Diane Ravitch’s Network for Public Education Conference: A Report and Reflections

I spent the weekend in Indianapolis at the fifth annual Network for Public Education Conference, both uplifting and disturbing.

Hundreds of teachers, parents, activists, elected officials, all dedicated supporters of public education sharing stories, both uplifting stories of how small groups of dedicated, caring sophisticated teams of teacher unions, parents and community activists can make a difference and begin to turn the tide, and, in other locations, how the forces of privatization, charter schools, “portfolio” models are unrelenting in their assault on public education.

The weekend alternated between speakers and workshops.

Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator described the worldwide attack on public education, Pasi has dubbed the movement GERM – the Global Education Reform Movement.

Finland should be a model for our nation, at least for states within our nation. The education system in Finland: no standardized tests, local autonomy, well-paid teachers and students at the top of the list on international lists. Yes, Finland is small, 5.5 million in a nation the size of Montana, very few immigrants, income equality, teachers selected from the top 10% of college graduates, free public education from pre-K through your PhD. .

The United States suffers from among the highest rates of childhood poverty and sharp income inequality.

I digress,  we have a very long way to go to emulate Finland; however, Pasi was presenting how the worldwide assault on public education, in nation after nation, attempts to privatize education are waning. We still have a long uphill struggle; we are beginning to turn the corner.

Diane, in her keynote speech, described the theme of her new book, due on bookshelves next year, watch Diane’s remarks here. Diane is an optimist, she sees us beginning to win the war on public education. In her inimitable writing style she will skewer the despoilers with facts and logic.

Derrick Johnson, the new president of the NAACP, a dynamic speaker urged the audience to participate, to vote, to organize, and to realize, in the words of Frederick Douglas,

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground … This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

 After forums around the nation the NAACP called for a moratorium on the opening of new charter schools until charter school information is totally transparent. and a wide range of other school initiatives are achieved.  Read NAACP report here.

In addition to the keynote speakers there were dozens of workshops and panels, some truly inspirational and other troubling.

The Indianapolis Public Schools Community Coalition  is struggling against a tsunami of privatization of public schools, Teachers, parents, faith-based leaders and activists are fighting against richly funded privateers, and the future of public schools in Indianapolis is in danger.

In Kansas City (Missouri) the superintendent, Dr. Mark Bedell is leading a coalition to reinvigorate public schools. KC  is one of many cities with declining populations, declining industry, increasing unemployment, and increasing numbers of charter schools; the KC school population has declined precipitously, currently 26,000 students 14,00 in public schools in 12,000 in charter schools. The public schools coalition and a public school dominated school board are advocating at the state level, they were impressive, well-organized and a model for “fighting back.”

In a facilitated discussion of urban school districts we listened to an officer of the Los Angeles teacher union, on the verge of a strike. The LA elected school board hired a businessman with no education experience as superintendent who is pushing for a citywide portfolio model pushing to weaken the union, in a city currently overrun with charter schools.

Chicago continues to fight school closings and attacks on teacher rights. To say the least, it was troubling.

I met leader of  a Nova Scotia (Canada) teacher union; Nova Scotia is poor, and getting poorer and faced with closing schools, inadequate funding and a ripe climate for charter schools, only Alberta currently have charter schools. Among the poorest sectors are Afro-Canadians, whose ancestors were loyalists, slaves freed by the British during the revolutionary war who fled to Canada. The union president feared that his province was ripe for charter schools.

I spoke with brave teachers from Oklahoma, who risked their jobs to strike, the salary, benefits and schools in Oklahoma are abysmal, with decision-making dominated by the wealthiest. In state after state anti-public school forces influence legislative decisions, in too many states dominate state legislatures.

New York City is a bubble, a favorable mayor, a powerful union, a new contract with many teacher empowering sections, proof that all politics is local and elections have consequences.

I left Indianapolis impressed with the brave people, teachers, parents and community folk, who are fighting the good fight.

For me, teacher unions are the core of the battle, listen to Billy Bragg,

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5_gB582IM

And a wonderful updated version from a friend, it’s really good, give it s listen

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/FMfcgxvzLNVJQXnLVwZgrWDBhNXcqjNq

DeVos, Grizzly Bears and Public Policy: Can Parents and Teachers Create a “#PublicSchoolProud” Movement?

Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos tussled with the committee Democrats for three hours last night, and, the answers to the committee questions ranged from vague, to inaccurate to bizarre.

The fivethirtyeight blog gives a good summary of the major issues at the hearing and Aaron Pallas, a little “tongue in cheek,” recounts what he heard at the hearing.

DeVos stumbled through the three plus hours, glowing as the Republican members of the committee reaped praise and squirmed uncomfortably as the Democrats asked pointed questions. Her handlers trained her, although her performance left a lot to be desired. She refused to commit to upholding the law, waffled on Title IX and the role of the office of civil rights, was vague about supporting transparency for all schools, public and charter, sort of favored accountability in all schools. She supported guns in schools (I believe she is anti-grizzly bear in schools); she has no idea on the debate over proficiency versus growth and steadfastly refused to answer “yes” or “no.” to question after question. She was more than willing to “meet with and discuss policy issues” in her role as secretary, not willing to commit to anything specific. The handlers undoubtedly advised her to commit to nothing, be as vague as possible, charming, and try to eat up as much of the five minutes allotted to each questioner as possible.

Kudos to the Democrats on the committee, they were persistent, fair and asked the right questions.

Barring some catastrophic event, the Republican President’s Republican Senate will confirm all of the nominees. The rules of the Senate require a majority vote; the Democrats needs three Republicans to vote “no” and that is extremely unlikely.

If you watched the circus you may have been struck by the civility of the members of the committee, especially the relationship between chair Lamar Alexander and ranking member Patty Murray. The rules of the Senate require 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, called the cloture rule. Presidential nominations only require a majority and treaties, pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, requires a 2/3 vote.

The Majority Leader of the Senate sets the calendar, hence the refusal to schedule a confirmation vote for the Obama Supreme Court nominee.

To pass any in the Senate the Republicans require Democratic votes, which means all bills are to an extent bipartisan. Obama’s bills never saw the light of day in the House, the majority in the House totally controls the flow of legislation. If there are conflicts in the House they are within the Republican Party. The Hastert-Boehner Rules deal with whether the Republican Speaker can bring a vote to the floor that requires Democratic votes to pass. Currently the Freedom Caucus in the House, the Tea Party, controls enough votes to stop a bill from getting to the floor, unless the Speaker seeks Democratic votes, very unlikely considering the tenuous nature of the Paul Ryan leadership.

If the cabinet nominees are going to be confirmed why is there so much pressure? Why the 100% plus, plus effort to expose the inadequacies of the nominees?

Simply, we’re only a year and half away from the 2018 election cycle. If the nominees are disasters, the Democrats will pin the blame on the Republican, especially the Republican senators up for re-election in 2018. On the other hand a number of Democrats http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/senate-democrats-2018-midterms-231516 up for re-election come from pro-Trump states. The 2018 election cycle is in full swing.

Education was barely mentioned in the presidential election, I don’t think a single question was asked in the three presidential debates. Nationally public opinion polls on schools is mixed and hard to decipher.

In the current fight for the hearts and minds of voters we need heroes and villains, and, to be honest villains reap more votes than heroes; many voters voted against Hillary not for Trump.

“If it bleeds it leads” is the motto of much of the media, “eyes on the screen,” or “clicks” are generated by disasters, sex, violence and scandal. Media sites sell ads dependent on viewer/readership, as a friend told me we get the news we deserve/desire.

If Betsy DeVos is a disaster, if she “lives down” to expectations the Democrats can use her as the poster child. An arrogant billionaire, the ultimate elitist, using her billions to promote schools that enrich her friends, bring religion into the classroom, a closet bigot, the paradigm of what we do not want in our schools.

The Democrats have to motivate voters, and parents and teachers are prime voters. Arne Duncan was charming, an excellent public speaker,  dedicated to the neediest, and although his policies were anathema his close allegiance to the President gave him a Teflon shield.

Randi Weingarten at the AFT and Diane Ravitch at the Network for Public Education have been relentless and the opposition to DeVos is enormous, probably hundreds of thousands of phone calls and petitions and email to senators opposing her confirmation. Editorials and op ed columns and blogs read by countless voters opposing DeVos; this is what creating a movement of all about.

The New York City teacher union, the UFT is beginning a major initiative to involve teachers and parents at the school level, the Public School Proud campaign intends to create a pro-public school movement, beginning in New York City, spreading across New York State and the nation.

Over the months ahead as DeVos attempts to privatize public schools we must become the Communards, the defenders of public education, our weapons: words and actions.

Give a listen to Leonard Cohen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU-RuR-qO4Y,

or, Vince Staples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ST_xsaZUI

Trump Nominates Betsy DeVos and Declares War on Public Education: Vouchers, Charters and School Choice on Steroids

You may have been “happier” with Michelle Rhee or Eva Moskowitz?

Trump nominated Betsy DeVos, the wife a the scion of the DeVos family (Amway), one of the wealthiest families in the nation.

Will DeVos be the next Cathy Black or the deconstructor of public education?

DeVos has been the leader of the Michigan Republican Party, a major fund raiser for the Republican Party, an early supporter of Marco Rubio and her husband has led the assault on labor in Michigan;  lost to Jennifer Grandholm for the governor of Michigan in 2007 and has been in the forefront of the anti-labor assault.

Dick” DeVos,

“The Greatest Generation did not just win a World War, they labored shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow workers to create and sustain value-added enterprises. By contrast, ‘big union bosses have engaged in cozy deals and political backroom dealings in order to advance their personal agendas, not those of their members,’” 

 “By casting off the practice of forced unionization; Michigan now publicly declares to other states and in fact the world, that we embrace freedom for our workers, true equality in the workplace and that we are ready to compete with anyone, anywhere to create economic opportunity for our Michigan families.”

President Randi Weingarten wasted no time in trashing Betsy DeVos,

“The president-elect, in his selection of Betsy DeVos, has chosen the most ideological, anti-public education nominee put forward since President Carter created a Cabinet-level Department of Education. 

“In nominating DeVos, Trump makes it loud and clear that his education policy will focus on privatizing, defunding and destroying public education in America. 

“DeVos has no meaningful experience in the classroom or in our schools. The sum total of her involvement has been spending her family’s wealth in an effort to dismantle public education in Michigan. Every American should be concerned that she would impose her reckless and extreme ideology on the nation.

Dana Goldstein, the author if the acclaimed Teacher Wars: a History of America’s Most Embattled Profession parses DeVos’s attacks on public education in Michigan; a state in which charters perform poorly, well below public schools. With access to unlimited dollars DeVos passed legislation creating unregulated charter schools; in spite of legislative attempts to bring accountability to Michigan charter schools DeVos and her cronies successfully derailed the bill.

In an article in Slate  Goldstein paints a picture of DeVos as the Bill Gates of the educational far right who sees her role as creating a totally choice system. Using her fortune to impose her will on the public education.

Decisions as to the nature of schools is left to states and across the nation a handful of states have lenient charter laws, some restrict charters to not-for-profit sponsors, others for -profit and a few on-line for-profit schools.  The feds can provide dollars to existing charters schools; the creation and monitoring of charter schools is a state responsibility.

The battle over Title 1 dollars will dominate the new school wars. Republicans in the House have supported making Title 1 dollars portable, in other words turning them into vouchers that would follow the student to public, private, charters,  for-profits,  religious, or, even home schooling. The result would be dramatic reductions in dollars in the poorest public schools. A transfer of public taxpayer dollars from public schools to the free market, with for-profit schools reaping the dollars.

Diane Ravitch and the Network for Public Education have documented misuse and outright corruption in states with unregulated charter schools as well as extremely poor outcomes in voucher plans.

On the other hand the Trump/DeVos Department will be far less intrusive in states than the Obama/Duncan/King department. The Civil Rights Division of the USDOE has been activist pursuing innumerable challenges to states: Title 9 (Equity for Women in Sports programs), disproportionality (excessive numbers of minority children in Special Education classes as well as suspensions). The acceptance of Title 1 dollars gives the feds the authority to intervene, if they choose. One would expect DeVos would be a far less activist Secretary in these areas.

Under Senate rules a majority is required to confirm cabinet nominees; the Republicans hold a 52-48 majority and barring a catastrophic performance before the committee one would expect confirmations; although the dems will pressure the nominees in the process.

With virtually unlimited dollars DeVos had a free a hand in Michigan. The ability to flit from home to home; the family owns a compound in Vero Beach, Florida and a number of homes in Michigan. Dick DeVos is an accomplished pilot. Whether Betsy can maneuver the rocky shoals of public scrutiny is to be decided. Her actions will be perceived as hostile to cities, hostile to public schools, hostile to the poorest, the attacks will be unrelenting. Maybe she has alligator skin and can cast off the sticks and stones; maybe, like Cathy Black, her wealthy, elitist background will make her ill-prepared for public service.

Will the (de)formers, for example the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), progressive democrats in most arenas jump on the Trump/DeVos band wagon? Frederick Hess, a leading charter supporter has already endorsed DeVos.

Public education across the nation is at risk.

A Vote for Gary Johnson (or, Jill Stein) is a Vote for Trump

Face the Nation and the other Sunday Talking Heads news commentary shows talked about the softening of the Obama coalition, the daily NY Times “percentage” in August had Hillary ahead 90-10, now the “poll” gives Hillary a 75-25 lead; whatever that means.

The Nate Silver fivethirtyeight blog,”Chance of Winning,” has Hillary: 61.1% and Trump 38.8% and Gary Johnson at 8% with Hillary winning the electoral votes narrowly.

The next big moment will be the September 26th presidential debate; it will grab the attention of the American public. The Hillary erosion is among the millennials, the younger voters, young Afro-American males and the left leaning Bernie voters are all lukewarm on Hillary.

The third party candidates are Gary Johnson . and Jill Stein.

I was chatting with a nineteen year old – he had taken a leave from his college and worked for Bernie full time, and, told me he was voting for Gary Johnson.

“Oh, you’re voting for Trump.”

“No, I’m voting for Gary Johnson.”

“No, you’re voting for Trump.”

I was “parent-like” and a little harsh. “Your candidate lost, you’re angry and you’re letting your ego drive your vote – you want to ‘get even’ with Hillary so you’re voting for Trump.” He insisted he was voting for Johnson. “You’re pulling the Johnson lever (probably should have said bubbling in the Johnson box), you’re actually voting for Trump – be honest – vote for Trump.” He told me he could never vote for Trump, I insisted he was voting for Trump. Hopefully I planted a seed of doubt.

Diane Ravitch has written a number of blogs explaining why she is voting for Hillary and why it is so important. Her loyalist supporters immediately commented, they voting for Johnson or Stein.

“You can’t trust Hillary” (Can you trust Trump?)

Anthony Cody, a leader of the Network for Public Education wrote a superb essay on the importance of philosophical allies working together, “Don’t Attack your Allies When You’re Fighting Goliath.”

I appeal on a more pragmatic line – what will happen if Trump wins …

If, heavens forbid, the networks declare Trump a winner early on the morning of November 9th stock market numbers will tumble. The stock market operates 24/7 and even before the opening bell the Dow-Jones will dive and continue to dive – 1,000, 2,000, who knows, probably a dive never seen before. Stock markets fear uncertainty, fear instability, and in times of uncertainty and instability investors move their assets in the safest class of investments. A stock market spiraling downward drags down all boats.  Trump would blame Obama, who, as a lame-duck president would have limited options. The 2008 economic recession could easily be child’s play compared to what awaits us. Pensions, Medicare, all in jeopardy.

Are these scare tactics or is this scenario a possibility?

This is a once in a lifetime election – we’ve never had a candidate “endorsed” by the Klu Klux Klan and Nazi organizations who accepts their support. We’ve never had a candidate who threatens to incarcerate a religious group. Trump supporters, and, yes, I speak with Trump voters, brush aside Trump’s bizarre pronouncements.

Back in 1972, after a bitterly contested primary election McGovern won the Democratic nomination. Many mainstream Democrats did not vote for McGovern, many crossed over and voted for Nixon. Nixon won 48 states. They weren’t Republicans, they were Hubert Humphrey supporters; the heart of the Democratic Party opposed the war in Vietnam and flocked to the polls across the nation to express their displeasure in the war by voting for McGovern. The mainstream Democrats were overwhelmed by the passion of the anti-war voters, and, expressed their frustration and anger by refusing to vote for the McGovern, the Democratic candidate.

Traditional Democratic voters felt the party had been hijacked by the anti-war faction, and, couldn’t bring themselves to go to the polls and support the anti-war McGovern.

We are facing a similar situation – Bernie voters cannot bring themselves to vote for Hillary. There is no issue similar to 1972. The positions of both Hillary and Bernie are quite similar. Bernie voters argue the election was stolen due to the inappropriate support of Hillary by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as well as the impossible to define issue of “trust.”

Back in the days of school board elections I supported slates of candidates. Elections are about winning, and winning in the proportional representation style election required putting together slates. We didn’t always agree on all issues, we agreed on enough issues to paste together coalitions that assured we would win enough seats for a majority on the Board.

There is an opportunity to not only win the White House but to take over the Senate and erode the Republican majority in the House; an opportunity to actually pass progressive legislation.

It might be unkind; too many anti-Hillary voters are simply selfish and blind. Yes, your candidate might not prevail in a primary; we move on and work for the winner of the primary within our party. To sulk, to stay on the sidelines simply boosts the other side – in this election the “other side” could drag our nation into a catastrophic depression or worse.

How Might a Clinton or Trump Presidency Impact Federal Education Policy?

Every day the online New York Times prints the “odds,” expressed in a percent of the Clinton-Trump race – yesterday Clinton was leading 90% to 10%.

The election is no longer 24/7 all over TV screens; as we move towards September the baseball pennant races and the opening of the college and NFL football season are beginning to eat up the media air.

A few shots of a Clinton or Trump rally, a paid Clinton advertisement warning about Trump provoking a catastrophe and lengthy talking head reflections on San Francisco quarterback not standing for the national anthem as a protest against the treatment of Afro-Americans in America.

For large percentages of Americans election fatigue has set in.  There are probably very few undecided voters – yes, Republicans voters who can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump and unenthusiastic Hillary voters … the electorate has chosen sides.

For the last few weeks my morning coffee crowd has moved from political chatter to renewed interest in the resurgent Yankees and Jets/Giants chances; quite sensible.

The last chance to address tens of millions of Americans will be the debates

First presidential debate (September 26, 2016, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY)

The debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.

Second presidential debate (October 9, 2016, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO)

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which half of the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants and the other half will be posed by the moderator based on topics of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources.

Third presidential debate (October 19, 2016, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV)

Same format as first debate.

The last time a presidential debate changed minds was the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate.

Of course, to quote, Yogi, “It’s never over until it’s over.”

Both camps are already having internal discussions about cabinet choices.

On the education front the Department of Education is in the final stages of crafting the regulations for the new Every Student Succeeds Act, a Department of Education that will undoubtedly have a new leader no matter who wins the election. The proposed rules are highly controversial (See Ed Week cheat sheet here  and read the extensive criticism and suggestions from the NYS Commissioner Elia here.

One item hanging over New York State and Colorado, the only two states with significant percentages of opt outs; in both states many schools fell below the 95% participation rate and may face unspecified sanctions.

Should the current lame duck Secretary of Education make the decision or the next Secretary of Education? In fact, should the current Secretary of Education release the new regulations or leave it to the new administration?

I imagine in some quarters names for a successor to Secretary King are already being tossed around – not here. I’ll wait until the networks declare a winner on November 8th.

The entire election season, from the cavalry charge of Republicans and the Bernie/Hillary battles:  virtually nothing about education. The reason is not complicated – the American public is sharply divided. See Education Next polling result here.  Appealing to one faction alienates another.

We know a Republican would push for choice, i.e., charter, parochial, private and home schooling all eligible for public dollars. For example, Title 1 Portability, Title 1 dollars would follow the student to wherever the student is receiving education services. Of course, Trump could call for abolishing the entire Department of Education and sharp cuts in federal dollars.

The Democratic side is more complicated, while opt outs and others might want reduction or the end of testing civil rights organizations, allies of the Democrats are strong advocates of testing and the disaggregation of results by ethnicity, race and handicapping condition. One the other hand Clinton made very pro-teacher, pro public education speeches at both the NEA and AFT conventions, and, appears to have an excellent relationship with AFT President Randi Weingarten.

Check out Diane Ravitch’s web site – she will report a talk with Hillary.

Let’s win the presidency, the Senate and the House on November 8th – and then we argue over the future of the federal role.

A Conundrum: How Do You Create a Teacher Evaluation Process That Satisfies Teachers, Principals, Parents, the Legislature and the Governor? (Hint: With Difficulty)

“No one’s life, liberty or property is safe while the New York State Legislature is in session.” Anonymous, 19th century.

Diane Ravitch convened her third annual Network for Public Education conference in Raleigh with hundreds of teachers, parents and public school advocates.  The attendees do not represent organizations; they dug into their own pockets to meet with like-minded public education devotees from across the nation. I met a band director from Fort Worth, a second-career math teacher from Jacksonville, a literacy coach from North Carolina; we chatted and shared experiences, we all face incredible challenges and legislatures and privateers intent on eroding the public in public education.

We stood and cheered as Reverend Barber, the leader of the North Carolina NAACP, called a modern day Martin Luther King, preached and taught us – both a history lesson and a sermon.  Bob Herbert challenged us to vote, and emphasized that while coming to the polls in 2008 and 2012 elected Barack Obama, staying away from the polls allowed the Tea Party to seize control of the House, the Senate and state legislatures in 2010 and 2014. A subtle message to the Bernie voters – staying away from the polls in November could lead to a Trump presidency.

Fifty workshops allowed us to meet together in smaller groups. One theme was teacher evaluation: in school districts across the nation student test scores play a significant role in the evaluation of teachers; a Report  by the Network for Public Education is summarized,

72% of respondents also reported that the use of standardized test scores in teacher evaluation had a negative impact on sharing instructional strategies.

Over 41% of black and 30% of Latino/a educators reported racial bias in evaluations.

About 84% of respondents report a significant increase in the amount of teacher time spent on evaluations.

84% of respondents said that the new evaluation system in their state had negatively changed the conversations about instruction between their supervisors and themselves.

75% of respondents stated that these new evaluation systems incorrectly label many good teachers as being ineffective.

Nearly 85% of respondents stated that these evaluation systems do not lead to high-quality professional growth for teachers.

Nearly 82% of teachers reported that test scores are a significant component of their evaluation.

Opposition to the use of student test data to rate/measure/assess teachers has united teachers from across the nation.

At the conference one of the sessions pitted Jennifer Berkshire, aka EduShyster against Peter Cunningham, the Executive Director of Education Post. Jennifer and Peter are on opposite ends of the teacher evaluation spectrum – forty-five minutes of thrust, parry and riposte – spellbinding!!

Critics pointed to research that avers teachers only account for 14% of a student’s test score, family and income account for the largest percentage, therefore, rating teachers by test scores is invalid, Cunningham responded that teachers are the crucial factor in student achievement, we cannot change a family or income, we can change teachers and highly effective teachers have significant impacts on children, as other research shows. Meeting with teachers from across the nation was invigorating; listening to the anti-teacher stories from state after state was discouraging.

A week earlier the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) annual convention took place in Rochester, Teachers from hundreds of school districts across the state met to debate and set policy for NYSUT. The state is incredibly diverse, New York City and the Big Four (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers), the high tax, high wealth suburban districts, the hundreds of rural low tax, low wealth districts, facing sharply different problems. The delegates representing the teachers within the state university system, (SUNY) and the teachers in the city university system (CUNY); CUNY teachers have not had a raise in six years.

Speeches from Karen Magee, the leader of NYSUT as well as Randi Weingarten, the AFT president and a rousing in-person speech by candidate Hillary Clinton (Watch and listen to Clinton’s speech here). The most vigorous debate: teacher evaluation. Although the state is in the first year of a four year moratorium on the use of student test scores to assess teacher performance the debate was hot and heavy.

Watch videos of convention speeches: http://www.nysut.org/resources/special-resources-sites/representative-assembly

From the NYSUT website,

“Sending a strong message to Albany that more needs to be done to stop the harmful over-testing of students, some 2,000 delegates approved resolutions calling for a complete overhaul of the state’s grades 3–8 testing program; swift implementation of the Common Core Task Force’s recommendations; and new assessments that are created with true educator input to provide timely and accurate appraisals of student learning.”.

A few days after the NYSUT convention the UFT Delegate Assembly held its monthly meeting; a thousand or so delegates, elected in each school by staffs, meeting to listen to a report by UFT President Mulgrew and debate and set policy.  Mulgrew gives updates on the national scene: retired teachers were ringing doorbells in Pennsylvania supporting Hillary; the California Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in the Vergara case, supporting tenure and reminded delegates that while the US Supreme Court deadlocked on the anti-union Fredericks decision attacks from the right will not end. Mulgrew criticized the use of test scores to rate teachers; however, he reminded teachers that under the Bloomberg administration principals had the sole voice in teacher assessment. In the last year of Bloomberg 2.7% of teachers received “unsatisfactory” ratings, under the current multiple measures system only 1% of teachers received “ineffective” ratings. Almost all schools in New York City use Measures of Student Learnings (MOSL), dense  algorithms that assess student growth attributed to each teacher – there are hundreds of algorithms  to account for the many different school situations. The system, that includes an appeal process, melds principal observations and MOSLs appears to work well.

At the first meeting of the Board of Regents under the leadership of new Chancellor Betty Rosa a lengthy discussion over teacher evaluation took place. Chancellor Rosa appointed Regent Johnson to chair a Work Group to link research to policy decisions.

The 700 school districts in New York State are currently negotiating teacher evaluation plans under the four year moratorium, the use of grade 3-8 test scores are prohibited.  A few members of the Board suggested asking the legislature to clarify exactly what they wanted the Regents to do in reference to teacher evaluation, others argued that the decision was given to the Regents members and it would be wrong to punt back to the legislature. Clearly, the newly constituted Board has a ways to go to reach consensus.

Even Charlotte Danielson, the doyen of teacher assessment has her doubts about the current policies across the nation,

The idea of tracking teacher accountability started with the best of intentions and a well-accepted understanding about the critical role teachers play in promoting student learning. The focus on teacher accountability has been rooted in the belief that every child deserves no less than good teaching to realize his or her potential.

But as clear, compelling, and noncontroversial as these fundamental ideas were, the assurance of great teaching for every student has proved exceedingly difficult to capture in either policy or practice…

There is also little consensus on how the profession should define “good teaching.” Many state systems require districts to evaluate teachers on the learning gains of their students. These policies have been implemented despite the objections from many in the measurement community regarding the limitations of available tests and the challenge of accurately attributing student learning to individual teachers.

I strongly urge you to read the entire Danielson essay: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/charlotte-danielson-on-rethinking-teacher-evaluation.html

There are a few schools that have created teacher assessment processes that are valuable because they both assess teaching and encourage teachers to grow in their profession. There is insightful research; unfortunately we do not know how to “scale up.”  There is no inter-rater reliability, in some districts every teacher received a “highly effective” score, which also means so did the rater. Teachers in high wealth, high achieving districts receive higher scores than teachers in low wealth lower achieving districts. (Check out research studies  from the Chicago Consortium on School Research here  and here).

Getting teacher evaluation/assessment right is exceedingly complex in a highly emotional climate.

The Regents have a challenging task.

The Failure of Arne Duncan: How President Obama Placed Friendship Above Sound Education Policy and Stained His Legacy.

Presidents and Congresses look for sweeping solutions for the issues/problems confronting America; after World War 1 Europe spiraled into a depression and rampant inflation that slowly inched across the Atlantic. In October, 1929 the stock market crashed and our economy disintegrated. President Hoover, following the conservative economic views of the day, was aloof, the government did not intervene in the economy, the “invisible hand” would correct the economy, direct government intervention was both unnecessary and the wrong path.

… the nation was deep in the throes of the Depression. Confidence in the old institutions was shaken. Social changes that started with the Industrial Revolution had long ago passed the point of no return. The traditional sources of economic security: assets; labor; family; and charity, had all failed in one degree or another. Radical proposals for action were springing like weeds from the soil of the nation’s discontent. President Franklin Roosevelt would choose the social insurance approach as the “cornerstone” of his attempts to deal with the problem of economic security.

In 1935 the Social Security Law established a safety net for all Americans, upon passage of the law FDR opined,

“We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.”
President Roosevelt upon signing Social Security Act.

Thirty years later President Lyndon Johnson, as an amendment to the Social Security Law passed the Medicare and Medicaid programs. “The Medicare program, providing hospital and medical insurance for Americans age 65 or older and Medicaid, a state and federally funded program that offers health coverage for certain low-income people.”

In the same year, Johnson, a former teacher, a mere three months after the bill was introduced passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The law states,

“In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance… to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs) which contribute to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children”

The “financial assistance,” provides billions of dollars to school districts with high percentages of low-income families; the dense law attempts to prevent school districts from supplanting tax levy funding, and, the actual impact of the law has from time to time been subject to question.

In 2002 President Bush, in partnership with Senator Edward Kennedy passed a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and renamed the law No Child Left Behind.

Under the NCLB law, states must test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. And they must report the results, for both the student population as a whole and for particular “subgroups” of students, including English-learners and students in special education, racial minorities, and children from low-income families.

States were required to bring all students to the “proficient level” on state tests by the 2013-14 school year, although each state got to decide, individually, just what “proficiency” should look like, and which tests to use.

Under the law, schools are kept on track toward their goals through a mechanism known as “adequate yearly progress” or AYP. If a school misses its state’s annual achievement targets for two years or more, either for all students or for a particular subgroup, it is identified as not “making AYP” and is subject to a cascade of increasingly serious sanctions:

Although the effectiveness of ESEA/NCLB is open to question it has strong support, billions of dollars are driven to schools and school districts across the nation. Every representative and senator will support legislation that provides dollars to his/her district.

The reauthorization both continued Title 1, thereby assuring the support of both sides of the aisle and imposed the testing/sanction sections.

Ted Kennedy, the iconic liberal democrat from Massachusetts was the prime sponsor of the bill. While the opposition mounted the bill garnered retained support, from the testing industry and a strange coalition of civil rights organizations that saw the subgroup data as essential to keeping the spotlight on the subgroups and reformers who supported using testing data for teacher accountability.

Arne Duncan was in a unique position, he had the total support of the President and a legislative path to sweeping education reforms did not appear to be possible.

Roosevelt passed legislation that protects seniors both on the income side and the healthcare side; while the far right might trash Social Security and Medicare the legislation is firmly in place. Lyndon Johnson took the next step: Title 1 of ESEA is also firmly embedded in school districts across the nation.

Duncan’s plan was brilliant and devious, and, he didn’t need Congress.

David Coleman, the prime author of the Common Core State Standards, using what is called New Criticism and Literary Textual Analysis wrote new standards under the auspices of the National Governor’s Association. The governors in 46 states adopted the standards and the testing industry created new CCSS tests. The very core of education was changed without the involvement of any legislative body.

Duncan dangled 4.4 billion dollars in a competitive grants, “Race to the Top,” the competitive grants required the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, the adoption of a teacher evaluation plan based on the growth scores on student tests scores and choice, aka, charter schools.

Teachers and parents pushed back, anger grew and President Obama steadfastly supported Duncan.

If you listen to Duncan, see three minute U-Tube, his policies on testing seem to be reasonable.

Duncan’s ideas can be reduced to creating competition among schools, a perverse educational Gresham’s Law, “good school will drive out bad schools.” Highly successful schools, charter or public will drive out, will close ineffective schools. Of course, online for-profit charter schools are fine, tossing out low performing or discipline problems ignored (“backfill”), and the large charter networks with deep philanthropy were praised.

In order to survive high poverty, low performing schools, will get better with the threat of charter schools. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Milton Friedman approach to education would actually improve schools.

Link student test scores on the new Common Core tests to teacher performance; put the fear of the gods into teachers.

Arne Duncan will not go into history books as the FDR of education nor will he inherit the mantle of LBJ, state after state is backing away from the Common Core; the revolt against testing grows across the nation.

The lesson: no matter how close the friendship, no matter how loyal the friend: beware. Arne Duncan, your basketball buddy, an elite upbringing, jumped onboard the worst of the education reform ideas. As Linda Darling Hammond, Diane Ravitch, Pedro Noguera, renowned researcher after researcher questioned the Duncan agenda, Obama never strayed from supporting his friend.

John King, a Duncan acolyte will follow the Duncan agenda for the remaining year.

The failure of Arne Duncan will make a fascinating dissertation topic.

How Will the Republican Control of Both Houses of Congress Impact the Reauthorization of ESEA and Other Education Policies?

The Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate; they control the flow of legislation to the President’s desk, yes, the cloture rule requires 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote and the Dems can replace the Repubs as obstructionists.

While Democratic candidates tried to distance themselves from the President the election was a referendum on Barack Obama. In 2008 and 2012 the Obama team created a “new” coalition – millennials, new voters, well-educated women, Afro-American and Hispanic voters, in the midterms, 2010 and 2014 the coalition never came together.

I will leave deep analysis to the endless array of talking heads, for me a simpler question: How will the Republican congress impact education.

Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

At the core of the Republican mantra is a smaller government, and smaller government means fewer federal dollars. The major source of federal education dollars is Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Congress determines the total pool of dollars and the formula by which the dollars are distributed. While the current funding formula is complex (Read description here) the formula is driven by levels of poverty. A Republican controlled Congress might shrink the total pool and change the formula to give states more flexibility and send a larger share to poor rural areas and away from urban areas.

The 2013 bill that passed the House contained policies that might be attractive to teachers and their unions.

The July 2013 House bill would dramatically reduce the federal “footprint” on education by

§ eliminating the current federal accountability system of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and allow states and school districts to set their own testing standards;
§ eliminating the corrective actions for failing schools;
§ repealing the “highly qualified teacher” definition;
§ eliminating “more than 70” existing programs, consolidating others, and granting broad autonomy to states; and schools in the administration of education.
§ Removes a policy, requiring school districts to use student test scores in teacher evaluations
§ Allows parents to take federal education money and use it to send their children to other public schools, including charter schools.

The chairs of the education committees in both houses will change from 2013 and there is no way of knowing whether the Repubs will recycle the 2013 bill or start from scratch with a new bill.

The Rulemaking Authority of the US Department of Education

There is no question that any bill would curtail the role of the Department of Education. The Duncan USDOE has been more aggressive than any predecessor in driving policy through their rulemaking and budgetary powers. The four plus billions in Race to the Top dollars required a commitment to the Common Core, teacher evaluation and a host of other requirements. Two examples: students who have been in the country for more than a year, regardless of their English skills must take state tests and the data included in the school, school district and state assessments. Requests to move the requirement to two or three years have been denied by the USDOE. Student with Disabilities, except for the lowest functioning 1% must take state tests, and, once again, all the data redounds to the school, district and state. Requests to change the reg have been denied.

Advocacy organizations have supported the intensive rulemaking fearing that states may divert dollars for other purposes. Currently the feds require that all testing data is disaggregated by sub-group, by race, ethnicity and handicapping condition, and the data made public, if the requirement is removed states may not be so anxious to release, or even collect the data.

The Feds and the Common Core

The Common Core State Standards are not a federal program, although the Duncan Department strongly endorses the CCSS. No Child Left Behind (No Child Left Behind is the name given to ESEA in the 2002 reauthorization) requires testing in English and Mathematics for all children in grades 3-8 and passing exams in English, Mathematics and Science to graduate high school. Federal law does prohibit the feds from requiring any specific curriculum and the CCSS are not a curriculum. A reauthorized ESEA could curtail any endorsement of the Common Core; the abandonment of the Core is a state responsibility.

Repeal/Changing the Testing Requirements of NCLB

The annual testing requirements of NCLB are the most politically sensitive of all education policies. The revolt among parents is not dying, it continues to escalate, and, it is neither left or right, it cuts across the political spectrum. Will the Republicans try and steal the thunder and replace annual testing with tests every third year, or, use a sampling technique similar to NAEP tests to monitor academic progress?

A simpler approach is to leave the testing to the states, deflect the public anger away from Washington and move it to state capitals.

Charter Schools, Vouchers and the Marketplace Solutions.

Whatever the legislation a movement to competition, to use Governor Cuomo’s phrase, “to end the monopoly” of public schools will be part of any federal legislation. While charter schools and vouchers are a state responsibility the feds can write legislation to remove any barriers and provide dollars to encourage states to take a charter or voucher path.
You may notice that soon to be majority leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell held a press conference followed by a lengthy press conference by President Obama: both love fests; on Friday the President is meeting with the Republican leaders, over the length of both news conferences not a word about education.

In the democratic corner Joe Williams the leader of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER): supports charter schools and vouchers, the common core and opposes unions, Diane Ravitch, the leader of the Network for Public Education: opposes charter schools, the common core and works with the unions. Both democrats; miles apart. On the Republican side the Tea Partiers speak of Obamacore, revile the federal role in education as well as the dismantling of public education, also in the party are the supporters of Chambers of Commerce, supporters of testing and the common core.

Educational politics today is complicated, really complicated.

As the new Congress convenes in January committees in both houses will begin to craft reauthorizations of ESEA, and by next summer the conference committee will reconcile the bills from both houses, I suspect the many advocates of current USDOE policies and practices will urge the President to veto any bill.

Bill Gates and Eli Broad will lobby behind the scenes, the Tea Partiers in both houses will cry for returning education authority to the states.

Stay tuned.

Diane Ravitch for Governor!! (at least for two days) – Parsing the Politics of the Working Families Party Options.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

This weekend the delegates to the Working Families Party convention will be gathering near Albany to select a candidate for Governor of New York State.

The NY Daily News reported,

The Working Families Party is eying education activist Diane Ravitch as its gubernatorial candidate should the liberal minor party decide to withhold its backing of Gov. Cuomo, a source told the Daily News Wednesday morning. The party has spoken to Ravitch, 75, about possibly being its nominee and she has expressed interest, the source said. “Either way, she’ll have a role at Saturday’s (WFP) convention,” the source said.

Within a few days Diane, on her blog, clarified,

In the past two days, there has been speculation in the media that I might be a candidate for governor on behalf of the Working Families Party.

I have not sought this designation nor am I running for any political office. There are many well-qualified candidates, and I expect that WFP will choose one of them.

Regular readers of this blog know that I had major surgery on May 9 to replace a knee that I injured when I fell in April. For the balance of this summer, I look forward to walking, not running!

We are sadden, and fully understand.

The Working Families Party is a spin off from the left wing of the Democratic Party that has become a major player primarily in local politics, with the strong backing of labor, especially local 1199 (hospital and health care workers union), they have swayed policy as candidates seek their endorsement.

In New York State, to remain on the statewide ballot parties must draw 50,000 votes in the November election. The WFP has a dilemma: endorsing the incumbent governor would usually assure the WFP of reaching the threshold to keep their spot on the ballot and in the negotiations they could extract this or that promise to support this or that policy; however, their members abhor the governor.

The polling data must be disturbing to the Cuomo insiders,

A poll of state voters conducted this month by Quinnipiac University found Mr. Cuomo with the support of 57 percent of voters, compared with 28 percent who backed his Republican challenger, Rob Astorino, the Westchester County executive.

But in a hypothetical matchup with an unnamed Working Families Party candidate, Mr. Cuomo’s share of the vote shrank to 37 percent, compared with 24 percent for Mr. Astorino and 22 percent for the unnamed candidate.

Diane Ravitch on the ballot would assure the WFP of 50,000; in fact, she might have out polled the Republican candidate!!

The next in line is a law professor from Fordham, a scholar with no political experience or name recognition.

You can bet that as you read this blog the Cuomo power brokers, the WFP and their labor supporters are huddling. The two hundred or so WFP delegates are suddenly in the spotlight. To say that the Cuomo team is “arm-twisting” the WFP team is too polite a term – they are probably twisting other parts of the WFP anatomy.

Parents and teachers across the state are hopping board the “Anybody but Cuomo” bandwagon, and, for good reason.

* the 2% property tax cap has pushed hundreds of school districts to the edge of “educational bankruptcy,” the districts can no longer provide the basic services required by law.

* the Gap Elimination Adjustment (see excellent description here) is an enormous reduction in education funding that has yet to be restored – when the governor touts the increase in the current state budget he fails to acknowledge that the funding is still well below 09-10 levels.

* the Common Core debacle has angered parents from Buffalo to the East End of Long Island. Regents Cashin, Rosa, Phillips and Tilles urged the commissioner to phase in the move to the Common Core, to no avail. At the end of July the standards-setting process used the “teach to swim by pushing over the diving board” approach – and – lo and behold 2/3 of kids failed the test. As the commissioner tried to recoup on his “listening tour” the anger built, and, when under pressure from the legislature and governor the commissioner backed away and the Regents passed a dense document in an attempt to mollify parents – too late.

* the APPR, the principal-teacher evaluation plan is absurdly complicated, and apparently the outcomes have more to do with zip code than anything else, teachers fear the plan and principals find the results useless.

* the governor’s rejection of the de Blasio funding plan for Universal Pre-Kindergarten created a complex state funding formula that satisfies no one.

* the governor’s capitation to charter school dollars outraged public school advocates, parents and teachers, everywhere.

Aside from education the governor has been on the sidelines in the major initiatives of the WFP,

* the Dream Act would enable undocumented students who graduate from NYS high schools to be eligible for TAP (Tuition Assistance Program).

* the 10-point Women’s Equality Agenda legislation is perhaps the major item on the WFP platform, and is languishing in the Senate.

* public financing of elections.

The governor’s reply to criticism is to blame the Republicans in the State Senate, actually the Senate is run by a coalition of the Republicans and the Independent Democratic Caucus, a breakaway faction of Democrats that provide the swing votes to pass legislation. The governor has enormous power and influence and has flexed his muscles when he chose to flex his muscles. The Marriage Equality bill became law when the governor jumped in and garnered enough Republican votes last year.

One wonders about the team advising the governor – clearly one eye on the November gubernatorial election and one eye on positioning the governor in a possible run for the presidency in 2016, or, if a Republican wins in 2016, in 2020.

The goal for Andrew is to win with as large a majority as possible – hopefully north of 60% -a blowout, a landslide, winning in the cities, the suburbs and the rural areas, a victory so large and that it stretches across the political landscape – a victory that shows the nation that Andrew Cuomo’s appeal can become a national appeal, right of center on the economy, on fiscal issues and left of center on social issues.

His team might be right, the WFP might tell Andrew: if Women’s Equality, the Dream Act and further modifying the impact of Common Core become law we can endorse you – and – tomorrow endorse a “stand-in” pending the end of the legislative session.

The Cuomo team is skating on thin ice – the five million bucks hedge funders threw into TV to thrash de Blasio was a clear sign to Cuomo – either back us in Albany or we can do the same to you – and the governor blinked. His strategic blink deprived his opponents of millions of hedge fund dollars and antagonized parents and teachers. Did starving his opponent of charter schools dollars justify losing possible parent and teachers votes?

I have many friends who simply cannot pull the lever for Cuomo, the Republican candidate too far to the right to be an alternative. The Green Party? A WFP non-Cuomo?

Passing some liberal legislation may be enough to win over liberal voters to the Cuomo column, for others he is no longer a possibility.

I am saddened that Diane Ravitch is not running: I wanted to see the debate!!! It would have been so gratifying to watch Diane vivisect the pompous presidential candidate in waiting.

We can dream.

Maybe Diane can debate a Cuomo marionette …

Spinning the Teacher Contract: How Manipulating the Media Controls Public Opinion, the “Message”, and, Elections.

A New York Daily News editorial panning the UFT teacher contract avers,

Bloomberg won a landmark reform that gave principals power to hire teachers as they saw fit, not according strictly to seniority. No longer were longtime teachers able to walk into a school and demand to bump someone who had been on the payroll for less time.

A canard.

Back in 2005 when the contract was negotiated the union tried to find one teacher who was bumped by a more senior teacher – without success. Sixty percent of schools had already opted for the School-Based Option Staffing Plan, the principal and a committee of teachers selected new teachers, seniority was not a factor, and, the new plan, called Open Market, allowed any teacher to transfer to any school, regardless of seniority, without the approval of the principal of the sending school. The hundred or so teachers who had received seniority transfers were replaced by thousands of teachers jumping to other schools, commonly from lower achieving schools to high achieving schools. The lowest achieving schools tend to have the least experienced teachers and serve as training grounds for teachers who are poached by higher achieving schools.

A terrible policy.

I’m sure the editorial page writer simply reviewed the stories from 2005, the spin from Chancellor Klein and Mayor Bloomberg.

Diane Ravitch bemoans that too many Americans, apparently including the Daily News editorial writers, get their “news” from Glenn Beck rather than legitimate news sources,

… we have lost many of our well-educated, cultured, well-informed thinkers. Often they have been replaced by shock jocks, ranting talk show hosts, and an entire cable channel devoted to trashing liberals, liberal social programs, and labor unions.

Influencing public opinion is an art and a science, whether you call it public relations, communications, spin, strategy or branding.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), the title of the centerpiece of Obama legislation contains two words, “Affordable” and “Care,” both intended garner pubic support; republicans have successfully branded the law as Obamacare, a pejorative term. Every republican speaks from the same script and poll after poll finds that a majority of American oppose the law,

According to a CNN/ORC International survey, 57% of adults nationwide oppose the measure, compared to 39% supporting it….

Forty-seven percent of respondents in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey said they would most likely support a congressional candidate who advocated repealing the health care law, compared to 45% saying they would most likely back a candidate who called for keeping and fixing the measure.

Republicans are winning the battle for the hearts, minds and votes, of the American people over the Affordable Care Act issue; the bottom line is that more Americans tune in to the Glenn Becks than read Paul Krugman.

In October NYS Commissioner of Education John King began a PTA-sponsored listening tour around the state in Poughkeepsie. The meeting was a disaster – a boisterous audience shouting down the commissioner – all captured on U-tube – with over 50,000 hits over the following weeks.

Poughkeepsie was the wrong place to begin the tour, an all-white audience in a city with a troubled racial past, and the format – the commissioner speaking for over an hour – the wrong format; a Q & A with respected local leaders at which the commissioner would have shone.

Over the past few years I have asked audience after audience how they get their news, from print media, aka newspapers, or TV or online. For audiences under 40 online is far in the lead, hardly anyone under forty reads newspapers.

I asked a manager of a rap artist how he decides which cities to visit on tours – he buys data on downloads of the artist’s music by city.

Social media rules.

Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg wanted to pass legislation in Albany to eliminate seniority in excessing/layoff determinations, the public reason, to get rid of “bad” teachers, the real agenda to weaken the union. The seniority issue: “bad” senior teachers bumping “enthusiastic” young teachers, a strategy to win public support.

In the second half of the nineteenth century the political machines, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, elected candidates and party loyalty determined votes well into the twentieth century – you voted democrat or republican regardless of the candidate. Newspaper endorsements influenced voters, and ethnic politics was a constant.

Today with elected officials looked upon with disdain, voter turnouts at all-time lows, newspaper readership declining drastically, social media is relied upon as a source of reliable information, Marshall McLuhan is correct, “The medium is the message.”

“It’s on the Internet – it must be right.”

Michael Bloomberg had the perfect experience to be the Mayor of New York – he had mastered the art and science of communications – the creator of Bloomberg News – he totally understands the power of controlling the message – from the press release to the location of the event to who stands where on the stage – to the timing of the event – he controlled the outcome of the news – the populace had confidence in the mayor. His only stumble was education – he was outmaneuvered by the former carpenter and leader of the teacher union – who has a top-notch media communications team.

If John King held his first listening tour meeting at a venue with an integrated audience, if the questioners were highly regarded and highly recognizable public figures, if the format allowed for an exchange – if opponents or critics had an opportunity to be heard – the current sweeping criticism of the Common Core would have been muted.

The Daily News editorial also whines about changes in the school day,

Bloomberg added 37½ minutes to the teachers’ schedules for use, usually to help struggling students. De Blasio switched to using the time for “professional development” and “parental engagement.”

Bloomberg “negotiated” adding time to the school day in exchange for a substantial raise – a time for money swap. The Daily News ignores the impact of principal-teacher committees selecting school staffs. From my experience teachers felt responsible for the colleagues they selected – the process encouraged collaboration and a sense of ownership – if our kids don’t do well it’s because we, all of us, didn’t select the right teachers.

Since the change in the contract only principals select staffs – teacher attrition rates have remained high – the number of teachers who have tenure extended has soared – without any noticeable spike in student achievement.

Are principals picking the wrong teachers? Are principals failing to train newer teachers? Are school cultures increasingly toxic? All of the above?

From Google to Facebook to every high functioning major corporation collaboration among teams of employees are the model – perhaps the Department, and the Daily News, can learn a little from Sergey Brin.

Spin without substance ultimately runs out of energy and credibility, unfortunately the damage is done and kids only get one chance.