There Is No "Choice" For ALL Urban Parents

The charter school industry has always been very good at marketing its brand. And, like any sellers of a product, its most powerful marketing tool is customer testimonials: the glowing reviews of the parents who send their children to charters. Who could refute the word of any parent -- especially a person of color, raising children in a community with enormous economic challenges?

As I've said before, no one should ever blame a parent for enrolling their child in a charter school; any father or mother has do to what they believe is in the best interest of their child. 

But it is not at all out of bounds to listen carefully to a parent's praise of his child's charter school, then take his words to their logical conclusion. Which is why I'd urge you to follow the link and read this entire op-ed by Altorice Frazier, whose children attend KIPP's (aka TEAM Academy) Thrive Academy in Newark. Because Mr. Frazier is saying something very important -- but it's not necessarily the message the charter industry wants us to hear.

Here's an extended passage:

Every day, not just Father’s Day, is a moment of reflection for me. Without a father in my life, I have made many misguided steps that cost me a great deal in my life. Now, as a proud father, I know firsthand the impact I have on my children. It has been my mission in life to break the pattern that started with me. I know my involvement in their lives and the decisions I make for them is meaningful and powerful.

As a father of four, part of this is making sure they’re getting a quality education. We first began exploring Newark’s public charter schools because of a simple science question I posed to my daughter, who at the time was attending a district school in Newark and was supposedly a top student, receiving all A’s. I was shocked to find out, when asked at age 10, she was unable to name any of the planets in our solar system. I did some digging and found out that she was not learning any science or history because the district school she was attending did not have teachers that taught either of those subjects. Instead of providing my child with an education, this Newark school just simply took those classes and put substitute teacher in the class for the school year. Practically taking these subjects out of her curriculum and replaced them with straight A’s. In any suburb outside of Newark this would be unconscionable, but in the city where many parents are fighting these kinds of an uphill battles every day, it has become far too common.

Financially unable to move to a town like Maplewood or attend a private school, getting into a Newark public charter school was the only option to ensure that my kids received the education they deserve. We had no other choice and I am shattered by the idea that those with their own political and financial agendas are now trying to enforce their value systems on my family.

If we were to believe the critics of public charter schools, I would be singled out as a parent misinformed and misled by charter schools. I am not a parent misinformed, misled, or hoodwinked. I am a parent who supports schools that will provide my children with a quality education. 

From their experience at KIPP New Jersey’s Thrive Academy, my kids have received social and emotional development and a high level of critical thinking. Now one of my kids is college-bound, and my two twins are now tracking to attend college -- something the great majority of students in a Newark district school can’t say. 

I understand the political realities. There are some who do not live in Newark and do not truly understand the issue. There are others who are waging this battle against me and my kids, defending the status quo at all cost, because they have a personal and direct financial gain.

But what should not be lost on any of us is that there actually is no “charter vs. public school” debate in New Jersey. For the vast majority of parents, like me, public charter schools have become mainstream and the needed solution.

So let's break this down:

- Mr. Frazier's personal story is obviously compelling. He sees how critical it is to "break the pattern" for his children. What would he do, then, if money was no object?

Move to a more affluent town like Maplewood, where the schools would look like this:

Newark's schools are about 8% white; South Orange-Maplewood's are about 50% (making it one of the few racially integrated districts in the state). 20% of SO-M's students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch; compare that to 81% for Newark. And Maplewood barely has any students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP).

What Frazier is implying in putting forward the idea that he would move if he had the money is that his children's peers matter. South Orange-Maplewood is a fine district with excellent teachers (I know, I used to teach there). But it also serves a fundamentally different student population than the Newark Public Schools.

So let's look now at how KIPP's TEAM Academy stacks up against NPS:

Let's be very clear: the differences in student populations between urban public schools and urban charters is only a fraction of the difference between urban and suburban public schools. Still, there is a substantial difference between urban public schools and their neighboring charters. As I explained in my charter report last year, that difference in reduced-price lunch populations actually explains quite a bit of the variation in test-based outcomes.

Reduced-lunch students are certainly in economic disadvantage (130%-185% of the poverty line), but not nearly as much as free-lunch students (less than 130%).

I'm going to state this again because it's so important: no one should ever pretend that the differences in student populations between the suburbs and the cities is equivalent to the differences between the urban public schools and the charters. But there are substantial and meaningful differences between charter school populations and urban public school populations.

And that includes which schools educate special needs students:

Again: charter schools do not serve the same students as urban public schools. But the differences don't always show up in the data...


- One of the most compelling books I've read this past year is Public Housing and School Choice in a Gentrified City by Molly Vollman Makris. In her exploration of Hoboken's segregated charter schools, Makris presents some of the best evidence I've seen to date that shows parents who choose charter schools use their social capital to get their children into schools with other students whose families share their values and means.

Granted, Hoboken is an extreme case. But Makris's work parallels other studies that show charters tend to attract parents who, like Frazier, are more involved in their children's education. Makris makes the case -- and I agree with her -- that charters have something to teach public schools about how to get parents more involved in their children's schools.*

But doesn't it make sense that a "choice" system would lead to schools where students and families had similar values? Shouldn't we expect the students and families who apply to TEAM/KIPP to be different from those who do not?

There is much we still don't know about One Newark, the city's universal enrollment system. But my initial study of the enrollments released publicly shows that the more segregated schools in Newark tended to be the more popular schools under One Newark. This suggests that the families who choose charter schools are, in some way that does not show up in the data, different from the families who do not. For whatever reason, they see their preferred charter as a better "fit" for their student. OK...

What about those parents whose children don't "fit" into a charter school?

- In many cases, they pull their children out of the charter. Advocates do all kinds of statistical flips and twists to deny it, but a core feature of a "choice" system of schools is student attrition. TEAM/KIPP's attrition isn't nearly as large as other "high performing" charters in Newark, but a significant number of their students do leave their schools each year, even as their test scores rise.

This is further evidence that charters do not serve the same children as their hosting public districts. The children who are leaving charters like TEAM/KIPP and North Star are likely not a good "fit" with those schools.

- I want to pause here, because this is the part of the argument where charter school advocates always get indignant. Once again: the differences in student populations between urban and suburban schools is far greater than that between urban public and charter schools. When people move to the suburbs, they are moving into towns where families possess similar amounts of social and financial capital. Test-based outcomes are largely a reflection of this difference, and not of school "effectiveness."

Since that is the case, no suburban parent should ever wag their finger at an urban charter school parent who looks to gain this same advantage for their child. I would never fault Altorice Frazier or any other charter school parent for enrolling their child in a KIPP school if they have the opportunity.

No, my issue has always been with the charter cheerleaders: those who wave their pom-poms for "choice," without fully acknowledging the implications of their advocacy. For example:

- "Successful" charter schools often enjoy a resource advantage over their hosting districts, and that advantage often has pernicious effects for urban public schools. Let's go back to Frazier's op-ed:

I did some digging and found out that she was not learning any science or history because the district school she was attending did not have teachers that taught either of those subjects. Instead of providing my child with an education, this Newark school just simply took those classes and put substitute teacher in the class for the school year. Practically taking these subjects out of her curriculum and replaced them with straight A’s. In any suburb outside of Newark this would be unconscionable, but in the city where many parents are fighting these kinds of an uphill battles every day, it has become far too common. [emphasis mine]

No science or history teachers? That's odd: I thought Newark had too many teachers and needed to cut back staff...

The amount of money NPS has had to pay the charter schools has doubled in just four years to $226 million. Meanwhile, the cumulative gap in adequacy funding - the difference between what the state's own law says Newark should get and what it actually does, has grown to over $350 million. The gap next year for NPS under Chris Christie's proposed budget will be about $178 million.

As I've shown, funding gaps lead to fewer music, art, PE, and other "specialist" teachers, as well as a decline in staff to teach foreign language and school nurses. Support staff has been decimated in NPS, including attendance counselors. Making things worse is the incessant focus on language arts and math, the two "tested" subjects that NPS uses to determine (wrongly) if a school is "failing" or not.

But even as NPS is being bled dry, there always seems to be plenty of money for the charter schools. Christie is pushing a plan for charter funding to be "held harmless," meaning NPS will have to find yet another $25 million for the charters. The charter industry also got plenty of the Zuckerberg money, as well as special financing the public schools can't access: TEAM Academy alone got $138 million in financing from federal bonds unavailable to NPS.

Further, contrary to the views of the ignorant, TEAM/KIPP racks up a very large amount of philanthropic giving; look at their tax forms if you doubt it (more on this later this summer).

I don't blame Frazier for being concerned about the narrowing of the curriculum and the lack of resources, including adequate staff, in NPS schools. I don't fault him for moving his children to a schools that is well-resourced. But let's not pretend for a second that NPS is on a level playing field with TEAM/KIPP when it comes to finances, especially since NPS is educating many more special needs and LEP children who need extra funding for an adequate education.

And when we take this funding difference and student characteristic difference into account...

- There is no evidence that, when accounting for differences in student populations and resources, Newark's charter schools are any more effective than its public schools. Here's Bruce Baker:**

These final two graphs rank charter schools statewide by their performance on growth measures, given their resources, students, enrollment size and grade range. Figure 6 shows the 2013 ranking and Figure 7 shows the 2012 ranking. Both charts are sorted from lowest (average across both tests) to highest growth against expectations.

Figure 6 shows that Freedom Academy, Discovery Charter School and Camden’s promise had the greatest achievement growth given their resources, students, enrollment size and grade range and Union County TEAMS, Sussex County CS for TEC and East Orange CS had the lowest growth against expectations. In 2012, Discovery and Camden’s promise also did very well.

But other more “talked about” charters fall within or closer to the average mix of schools. Specifically, large and long running charter operators in Newark, include TEAM academy, whose performance is consistently around average (slightly above or slightly below). North Star Academy is consistently slightly to modestly above average, while Robert Treat Academy is more consistently below average on the student growth measures adjusted for resources, students, enrollment size and grade range. [emphasis mine]

TEAM/KIPP is a decent school. But when you take away its advantage in resources and student population characteristics, you will find it is actually quite average. Which, unfortunately, is the real takeaway in all this.


Altorice Frazier wants the best for his children. But the State of New Jersey has only given him two choices:

1) Intensely segregated public schools that are inadequately funded and not subject to democratic control.

2) Better funded charter schools that are only available to some students, do not serve as many special needs or LEP students, and do not accord parents or students the same rights as public schools. In addition, when accounting for resource and student population differences, these charter schools do not perform appreciably better than prediction.

Mr. Frazier says that the if state of Newark's public schools existed in "...any suburb outside of Newark this would be unconscionable..." He's absolutely right: no suburb would ever stand for the "choices" Newark's families are being offered today. Suburban parents would demand that, before any system of "choice" was foisted on them, their public schools would be well-funded and subject to local control. In fact, several years ago, they did demand this, and the state backed off on its plans to bring boutique charters to the leafy 'burbs over the objections of local school boards.

The reason the state pulled back was obvious: the suburbs are Chris Christie's political base. Not so Mr. Frazier's town of Newark, or Camden or Paterson or Jersey City or Trenton or any of the other cities that are subject to varying forms of state control -- the same cities where the state has imposed charter schools with no local input or accountability.

I congratulate Mr. Frazier on his children's successes. I am happy for him that his children are enrolled in a school that works for his family. But we all have an obligation to step back and see the larger picture. KIPP admits it has no interest in fully taking over an urban district. Chris Cerf, the man who will soon lead NPS, admits that charter schools can't be the sole answer for the problems with urban schools. 

What happens to those, then, who do not enroll their children in charter schools? Where is their advocate? Who is willing to write op-eds in the New Jersey media on their behalf? Where are the large grants from the Walton Family Foundation and other plutocrats to improve education for them?

Altorice Frazier may not have much of a "choice." But those parents have no choice at all.

Local control of New Jersey schools: it's a white people thing.

* This raises an important question: how can any district not under democratic control expect its citizens, including parents, to be involved in supporting its schools? Isn't the first step in getting parents engaged in their children's schools giving them a say in how those schools should be run?

** As always: Bruce is my advisor in the PhD program in Education Policy at Rutgers.

Cerf's Up in Newark, and That Means More of the Same For Its Schools

Remember haters: Bob Braun broke the story first:

Gov. Chris Christie and state Education Commissioner David Hespe have announced the resignation of Cami Anderson as state-appointed superintendent of the Newark schools. She will be replaced by Christopher Cerf, the former state education commissioner.

Here's the official announcement:

Trenton, NJ – Commissioner of Education David Hespe today announced that Cami Anderson will be stepping down as State Superintendent of the Newark Public School District. 

"Superintendent Anderson has worked tirelessly over the last four years to implement a bold educational vision for the students and parents of Newark," said Commissioner Hespe.  "Under Cami's leadership, the Newark school district signed a landmark teacher's contract, implemented One Newark, and increased flexibility and support in virtually every school in Newark.  We know that these positive educational reforms will continue to benefit the students and parents of Newark for years to come." 

Superintendent Anderson will depart the district by July 8, 2015.  By July 8, 2015, Commissioner Hespe will recommend to the State Board of Education the appointment of Chris Cerf to the position of State Superintendent for the Newark Public Schools.  Mr. Cerf will be recommended for a three-year contract consistent with initial contracts in other state-operated districts including most recently Camden. [emphasis mine]

Yes, that's right: Chris Cerf, the former Acting Commissioner of Education for the entire state, won't just be an interim superintendent for the state-run district; he's going to be the permanent replacement.

And that means Newark's schools are likely in for several more years of reformy-style leadership.

The reformster line on Cami Anderson -- one often repeated by the Star-Ledger's Tom Moran -- is that she was a bad politician pushing great ideas. In their minds, Newark would have really loved Anderson's One Newark plan, if only she had been able to sell it better. People would have been fine with more charter schools that serve far fewer children with special education needs, and far fewer students in extreme economic disadvantage. They would have been thrilled to see black teachers fired, and stagnating test-based outcomes, and a chaotic transportation system... if only Anderson had been able to win them over with her charm.

This myth is, of course, rooted in the inherently racist view that people of color who live in cities with large economic challenges are incapable of running their own schools.

When Moran looks at Newark, he sees a bunch of "shrieking" folks who don't really know what's best for themselves. Anderson's failing, in his mind, is one of marketing, not policy; she just couldn't get through to those people (if you know what I mean...).

This is why the S-L is almost certain to run an editorial very soon lauding Cerf (Moran's neighbor in the very reformy town of Montclair) as the perfect pick to lead Newark's schools to new heights. Because he'll do exactly the same things Anderson is doing right now -- but he'll do it with a smile. He won't fly off the handle when people dare to mention his own kids. He'll show up to school board meetings and nod and take notes and promise to take everyone's views under advisement.

And then he'll go do exactly what Cami Anderson was doing before. Why wouldn't he? Just as recently as this past December, Cerf was singing Anderson's praises, even as he was demonizing those who stood against her.

And let's not forget that Cerf himself was instrumental in laying the groundwork for One Newark, Anderson's failed school reconstitution plan.

Oh, sure, he tried to deny it, even as the evidence piled up. But the fact remains that back in 2011 Cerf's old firm, Global Education Advisors, came up with the initial plan* to close many of Newark's neighborhood public schools and replace them with charters, using the rationale that low test scores justified the actions. As Bruce Baker rightly noted, this was an incredible bit of "hack junk" analysis: the report never bothered to look at whether differences in student characteristics played any role in the schools' relative performance.

It's also worth noting this same destructive idiocy was at play in Cerf's policies later, when he ran the entire state's education system. But this is how Cerf was trained. His (and Anderson's) time at the NYCDOE under Joel Klein, coupled with his involvement in the Broad Superintendent's Academy Book Club, formed his "creative disruption" mindset: use test scores to justify closing public schools and let privately governed charters take over. And if that's not feasible, reconstitute the schools, generating as much instability as is possible.

This is precisely what has happened to Newark's schools under Anderson. Even though there is no evidence that Newark's charter schools are more effective or efficient, they have been given the green light to take an increasingly large share of the market. The district itself has been complicit in painting a false picture of the extent of their "success"; the district has also abetted their expansion as part of its One Newark plan, likely leading to even greater segregation within the district.

Of course, the charters don't want to take all of the kids; that would mean educating the most costly and challenging students, something they have no interest in doing. So there will always be some district schools; Anderson, however, has "disrupted" the public system, leading to outcomes that look to be worse than what they were before she implemented her policies.

Yes, Anderson has a tin ear and is really awful at the politics of running a large urban district. But more than that: her policies are failures. What she has done in Newark has made things worse, which is why nearly all the stakeholders want to get rid of her.

And there is no doubt these same policies will be championed by Chris Cerf once he takes over.

But what else could he, or Anderson, do? It's not like either of them have the first damn clue about how to run a school, let alone a district. It's not like either of them have extensive education or experience in working directly with children of color living in economic disadvantage. It's not like either of them have ever actually worked to get schools adequate funding, the necessary precondition for creating effective schools.

Remember that both Cerf and Anderson were directly appointed by Chris Christie, a man who has beat up on schools to hide his own many failings. Under Christie, New Jersey's commitment to adequate school funding has steadily eroded, even as he has done nothing to address the crushing childhood poverty rates of New Jersey's cities.

The chaos Anderson created in Newark, and that Cerf created across the state, was invaluable for Christie: it allowed him to continue to defund New Jersey's schools even as he shifted the debate to things like teacher contracts with merit pay, and charter schools, and testing. Reformsters could pretend that these were the critical issues in education policy, blithely ignoring segregation, poverty, and inadequate school funding, the real reasons for New Jersey's opportunity gap.

So let's be very clear about what's really happening: if Chris Christie gave a damn about Newark's schools, the last person he'd put in charge of leading them would be Chris Cerf. Instead, he'd appoint a real educator as the superintendent, after gaining the consent of the school board. He'd find someone with a proven record of success in remaking urban public districts. He'd put someone with actual, relevant education and experience in place and give them what they needed to truly rehabilitate Newark's schools.

Instead, Chris Christie is trading in one disruptive force for another -- one with a more placid demeanor, but just as pernicious.

Watch your back, Newark: even as he's smiling, you'll never know what Chris Cerf might have in his hand....

"This is a knife fight in a dark room."

ADDING: Newark, THIS is who is going to run your schools. God bless you.

ADDING MORE: Would someone please explain to me how Peter Greene writes about this stuff so well and so fast???

AND MORE: The New York Times is out of its damn mind:

She [Cami Anderson] resisted the push by Mr. Booker, a Democrat who is now the state’s junior senator, and Mr. Christie, a Republican, to expand charter schools, fearing aloud that they drained motivated families and money from traditional schools. But she also alienated many parents with her reorganization plan, known as One Newark, which replaced the city’s tradition of neighborhood schools with a universal enrollment system that assigned students by lottery to traditional as well as charter schools. It resulted in school closings, mass firings of teachers and principals, and more students in charter schools, which aggravated complaints that Ms. Anderson was catering to wealthy ideologues with misguided ideas about how to improve urban education. [emphasis mine]

Yes, she did fret about charters engaging in cream-skimming -- AFTER she set up One Newark, a universal enrollment system that way oversold the claim of charter "success." She only started blaming charter school proliferation for her own failures after she realized what a monster she had created.

The notion Anderson "resisted" charter expansion is utterly absurd; One Newark was all about letting charters run wild. Hat tip to Leonie Haimson for pointing out this ridiculous story.

MORE MORE: Oh, my.


* Hey Chris: great job getting behind Adelaide Sanford Charter School in that report! How'd that work out, buddy?

Could Chris Cerf Really Be Taking Over Newark's Schools?

UPDATE: Amazingly, this rumor turns out to be true!

NEWARK - Cami Anderson's reign as Newark's superintendent of schools appears to have reached its end. 

State Assemblyman Patrick J. Diegnan Jr. said Education Commissioner David Hespe confirmed to him this afternoon that the embattled school chief has reached a deal to leave her post. Former Department of Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf is the state's pick to replace her on an interim basis, though the succession will need to be approved by the state Board of Education. 

Diegnan, a Democrat who chairs the state's Education Committee, said  that Hespe was planning a press conference to official announce the move this afternoon. 

Much more to come...

***** 

Bob Braun, who has been covering Newark's schools longer than anyone, breaks the news:

Top school officials in Newark are reporting that Cami Anderson will announce her resignation this week as state-appointed superintendent. One source says he expects Christopher Cerf, the former state education commissioner who hired Anderson in 2011, to be appointed interim superintendent.

A bigger shocker, however, is that the school officials and other sources expect the board to be given a role in selecting a permanent replacement for Anderson. “I’m very excited about this,” one source said. “I feel like we should be having a party.”

[...]

One major unanswered question is how Cerf, whose company has a contract with the Newark schools, could take over as superintendent without quitting his private position. [emphasis mine]

Could this possibly be true? Well...

BAD NEWS: The Wall Street Journal reports News Corp. is cutting a large number of jobs from its news division to shift "resources into digital media efforts and core coverage areas." Bureaus in Europe and Asia, as well as smaller coverage groups in the US, will be shuttered or scaled down.

It appears that Amplify, News Corp.'s education division, is undergoing a shakeup as well. Chris Cerf, the former New Jersey Education Commissioner who joined Amplify in February 2015 to lead the assessment division, appears to have departed (at least on the company's leadership page). So, too, has Stephen Smyth, who was in charge of Amplify's tablet effort.

According to News Corp,'s latest earnings report, Amplify (classified under "Digital Education") saw $21 million in revenues in the first three months of 2015, "which was flat compared with the prior year." The company's EBITDA, however, improved 53 percent--suggesting that the company has cut down on costs.

Poor Cerf: it's tough to sell a digital tablet for students if it melts when you plug in it...

Back in 2011, Bob Braun was the guy who broke the story about Cerf's involvement in creating the plans for Newark's transformation into a "portfolio" school system, where charter schools would be free to expand uninhibited. After "revising" the extent of his firm's role, Cerf swore that he would still be objective as NJ's Acting Education Commissioner when it came to charter schools and state control in Newark.

We all know what happened next.

Keep in mind that Anderson had served in the NYCDOE under Cerf and Joel Klein, former chancellor of Gotham's public schools. It was clear Cerf and his good buddy Cory Booker were instrumental in bringing Anderson to Newark; as recently as this past winter, Cerf was singing her praises. But once Anderson was ensconced, she proceeded to alienate nearly every stakeholder in the city's schools to the point where she became completely ineffective.

In a rational world, it would make no sense for Cerf to take over for Anderson. He fully supported Anderson; there's no reason to believe he would run the district any differently than she did. And why would he take a step down and run Newark's schools when he used to run the entire state?

So maybe this is all a coincidence. We have no official confirmation on any of this yet -- it is all just speculation. Maybe this is nothing more than rumors that won't come to pass. Maybe Newark's public schools won't be run by the man who hatched the plan to supplant them with charter schools, and who ardently supported Cami Anderson even after Newark had rejected her.

Let's see what happens Monday.

Chris Cerf: "Cami is an extremely talented, very powerful individual with an indomitable spirit, who passionately and deeply believes in the children of Newark."

America, Meet @GovChristie: Teacher Bashing Hypocrite

The Reading Zone points us to a video of Chris Christie out on the campaign trail doing what he does best: bashing teachers.

Q: Which do you regard as a bigger threat to the nation: ISIS, or our K-12 education system. 

CHRISTIE: (Laughs) Both.

America, meet Chris Christie: a man who will merrily compare public schools to terrorist groups.

We Jersey folks have become used to this: after all, Christie has compared teachers to drug dealers, told students their teachers don't care about their learning, and excoriated teachers for using pronouns to describe their students. No, I am not making this up.

There are three reasons Christie engages in such juvenile, unpresidential behavior. First, he has a personal beef with the New Jersey Education Association, the state's largest teacher union. The NJEA  has not backed down to his bullying, and that pisses him off to no end.

Second, Christie needs a scapegoat for his many, many failures as governor. He has a terrible job creation record, a terrible tax record, a terrible record of management, a terrible environmental record, a terrible public health record, and a terrible disaster recovery record. Plus Bridgegate. And the ARC tunnel. And our tanking credit rating. And housing. And his personal greed....

Chris Christie's record is quite clear: he is a truly horrible governor. I'll admit that, for once in my life, I am looking forward to an extended presidential primary season, just so I can watch all the other Republican candidates repeatedly recount his disastrous reign in Trenton.

Third -- and I do not say this lightly, but there is no other conclusion I can come to after watching the man closely for over five years -- there is something seriously wrong with Chris Christie:



I mean, what kind of a leader behaves this way? Heaven forbid the man ever obtains high office, but if he did: would he yell at hecklers while visiting a foreign country? Am I the only one terrified at the thought of a man this intemperate having his finger on the nuclear button?

America, Chris Christie is simply not qualified -- by his record, by his actions, or by his character -- to be the leader of the free world. We in Jersey know this, and it's increasingly clear that the rest of you know this as well. Still, because Christie is so self-deluded that he thinks he has a shot, you will be subjected to his incessant teacher bashing for the next year.

Let's, therefore, set the record straight:

- Christie talking point: We spend too much in urban districts like Newark, Camden, and Asbury Park, but those districts are "failing."

Reality: First, a-contextual complaints about school spending are idiotic on their face.

Even high school students understand that children growing up in poverty benefit from increased resources, and that a large and growing body of research shows that school finance reform can make a meaningful difference in student outcomes.

New Jersey consistently ranks as one of the best-performing statewide education systems in the nation. This is due, in part, to a commitment to school funding equity, which the evidence shows has helped lower-income and minority students to raise their performance on test-based measures. Unfortunately, New Jersey has backed away from its drive toward funding equity under Chris Christie, with increasingly disastrous results.

It's also worth pointing out here that the three examples Christie gives -- Camden, Newark, and Asbury Park -- are his responsibility. The state has controlled Newark's schools for two decades. Christie took over Camden's schools after the district had been under a state fiscal monitor for years. Asbury Park has also had a long-time fiscal monitor, who reports to the Christie administration.

If Chris Christie thinks Newark, Camden, and Asbury Park schools waste money, he should blame himself, because he is directly responsible for their management.

One final bit of screaming hypocrisy on Christie's part: even as he complains about spending in school districts with many at-risk children, he sends his own children to private schools that spend far in excess per pupil what those districts spend.

- Christie talking point: New Jersey community colleges have high remediation rates.

Reality: As I've said before, blaming K-12 education systems for community college remediation rates is ridiculous when the majority of students in community colleges have been out of high school for at least several years.

As Rowan's Eric Milou points out, the placement tests for community colleges set unrealistic standards. How well does anyone think Chris Christie himself would do right now on an Algebra II test, where he'd have to apply the quadratic equation and use logarithmic and exponential functions?

I must admit, Christie isn't the only one to engage in the college remediation nonsense. But that he would do so when he is the governor of one of the highest-performing states in the nation is incredible.

- Christie talking point: Schools haven't changed in 100 years, with teacher-directed instruction dominating classrooms.

Reality: This shows as well as anything how little Christie knows about how schools actually work. Teachers with high-quality training have known for years that student-centered instruction is an important counterbalance to teacher-centered instruction.

The only teachers who engage in rampant teacher-centered instruction appear to be those who receive low-quality training, like that found at the Relay "Graduate" School of Education, a program run by relatively inexperienced teachers, with no scholars of education on faculty, who tell their trainees to treat their students like trained seals.

Christie has allowed this style of "education" to proliferate in his state, even as he decries teacher-centered instruction. The mind boggles.

- Christie talking point: Schools days and years should be longer. The current system was built on the agrarian calendar, but kids should be in school longer these days.

Reality: Only the ignorant believe the agrarian calendar is the reason schools take a summer break.* And there is no evidence lengthening the school day improves learning, absent other factors.

Of course, Christie's own kids go to schools with shorter years than the public schools. But his kids get to partake of high-quality supplemental learning opportunities during the summer, full of sports and SAT prep and travel** and the like. Everyone else gets to sit in a classroom.

- Christie talking point: We don't have a longer school day because "the teachers union likes to be off four or five months a year. They like to get a full-time salary for a part-time job." 

Reality: Teachers make less than similarly credentialed workers. I know Christie is being fed data points generated by the conservative think-tank industry, but these reports are garbage (judge the arguments side-by-side for yourself if you think I'm wrong).

In any case, I find it laughable that Chris Christie wants teachers to work more hours for no more pay even as he gives away hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to hedge fund managers who underperform. Apparently, more money for inferior work is OK in some sectors of the economy, but not others.

As to having schools open during the summer: even if teachers worked more for no more pay, how would he come up with the money to air condition all of New Jersey's classrooms? Because I can guarantee you: if the AC ever broke down at the governor's office, Chris Christie would never walk through the door until it was fixed.

- Christie talking point: "In New Jersey, in the places where we spend the most money, we get the worst results."

Reality:

Depending on the measure, anywhere from one-half to three-quarters of the variation in test-based student outcomes can be explained by student poverty measures. But Chris Christie has done nothing to alleviate childhood poverty.

- Christie talking point: Charter schools are getting better results, because kids are spending more time in the classroom.

Reality: If children don't have good opportunities outside of schools for supplemental learning activities, they are certainly better off being in school for a longer period (they should be engaging in high-quality opportunities in a rich variety of learning domains). But that costs money. How do I know? Because the "successful" charter schools Christie lauds have shown this to be true:

North Star and TEAM/KIPP, two "successful" Newark charter schools, pay their teachers more than the neighboring public schools, even when accounting for experience. They are able to do so for three reasons:

1. They rely on large amounts of philanthropic giving.
2. They churn their staffs, so they only have very few teachers with relatively large amounts of experience.
3. They educate a student population with fewer at-risk, limited English proficient, and special needs students; the special needs students they do educate have lower-cost needs.

Contrary to how some have mischaracterized my work, I do, indeed, think public schools have something to learn from North Star and TEAM/KIPP: money matters, and student populations matter. Because when you strip away the advantages in both of these factors, you find that these "high performing" charter schools are really quite average.

- Christie talking point: Every kid should have an iPad.

Reality: OK -- how are you going to pay for that? Or are you also going to blame the teachers union for a lack of technology in the classrooms?

- Christie talking point: We need to motivate our students.

Reality: Please explain to us, governor, how we can get more teachers capable of motivating students into our schools when you break your explicit promises to them? When you refuse to properly fund their pensions, in contradiction to your own law? When you continually insult them? When you refuse to allow them to have a say in their own profession? When you target experienced teachers of color working in urban schools repeatedly?

America, Chris Christie has done more damage to public schools and the teaching profession than any governor in the history of New Jersey. If you care about education, he is the worst possible man to put in the White House.

Remember this as he continues with his self-delusional bid for the presidency. Chris Christie is a failure on education, as he is with everything else.

Stop pointing out my record! I'm an awesome governor! Everyone loves me! If they don't, they're idiots!

* I know this is petty, but it really does bug me as a kid who grew up working on a farm: no one "tills the fields" in the summer. The planting is already done by then.

** OK, I need to be fair: that $30K trip to Jordan was during the spring. But his family does take extensive summer vacations. 

It's also worth pointing out that Christie's own Lt. Governor says 10 percent of the state's jobs depend on tourism. How would extending the school year, therefore, affect the Shore economy? Did Christie ever stop to ask such an obvious question?

NJ Supreme Court to NJ Public Workers: Screw You

I think I'll call Comcast later today and tell them I'm not paying my cable bill any more: I just can't afford it. Same with Verizon and my cell phone. Oh, and my mortgage company, too.

I mean, why should I? Sure, I may have signed contracts with all of them, and I may have already used their services, but the NJ Supreme Court today just confirmed that contracts in New Jersey don't mean squat:

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Gov. Chris Christie can slash billions of dollars in contributions from New Jersey's troubled public employee pension system.

The court's ruling caps an intense fight for pension funding and deals a major blow to the state's labor unions, who challenged Christie's spending cuts. Christie had sought to dismantle the pension law, which he argued was unconstitutional.

---

READ: Key excerpts of decision

---

Judges split 5-2 reversing the lower court's ruling that ordered Christie had broken his own landmark pension law and had to work with the Legislature to comply with it. 

"That the state must get its financial house in order is plain. The need is compelling in respect of the state's ability to honor its compensation commitment to retired employees," the court said. "But this court cannot resolve that need in place of the political branches. They will have to deal with one another to forge a solution to the tenuous financial status of New Jersey's pension funding in a way that comports with the strictures of our constitution."

See, all you have to do is have a governor who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, and -- POOF! -- any worries about actually following the law are magically wiped away!

Of course, we public employees still have to meet our obligations under the law; we're not allowed, apparently, to say that we can't afford to make the increased pension payments that were the tradeoff for the state to enter into a contractual obligation regarding our pensions. At least, that's what Democrats like Senate President Steve Sweeney told us when they went around the state with Christie, telling us what a great deal they had brokered for us...

How's that working out now, Senator?

BTW, this paragraph from nj.com's article is total crap:

The administration's hope for a robust economic recovery didn't shake out, and the state didn't take in enough tax revenue to meet the payment schedule in the 2014, 2015 and so far, 2016 budgets.

Oh, please: there was never a plan to make these payments. The notion that pension payments would have been made if economic growth had been better is a fantasy. And, as I've pointed out numerous times, the press didn't seem to give a damn about where the money was going to come from back in 2013, when the issue should have been the core of the gubernatorial campaign.

The media and centrist Democrats failed to demand that Chris Christie come up with a plan to pay for pension reform; now, public employees are getting the shaft.

And now the Supreme Court plays along with the charade, pretending as if no one could have ever possibly foreseen that New Jersey would need to raise taxes to pay for this bill. Understand that the last budget the Legislature presented to Christie had the required payments included -- along with a tax increase. But, according to the court, Christie's political ambitions trump the state's need to meet its obligations.

The ruling, which I admit I've only scanned, is truly bizarre. Is the court really suggesting the state can default on its pension obligations if the public votes to do so? That the state can simply get out of their debts through an act of popular will? That the contracts clause of the federal Constitution can be freely ignored? That a teacher or a cop enters into an agreement with the state fully aware that the state can default on its retirement obligations to them at any moment?

If that's true, what's to stop the state from reneging on any of its debts? And why, then, would Wall Street ever think of doing business with us ever again? The implications of this argument are truly frightening.

From the decision:

Applying those principles here, the Legislature and Governor were without power, acting without voter approval, to transgress the Debt Limitation Clause and the corresponding Appropriations and other budget clauses of the State Constitution. The Legislature and Governor, as well as the many interested parties involved in the legislative process, may have included contractual words in Chapter 78, but those words, no matter their clarity, could not create an enforceable contract of the type asserted. Voter approval is required to render this a legally enforceable contractual agreement compelling appropriations of this size covering succeeding fiscal years; otherwise, this agreement is enforceable only as an agreement that is subject to appropriation, which under the Appropriations Clause renders it subject to the annual budgetary appropriations process. In that process, the payment may not be compelled by the Judiciary. The Legislature’s strong expression of intent remains clear in Chapter 78, but it does not bind future legislatures or governors in a manner that strips discretionary functions concerning appropriations that the State Constitution leaves to the legislative and executive branches. (pp. 49-53) [emphasis mine]

Again: if that's true, why should the state compel me to pay more and more into a pension system the court says can go into default anyway? Apparently, the court's answer is: "Because it's the law!"

In closing, to be clear, we are not declaring Chapter 78 unconstitutional, contrary to the dissent’s suggestion that the majority is “striking down,” “voiding,” or “invalidating” that statute. Chapter 78 remains in effect, as interpreted, unless the Legislature chooses to modify it. There is no need to address severability or the mutuality of obligations. Those considerations are for the political branches.

Oh, I see: we public employees still have to pay up, even if the state doesn't! 

Let's skip down to the dissent, written by Justice Barry Albin with concurrence from Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, two courageous and logical jurists:

Today, the majority strikes down a law -- Chapter 78, L.
2011, c. 78 -- vaunted by the Governor and Legislature as the solution to the State’s pension crisis. The decision strikes down the promise made to hundreds of thousands of public workers by the political branches of government that deferred wages earned for years of service would be funded during their retirement. The decision unfairly requires public workers to uphold their end of the law’s bargain -- increased weekly deductions from their paychecks to fund their future pensions -- while allowing the State to slip from its binding commitment to make commensurate contributions. Thus, public workers continue to pay into a system on its way to insolvency.


The Governor and Legislature cannot walk away from the contractual commitments they signed into law in Chapter 78. Their failure to make the required payments into the pension fund constitutes an impairment of their contract with public workers.  

[...]

Never before, until today, has the Debt Limitation Clause been applied to the ordinary operating expenses of government, such as deferred compensation earned by public workers and payable as pension benefits. Indeed, this Court previously held that a statute requiring the State to make annual contributions to a pension fund is not a debt within the intendment of the Debt Limitation Clause. See City of Passaic v. Consol. Police & Firemen’s Pension Fund Comm’n, 18 N.J. 137, 147 (1955). Moreover, this Court has held that the Appropriations Clause cannot stand as a barrier to the enforcement of constitutional rights. In short, the majority’s contention that the Governor and Legislature’s contract with public workers is unenforceable under state law has no contemporary legal support.

I'm no lawyer, so I can't give an informed opinion on how precedent fails to uphold this decision. All I do know is that today, the NJ Supreme Court told every teacher, every cop, every firefighter, every clerk, every social worker, every secretary working in a state building, every analyst, every medical professional employed by the state, and all other New Jersey public workers:

Screw you.

And that begs a question: given today's ruling, what bright, talented young person would ever consider a career of public service in New Jersey?

h/t the excellent Drew Sheneman.

ADDING: The dissent is really worth reading:

The State knows how to draft a contract to limit its financial obligation. Many state contracts include language that the contractual terms are subject to appropriation by the Legislature. On the other hand, the State knows how to draft a binding public contract. In Spina, this Court set forth the conditions for the making of an enforceable legislative contract. The majority’s reading of the Appropriations Clause renders Spina a nullity. It also runs afoul of the Federal Contracts Clause. If the enforceability of a contract depends on the willingness of the Legislature to appropriate money in any particular year, then, by the majority’s logic, no contract is enforceable. That conclusion will come as a great surprise to many who count on the good faith and credit of the State in honoring its contractual commitments. The Appropriations Clause cannot stand as a barrier to the enforcement of federal or state constitutional rights, including contractual rights. See Brand, supra, 303 U.S. at 97-104, 58 S. Ct. at 444-48, 82 L. Ed. at 689-93; see also Abbott v. Burke (Abbott XXI), 206 N.J. 332, 363-64 (2011); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. D.C., 118 N.J. 388, 399-400 (1990).

Duh.

"Partially Ineffective" and "Ineffective" Are NOT the Same Teacher Rating

So the first "report" came out about New Jersey's new teacher evaluation system, aka Operation Hindenburg. And guess who was on the TV talking about it?



Thanks to Briana Vannozzi for including me in her piece. There's much more to say, but I want to highlight one thing Vannozzi pointed to that several reporters have glossed over; here's a graph from the report:

The report itself (and most of the media reporting that has followed) talks about the approximately 3 percent of teachers who are Ineffective or Partially Ineffective. It then compares this number to the 0.8 percent of teachers found "not acceptable" under the previous system.

First of all: I have no idea where the state got this 0.8 percent figure. There is no documentation or data source cited in the report for this figure. The state does collect this information through its data systems, but I am unaware of any auditing that occurred to determine the validity and reliability of this figure.

Let's, however, assume it's correct; there is still no evidence that "not acceptable" in the old system is equivalent to "Ineffective or Partially Effective" in the new system.

And that's a problem.

Think about the term "Partially Effective"; yes, you are only doing things right some of the time, but not all of the time. If you were a total screw up, you'd be "Ineffective," and your administrators would either be applying a very intensive intervention or, more likely, showing you the door.

One of the myths that has been perpetuated by people who don't know how schools work is that teacher evaluations before "reform" were simple fine/not fine ratings with no differentiation. But that's simply not true: good principals in well-run districts always gave their teachers more feedback than a simple binary rating. Evaluation systems always included conversations with administrators about how a teacher could improve his or her practice. Teachers rated "acceptable" always had to have professional development plans designed to help with their continuing growth.

Undoubtedly, there were teachers deemed "acceptable" who were told that they were barely acceptable, and that they would have improve in order to avoid dismissal or tenure charges. As I wrote back in 2011:

Is there a way to get this benefit without eliminating tenure? You bet: streamline the dismissal process. Cap the time for a dismissal and appeals at 90 days. Send the cases to arbitrators who specialize in teacher dismissals. You'll cap costs and make it much easier to dismiss these hypothetical "bad" teachers.

And keep in mind that formal dismissals are not the only way to get rid of "bad" teachers:

Still, most agreed that the small numbers of tenure charges filed with the state are really only a fraction of the cases of low-performing teachers for whom the formal filing is a last resort, a vast majority of them eased out of the classroom as the complaints mount.

'You don’t see these statistics, but I would say that hundreds of teachers who receive the first tenure charges resign,” said Eugene Liss, general counsel to the Newark Teachers Union. "Maybe the case didn’t go all the way to Trenton, but many who sit with us, they end up leaving the profession."

Newark has a system in which teachers receiving unsatisfactory ratings are required to undergo additional training through Seton Hall University. Last year, it was 90 teachers, all but 12 of whom returned to the classroom, he said. Those 12 all resigned, none by tenure charges.

This is in addition to the fact that 40% of new teachers in NJ never earn tenure in the first place.

The plain fact is that any of the advantages of eliminating tenure could be gained by making a few simple changes to the system. And all of the advantages to keeping tenure cannot be replicated through other policies.

Again, the idea that all "acceptable" teachers were treated the same is a myth. So we really don't know if AchieveNJ is identifying more "bad" teachers than the old system.

Let's be blunt: this report is really a commercial the NJDOE made for itself, not a serious program evaluation. There are many things we still don't know about AchieveNJ, and I believe the only way to really evaluate the program is to turn the data over to an outside source and let them conduct a proper assessment.

Until then, let's all agree on one thing: the number of truly "bad" teachers in New Jersey is quite small. Most are probably working outside of "tested" areas -- math and language arts. Many may not even be teachers, but instead student support personnel. I'm all for requiring remediation for these folks; if that doesn't take, they should be dismissed.

But let's finally put to rest the notion that hordes of "bad" teachers roaming the halls of New Jersey's schools should be our primary concern in state education policy. We've got much larger issues to address.

It always seems to come down to this, doesn't it?

The Star-Ledger Editorial Board Continues To Make Stuff Up

UPDATE: Trust me, you need to read what Bob Braun, who spent decades at the Star-Ledger, has to say about all this.


I don't care if you are a news reporter or an opinion columnist: if you write for a newspaper, your first priority is getting your facts correct.

And yet, once again, the Star-Ledger's editorial board just makes stuff up:

Especially in larger districts like Newark, which lose hundreds of students each year and therefore need fewer teachers, seniority is a major impediment to a school's ability to hang on to the best people.  

We see the repercussions every time a standout teacher gets a pink slip — like the "Teacher of the Year" for the Sacramento City Unified School District, or New Jersey's own Christina Passwater, an award-winning literacy teacher at Whittier Elementary School in Camden. [emphasis mine]

Is it true? Was an award-winning teacher really let go by the Camden City Public Schools? When I first read this, it didn't smell right; claims that seniority ends the careers of dedicated teachers quite often turn out to be exaggerated when you start looking at the facts.

So I did what Tom Moran, head of the S-L's Editorial Board, should have done before he put this into print: I checked out the truth of the claim.

It took maybe a total of 15 minutes of my time. I emailed the offices of the NJEA (of which I am a member) and asked if they could find out if Passwater was still teaching in Camden. A few back-and-forths later, I learned the truth:

Christina Passwater is currently teaching in Camden, and is looking forward to teaching there again next year. The Star-Ledger editorial page got her story completely wrong.

So how did Tom Moran, or whoever else wrote this unsigned piece, screw up? If you look further down the editorial, you'll find a link to a piece by John Mooney for NJ Spotlight.* In that post from May 13, 2014, Mooney interviewed Passwater after large cuts in staff were announced.

But here's the problem: the Renaissance charter schools, which were supposed to be draining students from Camden, didn't meet their enrollment projections. Which means that CCPS likely had to retain staff they thought they would let go. Sure enough, Passwater got a call during the summer letting her know the district needed her to return.

Now, some might think Moran and his crew made an honest mistake here. But I don't, and for two reasons:

1) The editorial page of the state's largest newspaper should confirm every "fact" it prints. It's lazy and sloppy and amateurish not to, especially when you're printing the name of a private citizen. You would think a group of people who are obsessed with "bad" teachers would take a little more pride and care in their own work.

2) This is part of a pattern; it's yet another example of the Star-Ledger editorial board's indifference toward accuracy in their education "journalism." Once, when bemoaning the alleged poor performance of Camden's schools, the board cited the low proficiency rates of Camden Street School. Too bad that school is in Newark. To this day, you can go on-line and read the article which remains uncorrected.

That editorial also neglected to mention that Camden Street, at the time, served large numbers of students with significant learning disabilities, including autism, behavioral disabilities, and cognitive impairments. Did anyone at the SLEB bother to look at the data? Did they bother to look at the school's website, which clearly stated its mission? Did they even think to pick up the freakin' phone and talk to someone at the school about its students?

The SLEB once called the teachers in Newark's NEWCaucus "liars" for publishing what turned out to be a completely accurate analysis of the 2012 teachers contract. Moran has repeatedly declared his favored charter schools have equivalent populations to district schools when that clearly is not the case. He has made claims about student demographics in Hoboken that are simply not accurate. He gave an anti-tenure superintendent space in his paper to tell stories about her district that members of her own board declared were not true. That might be defensible if he acknowledged the other side of the story... but, of course, he never did.

Let me be clear: I don't think Moran and his editorial board deliberately make stuff up. I think, instead, that they just don't give a s***. 

As their last exchange with Bruce Baker (and me) proves, Moran and his fellow opinion makers are intellectually lazy. They like their facts pre-chewed; they consider their job to be regurgitating opinions that reformy types have spoon-fed to them. And if they screw up and get something that is easily verifiable wrong...

Well, who cares? We're only talking about schools for children of color, many living in disadvantage, right? So what if the facts of your case are completely wrong? It's not like it matters...

Except it does. It matters a lot. Which is why Tom Moran and his staff should be ashamed of their negligent, ignorant blatherings on education, and why Moran's whines about "tone" should be mocked or, ideally, ignored.

The Star-Ledger Editorial Board:

Ignoring the facts is what we do!

ADDING: You'll notice that the SLEB couldn't even be bothered to find out the name of the Sacramento "Teacher of the Year" they use as an example of the evils of seniority. Almost certainly, it's Michelle Apperson, who garnered a fair bit of attention back in the spring of 2012 when she was laid off.

Now, school websites are not the most reliable source of updated information. But if you go to the site for Apperson's school, Sutterville Elementary, you'll see that she is still listed as a faculty member for 2013-14. Maybe you want to check this one out too, Tom...

Apperson's district tried to shuffle the blame for her dismissal on to the seniority system. In truth, she was a given a layoff notice because of severe school budget cuts in California.

But, hey, the SLEB thinks districts like Newark have all the money they could possibly need. The $7 billion in accumulated underfunding of New Jersey's schools just doesn't excite the SLEB like giving senior teachers a good, swift kick in the teeth.


* Full disclosure: I write regularly for NJ Spotlight, and John is my editor.