OlsonOnline

Beyond the 'dream'

Here.  And then here.

More from the school board

As a follow-up to my last post about the growing inequity between rich and poor schools in Portland, it's important to point out that one of the "design elements" in the overhaul of Portland's high schools was this:

"Elimination of the unintentional concentration of special populations of students from specific socio-economic backgrounds."

That element was explained as a means to

"...achieve a more equitable integration across campuses of students from varying socio-economic backgrounds and educational status."

That simply means figuring out a way to avoid the "Lincoln-Roosevelt" syndrome --all the rich white kids here, and all the poor minority kids there, which, it goes without saying, has a huge impact on those all important test scores.  And on student enrollment. 

"White flight", in other words.  (Ruth Adkins words, too.)

It all goes back to the transfer policy which encourages "white flight."  Rid the district of its transfer policy and enrollment will stabilize.  And test scores will go up, at least in the poorer high schools.

As I said in my last post, the evidence presented to the board by Wilhelmi and Allan could hardly be clearer.  But Trudy Sargent apparently didn't fully understand what she was shown.  She stubbornly insisted that de facto neighborhood segregation was to blame, and asked the two experts --Wilhelmi and Allan-- what other urban districts were doing to "mix people [students] up" in order to more fully integrate the high schools.  She prefaced her question with this observation:

"...you have to undo the neighborhood assignment system in order to change that."

(Shades of school choice champion Bobbie Regan, who once "raised the possibility of eliminating the guarantee of a spot for students in their own neighborhood schools in order to achieve more equity and diversity."  And then denied that she had suggested that possibility.)

Portland has been struggling with the issue of school integration for well over twenty years.   Busing didn't work.  And neither will school choice and offering students the option of transferring to other neighborhood schools. 

As the data shows, it makes things worse.

Trudy wants another term

In other local school news, Portland School Board member Trudy Sargent announced that she wants ...four more years! 

I can only ask, why?  With all due respect, although Director Sargent may well  be a very nice person, well-meaning, and kind to her dog and her kids, I really don't think she has a clue about what's going on in the district, even when presented with the evidence directly, as she was at the last school board meeting. 

What evidence?  For starters, how about the data, in graphic color  and nifty bar graphs, presented to the board by John Wilhelmi and Sara Allan showing that the equity chasm between the four wealthiest high schools in the district and all the others had increased dramatically in the last 12 years?  The highlights:

• --"students in poverty are more heavily concentrated in specific schools", namely Jefferson, Roosevelt, Marshall and Madison.  That trend has accelerated over the past 12 years, from a 24% gap in 1995 -6 to 44% in 2007 -8.

• --"Declining enrollment has been coupled with these demographic shifts."  Only the wealthiest four high schools --Cleveland, Wilson, Grant and Lincoln-- have gained students.

And here's the clincher:

• --"Data show that students at benchmark [e.g. good test scores] transfer to other neighborhood schools as well, so not only are we losing students, we're losing students that perform at levels above students who remain at those schools."

Hmmm.  It doesn't take an expert statistican or a deep thinker to conclude, given the data, that lots of good students are leaving poor neighborhoods schools. And that's what accounts for the enrollment drain.  That's what accounts for the clear exacerbation of segregation in the schools by socio-economic status. 

In short,the culprit in the growing inequity between schools is, quite simply, the district's transfer policy and its commitment to school choice. 

But Trudy doesn't see it that way.  In a question to Wilhelmi and Allan, she blamed the problem entirely on Portland's neighborhood school student assignment system:

"Our neighborhoods are segregated by poverty and by race... .  So our system which is based on neighborhood schools results in different populations at different schools based on the neighborhood."

In other words, the problem lies not with the transfer policy, but with existing neighborhood demographics, despite evidence just presented to the contrary: the transfer policy directly exacerbates segregation in the schools.  And it contributes to the marked enrollment declines in the poorest of Portland's high schools. 

The Flynn-Blackmer audit said precisely the same thing.  So did Steve Rawley's masterful study, Charting Open Transfer Enrollment, a copy of which should be in Trudy Sargent's hands: 

"Portland Public Schools has a system of school choice that has resulted in a radical redistribution of public investment. ...

"Since funding follows students, this has created a self-reinforcing pattern of money leaving our poor and working-class neighborhoods and flowing into our wealthiest neighborhoods. As more and more students have followed the money with their own funding, we are left with a two-tiered school system... ."  

To be fair, no other school board member, with the exception of Dilafruz Williams, mentioned the transfer policy as a problem in need of fixing.  And even Williams could only say it was a "complex problem."

It's not complex at all, except politically.  Simply end neighborhood to neighborhood school transfers and scale back charter and magnet school options. 

Here's another suggestion to help clear up any lingering confusion on the board.  I ask that Trudy and the other board members read (or re-read) another inspired piece by Steve Rawley.  It's called The Very Important Problem: Three Parables. 

Just click on the link, school board members.

School news: Fluff and substance

The fluff piece, courtesy of the Oregonian (where else?), is the announcement that the top rated public high school in Oregon is Beaverton's School of Science and Technology, a magnet school that attracts some of the best and the brightest students in the Beaverton area. 

The rating comes courtesy of GreatSchools, a San Francisco outfit that bases it ratings on "the most recent test scores available for reading, math and science."  Using the same criteria, GreatSchools named Jesuit the top private high school in Oregon.

What have I always said?  Good students equal good test scores equal good schools.  End of story.

In news of substance, both good and not so good, Education Week writes that Secretary of Education-designate, Arne Duncan, was an innovator as CEO of Chicago Public Schools.  During his tenure, Duncan improved the quality of teachers and principals in the district.

How?

"One of the biggest legacies of Mr. Duncan’s tenure will be the Renaissance 2010 initiative that Mr. Daley announced in 2004. The project calls for closing underperforming schools, mostly in high-poverty areas, and replacing them with new schools run by outside groups and organizations. The goal is to open 100 such schools by 2010; so far, 75 of those charter and charter-like schools have been opened."

Good news if you're a fan of charter schools.

In other charter school news, the American Federation of Teachers has succeeded --finally!-- in unionizing one the vaunted KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) charter schools in Brooklyn, New York.  That's good news, since the charter school-promoting Albert Shanker* has been succeeded as AFT President by Randi Weingarten.

Here's what Weingarten said about the union's success:

"We know that teacher turnover is a major concern across the charter school movement. The unionization of KIPP’s New York City schools provides a unique opportunity to create a model of sustainable teacher recruitment, development and retention."

KIPP schools are infamous for their official six, ten-hour day, workweeks.  (Well, maybe teachers aren't required to work a full ten hours on Saturday.)   No wonder that teacher burnout is a problem. 

And finally, Michael J. Petrilli, a self-described No Child Left Behind "true believer", has had a change of heart.  The right wing think-tanker --Hoover Institution, Fordham Foundation-- has concluded

"Speaking personally, I’ve gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair."

Good news for sure.  

*(To be fair, Shanker was always a staunch advocate of teacher collective bargaining, even in charter schools.)

Coal's dirty little secrets

It should come as no surprise that coal ash, the stuff that remains after coal is burned, has its own lobbying group, the American Coal Ash Association, which does its best to put a "clean" face on the hazardous waste that coal combustion produces.

The group even claims that coal fly ash is "good" for the environment, with "significant environmental benefits."  It seems you can even "build green" with coal residue.

Tell that to the people in Tennessee.

Health hazards from coal ash are downplayed by ACAA.  Its site on potential health issues claims that "health risks from coal ash are minimal."  No mention of heavy metals, like arsenic and lead, contained in the ash that can easily seep into ground water when it's stored in unlined holding ponds or landfills.  That sounds like a "health risk" to me.

Here's the dirty little secret:

"About 37 million tons of coal combustion products are beneficially used in the United States each year.  But more than 81 million tons are still being disposed in landfills."

Here's another one:  the federal Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that coal ash is not a hazardous waste, so its regulation is left up to the states.  Therefore, says Lisa Evans of EarthJustice, "...that because of a lack of federal oversight, 'we don't know where it goes.' "

That doesn't bode well for either the environment or for the advocates of cars --and trains-- powered solely by electricity.

How are we going to power electric cars?

Here's the one word answer:  Coal

Or more precisely, dirty coal, since there is no such thing as "clean coal".

You may have read about the coal fly ash ponds that store waste from coal-fired electrical plants, particularly the one near Nashville, Tennessee, that recently flooded hundreds of surrounding acres* with a toxic soup of arsenic, lead, chromium, barium and manganese all of which, according to the New York Times, "...can cause cancer, liver damage and neurological complications... ."

You probably didn't know --I didn't-- that these holding ponds, as well as coal ash stored in landfills, are the products of primitive attempts to "capture" carbon emissions from coal-fired plants to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide, as we all now know, is a greenhouse gas scientists claim is responsible for the recent upward spike in global temperatures. 

Meanwhile, politicians and technocrats speak rapturously about the new generation of electric cars that will help clear the atmosphere of automobile exhaust.  Few, however, are talking about the fossil fuel that likely will power these new plug-in vehicles --coal. 

Half the electricity in this country is generated by coal.  The plants generating that electricity account for  "one- third of the carbon dioxide production in the [world's] industrialized nations."

So I ask, what good are electric cars if they rely on the juice supplied by the dirtiest, and most toxic, of fossil fuels? 

In his Senate confirmation hearing, Energy Secretary-designate Stephen Chu, in response to questions from North Dakota's Byron Dorgan wary of Chu's stance on coal, said that he believed American technology would soon be able to come up with a true clean coal solution.  (North Dakota relies heavily on coal and coal production for energy.)

With all due respect to Dr. Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, that response may be more wishful thinking --and political pandering -- than a realistic assessment of the difficulties confronting those working on scrubbing the air --and the earth-- of the pollutants associated with the burning of coal.

*(Erin Brockovich --yeah, THAT Erin Brockovich-- has a post up on HuffPo with graphic descriptions of "...a plume of this toxic ash floating down the river, resting on the banks."  It's definitely worth the read.)

"Bomb a Ghetto, Raise a Cheer"

Video from Max Blumenthal on pro-Israel rally in New York City:

Libertarian think tank trots out 'scientific' poll in support of its goal to gut public education

That's right.  Portland's own Cascade Policy Institute commissioned a poll --a "scientific", poll, no less-- showing that "87% of Oregonians" want to send their kids to any school --private, charter, home school-- other than a public school. 

So, if nearly one in nine citizens don't want to send their kids to the local public school, yet nine of ten do end up opting for public schools, isn't there something wrong, seriously wrong, with our system of universal, tax-supported public education?  Well?

Well, that's what the Cascade Policy Institute would have us believe.  On the other hand, maybe there's something wrong, seriously wrong, with the poll the folks at Cascade Policy, avowed opponents of the "government school monopoly", have come up with, scientific or not.  That's what one comment on the op-ed piece suggested:

"Gee, a poll paid for by the Cascade Policy Institute that reaches the conclusion Cascade Policy Institute already believed anyway."

Another added:

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics. We should be able to add to that list agenda driven polls. Certainly, someone with a differing viewpoint can construct a scientific poll that would reach a different conclusion."

We have no way of knowing how valid Cascade's "scientific" poll is, since no link to the poll is provided in the op-ed piece.  We do know this, however.  The results of the poll fly in the face of other poll findings on the attitude of parents toward public schools, the last two Kappan polls, for example. 

In those polls, most --nearly 7 0f 10 surveyed-- give their local public schools an A or a B grade.  Only 5% give the schools a failing grade.  That doesn't sound like a populace eager to flee the public neighborhood school.

We also know that the Cascade Policy Institute has long been trying to convince state legislators to divert money from public schools to families who want to send their kids to private schools, but can't afford the tuition.  First, it was the School Choice Project, headed up by Matt Wingard (who is now a state legislator himself.)

Now it's ORED, the Oregon Education Tax Credit Coalition, which would allow Oregonians a tax credit of $1000 for any educational expenses --private school tuition or any other out-of-pocket expense incurred by sending kids to school.  Those would include school supplies and, presumably, participation fees for school related activities which nowadays are all too common in public schools (thanks to Measure 5.)

Simply put, ORED would drain state coffers of a substantial portion of its total tax revenue, half of which is used to fund public education. 

Call the tax credit proposal a stealth voucher program.  At a $1000 a pop, it would do little to get poor kids into private schools, but it would do a great deal of damage to the state's ability to adequately fund public schools.  

Isn't that the goal of the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute?  To 'gut' public education?

One last note.  There are only a handful of private schools in Oregon that may be academically superior to the typical comprehensive public school.  In fact we know little about most of them since they aren't subject to the same test-based accountability as public schools.  Furthermore, charter schools, based on the most recent research, do no better in raising "achievement" than traditional public schools. 

So why are charters considered a legitimate alternative?

More Jews condemn Israel (including Jon Stewart)

From Jewish Voice for Peace:

"We good liberal Jews are ready to protest oppression and human-rights abuse anywhere in the world, but are all too willing to give Israel a pass. It's a fascinating double-standard, and one I understand all too well. I understand it because I've been just as responsible as anyone else for perpetrating it.

"So no more rationalizations. What Israel has been doing to the people of Gaza is an outrage. It has has brought neither safety nor security to the people of Israel and it has wrought nothing but misery and tragedy upon the people of Gaza."

--Rabbi Brant Rosen, Evanston, Illinois  (from his blog)

One response to Rabbi Rosen's post mentioned an approach to "Islamic terrorism" near and dear to my heart.  It read in part:

"I just finished reading Three Cups of Tea and feel fairly certain that the authors are correct in their idea that if we offer education and improvements in life options, then we can move people away from terrorism and toward co-existance and, dare I wish it, even a celebration of our differences."

I, too, highly recommend reading Three Cups of Tea. 

Here's the Jon Stewart bit that Jewish Voice for Peace says we all should thank him for.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Strip Maul

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Arne Duncan vs. Linda Darling-Hammond, or "How the 'reformers' prevailed in the battle for Secretary of Education"

One thing I like about researcher and staunch defender of public education, Gerald Bracey, is his biting sense of humor.

In his HuffPo piece summarizing the one-sided debate over who would emerge as Obama's official education spokesperson, Bracey wrote this of NY Times columnist David Brooks:

"Brooks apparently has been holed up in the same cave as bin Laden, only longer, say, 50 years."

That was in response to Brooks' observation that, in the contest for Secretary of Education,

"The stakes are huge. For the first time in decades there is real momentum for reform."

The media debate, such as it was, pitted the "reformers" against those who represented the status quo, namely stooges of teachers' unions.  Arne Duncan, the reformer, won.  The union stooge, Linda Darling-Hammond, lost.

As Bracey points out, the "reformers" aren't  really about reform, in the true sense of the word.  They're about furthering "the corporatization of education and the commodification of childhood."  And Arne Duncan is their man.

Let me add that "reform", in media parlance, is also about busting the unions, charterizing school systems, paying teachers for their "performance" --read: test scores-- and, above all, preserving the accountability enshrined in No Child Left Behind.  In other words, it has little to do with actually changing what is taught in public schools, and even less to do with the more important issue, how it's taught. 

The mainly progressive educators on the EDDRA listserv (created and moderated by Bracey) are busy discussing strategies for reframing the debate.  Fat chance, I say. 

Who in the media wants to listen to someone who actually knows something about education?