video details exactly how this has been happening, in the state of Illinois. The video released last week of Jonah Edelman describing how he and his group, Stand For Children, managed to maneuver education "reform" legislation is still reverberating through the education blog world.

It was reported by Substance News, who several months ago reported on how Stand For Children gathered more than $3.5 million in funding in a few short months.

The video was further spread by Fred Klonsky at his excellent blog here. Further coverage is unfolding at Mike Klonsky's Smalltalk blog.

Now it has even made it into the mainstream media, in this report at the Chicago Sun-Times, and here in the Chicago Tribune, both of which are credited by Edelman for providing sympathetic coverage and editorial support.

A complete transcript of Edelman's remarks is here:

Edelman has since apologized for his arrogant tone and tried to take back his most damaging statements. But it is clear that this was a presentation of how sausage is being made in education policy.

This video features an Illinois state legislator explaining how Stand For Children has engaged in pressure politics there.

Who is Stand For Children?

The group describes itself this way:

Stand for Children is an innovative, grassroots child advocacy organization.
Our mission is to use the power of grassroots action to help all children get the excellent public education and strong support they need to thrive. Our members believe we need to stand up for our children now - particularly for their education from pre-school through high school - to create a better future for America.

We build effective local and statewide networks of grassroots advocates capable of convincing elected officials to invest in and reform children's programs. Following specific priorities chosen by our members, we focus on securing adequate funding for public schools and reforming education policies and practices to help children thrive academically, giving them the opportunities they need to become successful, productive citizens.

But the picture presented by Jonah Edelman was not of any sort of grassroots work. It sounded much more like old fashioned power-brokering and political gamesmanship. A few weeks ago I wrote about the phenomena of "astroturf" organizations - well-funded, professionally managed groups that recruit volunteers in order to create the illusion of a grassroots campaign. This group seems to fit the bill.

Here is the basics of the agenda enacted by Edelman through this legislation:

1. Teachers are unable to bargain over the length of the school day or year.

2. Principals are given discretion to hire and fire with little regard to seniority.

3. Teacher unions can strike (at least in Chicago) only if a hitherto unachieved 75% of the members approve of the action.

Update: Eric Skalinder, a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools, sent the following additional information regarding point #3 above:

Any teacher union in Illinois may strike with a simple majority of more than 50% of its voters - except in Chicago. The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has been singled out for a 75% threshold. But that threshold is not simply 75% of voters. The new law requires 75% of all *eligible* voters to authorize a strike. Not only is the percentage threshold higher but in Chicago, and only in Chicago, any eligible voter who does not vote is counted as a no vote.

Also, there are many ways in which Chicago teachers are singled out by our legislature for treatment that differs from the rest of our Illinois education colleagues. This new strike vote rule is just the latest to pick on urban teachers. It is a source of constant frustration to me that if I taught in a school 10 minutes away in the suburbs instead of in the city I would be treated with much greater respect and equality than I am now.

Stand For Children has active chapters in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Edelman made it clear that his group is pursuing similar strategies wherever they are.

This raises many questions. How can we make the public aware of the ways in which our education policy is being driven by groups like this? How can we build a genuine grassroots movement to rival these well-financed "astroturf" efforts? What do you think?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Guest post by Stephen Krashen

The federal government plans to establish detailed standards and assessments to see if children of poverty are ready for kindergarten and are healthy (The "Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge," termed the "Race to the Top for Tots," by the New Brunswick Patch.) The standards and tests include "all (sic!!) of the Essential Domains of School Readiness" (Selection Criteria, section B (3)). This means setting detailed standards and testing children in mathematics and literacy, and as well "a progression of standards for ensuring children's health and safety, ensuring that health and behavioral screening and follow up are done, and promoting children's physical, social, and emotional development across the levels of its Program Standards" (section B (1)).

The plan seems to make sense: Let's first get an accurate picture of how the 20% of children in poverty in the US are doing in cognitive, emotional and physical development, and then plan to do something about it. But it isn't a good idea at all. In fact, it is a bad idea.

We already know that millions of children from high-poverty families suffer from the effects of poverty: We already know that they are behind in academics, suffer from food deprivation, are exposed to dangerous toxins, and lack health care. All this has been carefully documented by a number of scholars (see, for example, the work of David Berliner and Richard Rothstein, cited below).

We also know which children are in need and we know what to do about it. We know that children need to be protected from the effects of poverty by expanding free breakfast and lunch programs ("no child left unfed"), by providing better health care (e.g increasing the number of school nurses; Berliner cites data showing that there are more school nurses per child in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools), by protecting children from environmental toxins, by providing more support for libraries and librarians, and by encouraging and making it easier for parents to read to their children (see below).

We don't need more precise data. The US Department of Education's plans for extreme and detailed testing make no sense: The house is on fire. Fire departments do not spend time determining the exact temperature in each room. Instead, they rush to put out the fire as soon as possible.

Instead of spending money to deal with the problems of poverty, we are giving it to testing companies who are eager to spend billions of our tax dollars creating expensive new tests and measures that will only tell us what we already know.

The US Department of Education is planning the most extensive and expensive testing program ever seen on this planet, and is aggressively expanding its testing plans: Under NCLB, students were tested once a year on reading and math in grades three through eight and once in high school. The plans now are to add interim testing, pre-testing in the fall if administrators are interested in measuring improvement over the academic year ("value-added"), tests in other subjects, and now we have plans to test five year-olds, not just on academics but on emotional and physical health. We can protect children from much of the impact of poverty for a fraction of the cost of new tests.

Here is one example of what can be done. Reach Out and Read has been improving the literacy development of high-poverty children for the last few decades using a simple and inexpensive procedure. When high-poverty parents bring their young children to the pediatrician for well-child visits, hospital staff gives them some basic information and demonstrates reading aloud to their children. The pediatrician also mentions this, and the family is given a children's book. Studies show that Reach Out and Read children are read to more than comparison children, and score considerably higher on vocabulary tests, especially receptive vocabulary. This confirms, of course, what Jim Trelease has been telling us: the importance of books and reading to children.

The problems faced by children of poverty are obvious and we know how to solve them. Let's not waste money measuring the problems to unnecessary levels of precision. Let's get busy solving them.

The federal government's plans are described here.

Other sources:
Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.

Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Krashen, S. Reach Out and Read (Aloud): An inexpensive, simple approach to closing the equity gap in literacy. Language Magazine (in press)

Rothstein, R. 2010. How to fix our schools. Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #286.

Trelease, J. 2006. The Read-Aloud Handbook. New York: Penguin. Sixth edition.

Dr. Stephen Krashen is a professor emeritus at the University of Southern California. He has written numerous books on his research into literacy and language acquisition. In recent years he has emerged as a persistent voice pointing towards the basic steps we should take to build literacy and strong academic skills for our students.

What do you think about the Race to the Top for Tots?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A week ago New York Times columnist David Brooks launched a broadside against Diane Ravitch. This was rather reminiscent of the recent attack by Jonathan Alter. These pieces generally lack substance, but seem designed to reassure those inside the policymaking circle that their assumptions are safe, in spite of the relentless waves of evidence that have emerged, and the sharp critique offered by the nation's leading education historian.

This week, the New York Times ran a short rebuttal from Dr. Ravitch, and has invited readers to contribute to he dialogue. Letters should be no more than 150 words in length, and sent to letters@nytimes.com.

The focus on Dr. Ravitch is suspicious. Her views are devastating, but she is hardly alone. She is speaking for many of us, and her expertise is backed up by the reality so many of us who work in schools are familiar with. So let's add our voices to this dialogue. Let the New York Times know where we stand.

Here is my letter:

The trouble that armchair education experts like David Brooks have is that the evidence keeps lining up against them. As Dr. Ravitch has pointed out in her devastating critiques, this effort has not only failed, high stakes tests are corrupting our school system.

Witness the latest cheating scandal in Atlanta. We have leaders intent on proving that poverty is no obstacle to student success. After 24 years of teaching in Oakland, I can tell you that it is. Poverty and the social and environmental phenomena that are its companions: hunger, violence, PTSD, chemical pollution, lack of access high quality daycare in early years, lack of access to vision, dental and medical care, and lack of access to books. Addressing ANY of these would yield better results than the policies underway that attach ever higher stakes to standardized tests, and continually expand the variety and frequency of tests.

What do you think? Can you squeeze a response into 150 words? Post below, and send to the New York Times as well!

Posted by Anthony Cody at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The White House is holding the first ever Twitter Town Hall. Let's make sure he gets plenty of questions from the teachers of America!

At 2pm EDT, Wednesday, July 6th, President Obama will participate in the first Twitter town hall at the White House to discuss the economy and jobs with Americans across the country. The entire event will be streamed live at WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Detailed instructions on how to participate can be found here.

Here are some of the questions I am tweeting today (follow me on Twitter at @AnthonyCody):

1. When will you advocate low-stakes tests for the children of the nation, as you have at the school attended by your daughters?

2. How can we inspire the creativity and collaboration we need when tests measure such a narrow range of information?

3. Race to the Top promotes pay & Teacher evals for test scores. How can this NOT encourage teaching to the test?

4. Research shows the 4 turnaround strategies promoted by DoEd are not working. When will we see some more creative approaches?

5. If you oppose teaching to the test, how come the Dept of Ed continues to mandate school closures based on test scores?

6. Given that research shows charter schools to be no more successful than public schools, why so much emphasis on their expansion?

7. If you honor the teaching profession, why have you allowed lower standards for entering?

8. When will you be putting on your comfy shoes to march with teachers to defend their right to collective bargaining?

9. How about joining the Save Our Schools March July 30th to show your support for our nation's teachers and students?

How about you? Have you got some pithy questions for our President? No more than 140 characters, remember!

Posted by Anthony Cody at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Pedro Noguera has been a leader in education reform for decades. I came to know him during the battle to end apartheid in the 1980s, when we were both students at UC Berkeley. As a parent, he became very involved in the local schools, served on the Berkeley Board of Education, and went on to center his research on finding solutions that work for all children. He will be joining us at the Save Our Schools March this month, so I asked him to share some thoughts with us.

You have expressed some frustrations with Department of Education's policies. Where has the Department gone wrong?

Under the current administration, the US Dept of Education has essentially continued with the policies initiated by the Bush administration. There have been important exceptions: the administration should be given credit for adopting core standards which provide greater clarity to schools with respect to curriculum content and the knowledge students should acquire. I also think the administration should be praised for directing stimulus money to reform in public education at a time when schools have been hit hard by budget cuts. The Promise Neighborhood program, the I3 grants, the administration's efforts to reduce the burden of college loans on students, are all very significant. Perhaps the most important thing the administration has done is to expand health coverage. This will have a positive effect on poor children when it goes into effect in 2014.

Despite these positive measures there have also been major disappointments. For example, using Race for the Top to force states to use test scores to evaluate teachers may very well be the most damaging thing they've done. Though some states may end up taking a more creative approach, it is likely that many others will not. As a result, we are likely to see more teachers who feel forced to emphasize test preparation even more than they do now. I particularly dislike the idea of using a competitive process to award funds to school districts at a time when all of the states are in desperate need of funding. Does anyone really believe that the recipients in the first round- Tennessee and Delaware, are leaders in reform?

Finally, the prescriptions for turning around failing schools are nonsensical. Secretary Duncan's endorsements of mayoral control and charter schools, and his approval of the mass firing of teachers in Central Fall, R.I., are all signs that politics and ideology are driving policies, rather than empirical evidence of success.

As we look at the possible reauthorization of ESEA, what changes would you prioritize?

NCLB was adopted into law in 2001. The fact that nearly every major city in the US has dropout rates of 50 percent and higher is the clearest evidence that the policy has failed and a new approach is needed.

For the past 3 years I have been working with a broad coalition of educators, policymakers and researchers on what we have called a Broader and Bolder Approach to school reform (see: A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education). BBA has called for three things: universal access to pre-schools, health care, and enriched and extended learning opportunities for all students. The proposals are supported by decades of research that has shown poverty and inequality has a tremendous impact on student achievement. The administration has largely chosen to ignore this research and our proposals and arguments even though Arne Duncan signed on as an early endorser of BBA.

Rather than tweaking ESEA (aka NCLB) we should be scrapping it entirely. It has led to a narrowing of the curriculum and the use of pressure and humiliation as tactics for "improving" schools. There is clear and compelling evidence that the policy has failed.

You have been involved with public schools for several decades. How have you seen NCLB impact schools, especially those of high poverty?

It's not surprising that the schools throughout America that are struggling are also the schools that are serving the poorest children. We generally spend far more money on schools serving affluent children (isn't is funny that the only people who say money is not the issue is the people who have lots of money?), and because as a society we are doing very little to address poverty.

Many of the schools that serve poor children are overwhelmed by their non-academic needs: health, nutrition, safety, etc. NCLB has played a cruel game of "equity" on poor kids and poor schools. We hold all students accountable to meet the same academic standards even though poor children are generally being educated under vastly different conditions. There is no focus at all on the "opportunity gap" and until we do we will not see greater equity in student outcomes.

It is also important to acknowledge that the schools serving poor children are, in too many cases, poorly managed. Poor leadership, ineffective teaching and a culture of complacency is sadly, common in many urban public schools. Money alone won't fix this. Educators must take responsibility for changing what happens in school otherwise the families we serve will abandon the public schools when given an option.

Charter schools have recently been criticized for continuing or even intensifying patterns of racial and economic segregation. Does this concern you?

In general, I support charter schools as a strategy for increasing the supply of good schools, though I do have several concerns. I support charter schools because I believe that when educators come together around a shared vision, they can often deliver a better education to children they serve. Many of the charter schools I work with are successful. They are founded by educators who left the public schools out of frustration with the rules and procedures imposed by District bureaucracy. We need alternative approaches and we must support innovation when there is clear evidence of success.

The best charter schools are providing high quality education to poor children of color. We should support that even as we work to improve the public schools that remain accessible to all. Middle class people have always had choice and none of the middle class people I know would voluntarily put their children in the inner city schools that millions of kids throughout the US are consigned to. I remain concerned about the lack of accountability on charter schools. Many are no better than the public schools, and many are in fact, worse. Some deliberately screen out or push out the neediest children. This creates on uneven playing field and exacerbates the challenges facing public schools.

I remain concerned about the lack of accountability on charter schools. Many are no better than the public schools, and many are in fact, worse. Some deliberately screen out or push out the neediest children. This creates on uneven playing field and exacerbates the challenges facing public schools.

Moreover, in several cities, charter schools are being used to undermine public education. Good public schools are being closed and replaced by charter schools that are not accountable to the community. I am concerned about profiteering and the disenfranchisement of poor communities.

Charter schools were created to generate innovation and reform in public education. This will only happen if charters and public schools collaborate and if charter schools take responsibility for serving the most disadvantaged and hard to serve students. In NY City, new charter schools have been created which will prioritize serving homeless children, and students who have recently be released from correction centers. This seems to be a particularly appropriate role for charters. My hope is that they can use their flexibility to deliver a great education to their students.

Why are you moved to march in protest on July 30th?

I am moved to join the protest on July 30th because I believe that we need a new direction in public education. Too many schools are floundering, especially in our nation's cities, and too often, our teachers and their unions are being blamed. There are many factors that contribute to the problems that beset our public schools - poverty, racial inequality, bureaucratic and political mismanagement - to name just a few, but ill conceived public policy (i.e. NCLB and RTT) is making the job more difficult and in many ways, is the biggest obstacle to progress.

Our politicians have enacted policies that increase accountability on schools without providing increased support, and that reduce education to little more than preparing students for standardized tests. Under the banner of "no excuses" a new generation of so-called "reformers" is pushing an array of strategies - merit pay for teachers, evaluating teachers based on student test scores, closing down chronically under-performing schools,etc. - that are further distorting the quality of education we provide to students and leaving the most disadvantaged and disenfranchised communities without schools that are responsive to their needs.

Throughout the country, there is an active debate over the direction of public education. Too often, educators are silenced, marginalized and left out of the discussion. Too often, we are turning to CEOs, philanthropists, and politicians for solutions to the challenges facing our schools, while teachers are left out.

We need to march on July 30th to insert ourselves into the national conversation. The future of American society will be determined to a large degree by what happens in public education. We all have a great deal at stake. That is why it is imperative for educators to speak out and defend this flawed but indispensable institution.

Pedro Noguera is the Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University. Noguera is an urban sociologist whose scholarship and research focuses on the ways in which schools are influenced by social and economic conditions in the urban environment. He will be one of the speakers at the Save Our Schools rally on the Ellipse in Washington, DC on July 30th. He is also a guest at the next free Save Our Schools Teach-in webinar, scheduled for 8 pm on Thursday, July 7th. Details and sign-up are here.

What do you think of Dr. Noguera's thoughts?

Posted by Anthony Cody at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend