"We Work Hard, Sir. We Work Hard."

UPDATE: Correa herself contacted me and clarified a few things I fund inaudible on the video. Thanks for that, Zoila.

We have hit a breaking point, and teachers are starting to stand up and say: "Enough."

This speech comes to us from West New York, a school district besieged by political nonsense, yet full of dedicated, extraordinary professionals who give everything of themselves for their beautiful, deserving students.

Ladies and gentlemen, listen to Zoila Correa:

"I just want to speak on... this week happens to be National Respect Week. And I posted this on my classroom, and it says: 'Show respect, even to people who don't deserve it. Not as a reflection of their character, but as reflection of yours.'

"And as a teacher, I'm a little disappointed in saying... I understand that we all have passion. If you know me, you know I'm full of passion. But I still think we need to respect our community. And as a West New Yorker, that I was born here, I've been working for West New York since I was 14 at the rec program, and I still work for West New York, and I have no intention of leaving West New York." 

"But my concern is not so much... I mean, yes, the politics, but it's always been here. But my concern, president, as a teacher that is your teacher... you know, I heard the candidate that came up and won the nomination, and she pretty much -- as a teacher, I was very offended. 

[Applause starts] 

"And I don't know if you had come to talk to me... and no offense ma'am, I totally respect you, and as a woman and as a provider, or whatever it is -- I don't know the terms. But the fact that I feel like you didn't have a base to say that we need a more rigorous program. 

"I am a 6th Grade math teacher, and our program is rigorous. And we stand up to the top state schools as we saw in that report. Every single one of those students were higher, higher, higher, higher, higher. Not one, not one was lower. Not one.

"And I work, sir. I work. You know me. Please, come to my classroom: 311. I work. Come to my house, three in the morning. I work. I work my heart out. So when I hear that we're not rigorous, or we need more PD [professional development]... Sir, it's October, and I'm on lesson 1.4. Not because I'm lazy. But because we have enough PD from the state. We have enough SGOs, SGPs, 504s, I&RS, domain this, domain that -- we work hard, sir. We work hard. 

[Applause grows] 

"My heart is in this town. Not my kids, because I would have them here but there aren't enough rec programs anymore. But my heart -- I bleed West New York. So when I stand here, and hear how the students, they need charter schools... how dare you. You don't know me. Come to my school. Come to my class. Do what I do, in and out. And tell me if a charter school could do more. 

"And I don't need my union. I do it because I really love the kids of this town. So when I see someone saying that our graduation rates are terrible, and my husband found out that they are 84 percent*, when I hear that we need our best in videos in Hudson County -- no offense -- TV, when I hear that we need "the best" for the kids... 

"I am the best. My teachers are the best. Our coworkers are the best." 

[Pointing] "All those awards? Show them that. Please do not insult us. Say you want to talk and hold our hand. Encourage us. Don't trash us. Please, sir, and you voted someone in, and that breaks my heart. Because what did she have to say? She said she was the best? What she had to say was all insulting our community. 

"And that my president -- because you are my president, and my life depends on what you guys [points at board] vote for -- that's what breaks my heart. 

"Please, come to my school. Sit in my classroom. I'm all about my kids."

If every school board and politician in America actually listened to teachers with the courage and the eloquence of Zoila Correa, much of the reformy nonsense we are currently foisting on our kids would be ended.

Enough is enough. Teachers are NOT the problem, and teacher bashing is not the solution.

Your students are lucky to have you for a teacher, Zoila.

(h/t Hudson County View)


* Correa's husband is a data analyst for West New York.

Only You Can Prevent Charter Cheerleading

Dearest friends,

I'd like to take just a moment of your time today to describe a dangerous and debilitating threat to America. Sadly, this terrible condition is growing to epidemic proportions; otherwise healthy people are increasingly succumbing to this awful disease:

Charter cheerleading.

Understand that charter cheerleading is not the same as charter school advocacy. It's perfectly reasonable for the leader of a charter school to speak well of his or her own schools; what school leader wouldn't? And there is a case to be made for including charters in the mix of schools available to America's students. Reasonable discussions about charter schools often include people who believe that charter schools are a fine idea, but understand that their effects are limited.

But charter cheerleading is not charter advocacy; it is, instead, an insufferably smug form of braggadocio, lacking in any sort of reasoned consideration of the facts. Charter cheerleaders suffer from delusions of grandeur, fully confident in their own good will while casually questioning the motives of others who may disagree with them.

Sadly, once infected, no treatment can save the charter cheerleader from the self-righteousness that almost always accompanies this horrible malady:

One thing I’ve learned during 20 years in urban education reform is that the forces of the status quo will challenge any new idea, even one that offers tremendous hope to children. So I am not surprised by the recent onslaught of articles from those opposed to expanding excellent educational opportunities for children in the state of New Jersey, and warning of negative consequences if charters are allowed to expand.

Pity poor Ron Brady of Freedom Prep, the Camden branch of the Democracy Prep charter chain. His charter cheerleading has metastasized to the point that he not only has hallucinations about an imaginary "status quo" that will "challenge any new idea"; he has also dreamed up arguments against charter schools that no one actually makes!

Unfortunately, anti-charter forces spend more time spreading false rumors about charter schools than trying to fix district schools. Despite what you may have heard, charter schools aren’t private schools. They don’t charge tuition. They don’t require entrance exams. They aren’t religiously affiliated. And they aren’t trying to take money away from district schools. We’re actually trying to share what we know works, so that every school -- district or charter -- can get better.

As we all know, nobody serious says any of these things; only in the fevered mind of a charter cheerleader do such "false rumors" exist. What charter critics do point out is that:

• Charter schools are not state actors, so it's misleading to call them public schools, as if they were equivalent to district schools in the rights they accord parents, students, teachers, and taxpayers.
• Charter schools do drain resources from public schools, even as they tend not to serve the children with the costliest educational needs.
• Charters may not have entrance requirements, but there is plenty of evidence that some charters recruit and retain students who are predisposed to have better outcomes.
• Charters are not religious schools, but there are religious schools that have avoided closing by converting to charters. There are also clergy who have tried to get on the charter gravy train by attempting to convert their religious schools to charters in the hopes of using public funds to sustain their operations.

As to the charge that critics contend that charters are trying to take away money from district schools... well, in this case, Brady is right. But only because it's true -- especially in Camden.

Friends, please be aware of the signs of charter cheerleading. The number one symptom is cherry-picking; not necessarily cherry-picking students (although that is quite often a concurrent symptom), but cherry-picking facts:

What strikes me about those committed to maintaining the status quo is that their arguments do not offer a shred of evidence that public charter schools aren’t serving kids well. That’s probably because 15 of 16 independent studies of charter schools between 2010 and 2013 show just the opposite: Charter schools consistently outperform traditional district schools, especially in urban areas. And as a matter of fact, many public schools in some of New Jersey’s highest need areas have a long history of failing students year after year.

Like many of his fellow victims, charter cheerleading sufferer Brady doesn't like to give sources for his "facts." Those of us who have studied this dreaded disease, however, know well that the "15 of 16" virus originated from the not-quite-"independent" National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which conveniently ignores other studies questioning the efficacy of charters. NAPCS also touts many of the state-level CREDO studies without mentioning the serious questions researchers have raised about their methodology and generalizability.

Brady does cite the CREDO study directly; what he forgets to mention is that the New Jersey study was not particularly favorable towards charters in his own city of Camden:

When we investigate the learning impacts of Newark charter schools separately, we find that their results are larger in reading and math than the overall state results. Grouping the other four major cities in New Jersey (Camden, Trenton, Jersey City, and Paterson) shows that charter students in these areas learn significantly less than their TPS peers in reading. There are no differences in learning gains between charter students in the four other major cities and their virtual counterparts in math. [p. 16; emphasis mine]

Yes, the delusions of the charter cheerleader are truly heartbreaking: they actually cite reports that contradict their belief in the power of "choice." But that's not surprising, given how Brady's charter actually came to New Jersey. Back when former Acting Commissioner Chris Cerf ran the NJDOE, his department refused to renew Freedom Academy's charter until the school, which had been a local outfit, surrendered its operations to Democracy Prep, a national chain Cerf had worked with while he was in New York City:

Freedom Academy's board initially chose the local group, Foundations Inc. of Mount Laurel, to run the school.

Foundations was the lowest responsible bidder for the management contract at the grade 5-8 school, board president Keisha Usher-Martin said. It came in at less than half of Democracy Prep's $585,000 bid.

But then "there was an uproar within the school and the state" over the choice of Foundations, she said.

"Then Foundations withdrew its bid," Usher-Martin said, adding that the board was left with no option but to hire Democracy Prep. She called it a "touchy subject." [emphasis mine]

As I reported in 2013, Democracy Prep had already developed a reputation in NYC for leaving certain children behind: it served fewer children at risk, fewer children who were English language learners, and far fewer children with special needs than its neighboring public schools. Brady seems to be under the delusion that his charter management organization earned its access to New Jersey on merit; pitifully, his charter cheerleading has left him with a rather distorted view of reality.

We don't have much data yet on Freedom Prep's student population since Democracy Prep took over. We do know, however, that while the school's students last year all qualified for free lunch, not one was listed as Limited English Proficient -- this in a city where 9 percent of students enrolled in the local district are LEP.

And, as I've reported before, Camden's charters have a history of leaving special education students in the public schools, then claiming credit for their "successes":

To repeat: we don't yet have data from the "new" Freedom prep to confirm this trend.* Of course, that means there isn't any data to justify Brady's bragging either:

Whatever path we walk, all charter schools are united by a commitment to high standards and student-centered learning. At Freedom Prep, our goal for students is simple and lofty: “Work hard. Go to college. Change the world!” In an environment where kids are energized to learn, they meet the high expectations parents and teachers set for them.

This is yet another symptom of charter cheerleading: boasting on results before actually getting any.

Again, it is perfectly acceptable to be proud of your school; in fact, I'd be wary of any school leader who didn't express pride in his or her staff and students. But charter cheerleading takes this pride and twists it into obnoxious boasting and unjustified sneering at arguments charter skeptics don't even make.

My friends, there is hope: while charter cheerleading is rarely cured, it can be contained through the extensive application of facts and logic. We must all do our part to force victims of charter cheerleading, like Brady, to see the truth about charters: while they may have their place, they are not nearly the miracles their most ardent adherents believe them to be.

Let's all stand together and work for a better world: a world where charter cheerleading never again afflicts a poor, deluded soul like Ron Brady. Your support is appreciated.

Show your love for charter cheerleaders:

Give them the facts they so desperately need to overcome their affliction.

Many thanks.

* An important side note: the data on the "old" Freedom Prep is highly questionable. The district-level special education rates didn't even come close to matching the school-level rates found in the NJDOE's Performance Report Cards. I use school-level rates in the scatterplot above, but I can't honestly say I have a lot of faith in the integrity of the data from that school. Caveat regressor.

All Best Wishes And Love To Karen Lewis

I'm setting aside the wonk and the snark tonight so I can ask you to join with me in sending your prayers, your love, and your best wishes to Karen Lewis.

Karen is an American hero. Every moment I've shared with her I consider a gift. No one has done more to advance the cause of teachers over the last few years than this courageous, brilliant, and really, really funny woman.

God bless, Karen. Let's get you through this -- your work isn't even close to done yet.

Two heroes.

When "Choice" Districts Leave Special Education Students Behind

From our friends at the Education Law Center* comes some disturbing news:

Over two and half years after a court-ordered settlement, a July 2014 compliance report again shows almost no progress by Newark Public Schools (NPS) in improving the delivery of services to students with disabilities.  

This ongoing failure has prompted the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) to impose a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) on NPS to address recurring problems with staffing and oversight of the district’s special education program.

The settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by Education Law Center, with the pro bono assistance of the Gibbons law firm – M.A. v. Newark Public Schools – directs NPS to implement measures to ensure students with disabilities receive special education services in a timely manner and obtain “compensatory education” for services they missed in the past. The settlement requires NPS to put in place a comprehensive special education database, provide staff training, and regularly report on compliance activities. The settlement also includes guidelines for corrective action if warranted, and requires an independent third party to monitor district compliance.

NPS’s July 2014 compliance report shows that only 33% of district students are receiving initial special education services in a timely manner. This represents a mere 1% increase since January 2014, and a decline from the 40% compliance rate in February 2013. [emphasis mine]

I know there's quite a bit that State Superintendent Cami Anderson has to answer for, but this really is just about the worst dereliction of duty you could imagine for a school leader. These children are the most needy and the most vulnerable students in the system; they should be the first priority of any superintendent.

Perhaps if Anderson and her staff had spent less time devising the innumerate and racially biased One Newark plan, and more time focusing on the needs of Newark's special education students, these children would be getting the services they need. After all, history shows her beloved charter schools are either not able or not willing to shoulder their fair share of the special education burden:

From NJDOE's special education datasets. The majority of Newark's charter schools don't even serve half the proportion of special education students compared to NPS. But it goes further than that:

Apologies for the ugly color scheme. I describe the methodology briefly below; what we've got here are two pretty good estimates of how the different types of eligibiltities are spread out among Newark's students.

The various shades of gold are higher-cost disabilities: Autism, Deaf-Blindness, Emotional Disturbance, Hearing Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impairment, Orthopedic Impairments, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Visual Impairment. In aqua we have lower-cost disabilities: Specific Learning Disability, and Speech or Language Impairment.

I have unknown disabilities in purple: we don't know these because the NJDOE suppresses data to protect the privacy of students when the numbers reported are low (below five). It makes sense that the charters would have more unknown students, because their overall enrollment numbers are smaller than the entire NPS district.

I extrapolated what those unknowns would be using a most-generous case scenario, assuming students with unknown disabilities would be equally distributed among all possible eligibilities, no matter how high the cost. In either case, the contrast is clear: NPS is serving more of the students with high-cost disabilities, while the classified charter students largely have low-cost disabilities.

I don't necessarily fault the charters for this: in most cases, it would be inappropriate for them to attempt to serve children with the highest-cost disabilities. I doubt very few charters can adequately educate children whose classification is Traumatic Brain Injury or Deaf Blindness. Some students who are classified as autistic may be able to integrate into a charter school classroom; others very likely can't. It would be a very poor allocation of resources to replicate the services available to students with high-cost needs in every school -- charter or not -- within a "choice" district.

Which is precisely the point: it's not realistic to think a "choice" system, like One Newark, won't move more special education students into the public schools and fewer into the charters. And if  you don't acknowledge this reality when allocating funds, you're going to short-change the children who need extra resources the most:

“NPS’ ongoing failure to provide the most basic evaluation and placement services to children with disabilities is very disturbing,” said Elizabeth Athos, ELC Senior Attorney. “We are pleased that the NJDOE has put more teeth into its CAP by directing an increase in staff dedicated to solving evaluation and service delays, but more needs to be done.”

ELC has notified NJDOE that the State’s corrective action plan does not go far enough to address the systemic problems with NPS service delivery. Specifically, ELC is asking NJDOE to direct NPS to provide a line item budget for special education services that identifies all child study teams and other essential staff used by the district, with evidence demonstrating that the staff-to-student ratios within the budget are consistent with accepted practice standards in the field. ELC will meet next week with NPS and NJDOE to discuss ELC's objections.

“NPS has reduced or eliminated staff and other resources for special education in response to recent budget cuts,” said Ms. Athos. “We’re asking NPS to produce a detailed budget so we can determine whether NPS has allocated sufficient resources to deliver effective and timely services.”

There's been a lot of talk lately about charters not getting their "fair share" of funds; there's far less talk about how those same charters shouldn't get a similar share of dollars when they don't educate the same types of kids.

Down in Camden, the new "Renaissance" charters will get 95 percent of the per pupil funds from the city school district for each student enrolled. The NJ Legislature overwhelming thinks this is a great idea; what they didn't stop to consider is what happens when the funding needed for the children who can't be served by charters leaves the public district. How can children with high-cost needs be served when the charters are disproportionately draining the funding they need for their educations?

They can't. In their ideological zeal for market-based education, the reformy types are running a real risk of draining the funds necessary to educate students for whom "choice" is not a choice.

There is a very good case to be made that charter school proliferation is contributing to Newark's inability to educate special needs children. Unless Anderson can show right now that she is capable of serving these deserving students, her plans for charter expansion should be halted -- immediately.


METHODOLOGY:

The “Number of Classified Students by Eligibility and Placement, Ages 6-21” file lists seven possible special education placements:

• More than 80% included in general education classes
• Between 40 and 80% included in general education classes
• Less than 40% included in general education classes
• Public Separate & Private Day School
• Public & Private Residential School
• Home Instruction
• Correctional Facilities

Each placement can have one of 12 different eligibility categories:

• AUT: Autism
• DB: Deaf Blindness
• EMN: Emotional Disturbance
• HI: Hearing Impairment
• MD: Multiple Disabilities
• ID: Intellectual Disability
• OHI: Other Health Impairment
• OI: Orthopedic Impairments
• SLD: Specific Learning Disability
• SPL: Speech or Language Impairment
• TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury
• VI: Visual Impairment

7 placements by 12 eligibilities yield 84 cells of data for each school district or charter school. Counts of 0 are not suppressed, which means that if the cell does not contain a 0 or a number higher than 5, we can assume it contains some number between 1 and 5.

The sum of all the numbers in all 84 cells, however, cannot be greater than the total count of classified students ages 3 to 21 for the district or the charter school. It also cannot be greater than the total for each district or charter calculated from the “Percent of Classified Students by Placement, Ages 6-21” file (assuming no cells are suppressed in that file).

So the highest possible total of age 6 to 21 classified students is either the total of all non-suppressed students and 5 students for each suppressed cell, or the total count of students classified ages 3 to 21, or the total placement count of students classified ages 6 to 21, whichever is the lowest.

Since we know every suppressed cell has a count of at least 1, and since we know the highest possible total count of age 6 to 21 classified students, we can calculate the number of unknown students – the highest possible count minus the known students and 1 for each suppressed cell – in the most generous scenario possible.

To make the extrapolated counts, this method divides the unknown students by the number of suppressed cells and distributes that amount among them, even if that means distributing a fraction.

* Full disclosure: I have worked previously for the ELC.

The Bad Faith Arguments of @campbell_brown

I am the first to admit that there is a legitimate argument to be made against teacher tenure. I may find that argument to be weak and unsupported by empirical evidence. But I also understand that there really are disturbing reports of inexcusable teacher behavior, and those stories would cause anyone to question whether due process rights for teachers ought to be at least modified.

So we can debate tenure laws in good faith, and, while I may strongly disagree with the conclusions of the anti-tenure side, at least I can respect where their point of view is coming from.

What I have absolutely no respect for, however, is garbage like this:

Mayor de Blasio is absolutely right to label the allegations against Brooklyn public school teacher Sean Shaynak “disgusting.” Unfortunately, the mayor has been wrong on just about everything else when it comes to New York’s broken teacher discipline system since the moment he entered City Hall.

The mayor would not be human, let alone a remotely competent politician, if he didn’t call for the firing of someone using a position of power to force himself on young people and exchanging grades for sexual favors.

But serious questions need to be addressed. Like why was he even hired in the first place? Education officials say they were aware that he had been arrested, though he was never convicted. And if the mayor is so intent on firing him, why hasn’t he? He was first arrested in August, and he does not have tenure. It is a rare instance where the Education Department actually has the power to do something.

One wonders if the mayor is even aware that if Shaynak DID have tenure, his administration would be powerless, regardless of what he or Chancellor Carmen Fariña thought of Shaynak’s actions. [emphasis mine]

This is the latest bit of anti-tenure claptrap from Campbell Brown, brought to us courtesy of the NYC tabloids, which seem to exist these days largely to convince their readers that hordes of abusive teachers sustained by taxpayers dollars is second only to the Ebola virus as a threat to New Yorkers.

The situation has gotten so dire that eight brave families from across New York are challenging state tenure and dismissal laws that keep ineffective and dangerous teachers in the classroom.

Their lawsuit makes an understandable claim: When the system forces schools to keep dangerous and ineffective teachers in the classroom, the system deprives students of the right to a sound basic education.

This is, of course, completely absurd. Shaynak, by Brown's own admission, didn't have tenure; there was no obligation to renew his contract. Changing New York's tenure laws would have done nothing to change the particulars of this case.

A quick read of the NY Times story on Shaynak confirms that revoking tenure would not have protected his victims. Shaynak got away with his despicable crimes because he wasn't properly vetted at hiring, he apparently wasn't properly supervised afterward, and his students found him charismatic, which allowed him to manipulate both his victims and the students who might otherwise have reported his other unprofessional behaviors.

Brown, therefore, is deliberately conflating the hiring and supervision practices of the NYCDOE with tenure laws. It's a cheap rhetorical trick, and if Brown's lawyers tried it in court, their argument would most likely be rejected by a judge as irrelevant. But judges don't oversee public debates about policy, so Brown can make an illogical appeal to emotion here with no consequences.

I know some of you who are sympathetic to my point of view still get squeamish when we talk about the motivations of the reformy types. You'd rather argue points of policy; truth be told, so would I. It would be lovely if we could all get out our charts and our graphs and briefs and hash these things out and arrive at sensible conclusions.

But let's be clear: Campbell Brown and her reformy crew are not arguing in good faith. Because anyone who engages in this level of mendacity is not interested in having a meaningful debate; they wouldn't stoop to such tactics if they were.

I understand that a weak argument is, by itself, not a sign of bad faith. Some present weak arguments because they don't think clearly about what they're saying. Some present weak arguments because they are largely ignorant on the topic of which they speak. Some present weak arguments because they desperately want to avoid confronting more important issues.

But Brown's argument here is so outrageously foolish that the only way she could not see her incoherence was if she was being willingly obtuse. That, to my mind, is just as bad as being a willing sophist.

Fellow travelers, at some point we're going to have to face an uncomfortable truth: while many on the reformy side are people of good faith, some are not. Some will do anything and say anything to get what they want, facts and reason and logic be damned.

It isn't impolite to point this out; in fact, I'd say it's absolutely necessary.

If only.

The Fundamental Flaw In the Reformy Argument

Peter Greene, blogging machine that he is, points us to a new video from the fine reformy folks at the American Enterprise Institute.



Greene dispatches much of Michael Q. McShane's perambulating argument in his post, so I won't repeat it here. Take a minute or two to read him instead; it's worth it.

I'll also point you to this paper by Bruce Baker for a summary of the "sizable and growing body of rigorous empirical literature [that] validates that state school finance reforms can have substantive, positive effects on student outcomes, including reductions in outcome disparities or increases in overall outcome levels." McShane's contention that we have spent too much money on education and we don't have results to show for it is contradicted by empirical evidence.

There's not anything I could add to either Peter's or Bruce's pieces; I do, however, want to make a larger point about what I see as the fundamental flaw in the argument for reformy solutions to economic deprivation. Here, in McShane's own words, is as good a summation of this reasoning as you will find:

Did you know that Americans without a high school diploma, compared to college graduates, are three times more likely to be unemployed, and even those with high school diplomas average fifty percent less in annual income than those with college degrees? But the gap between the educational “haves” and “have-nots” is vast and only growing wider. 

Take Jennifer, a fourth grader born into the poorest 20 percent. Without a college degree, she only has a 5 percent chance of reaching the top, compared to a 45 percent chance of staying in poverty. With a college degree, she’s more likely to make it to the top quintile than she is to remain in the bottom. A quality education makes an enormous difference.

McShane jauntily saunters through a school as he makes his case. Mike, let me ask you something:

Do the hard-working people who clean that building every day need a college degree?

Perhaps, following the taping of this rather exhausting video, Mike felt the need for some refreshment. After he finished his lunch, who do you suppose washed his dishes? Who picked the arugula for his salad? Who mows the lawn outside AEI's offices? Who stocks the shelves at the mall where Mike buys his denim shirts?

There are millions of people in America who do hard, often dirty, sometimes dangerous jobs that are necessary. As Barbara Ehrenreich documents in her indispensable Nickled and Dimed, these people are the backbone of the American workforce -- and yet they barely make enough to survive, let alone thrive.

McShane would have us believe that giving the Jennifers of the world a chance to break out of the mean and nasty life of the working poor is the solution to our income inequity. The problem is that if we send all of the Jennifers to college, it won't change the needs of the American economy. We'd still need people to empty the bedpans and load the garbage trucks and pick the vegetables and sweep the floors and do all of the other back-breaking but necessary work America needs to get done.

I am all for social mobility: Jennifer should not be consigned to a life of working poverty simply because her parents were. But somebody has to wash Mike's dishes; somebody has to clean Mike's office. Let's at least be honest enough to admit this.

We can, of course, have an argument as to whether reforminess actually fosters socioeconomic mobility. Personally, I think anyone who believes that education "choice," in its current incarnation, will help more kids break into the middle class is fooling themselves. I've often remarked on how charter schools love to put on airs of preppydom: it's as if the reformies believe some school uniforms and a few college pennants on the walls will magically wipe away hundreds of years of institutional racism and systemic income inequity.

Sorry, but I just don't see how a "no excuses" style of schooling does anything to help children living in poverty acquire the social capital they need to advance up the capitalist ladder. But even if I'm wrong, reforminess doesn't address the larger problem: people doing necessary work are not sharing in the productivity gains of our economic system, largely because most of those gains have accumulated at the very top.

The fundamental flaw in the reformy education argument is that it conflates social mobility with income inequity. These are separate issues, and while reforminess most likely won't increase social mobility, it certainly won't solve income inequity.

Until that happy day when we have robots doing all the difficult work for us (dystopian fears fueled by science fiction aside), we need millions of people doing millions of tough, dirty, hazardous jobs. These people don't require college degrees: they need better-than-living wages, cheap health care, good housing, safe communities, and, yes, good educational opportunities so their children can advance if they so desire. Of course, that means others who are higher up in the economic order might see their children drop down. But you know something?

Maybe those people wouldn't worry so much about that if they knew that their children, so long as they work hard and play by the rules, will never have to worry about being able to afford to go to the doctor, will always have a good roof over their heads, and can retire at an age where they can still enjoy life and spend time with their families and in pursuits other than work.

Maybe if the stakes weren't so high, middle class parents wouldn't feel getting their children into college, whether those children had the talent and desire or not, was a matter of life and death.

We have enough money to do this. We can take care of everyone and still have plenty left over to incentivize capitalists to do their thing. But as long as our national conversation on education is dominated by people who, willingly or otherwise, can't see the difference between social mobility and income inequity, we will never muster the political will to do what needs to be done.

One more thing: when Peter posted this video, I got this nagging feeling I had seen something like this before. And then it hit me...

Hate to admit it, but you have to be of a "certain age" to get the joke.

Evidence Shows NJ's Urban Hope Act Unlikely To Work

The Urban Hope Act, which will greatly expand charter school enrollment in Camden, overwhelmingly passed the Senate this week following Governor Chris Christie's conditional veto. The bill now heads to the Assembly; if it passes, the Mastery and Uncommon charter chains will be allowed to use existing CCPS facilities and revenues to grow their presence in Camden, inevitably leading to the closure of many of the city's public schools.

Senate President Steve Sweeney gives the impression that the "failure" of CCPS to educate Camden's children leaves him little choice but to approve the UHA:

The revised bill was opposed by some local and statewide advocates who oppose charter expansion in the state-run Camden district. Some of those advocates have filed a legal challenge to the approvals. Sweeney yesterday said he heard the criticism, but discounted it.

“I’m open to improve education in Camden, and we’re hoping this is part of the solution,” he said. “We could be wrong, but what we are doing otherwise isn’t working.” [emphasis mine]

"We could be wrong" is hardly a ringing endorsement of a policy that will radically restructure Camden's schools. But I am convinced, having studied this issue at length, that Sweeney's tepid endorsement here actually overstates the case for the UHA. I say this because we have quite a bit of empirical evidence regarding the characterization of Camden, and it all leads to one conclusion:

Given what we know about charter schools in New Jersey, the Urban Hope Act is unlikely to work.

Rutgers professor Dr. Julia Sass Rubin, a founding member of SOSNJ*, has extensively outlined much of the evidence I'll present here. Her analysis examined both Mastery and Uncommon; my quick rundown focuses only on Uncommon, as there is no New Jersey data yet available on Mastery.

1) The charter management organizations (CMOs) coming to Camden under UHA do not currently teach as many students in economic disadvantage (ED) as the neighboring public schools.

The evidence is clear: North Star Academy, the Newark branch of the Uncommon CMO, does not teach nearly as many children who qualify for free lunch (the best proxy measure we have for economic disadvantage) as the NPS schools. You may hear some argue that North Star comes closer to NPS when we measure ED with free or reduced-price lunch status, but's that's because RPL is at 185% of the poverty line, while FL is at 130% percent. In a city like Newark -- or Camden -- RPL is a measure of relative economic advantage.

2) There is no evidence these charter schools "beat the odds" when educating children in economic disadvantage.

From one of the analyses Bruce Baker and I did of "One Newark," the school restructuring plan for that city. Yes, North Star gets good test scores -- but it closely follows the trend of rising test scores correlating to reduced FL percentages. This strongly suggests North Star gets its gains at least in part from a "peer effect," which cannot be replicated at a large scale: not every school in Newark or Camden can have below average student poverty.

3) North Star engages in patterns of significant student cohort attrition.

As each cohort moves through North Star, it sheds students -- significant numbers of students. While some undoubtedly move outside the district, it is likely many return to NPS schools. These patterns of attrition, however, are not nearly as pronounced within NPS.

For the last five years, each of NPS's Grade 12 student cohorts was proportionately larger than North Star's as judged by its size in Grade 5. We don't know how this plays out when using individual student data, but the evidence strongly suggests North Star sheds more students proportionately than NPS.

4) North Star does not educate nearly as many children with special education needs as NPS.

Proportionately, North Star doesn't even educate half of the special education students that NPS does. If students with special needs won't be served by the charters, where will they go to school?

Additionally, it's clear that the special education students charters do enroll have low-cost needs. Which suggests the higher-cost students -- those on autism spectrum, with serious health impairments, with emotional disturbances, etc. -- will be in CCPS, even as the UHA charters take 95% of the funds per student from the district.

The UHA is setting up a fiscal disaster for Camden: it will likely leave students with the most costly needs in the public schools while disproportionately diverting the funds needed to educate them into the charters.

Senator Sweeney says, "We may be wrong" when he endorses the Urban Hope Act. Senator, with all due respect, the evidence we have suggests not that you "may" be wrong; instead, you "likely" are wrong.

The Urban Hope Act is bad policy. It should not be approved by the Assembly.



* Full disclosure: I am currently doing research work for SOSNJ.

How To Counter Silly Arguments About the NJEA Convention: A Teacher's Guide

We're fast approaching early November, which means the New Jersey Education Association's annual convention will be here soon. And that means the foolish arguments against the convention will also be upon us.

Chris Christie once said that if teachers "cared about learning," they "would not be down there in Atlantic City having a party — because that’s what it is." Of course, his education commissioners have also attended this "party" -- but that was only so they could shamelessly argue that poverty doesn't matter in education.

Cami Anderson, State Superintendent in Newark, stated that crime went up during the convention with no proof whatsoever. As Bob Braun pointed out at the time, Anderson's statement speaks volumes as to how she views the students in her charge.

Complaints that NJEA shouldn't be holding its convention during the school year and on a weekday regularly appear in blogs, social media, and the comments section of newspaper websites. There is, of course, a reasonable debate to be had over whether the convention is the best way to deliver professional development. But most of the arguments against the November convention are just silly. Here's a quick guide for how to counter them:

- There is no reason to believe, and no evidence to support, the idea that taking two days off in November is any worse than taking two days off in any other school month. If we had any evidence that more continuous days of school are better than interspersing them with days off, it would call into question the entire idea of school holidays. In other words: if two days off in November is so bad, why have a spring break? Why have a holiday break? Why have weekends? For that matter, why have the kids go home every night?

- The number of days in the school year is set by statute, so if you don't take two days off in November, you cut back the days at the beginning or end of the year. Schools have to be open 180 days to receive state aid (and that's the national norm). If districts cancel the convention, they will simply end the school year two days earlier, or start the year two days later. Does anyone really think that will make the slightest difference in student learning?

- If teachers are in school for two extra days, they should be compensated. Nobody should be forced to work two extra days for free, especially without the benefit of negotiations. So if you get rid of the convention and extend the school year by two days, you have to have a plan to come up with more money to pay teachers for the additional time.

Anyone have that plan ready to go?

- There's no reason to believe more teachers will come to the convention if it's held during the summer or on a weekend. Last year, 30,000 teachers attended the convention; that's certainly not even close to all of the teaching corps. Considering, however, that it takes hours to drive to Atlantic City from the northern part of the state, and that teachers are not compensated for their travel, it's still a pretty impressive number.

This is only conjecture on my part, but I'm guessing one of the primary barriers to more teachers attending the convention is child care. A teacher with her own kids has to find someone to watch them while she's away, because her kids' school is closed. Moving the convention to the summer or a weekend doesn't do much to address the personal cost or child care worries of teachers (and I wouldn't presume spouses are always available to help at other times -- or that all teachers with kids are married).

- The convention is still valuable, even if not every teacher goes. It only takes one teacher in a building to act as a conduit of information and training acquired at the convention. In other professions, firms don't feel like they need to send all of their staff to a convention for it to have worth for the entire group; they expect professionals who attend a convention to share what they learned with their colleagues. It should be no different for teachers.

- Believe it or not, teachers are adult human beings who have every right to socialize and indulge in adult pleasures on their own time. I detect a bit of a puritanical streak in some of the criticisms of the convention. When the odious James O'Keefe made a sleazy gotcha video a few years ago at the convention, he was sending out a not-very-subtle message: teachers who drink and flirt and gamble are not to be trusted (even as the rest of America drinks and flirts and gambles).

When Christie called the convention a "party," he reinforced his meme of the "good" teacher being a saint. Only "bad" teachers would dare to have some fun in Atlantic City when the work of the convention was finished (BTW: given the recent troubles of AC, is it really a good idea to further the economic woes of the city by canceling one of its biggest events?).

Yes, during the day, the convention is professional development. Later, at night, it's fun (or so I hear -- I've never stayed over, wet noodle that I am). So what? Does that really bother anyone? If so, grow up.

The complaints about the NJEA convention are trivial. The convention doesn't impede student learning, and there's no reason to believe it would be any better on a weekend or during the summer. I'd suggest that those who find the convention to be so bothersome actually go down this year and check it out. Maybe I'll buy you a drink afterward...

See you in November!

Everything Wrong With Education "Reform" Is In York, PA

When I was on Rick Smith's show the other day, kvetching about Chris Christie's education "policies" (it's the whole reason Rick has me on the show), he brought up a really good point:

As bad as Governor Chris Christie has been for New Jersey's schools, Governor Tom Corbett has been far, far worse for Pennsylvania's.

Under Corbett, "cyber charters" have proliferated, even though all the evidence shows they are little better than pits where taxpayers throw their money, enriching the operators and denying students proper educations.

Corbett brought us Vahan Gureghian, a school privatizing pirate who all but bankrupted the Chester-Uplands school district, thanks to Pennsylvania's insane special education funding policies. Now Gureghian has come to Camden on this side of the Delaware, thanks to the indifference of the South Jersey Democratic machine.

Corbett has actively abetted the willful destruction of the Philadelphia school system. But his commitment to inequality has spread all over the state, and Allentown, Reading, and other communities are suffering under his draconian education cuts.

But if you want to really see Tom Corbett's borderline sociopathic disregard for public education and the students it serves, there's no better place to observe the madness than the City of York, PA:



Back in 2012, Corbett cut $8.4 million - over 15% - from York's budget. The predictable happened: cuts to the arts, cuts to student services, increased class sizes, and so on.

I know it's fashionable within reformy circles to claim that schools like the ones in York are "failure factories." But the people who make such claims never seem to want to look at what really matters:

This is as quick and dirty as they come, but it makes the point. Every dot here is a school in Pennsylvania. The x-axis shows how many kids taking the state's reading test are in economic disadvantage, as measured by qualifying for free/reduced price lunch. The y-axis shows how many test takers scored "below basic," meaning, out of PA's four test proficiency levels, these students scored at the bottom.

Once again, note how economic disadvantage correlates to test score outcomes. Were I to do a simple linear regression here, 60 percent of the variation in this test-based outcome could be explained by student economic disadvantage.

I did a quadratic trend line to get things a little tighter (no, it doesn't matter, and you're a geek...). Then I highlighted all the schools in York, charters and publics. Big surprise: everyone is pretty much where you'd expect them to be. The elementary schools do a little better than prediction; the secondaries do a little worse. And the charters are right where we'd expect.

Considering that most of York, PA's schools have student populations where 80 percent or more of the children are in economic disadvantage, the test-based outcomes of the school district are hardly surprising.

York, PA does not have a school effectiveness problem: it has an economic inequality problem. The schools are reflecting the reality of life for children in York, PA; anyone who argues otherwise is being willingly obtuse.

Keep in mind that Pennsylvania is one of the most regressively taxed states in the nation:

So here's the play: Tom Corbett keeps taxes low on the commonwealth's rich, so any chance at public works programs or other sorts of economic stimulus are shot. He then cuts the public school budgets in cities that are suffering under his failed policies of tax cuts for corporations. Afterward, he gets his Secretary of Education to send in a known education privatizer to govern York's schools, under the pretense that they are now in "Moderate Financial Recovery Status."

In other words, the district is in significant fiscal trouble. Golly, I wonder how that happened...

But even this isn't enough for Corbett and his pals; here's reporting from the York Daily Record/Sunday News:

A crowd of York City School District employees and other community members rallied before a school board meeting Wednesday, asking board members to "say no" to bringing in charter operators to run district schools.

The school board has been exploring that possibility, an option under its financial recovery plan. Those involved with the rally included the employee unions, the York NAACP, and York Concerned Clergy.

The Rev. Aaron Willford, a former member of the city school board, said parents he's spoken to aren't in favor of bringing in charter operators, but they don't know where to turn. He said he wants to stand up for them.

"The main message is to say no to those who (want) to charterize schools," he said, adding that children shouldn't be "guinea pigs."

Clovis Gallon, a teacher and union representative, said Gov. Tom Corbett needs to restore funding for education, saying the district had many more programs when he attended. The city district has more challenges, but is expected to meet the same standards as others.

"I don't know if parents actually understand what's happening," he said, adding that if charter operators took over, teachers and staff would be lose their jobs and have to reapply. The salaries at schools run by the operators likely wouldn't be comparable to neighboring districts, he said.

"Why would a teacher want to come here to work under those conditions?" he asked. [all emphasis mine]

Well,  duh -- it's because, as we all know, good teachers are in reality saints! It's not like they need to feed their families...

Mr. Gallon remembers a time when his schools had many more programs. Of course, if they still did, parents wouldn't feel, as Rev Willford says, like "they don't know where to turn." See how it works? Gut the public schools under a shock-doctrine falsehood of "we don't have the money!" and the public then feels it has no choice but to take the charter school bread crumbs Tom Corbett throws their way. 

Harold Hill couldn't have run a better con. But even this isn't the worst of it. Because here's who Corbett's boy in York, Chief Recovery Officer (gimme a break...) David Meckley, wants to take control of the district:

David Meckley, the chief recovery officer for the district, issued a statement saying three options are being considered: the internal reform plan, or moving forward with either Charter Schools USA or Mosaica Education. Benchmarks in areas such as academics, safety and parent involvement are being reviewed for both companies and the district so a decision will be based on facts, he said. 

"We need to ask ourselves what solution will improve the educational lives of these students and what do we have to do to make that happen now," the statement says.

"Based on facts"?! If David Meckley gave a flying fig about "facts," he wouldn't have spent even two seconds considering either Charter Schools USA or Mosaica.

Let's take a look at some "facts" about CSUSA's Florida operations first:

Charter Schools USA (CUSA) has been operating charter schools in Florida for 20 years, including recently-opened schools in Hillsborough County: Woodmont Charter, Winthrop Charter, and Henderson Hammock Charter. Although charter schools sometimes struggle financially at first, CUSA eventually collects a 5% management fee from each to provide administration and guidance.

But 10 Investigates found a much bigger pot of money CUSA has been able to tap into: rent. When the company helps open a new school, its development arm, Red Apple Development, acquires land and constructs a school. Then, CUSA charges the school high rent.

For example, Winthrop Charter in Riverview may struggle to balance its budget this year thanks to a $2 million rent payment to CUSA/Red Apple Development. The payment will equate to approximately 23% of its budget, even though CUSA CEO Jon Hage has been quoted as saying charter school rent should not exceed 20%.

According to the FL League of Women Voters, CSUSA has been raking it in on charter school deals involving real estate and construction:

Our shining local examples in Hillsborough County are owned by Charter Schools USA. My first glimpse of Winthrop Charter School in Riverview in November of 2011 was during a scheduled visit with then Rep. Rachel Burgin. When told the two story brick building was a charter school, I was mystified. The site on which it was built was purchased from John Sullivan by Ryan Construction Company, Minneapolis, MN. From research done by the League of Women Voters of Florida all school building purchases ultimately owned and managed by for-profit Charter Schools USA are initiated by Ryan Construction. The Winthrop site was sold to Ryan Co. in March, 2011 for $2,206,700. In September, 2011 the completed 50,000 square foot building was sold to Red Apple Development Company, LLC for $9,300,000 titled as are all schools managed by Charter Schools USA. Red Apple Development is the school development arm of Charter Schools USA. We, tax payers of Hillsborough County, have paid $969,000 and $988,380 for the last two years to Charter Schools USA in lease fees!

The big prize purchased by Ryan Co. at the same time, March of 2011, was the 58,000 square foot former Verizon call center on 56th Street in Temple Terrace for $3,750,000. Ryan Co. made no discernible exterior changes except removal of the front door, added a $7,000 canopy and sold the building as Woodmont Charter School to Red Apple Development for $9,700,000! Who would not love a $6 million dollar boost in 6 months? Lease fees for the last two years were $1,009,800 and $1,029,996! Are we outraged yet? Woodmont made headlines in the Tampa Bay Times this spring as an “F” rated (FCAT score) school advertising for new students and a fired teacher reporting that out-of-field teachers and uncertified teachers were on the faculty.

Similar figures exist for the last of the triumvirate for CSUSA, Henderson Hammock Charter School in Citrus Park which opened in 2012. Their lease fees are the largest of the three, $1,170,000 for 2012-3013 and $1,193,400 for 2013-2014!

Sshhh... don't tell Jon Alter or Tom Moran about this! They might have to actually become journalists and admit that charter operators making big bucks isn't a conspiracy theory...

You can read more about CSUSA's crony capitalism here. But let's make sure we also spend a little time on Mosaica's shenanigans:

This for-profit charter management company was founded in 1997 by Sandy Springs resident Gene Eidelman and has since expanded to a network of 90 schools, generating more than $125M in annual revenue.  For several years, Inc. Magazine has ranked Mosaica as one of the fastest growing companies in urban America.[i] 

Unfortunately, students attending schools managed by Mosaica have not seen their educational trajectories rise with the management company’s revenue.  Instead, Mosaica’s students around the country consistently underperform their peers.

Mirroring the organization’s national record, Mosiaca’s local charter school, Atlanta Preparatory Academy (APA), is one of Georgia’s worst performing schools on annual exams, with students in all grades scoring in the bottom 20% statewide. 

The school is currently up for charter renewal and has requested that the Atlanta Board of Education grant it a five-year charter extension.

During the December 2012 school board meeting, Mr. Allen Mueller, Executive Director of Innovation for Atlanta Public Schools (APS), recommended that the Board of Education decline to renew APA’s charter, citing low academic achievement and concerns about the school’s financial independence from Mosaica.  District 1 Board of Education representative, Ms. Brenda Muhammad, quickly rebuffed this recommendation and advocated extending the school’s charter for an additional five years.  The Board ultimately voted to delay any decisions until its January 2013 meeting.

That's from Georgia blogger Jared Apperson, a guy who, as far as I can tell, is sympathetic to the charter school movement -- but Mosaica is too much even for him. His article is a catalog of fiscal sins committed by Mosaica across the country, and a record of academic mediocrity:

A comprehensive analysis conducted by Arizona State University lists the first 36 schools founded by Mosaica since it began operating in 1997.  Twenty seven of those schools have since been shut down by local authorizers or have extricated themselves from Mosaica’s management.

Of the nine which survived, eight can be classified as categorical failures.  They have consistently scraped along the bottom of the barrel in their states as measured by performance on annual exams.  Here are those schools’ most recent statewide percentile rankings on exams as compiled by SchoolDigger:

• Arts and Technology Academy of Pontiac (MI) – 10th Percentile
• Bay County Public School Academy (MI) – 15th Percentile
• Columbus Arts & Technology Academy (OH) – 11th Percentile
• Columbus Humanities Arts and Technology Academy (OH) – 8th Percentile
• Grand Blanc Academy (MI) – 16th Percentile
• Howard Road Academy (DC) – 14th Percentile
• Phoenix Advantage Charter School (AZ) – 34th Percentile

When Mosaica couldn't make money in Muskegon Heights, MI, the charter chain cut and ran. Expect the same in York if this horrible "charterized" district idea ever comes to pass.

And it will pass, if Tom Corbett has his way. Like any master grifter, Corbett has been playing the long con: cut taxes for the wealthy, starve the schools while claiming budgetary poverty, declare an educational emergency, and then let edu-vultures like CSUSA & Mosaica pick at the bones of a decimated school system.

The only chance the good people of York -- and all of Pennsylvania -- have of saving their schools from Tom Corbett and his minions is a concerted and united stand against the brazen privatization of our public schools.

If you're anywhere near York, please consider making your voice heard:

CHARTER OPERATORS EAGER TO TAKE OVER YORK CITY SCHOOLS HAVE TROUBLING TRACK RECORDS 

Clergy, NAACP leaders, teachers, and parents will speak out against plan before Community Education Council charter presentations Sept. 24 

York, Pa. (Sept. 19, 2014) – York Concerned Clergy and the NAACP will stand with the city's teachers, education workers, and parents to speak out against a planned charter takeover of the York City School District before charter CEOs present their proposals to the Community Education Council next week.

Speakers will also highlight some troubling details about the two leading for-profit charter corporations competing to take over every one of York City's public schools – Mosaica Education, Inc. and Charters USA. 

Media coverage is encouraged. 

What: Rally before Community Charter School Presentation Where: Hannah Penn K-8 School, 415 E Boundary Ave, York When: Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2014, 5:30-6:30 p.m. 

Details: The rally will occur outside the school cafeteria. Participants will then attend the Community Education Council meeting and Charter School Presentation beginning at 6:30 p.m. 

Stay strong, York. If you win, we all win.

The White Rose City. How's the beer?