OlsonOnline

Reaping what you sow

This morning's Oregonian story about cracking down on parents who "lie" to get their kids into "more desirable" schools should raise questions about the consequences of the district's school choice policy.  Like this one, for example:

Doesn't the district policy encourage parents to cheat?

I mean, what would you do if you've been told repeatedly that your neighborhood school is a terrible place to educate your child, and that there are lots of better options out there, but, since there's limited space, you might not make into one of them?  You may be tempted to cheat, too.

Same thing goes for the district's testing policies.  One could reasonably expect that if teachers and schools are being judged on the basis of reading and math test scores (which they are), then teachers would begin to teach quite narrowly to the test.  And that the school would encourage it.

Then there's the inequity issue:

"The district's 85 schools provide uneven access to programs such as music, art and Advanced Placement classes. And schools with the highest poverty levels tend to have the least-experienced teachers, according to a 2005 district audit. Such differences mean many families live in one neighborhood but send their children to school in another."

So here's another question:  Wouldn't it be simpler (and more equitable) to provide high quality and comprehensive programs in all neighborhood schools? 

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that when it comes to providing good educational programs to all students, regardless of background, school choice is the problem, not the solution. 

 

Let's chuck political parties!

Why not?  There's precedent for non-partisan governance right in our back yard, and whether you agree with the local pols or not, they do tend to get things done.

First there's the Portland City Council, probably all registered Democrats, but who knows for sure?  The Multnomah County Commission is another example, again all probably Dems, but the squabbles there have nothing to do with "party platforms" or posturing for electoral advantage (except maybe for Diane Linn.)  And who knows the party affiliatons of those serving on the Metro Council?  Not me. 

Then of course there's my favorite, the Portland School Board.  I would assume that at most two of the current board members are Republicans, but I'm just guessing.  They certainly get things done, most of which I disagree with, but I can't accuse them of partisan gridlock.  (I do accuse them of being unwitting accomplices of the right wing ideologues in the Bush Administration intent on privatizing public education.)

So why don't we de-politicize state government, especially the state legislature, by making it entirely non-partisan?  I can think of little of substance that the legislature has accomplished in the last few sessions.  Why?  Electoral partisan gridlock, pure and simple.  If the D's are for it, the R's are against it.  And vice versa.  It's all about power, not policy. 

Over on Blue Oregon, a progressive (not a Democratic blogsite), there has been endless bickering over open primaries, open caucuses, third party access to the ballot, Instant Run-off Voting, and other procedural tactics that boil down to one thing- ridding the legislature of  conservative Republicans, especially Karen Minnis.    To Democratic partisans, (like frequent contributor T. A. Barnhart) any candidate with a 'D' after his name will do, regardless of policy. 

Jeff Bull's "Elevator Pitch" post on Blue Oregon, a challenge to readers to come up with a pithy, 30-second explanation of "what it means to be a Democrat", is an example of the problem with political partisanship.  Why should anybody feel compelled to defend a  party label?  I'm a "registered Democrat" for a number of reasons, mainly so I can vote in party primaries.  But "Democrat" doesn't define me any more than does "Green" or "Progressive."  I'd rather argue issues, and there are way too many of those to fit neatly into a thirty second spiel. 

What we need here is a political reformation akin to the religious Reformation  sparked by Martin Luther's challenge in 1517 to the Roman Catholic Church.  The Reformation had its downside, sure.  There are now innumerable "Christian" sects each defining for its adherents the "true" meaning of Christianity.  On the other hand, the Catholic Church is no longer the corrupt and venal political/religious monolith it was before 1517. 

Continuing the religious analogy, consider Paul's admonition to the Galatians in 55 A.D:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one... "

So it is, or should be, in the realm of politics.  Speaking for myself, in the pursuit of just social policy, I am "neither white nor black, man nor woman, straight nor gay, Swede (my heritage) nor American.   Nor, finally, Republican or Democrat!"

I'm a citizen and voter who wants to get rid of Wal-Mart, hand guns, school choice, Measures 5 and 37, and city freeways.  There are Democrats out there who undoubtedly disagree, and Republicans, on those specific issues anyway, who see it as I do. 

So let's just chuck those parties. And those labels.  We can do without them.

Russ Dondero speaks the truth on school choice

Russ Dondero's blog is apparently familiar to Blue Oregon readers, but I just stumbled across it today.  I immediately bookmarked the site because he's a truth teller when it comes to education.

His recent piece on high stakes testing showcases the latest research on the "performance" of public schools versus private schools and private charters on standardized math tests.  When adjusted for student demographics, public school students did better than their private school counterparts.  Not particularly surprising to me, but I was impressed with Dondero's own analysis.  Here are some samples:

"In other words, social-economic status does make a difference in how well students do in school.   The funding levels, class sizes, resources, quality of teachers and home environment make a significant difference in how students do in school contrary to the claims made by advocates of NCLB."  ...

"The use of data from NCLB to determine which public schools are failing and which are successful is also a political tool to justify the disinventment in public schools given the assumption that money is being thrown away at a lost cause.  If public schools are seen to be failing - then why not move kids to charter schools, private schools or home schooling?" ...

"The strategy of the economic or testing bean counters puts at risk the historic role of the American public school as a gateway to economic mobility and an institution in American society where students of all classes, ethnicities and races meet on common ground."

That's what is meant by common schools- public neighborhood schools - which are sabotaged by school choice options.

I never had the pleasure of taking a class from Professor Dondero at Pacific University in Forest Grove (not my school), but my former colleague and co-conspirator in the school reform wars, Chuck Wing, did. So I feel like I know RAD, as he calls himself, albeit indirectly.  I'm honored to be an acquaintance.

The I-Tax and educational idiocy

The battle lines over the proposed temporary city income tax to support Portland schools have quickly formed in the local media and blogosphere.  And many of those opposed have demonstrated an appalling ignorance of educational issues.  So let me set the record straight.

• The Multnomah County tax was supposed to have been  temporary.  It was.  The county tax won't be renewed.  The city has stepped into the void created by the failure of the state to once again adequately fund pubic education, leaving Portland Public Schools with a $57 million budget deficit. 
• Measure 5.  The property tax limitation passed in 1990 choked off  local revenues and made the state legislature a mega-school board.  The legislature obviously hasn't been up to the task.  Per pupil spending in the state has declined precipitously over the past decade.
• Union-backed teachers are to blame.  Critics claim their high salaries and perks- PERS and healthcare- eat up all the money that could otherwise go into the classroom.  That's laughable.  Teachers are the classroom.  Rising healthcare costs are not endemic to education.  And PERS  benefits have been scaled back not only for teachers, but for all public employees.
• Union-backed incompetent teachers can't be fired.  As a former teacher and union rep, that's even more laughable.  A strong principal can easily rid a school of weak teachers.  I've seen it happen, both in my own school and in the Portland schools my two children attended.  The favored libertarian solution to teaching incompetency is union-busting charter schools.  Of course then we'd face the problem of incompetent administrators arbitrarily firing competent teachers.
• School choice is the solution.  Allowing parents to shop for schools will result in a leaner, meaner, and more efficient educational system.  That's a position held by many critics of the new I-tax, none of whom have apparently looked closely at the reality of school choice here in Portland. As a real life laboratory for school choice, Portland has created a two-tiered and inequitable system of "good" and "bad" schools that has driven down enrollment and cost the district real money,   about $6000 from the state for each lost student.

There may be better solutions than Potter's city I-tax, but I suggest that opponents  leave schools out of the debate until they learn enough to know what they're talking about.

This morning's Oregonian has a pretty good article about the issue, replete with actual numbers, and this telling assertion:

"And Portland Public Schools, one of the biggest losers in the state's school funding formula, has made significant long-term cuts."

 

Beware the enemies within

Politically speaking, some of our worst enemies may be our allies.  Let me give you two examples.

Locally, the advocacy group Community and Parents for Public Schools would seem to be a perfect grass roots support group for local schools.  But a close read of its latest newsletter reveals they may be unwitting  stooges for the anti-public school agenda of the Bush Administration, No Child Left Behind and all.

Consider the blurb on Celebrate! PPS.  Never mind that the showcase for Portland's schools  is all about carnival barkers in booths attempting to draw the attention of curious "shoppers" to their school programs.   The whole tasteless shebang is paid for by the people who brought us NCLB:

"Celebrate! PPS has been funded for the last three years from a Voluntary School Choice grant through the U.S. Department of Education, so no money for this event comes from our PPS school budget."

Deeper in the newsletter is a link to "raising  student achievement through school choice" on a site created by our NCLB friends at the U.S. Department of Education:

"The development of BuildingChoice.org was initiated and directed by Nina S. Rees, Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) at the U.S. Department of Education. ...

"This Web site is based on OII’s NCLB-related promising practices guides  ... ."

So connect the dots.  The Bush Administration wants to privatize everything, not just Social Security, but public education as well!   That's what NCLB is all about.  CPPS promotes the school choice options of NCLB and the money offered by the feds to expand such options.  School choice (my opinion) undermines public education.  The edifice collapses; privatization ensues.   

Then there's Hillary Clinton, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq.  She'll be right here in Portland tomorrow night raising money at $50 a head for her virtually uncontested Senate campaign in New York.  Apparently none of the money she collects, to augment the  $14 million she's already raised, will benefit any one here.  She's not sharing.

Is that what Pogo meant when he said the "enemy is us?"

Wal-Mart in the news

You may have heard that country music superstar Garth Brooks has signed an exclusive merchandising contract with Wal-Mart.  But you probably haven't heard "Garth" secretly singing  "I've Got Friends with Low Wages."  It's devastatingly funny, at least to someone like me who doesn't like Wal-Mart.  The music video even has a cameo appearance by Sally Field reprising her role as Norma Rae, the title character in one of my all time favorite movies.

In other news, if you listen to public radio, like I do, you've probably heard that Wal-Mart is now one of its sponsors, or funders.  So am I, to the tune of eight bucks a month, but  you'll never hear my name mentioned.  My piddling contribution doesn't amount to much compared to the millions Wal-Mart has probably given to NPR.  Do you suppose Wal-Mart really "supports" non-commercial radio?  I don't think so.  But it is good PR.

In the bad news (for Wal-Mart) category, Maryland passed a law forcing Wal-Mart to provide health insurance to all its employees.  Washington has a similar bill in the works, and thirty or so other states, including Oregon, may follow suit.  Is that good news for Wal-Mart critics?  Well, yes and no.

It's good in that Wal-Mart insures less than half ot its employees and relies heavily on the kindness of the public sector to take care of the rest.  It's bad news in that forcing up Wal-Mart's healthcare costs is hardly an incentive for the company to raise its poverty level wages ( "I've got friends with loooow wages"), let alone unionizing the workforce.    I'm secretly on the side of Wal-Mart in their objections to the Maryland law.  You see, I think the government should take responsibility for the healthcare of its citizens, as in national single-payer healthcare.  It would be a boon for business.

Finally, in local news, the city of Forest Grove is demanding that the proposed Cornelius Wal-Mart include an eight foot wall to completely shield it from the thieves and shoplifters who, after "lifting" valuable merchandise, will undoubtedly flee into Forest Grove to escape arrest.  Not a good idea.  Just join with the opposition and stop the development entirely.  That's the best protection from the criminals who hang out at Wal-Mart megastores.

Speaking of opposition, tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m at the Sellwood SMILE station come hear Javon Gilmore from Gresham and other anti-Wal-Mart types from Sellwood and Cedar Mill speak on potential cures for the Wal-Mart cancer.

My statement to the school board regarding the redesign of Jefferson

If I get on the agenda, this is what I'll say to the school board tonight before it votes on the proposed realignment of Jefferson:

"First, although I am a member of the Neighborhood Schools Alliance, the concerns I  express are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the NSA position on school choice.

"In 2002 the district successfully applied for a federal grant to further implement its school choice program.  One of the objectives of a federal school choice grant is -

'To increase the percentage of low income and minority students at lower performing schools who have the opportunity to attend a higher performing school.'

"My question for the board is this:  What are the characteristics of a 'higher performing' school?  Using student test scores alone, how does the district distinguish between the  performance of students on those tests,  and the performance of the school itself?  If test scores are the measure of the school, then by definition a 'higher performing' school is simply a school filled with good test takers. 

"I've long been convinced that test scores are little more than correlates of student socio-economic status and are therefore an entirely inappropriate measure of a school's performance.   District data seems to bear this out.  The poorer a school's students, the lower the test scores.  The wealthier the students, the higher the scores.  In other words, an inverse correlation exists between high rates of poverty and high test scores.  Recent research seems to confirm that correlation, suggesting that achievement tests are less a measure of school learning than they are of student affluence. 

"What does that have to do with school choice?  Everything.  Once a school, like Jefferson, is labeled an academic 'underperformer', it becomes a less attractive option for parents shopping for a 'good' school.  That, of course, assumes that parents or students make choices based solely on the academic reputation of a school.  I'm convinced that isn't true.  Athletics and other extracurricular programs, for example, factor into school choice, as do, unfortunately, considerations of class and race. 

"This district and this board have the authority to set guidelines on student transfers.  I  strongly suggest that this district follow the example of Beaverton, a district which does not actively encourage its students to flee neighborhood schools for supposedly better ones elsewhere in the district. 

"Let me conclude with these words from PPS parent (Sunnyside) and free-lance journalist Linda Baker.  Her essay on Portland's school choice options appeared in the October edition of  In These Times:

" 'The long-term problem with choice is that it leads down the slippery slope to the demise of public education itself. (After all, the Bush administration's initial plan was to support NCLB with school vouchers.) Nor can choice be divorced from the larger funding crisis facing public education. This year alone, the Portland district lost $35 million in local tax revenue and federal funding, leading to a loss of 250 teaching and classroom aide positions. As funding declines, parental shopping for special programs increases, fueling a spiral of decline.

'In Portland, the irony is especially bitter. A city that is nationally recognized for its emphasis on community building and sustainability houses an educational system where schools are disengaged from neighborhood, where more kids have to be driven to school and where students are increasingly sorted by race, social class, interest and ability.

'If that kind of custom education sounds familiar, it should. It's called private school.' "

Hats off to Kari Chisholm (and Jeff Alworth)

Kari and Jeff are not only the co-founders of the Democratic blog Blue Oregon, they actually know what they're talking about when it comes to education.  That can be said of very few people, even the so-called progressives who chime in regularly on Blue Oregon posts.

Take, for example, Kari's recent piece, "Ron Saxton: conservative".  Kari quoted charter school obsessive (and libertarian) Rob Kremer as proof of his thesis.  That, and the fact that Ron Saxton's one political claim to fame was his school board service that resulted in the unfortunate selection of Ben Canada as Superintendent of Portland Public Schools, was enough to turn the comments "thread" toward educational policy.  Especially after Saxton's position on "underperforming" schools was exposed by Jeff Alworth:

"As it stands, Oregon spends $150 million more than most states on school operations, administration and maintenance. In a Saxton administration we will put that money into the classroom by privatizing and reducing administrative and support services.

"I am a strong supporter of charter schools, home schooling and school choice, and I will defend local control of schools.

"And as Governor, I will close underperforming schools, remove underperforming teachers and ensure our students are spending more days in the classroom so they are prepared for college and the challenges of the 21st century economy."

That led to an extended discussion of how one measures "school performance", or as Kari asked:

"How will Ron Saxton differentiate between underperforming schools and underperforming students?"

Bullseye, Kari!  That's precisely, and I mean precisely, what I asked in my Blue Oregon post on Jefferson.  That piece was also about the educational devastation wreaked by the related PPS policy of school choice.  Kari said this about that:

"Of course, the real problem is that the first kids to leave in that system are the high-achievers with active parents. And on down it cycles, leaving behind only the poorest achievers with the least interested parents.

Once again, right on, Kari! 

All of the other comment blather on the Saxton post about CIM and CAM and measuring for growth rather than proficiency standards is beside the point.  The latter is not at all a new idea.  In Hillsboro, pre-Measure 5, we tested twice a year regularly.  I looked at growth with the students I taught.  But that was just reading (and math), not music, drama, art, social studies, foreign languages, leadership,  speaking, thinking, or any of the innumerable skills that the original CIM was set up to measure.  The stuff that all good, well-funded, schools are about.

Back to Saxton.  Here's the post I wrote when he first announced his intention to run for governor.  He is indeed a conservative.

Feds underwrite local school choice

I look at it this way.  If the Bush Department of (dis)Education, the people who gave us the Privatization of Public Schools Act -more commonly known as No Child Left Behind- think that school choice is a good thing, then we certainly should be skeptical.  Given the Bush record of Orwellian doublespeak - Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, Clean Water, peace through war, compassionate conservative - we should conclude that school choice is not only not a good thing, it's a very very bad thing.

Not that Portland Public Schools needs federal grant money to promote school choice, or, in the words of the Department, to design programs that "would have the greatest impact in allowing students who attend low-performing schools to attend higher-performing schools; ... ."  PPS has been doing that for years - labeling some schools a low performing and others as high performing - and then allowing kids to flee the "low" schools for the "high" ones.

Which is precisely what has happened to Jefferson High School, and why the  district has been "obligated" to come up with yet another plan to "improve" the school.  It's a plan designed to reverse the outward flow of students, a plan described by Oregonian columnist Susan Nielson as a "last chance for Jefferson," and a plan which, in my opinion, has absolutely no chance of succeediing.

What neighborhood kid will want to attend a school with a "uniform dress" code?  Who will be attracted to the "option" of single -sex academies?  Even the parochial schools have abandoned that approach.  Based on the testimony I heard Tuesday evening from actual Jefferson students, I predict enrollment will plummet, not increase.

I've long been opposed to school choice.  It clearly undermines neighborhood schools and ultimately decimates the quality, and attractiveness,  of the district's educational offerings.  Except, perhaps, for the well-off and the advantaged.  But that's at best about half the district.  What happens to the other half?

They get "left behind".

An eloquent case for impeachment

For those of you too busy or too lazy to read Elizabeth Holtzman's withering indictment of George W. Bush and the call for his impeachment, let me sum it up for you:

• If the President is permitted to break the law on wiretapping on his own say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own say-so--a formula for dictatorship. [Defenders of the President, like Pat Buchanan*, claim that "data mining" is not wiretapping.  Technically not, but the FISA law was written in the pre-digital age, so the argument is specious.]
• A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war.  [Holtzman cites much evidence for this charge, including the "smoking gun" of  the Downing Street Memo.]
• There are numerous suggestions that the timing [of the war] was prompted by political, not military, concerns.
• It is imperative that a full investigation be undertaken of Bush's role in the systemic torture and abuse of detainees. Violating his oath of office, the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act would constitute impeachable offenses.

As a member of Congress Holtzman sat on the  House Judiciary committee during the Nixon impeachment.  She sees clear parallels  between the Nixon "imperial Presidency" and the arrogance of George W. Bush who shamelessly flouts the law.  She writes:

"A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government."

I urge any right wing Bush defender, or backsliding Democrat, for that matter, who has issues with the call for impeachment, to respond point by point to Elizabeth  Holtzman's impeccable indictment of George W. Bush.

*(Pat Buchanan worked for Nixon as a speech writer, and has been a staunch defender of both the Vietnam War and of Nixon ever since.)