OlsonOnline

Rethinking schools: 'choice' has gottta go!

I look at it like this: you can either have strong neighborhood schools OR you can have a market-based school choice program.  But the two, by definition, cannot coexist.

It's no surprise that the libertarian-tinged Tribune lists Portland's school choice program and its liberal transfer policies as the first thing that does not need to be fixed in its Rethinking Schools series.  But it is troubling that the Trib simultaneously emphasizes the need for strong neighborhood schools to keep students in Portland.   Do the Tribune writers understand the contradiction?

I've long argued that school choice undermines neighborhood schools by draining them of their most precious commodity - good students, particularly those with supportive parents.  District policy enables, indeed encourages, parents to flee their neighborhood schools, leaving in their wake a two-tiered system of wealthy attractive schools, on the one hand, and poorer struggling schools on the other.  It's a policy that "balkanizes" the district, divvying up and assorting children by race and by class.

Consider the case of the Horsey family featured in Jennifer Anderson's article on the district's assets.  Robert and Carolyn Horsey have decided not to send their ten-year-old to their neighborhood schools, Peninsula and George.  Why?  Because they don't offer band, orchestra, and Spanish.  And because, as Carolyn puts it:

“I don’t think he would fit in. It’s just more rough and tough.”

One might wonder why some neighborhood schools don't offer band or orchestra while others do.  But one might also question a district policy that allows parents to pick and choose between schools based on the socio-economic status of the students that attend them.  To me, that's an outrage.

That school choice exacerbates class differences between schools is evident in the district's own data.  That data also undermines Anderson's argument that 'choice' is responsible for keeping "... Portland’s capture rate — the rate at which Portland parents send their kids to Portland schools — at 85 percent, one of the highest among urban school districts nationwide."

Here's the reality.  Wealthy schools like Forest Park Elementary have extraordinarily high capture rates.  Forest Park enrolls 96% of its neighborhood children.  Less than 1% leave for focus option programs.  The poorest (and blackest) school in the district, King Elementary, captures only 57% of its neighborhood students. 

Granted, the district's data doesn't include counts of students who have actually left the system entirely, either for other districts, private schools, or for home schooling.  I do know, however, that the closure of schools (which the Tribune  says is necessary)-schools like Edwards and Smith - have driven some families out of the district.   And each lost student costs the district $5000 in state money.

School choice is a counter-productive policy.  It creates a two-tiered system of schools. And it likely contributes to the marked enrollment decline Portland has suffered the last four years.  It's time for the school board and the district leadership to reconsider its options policy. 

 

Rethinking schools (cont.)

I said on Friday that John Charles, of all the voices given space on the Trib's editorial page, had the only proposal of substance  for restructuring schools.  Let me follow up on that by looking specifically at the suggestions made by Sue Hildick of the Chalkboard Project and by Scott Bailey of Community and Parents for Public Schools.

Hildick's proposal typifies the ineptitude of the Chalkboard Project, neatly summed up by Hildick's admission that "...after two years of work we’ve found there are no easy answers."  The single accomplishment of Chalkboard touted in her piece is a website allowing voters to compare the expenditures of school districts across Oregon. (It's not accomplished yet, but here's a sample of what it might look like.) To what end?  To inspire "...greater confidence in K-12 schools... ."  In other words, we can't actually do anything until voters are reassured that schools aren't squandering taxpayer money.  Didn't Gov. Kulongoski say just that as he began his term as governor?

But not only is the idea unoriginal, it's redundant!  There already exists a site that lays out school district budgets side by side.  It's called the Oregon Department of Education, which provides reports on everything having to do with school finance.  Here  for example is the Portland School District's budget expenditures for 2005 -6. 

Well, maybe it's not the most user friendly cybersite, but the information is there.  Shouldn't the Chalkboard Project put it's foundation money to more productive use?

Scott Bailey covers more extensive ground in his recommendations.  Problem is, they're contradictory.  His first recommendation, for example,  is to provide every child with a "challenging curriculum", even those who come from non-English speaking homes.  Bailey doesn't define "challenging curriculum", but I would assume that any classroom for a non-English speaking student is challenging. 

What Bailey is suggesting is what other "reformers" mistakenly believe is the path to higher achievement - really hard classes, especially in math and science.  That's nonsense, of course, and extremely wishful thinking.  I wrote about it some time ago in a post entitled "Rigor, or relevence"?  And again in "Academic rigor redux."  Here's a quote from the first:

"Of course, the governors also want to cut the high school dropout rate, which raises the question: Can you keep kids in school by making all of them take college prep courses?  By making high school even more difficult, and for some kids, even more boring?  Hmmmm.  I don't think so."

The second contradiction in Bailey's piece is the assertion that "school finance is a complex subject", after which he goes on to demonstrate that it isn't.  Oregon, he points out, is a low tax state, with an especially low business tax.  The result?  Per student spending in Oregon is nine percent below the national average. 

What's so complex about that?

Bailey and Hildick should put their efforts into solving the school funding crisis in Oregon. That's a proposal with some heft.

There's more.  The Trib published an entire little magazine with ideas for Rethinking Schools.  I've read it.  And I'll share my reactions in the next post.

Charter schools: the first step toward privatization

John Charles of the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute admits that his plan to "charterize" all of Portland's schools won't solve the district's funding woes.  Charter schools would still face the "expense of public employee benefits." 

So what does he propose?  Making teachers "private employees." 

Critics of charter schools have argued all along that busting the teacher's union is the real goal of charter advocates.  Charles provides the evidence. 

That said, I agree with Charles that all public schools should be granted a "charter" for innovation.  Loosen the reins and let the energy and creativity for reform flow upward from the educators within the buildings.  School restructuring only works when it taps the expertise of those who work in the classrooms, those who work with the kids.  That's called grass roots empowerment, a far cry from the top-down mandates imposed by Vicki Phillips on the Jefferson cluster.

I disagree vehemently with everything else Charles says about charters.  He says that charter schools are like "private academies", and by academy I suspect he means school.  What evidence is there that private schools are better -or cheaper, for that matter- than public schools?  He says that charters are easier to "market".  When did education become a 'commodity"?  He says they "tend to be small".  How does that encourage efficiency?  Every other "successful" purveyor of commodities in the American economy tends to be not only large, but huge.

Mostly of course I object to running schools cheaply on the backs of teachers.  One of the attractions of charters for Charles is that they can hire "unlicensed" instructors.  That means non-union.  Which means lower compensation. 

Libertarians like Charles believe in the privatization of public schools.  Charter schools are the first step toward realizing that goal.

*******************************

John Charles was the only voice published in today's Tribune that had anything of substance to say about Rethinking Portland's Schools.  More on the others later.

The slippery slope of private funding for public schools

The controversies currently swirling around public education ultimately boil down to the single question fundamental to democracy:  Who decides?  The citizens, or the monied elite?

We are engaged today in the same Jeffersonian - Hamiltonian debate that we thought was settled two centuries ago.  Alexander Hamilton favored a limited democracy:

"Give therefore to the first class [the "propertied" class] a distinct, permanent share in the government."

Thomas Jefferson countered:

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom."

That's the central point of this article in Rethinking Schools posted by Neighborhood Schools Alliance member Mike Miller in his response to Portland School Board co-chair David Wynde's defense of the board's dalliance with the Broad Foundation.  The article warns of the danger of the growing influence of private foundations, many with overtly conservative agendas, in the funding  of public education:

"Regardless of a foundation's politics, the growing role of private money in public school reform raises concerns about democratic control of public education."

I've argued recently that control of Portland's public schools seems to have been hijacked by the lure of foundation money, starting with the local Portland Schools Foundation, the power behind the scenes in local educational politics.  The current seven-member Portland School Board was essentially hand-picked by PSF.  Throw into the mix some Gates Foundation grants and the "training" offered to the school board by the Broad Foundation (engineered by PSF), and what results is not democracy, but oligarchy.

Private foundation money fills the void created by the unwillingness of taxpayers to foot the bill for the services they demand, so they in effect cede control to the private sector:

"All of which gives foundations — private institutions with private boards, behind-the-scenes decision-making and no public accountability for the success or failure of their programs — inordinate power in determining public policy.

"What we've done is create a new nobility, where basically the lords and ladies decide who gets the money," argues Barbara Dudley (of Portland State University). ... "They might be good decisions by good people who are very bountiful with their gifts. But they are still gifts. It is not democratic and you can't pretend that it is."

The irony is that private largesse costs the taxpayers money.  The philanthropists who endow private foundations are given tax breaks.   Every $10 donated costs the government $4 in tax revenue.  So what we save with one hand (Measure 5, the defeat of Measures 28 and 30) we give back with the other. 

The winners are the wealthy, the Hamiltonian "first class".  The loser is democracy.

***********************

Rethinking Schools is the creation of a group of Milwaukee, Wisconsin teachers. The mission statement of the organization should be taken to heart by all who value public schools:

"While the scope and influence of Rethinking Schools has changed, its basic orientation has not. Most importantly, it remains firmly committed to equity and to the vision that public education is central to the creation of a humane, caring, multiracial democracy."

"Leftist nuts" in Portland aren't REAL Oregonians

So says a letter writer in the Oregonian this morning:

"This time around, include all Oregonians when developing the replacement for the Land Conservation and Development Commission and leave out completely the Multnomah County believers in the Karl Marx theory of iron-fisted control of land use by authoritarian government bureaucrats. Let's get on with a new land-use law put together by real Oregonians and not just the leftist nuts in Portland."

The "gloating" over the Measure 37 decision that I mentioned yesterday isn't confined to blogs, apparently.  That's progress.  At least letter writers can't hide behind the cloak of anonymity that's all too common on the internet.

Actually the gloating  has devolved into outright anger for some odd reason.  You'd think that the property rights absolutists would be happy, not mad, but that might be too much too expect from the survivalist fringe of the political spectrum.  Loaded Orygun reports that the "rightist nuts" are "mighty pissed" at the media.   Go figure.

And why the anger at Portland?  Has the afore-mentioned letter writer forgotten that M37 passed overwhelmingly in Multnomah County?  That "pissed" me off!

The letter following the one written by the unanonymous Mr. Collins of Corvallis -a bastion of left-wing thinking itself- is worth reading.  It points to Florida as an example of what could happen here without land use planning.

Reminds me of Carl Hiaasen.  I recommend his novels to all those conflicted about Measure 37.

 

Property rights absolutists gloat on Blue Oregon

Peter Bray put it succinctly:

"Why are these right-wingers allowed to post here?"

Bray, the creator of the blog Land Use Watch and outspoken opponent of Measure 37, posted his comment on Blue Oregon in response to the rabid gloating of property rights absolutists in the wake of the Oregon Supreme Court decision overturning a lower court's ruling that the measure was unconstitutional.

Here's an example from the anonymous Al:

"What fabulous news! As someone who is on the forefront of protecting property rights from the overreaching of government and their communist syncophants [sic], I rejoice in this decision.

"I just can't believe that the Supreme Commie Court of Oregon did it, though...They actually upheld property rights! Were they smoking something?

"No matter, it's done, at last!  Property owners, rejoice!"

What strikes me as odd in the "rejoicing" is the repeated reference to property owners as a distinct and persecuted class of citizens.  Hey, I'm a property owner and I don't feel at all victimized by Oregon's land use laws.  I support them.  In fact, I don't know anyone (adults, anyway) who isn't a property owner.

Bray, who wrote these satirical and hilarious arguments in favor of Measure 37 (scroll all the way down), blames Ted Kulongoski for Measure 37 and says he's voting for Pete Sorenson.  I'm with him on Sorenson.  I endorsed him months ago.

I've long admired Peter Bray.  I wrote this post about him and his opposition to Measure 37 (and the Endangered Species Act) last October.  I said then that Bray and his blog were an "indispensable bulwark against assaults on land use planning... ."   And that's even truer today.

Deconstructing the business model of education

The Portland School Board's alliance with the Broad Foundation, it's increasing commitment to school choice, and it's reliance on test scores to make educational judgments are all indicators of the growing influence of the so-called "business model" of school management within the district.

What's the business model?  Simply put, it's measuring the "productivity" of schools  against achievement standards with standardized tests.  Here's how Jay Greene of the right-wing Manhattan Institute writing on the right-wing Hoover Institution website puts it:

"Consider what is likely to continue to happen in education without high-stakes value-added assessment. Unless productivity is measured, however imperfectly, it is not possible to reward teachers, administrators, and schools that contribute most to student learning. If we do not reward productivity, we are unlikely to encourage it. If we do not encourage it, we should not expect more of it."

He further writes:

"Testing may be imperfect, but the alternative—the old system, which allowed us to know very little about the performance of educators—is far, far worse."

That sentiment is echoed by Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust:

"And for a very, very, very long time, schools have been very opaque institutions. They haven't been transparent. We sort of send our kids there and cross our fingers and believe it's going to be OK."

Are schools "opaque"?  Is it true that prior to accountability we knew very little about the "performance of educators"?  I think not.  And I'll use my experience as a student, not as a teacher, to make my point.

I went to public schools in the 50's and early 60's.  Back then, in the pre-accountability era, we took achievement tests every year.  The scores on the achievement tests went home to parents, as did traditional report cards.  We also had open houses regularly.  Now they're called "Back to School" nights, but they served the same purpose.  Even then, back in the educational dark ages, parents could, and did, avail themselves of teacher conferences. 

So tell me?  Do you think the schools I went to were "opaque" institutions?  Do you think my parents didn't know how I was progressing academically?  It's an absolutely silly characterization of public education, then as well as now. 

So here's the question: Will the "business model" recommendations for accountability, productivity, and competition in education improve public schools?  Will they improve the quality of the educational product? 

To answer that, let me turn the question around:  Has the business model improved the quality of consumer products?  The widgets and gadgets that our economy depends on? In some cases, probably yes.  In others, decidedly not!  Business success is all about maximizing profit and minimizing loss.  It's not about the quality of the product.  That's clear from the bread we eat to the beer we drink.

Here's a more eloquent critique of the business model of education from a man who was successful in the private sector and now works as a high school teacher.  Robert Freeman believes that business and education are two entirely different animals.  Of the two, education is by far the more difficult and complex endeavor:

"Education is harder because cultivating human intelligence is one of the most difficult things in the world. It is far more complex and takes far longer than producing cheaper widgets or staging new ad campaigns."

About accountability, he has this to say:

"And while many businesses got into trouble because they had a much too narrow view of accountability--looking good on the quarterly report--schools must guard against the impulse to score well on the accountability measures while we ignore the basic work of education--to help children grow into their full potential to become contributing and honest members of the good society."

More on the Broad Foundation from the Neighborhood Schools Alliance

This press release from the Neighborhood Schools Alliance hammers home the murky connection between the Portland School Board and the deep-pocketed and privately endowed Broad Foundation, an organization with strong links to the Bush Administration and a staunch proponent of charter schools.

The most troubling revelation in the press release is the role played by the Portland Schools Foundation in reshaping a "weak" school board, with the help of Broad, Stand for Children, and former school board members -a who's who of Portland's "movers and shakers"- into its vision of a strong and "reform-minded" board.  Beginning in 2003, and again in 2005, PSF pretty much hand-picked the seven board members who currently run the Portland district.

Are they reform minded?  If you believe in school choice, yes.  If you like charter schools, yes.  If you like No Child Left Behind and testing for accountability, definitely yes.  And if you like an increasingly top-down management style with little input from school patrons, including teachers, students, parents, and average citizens, then you have to congratulate PSF on what they've managed to pull off.

If, on the other hand, you're concerned about the preservation of strong neighborhood schools and a semblance of democracy in the running of the district, then you have to conclude that the Portland Schools Foundation is little more than a local version of the Broad Institute, using it's money and clout to run roughshod over local educational politics and policy. 

The board "created" by PSF has done nothing to "improve the atmosphere of the school district and change the tone of the conversation about PPS in the broader community."  Enrollment continues to plummet, neighborhood schools are being closed, the district faces a $57 million budget shortfall, and a there is zero probability of finding local tax revenue to plug the holes.  If anything, the "tone of the conversation" has worsened over the past two and half years.

When I ran for the school board in 2003, none of the "reform" slate -and it was a slate-  recruited by PSF and backed by Stand for Children campaigned for neighborhood schools, or even for adequate public funding.  It was all about "accountability" and "efficiency".  And what did we get?  Fewer neighborhood schools, the decline of many others, and ultimately far less funding.  That's not a record of accomplishment.

One last note.  The weak leadership decried by the Portland Schools Foundation includes former board chair Ron Saxton.  Saxton, a founding member of PSF, used his school board experience as a springboard to gubernatorial politics.  He was crushed last time around.  I expect the same in this election.

 

Brian Gard and Danny Wieden

What do Brian Gard (Gard and Gerber)  and Danny Wieden (Wieden+Kennedy) have in common, besides both having had literary aspirations before settling for the money (mega-money in Wieden's case) and comfort of careers in advertising?

The answer is that I knew 'em both in high school.

Brian was a classmate of mine at Cleveland High, class of '64.  Danny was a swimmate at the Aero Club, but a year older, Grant High, '63.  And my father knew his father, Duke Wieden, another ad man. 

What don't they have in common?  One has insinuated himself and his money into local  politics.  The other, at least to my knowledge, hasn't.

Gard and Gerber is the force behind the First Things First Committee, whose failed attempt to overturn Portland's Voter Owned Elections ordinance has been all over the news lately, most recently here at Blue Oregon.  Charlie Burr calls Gard and Gerber's reacton a "slime fest".

Gard and Gerber is also challenging Erik Sten with one of their own, Ginny Burdick, who used to be a well-regarded progressive state senator.  Until, that is, she  sold out to the Portland establishment, the close knit cadre of downtown movers and shakers that includes Qwest CEO Judy Peppler who recently compared Portland's schools to "call centers."  (Click here for another account.)

And don't forget G and G's deep-pocketed campaign to torpedo a Public Utility District in Multnomah county.  And the subsequent opposition to Portland's attempt to acquire PGE.  That had Gard and Gerber's fingerprints all over it.  Public power doesn't sit well with those who wield private power.

And Danny Wieden?  Who knows?  He's reclusive.  And really rich.  Maybe these local public squabbles are beneath him.  He did make the news a while back, though, when complaints arose about the way he taught a seminar in journalistic ethics down at his alma mater, the University of Oregon. 

If you want to know what that was all about, read what I wrote about it back in 2004.

Power and propaganda

You gotta love Chuck Currie's characterization of the First Things First Committee's failure to qualify their effort to overturn Portland's Voter Owned Elections for the May ballot:

"Here’s my question: is the Portland Business Alliance so desperate to keep their hold on power that they or their allies would turn in false names – an illegal act? Or is the downtown business community just a little more incompetent than we give them credit for?"

Well, what do you expect for a mere $350,000?

***********************************

Speaking of power grabs, Jonathan Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution says this about the  perks of power:

"This is one of the true perks of power: being able to get away with complete ignorance about other people. Generally speaking, for countries as well as individuals, the more power you have the stupider you are. If you have gigantic amounts of power, you can get away with knowing nothing whatsoever. George Bush George Bush George Bush."

That's from a post about the power- besotted Americans once again alienating potential allies in the Middle East - the Turks, in this case.

***********************************

On a more serious note (kind of), David Michael Green writes that most people backing the war in Iraq know too little to make reasoned decisions about American foreign policy. Worse, argues Green, it's willful ignorance.  And that translates into "unpatriotic cowardice":

"It’s getting to the point where you have to very badly want to believe whatever the president says in order to do so. It’s getting to the point where you have to actively hide from the evidence in order to keep your faith-based war politics safe from the cognitive dissonance induced by overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

"Unfortunately, that is precisely what many conservatives are now choosing to do." 

I don't worry about the conservatives and true believers any more.  What I do worry about is their effective use of power and money  to bamboozle too many Americans for the last six years.

I guess we'll see come November.