OlsonOnline

Charter school supporter changes her mind

A former charter school backer in Gloucester, Massachusetts, has announced a drastic change of mind on the wisdom and ethics of plunking down a charter school in a district that has suffered, much like Portland, severe cuts to its educational programs.

Here are some excerpts from the letter she wrote announcing her opposition to the proposed new charter school:

"Once I realized how the school would be funded at the expense of the rest of Gloucester's student body, however, I could no longer participate because it is not in the best interests of our community as a whole.

"Since my son began first grade in 2001, the Gloucester Public Schools have lost 50 teachers. Gloucester elementary and middle-schoolers have not had the support of librarians for more than three years despite the district's strong emphasis on literacy goals. Class sizes have increased across the board from elementary to high school with some specialist classes at the middle school reaching 30-plus students."

Sounds a lot like Portland.

Stacy Randell goes on to say:

"My son and his peers have already suffered enough. I believe it is unethical and undemocratic to divert any funds from the Gloucester Public Schools to support the charter school initiative... ." ...

"As America's oldest seaport, Gloucester has a long history of understanding interdependence and advancement for the common good. The charter school application does not reflect this spirit, despite its claims to celebrate the arts and maritime history of Gloucester."

The "common good".  That's a concept charter school supporters have difficulty accepting.  

Gloucester's School Committee (the equivalent of our school board, I assume) unanimously approved a resolution opposing the new Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.   

Former chair of the School Committee and opponent of the charter school, Jonathan Pope, had this to say in his testimony:

"The proponents of charter schools will argue that they are public schools. If the criteria to qualify as a public school are that the public pays your bills then they qualify. If the criteria are that the oversight of the school is accountable to the public, or if their mandate is to educate all children regardless of the child’s emotional, physical or cognitive disabilities, then charter schools do not qualify as public schools."

What's true in Gloucester is true in Portland.  Or anywhere that charters are proposed as the answer to the problem of our "failing" public schools.

(Thanks to Jim Horn of Schools Matter.

The politics of school reform

Who should Barack Obama appoint as his Secretary of Education?

David Brooks and the Washington Post both argue that Obama should consider only true school "reformers", people like Michelle Rhee or New York's Joel Klein.  True "reformers", like Rhee and Klein, believe in testing for accountability and charter schools.  They're also  enthusiastic about sticking young and idealistic college graduates with no traditional pedagogical training  --aside from attending a 5 week summer training institute-- into the nation's worst classrooms.

That's the path Michelle Rhee chose.  She managed to parlay three years of Teach for America classroom experience into the most high profile administrative job in education --Chancellor of DC Public Schools.   And now she's been mentioned as a possibility for the Obama ed position.   (Time Magazine even did a feature on Rhee, the cover story, I believe.)

Here's a different perspective on the politics of reform from EDDRA correspondent David Marshak, an education professor from Seattle.  He believes that the Democratic Party (forget the Republicans) is split on education.  On one side are the "new Democrats" who  have little background in education.  They 

"...largely believe in the standards-and-testing school paradigm of the 1990s standards movement and No Child Left Behind."

On the other side are the "progressives".  They

"...reject the industrial [standards and testing] school paradigm as pre-scientific, reactionary, anti-democratic, and hostile to teachers as professionals."

Marshak writes that the progressives reject the fundamental beliefs of what many in the media, not just Brooks and the Washington Post editorial board, have called the "reform movement".  Specifically, they argue

• "The idea that every child should learn the same material at the same time is a pre-scientific idea... ."

• "The idea that every child should learn the same curriculum—the so-called standards—is also a reactionary 19th century idea that makes little sense in the 21st century."

And finally, they believe

• "The standards-and-testing paradigm is ... anti-democratic."

Marshak calls the "reformers" --the Rhee and Klein camp-- reactionary.  I call them neoliberal free marketeers, intent on privatizing public education, or at least a good part of it.

So what will Obama do?  Here's Marshak's conclusion in the form of a hopeful question:

"While it is unlikely that President-elect Obama will embrace the progressive education agenda in its entirety, the key question is this: for the first time in American history, will a progressive, Democratic President understand the intimate connections between progressive political values and progressive educational policies and practices, and if so, will he give significant support to the latter in America’s public schools?"

Let's hope he does.

And then there's music

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, Mike Bell reminds us that music also suffers when funding for public education declines.  For poor kids, anyway.

"The money gap goes much deeper in our high schools than the wages of a physical trainer in football programs. You can see very clearly how large the gap is by watching our neighborhood parades in the spring and summer. Some high school bands proudly march by with $50,000 in uniforms and instruments while some schools have a $100 second-hand boom box and $50 worth of T-shirts."

Reminds me of what I wrote two years ago about instrumental music all but disappearing from Portland's high schools as a consequence of Measure 5 and the failure of the state legislature to "muster the will" to replace money lost to schools with the property tax limitation.  In that post the main villain was school choice and the resulting depopulation of Portland's poorest schools. 

School choice might be of less consequence were more money available for schools generally.  But we'd ultimately still witness the same glaring inequities in parent involvement and school demographics that are so apparent today in Portland.

When all the "good" kids and their parents are allowed to congregate in a handful of desirable schools, bad things happen.  Even with adequate funding. 

Private wealth, public squalor

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith famously claimed an inverse relationship between the public good and the growth of private wealth.  Without government intervention, meaning  "massive public investment... to improve social goods in spheres where the private sector [is] unwilling to invest", the amalgamation of great private wealth inevitably results in what Galbraith called "public squalor"*. 

I can think of no better test of that thesis than the effect on public schools of Oregon's 1990 property tax limitation, Measure 5.   In its remarkable series on the disparity between the ability of rich and poor schools to field successful football teams, the Oregonian fingers Measure 5 as the culprit:

"Measure 5, the statewide property-tax cap that voters passed in 1990, slashed extracurricular spending by an inflation-adjusted average of 30 percent in 10 school districts with prominent football teams. Wealthier communities are better equipped to fill the gap, especially in the flagship sport of football... ."

Measure 5 did more than cut funds for sports.  Academic programs have been affected as well.  According to an analysis done by Oregon State University's Bruce Weber, overall funding for public education declined as Measure 5 was phased in:

"Indeed, in 1993-1994, total school operating revenues declined 5
percent because increases in state aid were not large enough to offset
declines in school property taxes. ...

"...Oregon's tax burden will shrink as Measure 5 completes its five-year phase-in, from its current level of 11.5 percent of income (placing Oregon around the middle
in a ranking of the fifty states) to its projected 10.3 percent in1996 (placing Oregon around 40th in this ranking)."

Wealthier school districts --Lake Oswego, for example, with a student poverty rate of about 4% and a median household income of over $100,000-- can afford, through foundations and other fund raising efforts, to provide first rate facilities and other amenities to help its sports programs succeed.  Portland's Benson Tech --with a poverty rate of 57%-- cannot. 

Football is simply a metaphor for the inability of schools in poor communities to provide adequate educational programs to its students.  That's what happens when people decide they can no longer afford to pay the taxes that support public education. Who suffers?

Poor kids. 

There are those who dispute the notion that public education promotes the public, or common, good.  They object to the government "monopoly" on education.  They promote school choice and charter schools.  They advocate a greater market influence in deciding how schools are run.  They argue that parents should decide which schools are fit for their children to attend.  In the end, through the magic of the marketplace, we'll be left with only strong schools. 

I'm not one of those.  I believe as a society we're obligated to nurture the least capable among us.  That's especially true in public education.  Either we provide all our children with equitable educational opportunities, or we end up with two drastically different systems --a Lake Oswego for the fortunate, a Benson for the less fortunate.

I call that a stark example of private wealth living side by side with public squalor.

* (In an interview with The Progressive, Galbraith explained his juxtaposition of "public squalor" and "private affluence" this way:

"There's no question that in my lifetime, the contrast between what I called private affluence and public squalor has become very much greater. What do we worry about? We worry about our schools. We worry about our public recreational facilities. We worry about our law enforcement and our public housing. All of the things that bear upon our standard of living are in the public sector. We don't worry about the supply of automobiles. We don't even worry about the supply of foods. Things that come from the private sector are in abundant supply; things that depend on the public sector are widely a problem. We're a world, as I said in The Affluent Society, of filthy streets and clean houses, poor schools and expensive television. I consider that contrast to be one of my most successful arguments."

Worth reading --Sonja Henning must go!

That's Portland Public Schools board member Sonja Henning, who according  to Steve Rawley, refuses to talk to the press about her support of Bill Sizemore's teacher pay-for-performance ballot measure.

More specifically, Henning refuses to talk to Willamette Week's Beth Slovic, who has been warned not to approach Director Henning at school board meetings.  Slovic is the only reporter in Portland who seems to take local school politics seriously.

Rawley thinks that Henning ought to resign her school board position now, not because of her support of Measure 60, but because of her attempt "to place herself and her policy positions above public scrutiny."  It's indefensible that she refuses to talk to the press about her dissent from the school board's resolution to oppose M60.  

That said, Henning's term is up in June.  So maybe it wouldn't be a good idea for her to resign now.  Her position would most likely be filled by the remaining six board members with another shill for the district's disastrous school choice and transfer policies.  And incumbents, as you know, always have a leg up in elections.

The board needs an entirely new perspective.  In May, the public has the opportunity to elect three new members to the PPS board.  Activist and former board member Steve Buel is already campaigning for Martin Gonzales' Zone 4 seat.

Now what's needed are for a few good people who believe in school equity to step up in Zones 5 and 6.  Check the map to see if YOU qualify.

"24/7 School Reform": The battle within the Democratic Party

(Thanks once again to my friend Anne Trudeau.)

"24/7 School Reform" is the title of a New York Times Magazine article examining the split among Democrats over the issue of educational reform.

Unfortunately, the author of the piece equates "reformers" with supporters of No Child Left Behind and charter schools.  Opponents of "reform" are "...members of the two huge teachers’ unions and the many parents who support them."

The premise is preposterous.  The article would have us believe that a teacher cannot simultaneously support collective bargaining AND meaningful school reform.  I strongly disagree.

I'm one teacher who backs union membership and advocates --indeed, crusades-- for changes in what schools teach and how they teach it.  In short, I'm a reformer, and have been for twenty years. 

To pit teachers and their unions against what's best for students is both dishonest and laughable.   I've never met a teacher who walks into a classroom thinking union first, kids second.  To suggest that job security alone is what motivates teachers is a canard and a diversion from the real issues confronting today's schools.  Irresponsible union bashing has become a political parlor game, especially in the heat of the current presidential election.  

I would characterize the Democratic split as NOT between the "unionists and the reformers" as Paul Tough, the author of the piece, would have it, but between the neoliberal  and progressive wings of the party.   The neolibs buy into market reforms and competition between schools, and are more inclined to support teacher pay for performance --merit pay. They seem to have little use for unions. 

Progressives?  They support unions and look at market reforms with great suspicion.  They see no evidence that competition strengthens pubic schools.  As I wrote in my last post, market-based school choice is NOT a "civil right."  Nor is it a "reform".  On the contrary, choice is a not-so-subtle device for undermining the entire edifice of public education.

Tough claims that both sides are "distracted" by the Obama question.  Where does he stand?  According to Tough, Obama has a foot planted tentatively in both camps.  Depending on which audieince he addresses, writes Tough, Obama is against testing for accountability, but he's for charter schools.  Obama says he opposes merit pay strictly defined, but has spoken favorably about "changes to teachers’ compensation structure."

Whatever his stances on those specific issues, it's clear that Obama views the academic "underperformance" of low income children as a broader social and cultural problem, one that can't be fixed by schools alone.  In that respect Obama is right.  As President, Obama would more likely address the reform of entire communities, not just schools.

That of course is a massive and complex undertaking.  In the meantime local educational leaders, including Carole Smith and the PPS school board, should focus on what's doable now, and begin implementing reforms that make schools more congenial to the diverse student populations they serve.   They should not consider a President Obama their educational savior.

Local districts may not be able to solve all of society's problems.  But they can --and should-- create schools that are better and more effective places for students to learn.     

Schools and poverty

"Put aside for a moment the fact that schools are just one small input in the equation that yields abysmal school success rates for children affected by poverty."

The implications of Steve Rawley's insight into the role of public education in resolving broader social ills are worth examining.  The fundamental question is this: 

Are schools the primary agents for alleviating poverty and improving the economy?  Or are they merely one relatively inconsequential factor in promoting the well-being of the students and families they serve, largely dependent, in other words, on the luck of the enrollment draw?

The answer to both possibilities, I believe, is yes and no. 

As a champion of school reform, I firmly believe that all schools, public or private, can do a much better job of educating their students, especially those who suffer the debilitating effects of poverty.   Well-educated students are undoubtedly better prepared to break the bonds of poverty.  Furthermore,  as a champion of public education, I believe that public schools are the best means for teaching students from diverse backgrounds tolerance and democratic values.  Both are as necessary as "book learning" to create a tolerant and democratically knowledgable citizenry, one more likely to make the political decisions leading to a more economically just and vibrant culture.

Those who believe that schools alone are the key to ameliorating poverty and and making America more "competitive" economically are those most likely to chant the "no excuses" mantra, arguing that poverty and family background are no barrier to school success.  Take for example Teach for America's founder, Wendy Kopp, who wrote in a response to a poll showing that 77% of Americans thought that the achievement gap between rich and poor students was "unrelated to the quality of their schools":

"When asked the same questions, our corps members respond that the top-three factors contributing to low educational outcomes are teacher quality, school leadership and expectations of students.  ... while societal inequities and poverty create additional challenges for their students, it is possible to provide them with educational opportunities that result in a high level of engagement and achievement."

That's essentially the argument of No Child Left Behind and of the school accountability movement, especially the insistence on "teacher quality" and "high expectations" (which implies a heavy dose of academic rigor.)  Poverty is simply no excuse.  

Richard Rothstein differs: 

"Closing or substantially narrowing achievement gaps requires combining school improvement with reforms that narrow the vast socioeconomic inequalities in the United States. Without such a combination, demands (like those of No Child Left Behind) that schools fully close achievement gaps not only will remain unfulfilled, but also will cause us to foolishly and unfairly condemn our schools and teachers."

I've come to the same conclusion (although not as eloquently).  So has Jim Horn of School Matters who writes of the "...lies about using testing and 'accountability' to close the achievement gap."

Look at it this way.  Students at low income schools are more likely to come to class

• hungry, ill, or in pain due to lack of dental care
• emotionally distraught because of family problems
• badly and uncomfortably dressed

They're also much more likely to have suffered emotional or sexual abuse, come from single parent homes (or no homes at all), have parent(s) who are school dropouts, illiterate, or drug users.

The list* goes on, providing ample "excuses" for the inadequate school performance of low income kids.

(* Courtesy of correspondents from the Education Disinformation and Detection Reporting Agency [EDDRA])

Lieberman loves Rhee

Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut who has all but abandoned the Democratic Party, finds much about DC Public Schools chief Michelle Rhee to "commend".  Pretty much everything, in fact, especially her insistence on teacher "pay for performance."

"While this is common, indeed intuitive, in most professions, it is considered a revolutionary concept in public education.  Most union-negotiated teacher contracts base compensation on seniority.  While this approach offers job security, it does not reward teachers for inspiring enthusiasm or promoting achievement in the classroom."

Sen. Lieberman is quick to turn his praise of  Rhee's "courageous reforms" (all of which have to do with  raising test scores) into a soapbox for urging Congress to reauthorize an even more punitive version of No Child Left Behind:

"To best serve our nation's children, Congress needs to fix No Child Left Behind rather than abandon it. Lawmakers can do this by identifying, promoting and rewarding successful teachers; by better targeting professional development; and by strengthening provisions that hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students."

"Strengthening provisions" for teacher accountability is simply code for merit pay.

Demonizing teachers and their collective bargaining units has become a national parlor game.  Consider this editorial in Charleston's The Post and Courier.  It not only calls for merit pay and school vouchers, it criticizes Barack Obama for backing away from his original idea of giving them "a chance". 

In other words, Obama is now "back in line with the teachers unions".

Fortunately, more enlightened voices in defense of teachers are sometimes raised here in Portland.  Peter Campbell, for example, defended widespread teacher opposition to a common curriculum in testimony to the Portland School Board.  And a recent comment from Alicia Lewis on PPS Equity in support of Campbell's remarks provides another strong voice for teachers. 

She writes:

"What you assert mirrors my experiences with other large (urban) districts - a need for districts to allow teachers and teacher leaders to collaborate in defining ESSENTIAL content, skills, and assessment... ."

Now that's the kind of reform --teacher-based reform-- that works.  Not money, or "bribery", as Michelle Rhee is attempting to use in Washington DC to "break" the union, but collaborating with teachers to give them the power to make decisions that affect the learning of their students. 

It's all about showing classroom educators professional respect. 

The Oregonian speaks: "The Portland School Board functions well today."

That's not the only thing yesterday's Oregonian editorial on replacing board member Dan Ryan got wrong.  But  considering that nearly half the district's high schools are suffering huge enrollment (and money) losses because of a school choice and transfer policy the current board seems unwilling to address, it's one assertion that begs rebuttal.

Steve Rawley at PPS Equity has defined the problem quite clearly:

"Portland Public Schools’ student transfer system transfers public investment out of our neediest neighborhoods and hands it to the wealthiest. ...

"In other words, despite the demonstrable harm they [district leaders] are doing to at least half the students of Portland, the perceived risk to their constituency outweighs the clear benefit to the greater common good."

The school board has both the authority and the responsibility to deal with the depopulation of Portland's poorest schools.  But so far it has failed to act with either authority or responsibility.  That's hardly the picture of a board that "functions well".  

(It might be more accurate to describe the board as a body that "functions politely", avoiding heated disagreements and --heaven forbid-- personal rancor.  Civility rules at board meetings.  Substantive debate, if it occurs at all, is hidden from public view.)

The O's editorial recommends as a replacement for Ryan "...one highly qualified soul from North Portland to keep pushing schools in the right direction."  In other words, Ryan's replacement has to be someone who believes that the district is headed "in the right direction", someone, in short,  who won't rock the boat. 

I beg to differ.

What the board needs is a fresh perspective, someone not afraid to question the policies proposed by former Superintendent Vicki Phillips or her successor, Carole Smith.  I've recommended as Ryan's replacement either Beaverton teacher Nancy Smith --"Our city’s educational system is shamefully unacceptable"-- or Evergreen (Washington) teacher Steve Buel, a former board member who ran second to Ryan in the 2005 election. Both are "highly qualified" North Portland residents with classroom smarts.   Neither would be a "weak" addition to the board.  Neither would be a "distraction" to the "serious" work the board supposedly undertakes.  Nor would either one of the two be, as the Oregonian gratuitously put it, another "Derry Jackson".

It is unlikely, however, that either of the two would be hesitant about breaking up the polite tea party that passes for a board that "functions well". To my mind, that would be a good thing indeed. 

One final note.  The O's editorial narrowly defines the role of the school board as overseeing the budget and hiring the superintendent.  I think the board does much more than that.  But even that constricted job description requires people who know something about how a public school system works, or should work, from the bottom up.  Smith or Buel would fill that function quite nicely.

Let's take back the school board!

Read my post over at PPS Equity.  Here's an excerpt:

"Community members can’t change district leadership, but they do have a say in electing the representatives who can — the Portland Public Schools Board of Education. ...

"So here’s my challenge. First we need to make every effort to see that the board appoints either Nancy Smith or Steve Buel to the board this summer. Then we need to find and recruit at least two good candidates from the Madison cluster and the Marshall -Franklin clusters, respectively. ...

"Let’s see if we can get something going, maybe start a mini-uprising for equity and democracy. Let’s take back the school board!"

If you know of any potential candidates for equity who live in either Zone 5 (the Madison cluster) or Zone 6 (the Franklin -Marshall cluster) --here's a zone map-- please make them known.  You can respond either here or at PPS Equity.