As 2015 comes to an end, I have three education-related wishes for the year ahead.

1. In 2016 I hope education reporters will do a better job than I did of “following the money.”  When charter schools became an option in most states, profit-seekers emerged in droves.  Some are running for-profit charter schools, but others are operating what are legally non-profit institutions.  I think a lot of these folks are pulling a fast one and are ripping off the public, but I was never able to report that story.   In a better world, the legitimate charter school industry would recognize the threat to their ‘brand’ and would fight for transparency in financial and other dealings.  With few exceptions, unfortunately, that’s not happening.
2. I wish and hope that many school superintendents and school boards will take advantage of the murky atmosphere surrounding the new education law that has replaced No Child Left Behind. It’s about 1000 pages, and the regulations have yet to emerge.  Now is the time to do the right thing for students.  Most educators know schools test too much, and they know that so-called ‘rigorous’ education is boring kids to tears.  Now is the right time for courageous progressives to embrace  project-based learning, blended learning, and challenging curricula that replaces what I call ‘regurgitation education.’  NOW is the time, and the window won’t remain open long.
3. I hope that the opt-out movement will soon decide what it is FOR, because it’s never enough to be against something.  My sense is that many who are angry about what they perceive as ‘over-testing’ want schools that ask “How is each child intelligent?” to replace the system that gives tests in order to label, classify and sort children.  Individualized attention is possible today, thanks to technology–but only if we harness the machines to allow children to dig.  I recommend our film, School Sleuth: The Case of the Wired Classroom,” for a strong view of what can go wrong and what is possible.  The link to watch the 55-minute film is https://vimeo.com/122667211  The password is schoolsleuth123.  You will also get a kick out of the celebrities who help the (clueless) Sleuth ‘solve’ the case. (And the beautiful and talented jazz singer who opens and closes the film is my younger daughter.)

May 2016 bring peace and justice.  Happy New Year!

When I questioned Kaya Henderson’s record as Schools Chancellor in Washington, D.C. in this space last week, most of the criticism was directed at me personally. “Odious rambling” was one of the gentler ad hominem epithets, while others tweeted about my mental decline. One critic wrote a strong defense of Henderson’s record but carefully cherry-picked data to make the Rhee/Henderson regime appear successful.

So let’s look at all the data, because, my critics to the contrary, the past nine years of ‘test and punish’ education have done significant damage to the life chances of poor and minority students in Washington’s public schools, both traditional public schools and charter schools.

While in some grades scores have gone up, that is most likely the result of a change in student population.  The percentage of white test-takers has increased steadily over the last decade (5% to 16% in 4^th grade and 5% to 9% or 10% in 8^th grade), as has the percentage of Hispanic students (9% to 16% in 4^th grade and 7% to 15% in 8^th grade). In Nation’s Capital, almost all whites are from well-to-do families, while Hispanics and blacks are mostly low-income.

Consider 8th grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called ‘The Nation’s Report Card.’ From 2007 to 2015, the NAEP scores of low income students in DC increased just one point, from 232 to 233, while scores of non-low income (called ‘other’) climbed 18 points, from 263 to 281.   Over that same time period, the percentage of low income students scoring at the proficient level remained at an embarrassingly low 8%, while proficiency among ‘other’ students climbed from 34% to 53%.    An analysis of the data by race between 2007 and 2015 is also discouraging: Black proficiency increased two points, from 9% to 11%, while Hispanic proficiency actually declined from 22% to 17%.  In 2007 the white student population was not large enough to be measured, but in 2015 white proficiency was at 75%.

The results in 4th grade are equally depressing, with low income students making small gains, while ‘others’ jump up to respectable levels.  The 4th grade proficiency gap between low income and ‘other’ students has increased from 26% to 62% during Michelle Rhee’s and Kaya Henderson’s terms in office.

The 8th graders and the 4th graders have spent their entire school lives in a system controlled by Rhee and Henderson.

Mary Levy, a respected observer of DC schools, notes that “Figures for ‘economically disadvantaged’ students in 2013 and 2015 include some number of non-low-income test-takers, because most schools now provide free lunch to all their students, and no longer collect family income forms. Thus, low-income scores are inflated by some unknown amount compared to those in earlier years.”  In other words, these discouraging results are probably worse than they appear.

While achievement gaps between DCPS whites and black or Hispanic scores have diminished somewhat since 2003, they are still enormous. White proficiency rates now run about 65 percentage points above black proficiency rates and 53 to 61 percentage points above Hispanic rates.

The achievement gaps between DCPS economically disadvantaged and other students have widened continually over the last decade, and are now over twice as high in 4^th grade and two-and-a-half times as high in 8^th.  They started at 18-25 and are now 47-58 scale score points.

In short, despite all the promises made by Rhee and Henderson, the ‘achievement gap’ between well-to-do kids and poor kids has widened on her watch, and the gains on the NAEP seem to be a byproduct of gentrification. The uptick in graduation rates, while real, is minuscule, and DC continues to lag behind almost every other urban district.

DC’s scores on the Common Core test known as PAARC were embarrassingly low, as were the most recent reading scores of DC’s fourth graders.

Henderson said these results were a wake-up call–as if she had not been running the system for the past five years, as if she should not  be held accountable.

And the Mayor and City Council just shrugged.

Is it possible that Kaya Henderson is not really in charge of the DC public schools?  Could Henderson be a place-holder for a shadow chancellor, the rich and powerful woman who stage-managed her hiring when Michelle Rhee left?  That’s the conclusion drawn by Jeffrey Anderson in a recent issue of City Paper, and he makes a strong case that Katherine Bradley, the philanthropist and wife of the publisher of the Atlantic, is actually calling the shots.

If Anderson is correct, then DC schools are a pawn in a political and ideological struggle, and actually doing something about it will require some heavy lifting.  Merely removing Kaya Henderson would not change things if a shadow chancellor can simply replace her with someone who will continue to push for greater growth in the charter sector.

Oh, by the way, DC’s charter schools do only marginally better and sometimes worse than DCPS schools in almost all categories.

Because facts matter, and because Black and Hispanic lives matters, it’s time for DC’s elected political leaders to show what they are made of.

Why Is Washington Celebrating Kaya Henderson’s Five Year Anniversary?

Last month Kaya Henderson celebrated her fifth anniversary as Chancellor of the public schools in Washington, DC.  Five years at the helm of an urban district is a milestone that few big city superintendents achieve, and she has been praised for hanging in and for calming down the storm created by Michelle Rhee, whose 3+ year reign was marked by numerous controversies, included the massive scandal sometimes called “Erasergate,” when USA Today investigative reporters found that thousands of student answers were changed–and almost always from ‘wrong’ to ‘right.’

The Washington Post, a consistent cheerleader for Henderson and her controversial predecessor, celebrated Henderson’s anniversary with a largely laudatory article that included praise from two members of Washington’s education establishment, US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the long time Executive Director of the Great City Schools, Michael Casserly.  The latter called Henderson “one of the most effective and popular school leaders any place in the country.”  As the Post put it, “Unlike her predecessor, whose turbulent style and top-down approach made enemies of many teachers and politicians, Henderson is credited with taking a more collaborative approach.”  That’s another way of saying that Henderson is a “kinder, gentler version of Rhee,” a familiar observation over the years.

But a closer look at what Henderson has achieved reveals that there’s little reason to celebrate.

It’s true that DC’s scores on NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, have improved faster than any other urban district’s and that graduation rates have moved up to 64%, but as Post reporter Michael Allison Chandler noted, the DC results are, at best, mixed. Earlier this year a report by the National Research Council pointed out that most of the academic gain was likely the result of more affluent families moving into Washington and enrolling their children in public schools.  The gaps between wealthy and poor remain huge–and have actually increased–under Rhee and Henderson, despite the District’s spending considerably more than surrounding school districts.

Casting even more doubt on the efficacy of the Rhee/Henderson approach are the Common Core test results.  Barely 10 percent of District students who took the PAARC geometry test, and only 25 percent of those taking the English test, achieved ‘college and career ready’ status.  And at fourteen of the District’s high schools not one student reached that level in mathematics; at four high schools no students achieved that level in English.  This is a catastrophic failure, strong evidence that something is seriously wrong in Washington’s schools.

Faced with these disastrous results, Henderson tried to embrace them as a wakeup call.   According to the Post, she told the Mayor and the City Council that the results would help reset expectations. “What we have effectively told our kids is that if you make it to the 50-yard line you made a touchdown, when we knew that a touchdown is at the other end of the field.”

Her public posture is curious.   Who is the ‘we‘ that Henderson is referring to, if not herself and Rhee? After all, they have run the District schools for going on NINE years.  Shouldn’t they have ‘reset expectations’ a half dozen or so years ago?  And why on God’s green earth aren’t the Mayor and the City Council asking some tough questions of Henderson and demanding explanations for the consistent failure?  Are they so grateful for the calm that they are willing to overlook massive educational malpractice?

It seems to me that the District’s academic performance–the NAEP gaps, the PAARC scores, the exodus of veteran teachers and principals–are prima facie evidence of the bankruptcy of the Rhee/Henderson ‘test and punish’ approach.  Henderson may in fact be a ‘kinder, gentler version’ of Michelle Rhee, but she’s still an acolyte and enthusiast for policies that damage learning opportunities for children.

Henderson has taken pains to separate herself and her approach from her best friend, but they were joined at the hip during Rhee’s tenure. I have written extensively about the cheating scandal.  The long and short of it is this: when the erasures were reported, one of Rhee’s acolytes hired an outside consultant to look at the scores; his confidential report indicated that adults, not students, had done the erasing.  He made it clear that he suspected that Rhee’s principals were responsible for changing the scores, perhaps tempted by the promise of cash bonuses.

The timing was inauspicious, to say the least. Rhee and Henderson had already publicly celebrated the score gains with great fanfare and those substantial cash bonuses  to high-achieving teachers and principals. Going public would have meant embarrassment for Rhee and Henderson.  On the other hand, keeping quiet meant lying to thousands of students about their prowess.  Many had actually done poorly and were in need of remedial help, and leaving the phony scores in place meant they were being promoted and would not get the help they needed.

The leadership chose silence.  With full knowledge, they looked the other way and let the fraudulent scores stay in place.

(Was that decision made by Rhee, or by the team of Rhee and Henderson?  Henderson claims that she was out of the loop.  At one point, she surprised the DC City Council by testifying under oath–completely unprompted–that she first learned of the confidential memo from me–and that she had never even seen it!  However, a reliable source told of being in a meeting where Rhee and Henderson spoke of the memo and the consequences of its becoming public.  Is it credible that Rhee would not have discussed the memo with her Deputy and best friend?  Not to me.  I believe our source.)

The ensuing coverup, orchestrated largely by Henderson and Rhee, was a work of art, aided by an inept Inspector General and a compliant Washington Post editorial page.  “It’s not the crime; it’s the coverup” is the cliché, but Henderson and Rhee have gotten away with both.

If past is prologue, The Washington Post is unlikely to look at the harsh truth about the Rhee/Henderson approach to education.

Nationally, many in education are waking up to the failures of ‘test and punish,’ and the new ESEA pulls back on testing. Of course we need ways of assessing teachers, but teachers themselves have to be part of the process.  Every other country uses tests to assess students, not to play gotcha with teachers.

The approach to ‘education reform’ begun by Michelle Rhee in 2007 and continuing under Kaya Henderson to this day is a failure and a fraud.  Washington’s students and teachers deserve better……

 

 

 

THE SPEECH I AM WAITING FOR

 

Like most political junkies, I’ve been paying close attention to the prolonged campaign for the presidency.  Sadly, except for widespread bashing of the Common Core, no candidate is saying much about education.  Because that’s the issue I have reported on for 41 years, I’m still hoping to hear at least one of the would-be Presidents say something positive about children and education. To advance that hope, I am offering this speech to whichever candidate wishes to adopt its ideas.

 

 

“My fellow Americans, I want to say a few words about a topic of vital importance that rarely–if ever–has come up in this campaign for the nomination: Children and their education.

 

America’s children are part of a President’s constituency.  Because children have civil rights, and because government has a long tradition of helping those most in need, it will be my duty and responsibility to help protect children, especially the disadvantaged and those with special needs.

 

However, I want to assure you that, if you honor me by electing me to lead this nation, my administration will not try to micro-manage–or even manage–America’s schools.  Those duties and responsibilities belong to local communities and state governments. I think we can agree that the two previous Administrations, only one of which was from my party, conclusively demonstrated that Washington cannot run public education. Although the Republicans’ “No Child Left Behind” and the Democrats’ “Race to the Top” began with good intentions, both ended up damaging children, teachers, and schools.

 

So that’s my promise to you: the schools are not Washington’s responsibility, and my administration will behave accordingly.

 

However, I will not be reluctant to use the Presidential ‘bully pulpit’ to speak about our children’s future, because America needs all her children to grow to their fullest potential.  The days when it was acceptable for our schools to sort children into winners and losers–sending some off to college while others were shuffled off to do physical labor–are long gone.

 

That education system was designed to look at each child and ask, “How intelligent is he/she?”  Or, more bluntly, “What’s he/she good for?” Those days are over, because, quite frankly, we simply don’t have enough children to continue this practice, not if we want a strong economy and a strong democracy.  If we don’t change how we teach all our children, other countries are going to eat our lunch–or eat us for lunch.

 

What if we were to ask a different question?  What if the adults in charge looked at each child and asked “How are you intelligent?” instead of “How intelligent are you?”  Asked “What about you is good?” instead of “What are you good for?”  The answers would help identify each child’s strengths and interests, allowing adults to create approaches to teaching and learning built on his/her assets–and giving to every child real opportunities to soar.

 

This is being done with remarkable success in a handful schools. Frankly, it is a worthy goal for all schools, and it’s an achievable goal because, in the hands of skilled teachers, technology allows individualization in ways that no one even dreamed of 50–or even 15–years ago.

 

Once students have grown and graduated and are applying for jobs, there’s plenty of time to ask the competitive, sorting questions.  Those shouldn’t be avoided, because we all must be judged on what we are capable of doing.  But judgment day should not be in elementary school.

 

My administration will do all it can to support schools and educators who ask that key question, “How is each child intelligent?”   At every opportunity in this campaign and as your President, I will urge parents to demand that approach, and we will ask the Congress to provide funds to support it.

 

All our children deserve no less.  Thank you.”

 

Any takers?

 

 

OFF THE GRID

My wife and I are leaving the country for three weeks in Ethiopia and Madagascar.  We will miss a few Presidential debates, but I don’t expect the candidates to address the issue I care most about, children and their education.  Of, if they do, it will be in the form of rants against the Common Core.  Sad and predictable

Here’s a prediction: While we are away, another shoe will drop in the Eva Moskowitz/Success Academies story that you may have been following on the PBS NewsHour and in the New York Times.  It won’t come from me, and I am not in touch with Times reporter Kate Taylor, but you can count on more headlines about excessive use of out-of-school suspensions and attrition emerging in the near future.

A number of people have written to ask for more data about out of school suspensions at Success Academies.  We used the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) to get data from Success Academies, from other charter networks, and from traditional public schools located near or sharing space with charter schools.  Because the state asks only about the number of students suspended, schools do not have to report the total number of suspensions–and so, not surprisingly, they do not.

• Success Academy Crown Heights, a K-1 school, issued 57 suspensions to 18 students.

• Success Academy Prospect Heights, also K-1, issued 44 suspensions to 12 students, one of whom was suspended 12 times, until the parents finally withdrew the child.

• Success Academy Harlem 1 reported to the state that it suspended 125 students in 2013-14; what it did not have to report was that it handed out 279 suspensions.

• Harlem 2 suspended 102 students but handed out 225 out of school suspensions.

• Harlem 3 suspended 90 students 262 times.

• Bronx 1 suspended 42 students 118 times.

Reporting is on an honor system. Our FOIA indicates that Success Academies seems to have underreported or mis-reported suspensions on several occasions, judging from what is posted on the state’s website.

• Bed-Stuy 1 reported 10 suspensions to the state but acknowledged to us that it suspended 22 children 49 times.

• Bed-Stuy 2 told the state that it had zero suspensions but acknowledged to us that it suspended 26 children 80 times.

• Cobble Hill Success Academy reported zero suspensions to the state but in response to our FOIA acknowledged suspending 26 children 92 times.

These are elementary schools, some with only Kindergarten and First Grades.  The complete response is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5mXKGS4xL6iVDRvaDBpdFVkdFE/view?usp=sharing

(It’s a story for another day, perhaps, but a few charter school operators simply did not respond to the FOIA letters, even thought the law requires disclosure.  Give Success Academies credit, because it was forthcoming and thorough. I suspect that some charter operators are grateful with Eva as the lightning rod, because they are getting away with murder–figuratively speaking, of course.)

What I will be wondering while we travel:  Will the Administration have more to say about ‘too much testing’ and the need to limit testing?  I thought the Presidential announcement, with Education Secretary Arne Duncan chiming in, about a 2% cap on testing time was bizarre.  I remain astounded at how tone-deaf those folks sounded, particularly when floating the idea of a FEDERAL LAW capping testing time!  And how exactly would that be enforced?  Hasn’t anyone down there learned anything about the limits on federal power to run our schools?

I hope they learned something from the public response to the notion of capping testing but somehow I doubt it.  With Secretary Duncan leaving fairly soon, he must be concerned about his legacy.  However, talking now about ‘too much testing’ isn’t going to help.

See you in three weeks or so

DAMAGING THE BRAND

Charter schools and their networks desperately need a HALL OF SHAME.  What’s more, the push to create it should be coming from the charter school community.

I have been observing what is called the ‘charter school movement’ from Day One, a historic meeting at the headwaters of the Mississippi River in 1988 that I moderated. Back then, the dream was that every district would open at least one ‘chartered school,’ where enrollment and employment would be voluntary and where new ideas could be field-tested.  Successes and failures would be shared, and the entire education system would benefit.

That naive optimism would be laughable if it were not for the harm that has befallen many students and the millions taken from public treasuries by some charter school operators (regardless of whether their schools are ‘for-profit’ or ‘non-profit).’

As I see it, the term is in danger of becoming toxic, and I think the blame falls squarely on the leadership in the charter school movement, and on politicians who are indifferent to the needs of children but responsive to constituents motivated by ideology or greed.

Of course, the movement has a HALL OF FAME, to pat each other on the back and share success stories, so why not establish a HALL OF SHAME?

Who’s ripping off the system?  Who belongs on a Charter School HALL OF SHAME?  Here’s a smattering of stories from a few states.

Ohio:  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2015/08/10/dollars-details-slow-ohio-charter-reform/31406095/; 

http://www.toledoblade.com/MarilouJohanek/2015/08/22/Governor-Kasich-s-education-agenda-unmasked.html#uoLbolBbxx8RLF4r.99; 

http://www.plunderbund.com/2015/06/13/ohio-charter-school-operators-choose-financial-success-over-ethics/

Pennsylvania: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/02/big_for-profit_schools_big_don.html

South Carolina: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article32398251.html

North Carolina: http://www.propublica.org/series/evaluating-charter-schools

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2015/09/02/new-policy-eliminates-daily-student-attendance-reporting-requirements-for-states-new-virtual-charter-schools/#sthash.bGae4phh.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

Michigan: http://www.mitchellrobinson.net/2015/08/17/if-you-can-t-beat-em-destabilize-em/

New York: http://www.propublica.org/article/ny-state-official-raises-alarm-on-charter-schools-and-gets-ignored

Louisiana: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-the-new-orleans-school-makeover.html?_r=1

Georgia: http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/08/19/opinion-gov-deals-opportunity-school-district-offers-opportunity-but-not-for-students/

http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/22/atlanta-police-more-than-600000-taken-from-atlanta-latin-academy-bank-accounts/

Nationally:     http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/the_truth_about_charter_schools_padded_cells_corruption_lousy_instruction_and_worse_results/

http://populardemocracy.org/news/tip-iceberg-charter-school-vulnerabilities-waste-fraud-and-abuse

http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?

t=LRN;http://www.salon.com/2015/01/01/exposing_the_charter_school_lie_michelle_rhee_louis_c_k_and_the_year_phony_education_reform_revealed_its_true_colors/

President Obama and his Secretary of Education are always careful to say that they support ‘good’ charter schools and oppose ‘bad’ ones, even as they approve spending federal funds to support charter schools.  I question whether that qualifies as strong leadership.

Studies indicate that, at best, half of charter schools do better academically than traditional public schools, and half do not, but that’s only using the narrow measure of test scores.   Shouldn’t the strong charter schools be leading the dialogue about what constitutes quality, instead of falling in line to worship at the altar of standardized test scores?  Shouldn’t they be upset about all the bad apples?

The leading national organization of non-profit charter schools, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, is conspicuously silent on the ripping off that’s going on.  To me, that group’s failure to make a stink makes it part of the problem.   I communicated my concern to Nina Rees, the organization’s leader.  She responded by laying the blame on authorizers and on those responsible for enforcing the rules.

“States are supposed to take the lead on regulation and supervision.  Ideally, a state should speak up when a charter school screws up. Maybe I should elevate the noise to a national level, but our focus is national and on states with either weak charter laws or no law at all.  Most states that have charter schools also have rules, but unfortunately they are not always enforced.

Is there a trend of financial and other bad behavior?  Perhaps in the for-profit side.  However, I do not have an issue with for-profit charter schools generally, as long as the school is good. If the school is good, who cares?”

The weak link in the system is the authorizers.”

Greg Richmond, the thoughtful leader of the national group of charter authorizers, believes there’s plenty of blame to go around, adding that “(M)ost of it belongs to the bad schools themselves, but parents, legislators, courts and authorizing bodies often work in ways that keep bad or fraudulent schools going.”

He went on:

“I’m frustrated by the bad actors in the charter school community. There are several forces that keep those schools around. In most cases, parents at those schools fight the closure of those schools, just like parents anywhere oppose the closure of their school. If an authorizer closes the school anyway, courts often step in to keep these schools open.  Also, in a few states, some companies that run charter schools are major donors to state legislators, which enables them to write laws that are weak on accountability.  Finally, most authorizing bodies are school districts and most school districts do not pay enough attention to charter schools. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but many school districts would rather complain about charter schools after a problem surfaces instead of putting in place oversight systems that could prevent the failure.”

Richmond raised an interesting point: Perhaps the number of scandals (too many, he said) hasn’t increased; perhaps it’s better reporting that digging out and identifying the bad actors.  

He concluded by defending his tribe, the authorizers.

“There are other types of data that suggest that things are getting better – authorizers are doing their job better, perhaps catching more fraud and perhaps preventing problems before they occur. For example, over the past few years, much larger percentages of authorizers report implementing NACSA’s Essential Practices for authorizers. http://www.qualitycharters.org/for-authorizers/12-essential-practices/ 100% of the authorizers we surveyed now require an annual audit from each school. A few years ago, that was about 80%. 97% of authorizers have financial monitoring systems in place in addition to the audit.”  

When I asked the leaders of several well-known charter school networks for responses, a pattern emerged.

Mike Feinberg, the co-founder of KIPP:

“The scandals we’ve seen recently and historically have all been very sad.  And so have the scandals we’ve seen in the traditional school districts as well.  The silver lining with the public charter scandals is that they seem to be resulting in charters closing down.  It’s too bad we don’t see the same swift and absolute reaction to similar scandals on the traditional school district side as well, as all of us in the public should have zero tolerance for any behavior that hurts our public schools and students.”

He added:  “I’m not familiar with details of the scandals all over the country but certainly know about what’s happening in Texas, where I’m proud of what the state has done in the recent years to crack down on poor performance by both public charters and districts alike.  We supported the SB2 legislation which passed in 2013.  SB2 gave the state move power to close down poor performing public charter schools, as we now have a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy:  3 years in a row of poor academic or financial performance, and the state no longer may close a public charter, but rather, shall close a public charter.        

Furthermore, the state has vastly improved its authorizing in the past decade from what it looked like in the 90’s and early 2000’s, where it was far too easy for anyone to receive a charter.  The process today is much more rigorous, and while perfection isn’t possible, it’s much more unlikely that a public charter approved today will be in the hands of fraudulent people.”

Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of the Success Academies charter school network in New York City:

“I condemn fiscal mismanagement and impropriety and corruption wherever it exists…and it exists obviously across whole swaths of society let alone types of public schools, whether district or public charters…scandals occur daily in the NYC district school system…sometimes multiple times a day! But where ever it occurs it is wrong.”

And Ms. Moskowitz reacted to my reference to the charter school ‘brand.’

“‘Brand’ is an interesting choice of words…I do not think of it that way…I am committed to parent choice and educational excellence not a brand.  I do my absolute best every day to wake up and contribute to making schools better for kids and for expanding parent choice…”

I also wrote to Carl and Gail Icahn, whose network of Icahn Charter Schools has been expanding in the Bronx.  She responded:

“Can you send a link to the scandals to which you refer?  We must have missed them….”

Why aren’t the leaders of acclaimed charter management organizations on the barricades?  National groups, KIPP, Success Academies, Icahn Charters and other well-known CMO’s have the prestige in the movement and could make a difference. And so too could the large foundations like Broad and Walton that support charter expansion.  But they are largely defensive, often saying the equivalent of “maybe we have problems, but it’s worse in regular public schools”–if they say anything at all.

How far does the taint have to spread before those folks wake up?

Other industries are quick on the draw when it comes to exposing charlatans and frauds.  Suppose I exploited my Doctorate from Harvard and began offering–as Dr. Merrow–psychological therapy for ‘stress reduction’ and treatment for ‘test anxiety,’ ‘math phobia,’ ‘marital discord,’ ‘A.D.D. related issues,’ and other medical-sounding problems?  My degree is in “Education and Social Policy,” but who’s to know? How long would it take for the legitimate psychiatrists and psychologists to come down on me, hard?  They would, rightly, see me as a fraud offering phony cures, and a threat to their legitimacy.  They understand that, just as bad money drives out good, so too do frauds weaken, cheapen and debase those who are honorable.

Associations of insurance agencies, roofing contractors, et cetera are vigilant about their products and services, so why aren’t the legitimate charter schools operators and their supporters outraged by the widespread wrongdoing?

Here’s another analogy, using the noun ‘restaurant.’  Precisely what information does that noun convey?  Very little; in fact, the word tells you only that food is served there at a price.  To learn even the most basic information (kind of food, prices),  you would need to scrutinize the menu.  To ascertain anything about quality, however, you would want to have at least one meal there, and probably go on Yelp or some other website to read reviews.

Sadly, the term ‘charter school’ has become equally generic and virtually meaningless.  The name over the door tells you almost nothing about what goes on inside the school.  The charter school behind those walls could be a model of innovation, but it is just as likely to be a “drill-drill-drill” machine or a profit-making engine for greedy entrepreneurs.

Charter Schools need a HALL OF SHAME.

Below you will find, verbatim, the disciplinary code for Success Academies, taken from the Success Academies handbook, which is distributed to all parents and perhaps others.  I discussed aspects of the rule book in my interview with Success Academies founder and CEO Eva Moskowitz.  If you missed the NewsHour segment when it was broadcast on October 12th, you can find it here.

1. Discipline

1. Violations

Anytime a scholar violates school or classroom rules or policies, it is considered a behavior infraction. Behavior infractions include, but are not limited to:

• Non-compliance with the school dress code
• Non-compliance with the school attendance policy
• Non-compliance with the code of conduct

1. Violence and Aggression

We must ensure that our scholars are safe at all times in our schools. Success Academy has a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to aggressive or violent conduct that puts the safety of our scholars or staff in jeopardy.

In the classroom, we teach our scholars strategies to peacefully handle disagreements. We teach them that violence is never the solution. Scholars who engage in aggressive or violent conduct will be suspended. Scholars who hit because “he hit me first” will also be suspended.

1. Suspensions and Expulsion

Scholars who repeatedly disregard directions, compromise the safety of others, or violate our policies may be suspended.

A short-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar from the school for disciplinary reasons for a period of five days or fewer. A long-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar for disciplinary reasons for a period of more than five days. Expulsion refers to the permanent removal of scholar from school for disciplinary reasons.

If your scholar is suspended, a member of the school leadership team will call to inform you. You will receive a suspension letter at pick up or within 24 hours. You should make arrangements with the school for mandatory alternative instruction for your scholar during his or her suspension.

1. Disciplinary Policy and Code of Conduct

In order to establish and maintain school culture, the following Code of Conduct contains a list of possible infractions and potential consequences. Please keep in mind that the list of unacceptable conduct and consequences is not exhaustive. Teachers and staff can supplement this Code of Conduct with their own rules for classes and events. In addition, violations of the Code of Conduct and resulting consequences are subject to the discretion of the Principal and may be adjusted accordingly. A scholar’s prior conduct and his or her disciplinary history may be factors in determining the appropriate consequence for an infraction.

The Code of Conduct will be enforced at all times. Scholars must adhere to the Code of Conduct when at school on school grounds, participating in a school sponsored activity, and walking to or from, waiting for, or riding on public transportation to and from school or a school-sponsored activity. Serious misconduct outside of the school is considered a school disciplinary offense when the misconduct or the scholar’s continued presence at the school has or would have a significant detrimental effect on the school and/or has created or would create a risk of substantial disruption to the work of the school.

Code of Conduct:

Level 1 Infractions

Slouching/failing to be in “Ready to Succeed” position (SPORT or Magic 5 position)

• Calling out an answer
• Chewing gum or bringing candy to school
• Minor disrespectful behavior

Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level l  Infractions

• Warning/reprimand by school staff
• Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
• Scholar is reminded of what he/she is like at his/her best and of past good behavior

• Scholar is reminded of past poor decisions and provided with productive alternatives/choices that should be made

• Scholar is given a non-verbal warning
• Scholar is given a verbal warning

Level 2 Infractions

• Committing a Level 1 Infraction after intervention
• Verbally or physically dishonoring a fellow scholar (which includes, but is not limited to, teasing, name calling, being rude, mocking, etc.)

• Verbally or physically dishonoring faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community members (which includes, but is not limited to, being rude, disobeying instructions, etc.)

• Using school equipment (e.g. computers, faxes, phones) without permission

• Bringing electronic equipment to school of any kind without school authorization (which includes, but is not limited to, cell phones, Game Boys, iPods, headphones, pagers, radios, etc.)

• Unauthorized possession or use of a cell phone
• Failing to follow directions
• Failing to complete work
• Being off-task
• Arriving late to school/class and/or violating school attendance policy

• Violating the Dress Code
• Being unprepared for class (which includes, but is not limited to, failing to bring a pencil, not completing homework, etc.)

• Wearing clothing or other items that are unsafe or disruptive to the educational process

• Failure to obtain signatures for required assignments
• Disrupting class or educational process in any way at any time (which includes, but is not limited to, making excessive noise in a classroom, failing to participate, refusing to work with partners, etc.)

• Leaving the recess area during recess without permission from an authorized adult

• Being in an off-limits location without permission
• Failing to be in one’s assigned place on school premises
• Getting out of one’s seat without permission at any point during the school day

• Going to the bathroom without permission or at undesignated times
• Making noise in the hallways, in the auditorium, or any general building space without permission

• Inappropriate noise levels in lunchroom, gym, and during arrival and dismissal

• Engaging in unsafe behavior, failing to use recess equipment properly, or failing to follow directions during recess

• Excluding classmates in games/activities during recess
• Littering on school grounds

Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 2 Infractions

• Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
• Scholar is given a verbal warning
• Removal from classroom for ”Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

• Student-Teacher-Parent conference
• Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
• In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

• Verbal or written apology to community
• In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
• Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
• Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period or expulsion)

Level 3 Infractions

• Committing a Level 2 Infraction after intervention
• Dishonoring a fellow scholar using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul or discriminatory language

• Dishonoring a faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community member using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul/discriminatory language

• Disobeying or defying school staff or any school authority/personnel
• Using profane, obscene, lewd, abusive, or discriminatory language or gestures in any context (which includes, but is not limited to, slurs based upon race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability)
• Posting or distributing inappropriate materials (which includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized materials, defamatory or libelous materials, or threatening materials)
• Violating the school’s Technology and Social Media Acceptable Use Policy (which includes, but is not limited to, using the Internet for purposes not related to school/educational purposes or which result in security/privacy violations)

• Forgery of any kind
• Lying or providing false or misleading information to school personnel
• Engaging in any academic dishonesty (which includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, copying another’s work, or colluding/fraudulent collaboration without expressed permission from a school authority)

• Tampering with school records or school documents/materials by any method

• Falsely activating a fire alarm or other disaster alarm
• Making threats of any kind
• Claiming to possess a weapon
• Misusing other people’s property
• Vandalizing school property or property belonging to staff, scholars, or others (which includes, but is not limited to, writing on desks, writing on school books, damaging property, etc.)

• Stealing or knowingly possessing property belonging to another person without proper authorization

• Smoking
• Gambling
• Throwing any objects

• Engaging in inappropriate or unwanted physical contact
• Fighting or engaging in physically aggressive behavior of any kind (which includes, but is not limited to, play fighting, horsing around, shoving, pushing, or any unwanted or aggressive physical contact)

• Leaving class, school-related activity, or school premises without school authorization
• Repeatedly failing to attend class, school, or any school activity or event and/or repeatedly violating school attendance policy

Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 3 Infractions

• Sent to principal/school administrator
• Loss of classroom/school privileges
• Additional assignments which require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)

• Call home to parents/guardians
• Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

• Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
• In-School disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

• Verbal or written apology to community
• Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
• In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
• Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
• Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)

• Expulsion

Level 4 Infractions

• Committing a Level 3 Infraction after intervention
• Repeated in-school and/or out-of-school suspensions
• Exhibiting blatant and repeated disrespect for school code, policies, community, or culture

• Engaging in gang-related behavior (which includes, but is not limited to, wearing gang apparel, making gestures, or signs)

• Destroying or attempting to destroy school property
• Engaging in intimidation, bullying, harassment, coercion, or extortion or threatening violence, injury, or harm to others (empty or real) or stalking or seeking to coerce

• Engaging in behavior that creates a substantial risk of or results in injury/assault against any member of the school community

• Engaging in sexual, racial, or any other type of harassment
• Possessing, transferring, or using drugs, alcohol, or controlled substances
• Participating in an incident of group violence
• Possessing a weapon
• Charged with or convicted of a felony

Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 4 Infractions

• Sent to principal/school administrator
• Loss of classroom/school privileges

• Additional assignments that require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)

• Call home to parents/guardians
• Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

• Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
• In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

• Verbal or written apology to community
• Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
• In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
• Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
• Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)

• Expulsion

The PDF of the relevant pages is here

I would appreciate your subscribing to this blog….

Thanks,

John

I was as surprised as anyone when Arne Duncan announced he was resigning as Secretary of Education. In retrospect, two obvious clues were staring us in the face: His family had moved back to Chicago, and he had hired John King, the former Commissioner of Education in New York and his education soulmate, to be his close advisor and assistant.  (King will succeed him, as Acting Secretary.)

Arne Duncan departs with quite a track record, clearly the most powerful Secretary of Education since the Department was created in the Carter Administration.  He took on for-profit colleges, he pushed hard for early childhood education and access to technology, and he spoke forcefully on issues that were only peripherally related–if at all–to education, such as gay marriage and gun violence.  He had the President’s ear and his trust. That, and Duncan’s remarkable basketball skills, displayed often, put education front and center.  That’s all good, a legacy to be proud of.

As CEO of the public schools in Chicago, Duncan had chafed under the directives of “No Child Left Behind” and its hundreds of pages of regulations.  I thought the lesson of NCLB was inescapably clear: Washington cannot run public education. However, Democrats, including Secretary Duncan, apparently reached a different conclusion: “Perhaps REPUBLICANS cannot run public education, but we can.”

So that’s another aspect of Arne Duncan’s legacy: Republicans and Democrats fight about everything else, but they agree that Washington is exerting too much influence over public education. The next federal legislation–if it should ever pass–will shift power back to the states, and the next Secretary of Education will arrive with wings clipped, unless Congress continues to fail to replace No Child Left Behind.

Because of Duncan, the next Secretary won’t have much money to play with either, because Congress will never again issue a blank check.  The ‘great recession’ bailout gave Duncan about $4.5 BILLION in discretionary money, dollars he used to create his “Race to the Top” program.

When that was announced, I called his Assistant Secretary for Communication, the smart and likable Peter Cunningham, to suggest that the Department allow us behind-the-scenes access, to document the process.  Cunningham grasped that this could insulate the Administration from criticism; after all, if the NewsHour reported it, how could anyone argue that it was a rigged game.  Peter said I should come to Washington to meet with the Secretary, which I did.  He signed on, and we began taping immediately.  Within hours, the project was aborted because, we were told, the Department’s top lawyer feared that opening this one unique process would set a precedent and therefore make all deliberations subject to review by the press (using the Freedom of Information laws).

I was disappointed, of course, because it would have been revealing to learn the ins and outs of Race to the Top, particularly how its criteria were decided upon.

You recall that Race to the Top established four criteria that states had to meet to qualify for the (much needed) money: better data, more charter schools, higher standards (i.e., the Common Core), and test-based accountability. That last innocuous sounding phrase means relying heavily student test scores to judge (and perhaps) fire teachers.  Dr. Terry Holland, who recently stepped down as Kentucky’s State Superintendent, calls that Duncan’s worst decision, and many agree.

The Secretary was fond of pointing out that, while most states did not get Race to the Top money, nearly all of them fell in line and changed their behavior, adopting his four criteria.  He had real power, probably more than all the previous Secretaries combined.

What if he had used that power differently?  What if the Secretary had told states that they would be evaluated on their commitment to art, music, science, and recess? Or to project-based learning?  Or social and emotional learning? Instead of today’s widespread teacher-bashing, excessive testing, test-prep, and a rash of cheating scandals, many more schools might be places of joy.

As he prepares to leave, I am struck by how much he seemed to change over the years.  When we produced a NewsHour profile of the new Secretary not long after his swearing in, he was comfortable and accessible.  Asked a question, he would answer it. No obvious list of ‘talking points’ and no obviously taboo topics.  Within a short time, however, (after some professional training, I assume), he had become accomplished at staying ‘on message.’ He knew how to dodge questions. He was skilled at taking one question and answering another, usually at great length.  In short, he became a frustrating interview, still likable, but dull.  Because he seems to be a genuinely interesting and nice person, I wonder about the price he paid for this transformation.

So rarely did he go off message that it became headline news when he slipped with a comment about white suburban moms and what he said was their unrealistic view of their children’s intelligence.

Some months ago The NewsHour approved my suggestion for a sit-down interview with the Secretary, a conversation about what he’d learned, what he saw coming down the pike with the Common Core, and so on.  Knowing his penchant for long answers, I told his PR people we’d need 45 minutes with him, and they initially agreed.  A week or so later we got the word that we’d have 30 minutes, and a few days later the time got whittled down further.   Instead we produced a feature piece about the Secretary and his influence over public education. We interviewed his critics on the left and right and an independent analyst with no skin in the game, to go along with our 15 or so minutes with Secretary Duncan.  I’m proud of the resulting piece, but we were basically frozen out by the Department from that point on.

The hottest issue for school boards, teachers, administrators and parents these days is standardized testing:

           “Is there too much of it?”

           “How much time is devoted to test prep?”

           “Why don’t we get the results for months?”

           “How are the results used?”  

For a growing number of parents, the biggest question of all: “Should we opt out?”

Unfortunately, an issue that is at least as important as testing is being set aside or, worse yet, being decided in the shadows.  I refer to technology: how it’s being used, how much it’s costing, and whether teachers are being prepared for its adoption.

My colleagues and I have spent more than a year digging into these issues, and what we learned is alarming: most schools and most teachers are not ready; school districts are spending billions and billions of dollars every year, often without a plan; and many school leaders seem inclined to treat technology as an extension of, or replacement for, textbooks and worksheets.  In other words, they’re going to make a bad approach to education more efficient!

Some so-called ‘virtual schools’ are ripping off the public; some publicly-funded charter schools are swapping out teachers for computers because, after all, education is merely ‘knowing the facts.’  And who needs art, music, sports and other frills anyway?

Here’s an invitation: give us 56 minutes, and we will give you the world (of technology in education).  We’ll show you the ugly, the bad, and–of course–the good.  When it’s in the hands of confident teachers, today’s technologies transform learning from ‘regurgitation’ into knowledge creation.  While there’s no one correct ‘blend’ for what’s often called blended learning, step one seems to be the willingness to give students more control over their own learning.

Here’s your invitation to a sneak preview:   The link is https://vimeo.com/122667211  The password is schoolsleuth123

Because the words ‘education’ and ‘educational technology’ can turn some people away, we decided to tell our story as a film noir parody, bringing back The School Sleuth.  Fifteen years ago he solved “The Case of an Excellent School.”

With the assistance of Dr. Ruth, Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, this time around the aging and not-overly-bright detective cracks “The Case of the Wired Classroom.”

The film opens in a bar in New York City, where (added bonus) the sultry jazz singer is my daughter, who (with her musical partner, the piano player) wrote the song and all the music for the film.

“School Sleuth: The Case of the Wired Classroom” is being distributed by PBS, starting October 1. If you feel that the general public needs to know more about this multi-billion dollar business, please reach out to your local PBS station and ask those folks to schedule it…in prime time, preferably.  (The pbs.org website is a good place to look for information about your own station.)

Thanks very much

John (AKA The School Sleuth)

“Two of her public school teachers, to whom she remains close, saw her potential and helped put her on a path that eventually led her to Harvard.”   It’s very nearly a throwaway line that occurs early in Dale Russakoff’s remarkable new book, “The Prize.” The book is the story of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation to Newark’s public schools, but that particular line refers to Patricia Chan, who, after becoming the first in her family to attend college, became a pediatrician and later married Mr. Zuckerberg.  Read the book, but, first, let’s dig into that one sentence.

Two facts jump out at me. The first is a familiar story: good teachers change their students’ lives.  The second is less common, I suspect: Dr. Chan has remained close to those teachers. I infer that she reached out to express her gratitude and has continued the connection.  Bless her for that.  Just imagine how gratifying that has to be for her former teachers.

Have you done that?  The fact that you are reading this suggests that you care about education and that it worked for you, well enough for you to stay connected to the field.

Please close your eyes and picture the teacher(s) who changed your life for the better.  When I do that, I see Mrs. Peterson, my first grade teacher at Hindley School, and two high school English teachers, Mr. William Sullivan and Mr. Roland McKinley. Mrs. Peterson taught me to read and made me feel safe, and the two men pushed and prodded and encouraged me to aim higher and write more clearly.

I was able to say ‘thank you’ in person to just one of them, Mrs. Peterson, and will go to my grave regretting never having expressed my gratitude to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. McKinley.

Have you reached out?  I promise that, if you do, your gesture will mean the world to the men and women who taught you so effectively.

I know this from a personal experience. As you may know, I retired from the PBS NewsHour and Learning Matters at the end of July. I announced the move in this blog.

In response, I received a few hundred emails. While one or two said, ‘About damn time,’ most comments were gracious.  No response surprised me more than a letter–out of the blue–from a former student of mine at Paul D. Schreiber High School in Port Washington, New York, where I taught English in 1964-65 and 1965-66, right after graduating from college.

Dear John (Mr. Merrow),

You were my high school English teacher at Schreiber, and I was your least successful (at at the time) student (much later diagnosed with learning disorders), but of all the teachers I’ve ever had, you made the most indelible impression. You made every book, poem and story come alive, approaching each one from open angles and creating lots of room for opinion and broad discussion. You taught me how to think, approach challenge, voice opinion and appreciate others’ points of view, not to mention instilling pretty good grammar and spelling skills!

I mean this honestly: her words mean more to me than any of the stuff that has come my way during my 41 years of reporting, which includes a couple of Peabody Awards, the George Polk Award, the McGraw Prize and some honorary degrees. One student cared enough to reach out and recall what happened in my classroom 42 years ago, and my heart swells with pride every time I read her words.

Teachers put up with a lot of bashing from politicians and test score fetishists.  Perhaps those of us who appreciate teachers (a majority, according to the latest PDK/Gallup poll) should make an effort to reconnect with the teachers who helped shape our lives.  Do that, and you will make their day/week/year, I promise.  And if enough of us do this, perhaps we can begin to turn the tide.

If you cannot find contact information for the teachers you want to connect with, please consider posting your words of praise and appreciation on this blog for others to read.  In these days of social media, your words may eventually make their way back to your teachers.

Thanks,

John