Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Monday's post, "Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts," sparked a wave of discussion and criticism-which, let's face it, is every writer's hope. But I wasn't just trying to be provocative; we at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute strongly believe that issues of governance and politics have been too often ignored in the education reform debate. We're happy to help put these issues at the top of the policy agenda. In fact, we've teamed up with the Center for American Progress on a three-year project to do exactly that.

Each year, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) publishes the State Teacher Policy Yearbook, a comprehensive examination of the state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession, measured against a realistic set of reform goals. For five years running, the full Yearbook compendium (www.nctq.org/stpy) presents the most detailed, thorough analysis of teacher effectiveness policy in the United States. In advance of the next Yearbook, to be released in January 2012, we offer a closer look at trends on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies.

This report presents data from the School District Finance Survey (F-33) of the Common Core of Data (CCD) survey system for school year (SY) 2008-09 (fiscal year [FY] 2009). The F-33 is a district-level financial survey that consists of data submitted annually to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) by state education agencies (SEAs) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The biggest new thing in American public education these days is a two-volume, 230-page, written-by-committee document called the Common Core State Standards. Forty-five states have pledged to the federal government that they will adopt the standards-which specify the math and English skills that students must attain in each grade from kindergarten to the end of high school-within the next several years. Some of these states genuinely believe that doing so will make more of their students ready for college and careers. Others are on board primarily because the Obama administration has enticed them with billions of dollars from its Race to the Top competition, part of the administration's economic-stimulus program. Within the school-reform community, the standards have set off a virtual civil war. It pits those who believe that America desperately needs national standards to catch up to its international competitors against those who think that the administration, by imposing the standards on the states, is guilty of an unwise, or even illegal, power grab.

School choice has again blipped onto the Vermont political screen. The federal government is bringing pressure on the states to adopt choice schemes, primarily in the form of charter schools. Vested interest think tanks, heavily supported by the deep pockets of the Gates, Broad and Friedman foundations, have been the strong but less visible pushers. Vermont's historical choice system was founded on very different principles than today's ideological agenda.

Judging by the applause lines at GOP campaign stops and debates this winter, a significant segment of the Republican electorate understands public education not as a crucial civic institution, nor as a potential path from poverty to the middle class, nor even as a means of individual betterment. Instead, this coalition of religious conservatives and extreme tax-cutters prefers to vilify public schools-and actually, pretty much any traditional educational institution, including liberal arts colleges-as potential corruptors of the nation's youth; as unwanted interlocutors in that most sacred relationship: the one between a child and her parent. It is a curious thing, because with some 90 percent of American children enrolled in public schools, there must be significant overlap between the consumers of public education and the approximately one-third of Americans who describe themselves as Tea Party-type conservatives. Never mind: It is clear that in the American political economy, there is nothing unusual about a voter hating and resenting a government program even while relying heavily upon it.

Are doctors denigrated for the high rates of diabetes? Are the police officers responsible for crimes? Why are teachers responsible for the lack of parenting? For the impact of poverty? How can teachers be "graded" on student progress when we have no control over students out of school experiences? Why aren't "they" listening to us? The educational community: parents, principals, teachers and advocates all feel the current government education policies are seriously flawed; no matter how much they express their opinions no one seems to be listening to their cries.

There was no question about the early charter schools being public. An outgrowth of the small schools movement, these schools, usually a small number within urban school districts, were started and run by teachers who were all members of the local teachers union. The idea was to empower collaborative groups of teachers with innovative ideas about classroom practices that might produce better results for students than those found in bureaucratically governed traditional schools. It was hoped that these ideas and practices, if successful, could be shared with other schools in the district.

Neal McClusky at Cato Institute makes a good point about our casual, imprecise use of the term "democracy" in the post linked here. I did not delve into this in my previous post, and more or less allowed the imprecise terminology to slip past. Clearly there are huge differences between simple majority rule through direct democracy and our constitutional republic with separation of powers, and I certainly favor the latter.

In the Republican Party, presidential debates candidates like Mitt Romney and Herman Cain tout their business executive experience and claim expertise at job creation. Former Governors Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman promote their management experience as the CEO of state governments. Whatever you may think of their proposals for stimulating the economy and ending unemployment, there is no question that these candidates believe, and they believe their audience believes, that knowledge and experience are important leadership qualities. However, when it comes to educational leadership, it seems that knowledge and experience do not count for very much, certainly not to the Obama-Duncan team, the Cuomo-King-Tisch team that establishes educational policy in New York State, or the Bloomberg-Walcott team that runs the schools in New York City.

Advocates, lobbyists and celebrities including Bill Cosby are rubbing shoulders in Minneapolis this week to celebrate 20 years of the charter school movement. But a report released late Tuesday confirms a flaw that charter critics have raised over the last two decades: charter schools don't enroll students with disabilities at the same rate as traditional public schools, despite federal laws that require all publicly funded schools to serve disabled students. The Government Accountability Office report, commissioned by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), found that 11 percent of students enrolled in public schools during the 2009-2010 school year had disabilities, compared with 8 percent of students in charter schools. The report is the first to quantify this gap.

"We are at a tipping point in Philadelphia. I say this as a teacher, fully committed to the promise of public education for all the young people living in this city I love, who has felt the repeated stab of the School District's systemic dysfunction and the State and City's structural abandonment. I say this as a teacher activist, who is engaged in the community-wide fight for public education.  I am a part of Teacher Action Group-Philadelphia (TAG) a member-run grassroots organization of educators working to strengthen our influence on the decisions that most affect us - how schools are run, funded, and governed - so that community control, equity, and fairness are back at the center of public education."

"If anyone tells you that Common Core (CCSS) is a "state-led" effort, "developed by teachers," that person is either misinformed or attempting to deceive you. Mona McDermott of United Opt Out has mapped the organizations behind CCSS. She presents discussion of their interwoven involvements in this 9-minute youtube presentation. Once you view her work, you will no longer be vulnerable to the corporate- and government-endorsed message that CCSS is "grass roots." The endgame of CCSS is massive data acquisition."

"The story in the Times Union on Sunday about what some people call a shadow government within the State Education Department didn't get up on the Times Union web site until well after breakfast on Monday. It is available here, and the document below is one of many collected in researching the story. It's a letter to Regents from former Education Commissioner David Steiner explaining the intent of the Regents Research Fund fellowship after a New York State United Teachers executive had alerted members of the board about it. The fellows are now helping Steiner's successor, John B. King Jr."

"The Albany Times Union calls it a "shadow government" within the New York State Education Department. It is supported by $19 million in donations from wealthy individuals and foundations. The "Regents Research Fund" fellows are a private think tank embedded in the public education department that is defining education for New York's 3.1 million public school students. They frame policy, consult regularly with State Education Commissioner John King, and interact with state employees and officials, but they are not covered by the state's Public Officer's Law or ethics rules."

"In the United States, we entrust state and local leaders to make most consequential decisions affecting schools.  It's ironic, then, that the federal government funds most of the research and evaluation work in education.  State and local leaders bear a responsibility to study the consequences of their decisions.  We will make much faster progress when they do.  At this very moment, chief academic officers around the country are choosing professional development providers to prepare teachers for the Common Core.  Districts are choosing curricula.  Why can't we provide them with better evidence to guide their choices?  Or, at the very least, why can't we compare the 2014-15 gains for those making different choices now, so that we have a clearer view of what worked going into the 2015-16 school year?  Otherwise, we will continue reinventing the wheel.  School leaders need to get out of the wheel reinvention business."

"A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university. A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise.""

"Did Education Department officials leak market-sensitive info to stock traders?" That's the provocative headline from Project on Government Oversight reporting on a probe by the agency's inspector general into controversial claims that may implicate Education Secretary Arne Duncan. "

"The Star-Ledger reported that Chris Christie was a registered lobbyist at the law firm of Dughi, Hewit and Palatucci that lobbied the New Jersey government on behalf of Edison Schools from 1999 to 2001. Chris Cerf, who Christie appointed as New Jersey's Commissioner of Education, was the general counsel of that law firm. That Star-Ledger article also points out that William Palatucci, a partner of the firm who lobbied alongside Christie, was "a longtime political ally of the governor" and still remains a close friend. Chris Cerf was also the President and Chief Operating Officer for Edison Learning for eight years. "

Given the rise of neoliberalism over the last twenty years-the extension of the market into every sphere of life-it's no surprise that civil society has begun to receive the same attention. Large parts of politics and government, health care and education, knowledge production and the media have already been overtaken, but civil society, one could argue, is a more important case because it's the ground from which alternatives can grow.