Cheating, School Choice and Experts

The world is not short on Expert Opinions.  This is also true regarding education.  People who have "informed" and "expert" opinions about our nations schools are few and far between.  (Present company excluded of course)

"No No...switch that to  C as in ...cash"

Enter the Atlanta Cheating Scandal. I have heard from 4 different people in my personal circles about this over the past 4 days.  Each had an opinion as to the cause of the scandal and what should be done. I bit my tongue.  Do I sympathize with the teachers and officials who cheated?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  I faced the same choice but it never even crossed my mind to cheat.  It is sad many do think about it but I maintain the vast majority of good people in teaching do not.  Then this morning on the last weekend of my Spring Break I catch the opinion column by Cal Thomas.

Syndicated columnist Thomas has said tons of things to which I object since he makes most conservatives appear liberal.  So objecting to his "informed" opinion is not unusual.  This morning,  he wrote about that scandal and I agree with most of what he said. He even mentioned Eugene Robinson....but qualified him as a "pro-public school columnist" which implies he himself is not.

So a few lines stood out:
"The teachers’ unions and many Democratic politicians, who receive their campaign contributions, oppose school choice, which would improve not only public schools, but also the chances of poor and minority children to have a better life."

Ooh...the evil unions again.  I tire of this refrain.  Georgia, like Virginia, is a right to work state and public sector employees cannot collective bargain, strike or do many other "union"  type things.  To affix all the ills of education on the union is frankly beneath anyone of moderate intellect.  So I will excuse Thomas.    Educators in Atlanta can join professional organizations and donate money but I doubt they spearhead the effort to subjugate poor and minority children.  To use this to bolster the  argument for "school choice" makes it appear as if  a focus group switched your energies from "testing and accountability".  A permanent fix school choice is not. 

I'm pretty sure a brief history lesson of the South, Atlanta in particular, might remind folks like Thomas of the value of public schools.  Advocating their dismantling in favor of a private voucher driven system is short sighted and just a bad idea.  Read more about why here.   If you play this out and consider if every student were given a voucher to schools that could deny admission or remove students by a lower standard and you've compounded some issues you seek to resolve. 

"Could school choice be the answer?
Indiana thinks so. Last week, the state’s Supreme Court upheld a voucher program that gives poor and middle-class families access to tax dollars to help them pay private school tuition. Parents should decide where their children go to school."

OK.  The secular argument against vouchers falls short in Indiana.  But that ruling doesn't apply nationally yet.  Worth adding that even though Indiana has among the most far reaching voucher law only about 9,000 children used the vouchers last year. That number will certainly grow and unlike elsewhere, there are fewer income limits, meaning more middle class families can take advantage.  That seems to counter the main reason these laws are championed, to benefit poor students in under-performing schools.  Vouchers themselves are not evil. But they have "issues. " Time will tell.

Lastly this was slipped in" "It’s not the children who cannot achieve. It’s the system that fails them."   This is often true.  But let's not reduce an incredibly complex and lengthy process into "school choice."  Vouchers might do some good but would also impact many quality schools in unforeseen ways.  An expert would pick up on this.   Many of these same experts also voted now indicted Beverly Hall as National Superintendent of the Year. 

Life, Liberty, and Milk

Choice alone doesn't create democracy.  Meaningless choice can link the chains of complacency.

I enjoy the fact that I can choose from hundreds of breakfast cereals.  When I’m feeling bold I love me some Fruity Pebbles, but when I want to feel a little healthy I’ll go for the Fiber One.  Is this the freedom that comes at so high a cost?

Choice as freedom characterizes 21st century political thinking.  We fight wars in the name of freedom and ask the ultimate sacrifice from some while trying our very best to keep everything normal at home.  As long as I can buy what I want it’s o.k., right?

During the last local election, I cast a ballot for five offices.  Three of the five were unopposed.  But I could still choose from over fifty different brands and styles of soda when I visited the market.

I only get three-minutes per meeting to talk if I want an audience with my local board of supervisors, and it’s one way, not dialogue.  But after I talk, I can choose from a few hundred different restaurants for my family to eat.

I had to maintain a distance of at least 75 feet from the president’s motorcade when he passed my house on the way to the airport.  But with the phone I picked this summer I was able to take a pretty good video.
Sometimes I wonder if the choices that don’t really matter obscure the fact that I’m not getting a chance to influence some of the choices that really make a difference and impact my life.

I’m not arguing against choice, but perhaps sometimes we’re placated with the idea of choice just to keep us satisfied enough to give up real choice and participation in decision-making.  

And so, we’re sold the idea of “school-choice” as the answer to the problems of education.  Here is an excerpt from Jeb Bush’s speech at the Republican National Convention last week:

Education is hard work, but if you follow some core principles, and you challenge the status quo, you get great results.  So here’s another thing we can do: Let’s give every parent in America a choice about where their child attends school. Everywhere in our lives, we get the chance to choose.  Go down any supermarket aisle - you’ll find an incredible selection of milk.  You can get whole milk, 2% milk, low-fat milk or skim milk. Organic milk, and milk with extra Vitamin D.  There’s flavored milk-- chocolate, strawberry or vanilla - and it doesn’t even taste like milk. They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk. 

Shouldn’t parents have that kind of choice in schools? Governor Romney gets it. He believes parents - regardless of zip code or income - should be able to send their child to the school that fits them best.

That has set him against some entrenched interests.  There are many people who say they support strong schools but draw the line at school choice.  “Sorry, kid. Giving you equal opportunity would be too risky. And it will upset powerful political forces that we need to win elections.”  I have a simple message for these masters of delay and deferral: Choose.

You can either help the politically powerful unions. Or you can help the kids. (1)
Now, I know it’s hard to take on the unions. They fund campaigns. They’re well-organized. Election day? They’ll show up.  Meanwhile, the kids aren’t old enough to vote. (2)

Choice is not a bad thing, but politicians are selling us a false hope for meaningful choice.  Current reform efforts highlight the problems of public education, and instead of investing in problem-solving, they declare the problems “unsolvable” in the current system.  Environmental issues of poverty are written off as irrelevant and options that show short-term promise in isolated cases free of restrictions placed on public schools are offered as proof that the solutions to the problems of public education rest only outside of the system.

In my school district, we currently have an alternative public charter school that functions in tandem with the county system, a vocational school run jointly by the county and city, an engineering academy housed in one of the three comprehensive high schools, and a health sciences academy housed in another.  All of our students have the opportunity to move in these directions when it fits their interests and needs.  The district enjoys strong public support even in the midst of a range of private school offerings.  And we still work to expand choices and opportunities for parents and students.

The future of public education depends of the issue of choice.  It’s not even a dichotomy of “choice vs. no choice.”  It is a question of what kind of choice and how we make sure it is for the benefit of children.  Choice that funnels public money into private hands to do education on the cheap won’t help.  Choice that allows dollars to follow children in order to increase the profit of online providers won’t help.  Choice that promotes ideology instead of pedagogy to inform the education of our children won’t help.  Choice that makes avoiding rather than working through a difficult situation won’t help. This kind of choice won’t improve education anymore than an incredible selection of milk will improve health.  


But what about the milk.  The red bottle with the rabbit on front sure does draw my child’s attention.  I hear that organic might not even be healthier than the regular.  The Strawberry milk costs more, but maybe my kids will drink more milk if it tastes better.  Is the extra sugar worth the extra calcium?  It does look really good and it makes the kid happy and after all, it is about the kids.  Right?




Post-Script- I couldn't just ignore a few other points from Jeb Bush's address so I've footnoted below.

1) I’m not in a union and Virginia doesn’t have them.
2)Saying kids can’t vote is a back door way of saying that since I don’t agree with you I don’t really have their interest in mind.  That’s like me saying, “Hey Jeb, you don’t govern the way I think you should.  I know your family has given their entire lives to public service, but be honest, you’re in it for the money right.  You don’t care about people.”

Apples to Apples?

K12 Inc., the country's largest provider of online k-12 education has come under fire from several sources recently for it's attempts to turn a profit by drawing students away from traditional public education classrooms.  Just last week, the New York Times ran an article subtitled Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in the Classroom.  Sounds like a pretty bold claim, but we've argued before, with the dot.com decline and housing market bubble burst, education may be the last safe refuge for Wall Street in the 21st century.

Ron Packard, CEO of K12 Inc, issued a reply to this article yesterday in the Fordam Education Institute's Flypaper.  I'm not completely opposed to Virtual Education.  I believe that responsible virtual education within the framework of existing educational structures is vital for 21st century learning.  I do have reservations about a complete package of online education outsourced to a distant and nebulous institution whose primary purpose is maximizing profit.  This description may not fairly characterize K12 Inc., but Packard's defense of the company in response to the NY Times articles is less than convincing.  Of the several arguments presented by Ron Packard, I found number one most lacking.  I've pasted the text of his argument below:

Academic performance of virtual schools: K12 data shows that a large and growing number of students coming into virtual schools are below grade level. The high growth rate of virtual schools means that a large portion of students taking the state tests are in their first year. This makes static test scores poor measures of a school’s overall performance because students perform better on state tests the longer they are enrolled. To measure academic growth, K12 administers third party norm-referenced tests.  Data from these tests show students are making positive academic gains relative to national norms.

 This is not the first time that I've heard this argument to defend poor results of online learning or even charter schools.  So, let's look closely at this argument.  First, Mr. Packard argues that students coming into his schools are below grade level.  It stands to reason that their performance will fall below that of on-grade level students.  Does that mean it's the student's fault and not the school?  I'm o.k. with that as long as we let our "traditional" public schools put forth the same argument.  Do students matter or not?  We have to be careful not to allow student ability or circumstances to provide an excuse for poor service.  If online schools and charters are given a pass because of the population they're dealing with then let's not apply a different standard to public schools dealing with the same students in order to label them as failing.

Second, it looks like the tests are getting blamed.  In the world of public education, again this argument doesn't fly.  The tests are the tests and if you can't perform then you're not performing.  Have you noticed any of the value-added or growth model laws passing across the nation?  It doesn't matter whether students are transferring, adding, dropping, repeating, or not even in your class in some states.  If the test scores aren't good enough, you're not good enough.  That applies to schools and increasingly to teachers as well.  If the tests aren't good enough to judge online education and charters then why do we assume they're good enough to judge traditional public schools.

I suppose if you can be identified by initials and your stock is publicly traded a different set of standards apply.  That shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for a while that Wall Street standards don't apply to the rest of us.

Breaking the Public Schools

My colleague mentioned we are immersed in testing season...and to a teacher that imagery might more closely be associated with being water-boarded.  Watching your kids take one is awful...simply awful.  I am also passing through the busiest period of the tennis season and my coaching obligations, while very worthwhile, are quite extensive.  So below is assembled a hodgepodge of ideas I had recently that perhaps don't warrant their own post but I thought might be worth sharing via TU.


School Funding and Vouchers
One of the worst things we can do to education is continue the push to privatize it.  There is a role that for profit companies can play but when they get too big a piece of the pie they become like a dog fed at the table.  Once they get a taste of public funding they won't go away.  They become dependent on it and only want more.  Their presence is driven exclusively by one desire, to get what they want, profits.  In the case of schools it will come a very stable and reliable source, the government.  When profits are placed ahead of what's good for kids and schools, we've got trouble.  

As changes in funding continue to rattle the establishment things like vouchers come up.  I try to avoid discussing them as they tend to be a polarizing issue. I only ask that a few things be kept in mind.  They will not "fix" the schools we have.  Taking money from already underfunded schools(not necessarily where I work) is bad.  I've sat in private school classrooms and short of the the obvious they aren't a whole heck of a lot different from public school classrooms. But...those classrooms lie in schools that have the power to exclude kids and keep them out.  You want to fix public schools...give them that power.  Problems solved.  Wait .... what?    I would never actually suggest that.  I was a literary device called sarcasm and it illustrates how representing vouchers as the solution is way off base(that's a metaphor).

Vouchers are hard to nail down as they mean different things in different places. One of the few worthwhile efforts to figure out their impact came in Milwaukee where some smarterer folks than me looked at their impact(See the study summary here).  I only really remember one sentence as I perused it during an emotional episode of Deadliest Catch.  This was the sentence..."A full eight years after the school district expanded the voucher program, it is still not possible to measure whether voucher students in Milwaukee perform better or worse than their counterparts who remain in public schools."  Any questions?

Breaking the Teachers
What I am seeing is what I fear most.  This wave of reforms are getting rid of the good teachers not the so called "bad" ones.  High stakes testing doesn't reward the best teachers it frustrates them and drives them away.  Is the business model the best approach reformers on the outside can come up with?  What else should we expect when you have people who aren't really teachers making decisions.  While reading a recent article in The Daily Progress about how some Divisions Superintendents had approached the state about possible changes to Elementary SOLs, I was struck by a quote from Superintendent of Public Instruction Patricia Wright. While leaning against the requests she stated "I am a teacher at heart … and I just find it hard to believe that teachers can't be creative and they can't teach enriched curriculum while at the same time making sure that students have basic knowledge and skills"

I harbor no ill-will towards Wright and she might even be correct on the issue above.  But the teacher at heart part stuck in my craw(For those taking the biology SOL the "craw" is in your gut near where you get side stitches and next to the gizzard).  I googled her and found she "served as chief deputy superintendent, acting superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent for instruction, director of secondary instruction, associate director of secondary instruction and state mathematics specialist."  So its evident her ascension is well earned.  But to me that simply meant she has not worked in a Public School in 26 years.  Let's see...early to mid 80s... I was in school in the same county where I teach and if you are unaware, they have changed a bit since.

I flash back to a local elementary community classroom that had no separation between rooms and might be linked to my short attention span.  What was I saying?   Oh yes, I can't remember what we learned but I do remember some things.  I recall among them finding out I'd be re-districted to a new middle school in the coming year and how that affected my grades, watching the solar eclipse...dispensing with the cardboard contraption we made in science class and using my naked eye at various points, playing soccer during lunch and the day they wheeled in the Apple II so we could learn "LOGO" programming language.  The landmark I.D.E.A had even been thought up yet.  Some say education was better then, some say better now, but both agree different.

But Wright's no dummy.  She's articulate, highly educated, well-informed, and most importantly well-intentioned.  Here's what she is not.  She is not a teacher.  I'm a teacher.  No one thinks quite like me.  I know my school and I know my kids.  Why then do people listen to those who aren't teachers before listening to teachers?  Makes about as much sense as staring at an eclipse without that stupid cardboard box device on your head(see post for real facts here).

Before coming to VDOE in 1985, Dr. Wright taught mathematics for 10 years at the secondary and middle school levels in Sussex County and Chesterfield County public school.  But she no longer thinks like me, a teacher.  Not at all.  I suspect she thinks more like a politician.  She has served as the Super for both Democratic and Republican Governors and no one, I mean no one, thinks like a teacher, unless they teach kids each day, every day. 

Privatizing Education-The Market
Some argue to improve education we should let the markets control the direction of policy and decisions.  That's exactly what we shouldn't let happen as the "market" can be a very de-stabilizing element.  If nothing else public schools are stable.  They are admittedly hard to change but the good thing is that stability should be seen like a rock solid retirement investment.  Should we let Wall Street drive the decisions that prepare our children as it did for the economy in the period leading up to the end of 2007, or with the dot-coms bubble, or the oil spike of the 80s and 90s, or in the 1920s(the list goes on)?  High Risk, high reward?  I'd hope not but I think we are a little late. For 10 years now things have been leaning more and more in that direction.  What's changed for the better? While public confidence in schools is seemingly at an all time low, scary to think how readily talk of competition and improvement echoes a financial firms commercials.  But how much more fragile would schools and our confidence in schools be if we let Wall Streets or Gates and Broad lead?  One year's decline in scores or a principal's departure might undermine confidence as it does the market's confidence following a news headline or singular event.  One thing I know is that while funding our schools may be been more challenging during these periods of economic volatility, we should not take risks and cede control to those with divided loyalties.

All that is required for these things to occur is that smart level headed people, perhaps like those of you reading this blog, to say and do nothing.  Before you scurry down to the registrar and sign up to run for school board, get more informed.  Get more active and at the least more vocal about the issues affecting our schools. Talk to teachers and avoid claims of being on their side and ask what they think.  Most of all make sure the positions and decisions you support will not break what isn't yet broken.  Too many people already fit that mold.