CURMUDGUCATION: Campbell Brown Snubbed Again

CURMUDGUCATION: Campbell Brown Snubbed Again: "Campbell Brown Snubbed Again"

Campbell Brown Snubbed Again

Campbell Brown, journalist caterpillar transformed into reformster butterfly, has been snubbed again.

When Brown set up her website, one of her stated goals was to help drive the political discussion of education. With an eye toward the 2016 Presidential race, she had set up two educati0n discussions for candidates-- one in New Hampshire for the GOP, and one in Iowa for the Dems.

But this morning Politico announced that the Iowa beauty pageant has been snubbed. None of the five candidates (come on-- did you even know there were five of them) have RSVP-ed. In fact, most have not even called to say "Nothankyouverymuch."

Writer Michael Grunwald is assisting Brown in painting the snub as the result of pressure from those pernicious unions, and while it's certainly true that Brown, in her new role of Rhee Lite, has not won any union love, I'd like to offer another explanation.

The NH beauty pageant happened, but it was not exactly a rousing success. Of the something-teen GOP candidates alive and kicking at the time, Brown scored just six-- Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, Jindal, and Walker. Millions of viewers did not tune in or log on, and no news was made. And yet then-- and now-- Brown did not offer any explanation for why ten-or-more GOP candidates did not come out to play with her. But Iowa is simply not the first and only time she's been snubbed playing this Presidential job interviewer game.

I admire Brown's guts-- she has tried to make herself into a major campaign player just by insisting that she is. But her attempt failed.

Sure, "Those unions are out to get me because I'm so big and scary, so I must be really important" makes a good narrative for keeping her brand alive. It's certainly more energizing than, "No CURMUDGUCATION: Campbell Brown Snubbed Again: "Campbell Brown Snubbed Again"



All the Feels


One hallmark of reformsterism has been the relentless insistence on data and research. Decisions must be data-driven, while programs must be research-based. We must make the delivery system of education just as scientific and mechanical and bloodless as a toaster assembly line.

Which is why it has been so curious to see all the reformster feelings on display. Deep feelings. Heartfelt feelings. Just the announcement of the departure of Arne Duncan and his replacement by failing-upward poster boy John King has been a feeling-fest. Just, really, all the feels.

Duncan's announcement included a whole list of things he loves. With tears. The Politico profile is just full of the feels, with Ted Mitchell tearing up, and a hammering home of a point often made about Duncan-- that he just cares so much. He cares about kids. In fact, some folks in the USED circle are certain that nobody anywhere on the planet cares about the kids as much as Duncan does. And I can actually believe that, well, he thinks so. It would frankly explain a lot-- Duncan the righteous crusader who doesn't have to listen to anybody because nobody cares like he does. And so Duncan can ignore all the research based evidence that would suggest VAM should be data-driven over a cliff-- he can ignore that. And he can keep puzzling over why schools have become so test-focused even as lots of people try to tell him. And he can keep bragging about only the United States Education Department-- not teachers or schools or even parents-- will tell the truth about how kids are doing.

All of that because Duncan just cares so much more than everyone else.

And the feels just keep on coming as we contemplate the anointing of John King, who like many All the Feels




LA: How To PARCC Up Parents

One of the ongoing challenges of selling the Big Standardized Test is trying to convince folks that the BS Tests are generating some sort of real data. With that in mind, the Louisiana Department of Education has whipped up an awesome video to model how teachers should try to convince parents that the PARCC exam wasn't a huge waste of everyone's time and money.

Emily Martin will be our teacher exemplar; some poor uncredited woman plays the part of Jonah's mom. Emily will show us how to have "an effective parent conversation" about the upcoming PARCC scores (hey-- that must mean they're finally being released! cool!).

Martin opens with a cheerful greeting and delivers some small talk about really enjoyinghavingjohnnyinclasshe'salotoffunokayletsjustetonwithit. Her delivery needs some work, but hey-- she has the highly complex PARCC data on her mind.

Martin says that she wants to be sure that Mom understands the information in the PARCC report from the test that Jonah took last year. She has a packet!! With her name and email on it. The packet looks to be actually a file folder, and the contents would be about two pieces of paper. But Martin has included her name and e-mail on a card. Plus the URL for the Louisiana Believes website.

Jonah's mom starts working her line, because in this "conversation," the parent part seems to be LA: How To PARCC Up Parents

A Veteran Teacher Asks: Why Does NEA Still Support Common Core? - Living in Dialogue

A Veteran Teacher Asks: Why Does NEA Still Support Common Core? - Living in Dialogue:

A Veteran Teacher Asks: Why Does NEA Still Support Common Core? 

By Sergio Flores.

My name is Sergio Flores, I have been a public school teacher for thirty-nine years. Ten years in Mexico and the rest in California in LAUSD and WCSD where I teach fifth grade now. I have been a member of NEA and CTA since 1991.

Six erratic years of Common Core State Standards have tens of thousands of parents and students feeling cheated, teachers more demoralized, and district officials troubled by the projected cost of testing alone. Enraged parents of the New York’s schools posting abysmal scores in the past two years brought national attention to irregularities of both the CCSS and their tests. In protest, 40,000 students opted out of the CCSS testing for next year[i]. In addition, in Chicago and Seattle, Florida, Ohio, New York, and New Jersey thousands of teachers have protested and even rejected to be part of the SBAC or PARCC testing[ii]. On top of these problems, now districts face a new expense to provide the computerized testing system. The cost of tests, bandwidth infrastructure, and devices in California alone may reach a billion dollar annually. [iii] So, in the face of this slow motion train wreck, I ask: why is NEA on board with Common Core?

Navigating the NEA website section Common Core State Standards (CCSS) gave me the impression of reading a paid promotional brochure. There are several subsections, articles, and informative videos explaining and promoting CCSS. Contrasting with the CCSS presence in the NEA website, the institution of public education receives minor attention.

Everything on the NEA section seems all right or innocuous; after all, it is information for NEA members. The CCSS “highlights” subsection stands out with a tool kit with links to CCSS materials; a Student Achievement Partners website full of free materials to better understand and implement CCSS; a list of propaganda 

Amplify and the Cost of Going Public for Private Education Companies - US News

Amplify and the Cost of Going Public for Private Education Companies - US News:

Public Goals, Private Ownership

For education companies, the costs of going public often outweigh the benefits.

In the education world, "public" is the thing. We idealize public schools. People who work in public education but send their children to private schools are often quietly – or not so quietly – judged by their peers (even as those peers sometimes quietly make the same choices). Many of today's educational flashpoints are about how to maintain the "publicness" of public education as its deliverybecomes increasingly diverse. 

But when education technology behemoth Amplify announced last week it was being sold by News Corp and being taken private by a group of investors and employees, it became the latest example of a previously successful private education company encountering trouble when it became a public company.

Amplify's prime component was the successful and well-regarded Wireless Generation – a company providing a range of ed tech and student assessment services for schools. News Corp bought 90 percent of Wireless in 2010 for $360 million (a figure some analysts believed was an overvaluing of the company). There are plenty of reasons Amplify ran up on the shoals. Education is an inherently difficult business, the Wireless business model was not the same one Amplify pursued, the company grew too fast, and some of the tools and products Amplify offered were just too far in front of the schools market right now.

Wireless also had ideas and products that were out in front, but had successful core businesses to create space for the company to innovate elsewhere. What Wireless didn't have was the constant pressure of stock prices, earning expectations and the short-term thinking plaguing public companies right now.

[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Economy]

There are, of course, examples of education companies that have gone public and thrived. Chegg, 2U, Blackboard, Bright Horizons and many of American education's big publishers are examples. And the capital an initial public offering brings can lead to more investment in innovation. Meanwhile, plenty of privately held education companies struggle. But there are enough high-profile failures in the private to Amplify and the Cost of Going Public for Private Education Companies - US News:

Schools Matter: New Orleans Charter Caste System

Schools Matter: New Orleans Charter Caste System:

New Orleans Charter Caste System

When the profiteers and venture paternalists moved into New Orleans to patch together their corporate system of schooling in the wake of Katrina, they had an opportunity to break the mold and create a socioeconomically-integrated and diverse system, or to design a corporate welfare system that mirrors the long held hierarchy based on unearned privilege, economic exploitation, and racial oppression. 

A new report from Stanford outlines clearly which road the corporate reform schoolers chose, and it was not the one less traveled by the predatory pedagogical pretenders.  See charts below.



Not only have the corrupt and arrogant CorpEd losers created a rigid caste system of schooling, but they have imported Wall Street methods of accountability, as shown in this clip from the report provided by Jan Resseger:

“A constantly changing set of metrics in terms of how student scores are reported (with recent changes in cut scores and content) and how school ratings are reported (with several sets of changes to the school ranking system) have contributed to competing narratives about the effectiveness of reforms in the years since Katrina.  SSchools Matter: New Orleans Charter Caste System:

 

A Few Reflections Upon Secretary Duncan's Departure :: Frederick M. Hess

A Few Reflections Upon Secretary Duncan's Departure :: Frederick M. Hess:

A Few Reflections Upon Secretary Duncan's Departure 

Rather than once again address Arne Duncan's tenure as Secretary of Education, today I'm inclined to offer a couple of more personal musings. After all, while I've often been disappointed by Duncan's Department (and been a thorn in its side), there have been more rewarding moments. I remember Duncan coming to AEI in 2010, a couple weeks after the elections, to give a terrific speech on the "new normal" in education and the need for schools to find ways to do more with less. I recall when Peter Cunningham, Duncan's whip-smart comms chief, was kind enough to invite Andrew Kelly and me over to the Department of Education for a town hall to discuss the lessons about the federal role in education that we took from our 2012 bookCarrots, Sticks, and the Bully Pulpit. I recall fiercely defending Duncan against the inane, childish protest he faced a couple years ago at the American Educational Research Association annual conference . . . and he and I having a good go on the Common Core a couple years ago at the University of Chicago, and a fruitful exchange after.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't know Duncan well. But I first met him more than a decade ago in Chicago, and he has always struck me as wholly committed to serving the nation's students the best way he knows how. I believe that he has always sought to do the right thing for our nation's students. That acknowledgment is important because I'm afraid we've largely lost the ability— in education as elsewhere— to disagree about important questions without doubting one another's integrity and goodwill.

I know that the actions that struck me as counterproductive or even destructive— like federal efforts to push the Common Core or offer "free" community college— struck Duncan as no-brainers. I understand that he thought it would be a betrayal if he didn't do everything he could to push states to do this stuff, and that he saw my concerns about the appropriate federal role, the perils of bureaucratization, or the consequences of rushing half-baked policies into practice as a distraction or an excuse for inaction. I grant his sincerity, even as I profoundly disagree with much that he did. (I do wish Duncan had been equally inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to those who differed with him on questions like pre-K, Title I portability, or Common Core and less prone to denounce them as a morally bankrupt lunatic fringe.)

In fact, there's a larger question here about mutual goodwill. The other week, POLITICO ran anenthusiastic profile of Duncan. I was struck by how many in Duncan's circle truly seemed to believe that he possessed an unprecedented concern for the nation's children. As I observed, "The danger with becoming convinced of one's unique goodness is that it becomes only natural to dismiss those who disagree as insufficiently A Few Reflections Upon Secretary Duncan's Departure :: Frederick M. Hess:

Suit: Halt state takeover of Little Rock School District

Suit: Halt state takeover of Little Rock School District:

Suit: Halt state takeover of Little Rock School District

Filing calls for LR School Board’s return, claims racial bias

A team of attorneys led by civil-rights attorney John Walker on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit to reverse the January state takeover of the Little Rock School District and stop the development of both traditional and charter schools in west Little Rock.

The suit, filed against state and Little Rock School District leaders on behalf of a group of parents, students and two displaced Little Rock School Board members, also seeks an end to "unconstitutional policies and practices" in the Little Rock district in regard to the condition of school facilities, student discipline, distribution of student computers, configuration of high school attendance zones, faculty-member and student assignments to schools, the operation of the Hamilton Learning Academy, and other facets of the district's operation.

"This is an action to secure a remedy for the subjecting of black students enrolled in the Little Rock School District to intentional racial discrimination, in the period after courts held that the LRSD had achieved unitary status," the 71-page lawsuit begins.

The Little Rock district was declared unitary, or desegregated, by a federal district judge in 2007, and that ruling was affirmed by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009.

"This action also seeks a remedy for the state's takeover of the LRSD and the ouster of the democratically elected LRSD [School Board]," the suit continues. "Plaintiffs allege that these actions violated the United States Constitution (denial of freedom of speech, prohibited racial discrimination, conspiracy to violate rights, badge of slavery, and denial of due process of law)," the suit says.

The suit was filed late Wednesday afternoon and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who is a former presiding judge in the long-running 1982 federal school desegregation lawsuit involving all three Pulaski County school districts. Wright stepped down from that case in 2002.

Wednesday's federal lawsuit was filed on the eve of an Arkansas Supreme Court hearing at 9 a.m. today in a Pulaski County circuit court lawsuit that also is challenging the Jan. 28 decision by the Arkansas Board of Education to assume control of the Little Rock district. The Supreme Court hearing centers on whether state leaders can be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The state Education Board dismissed the seven-member elected School Board and placed the district's superintendent under the direction of the Arkansas education commissioner. The takeover was the result of six of the district's 48 schools being classified by the state as academically distressed because of chronically low test scores on state math and literacy exams.

Two of the plaintiffs in the suit are displaced School Board members Joy Springer and Jim Ross, both elected in contested elections in September 2014, just before the state takeover.

Other plaintiffs are a grandparent, four parents and their children, all of whom are black and all of whose identities are withheld with the exception of the grandparent, Claudius Johnson.

The parents are listed as Lakesha Doe, Evelyn Doe, Candice Doe and Sonya Doe. The reason for listing the plaintiff families as Does "is to prevent the minor students who are still enrolled in LRSD from being subjected to adverse treatment from students or district employees because of their participation in this action," the suit said.

The lawsuit describes some details of each student's schooling and ways in which they have been treated unequally compared with white students in the Little Rock district.

Student "Dennis Doe" for example is 15 and a student at Central High. Last year, he was enrolled in a high school labeled as academically distressed, according to the case.

He was subjected to discipline "for false reasons" during the 2014-15 school year. He and "approximately 37 other black students" were recommended for school suspensions because of accumulated citations for tardiness, the result of which would be missed instruction. His mother was not notified of the citations and had to go through multiple levels of appeals to set aside the suspension.

Further, the suit says that "Dennis Doe" sought to attend schools not labeled as academically distressed, but that white students from surrounding districts were given priority for enrollment at those schools. The suit says the schools that "Dennis Doe" and the other plaintiff students Suit: Halt state takeover of Little Rock School District:

Schools in Transition: A Guide to Support Transgender Students in K-12 - NEA Today

Schools in Transition: A Guide to Support Transgender Students in K-12 - NEA Today:

Schools in Transition: A Guide to Support Transgender Students in K-12

Most students are on autopilot when it comes to the daily routine of high school. They file into first period, go from class to class, banter in the hallway, eat lunch, and take the occasional bathroom break. The transitions are processes that for the most part require little thought.

For James van Kuilenburg, it’s slightly different, as one of those transitions could very well be the most important decision he will make that day. What’s at stake? His safety.

“I rarely use the male bathroom. It’s scary,” says van Kuilenburg, who came out as transgender in 2012. “There’s a lot of assault—and sexual assault—in bathrooms. This isn’t just in public spaces; this happens in schools, as well.”

A 2013 national school climate survey conducted by GLSEN identifies the rate of verbal and physical harassment by gender identity. The findings indicate that transgender students are far more likely than other students (63 percent vs. 40 percent) to avoid bathrooms because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Common forms of harassment include confrontation about using a particular restroom, homophobic and transphobic insults, people attempting to look at them while in stalls, and physical assault.

When van Kuilenburg does go, he says, “It’s like a “life or death situation.” He’s analyzing everyone’s moves. He questions: “What’s the person next to me doing? If I walk in one direction, what could happen?”  If he fears for his life, he won’t go. This prevents him from being fully engaged in the classroom—half-listening to a lesson. It also leads to severe dehydration.  But his story is not all about school bathrooms. It’s about school climate and the role educators play in creating a safe and welcoming environment for all students.

A Roadmap

Many advocates say that progress has been made, but more still needs to be done. Teachers, parents, and students need to be educated, as reports from around the country continue to show parents protesting schools for allowing students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, or, in extreme cases, parents are bullying children.

To help the school community, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) andGender Spectrum, along with HRC Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Education Association, recently produced Schools In Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools.

The guide is a roadmap for educators and parents to provide safe and supportive Schools in Transition: A Guide to Support Transgender Students in K-12 - NEA Today:

Lou LaBrant and Teacher Education’s Enduring Legacy | the becoming radical

Lou LaBrant and Teacher Education’s Enduring Legacy | the becoming radical:

Lou LaBrant and Teacher Education’s Enduring Legacy

A colleague of Louise Rosenblatt at New York University, Lou LaBrant faced mandatory retirement when she turned 65 in 1953. Reflecting on her work at NYU as a teacher educator from 1942-1953, LaBrant wrote in 1988 “Public School 65, Down on the Lower East Side” as she turned 100.

LaBrant noted “that [New York City] requirements seemed to me inadequate for those who already spoke the language clearly but needed a richer background” (p. 6). Candidates for teaching English, LaBrant argued, needed greater linguistic understanding and experiences grounded in the complex Germanic and Latinate roots of English.

But other regulations also impeding LaBrant’s goals, including restrictions on the number of student teachers placed in each school. Circumventing that restriction, however, LaBrant placed 6 teacher candidates at “P.S. 65, a junior high school on the Lower East Side, known as one of the worst slum areas in the city” (p. 7). LaBrant then explained her choice (p. 7):

Next, LaBrant built her program and the experience for the student teachers on the characteristics of the students being taught—a progressive and student-centered approach toscientific education. The students at P.S. 65, they found, had very limited experiences with the wider city, lived in cramped and poorly lit housing, had no books or reading materials in the home, had life experience unlike the national research on student reading interests, and attended a school in which “[t]eachers did not welcome an assignment to the area and within ten minutes after the final gong were on their way to the subway to avoid the five o’clock rush” (p. 8).

In that context, LaBrant’s program included taking students on bus trips to explore the city, having librarians provide students time and opportunities to examine and choose books that matched their interests, committing to not requiring book reports, and creating an overarching goal that “[s]chool was to become a pleasant place” for students and their teachers.

Key, as well, was LaBrant’s rejecting deficit views of race, literacy, and poverty that pervaded popular practices: “This simple program did not depend on the theories about word count, word recognition, left-handedness, or any of the educational fads then popular” (p. 9). This “simple” approach to teaching reading was a hallmark of LaBrant’s work, including herrejecting reading programs as “costume parties” (LaBrant, 1949).

And while LaBrant admitted she did not know the long-term results of her work, she did note Lou LaBrant and Teacher Education’s Enduring Legacy | the becoming radical:

NEA hosts reception for United We Dream - Lily's Blackboard

NEA hosts reception for United We Dream - Lily's Blackboard:

NEA hosts reception for United We Dream

On Friday, October 2, I welcomed United We Dream to NEA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. for a reception honoring their important work of organizing and advocating on behalf of immigrant youth and their families. NEA presented a donation of $11,384 to United We Dream Advocacy Director Greisa Martinez. All proceeds from sales of my book, Rabble Rousers- Agitadores, are donated to United We Dream.

Here’s what I said:

It can be a lot to take in, but it’s your dedication and commitment that drives you…as educators…as people working together for a common cause.

From the very beginning, our mission has never changed: we wake up every day set on doing whatever we can to ensure that our students have every opportunity to learn, to grow, to succeed.

And that is the essence of who we are. We are the NEA. We are rabble rousers; the social justice activists; the true believers.

We can all make a difference. We can all make our mark on the world.

One way I chose to make a difference is by writing my book, Rabble Rousers…Fearless Fighters for Social Justice. It chronicles ordinary people who dared to dream! They moved the masses and fought to change the world from what it was into what it should be.

And their stories can influence students…those seeking true heroes…people they can see themselves in. I wrote Rabble Rousers to educate and inspire them.

But I also wanted to continue to give back. So all the proceeds from the book go to United We Dream. It is the largest immigrant, youth-led organization in America. They organize and advocate for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth and families, regardless of status.

The work you do is critical. You make a difference in the lives of many. Back in January we gave United We Dream more than $16,000. And we want to keep it going! Pay it forward. Ms. Martinez, I’m very honored to present you with this second donation of $11,384 to support your cause.

The struggle for social justice is real. We see it in the headlines every day. We see it in the battles on Capitol Hill. The question is: what are we going to make things better? What are we going to do to ensure equity and great public schools for every student?

Nothing can stop the mission that’s written in our hearts.

Let’s get to work. Go, fight, win! Mil gracias!

Learn more about United We Dream

Learn more about Rabble Rousers: Fearless Fighters for Social Justice

NEA hosts reception for United We Dream - Lily's Blackboard:

Bowing to unions, 2016 Dems skip Campbell Brown’s education forum

Bowing to unions, 2016 Dems skip Campbell Brown’s education forum:

Bowing to unions, 2016 Dems skip Campbell Brown’s education forum

Democratic presidential candidates are blowing off an education forum that anchorwoman-turned-activist Campbell Brown was expected to host in Iowa this month, and Brown blames pressure from traditionally Democratic teachers unions eager to move the party away from President Barack Obama’s school reforms.



In August, six Republican candidates appeared at a New Hampshire forum sponsored by Brown’s education reform news site, The Seventy Four, along with the school choice advocacy group the American Federation for Children. Those groups had announced a similar October event for Democrats in conjunction with the Des Moines Register, but the former CNN anchor said that none of the candidates would commit to attend even in principle before last week’s deadline, and that operatives from several campaigns told her privately that the unions had urged them to stay away.



Obama and his outgoing education secretary, Arne Duncan, have often pursued policies that unions hate, like promoting charter schools and linking teacher evaluations to student test scores. Unions are also angry about Obama’s decision to replace Duncan with his like-minded deputy, John King. Brown has battled with unions as well, and she said the decisions by Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and the other Democrats to skip her event reflected their discomfort with Obama’s education agenda and their fear of the unions.



“What happened here is very clear: The teachers unions have gotten to these candidates,” Brown told POLITICO. “All we asked is that these candidates explain their vision for public education in this country, and how we address the inequality that leaves so many poor children behind. … President [Barack] Obama certainly never cowered to the unions. Even if they disagree with the president’s reforms, you would think these candidates would at least have the courage to make the case.”



None of the campaigns would discuss the forum on the record. Union officials Bowing to unions, 2016 Dems skip Campbell Brown’s education forum:

Arne Duncan’s bipartisan legacy: Attracting vitriol from the right and the left | Brookings Institution

Arne Duncan’s bipartisan legacy: Attracting vitriol from the right and the left | Brookings Institution:

Arne Duncan’s bipartisan legacy: Attracting vitriol from the right and the left

More than Margaret Spellings or Rod Paige, Arne Duncan was a bipartisan institution—he attracted vitriol from the right and the left. Was he a conservative sell-out? Foes on the left like Fenwick English, Kenneth Saltman, and the National Education Association thought so. Was he an imperious, waiver-happy Common Core evangelist? Christel Swaseyand Glenn Beck pushed that line. For opponents, Duncan was the very personification of ill-intentioned educational reforms. But—for Common Core, ESEA, and educational assessment—Duncan’s retirement will clear the cruft of seven years and reinvigorate each of these, but on their own terms.

Of these policy areas, the Common Core State Standards probably suffered the most due to their identification with Duncan and—in Sen. Lamar Alexander’s words—the “national school board” that was his Department of Education. Education Week spoofed Duncan two years running for his over-the-top claims about the Common Core, The widely-read anti-Core blog by Christel Swasey hammered Duncan for “lies” about the Common Core.  Michael Petrilli at the pro-standards Fordham Institute lamented that Duncan’s activity was detrimental to the Core’s success. “It’s not smart politics to feed this narrative that the Education Department is driving this train,”he said — a perception that Duncan reinforced, if unwittingly. In the summer of 2013, Duncan made something of a speaking tour blasting opponents as the “black helicopter” crowd and chastising standards backers for their flaccid support. With their federal cheerleader gone, Core supporters might be able to restore some credibility to their argument that the standards were state-led.

Duncan also became the face of waivers. Many conservatives saw Duncan’s use of ESEA waivers as another manifestation of Obama’s “lawless” government. Conservatives saw Duncan using waivers to badger states into accepting the Common Core (see the Oklahoma debacle) or the federally-funded testing consortia, PARCC and SBAC.  But the waivers also gave some Democrats pause—especially those from civil rights groups. Others on the left saw waivers as Duncan’s vehicle to expand  charter schools and teacher evaluation.  It is not for nothing that both the House and Senate versions of the ESEA’s long-overdue reauthorization explicitly limit future waivers. 

Finally, Duncan’s enthusiasm for test-driven accountability enraged some liberal opponents and prompted dazed blog posts from progressives about Duncan’s “corporate backers.” Although Duncan was not the first to champion test-based accountability, he pushed it in new, unsettling directions.  Teachers’ unions were especially angered over his eagerness to evaluate teachers. NYSUT president Karen Magee told supporters that the tests had opened a “war” that she intended to win. “Brothers and sisters, we didn’t start this war, but with your help, we will end it,” she said. The NEA beat her to it in 2011 when members were “appalled”with Secretary Duncan’s support of test-based accountability. In 2014, they called for his resignation for this reason. The tests became tied to him; anything that teachers, parents, or politicians did not like about the tests were tied to the Secretary. Duncan’s departure mightoffer an opening for test supporters to soften their appeal.

Arne Duncan has been one of President Obama’s most faithful secretaries, following him from Chicago to the White House. Obama has been likewise steadfast. Until the secretary lost the battle over college assessment this summer, Duncan had an amazing run of policy Arne Duncan’s bipartisan legacy: Attracting vitriol from the right and the left | Brookings Institution:

The Obama Education Legacy :: Frederick M. Hess

The Obama Education Legacy :: Frederick M. Hess:

The Obama Education Legacy

Last week, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced his resignation. With Congress controlled by the Republicans and the administration having run out of stimulus cash, played its "waiver" card, and been rebuffed on plans to use its college scorecard to impose NCLB for higher ed, things are winding down. Things could still happen— most significantly ESEA reauthorization— but we're getting close to the time when Department of Ed staff will be on caretaker status. That makes this a propitious moment, especially as the campaign for 2016 begins in earnest, to examine the Obama education legacy.

The most recent issue of the quarterly National Affairs contains an extended essay offering my own take. It begins,

President Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009 with great hope and promise. Education reform, in particular, seemed set to benefit. Candidate Obama had made a point of using education to illustrate that he was championing "investment" rather than mere government "spending" and was eager to find bipartisan solutions. The education landscape seemed ready for that kind of leadership. As Jeb Bush declared in 2009, "I'm excited. . . because I think for the first time in my political life, there seems to be more consensus than disagreement across the ideological spectrum about education reform."

Arne Duncan, Obama's choice for secretary of education, drew widespread praise. At Duncan's confirmation hearing, Republican senator (and former secretary of education) Lamar Alexander said, "President-elect Obama has made several distinguished Cabinet appointments. From my view of it all, I think you are the best." And influential Republicans endorsed Obama's early efforts. In a telling example, Newt Gingrich joined Duncan and Al Sharpton in 2009 on a multi-city school tour to support Obama's education agenda and lend it a bipartisan gloss.

Some of Obama's early moves suggested he would indeed be a "post-partisan" education reformer. His appointees to the Department of Education were a talented bunch, drawing heavily from the "reform" wing of the Democratic Party and reaching beyond the Beltway bubble. He did things that aren't easy for a Democrat on the national stage to do: He advocated charter schools, tussled with the teacher unions, and went after the schools of education. The administration sporadically tried to reduce the paper burden on school districts, had a secretary of education who (for a brief time) said schools needed to find ways to do more with less, and enjoyed some admirable success in increasing the role of evidence in making education funding decisions.

Obama also made powerful use of his own background to challenge America to do right by vulnerable children— and to challenge those children and their parents to do their part. He insisted that, when it comes to helping "boys and young men of color who are having a particularly tough time...government cannot play the only— or even the primary— role." He said, "We can help give every child access to quality preschool. . . but we can't replace the power of a parent who's reading to that child. We can reform our criminal justice The Obama Education Legacy :: Frederick M. Hess:

Despite NEA's Nod To Clinton, Vermont Teachers' Union Still Supports Sanders | Vermont Public Radio

Despite NEA's Nod To Clinton, Vermont Teachers' Union Still Supports Sanders | Vermont Public Radio:

Despite NEA's Nod To Clinton, Vermont Teachers' Union Still Supports Sanders

Vermont's teachers union plans to actively support Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign even though their national organization, the NEA, has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

An effort by the Vermont NEA to postpone the endorsement of Clinton by the national union — the largest in the nation — was not successful.

The Vermont NEA was an early supporter of Sanders' presidential campaign. Less than a month after his official announcement, the group formally endorsed his candidacy.

Martha Allen is the president of the Vermont NEA. She's spent the last few months lobbying her colleagues across the country to support Sanders' presidential bid.

But when the national Board of Directors met last week, Allen says it was clear that the group was going to endorse Hillary Clinton. That's why Allen proposed a motion to delay any endorsement for several months.

"He seems to be gaining headway steadily and he's not showing a sign of slowing down. I thought it was important to wait a couple of months to see how things were going in both camps and then re-evaluate whether we should make an endorsement," Allen said.

Allen says Sanders has always had a strong record on educational issues of concern to her group and she says his policies to address income inequality are a top priority for Vermont's teachers.

"He's always been speaking about this throughout his career. He doesn't change with the tide — I think that that he is genuine in what he says and I think that is what is appealing to our members."

Allen says there's no way that her group can support the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the national teachers organization.

"I don't see how my membership could abandon Bernie's campaign and jump on Despite NEA's Nod To Clinton, Vermont Teachers' Union Still Supports Sanders | Vermont Public Radio:

D.C. charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood schools - The Washington Post

D.C. charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood schools - The Washington Post:

D.C. charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood schools

Nearly 90 percent of charter elementary schools serve a smaller portion of students considered “at risk” than their neighboring traditional public schools, according to a new analysis by the District of Columbia’s Office of Revenue Analysis.

The analysis, posted on the District, Measured blog, found that 47 out of 53 public charter elementary schools (or elementary-middle school campuses) last year enrolled a smaller share of at-risk students than the traditional school whose attendance zone they were located in.

The analysis adds a new perspective to ongoing debates about whether charter schools and traditional schools serve comparable populations.

Students considered “at risk of academic failure” — a new category being used in the District — include those who are in foster care or homeless, who are receiving welfare benefits or food stamps, or who are performing at least a year behind in high school. The D.C. Council has approved extra funding for these students, because they have greater needs and are considered harder to serve.

In a report of its demographic data, the D.C. Public Charter School Board says on its Web site:  “Charter schools serve a student body that is equally or at times more disadvantaged, while outperforming DCPS [D.C. Public Schools].” The Web site notes that D.C. charter schools serve a greater proportion of African American students and comparable percentages of special education students and at-risk students.

While traditional and charter schools serve about the same proportion of at-risk students overall, the students are spread out differently.

The share of at-risk students in traditional schools varies greatly — from 1 to 90 percent. There are very few at-risk students attending elementary schools in affluent neighborhoods in Northwest, where there are no charter schools. D.C. charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood schools - The Washington Post: