Sabbath, March 24, 2013

[On Sundays, this blog explores diverse issues in Sabbath.”]

School Closings in Chicago – Reform or A Trojan Horse?

Today’s Chicago Sun-Times features a great analysis on school closings in Chicago.  A chart that accompanies the article shows that students from over 1/3 of the will be moved to schools that are ranked no better or even worse than the ones they are leaving.  The chart also indicates that several of the schools have met performance goals.  Is this how education is “reformed”?

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is featured in a separate article in the paper.  Unlike those officials who say the schools are being closed because they are “underutilized,” the mayor only talks about giving students more opportunity:  “We look at it and viewed it as what we can do to have every child have a high-quality education regardless of their neighborhood, regardless of their circumstances, regardless of where they live.”

If the mayor is sincere in these words, he should be very troubled by the information put forth by the Sun-Times.  While some students will be moving to much better schools, many more are moving to schools with similar performance ratings.  There is also a question of cost.  According to the mayor’s most vocal critic Karen Lewis, head of the Chicago Teacher’s Union, it will cost the system $1 billion dollars to close the schools, which is the same amount the system claims is its current deficit.  Lewis and her colleagues contend that this round of school closing is a Trojan horse that the mayor and his allies are using to open even more non-union charter schools.

No one wants children in poor performing schools.  No one wants to waste money heating and maintaining schools that are half empty.  However, it’s hard to trust politicians in any city when we see how charter schools can be new tools for the connected to wash each other’s hands.  Over the past few months, the Sun-Times has published several articles about conflicts of interest at Uno, Chicago’s largest charter school organization.  Uno’s head was a key player in Mayor Emanuel’s campaign.  Will Uno benefit from the school closings?  That would be an interesting question to have answered.

Here’s another question:  Why can’t Chicago fund its schools?  I grew up in Cleveland and saw that great city’s decline first hand.  Over the last two years, I’ve been to Detroit twice and have experienced to a small degree that city’s challenges.  Those cities have an excuse to close schools.  They embody the rust belt and millions of lost jobs that have left northern industrial cities.  Chicago doesn’t have that excuse.

I attended a production at Chicago Shakespeare Theater yesterday.  Before going to the play, a friend and I rode Navy Pier’s Ferris wheel, which offers a magnificent view of the skyline, a panorama of skyscrapers that are filled with business that are making money.  I could also see large condo developments in the south Loop, all of which were built in the last 10-15 years.  How can schools be poor in a city that is so rich?  Why can’t we have schools with small class sizes if our city has so much wealth circulating in it?  We need to ask the mayor and his staff some of these questions.  All children do deserve equal opportunity.  Whacking at schools with an axe doesn’t seem to be the best answer, just the most simple answer.

Sabbath, March 10, 2013

[On Sundays, this blog explores topics beyond the work world in “Sabbath.”]

Detroit and Democracy

I wanted to do more to prepare more to write this post, but I’ve had work responsibilities this week and weekend that would not let me dive into research and numbers.  Even so, I feel a need to express my less than informed opinion on a vital topic – the impending takeover of Detroit.

It’s not the big media story I thought it would be.  It’s taken as a given that Detroit is “bankrupt” and “something has to be done.”  I’ve even heard that claim in progressive media.  Is Detroit in trouble?  Of course, it is.  So are many other large American cities that have lost their industrial base.  No one seems to be asking if there are alternatives to taking power from the hands of elected officials and putting it in the hands of an unelected Emergency Manager.  Governor Rick Snyder presents this solution that he has introduced in other cities as the only way to save the state’s biggest city.

Let’s take a minute and ask some questions:

1.  Is the situation as bad as the governor claims?  Why is Michigan the only state in the nation where such action is taking place on such a scale?  Is the governor really concerned about helping cities, or is he working off an ALEC playbook strategy to transfer public wealth into private hands?  Is there any evidence that Emergency Managers in other cities have made a long term improvement in local conditions – long term, not a simple give away to the connected class?

2.  Where is the wealth?  Throughout America, central cities are surrounded by suburbs that conduct business in and take their identity from the urban hub.  Could some system be devised where those who benefit from the hub pay their share for its upkeep?  Why not tax suburbs that have a surplus?  Why not introduce county wide or regional taxes that would help revive great American cities?

Here in Chicago we’ve had similar claims of impending ruin.  One of Mayor Daley’s chief aides used the term “Doomsday” in talking about the state of the city’s school system and public transit system.  Both systems were cut in the face of such claims.  Mayor Daley also transferred public assets of parking meters and a public toll road to private interests.  The city’s finances are not better.  In fact, by the end of the contract, the city will lose money on the parking meter contract.  Now Mayor Emanuel want to close over 100 schools because of a pending billion dollar deficit.  Is this a real problem or a way to move students from public to “charter” schools?

Whenever a politician claims a situation is an emergency, we need to ask for better evidence and transparency, not solutions that make the original problem worse and benefit only those who are the most wealthy.  We need to ask harder questions about our leaders and their solutions, especially those that deal with privatization.  The fate of Detroit and other cities in Michigan need to seen as a sign of things to come.  Will the U.S. live up to its promise of being a democracy that offers opportunity to all of its people, including the poor?  Or will the country further devolve into an oligarchy of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy?

Postscript: On this weekend’s Smiley and West radio program, Cornel West said: “You can’t love money and love poor people.” He was criticizing political leaders, both Republicans and Democrats.  I can only respond with one word: Amen.

More:  Laura Clawson of Daily Kos weighs in on the consequences of a Detroit take over and what has happened in other Michigan cities that have lost their democratic rule.

A Dose of Rhee-ality

The Daily Kos’s Laura Clawson reports on “education reformer” Michelle Rhee’s latest contribution to the America’s children.  Rhee’s group StudentsFirst ranks states by their education policies, not results.  The states ranked highly by the group include those which are most hostile to teachers unions.  As a proponent of so-called reform, Rhee puts students last and politics first.  StudentsFirst’s top ranked state is Louisiana, which ranked 49/51 on 8^th grade reading scores and 47/51 on 8^th grade math scores.  Clearly this rating is not based in fact – or reality.

Sabbath, September 16, 2012

[“Sabbath” is the blog’s Sunday feature that looks beyond career to broader issues that affect our lives.]

Good People and a Bad Fight

I took a great walking tour of the Six Corners neighborhood today.  It was hosted by Forgotten Chicago, a group of young people who are passionate about the city, its history, and neighborhoods.  That’s what I wanted to write about today until I got home and learned the Chicago teachers strike was not settled, until I read comments on Facebook that first made me mad and then frustrated.

One of my friends blasted the union.  Another said no charter school teacher is qualified.  Both of these positions are wrong.  Yes, the union might be faulted for some things, but the Mayor’s team must be put into the equation (something Chicago’s corporate media usually fails to do).  On the other hand, some charter school teachers are as qualified as anyone in CPS.  The problem is that the charter system pays teacher less and provides them no protection.  If teachers aren’t treated as professionals and paid a good wage, what qualified person will want all of challenges that go with the job?  How can we have good schools if we don’t have qualified teachers?

Both of the people I cite above are parents, good people frustrated with a situation that is very complicated.  I can’t imagine what it’s like for parents to scramble to find day care for their children.  Add to that problem the cost, and there is cause for some parents to be very anti-union.  It’s important to remember that the Chicago Teachers Union is not acting in a vacuum.  The mayor and his school board have not shown a true sense of urgency in solving this problem.  They blame the teacher and call the strike a “choice.”  However, their actions are also driven by choices.  As Ben Joravsky of the Reader outlines in his latest column, the mayor and others in the system have not treated the teachers with respect.

I went to public schools in Cleveland for six years.  Most of my teachers were highly dedicated and taught us lessons that went beyond testable facts:  how to think, how to act morally, and how to respect other people and ourselves.  Good public schools are essential to real democracy because they are the place where young people from all backgrounds learn to live together and gain the skills that will enable them to compete in the world, which is the essence of democracy.

No one wants bad schools or incapable teachers.  That’s not what this bad fight in Chicago or national education “reform” is about.  Some people – powerful people – want to bust unions and replace public schools with charter schools and vouchers.  They claim the system is broken and only they can fix it – like the Wizard of Oz.  I’ll put my faith in dedicated educators like the public school teachers of Chicago.  They are fighting for their professional rights.  More importantly, they are fighting to preserve the kind of education we need to maintain our values of equal opportunity and democracy.

P.S.  David Sirota poses 4 questions that should be considered in evaluating the strike.

The War on Teachers

Writing in Common Dreams (from the Guardian), Michael Paarlberg outlines the clichés and talking points that the right wing media (which is most of the media) uses to demonize some of our most dedicated public servants – teachers.  Politicians claim to honor teachers while they bash “teachers’ unions.”   Chicago’s teachers are standing up, which is a good thing.

We need to think about this issue in its broadest terms.  Most “reformers” want to create education models that free teachers from the wicked unions.  When this utopia comes to be, who in their right mind will want to teach for a low paid job with bad benefits and no protection?

It almost makes one think that education reform is about something other than education.  To those of us who live in Chicago, we know what that means.  We’ve all seen the parking meter game and who won.  The same game is being played in education.  It’s not about the kids.  It’s about the money.

CTU teachers are fighting for the kids and their future.  The reformers are fighting for – a place at the trough.

P.S. Aljazeera links the teachers’ strike in Chicago to the national movement to privatize education.  It’s clear that the people funding the movement don’t send their kids to public schools.

 

Sabbath, May 6, 2012

[On Sundays, Career Calling ponders intersections of work and life in “Sabbath.”]

Private Is Not Better Than Public

Over the past few decades in the U.S., conservatives have won a message war that is begin to tear apart our country’s social and democratic foundations.  The message is simple – and false:  Private is better than public.  We in Chicago have gotten a real smack in the face with the deal our former mayor Richard M. Daley made in leasing the city’s parking meters, which I will discuss below.  But it’s not just Chicago.  Across the nation, we’re seeing roads, schools, garbage collection, and even prisons privatized in the name of efficiency.  The problem is that, like the promises of trickle down economics, the promise of cost savings and greater efficiency from privatization is a lie.

Starting in 2009, parking meters in Chicago were taken over by a company called Chicago Parking, LLC (All information in this paragraph is taken from the Chicago Sun-Times, 5-4-2012).  It paid $1.15 billion for a 75 year lease.  In the last year the city operated the meters, it collected $23.8 million in fees.  Over the next three years, the private company has collected $45.6 million (2009), $71.2 million (2010), and $82.8 million (2011).  Currently, Chicago Parking is billing the city for lost revenue due to street closure and spaces used by handicapped drivers.  For 2009-2010, the city paid an extra 9 million to cover parking spaces taken out of service.  The city is disputing an additional $27 million in additional charges.

How have the people of Chicago benefited from this move from public to private?  First, residents of the city are paying significantly more for parking under the private regime.  What if we called this a tax?  People would be outraged.  Second, it’s not a good deal.  At $80 million a year, the cost of the lease will be covered in less than 20 years, which means more than 50 years of the lease will be sweet profit for the private company.  Who’s not profiting?  The city and its taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the Sun-Times also reports that former mayor and three of his top aides now work for the law firm that represented the city in the park meter negotiation.  A cynical person might think this was some kind of conflict of interest.  But after hearing again and again over the past 20 years how much Mayor Daley, son of The Mayor Daley, loved the city, I cannot believe that there is anything shady in this arrangement.  After all, Mayor Daley loved the city.  If this is true, the parking meter deal must be seen as an expression of his love. 

It’s not just parking meters.  Private prisons in Arizona are costing more than original projections and there have been problems with lax security and prisoners escaping, which cannot be called greater efficiency.  The state’s legislature has shut down a review of the program.  A study in Colorado found a similar problem with cost overruns in another allegedly more efficient private prison system.  Who ends up paying more?  Taxpayers.

These are just two examples of the way government and private industry have joined in a big scam.  At the beginning of this article, I attributed the private is better than public meme to conservatives, and I hold by that claim.  However, many Democrats have jumped on the train, especially when it comes to education.  I have frequently written about education and how funds have been routed from public to private and charter schools, how teachers and teachers unions are the bogey man for education “reformers.”  There is no clear evidence that these private schools do a better job of educating children.  Some charter schools are good.  However, three of the top four ranked high schools in the state of Illinois are in the Chicago Public School system.  Many suburban districts in Illinois that have a strong tax base and low poverty offer their citizens great public schools. 

I do not defend any kind of public waste, corruption, or failure.  Ineffective teachers and other public employees who cannot do their jobs should be fired.  So should bad CEOs, who now often get multi-million dollar gold parachutes when they are fired.  We need to move beyond a cliché like private is better than public to the wisdom that John Dewey gave us long ago:  What works?  What works for the nation and most of its people?  What works to build a foundation for a strong democracy?  We need to find what works and leave the slogans behind.

Postscript:  My friend Bill Savage sent me this happy news.  By the end of the parking meter lease, the city will probably pay “fines” that equal what it paid the city in the original lease.   Really, he loved the city.

Sabbath, February 5, 2012

[On Sundays, this blog explores life and work in Sabbath.]

The Big Game and a Bigger Game

Over the last week, tension has built day by day as the Big Game – the Super Bowl – approaches.  Now it’s the day of the Big Game, and in a week most people will not remember the score or which team was the winner.

Hype makes people pay attention in America.  Let me offer proof in one word: Kardashian.  Education?  It’s more important than a football game or a celebrity, but it doesn’t get the hype.  It’s just a policy issue, one that most politicians only discuss in sound bites.

I recently read a book that takes the subject very seriously, Diane Ravitch’s The Death and Life of the Great American School System.  Ravitch was an advisor to the first President Bush and President Clinton.  She was an early champion of charter schools and testing as a way to measure performance.  A few years ago she did something we almost never see in contemporary America:  Ravitch said the ideas she championed were wrong. 

Examining data and results, she found that all charter schools do not perform better than public schools.  Charter schools have produced mixed outcomes:  Some achieved better results than the average public school, some are worse – most show no real difference in outcomes.  At the same time, they often achieve success by cherry-picking students and leaving students with learning or behavior disabilities to be educated in the public system.  Ravitch’s evaluation of testing was even more disturbing.  As programs like No Child Left Behind judge schools by test scores, principals and teachers began to teach to the test, ignoring the broader curriculum that fosters a real education.  Some schools have even cheated to raise their test scores.

Ravitch criticizes the political and philosophical positions that support “education reform.”  She notes that both political parties have embraced charter schools as a solution.  One of the reason they have done so is that billionaires and foundations have poured millions of dollars into programs to support charter schools.  Those schools, however, must follow the philosophy of the funder.  If that philosophy doesn’t work – as in Bill Gates’ support of “small schools” – the model schools are no better than the public model they have replaced.  Who loses?  The students who were the subject of experimentation. 

Who is at fault for failing schools?  Teachers.  We hear that claim made again and again.  Ravitch examines it and demonstrates how it is flawed.  She clearly states that bad teachers need to be replaced (just like bad CEOs).  However, many of the people who say the teachers are the problem are often motivated by a desire to bust teachers unions, not improve learning.  They point the finger at teachers, ignoring administrators, parents, and social factors, including poverty. 

Earlier, I compared education to a game, and in a sense it has become just that.  Different reform groups “compete” to see who has the best model.  President Obama rewards funding to schools that rank highly in his “Race to the Top” program.  Reformers and politicians – including the alleged liberal Obama – want to replace pay based on seniority with merit-based pay, a form of competition.  Ravitch criticizes all of these measures as an attempt to bring a business mentality to teaching.  She shows why these logical-sounding ideas fail miserably as a way to measure learning.

Education in America is a multi-billion dollar game that will shape the future of this country and its individual citizens.  Most people don’t take the time to think about the ideas that are reshaping our schools and the people who are spending tax dollars that are meant to educate children.  Diane Ravitch doesn’t offer a simple answer.  She does shine the light on some very bad ideas, which is the first step to building a school system that will be a winner.

A Strong Voice for Public Schools

Working people will only have opportunities if they have the skills and discipline need to be part of a fast-changing workforce.  For generations in America, public schools educated most Americans.  Now, especially in poor communities, there is an “education reform” movement that is pushing charter schools and vouchers as substitutes for public education.

Diane Ravitch was one of the early champions of such reform in the 1980s and 1990s.  After careful study, she has done something few experts do:  Admitted she was wrong.  In an essay reposted on Common Dreams, Ravitch outlines the politics behind the reform movement and how it does not serve the needs of children. 

One of Ravitch’s claims that struck me is that the reform movement is based on an inherent contradiction.  Reformers praise the public sector business model.  In that model, poor performers are left behind.  Does the logic of schools as business mean that some are sure to fail?  Ravitch argues, “The goal of our education system should not be competition but equality of educational opportunity. There should not be a Race to the Top. What is the Top? Who will get there first? Will it be poor and minority students? Don’t count on it. The Top is already occupied by the children of the 1%.”

I strongly recommend this article, especially to those people who support education reform.  Ravitch challenges us to think about the purpose of education, and she offer serious ideas for real reform.  Why should she be believed?  She is strong enough to admit she was wrong.  When was the last time anyone in Washington did that?

Postscript:  Here is an interview with Ravitch in which she criticizes the impact of the No Child Left Behind Law.

Charter Schools, Choice, and Teachers’ Jobs

Writing in Daily Kos, Laura Clawson examines the claim that charter schools give parents more choice.  We have to ask if school reformers are really changing things for the better – or just cutting revenue for public schools.  Why would they want to do that?  To break the “evil” teachers unions, of course. 

Some charter schools are very good, but the overall concept is a Trojan horse that will reduce another middle class profession with longer hours, no protection, and less pay.  We also have to ask where the money that isn’t paid to teachers and principals is going.  The Chicago Reader investigated local charter schools.  Most refused to give information about their budgets or payrolls, information which Chicago public schools are required to make public.  Ruining teaching as a profession, hiding how taxpayer money is spent – that doesn’t sound like reform.

Is the Obama Administration Anti-Teacher?

Diave Ravitch thinks so.  Ravitch, who was once a champion of charter schools and high stakes testing, has turned against both “reforms.”  She says that President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are “anti-teacher” in using test scores to evaluate poor teaching perform.  Ravitch has done extensive research and found that poor neighborhoods, not poor teaching, are the main cause of low test scores.  She also points out that cities like New Orleans that claim to have a successful charter school program have built their success by cherry picking students, leaving the disadvantaged and discipline problems in the public schools.

Why do President Obama and Secretary Duncan favor charter schools?  They are free of union rules, which means teachers have no job security.  Duncan followed a similar course in Chicago, which is being maintained by his successor, Ron “Doomsday” Huberman.  (I call him “Doomsday” because he and his flacks used that term to justify layoffs and service cuts when Huberman headed Chicago’s transit system.  The man is a political sock puppet.)

Working people need to look hard at the claims being made about teacher performance and salary.  If we join with the campaign against teachers, we are simply helping to drive down salaries for all workers while we are carving up what little is left of job security. 

Follow this link to see an interview with Ravitch.

Click here to read an essay by Ravitch, “Why I Changed My Mind.”