Of course. Good for the teachers. The very idea that test scores are designed to grade teachers is simply ludicrous.

good thing that charter schools abound in Massachusetts so parents can choose from schools that are confident that the success of their students is related to teacher quality and competence.

The very idea that test scores are designed to grade teachers is just one example of accounting for the time kids spend in school.

Of course, no surprise that the usual suspects don’t see it that way.

You will notice that charter schools are unionizing at an incredible rate. The teacher turn over is many times the public school rate and career teachers just won’t put up with long hours, low pay and no say so they walk or unionize.

Esteemed education professor and historian Diane Ravitch from NYU and former Under Secretary of Education under George Bush has a powerful new book out; The Death and Life of the Great American School System, thesis? How the American education system is being destroyed by testing and choice.

I’m sure you will all love it.

Mr. Little, do you know what the book actually says? We can read the publicity blurbs too, but as of today the book has not been released.  Have you an advance copy that you have read?

She has also done interviews where she outlined the thesis of the book. I can’t wait for her to devastate the so-called reform movement that is wrecking American education with charter, vouchers, NCLB which is wildly unpopular, testing for teachers etc. She is a heavy hitter with maximum credibility since she also has long opposed the “do your own thing” granola Kumbaya lefties in education as well. She has a regular column in Education Week, the journal of record in the USA.

The tide was already going out on this nonsense before because all the studies were showing no gains due to these reforms.

A prize for guessing who wrote this:

“ From the “Life Adjustment Movement’’ of the 1950s to “Outcome-Based Education’’ in the 1980s, one “innovation’’ after another devalued academic subject matter while making schooling relevant, hands-on, and attuned to the real interests and needs of young people.

To be sure, there has been resistance. In Roslyn, Long Island, in the 1930s, parents were incensed because their children couldn’t read but spent an entire day baking nut bread. The Roslyn superintendent assured them that baking was an excellent way to learn mathematics.

None of these initiatives survived. They did have impact, however: They inserted into American education a deeply ingrained suspicion of academic studies and subject matter. For the past century, our schools of education have obsessed over critical-thinking skills, projects, cooperative learning, experiential learning, and so on. But they have paid precious little attention to the disciplinary knowledge that young people need to make sense of the world.

For over a century we have numbed the brains of teachers with endless blather about process and abstract thinking skills. We have taught them about graphic organizers and Venn diagrams and accountable talk, data-based decision-making, rubrics, and leveled libraries.

But we have ignored what matters most. We have neglected to teach them that one cannot think critically without quite a lot of knowledge to think about. Thinking critically involves comparing and contrasting and synthesizing what one has learned. And a great deal of knowledge is necessary before one can begin to reflect on its meaning and look for alternative explanations.“

Mr. Little, it may amuse you to drop Diane Ravitch’s name in order to boost your own credibility, but don’t make the mistake of presuming she represents your political views of education. Or that her reasons for opposing the certain education “reforms” align with yours. That is, what is good for unions and leftwing politicos is necessarily good for children, schools and societies.  And she does not share your contempt for the “non-educator”

First I have read every one of her major books and agree with almost all of it, have you?

Second there is nothing above that I disagree with. Surprised?

Third I read her piece where she teams up with Deborah Meier every week to discuss education topics. She is deeply disappointed with Obama because he has maintained most of Bush’s education policies including the test and punish absurd policy of NCLB which is also wildly unpopular. She called Arne Duncan, Margaret Spellings in drag.

Oh Diane Ravitch and I share most our education philosophy. Try her major work Left Behind. You will get a lot out of it Charles.

You may have read all of her books but you most certainly don’t share her views on what works in education.  You support a public program that is constructivist, child-centered, politicized, rejects research based pedagogy and is contemptuous of parents. You are fantasizing if you think she shares your philosophies!

You need to read her more carefully Charles. Do you think she supports the SQE prevailing view of education? Not on your life. She calls herself a tough, no nonsense Liberal. I can identify with that.

The vast majority of families send their kids to local public schools and they are generally fine.  However, there are significant numbers of families who do not get satisfaction from their schools.  Often schools are unresponsive and blame the kids (they’re poor, disadvantaged, new immigrants, etc.) or the lack of money, despite billions spent on doing the same ineffective programs, for those kids’ poor academic outcomes.

While the U.S. teachers’ unions might naturally hate school choice, the parents who avail themselves of charters or vouchers are generally satisfied.  Their children are doing well and that’s what is supposed to matter.  Low and middle income families don’t care about education philosophy.  They care that their children are in safe schools that deliver a sound education with out excuses.

You can view SQE’s DVD on Alberta Charter Schools here:  http://www.fcpp.org/media.php/369

Here’s some other heartwrenching evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0lnTmEAvYo

or visit http://www.thecartel.com

More carefully!

Mr. Little, Diane Ravitch is foursquare against Constructivist educational philosophy.  And that’s the philosophy that rules teachers’ colleges, school boards and classrooms in Ontario and in most of Canada.

That’s the philosophy that you have been advocating in many of your comments here.  It’s what teachers’ unions, if they even know what that means, are forced to accept in their Deal with the Devil.

I don’t think you know what it means.  I doubt you fully remember what you said five minutes ago, so much of what you say is repetitious and reflexive jargon

Kumbaya.

The evidence from the USA is accumulating that the success rate of charter schools is below that of public schools.

Charles nobody agrees about everything, I have read all of her books and am in agreement with a great deal of what she says. I will be in agreement for sure with her position that the two things wrecking American education are their obsession with testing and their idea that charters are any kind of solution.

Let us see your evidence Doug.

Check the CREDO study from Stanford University. You can find it easily with google . I don’t want to copy out long addresses.

17% of charters do better than local schools, 37% do worse, rest are the same. In other words 83% of local public schools do as well as or better than their local charter.

Big study of vouchers after 20 years in Milwaukee showed no benefits over local schools.

Charles is the Ravitch quote above there is almost nothing I disagree with. I opposed OBE from the first moment it set foot on the Ontario scene. Data based decision making is a joke, we have all the date we need, the poor do badly, lets fix that, rubrics and strands, I once told a PD session from the TDSB that I thought a rubric was a very good sandwich much like a Monte Christo.

I am a very srong opponent of jargon. Co-op leaning has its place, but people should not get carried away with it. Once again it is A tool. Projects also have a place and are generally supported by parents, many of whom it seems like to actually do the project which forced me to design projects that were actually done mainly at school.

Yes one cannot think critically without knowledge to think about. I teach history.

To quote respected Harvard economist Carolyn Hoxby, who wrote in response to the charge that charter schools lagged behind their public school peers:

“The goal of charter reforms is not creating good charter schools in the midst of mediocre public schools.  The goal is boosting the performance of all schools by fostering competition and innovation.  In the long run, we want to see charter schools and neighboring public schools perform similarly, all at a higher level.  In states with a significant charter presence, like Arizona and Michigan, there is evidence that public schools rise to the challenge and raise achievement faster when they face a charter competitor.“  (Wall St. Journal, Sept. 29 2004)

So the fact that charters appear not to be doing so well relative to their regular public counterparts, might just mean that “all boats rise” and that things are working out as they should.

Hoxby’s research is a little suspect although I personally believe it is honest but because she does studies for charter advocacy groups, people will wonder.

Doretta, your answer sounds a lot like, “yes charter schools do not do as well as public schools but there are other benefits.“

Doug, I’m sure Harvard deans can sleep better knowing that you approve of Dr. Hoxby’s credentials.

You didn’t understand my answer at all.  The point is that when faced with the competition from charters, all schools improved.  It’s relative.  There is lots of research on this which I’m sure you’ll deny.  And yes, there are other benefits, like parental satisfaction.

I understood your point the first time. Interesting but not credible. The idea that public schools outscore chater schools because charter schools have made all schools better doesn’t work because charter schools are a tiny % of schools and because American schools have not improved under the reform charters-testing regime as confirmed by the NAEP tests.

Should Student Progress be Used for Teacher Evaluation?  Unions Say NO. (page 1)

CD Howe Institute research on schools shows that 50% of student progress during a school year is due to the value-added effect of schooling – mainly good teaching.  That is why when CD Howe does school reports they factor out socio-economic status (SES) which accounts for 50% of the input and then they can rate schools which make a difference.

It is this value-added effect that is well known to Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, who is steering Obama’s program called Race To The Top.  Amongst the selection criteria for those requesting funding is proof that schools will use internationally benchmarked standards and assessments and use data systems that measure student success.  This data is to be used to inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices.  It is this feedback to teachers and principals that some teacher unions are resisting. Tying teachers to test scores is too scary for teacher unions.  Thus, some unions are refusing to sign federal funding applications by their districts.

Only 40 states have completed Round I of the process and no money has yet been awarded.  For a rather good discussion of the process and different points-of-view, see:  Concerns About Race To The Top http://education.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/whats-the-best-use-of-new-gran.php

The comment – cutting off your nose to spite your face – is appropriate here.  The obstruction of education reform by teacher unions is legendary and legion. They benefit, but not the consumers.  (AND, let me emphasize, it is not the average teacher who is generally opposed to reform.  It is the unions.)

But, there just may be a break in teacher union solidarity on the matter of teacher evaluations.  Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers has recently said that her union, the second largest in the US, is in favor of changing procedures for teacher dismissals.  She says, “Too often due process becomes a glacial process. We intend to change that.”  So, maybe there will be a break in the wall.  Maybe the totalitarian, undemocratic Berlin Wall of teacher union resistance to education reform will someday fall.  The sooner the better.

Weingarten asserts that standardized test scores and other measures of student performance should be an integral part of the evaluation process of teacher quality.  It’s still too soon to tell how far this will go.  A columnist for the NY Times, Bob Herbert ends his analysis of this development of last month (Jan 2010) thus: “If the union chooses not to follow through on these proposals, its credibility will take a punishing and well-deserved hit.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html

Should Student Progress be Used for Teacher Evaluation?  Unions Say NO. (page 2)

Speaking of credibility, I now come to Diane Ravitch.

Yes, Doug Little, long time ex-teacher unionist, lobbyist, blogger, progressive, socialist activist … etc. is right.  Diane Ravitch is four-square against this Obama effort to improve poorly performing public schools of America. You’ll see her opinion in the above first link I’ve provided.

Yes, and Charles Tysoe is right that Ravitch is contemptuous of parents.  In none of her writings or many presentations before commissions, hearings or panels has she ever said that parents have, or should have, an instrumental role in education of their children.  That is why she opposes any choice outside the monopolistic funnel of the public school system. She opposes charters, vouchers, tuition tax credits.  I expect she even opposes home education.

Now, about her credibility.  She not only endorses monopolistic public education, but she endorses progressive monopolistic public education.  She received the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) John Dewey Education Award in 2005.  John Dewey is the father of the progressive movement in education. (You know, social justice, self-esteem…)

Furthermore, she is a Director of the Albert Shanker Institute, which is funded and housed at the American Federation of Teachers headquarters in Washington, DC. Shanker, a Marxist, was the president of the AFT (1974-1997).  The Institute is dedicated to three themes – children’s education, unions as advocates for quality, and freedom of association in the public life of democracies.  The Institute is generally opposed to the reforms envisioned by RTTT.

This is an important issue and event.  It is worth watching for implications here.

Albert Shanker a Marxist, what a laugh, he was a neo-con.
Diane Ravitch was also chosen to be Under Secretary of Education UNDER GEORGE W BUSH. She has often been invited to speak by the Manhatten Institute and other conservative groups due to her critique of that which Tunya above escribes to her. Read Left Back if you doubt it.

I am not contemptuous of parents. I love Annie Kidder and all her friends, Loved Kathleen Wynne and Shelly Carroll when they were leading the parent movement in Toronto, love all the parents on the Campaign for Public Education. Tunya’s problem is that she equates “parents” with “conservative parents” . The vast majority of parents like the system much as it is. Of course they say it needs more money, support for the ELP, smaller classes, more resources, bigger gyms, more renovations, fewer portables, new science labs and of course I agree with them. That would take more money but Oregon has a unique solution to the problem. They just passed a ballot initiative to tax corporations and individuals making over $250 000 to make up the shortfall schools need. SWEET.

hyyp://educationnext.org/poor-schools-or-poor-kids/