Friday, July 17, 2015

Half of new teachers quit profession in 5 years? Not true, new study says | EdSource

Half of new teachers quit profession in 5 years? Not true, new study says | EdSource:

Half of new teachers quit profession in 5 years? Not true, new study says

A recent federal study found that a much smaller percentage of beginning teachers leave the field in their first five years on the job than the widely quoted figure of 50 percent. It’s 17 percent, according to the new research.

The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics made the new finding in a study released in April. Not extensively reported, the study conflicts with the widely held perception that new teachers experience a high turnover rate. This may be true in some districts, in some regions, but it wasn’t a nationwide trend in the five years studied, 2007-08 through 2011-12.

The longitudinal study, “Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five Years,” found that 10 percent of new teachers in 2007-08 didn’t return the following year, increasing cumulatively to 12 percent in year three, 15 percent in year four and 17 percent in the fifth year. The totals include teachers who were let go and subsequently didn’t find a job teaching in another district.

The most exhaustive study of teacher attrition to date, the study followed 1,900 teachers, with follow-up paper questionnaires and contacts by phone.

The frequently cited statistic that “half of new teachers leave after five years” stems from a 2003 study, also using federal data, by Richard Ingersoll, a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, who concluded that between 40 and 50 percent of teachers didn’t return for a sixth year of teaching – one year longer than the new study. His finding was based on yearly approximations. Unlike the current study, the federal report that Ingersoll used didn’t track what happened to individual teachers after the first year. His data included private school teachers and excluded the 3 percent of teachers who left (perhaps on maternity leave) and returned to teach within the five-year period

“Two important findings support what NEA has advocated for a long time. That high-quality mentors and competitive salaries make a difference in keeping teachers,” said Segun Eubanks, director for Teacher Quality at the National Education Association.

Another reason for the differences in findings could be the time periods in which the studies were done. Ingersoll used data on first-year teachers collected in four years between 1988 and 2000. The recent study followed one group of teachers from 2007-08 to 2011-12, during an economic recession that could have affected job mobility, said Isaiah O’Rear, the project officer from the National Center for Education Statistics. The study didn’t delve into that issue, he said. The center is not planning another in-depth study at this point, he said.

The new study didn’t break down the findings by state and region, but it did analyze teachers’ earnings, ages, education and school locations and cited a number of findings:

Money – 97 percent of teachers who earned more than $40,000 their first year returned the next year, compared with 87 percent who earned less than $40,000. By the fifth year, 89 percent of those earning $40,000 or more were still on the job, compared with 80 percent earning less than $40,000.

Guidance – 92 percent of teachers assigned a mentor their first year returned the next year, and 86 percent were on the job by the fifth year. Only 84 percent of teachers without mentors returned in the second year, declining to 71 percent in the fifth year.

Degrees – There was no statistically important difference in attrition between teachers who began teaching holding bachelor’s degrees and those with master’s degrees.

Mobility – By the second year, 16 percent of teachers had moved to another school or district. One-fifth of the “movers” moved involuntarily or didn’t have their contracts renewed.

Reacting to the study, Segun Eubanks, director for Teacher Quality at the National Education Association, said on the NEA website, “Two important findings support what NEA has advocated for a long time. That high-quality mentors and competitive salaries make a difference in keeping teachers.”

Eubanks also said, “Not surprisingly, the study found that teachers who spend their first year in higher-poverty schools are more likely to Half of new teachers quit profession in 5 years? Not true, new study says | EdSource:

KIPP charter chain and torture adviser Marty Seligman: A match made in hell? | Seattle Education

KIPP charter chain and torture adviser Marty Seligman: A match made in hell? | Seattle Education:

KIPP charter chain and torture adviser Marty Seligman: A match made in hell?

Psychologist Marty Seligman “whose work formed the psychological underpinnings of the Bush administration’s torture program”.

From KIPP’s own website:

(And not to fret, I took a screen shot.)

KIPP’s innovative approach is grounded in the research of Dr. Martin Seligman and the late Dr. Chris Peterson (the “fathers“ of Positive Psychology). Building off a partnership with KIPP NYC, Dr. Angela Duckworth and the Riverdale Country School, KIPP’s character work focuses on seven highly predictive character strengths that are correlated to leading engaged, happy and successful lives: zest, grit, optimism, self-control, gratitude, social intelligence, and curiosity.

We’ve integrated our own experience as educators with this research, and developed a road map to help teachers, students, and parents foster behaviors that strengthen character.

That’s right. All those low-income minority children need is “CHARACTER”!

I have posted several articles on KIPP charter schools including a compendium of articles under the heading of KIPP Charter schools along with A former KIPP teacher comments on her experience and For KIPP charter schools, more computer time, less class time .

But out of everything I have read so far about KIPP, this is the most chilling.

KIPP believes in a “no excuse” policy when it comes to their students who are mostly minority and mostly African-American. See “At KIPP, I would wake up sick, every single day” and Documented KIPP Abuser to Speak Sunday at TFA Conference: “Bringing the ‘Joy Factor’ to Your School”.

The folks at Schools Matter have been monitoring KIPP for several years and in fact, that is how I became acquainted with the KIPP enterprise.

Recently they published the post KIPP Psychology Guru Inspired CIA Torture Programwhich shocked even cynical me who thought I had seen and heard all the horrors of ed KIPP charter chain and torture adviser Marty Seligman: A match made in hell? | Seattle Education:

WATCH: Education in the 2016 Presidential Campaign Panel featuring Lily Eskelsen García - Lily's Blackboard

WATCH: Education in the 2016 Presidential Campaign Panel featuring Lily Eskelsen García - Lily's Blackboard:

WATCH: Education in the 2016 Presidential Campaign Panel featuring Lily Eskelsen García

The next President will have a huge responsibility in shaping the future of public education in America. Common Core, access to higher education, college affordability, civil rights and equal opportunity in education, and the federal role in public education will play a crucial part in the debate of both the Republican and Democratic nomination process and the general election.

Starts: Friday, Jul. 17 4:45 PM (EST)

Ends: Friday, Jul. 17 6:00 PM (EST)

This panel is part of Netroots Nation in Phoenix, Arizona (July 16-19, 2015) and is sponsored by the National Education Association

You can find more information about the panel, moderator and panelists HERE

WATCH: Education in the 2016 Presidential Campaign Panel featuring Lily Eskelsen García - Lily's Blackboard:

When a top NOLA charter won’t reveal its admission test - for kindergarten - The Hechinger Report

When a top NOLA charter won’t reveal its admission test - for kindergarten - The Hechinger Report:

When a top NOLA charter won’t reveal its admission test — for kindergarten

“In a city where private-school tuition rivals college costs, gaining admission to these free public schools is like finding the golden ticket.”

In addition to being one of the focuses of nationwide charter school efforts, New Orleans also is remarkable for having selective-admissions charters.

Three such schools in the city were top-performing magnet schools in the traditional system before the major charter push happened after Hurricane Katrina. They maintained their high standards when they became charters, and they continue to post some of the top scores in the state.

In a city where private-school tuition rivals college costs, gaining admission to these free public schools is like finding the golden ticket.

But these high-performing schools are still public, and now, two are at odds with a parent seeking basic information.

Administrators at two schools are refusing to release the names of the tests they use in admissions, and, at one school leader’s request, the state attorney general is expected to issue an opinion on the matter soon.

Jacob Landry has a soon-to-be kindergartner, and he wants to know just the name of the test, not the questions on it or other secure information. He penned a column on his experience seeking the test’s name that ran on The Lens on June 9. As a former employee of the Louisiana Department of Education, he said he wants to know if the test being used is appropriate for admissions, and to make sure that it’s not an IQ test, which is forbidden by state law.

“People want their kids to get into those schools,” Landry said. “For me it was look, I’ve got the experience in charter schools to know what to ask.”

And yes, Landry’s son took the test for Lusher and was put on the waitlist. Still, Landry said this isn’t about sour grapes, but about transparency and oversight of charters. He didn’t ask for the name of the test until after his son took it, and his son has since won admission at a well-regarded new charter that doesn’t have an admissions test.

For their part, the leaders of Lusher Charter School and Lake Forest Elementary Charter School say that motivated, involved parents could gain an unfair advantage over others if they know what exam is given.

“Even if we don’t provide you with test questions and answer keys, if prospective parents know the name of the test, they might be able to access the test that is used year after year,” Lusher CEO Kathy Riedlinger told Landry in an email.

Landry’s response: “If knowing the name of an assessment gives you When a top NOLA charter won’t reveal its admission test - for kindergarten - The Hechinger Report:

Winners and losers in the Senate's fix to No Child Left Behind | Washington Examiner

Winners and losers in the Senate's fix to No Child Left Behind | Washington Examiner:

Winners and losers in the Senate's fix to No Child Left Behind

The federal government's role in education is one step closer to getting its first major overhaul in 13 years.

The Senate passed a bill Thursday that would reform No Child Left Behind, a law that is widely viewed as broken. No Child Left Behind was originally meant to be reformed in 2007, so if a reform is signed into law it will have come at least eight years late. Bipartisan majorities supported the bill, with 81 votes in favor and 17 votes against. Notable votes against included Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker.

The Senate bill would give states more power over what to do with failing schools, although some state-designed plan to identify and reform failing schools is required. The amount of federally-required testing in schools would fall, and the remaining tests won't be tied to any federal consequences. The bill also prohibits the Department of Education from encouraging states to adopt specific academic standards, as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been doing with Common Core using waivers from No Child Left Behind.

The House recently passed a similar education reform bill, so the next step is for the two bills to go to a conference committee for reconciliation.

Few of the interest groups involved think the Senate bill is ideal. For the most part, groups on the edges of the political spectrum are upset with it, while moderates on both sides are pleased with the progress. Here are the winners and losers from passage of the Senate's fix to No Child Left Behind:

Winners:

Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray

Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Ranking Member Patty Murray, D-Wash., guided the bill to unanimous approval in committee and its eventual passage on the Senate floor. The bipartisan support for the final bill shows that Democrats and Republican are still capable of compromising even when not faced with a crucial deadline. Education pundits will praise Alexander and Murray for their efforts, especially if they can find a way to get a final version signed by President Obama.

Teachers Unions

Both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers support the Senate's reforms.

In a Thursday morning email to senators, NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia urged the Senate to approve the education bill. "While not perfect and with room for improvement still remaining before a bill reaches the President's desk, [the bill] marks a significant improvement over current law in numerous ways," Eskelsen Garcia wrote. "[The bill] moves decision-making to the people who know the names of the students they educate, incentivizes supports and interventions tailored to local needs, and preserves the historic federal role in protecting the most vulnerable. … The Senate is on the cusp of an historic opportunity to begin fulfilling America's promise of equal educational opportunity for all."

In June, AFT President Randi Weingarten said, "The Senate bill ... is a much-needed reset in federal education policy and creates the oxygen that schools need to actually teach children, not teach to tests." The AFT has voiced its opinion on certain amendments while still pushing for passage of the overall bill.

Moderate Conservatives

Michael Petrilli, president of the Fordham Institute, called for education reformers on both sides of the aisle to recognize the Senate bill as progress. "It's time for all of us to act like grownups and help get a recognizable version of the Alexander-Murray bill across the finish line," Petrilli wrote on July 7. He added that conservatives should support the bill because it gives plenty of education authority back to the states, while liberals should support the requirements that states and districts have to do something about failing schools.

At the American Enterprise Institute, education scholar Rick Hess wrote on July 6 the that Senate bill "would constitute a huge improvement over the status quo and the profoundly troubled prescriptions of NCLB and the depredations of Secretary Duncan's waiverocracy." Hess said the bill had room for improvement, but called it a "giant step forward."

School Choice Advocates

School choice advocates failed to get any kind of extra support for school choice programs in the bill, but were able to avoid damage and were generally supportive of the overall bill.

"The Senate's effort is a great advance, and along with a strong House bill, will correct the overreach of this and subsequent administrations for years to come," Jeanne Allen, Center for Education Reform senior fellow and president emeritus, told the Washington Examiner.

Alexander tried to establish a federal scholarship program that would have allowed students living in poverty to use federal dollars at any public school, private school or supplemental educational service they desire. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., tried to include an amendment to allow low-income students to use their special federal funding at any public or private school they wanted. Both amendments would have allowed states to opt-in, and both fell 15 votes short of the required support.

Allen expressed "disappointment" that the two amendments failed, but CER's press release on the overall bill's passage was positive.

An anti-charter school amendment introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, was never voted on.

Losers:

Hardline Conservatives

Heritage Action is a harsh critic of the Senate bill, including it as a key vote on its legislative scorecard. "The 792-page bill represents a missed Winners and losers in the Senate's fix to No Child Left Behind | Washington Examiner:

Why big civil rights groups think standardized testing is good for kids - Vox

Why big civil rights groups think standardized testing is good for kids - Vox:

Why big civil rights groups think standardized testing is good for kids

Civil rights groups are starting to split on one of the most controversial policies in education: standardized testing.

National civil rights groups have stood by standardized testing in recent years, arguing it is a way to ensure that disadvantaged students aren't being neglected.

But other, mostly smaller civil rights groups are now questioning that policy, arguing that standardized tests have actually harmed the students they were intended to help. Schools have focused too much on teaching to the test, particularly for weaker students, instead of offering a wide curriculum, they argue.

The debate is getting more intense as Congress wrangles with the future of No Child Left Behind, the landmark law that's become nearly synonymous with standardized testing.

The Senate is expected to vote today in favor of a bill that preserves the requirement that students take annual standardized tests. But national civil rights groups don't think that's enough, saying the measure wouldn't ensure that schools focus on disadvantaged students if they're not succeeding. They don't want only tests, but tests with consequences for schools if they're not succeeding.

"[The bill] throws students of color, students with disabilities, and young women under the bus," said Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, in a statement. "Senators who vote against the civil and human rights of these students will be undoing the 50 years of progress we’ve made since this law first passed."

Most congressional Democrats seem to agree. But growing dissent from smaller groups, which want to end the influence of standardized tests in education, shows how the reputation of No Child Left Behind went from being about bridging inequality to testing.

No Child Left Behind wasn't supposed to be just about testing

The ultimate goal of No Child Left Behind, passed in 2002, was to highlight and then close historic achievement gaps.

The law required states to test all students annually in third grade through eighth grade and then once in high school. States had to measure whether schools that got federal money for serving low-income students were making "adequate yearly progress" toward the law's ultimate goal: that every student in America would be able to read and do math proficiently by mid-2014.

But it wasn't just entire schools that had to be making progress. "Subgroups" of students within the school, such as black and Hispanic students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students learning English, also had to gradually improve their test scores. Even if a school's overall test scores were going up, that school could miss the annual progress targets if their disadvantaged students weren't improving.

This was a big change. Before No Child Left Behind was passed, some states didn't even release information on test scores for poor students, black and Hispanic students, or students with disabilities. The law highlighted those achievement gaps and tried to force states to correct them, mandating a series of interventions and eventually penalties for schools that didn't make progress.

Minnesota, for example, was (and still is) often praised for its excellent schools. But its overall good scores on standardized tests were obscuring a huge gap between black and white students, the second-worst such disparity in the nation.

"If we don’t have that information that’s generated by tests, we can’t work to make schools and systems more responsive to the needs of low-income kids and kids of color," said Daria Hall, director of K-12 policy for Education Trust, a group that strongly supports standardized testing as a civil rights issue.

Why national civil rights groups support testing

To civil rights groups, standardized tests are an important tool for pointing out — and hopefully fixing — those racial differences in achievement. No Child Left Behind helped reveal how black and Latino students, or students with disabilities, were performing on average, relative to the average performance of white students — and, perhaps more importantly, tried to require states to fix it.

Standardized tests "are the only available, consistent, and objective source of data about disparities in educational outcomes, even while vigilance is always required to ensure tests are not misused," a coalition of 12 national civil rights groups wrote in a May letter. "These data are used to advocate for greater resource equity in schools and more fair treatment for students of color, low-income students, students with disabilities, and English learners."

They concluded: "We cannot fix what we cannot measure."

The problem with the Senate bill, they say, is that it doesn't specify that states have to intervene if schools, or subgroups of students, are performing poorly on standardized tests. They fear that without such a requirement, states will once again ignore the persistent racial and economic achievement gaps.

But a backlash against standardized testing has spread to some civil rights groups too

Research suggests that in response to the high-stakes standardized tests in No Child Left Behind, school districts narrowed their curriculums to focus more strongly on reading and math, the most-tested subjects. And those effects were strongest at low-performing schools that tend to enroll a disproportionate number of poor and minority students.

So some civil rights activists argue that despite its good intentions, the law actually harmed the students it was meant to help.

"We don’t send our kids to school to become skilled test takers," William J. Barber, II, president of North Carolina's NAACP and a leader in the state's Moral Mondays movement, wrote in an op-ed in the Hill. "We pay our taxes and send our kids to public schools because we need future corporate CEOs, cardiologists and aerodynamic engineers, university presidents and school principals, urban planners and architects. Our sons and daughters can’t reach these heights when accountability in our education system hinges on standardized test scores, not cultivating intellectual opportunity."

In a letter to Senate leaders, more than 200 community organizations, nonprofits, and unions echoed that message, urging them to get rid of required standardized tests.

Many of the groups signing that letter have links to teachers unions, which have their own Why big civil rights groups think standardized testing is good for kids - Vox:

5 Things to know about the House-Senate No Child rewrites - Yahoo News

5 Things to know about the House-Senate No Child rewrites - Yahoo News:

5 Things to know about the House-Senate No Child rewrites

WASHINGTON (AP) — No one thinks it'll be easy, but the House and Senate are embarking on negotiations to merge two differing education bills that would rewrite the nation's much-criticized No Child Left Behind education law.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly approved its version of the education legislation, a week after the House passed a more conservative measure.

For years, Congress has tried to update the law. It expired in 2007, though its mandates remained in place. Critics have complained there is too much testing and the law is too punitive for schools deemed to be failing. The Obama administration began issuing waivers to dozens of states to get around some of the law's strictest requirements when it became clear they would not be met.

Here are five things to know about congressional efforts to replace No Child Left Behind:

____

THE SIMILARITIES

Both the House and Senate bills seek to significantly lessen the federal role in the nation's public schools.

Both would maintain the federally required annual tests in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, as well as science tests given three times between grades 3 and 12. The bills return to the states the power to determine whether and how to use those tests to assess the performance of schools, teachers and students — instead of having federally prescribed school improvement plans.

Another area of agreement: the Common Core academic standards.

The bills say the Education Department may not mandate or give states incentives to adopt or maintain any particular set of standards, such as Common Core. The Common Core standards were drafted by the states with the support of the administration but have become a rallying point for those who want a smaller federal role in education.

____

THE DIFFERENCES

The biggest difference in the two bills has to do with school choice and funding.

The House measure, sponsored by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., includes so-called portability. It allows federal money to follow low-income children to public schools of their choice instead of current law, which has those dollars remain at the struggling schools.

Democrats do not support the idea, and the Obama administration has made clear it won't back the House bill. Lawmakers voting on the Senate bill, sponsored by Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democrat Patty Murray of Washington, rejected the idea of adding portability to their measure.

____

THE WHITE HOUSE

The White House has threatened to veto the House measure. After the Senate version passed Thursday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan offered lukewarm praise for the Alexander-Murray bill.

Duncan and several civil rights groups had urged lawmakers to strengthen the accountability measures in the bill, but an amendment that aimed to do that was rejected by the Senate. It would have required states to identify the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools, public high schools where two-thirds or fewer students are graduating on time, and public schools where poor, disabled, minority, or English-language learning children were not meeting state achievement goals. States and schools would then have to design plans to turn around the schools.

Duncan pressed for changes once the bill goes to conference "to strengthen the bill before it reaches the president's desk."

____

THE VOTES

The Senate voted overwhelmingly for its education rewrite, by a vote of 81-17.

Fourteen Republicans voted against it, including presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

While it had the support of almost all Democrats, three voted against it: Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, New Jersey's Cory Booker and Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

The House vote was more partisan, 218-213. No Democrats supported the measure and 27 Republicans voted against it.

____

NEXT STEPS

Negotiating a compromise. The Senate and House will have to find consensus and merge the two bills.

After the Senate vote, Alexander, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, said, "There are some issues that are different, but I foresee a successful conference."

Said Kline, who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, "There is a lot of work that lies ahead, but I am confident we will find common ground and send a bill to the president's desk."5 Things to know about the House-Senate No Child rewrites - Yahoo News:

Are some charter schools putting profits before students education? | The Opinion Zone

Are some charter schools putting profits before students education? | The Opinion Zone:

Are some charter schools putting profits before students education?

For the better part of a decade now, pleas to Florida legislators and education officials to take a more cautious approach to charter school growth has largely fallen on deaf ears. Such pleas have mostly been written off as sour grapes from traditional public school advocates afraid of change.

Never mind that local districts are left with the costly fallout when a taxpayer-funded, privately run school falls into financial or operational difficulties. Too often, it’s the district that must pacify irate parents and absorb their children back into a public school, after the state money to educate them is lost.

That may not be the fate of the 680-student Eagle Arts Academy in Wellington in the wake of allegations its founder was cashing in as the school struggled to open last year, but the revelations drive an even bigger wedge between local charter advocates and the Palm Beach County School District charged with overseeing their schools’ success.

Gregory James Blount, chairman of the board of directors of Eagle Arts Academy during a board meeting for the charter school last month. (Bill Ingram / Palm Beach Post)

As The Post’s Andrew Marra reported, Eagle Arts founder and board Chairman Gregory James Blount awarded one of his companies a contract to design the art school’s curriculum. Blount had no education background, but his company made more than $125,000 off that contract. Another company Blount owns earned $7,500 from the school in consulting fees and stands to earn thousands in interest from a reported loan it made to the school for nearly $39,000.

Blount — who emerged from personal bankruptcy in 2010 — says he “made mistakes” but defended his business deals. The former model and events producer said that he deserved compensation for his efforts to start the school.

He also says he will recommend to the school’s governing board that it conduct its own forensic accounting investigation, after learning that the school district’s inspector general opened a probe this week.

That makes it an issue for the district’s new superintendent.

Even if Blount did nothing illegal, Schools Superintendent Robert Avossa told The Post Editorial Board Thursday that it was important to ask, “Is it immoral, unethical? “

“People say it’s a charter school and the district has very little oversight, but the public still looks to us for Are some charter schools putting profits before students education? | The Opinion Zone:

The Principle That United GOP, Teachers Unions -- NYMag

The Principle That United GOP, Teachers Unions -- NYMag:

What Is Bringing Together Republicans and Teachers Unions

In 2010, Diane Ravitch, an activist for the most militantly anti-reform wing of the teachers-union movement, wrote a Wall Street Journal op-edproposing that Republicans use their newfound control of the House of Representatives to roll back the Obama administration’s education reforms. Since then, the union backlash against the Obama administration’s agenda has gained force. Yesterday, it manifested itself in a Senate vote in which Republicans and the unions worked in more open cooperation – against the Obama administration and civil-rights groups allied with it – than at any time in the past.

You should read Libby Nelson’s terrific explanation of the dynamics behind the vote. The gist of the alliance is that both the Republicans and the unions want to reduce the federal government’s ability to direct the course of education policy. Nelson detected an interesting rhetorical confluence:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who now leads the Senate education committee, has a favorite epithet for how Duncan has used his power. Alexander is fond of saying that Duncan created a "national school board."
Eskelen García echoed Alexander, hardly an ideological ally, in a Thursday interview. "Nobody elected the education secretary to be the national superintendent of schools or the national school board," she said.

What makes this alliance significant is that Republicans and the unions have joined not only to defeat a common enemy but in support of a common principle: local control. In this case, local control means that schools should be free of accountability requirements from Washington that force them to measure student and teacher achievement. Those accountability measures, which the Obama administration has spread through its Race to the Top grants and use of waivers from No Child Left Behind to encourage states to reform their education policies have unsettled traditional union contracts. The Obama administration’s reforms have forced schools to differentiate between effective and ineffective schools and effective and ineffective teachers. Unions prefer traditional contracts that pay teachers on the basis of seniority rather than effectiveness, and make it difficult or sometimes functionally impossible to fire ineffective teachers.

Ravitch’s Journal op-ed uses the word “local” seven times, and argues that many in Congress “understand that their public schools are the heart of their community and that local problems are best addressed by local solutions.” She shrewdly recognizes the instinctive Republican affinity for this principle. Liberals, of course, tend to oppose local control, because it The Principle That United GOP, Teachers Unions -- NYMag:

Latest News and Comment from Education

Friday, July 17, 2015