School 'Choice' in Trumplandia

What will public education look like in the Trump/DeVos universe? More of the same.

via GIPHY

Like so many other 'reformers', DeVos will dangle the carrots of 'choice' and vouchers in front of urban parents, and public education as we know it will end—at least in the inner cities where parents have little say. She's already wreaked havoc in Detroit, a city that doesn't need one more ounce of despair. Valerie Strauss writes,

In Detroit, parents of school-age children have plenty of choices, thanks to the nation’s largest urban network of charter schools. 

What remains in short supply is quality.
... 

This deeply dysfunctional educational landscape — where failure is rewarded with opportunities for expansion and “choice” means the opposite for tens of thousands of children — is no accident. It was created by an ideological lobby that has zealously championed free-market education reform for decades, with little regard for the outcome.  

And at the center of that lobby is Betsy DeVos, the west Michigan advocate whose family has contributed millions of dollars to the cause of school choice and unregulated charter expansion throughout Michigan.

'Choice' connotes available options, but for many trapped in 'reform land', there really are none. 

When state governments deliberately underfund urban public schools to make them 'fail', how is that choice?

When charter schools cherry pick their students, how is that 'choice'?

When parents choose their public school, but it's forced to close because a charter has drained money away, how is that choice?

When the community has no say in how their school district is run, how is that choice?

"But, Marie," you say, "what about those vouchers?" 

Well, what about them? DeVos's master plan is to hand families a voucher of up to $12 thousand to send their children to their school of ‘choice’—including religious schools. If only my grandmother, who wrote my Catholic school tuition checks for 12 years, was alive to see this.

What an opportunity for students who live in high poverty/high needs neighborhoods—especially here in New Jersey! Right...? I mean, in addition to many of the finest public schools in the country, we also have some mighty fine and mighty pricey private schools. But hold on... don't go out and buy that blue blazer and khaki pants just yet. See, the funny thing about 'choice' is that it doesn't equal 'access', and that's where Betsy & Co. have those urban parents by the you-know-whats. 

Here's a list of New Jersey's top private schools and their tuition (added by me). Twelve thousand dollars won’t even cover half the tuition at most of these schools, let alone provide any guarantee of admittance—or transportation:

• The Lawrenceville School, Lawrence $47,800 - $57,800

• The Pingry School, Warren $29,000 - $35,000

• Newark Academy, Livingston $37,900

• Delbarton School, Morris $35,500

• Kent Place School, Summit $15,800 - $39,000 

• Collegiate School, Passaic $5,000 - $7,500

• Peddie School, Hightstown $43,500 - $52,600

• Dwight-Englewood School, Englewood $30,600

All of these schools provide a terrific education, and I don't begrudge for one minute parents who choose to send their children to them. But, none of them is anywhere near Camden or Asbury Park or Trenton or Long Branch or Gloucester or most of the rest of New Jersey's 31 former 'Abbott' districts that Gov. Christie has forced 'choice' on. And these schools really do have something those voucher-holding parents don't have: choice—which students to accept and which to reject. 

No, low income, urban students will have to apply (not 'choose') to attend a local charter or religious school that lacks public fiscal oversight, that may or may not accept them, and that may or may not be any better than the local public school. Suburban students also have to apply and be accepted to their private school of 'choice', but unlike urban students, the socioeconomic status of those suburban kids provides them with far more connections to 'access' like carpool pickups from the local Starbucks... or Wegmans... or Whole Foods... or... 

So much for ‘choice’.

"But parents need choice! The free market will drive competition and make education great again!", DeVos proclaims. Oy! Let's ask parents in Washington, DC, Milwaukee, Louisiana and Indiana how those vouchers have worked out. 

Competition may be good for selling cars, but not for educating children. But Betsy DeVos doesn't care about that. She isn't interested in whether all students actually get into their school of 'choice' because those with means and/or the proper skin color will always have 'access' to the best educations, and that's all that really matters in Billionaire Land anyway. 

In the meantime, those without will continue to suffer, and the profiteers will profit. But as long as the appearance of 'choice' is out there, and she can get away with forcing her religious beliefs onto one of the last bastions of a free and democratic society, all will be well. 

This is not how to ‘make America great again’.

As charter cheerleaders cheer their cure-all cheers, I repeat my mantra: 

'Choice' does not equal 'Access' 

Your tax dollars at work...

Credit: Wikipedia

How's that workin' for ya?

For more information on Betsy DeVos, follow the bloggers on the right hand side of this page. 

And please call your US Senators and urge them to vote No on her confirmation. 

Is @Pearson the new KGB?

Pearson: Rolling over teachers who dare to speak out

It began with discreet data collection. For a while now Pearson has been quietly collecting information about our children, students and schools, and sharing it with third party vendors—many of which are funded with 'reformy' money—for a whole host of reasons. 

Then last year, Bob Braun's blog site was mysteriously shut down for a brief period coincidentally right after he posted this piece about Pearson spying on students who were tweeting about the PARCC test. Valerie Strauss picked up the story in her column at the Washington Post.

But wait, there's more...

Leonie Haimson and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy have been monitoring student data mining for quite some time. Just two months ago they reported that Lacey Twp parent, Heather Hicks, complained to her local board of ed about a blended learning software used in her son's biology class, the contract for which was later not renewed. 

Heather was surprised to discover later that she was repeatedly criticized by Bruce Friend, the chief operating officer of iNACOL (the International Association of K-12 Online Learning) in a February 10, 2016 workshop he gave at  Pearson’s CITE 2016 conference – in a presentation called “Gaining Stakeholder Buy-in for your Online/Blended Learning Program.”  He later gave the same presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Conference on Personalized Learning, where the session was described this way:

Gaining Stakeholder Buy-in for Blended Learning This session will address the importance of gaining stakeholder support as you seek to build a blended (or online) learning program. Stakeholders include students, parents, teachers, school leaders. We will share effective strategies in gaining the support of these key contacts; discuss barriers to gaining support; and share examples of the consequences when stakeholder support is not achieved.

Heather made this video to tell the real story of what happened. It highlights the lengths to which ed 'reformers' will go to spin their rhetoric, deny the facts and crush the opposition. This is the only way they can keep their house of cards from falling. Obviously what Heather did struck a nerve. Please watch this video before you read the rest of this post.




And then yesterday, Diane Ravitch posted this:

Celia Oyler, professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, posted a biting commentary by an anonymous teacher about the flaws of PARCC. She received a letter from PARCC threatening legal action unless she removed the post because it contained copyrighted material —and divulged the name of the author. 

Oyler left the post on her blog but removed anything that might be copyrighted. She has not given up the name of the author. Many people who posted a link to Oyler’s original post or tweeted it received an email warning that they should remove the link or expect legal action. 

Peter Greene posted about the test, based on Oyler’s blog, and flew under the radar. He didn’t receive a threat from PARCC, and I feel badly for him. 

He wrote, in his inimitable fashion (emphasis mine): 

“You know what kind of test needs this sort of heavy security? A crappy test.” 

As Leonie Haimson said in a tweet, it is crazy to give a test to millions of students and expect that no one would write about it or talk about it. 

There is something worse than disclosure of “secure” test items. There is loss of reputation. And that is what PARCC is putting at risk with its heavy-handed tactics.

This teacher is no Edward Snowden. He/she is not giving up state secrets. There is no imminent threat of invasion or terrorist attack. As Diane said, the only 'threat' here is the loss of a reputation built on... well... CCRAP.

Taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being wasted. Parents and students have the right to know how completely inappropriate this test is. And educators have the right to blow the whistle. 

Although I don't want to see this teacher punished in any way, I do look forward to the day that Pearson does take someone to court, and they have to defend this worthless piece of CCRAP.