Choosing an Education President

Politicians running for president nearly always claim that their education platform is based on concern and care for the children of America. They claim, using the language of their choice, that they want to be the "Education President" (See George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) and speak about "education for a global economy."

President Obama and Governor Romney are no exception. What are their platforms for education and what can we expect to see in a second Obama administration or a Romney administration?

Obama's (Democratic) platform promises more of the same as the last 4 years.

The Democratic Party understands the importance of turning around struggling public schools. We will continue to strengthen all our schools and work to expand public school options for low-income youth, including magnet schools, charter schools, teacher-led schools, and career academies.

...includes raising standards for the programs that prepare our teachers, recognizing and rewarding good teaching...We also believe in carefully crafted evaluation systems that give struggling teachers a chance to succeed

During the Obama administration "turning around struggling public schools" has meant firing staffs, and/or selling off public educational institutions to private companies and expanding charter schools. "Carefully crafted evaluation systems" means evaluating teachers based on test scores. Neither of those "reforms" has a research base indicating success. Charters perform no better, on average, than public schools and VAM evaluation processes have been found to be invalid.

The Republican platform upon which Romney is running promises,

School choice – whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits – is important for all children...

...We support legislation that will correct the current law provision which defines a “Highly Qualified Teacher” merely by his or her credentials, not results in the classroom. We urge school districts to make use of teaching talent in business, STEM fields, and in the military, especially among our returning veterans. Rigid tenure systems based on the “last in, first out” policy should be replaced with a merit-based approach...

Again, like the Democrats, we see turn-arounds leading to charters, and student test scores being used to evaluate teachers (merit pay). The Republicans add vouchers, and specifically denounce teachers unions.

Neither party has an interest in saving public education...both are intent on selling public education to the highest bidder through corporate charters and/or vouchers. Chris Hedges believes that it's system-wide, not just education.

We will all swallow our cup of corporate poison. We can take it from nurse Romney, who will tell us not to whine and play the victim, or we can take it from nurse Obama, who will assure us that this hurts him even more than it hurts us, but one way or another the corporate hemlock will be shoved down our throats. The choice before us is how it will be administered. Corporate power, no matter who is running the ward after January 2013, is poised to carry out U.S. history’s most savage assault against the poor and the working class, not to mention the Earth’s ecosystem. And no one in power, no matter what the bedside manner, has any intention or ability to stop it.

NEA President, Dennis Van Roekel is currently traveling the campaign trail with Arne Duncan, the Obama's "reformer" Secretary of Education. Duncan's Race to the Top is nothing more than a plan to charterize public schools and de-professionalize public school teachers.

The Democrats will continue to throw money into the Race to the Top, while the Republicans will let public education starve. In either case, the privatization will continue. Van Roekel, the president of America's largest teachers union, is following one of the prime destroyers of public education in order to get more money for corporate charters and privatization.

You might choose another reason to vote for Obama or Romney, but either way the privatization of public education (and the rest of the country's public institutions as well) will likely continue. The country will be led by the same people who gave us the second highest level of child poverty in the advanced world (nearly 25% of our children), the housing crash and the ever-increasing income gap between rich and poor.

Who owns public institutions such as public schools? In the past public education belonged to its communities, municipalities and states. Now it's the Koch brothers, the Walton Family Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and an ever increasing number of "edupreneurs" like K-12 Online Learning and Pearson.

We're letting it get away...and it will, if we don't stop it. Tell the next president that the attack on public education must stop. Tell him that we need to fix our public schools, not sell them. We can

allocate more resources for public schools — to improve technology, to expand professional-development opportunities for teachers, to buy classroom supplies, up-to-date textbooks and all the other materials that come with a good education. Perhaps one of the best ways to improve public education would be to loosen the strictures that tie student and school evaluations to test preparation and instead to allow teachers to instruct students in the sort of project-based units supported by educational research and the sort of critical-thinking skills that cannot be measured by filling in bubbles — the sort of academic freedom that is praised in charter schools but restricted in traditional public schools.

We can give our children the kind of schools they deserve.

~~~

Stop the Testing Insanity!

Sign the National Resolution on High Stakes Testing!

~~~

Maintained at the Public Expense -- For All of Us

There's a fundamental philosophical difference between those who favor a well supported public education system and those who have been pushing and legislating for privatization of public schools through vouchers and corporate charters (Obama, Duncan, Gates, Bennett, Bloomberg, et al).

We need a strong public school system. John Adams said,

The whole people must take upon themselves the education for the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves. -- John Adams, US President, Letter to John Jebb, 1785 (emphasis added)

Peggy Zugibe, a member of the Haverstraw-Stony Point (N.Y.) Board of Education, wrote,

...the Center on Educational Policy has a great publication called Why We Still Need Public Schools that covers the history of public education and explains how public schools are linked to the common good. It cites six missions that our country has expected public education to fulfill. Our schools:

• Provide universal access to free education.
• Guarantee equal opportunities for all children.
• Unify a diverse population.
• Prepare people for citizenship in a democratic society.
• Prepare people to become economically self-sufficient.
• Improve social conditions.

Do privatizers care about "universal access" to education, guaranteed opportunities or unifying a diverse population, or are they content to see our country provide good schools only for those with money? Do they want to unify the diverse population or keep us separated by enclaves of money and gated communities?

You don't need to prepare people to be good citizens in a plutocracy. It doesn't matter what the people think...the wealthy buy and run the government (a la Citizens United).

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has verbalized his position on public schools...and who should benefit from them...in no uncertain terms. In a campaign visit to Virginia he reminded us that those with money are the ones who are entitled to a good education.

Romney education remark favors the wealthy...yet again

During a campaign stop in Virginia June 27, Romney, the presumed Republican nominee for President, said that he wants to make sure that students get as much education “as they can afford.” (Skip to 9:20 in the video below to hear his comments for yourself.)

For wealthy folks like Romney—who’s estimated wealth is approximately a quarter billion dollars—this isn’t a problem.

But if you’re a middle class family struggling to make ends meet, Romney’s statement carries some very grim implications…especially when you consider that a quality public education is key to the economic outlook of working Americans and the country at large.

The unspoken corollary to Romney's statement that students should get as much education "as they can afford" is that those who can't afford it don't get the same education. Those who can afford it deserve a better education. Those who can't...don't. Americans need to decide which direction we want to go. Neither presidential candidate is offering the children of the United States a strong, equitable public education system. Neither has a plan to strengthen the public schools of the United States. Both appear to believe that "improving public education" means following the five steps to destroy public education...

• Under-fund/STARVE the schools financially
• Overcrowd the classrooms, reduce programs, supplies
• Fail the public school using NCLB and/or Race to the Top laws leaving the public school in death-throws
• Sell the school to private charters
• Public school, Dead On Arrival

Those of us who believe in a strong, free, universal public education system need to step up -- soon!

~~~

Stop the Testing Insanity!

Sign the National Resolution on High Stakes Testing!

~~~

What's the Choice for Public Education?

If NEA expects its teachers to support President Obama in 2012, then he needs to be held accountable. Here's what he said in the last campaign...



V.P. Biden also told us what we wanted to hear.



(btw, when Biden talks about "the President" in this speech, remember, he's talking about George W. Bush.)

On the other hand, if you think, "maybe we should support the other guy" take a look at this...

What’s missing in the Romney agenda is any reference to early childhood education, which is research-based; no reference to asking Congress to pay the long-promised share of the costs of special education; nothing about equity issues; nothing about professional preparation or professional development...All of these issues–and others–will be left to the workings of the free market, which is not known for producing equality of educational opportunity.

Most consequentially, there is not a word of support for America’s public schools. Not one.

[Emphasis mine]

So which do we vote for? More of the same, or an even worse scenario?

Try these:

• Dump Duncan.Org
• Parents Across America
• Grassroots Education Movement
• National Resolution on High Stakes Testing

~~~

Stop the Testing Insanity!

Sign the National Resolution on High Stakes Testing!

~~~

Presidential Candidates' Education Grades: F, F and F

With Mitt Romney coming out of Florida with a commanding lead in the primaries it seems likely that he will be the Republican candidate for President. Newt Gingrich is still alive...but barely. Nevertheless, it's a high probability that one of these three men (including President Obama) will occupy the White House for the next four years.

Unfortunately for schools, children and teachers, all three candidates earn an "F" in their education plan and platform.

The Democratic Candidate

Alan Singer, a social studies educator in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Hofstra University in Long Island, editor of Social Science Docket (a joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies), author and former public school teacher, gives President Obama an "F". I concur.

Obama's Educational Report Card Grade Is F

..Obama could have studied harder; he could have been more creative; he could have played better with teachers, parents, children, and public schools; and he could have offered onto other people's children the kind of education he demanded for his own. He could have resisted turning the keys to the Treasury over to well-connected edu-companies. Based on his first three years in office, the Obama Educational Report Card Grade is a very disappointing "F" for failure.

Singer continues with details...

On March 28, 2011, the president told a town hall meeting at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington DC that when schools are "just teaching the test... you're not learning about the world, you're not learning about different cultures, you're not learning about science, you're not learning about math. All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam and little tricks that you need to do in order to take a test and that's not going to make education interesting." At least according to this statement, Obama values an education that promotes historical, cultural, scientific, and mathematical literacy, an education that examines the world, rather than one that just prepares students to perform on high-stakes standardized multiple choice tests.

I commented on that back in March of last year.

If President Obama is serious about other criteria being used then we'll see fewer tests, not more...we'll see more time dedicated to instruction and learning rather than test-prep and testing. We'll see teachers using professional judgment and developmentally sound activities. We'll see teacher evaluations based on teaching, learning, professional development and the ability to reach students...

But it never happened.

Another voice against the President's Education policies is Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of Education at Stanford who was one of President Obama's campaign and transition advisors. Singer writes,

In a recent op-ed piece in The New York Times that she co-authored, Hammond protested against No Child Left Behind mandates still being enforced by the Obama Administration...Educators end up caught in a morass of prescriptions and prohibitions, bled of the initiative and energy that characterize effective schools." Hammond believes that "voluntary, competitive federal grants that support innovation" such as Race to the Top promised might have promoted school reform, however "it ended up demanding that winning states hire consultants to comply with a 19-point federal agenda, rather than truly innovate."

The fact is that President Obama is not a friend to education, educators, students and public schools. Singer:

[Obama caved] to private companies misusing educational programs to maximize profits. Essentially these companies are recruiting unqualified students and using their eligibility for federal student loans to steal tax payer money. The Obama administration vowed to stop the for-profit edu-companies from luring students with false promises about the quality of their programs and the potential for future employment. The Education Department threatened to cut off student aid funds that feed the 30 billion dollar industry. However, after a massive lobbying effort, the teeth were pulled from the new regulations.

According to The New York Times, the for-profit edu-companies "spent more than $16 million on an all-star list of prominent figures, particularly Democrats with close ties to the White House, to plot strategy, mend their battered image and plead their case..."

Another recent New York Times article documented the way the for-profit edu-companies, including the massive Pearson publishing concern, go unregulated by federal education officials. These companies operate online charter schools that offer substandard education to desperate families at public expense. One online program, Agora, made $72 million this school year for its parent company K12, the biggest player in the online-school business.

NEA also gets an F, by the way. In their comparison of candidates they use the President's words, not his actions, as proof that he deserves our support. In the Candidate Platform Comparison (click here for references) Obama says this about NCLB:

“I want to take us in a new and better direction...This agenda starts with education... We cannot be satisfied until every child in America--and I mean every child--has the same chances for a good education that we want for our own children.”1

The Obama administration, under the educational "leadership" of Arne Duncan has worked hard to make sure that the public schools fail.

On Worker's rights:

President Obama believes “collective bargaining is a ‘fundamental American value.’” He has said that “...making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions...”4

Where was the President in Wisconsin last year? Where was he in Ohio, and Michigan, and Indiana? Where was he this year in Indiana when our legislature made us the 23rd Right to Work state in the nation? These are empty words.

There are good reasons for progressives to vote for the President, however. The Supreme Court comes to mind. "Citizens United" is reason enough to keep the High Court from getting a stronger conservative majority and President Obama is much more likely to appoint progressive candidates than either Republican candidate. However, on Education the President gets a failing grade.

The Republican Candidates

The NEA's Candidate Platform Comparison gives us information about Gingrich and Romney as well. Both would continue the de-professionalization of public school teachers and the privatization of public schools.

Gingrich on NCLB:

Gingrich would “...insist that federal funds only go to school systems which require teacher competency and accountability.”1

Romney on NCLB:

“We had a No Child Left Behind...in our state a number of years ago... And it's had a big impact here. It's improved schools.”1

Gingrich on Worker's Rights:

Gingrich publicly sided with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker against teachers and public employees.4

Romney on Worker's Rights:

Romney publicly sided with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker against teachers and public employees.4

Gingrich on Vouchers:

Gingrich strongly supports school vouchers, suggests calling them Pell Grants for kids.3

Romney on Vouchers:

Romney has previously stated support for means-tested school voucher programs.3

~~~

So...maybe this will help...

Click here to sign the Dump Duncan Petition

...teachers throughout the nation have become discouraged and demoralized, undermining your own stated goals of improving teacher quality, upgrading the nation’s educational performance, and encouraging creative pedagogy rather than “teaching to the test.”

We therefore submit the following measures to put your administration’s education policy back on the right track and to bring teachers in as full partners in this effort:

1. The removal of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education and his replacement by a lifetime educator who has the confidence of the nation’s teachers.
2. The incorporation of parents, teachers, and school administrators in all policy discussion taking place in your administration, inside and outside the Department of Education.
3. An immediate end to the use of incentives or penalties to compel states and municipalities to use student test scores as a basis for evaluating teachers, preferring charter schools to existing public schools, and requiring closure of low performing schools.
4. Create a National Commission, in which teachers and parent representatives play a primary role, which explores how to best improve the quality of America’s schools.