Begone Ghosts of Reform Past!

The first few weeks of 2013 have greeted us like a trip with old Marley revisiting school reforms of the past. In the very first weeks, we have Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst lobby announce letter grades for states based on their adherence to her favorite pillars of reform policies. John Merrow provided us with a reprise of her greatest hits as the head of DC schools, along with some news regarding the cheating that accompanied her regime.

And next the Gates Foundation has provided us with another example of the perils of mixing research with advocacy. Their multi-year, multi-million dollar Measures of Effective Teaching project has once again supported their belief that we can predict which teachers will get the best test scores next year by looking at who got the best test scores this year. The practice of actually observing a teacher to see how "effective" they are does not apparently add much accuracy to the prediction, but they keep it in there nonetheless, perhaps for sentimental reasons. Then we have tossed in a new element - student surveys. And the perfect evaluation is some balanced mixture of these three elements, which will turn VAM lead into gold.

One reformer, Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Foundation, has come right out and admitted what public school advocates have contended from the start. Many charter schools filter out difficult students, and whatever competitive performance advantages they have demonstrated are not credible evidence that they can do more with less. They can do more with more - and with fewer of the students most damaged by the scourge of poverty. Of course, Mr. Petrilli believes this ought to be celebrated, because like the Makers of Romneyan mythology, these students are "strivers," who ought to be well-served. The laggards they leave behind are of little concern. This is a frightening educational philosophy that runs counter to the main reform narrative, which has called upon civil rights rhetoric to justify school closures and charter expansion. But how can we reconcile an ethic supposedly based on equitable opportunities for all with a bare-knuckle life boat strategy that leaves many students behind to sink in under-funded public schools?

But alongside these visits from the ghosts of reforms past, we have some auspicious evidence that there may be a different future ahead.

[readon2 url="http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/01/hopes_for_the_new_year_begone_.html"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

Fordham Exposed Part I

Since the blistering repudiation of SB5 by Ohio's voters last week, supporters of the extreme measure have wisely fallen silent. Whether it's the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Ohio CPA's, or even the legislative architects themselves, all have decided that the best course of action after this stinging rebuke is to instead return to silently seeking ways to undermine working people.

That is, all except one. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a conservative corporate education reform organization.

In one post on their website, only a day after the election, their Vice President for Ohio Programs & Policy, Terry Ryan proclaimed "You’d be crazy to see SB5’s defeat as a defeat for Ohio school reform". He is of course talking about corporate education reform - the very thing voters rejected the day earlier.

Mr. Ryan tries hard to minimize the loss, and pass all credit to safety forces for causing the rejection of SB5. But even while mentioning the $30 million spent, he fails to recognize that teachers and education support professionals contributed over 1/3 of the campaign funds used to defeat SB5, provided thousands of the volunteers who made calls and knocked on doors, and featured in a number of widely broadcast ads, ads such as this one

You'd be crazy to believe voters didn't reject corporate education reforms.

The Fordham Foundation has decided to double down on its undemocratic opining, with a new article from Michael J. Petrilli their Executive Vice President. This new article, designed to be incendiary is titled "Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts". Despite being an uncharacteristically offensive piece of writing published by the Foundation, it's also disgraceful in its call for voter nullification. As if voters had not rejected SB5 by a wide enough margin, Mr. Petrilli pushes further to join with the far right tea party in his calls, perhaps even betraying the cause of his organization.

So where do reformers go from here? One option is to be even more radical: To go after not just collective bargaining but school boards too. Make all of the key decisions at the state level. Negotiate with the teachers around a statewide approach to pay and benefits, the whole kit and caboodle. (Marc Tucker’s “New Commission” made such a proposal several years ago.) That’s an attractive long-term strategy, but voters—averse to big, sudden changes—will need some time to get used to the idea.

Indeed. The push to eliminate collective bargaining has been going on since 1958, and voters are still rejecting the idea overwhelmingly. Mr. Petrilli might have a very long wait.

Perhaps these petulant responses from a conservative organization immediately after such a big loss should be expected, but this is not what surprises us.

What surprises us about the Fordham Foundation's response to SB5 is the simple fact that of all the supporters of SB5, they have always been in a position to prove its merits, but have failed to do so.

You see the Fordham Foundation sponsors 8 Ohio charters schools.

Here at JTF we have posed the question to charter operators and SB5 supporters many times - if you believe SB5 and its education reform tools are so effective at producing quality educational outcomes, why is it that charter schools in Ohio that already have all these tools at their disposal fail, consistently, to produce these results today? We have yet to receive an answer.

Join us in part II of Fordham exposed as we take a look at the failures SB5 like policies have had at Fordham sponsored schools and the hypocrisy of its most vocal boosters.