40 Years of A Nation at Risk

This is what started it all…  The conservative myth that American schools were failing and that we needed to apply business principles to save them.  And thus the efforts to privatize American schools and pillage education’s public purse for private gain accelerated!  So check it out…

#BustEDPencils Pod.
A Nation at Risk: Will the Truth finally set US free?
https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-9v5rp-147f173
What really happened 40 years ago? Guest James Harvey takes us back to that moment when America was duped into believing that American public schools were failing. 

—

Timothy D. Slekar PhD
412-735-9720
timslekar@gmail.com
http://bustedpencils.com/
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/busted-pencils/id1060237752?mt=2

Why Does The Press Give Unsystematic, Unreliable, Perception-Based Research A Pass

So this scrolled through my inbox from the folks at Education Week last week.

Nearly Half of Educators Believe Schools Were Closed Too Long During Pandemic That’s according to a recent poll of teachers, administrators, and district leaders.

READ MORE

If you follow the link you’ll learn things like:

• “In the survey of educators, principals, and district leaders conducted last month by the EdWeek Research Center, about half of respondents said their schools were closed for the ‘perfect’ amount of time, while 40 percent said their schools were closed for too long. Just 11 percent of respondents said their school closures were too short.”
• “But as the pandemic wore on, it became increasingly clear that children were the least likely to get seriously sick or die from COVID-19, and they had suffered major academic and developmental blows from online classes and prolonged isolation.”
• “Rural districts often closed for the smallest amount of time—only 25 percent were closed for more than half of the 2020-21 school year, according to the survey—and educators from those districts were the least likely (7 percent ) to say closures were too short. Forty-five percent of respondents from rural school systems said their closures were too long.”
• “Some other groups, including parents and researchers, have begun analyzing the cost-benefit of the closures and feel in hindsight the closures cost students too much, she said.”
• “Some surveys have found parents and families widely supported schools’ reopening procedures as they were happening. But as more and more evidence surfaces that the closures contributed in no small way to students’ increased academic and social-emotional challenges, more are questioning whether the prolonged closures were the right move, Lake said.”
• “But parents’ concerns about the risk to students and teachers of getting or spreading COVID-19 has dwindled over time. In July 2020, more than 60 percent of respondents to the Pew survey said students’ and teachers’ health should be a major consideration, compared with about 40 percent in February 2022.”
• “Forty-three percent of district leaders and 40 percent of principals said closures were too long and about half of each group said they lasted for the perfect amount of time, according to the EdWeek survey.”
• “School teachers were the most likely to characterize the closures as too short (13 percent).”

The first question I would ask is…  What public health, immunology, virology, or other specialized training did any of these educators, principals, district leaders, or parents have that qualify them to determine whether closures were too short, just right, or too long?

The second question I would ask is…  Where the hell does Education Week come up with the notion that it is “increasingly clear that children were the least likely to get seriously sick or die from COVID-19?”  The only person quoted in the article on this point is Robin Lake at CRPE.  While I’m sure that her “BA in International Studies and an MPA in Education and Urban Policy from the University of Washington” qualifies her to be a researcher “on U.S. public school system reforms, including public school choice and charter schools; innovation and scale; portfolio management; and effective state and local public oversight practices.”  So how does Education Week make that claim?  In 2021 the WHO was suggesting that the risk was less, but by 2022 it is being suggested that it can contribute or is linked to other more serious illness.  What will they find out about it this year?  Plus, Education Week totally ignores the fact that until the age of 16 in most states we require children to attend school, regardless of who may be waiting for them at home that they can infect with something they brought home from school because someone with no training or background – beyond reading Education Week – told them it is safe for children to get this because it doesn’t impact them that much.

The third question I would ask is…  What evidence is Education Week basing their continued claims that remote learning negatively impacted students mental health?  To date, the only research that I’m aware of that looks at this in a systematic way is the work that Stephanie Moore, George Veletsianos, and I have done.  Our work found that “(a) it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to control for pandemic effects in the data, (b) studies present a very mixed picture, with variability around how mental health and well-being are measured and how / whether any causal inferences are made in relation to online and remote learning, and (c) results across these studies are extremely mixed.”  Further, our analysis revealed “that 75.5% of published research on this topic either commits the correlation does not equal causation error or asserts a causal relationship even when it fails to establish correlations.”  We concluded that “research shows students’ mental health was adversely affected in the pandemic, and this falls on the heels of pre-existing concerns that [educational institutions were struggling to keep up with demands for mental health services.”  And since we aren’t trained psychologists, unlike the folks at Education Week we decided to stay on our own lane, so we didn’t even get into the reality that the fact that people were dying all around them, society was shut down, and this was likely the most traumatic event that students have experienced in their lifetime, maybe some of these things might have had a greater impact on students’ mental health.  Maybe attending school, even poorly designed emergency remote learning, might have been the most normal and routine thing that they were able to experience during this period of time.

So instead of titling the article “Nearly Half of Educators Believe Schools Were Closed Too Long During Pandemic”, it may have been more realistic to title it “Half of An Uninformed, Selective Sample Believe What Experts Advised Them: Most of the Other Half Just Ran Their Mouths”.

Religious charter schools?

A colleague sent this around before the holidays.

Oklahoma attorney general greenlights religious charter schools

 The headline doesn’t tell you why I send this to you, but  the 2^nd Paragraph does.

The opinion was issued after the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City announced its intent to launch a virtual Archdiocesan charter school in a letter to the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.

https://www.k12dive.com/news/religious-charter-schools-Supreme-Court/638477/

Then earlier this week, this item came through my inbox.

Oklahoma’s Endorsement of Religious Charter Schools May Alter Legal Landscape Oklahoma is set to become the first state to weigh the approval of a charter school that explicitly allows religious instruction, heightening concerns about separation of church and state. Acting on an opinion from the state’s former attorney general, Brett Farley of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma told reporter Linda Jacobson he sees “green lights” for the movement, but critics predict “massive constitutional violations.” Go Deeper: Maine: ​​Supreme Court Throws Out Ban on Religious Schools Receiving Public Funds North Carolina: Attorneys Consider Asking SCOTUS to Weigh in on Public Status of Charter Schools

I guess now that the Supreme Court, using their originalist doctrine (because the 200+ year old separation of church and state isn’t original enough), has removed the restriction of public education funding being used in voucher programs that benefit private religious schools, it only makes sense that religious groups could also profiteer from public education funding through charter schools.  I mean why should corporations get to have all the fun).

And let’s face it, the Supreme Court will also support this action based on their political positions (not ideological, but political) because that is what the Supreme Court (and much of the US judiciary) has become – an extension of the Republican party policy arm.  Do in the courtroom what you can’t do at the ballot box.

BERA Blog – Don’t look up: Ignoring the looming crisis in public education

Folks who are familiar with this space – and with me in general – know that I refer to neo-liberalism in education policy quite frequently.  Last week, this item came across my electronic desk via the OLDaily by Stephen Downes.

Don’t look up: Ignoring the looming crisis in public education
Mark Innes, et al., BERA Blog, 2022/07/01

---

The authors point to what they consider to be four crises in education:

• “a 40-year ideological experiment in marketisation and neoconservatism.”
• “teacher recruitment and retention are in a downward spiral.”
• “the glaring lack of a… curricular policy to teach about climate change”
• “the ways in which Covid has increased educational inequalities”

It seems a bit like an odd selection, somewhat specific to the U.K. context, yet not completely so – I see similar issues, for example, in the United States and Australia. I think they’re also based in a specific philosophy of education, one that sees it not only as a public good, but also as an instrument for projecting public policy. Not saying any of this is wrong, but I don’t think people outside the system would see the issues in exactly the same way.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

While this item is written about the United Kingdom – which has undergone a similar neo-liberal takeover of education under the guise of educational reform – the four points are quite applicable to the United States (and broader North America context).  The first point that they make is the one that speaks to the point around neo-liberalism.

1. Looming crisis: education as the great experiment

Education in England has been the subject of a 40-year ideological experiment in marketisation and neoconservatism. However, both of these work against the notion of education as a common good (Gunter & Courtney, 2020). The results are in for this reform package. Like pieces of comet burning up in the atmosphere, these have not survived rigorous, research-based scrutiny. For example, we know that local authority maintained schools obtain better inspection outcomes than academies. This isn’t the only indicator of a good education, but it certainly matters to policymakers. Academisation aligns with a neoconservative belief that provision should compete in a hierarchy (Courtney, 2015). This impetus recurrently reanimates grammar schooling as a viable ‘part of the mix’ from which parents should choose. However, grammar schools impede social mobility. These failures are constructed as successes: academies advance education as a public good; grammar schools are a ladder for the poor. Neither experiment stands up.

The phrase “experiment in marketisation” is another way to say neo-liberalism (and I suspect they chose because the average reader wouldn’t be able to get their heads around describing an ideology as neo-liberalism and neo-conservativism).  In the UK – much like in the US – the research has clearly and consistently shown that the application of free market principles to education have not yielded any real gains in learning – and in most cases it has produced overall loses in learning.  For the select few that it does help, those tends to be isolated instances (and often disadvantage others who were already disadvantaged).  But it has certainly made some companies and individuals quite wealthy based on public funding that was supposed to be used for education.

Another side effect of the “experiment in marketisation” has been the second point that the authors make:

 2. Looming crisis in pedagogy

Teacher recruitment and retention are in a downward spiral….

One of the things that has come about with the push for more standards, increased standardized testing to ensure that teachers are teaching what they are supposed to teach, a punitive system of determining winning and losing schools, increased competition for students, a need to provide more programming with less funding, etc. has created an environment where the teaching profession has become deprofessionalized. Add on to that the unstated, and in some cases stated, intent of many of these educational reform mechanisms is to further weaken the professional associations designed to protect the interests of teachers (i.e., teachers unions), and is it any wonder why people are leaving the teaching profession in record numbers or that young people don’t want to become teachers.

There are some who would argue that the system is so large that the structural change that is needed is simply not possible, so tinkering around the edges so that they can help some students is the only tool available to them.  The problem is when the tinkering that helps some students, hurts other students more than they are already being hurt – and causes a number of unintended, but still associated complications.

If the “experiment in marketisation” has helped say 10% of the students out there, but hurt the remaining 90% – and also caused other crisis in education that also need to be addressed – from a systematic standpoint is it worth it?  Those who come from an individualistic standpoint would focus on the 10% and point to the rest as to why they are satisfied with only tinkering with the system.  Those who come from a collective standpoint – like those who wrote this Don’t look up: Ignoring the looming crisis in public education blog entry – who argue that there is no point investing energy re-arranging deck chairs is the ship is going to sink.  Let’s take that energy and try to repair the boat!

“National School Choice Week” Fueled by Major Right-Wing Funders and Corporate Lobby Groups

A good reminder for folks about this corporate-driven, privatization effort in public education.

By Dustin Beilke on January 27, 2016 – 12:14pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 27, 2016

Contact: Nikolina Lazic, press@prwatch.org

MADISON, WI — With 32 governors proclaiming this week “School Choice Week,” and more than 16,000 scheduled events listed on the promotional website, #NationalSchoolChoiceWeek has become a big deal, and not by accident.

Launched five years ago by the Gleason Family Foundation—which spent more than $4.3 million on the project in 2014—the week has grown rapidly through the backing of advocacy groups and deep pockets of funders focused on promoting charters, vouchers, and tax credits that aid private schools, including religious and for-profit ventures.

In federal and state budgets, “school choice” policies often divert or reduce Americans’ tax dollars available for traditional public schools that educate our most underserved students or for investment in sustainable and innovative community schools that are truly public.

Today, for example, the State Policy Network (SPN) is holding a “Tweet-up” to promote school “choice” and its fight “to limit government and advance market-friendly public policy at the state and local levels,” and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is using the week to pitch a “revolutionary” universal education savings account bill for Washington, DC, introduced by Senator Ted Cruz.

The Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group on corporate influence on public policy, is urging reporters to examine the interests behind the PR push on school choice.

“The National School Choice Week website’s Partners page provides a who’s-who gallery of Koch network groups, corporations, and billionaires promoting privatization,” said Lisa Graves, CMD’s Executive Director, adding: “although the week features many local events, it is backed by national entities, some of which are hostile to the idea of public schools and whose goals have included full privatization. No story about National School Choice Week is complete if it does not mention the special interests behind the choice agenda.”

NCSW’s website lists numerous partners, including the Walton Family Fund, ALEC, SPN, the Freedom Foundation, FreedomWorks, Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the James Madison Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—many of which have ties to the Koch brothers’ political network. David Koch ran for Vice President in 1980 on a platform that included privatizing public schools, and his brother Charles started pushing school choice in the 1960s. Together they have funded an array of groups that spread that agenda.

For example, both SPN and ALEC have received financial support from the Koch funding network in addition to corporations. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation whose board includes K12, a for-profit “virtual” school company that has also sponsored SPN activities. At ALEC task force meetings, corporate lobbyists and special interest groups vote as equals with legislators on bills to expand charters, vouchers, and tax credits that serve the choice agenda—in addition to other bills that attack worker rights, environmental protections, and more. Koch Industries has been on ALEC’s board for decades and the Koch family fortune is one of the biggest funders of ALEC.

As CMD has documented, the charter school industry has been fueled by more than $3.6 billion from the federal government over the past two decades in addition to billions from states and from wealthy choice advocates like the billionaire Walton and DeVos families. This surge in cash has created a league of lobbyists urging legislators to send more tax dollars to this industry.

Here are some additional resources CMD has created about the school privatization effort:

• Charter School Black Hole
• Cashing in on Kids
• SPN National Report
• ALECexposed

CMD also notes that People for the American Way (PFAW) has published a useful, detailed report: “The Agenda of National School Choice Week: Don’t Be Blinded by the Bright Yellow Scarves.” Also, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) has documented more than $200 million in fraud and waste by charter schools. Additionally, In the Public Interest (ITPI) also has resources on charter schools and school privatization, including polling. (CMD has worked with ITPI, CPD, and PFAW on issues.)

Education

Press Release

DUSTIN BEILKE

Dustin Beilke is a freelance writer from Madison, WI. He has written for a number of publications, including Newsday, Salon.com, The Nation, PRWatch, The Progressive, In These Times, Mother Jones, The Capital Times, and The Onion.