Chicago parents speak out about the Secretary of Education:

[LWolf]

"PURE" is "Parents United for Responsible Education," based in Chicago, Obama's home state. They have communicated to him in no uncertain terms about the possibility of Arne Duncan being appointed as Secretary of Education. As a matter of fact, this letter is dated October 27, before election day. I, too, sent him a communication about public education before he was elected. I sent mine off before polls opened on November 4th. It was returned to me. I'm not done yet, though.

I have numerous communications to put out this week about education. That's my profession, and I'm going to communicate continuously over the next year, as appointments are made and policy is set.

One of those communications will be to endorse this letter. Perhaps he will do a better job listening to families from his own state than he does to the individual teachers contacting him:

http://pureparents.org/data/files/ObamaADletter.pdf

[TheWraith]

1. Did the rumor de jour change?

Last I heard Kathleen Sebelius was the rumored DOE pick.

[LWolf]

2. From CNN:

<snip>

CNN’s Short List: Who will be Obama's education secretary?

Here’s CNN’s list of possible contenders to head the new administration’s Department of Education:

LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND: This professor of education at Stanford University was also an education policy adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign.

JOEL KLEIN: Klein, a veteran of former President Clinton’s Justice Department and White House Counsel’s Office, is currently the Chancellor of New York City’s public school system.

TOM KEAN: This Republican former governor of New Jersey was also the president of Drew University for 15 years and a member of the federal commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

ARNE DUNCAN: Duncan has local ties to Obama; he’s the CEO of the public school system in Chicago, where Obama’s political career began.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/21/cnn%E2%80%99s-short-list-who-will-be-obamas-education-secretary/

Frankly, I'm not thrilled with any of CNN's shortlist. I guess LDH is the least of the evils.

I'm sure that speculation in Chigago IS focused on Duncan, since he's the ceo of Chicago public schools.

[donco6]

3. I definitely DON'T want a big-city superintendent.

They can't see what's happening in school districts my size (6,000). They implement programs that are antithetical to what we're about here.

I like LDH. Really.

[LWolf]

5. I'd prefer Alfie Kohn, myself.

Or Gerry Bracey. Or Marion Brady. :D

In the interest of compromise, I'd be willing to settle for someone who fits the 3 criteria given by PURE in the letter, plus 2 more from me:

1) a strong background as an educator

2) proven knowledge of research-based best practices of education

3) a track record supporting and engaging parents and families

4) Not a supporter of the "standards and accountability" movement

5) Determined to do away with NCLB, and with high-stakes testing of any kind, at any level.

How many does LDH fit?

[donco6]

7. She fits some.

1 and 2, certainly. No idea on 3. On 4, I know she likes the concept of developing standards to guide curriculum (how else to guide what gets taught, and in what order?) But on accountability, she believes we have to recognize "on-the-ground" realities of ELL, poverty, access to materials, etc., rather than assuming all kids start from "A" and should be at "B" by the end of the grade level.

She's not a supporter of NCLB, at least from the punitive aspects.

She strongly believes in knowing and using best, first instruction.

Personally, I don't have a problem with standards, if you're talking about curriculum. Dividing standards up by grade level doesn't really work, however. And straight line achievement goals are ridiculous.

[LWolf]

8. Standards as

long laundry lists of isolated skills for each grade level...I have a problem with that.

A few broad standards for all, used to organize and drive content? Absolutely.

I'd be happy with these national standards, if we could dump the rest:

1. Students will be fluent and literate in at least two languages at high school graduation, and will show continual progress towards this standard throughout their school careers, as measured by a portfolio of evidence.

2. Students will be numerate at high school graduation, and will show continual progress towards this standard throughout their school careers, as measured by a portfolio of evidence..

3. Students will learn and use critical thinking skills throughout their school careers, as measured by a portfolio of evidence..

4. Students will, regularly and frequently, operate at all levels of Bloom's taxonomy throughout their school careers, as measured by a portfolio of evidence.

Those are just off the top of my head at this moment; I'm sure I could do a better job if I gave it more time. ;)

[jmowreader]

34. There's nothing about science here

With no standard dictating a minimum scientific literacy, you wind up with people who really believe Jesus rode his dinosaur to church every Sunday.

[jmowreader]

33. There is a way to solve that problem

The Department of Education should be organized more like the Department of Defense. At DoD, responsibility is divided among three secretaries, one each for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.

In this case, you'd have a Secretary for Rural Education, a Secretary for Small City Education, and a Secretary for Metropolitan Education.

[LWolf]

9. Sebelius is not great news, either.

She was appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board by Spellings last February. Anyone who is Spelling's pick for a spot setting policy for NAEP is off MY table, anyway. ;)

[Pastiche423]

10. she also attended a Bilderberger meeting

[LWolf]

11. That she did. nt

[TheWraith]

13. Clearly she needs to be dragged out into the street and shot.

:eyes:

Sebelius is a good pick for DOE. She's made a big deal in KS about increasing funding for education, to the tune of a billion dollars a year, even though it meant politically unpopular tax increases.

I wish to hell DUers would let go of their paranoid conspiracy theories.

[LWolf]

14. Bilderburger ties aside,

her connection to Spellings is enough to take her off the table.

That's not a "conspiracy theory." It's reality. Anyone whose take on assessment is admired by Spellings is not an appropriate choice for SOE.

[TheWraith]

15. Why stop there? Why not disqualify anyone who's ever even spoken to a Republican?

If you're writing off dedicated and qualified people because they've actually been in government, and maybe aren't burned in effigy by EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the opposition party, then you're going to be really unhappy with the available list of candidates.

[LWolf]

16. Speaking to them is okay.

Helping them achieve their agenda is not.

I guess we all draw the line in a different place.

[Pastiche423]

19. Bilderberger meetings are real

There is nothing conspirital about them. They exist. They meet once every year. They are of, by, and for the elite.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Huh?

I live in Kansas and have heard NOTHING about this appointment for Sebelius. Besides, she has NO expertise in education. That appointment would be stupid.

[villager]

4. we need to get rid of this crippling "test mania"

in our schools (though adequately funding them, wouldn't hurt either...)

All of which you well, well know, LWolf! :hi:

[LWolf]

6. Of course we do.

Obama isn't in a hurry to do that. He may "tinker" with NCLB, but it will still be a force in place, and we will still have high-stakes testing, if enough people don't step forward to change his mind.

He wants merit pay; what do you think that would be based on?

Hi, yourself, friend. I hope things are going well down south.

:hi:

[MadHound]

17. You've got it,

Obama and Congress will make slight modifications in NCLB, but will essentially leave it in place, and continue to sell an entire generation of school children down the river in this vast, failed experiment.

Our next big crisis is that Johnny won't know his history or civics. I was working with fifth graders last year, and even though the GLE's state that by the end of the fifth grade students were supposed to have gotten through the Civil War and into Reconstruction in American History, with a month to go in the school year these students were into the Revolutionary War, and not likely to get much further. The reason for this lack? Having to put so much emphasis on the high stakes testing that covered math, science and reading that took place in March. Essentially with this huge test they were only allowed to teach Social Studies for two months.

We need to repeal NCLB, now.

[LWolf]

18. YES.

This is one issue that won't go away. That, I can promise.

[Pab Sungenis]

12. k&r

:kick:

[ulysses]

20. .

:kick:

[mopinko]

21. yeah, i'd like to get rid of him, so you can take him.

just don't put him in charge of education. let him run the senate cafeteria or something. buy him a shopping mall to play with. just get him out of chicago.

ritchie likes him, tho, and has been saying that barack can't have him for awhile.

[LWolf]

22. I don't want him, lol.

Chicago needs to give him the boot. What the **** is a "ceo" of schools, anyway? Does Chicago have a public education system, or corporate schools?

Edited to add: I've long been interested in the University of Chicago's "Lab schools." They've got a good model. Do Chicago families lobby to spread that model beyond the University?

[mopinko]

23. charter schools are a hard sell in a union town.

but they do have at least one charter. in all honestly, arnie has done some good things. the mayor loves him. the school system has made huge progress under the daley administration. it used to be run by a board that knew even less about education than arnie, after many mayors treated it like a cookie jar. daley went to springfield and insisted that he could not control the fate of the city if we didn't have good schools. it was the #1 reason for white flight.
the school buildings reflected the state of the system, with broken windows, leaky roofs, peeling paint everywhere.
the big thing that duncan does as ceo is to worry about that physical plant. not only are there no more buildings like that, they have built may new schools. my neighborhood alone has 3 completely new schools, new annexes to 2 more. they have greatly expanded gifted programs, which used to be pretty ghettoized. they are now extremely well kept.
there are still some underserved areas, and flaws, but all in all they have really taken on the hard shit, and made gigantic progress.

[LWolf]

24. They don't have to be charter.

I oppose charter schools, myself.

Take what makes them work, and make it district wide. Give the benefits to ALL, instead of to a select group.

[mopinko]

25. i strongly support charter schools. there is not one size that fits all kids.

different populations have different needs. most of the charters here are schools that are trying to find a way to deal with kids who don't fit into the general populations for one reason or another. successes are certainly applied where they can be in the larger system. but most are suited to the populations that they are devised for. we have an incredibly complex population to serve. we need more narrowly focused solutions to a lot of problems.
chicago has a long history of embracing change in education, not always for the better. i think trying these things on a smaller scale before we turn the whole ship around is a good idea.
i do oppose charter schools as a way to funnel money to church based schools. but mostly, they get the same amount of money per child as the larger system. if they are educating a kid, they are educating a kid. more choices is a good thing.

[LWolf]

26. It's certainly true that no one size fits all students.

The problem with charter schools is that they are exempt from most regulations which other public schools have to operate under. In the interest of equity, either ALL public schools need to run under a charter that allows them more local control and flexibility (something I've advocated for for almost 30 years now,) or none of them should.

That doesn't mean that they should all use the same structure or methodology; that would be the point of returning local control and flexibility to ALL.

Then, if you can solve the transportation issue, all public school students can choose schools that "fit" the family and the child. No privatization necessary.

Under current laws and practices, some charter schools are great, and others are horrific. None of them are subject to the same layers of bureaucracy, regulation, and mandate that the rest of us are. That's because the original intent of charter schools was to create private schools with public funding, leading us closer to vouchers.

[mopinko]

27. in chicago, all charters

are subject to the same rules, regulations, and funding as the rest of the system.

[LWolf]

28. Every state handles things differently, of course.

In the two states I've taught in, a charter school must be approved by the local district, and "is subject to the same funding," public money, but does not have to comply with many state regulations, and any district regulations, procedures, etc..

Anyone can apply for a charter, including private corporate schools and private religious schools. I know of some from both groups who have done so.

Are you sure they have the same rules and regulations?

[mopinko]

30. this is a union town.

ok, not like back in the day, but you still don't want to piss off the teachers union around here. there are differences as they relate to specific populations, such as kids who need a therapeutic school, or some such. and those are governed by the same rules as similar schools. since most of the testing, etc, is nationalized now, anyway....
they do have autonomy in scheduling and stuff like that. but this is a place where there has always been a lot of innovation in education. and where there is a big plan being worked by the board. change is a daily thing.

[LWolf]

35. I was reading a comment by a Chicago educator this morning,

on a list-serve. Unrelated to our conversation here, but he brought up charter schools in Chigago.

He said that it's a regular practice in Chigaco charter schools to "counsel out" bad students. The schools fill their rosters through a lottery, "taking anybody," but then students and their families sign contracts that give the school the right to kick them out "whenever they want to," which means without due process.

He called the term for this practice "cropping;" getting rid of students who create problems or make the school look bad.

That's not an option open to regular public schools. We can expel them for extreme behaviors, after a very long legal process, but if we expel them, the district still has to educate them. In 25+ years in public education, not a single one of my students has ever been expelled. It's our job to FIND A WAY TO SERVE THEM.

We never get to just toss the students who are the most difficult to serve, and/or who cause the most disruption to the learning of others, out of the program. This is not the case with charter schools. One of the key mandates that charter schools don't have to follow; while taking public money to educate, they have numerous ways of self-selecting and "cropping" students.

I can't give you a link for an email discussion, but he writes for this publication:

http://www.substancenews.net/index.php

[mopinko]

37. not all the charters take anyone everyone.

many of them are for particular populations. i know there are several "alternative schools", which is the euphemism for dropout recovery/avoidance.
but i wonder if he is not talking more about "magnet" schools/programs. there are selective enrollment schools, and programs in neighborhood schools. kids in those schools do get dropped for non-performance in honors/advanced programs. as the mom of 5 gifted kids, not all of whom did all that well even in selective programs, i would have to stick up for the right of these programs to drop kids who don't perform. in my experience, tho, it is not common.
i could go on with this topic, but i have learned not to really talk too much about gifted education here on du.

[LWolf]

38. Not all the charters operate the same, obviously.

The point is that they CAN self-select the student population while taking public money, as well as any number of other abuses, and that many DO.

It's good that some charter schools use their extra freedoms more responsibly than others; predictable, too. The point is, though, that charter schools create inequity in the public ed system.

[mopinko]

40. selecting on the basis of needing the program is not discrimination.

you use the word self-select as though that in itself is a crime. it is not. the schools that are both neighborhood and selective enrollment do not select the neighborhood kids, just the ones that come in from other attendance areas, for specific programs. washing out kids who do not perform in these programs is a necessary tool to serve the kids who do.
you seem to be commingling charters and magnets. i'm not sure that is what the guy is talking about. at any rate, one size does not fit all. especially in a city the size of chicago. you cannot address that without different programs for different kids. if you see that as inequity, as many do, i guess you are entitled to your wrong headed opinion.

i disagree strongly with your point of view, and don't really see the point in continuing the back and forth.

[LWolf]

41. That's not what I mean by self-select, and that's

not the way "cropping" occurs. Make every public school a "charter school," instead of standardizing schools so that they all operate like cookie cutters, and you have plenty of family choice within the system. At least, you do if you solve the transportation problem. Obviously, taking schools out of "attendance zones" and providing transportation from every neighborhood in a district to any school in a district is cost-prohibitive. Allowing parents who are willing to transport their kids themselves to choose means that the less affluent, who may not have cars or people to transport during their work hours, don't have equal access or equal choice.

Here are some statistics for you, rock solid for 3+ decades:

Standardized test scores are a more valid predictor of parent ed and income level than of anything that a school or teacher does. If a school wants to look good, limiting access to the underclasses does the job, whether or not what's actually going on in classrooms is any better than anywhere else.

Students who come to school valuing learning and education will progress further than those that don't. Disruptive students slow down learning for everyone in the room.

Schools who can self-select from the middle class, filtering out the children of the poor, the under-educated, and students with disruptive behaviors are going to take their students further than those who can't.

Self-selection on the part of families isn't the problem. Self-selection of students on the part of a public school IS.

[funflower]

43. More diverse approaches can mean fewer problem students.

Whether it's through charters or magnets or whatever, the public education system has got to find ways to serve diverse populations, and that can't happen through a one-size-fits-all approach. When I was a PS teacher, I found that almost every kid can get jazzed and motivated about SOMETHING. Schools that serve that diversity can "catch the wind," so to speak by helping kids find their own personal motivators. The charters and magnets may have some unfair advantages (like the gifted magnet that wins the state science bowl year after year - doh!), but they provide space to experiment with different models that can be exported to a variety of settings if they are found to be successful.

[LWolf]

45. Diverse approaches are great.

I want every public school to be allowed the flexibility to choose diverse approaches. When you limit that diversity to a select few, and label them "charters," or "magnets," leaving the rest standardized, you limit access to those diverse approaches.

That is anti-democratic. It's a form of privatization, and it's an inappropriate use of public funds.

You don't need to tell me that standardized schools don't motivate many students; they don't motivate many teachers, as well, myself included.

I spent most of my 25+ years in public education teaching in non-standard district "schools of choice." I could discuss the pros and cons all day.

My point here is that public funds are not appropriate for schools that don't have to follow the same rules that the rest of the public schools do. And Charter schools do not. That's the point of the charter; not the methodology or philosophy that they espouse, but the waiving of many standard district and state rules, regulations, policies and procedures.

I'm a big proponent of local control. The farther up the chain of bureaucracy, the less control that agency should have. Families and teachers at a school site SHOULD be the real administrators, within a framework that ensures quality.

When EVERY public school has that flexibility, and that authority, charter schools will be irrelevant, and the public education system will be democratic.

Until then, charter schools are an obstacle to democracy, and a tool for those seeking to filter out certain kinds of students.

[funflower]

42. I don't think religious schools can get "charter" status.

At least I've never heard of one.

[LWolf]

46. Here's one.

You won't find anything mentioned in the charter, or on the school web page, about religion, of course.

I know because I lived and taught in this community for 2+ decades. I knew the men who founded this school, I knew some of the people who taught there, and I was heavily "recruited" myself.

It doesn't include religion in the curriculum. It's an academic school. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a religious base, or any school activities outside the academic day that are religion-centered. It was founded as an alternative to the local high schools for the local Muslim community.

If I hadn't been a part of the district, and the education community, I wouldn't know this school's roots. The people who run this school are good people; I liked them. I also understood their concerns, in a pretty red, conservative, christian stronghold, about whether or not their kids would be socially or culturally safe. I relate, having put my two sons through high school in that system.

I think we can create smaller, more community oriented, safer, more nurturing, more flexible schools that can focus on individual students, without a religious base, and I think we can do it for ALL public schools, not just for a few who get a charter exempting them from much of the massive bureaucracy that stands in the way.

http://www.thegcs.org/php/index.php

[donco6]

31. In Colorado, most charters are "white flight" schools.

Formed in suburbs. Run by white parent groups until their kids are done, then they abandon it.

[mopinko]

32. in chicago the schools were the tool to stop the flight

schools were the biggest reason for the flight, so improving the schools was the plan to stop it. which didn't make for the fairest of plans, but it did work.

[funflower]

44. How does forming a charter help one avoid brown people (if that's the goal)?

After all, you can't discriminate in a charter any more than in a regular public school.

[LWolf]

47. Yes, you can. That's the point.

There are several ways to filter out unwanted populations without overt "discrimination."

The first is the charter itself. Charter schools aren't supposed to have attendance zones; they are supposed to be available to anyone within a district, and sometimes from outside the district. Of course, it's cost-prohibitive to bus students from everywhere, so very often charter school families that live outside a reasonable boundary are responsible for their own transportation.

That's the first filter. People who don't have the means to transport, or a family member not at work and free to transport, don't attend. Oh, a few will slip in, carpooling with friends, but the transportation issue deletes a large segment of those below middle class who might otherwise attend. I'm sure you are aware of the statistics dealing with race and socio-economic class, but if you need it:

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/racepov.html

The other filters are actually more blatant. The charters themselves usually allow the school to exit students out at their discretion. Unlike an expulsion in a regular public school, which involves hearings, committees, and documentation of severe, extreme problems, a charter school can choose to "exit" students for any reason. And if they want to exit a student, they can find a reason that doesn't seem to be connected to socio-economic status or race.

It's still discrimination.

[G_j]

29. K

edit: just K, too late to R.

thanks for this post

[hughee99]

36. Maybe Obama can find a distinguished educator

Perhaps a professor from his neck of the woods with a Ed.D from a good school that has authored many books on education theory, policy and practice. I'm sure the city of Chicago has a few such people.