For decades, the United States and “Red China” had minimal contact.  Communist China was the third rail of politics and no politician could afford to appear to be ‘soft on Communism.’ After all, in the 1950’s the careers and lives of hundreds of people were destroyed because they were accused of having ‘lost China.’

Then, in February 1972, a politician with impeccable anti-Communist credentials did the unthinkable. President Richard Nixon went to China 44 years ago and ‘normalized’ diplomatic relations with that country.  Only an avowed foe of Communism could have accomplished that feat.

Public education needs its own Richard Nixon if it is ever going to escape the ‘test and punish’ death spiral that is distorting schooling almost beyond recognition.  Education’s Richard Nixon will have to be a strong advocate of testing who has seen the light, someone who has undergone conversion, the educational equivalent of Saul on the road to Damascus.

No testing critic from the left, no matter how eloquent, sensible, or correct, will be able to sway public opinion and move bureaucracies.  When Diane Ravitch, Randi Weingarten, Deborah Meier, or Peggy Robertson of United Opt Out speak out about the corrosive effects of excessive testing, their supporters say ‘Amen,’ but others shrug it off: “What else is new?” or “That’s what I’d expect them to say.”

Until a few months ago, I had a pretty good idea who could become education’s Richard Nixon.  This educator worships at the altar of testing, and her schools live and die by test scores, but–of critical importance–her schools also focus on science, the arts and physical education.  Whenever I’d visited her schools, they seemed to be places of joyful learning.

At one point I even went so far as to imagine her “conversion” announcement:

My friends, you know me as an advocate of standardized testing. I believe in test results and what they tell us about our students.  But what you might not know about me is that I subscribe to much of what John Dewey taught us about education.  Learning by doing is important.  The arts, science and physical fitness are essential parts of quality education.  These are vital elements in my schools, although they have not gotten much publicity in the past.

For years I have focused on test results, and I’ve boasted about my students’ success, but now I realize that schools are vehicles that must take on passengers–the students–wherever they are and take them as far as possible.  

I say ‘vehicle‘ advisedly. A unicycle, with the one wheel being test scores, can’t be relied upon to carry students long distances.  The proper vehicle is a sturdy, reliable, 4-wheeler.  The ‘wheels’ of my effective schools are academic excellence in English and math; hands-on science; the arts; and physical education.  And all 4 wheels pull with equal power.

From here on out, my schools will be evaluated and rated on a 4-point scale: 1) How do students perform in math and English on standardized tests? 2) How many hours of hands-on science for students per week?  3) How many hours of the arts per week? and 4) How many hours of physical activity, including active recess, per week?  

Henceforth, all four categories count equally, which means that doing well in one category will not offset doing poorly in another.  In other words, having high tests scores but minimal recess, for example, will not give a school a passing grade.  

Some of my colleagues in the pro-testing camp will complain that three of the ‘wheels’ are input measures, which they are contemptuous of.  I would remind them that they consistently support a different input measure, ‘time on task.’   From my new perspective, I now realize that valuing ‘time on task’ above all else has contributed greatly to the de-emphasis and disappearance of recess, science, and the arts from many schools.

Anyway, friends, this will be the new 4-part report card for Success Academies going forward, and it’s my strong hope that other schools, whether chartered or traditional, will consider following our example. Thank you.

In this fantasy, Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academies, would be education’s Richard Nixon.  By insisting on using those four criteria to measure school effectiveness, she would begin the hard work of saving public education from its current disastrous policies and practices.  By insisting that schools ‘measure what matters,’ she would do for education what Richard Nixon did for US-China relations, usher in a new era.

The next pinnacle for her personally, in this fantasy?  She might become United States Secretary of Education!

However, that was before I began a serious investigation of Success Academies and its practices. Yes, the curriculum includes hands-on science and lots of art, music and physical education, but Success Academies have a draconian behavior code and follow a number of questionable practices that eliminate certain students, some of which are certainly unethical and perhaps illegal.

Juan Gonzales of the New York Daily News has been doggedly  following  this  story for years, but Ms. Moskowitz has managed to defuse or deflect most of his criticism.  Our report for the PBS NewsHour last October documented how Success Academies use multiple out-of-school suspensions of 5-, 6- and 7- year-old to ‘persuade’ parents to withdraw their children set off the current firestorm.  Two subsequent (here and here) blockbuster reports by Kate Taylor of The New York Times, the second one accompanied by a dramatic video, may have turned the tide of public opinion against Ms. Moskowitz.

If the authorizing body that has consistently approved her petitions, the Charter School Institute at SUNY, follows through on its proposed investigation, or if she loses the support of powerful and wealthy hedge fund billionaires like Dan Loeb, her goal of creating hundreds of Success Academies will be out of reach, and her control over her current schools could be in jeopardy, along with her sizable annual salary of roughly $500,000.

So Eva Moskowitz will not be education’s Richard Nixon.  Are there any other candidates?  Is it possible that John King, another test score worshipper, will see matters differently when and if he is confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Education?

Toward the end of his tenure, his predecessor warned that too much testing was taking “the joy out of the classroom,” but Arne Duncan failed to take the next step, pondering what brings joy to classrooms.  I fear that Secretary King will try to appear reasonable and, like Arne Duncan, talk about ‘limiting’ testing, while failing to question the premise that now rules public education in America: test scores are the most reliable means of evaluating teachers and sorting students.

The premise is wrong.

Who will be education’s Richard Nixon?

Major celebrations always begin with music.  Sunday’s Super Bowl had Lady GaGa, for example.  The national meeting of United Opt Out will have music of its own. A well-placed source inside the organization tells me that the annual meeting (beginning Friday in Philadelphia) will kick off with a variation on a familiar song. The lyrics, leaked to me, are below.

“YOU GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO TEACH ‘EM…

KNOW WHEN TO TEST ‘EM…

KNOW WHEN TO STEP ASIDE AND JUST LET ‘EM LEARN.

THE STATE KEEPS SAYING “TEST ‘EM,”

BUT ALL THAT DOES IS MESS ‘EM.

SCHOOLS DO TOO MUCH TESTING!

LET’S MAKE LEARNING FUN AGAIN”

My source said that the original song is by a Kenneth Ray Rogers, someone I’d never heard of.  However, my source apparently knows Mr. Rogers well because she/he kept referring to him as ‘Kenny.’

United Opt Out plans to sing the song three times, changing line three every so slightly each time, from ‘just let ’em learn‘ to ‘just watch ’em learn‘ and, finally ‘just help ’em learn.’  That covers the bases, I guess.

The United Opt Out gathering is expected to draw a large number of committed people, including students, concerned about excessive testing in our public schools.  The keynote speakers are Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, Stephen Krashen, Bill Ayers, and Antonia Darder. Additionally, a number of the sessions will focus on ESSA, the new “Every Student Succeeds Act.”

I wish I could be there to attend sessions–and learn the song.

For more about the United Opt Out meeting: http://unitedoptout.com/2015/06/29/uoo-conference-february-26-28-2016-transcending-resistance-igniting-revolution/

Here’s more about the meeting location and housing options: http://ihousephilly.org/

My confidential source was not sure whether Kenneth Ray Rogers would be able to there in person.

PS: As you know, one out of every 100 Americans teaches in our public schools. They are the OTHER 1%. If you haven’t gotten your bumper stickers yet, go to Pay Pal and john.merrow@gmail.com.   $4 for one, $10 for three….

Gather round, children. Grandpa Johnny wants to show you how to cheat and lie without doing anything illegal.  This will come in handy, especially if you want to run charter schools in New York when you grow up.

The story I am going to tell you, kids, involves something grownups call ‘Attrition,’ which means losing things, in this case children like you. ‘Attrition’ is bad, and so all charter schools try to have a low number, like maybe 5 or 6 out of 100.

In other words, if a charter school starts the year with 100 students and ends up with 95, that would be just a 5% ‘Attrition’ rate…and a reason to celebrate.

Here’s where you have to pay attention, because, if you run charter schools, YOU get to decide when to start measuring ‘Attrition.’  You could start counting on the first day of school, or you could wait until the state requires you to tell how many kids are enrolled a month and a half later.

In other words, if your school has 100 kids when classes begin on August 24th, you have 55 more days until you have to tell the State how many kids you have.

And here’s the best part: Whatever happens in that 55-day period does not count against your attrition because you can replace whoever leaves with new kids. It’s as if whoever leaves was never there!

So, suppose you realize that some kids who have enrolled don’t seem to fit in. Maybe they’re independent-minded, or maybe they are special needs children who will be very costly and difficult for you to educate.  You have 55 days to find ways to get rid of those kids, whom you can then replace with children who are more likely to get with the program.

One technique is what they call ‘out of school suspension,’ basically sending kids home for some infraction or other, however minor.  Do that a few times, and the parent, weary of having to take time off from work, will decide to find another school.  That kid is gone, and it’s as if he never existed.  No drag on your ‘Attrition’ rate, which is what matters to you.

There’s another way to cheat, kiddies, and that comes when your school year ends in mid-June.  You lopped off the beginning of the year when you decided to count from October 7th.  Now you can choose to completely ignore the summer months (a good idea because quite a few students decide to leave over the summer) and simply report ‘Attrition’ as of mid-June, your last day.  Your ‘Attrition’ data covers about 155 days of school, not the full 180, but there’s no way for anyone to know that, unless you tell them (and why on earth would you do that?)

If the powers-that-be really wanted to know which charter schools lost lots of kids, the State would ask for one number, how many of the kids who started your school in mid-August of one year were still enrolled the next mid-August, 365 days later.

Come to think of it, if you wanted to run a charter school (or academy) that focused on the success of each child, then you would want to know which children did not succeed, and why. Rather than worry about your ‘Attrition’ rate,  you would spend your time and money encouraging success and learning from your own failures.

But, kiddies, you don’t have to do that.  You can lie and cheat with numbers without breaking any laws, you can boast about your low ‘Attrition’ rate, and you can fool the Governor, some very rich people, lots of the media, and some of the public.

Even better, when you look in the mirror you won’t have to think about what happened to the children you ‘disappeared’ during that 55-day period–because it’s as if they were never there.

Pretty neat, huh….

Friends,

One of every 100 Americans is a public school teacher, 1% of the population. Of course, teachers are not “The One Percent” that possesses most of our wealth, et cetera.  But teachers ARE the 1% that deserves our support.

I hope you will join me in showing your support by affixing one of these bumper stickers to your vehicle, your office door, or wherever people can see it.

These stickers are 2 3/4″ x 10″.  I had a bunch printed up and am selling them at cost, $4 for one or $10 for three, mailing and handling costs included.

If you want one or more, send a check to Merrow Productions, 201 East 79th Street, Apartment 5D, NY NY 10075.

I will be driving to Brooklyn tomorrow with one sticker on the front bumper, the other on the rear bumper.  This will be their vehicular debut, although it might not make the evening news!

John

“Public Advocate Letitia James filed a federal civil-rights complaint against the city’s largest charter-school network Wednesday, claiming the high-performing Success Academy discriminates against students with disabilities.  The complaint, filed on behalf of 13 students, says Success fails to identify students with disabilities or provide them with “reasonable accommodations.”  It alleges that Success “retaliates” against students with disabilities by pressuring them to leave their schools.”  (The New York Post, January 21, 2016)

When I read this news, I wondered what Eva Moskowitz would say if she were called to testify.  Here’s how I think it might go.  

If it may please the court, I am Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academies. This lawsuit is frivolous and entirely without merit.  My schools support every scholar enrolled to the best of our ability, and to suggest that we would single out special needs children and seek to remove them from our rolls is ludicrous, shameful, and insulting to our dedicated staff and teachers.

Although we enroll far fewer special needs children than other charter schools and traditional public schools, we treat them exactly as we treat all of our scholars.  We have high expectations and a carefully drafted code of conduct.  All children learn that there are at least 65 infractions that can get them suspended.  For example, failing to maintain a ‘ready to learn’ position after a warning can get a child sent home.

When scholars break the rules, we often will send them home, perhaps multiple times, until they get the message.  John Merrow of PBS documented that in a report last October, making it clear that we suspend a lot of kids, not just special needs kids. Most of the kids we send home, even the 5- and 6-year-olds,  fall into the category of “PITA,” which I will explain later.

The following month Kate Taylor of the New York Times brought the point home even more forcefully when she reported that one of our schools had ‘Got to go’ lists that named children the principal or staff wanted out.  I have seen that list and can assure you that few (if any) of the children on it were labeled special needs.  They too fell into the “PITA” category.

When news of that list became public, I disciplined the principal.  For crying out loud, he should have known better than to put stuff like that in writing.  He’s now back in the classroom.

I certainly do not apologize for using out of school suspensions more than any other schools, whether charter or traditional public. They are an important tool in the Success Academy toolbox, as I have written about in the Wall Street Journal.  I know that other schools treat behavior issues at the school, but we think sending the child home sends a message to him or her and to the parents.

A child who cannot keep his eyes on the teacher at all times doesn’t belong at Success Academy.  A child who continues to call out the answer to questions, even if she’s right, clearly isn’t Success Academy material.  A kindergartener who gets curious about the pictures on the bulletin board and leaves his seat to take a close look, that’s behavior we have to stamp out.  Obedience trumps curiosity every time, because if we allowed children to follow their desires, curiosity and passions, chaos would ensue.

Yes, it’s true that the parents of children we suspend multiple times often decide  to withdraw their children from our schools, but that’s their choice.

A lot of kids leave Success Academy, to be replaced by children on our long waiting list. But, your honor, those kids who disappear from our rolls are PITA kids, not special needs.

As you have probably figured out by now, PITA stands for “Pain in the Ass.” Believe me, kids who can’t get with the Success Academy program are a Pain In The Ass, and that’s reason enough for us to take steps.

Your honor, I respectfully request that this lawsuit be dismissed forthwith.

OK, I can count.  I know that ‘rigor‘ and ‘rigorous‘ are not really four-letter words.  However, I believe that they, when used by politicians and educators, they are curse words.

Here’s what brings this to mind: I am trying to figure out what I have learned in my 41 years of reporting about education. Over the years I have sat in 1000’s of classrooms and have spent countless hours with lots of teachers, and, for the life of me, I cannot remember a single teacher ever using either the noun or the adjective in our conversations.

But administrators and politicians, that’s a different story.  My hunch is, the further away they are from the classroom, the more likely people are to use those cuss words.  But they aren’t cussing, of course. Sadly, they are describing what they are convinced schools need more of.

It was the great Debbie Meier who first brought to my attention the familiar form of rigor in our language: rigor mortis.

Let’s ask Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of rigor. 1 a (1) : harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment : severity (2) : the quality of being unyielding or inflexible : strictness (3) : severity of life : austerity b : an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty. 2 : a tremor caused by a chill.

Full Definition of rigorous. 1 : manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict. 2 a : marked by extremes of temperature or climate b : harsh, severe.

Is that what you want for schools, for your children or grandchildren?

So, if you care about education and you hear some know-it-all talking about the need for more rigor, run the other way.  Or, better yet, confront him or her.

Here’s what good schools, some of them anyway, look and sound like: https://themerrowreport.com/2014/11/07/what-happens-in-good-schools/

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?