Archive for September, 2007
At Tuesday’s hearing on charter schools, the Mass Association of School Superintendents (MASS) trotted out their “tired” and “cynical” attempt to snuff out charters.
“Tired”, “cynical”? Well, don’t ask me, read today’s inspired Globe editorial on charter schools, which opens by calling the supes’ bill “shifty” and not “merit[ing] serious consideration.”
There is a lot of speaking truth to power, or at least to the MASS Protectors of the Status Quo.
EACH YEAR opponents of state-supervised charter schools in Massachusetts perform the same tired dance steps on Beacon Hill in an effort to stamp out these distinctive examples of education reform. It’s a cynical exercise and an insult to the families of roughly 19,000 young people waiting for an opportunity to join the already 25,000 students attending charter schools in the state.
But more important than the passion is the fact that the piece demonstrates that we are intellectually past the point of no return. In the last election the other two Democratic gubernatorial candidates were solidly in the charter camp, as was the Republican candidate. What has gotten us to this level of acceptance is the following thinking noted in the Globe piece:
Relieved from union work rules and the demands of a large central bureaucracy, charter schools can respond quickly to student needs. Methods include longer school days, flexible scheduling, and customized curricula. And educators stay on their toes, knowing that failure can result in revocation of their charter by the state Department of Education.
There is explicit recognition that charters are the mainstay currently in the fight to close the achievement gap:
A recent DOE study found that black and Hispanic students in charter schools performed significantly better than their district counterparts on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System test.
How about this for the punch line?
There is really only one way sure way to defeat charter schools: provide district schools so good that no one would want to leave.
When will the Superintendents respond to the charter challenge by focusing on improving educational outcomes in district schools rather than spending all of their time trying to stymie innovation?
September 28th, 2007
The challenge to the reign of the education establishment is showing all kinds of crevices among Democrats and those positions that had once protected the status quo.
From James A. Williams, Superintendent of Buffalo Public Schools:
“I’m not afraid of charter schools. I want to learn from them.”
And from Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools:
“[Creating charter schools] is about a lot more than education. It’s really about a movement for social justice. Our kids desperately need to have the best education possible.”
“I’m not an ideological person but I like the competition and choice [charter schools] provide.”
Again, thanks to M. Goldstein for forwarding these.
September 27th, 2007
Paul Vallas, Superintendent of the New Orleans Recovery School District
“I have said over and over again that if charters are performing, they should be expanded”
“I think charters provide an excellent tool for school districts to expand educational choice. But I like charters that work. The great thing about charters is that if the school is failing, you don’t have to try to reconstitute it. You can just shut it down”
Thanks again to Mike Goldstein of the MATCH School for passing these on.
September 26th, 2007
Just returned from a packed State House hearing on charter schools, which included enough material to fuel the blogosphere for the foreseeable future.
Due to the number of people wishing to testify, the education committee was unusually strict about enforcing a three-minute limit on individual testimony — which led to my personal favorite moment of the afternoon.
Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), the most unquestioning of public employee union supporters, railed against inequality, claiming charter schools call themselves public but are more like privates in their entrance requirements. The alarm marking the end of his three minutes sounded. Undaunted, he continued — this time accusing charters of busing people to the hearing and feeding them with public funds. After all, the same rules should apply to everyone.
The alarm rang a second time, and Senate Education Chair Robert Antonioni politely attempted to stop Pacheco. But Pacheco would not be denied, continuing his tirade about the importance – above all else — of equal treatment for all.
By the time he was done, Pacheco, who was taken out of order in the first place because he’s a legislator, had taken twice as much time as anyone else offering testimony — all so he could hammer home the importance of everyone being treated equally.
By the way, Masssachusetts is the only state with a law that makes it almost impossible for private entities to compete for work currently performed by state employees. The law takes the cost of private bids to deliver a service, then makes several “adjustments” — all in public employees’ favor — for things like lost tax revenue if any part of the work is performed out of state. It then compares the private bid to the cost of providing the service with public employees, right? Wrong. The bid is compared to what the cost would be were public employees to work “in the most cost-efficient manner.” Huh?
If the public employee bid is lower, game over. But if the private entity still manages to prevail, the law sets up yet another layer of review by the state auditor, who can reject the contract for any number of loosely defined reasons.
Who could advocate for such legislation? Well, it’s known as the Pacheco law.
Remember, the important thing is equal treatment for all.
September 25th, 2007
I hope our legislators are open to understanding the wisdom of these statements from Joel Klein, Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools:
“Our parents are on the waiting lists and it seems to me unconscionable, quite frankly, when we have parents who want these opportunities and these choices, and they’re being denied them.”
“Giving people choices is always empowering and almost always will lead to better outcomes for kids… You want people to vote with their feet and then take appropriate action (as the district).”
“To me it’s unimaginable that we wouldn’t be allowed to create more charter schools. It’s not like you’ve got a whole bunch of high-performing schools in the South Bronx or Central Brooklyn. What you’ve got is a whole bunch of long-term failures in the system, and an opportunity to bring in new blood and new talent.”
Thanks to Mike Goldstein of the MATCH School. A nice antidote to the writings of Deborah Meier…
September 25th, 2007
A great press release from the Mass Department of Education notes:
For the second time, Massachusetts has outscored every other state in the country on three of four National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exams, and has tied for first on the fourth, Governor Patrick announced at the Aborn Elementary School in Lynn on Tuesday.The only other time one state has ever ranked first on all four NAEP exams was when Massachusetts outscored the nation for the first time in 2005.
So the grand bargain of the 1993 Ed reform Act (more money, more accountability and more innovation) is working. But the press release suggests that the administration’s “left” hand does not know what the “right” hand is doing. Makes you wonder how they clapped at the Lynn event this morning.
Governor Patrick spoke of the “whole” child, which folks from FairTest admit is code for getting rid of, or significantly weakening, standardized testing and accountability:
“Our goal is to build on that success. To reach that goal, we must work to educate the whole child from the time they start learning before kindergarten, through grade 12 and higher education, and continue that effort in work force development and lifelong learning.”
House Speaker DiMasi was strong on MCAS and continuing the course of reform laid out in 1993:
“These results show yet again that Massachusetts students can outperform their peers from around the country and the students and teachers should be congratulated for their hard work… Our successes on NAEP and on the MCAS exams show that, through reform and steady improvement, we have built a solid foundation in Massachusetts. As we reach higher, we must build upon that platform to help our students compete even better in the increasingly global economy.”
Board of Education Chair S. Paul Reville stumped for MCAS and high expectations (hopefully meaning accountability and support for schools to turn around failing schools):
“These extraordinary results validate the recent MCAS improvements and serve as proof positive that Massachusetts’ long-standing reform strategy of setting and holding to high expectations for all students is right on target,” said Board of Education Chairman Paul Reville.
Acting Education Commissioner Jeffrey Nellhaus highlighted the need for continuity and MCAS:
“This state’s top ranking on NAEP for the second consecutive administration is a wonderful testimony to the hard work, commitment to success and determination of our students and teachers,” he said. “These scores reconfirm the progress we’re seeing on MCAS, reinforcing that our students are making significant strides in reading and math.”
Senate President Therese Murray, and Joint Committee on Education Co-Chairs Sen. Robert Antonioni and Rep. Patricia Haddad were mum on the big debate over continuity with what has worked well or burying ourselves in the “whole child” rhetoric.
September 25th, 2007
I can see it now: The heavy-footed, giant, unforgiving Dark Phantom of Pioneer up against meek, never-attacking Deb Meier, who is only armed with a sling-shot to take on her powerful adversary.
On the blog she shares with Diane Ravitch, Bridging Differences, Deborah laments again the oh-so-powerful Pioneer. She continues to show hurt:
You suggest I needn’t worry about annoying those “with more power”. But I felt badly recently when (as I mentioned) somebody took after Mission Hill school as a way to attack me on another issue altogether. So they can “touch me”—but not stop me! Alas, my travels remind me that others have less wiggle room—even for saying what’s on their minds.
Deb, you wrote in a letter what your ideas were. You also misrepresented Pioneer. (I did not say “attacked” Pioneer, as you save your harshest words for Joel Klein.) We responded that your ideas were wrong and that, golly-gee-whitakers, ideas have consequences. The consequences are that the school that you founded had not fulfilled the promise it could or should have. This is about your ideas, not Pioneer dragging down a school.
What power did we use? The pen. Our brains. Just as you do, Deborah. That’s all we have. Now that you are no longer a school official, that’s all you have.
If you would like to argue that standardized tests are not an end in themselves, of course, I would agree. Who wouldn’t. That said, they are one of the few objective measures out there, and they do say something–something significant about the progress being made in a school. And that is because the MCAS ultimately measures whether a kid is able even to access a liberal education: Can s/he read or write? Does s/he have basic concepts down? And I think we can both agree that when a kid passes the MCAS, we should not be satisfied. That is a floor for achievement, not an end goal.
I am sure you agreed when Diane recently raised the issue that Mayor Bloomberg and Joel Klein are overstating their progress–a point she could only make because there was a standardized, objective test that allowed her to do so. In our letter to the Globe responding to your portrayal of Pioneer, we did the same thing regarding a school that you had a hand in starting. To me, all fair game.
Now for the slingshot. I would note that now you have written “some guy at Pioneer Institute” and “someone” in referring to criticism of your letter. Denial of the other and making them into some dark phantom is how politics is played, not how an exchange of ideas occurs.
Inset of the thumb pressed up against the cross-guard and pommel resting comfortably at the base of his palm, M. Stergios smiles and in perfect American whispers: Uh, touche’.
September 25th, 2007
Thought I would remind you of that just in case you forgot. The April Governing magazine notes that
State and local spending for health care is rising significantly. Medicaid accounts for the bulk of those expenditures, especially as the costs of long-term care continue to rise.
Pointing to a recent study published in Health Affairs policy journal, Governing goes on to assert that
fallout from Medicare Part D, the federal government’s prescription drug program, is also contributing to the increase. Private payers are covering fewer health care costs, thus increasing the need for state and local governments to step in. “We are,” the study noted, “moving incrementally away from traditional sources of insurance, such as employer-based coverage, to a system comprising more federal and state government-provided health care.”
According to Governing, state and local health care spending has gone from $121 billion in 1993 to $285 billion this year, with the trend worsening significantly to $527 billion by 2016. Displace another $300 billion in state and local spending, and where’s the money going to come from for education, highway and transit maintenance, etc.?
The headlock being placed on health care delivery by (private and public) payers and providers is the subject of Pioneer’s Hewitt Lecture coming up on Tuesday, September 25, at the Harvard Medical School, featuring Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor, Manhattan Institute analyst, and author of “Who Killed Health Care?” One of the nation’s most respected health care analysts, Ms. Herzlinger will outline her bold new plan for a consumer-driven system that can deliver affordable high-quality care to everyone.
September 24th, 2007
So, back to Randal O’Toole’s Debunking Portland. Everyone would have to admit that a key goal of the whole Portland effort was to reduce the use of cars. So a couple of decades, if not more, into this experiment and how are we doing?
Overall Transit Usage is Down
- “More than 97 percent of all motorized passenger travel (and virtually all freight movement) in the Portland area is by automobile.”
- “Portland transit usage grew faster than driving in the 1990s,” but “transit’s share declined in the 1980s, when the region’s first light-rail line was under construction. In 1980 more than 2.6 percent of motorized passenger travel in the Portland area used transit. By 1990, that had fallen to 1.8 percent. Over the next 12 years, it slowly climbed to 2.3 percent but still remained well below the 1980 level. Since 2002 it has stagnated or slightly fallen.”
Transit Usage as a Percentage of Commuters is Flat or Even Down
- “During the 1970s, TrMet made many improvements in bus service, including building a downtown transit mall, increasing bus frequencies, and providing commuters with park-and-ride stations. Between 1970 and 1980, total transit ridership tripled and the share of commuters taking transit to work increased from 7.0 to 9.8 percent.”
- Cost overruns on the first light-rail line forced TriMet to raise bus fares and reduce service. By 1990, four years after the light-rail line opened, only 6.7 percent of commuters rode transit to work — less than in 1970. Ridership recovered in the 1990s, but…only [to] 7.7. percent… buses in [Seattle] carried a smaller percentage of travel than Portland in 1980, but were ahead of Portland’s bus-and-light-rail system in 1990 and 2000.
Transit Usage as a Percentage of Downtown Commuters is, hmm, Down
- “In 2001, TriMet was proud to say that 46 percent of all downtown Portland workers rode transit to work. Only 11 percent of Portland-area commuters work downtown, so on a regional level this is not very important. But transit did help relieve congestion and parking problems in the downtown area. By 2005,” because of service cuts after the 2001 recession and the gargantuan debt payments due to the expansion of the light rail elements of the network(sound familiar, anyone?!), “the number of downtown workers communing by transit declined by more than 20 percent, while the number driving to work increased. The result was that transit’s share of downtown commuting fell to just 38 percent.”
So, what about this experiment has worked? We have enough regulations at every level. One prays that we continue to resist Urban Growth Boundaries…
September 21st, 2007
I lead with a fire-and-brimstone Renaissance preacher partly to make a point, and also to provoke Director Stergios, who I hope will comment in flawless Florentine dialect.
This morning’s Globe features a point-counterpoint worthy of Curtin and Belushi. Bruce Marks blames evil lenders for the mortgage crisis; Bruce A. Percelay has it in for evil borrowers. To sum up: America is entering a recession because of the stain on each of our souls. Today’s forecast: Plague, followed by a French army and some locusts.
Maybe because they have no boosterish agenda (other than Microsoft’s), MSN Money tends to offer some clear thinking about the macroeconomics behind the news. This Jon Markman piece is based on a discussion with Satyajit Das, “one of the world’s leading experts on credit derivatives.” He saves us poor suckers from damnation:
“Defaulting middle-class U.S. homeowners are blamed, but they are merely a pawn in the game,” he says. “Those loans were invented so that hedge funds would have high-yield debt to buy.”
Rest assured, apocalypse fans; rational explanations can be as scary as the other kind:
When you add it all up, according to Das’ research, a single dollar of “real” capital supports $20 to $30 of loans. This spiral of borrowing on an increasingly thin base of real assets, writ large and in nearly infinite variety, ultimately created a world in which derivatives outstanding earlier this year stood at $485 trillion — or eight times total global gross domestic product of $60 trillion.
September 20th, 2007
Previous Posts
