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

BAD NEWS FOR TESTING ADVOCATES

It only gets worse for testing advocates, who cannot seem to get out of their own way.  First we learned that 20% of 3rd-8th grade students in New York State opted out of the state testing this Spring, and now two national polls show that even more than 20% of adults approve of opting out.   Bear in mind that current federal law requires that 95% of students be tested. Districts where more than 5% of students opt out can be punished.

The annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll reports that 41% approve, while a poll conducted by EdNext puts the figure at 25%. Some who oppose opting out are spinning this as a defeat for the protestors because more oppose opting out than support it, but that’s just plain silly because of the fed’s 95% rule.  Both 25% and 41% are a long long long long way from 5%.

What’s even more revealing is how tone deaf the testing advocates seem to be.  Saying stuff like “Yes, perhaps there are too many tests, but these tests are important so please don’t skip them,”  That’s not leadership. Strong leaders would be taking steps to reduce the number of tests and suggesting alternatives ways of assessing.  Other so-called leaders are issuing vague threats against parents and educators who support opting out, which is never a good idea.

NPR’s reliable Anya Kamenetz has written a interesting analysis of the two polls, cleverly called “Two Polls Span Two Poles,” which I am quoting extensively from, below:

“When it comes to opting out, it’s a little harder to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two polls.

PDK/Gallup asked

“Do you think that all parents with children in the public schools should be allowed to excuse their child from taking one or more standardized tests?”

When asked this way, 41 percent said YES and 44 percent said NO.

EdNext asked,

“Some people say that ALL students should take state tests in math and reading. Others say that parents should decide whether or not their children take these tests. Do you support or oppose letting parents decide whether to have their children take state math and reading tests?

When asked this way, 25 percent said YES and 59 percent said NO.

Paul Peterson, the editor-in-chief of EdNext and a professor at Harvard, points to “excuse” as a key word in the other guy’s poll that he says is designed to sway people. “We do it all the time — we give students excuses from class for seeing the doctor, or excuses for being tardy. So ‘excuses’ is a very sweet word.” (Starr resists drawing comparisons, saying, “we’re considered a really unbiased view of Americans’ perspectives.”)

At the same time, the EdNext poll mentions that the test is a state requirement, so maybe that makes opting out sound like a bigger deal.

No matter how you slice it, both polls show most people don’t support allowing parents to choose whether to opt their children out of tests. And the Gallup poll says most Americans wouldn’t choose to opt out their own kids.”

Unfortunately Ms. Kamenetz doesn’t connect the dots regarding the magnitude of the dissent, but she ends with the all important insight that parents are looking for something better to replace testing.

That’s where leaders need to step up.  I wrote in this space recently about the value of an arts-based curriculum, but there are other equally interesting and valuable ways to approach the education of children.  Today’s technology offers unprecedented opportunities for ‘blending’ good teaching with technology, an issue we explore in depth in “School Sleuth: The Case of the Wired Classroom,” which will be on most PBS stations this fall.  “Deeper Learning” has become associated with the Common Core, unfortunately, but the premise–Dig Deep, Explore and Master–is too valuable to be overlooked.

Never forget the wisdom of Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.”  What do we want our children doing, repeatedly, in their hours in school?  Regurgitating or being challenged? Prepping for tests so the people in charge can rank teachers, or doing work that interests them and prepares them for a productive adulthood?

As the lawyers say, “Asked and answered.”

DECIPHERING POST-KATRINA SCHOOLING

The flood of stories about education in New Orleans began well before the 10th anniversary of the flooding that destroyed most of the city’s terrible schools.  Is education better or worse now that the city is virtually all-charter?  Is this a model for urban America, or a gigantic hoax?  So far, I haven’t seen much in the way of middle ground.

Here are SIX truths (as I see them), THREE predictions, and ONE piece of advice.

First, the truths: 1)  Before Katrina, the city’s public schools were to be avoided, and anyone who could afford a parochial or independent school or a suburban home, did so, while a handful of admission-only magnet schools held onto the most affluent students.  The system was segregated, and buildings were falling down. I remember one school that had to steal electricity from other buildings and utility poles because its own wiring was inadequate—probably rotted through.  And the schools, many of them, were violent and dangerous places.

2) Today New Orleans has a ‘system of schools,’ not a ‘school system.’  Public charter schools serve nearly all of the city’s students.  The system is smaller and whiter, and the teaching force is younger, whiter and non-unionized.

3) Education is better…but then again, it could hardly be worse.  Scores and graduation rates have improved, but neither is up as much as the supporters would have people believe.

4) Unfortunately, this radical approach has not solved the special education challenge.  In some respects, going all-charter may have made things worse for kids with special needs.

5) Different approaches to discipline remain a problem.  Because charter schools are independent entities, each can set its own rules and enforce the rules as they see fit.

6) Some families feel disconnected and disenfranchised because their neighborhood charter school is run by a Board that doesn’t reflect them or their neighborhood.

We captured a lot of this in”Rebirth: New Orleans“, our 1-hour film that is available on Netflix. It’s based on 6 years of videotaping, and I hope you will take a look.

Prediction #1: No American city will copy New Orleans and go ‘all charter’ all at once, because it’s just too hard.  Instead, politicians will hold up New Orleans as a goal while gradually expanding charter schools. That’s the easy way: start with K-1 and expand one grade at a time, because that allows the grownups in charge to train the kids from age 4 or 5.  Taking over a high school, full of teenagers who’ve spent 9 or more years in a very different kind of school, is a challenge most charter leaders run from (but that is what New Orleans faced).

Prediction #2: Wise leaders will insist on significant oversight of all charter schools, to ensure financial transparency, a common discipline code, a common application, and shared approaches to assessment and to special education.  Sadly, wisdom is in short supply. I fear chaos will ensue in many cities, especially where the profiteers are invited to participate.

Prediction #3: Schools in New Orleans will never rise above the level of C- until they adopt a sophisticated way of measuring their effectiveness.  Right now, it’s all about test scores, which shapes the curriculum and the experience of students.  When we were filming “Rebirth,” we learned of an aspiring charter school principal who was determined to open a performing arts school. He envisioned a vibrant building full of talented aspiring musicians, artists, dancer and actors, all given the opportunity to develop their craft.  However, once he realized that the charter review board cared only about test scores, he never even submitted an application.  As long as that’s the prevailing mindset, mediocrity is guaranteed. That’s a shame.

Finally, some advice: Pay close attention to news coverage that includes contributions from Leslie Jacobs, Scott Cowen,  Aesha Rasheed, and Andre Perry.  Ms. Jacobs was the principal architect of the charter approach; Dr. Cowen, former President of Tulane University, put brains and muscle behind the effort while remaining an honest broker; Ms. Rasheed, a former reporter for the Times-Picayune, has become a powerful advocate for fairness for families and children; and Dr. Perry, an academic who stepped into the trenches to run some charter schools, is an honest and thoughtful analyst.  Of course, they’re not the only people whose analysis is valuable, but if none of them is heard from, I’d be worried.

What have I missed?