My Response to Tom Moran

In case you missed it, earlier this week fellow educators and bloggers, Ani McHugh (Teacherbiz), Mark Weber (Jersey Jazzman) and I wrote a joint open letter to Star Ledger editorial director, Tom Moran, regarding his continuous support of the racist policies of Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson's One Newark plan. In addition to posting on all three of our blogs, it also ran at Blue Jersey and on Diane Ravitch's site.

Tom was not happy, and posted a response on Blue Jersey. To which Jazzman responded here and here.

Here's my response:

Dear Tom,

You missed our point so I'll say it again in my best teacher voice: One Newark has been proven to be a racist policy toward students and education professionals. You refuse to research and report the facts surrounding it (Journalism 101), reporting instead on your opinions and pre-conceived notions, therefore you support a racist policy. 

It's one thing to say you've talked to Diane Ravitch and Dr. Bruce Baker; it's quite another to listen to them. You cannot find two better experts on education policy: their credentials and reputations are sterling. Unlike the architects of One Newark, they are not afraid to submit their research to peer review. It obviously passes with flying colors because for many issues, their work is the gold standard. But you refuse to listen.

They are not alone. There are hundreds—if not thousands—of equally skilled education professionals around the country who have dedicated their careers to researching and reporting on what works and what doesn't in public education. They have written books, given lectures, and continue to research and report on the train wreck that is education 'reform' in the United States, and while you may talk to them or read their books, you refuse to listen.

In no other profession do we see such a complete disregard for expertise. In no other profession do we see veteran professionals with decades of experience tossed aside or called, in your words, "shrieking" or "shrill", or in it for "old school greed".

You also refuse to listen to the parents of Newark who know first hand the effects of this prejudicial policy. Their choices have been taken away, their demands ignored, their voices silenced, their children suffer. 

I'm sorry if what we wrote ticked you off, but for years parents and educators (we three are both) have been more than a little ticked off at journalists like you, who refuse to investigate and report the facts about policies that are rapidly destroying public education in this country and promulgating racism. As I write this, many citizens of Newark are performing an act of civil disobedience: boycotting the first day of school because they are simply fed up. 

So, we decided to present the facts—not that we haven't done that before. And your response was to curse and scream (offline), and rant (online). Did we hit a nerve?

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Tom, you refuse to accept the facts. You refuse to accept the proof. What you write about Cami and One Newark and Ras Baraka and the parents and concerned citizens of Newark and education professionals is factually incorrect. Continuing to believe and spread this false information, puts you in the same category as birthers, creationists, climate deniers and vaccine refusers. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's the truth. You are better than that. I read your column every day and I agree with what you write the majority of the time.

You can tell me I'm wrong—that's your opinion—but you can't prove it. The facts simply are not on your side.

If this were to be tried in a court of law (and I do hope that will happen one day soon), Cami & Co. will lose. Are you willing to stake your professional reputation on that? I am because the facts are on my side. How about you?

An Open Letter to Star-Ledger Editorial Board Director Tom Moran

(Note: This piece was co-authored with Ani McHugh, aka. TeacherBiz, and Mark Weber, aka. Jersey Jazzman, and is cross-posted on both their blogs.)

Dear Tom,

This week, you crossed a line.

Until now, your pieces in the Star-Ledger about Newark’s school system and the reorganization of the district have been ill-informed and reckless. You’ve ignored the warnings of teachers, parents, community leaders, researchers, and students, preferring instead to cling to recycled talking points crafted by those with scant little experience in education policy, but much to gain in profits.

You’ve paid a price: like your ridiculous attempt to walk back from your disastrous endorsement of Chris Christie, your continuing effort to support State Superintendent Cami Anderson while distancing yourself from the consequences of her catastrophic leadership has shredded any integrity you had left as a journalist. Any standing your newspaper had left as a champion of the people of Newark has also eroded: as with Anderson, no one in the city trusts you or the Star-Ledger’s editorial page anymore.

But as awful as your previous meanderings about Newark’s schools have been, at least you never had the bad taste to try to pawn off Anderson’s failures and your own poor judgement on to others. At least you never tried to make the case that the impending disaster of One Newark was the fault of anyone but the Christie administration, its appointed superintendent, and her enablers in government and the press.

This week, however, you crossed that line. We have tried individually in the past to get your attention to set the record straight to no avail (see all the links later in this piece). Therefore, we—professional educators with a combined total of seven degrees, a PhD in the works, and 38 years of teaching experience—who, along with countless others across this state, have stood against the illogical, faith-based, and racist education policies you regularly espouse for Newark from your position of influence, have come together to deliver you a message:

Shame on you, Tom Moran

Shame on you for sanctioning One Newark, a plan so controversial and discriminatory that it’s the subject of both state and federal civil rights complaints. Shame on you for ignoring and then blaming the people your newspaper is supposed to serve. Shame on you for refusing to educate yourself about the policies you endorse.

Why do you insist that educators must be held accountable for the sins of greed and the failure of government to address generational poverty, while no one holds you, the editorial director of the state’s largest newspaper, accountable for the half-truths and misinformation you spread?

“Shame on you for refusing to educate yourself about the policies you endorse.”

Fact vs. Fiction

Fiction:

You claim: “At the same time, the city’s most successful charter school chains will take over management of three district schools, fueling their explosive growth.” As we have explained to you over and over again, the ‘success’ of these charters hinges on the fact that they do not serve the same population of students as their neighboring public schools.

Fact:

Percentage qualifying for Free Lunch

NPS: 80%

North Star (Uncommon): 68%

TEAM (KIPP): 73%

Robert Treat Academy: 60%

Fact:

Percentage Limited English Proficient

NPS: 9%

North Star (Uncommon): 0%

TEAM (KIPP): 0%

Robert Treat Academy: 1%

Fact:

Percentage Special Education

NPS: 17.7%

North Star (Uncommon): 7.8%

TEAM (KIPP): 12.3%

Robert Treat Academy: 5.8%

(All enrollment data 2014 from the NJDOE; special education classification data 2013 from NJDOE.)

Fact:

The small number of special education students within Newark’s charters overwhelmingly have low-cost special educational needs: milder learning and speech disabilities. And both TEAM and North Star have engaged in well-documented patterns of student cohort attrition: according to Julia Sass Rubin of SOSNJ, nearly 60 percent of the black males from North Star’s Class of 2014 dropped out between 5th and 12th Grade.

Fact:

Mark Weber and Dr. Bruce Baker have published several policy briefs explaining, in painstaking detail, why One Newark has little chance of succeeding:

• There is no evidence Newark’s charters can succeed with equivalent populations of students to those of NPS.
• The plan is racially biased, both against students and against their teachers.
• The district has apparently committed several serious methodological errors in creating the plan; we say apparently because NPS has never released its methods, and the Star-Ledger has never demanded that they do.
• The information the district released in the One Newark application about the quality of Newark’s schools is invalid.

We would think this last issue would concern you, a journalist, the most. You claim that Newark’s parents are clamoring to get into charter schools. What if, however, those parents are making their choices based on false information from Anderson’s administration? What if the waiting lists you point to—lists, by the way, whose lengths are wildly exaggerated—are the product of both the state’s neglect of Newark’s public schools and oversold claims from NPS—and your editorial page—of charter schools’ successes?

Separate and Unequal Education

The sad truth is that parents in your town of Montclair (or any other mostly white, mostly wealthy suburban community) would never willingly subject their own children to what’s happening in Newark right now:

• Public schools being closed without community input
• Children in the same family being sent to different schools in different parts of town on a transportation system that’s never been tested
• Tax dollars going to a school system that is separate and unequal: that segregates the neediest students from those who are the easiest and least expensive to educate
• The harsh, unforgiving “no excuses” disciplinary policies that are characteristic of so many charter schools
• Massive layoffs of education professionals
• A superintendent who has been a colossal failure at fiscal management  
• Schools in such disrepair that they are unsafe to occupy
• A superintendent who refuses to listen, who refuses to attend board of ed meetings, and who is not supported by the community

In fact, the parents of Montclair are fighting back right now, but you have not written one word about it. Why is it okay for them to fight back, but when the parents of Newark do so, you accuse them of “shrieking" and being "shrill and unreasonable"? Aren't the parents of Newark smart enough to know what’s good for their own children? Don’t you think they can smell a rat as well as someone from the ‘burbs?

Public education belongs to the public. The board of ed is answerable to all the people. But in Newark? Meh, what do those people know? They have no money, so they have no voice. They aren’t the right skin color, so they have no voice. They can’t write big campaign checks, so they have no voice. They aren’t concerned parents. They are, in your words:

“CONSPIRACY THEORISTS”

Yea, these parents look really crazy

... so do these students

Were these people “conspiracy theorists” too…?

Tin Foil Hats and Fox Mulder: The Truth is Out There

The message Newark parents hear from you is that if they would just shut up, take off their tin foil hats and let all these rich, smart (that term is used very loosely) white folk completely up-end their lives, they’ll crawl back on their hands and knees someday in thanks and praise.

But you’re wrong. Just because many are working class or poor, don’t speak the King’s English as well as you, refuse to stand on protocol at board of ed meetings because they’re sick and tired of the people in charge not listening when they use their ‘indoor voices’, are “voting with their feet” (as you so love to say of all those charter parents) by boycotting the first day of school, you accuse them of being crazy and—perhaps the cruelest cut of all—not giving a damn about their own children:

“[Anderson] is facing determined opposition from local activists and politicians who don’t seem to give a damn about the children.

…

“why not organize a protest march, or a sit-in, or even acts of civil disobedience? Why would your first big move be to keep kids out of classrooms when so many of them can’t read at grade level?”

Tom, the activists are parents. Keeping children home from school is an act of civil disobedience. The parents of Newark are not “conspiracy theorists”; they are concerned citizens who want what’s best for their children—just like parents in your town—but they’ve been shut out of the conversation. And you owe them an apology.

The fact is, Tom, the majority of opposition comes from parents and students who are supported by the clergy, unionized education professionals (whom you seem to hate for some reason even though NJ consistently ranks at the top in public education) and elected officials, some of whom also happen to live in the community. In case you hadn’t noticed, Mayor Ras Baraka ran and won on a platform to stop this madness. He was elected by a majority of the citizens of Newark, and he has dedicated his professional career—most recently as principal of Central High School—to the children and families of Newark.  But you, Tom, wonder “if the kids fit into the mayor’s political calculus at all?” Do you really believe that Ras Baraka is less committed to the children of his city than Cami Anderson, an outsider from California who lives in the suburbs?

In your X-Files world, conspiracy theorists are people “who see charter schools as a dark plot by Wall Street to somehow suck money out of the public system.” Should we assume you aren’t aware of the ways Qualified School Construction Bonds enrich charters while neighborhood schools starve—and at the same time translate to big profits for banks? (Are you also unaware that David Samson, who just resigned from his Port Authority position because of that pesky Bridgegate mess, is a partner of the law firm that oversees bond transactions between charters and banks?) The fact that you flat-out refuse to accept the mountains of evidence (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) linking Wall Street profits with the explosion of charter schools completely discredits you as a legitimate journalist.

“The fact that you flat-out refuse to accept the mountains of evidence linking Wall Street profits with the explosion of charter schools completely discredits you as a legitimate journalist.”

And as for children not being able to “read at grade level,” it’s important first to note that the link you reference details students’ scores on standardized tests, which are inherently flawed and economically-and racially-biased—and which are not indicators of students’ “grade level.” But if we are to keep with your language, there are a myriad of reasons children can’t read at grade level; many have little to do with what goes on inside a classroom. And setting up a system that closes schools, replaces veteran educators with inexperienced ones, and prevents hundreds of parents from enrolling their children does nothing to help those children.

How many times do we have to say this?

We’ve tried to reason with you and the rest of the Star-Ledger editorial board many times (here, here, here, here, here, and here), but your failure to acknowledge the evidence with which you’ve been presented makes your defense of Cami Anderson and her One Newark plan all the more troubling.  

Unlike you, Tom, we believe that responsibility for the gross failures of One Newark rests solely on the shoulders of Cami Anderson and her supporters— not on the shoulders of the parents, educators, researchers, community members, and elected officials who recognize and denounce One Newark’s glaring flaws and Cami Anderson’s failed leadership.  

This image is from apartheid-era South Africa

Who will be sitting at this bus stop on the first day of school in Newark? It’s not hard to figure out, Tom. It won’t be kids from your town.

Sincerely,

Marie Corfield

Ani McHugh

Mark Weber

The Ten Commandments of Public Education

I. Public schools are open to everyone. Thou shalt not call charter schools public because they aren't.

• Charter schools do not have elected boards that answer to the public 
• Charter schools are not subject to the same laws and regulations as public schools
• Charter schools can and do cherry pick the best students
• Through convoluted business deals many charter school operators make enormous sums of money but the schools perform on average, no better than public schools 
• Education is a right of every citizen in the US. Closing schools, and denying students access to a thorough and efficient education (New Orleans and Newark are 2 recent examples) takes away that right.
• 'Choice' does not equal 'Access'. A lottery does not guarantee every child who wants to attend a charter will be able to attend—and graduate.

II. Thou shalt not take the name of teachers in vain.

• No bashing, trashing, demoralizing or name calling
• We're not greedy, lazy or selfish
• We're not all inept or incompetent. As in any profession, there are some who are not doing a good job. It's the administrator's job to take all legal steps necessary to help the educator, or file tenure charges.
• We are not sitting around waiting to collect a pension
• We are not responsible for the physical, emotional and psychological baggage our students carry with them to school every day
• We are not responsible for poor parenting
• We are highly educated taxpayers, neighbors, citizens, voters and productive members of society who deserve to be treated with the same respect as any other profession

III. Keep holy the instructional time, the professional development time and yes, the down time.

• Our professional development time should be spent developing our craft, collaborating with peers and strategizing for our students—not doing meaningless busy work like data collection
• Many educators put in 60+ hours a week, so burn out is a real issue. If educators are burned out, they are less effective. With the increased emphasis on testing and test prep, the amount of work educators are now expected to do is simply unrealistic
• We want to teach to students—not to tests

IV. Honor thy educators

• We are the solution—not the problem
• We want a seat at the table
• Education 'reform' that is done to educators instead of with educators will fail. Just ask Michelle Rhee.
• Tenure is not a recipe for 'bad teaching'. There is no correlation between tenure and 'failing students'. Tenure means due process—'innocent until proven guilty'. The court of public opinion is not the place to decide the fate of an educator. It should not take years and enormous amounts of money to remove an ineffective educator from the classroom. States have already revised tenure laws to shorten the length of the process. NY and NJ are perfect examples. 


• Don't sugar coat us with compliments, praise and syrupy-sweet pronouncements, and don't tell the world that educators should be paid more while simultaneously trying to destroy basic job protections and slashing funding which will deter highly qualified and capable graduates from making a career in education. With all those dogs who ate all that homework, our b.s. radar is pretty high.

V. Thou shalt not kill public education

• Fund public education! Every dollar that is cut is another nail in the coffin. 

VI. Thou shalt not lie cheat on test scores

• Cheating is cheating. When you do it, everyone suffers—especially students. This goes for public as well as charter schools. 

VII. Thou shalt not steal mine student data 

• No selling to/sharing with for-profit education companies
• No selling to/sharing with people and businesses that have no educational experience
• No selling to/sharing with public media that will use it to attack educators

VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against public education

• The effects of poverty have been proven to impede brain function and a child's ability to learn
• The US has the second highest child poverty rate in the industrialized world
• When poverty is factored out, US students rank among the best in the world
• We do not have 'failing' schools. We have segregated schools in high poverty neighborhoods.
• We do not have an epidemic of 'bad teachers'. We have many educators who face enormous challenges working in high poverty schools that are underfunded and understaffed.
• Good prenatal care has been proven to help students perform better in school, yet the US has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world
• We do not have a high school dropout 'crisis'. The US high school graduation rate for students who earn a diploma in four years is almost 80%; it's about 90% for those who earn it in four to six years.
• Some reasons students take more than four years to earn a diploma: military service, prolonged illness, moving either out of the country or for migratory work, going to work to help support the family
• Testing does not improve teaching or student learning
• Testing does not fix chronic poverty 

IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighborhood public school's best and brightest students

• Charter schools skim the best students from the top and counsel out or simply do not provide services for the most challenging and therefore most expensive students, who are then sent back to the underfunded public schools

X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighborhood public school's resources

• Every child who leaves a public school to attend a charter school takes up to 90% of their per-pupil funding with them, but the public school's fixed costs don't decrease. This combined with unprecedented funding cuts to public education depletes valuable resources and renders public schools less able to do their job.