Archive

Posts Tagged ‘ESSA’

The Beat Goes On: Oakland Joining Denver and LA Pushing Back Against Billionaire Reformers

February 15, 2019 Leave a comment

The first three paragraphs of Nick French’s Jacobin article provides a good overview of the national pushback that is underway:

Wherever there’s a battle over public education lately, a billionaire is somehow involved. Los Angeles, Newark, the “education reform” project as a whole — the ultrarich always have their hands in efforts to antagonize teachers.

One city they’ve now set their sights on: Oakland, where teachers are in the middle of union contract negotiations and just authorized a strike. Some teachers stayed out of school in one-day wildcat strikes in December and January, joined by many of their students. According to posts circulating on Facebook and Instagram, Oakland students have planned to call out sick in solidarity with teachers today.

Just like other teachers’ union battles these days, the contract fight pits students and working people against billionaire pro-corporate school reformers and the politicians backing them.

Slowly but surely the word seems to be getting out…. privatization is corroding public education and undermining the kind of instruction that teachers provide to children. MAYBE one of the political parties will realize that their “bi-partisan” support for the test-and-punish “reform” beloved of the billionaires and privatizers is hurting children, demoralizing teachers, and diminishing middle class jobs.

Advertisements

NY Times Education Reporter Sees Change Blowing in the Wind as Teachers Reclaim High Ground

February 4, 2019 Leave a comment

Dana Goldstein, a veteran education reporter for the NYTimes wrote an op ed piece recently reviewing the changes she has witnessed in the coverage on public schools over the past thirteen years. The biggest change is that the union and teacher bashing that she witnessed at the outset of her career in 2006 has ebbed and in its place is a new respect for both unions and teachers. She writes:

I was at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, when one of the hottest tickets was to a panel discussion in which rising stars in the party, including Cory Booker, then the mayor of Newark, spoke harshly of teachers’ unions and their opposition to charter schools, which are publicly funded, privately run and generally not unionized. Union leaders argue that charters draw public dollars and students away from traditional schools…

Back then, it was hip for young Democrats to be like Barack Obama, supportive of school choice and somewhat critical of teachers’ unions. But now, the winds have changed pretty drastically.The revival of democratic socialism within the party has left many elected officials — even Mr. Booker — much more hesitant, it seems, to critique organized labor. Across the country, red-clad teachers on strike, sometimes dancing and singing, have won the affection of grass-roots progressives over the past year, leading to a new political dynamic around education, just as the Democratic primary field for 2020 emerges…

At this point, I was in complete agreement with Ms. Goldstein’s analysis. But then at the conclusion of that paragraph, she used an oversimplified, deeply flawed, and tired dichotomy to analyze what is happening:

…The emphasis now is on what education experts call “inputs” — classroom funding, teacher pay, and students’ access to social workers and guidance counselors — and less on “outputs,” like test scores or graduation rates.

While she recovered somewhat in the next paragraph by acknowledging that “…both inputs and outputs are important” and that “…the battle is ideological, over what role choice should play in our education system”, she missed the overarching ideological battle: whether public education is a commodity that can be changed through market forces or a public good that must be changed through democratic processes. She also did not make note of the reality that there is no “output” measure that can capture what public schools provide. Neither test scores or graduation rates can indicate whether a student is experiencing daily success in the classroom, is motivated to continue learning after his or her formal education, and is gaining the social and emotional skills needed to support a democracy. Those “outputs” elude fast, cheap, and easy measurement yet they are far more important than the content students are learning. She also overlooks the fact that the inputs needed in today’s public schools are far different than those needed even 13 years ago. Schools are increasingly expected to provide mental health, counseling, and nutritious meals for all students… and the span of students they are expected to educate and care for is expanding as well.

Ms. Goldstein concludes her article with a quote from the late Fred Hechinger, who reported for decades on public schools for the NYTimes:

“I began to realize that a country’s approach to education in general, and especially to its children, could tell more about its social, political and economic background than a whole battery of interviews with politicians.”

What does it say that we are spending no more on schools now than we were when Ms. Goldstein started? What does it say that our so-called “thought leaders” believe public education should be marketed like cars and household appliances? What does it say that despite what we call our federal legislation that we are leaving more and more children behind, we are offering wages that race to the bottom, and we are not providing the funds needed to make certain that every child succeeds?

 

Koch Brothers Plan to Disrupt Public Education, the “Lowest Hanging Fruit”

January 30, 2019 Comments off

The Koch brothers are the most disreputable of all the “reformers”, blatantly seeking profit at the expense of those who were unfortunate enough to be born into families where there wasn’t a billion dollars per year in trust funds…

Meanwhile… in the USDOE, Ms. DeVos is contemplating undoing the supplement vs. supplant language… From where I sit this is related to the Koch takeover: it reinforces the notion that efforts to provide equity is “government overreach” and the regulations that accompany federal dollars are onerous and interfere with innovation… just merge those dollars into local budgets, lower taxes, and use more technology that can be managed by low-wage paraprofessionals… and bingo: the low hanging fruit is picked!

via Koch Brothers Plan to Disrupt Public Education, the “Lowest Hanging Fruit”

DeVos Revisiting Supplement vs. Supplant… A Story that Will be Buried But One that will Undercut School Funding Nationwide

January 30, 2019 Comments off

There is so much happening with the ongoing investigation of the President, the aftershocks to the month long government shutdown, the ongoing debate about the need for a wall, and the severe weather that results from climate change that the USDOE’s intent to review the supplement versus supplant language can get pushed off the stage altogether. Here’s a report from Politico earlier this week on the USDOE’s decision to revisit the “supplement vs. supplant” issue:

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TAKES ON ‘SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT’: The Education Department is out with proposed guidance under the Every Student Succeeds Act that DeVos said makes clear to districts that they have “significant flexibility” when it comes to spending.

At issue is a requirement known as “supplement, not supplant.” The requirement was meant to ensure that poor and minority students get their fair share of state and local education funding by requiring that the federal education funds enhance, but not replace, state and local funds.

The department says the requirement “had become restrictive and burdensome.” Now, “in order to comply, a school district need only show that its methodology to allocate state and local resources to schools does not take into account a school’s Title I status,” the department said in a statement. “For many school districts, the requirement can be met using the school district’s current methodology for allocating state and local resources.”

In previous years, when Title I funding was “…more restrictive and burdensome”, districts had to demonstrate that the federal funds targeted for students raised in poverty were, in fact, spent on those students. In my experience as a Superintendent, this DID require a lot of complicated bookkeeping and there were some occasions where auditors from the USDOE could be picky, but these accounting rigors did ensure that federal funds did not displace the local funds. This strict segregation of federal funds from local and state funds meant that ALL districts— including those serving affluent students— would raise their voices in support of federal funds that were earmarked for children raised in poverty and especially those funds that were earmarked for disabled children.

Those who want the federal government to stay out of education often fail to acknowledge why the federal government got INTO education to begin with. The federal government was advocated for the voiceless children raised in poverty and shunted out of the public schools due to their race or disabilities. Most elected officials at the state and local levels ignored the needs of these children and because their parents did not have the ears of the officials their children suffered in underfunded and sub-standard facilities. The War on Poverty and the Disability Rights movements injected federal funds into public education and with those funds came the so-called “restrictive and burdensome” regulations that anti-public education voters despise.

This just in: government regulations protect the poor and disabled children from underfunded and substandard schools in the same way government regulation protect all citizens from pollution and foul water. Yes, government regulations can be “restrictive and burdensome”, but that is a small price to pay for a just and equitable public education system.

Why Many Younger Educators Don’t Like “Reformers”

December 5, 2018 Comments off

I am VERY encouraged by this letter. Like Diane Ravitch I am concerned that the generation of children who only experienced a world of high stakes testing would see that as the only way schools should function. THIS group of aspiring teachers clearly see that there is a better way! Here’s hoping they are the voice of the future!

via Why Many Younger Educators Don’t Like “Reformers”

State Mandated Rating Systems Reinforce Commodification… Multiple Metrics Determined by Local Boards the Best Accountability

November 3, 2018 Comments off

Diane Ravitch’s posted blogger Laura Chapman’s critique of Ohio’s rating system for schools that, in response to ESSA mandates, now incorporates “multiple measures”. But the results of changing to multiple measures made no difference in terms of what the report cards actually measure: family income and education.

To my surprise, neither Diane Ravitch nor Laura Chapman nor any of the commenters noted the interest flaw of rating systems: the fact that they reinforce the commodification of public schools. Ratings were introduced by “reformers” based on the premise that parents can shop for schools the way they shop for cars or groceries. Until affluent school districts with space in their classrooms open their doors to children raised in poverty in neighboring districts these ratings should be ignored.

BTW, one of the most bogus “selling points” of ESSA was the notion that STATES would be in complete control of the mandated rating system, a system that would ultimately need to be approved by the USDOE. If you think any state will abandon standardized testing as the primary metric there is a bridge I can sell you…. And worse yet, in the case of Ohio, one of the”multiple measures” is the introduction of a value added metric… despite the fact that VAM has been repeatedly discredited.

A Good News Update on Arizona Standards: State Board Rejects State Superintendent’s Fundamentalist “Science” Standards

October 24, 2018 Comments off

In an earlier blog post I wrote that Arizona seemed poised to adopt a set of “science” standards advocated by the State Superintendent, Diane Douglas, that would effectively block the instruction of evolution and climate change. In a heartening turn of events, AZCentral writer Lily Altavena reports that the State Board has rejected Ms. Douglas’ recommendations:

The Arizona State Board of Education approved revised science and history standards on Monday, shrugging off outgoing State Superintendent Diane Douglas’ suggestion to replace all the standards with a set from a conservative college in Michigan.

The science standards include edits recommended by the Arizona Science Teachers Association after an outcry over how the draft standards addressed evolution. Those edits emphasize that “The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.”

The revised standards will be used by K-12 public district and charter schools statewide. Their approval received thunderous applause from educators and education advocates sitting in the boardroom.

It IS encouraging to see that democracy is working in the curriculum review process, but discouraging to imagine that in 2018 we would be engaged in a debate over the merits of evolution.

Oh, and it wasn’t just the SCIENCE standards that were under review; the SOCIAL STUDIES standards were also on the agenda and Ms. Douglas also wanted her state to use the Hillsdale College standards as the basis for curriculum objectives in Arizona. There was at least one problem with those standards, which were also unanimously rejected by the State Board:

The vote followed a slew of public comment from parents and educators worried that the Hillsdale standards, if adopted, would exclude the study of world religions. There are more references to Christianity in the Hillsdale standards than in Arizona’s draft standards

Fortunately, this is the last time Ms. Douglas will have an opportunity to promote her notions about curriculum standards, as she was defeated in the State GOP primary. But as the door closes behind her, she offered this:

She said she considers the revised standards indoctrination “in some areas,” adding that the new standards don’t go into the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

“Show me where any scientist has proven or replicated that life came from non-living matter or that, if you would, in the example we see in the museums, that man evolved from an ape — there’s no proof to that,” she said. “That’s all I’m saying to our teachers: Let’s teach our children all those different things and let them study that.”

Ms. Altavena added this footnote at the end of her article:

The vast majority of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science — 98 percent —  believe in human evolution, according to Pew. About six in 10 Americans believe humans have evolved.

Evidently the 40% who DON’T believe in evolution voted in large numbers when Ms. Douglas was running for office… but fortunately for school children in Arizona the State Board listened to the scientists.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: , ,