Passing the Buck, Or Robbing Peter and Paul?

The California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, the State Board of Education, the state Department of Education and the attorney general's office all want a judge to drop a lawsuit brought against the state by the ACLU for illegally charging students to participate in classes and extracurricular activities, according to a recent report by California Watch.

It is a classic legal pissing match in which none of the parties are willing to accept responsibility, let alone acknowledge or address the actual problem: educational equality does not exist, nor has it ever existed, primarily because of inequities in school funding and a wealth gap that gives affluent students a large educational advantage over their lower income peers.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU claimed widespread instances of school districts charging parents and students exorbitant and improper fees for books, educational materials and extracurricular activities, thus denying lower income students access to many educational opportunities available to their more affluent peers, like athletics, arts and Advanced Placement classes.

While this does indeed happen and probably contributes to the achievement gap and inequality, the implications of the lawsuit are troubling and create their own problems. Forbidding the charging of fees, for example, does nothing to improve the financial status of lower income students. It does not get them to school well fed, provide for their medical needs, make sure their parents read to them as babies, or receive support at home for their academic progress. Likewise, schools that lack the resources and parental donations may be forced to stop offering expensive courses and extracurricular activities entirely. Furthermore, if the lawsuit is interpreted literally, it would forbid teachers from requiring students to purchase such basic and essential supplies as pencils and notebooks.

The state is not pushing back against the lawsuit for any of these reasons, however. Rather, they simply don’t want to be hassled or held accountable. They are placing the blame on school districts and saying it’s the legislature’s responsibility, thus passing the legal buck, but ignoring the much larger problems of the millions of students who cannot afford the materials necessary to succeed in school and the thousands of schools that cannot afford to provide these materials. Inequity between schools is thus ignored, as are inequities between students in terms of their readiness for school.

In response to the lawsuit, legislation was written by Assemblyman Ricardo Lara, D-South Gate, that would have created a complaint process for parents and required audits to make sure districts were not making parents and children pay for uniforms, classroom materials and extra activities. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the measure calling it "the wrong approach," as it would have required all 1,042 school districts and over 1,200 charter schools follow audit procedures, even when there have been no complaints or evidence of a violation.

The ACLU is worried that the dismissal of their lawsuit would be a green light for districts to thumb their nose at free public education and would end any real hope for disadvantaged students to use the public schools to achieve the American Dream. However, disadvantaged students never had much hope of achieving the American Dream, let alone becoming wealthy, regardless of the quality of their schools. Very few people transcend the class backgrounds of their families and schools serve to reinforce this tendency, even without charging extra fees. The class-based achievement gap, for example, which is already present before kids enter kindergarten (see Burkam and Lee and Hart and Risely), decreases the chances that a disadvantaged student will have the requisite skills necessary to succeed in a fee-charging advanced class. Likewise, students from lower income backgrounds tend to go to low income schools which often have fewer resources, course offerings and parental donations. They are also less likely to have parents with the experience, connections and self-assuredness to get them into enrichment programs, internships and mentorships that can increase the chances of getting into an elite university or secure a high status and high paying job.

Zero-Tolerance Policies Increasing Suspension and Drop-Out Rates

The National Education Policy Center has found that suspension rates across the country are increasing due to “zero tolerance” policies, particularly among poor and minority students. The researchers say this is increasing the dropout rate. According to the Los Angeles Times, much of this increase is due nonviolent offenses like dress code and cellphone violations. Nationally, nearly one-third of all black male middle school students have been suspended at least once. In LAUSD, almost 34% of the students suspended from middle schools last year were African American, while about 11% were Latino, 5% were white and 3% were Asian.

It is rare that students are actually suspended for dress code violations or cell phone use. Rather, when students repeatedly violate school policies, argue about it, or refuse the punishment, they may be suspended for defiance.

This, however, reflects schools’ lack of creativity and vision, not students’ relative badness. When a student doesn’t respond to a punishment in the desired way, the assumption is that progressively worse punishments must be applied. However, for many students, suspension is a treat, a respite from the boredom and oppressiveness of school. Furthermore, there is no indication that progressively worse punishments teach kids how to behave properly. Some kids (and adults) don’t accept the rules in the first place and will simply try to defy them without getting caught.

In terms of creativity, it is seldom necessary to suspend a child for violating cell phone policies. If a school does not want students to use cell phones, all they have to do is take them away from students who use them during class time and keep them for a day, week or semester, depending on how often the infraction has occurred, or require parents to come in and pick them up. Dress code violations are also relatively easy to address without suspensions. Provide students with belts or ropes for sagging pants and provide baggy sweats when exposing too much thigh, belly or cleavage. T-shirts with inappropriate language or gang colors can be swapped for shirts with school logos.

Zero-tolerance policies became popular after the deadly Columbine school shootings in 1999. The assumption was that if dangerous behavior was dealt with harshly and quickly, no more children would die in needless school violence. However, even when applied only to weapons, zero-tolerance policies ignore the socioeconomic and psychological factors that contribute to school violence. Consider the case of Brandon McInerney, who grew up in a family with a violent dad who beat and shot his mother, who was an amphetamine addict (see “Perfect Liberal Storm: Guns, Homophobia, Child Abuse”). This was a child who likely never learned any methods for dealing with stress or conflict other than violence.

Zero-tolerance policies, like mandatory minimum sentencing laws, take away the arbiter’s discretionary power to assess the nuances and mitigating factors in a case. For example, I once had a straight-A student who had never been in any kind of trouble who was expelled for bringing a toy gun to school. This was consistent with the school district’s zero-tolerance policy, but made no sense whatsoever in terms of the child’s wellbeing or the safety of other students and staff.

The Bipartisan (and Union) Assault on Tenure

Last year, President Obama called for teachers to be rewarded for their “effectiveness,” a call he repeated last week in his State of the Union address. He propped up these calls with Race to the Top (RTTT), which offered states large bribes (which he euphemistically called grants) for facilitating privatization schemes and for undermining tenure and seniority by tying teacher evaluations to student achievement.

Republican Governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada and New Jersey have called for the elimination or dismantling of tenure, with anti-tenure bills in the works in those states and in several others. Michael Bloomberg has been pressuring Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to dismantle tenure in New York. Democratic LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants to make it easier to fire ineffective teachers. Michelle Rhee, also a democrat, has made tenure abolition one of the cornerstones of her anti-education StudentsFirst movement, having advised the governors of Florida, Nevada and New Jersey. With debilitating budget deficits putting teachers unions on the defensive, many believe that such measures stand a good chance of passing.

Both national teachers unions, the National Educators Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have declared support for some sort of tenure “reform.” The AFT, for example, endorsed a law in Colorado last year that made it much easier for administrators to remove tenured teachers and that tied teacher evaluations to student achievement. And many locals have also voluntarily given up tenure protections and/or seniority rights. Keith Johnson, embattled boss of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, recently negotiated a contract that gave up seniority rights. The Chicago Teachers Union, Illinois Education Association, and Illinois Federation of Teachers endorsed “Accountability for All” which links tenure to classroom performance, measured in part by student achievement.

It’s important to remember that tenure doesn’t guarantee a teacher’s job; it guarantees due process so they aren’t fired arbitrarily or vindictively, or because of their race, sex, political views or cronyism. Ironically, New Jersey was the first state to pass a tenure law back in 1909. Also, the entire debate about tenure reform is predicated on the false premises that there are a lot of bad teachers and that poor student achievement is caused by all these bad teachers. Tenure reform is a red herring.

They Really Want to Dismantle Tenure Because It Will Allow Administrators:

•  to fire teachers they don’t like, who speak out against unpopular policies, who advocate for teachers or students, or who are active union organizers
•  to fire veteran teachers who earn much more than novice teachers and cost more to districts
•  to save money by stacking their staffs with younger teachers who earn less
• to more easily push through unpopular, untested or ineffective reforms  because younger, less experienced teachers are more likely to buy into the reforms and more willing to put in the extra hours to implement them
• to weaken unions by getting rid of union activists and supporters and replacing them with younger teachers who often have less class and union consciousness

Indiana’s Failing Charter Schools

Indiana has 62 free, public charter schools, enrolling nearly 23,000 students. Nearly 40 of these schools are authorized by Ball State University. 23% of them are currently on probation by the university, 10% have either withdrawn their charter or had it revoked by the university, and 9 are on probation for failing to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB.

Student Written Play on School Reform Banned in New York

Students in New York were prevented from staging a satirical musical, based on Antigone, that was critical of  Joel Klein, Mayor Bloomberg and their school reform movement.

For the full article, please visit Valerie Strauss' blog, The Answer Sheet.

Boston Teachers Union Sells Out Members

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), the state’s largest educators union, has agreed to tie teacher evaluations, promotions and terminations to student scores on the MCAS standardized state exam.  MTA officials said that the change was inevitable, so it was better to get on board early and help shape the plan. “We have to be the architects of reform, rather than the subject of it,” said Paul Toner, MTA president. Paul Reville, the state’s Secretary of Education, praised the union. (Big surprise)

MTA is correct that there is growing momentum for performance pay based on student test scores; at least it would seem so from the screeds of politicians and pundits. It has been called for by Obama and his privatization-hungry ed chief, Arne Duncan. It has been promoted by Bill Gates, Eli Broad and other billionaires out to destroy public education. But they are dead wrong that it is inevitable or that unions must jump on board idiotic projects that will be detrimental to children and to teachers.

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

Value-Added systems, in which teacher pay is tied to student test scores, have been shown to be complete bunkum. The consequences will be that many good teachers get punished and will ultimately leave the state or the profession. This will only harm schools and the children they serve. Standardized test scores are linked most closely with children’s economic background, not their teachers’ quality.

Teachers everywhere should be very concerned when union leaders collaborate with the enemy like this. It is nothing short of a sellout. Rather than wasting members’ dues on salaries for lazy chicken shit union bureaucrats and on unreliable politicians, unions need to get back to their original job: organizing, agitating and mobilizing their members.

First McDonalds, Then Starbucks, Now Education Deform Hits England

English School Girls, Photo by Ken

De-Professionalizing Teachers, English Style

The “Education White Paper,” published on November 24, outlines the British plan to place trainee teachers in classrooms throughout the country (kind of like the de-accreditation and TFA movements in the U.S.) The government intends to abolish the requirement that teachers obtain a 1-year post-graduate degree. They are also discussing the implementation of national core standards and increasing standardized testing, including the addition of a new test for six-year olds. Sound familiar?

Militarizing the Schools

Michael Gove, Secretary of Education, wants to fast track “high fliers” to get them into positions of educational leadership quickly. He especially wants to get recovering soldiers into the classroom, where they can impose their well-honed discipline on unruly urban youth. The new plan also gives head teachers much more power to search students, detain them, and use “reasonable force.”

Privatizing the Schools

Failing schools will be forced to become privately run (but publicly funded) “academies.” All this is coming amidst huge education cuts that threaten teaching jobs, course offerings and services. Teacher salaries have been frozen, while the government has abolished national negotiations over teacher pay, giving local head masters more power to control individual teacher salaries. The Department of Education has also threatened to publish teachers’ qualifications, sick leave record, and pay, giving even more leverage to head masters wishing to discipline their employees.