"Teachers & Parents for Real Education Reform": What's Green Dot Got To Do With It ??

Friday, July 3, 2009

What's Green Dot Got To Do With It ??

In an article by Bill Turque in yesterday's Washington Post it turns out that Chancellor Rhee is actively exploring with education iconoclast Steve Barr offering Green Dot an opportunity to run schools in DC. The question to ask is what expertise, if any, does Green Dot bring to the equation? Steve Barr instigated a masterful political movement of parents and then teachers in LA through Green Dot to wrest control of 17 schools from LAUSD and UTLA. He and his people never claimed to know anything about running schools.

I met the newly elected president of the Green Dot teachers union at the most recent Teacher Union Reform Network meeting in June and she seemed smart, genuine, well meaning, and honest in acknowledging that she is totally inexperienced. Even if you begin with the assumption that the schools in LA needed new management and that Green Dot fit the bill, the question remains, what do they bring to the table for DC? Green Dot is just now trying to figure out how teachers in their schools should be evaluated. They have little or no experience in this arena. Green Dot is trying to gin up a professional development program for their teachers, from scratch. To their credit, they acknowledge that they have little experience in either of these arenas, or in running schools. Is this a case of the blind leading the blind? Doesn't running schools take more than blind enthusiasm? Education, after all, does have a knowledge base. Its as if decision makers in DCPS are pretending that there is no experience among long time educators, professional developers, school leadership in other districts or nationally -- no state of the art out there that could be drawn upon. Are the ones who get hired just the ones who's stories get the best press in national magazines? ...the blind leading the blind?

4 comments:

meaningful change said...: Hiring on Green Dot appears to serve at least two purposes:
1) It allows Rhee to make 'radical changes' without having to implement the necessary changes herself.

2) It enables Rhee to continue her all out attack on DCPS staff as she depicts them as so incompetent that inexperienced teachers and now management firms are preferable to working with existing experienced staff members.

And I am sure Rhee will continue doing what she has been for the past year and a half-- pick and choose information to publicize that shows how 'successful' the school will be running; meanwhile if one were to talk to students and teachers (without fear of retaliation) an entirely different reality would be told.; July 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Rhee and Barr are apparently no longer BFFs:

http://www.examiner.com/x-356-SF-Education-Examiner~y2009m9d13-Breaking-news-from-afar-Edreform-darlings-Rhee-Barr-turn-on-each-other; September 14, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Anonymous said...: This blog is wonderful. Thanks for for keeping the 'main thing' the 'main thing'. Any one out there doing an analysis of the schools Rhee closed restructured? Our school's Brookland/Bunker Hill went from 55% students making AYP (2007, 2008) to 40% (2009). I also hear that at Shaw where I was encourged to enroll my child because of their "focus on academic rigor" (yea right) also did very poorly this year. My obvious question for Rhee is "What accountability for student outcomes?" or half baked decisions for that matter.; September 16, 2009 at 1:34 PM
daniel john said...: Very nice post...

Very nice write up. Easy to understand and straight to the point.

Thanks for sharing.

Term papers; October 31, 2009 at 2:52 AM

What's Wrong With Waiting for Superman?

This month's The New York Review of Books has a powerful critique of WfS by Diane Ravitch titled "The Myth of Charter Schools" in which she puts the message of the film in a broader context.

An expose of where the funding for the film came from reveals its political agenda in Barbara Miner's article on the Not Waiting for Superman Web Site.

Here's a thoughtful review by Columbia University educational sociologist, Aaron Pallas... An Inconvenient Truthiness.

Read this careful, point-by-point reflection on the film by Rick Ayers, professor in teacher education at the University of San Francisco: "What 'Superman" Got Wrong, Point by Point."

The Nation magazine writes "Grading 'Waiting for Superman," an in-depth piece responding to the film and media coverage of public education in recent months.

Comment from the Education Law Center, "Superman Is from Another Planet."

Here are talking points,"Why We Can't Wait for Superman," from our partners at the National Opportunity to Learn Campaign.

Here are "The Real Facts about Waiting for Superman" according to the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, FairTest.

Education historian, Diane Ravitch, responds to the film in "Stop Trashing Teachers."

Here is a reflection by NY Times columnist, Gail Collins, "Waiting for Somebody."

Check out this reflection by Nicholas Lemann in the September 27 issue of the New Yorker magazine.

In this thoughtful piece, President of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten answers her critics.

Mark Phillips, professor emeritus of secondary education at San Francisco State University, attempts to create what he considers a balanced view of the movie: "Strengths and Weaknesses of 'Superman'."

Our testimony October 28,2008 before the City Council on the Council Hearing Amendment Act

Chairman Gray and members of the Council,

We come before you today representing a growing group of DCPS teachers and parents we call “teachers and parents for real education reform” who very much care about improving the quality of teaching and learning in our schools. We support much needed education reform. We have a new blog at http://realeducationreformdc.blogspot.com/.

Most of those involved in this new initiative are teaching students this morning or working other jobs as DCPS parents. If you held this hearing in the evening or on Saturday, I would not be the one giving this testimony, and we would have a large group here adding emphasis to our words. We are all volunteers in this work. If you could consider evening or weekend hearings in the future, we would certainly appreciate it.

Our point today is really quite simple. In the past year transparency, accountability and the opportunity for citizen input into school system decision making has drastically diminished. There is no reason for this to be the case, even under mayoral control.

As you heard in the one budget hearing you held last year, principals have never before been so in the dark about the budgets for their schools, which makes local school planning very difficult. Even Mary Levy, who may know more about the DCPS budget than anyone in the school system, had trouble figuring out what was and was not in the budget. This isn’t right in a democracy.

At this time in the history of our school system, the opposite is needed. Even among those who advocate dramatic reform of our school system, which we do, there are very different philosophies and very different directions that reform can take. Those differences need to be debated out and the Chancellor and the Council need to hear from informed citizens now, like never before.

Some would have you believe that there are only those who favor reform and those who do not, and of course there is no point in hearing from those who oppose change. This is a distortion. In fact, there are many knowledgeable people in this town who believe in urgent change and are critical of aspects of the current reform effort.

We wrote, quite knowledgably we believe, in the pages of the Washington Post’s Close to Home section September 28th, that if the Chancellor is serious about improving the quality of teaching and learning, that there are five programmatic elements that need to be in her plans. None of these necessary components of a system that supports good teaching seem to be part of current DCPS plans. We need to see and be able to comment on the budget and the extent to which it does and does not support what most educators would consider essential for systemic improvement in the quality of teaching and learning.

The context here is important. There seems to be a stark philosophical contrast between the approach being taken by the Chancellor in DCPS and that being taken in all the surrounding jurisdictions – Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Fairfax; between Chancellor Rhee’s approach and that advocated by education researchers, educational testing experts, and that supported by those who for decades have advocated the creation of a professional teacher workforce. The approach being taken in DCPS is perceived as a radical outlier, nationally. At the very least, there is a need now, more than ever, to have an opportunity for some debate, some discussion and public input before the DCPS budget is finalized and decisions are made. That will not happen without Council action.

At any time, the dialogue between those empowered to make decisions about our schools, and those impacted by those decisions is essential, but it is more so now than ever before.

Please restore the hearing process that used to exist before mayoral control. We support the requirement in the bill before you that the Chancellor annually make public, on the DCPS web site, a detailed estimate of the projected overall budget request, and a school-by-school breakdown, before the request is final so that the public can really come to understand the vision and comment.

There Is Another Way

The proposed WTU contract does not address many of the problems teachers face and will not make DCPS a better place to teach or learn. Successful reform of education in DC will require more than what we’ve seen, and we believe you know that too.

We who chose teaching as a profession want support for teachers to improve their craft but see nothing but disrespect and blame in the proposed contract.

The proposed raises and bonuses rely on private funding, which is not guaranteed. The green and red salary tiers will result in a teacher workforce that is a revolving door of short-timers. We think this approach disrespects the profession of teaching.

We need dramatic improvement in teacher salaries and high standards for teaching quality, but this contract is not the answer. It won’t work and it may bring disrespect for teachers and teaching that cannot be reversed.

Arbitrary, unaccountable power in the hands of principals to make every teacher an “at will” employee does not lead to better teaching. DCPS hasn’t clearly defined what good teaching is, but wants teachers to put their fate in the hands of principals, or worse, unreliable student test results as the measure of school and teacher quality.

The AFT is a national leader in fixing teacher evaluation systems, support systems for new and veteran teachers, and accountability to standards of good teaching practice. Why weren’t they brought in to help develop the WTU’s reform proposals? It’s not too late for the AFT to work with the WTU and put forward a new plan.

How do we create a stronger contract?
1. Vote “no” on the tentative agreement! We can do better.
2. Demand that the WTU leadership and negotiating team bring in the expertise of the AFT to develop and bring our proposals to the table.
3. Don’t worry! Voting against the proposed contract means that the current contract remains in force. We do not lose if we work for a better approach.

Learn more and join with your colleagues who see another way to reform. Please fill out the index card with your name, email, school, and contact information. Drop it in the box as you leave.

To find out more fill out an index card and give it to: Liz Davis (lizday_1951@yahoo.com),
Kerry Sylvia (kerrysylvia@yahoo.com), or any of the teachers distributing this flyer.