What is your opinion of Arne Duncan and RTTT

[OmahaBlueDog]

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. A kick and a request - is there a soul brave enough to explain why you approve of the SecEd?

:kick:

[ibegurpard]

2. privatization

that's what it is

[Starry Messenger]

3. Kicking.

I'm curious what the "likees" have to say as well.

[OmahaBlueDog]

5. I can only speak for myself - I won't flame them

Obviously, there is a small contingent who supports him, and he's the President's pick. Fine - give me the sales pitch -- why is RTTT the way to go?

[Starry Messenger]

14. I'm surprised you haven't gotten more responses.

Obviously I'm biased, I have a picture of the SOE wearing a pirate hat in my sig. :D But I was willing to just sit back and read. Various threads by teachers have elicited very passionate responses about education, I thought this would be a good opportunity for people to really lay it all out there.

[OmahaBlueDog]

15. I suspect there's some fear of flame. I'll be honest enough to admit I'm

..not a big fan of what I know about Secretary Duncan, but I try to be reasonable. Barack Obama is many things, but he's not an idiot. He must see something in the guy. I would really like to hear the arguments for RTTT.

[SoxFan]

4. I think a lot of people choosing the second option...

Should choose the third, if they were really being honest with themselves.

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. I almost added option 4 - I don't have kids and I don't care

[Dappleganger]

7. You should care.

One day those kids will be voters and running this country. Everything's connected.

[OmahaBlueDog]

8. No - I care deeply. I just know that #4 is an opinion that exists.

...and I have school aged kids, so I have a dog in this fight.

edit - spelling disaster

[demmiblue]

12. I think the few people choosing the first option...

secretly loved the Bush educational approach, if they were really being honest with themselves.

:eyes:

[OmahaBlueDog]

13. By which you mean NCLB, test scores, and vouchers.

I suppose you are probably correct.

[YvonneCa]

37. How's that? n/t

[Whisp]

9. Can someone please explain to me the sinisterness of Obama's plans for education reform?

No oneliner frothing please. Talk to me like I'm one of your students.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/29/president-obama-education-status-quo-morally-inexcusable

The whole premise of Race to the Top is that teachers are the single most important factor in a child’s education from the moment they step into the classroom. And I know firsthand that the vast majority of teachers are working tirelessly, are passionate about their students, are often digging into their own pockets for basic supplies, are going above and beyond the call of duty.

So I want teachers to have higher salaries. I want them to have more support. I want them to be trained like the professionals they are –- with rigorous residencies like the ones that doctors go through. I want to give them a career ladder so they’ve opportunities to advance, and earn real financial security. I don't want talented young people to say I’d love to teach but I can’t afford it.
…
So I am 110 percent behind our teachers. But all I’m asking in return -- as a President, as a parent, and as a citizen -- is some measure of accountability. So even as we applaud teachers for their hard work, we’ve got to make sure we’re seeing results in the classroom. If we’re not seeing results in the classroom, then let’s work with teachers to help them become more effective. If that doesn’t work, let’s find the right teacher for that classroom.
Finally, the President addressed the issue of raising standards for students, teachers and schools to help achieve better outcomes:

So here’s what Race to the Top says: Instead of Washington imposing standards from the top down, let’s challenge states to adopt common standards voluntarily, from the bottom up. That doesn’t mean more standards; it means higher standards, better standards, standards that clarify what our teachers are expected to teach and what our children are expected to learn -– so high school graduates are actually prepared for college and a career. I do not want to see young people get a diploma but they can’t read that diploma.

Now, so far, about 30 states have come together to embrace and develop common standards, high standards. More states are expected to do so in the coming weeks. And by the way, this is different from No Child Left Behind, because what that did was it gave the states the wrong incentives. A bunch of states watered down their standards so that school districts wouldn’t be penalized when their students fell short. And what’s happened now is, at least two states -– Illinois and Oklahoma –- that lowered standards in response to No Child Behind -- No Child Left Behind -- are now raising those standards back up, partly in response to Race to the Top.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Who said anything about sinister?

[OmahaBlueDog]

11. I'm not going to froth, I appreciate you posting that.

I would then ask -- what's up with the charter schools? Why is that option entering a discussion of what is supposed to be a raising of standards? I think that's what a whole lot of us don't get.

Also, isn't this a one-size-fits approach? How will this not ultimately favor teachers in middle to upper class suburban schools?

[Whisp]

17. contrary to what has been posted here very often

charter schools are not for profit corporate owned.

this is the wiki definition. Please provide another that suits your interpretation more closely. It was the first in my search and I don't necessarily trust wiki.

Charter schools are primary or secondary schools that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.<1> Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.<2> While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where enrollment in a charter school is over subscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions. In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging 198 students.<3> Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field—e.g., arts and mathematics. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.

Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.<4> State-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.<5> Additionally, school districts sometimes permit corporations to manage chains of charter schools. The schools themselves are still non-profit, in the same way that public schools may be managed by a for-profit corporation. It does not change the status of the school. In the United States, though the percentage of students educated in charter schools varies by school district, only in the New Orleans Public Schools system are the majority of children educated within independent public charter schools.<6>

Bolding is mine.

[OmahaBlueDog]

20. I'll stipulate to the definition

I will add, from personal exprience in Florida, that while the schools themselves may be NFP, the management companies contracted to run them are not necessarily not-for-profit.

[OmahaBlueDog]

27. Why Charter Schools?

Why not vouchers, for example?

Why not a different public school?

What is the upside for me as a parent?

[Whisp]

29. here are a couple points taken from that wiki definition.

''Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field—e.g., arts and mathematics. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.

Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.''

I especially like the possibilities of specializing in certain fields - especially the ones highlighted above, arts and math. The arts are so important for a rounded and good education it just cannot be said loud or often enough. Unfortunately that is one of the first things to be cut as being frivolous and unnecessary.

[OmahaBlueDog]

30. I agree the arts are important.

I suppose my question back would be why not magnet schools -- public schools with a specific emphasis?

[Luminous Animal]

36. So, keep the arts in public schools. By my senior year, I was singing in 4 different choruses.

And my best friend was in 3 different art classes. Our school curriculum included calculus club which was led by a professor from the local university. It is not that difficult to provide a wide curriculum that can accommodate in depth study of a particular interest.

[Luminous Animal]

35. It is a common misconception that non-profit means no money is being made.

Many non-profits make oodles of money but channel the money into salaries, rent, fine furnishings, cars, shiny new electronics, etc. There are several right wing politicians that have established non-profit foundations as a convenient way to employ family & friends and to launder bribes.

[LWolf]

16. Here:

1. It's a tool for privatization and union busting, encouraging charters, which are generally not unionized, going outside negotiated contracts to decide pay, and by-passing due process to fire employees.

2. It's based on competition, which is a harmful model for public education. The whole point of public ed is to give EVERYONE access to a quality education. When you set teachers, schools, districts, and states, up to compete against each other, you get winners and losers. That's not equal opportunity. It sets up a destructive climate. When collaboration is the model, then teachers collaborate for the good of all. When competition is the model, then they compete to be "better" than others, which means that they are no longer partners, sharing and working together. It also opens the door for corrupt political manipulation of rosters and teacher placements.

3. While only a few states will get any money, way too many states will institute the harmful policies required to be in the running, without any payoff. A destructive agenda is achieved without even having to pay up in most cases.

4. NCLB and high-stakes testing were bad. RTTT's use of high-stakes test is worse. Firing all, or half, of a whole school's staff, when not all of those people had anything to do with the subjects tested? That makes sense?

5. Firing and moving admins instead? Sure. Except that there are well-respected, proven admins being fired and moved. How is that going to help anything?

6. Closing schools and redistributing? Not exactly good for all the other schools that take the overflow. Closing schools and reopening as charters? See # 1.

7. RTTT is based on Duncan's FAILED policies in Chicago. Already shown to be a failure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/russo-on-duncans-record.html

[OmahaBlueDog]

18. Re: The whole point of public ed is to give EVERYONE access to a quality education.

We all know, I think, that not everyone has access to a quality education as it stands now. This was true before NCLB and RTTT.

This is from the NEA site, and it's an exchange between Duncan and a teacher from New York.

QUESTION:

Test scores are tied to parents’ incomes. When will politicians realize that although schools can help to mitigate some of the disparities in society, we cannot be the great equalizer that will leave no child behind?

Lori Mayo
High school English teacher, New York City

RESPONSE:

Secretary Duncan: I disagree. I see extraordinary high-performance schools where 95 percent of children live below the poverty line, where 95 percent are graduating, and 90 percent of those who graduate are going on to college.

I think we have to raise expectations. We have too many examples—whether it’s inner-city urban schools or rural schools—where, year after year, class after class, not just one child somehow breaking out in some miracle, but where schools and school systems are routinely beating the odds. So I would really challenge that teacher to look at what’s happening, in New York City and other places around the country, rural and urban, where children from desperate poverty are being very, very successful because adults had the highest of expectations, pushing so hard to help them.

I know how tough that work is. I know it doesn’t happen overnight. But this is the most important work going on today. And we have too many examples of success now to think that it’s not possible. It is happening consistently, more so today than ever before, which gives me tremendous hope for the future.

http://www.nea.org/duncan#poverty

***

My first question is where are these examples of excellence in impoverished districts (I do hear they exist) and what are they doing right?

My second question is if charter schools aren't the answer (and I don't personally think they are), then what is the answer? New schools? Vouchers? Is it a different kind of teacher training?

[LWolf]

21. Some answers:

First of all, Duncan's response ignores this proven statistical fact: parent SES is a bigger factor affecting standardized test scores than teachers. He "disagrees" with reality because it doesn't suit his agenda.

I can't answer your first question. I, too, have heard they exist, but I've never been provided with evidence.

There are all kinds of answers out there for your second question. This is reality: there are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and improving a large, complex, many-layered system like public education will take MANY things. Here are just a few:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=219&topic_id=26438&mesg_id=26493

[OmahaBlueDog]

22. That's a great list

I would agree with about 80-90% of that.

For those, like me, who would like to know who Charlotte Danielson is...

http://www.danielsongroup.org/

On edit:

This is also an interesting (if a bit wonky) paper fro UChicago on Danielson evaluation methods in application:

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Teacher%20Eval%20Final.pdf

[LWolf]

24. Glad you like it. :D nt

[Whisp]

19. It seems to me that schools will be more of a localized control by the parents and teachers, etc.,

rather than that one size fits all.

''''4. NCLB and high-stakes testing were bad. RTTT's use of high-stakes test is worse. Firing all, or half, of a whole school's staff, when not all of those people had anything to do with the subjects tested? That makes sense?'''''

RTTT is not NCLB. Obama recognizes that NCLB was not helpful. The new tests will track individual students and their very own progress. They will be competing with themselves. So if a child goes from a D student to a C student it will be considered a success. He or she will not be competing with the straight As.

Is there any other method that would be superior to this way of gauging improvement in a student?

[LWolf]

23. RTTT is NCLB on steroids.

The harmful aspect of NCLB is the misuse and abuse of standardized tests. RTTT uses those scores for MORE abuses, not less.

You don't get localized control with top-down, authoritarian mandates, and RTTT is full of them.

There are many, many ways of gauging improvement in a student. There is no one way to accurately gauge improvement for every student. The best ways work very well at the local, site level: a variety of authentic assessments, work samples, and evidence gathered together to provide a portfolio that looks at the whole student.

Try to standardize that process, though, and it fails. It works when the teachers working at a site decide what information is most important for them, and for their students. Take one successful model and force it from the top down on everyone and it fails.

What works is to empower schools, teachers, and students, not de-power them with authoritarian mandates and threats.

The whole point of "gauging student improvement" is to 1. inform teachers' decisions about instruction, and 2. keep students and parents aware of student progress. It's not to rate teachers.

[Radical Activist]

31. Chicago has public charters with lottery systems and some are union.

So the generalizations don't hold true.

[ibegurpard]

25. charter schools

another name for privatizing public education

[OmahaBlueDog]

26. I think there's a place for private education

Certainly those wishing for their children being educated in a religous paradigm would want that. I have considered private schools for kids at various times (mostly as a result of the Florida public schools switiching ti a curriculum of teaching kids how to pass the FCATS).

I'm against vouchers. At the end of the day, we all benefit from strong public education. However, I would not be opposed to making private school tuition deductible (which you can essentially do now through ESAs).

[SoxFan]

28. The NEA doesn't like it...

Hence, it must be bad.

Special interest groups are more important than kids stuck in borked-up schools, you know.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Why make struggling states compete for the money? Just put it where it's needed.

There's something really humiliating and demeaning about RTTT.

[Starry Messenger]

34. That's the worst part of it in my book.

It is so demeaning. It's like making starving people compete for a ham sandwich. RTTT just seems heartless at the core.

[bemildred]

33. RTTT is horseshit just like every education "plan" coming from the beltway before it. nt

[snot]

38. K&R'd

And pls read madfloridian's journal for lots of details about how RTTT is actually being implemented.

[OmahaBlueDog]

42. I enjoy reading MadFloridian. However, I am honestly looking to hear Duncan's side

[NJmaverick]

39. I think Arnie is performing the thankless task of undertaking badly needed

educational reforms. As a result he has been unfairly demonized.

[CBR]

40. +1 exactly right nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

41. I suppose what many of us are missing is why should this be thankless?

To me, fixing the US education system should be as joyous and rewarding as going to the moon. It is necesary work with total upside. Better education = better economy = less crime = stronger families = better nation.

To me it comes back to the issues of standardized testing and charter schools.

As parents, Mrs. OBD and I moved our family 1500 miles in large part because the Florida schools had become laser-focused on teaching kids to pass a standardized test called the FCAT. We want our kids to learn more than the finer points of how to beat a multiple choice exam. So, as a parent, I can't see how RTTT isn't going to land us in the same trap as NCLB.

As a Democrat, I can't see how the Charter Schools aren't anything but a union-busting operation, and I can't fathom why we'd want to sell out two unions that have been the backbone of our support. I keep coming back to this -- if we really need to send kids out of the public school system, why aren't vouchers just as good as an alternative?

So, I'll ask you - why is putting public schools in competition with private schools a good thing? Why is is a good thing for the administration to tick off teachers unions that have been stalwart party supporters?