As the bus approached my stop this morning, I could see through the windows that lots of seats were empty. Great, I thought, I can read the paper on my way to work. But as I boarded the bus, I realized I was mistaken. Those apparently empty seats had tiny occupants, close to 40 little kids. Their joyous cacophony filled the bus with high-pitched musical chatter. From my vantage point–standing–I could see most of them. A few were reading, most were talking, and not one of them was manipulating an electronic device. One of the adults who was accompanying them told me they were on their way to MOMA, the Museum of Modern Art, which is in midtown Manhattan. They were second graders, and their excitement was palpable and contagious.
Whatever morning fatigue I felt vanished as I took in the scene and tried to imagine them at MOMA. What would they think of Monet’s water lilies and Picasso’s strange and wonderful art? How would they react when they came face to face with “The Scream,” Edvard Munch’s famous painting?
Thinking about “The Scream” transported me back to last week, when my wife (a school principal) invited me to her second grade class. Those kids had visited MOMA, seen Munch’s painting, and then made their own versions, all of which were hung in the school’s entry hall. One morning two weeks ago in an uncanny (and carefully planned) echo of history, four of the children’s paintings disappeared, apparently stolen, just like Munch’s painting. The kids were upset, and so their (imaginative) art teacher brought in the school’s security chief, a retired cop, to investigate. Enthralled, the kids helped him search for clues. The case was solved on schedule, the morning I visited. The detective brought in the culprit, the school mascot, who was carrying the paintings and a big “I’m Sorry” sign. Everyone cheered and celebrated with cookies and milk.
Unfortunately, there was a downside to both of these wonderful times, an aftershock. It was the realization that these lovely children were one year older than the 20 kids murdered in Sandy Hook. They were enjoying life in ways that Sandy Hook’s children will not. As I walked back from school a week ago, and as I left the bus this morning to walk the remaining blocks to my office, tears welled up. Why is life so unfair?
But I think I know part of the answer: we stand on the sidelines and allow it to be unfair. We allow a small minority of (pick your noun–mine is unprintable) to control national policy and prevent sensible gun regulation. The Bushmaster automatic weapon that the young man used to murder those children and six adults is a killing machine, no more and no less. Magazines that hold 100 or more rounds are for mass killing, not for hunting or for sport. Neither has any place in a civilized society.
I wonder if Representatives John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Tim Murphy and Ben Quayle, Senators Harry Reid and Joe Mancini and the other politicians who take money from the National Rifle Association and then cast votes that please them have ever spent a morning in a first grade class, or ridden the bus with second graders? Perhaps that would affect their perspective.
But a better wake-up call would be the refusal of voters to put them, and others of that ilk, back in positions of power.
“I couldn’t sleep,” Larry Schall said. He and his wife had watched the memorial service from Newtown the Sunday after the massacre and had heard President Obama talking about the young children who had been murdered.
He lay awake for hours, he told me. “At about 2 in the morning I gave up on sleep and went downstairs and wrote a letter,” he said. The next day he shared it with a good friend, and later in the day their edited version became an open letter to other college and university presidents.
Larry is Lawrence Schall, the president of Oglethorpe University in Georgia, and his co-author is Elizabeth Kiss, the president of Agnes Scott College, also in Georgia, two leaders and two institutions that you may not have heard of before Newtown.
The letter specifies the following measures:
• Ensuring the safety of our communities by opposing legislation allowing guns on our campuses and in our classrooms
• Ending the gun show loophole, which allows for the purchase of guns from unlicensed sellers without a criminal background check
• Reinstating the ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines
• Requiring consumer safety standards for all guns, such as safety locks, access prevention laws, and regulations to identify, prevent and correct manufacturing defects
“I thought if we got 50 presidents to sign it would be a homerun,” President Schall said, but their powerful message resonated, and within a few days more than 200 presidents had signed it. The group acquired a name, “College Presidents for Gun Safety.”
Today over 330 presidents have signed, almost all of them the leaders of private institutions (perhaps because they don’t have to answer to governors and legislatures).
Is that a homerun? Depends on how you count, it seems to me. America has about 4,150 colleges and universities, which means that just under 8 percent have signed the letter. However, given that it’s tough for the presidents of public institutions to step out on this limb, we ought to consider the universe of private institutions, some 2450 in all. That brings the number to just over 13%.
I urge you to read the names of the 330 or so institutions and see which institutions are NOT there. You will find Cornell College (IA) but not Cornell University; Teachers College, Columbia University but not Columbia University itself; and three Notre Dames (Notre Dame College (OH), Notre Dame de Namur University (CA) and Notre Dame of Maryland University (MD) but not THE Notre Dame, the one in Indiana with the Golden Dome.
You will find Macalester, Colby, Mount Holyoke, Spelman, Middlebury, Colorado College, Davidson, Hamilton, Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin and Centre College and a number of other outstanding institutions, but where is Duke? Why no MIT? You will look in vain for members of the Ivy League, UC Berkeley, Stanford, and other household names.
Perhaps the most glaring omission is Virginia Tech, the scene of the worst gun massacre in our history. I asked Virginia Tech about that, but so far no one has responded.
The Association of American Universities, representing 60 of the top institutions, issued its own statement (pdf) on January 2. While that letter lacks the power of the Schall/Kiss letter, it does call for Congressional action.
On Monday, February 4, College Presidents for Gun Safety will join with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (representing 800+ mayors) for an event on Capitol Hill, an effort to put pressure on Congress to pass meaningful gun laws.
Getting just 8% of higher education to sign on may not seem like a homerun, but–compared to the rest of public education–Presidents Schall and Kiss have hit a grand slam, maybe even an 8-run homer.
Here’s why I say that. Not long after Newtown, I got in touch with most of the leading K-12 groups. I believe that their generally ineffectual response to the mass slaughter of those 6- and 7-year olds allowed the National Rifle Association to frame the debate. And so, instead of debating whether we should ban the sale and possession of weapons of mass murder from our society, until just recently we have been arguing whether arming school principals and teachers makes sense.
Here are a few concrete examples:
The National Association of Elementary School Principals, which lost a member when Sandy Hook principal’s, Dawn Hochsprung, was gunned down, issued a statement expressing condolences that said nothing about restricting access to assault weapons. Instead, NAESP pledged to “do everything we can to strengthen laws and policies aimed at keeping our children safe and secure in our nation’s schools and communities.”
The 578-word statement on the website of the National Association of Secondary School Principals was devoted largely to opposing the NRA’s call for arming of educators. Only after 540 words did NASSP allude to the murder weapons, and then somewhat obliquely–and in just seven words: “And yes, it’s a matter of gun access.”
The National School Boards Association “does not take positions on social issues” like the availability of assault weapons, according to its General Counsel. “After Columbine, we turned our attention to identifying troubled students,” Francisco M. Negron said, “But now we will have to look at safety more broadly because schools are just another multiplex.”
Two young leaders seemed determined to offend no one with their public statements. Jonah Edelman and his organization, Stand for Children, declared after Newtown that “Real actions must be taken” but failed to say what those actions might be. His high-sounding statement (with an accompanying “Open Letter to the President”) demanded to know, “Has the moment arrived, at last, when decent people across our great nation have finally decided we’ve had enough? Will those of us who’ve consented to so much loss with our silence finally speak up and demand our leaders pass laws that decrease the prevalence of mass shootings?”
When I was in high school, stuff like that won the “Talks most, says least” category.
Michelle Rhee of Students First (the former Chancellor of the Washington public schools) appeared to be walking a tightrope. Fresh from helping Michigan Republicans pass anti-union legislation, she declined to take a position on another law passed by the the GOP-controlled legislature that would have allowed guns in schools. Her silence was seen as tacit support for the measure. Rhee couched her neutrality thusly: “As an education reform organization, we try hard to remain singularly focused on those issues that directly affect student achievement.”
After Newtown, however, Rhee apparently felt compelled to enter the debate–although not the one about assault weapons in society. Instead she weighed in on the NRA’s question: “Schools must be safe havens for teaching and learning — that is a basic obligation to children that comes before anything else,” she said. And so Students First is now against guns in schools but has no position on assault weapons in the larger society.
In sharp contrast to both Michelle Rhee and Jonah Edelman, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers did not mince words. “The AFT supports common sense gun control legislation, including banning assault weapons and large ammunition magazines, requiring thorough background checks and making sure that gun owners keep their weapons secure.”
The Council of the Great City Schools, which represents more than 60 urban districts, also took a firm stand, albeit quietly: “The nation’s Great City Schools join with their mayors in urging tighter restrictions on the sale, possession, and use of assault weapons and other weapons designed to harm people.”
The National Education Association reacted to the NRA position: “Greater access to mental health services, bullying prevention, and meaningful action on gun control—this is where we need to focus our efforts, not on staggeringly misguided ideas about filling our schools with firearms. Lawmakers at every level of government should dismiss this dangerous idea and instead focus on measures that will create the safe and supportive learning environments our children deserve.”
The leaders of private schools took a strong stand. Calling themselves “Heads of School Against Gun Violence,” about 70 school leaders in New York City took out a full-page ad in the New York Times, formed a national organization, and began agitating for Congressional action. (Full disclosure: my wife, Joan Lonergan, is an active participant in the group.) As of this morning, 197 school heads have signed the the petition, and an additional 3063 teachers and other school personnel have signed an accompanying letter of support.
I applaud Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, who spoke first. On the day of the mass murder, the veteran civil rights leader issued a powerful statement, excerpted below:
“… How young do the victims have to be and how many children need to die before we stop the proliferation of guns in our nation and the killing of innocents? …
“This slaughter of innocents happens because we protect guns, before children and other human beings. …
“Each and all of us must do more to stop this intolerable and wanton epidemic of gun violence and demand that our political leaders do more. We can’t just talk about it after every mass shooting and then do nothing until the next mass shooting when we profess shock and talk about it again. …
“We have so much work to do to build safe communities for our children and need leaders at all levels of government who will stand up against the NRA and for every child’s right to live and learn free of gun violence. … Our laws and not the NRA must control who can obtain firearms. …
“Why in the world do we regulate teddy bears and toy guns and not real guns that have snuffed out tens of thousands of child lives?”
Many years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., noted, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Some 40 years later Illinois senator Barack Obama assumed that history does bend towards justice but said, “It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice…”
Unfortunately, most K-12 educators have not put their hands on that arc. By failing to seize the opportunity to lead on what is arguably the critical issue of our time–the health and safety of our children–too many public educators are providing a disappointing role model for the children in their charge.
As Oglethorpe University President Schall told me, “Every graduation we tell our graduates to go boldly into the world and stand up for what they believe, but we weren’t doing it ourselves. It’s time we did.” Kudos to him, to Elizabeth Kiss of Agnes Scott College and to all the educators who are demanding action.
Because you are reading this now, I am assuming that you have a strong interest in education and may even be a wonk like me. It’s great that you care, but, unfortunately, we are in the minority. Perhaps you can help us figure out how to reach and engage the “inadvertent audience,” the people who tune in for coverage of politics or the economy, stumble across an education story, and get hooked. These “inadvertent viewers” might be part of the 80% of American households without school-age children; perhaps they are people who don’t spend much time thinking about schools and their role in our democracy.
Whoever they may be, they are critical, for reasons I will go into below.
Those folks don’t get a regular dose of education coverage, because there’s really no such thing. That we know from a December 2009 report from the Brookings Institution, which pointed out that a mere 1.4% of the national “news hole” for television, radio, newspapers and the web was devoted to education.
Of that meager amount, about 30% focused on higher education, the rest on elementary, secondary and pre-school, but that number is inflated because, the report notes, much of that ‘education’ coverage was devoted to the hot ‘education’ issue of the day and its impact on schools. (In 2009, the hot issue was the H1N1 flu).
The number is further inflated because some outlets apparently count a story about gang violence, for example, as an education story because some of the gang members were in high school or because some acts of violence occur just off school grounds.
The leading outlets, like the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time and so forth, do not devote much space or manpower to national education issues. None of the four major television networks has a full time education correspondent. (The Brookings Report does not point out that the PBS NewsHour has two, John Tulenko and yours truly, plus national correspondents like Tom Bearden who also contribute occasional reports about education.)
If we want things to change, we need to reach the “inadvertent audience” – but not just because it’s larger. That group is important because the education community is small, insular, fragmented and fundamentally reactive, not proactive. Let me address those in order.
Small: See above reference to number of households with school-age children.
Insular and fragmented:In 2009 there were about 5,000 education blogs, and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that there are 10,000 or more today. Most reach a small audience and are probably preaching to the converted. That seems to be what’s happening on Twitter, as Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Foundation demonstrated recently. Using Michelle Rhee to represent the right and Diane Ravitch to stand for the left, he calculated that only about 10% follow both, inferring that people gravitate to where they are most comfortable. They talk to each other and yell about everyone else. That’s not a recipe for moving the ball forward.
Reactive, not proactive: Educators rarely act; instead they react. Imagine for a moment that the Newtown killer had burst into a rabbinical school or a convent and slaughtered two dozen rabbinical students, nuns or priests. Had he done that, the entire religious community–Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et cetera–would have come together before the next sunset. That coalition would have issued a strong statement condemning weapons of mass murder and demanding that the President and the Congress ban their sale and possession.
Now think about the reaction of ‘the education community.’ No coalition formed. Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund published a powerful clarion call for action within hours, and Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers followed not long afterwards. Otherwise, mostly silence or bland words. That ineffectual response allowed the National Rifle Association to frame the debate on its terms. Instead of debating the wisdom/folly of allowing weapons designed for mass killing to be legal, we find ourselves arguing whether principals should carry loaded weapons or not.
As I say, educators as a group are a timid lot, accustomed to reacting, not leading.
The “inadvertent audience” matters because many of those men and women know where the levers of power are, and how to operate them. We need to figure out how to reach and touch them, because they need to understand that providing decent educational opportunities for all children is essential for the health of our economy and our way of life–even though the kids we are talking about are not their own children or grandchildren.
We cannot have a national conversation about the goals of education, about our dreams for our children and about our hopes for America, without them.
To be clear, I am not trolling for story ideas for the NewsHour but for something bigger, something I can’t quite get a handle on myself.
What follows is the story of a missing memo, numerous attempts to unearth it using the Freedom of Information Act, confidential sources, apparently lost email, and new questions about Michelle Rhee’s decision not to investigate widespread erasures on an important standardized test during her first year in Washington, DC.
Readers of this blog know that our Frontline film, “The Education of Michelle Rhee,” has stirred up the conversation about Chancellor Rhee’s tenure in Washington, DC. Debate continues about the ‘wrong to right’ erasures on the DC-CAS, and about the quality and depth of the investigation of those erasures. (Read more about these reactions, including my response, here.)
Erasures matter. The DC-CAS is a diagnostic tool whose wrong answers reveal where students are weak (say, multiplying fractions), so that teachers can provide the necessary catch-up instruction. If adults change answers, then the weaknesses are not discovered or remediated. If you believe, as I do, that education is a civil right, then those cheaters are denying children a basic civil right.
As the film documented, the new Chancellor extracted written guarantees of gains from her principals and offered cash bonuses to principals, assistant principals and teachers if their students’ scores jumped. The implicit message was that principals might lose their jobs if scores did not go up.
Scores jumped, sometimes as much as 42%.
In response to those dramatic increases, she awarded more than $1.5 million in bonuses to principals, assistant principals and teachers. As she said at the celebration–without a trace of irony–when awarding the bonuses, “These are unbelievable for a one-year time period.”
Shortly thereafter, Rhee was informed by Deborah Gist, the Superintendent of Education, that the test maker had discovered large numbers of erasures, most of the answers changed from ‘wrong to right.’ In an “action required” memo dated November 21, 2008, Gist asked Rhee to investigate. (Gist, now Rhode Island’s State Superintendent, declined to discuss this on the record.)
As our film documented, the normally decisive Chancellor responded to Gist’s memo by asking first for more time and then for more information. In the end, she did not investigate the possibility that adults had cheated in order to raise the scores.
What almost no one outside of Rhee’s inner circle knew–perhaps until now–is that the usually decisive Rhee did not stray from her normal pattern of behavior. She acted decisively, but she did this privately.
She turned to a trusted advisor, Dr. Fay G. ‘Sandy’ Sanford. Dr. Sanford began consulting for DCPS early in Rhee’s tenure. He had been approached by Erin McGoldrick, Rhee’s Chief of Data and Accountability, even before she began working for DCPS. “She didn’t have any background in data-driven instruction,” Sanford told me in mid-November of last year, “and so she asked me for help.”
Sanford’s undated agreement says he will be paid $85 per hour for work performed at his offices in California (his company is called Eduneering) and $1500 per day for work performed at DCPS, plus reimbursement for travel, food and lodging.
The document makes clear that he would be under the direct supervision of McGoldrick. His duties are broadly defined in five areas: professional development; data analysis and data modeling; critical review of plans, programs or any other related topics, program design and implementation; and–the open-ended job–”any other services not specified above but related to the data and accountability welfare of the district as directed by the Chief of Data and Accountability (McGoldrick).”
McGoldrick and DCPS relied on Dr. Sanford to the tune of at least $218,935.45 in roughly three years. Sanford’s purchase orders and invoices, which we obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were invariably sent to the attention of Erin McGoldrick (with her email address) and paid by DCPS.
A confidential source told Producer Mike Joseloff that, around the time of Gist’s memo, DCPS asked Dr. Sanford to examine the same data that set off alarm bells in Deborah Gist’s office. It stands to reason that McGoldrick, Sanford’s direct supervisor, would have made the request on the Chancellor’s behalf.
Dr. Sanford confirmed that he had written a memo about the erasure data at the request of DCPS. He said that to Joseloff in late spring of 2012 and again to me in our phone conversation on November 20, 2012, a conversation that lasted for 44 minutes and 30 seconds (according to billing records).
I asked him for a copy of the 2008 memo. He said he would release it if DCPS agreed, but, because it was a ‘work for hire,’ he couldn’t simply send me a copy. He told me that he had already given copies to the Inspectors General of both DCPS and the US Department of Education, under subpoena.
Here beginneth our tale of FOIA frustration. Starting in early May of 2012, we submitted FOIAs to DCPS, the DC Inspector General, the Mayor and the US Department of Education. DCPS told us the document did not exist. The DC Inspector General told us he had it but wouldn’t release it, a decision echoed by the US Department of Education’s IG. The Mayor supported DCPS. I have copies of 46 communications on my desk as I write this, but there may have been more.
Careful readers will recall that Sanford reported to McGoldrick and that he regularly invoiced her for payments. We inferred from this that they probably communicated by email, given that Sanford was in California and McGoldrick in DC. Therefore, on July 3, 2012, we filed a FOIA with DCPS for email communications between the two. We sent ‘reminder’ requests on August 14 and October 1. On October 5 the DCPS FOIA officer, Donna Whitman Russell, wrote to say “We should receive the emails within the next 15 days. We’ll have to review them. And hope to have response in approximately 20 days.” Our November 5, 2012 FedEx letter to her was returned, unopened, with the notation, “moved.” However, Ms. Russell was still on the job as of January 15, 2013.
It’s been over six months, and we have still not received the McGoldrick-Sanford emails. How hard can it be to find email? Or could there be something in the McGoldrick-Sanford communications that DCPS does not want the public to read?
But we know the Sanford memo is out there. What does it say? Three secondary sources have told us that Sanford was troubled by the widespread erasures. An anonymous letter was mailed to me on June 20, 2012, stating in part, “The memo indicated there was cause for concern with a significant number of school test results….(Sanford) did not draw conclusions, but we all know he suspected cheating was widespread.”
A second secondary source told of being in a meeting where McGoldrick spoke of Sanford’s memo and conveyed his concern. A third secondary source said much the same thing.
Primary sources are the gold standard, of course, and in this case there is only one: the memo itself.
In my conversation with Dr. Sanford (November 20, 2012), he said to me, “You know, the memo doesn’t say what you think it says.”
And what is that, I asked him?
“You think it says I found cheating.”
No, I responded. I think it says that there was cause for concern.
He was silent.
Am I right, I asked? Is that what you reported, that there was reasonable cause to investigate?
He was silent.
I asked him to confirm or deny.
He was silent for a long time, and then he changed the subject.
I inferred from that exchange that he did not want to lie to me but that he also felt bound by the rules of his contractual relationship and could not answer. By this point in our conversation I come to feel that Dr. Sanford was a straightforward and honorable man.
I say that because I spent the first 30 minutes of the phone call learning his life story. He grew up in Tennessee and said he didn’t learn to read until he was in 6th grade. He hated school so much, he said, that he “had to be scraped from the car in the mornings.” He wouldn’t have made it through high school if it had not been for four very special teachers and music. He played the string bass and said he was an All-State musician who played rock, jazz and classical music.
After graduating from high school in 1965, Sanford joined the Marines and expected to be sent to Vietnam. Instead, this almost-dropout was assigned to teach math and physics to new recruits. Why me, he asked? “The tests show you can do this,” he said they responded.
So he went to junior college and earned enough credits to qualify to become a commissioned officer in the Marines. He eventually earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of California and Master’s and Doctor’s degrees from USC.
After 24 years in the Marine Corps, he retired in 1989 and began teaching 4th grade. He rose through those ranks to become a principal.
When criterion-reference testing came to California, his skills were in demand, and he was promoted to the central office. He jumped from that in 2000 to form his own company. “Big mistake,” he said. “I made a grand total of $250 my first year.” But it grew and grew, finally becoming too big for his sensibilities, and so he sold it and started his current small consulting company, Eduventures.
Oh, he also took up motor car racing two years ago, at age 64. Said he’s good enough to win his age class, even won a big award that entitled him to go to Lotus Academy in England. ‘Math has served me well,’ he said, explaining that motor car racing is a matter of mathematics.
And so, when Dr. Sanford remained silent for a long time before changing the subject, I drew the inference that our secondary sources were probably right, and that this seemingly honorable man had seen enough in that raw data to believe an investigation was warranted.
If you have read this far, you must be wondering why we didn’t simply ask McGoldrick or Rhee for the document. I called McGoldrick at her home in California at least a dozen times. I never got anything but her answering machine (including once again this morning). I left messages with a call back number. She hasn’t called.
As for Michelle Rhee, we did ask, but even that story is a bit complicated. It begins with phone calls this past summer from a prominent Washington criminal attorney, Reid Weingarten. Mr. Weingarten indicated that, if we would submit our questions in writing, she would reply in writing.
I responded to Mr. Weingarten’s offer in good faith. In my email dated August 22, 2012, I asked the former Chancellor to release Sanford’s memo. She did not reply.
In that same letter, I asked for a formal sit-down interview for our Frontline film to give her ‘the last word.’ She did not reply.
So what does Dr. Sanford’s 4-page memo say? We haven’t seen it and have only circumstantial evidence that suggests its contents.
But if Sanford concluded that the Chancellor had no cause for concern and no reason to investigate, wouldn’t it be in her best interests to release it? Why not provide Frontline with a copy and dispel suspicion?
If, on the other hand, Sanford suggested there was reason to investigate, then that means that two experts, Gist and Sanford, thought something might be amiss. And one of those experts was her own trusted data person.
What we know for certain is that Michelle Rhee did not investigate the DC-CAS erasures on the 2007-2008 test. She did not hire experts to perform erasure analysis or use other forensic tools to determine whether adults cheated. There’s no record of anyone in power even trying to find out if anyone might have witnessed cheating. It’s as if no one wanted to know.
Michelle Rhee is, of course, the central character in our Frontline film, “The Education of Michelle Rhee,” but I want to tell you more about Adell Cothorne, the former DC principal who appears at the end of our film. She was one of a small handful of DC educators willing to speak on the record about the widespread erasures that occurred during Michelle Rhee’s tenure in Washington–and I think what she has to say is important.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that producer Mike Joseloff, researcher Catherine Rentz and I made hundreds of phone calls to teachers and principals at schools with high erasures rates (with answers almost always changed from ‘wrong’ to ‘right’) on the District’s standardized test, the DC-CAS, and to those in Michelle Rhee’s central office. Many of those we called either hung up the phone, said ‘no comment,’ or ask to go ‘off-the-record.’ I think some changed their phone numbers, and a few managed to disappear from sight.
Why the code of silence? One person explained that she wouldn’t be able to find work in education if she spoke out—and then hung up. Others told much the same story.
So let me tell you more about Adell Cothorne, in her own words.
“I grew up in poverty. I’m a minority, of course, (laughs). (And the daughter of a) teenage mother. So I absolutely understand the value of a strong public school education. It will take you places you’ve never been before.”
Education enabled Adell Cothorne to rise from those unpromising circumstances, and she ended up as an Assistant Principal in Montgomery County, Maryland. For those unfamiliar with the Washington, DC, area, Montgomery County is a wealthy suburb of the Capital with excellent ‘Blue Ribbon’ public schools. It’s one of the top-ranked school districts in the nation.
Adell Cothorne, former principal of Noyes Education Campus
Her idealism burned brightly, and so she applied for a job in Washington, largely, she told Frontline, because of her admiration for Michelle Rhee.
“I still have the Time Magazine with Michelle Rhee on the cover,” Cothorne told Frontline. “I had been following her for a while, and I admired what I saw on the media and the news. And so to have the opportunity to dialogue and sit across from her and then have her say to me, you know, ‘It’s not a matter of when you’re coming to D.C., but where I’m going to put you,’ that was absolute confirmation for me. And I was over the top.”
Rhee installed Cothorne as principal of Noyes Education Campus, a ‘Blue Ribbon’ school that had achieved remarkable gains on the DC-CAS in previous years. In October Cothorne met again with the Chancellor, one-on-one, to discuss her plans for the year. (Rhee’s practice was to meet with every principal to get their written guarantees.)
She told Frontline that meeting, which took place early in school year 2010-2011. “You are to ‘goal set.’ You are to tell her, you know, ‘I will raise math scores by 5%. I will raise reading scores by 6%.’ And so, yes, she and I had that conversation. And I said to her in early October, ‘I’m very comfortable with a 6% gain in math and a 7% gain in reading.’”
JOHN MERROW: But … if you make the commitment for 6%, 7%, is it understood that if you don’t make it you are not going to be around?
ADELL COTHORNE: Yes.
JOHN MERROW: Produce or else?
ADELL COTHORNE: She– yes, she said that to me. Yes.
JOHN MERROW: She said–
ADELL COTHORNE: In a joking fashion, absolutely joking fashion, but she did say, ‘You know, Cothorne, if you don’t make this, don’t be upset if you get a pink slip.’ Those were her words to me. In a joking manner.
JOHN MERROW: Did you take it as a joke?
ADELL COTHORNE: No. (LAUGH) That’s my livelihood. No I did not.
Even as she was making that commitment, Cothorne knew she had a problem. What she had already seen in her new school did not jibe with the test scores that had been recorded. Here’s what she told Frontline:
“As any good administrator should, I visited classrooms and just made my presence known, (and) noticed a disconnect for myself and what was going on in the classroom. The level of instruction, because I’ve worked at Blue Ribbon Schools before, so the level of instruction that I know is needed for a Blue Ribbon School, I was not seeing on a daily ongoing basis. … There’s these huge disconnects. They’re struggling academically. Yet the data that I have been given is showing great gains. But what I see with my own eyes on a daily basis is not a true picture of great gains.”
I asked her to tell me more.
ADELL COTHORNE: Well, for instruction, I saw students who were struggling to read, which is absolutely what does not happen in a Blue Ribbon School. And did not coincide or line up with the data that I had been given as the new principal. I just really saw a lack of instruction across the board. There were only very few instances where I could go into a classroom and feel comfortable that instruction was going on and kids were learning. Wholesale, that was not happening at my school.
JOHN MERROW: It must’ve been upsetting.
ADELL COTHORNE: It was upsetting and it was a little nerve-wracking because I knew (LAUGH) it was my responsibility to raise the achievement of that school.
Her predecessor, Wayne Ryan had led Noyes with great success. In fact, Rhee had promoted him to her central office largely because of his school’s success on the DC-CAS. In 2007, for example, only 44.14% of Noyes’ students had scored at a proficient level in reading, but under Ryan’s leadership that number nearly doubled, to 84.21%, in just two years. Math scores had also nearly doubled, from 34.24% to 62.79.
What Cothorne did not know was that an awful lot of answers had been changed from ‘wrong’ to right,’ on DC-CAS answer sheets from Noyes–and in nearly half of Rhee’s other schools. At Noyes 75% of the classrooms were flagged for high erasure rates. (This problem began in Rhee’s first year, and she learned of it early in her second year. She had been urged to investigate the 2007-2008 erasures but did not, as the film details.)
Cothorne told Frontline that she inadvertently discovered a possible explanation for the discrepancy between the high test scores and the students’ daily performance: Adults were changing answers on the tests. She had stayed late one night and heard noises coming from one classroom.
“So I walked into the room and I saw three staff members. There were test books everywhere, over 200 test books spread out on desks, spread out on tables. One staff member was sitting at a desk and had an eraser. And then there were two other staff members at a round table and they had test books out in front of them.
And one staff member said to me, in a light-hearted sort of way, ‘Oh, Principal, I can’t believe this kid drew a spider on the test and I have to erase it.’ … That was a little strange to me. I mean, the whole situation of all of these test books, over 200 test books being spread out in this room after school hours with three staff members. It’s not the way a testing situation is supposed to happen.”
This was not an isolated incident, Cothorne told Frontline.
JOHN MERROW: Were there any other indications?
ADELL COTHORNE: Yes.
JOHN MERROW: Of– that– teachers or staff members were behaving inappropriately on testing situations?
ADELL COTHORNE: Oh, in testing situations. Yes. … I personally walked into two different classrooms and saw two separate teachers giving instruction, trying to frontload students with information while test books are open and out. So I saw that with my own eyes.
That created a crisis for Cothorne. She felt compelled to report the incident, but her immediate supervisor was Wayne Ryan, her predecessor at Noyes. How could she call him up and accuse his former colleagues of erasing answers, without implying that he may have been part of the scheme? In the end, she told Frontline, she called someone else, who, she says, told her ‘not to worry’ but that was the last she heard from him.
She also told Frontline that one administrator summoned her to his office. She would not reveal his identity but told Frontlne about the conversation.
ADELL COTHORNE: When I was meeting with this higher up– the statement was made to me, ‘You don’t respect the legacy that has been built at Noyes.’ Once again, I processed, and looked at the person and said, ‘Could you repeat that?’ The person again moved closer and said, ‘You don’t respect the legacy that has been built at Noyes.’ And I answered with, ‘You know, I thought I was doing a very good job of looking at instruction and giving support.’ And the person just kind of smirked and set back.
JOHN MERROW: And how did you interpret that?
ADELL COTHORNE: “Be quiet.” That was my interpretation.
(Cothorne would not tell Frontline the name of that administrator, but in court documents that were unsealed the day before our broadcast she names Wayne Ryan as the individual. He was, of course, her predecessor at Noyes and the person she reported to directly at DCPS. Back in May 2011, Cothorne filed a ‘whistleblower’ action with the US Department of Education alleging widespread cheating and, therefore, fraudulent awards of federal funding. However, on the afternoon before our broadcast the Department of Education’s Inspector General reported that she had not found cheating by adults and therefore the Department of Justice would not pursue Cothorne’s case. Her full complaint can be found here (.pdf). In it she names the DCPS officials she says she spoke to. We have not be able to contact those men, and DCPS claims it has no records of phone calls from Cothorne. Cothorne’s attorney says that one call was made on Cothorne’s cell phone and that she has supporting documentation.)
At Noyes, however, she was in charge of the building itself. I asked her to talk about the coming DC-CAS. Here’s our conversation:
JOHN MERROW: You, as principal of the school, had something to say about the DC-CAS and security. And did you do anything to make sure that DC-CAS would be a secure test?
ADELL COTHORNE: Yes. So I did speak with downtown, and– on a regular basis, after I witnessed what I saw earlier in the year, I had ongoing conversations with downtown. “Don’t forget, when DC-CAS comes around, I need extra, you know, monitors. I need some other people besides my staff in the building to ensure that everything is okay.”
And at that point, downtown was more willing to help because the USA Today article had come out, and so Noyes had gotten lots of publicity about an erasure scandal. So when CAS came around in 2011, I did have two extra people from downtown to help monitor to– the test, and then I had another two extra people who helped with, you know, having the test checked in to make sure all the tests came in. We had locks changed on doors so that myself and my assistant principal were the only two people that had the key to the room to get in to testing. No one– the test coordinator did not have it. No one else had the keys.
JOHN MERROW: So are you convinced that that DC-CAS in the spring of your year there, that that was a secure test?
ADELL COTHORNE: I would honestly say that was a secure test.
JOHN MERROW: So you– you’re certain there were no erasures on that test?
ADELL COTHORNE: Now, I cannot be certain because I did not stay at the school 24 hours (LAUGH) a day. But while I was there, and what I saw, I do think it was a secure test.
With heightened security, Noyes’ DC-CAS scores dropped 52 points in reading (from 84.21% in 2009 to 32.40%) and 34 points in math (from 62.79% to 28.17%). In fact, in 2010-2011 Noyes performed below its 2007, pre-Rhee, level.
JOHN MERROW: How do you explain the drop?
ADELL COTHORNE: Those were the true test scores.
JOHN MERROW: I’m sorry?
ADELL COTHORNE: Those were the true test scores, in my opinion. Those were what the students in that school actually were able to produce.
Take note, readers. The decline at Noyes was not an exception among ‘high erasure’ schools. At the 14 schools with erasure rates of 50% or higher, scores declined at 12, often precipitously, after security was tightened. For example, reading scores at Aiton fell from 58.43% in 2007-2008 to 20.80%; in math from 57.87% to 16%. Reading scores at Raymond went from 70% to 42.44%, while its math score dropped from 68% to 45.71%.
By the time the 2010-2011 DC-CAS was administered, everyone knew of the widespread erasures, thanks to USA Today’s brilliant and thorough investigation. Rhee was gone by then, but, under public pressure, Rhee’s successor asked DC’s Inspector General to investigate. He began at Noyes, where he had little success. Cothorne told Frontline, “At first, they tried to interview staff members after school, but then staff members would find a reason not to be interviewed.”
JOHN MERROW: Why would teachers play cat and mouse?
ADELL COTHORNE: That would be speculation, but I guess they had something that they didn’t want to be forthcoming.
Of course, Cothorne expected to be questioned. After all, she had filed a complaint, and Noyes was the epicenter of the story.
JOHN MERROW: Were you interviewed?
ADELL COTHORNE: No, I was not.
JOHN MERROW: Why weren’t you interviewed?
ADELL COTHORNE: Again, my speculation, they didn’t want to hear what I had to say.
The Inspector General spent 17 months but investigated only one school, Noyes. Oddly, he did not examine data from 2007-2008, the year with the largest number of erasures but looked only at Rhee’s second and third years. At Noyes, the IG finally managed to interview 32 school personnel–but not Cothorne–and 23 parents. He reported finding a number of problems with test security but on the issue of Noyes personnel erasing answer sheets, “investigators found no evidence to corroborate these allegations.”
The Inspector General would not agree to an interview with Frontline.
Linda Mathews, the lawyer/journalist who supervised the USA Today investigation, told Frontline that , if one of her reporters had submitted a report like the one compiled by DC’s Inspector General, “I’d fire him on the spot.”
I asked Cothorne if she understood why an administrator or teacher might be tempted to cheat?
ADELL COTHORNE: Absolutely.
JOHN MERROW: Explain.
ADELL COTHORNE: Pressure. There’s pressure from central office to raise test scores. And that pressure is given to principals. And it is very clearly explained to you, not only in D.C., but many other school systems, your job is tied to test scores. Increase test scores. Period.
JOHN MERROW: Did you think there were people who, you know, outside of school, above the school, who knew something was wrong and maybe didn’t want to know?
ADELL COTHORNE: Not that they didn’t want to know, they wanted to keep their jobs. So I think that they knew, and, you know, because of the economic times that we’re in, decided to go along.
JOHN MERROW: Do you think that was widespread?
ADELL COTHORNE: In my opinion, yes.
I ask you to pay special attention to the next section of this piece.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, I suggested that changing a few answers was a victimless crime. She nearly jumped from her chair.
ADELL COTHORNE: No, it’s not a victimless crime. There are many victims. There are thousands of victims. It’s the students that are the victims.
JOHN MERROW: How?
ADELL COTHORNE: Someone is putting forth a picture that you are able to do something that you have no capability of doing. And so you keep moving to these different levels and the next person’s saying, “Oh, Janie can read on a fifth grade level and she can do fifth grade math.”
And Janie gets into your sixth grade middle school class, Janie can’t read, ‘See the dog run down the street.’ Janie can’t do the math. And so Janie becomes frustrated, because you are putting these sixth grade expectations on her and she has first grade ability. So then what happens to Janie? She waits her time, and when she’s 16 she’s out.
Although Cothorne became disillusioned with Michelle Rhee, she suggested that the problem went beyond the Chancellor. To Cothorne, Rhee was swept up in the national obsession with test scores everywhere, created by the 2001 federal No Child Left Behind law.
She described it in these words: “(I)nstruction shuts down in February because you have to do test prep from February until the test. So instruction in many districts was already shaky in the beginning, and now you’re basically shutting down all instruction in February to do all of this test prep. Because for many administrators and many school districts, it’s as important to make sure that kid knows how to take the test than it is, ‘Did they truly learn the content?’ “
Because Cothorne is also the mother of a young child, she also sees education from a parent’s perspective. She talked about that in our interview.
ADELL COTHORNE: My frustration as a parent is that education as a whole has lost the ability of students to be natural learners. No Child Left Behind has put in the caveat that every kid must get it by Tuesday at 2:00, and if you have an IEP, we’ll give you until 2:15. But at 2:15 we’re moving on.
And you’ve got to get it. So children who need a little more processing time, children who may be able to give you the idea, but they have to write a song about it, or they have to create a picture about, (but) … when the rubber meets the road, it’s not about differentiation at the end of the day. That teacher is judged on, ‘What scores did those children get on that test?’
And that test doesn’t look at, ‘Could you sing the information?’ or ‘Could you create a poem?’ It looks at, ‘Could you write a short essay and could you bubble in the right answer?’ So that has been the focus. How do they pass that test? Not ‘Did they learn anything?’ but ‘Are they able to pass numerous tests?’ Because we test all year long.
Adell Cothorne, a dedicated educator who was completing work on her doctorate, resigned her principalship and gave up a reported annual salary of roughly $130,000. She has opened up a bakery, “Cooks ‘n Cakes,” in Ellicott City, Maryland, surely a gamble in these difficult economic times.
I hope it’s a rousing success. When you stop by (to buy), please congratulate her on her courage.
Like December 7, 1941 or September 11, Friday, December 14, 2012 is a day that will now live in infamy. The awful images are seared into our brains: A young man in combat fatigues approaching Sandy Hook Elementary School carrying an assault weapon, breaking in and shooting two adults who tried to stop him, and then executing 20 young children, spraying hundreds of bullets into their bodies, and murdering their teachers as well.
What happens next?
In the wake of the massacre of children in Newtown, some citizens are signing petitions like this one:
Our second amendment rights are long overdue a reevaluation. How many more senseless and entirely PREVENTABLE shootings have to occur before we do something about Gun Control. As a citizen and constituent of this great country, I am asking that you take a firm stand and make a positive change by restricting access to guns and saving lives. I don’t have a gun. I don’t want a gun. I don’t need a gun. But somehow the guns always wind up in the hands of people crazy enough to use them irresponsibly and dangerously. This HAS TO BE STOPPED.
With all due respect, high-sounding petitions like this are meaningless. Why anyone wanting a new reality would sign it baffles me. This is not ‘action,’ just a way to feel good about ‘having done something.’ (I am not against petitions per se, just vacuous ones.)
Another response is even more baffling: Arm the educators. The headliner for this foolishness has been former Secretary of Education William Bennett, who made the suggestion on Meet the Press. Mr. Bennett has become a poster child for right-wing blather, but apparently his titles from his former life are still enough to get him air time on distinguished programs like Meet the Press, and probably lots of high-paying speaking gigs as well.
The AFT’s Randi Weingarten was on the Meet the Press panel with Mr. Bennett. Here’s her response: “Schools have to be safe sanctuaries. And so we need to actually stop this routine view that just having more guns will actually make people safer. So we are opposed to having in a safe sanctuary like an elementary school, having someone who has access to guns.”
We all know a moment like this could happen again, and soon. So ... what's the next step to prevent that?
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) has promised to introduce legislation to ban assault weapons, and that’s a start, but the bill she described on television would ban them retroactively. Sorry, but that’s not enough.
And her bill also would exempt over 900 weapons. Not good enough, Senator.
(It’s worth reading the transcript of the entire program, and I suggest paying close attention to what New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg had to say.)
Here’s my view: Assault weapons must be banned, pure and simple. No weapon that holds more than 10 bullets should be legal. No automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Period, end of sentence, full stop. These are not for hunting. They are for killing people.
Possession of these weapons must be outlawed. Although Mr. Bennett said it couldn’t be retroactive, I think it has to be. A new law might establish provisions for monetary rewards for turning them in, but they must be taken out of circulation.
We have acted against proven dangers in the past: asbestos wasn’t just banned in new buildings when we learned that it causes cancer; where it had been installed, it had to be removed. However, we have also waffled in the face of proven dangers, with tobacco being the best example I can think of now. So this will be a test of our determination and political will.
The debate has been joined, and even some pro-gun politicians are sounding reasonable. That has me worried, because I fear they are saying what’s expedient in order to survive politically.
America has too many guns, and it shouldn’t take a massacre to wake us up to this fact. We have children murdering children with handguns, something we experienced in New Orleans during the filming of Rebirth: New Orleans. On my last trip there this spring, one of the kids in the film, 14-year-old Christine Marcelin, was murdered by some other kids, apparently fearful that she might have information they didn’t want the authorities to know. So they grabbed her as she was leaving school and killed her in cold blood.
We must make it harder to own a gun, at least as difficult as it is to get a driver’s license. We are the laughingstock of the world, and we are terrifying our own children.
We should demand strong leadership, not just words, from our President.
We should expect organizations that purport to care for children to take the lead: the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National School Boards Association, the Chief State School Officers, the Council of the Great City Schools, Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst, Jonah Edelman’s Stand for Children, and the National PTA.
If these groups stand on the sidelines, we must call them out for hypocrisy.
It’s time for people who care about this country and our children to become single-issue voters, just like the NRA zealots. Make it clear that you will actively oppose candidates who are not fighting — and voting — for a complete ban on assault weapons, semi-automatic and automatic and for a sensible training and licensing procedure for all guns. Fight for candidates who will take on the NRA zealots and the pro-gun lobby.
Anything less will dishonor the memory of those innocent children and the brave educators who died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday.
John is currently attempting to raise money to complete a documentary film about the rise of the charter school in New Orleans. If you’d like to help him with this goal, please visit this site.
In a blog posted on Edutopia in 2011, George Lucas, the filmmaker and education activist, wrote: “Recently on Edutopia.org, we published observations from 8th graders about what they believe creates an engaging learning experience. Their answers were straightforward and definitive: project-based learning, technology, and an enthusiastic teacher. I couldn’t agree more.”
That’s the big three: project-based learning, technology and enthusiastic teachers. To put it another way, that’s the Holy Grail of education that all good teachers (including Indiana Jones) aspire to.
What I find fascinating about that accurate observation is that, if push came to shove, the magic could happen with just one of the three elements in the classroom: the technology. The enthusiastic teacher could be somewhere else, connected to the students through technology. That’s certainly not ideal, but it’s certainly possible.
Let me go farther out on the limb and assert that at least some of the other participants in the project-based learning could and should be scattered across the globe. Now that we have technology that does not respect walls or require face-to-face contact, we would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
And that’s my fear — namely, that adults will create some stupid requirement that all three elements — enthusiastic teacher, project participants and technology — must be contained within and limited to one classroom.
When the goal is deeper learning, having those three elements is pretty close to being essential. Right now we are looking for outstanding examples of deeper learning, stories we can tell our PBS NewsHour audience that will make them wish they could be kids in school again.
Please share your suggestions here. Or write me directly if you want your story to be a secret (which makes no sense, of course, because you’re telling me and you know that I have never been able to keep a secret!)
I have no doubt that, when you watch our upcoming documentary “Rebirth: New Orleans,” (an extended cut trailer is embedded above) you are going to fall in love with some of the people (particularly the kids) in the film. You may find yourself rooting for the young principal of a charter high school, hoping that he will see the light. Or you’ll be crossing your fingers that Daniel, Kady and Colleston, the three young teachers from Teach for America, will not only survive — but prosper.
Who knows: you might find yourself yelling at the screen because you empathize with the frustration of a parent with a special needs child, or cheering with the mom of a KIPP student who finally gets it.
But it’s my bet that Bobby Calvin and Brittne Jackson will grab your heartstrings. Both are struggling but trying to connect, while also trying to cope with tough circumstances. Brittne has failed one part of the high school graduation exam five times. She is 19 and working three jobs, but determined to get her high school diploma. Will she make it? Can one teacher make a difference?
When you meet Bobby, an engaging young man with a smile that lights up the room, he’s on the verge of being suspended or expelled from New Orlean’s top performing charter high school. He can’t seem to get with the program, meaning he’s always violating the school’s very (very) strict dress code and code of behavior. The school’s principal brings in a ‘tough love’ team to try to help, but it doesn’t seem to work.
The Future Is Now -- for New Orleans, and for the completion of our film. Please consider donating today.
I won’t tell you how these stories come out, because of course we want you to watch the film. “Rebirth: New Orleans” has been a labor of love. It’s six years of videotaping — remember our series on Paul Vallas for PBS NewsHour? — now being condensed into one hour.
We’re in the home stretch now, and I hope you will help us get to the finish line. We’ve set up a Kickstarter project to raise $50,000 towards completion of the film; so far, we’re about 31 percent of the way there (the deadline to raise the money is December 30). I’d like to thank everyone who’s donated so far — and I will thank, personally, in letters being mailed soon — but for now, if you have the time during the holiday season, please consider contributing to helping us finish this important story.
Thank you — and if you have any questions about the film or its messages, please leave remarks in the comments. I’ll do my best to respond to each and every one.
Remember that popular song whose lyrics celebrate ignorance?
“Don’t know much about history, don’t know much geography…?”
In the end, what matters to the young man in the song is getting the girl.
But is it important is it that we, and those who follow us, know and respect the past? If history matters to you, then please read on. The words were penned by Jim Loewen, the historian and writer of a wonderful book, Lies My Teacher Told Me.
If you find yourself with money to give this holiday season, Tougaloo College is a worthy recipient.
(S)ome good folks are working on funding a “Mississippi Civil Rights Movement Chair” at Tougaloo College. As you may know, Tougaloo played an important and unique role in the Movement itself, and this offer might be of interest to you.
Tougaloo is a small predominantly black college located at the edge of Jackson, MS. During the civil rights movement, most black colleges took a “hands off” role, especially those under state control but many private schools as well. Not Tougaloo. Even at the risk of its survival, Tougaloo backed its students when they got arrested, provided space for groups to meet, invited speakers whom white Mississippi deemed controversial if not subversive, and retained and promoted faculty members who campaigned for an end to racial segregation. At the time, these were very courageous, dangerous, and radical actions.
Tougaloo admitted Joyce Ladner and her sister, for example, when Jackson State expelled them for participating in civil rights movement activities. Joyce went on to become an award-winning sociologist and the first female president of Howard University. In her words, “Perhaps no other college in the South played as central a role in the Movement as Tougaloo. Founded over a century ago, Tougaloo was always a leader in human rights. It provided a liberal education to black students not found anywhere else in the state. In 1961, it found itself at the forefront when the “Tougaloo Nine‟ students staged the first sit-in in Mississippi at the then all-white Jackson Public Library.
Tougaloo hosted civil rights activists from the Freedom Riders in 1961 to the Meredith March in 1966. Prominent leaders and ordinary citizens found safe haven at Tougaloo, which was called “an oasis of freedom” because it was the only place where integrated groups could gather. Prominent individuals such as Ralph Bunche, Martin Luther King Jr., Stokeley Carmichael, Fannie Lou Hamer, Julian Bond, Joan Baez, and Congressman John Lewis spoke at its historic Woodworth Chapel. Students, faculty, and staff were arrested for protesting racial discrimination at segregated white churches, the city auditorium, and were beaten at the F.W. Woolworth lunch counter. We students routinely conducted voter registration drives across the state, a boycott against Jackson businesses, and some of us were deeply involved with SNCC, COFO, and the Freedom Democratic Party.”
Now, some private individuals with the support of the college have undertaken a campaign to endow a “Mississippi Civil Rights Movement Chair” at Tougaloo. In Ladner’s words, “It will be the College’s first endowed chair and the first such chair in Mississippi devoted to the Civil Rights Movement.” She goes on to say, “Tougaloo paid a heavy price for its involvement. It was dubbed “Cancer College” by whites, and the Mississippi State Legislature attempted to revoke its charter.” To this day, Tougaloo is not able to draw on the economic elite of Mississippi for the kind of support that many other colleges get from their areas and states. That’s one reason this campaign is so important.
An endowed chair will make a huge difference at Tougaloo, both by funding an important faculty position and also by improving campus morale. I am helping with this campaign because I feel that a dollar given to Tougaloo goes further, compared to any other college. …
Tougaloo … does more with less than any other college I know. Even with its limited financial resources, it still offers a fine education. In Ladner’s words, “It was at Tougaloo that I learned the importance of using knowledge to promote social change. Professors at Tougaloo encouraged us to explore languages, the decolonization on the African continent, participate in Crossroads Africa, join the Peace Corps, and apply for graduate and professional schools. Tougaloo students continue to enter graduate, medical, and law schools in disproportionate numbers compared to its peer institutions.”
This professorship will allow the college, again quoting Ladner, “to bring to the campus the kind of nationally known scholar the students deserve the right to have as part of their education. Such a professor will be a role model for faculty colleagues as well as students. This endowed chair will help retain an impressive faculty member or to recruit a nationally renowned professor who will provide distinction to the College. This chair will also enable the College to continue its proud tradition as a leader in the struggle for human rights, as a continuing legacy.”
Today, all that many young people in Mississippi know of the civil rights movement is “Martin Luther King Jr.” And he played only a minor role in Mississippi! Simply establishing a Mississippi Civil Rights Movement Chair will honor and remember a great cause, a magnificent campaign.”
I do not know Professor Loewen, just his book. I learned of the proposed Endowed Chair from Richard Rothstein, the brilliant education analyst and writer when he sent a mailing to those on his list. It struck a chord with me, because I spent two wonderful years teaching English at Virginia State College, another HBCU, in the late 1960’s and know how those institutions, their faculty, and their students battle the odds.
I went online to donate but found that process frustrating. I did speak with someone in the development office who told me that they ‘had a long way to go’ toward the goal of $2 million.
If you wish to donate, send checks made out to “Tougaloo College,” with the “for” blank saying “Civil Rights Chair,” to Tougaloo College, Office of Institutional Advancement, 500 W. County Line Rd., Tougaloo, MS, 39174.
Whether you are in a position to donate or not, please share this message with like-minded people who care about civil rights and justice for all.
Right about now most of us are looking for ways to reduce our tax obligations, and all gifts are fully tax-deductible. So you will feel good, while doing good for others and for your own bottom line.
For a lot of Americans, Thanksgiving is a time for reflection. But since Thanksgiving now means football games, maybe it’s worth reflecting on the damage that America’s new national pastime is doing. I don’t mean the concussions, dementia and early deaths the sport is causing, because that’s already well-documented. Instead, I have more subtle issues in mind, issues that reveal how deeply ‘big time football’ has invaded our way of thinking and is — from my perspective — corrupting higher education. I want to examine, in this space, the expansion of the Big Ten from 12 to 14 universities, last Sunday’s report about big time football on 60 Minutes, and the firing of Cal football coach Jeff Tedford.
The entire rationale for the expansion of the Big Ten (and every other athletic conference) is money. The Big Ten hasn’t had just 10 teams since 1993. This week it added Maryland (from the Atlantic Coast Conference) and Rutgers (from the Big East). Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney made no bones about his reasoning: ‘demographics,’ by which he means viewers, which means television money.
What I find most amazing is how nobody even blinks an eye, let alone expresses outrage, at WHO is making these announcements and decisions: it’s the sports guy! There’s no pretense whatsoever that these decisions, affecting entire universities, have anything at all to do with what is ostensibly the purpose of a university. It’s all about the money.
Perhaps that explains the absence of the university presidents; maybe they are embarrassed. Let’s hope so.
Here’s another example: On Sunday 60 Minutes devoted about one-third of its hour to big time football, focusing on Michigan and Alabama. While the piece did acknowledge that only about 20 of the 125 major college football programs actually operate in the black, it then proceeded to ignore the losers. Rutgers, we know from other reports, has been losing $25 million a year, not exactly chump change. What other university programs has it taken money from in order to balance the books? How many academic programs have been gutted at Rutgers, and at the other universities whose football programs lose money?
(By the way, that estimate of 20 programs in the black is higher than any I have seen. I suspect it is closer to 5, perhaps 10.)
We learned that the Alabama coach, Nick Saban, makes $5 million a year. Although one athlete acknowledged that playing football was ‘a full time job,’ Armen Keteyian — the correspondent for the piece — did not report on the paltry piece of Michigan’s and Alabama’s millions that go to the players, euphemistically referred to as ‘scholar-athletes.’ They get 1-year renewable athletic scholarships for four years, and that’s it. But, as my colleague John Tulenko reported, players in big-time programs are sometimes urged to take a minimal academic load, one that doesn’t lead to graduating in four years. Why? Because too much study time takes away from practicing and playing, which is their ‘full time job.’ When they use up their eligibility, players are often discarded Only then do these ‘student-athletes’ discover that they are perhaps two years worth of credits shy of graduating, because their coaches had not been overly concerned about the ‘student’ part of the equation.
Why do you think Jeff Tedford was ultimately fired at Cal?
Instead, the piece took a ‘gee whiz’ tone about how the athletic directors look to squeeze every dollar out of the program, selling jerseys and every other imaginable tchotchke. That was journalism that did not meet 60 Minutes’ high standards, in my view.
So what to make of Cal’s firing the most successful football coach in its long history? Was he fired because his team was losing too many games, or because graduation rates went down?
When Jeff Tedford was hired in 2001, Cal was awful (1-10) and the university had been found guilty of academic fraud for awarding academic credits to two players for courses they hadn’t taken. The football team’s graduation rate was below 50% — at a university whose overall graduation rate was around 90%.
Tedford put in place an ambitious academic plan: tutoring, attendance checks, individual meetings every week with every player to discuss academics, and more. In effect, Tedford turned his assistant coaches into de facto academic advisors. He even suspended at least one player for one game for cutting classes.
It worked. In 2009, 71% of Cal varsity players graduated within the 6-year window used by the NCAA to rate schools. That was a 48% increase over the rate when Tedford took the job. At the time, physics professor Robert Jacobsen, who also serves on Cal’s athletic admissions committee, told a reporter, “Tedford has changed the way the football players look at being student-athletes. One of the things he’s done is kept people in school. They don’t just leave when they’re done playing. They stay and get their degrees.”
67% of Cal’s African-American players (the majority of Cal’s roster) graduated–20 points higher than the major college average and two points higher than Cal’s overall graduation rate for black male students.
That was in 2009, just three years ago.
And the team started winning under Tedford: A Pac-12 championship, eight consecutive winning seasons, eight bowl games in 11 years, more wins than any coach in Cal history, and lots of national attention. His teams also managed to defeat Stanford, winning ‘The Axe’ for Cal.
But in 2010, Cal had its first losing season under Coach Tedford, going 5-7 and being blown out by Stanford. It rebounded to 7-5 in 2011 but lost ‘The Axe’ to Stanford again.
And this season was ugly. Cal lost to Stanford for the third straight time, fell to 3-9, and was blown out in its last two games by a combined score of 121-31.
Meanwhile, graduation rates fell. They now are back in the 50% range, about where they were when Tedford was hired.
Some say he got the axe for not winning ‘The Axe,’ but that’s not how the athletic director presented the story, although she did bring Stanford into the conversation. “As hard as it has been to watch our student-athletes struggle on the field, the team’s continuing decline in academic performance is of great concern,” Athletic Director Sandy Barbour wrote in announcing her decision. “As recent NCAA data show, Cal football is now last in the Pac-12 in terms of the team’s graduation rate: 48% compared to Stanford’s conference-leading 90%.”
So apparently Cal couldn’t stand losing to Stanford on the field and in the classroom.
Does anyone believe that Tedford would have been canned if the team had continued winning? If the Golden Bears had been beating Stanford and going to bowl games, he would have been called on the carpet about graduation rates, warned and urged to improve, but would he have been fired? I doubt it.
We have a point of comparison on the Berkeley campus, the men’s varsity basketball team. Over the past four years, that team has won 91 games and lost only 47. But the team sports a graduation success rate of only 33 percent. That is the lowest in the Pac-12 and sixth-lowest among all major basketball programs!
How was the basketball coach treated? Last year Athletic Director Barbour gave him a contract extension.
But even if Coach Tedford was fired because his players weren’t graduating, that one example doesn’t change the big picture. First you have to show me a pattern of winning football coaches being fired for low graduation rates. Until then, I maintain that big time college football is about winning and money, with the young men’s academic performance way down on the priority list.
And the shame of big time sports calling the shots at our major universities continues, unexamined and unquestioned. Not something to be thankful for, today or any other day.
The Merrow Report 
