|
MAY 2008
BRINGING BACK THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL
JOE SMYDO, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE Richardo
Grimsley, a sophomore at Pittsburgh Westinghouse High School
in Homewood, said he sometimes thought about writing poetry but
didn't put pen to paper until a new after-school program debuted
in October. So far, he's authored 20 poems, including "Fantasy,"
about his childhood dreams, and "Get Up," about his
struggles with adversity. He's also refurbishing a bicycle through
the program.
Called the Lighthouse Project, the program
represents the Pittsburgh Public Schools' first efforts to create
"community" or "full-service" schools that
go beyond education to focus on students' health and welfare.
Many community schools serve adults, too.
They often stay open well into the evening,
providing a range of social services to lift individuals, mend
families and revitalize neighborhoods. "Get Up" could
be the schools' theme. . .
With a contract of about $300,000, the
Homewood-Brushton YMCA launched the project with classes in poetry,
dance, music production and visual arts, all designed to broaden
Westinghouse students' horizons.
While Richardo worked on poetry, other
students printed T-shirts with a Lighthouse Project logo, painted
murals and practiced "stepping," the dance style highlighted
in the movie "Stomp the Yard."
The program also includes guest speakers
and field trips. . .
The Lighthouse Project operates from 3
to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Attendance fluctuates;
about 30 students were present Wednesday.
Community schools are modeled after the
19th-century settlement houses that provided education, health
care and other services to immigrants in New York and Chicago.
The philosopher John Dewey advanced the concept in a 1902 address
titled "The School as Social Center," and the Charles
Stewart Mott Foundation funded some of the nation's earliest
community schools in Flint, Mich., during the 1930s.
Interest has waxed and waned, with the
Coalition for Community Schools in Washington, D.C., trying to
build numbers and secure federal funding for the schools. . .
NO HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL PLAYER LEFT
BEHIND
All teams must make the state playoffs
and all must win the championship.
If a team does not win the championship,
it will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches
will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won
the championship their basketballs and equipment will be taken
away until they do win the championship.
All players will be expected to have the
same basketball skills at the same time, even if they do not
have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their
own. No exceptions will be made for lack of interest in basketball,
a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities
of themselves or their parents.
All students will play basketball at a
proficient level
Talented players will be asked to workout
on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches
will be using all their instructional time with the athletes
who aren't interested in basketball, have limited athletic ability
or whose parents don't like basketball.
Games will be played year round, but statistics
will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th games.
If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote
for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out
the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go
to school with bad basketball players.
- Author unknown
APRIL 2008
YOUTH GETTING A SAY AT FAMILY COURT
CITY LIMITS A movement to include more
young people in their own Family Court hearings has slowly but
surely been gaining momentum over the past several years. The
question now, advocates and those involved in the Family Court
system say, is not whether it is a good idea to encourage children
to participate in their hearings - particularly when the hearings
focus on the child's long-term, permanent living situation -
but how to make it happen more often.
The Family Court system in New York City,
with one court building for each borough, addresses cases of
abuse and neglect, adoption, custody and visitation, juvenile
delinquency and other matters involving children and families.
. .
The movement to encourage more children
and youth participation in Family Court began to pick up steam
several years ago. While children would attend hearings from
time to time, advocates say it was a challenging feat to pull
off and there was no clear mandate to include children in hearings.
. .
In June of last year, advocates began hearing
from children themselves through the citywide Youth Justice Board,
a panel of foster children and former foster children under the
aegis of the public-private Center for Court Innovation. . .
One of the findings of the YJB report was that youth feel like
their voice is missing from their cases. "Youth want their
needs and opinions to be heard, but they don't always understand
how to make that happen. ... The perception from the youth's
point of view is that many adults are talking about them, but
not many are talking to them." According to the report,
some young people have been involved in court proceedings and
had a positive experience. One such person was quoted as saying,
"They [the people in the courtroom] see your face, they
have more understanding. They felt the emotion. I think it goes
quicker when they see your face." Another youth said, "I
spoke to the judge. I felt like it was all about me - it felt
good.". . .
One method of encouraging youth and children
to participate in court has been to acclimate them to the court
system through an annual "Teen Day," Gendell said,
when the calendar is cleared for youth participation all day
and teenagers get taken to lunch and meet with judges, judge
surrogates called "referees," and law guardians, who
are the lawyers appointed to represent children.
REFORMING CHARTER SCHOOLS. . . MAKING
THEM WHAT THEY WERE MEAN TO BE
The charter school movement was created
to "reform" the public schools. So far, it hasn't proved
its merit and contains some dangerous and damaging elements.
Those fighting for good public schools might turn the battle
around by a drive to reform charter schools, exposing their flaws
and weaknesses while adopting some of their benefits, the primary
one being decentralization. The following was written for our
local DC news page but many of the things mentioned apply elsewhere.
SAM SMITH, DC CITY DESK This sounds weird,
I know, but I find myself wondering whether one way to battle
Mayor Fenty's plan to close more than a score of public schools
- a strange approach to improving anything, especially education
- is to investigate the possibility of turning some of them into
charter schools.
Not any old charter schools, but ones run
by the community in which they sit - with a board including teachers,
parents, appointees of the ANC and so forth - rather than vague
and alien gifts dropped on the neighborhood by the Fenty and
business crowd. Not schools modeled on 7-11 franchises but organic
institutions growing out of the community they are to serve.
With new rules and new goals. And new designs, based on ways
to make spare building space bring income to local education
rather than be used as a mayoral giveaway to friends and contributors.
There may not be time, there may not be
the energy, but a campaign for real, public, neighborhood charter
schools might substantially alter the debate, putting politicians
and the developers on the defensive for a change. After all,
if charter schools are as good as they say, why can't communities
run them, too?
The goal would be to create a new model
that, unlike the present charter system, is not in competition
with the public school system - heading it towards a revival
of its early 19th century pauper school status. The goal would
to combine the best of charter schools - their decentralization
- with a structure that revives the democratic control that vested
interests are trying so hard to eliminate. In DC they have been
remarkably successful, even eviscerating the first icon of home
rule - the elected school board.
The big problem with charter schools right
now is that if they aren't better than existing schools - and
there is no convincing evidence that they are - then there is
no reason for them. And if they are - or become - better than
existing public schools, a two tier system will have been created
no matter how much the charter crowd insists that they're just
as open to everyone as the regular system. For example, I've
heard charter advocates brag about how their schools are enticing
public school teachers, which is great for them, but not good
for the old system. Further, in order to get into one of the
charter schools you have to apply. This may not seem like much,
but it is precisely the sort of factor that creates a cultural
gap. The determined, the knowledgeable, the brave apply. The
weak, the beaten down, the confused don't. And you end up with
a two tier system.
In fact, there is no way current charter
schools can be better than the regular system without the latter
being the second best place to send your kids. It is, as it now
stands, a subtle but extremely effective attack on public education.
Obviously, there are some advantages to
charter schools, but they may not be as mysterious or as unique
as their advocates think. Some years back a Virginia school system
experimented with small sub schools featuring different educational
approaches. When they studied the results they found that students
in each of the sub schools did better, regardless of the approach
taken. The conclusion: it was the sense that they were going
to a school that mattered and that cared about them that made
the difference.
So why not throw a Hail Mary pass before
the Fenty fusillade is successful, as it presently appears it
will be? Demand that some of the schools be recreated in a modified
charter school model with extensive community control - a new
approach that is not in opposition to the public schools, but
is a prototype towards which the rest of the system might move.
For example, I have long urged a group of mini systems based
on each high school and its feeder schools, led by a board of
teachers, parents and other citizens.
What the wheeler dealers ignore in this
battle is that most of what happens in school goes on in a classroom
in which the bureaucracy and the system are for that hour irrelevant.
The point is to find the best teachers and to give them the best
support. For over two centuries, America did this well based
on decentralized, community controlled education. The answer
is not to turn the system over to educational hustlers - as encouraged
by Fenty, the business lobby and the editorialists at the Washington-Kaplan
Post - but to rediscover a system that worked.
After the above appeared we got this note
from the co-founder of Save our Schools, a parent of three
GINA ARLOT, SAVE OUR SCHOOLS - What you
describe in City Desk is very similar to what Albert Shanker,
the man who first used the term "charter school", hoped
would happen if a group of parents, teachers and others got together
to start a charter school. It was hoped that by having a school
fully invested in by the community, with some innovative idea,
we would be able to determine quickly what worked and what didn't
in public education and with feedback loops back into the overall
system, everyone would benefit. Education Week had a fairly big
commentary on the back page recently written by a man who has
written a bio on Shanker. What happened is that after the neo-cons
stopped criticizing the concept, they realized that it would
help them achieve their dearest dream-privatizing a sacred government
function, and as a bonus, the teachers and other school workers
unions would be destroyed. It was a pretty interesting commentary
about how the whole idea of charter schools has been taken over
and totally corrupted.
What follows is a collection of information
that may be useful to those interested in pursuing the approach
suggested above. Included are some of the things wrong with the
current undemocratic charter school system.
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION - Nearly
40 percent of newer charter school teachers flee for other jobs,
according to a recently released study. Charter school students
do no better than their public school counterparts on math and
reading assessments, and in some cases score lower, according
to this national study. . .
In 2004, the National Assessment Governing
Board released an analysis of charter school performance on the
2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known
as "The Nation's Report Card." The report found that
charter school students, on average, score lower than students
in traditional public schools. While there was no measurable
difference between charter school students and students in traditional
public schools in the same racial/ethnic subgroup, charter school
students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch scored
lower than their peers in traditional public schools, and charter
school students in central cities scored lower than their peers
in math in 4th grade.
Students taught by certified teachers had
roughly comparable scores whether they attended charter schools
or traditional public schools, but the scores of students taught
by uncertified teachers in charter schools were significantly
lower than those of charter school students with certified teachers.
Students taught by teachers with at least
five years' experience outperformed students with less experienced
teachers, regardless of the type of school attended, but charter
school students with inexperienced teachers did significantly
worse than students in traditional public schools with less experienced
teachers.
In a study that followed North Carolina
students for several years, professors Robert Bifulco and Helen
Ladd found that students in charter schools actually made considerably
smaller achievement gains in charter schools than they would
have in traditional public schools.
From a guide to converting public to charter
schools
Why should we consider converting our school
to a public charter school?
Converting to public charter school status
permits parents, teachers, and administrators to create the kind
of school they want for the children who attend. They can do
this because public charter school status confers independence,
control, and significantly increased funding at the school level.
Each charter school is an autonomous public
school organized as a non-profit corporation governed by its
own board of trustees. The trustees have exclusive control over
the school's budget, instructional methods, personnel, and administration.
Charter schools hire whom they please, spend their funding as
they see fit, and, within the bounds of their charter, control
their own curriculum and instructional methods.
Because charter schools are not connected
to DCPS, their funding comes directly from the D.C. government.
The amount of funding is prescribed by the Uniform Per Student
Funding Formula.
What are the risks?
Unlike traditional public schools, public
charter schools can be closed down if they do not perform well.
Charter schools that mismanage funds or break the law can be
closed down at any time. Schools whose students do not improve
academically can be closed down after five years. A conversion
school that is closed down for any reason is likely to revert
to a school-system school.
What happens to our current students if
we convert?
Under the School Reform Act (D.C.'s charter
school law), students enrolled in a converting DCPS school receive
preference in admission to the charter school, as do their siblings.
All students within the neighborhood boundaries of the converting
school also receive preference. Any remaining seats are filled
by students from around the District.
What about teachers and staff?
Conversion requires the endorsement of
2/3 of the school's full-time teachers. After conversion, the
board of trustees determines who works at the charter school.
Former DCPS teachers who work at a charter school receive "creditable
service" under the District's retirement system for the
entire period of their employment at the charter school. These
teachers may elect to remain in the District's system or to transfer
into the charter school's retirement system once it establishes
one.
How do we get started?
The first step is to study the petition
form and become thoroughly familiar with the application process.
Next, you should begin educating your teachers, parents, and
the community in which your school sits about the pros and cons
of conversion. Once there is general agreement about moving forward,
you should pull together a steering committee or founding board
to begin the process of developing a shared vision and mission
for your new school and to prepare the petition.
This summary points to some of the changes
needed in the charter school law.
SAVE OUR SCHOOLS - Charter schools were
supposed to be laboratories of innovation to improve public education
in DC, but instead are laboratories of privatization that are
destroying public education and draining our public resources.
Since being imposed by a Republican Congress in 1996, it has
become obvious that charters are the false promise of reform
in DC public schools.
Charter schools are not performing any
better than the public schools. In 2006-07, only 9 out of the
43 schools chartered by the Public Charter School Board reached
testing benchmarks established by the No Child Left Behind law.
Only 1 out of the 3 "highly touted"
KIPP schools met AYP in 06-07
When kids fall through the cracks, the
results can be tragic, but charter overseers don't care:
Charters do not have to provide access
to all students.
Since charters don¡¦t have
neighborhood boundaries, no one is entitled to go to a charter
school as a right. However, by law DCPS has to educate all students.
Many charter schools require parents to
sign contracts that include mandatory meetings, "volunteering",
and "activity fees."
Students are frequently "counseled
out" if they are not meeting discipline and academic expectations.
This usually occurs after October when charters receive funding
for students. Money does not follow the students out of the charters
and into DCPS.
The constant movement of students in and
out of charter schools is disruptive both to the students and
the receiving schools. Students can easily fall through the cracks
because there is no uniform tracking system or truancy policy
in charter schools.
Charters are costing the city millions
of dollars and spend more per capita than DCPS:
Many heads of charter schools make excessive
salaries. The Chairman and CEO of Friendship Public Charter School
made $260,000 in 2006.
Charters are using DCPS buildings and resources
and not putting anything back in the system: Maya Angelou Charter
School pays DCPS around $200 per student each year to rent Evans
MS despite receiving around $3,000 per student each year in facilities
allotment - that's $450,000.
Charter Schools are not public All are
owned by non-profit corporations and are only accountable to
their boards of trustees.
Even if a charter closes, its non-profit
foundation can keep the building.
Three of the 7 Charter Board members live
in Maryland or Virginia. "
Kaplan is the education corporation owned
by the Washington Post that is helping it stay afloat.
EDUCATION WORLD, 2004 Increased accountability
demands on educators have led to more districts and teachers
turning to outside resources for help. Among those resources
is Kaplan, Inc., a company traditionally known for its test-preparation
programs. Kaplan now also offers after-school education centers,
as well as programs for K-12 schools, post-secondary education,
and professional training. Seppy Basili
As Kaplan's vice president of learning
and assessment, Guiseppe (Seppy) Basili guides strategy and product
development for Kaplan K12 Learning Services. He has helped Kaplan
K12 Learning Services design and deliver instructional programs
to more than 1,000 schools nationwide. He also oversees in-house
professional development programs. . .
EW: Since the passage of No Child Left
Behind, in what areas are schools seeking the most assistance
from Kaplan?
Basili: NCLB really is creating enormous
change in schools - districts are connecting data to faces in
ways they haven't before. Those districts are turning to Kaplan
for a range of services - from intervention services for students
with the greatest need to professional development for teachers.
Districts also are turning to Kaplan for solutions, such as the
Achievement Planner learning platform - a comprehensive solution
that includes formative assessment, state testing analysis, and
targeted lesson plans.
EW: How do you respond to some educators'
concerns that they are being forced to "teach to the test"
more than ever now, and that it is adversely impacting education?
Basili: While traditional thinking is that
teachers shouldn't "teach to the test," the educational
landscape has changed during the past several years. Today, we
live in a world of criterion-referenced tests, which establishes
a proficiency baseline that every student should be able to perform
at. State tests are based on state standards. There's no problem
whatsoever in having tests that are standards-based and standards-driven.
DC WATCH, 2004 In 2002, Michael Sherer
at The Columbia Journalism Review reported that the Washington
Post Company had paid lobbyists $80,000 to monitor the No Child
Left Behind legislation in 2001. Sherer overlooked the fact that
the Post Company has journalists at not only its namesake newspaper
the Washington Post, but at Newsweek and many other media outlets
who could "monitor" and report on the legislation.
But Sherer was getting at a point regarding the journalistic
integrity of the Post Company and its media outfit because of
a certain conflict of interest. The Washington Post Company is
not only a family newspaper but is a company with a very profitable
non-media subsidiary called Kaplan Educational Services.
Not surprisingly, DC's "failing"
schools or schools with stagnant standardized test scores have
been a lead story over the last week at the Washington Post.
Two reports outlined the initial announcement of "failing"
schools and questioned whether or not money was available to
pay for the tutoring that was due to the students in those schools.
For those owning stock in the Washington Post Company, this was
good news both locally and nationally. But for those outside
of the Post's corporate lair, doubts linger as to whether or
not this will be a continuation of bad public policy.
The Washington Post Company's 2003 Annual
Report breaks Kaplan down into two divisions: Supplemental Education
and Higher Education. The more profitable of the two is Supplemental
Education, which has a long history as a test prep provider.
Sherer infers that the Post lobbied Congress to get legislation
into NCLB that would further the profits of Kaplan and therefore
the Post Company and its shareholders. Sherer goes on to state
" Overall, the newspaper's editorials have supported [NCLB's]
interests, calling for higher school standards, the use of vouchers,
and further exploration of online education."
The Post Company's Kaplan is one of nineteen
approved NCLB supplemental service providers on the District
of Columbia Public Schools' list from which parents have been
able to choose. By 2003, Kaplan had already received at least
one $90,000 contract for services from DCPS or $10,000 more than
the Post Company reportedly paid a firm to lobby Congress on
NCLB in 2001
CHARTER SCHOOL FAQ
Congress imposed charters on DC in 1996.When
they proved unpopular, Congress created a special Public Charter
School Board to encourage the creation and expansion of charter
schools. Charter schools are an example of Congress's disrespect
for home rule and their undemocratic meddling in local affairs.
But aren't charter schools well meaning?
Charters were pitched as innovative models
of reform that would help DCPS improve. There are some good and
well-intentioned charter schools, but as a whole charters are
part of a national movement to privatize all of our public institutions
and services.
Aren't charter schools public?
Charter schools use public money, but every
charter school is owned, operated, and governed by a private
corporation and Board of Trustees. Many charters receive additional
funding from private foundations and wealthy individuals, further
weakening public accountability. Also, charters don't have to
follow the rules and regulations of DCPS for enrollment and retention
of students or for the hiring and firing of teachers and other
school workers.
But can't anyone go to a charter school?
Charters are not neighborhood schools.
Prospective students must fill out applications and are selected
by citywide lottery. Often parents must attend meetings and agree
to volunteer time or pay "activity fees" before their
children can register. By selective outreach, specialized curriculum
and niche marketing, charters can target specific types of students
and ignore others. Once accepted, students can be expelled or
encouraged to withdraw for social, disciplinary, or academic
reasons.
Aren't parents just "voting with their
feet" when they send their children to charters?
Not necessarily. DCPS buildings have been
neglected and the school system overall has lost resources, staff,
and programs. Most parents would choose the neighborhood school
down the street if it was clean, modern, well-staffed, and well-maintained.
But aren't charter schools improving educational
opportunities for students in the District?
No. Even charter advocates agree that "quality"
remains a problem in charter schools, and public schools continue
to outperform charters. Even worse, charter schools are creating
a dual and unequal education system DC-charters enjoy political
support, get large amounts of money from private corporations,
and can decide who they want to remain in their school and who
they don't. DCPS has to accept everyone, including students put
out of charters. Far from fixing decades of political neglect
and underfunding of our public schools charters have only made
the situation worse.
Do charter schools contribute to segregation,
displacement, and gentrification?
Segregation: A study by the Project for
Civil Rights at Harvard University shows that charter schools
contribute to segregation by race and class. Charters can purposefully
attract a certain type of student through targeted recruitment
and niche marketing. Being a parent of a charter student generally
requires far more resources (for transportation, system navigation,
student fees and parent volunteering), which further discriminates
against lower-income families. Also, if students do not fit in
with the school's mission for disciplinary, academic, or social
reasons, they can be dismissed midyear or asked not to return
the next year. With this kind of subjective student selection,
charter schools are clearly achieving a separate and unequal
education based on race and class.
Privatization: Charters are an important
step towards systematic privatization in which corporations and
wealthy individuals make decisions for everyone else about how
students are educated, what communities need, and what happens
to available space. Because charters operate outside DCPS and
the city government, their ownership of a school building takes
the building out of the public domain and makes it private property.
Even if the Charter fails, the private owners keep the building
and land, rather than returning it to public ownership. Once
this transition is made, the public has no access or decision-making
power. They are cut out of the picture.
Gentrification: As segregators and privatizers,
unaccountable to the people or the democratic process, charter
schools are fundamental to the process of gentrification. How
better to drive poor people of color out than to undercut access
to public education, to sell off public property as "surplus"
and hand it off to gentrifiers? This is not only racist and greedy,
it shows an utter lack of respect for the people of Washington
DC.
Are all charter schools bad?
Individual charter schools may provide
a wonderful educational experience for students who attend them,
and may perform well and have high retention rates. However,
all charter schools are part of a system that threatens equality
and justice in public education and the local community. Unless
a charter school actively works to protect the community in which
it is located and the DC public school system, it is a part of
the problem
RICHARD D. KAHLENBERG, EDUCATION WEEK Twenty
years ago this month, in a landmark address to the National Press
Club in Washington, American Federation of Teachers President
Albert Shanker first proposed the creation of "charter schools"-publicly
funded institutions that would be given greater flexibility to
experiment with new ways of educating students. At the time,
some conservative education reformers opposed the idea, saying
we already knew what worked in education. Today, the positions
are reversed: Conservatives largely embrace charters, while teachers'
unions are mostly opposed. How did the notion of charter schools
evolve over 20 years? And might a return to Al Shanker's original
idea improve the educational and political fortunes of the charter
school movement?
In Shanker's vision, small groups of teachers
and parents would submit research-based proposals outlining plans
to educate kids in innovative ways. A panel consisting of the
local school board and teachers' union officials would review
proposals. Once given a "charter," a term first used
by the Massachusetts educator Ray Budde, a school would be left
alone for a period of five to 10 years. Schools would be freed
from certain collective bargaining provisions; for example, class-size
limitations might be waived to merge two classes and allow team-teaching.
Shanker's core notion was to tap into teacher expertise to try
new things. Building on the practices at the Saturn auto plant
in Nashville, Tenn., he envisioned teams of teachers making suggestions
on how best to accomplish the job at hand. Part of the appeal
of charter schools to Shanker and many Democrats was that they
offered a publicly run alternative to private-school-voucher
proposals, which they feared would undermine teacher collective
bargaining rights and Balkanize students by race, religion, and
economic status. A charter school, Shanker said, "would
not be a school where all the advantaged kids or all the white
kids or any other group is segregated."
In the early 1990s, Minnesota legislators,
working with Shanker, adopted the nation's first charter school
legislation. However, as the idea spread (eventually to 40 states
and the District of Columbia), the father of charter schools
expressed increasing alarm that his idea of teacher-led institutions
had morphed into something quite different. Many conservative
advocates saw charters as a way to make an end run around teachers'
unions, and the vast majority of charter schools today lack collective
bargaining agreements. Likewise, states disregarded Shanker's
admonition that charter schools should be diverse, as individual
charter schools often appealed to specialized ethnic, religious,
or racial groups, raising the very concerns Shanker had about
private school vouchers.
Shanker argued that in charter schools,
rigid collective bargaining rules could be bent, but that teachers
still needed union representation. Only when teachers felt secure
could they take risks, he said. "You don't see these creative
things happening where teachers don't have voice or power or
influence." Not surprisingly, lacking a collective voice,
teachers in charter schools turn over at almost twice the rate
of public school teachers. And while right-wingers assumed that
eliminating union influence would make test scores skyrocket,
a number of independent studies have found that charter schools
do no better than unionized public schools. Moreover, as a practical
political matter, as charter schools became a vehicle for anti-union
activists, powerful education unions naturally opposed their
expansion and effectively limited the ultimate growth of the
experiment.
THE ISSUES THAT MAKE NO CHILD LAW SO CONTROVERSIAL
JOAN INDIANA RIGDON, WASHINGTON LAWYER - According to its critics,
NCLB has actually lowered education standards by forcing schools
to obsess over testing while diverting some of their own funds-as
well as huge chunks of classroom time-away from their own educational
goals to do that testing.
Indeed, one thing we know from all the
testing that is required is that the nation's students aren't
making much progress under NCLB. Math scores, for instance, have
risen under NCLB, but at a slower rate than they did before the
law took effect. Reading scores have barely budged.
There's been book-cooking, too: Afraid
of having their schools tagged as failures, which could mean
large-scale staff replacement, or being forced to cede a school
to private management, many states have assured themselves of
improved results by dumbing down their assessment tests or lowering
the definition of a passing grade. Technically, that's allowed,
since NCLB requires students to be "proficient" but
doesn't say what that means. . .
While many of NCLB's original backers have
distanced themselves from the bill, even its chief architects,
Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy and California Democrat
Rep. George Miller, are starting to criticize it. "Up until
at least spring of last year, they were very resistant to legislative
changes to the law and generally defenders of the law. They were
critical of funding and critical of how the Bush administration
was implementing the law, but they were not calling for a change
to the statute itself," says the NEA's Packer. "This
year they have significantly changed their tune and their tone."
Last summer, Miller declared the law "not
fair," "not flexible," and "not funded."
Last month, in a Washington Post op-ed on the eve of NCLB's sixth
anniversary, Senator Kennedy ticked off some of its accomplishments,
but then proceeded to roundly criticize it, writing that "its
one-size-fits-all approach encourages 'teaching to the test'
and discourages innovation in the classroom."
The National Conference of State Legislatures,
which has long criticized NCLB, believes the law is hopelessly
convoluted. Representative Miller's draft revision numbered 600
pages, compared to approximately 1,100 for the original. Says
David Shreve, the NCSL's federal affairs counsel: "It's
a terrible irony that you take 600 pages of amendments to fix
1,100 pages of messed up public policy, as if that's going to
simplify and clarify it."
MARCH 2008
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO SCHOOLS
[This is the best piece we've seen on what
NCLB, charter schools, reorganizations and other false school
reforms are really about]
STEVEN MILLER AND JACK GERSON, EDUCATOR ROUNDTABLE
- The "Tough Choices or Tough
Times" report of the National Commission on Skills in the
Workplace, funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and signed by a bipartisan collection of prominent
politicians, businesspeople, and urban school superintendents,
called for a series of measures including:
(a) replacing public schools with what
the report called "contract schools", which would be
charter schools writ large;
(b) eliminating nearly all the powers of
local school boards - their role would be to write and sign the
authorizing agreements for the "contract schools;
(c) eliminating teacher pensions and slashing
health benefits; and
(d) forcing all 10th graders to take a
high school exit examination based on 12th grade skills, and
terminating the education of those who failed (i.e., throwing
millions of students out into the streets as they turn 16).
These measures, taken together, would effectively
cripple public control of public education. They would dangerously
weaken the power of teacher unions, thus facilitating still further
attacks on the public sector. They would leave education policy
in the hands of a network of entrepreneurial think tanks, corporate
entrepreneurs, and armies of lobbyists whose priorities are profiting
from the already huge education market while cutting back on
public funding for schools and students.
Indeed, their measures would mean privatization
of education, effectively terminating the right to a public education,
as we have known it. Many of the most powerful forces in the
country want the US, the first country to guarantee public education,
to be the first country to end it.
For the last fifty years, public education
was one of only two public mandates guaranteed by the government
that was accessible to every person, regardless of income. Social
Security is the other. Now both systems are threatened with privatization
schemes. The government today openly defines its mission as protecting
the rights of corporations above everything. Thus public education
is a rare public space that is under attack.
The same scenario is being implemented
with most of the services that governments used to provide for
free or at little cost: electricity, national parks, health care
and water. In every case, the methodology is the same: underfund
public services, create an uproar and declare a crisis, claim
that privatization can do the job better, deregulate or break
public control, divert public money to corporations and then
raise prices.
In the past year, it's become evident that
the corporate surge against public schools is only part of a
much broader assault against the public sector, against unions,
and indeed against the public's rights and public control of
public institutions.
This has been evident for some time now
in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina's devastation is used
as an excuse for permanently privatizing the infrastructure of
a major American city: razing public housing and turning land
over to developers; replacing the city's public school system
with a combination of charter schools and state-run schools;
letting the notorious Blackwater private army loose on the civilian
population; and, in the end, forcing tens of thousands of families
out of the city permanently. The citizens of New Orleans have
had their civil rights forcibly expropriated.
Just as the shock of the hurricane was
the excuse for the shock therapy applied to New Orleans, so the
economic downturn triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis is
now the excuse for a national assault on the public sector and
the public's rights. . .
In public education, the corporate surge
has grown both qualitatively and quantitatively. Where two years
ago the corporate education change agents were mainly operating
in a relatively small number of large urban areas, they have
now surfaced everywhere. The corporatization of public education
is the leading edge of privatization. This has the effect of
silencing the public voice on every aspect of the situation.
Across the US, public schools are not yet
privatized, though private services are increasingly benefiting
from this market. However, increasing corporate control of programs
- a different mix in every locale - is having a chilling influence
on the very things that people (though not corporations) want
from teachers: the ability to relate to and teach each child,
a nurturing approach that nudges every child to move ahead, human
assessments that put people before performance on standardized
tests.
Perhaps the single most dramatic development
of the corporate approach was the launching of the $60 million
Strong American Schools - Ed in '08 initiative, funded by billionaires
Bill Gates and Eli Broad. This is a naked effort to purchase
the nation's education policy, no matter who is elected President,
by buying their way into every electoral forum.
Ed in '08 has a three-point program: merit
pay (basing teachers' compensation on students' scores on high
stakes test); national education standards (enforcing conformity
and rote learning); and longer school day and school year (still
more time for rote learning, less time for kids to be kids. .
.
Where two years ago charter schools were
still viewed as experiments affecting a relatively small number
of students, in 2007 the corporate privatizers - led by Broad
and Gates - grossly expanded their funding to the point where
they now loom as a major presence.
In March, the Gates Foundation announced
a $100 million donation to KIPP charter schools, which would
enable them to expand their Houston operation to 42 schools (from
eight) - effectively, KIPP will be a full-fledged alternative
school system in Houston. Also in the past year, Eli Broad and
Gates have given in the neighborhood of $50 million to KIPP and
Green Dot charter schools in Los Angeles, with the aim of doubling
the percentage of LA students enrolled in charter schools. Oakland,
another Broad/Gates targets, now has more than 30 charter schools
out of 92. And, as we shall see below, the same trend holds across
the country.
NCLB in 2008 is still a major issue. It
continues to have a corrosive effect on public schools. It is
designed an unfunded mandate, which means that schools must meet
ever rigid standards every year, though no more money is appropriated
to support this effort. This means that schools must take ever-more
money out of the class room to meet federal requirements when
schools with low test scores are in "Program Improvement".
Once schools are in PI for 5 years they can be forced into privatization.
NCLB is a driving force that decimates
the "publicness" in public schools. In California,
more than 2000 schools are now in "Program-Improvement".
This means that they have to meet certain specific, and mostly
impossible standards, or they must divert increasingly greater
amounts of money out of the classroom and into private programs.
For example, schools in 3rd year PI must
take money out of programs that helped schools with a high proportion
of low achieving schools and make it available to private tutors.
. .
Privatizing public schools inevitable leads
to massive increase in social inequality. Private corporations
have never been required to recognize civil rights, because,
by definition, these are public rights. If the corporate privatizers
succeed in taking over our schools, there will be neither quality
education nor civil rights.
The system of public education in the United
States is deeply flawed. While suburban schools are among the
best in the world, public education in cities has been deliberately
underfunded and is in a shambles. The solution is not to fight
backwards to maintain the old system. Rather it is to fight forward
to a new system that will truly guarantee quality education as
a civil right for everyone.
Central to this is to challenge the idea
that everything in human society should be run by corporations,
that only corporations and their political hacks have the right
or the power to discuss what public policy should be. . .
The real direction is to increase the role
and power of the public in every way, not eliminate it. . .
FOR
FULL REPORT, EMAIL STEVE MILLER
CALIFORNIA COURT RULING THREATENS HOME
SCHOOLING
SF CHRONICLE - A
California appeals court ruling clamping down on home schooling
by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across
the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as
possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
The homeschooling movement never saw the
case coming.
"At first, there was a sense of, 'No
way,'" said home school parent Loren Mavromati, a resident
of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homes
chool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear.
I think it has moved now into indignation.". . .
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled
that California law requires parents to send their children to
full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed
tutors at home.
Some homes choolers are affiliated with
private or charter schools, like the Longs, but others fly under
the radar completely. Many home schooling families avoid truancy
laws by registering with the state as a private school and then
enroll only their own children.
Yet the appeals court said state law has
been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court
rejected a challenge by home schooling parents to California's
compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children
ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public
or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state
credential for the child's grade level.
CORPORATIONS DESIGNING CURRICULA TO
HELP RECRUIT WORKERS
ANNE MARIE CHAKER, WALL STREET JOURNAL
- In a recent class at Abraham Clark High School in Roselle,
N.J., business teacher Barbara Govahn distributed glossy classroom
materials that invited students to think about what they want
to be when they grow up. Eighteen career paths were profiled,
including a writer, a magician, a town mayor -- and five employees
from accounting giant Deloitte LLP. . .
The curriculum, provided free to the public school by a nonprofit
arm of Deloitte, aims to persuade students to join the company's
ranks. One 18-year-old senior in Ms. Govahn's class, Hipolito
Rivera, says the company-sponsored lesson drove home how professionals
in all fields need accountants. "They make it sound pretty
good," he says.
Deloitte and other corporations are reaching
out to classrooms -- drafting curricula while also conveying
the benefits of working for the sponsor companies. Hoping to
create a pipeline of workers far into the future, these corporations
furnish free lesson plans and may also underwrite classroom materials,
computers or training seminars for teachers.
The programs represent a new dimension
of the business world's influence in public schools. Companies
such as McDonald's Corp. and Yum Brands Inc.'s Pizza Hut have
long attempted to use school promotions to turn students into
customers. The latest initiatives would turn them into employees.
Companies that employ engineers, fearful
of a coming labor shortage, are at the movement's forefront.
Lockheed Martin Corp. began funding engineering courses two years
ago at schools near its aircraft testing and development site
in Palmdale, Calif., saying it hopes to replenish its local work
force. Starting in 2004, British engine-maker Rolls-Royce PLC
has helped fund high-school courses in topics such as engine
propulsion. Intel Corp. supports curricula in school districts
where engineering concepts are taught as early as the elementary
level.
Schools, for their part, have embraced
corporate support as state education funding has remained flat
for a decade and declining housing values now threaten to eat
into property-tax revenues. Teachers, meanwhile, often welcome
the lesson plans, classroom equipment and the corporate-sponsored
professional development sessions.
But however well-intentioned, such corporate
input may blur the line between pure academics and a commercial
agenda, critics say. "When you have a corporation or any
special interest offering an incentive, you are distorting the
educational purpose of the schools," says Alex Molnar, an
education-policy professor at Arizona State University who directs
the school's Commercialism in Education Research Unit.
The hiring priorities of a company or industry,
Mr. Molnar says, can change quickly. On the other hand, he says,
schools should provide a broad and consistent foundation of knowledge
and skills. Deciding what to teach is "first and foremost,
a series of choices," he says. Historically, those choices
have been made by school officials and professional educators,
based on the interests of their community's children, not on
the shifting needs of industry.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120476410964115117.html
FEBRUARY 2008
FINLAND: WHERE THEY REALLY LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND
ELLEN GAMERMAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL - Finnish
teenagers are among the smartest in the world. They earned some
of the top scores by 15-year-old students who were tested in
57 countries. American teens finished among the world's C students
even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and
rules. Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also waste
hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to
rap and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in
math, science and reading -- on track to keeping Finns among
the world's most productive workers. Finland's students are the
brightest in the world, according to an international test. Teachers
say extra playtime is one reason for the students' success. WSJ's
Ellen Gamerman reports.. . . .
The academic prowess of Finland's students
has lured educators from more than 50 countries in recent years
to learn the country's secret, including an official from the
U.S. Department of Education. What they find is simple but not
easy: well-trained teachers and responsible children. Early on,
kids do a lot without adults hovering. And teachers create lessons
to fit their students. "We don't have oil or other riches.
Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have," says Hannele
Frantsi, a school principal. . .
The Norssi School is run like a teaching
hospital, with about 800 teacher trainees each year. Graduate
students work with kids while instructors evaluate from the sidelines.
Teachers must hold master's degrees, and the profession is highly
competitive: More than 40 people may apply for a single job.
Their salaries are similar to those of U.S. teachers, but they
generally have more freedom.
Finnish teachers pick books and customize
lessons as they shape students to national standards. "In
most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland,
the teachers are the entrepreneurs," says Mr. Schleicher,
of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student
test in 2000.
One explanation for the Finns' success
is their love of reading. Parents of newborns receive a government-paid
gift pack that includes a picture book. Some libraries are attached
to shopping malls, and a book bus travels to more remote neighborhoods
like a Good Humor truck. . .
Despite the apparent simplicity of Finnish
education, it would be tough to replicate in the U.S. With a
largely homogeneous population, teachers have few students who
don't speak Finnish. . .
Another difference is financial. . . The
gap between Finland's best- and worst-performing schools was
the smallest of any country in the PISA testing. The U.S. ranks
about average. . .
Once school starts, the Finns are more
self-reliant. While some U.S. parents fuss over accompanying
their children to and from school, and arrange every play date
and outing, young Finns do much more on their own. At the Ymmersta
School in a nearby Helsinki suburb, some first-grade students
trudge to school through a stand of evergreens in near darkness.
At lunch, they pick out their own meals, which all schools give
free, and carry the trays to lunch tables. There is no Internet
filter in the school library. They can walk in their socks during
class, but at home even the very young are expected to lace up
their own skates or put on their own skis. . .
Mr. Erma's school is a showcase campus.
Last summer, at a conference in Peru, he spoke about adopting
Finnish teaching methods. During a recent afternoon in one of
his school's advanced math courses, a high-school boy fell asleep
at his desk. The teacher didn't disturb him, instead calling
on others. While napping in class isn't condoned, Mr. Erma says,
"We just have to accept the fact that they're kids and they're
learning how to live."
THE MYTH OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
WALTER P. COOMBS AND RALPH E. SHAFFER,
LA TIMES - Critics of public education have argued for years
that throwing money at public schools doesn't solve the "education
crisis." Now come Eli Broad, Bill Gates, the Annenbergs,
Hunts, Waltons and other billionaires who willingly pour vast
sums of money into "public" education provided they
can designate where it goes and how it will be used. Apparently,
throwing money at the schools is acceptable if you get to call
the shots.
In the last decade, conservative philanthropists
have given hundreds of millions of dollars to establish their
own agendas. The most recent announcement, January's grant of
a paltry $23 million by Broad, was typical of this modern philanthropy.
Instead of truly aiding public education, Broad chose to subsidize
several privately operated charter school conglomerates in the
Los Angeles area. Principal beneficiaries of his largess were
the highly-regimented KIPP schools and the misnamed Aspire Public
Schools. The only thing public about either system is that they
are supported by California taxpayers. Broad's grant is but a
fraction of the amount given to these schools by the state.
Typical charter schools such as Green Dot,
which Broad also subsidizes with what are probably tax-deductible
gifts, are privately controlled and run by unelected, self-appointed
boards that are effectively unaccountable to the public. The
State Board of Education and the state agency that "oversees"
charters are now dominated by pro-charter appointees.
KIPP, Aspire and Green Dot have "succeeded"
because a relatively small number of motivated parents and students
have voluntarily withdrawn from the Los Angeles Unified School
District, believing that the district has not coped with the
massive problems facing public education in urban California
today.
From the day the Supreme Court ruled that
schools must end segregation, including the de facto system in
California's urban schools, a steady flow of white children left
our public schools. Forced busing dramatically escalated that.
Education-oriented parents who might have kept the schools on
their toes no longer had any interest in the public schools,
as their children were now attending private institutions.
Simultaneously, the percentage of nonnative
students enrolled in the public schools skyrocketed. Many had
extremely limited English language skills and their parents often
could not speak English at all. That's a recipe for educational
disaster.
KIPP, Aspire and Green Dot don't face that
problem. Through what amounts to a contract with parents and
students, they screen their applicants and admit a clientele
that, in a traditional public school, would do as well or better
than they are doing in the charter school.
If Broad's pet charters had to accept 3,000
limited-English, low-income students from ethnic backgrounds
that include a high percentage of single-parent families, with
widespread gang involvement and little commitment to education,
scores that the charters now trumpet would fall significantly.
But working with a select group of students who would score well
at any school, Broad's charters garner only somewhat better-than-average
test scores - despite the massive amount of public and private
money poured into them.
Charters claim that their schools score
far better than traditional public schools serving similar students.
That's not true. The students at Locke or any of the other at-risk
high schools in LAUSD are not "similar students" when
compared to those who have left the public schools and moved
to the charters. What Broad, Green Dot and the others do not
reveal is the scores of those charter students when they were
in regular public schools. It's our belief that those students
were already outscoring their fellow students in the traditional
schools before they moved into charters. Low-scoring students
do not enroll in Broad's charters. His charters have skimmed
off the education-oriented kids who otherwise would be raising
test scores for traditional public schools.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-shaffer12feb12,0,938309.story
LOCAL HEROES: SCHOOL DISTRICT REBELS
AGAINST NO CHILD LEFT LAW
DAILY HERALD, IL - A DuPage County school
district could be the first in Illinois - and perhaps the nation
- to refuse to administer mandatory state exams to students who
haven't yet mastered English.
The boycott by Carol Stream Elementary
District 93 would be an act of civil disobedience against the
state's decision to force English learners to take the same tests
as their fluent peers.
Nearly 10 percent of the district's 4,300
students were categorized as having limited English skills in
2007.
The federal No Child Left Behind law requires
that all public schools annually test all students in select
grades.
District 93 officials say they're willing
to break the law this spring to shield students from the frustration
and humiliation of taking an exam not designed for them. . .
Illinois dropped the test that was designed
for English learners this fall, after the U.S. Department of
Education made a final ruling that the test wasn't an adequate
measure of state learning standards. The old test was written
in simpler English.
As a stopgap measure, English learners
will take standard assessments with some special accommodations,
such as extended time and audio recordings, while Illinois develops
a test that will meet federal guidelines.
Politicians and educators throughout Illinois
have aggressively opposed the move, predicting it will cause
districts to fail and face serious sanctions under the federal
accountability law.
A group of Chicago parents plans to keep
their children home during the March testing, while local school
officials have petitioned state lawmakers for a one-year reprieve
for English learners. And, some other superintendents say they
also would consider a boycott. . .
A Wisconsin teacher made national news
last year when he protested the emphasis the law places on standardized
testing by refusing to administer the exams - for a single day.
Threatened with termination, he proctored the exams the second
day. . .
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/22/7240/
JANUARY 2008
PARENTS CALL BOYCOTT OF NYC FIELD TESTS OF STUDENTS
NY TIMES - New York City public school
students have taken English tests for years. Math tests, too.
This year, 10 "diagnostic" tests have been added to
the menu in the hope that they will improve results on the real
thing.
But when parents at two Manhattan elementary
schools discovered that their children had been selected to participate
in field tests, or tests to help the state's testing company
try out questions for future tests, they decided to draw the
line.
At a news conference in front of City Hall
on Tuesday, the parents said they were organizing a boycott of
the field tests to be given at their children's schools - Public
Schools 40 and 116 - later this week.
"We're using tests to figure out how
kids will test on tests," said Jane Hirschmann, the founder
and co-chairwoman of Time Out From Testing, an anti-testing group
that sponsored the news conference. . .
Because of requirements under the federal
No Child Left Behind Law coupled with the City Education Department's
decision to raise the number of diagnostic tests given to third
through eighth graders - last year there as many as six - New
York City's public school students are taking more standardized
tests than ever. . .
FLORIDA COUNTY PREFERS MCDONALD'S TO
EVOLUTION
[Seminole County, Florida, is a hotbed
of opposition to teaching evolution]
AD AGE - "This is a good day for parents
and children in Seminole County and anyone who believes that
corporations should not prey on children in schools," said
Dr. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free
Childhood. "We are pleased that McDonald's is listening
to parents all over the country who believe that report cards
should not be commercialized."
The fast-food giant had agreed to sponsor
the report-card jackets for the county's elementary schools to
cover a printing fee of $1,600. There are 27,000 children in
the school district.
On the jackets, McDonald's offered a free
happy meal to any student with all A's and B's, two or fewer
absences, or good behavior in a given academic quarter. Susan
Pagan, an area parent, notified the Campaign for a Commercial-Free
Childhood, and an all-out public-relations battle ensued by early
December. According to the campaign, the school district received
more than 2,000 calls of protest. . .
"It was McDonald's decision to remove
our trademarks from report-card jackets in Seminole County, Fla.,
because we believe the focus should be on the importance of a
good education," said Bill Whitman, a spokesman for McDonald's
USA. "McDonald's, not the school district, will cover the
cost to reprint the report-card jackets."
http://adage.com/article?article_id=123176
CONSUMERIST - The school district that
approved McDonald's-sponsored report cards has a hot new partnership
with Bus Radio, a friendly company that advertises to kids as
they ride to school. The company serves a sonorous mix of inoffensive
music, public service announcements (buckle up, kids!) and a
few harmless advertisements (maybe McDonald's?) to over 1 million
children in 23 states. Bus Radio is based in Needham, Massachusetts,
but lost its contract with the Needham school district after
uppity parents objected to the crass commercialization of something
as innocent as a bus ride. Seminole School Board members said
the benefits of the radio show seem to outweigh any drawbacks,
but they will evaluate Bus Radio's performance during the test
run.
http://consumerist.com/346745/bus-radio-advertises-to-school+bound-kids
DECEMBER 2007
HIGH PITCHED NOISE USES TO KEEP TEENAGERS AWAY
THE HERALD, UK - Devices that emit a high-pitched
and annoying sound, which can be heard only by people under the
age of 20, are being used to disperse groups of youths deemed
to be "anti-social". Adults, untroubled by the noise,
are subsequently soon untroubled by young people either, it is
claimed.
However, the use of such devices is almost
completely unregulated and children's rights campaigners object
to them on the grounds that they are indiscriminate - affecting
well-behaved and misbehaving young people alike, not to mention
infants and babies who may be unable even to object.
Since its release in October 2006, the
device - called a Mosquito ultrasonic youth deterrent, by the
company that sells it - has proven to be extremely popular south
of the border. Almost 3300 security systems were bought within
18 months of their launch. Around 70% of those were installed
in the UK, mostly in England and spread around almost every region
in the country. advertisement
They work because a condition known as
"presbycusis" or "age-related hearing loss"
means that following their teenage years, most people's ability
to hear sounds at frequencies of 18 to 20 kilohertz begins to
deteriorate then disappear, according to the system's manufacturer,
Compound Security Systems.
The firm says the Mosquito can be activated
to make groups of young people who are judged to be a threatening
presence on street corners or outside shops, move on of their
own accord. It was invented by entrepreneur Howard Stapleton,
who claimed to have been inspired when his daughter was bullied
by a group of youths outside shops near their home in Merthyr
Tydfil. . .
Human Rights campaigners Liberty have been
vocal in their opposition to the use of Mosquitoes. The organisation's
director, Shami Chakrabarti, described them as "at worst,
a low-level sonic weapon and, at best, a dog-whistle for kids".
Chakrabarti added: "Either way, it has no place in a civilized
society that values its children and young people and seeks to
imbue them with values of dignity and respect. Degrading young
people instead of providing opportunities for them is a tragic
option whose long-term effect is frightening to imagine."
Paula Evans, policy and parliamentary officer at Children in Scotland,
said: "This type of dispersal mechanism affects children
of all ages, from infants to young people. It contravenes their
right to assemble and to socialize under article 15 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also fails
to address the underlying problem of a shortage, within communities
across Scotland, of suitable places for children and young people
to meet socially and a shortage of recreational facilities for
children and young people to use.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND FLUNKS AGAIN
AP - U.S. students are lagging behind their
peers in other countries in science and math, test results out
Tuesday show. . . The average scores for U.S. students were lower
than the average scores for the group as a whole. . . . There
was no change in U.S. math scores since 2003, the last time the
test was given. The science scores aren't comparable between
2003 to 2006, because the tests aren't the same.
NOVEMBER 2007
PLENTY OF FOURTH GRADERS LEFT BEHIND
AP - U.S. fourth-graders have lost ground
in reading ability compared with kids around the world, according
to results of a global reading test. Test results released Wednesday
showed U.S. students, who took the test last year, scored about
the same as they did in 2001, the last time the test was given
- despite an increased emphasis on reading under the No Child
Left Behind law. . . Ten countries or jurisdictions, including
Hong Kong and three Canadian provinces, were ahead of the United
States this time. In 2001, only three countries were ahead of
the United States. . . On the latest international exam, U.S.
students posted a lower average score than students in Russia,
Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy and Sweden,
along with the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia
and Ontario.
ANOTHER REASON YOU MAY NOT WANT
TO WRECK THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
JOEL KOTKIN, WALL STREET
JOURNAL - For
much of the past decade, business recruiters, cities and urban
developers have focused on the "young and restless,"
the "creative class," and the so-called "yuspie"--the
young urban single professional. Cities, they've said, should
capture this so-called "dream demographic" if they
wish to inhabit the top tiers of the economic food chain and
enjoy the fastest and most sustained growth.
This focus--epitomized
by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's risible "Cool Cities"
initiative--is less successful than advertised. Cincinnati, Baltimore,
Cleveland, Newark, Detroit and Memphis have danced to the tune
of the hip and the cool, yet largely remain wallflowers in terms
of economic and demographic growth. Instead, an analysis of migration
data by my colleagues at the Praxis Strategy Group shows that
the strongest job growth has consistently taken place in those
regions--such as Houston, Dallas, Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham--with
the largest net in-migration of young, educated families ranging
from their mid-20s to mid-40s.
Urban centers that have
been traditional favorites for young singles, such as Chicago,
Boston, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have experienced
below-average job and population growth since 2000. San Francisco
and Chicago lost population during that period; even immigrant-rich
New York City and Los Angeles County have shown barely negligible
population growth in the last two years, largely due to a major
out-migration of middle class families.
Married people with children
tend to be both successful and motivated, precisely the people
who make economies go. They are twice as likely to be in the
top 20% of income earners, according to the Census, and their
incomes have been rising considerably faster than the national
average.
There is a basic truth
about the geography of young, educated people. They may first
migrate to cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston or San Francisco.
But they tend to flee when they enter their child-rearing years.
Family-friendly metropolitan regions have seen the biggest net
gains of professionals, largely because they not only attract
workers, but they also retain them through their 30s and 40s.
. .
Contrary to popular belief,
moreover, the family is far from the brink of extinction. Most
Americans, notes the Pew Research Center, still regard marriage
as the ideal state. . .
The evidence thus suggests
that the obsession with luring singles to cities is misplaced.
Instead, suggests Paul Levy, president of Philadelphia's Center
City district association, the emphasis should be on retaining
young people as they grow up, marry, start families and continue
to raise them.
Mr. Levy notes that the
remarkable transformation of once sedate Center City--the area's
population has grown to over 90,000--has indeed been due primarily
to young singles, childless couples and a few "empty nesters."
The proliferation of clubs, restaurants and bars has created
an almost Manhattan ambiance. But he suggests that the district
is reaching the limits of its success. . .
Boosters such as Mr. Levy
look increasing towards reviving the traditional family neighborhoods
which surround Center City. His organization has worked closely
with local public and private schools, church and civic organizations
to build up the support structures that might convince today's
youthful inner city urbanites to remain as they start families.
"Our agenda," Mr. Levy says, "has to change. We
have to look at the parks, the playgrounds and the schools."
OCTOBER 2007
STUDY QUESTIONS PUBLIC-PRIVATE SCHOOL DIFFERENCE
FOR LOW INCOME STUDENTS
DC EXAMINER - Low-income students who attend
urban public high schools generally do just as well as private-school
students with similar backgrounds, according to a study.
Students at independent private schools
and most parochial schools scored the same on 12th-grade achievement
tests in core academic subjects as those in traditional public
high schools when income and other family characteristics were
taken into account, according to the study by the nonpartisan
Center on Education Policy. While the finding is in line with
a handful of recent studies, it's at odds with a larger body
of research over the years that has found private-school students
outperform those in public schools. Some of that research found
a private-school advantage even when income levels are taken
into account.
However, the new study not only compared
students by income levels but also looked at a range of other
family characteristics, such as whether a parent participates
in school life. . .
When all these factors were accounted for,
the only kind of private schools that had a positive impact on
student achievement were Catholic schools run by holy orders
such as the Jesuits. . .
The researchers found:
-In reading, family income, parental discussion,
parental expectations, parental involvement and eighth-grade
scores all positively affected 12th-grade reading scores. Scores
weren't affected by the type of school a student attended unless
it was a Catholic order school.
-In math, parental discussions and involvement
had no effect on achievement scores. Parental expectations and
family income did have an impact. . .
OHIO - WHERE CHARTER SCHOOL SCAM STARTED - BEGINNING
TO CRACKDOWN AFTER MORE THAN HALF GET FAILING GRADES
NY TIMES - Ohio became a test tube for
the nation's charter school movement during a decade of Republican
rule here, when a wide-open authorization system and plenty of
government seed money led to the schools' explosive proliferation.
. . This year, the state's school report card gave more than
half of Ohio's 328 charter schools a D or an F.
Now its Democratic governor and attorney
general, elected when Democrats won five of Ohio's six top posts
last November, are cracking down on the schools, which receive
public money but are run by independent operators. And across
the country, charter school advocates are watching nervously,
fearful the backlash could spread.
Attorney General Marc Dann is suing to
close three failing charter schools and says he is investigating
dozens of others. It is the first effort by any attorney general
to close low-performing charter schools. Gov. Ted Strickland
said he wanted to carry out his own crackdown.
Some 4,000 charter schools now operate
across the nation, most advertising themselves as a smaller,
safer alternative to the neighborhood school. Nationwide, the
movement has gained traction among Democrats, partly because
of the successes of a few quality nonprofit operators.
Fifty-seven percent of [Ohio's] charter
schools, most of which are in cities, are in academic watch or
emergency, compared with 43 percent of traditional public schools
in Ohio's big cities.
Behind the Ohio charter failures are systemic
weaknesses that include loopholes in oversight, a law allowing
70 government and private agencies to authorize new charters,
and financial incentives that encourage sponsors to let schools
stay open.
WHY PRESCHOOL PAYS OFF
[From a New American Media interview with
David Kirp, author of The Sandbox Investment]
Q - What is the effect of only one year
of preschool on society at large?
It's really crucial in the development
of children, and not just four-year-olds. We start with four-year-olds
and preschool because that's an important developmental place
and a place where you can start talking about kids getting ready
for school. But it's also important to think about education
earlier. It's not as if the learning process begins magically
with a half day of high quality instruction. Forty-five minutes
after they're born kids are tracking the movements of people.
At six months they're perfect linguists.
They can distinguish the pitch of every language, every tonal
language, at two and three. Preschool is really a first step
down that road.
Q - So many people in America go to college,
so many more than in other countries, and education is stressed
so much in this culture. Why has preschool really been ignored?
It has a lot to do with the conservative
ideology of the family. Preschool is the state takeover of the
lives of the young and some of the politicians say, "Why
stop there, why not grab the kid right out of the hospital and
start educating them?" This is their way of suggesting the
danger of more and more government intrusion.
In this country rich parents have . . .
sent their kids to private nursery schools. And since 1965 very
poor parents have had access to preschool, with Head Start. It's
the folks in the large middle, the working class and the middle
class that have done without, and they're the folks that now
see the benefits and they're the folks who are now pushing for
this.
Q - Why shouldn't we focus more on kindergarten
to twelve when there are so many people struck by the problem
of working in a deeply unequal school system?
Pre-k is not the magic bullet, but the
child of the welfare family has heard 30 million fewer words
by the age of four than the child of a professional's family.
A four year old from a professional's family has a bigger vocabulary
than a welfare mom. So if you wait until kindergarten, those
kids are really far behind.
That is why I think the most exciting and
famous piece of research tracked a group of four-year-old African
American children in Michigan for forty years and found those
kids were less likely to have been in special education, or to
have been left back, and more likely to have graduated from high
school, gone to college, less likely to be in prison, more likely
to get married, healthier and off welfare.
NEIL BUSH ZAPPED ON NO CHILD HUSTLE
NY TIMES - John P. Higgins Jr., the inspector
general, said he would review the matter after a group, Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, detailed at least
$1 million in spending from the No Child Left Behind program
by school districts in Texas, Florida and Nevada to buy products
made by Mr. Bush's company, Ignite Learning of Austin, Tex. Mr.
Higgins stated his plans in a letter to the group sent last week.
Members of the group and other critics
in Texas contend that school districts are buying Ignite's signature
product, the Curriculum on Wheels, because of political considerations.
The product, they said, does not meet standards for financing
under the No Child Left Behind Act, which allocates federal money
to help students raise their achievement levels, particularly
in elementary school reading.
Ignite, founded by Neil Bush in 1999, includes
as investors his parents, former President George H. W. Bush
and his wife, Barbara. Company officials say that about 100 school
districts use the Curriculum on Wheels, known as the Cow, which
is a portable classroom with software to teach middle-school
social studies, science and math. The units cost about $3,800
each and require about $1,000 a year in maintenance. . .
The citizens' group obtained documents
through a Freedom of Information Act request showing that the
Katy Independent School District west of Houston used $250,000
in state and federal Hurricane Katrina relief money last year
to buy the Curriculum on Wheels.
AUSTIN STATESMAN - A three-month long investigation
by CREW raises serious questions about the use of NCLB funds
to pay for products sold by Neil Bush, the younger brother of
President George Bush. . . CREW's three-month investigation revealed
that school districts are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars,
including NCLB funds, on Ignite!'s Curriculum on Wheels, a cart-mounted
video projector and hard drive loaded with a year's supply of
Ignite's social studies, science, or math curricula. At a standard
price of $3,800-$4,200 per unit, the COW is a very expensive
device with limited use. A recent New York Times article about
the use of the COW in Spotsylvania, Virginia, put the cost into
perspective: each school in the district receives $1,000 "to
cover all the lab supplies, equipment and other expenses connected
with science for an entire year." Adding to the initial
expense, schools must pay an annual $1,000 licensing, upkeep
and upgrade fee in order to retain the COW for more than one
year
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/09/15/0915ignite.html
CREW - Over the past five years, Austin
has spent $70,940 for the units, of which nearly $42,400 was
federal money, according to documents filed with the letter to
the inspector general. Longview has spent $126,400 for the units,
of which $94,060 was federal money, according to documents. The
watchdog group said there is no evidence the units meet standards
in the No Child Left Behind Act.
"It is astonishing that taxpayer dollars
are being spent on unproven educational products to the financial
benefit of the president's brother," said Melanie Sloan,
the group's executive director. "The IG should investigate
whether children's educations are being sacrificed so that Neil
Bush can rake in federal funds."
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30397
NEIL BUSH TIME LINE
1985
Neil Bush joins the board of Silverado
S&L, serves until 1988. Silverado loans his partners in JNB
$132 million which they never repay. Silverado will eventually
collapse at a taxpayer cost of $1 billion.
1983
Neil Bush forms his first oil company.
He puts in $100, his partners contribute $160,000 and Neil is
named president of the firm, JNB Exploration.
1989
Neil Bush bails out of JNB Exploration,
the firm where he became president with a $100 ante, leaving
his partners to worry about its debt. Days earlier he forms Apex
Energy with a personal investment of $3000. The rest of the money
-- $2.7 million -- comes from an SBA program designed to help
"high risk start-up companies." Like JNB, it proves
to be just that. Apex will later go belly-up with no assets.
1990
Federal regulators give Bush son Neil the
mildest possible penalty in the $1 billion failure of the Silverado
S&L. The deal is so good that Bush drops his appeal. Among
other things, Neil, as a Silverado director, voted to approve
over $100 million in loans to his business partners.
1991
Neil Bush bails out of Apex Energy after
collecting $320,000 in salary plus expenses. Bill Daniels, cable-TV
magnate who has been lobbying against regulation of the cable
industry, offers Neil a job. According to a representative, he
"thought Neil deserved a second chance."
1999
Neil Bush makes at least $798,00 in three
stock trades in a single day of a company where he had been employed
as a consultant. The company, Kopin Corporation of Taunton, Massachusetts,
announced good news about a new Asian client that sent its stock
value soaring. Bush stated that he had no inside knowledge and
that his financial advisor had recommended the trades. He said,
"any increase in the price of the stock on that day was
purely coincidental, meaning that I did not have any improper
information." When asked, in January 2004, about the stock
trades, Bush contrasted the capital gains he reported in 1999
and 2000 with the capital losses on Kopin stock he reported ($287,722
in all) in 2001. [Wikipedia]
Bush co-founds Ignite! Learning, an educational
software corporation. Bush has said he started Austin-based Ignite!
Learning six years ago because of his learning difficulties in
middle school and those of his son, Pierce Bush. The software
uses multiple intelligence methods to provide varying types of
content to appeal to multiple learning styles. To fund Ignite!,
Bush raised $23 million from U.S. investors, including his parents,
Barbara and former President George Bush, as well as businessmen
from Taiwan, Japan, Kuwait, the British Virgin Islands and the
United Arab Emirates, according to documents filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Russian billionaire expatriate Boris
Berezovsky, Berezovsky's partner Badri Patarkatsishvili, Kuwaiti
company head Mohammed Al Saddah, and Chinese computer executive
Winston Wong are documented investors. [Wikipedia]
2003
Washington Post reports that Bush's salary
from Ignite! is $180,000 per year.
2007
Boris Berezovsky, a political enemy of
Russian President Vladimir Putin is under indictment for fraud
in Russia and an applicant for asylum in the United Kingdom.
Berezovsky has been an investor in Bush's Ignite! program since
at least 2003. Bush met with Berezovsky, who has been described
as "notorious" and a "wheeler-dealer," in
Latvia. The meeting caused tension between that country and Russia
due to Berezovsky's fugitive status. Bush has also been seen
in Berezovsky's box at a British soccer stadium for a game. [Wikipedia]
NY TIMES - Ignite includes as investors
his parents, former President George H. W. Bush and his wife,
Barbara. Company officials say that about 100 school districts
use the Curriculum on Wheels, known as the Cow, which is a portable
classroom with software to teach middle-school social studies,
science and math. The units cost about $3,800 each and require
about $1,000 a year in maintenan
HOW NOT TO IMPROVE SCHOOLS
NY TIMES - By many
measures, Intermediate School 289 is a place parents would be
happy to send their children. This year, it was the only middle
school in New York City to achieve "blue ribbon" status,
a marker of high achievement under the federal No Child Left
Behind Act. The leading public schools guidebook calls it a place
where "solid academics" are combined with "attention
to children's social and emotional development." Educators
from around the country routinely descend upon the school, in
Battery Park City, to shadow its teachers.
So when Ellen Foote, the school's veteran
principal, received a copy of the school's new report card from
the city's Education Department, she was taken aback at the letter
grade: D.
"It is just so demoralizing to have
a number or grade assigned that is just sort of trivializing
things," Ms. Foote said. "It doesn't reflect, I think,
the valuable work and the very complicated work that we do here."
Throughout the city, principals are bracing
for the release this week of report cards from the Education
Department that will, for the first time, grade schools on a
scale of A through F. Because the report cards will assess schools
on how much individual students improve year to year, as well
as on a complicated mixture of test scores and other factors,
many of the grades are likely to upend longstanding reputations,
casting celebrated schools as failures and lauding those that
work miracles with struggling students. Some principals refer
to the scores as a "scarlet letter."
The schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein,
has called the report cards the glue that holds together his
entire effort to overhaul the school system, the nation's largest.
While other school systems, including New York State's, give
schools report cards, few assign letter grades, and few use the
kind of complex test data analysis that the city is using.
Mr. Klein plans to tie the grades to rewards,
like bonus pay for teachers and principals, and consequences,
like closing schools and firing principals. . .
The entire analysis hinges on the accuracy
of the data. As recently as last week, some principals throughout
the city, particularly in high schools, were panicked that the
data was inaccurate. Department officials said they expected
to fix most of the errors and would delay the grades for a few
high schools because of inaccuracies. . .
Ms. Foote said it was unfair to judge a
school on just one year of test scores and ignore gains over
the last several years. She said that the percentage of students
reading at grade level in her school had increased steadily since
2003, when it was 65 percent. She also said she was surprised
to see her school compared to middle schools that required a
standardized test for admission, like the Lab School and East
Side Middle School.
"I do not want to devote more time
to teaching to the tests," she said, adding that she would
have to sacrifice art, music and individualized instruction.
"Is that what's required now to get a good grade on this
progress report? That's a compromise that I don't think I am
willing to make.". . .
TOWN STANDS UP AGAINST SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION
BILL KAUFFMAN, writing in Chronicles, argued
once that one of the most deleterious changes in public education
has been the increase in school -- rather than class -- size.
Kauffman noted that this was intentional, led by people such
as Harvard President James Conant who produced a serious of postwar
reports calling for the "elimination of the small high school"
in order to compete with the Soviets and deal with the nuclear
era. Said Kauffman, "Conant the barbarian triumphed: the
number of school districts plummeted from 83,718 in 1950 to 17,995
in 1970."
The trend hasn't stopped and - in a move
boosted by the faux experts at Brookings and the smart growth
crowd - Maine is the midst of a masochistic school district consolidation.
One town has managed to op out - perhaps only temporarily. Note
the reason: they got a pass because they're one of the better
school districts. In other words, instead of modeling other districts
on Yarmuth's, the state is proceeding with a corporate style
consolidation that hasn't worked in the fifty years it's been
tried throughout the country.
TESS NACELEWICZ, PORTLAND PRESS HERALD
- Yarmouth has been the belle of the ball among Portland's northern
suburbs, with communities ranging from Falmouth to Pownal courting
the high-performing school district as a partner under Maine's
new school consolidation law.
Now it appears that Yarmouth will choose
to remain independent rather than merge with other school districts.
Residents at a community forum on Monday indicated strongly that
they prefer Yarmouth go it alone. About 400 residents attended
the forum to discuss the town's options under the new law, which
is designed to reduce Maine's 290 school districts to about 80.
In both straw and paper balloting, nearly
100 percent of those attending the meeting showed support for
Yarmouth remaining separate, school officials said.. . .
Because Yarmouth fits into a category of
school districts considered high performing and essential, it
would be exempt from the financial penalties that the state will
impose on districts that don't consolidate. It's unclear how
many years Yarmouth will be allowed such an exemption. . .
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story_pf.php?id=144232&ac=PHnws
SEPTEMBER 2007
WATCHING TV EARLY IN LIFE CAN LEAD TO
ATTENTION PROBLEMS LATER
NEW SCIENTIST - Watching
television more than two hours a day early in life can lead to
attention problems later in adolescence, according to a large
long-term study. The roughly 40% increase in attention problems
among "heavy" TV viewers was observed in both boys
and girls, and was independent of whether a diagnosis of attention
deficit - hyperactivity disorder was made prior to adolescence.
"Those who watched more than two hours,
and particularly those who watched more than three hours, of
television per day during childhood had above-average symptoms
of attention problems in adolescence," Erik Landhuis of
the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, wrote in his
report, published in Pediatrics on Tuesday.
Symptoms of attention problems included
short attention span, poor concentration, and being easily distracted.
The findings could not be explained by early-life attention difficulties,
socio-economic factors, or intelligence, says the team. . .
Young children who watched a lot of television
were more likely to continue the habit as they got older, but
even if they did not, the damage was done, the study said. .
.
"This suggests that the effects of
childhood viewing on attention may be long lasting," Landhuis
no |