Democrats ? for Education Reform 2

The Sacramento Bee today has well written  front page article on Democrats? for Education Reform.
Here is a preliminary response.  Be certain to look at the more detailed description of Democrats? below by Michael Hirsch.

Well done article on the group Democrats ? for Educational Reform. There is more on here. http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/12/democrats-for-education-reform.html

There is no evidence that the group has improved schools.  Politicians have seldom improved schools.  Improved schools require teachers working together.  There is some evidence in my book, Choosing Democracy, and in the effort of Quality  Investment in Education Act schools sponsored by CTA.

A positive side of the effort of Democrats? For Educational Reform is that they point out, create a megaphone, to describe and criticize the failure of some of our schools, particularly urban schools. 

Instead of talking about the most basic cause- the lack of adequate funding for schools and for school reform- they offer a series of ideas centered on the problem is the teachers unions.  Well. No.  The problem is the significant under funding of California schools as well developed in prior posts and in the suite Robles v. California.  And, given the current state budget, the underfunding of schools is going to get much worse.

In the last two years the k-12 budget “solutions” have cut 4.6 billion dollars from the schools. We have larger classes and fewer teachers.  School reform has stopped- except for the politicians hot air.  School funding makes up a total of 30% of the state budget.  Any crisis in the state budget and any cuts in the state budget will make school budgets worse.

California will need to raise taxes to fund the schools and to repair the social safety net.  Anti tax radicals ,Republicans, and Democrats ? for Educational Reform   oppose any tax increases.  

The Democrats ? group and Gloria Romero are well funded profiteers who plan to make millions from charter schools – even charters that fail. They use high profile spokespersons such as Gloria Romero to get attention and funding, but they do not improve schools.

Dr. Diane Ravitch was an earlier generations’ advocate for this approach.  However, after two decades of high visibility and well funded positions,  she continued to look at the evidence.  Her most recent book,  The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education is reviewed below.  See particularly the chapter on the Billionaires Boy’s Club.   See also posts below  on Michele Rhee.  The Democrats?  focus on the role of the teachers unions.   Well, the unions are not always correct.  However, their fundamental political effort is to seek adequate state funding for the schools.  They lobby hard, campaign, and advance candidates.   In California they helped to elect the new Superintendent and to defeat Gloria Romero. 

Gloria Romero ? For Superintendent of Public Instruction

  California Superintendent  of Public Instruction

There are three candidates for Superintendent who have any reasonable chance to win; Gloria Romero,  Tom  Torlakson, and  Larry  Aceves.

Romero and Torlakson have similar advantages and disadvantages.  They are both termed out legislators seeking a new position, not leaders in education.

In the last two years California’s  k-12 schools have received over a  $16 Billion  cut back in funding.   California presently ranks  45th  of the states in per pupil spending and last among the states in class size.   Currently the Governor proposes to reduce  k-12 spending by another  $2.4 Billion.

Since funding is a legislative issue, at first consideration it might seem that the two retiring legislators would have the greatest possibility of convincing the legislature and the governor to adequately support public schools.  However, the prior to Superintendents Jack O’Connell and Delaine Easton came directly from the legislature and presided over the schools during times of massive funding cut backs.   We just do not have evidence that being a Senator – even the Chair of the Senate Education Committee – does much good once you leave that office and become the Superintendent.

To understand the issues in this race you need to understand key issues in k-12 education.  This will also prepare you to understand the emerging debate of the re-authorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) currently known as No Child Left Behind.

The Obama administration has proposed a re-authorization with some positive changes and some troubling directions.

First, you need to understand that California’s k-12 schools are not all bad.  California students regularly score ( on average) at the 47^th. or 48^th. rank among the 50 states in reading and math.  Superintend Jack O’Connell notes that the scores are stagnant, or holding steady.  He does not note they are  stagnant at 47^th. out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

These scores are cause for alarm- and they have been rather constant for over 25 years.  That is, the several waves of school reform, such as writing new standards and increasing testing, have not improved the average scores in California.

Lets start with the problem of average.  Most of California’s schools are doing quite well particularly given the declining levels of state financial support for K-12 education.  It is particular schools that are in crisis.  The new Obama proposals target the bottom 10% of schools.  This is a reasonable and intelligent decision.  Lets look at the drop out factories.

Over 85% of the schools are doing quite well by most  state, national or international standards.  For the election, this means that we need a superintendent for 85% of our schools who can support schools and teachers and who can secure adequate funding.   Which candidate can get a 2/3 vote for adequate funding of schools and get the support of a future governor?

Senator Gloria Romero is the leading candidate for the position – and she has some powerful opponents.  Senator Romero has been a leader in the legislature on issues of prison reform, prison funding, and the effort to provide educational opportunities in the prisons to rehabilitate young offenders.  In her efforts she has been a harsh critic of the actions of the prison guards union in violating the civil rights of prisoners and she has not supported the efforts to increase funding for prisons,  Instead she has preferred community based diversion programs.  The growth of the prison budget is one of several factors leading to the cuts in k-12 funding in the state general budget. 

For her efforts, Senator Romero has earned the wrath and opposition  of the powerful and well funded prison guards union and many law enforcement groups.   Many Democrats look at this conflict and decide to seek another candidate.  Assemblyman Tom Tolakson seems a likely candidate.

Torlakson has gained the endorsements of a wide variety of Democratic Party and labor groups particularly those who for one reason or another oppose Gloria Romero.  He has the support of both major teachers unions, the California Federation of Teachers and the California Teaches Association.

Romero had offended these unions over several years but particularly in her efforts in the last year to support changing state laws to respond to demands of  Obama’s Race to the Top.   She gained the support of parents’  groups in Los Angeles by supporting their strong demand for new charter schools ( A part of Race to the Top). Charter schools are one immediate way to achieve the long standing effort of parents to separate themselves from a largely dysfunctional Los Angeles City School System.   Again, specific schools are doing well, but the school district has failed in many ways.

Romero has chosen to align herself with a group of educational advocates ( not teachers) who consider themselves school reformers.  In this she gains the support of Ed Voice and other corporate aligned school “reformers”.

These reformers are  what Diane Ravitch calls, “The Billionaires Boys Club” in her new book.  It is a series of foundations with wealth, Gates, Walton Family, Broad, all committed to charter schools and measuring teachers by test scores.  In California a leader in this direction is Ed Voice. These foundations employ a number of ‘consultants” and fund endless meetings of important people.  At times, they even drop into a school for a quick look ( usually less than two hours).  This is a scam of the consultants and the NGOs  such as the Ed Voice and others.  It is a good life. Good hotels, good food, you don’t have to meet with kids and their runny noses or problems of poverty.

            The consultants and ‘experts” of the billionaires clubs provide Governors and politicians with a valuable service, they can appear to be doing something about the education crisis without spending much money.

      Politicians, Secretary Duncan and the eduwonks of the “consultant class”, would continue to ignore  the crumbling and under-resourced urban school buildings and programs where children don't even have textbooks or toilet paper, let alone  science and technology labs.  Instead  the “professional consultants”  would focus on the same school turnaround policies for low income schools that have been demonstrated as not working in  Chicago and other cities. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/10/28/10chicago.h29.html

            The consultants repeat of mantra of several reforms; standards, testing, accountability even though California has some of the highest standards in the nation, and some of the lowest test scores.  When one silver bullet is exhausted, they move on to the next, seldom  stopping to listen to the teaches who work in the schools.

Romero’s alliance with the eduwonks reached its apex in the hearings for SX1-5 in the Special session of the legislature in January 2010  when existing California law was changed to respond demands of  Race to the Top. ( California was ranked 17 out of the states in the RTTT competitive grants.)
A following post will consider Torlakson and Acevez.
Comments and opinions welcome.

What is wrong with Race to the Top ?

What is wrong with SBX5 1 ?

Both teachers unions, representing people who actually work with children, find the Brownley approach better than the Romero-Schwarzenegger approach SBx5, 1. 

The Romero bill SBX5 1, and Race to the Top, is a further extension of  No Child Left Behind, the corporate sponsored school reform effort of the last decade.

The Bush Administration  NCLB) legislation has consistently and significantly failed to meet the its own goals of improving student achievement, particularly in low income schools.

  The policy relied heavily on the use of dogmatic standards and high stakes testing to the detriment of quality teaching and learning.  Search on this blog for more on NCLB, there are dozens of posts.  California has some of the highest standards and the lowest achievement in the nation.  The gap between the most and least successful schools  and students has widened.

Romero’s legislation seeks to  change California law to make it compatible with the Obama Administration Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative an extension and an acceleration of No Child Left Behind. RTTT increases reliance on high stakes testing, and seeks  to unfairly and invalidly tie such test  results to evaluation of teachers.

 A teacher who has primarily low income English Language learners will have significantly different scores than a teacher with upper middle class college bound students.

The Brownley bill calls for Charter Schools to be evaluated as are other schools. 

Another attack on teachers: Race to the Top

Stop Schwarzenegger’s Attack on Educators

Tell the California Senate “Vote NO on Romero’s SB X5 1”

Join CFT, CTA, CSEA and the California Labor Federation

Call Darrell Steinberg today!

916- 651-1529Senate Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, Senator Gloria Romero have teamed up with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to push education reforms that would create chaos in local school districts, undermine local control, interfere with collective bargaining and drain money from local classrooms at a time when the state has already cut school funding by more than $17 billion

Schwarzenegger’s plan would:

Create chaos in local school districts and drain resources from local classrooms.

·         Disguised as parental choice, the Romero bill requires open enrollment between school districts without providing resources for busing or transportation. Without adequate resources only wealthy parents would be able to afford to provide transportation and change schools.

·         The Romero bill increases charter schools without any regulations to hold them accountable.

·         This Bill is an unfunded state mandate at a time when the legislature has cut more than $17 billion from public education.

·         This plan would create chaos in local school districts as districts would not be able to adequately plan for the upcoming year.

Undermine local control and state collective bargaining laws.

·         The Romero bill allows the State Board of Education to grant a blanket waiver of the Education Code for any school districts applying for specified Federal grant dollars.

·         This means a local school district could be exempt from state collective bargaining laws, all fiscal reporting requirements, criminal background checks for staff, open meeting laws, and the high school exit exam.

·         Educators and parents should be partners in any education reform. It is the only way to improve student learning. Romero’s bill doesn’t even allow hard working educators to be part of the process as President Obama has called for.

California schools race to the bottom

Testimony before the California State Senate on California’s response to the demands of the Duncan Administration Race to the Top. Topic, Race to the Bottom or Lost in Space?
The Senators asked excellent questions. They probed the real issues. Particularly effective was Sen. Lonnie Hancock.
While the California schools race to the bottom- Legislators blow smoke.
Paid policy advocates had a rosy outlook and cheered the possibility of new funds in the Race to the Top. Teacher representatives described the grim class room realities after the budget cuts.

California Secretary Glenn Thomas made important comments that no teacher was going to be measured by a single test nor a single test score. He asserted that the Race to the Top provided the basic architecture for the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He argued for a growth model , a value added approach to measurement. A major demand is “effective support for struggling teachers.” and a second measure is that the state has a process for restructuring of low performing schools.
An argument was made by Jennie Oropeza of the state Department of Finance that funding under Race to the Top will be used to improve the gathering better data. She argued that providing a robust data system will allow policy makers information to make better decisions. Well, perhaps, but developing further data gathering will not improve teaching one step.

If the state wishes to improve schools – as they should- there is a need to assist and support teachers. Developing a “more robust” testing system does not do this.

Lets take an example. If a person has the flu, a nurse takes the person’s temperature. ( Like taking a test.) Taking the students’ temperature does not treat the disease, it does not even treat the symptoms. It only measures the temperature. That is what we are doing with test scores. We are investing in testing, not in treating the problems.

Marty Hittleman of California Federation of Teachers gave testimony on the limits of current testing. The views are well developed here: http://www.cft.org/index.php/cft-presidents-page/434-cft-comments-on-qrace-to-the-topq.html

There is yet no evidence that the official policy makers understand the problems of testing, of assessment, or with teaching support.

Clear testimony from the Vice President of United Teachers of Los Angeles. And Pat Rucker representative of Calif Teachers Association called for slowing down and developing good schools, not in responding to Race to the Top.

California dropout crisis

CDE Report Shows Scant Movement on California Drop Out Rates

Yesterday State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell today released the annual report on dropout and graduation rates for the 2007-08 school year.
In 2007-08, 68.1 percent of public school students in California graduated, up from 67.7 percent last year. The adjusted four-year derived dropout rate for the same school year is 20.1 percent, down from 21.1 percent last year.
“I am heartened that the graduation rate is up slightly, but California’s dropout rate is still unacceptably high,” said O’Connell. “If we look deeper into the data, we see alarmingly high dropout rates among African American and Hispanic students. There are long-term economic repercussions from not graduating for the student, for their communities, and for our statewide economy. These data provide even more evidence of the challenge and the moral imperative of closing the achievement gap as well as increasing graduation rates among all students.”
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) commented on the report:
“The high dropout numbers reported today by Superintendent O’Connell illustrate that California’s most important work is ensuring that millions of students don’t simply fall through the cracks by dropping out of school. Even in these challenging fiscal times, we must do more for these students – especially in Latino and African-American communities where the crisis is demonstratively worse and where there are economic justice implications for our entire society. The way that California can build a just and thriving economy over the long-term is to provide education and training that inspires students to plan for careers in the state’s growing job sectors.”

Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee comments, “the Department of Education numbers are highly controversial among outside researchers, with some contending that the true rate is as high as one-third, with some urban school districts losing 50 percent or more of those who enter the ninth grade.”
Meanwhile Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Committee on Education descries the minimal dropout rate reduction and argues that education failure needs data reporting overhaul such as her authored legislation SB 651.
“We don’t need another report to tell us that we are failing miserably to educate the future citizens of California,” said Senator Romero (D-East Los Angeles). “We need to completely transform how we engage students to stay in school and to excel. We need better measures predicting dropout trends instead of gloomy statistics that just measure the body count. And we certainly need to increase our graduation rates far more than a measly .4 percent to meet the economic challenges of tomorrow,” she said.
The California Department of Education (CDE) release described in detail the report.
Duane Campbell response.
So, what should be done?
All Romero's bill does is ask for another report.
We know what causes dropouts. the problem is that the legislature refuses to fund the programs that would reduce drop outs.

Too many working-class students have been trained for defeat. Sitting in classes completing endless worksheets to prepare for poor quality exams confirms a cynical belief that schooling and education make little real difference in life. On the other hand, social participation—and school-to-work opportunities along with digital media empowers students and provides a means to break out of these defeatist patterns. Work in community agencies gives students a realistic view of the processes of change. Adult community activists serve as mentors to students and encourage them to complete their education. Students begin their transition to the world of work and return to school more mature and focused on improving their own education.
Interaction with life, work, racism, and poverty will convince many students of the value of education. Students gain a sense of social responsibility when they participate in projects that actually contribute to the health of their own communities.