Graduates Versus Oligarchs

From Paul Krugman and the Times by way of O'hanian.

Is it myth that a college education will make you well off?
...
I think of... the 80-20 fallacy. It's the notion that the winners in our increasingly unequal society are a fairly large group — that the 20 percent or so of American workers who have the skills to take advantage of new technology and globalization are pulling away from the 80 percent who don't have these skills.

The truth is quite different. Highly educated workers have done better than those with less education, but a college degree has hardly been a ticket to big income gains. The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year.

So who are the winners from rising inequality? It's not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that.

A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?," gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

Just to give you a sense of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year the 99th percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of $1,672,726. The center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well over $6 million a year.
...
The notion that it's all about returns to education suggests that nobody is to blame for rising inequality, that it's just a case of supply and demand at work. And it also suggests that the way to mitigate inequality is to improve our educational system — and better education is a value to which just about every politician in America pays at least lip service.

The idea that we have a rising oligarchy is much more disturbing. It suggests that the growth of inequality may have as much to do with power relations as it does with market forces. Unfortunately, that's the real story.

Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats. Both history and modern experience tell us that highly unequal societies also tend to be highly corrupt. There's an arrow of causation that runs from diverging income trends to Jack Abramoff and the K Street project.

And I'm with Alan Greenspan, who — surprisingly, given his libertarian roots — has repeatedly warned that growing inequality poses a threat to "democratic society."

It may take some time before we muster the political will to counter that threat. But the first step toward doing something about inequality is to abandon the 80-20 fallacy. It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates.
— Paul Krugman
New York Times
2006-02-27

Is this really dangerous? Let's make the tax cut permanent and keep voting for the same old same old and find out. Or not.
anti nclb

Something Loose in the Brain

Conferences are coming and I can almost guarantee that I will not be posting as often. So, with that in mind I refer you to this great recent post against NCLB by Jim Horn over at Schools matter. The bullets at the end are worth quoting:

• If one has to choose, which seems to be the case with the all-or-nothing national testing policy that is intended to leave us with nothing in terms of public education as we know it, would you continue to choose the same scheme with the impossible expectations that will guarantee the failure of tens of millions of children over the next 8 years, largely represented by the handicapped, brown, and poor?
• Do you really believe that the only alternative to the bigotry of low expectations is the racism of impossible demands?
• Do you really believe the Big Lie that the intent here is to leave no child behind, rather than to introduce a repressive chain gang model for schools in urban America?
• Will you not see the increasing number of planned failures that heedlessly and arrogantly sacrifice children on the ideological altar of school privatization?
• Can we see allow ourselves to see the shame and the crime in the violence that we are perpetrating against our children, our schools, against the future of the Republic?
• Can we?
• Will we?
• When?

anti nclb

Privatization or social control?

By Dave Stratman fom New Democracy world via Susan O'hanians' website.

Mr. Stratman has a take on this whole Business Roundtable push against public education that, I believe, bares listening to:
...
In my view NCLB and various state-based reforms represent a systematic intensification of the problematic nature of the public education system itself. The public education system is designed to legitimize and reinforce the inequalities of capitalist society. NCLB and the host of corporate-led ed reform plans of the past 20 years or so are intended to intensify the stratification and competition which are at the heart of the public school system and are essential to the mission envisioned for it by policymakers.

Why intensify these already-existing traits of the system? There are three principal reasons:

1) as US society becomes more dramatically unequal and less democratic, the education system must be reshaped to sharpen its powers of social control;
2) as the economy is reshaped by automation and outsourcing to yield fewer and fewer jobs that require skilled workers, the self-confidence and potential of countless students must be crushed so that they will accept their place in society;
3) the active resistance--which takes multitudinous forms--of teachers, parents, and students to schooling as social control must be beaten back and undermined.

The question of whether there is money to be made in education reform seems to me beside the point. There may or there may not be. But entrepreneuers like Chris Whittle or corporations like Harcourt Brace would never be able to effect such a massive development in US domestic policy as NCLB represents. These are bit players compared with the Business Roundtable and the other major forces behind these developments--such as the Republican and Democratic Parties.
...
The effects of the public schools on our children and grandchildren is decidedly mixed. The mix of effects come about because of the conflict over goals at its heart. On the one side are the structures of official school policy and practices, designed to sort students out and reinforce the inequality of American society. On the other side are students, parents, and teachers, who want to see students educated to the fullest of their abilities and who work in the ways they can to succeed in this goal.

To be effective champions of public education, we cannot simply defend the schools against false or misleading information, low funding, and carping politicians. The people who are in the public schools often have very real and reasonable complaints against them. We need to be the most reliable allies of these people. As defenders of the schools, we have also to be their severest and most insightful critics.

To do this we must differentiate between the system and the people in it. The problem is not demoralized teachers or lazy students or indifferent parents. The problem is a system that is designed to undermine the hopes and self-confidence and critical thinking and abilities of the people involved in it.

This is why any serious movement for school change must be a revolutionary movement. Public schools do much that is good and irreplaceable. The damage which they do they do as instruments of social control wielded by the rulers of our society to reinforce their rule. It is that rule--which would be mortally threatened by our young people achieving their full potential--which is the source of the problem.

Dave Stratman
anti nclb

Under No Child Left Behind, States Submit Growth Model Proposals, Outside Peer Reviewers Selected

Ms. Spellings is at it again. It seems that my fair state A;aska is one of the states, us being a good conservative Republican state, being considered for the "growth model." This is supposed to be a big consession but read further:

Growth models...must be based on the following seven principles of No Child Left Behind:

• Ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual state goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students;
• Set expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency and not upon student background or school characteristics;
• Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics;
• Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup, and include all schools and districts;
• Include assessments, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school, in both reading/language arts and mathematics that have been operational for more than one year and have received approval through the NCLB standards and assessment review process for the 2005-06 school year. The assessment system must also produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year;
• Track student progress as part of the state data system; and
• Include student participation rates and student achievement as separate academic indicators in the state accountability system.

Nothing has changed. The system is still set up for failure. The aim is still privatization. It is beyond time for everyone to stand up to this attack on our public school system.
anti nclb

Watchdog of Test Industry Faces Economic Extinction

This bad news is from Micahel Winerip of the NY Times. Please get out your charge card and help keep this important group going. We need them now more than ever.
anti nclb

Behind the White House's Billion-Dollar Propaganda Push

They cut, cut, cut funding for social programs, including education and NCLB but, according to a new GAO audit, they can still find $1.4 BILLION for propaganda, no I mean public relations for their pet programs. Does this outrage anyone else?
anti nclb

Report: Charters create school segregation

Another report, this one from Michigan, that shows what anyone who is paying attention already knows:

LANSING -- The number of schools in Michigan listed as "segregated" has jumped dramatically over the past decade, driven by the charter school movement.

A Michigan State University report found that Michigan had 294 schools that were composed of at least 80 percent African-American students in 1992-93, and that number had increased to 431 by last year. The MSU Education Policy Center uses the 80 percent figure as the benchmark for being considered "segregated."

Of the 137-school increase, 87 were charter schools
...

African-American students make up 55 percent of the charter school population, compared to 19 percent statewide, according to the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, which represents charters.

"It's not to blame it on charter schools but to say, if anything, charter schools are exacerbating the problem," said David Plank, co-director of the policy center. "What we're doing is providing African-American parents whose children are in racially isolated schools the choice of attending other racially isolated schools."

...

And on a completly different subject, check out this statement from Russ Feingold about the Patriot Act on Salon.com. This is important and chances are you will not read it in most papers.
anti nclb

President’s Budget Would Cut Education Spending

This from EdWeek from today is a fairly detailed account of the presidents proposed budget for education. My personal favorite blurb from the article:

...said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the ranking minority member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

"You're cutting education for disabled students, cutting funding to the most economically disadvantaged students, and at the same time you're going to take $100 million and give it to private schools?" Mr. Miller said in an interview. "It shows such disregard for the public school system."

Exactly, and then there is this about a so-called "bi-partisan" committee to lead a public discourse on NCLB made headed by two of vouchers leading proponents. Lately I am beginning to read more on the blogs that more people are waking up to discover that free public education is being hijacked in this country by the privatization bunch. We need even more voices and we need to get louder.
anti nclb

AFT NCLB Let's Get It Right

Yes, it's another blog ,but this one is all about NCLB and it is run by the American Federation of Teachers. I have had my differences with them in the past but this looks to be worth the read. Check it out!
anti nclb

The New Advocate is Out --

Check it out! Great reading, as always. Sorry that I have not been blogging. I picked up some awful bug and just have not been able to think about this stuff. I am currently feeling better but I have all that I can do just with work and family stuff. I promise I will get back to this as soon as I feel better. Meanwhile do what I do, check Schools Matter religiously.

The Trouble With Boys --

This article from the January 30, Newsweek is a well written and fairly balanced article on an important subject, and is well worth the read. The authors' make some points that suit my purposes here:

...
What's wrong with Danny? By almost every benchmark, boys across the nation and in every demographic group are falling behind. In elementary school, boys are two times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and twice as likely to be placed in special-education classes. High-school boys are losing ground to girls on standardized writing tests. The number of boys who said they didn't like school rose 71 percent between 1980 and 2001, according to a University of Michigan study. Nowhere is the shift more evident than on college campuses. Thirty years ago men represented 58 percent of the undergraduate student body. Now they're a minority at 44 percent.
...
Boys have always been boys, but the expectations for how they're supposed to act and learn in school have changed. In the last 10 years, thanks in part to activist parents concerned about their children's success, school performance has been measured in two simple ways: how many students are enrolled in accelerated courses and whether test scores stay high. Standardized assessments have become commonplace for kids as young as 6. Curricula have become more rigid. Instead of allowing teachers to instruct kids in the manner and pace that suit each class, some states now tell teachers what, when and how to teach. At the same time, student-teacher ratios have risen, physical education and sports programs have been cut and recess is a distant memory. These new pressures are undermining the strengths and underscoring the limitations of what psychologists call the "boy brain"—the kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behaviors that scientists now believe are not learned but hard-wired.
...
The problem won't be solved overnight. In the last two decades, the education system has become obsessed with a quantifiable and narrowly defined kind of academic success, these experts say, and that myopic view is harming boys. Boys are biologically, developmentally and psychologically different from girls—and teachers need to learn how to bring out the best in every one. "Very well-meaning people," says Dr. Bruce Perry, a Houston neurologist who advocates for troubled kids, "have created a biologically disrespectful model of education."
...
In elementary-school classrooms—where teachers increasingly put an emphasis on language and a premium on sitting quietly and speaking in turn—the mismatch between boys and school can become painfully obvious. "Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."
...
One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood, rich or poor, an increasing number of boys—now a startling 40 percent—are being raised without their biological dads.
...
In neighborhoods where fathers are most scarce, the high-school dropout rates are shocking: more than half of African-American boys who start high school don't finish. David Banks, principal of the Eagle Academy for Young Men, one of four all-boy public high schools in the New York City system, wants each of his 180 students not only to graduate from high school but to enroll in college. And he's leaving nothing to chance. Almost every Eagle Academy boy has a male mentor—a lawyer, a police officer or an entrepreneur from the school's South Bronx neighborhood. The impact of the mentoring program, says Banks, has been "beyond profound."
...

There is lots more, but as you can see the factors stated here are a direct result of the test, test, test, mind set offered by NCLB. The curriculum is narrowed, seat work becomes more common, and mind numbing cookie cutter lessons become the norm. At the same time, social solutions, like this last one, recieve little notice, and the funding for projects like this becomes less and less available.
anti nclb

Testing industry overwhelmed under NCLB

This news article from USA Today is one from a few days ago that I'm just now getting to. According to a new study the tests that are required by NCLB are in trouble. (Download study here)
...

The standardized testing industry is "buckling under the weight" of President Bush's education reform plan, with the law's rapidly expanding testing mandates threatening to undermine its high ideals, says a new report out Tuesday from Education Sector, an independent Washington think tank.

Only about $20 of the average $8,000-per-pupil spent on education nationally goes to develop tests under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the report finds. That's a small proportion, given the tests' importance, says Thomas Toch, the report's author.
...
But the modest spending on testing could pull the rug out, with many states now forced to buy or create hastily developed, low-quality tests that measure only rudimentary skills, Toch says. Such tests make it impossible for high-performing students' scores to rise above a certain level, despite learning more. So low performers' rising scores make it appear as if the nation's "achievement gap" is closing.

"You're giving a skewed sense of student achievement," Toch says.

What's worse, he says, such tests "are encouraging teachers to make the same low-level skills the priorities of their classrooms." Rather than being a solution, he says, such testing is "fast becoming part of the problem in public education."
...

Toch recommends that the federal government more than double its funding, from $406 million to $860, to help states develop high-quality tests.

For decades, testing companies have sold carefully developed standardized tests to school districts. NCLB's mandates — that virtually every child in grades three through eight in every public school take annual math and reading tests tied to state standards — have forced testing companies to generate "vastly larger pools of credible test questions" on shorter timelines, the report says. Competitive pressures, high turnover and mistakes by testmakers all take their toll, with more requirements on the way.

The study estimates that public schools, which now give about 33.6 million tests under NCLB, must add another 11.4 million by the end of the current school year, straining testmakers.
...

I ask you, wouldn't this money be better spent on the kids? And things could get worse, according to Jim Horn over at Schools Matter, (look here for more) Tom Delay's replacement, is the one responsible for making the requirements for NCLB so high that virtually all schools will fail by 2014.
anti nclb

Going beyond No Child Left Behind --

This from the San Diego Union Tribune, an opinion piece by Richard Louv. He has quite a bit to say but this is what struck me:
...
The brewing rebellion is particularly intense in Utah and Connecticut, states that are political polar opposites. In Connecticut, more than two-thirds of cities and towns have thrown their support in support of a lawsuit against the No Child Left Behind act. Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal will argue the case today in U.S. district court, in New Haven.

Like many rebellions, this one has yet to offer much of an alternative for education reform, other than support for local control. If an overemphasis on standardized testing was failing to significantly increase literacy, what approach – or approaches – would work?

The debate about testing should not prevent a closer look at the forgotten environment in and around the school itself. Long before No Child Left Behind, school districts began to isolate students from the surrounding neighborhoods, from nature, from the non-cyber world.

Indeed, during the 1970s, many districts, including San Diego Unified, began to construct new schools with no windows. Educators argued that windows prevented students from concentrating; architects of these schools created “vision strips,” as they called them, thin slots at the tops of the walls that allowed some light to come into the room, but nothing else. Some vision.

Today, school districts are cutting recess and building schools with no playgrounds, even as Johnnie and Jeannie spend more of their time bent over a test or a video game. Meanwhile, a growing body of scientific knowledge points to immersion in the world, especially in nature, as one of the most effective ways – perhaps the most effective way – to help children learn. Standardized test scores might even improve, if no child were left inside.

Why would anyone think a quality environment for learning would be one with "vision strips?" We treat out pets better than this. The man has a point about getting kids outside more, don't you think?
anti nclb

State needs a rainy day account, not a tier to nowhere

Last spring I reported on the state legislatures' ill-thought reduction of retirement benefits for state workers, including teachers. There were lots of questions at the time about the so called trouble that current retirement funds were/are in. It seemed no one had a good answer. The most that I saw that came from the opposition was that the funds had been under funded over the years by state legislators. Here, in this opinion piece from todays Juneau Empire finally we have some anwers from someone who should know:

Dave Stout has been a retirement counselor for the Division of Retirement and Benefits for much of his 27-year state career.

I have followed with both interest and concern the numerous articles and letters regarding the financial woes of Alaska Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and the Alaska Teachers' Retirement System (TRS). I have worked for the Division of Retirement and Benefits since 1980, both as a retirement counselor and as one of the managers. The division administers both programs. Over the years I have developed a good understanding of both retirement plans, and through my job have observed how the plans have been managed.

As with so many things we are told today, we're given only part of the story - usually the part that supports the storyteller's position. For instance, we have been told that the retirement plans are in financial trouble because our retirees live too long, that the cost of health care is draining the system, and because of the downturn in the economy. I'm sure that all of these have some truth, but only to a point. There are other contributing factors that have not been as well-publicized - political pressure and short-sightedness of many public officials.

Benefits paid by both plans are funded by employee contributions, employer-matching contributions, and from the earnings off of the investments. The percentage that each individual pays into the plan is set by statute. However, employer-matching contribution rates vary from year to year. So by statute, the amounts that cities, boroughs, the state, and the school districts contribute into the plan are expected to fluctuate from one year to the next. Nothing new, it has been that way since statehood.

Some 20 years ago several things started to happen. First, the amount that public employees contributed into the retirement plan was increased from 4.25 percent of gross earnings to 6.75 percent, plus medical benefits provided after retirement were reduced for newer members. Teachers soon followed in 1990 with individual rates going from 7 percent to 8.65 percent with similar reductions in health-care benefits. Second, at about the same time, pressure was being put on the plan administrator to reduce the amount collected from the participating employers. To be fair, at the time it appeared that there was a growing surplus of funds, at least on paper. Consequently, employer contribution rates were steadily reduced for the next 15 years, eating away at any possibility to hedge against an economic decline. By the time the "retirement crisis" was finally recognized a couple of years ago, some participating PERS employers were paying no matching contributions - none! Others were paying a small percentage of what was charged in the 1980s. Employees were paying more, while their employers were paying less and less.

Establishing a new retirement system (or tier as we like to call it) that offers fewer benefits to teachers and public employees, especially one that isn't any cheaper than the old one, does nothing to "fix" what we already have. Our public officials (appointed and elected) should have used prudence and foresight by anticipating our investments by their very nature would have periods of decline. Instead of chopping the amount of matching money, the more conservative, fair and balanced approach would have been for modest employer cuts while at the same time keeping some of the surplus to guard against the day that the investments lost value.

It's not too late. The U.S. economy seems to be rebounding and in the next few years the retirement funds will likely be adequately funded. Just watch. When the funds again become healthy, the same politicos will once more clamor for rate cuts. Both the employees and employers should make reasonable contributions into the plan, but both the TRS and the PERS need to be better protected. Each should be allowed to accumulate the capital reserves needed to hedge against the day that history repeats itself. A "rainy day" account is nothing new to the state and one is needed here - we need a reserve account, not a new retirement tier to nowhere.

As I have said before, we are a state that imports at least 25% of it's teachers. To attract high quality teachers we need to be, at least, be competitive. We used to have the highest wages and some of the best benefits. We no longer rate anywhere near the top. Why would anyone come to our notoriously terrible climate and isolation, and stay when they could do better anywhere else? This is still a big topic here because last year they passed only a short term fix. Stay tuned here for more on this important matter.
anti nclb

What else can we do beside NCLB ?

Here is one idea that I posted a year ago. Recently I have read others' ideas that have led me to the formation of my ideas as they stand today. Unfortunately it takes money. Many are talking these days about universal pre-school. I take this to mean mandatory preschool. What I would like to see is pre-school made available for all that wish it. This should be free or at the very least at a sliding scale. Head start as originally conceived is what everyone needs. That is, not only high quality education for young children, but education for the parents as well. Education in how to create a home environment that will help to insure success in school. Money will be needed to set up these programs, for teacher training and buildings and supplies. Likewise money will be needed to train teachers in underfunded impoverished schools, especially in the inner cities. Money will be needed to create buildings that are safe, sound learning environments. Money will be needed for books and supplies in these same schools.

Many people have mentioned the need for adequate affordable healthcare and a living wage for all. I do not have the answer here but, how can a sick, hungry child be expected to learn? And I believe that "healthcare" means emotional care as well. We need to offer all sorts of help to get and keep families out of crisis. Children in crisis can not learn.

What we do not need is more blame on teachers and students. We do not need more tests. We do not need more punishment. I believe that conservatives will heartily disagree with what I say here. They might say, "No, I do not pay taxes to help people who won't help themselves. " Just like they are currently saying, "I do not want to pay taxes to put other peoples children through school." Is this the kind of society that we really want? I do not think so. Tests and punishment will not make our schools better, but a hand up offered to those that want and need it just might.
anti nclb

Bush, Alaska, and NCLB: The Week Ahead --

The "Bush" in the title refers to not to the current president but to rural Alaska. This is from a blog of a high school teacher in his fifth year of teaching in an isolated village accessible only by boat, plane or snow machine. Background, and necessary reading is found here in a eye opening article written by this same teacher in the Anchorage Daily News.

Normally, people refer to where I live as bush Alaska. It is remote; there isn't a road in or out. It is isolated; the flights to Anchorage cost nearly $500, and have to go through Bethel. And there are bushes. Well, at least here that's all there is. You have to go nearly 30 miles inland to find trees and those are spindly willows that only grow along the riverbanks.

..
This week will see a visit from officials at both state and district level. You see, we are a level 4 school. Basically, we are failing. Our kids are failing their standardized tests and they are failing to graduate. Essentially, each year you school fails to meet the requirements (which also change every year, though the basic politico-speak is "proficiency in reading , writing, and math") you move further up the NORAD inspired defcon system of levels. Level 5 is the worst and I'm afraid the visit will only confirm we are heading that way despite my best efforts.
...

Read the Daily News article and you will discover that these kids have problems you, or the writers of NCLB, never even thought of. The state of Alaska allows communities to declare themselves wet - sale and use of alcohol is permitted, damp - sale is prohibited but use and importation is allowed, or dry - neither sale or importation is allowed. When the article mentions "bootlegging" they are not necessarily talking about a complicated distillation process. It could mean the fermentation and sale of anything alcoholic, such as fermented sugar and water. The author doesn't talk about it but gasoline "huffing'' is also a big problem in bush Alaska.

One thing the author also does not talk about is there are no educational options for these kids. There are no schools to transfer to. There are no private tutors. NCLB was geared to inner city schools but has been forced on everyone from the Alaskan village to the Indian reservation, to isolated farming and ranching communities to small towns, from mixed suburbs to gated communities, it is all applied the same.

In Alaska these kids really need help. They need someone to show them a future, and right now that future looks like more of the same, teachers that come and go and students that are tested and tested and still fail, as well as a curriculum that is not relevant to their day to day existence. The agenda being pushed by the NCLB crowd is not what they or any of us need. What they do need is another post.

Let's truly have no child left behind --

This opinion piece from Milwaukee offers a refreshing change of mind set from all of the "Test and Privatize" items appearing lately such as here, and here, and here. At least this piece has the right idea, but this piece has the right attitude:

...
A correlation has been found between a student's financial status and his or her performance on the ACT or SAT. The wealthier the student, the higher the score most likely will be. In MPS (Milwaukee), many high schools do not offer ACT/SAT prep courses. If they are offered, many families cannot afford them.

Low-income families also cannot afford specialized tutoring services that can help their child. The poor child who wants to go to college has to be extraordinarily motivated and seek out the help needed. Many affluent children find it in their college-educated family or on their own computer.

Personally, I find a standardized test score a poor marker for future success. A true picture only emerges from application essays, transcripts and recommendations from people who know the young person. Motivation and drive are not covered on a test.

...
Many prestigious colleges no longer ask if a child will request financial aid on applications. They want the best and most unique, regardless of finances. This message must get out to all students.

If our poorest and most disadvantaged are given proper guidance, more would achieve success in college. Those in the community who believe in equal access for all students can share their expertise. Offer to visit a high school to talk up your alma mater. Mentoring programs exist all over Milwaukee, and they need volunteers and financial support.

Professionals can also offer visits to low-income students interested in their career field. Chue (the author's adopted son) became even more excited about studying medicine after visiting doctors at Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital.

We can support scholarship and student loan programs that help the disadvantaged. Poor students are in all communities, but the hardest affected are in rural and urban areas.

So far, Chue has been pleased with acceptance to Purdue and Valparaiso. He's still waiting to hear from the others before making a final decision. He knows he will be attending a top school this fall.

Every qualified young person should be so lucky.

Or at least given a chance.
anti nclb

To Raise NAEP Scores, Improve Access to Books --

Agghh! I spent quite a while this morning assembling a piece on the movement to link federal college grants and loans to test scores and to the "grade" of the high school the student came from. Then my browser froze at the very end and, well you know. Any of you who are teachers and have a family know how precious time can be, so reassembling that article will have to wait. For now I offer this letter from Steven Krashen to Ed Week. Although I believe that his argument is a little simplistic he makes some good points.

To the Editor:

You report that comparing 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress scores from 11 cities is not beneficial in determining the effectiveness of reading approaches("NAEP Results Offer Scant Insight Into Best Reading Strategies," Jan. 11, 2006.) . But NAEP has taught us a great deal: NAEP results consistently confirm that children with more access to reading material read better, and that children who read more likewise read better.

NAEP itself has reported a positive relationship between the amount of reading children do and how well they perform on its reading test. Also, NAEP analyses have shown that scores are higher when teachers give students more time to read books of their own choosing.

In an analysis of NAEP scores in 41 states, Jeff McQuillan, in his book The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions, reported a strong relationship between performance on the NAEP test and the quality of children’s overall print environment (books available at home, school libraries, and public libraries). This relationship remained when the effect of poverty was controlled.

We should also consider the interesting case of California. That state’s extremely low score on NAEP in 1992 was blamed on whole-language reading instruction. Yet, despite the purge of whole language from California schools and the introduction of intensive, systematic phonics, there has been no significant improvement in California’s NAEP scores: The state still ranks near the bottom among states that took the national assessment, tied for next to last in 2005. California has the worst school libraries in the nation and among the worst public libraries. This was true in 1992 and remains so today.

These results suggest that the way to get higher NAEP scores is to improve children’s access to books, and the most obvious way for schools to do this is to improve their libraries. Studies show that when interesting and comprehensible reading materials are available, children do in fact read. Perhaps NAEP scores have “stagnated” because we have not considered this easily discerned way of improving reading.

Stephen Krashen

Professor Emeritus

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, Calif.

anti nclb

City schools chief says NCLB robs citizens of local control

Things are heating up in Connecticut. this is an article from the New Britain paper. The lawsuit that the state's attorney general is bringing against the feds and NCLB apparrently goes to court on Tuesday according to this article about yet another town backing the suit.

NEW BRITAIN -- Doris Kurtz, the city’s schools superintendent says she’s 100 percent behind the recent decision by the school board to support a lawsuit by state attorney general Richard Blumenthal challenging the federal No Child Left Behind law.

...
"With mandates, the control is elsewhere and forces you to use the money the way they prioritize it," Kurtz said.

"There is a loss of local control, and ever since the law went into effect in 2002, we’ve had more money cut each year, with more initiatives added.

"Mandates are someone else’s priorities, so that means that it’s less for you to have priority over, because you have to give whatever focus is required first to the resources to the mandates, and what’s left you get to manage,"Kurtz said.

"That may or may not be the same mandates as you, but you don’t have a choice."

Kurtz also criticized the way the NCLB program is designed.

"The focus is so narrow, we don’t have the finances to focus on the whole child. It’s something we need to do, and much more than that," Kurtz said.

"(If) they think it’s important enough to have this law, you have to have the money to meet the demands.

"You can’t calculate all of the money that it costs us in human resource time." She said when her staff spends time on mandated items, it depletes resources for local initiatives.
...
Currently, 109 of the 169 school boards have endorsed Blumenthal’s NCLB suit since he filed suit in August. Connecticut is the only state to challenge the law in court.

And now, according to the article mentioned previously, it is currently 117 0ut of 169 school boards that have joined the suit. That is very impressive. This is one to watch. i do not have much hope but we shall just have to wait and see.
anti nclb

No child left a chance --

This opinion piece was written by junior marketing major Anika Fontaine and was first printed in the University of Maryland's on-line news paper Diamond Back On-Line on January 26, 2006. Even young college students are beginning to see the light about NCLB:

...

It is clear the public education system is failing many of America’s low-income children. The current administration’s solution is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), passed in 2002. This education reform plan, based on high standards and accountability, relies on extensive standardized testing to measure the progress of a school. Schools that do not improve their test scores face consequences such as public humiliation, budget cuts or, in extreme situations, closing school. But NCLB has not improved education (even if test scores have risen) — it has actually made the situation worse.

The problem with the standardized tests imposed by NCLB is they cannot test the most important and useful skills education is supposed to give. Problem solving, analyzing, powerful writing, imagination and the connection of ideas are all skills that aren’t tested. Suddenly, instead of enjoying history and reading literature, children have to memorize dates and find syntax errors in sentences. Their education turns into a year-long cramming session for annual tests.

Schools in low-income areas reacted with fear to the possibility of losing much-needed funding and decided to focus on improving test scores, at the loss of any meaningful education. Curricula were standardized and narrowed to what the tests could easily measure, and teachers were given “teacher-proof,” scripted lesson plans. Teachers are supposed to give a child a love for learning and a thirst for knowledge. But how can teachers do so if they are given no room for creativity in the classroom? No opportunity to create a relationship with their students?

This is, in the most basic sense, a fast-food approach to education. The children are hamburgers; the teachers are temporary, unskilled employees performing routine motions. But children aren’t just hamburgers. Some are chicken fingers, some are french fries and others are strawberry milkshakes...For the benefit of the children, teachers must be able to vary their approaches according to the needs of their students.

So what would solve the problems facing public education? Of course, nothing can be solved by merely throwing money at it, but increased funding — guided to the neediest school districts — would go a very long way here. Many low-income schools are still trying to catch up to schools in wealthier areas by fixing the often dangerously decrepit school facilities or by buying updated text books for the students. Moreover, the NCLB should be abolished in order to develop curricula that are flexible enough to allow teachers discretion in their methods instead of pushing all students through mind-numbing tests.

The public education system will face problems for many years to come, and it will take a lot of dedication and time to salvage it. The failure of the education system is a very complex issue for which there is not the one-size-fits-all solution many programs such as NCLB are touted to be. To make a difference, we need to develop a new and adaptable way of thinking about education focused on the needs of students and not the scores of schools.

Why do our political leaders see problems in black and white when even young college students can see the shades of gray?
anti nclb

The McGraw-Hill Companies Reports 12.8% Increase in Earnings Per Share for 2005 --

It has happened again. McGraw Hill, with it's close ties to the Bush family, is making wads of money thanks to NCLB and Reading First.This from MSN Money:
...
"The McGraw-Hill School Education Group's revenue grew by 18.5% to $1.5 billion in 2005 and by 23.6% to $267.5 million in the fourth quarter.
...
In the best year so far in this promising decade for the U.S. elementary- high school market -- industry sales were up 10.7% through November, according to the Association of American Publishers -- we had outstanding results and captured share. Our ability to capitalize on the strong 2005 state new adoption market was key.

"Texas presented the single largest opportunity in the state new adoption market with dual funding of materials for Proclamation 2001 and Proclamation 2002. With a 57% market share in K-12 music and a 43% share in K-12 health, we were the overall leader in Texas, capturing 33% of the available funds.
...

"Reading First, a key program created as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, produced incremental revenue in the fourth quarter and for the year.

"The No Child Left Behind Act also continues to expand the testing market as states prepare for the first time to test all students in grades three through eight in reading and math before the end of the current academic year. We realized incremental revenue in 2005 and in the fourth quarter stemming from the federal mandate, but increased state demand for customized tests continues to put pressure on our margins.

I just can't help but think that money would be better spent on things like smaller class sizes, better teacher inservicing, and adequate supplies and materials for the classroom. Instead we ahve created an expanding "testing market."
anti nclb

Power Grabbing For School Curriculum Standards Under Cover Of Secrecy --

This comes from a blog called Jim Downey's Rants and Raves. Also check out Jim Horns' post on the same subject.

...Amidst a 774-page budget bill, tucked deep into the body of the document without fanfare or publicity, was a $3.75 billion initiative that puts the federal government in charge of ranking the 18,000 high schools. Not only will the federal government rank each school; it will now have a major role in determining curriculum standards, a role that has traditionally been the province of local school boards and state departments of education.

Most of what he talks about is what he perceives as a "federal power grab" but it is his facts that I find most interesting:

The Bush-backed measure would provide inconsequential grants (up to $1,300) to low-income college freshmen and sophomores having completed "a rigorous secondary school program of study." Larger grants, but equally inconsequential given the cost of most college tuition, will be available to juniors and seniors studying math, science and other critical fields.

Although this part of the budget bill has to yet pass the house, it empowers the secretary of education to define the criteria of what constitutes rigorous and allows the DOE to set standards for high school curriculums in order to qualify students for these grants.

Being aware that the initiative could be seen for what it is a grab for power reserved to state and local authority members of the Bush administration, the Republican leadership and the DOE have vowed to consult with governors, state departments of education and local school boards. Such promises smack of the same trust me approach Bush and his cohorts have used in terms of other grabs for power, including the secret spying by the NSA. The Bush administration has earned a lot of credibility offering up the trust me defense of such actions. NOT!
...
However, sensible minds have taken notice that the fed, under the small governmentRepublican banner, is indeed trying to usurp power and gain control. Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education, stated that this initiative "involves the federal government in curricular matters in a way that opens a new chapter in educational history. Hartle added, I'm very sympathetic to the goal of getting more students to take more math and science courses, but this particular plan has the potential to turn the Department of Education into a national school board."
...
This initiative would have some profound effects on schools. While we can conjecture that most schools would strive to qualify as having a rigorous curriculum (however vaguely defined by the DOE), what would happen to the overall curriculum for students not bound for college? Even with recent increased percentages, the national average for those completing a 4-year college degree is only 20-25% for high school graduates. (National Center for Education Statistics and US Census Bureau). While these averages increase for suburban communities and places of affluence, the overall average is only 20 to 25%, depending upon the source of the data and the method used to collect that data. Interestingly enough, that statistic represents a dramatic increase. In the early 1990s the range was only 15 to 18%.

So what would this initiative do for schools that do not ordinarily produce a lot of college bound graduates? Many rural schools produce graduates that want a career in agriculture. Many inner city schools have a lot of students that pursue vocations in the so-called trades.Would students graduating from a technical-vocational high school be left out of this initiative? What would happen to inner city schools that have a disproportionate number of learning disabled students? There is a certain amount of elitism built into this initiative. There is also a lot of discrimination against schools that do not have students that are focused on college while in high school. What will happen to students that want to pursue college through one of the community colleges rather than start off in a four-year program? This initiative is way out of balance in far too many ways.

Bush has drawn from his days as the governor of Texas and attempted to bring forth a model that has not worked effectively in Texas. Like the No Child Left Behind law, there is great promise but no substance. NCLB has not been properly or fully funded. NCLB is also out of balance with the realities faced by many schools. The NCLB model and the model of this new initiative places all schools, all teachers and all students in a pigeon-holed box that does not allow for differences of learning, needs of different school populations, and the individual needs of students.
...
The only role the federal government should have in education is funding and supporting the effort states and local boards make toward striving for excellence, leaving it to the states and local authorities to determine those standards.

Unfortunately the push right now is for a National Curriculum.necessarilyhis is neccasarily a bad idea but right now in this current climate with this particular administration I'm scared of what it would look like. All this when they have just made major cuts to continuing education funding including money for vocational programs and grants and loans to those in need as well as raised the interest rates on the loans that are still available. What do all these mixed messages mean? What do you think?
anti nclb

Shall We Dance? (The Privatization of Education) --

I was steered to this older item by a post at Susan Ohanian's site. As she says, this is a must read and it is. It is about Canada but offers some real insights into what is happening in public education in the U.S. today. Read it all, but here are some excerpts as motivation...

At a 1998 Education Industry Summit, Charles Ivey was perplexed that so little of his dream of privatizing Canadian education had come to pass...

AT A 1997 investment seminar, promoted as "The First Canadian Education Industry Summit," an American analyst claimed that Canada's schools were ripe for the picking. Canadians, he noted approvingly, were not encumbered by all the political baggage that Americans bring to the privatization debate.1

The sold-out audience did nothing to contradict this assessment of Canadian complacency. Participants from the education sector exchanged business cards just as enthusiastically as those whose interest in education was limited to how it could contribute to their clients' bottom lines. There was no scent of animosity in the room, no evidence of values in conflict. When the chairman of the summit, Charles Ivey, claimed that "the sound you hear is an industry about to be blown up," no one rushed for cover. (All emphasis is mine.)

Everyone took notes when Stephen Beatty, from the investment house KPMG (one of the summit's sponsors), patiently explained that "the value of an education is what people are willing to pay for it" But Canada has been giving it away for free, Beatty complained, which really isn't fair. The champions of the for-profit education market are out to level the playing field. They have found eager allies in what Michael Apple calls the conservative alliance -- even though this club is not restricted to conservatives.2 Entrepreneurs, free-marketers, right-wing ideologues, fed-up taxpayers, religious fundamentalists, and radical education reformers may make strange bedfellows, but they have found a common mission: dismantling the monopoly of public education so that market rules can be applied to the business of schooling
...
Politicians, opinion leaders, and the media have promoted these reforms as apolitical, efficient, and empowering. Any suspicion that they have been intended to imitate privatization, at best, or induce it, at worst, is not part of the authorized debate. Parents can easily be persuaded to focus on new curricula, new report cards, and new standards -- reforms that are much more concrete than the philosophy of school governance. Criticism has been muted. What reckless politician or union leader would challenge "parent involvement"? Yet public education is public only if it is governed democratically. Quasi-volunteer parent councils, no matter how dedicated their members, are not elected by the public and have neither the mandate nor the mechanisms to be held accountable to that public. Forced to concentrate only on their school's market share and competitive advantage, parents soon lose interest in what misfortune befalls other schools and other people's children.

This is how the public is groomed to accept privatization, because privatization starts with perception. In rhetoric and reality, education is recast as a private good, not a public service. Those who have children in school are urged to judge the curriculum, teachers, and even other students on their contribution to the bottom line of personal advantage. Those who have no children in school get the message that what happens there is of no consequence to them, since they are no longer shareholders. Surely it is only a matter of time until this substantial majority of nonparents concludes that it no longer wishes to pay taxes to support an institution it neither uses nor influences. Then the other shoe drops. If parents are the school's only customers, let parents be the only ones who foot the bill.
...
Privatization also ducks behind the confusion that thrives when everything is reformed simultaneously. Critics have had their hands full merely keeping track of new developments, let alone linking them to a common agenda. In systems where school secretarial work has been shifted to volunteers granted easy access to confidential student records, there has been controversy over privacy, but not privatization.
...
Canada participates in a variety of alliances in the Americas, among Francophone countries, and within the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), but its participation in APEC influences government policy most directly. This opinion is not widely shared among Canadians, perhaps because our governments dismiss APEC as merely an opportunity for good friends to exchange deep thoughts about mutual economic advantage. Few find reason or opportunity to challenge this official position, and APEC activities are hardly the focus of daily newscasts.
...
According to APEC, the goals of education and their achievement must be subjected to market forces: "Decisions must be taken by a school system for good business reasons with maximum business intervention." The paper criticizes the teaching of "concepts and theories" and "learning for the sake of learning" -- wasteful activities that could be eliminated by subjecting schools to "business practices."

There is of course much more. Please, read it for yourself.
anti nclb

Horn Further Unspins AIR "study" --

Especially if you read Jim Horn's first post on the now often misrepresented AIR study, you will want to read this post and the one in between. This study has been spun and a way must be found for unspinning.
anti nclb

Leave testing plan behind --

They are at it again. Even though more and more people and groups are coming out against NCLB every day, the "Privatize everything we don't want to pay any taxes (except to spend %50 more on the military than the rest of the world combined,) group wants to test at the university level as well. Now they have come out with the first study to back up their arguments. I read about it in my home town newspaper this morning then saw this great comment from Jim over at Schools Matter:
...
AIR, (American Institutes for Research) which has profited mightily from federal research and Reading First oversight grants under the present regime, continues to prostitute itself by spinning its own research to pretend that it says something that it does not say. The current effort, which goes nicely with the recent one that tries to justify the use of chain-gang pedagogy in K-12 (see previous post here), represents a sustained attempt to the prime the pump for the anticipated gush of support for federal meddling in higher education by corporationist interlopers—which, in the end, is aimed at privatizing universities so that they become wholly the campus laboratories for corporate research and development. After all, the Chinese do it—except that their dictatorship is on a government payroll rather than a corporate one. Whatever—the world is flat, remember?!
...
Be sure to read on to see how this news article is spun.

Anyway, the editorial that titles this post, from the Daily Iowan, makes a good case against testing at the university level:

Last month, the National Department of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education suggested it was likely to propose standardized testing for college students. Chairman Charles Miller said the commission might recommend that the test scores be linked to whether a school qualifies for federal accreditation or student financial aid. This is part of the Bush administration's push for more accountability in education and to keep the U.S. education system competitive with the rest of the world.
...
The goal of this program would clearly be similar to that of the No Child Left Behind Act - to promote achievement through competition for funds and benefits. But, unlike elementary and secondary schools, this sort of competition already exists at universities as they vie to recruit top students and faculty, secure research grants and financial aid, and increase diversity. Plus, universities have plenty of incentive to offer a challenging and relevant curriculum - successful alumni ensure the schools' futures. And, many universities routinely undergo an accreditation process to hold them accountable for their education strategies.

Worse, implementing standardized tests could threaten to make a college education less accessible to U.S. students. As we watch our tuition continue to rise, it is evident that many universities are already short on funding. In an effort to ensure that they receive federal aid, many schools might be tempted to increase admissions standards, only admitting students they know will score well in testing.

The best way to hold universities accountable for the quality of their education is to encourage transparency among schools, so state governments need not rely on regulation to measure student achievement. But it is essential that policymakers take into account the vast diversity that exists: Different universities attract different students, and they vary so much in terms of philosophy that it would be impossible to hold them to a single educational standard.
...
In any case, the Department of Education must be careful not to focus solely on the issue of accountability. Just as much effort should be put into making college accessible to all motivated students and supporting innovation in science and technology. Universities should be encouraged to strive for advancement in specialized fields instead of being forced to adhere to uniform standards. A postsecondary version of No Child Left Behind is not the way to maintain the American university system's reputation as the best in the world.
anti nclb

Will teaching be a lost art?

Opinion from the Baltimore Sun, January 17, 2006, by Walt Gardner

The test is everything. Prepare for the test. Tie teachers salaries to test scores. Give whole schools bonuses for raising test scores. Look here for a dismal example of what can happen when the test is everything. Walt Gardner has some serious warnings as well. (Emphasis and comments are mine.)

With Teacher Man by Frank McCourt a nonfiction best-seller, the moment is right to question the way we are preparing teachers for the more than 53 million children in the nation's public schools. The answer to the inquiry has more than mere pedagogical appeal because it will ultimately help nurture the values that we cherish as Americans.

What Mr. McCourt's memoirs of his years teaching English in New York City's high schools make clear is that inspired instruction is more an art form than a scientific endeavor. Mr. McCourt was at his memorable best when he jettisoned lesson plans tied to the mandated curriculum and relied instead on his inner talent to reach seemingly unreachable students.

This special connection between teacher and student - part magic, part mystery - places Mr. McCourt in the same company as Pat Conroy and Jonathan Kozol.

Mr. Conroy's days teaching poor children on a remote island off the coast of South Carolina were captured in The Water is Wide, later made into Conrack, a movie starring Jon Voight.

Mr. Kozol's career teaching in the impoverished Roxbury section of Boston formed the basis for Death at an Early Age, which received the 1968 National Book Award in Science, Philosophy and Religion.

It's a telling commentary that both Mr. Conroy and Mr. Kozol were fired for their unconventional teaching practices, despite their success in the classroom with children who had been written off as hopeless.

These are largely the same children that today's federal No Child Left Behind law is supposed to help.

Yet despite cases of teachers - famous and obscure - who leave behind an indelible imprint on their charges by following their inner compasses, we persist in the fiction that teaching has a unique pedagogy that can be inculcated. The nation's 1,300 schools of education continue to imbue teacher candidates with principles of effective instruction in the comforting delusion that by doing so, novices will become "highly qualified" under No Child Left Behind.

The experts are so certain of their evidence that they have persuaded increasing numbers of school districts to require the use of daily scripted lesson plans. This disturbing trend calls into question whether schools need teachers in the first place.

If the approach achieves what supporters claim, then why not hire any adult who is capable of reading and following directions spelled out in minute details? (Why not? Could this be what they have in mind? Hmmm...) Districts could significantly reduce their payroll costs and get the same results that they maintain signify educational quality.

All of which leads to the most important point: Teachers are considered to be the single most influential factor in student learning.

But if teachers are also viewed essentially as automatons who are interchangeable because they are all expected to rely on the same techniques, then we may be able to put a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom according to the letter but not the spirit of the law. They may boost the standardized test scores that have become the sine qua non in today's accountability movement, but they won't be the teachers we remember. They won't be the teachers who teach us how to think, to dream and to create. They won't be the ones who change our lives in ways that are not quantifiable on tests.

They certainly won't be the next Frank McCourt, Pat Conroy or Jonathan Kozol.

Walt Gardner taught for 28 years in the Los Angeles Unified School District and was a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. His e-mail is walt.gard@verizon.net.

anti nclb

Ravitch, the Radical Revisionist? --

Another great post from Jim Horn at Schools Matter. Read it.
anti nclb

Community will lose with new retirement plan for public employees --

From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner December 25, 2005, By Tim Parker

Another post about Alaskan issues. I happened to come across this while researching the previous post. It's not NCLB but it is related, as I see it, to the organized attempt to drastically alter public education that resulted in NCLB. This, to take away hard fought retirement systems and replace it with something much less. In this state, with harsh climate, vast distances and few roads, at least %25 of teachers are imported from outside the state. We need to be able to draw these teachers. As this opinion piece shows the new changes in law will make that even more difficult. (Emphasis is mine)

...

(Alaska)... has long attracted top-notch teachers because of the quality of the community, as well as the reasonable salary and retirement.

However, this could soon change.

Changes to the state's retirement system--known as Senate Bill 141--have put in place incentives that will encourage new employees to leave.

Instead of the defined-benefit system that the state used for decades, starting next July newly hired employees will get a 401(k), also referred to as a defined-contribution plan. If they stay five years, the state will match the amount the employee puts in, and the employee can leave, taking their money and the state's money with them.

At an AARP meeting at the Noel Wien Public Library on Dec. 17, Rep. Mike Kelly and Sen. Gary Wilken were asked if they had calculated how much money would leave the state under this new plan. Neither had an answer.

The real difficulty with the new plan is that teachers in Alaska do not collect Social Security. Now, under the new plan, a teacher could work for dozens of years, puts thousands into a 401(k), and if the market did not perform well, or something else went wrong, they could be left with nothing, as in zip, or zilch.

Asked what would happen to these public employees who outlived their defined-contribution plan, Kelly and Wilken had no answer.

Another potentially serious issue for taxpayers is that the new plan is likely to cost more than the old one. Right now, the income put into the defined-benefit plan pays the benefits of current retired workers. In the new plan, the money to pay future retirees will come out of Alaska's general fund.

That would mean less for roads and other public services, said Wilken. At the AARP meeting, Sam Trivette, a member of the Alaska Retirement Management Board said other states--West Virginia, Nebraska and Michigan--scrapped their 401(k)-style plans after discovering they cost more money.

Perhaps the most outrageous part of the AARP meeting came when a woman stood up next to her two daughters and explained that the cuts to retirement and pay in Alaska have forced her to encourage her daughters--who are in college and thinking about becoming teachers--to look to the Lower 48 for employment.

Kelly said that if the daughters were only after money, then they should leave. He made a broad wave of his arm and said, "Adios."

Is this really the attitude of legislators toward future Alaska teachers? Do we really want to encourage our best and brightest to leave Alaska instead of staying and becoming teachers?

Keeping teachers in Alaska was becoming harder even before SB 141. Teacher salaries in Alaska have been on a steady decline for the past 10 years compared with other states. In fact, Alaska went from the top three in the country in the early 1990s to 11th in 2003-2004. When cost of living is factored in, Alaska now ranks 36th.

...

A diminished retirement will create a revolving door that will not only hurt the community but ultimately children.

Tim Parker is a teacher at Lathrop High School and vice president of the Fairbanks Education Association, a union representing the approximately 1,000 teachers in the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District.
anti nclb

Murkowski: Pay teachers for results --

This is from the Juneau Empire from January 12, 2006. Two other related artices can be found in the Anchorage Daily News and here in the Fairbanks News Miner, and an earlier mention here.

It seems our governor in his wisdom, along with his commissioner of education, Roger Sampson, have proposed to give bonuses of up to $5,000 to all members of a school staff if they show that they have raised student achievement. The plans are still sketchy, but fom these articles we learn:

from the earlier News Miner Article:

Ann Shortt, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District superintendent says:

"There would be three levels of compensation...The money would not come from the state education budget, she said. The education department would have to ask the legislature for extra money to fund the plan.

Sen. Gary Wilken, R-Fairbanks and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said the plan would cost millions. Sampson (the ed. commisioner) told him and other legislators about the idea in the spring.

The bonuses wouldn't be based entirely on test scores, he said.

"It's based on all sorts of criteria," he said. "I liked what I saw, but it was very sketchy."

Wilken said he hasn't heard from Sampson since the April discussion, but the plan would have to be approved by the Legislature.

But in the Daily News piece another legislator weighs in differently:

Sen. Con Bunde, R-Anchorage, said the Department of Education could use the governor's proposed $90 million increase for education to fund the program.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that scares me. I'm not sure I like the plan at all but if legislature does not find more money for the program the funds will come out of the classrooms. This cannnot be allowed to happen.

from News Miner 2:

Bill Bjork, president of NEA-Alaska, said giving educators additional pay is a good idea, but it depends where the money comes from.

The governor has proposed a $90 million increase to education funding and some legislators have suggested using that pot of money to pay for the new program. But the teachers' union argues that school districts need a $140 million increase just to maintain current programs.

"The proposal has merit as long as it doesn't come out of the base school funding formula," Bjork said.

Wilken said he would support adding money to the education budget to fund the program if it turns out to be viable.

It's good news that Wilkens will support the extra money, but I won't hold my breath. It must be said that the $90 million figure just keeps us at status quo. The $140 milliuon number would allow reduced class sizes and programs that really could make a difference. We must remember that raising fuel costs in Alaska and especially in rural Alaska are taking a big chunk of those funds.

from the Daily News:

The program's cost would be difficult to gauge at the outset, (Sampson) said, and would depend on how successful the program is. For example, Sampson said it could cost $15 million if a quarter of the state's school staff members qualify for the highest bonus, but only about $3 million if 5 percent of the staff qualifies.

He figures that as little as 5% of the schools might qualify and a top figure of 25%!?!? Doesn't sound like a very effective plan to me.

From News Miner 1:

Ross Bolding, the superintendent of the Alaska Gateway School District, isn't too sure the plan is a good idea. The seven schools in Alaska's Upper Tanana school district are suffering from budget shortfalls. He'd rather have more money for a music program or better library services for the students in Northway, Tok, Tanacross and other Gateway district communities.

He thinks teachers will be discouraged by a performance based-pay system, making it even harder for rural Alaska school districts to hire and maintain teachers.

"I'm all for incentives, but we're not turning out widgets," Bolding said. "I certainly applaud the commissioner for trying to be truly innovative, but we're in a terrible fix right now."

Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, questions paying for extra programs when some school districts struggle with meeting basic needs.

"We need to be funding not only at an adequate level but a little bit extra," he said.

Susan Stitham, a former member of the state Board of Education and University of Alaska Board of Regents, questioned whether such a plan would work in Alaska. She's never heard of a successful performance for pay plan from the many that have been tried across the U.S., she said. That's because measuring a child's development is difficult because students are diversely influenced.

"It's virtually impossible to identify with any objectivity who is responsible for student success," she said. "It's pretty darn hard to measure."

Stitham criticized Sampson's method of drawing up the bonus plan. Those who will be affected by the plan haven't been asked for testimony or input, she said. A successful bonus system has to have the cooperation of the stakeholders.

"Process is the key," she said. "The community needs to have an opportunity to say we need to do this, because they never got to say we need a graduation exam."

from the News:

Sampson said the incentives would attract the best and brightest teachers to Alaska. But Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, asked what would happen if the best teachers look for the best chances for reward.

"If they are motivated by money, they will look at schools that have achieved the most (in bonuses) and leave the others behind," he said.

from News Miner 2

Educators were also concerned how the program would measure achievement among students with special needs and those who speak English as a second language--some of the most difficult children to educate.

"It's a fairness issue," Bjork (state teacher's union president) said. "Are there going to be some schools, based on the kids they serve, that will never be able to meet the benchmarks to earn a bonus?"

Bjork said his organization is waiting to see the fiscal details of the program before making a decision.

"In a perfect world, this money would just go directly to the local school districts because we think the schools have a much better idea about what will help students," he said.

And according to the articles both Sampson and Wilkens are in favor of a pilot program or programs. At least we might have a chance to see if it is even possible to pull this off.

But this from the News is perhaps the most troubling issue for me as a teacher of young children:

...the Alaska program would track and award points for each student's progress on the state's standards-based assessments from year to year. Points would be totaled and divided by the number of students in the school to gauge the school's overall progress.

and from Miner 2:

Sampson said the state would compare individual student performance with the previous year in six categories and award a school points based on whether a student moved up or down in the categories.

The points would be compiled and divided by the number of students in a particular school to determine the school's overall progress.

Does this mean we will be testing every child every year, And How many times per year? Do Alaska's parents really want their children to feel the stress of these tests every year beginning in kindergarten? Look at other schools in other places and you will see what can happen. The arts are gone, gym is gone, real critical thinking has been forsaken. There isn't time we must prepare for the test. We must teach to the test. We must teach how to take the test. We must prepare the kids to succeed on the test. Is this what we want for all of our kids, every year? I do not think so.

When we talk about costs let us not forget the costs of the test themselves, and the costs of the oversite and administration of all these tests.

There are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered. I just hope that we can ask the right quetions so that we can properly consider the real costs of this proposal.
anti nclb