Indiana is being lambasted with Common Core commercials produced by the anti-public education group Stand for Children. Why? Hoosiers are wise to state politicians who are privatizing their public schools. The people need more convincing that national standards are a good thing. Enter Stand for Children to get the job done. Thirty-second spots are airing across the state to convince parents, teachers, and community members that Common Core State Standards are essential to providing students with an adequate education. Will indiana residents be able to influence legislators to stop the Common Core?

For years Indiana has had strong state standards supported by Frameworks that assist teachers in delivering the curriculum. To replace decades of work completed by the people of the state with national Common Core standards seems ridiculous to some.

Here are arguments from Indiana educators and parents reduced t “Myths” by Stand for Children. Many of these arguments can be made by any of the 45 states that have signed on to implement the Common Core. Just insert the name of your state for Indiana. Regardless of Stand’s “facts,” the point may be argues that Common Core legislation was ramrodded through state legislatures without adequate discussion or debate, and without public approval.

MYTH 1: COMMON CORE IS AN EFFORT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NATIONALIZE EDUCATION AND FORCE STATES TO TEACH ALL STUDENTS THE SAME WAY.
Fact: Common Core is a state-led initiative by governors, state superintendents, and nonprofit agencies to modernize education standards. It is research-based and molded with more than 10,000 comments from the public. The Indiana State Board of Education, to which the General Assembly has given the task of adopting standards, voluntarily adopted the Common Core in 2010. Indiana received no incentives from the federal government for taking this action.

MYTH 2: INDIANA’S STANDARDS WERE JUDGED SUPERIOR TO COMMON CORE, “EVEN BY COMMON CORE SUPPORTERS.”
Fact: While Indiana’s standards are high compared to many other states, children are still leaving school unprepared for what lies ahead. In addition to the students who do not graduate from high school or choose not to attend college, one-third of Indiana students who do attend college require remediation in math or English.The Fordham Institute, one of the organizations often cited praising Indiana’s standards even said some of the Common Core shifts “would benefit Indiana’s already-strong standards,” and the Common Core State Standards are quality standards for the nation.

MYTH 3: STATES MAY NOT ADJUST THE NEW COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS TO MEET THEIR STATE-LEVEL NEEDS.
Fact: Common Core allows states to add standards on top of the Common Core. This is known as the “15% Rule”, due to the amount of standards that can be added. Additionally, Indiana law allows Home Rule, which means school corporations can adopt standards above the state minimum.

MYTH 4: COMMON CORE STANDARDS REPRESENT A NATIONAL CURRICULUM AND IMPLEMENTING 100% OF COMMON CORE MEANS THAT THE STANDARDS TELL TEACHERS PRECISELY HOW THEY MUST TEACH.
Fact: Standards, by definition, are not a curriculum. Common Core defines the “what” rather than the “how” of teaching. Common Core is a set of standards that outline what students should know at a particular grade level in order to be on track to mastering skills and content to be prepared for college and beyond. Curriculum – the map, schedule, and method for teaching standards – will be a decision left up to school corporations and teachers to construct.

MYTH 5: REFERRING TO THE COMMON CORE AS “NATIONAL STANDARDS” IS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO DESCRIBE THEM.
Fact: Neither Congress nor the U.S. Department of Education was involved in the development of Common Core, nor have they mandated Common Core adoption. Not all states have chosen to participate. In fact, the Common Core are nationally aligned state standards because they were developed in collaboration between state and education leaders across the country.

MYTH 6: HOOSIER TAXPAYERS WILL END UP PAYING MORE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CURRICULUM UPDATES UNDER COMMON CORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO UNDER THE INDIANA STANDARDS.
Fact: Indiana currently spends $93.9 million annually on standards-related costs. And the costs of Common Core implementation have varied greatly. At least one estimate said a Common Core transition can save Indiana $23 million. Additionally, Indiana is in a better place than most states because the state allowed districts to make technology investments with textbook funds starting in 2009. (source) This means most – if not all – of Common Core implementation costs can be covered by existing spending.

MYTH 7: “UNDER THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, STUDENTS MAY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL READING AT A 7TH GRADE LEVEL.”
Fact: The fact is that currently there are too many students graduating high school reading at a 7th grade level and even lower. This is a major reason why the Common Core were established in the first place. Common Core standards push students to read at even higher levels earlier in their school careers. For example, the current standard for a 9th grade reading level will become the new standard for a 7th grade reading level under full implementation of the Common Core.

MYTH 8: “UNDER THE COMMON CORE, ‘COLLEGE READINESS’ MEANS PREPARATION FOR A SELECTIVE TWO-YEAR COLLEGE, NOT A UNIVERSITY.”
Fact: An education rooted in the Common Core standards would actually prepare students to enter a university setting having spent the last 12 years building up to the complexity of material they will encounter at higher levels of education. Nowhere in the Common Core initiative or research do the authors define “college readiness” as readiness for a “two-year college” instead of a university.

MYTH 9: INDIANA ONLY CHOSE TO ADOPT COMMON CORE BECAUSE THEY WANTED FEDERAL RACE TO THE TOP (RTTT) STIMULUS FUNDS OR WERE INCENTIVIZED BY THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) WAIVER.
Fact: Indiana did not adopt Common Core when it applied for the first round of RTTT funds, and the state did not apply for the second round. Indiana adopted the Common Core on its own terms in August 2010. (source) Indiana also adopted the new standards one year before the NCLB waiver was even an option for states.

MYTH 10: 70% OF THE TEXTS READ IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSES MUST BE INFORMATION-TEXT IN 12TH GRADE, WHICH PREVENTS STUDENTS FROM LEARNING CULTURE THROUGH HIGH QUALITY LITERATURE.
Fact: Common Core standards call for 70% of all texts (not 70% of English Language Arts texts) read in 12th grade to be nonfiction, which includes content area texts, such as science and history. (source) This was done to support literacy instruction in other content areas and underscore the role that all teachers must play in literacy efforts. (source) This will help ensure students are graduating high school adequately prepared to read rigorous college and career-level material, a majority of which are informational texts.

MYTH 11: THE COMMON CORE WILL BE ADOPTED IN PLACE OF ALL INDIANA ACADEMIC STANDARDS IN ALL SUBJECT AREAS.
Fact: The Common Core standards provide new standards for English Language Arts and math only, not social studies, science and technical subjects. Nor will these other subjects be evaluated on the new PARCC assessment test. Current Indiana Academic Standards will be used for these subjects.

It was a dark and bitingly cold night when 70 or so education activists gathered at the town hall in Seattle to boycott Michelle Rhee. She was in town to promote her new book. Students and members of several groups including Seattle Education, Social Equality Educators, and Socialist Alternative met in solidarity to protest Rhee’s support of corporate reform, charter schools, and high-stakes testing.

Students protest Rhee’s support of charter schools that segregate or “colonize” minority and poor students.

High-stakes tests favored by Rhee have led to a curriculum of “teaching to the test” and less art, music and P.E. in schools.

During Rhee’s tenure as Chancellor of Washington D.C. Public Schools, widespread cheating occurred.

There are at least 3,000,000 teachers in America who have more education expertise than Michelle Rhee. Jonathan Kozol is one that has written prolifically about America’s poorest students. The difference between educators like Kozol and Rhee is that Rhee is in the pocket of her billionaire funders who favor privatizing our public schools, and that buys her influence.

Charter schools disproportionately enroll poor minority children and are known to push out students with special needs, students with behavioral problems, and English language learners.

Tax cuts for the top 1%, including the richest corporations, and the abysmal design of No Child Left Behind have left our public education system in much need of repair.

This one’s for you Bill, Eli, Walton brothers and sisters. 

You can listen to an interview of Rhee by NPR’s Seattle affiliate, KUOW and a response by Seattle Education blogger Dora Taylor at the 17:15 minute mark.

Michelle Rhee, corporate education reformer was in Seattle Tuesday to promote her new book, Radical: Fighting to Put Students First. On the book jacket, Jonathan Alter champions her as “a hard-charging champion of education reform and a strong Democrat,” while Geoffrey Canada calls her “a national treasure.” Apparently reviewers at Amazon.com have a different opinion. Currently, the book has received a one-out-of-five star rating.

From Amazon cirtics:

There are a lot of stories where she’s the only one who cares about kids. She blasts the other teachers at the school where she taught at when she was in her 20′. The politicians, her central office staff, teachers and principals in DC, a funder who won’t give her enough money — they just don’t care. No one cares except Michelle.

When she quits DC’s schools, it’s more of the same. She name-drops all the people who called her and said they wanted to hire her and talk with her–foundations, the Aspen Institute, the Hoover Institution, Meg Whitman, Chris Christie, Rahm Emanuel. But she says no. Instead, she asks the Walmart family to give her $100 million to start her own organization, though it’s not clear whether she got the $100 million or what her organization, called StudentsFirst, actually does with its money. Do they put it into schools and classrooms? Is it a lobbying firm? A PAC? A charity like March of Dimes, only for schools?

If you’re really into Michelle Rhee and want to know all about her, hey, go ahead and read the book. Different strokes for different folks. But if you’re looking for an honest self-appraisal of her career, or if you’re the least bit skeptical or if you think critically about what’s really best for kids, this isn’t worth reading. Lots of people see Diane Ravitch as an alternative to Michelle Rhee, but I’d recommend John Merrow’s The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, which is far more serious and thoughtful than this.

Protesters in Seattle aren’t really that into Rhee, and they already know plenty about her. They met outside the townhall where she spoke passing out leaflets, picketing, and chanting for an hour before she spoke, although you wouldn’t know it from the Seattle Times coverage of the event. A more accurate account was provided by one of the attendees, Steve Nesich:

I sincerely mean no hostility or personal slight towards Sarah Freishtat, the young intern who wrote this story. I’m certain, like many young writers, she possesses a great deal of potential.

But, unfortunately, this is exceedingly poor journalism. It resembles the “puff pieces” I normally associate with some mass market magazines, replete with full page, full color ads, targeted to a demographic obsessed with frivolous distractions such as celebrity, fashion and “lifestyle”.

This view was reinforced, right down to the jarring, pseudo-Saskia de Brauw “wannabe” photo image.

For someone apparently unfamiliar with Rhee’s history, I assume it’s easy to “fall for her”, in more ways than one. Rhee is known for her ability to read and manipulate people, and leveraging that to get what she wants from them. Perhaps that explains the superficial and fawning coverage; however, it doesn’t justify or negate it.

Freishtat’s obsequious tone permeates this entire article. Her narrative demonstrates both a woeful lack of perception and the pangs of an aspiring, but malleable young journalist, desperately hoping to “stay in touch” with someone as wealthy and “connected” as Michelle Rhee.

I was at Rhee’s presentation, and the hall—with a surprising number of vacant seats—was far from “overflowing”. And a high percentage of that audience was clearly disturbed by Rhee’s “stage smile”, and overtly hostile to her many distortions and fabrications.

Ironically, one of the few clearly accurate parts of this story quoted Rhee as saying “if she could do it all over again, she would manage news sources better.”

Judging by the final copy in this “Edu Celebrity” piece, I’d say that Rhee has clearly accomplished the “news management” part of this—exceedingly well; she apparently managed to turn you from a news organization—at least in this instance—into a very compliant “marketing and promotions firm”, with all services courteously provided, gratis, by the compliant “professionals” at The Seattle Times.

In January, when nearly all of the teachers at a Seattle high school decided to refuse to give mandated standardized district tests called the Measures of Academy Progress because, they said, the exams don’t evaluate learning and are a waste of time, people took notice. Since that time many other teachers, parents, and students have joined in to support them. They have released the genie from the bottle and it’s not going back in. Today many people are beginning to question the testing craze.

Fanning the flames of the debate is a newly released study identifying a stress gene. Slate DoubleX Gabfest posts a great discussion about testing based on an article that appeared in The New York Times February 6, 2013.  According to the authors of “Why Can Some Kids Handle Pressure While Others Fall Apart?”, researchers have discovered a gene that identifies how people react to stress. The conversation focuses on stress induced by standardized testing on students. Depending on their genetic make-up, researchers say, people can have either warrior or worrier reactions to pressure. Warriors, who are more easy-going and not stressed-out by tests, do better than worriers, who are generally more intelligent and better organized, but do relatively poorly on tests under pressure.

In Taiwan, where the research study was performed, administrators stopped giving the tests because they were disadvantaging, unnecessarily, the worriers. The test had been thought to identify the best and brightest achievers to go on to the university and professional careers. But based on test results, the people with higher IQs and excellent organizing skills were being sentenced to toiling in factories. Ironic.

The Little Data Point and the Big Bad Test written by a 12-year-old girl is read by her mother who is hosting the discussion. Her point, no pun intended, in not to be taken lightly.

Listen to the conversation on here.  The test discussion begins at the 21:30 mark and lasts about 15 minutes. Well worth a listen.

United Opt Out National

We opt out of high-stakes testing and we resist all market -based reforms that seek to privatize and destroy public education.

Let your voice be heard in the testing debate. Below are bumper stickers designed to support students and teachers who have been subjugated to unnecessary tests for far too long. These were designed at Build-a-Sign, a site chosen randomly from the internet. The Opt Out signs are interspersed with education appreciation ones. You may design your own and purchase bumper stickers and signs here or from a local vendor. Buttons were designed on templates provided at Make Pins.com. The objective is to support teachers who have no choice but to give meaningless test, and students who have no choice but to take them. UNTIL NOW!

Yard Signs 

Bumper Stickers

Buttons

There will be a protest at 6:00 PM on February 19th in front of Town Hall where Michelle Rhee will be talking about her latest fundraising effort, her book. Join us. We will have signs…and tape.

Seattle Education posts a comprehensive, up-to-date review of Rhee — from her Teach for America days terrorizing little children to her scandal-ridden days as Chancellor of Washington, D.C. Public Schools, to her newest nonprofit venture (from which she will profit handsomely), Students First.

“Most of Rhee’s agenda runs counter to what parents identify as their top priorities, including small class sizes, less high-stakes testing, improving neighborhood schools, recruiting and retaining strong and experienced teachers, and giving parents a real voice in governing schools.”

It won’t be the first time teachers, parents, and teachers have boycotted Rhee. Last year at this time East Bay CTA & CFT Teachers Picketed Michelle Rhee chanting “We Are, We Teach The 99%.”

‘Earlier this month, teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington, voted unanimously to stop administering a widely used standardized test, calling them wasteful and unfairly used to grade their performance. They are now facing threats of 10-day suspension without pay if they continue their boycott. We go to Seattle to speak with two guests: Jesse Hagopian, a high school history teacher and union representative at Garfield High School who has refused to administer the MAP standardized test; and Wayne Au, a former high school teacher, assistant professor at the University of Washington, and author of “Unequal by Design: High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality.”‘

Diane Ravitch asked for letters to Obama from educators and parents to be collected and sent to President Obama October 17, 2012. It was difficult to narrow the scope of my criticism of the failed education policy that stemmed from No Child Left Behind under George W. Bush and thrives now in the Obama administration. I chose to write about charter schools. I want to be sure he knows how a “model” charter school shapes the lives of our poorest children and robs them of their childhood. My letter:

October 17, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you know what a good teacher is because you must have had at least a few. I know that you know what a good education is because it is obvious that you had one. I know that you have sought out a good education for your daughters, and I would hope that you would want the same for all of America’s children. That’s why I’m writing this letter to you now.

In your first debate, you mentioned “Race to the Top” twice by name as a signature accomplishment. Please do not mention it again. If you don’t know, you alienate at least 3 million teachers who are voters and many more parents who have found that competition between schools for funding hurts kids. I want to talk to you about how charter schools rob neighborhood schools of resources and transfer ownership of our public schools to the private hands of the wealthy elite. More specifically, I want to talk about the real harm charter schools do to childhood. But don’t take my word for it as I call your attention to a chapter about KIPP charter schools in Outliers, written by one of the wealthy elite.

It’s obvious that your administration favors charter schools like KIPP. In 2010, the Department of Education gave fifty million of our tax dollars to KIPP Foundation. Under George W. Bush KIPP gained recognition (even though it had no track record or outstanding credentials) and has since been marketed as a charter school model. In the past decade charters have proliferated across the country. I’m sure you know there is a KIPP charter school in Washington, D.C. I’m wondering why you didn’t choose to send your daughters there? Truthfully, Mr. President, why don’t your girls go to KIPP?

Outliers is a collection of stories about success. KIPP, the author argues, is such a success story. In his best-selling book, Malcolm Gladwell comments on the success of people in different cultures, KIPP being one of them. To understand better the author’s perspective on KIPP, it may be helpful to know about two others he includes: the town of Roseto, Ohio and the rice paddy culture of China. They couldn’t be more different.

(Paraphrase) In the small town of Roseto, Ohio, the people shared strong family and community connections, were healthy and happy, and took care of each other. There was no suicide, no alcoholism, no dug-addiction, and very little crime. They seemed to have discovered the perfect lifestyle. The townspeople had a particular egalitarian ethos that discouraged the wealthy from flaunting their success and helped the unsuccessful obscure their failures.

. . .the Rosetans had created a powerful, protective social structure capable of insulating them from the pressures of the modern world.

Contrast the town of Roseto with the rice paddy culture of China. Gladwell describes the tortuous, backbreaking, relentless strife in the lives of rice farmers. Throughout history the rice farmer has always worked harder than almost any other kind of farmer, he states. The farmers work in isolation, day in, day out, each painstakingly tending his own paddy to produce as much rice as possible from that small plot of land.

Here are some of the thing’s that penniless peasants would say to one another as they worked three thousand hours a year in the baking heat and humidity of Chinese rice paddies (which, by the way, are filled with leeches):
‘No food with out blood and sweat.’
‘In winter, the lazy man freezes to death.’
‘Don’t depend on heaven for food, but on your own two hands carrying the load.’

Now skip to Gladwell’s analysis of the culture of KIPP charter schools. Gladwell praises KIPP as a model school. David Levin is the principal of KIPP Academy in New York City. The school serves poor African-American and Hispanic students. According to data analysis of NYC students, he points out that poor minority children actually begin as better students than their richer white counterparts, but they lose that statistical lead during the summer. While more affluent students go to camps, museums, libraries, the theater, and scores of enrichment activities, poor children stay home, losing ground. Each year “the achievement gap” widens. KIPP’s answer to that problem is to keep poor minority children in school from dawn to dusk six days a week the entire calendar year, a practice that has become popular with other charter networks.

From Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, Chapter: “Marita’s Bargain,” from Section 5 and 6. (Emphasis mine.):

The story of the miracle school that transforms losers into winners is, of course, all too familiar. It’s the stuff of inspirational books and sentimental Hollywood movies. But the reality of places like KIPP is a good deal less glamorous than that. To get a sense of what 50 to 60 percent more learning time means, listen to the typical day in the life of a KIPP student.

The student’s name is Marita. She’s an only child who lives in a single-parent home. Her mother never went to college. The two of them share a one-bedroom apartment in the Bronx. Marita used to go to a parochial school down the street from her home, until her mother heard of KIPP. “When I was in fourth grade, me and one of my other friends, Tanya, we both applied to KIPP,” Marita said. “I remember Miss Owens. She interviewed me, and the way she was saying made it sound so hard I thought I was going to prison. I almost started crying. And she was like, If you don’t want to sign this, you don’t have to sign this. But then my mother was right there, so I signed it.”

With that her life changed, (Keep in mind, while reading what follows, that Marita is twelve years old.)

“I wake up at five-forty-five a.m. to get a head start,” she says. “I brush my teeth, shower. I get some breakfast at school, if I am running late. Usually I get yelled at because I am taking too long. I meet my friends Diana and Steven at the bus stop, and we get the number one bus.”

A 5:45 wake-up is fairly typical of KIPP students, especially given the long bus rides and subway commutes that many have to make to get to school. Levin, at one point, went into a seventh–grade music class with seventy kids in it and asked for a show of hands on when the students woke up. A handful said they woke up after six. Three-quarters said they woke up before six. Almost half said they woke up before 5:30. One classmate of Marita’s, a boy named Jose, said he sometimes wakes up at three or four a.m., finishes his homework from the night before, and then “goes back to sleep for a bit.”

Marita went on:

“I leave school at five p.m., and if I don’t lollygag around, then I will get home around five-thirty. Then I say hi to my mom really quickly and start my homework. And if it’s not a lot of homework that day, it will take me two to three hours, and I’ll be done around nine p.m. Or if we have essays, then I will be done like ten p.m., or ten-thirty p.m.

Sometimes my mom makes me break for dinner. I tell her I want to go straight through, but she says I have to eat. So around eight, she makes me break for dinner for, like a half hour, and then I get back to work. Then, usually after that, my mom wants to hear about school, but I have to make it quick because I have to get in bed by eleven, p.m. So I get all my stuff ready, and then I get into bed. I tell her all about the day and what happened, and by the time we are finished, she is on the brink of sleeping, so that’s probably around eleven-fifteen. Then I go to sleep, and the next morning we do it all over again. We are in the same room. But it’s a huge bedroom and you can split in into two, and we have beds on the other sides. Me and my mom are very close.”

She spoke in the matter-of-fact way of children who have no way of knowing how unusual their situation is. She had the hours of a lawyer trying to make partner, or a medical resident. All that was missing were the dark circles under her eyes and a steaming cup of coffee, except that she was too young for either.

“Sometimes I don’t go to sleep when I’m supposed to,” Marita continued. “I go to sleep at, like, twelve o’clock, and the next afternoon, it will hit me. And I will doze off in class. But then I have to wake up because I have to get the information. I remember I was in one class, and I was dozing off and the teacher saw me and said, ‘Can I talk to you after class?’ And he asked me, ‘Why were you dozing off?’ And I told him I went to sleep late. And he was, like, ‘You need to go to sleep earlier.’”

Marita’s life is not the life of a typical twelve-year-old. Nor is it what we would necessarily wish for a twelve-year-old. Children, we like to believe, should have time to play and dream and sleep. Marita has responsibilities . . . Her community does not give her what she needs. So what does she have to do? Give up her evenings and weekends and friends – all the elements of her old world – and replace them with KIPP. . .

Is this a lot to ask of a child? It is. But think of things from Marita’s perspective. She has made a bargain with her school. She will get up at five-forty-five in the morning, go in on Saturdays, and do homework until eleven at night. In return, KIPP promises that it will take kids like her who are stuck in poverty and give them a chance to get out.

How could that be a bad bargain?

The lesson here is very simple. But it is striking how often it is overlooked. We are so caught in the myths of the best and the brightest and the self-made that we think outliers spring forth naturally from the earth . . . Marita just needed a chance. And look at the chance she was given! Someone brought a little bit of the rice paddy to the South Bronx and explained to her the miracle of meaningful work.

Unbelievable! The rice paddy culture is what we aspire to for our poorest minority children? Why not the Roseto culture? Wouldn’t addressing Marita’s needs and providing her with opportunities outside of school be more beneficial? Marita has responsibilities? We would rob children of their childhoods in the name of education? Is this who we have become as Americans? What about our responsibilities to Marita? Do we really want to say to our poorest children that they must give up their childhoods to escape poverty in the future? Gladwell seems to think this is acceptable. I heartily disagree! I hope you do, too, Mr. President. The cost to students like Marita is too dear. And, where is the equitable sacrifice from more affluent children like yours? Do they have any idea of the sacrifices we ask of poor children like Marita? We must do better by all our children.

One more thing, Mr. President. In another chapter of Outliers, Gladwell describes in great detail how people become experts by studying and acquiring 10,000 hours of experience in their chosen field. Surprisingly, he doesn’t mention that many teachers at KIPP have no more than five weeks of inadequate training and absolutely no teaching experience. Does the 10,000 hour rule apply to everyone except teachers? Doesn’t Marita deserve an expert teacher? Wouldn’t employing professional teachers who know how to teach and create curriculum be a better way to educate Marita?

In 2010 your administration gave 50 million of our tax dollars to employ unqualified persons to teach kids like Marita in schools like KIPP, Mr. President. Would unqualified people be acceptable to teach your children? (Nevermind that the two people who received the combined 100 million of our tax dollars are husband and wife without a single education credential between them. By the way, they don’t send their children to KIPP schools either, even though the very one touted by Gladwell in his book is near their home.)

Mr. President, I think you have a good mind and a good heart, but your education policies are misguided and harmful to children and to the nation. You don’t send your kids to KIPP for a reason. It’s not good enough for your daughters, period. And, if it’s not good enough for your children, it’s not good enough for ours. Your education policy may be a shade less harmful than your opponent’s, but that’s not good enough either.

Please, please stop the charter school madness! Stop the competition for funding. We need a strong, vibrant public school system! Listen to educators. We are the experts. We know how to solve problems. We favor Roseto over rice paddies.

Please support us so that we can support you.

Sincerely,
Deb Mayer
Teacher and Activist

“Know the enemy.”

That’s the only reason I went to see Won’t Back Down. I already knew the movie was a schmaltzy propaganda piece produced by Walden Media, the same manipulators who had a hand in pushing Waiting for Superman as a solution to the education inequities of our public schools. I had read a review from fellow Parents Across America member, Leonie Haimson, Don’t be fooled by “Won’t Back Down”! It’s no secret that the mighty wealthy in this country want to privatize our public schools for their own financial gain. It seems with all that money they could have produced a quality movie. Thankfully though, they didn’t — currently the movie is rated 33% on Rotten Tomatoes. Four other people were in the theater besides me.

I’m including Leonie’s synopsis here and then offering some of my own obervations — ones that irk me because they are needlessly false and blatantly divisive as well as some that are more obscure. Be sure to check out the FAQ for the facts about the Parent Trigger Law. From Leonie’s review:

Last night I attended a screening of the controversial new film, “Won’t Back Down” about a parent and a teacher who take over their “failing” public school. I have written a FAQ about the movie which is posted here. The film was produced by Walden Media, owned by right-wing billionaire Phillip Anschutz, who also co-produced “Waiting for ‘Superman.’”

Advance screenings have been held around the country, organized by Michelle Rhee’s Students First and other pro-charter lobbying organizations, to promote the “Parent Trigger,” which allows a school to be turned over to a charter operator if 51% of the parents sign a petition calling for this. Here is a good analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.

The movie itself is badly written, poorly acted, and full of exaggerated characterizations and unconvincing plot twists. Its message, transmitted with sledgehammer subtlety, is that the only reason that schools in poor communities are failing is because of incompetent lazy teachers who are protected by the union. The film also implies that in turning around a school, all that needs to happen in addition to getting rid of the union is to change the school “culture” which is done by scheduling more field trips and telling students that they can learn and go to college.

The two main characters, played by Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal, both have children who are struggling in school; one with dyslexia and the other [spoiler alert!] who towards the end of the film is revealed to be possibly brain damaged. Somehow getting rid of the union and converting to a charter school will magically help these kids learn; though in reality, many charters discourage parents from enrolling their children if they have disabilities, or are quick to push them out after they enroll.

The main villain in the film is the teacher of Gyllenhall’s daughter. This teacher spends time playing with her cellphone during class, and prevents the little girl from going to the bathroom and then locks her in a closet when she wets herself. The evil parents and teachers who oppose the takeover of the school carry signs saying “Public school advocate” and “Taking over neighborhood schools destroys neighborhoods.”

Here are some of my observations, some that bear repeating and some obscure:

1. Michelle Rhee is featured on a commercial before the movie begins begging the audience to send her money for StudentsFirst. Gag! (I want to tape her mouth shut and forget where she lives.)

2. As the movie begins in bold print across the big screen is this statement: This is a true story based on actual events. FALSE! If this story is indeed true, where is the school? Why aren’t those parents and teachers promoting the film? The truth is that the Parent Trigger has not succeeded in turning around a single school. As I was leaving the theater, I overheard one woman saying to her friend, “It would have been nice if they had shown the real parents and teachers at the end of the movie.” Maybe they will figure out they don’t exist.

3. The Parent Trigger Laws do not require teachers to participate, hence the term “Parent Trigger.” Without the participation of teachers, the film could not have trounced on teacher’s unions. Pathetic.

4. There are bad teachers at the school. The apathy is rampant. It is the job of the principal to inspire or fire bad teachers. Unions cannot stop a principal from doing his/her job. The procedure is clear and effective if only utilized. It is in the best interest of effective teachers to have inadequate ones removed from the classroom. It is the job of the union to make sure that members receive due process before dismissal. I found the “dawn of the Deborahs” remark in referring to bad, tenured teachers who keep their jobs most offensive.

5. The Maggie Gyllenhaal mom character spots a young guy teacher line-dancing with his students in class at her daughter’s school and decides he’s a great teacher. (She later calls him the best teacher in the school.) He introduces himself as a Teach for America recruit. Even though he becomes somewhat romantically involved with Gyllenhaal, he won’t support her takeover scheme because he needs union security. He turns out to be a union holdout right until the end. This is hilarious because Teach for America is all about union busting. They prohibit discourage their members from joining teacher’s unions. I couldn’t stop laughing.

6. The parents (and even the activist teacher) seem to think that students and teachers need to work a longer day. Teachers should also give students their phone numbers so they can call at home. Education reformers think longer school days, weeks, and years with teachers on-call are key to student success. They seem to forget that children are not short adults, but are, in fact, children who need time to play and relax, and that teachers have lives outside of work. More time spent in class does not improve the quality of teaching and learning, and teachers are not nannies.

7. Not once during the movie does Gyllenhaal try to help her daughter, who is socially insecure and academically challenged. We don’t see her taking her child to the library, reading to her, finding a tutor, or inviting children over to play with her. We do know she feeds her candy and lets her watch TV a lot. She doesn’t take any responsibility for her daughter’s learning, nor does she encourage her daughter to, either. Teachers can’t do it alone. Parents are the number one teacher of their children.

8. The movie began with Gyllenhaal’s daughter (Malia) struggling to read in class — phonetically — and failing. It ended the same way with Malia struggling to read a simple message, this time in a convocation before the entire school — phonetically — and eventually succeeding. Really? I know they were going for the cute, upbeat ending, but really? Reading from a tattered paper that must have been read 100 times, Malia sounds out the final word, h-h-o-p, struggling painfully. Then, with great concentration, she corrects herself, HOPE. Cut, fade to black. Literally. She certainly didn’t make much progress at the new school. A third grader, even with dyslexia, should be able to read the word hope, especially after having practiced it repeatedly. Neither her mother nor her teacher prepped her to make sure she knew her part before she took the stage? This is something good teachers do. We have many different strategies for teaching children to read, too. We imbue them with self confidence, and we make sure they are prepared for presentations. A teacher consultant could have saved the filmmakers the embarrassment of that last scene. But, teacher expertise is not recognized by the makers of this movie. They can’t even recognize the absurdity of that scene.

9. Both Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis belong to unions that have won them the most fantastic salaries on the planet. When asked why they would agree to make a movie that bashes teachers and their unions . . . crickets. I hope they were paid royally for betraying their unionized teacher-sisters because I won’t be paying to see them act again.

Stay home. Don’t waste your money.

Here are some things you can do instead:

1. If you are interested in what parents can do in the face of horrid reform measures, watch a movie that exposes the real reform agenda The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman. It’s now available online.

2. Be on the lookout for Parent Trigger Laws being introduced in your state legislature. Here in Oregon, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Stand for Children proposing this ALEC legislation in Salem next session. I’ll be watching. The reformers didn’t produce this movie for nothing. EXPECT A RASH OF PARENT TRIGGER ATTEMPTS TO BE INTRODUCED IN LEGISLATURES ACROSS THE COUNTRY SOON.

3. Volunteer at your neighborhood school. See for yourself the state of OUR public schools. If you live in an affluent neighborhood, go to a poor school where many of the children live in poverty. Attend school board meetings. Oregonians can attend Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) meetings (although they are held during the day while you are working, you are welcome) to find out what Governor Kitzhaber and his Education CEO, Rudy Crew, have in mind for Oregon children.

4. Support adequate funding for all schools.

5. Become an activist by joining Oregon Save Our Schools, Save Our Schools, and Parents Across America.

UPDATE: “Won’t Back Down” had the second worst opening weekend of any film in wide release (2500 screens or more) since 1982. The only worry is whether the right-wing producer, Philip Anschutz, will keep it in the theaters since he also owns the largest movie chain in the nation. And will Murdoch, the distributor, keep financing free screenings and claim them as tax-deductible contributions, to be able to offset some of his losses?

The reviews are out, the box office returns have been counted, and it’s clear that the pro-charter propaganda film “Won’t Back Down” is a huge critical and commercial flop.

More commentary on Won’t Back Down:

Rethinking Schools
Won’t Back Down won’t be real about school reform
Last week I attended a local screening of Won’t Back Down, the latest flick from the producers behind the controversial documentary Waiting for Superman. The film stars Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal as two moms of special-needs children, one also a teacher, trapped inside their failing public schools while battling an evil union leadership. They decide to take advantage of a state law called the FailSafe (known as the “parent trigger” in most states) in order to take over their public school, close it down, and re-open it under their personal and private management.

From the ultraconservative National Review.
Critics Try to Flunk Won’t Back Down
It’s not often that a major Hollywood movie with Academy Award–nominee actors gets picketed. But that’s what happened last week at the New York and Los Angeles premieres of Won’t Back Down, which stars Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis as a parent-teacher duo who use a “parent trigger” law to take over a failing public school, beating back the determined opposition of bureaucrats and the teachers’ union along the way. Those unions aren’t amused, and turned out dozens of protesters to complain the film treated them unfairly.

Salon.com
“Won’t Back Down”: Why do teachers’ unions hate America?
“Won’t Back Down” is an offensive, lame, union-bashing drama, which somehow stars Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal. So teachers’ unions don’t care about kids. Oh, and luck is a foxy lady. This is what I took away from the inept and bizarre “Won’t Back Down,” a set of right-wing anti-union talking points disguised (with very limited success) as a mainstream motion-picture-type product. Someone needs to launch an investigation into what combination of crimes, dares, alcoholic binges and lapses in judgment got Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal into this movie.

Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch
“Won’t Back Down” Film Pushes ALEC Parent Trigger Proposal
Well-funded advocates of privatizing the nation’s education system are employing a new strategy this fall to enlist support for the cause. The emotionally engaging Hollywood film “Won’t Back Down” — set for release September 28 — portrays so-called “Parent Trigger” laws as an effective mechanism for transforming underperforming public schools. But the film’s distortion of the facts prompts a closer examination of its funders and backers and a closer look at those promoting Parent Trigger as a cure for what ails the American education system.

If ever I had wished to reach through the ether to shake some sense and civility into a pundit, it was while recently watching the Kudlow Report as Leonie Haimson of Parents Across America in New York on CNBC as she tried valiantly to explain why the Chicago teacher’s strike is so important to all of us.

I feel her pain and she tries to get a word in — exasperating. Why would any host treat a guest in this manner? Rude, dismissive, and hateful doesn’t begin to describe it. This is exactly the way teachers feel each day as they go about their jobs of educating America’s students. Teachers don’t deserve to be treated as the enemy. They deserve to be heard. They deserve the community support they have received in Chicago. As Leonie points out, she is a parent not a teacher, but this strike is much bigger than Chicago teachers.

Watch and listen.

I was turned down by Teach for America. This year is the first that teachers have been eligible to apply. It may have something to do with all those millions of tax dollars our government rationed out to the organization, or it may have something to do with discrimination, or both. Teach for America has staked its entire service on the notion that professional teachers won’t teach in the schools where they place recruits. I’m an excellent teacher, so I thought I’d apply.

Before I even finished my online application, a recruiter from TFA gave me a call. He wanted to know what I had in mind to do after my teaching experience. I said I wanted to teach. I explained that I was a teacher with administration credentials, so I might want to become a principal, but mostly I just wanted to teach under-served children in a struggling school. I explained that I was an excellent teacher and had received awards for my teaching. He said that was fine, and if I really wanted to teach that was okay, but the “chatter” over the next couple of months, he said, will be all about what I wanted to do after my teaching commitment was up. He then encouraged me to finish my application to qualify for the phone interview. (TFA loves to promote its high number of applicants, so they don’t like to let any nibblers get away.)

At that point, I was pretty sure I didn’t stand a chance, but I was curious about the process and if I could make it, so I finished the online application. It was fairly standard until I came to the section asking about my affiliation to several different organizations. I was a member of none. Then there were some curious questions asking me about student loans and if I intended to borrow money to pay for expenses if I was accepted. I said no to that as well.

Some people are accepted at that point. I wasn’t. Apparently being affiliated to one or another of those groups assures your acceptance. Somehow magically, at that point, some applicants are foisted straight to the in-person interview, bypassing the online questions and activities and the phone interview. TFA doesn’t explain how that decision is made, just that they know. WOW! But not me, I guess being an excellent teacher was not a strong indicator. I was asked to answer more questions and to give my opinions about some strange situations that had nothing to do with teaching ability.

In fact, throughout the entire application and interview process, I wasn’t asked one question about my education philosophy, knowledge, or skills. I wasn’t asked about my experiences working with kids. Not one question during the phone interview pertained to my teaching. I thought that odd. I was applying for a teaching position, wasn’t I?

The next communication I received from TFA asked for my input about the application and interview process. It was not an anonymous survey, and it must be completed before I would be notified of my status — optional, of course. Hmmm. The first interviewer had hung up on my repeatedly. Bad connection, he said, after I called him back each time. The online activity had scrolling problems which is a concern when taking a timed test. (I wondered if children ever had that problem when taking standardized tests.) Hmmm. Would I be chastised for telling the truth? Would my lack of participation be looked upon as capricious? Hmmm. The entire process was lovely, I lied. What else would one say?

A few days later I was notified that I had failed the phone interview. I was rejected by form letter. I’m sharing it with you here.

Dear _____________,

Thank you very much for your interest in Teach For America and for the time and effort you invested in applying to our program and speaking with an interviewer. I am very sorry to inform you that, after careful consideration of your candidacy, we did not select you to advance to the next stage of our admissions process.

Your initiative in applying to Teach For America demonstrates your commitment to expanding opportunities for children and effecting social change, and we would like to offer all candidates a path to realizing these aims. This said, we know that Teach For America is not a fit for everyone. While acknowledging the limitations of any selection process, we have developed a set of admissions criteria over time that helps us identify those most likely to be successful in our particular program.

We know, however, that you have the potential to make a significant contribution to meeting our country’s pressing social needs, and we encourage you to pursue other ways to make a difference. To assist you in your pursuit, we have posted on our website a list of recommended resources. Additionally, if you are interested in being contacted by educational and service-oriented organizations that may wish to recruit Teach For America applicants for similar opportunities, you can complete a short form here.

I am sorry that we will not be able to provide individual feedback on admissions decisions, given that we do not have the resources to handle the volume of potential requests. Although this e-mail may bring disappointment, I hope that your experience with Teach For America thus far has been positive. If you would like to share any anonymous feedback on our admissions process, we welcome your reflections and suggestions here.

I wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Sean Waldheim
Vice President, Admissions

Here are a few of the fakers I lost out to.

I think if I made a rad effort I could totally groove with these guys. Honey badger the achievement gap, indeed. Snap. Your loss TFA.

Note that the rejection letter makes no reference to teaching either. Here are some of the things I won’t be receiving because I was rejected by Teacher for America. Note that none of these things is paid for by Teach for America even though it collects millions. Teach for America hires no teachers.

Snapshot of Corps Member Compensation

* Salary ranging from $30,000 to $51,000
* Health insurance
* Retirement benefits
* AmeriCorps education award of $10,700
* Loan forbearance and paid interest for two years
* $1,000 – $6,000 of no-interest loans or grants for relocation
* Educator discounts
* Exclusive scholarships and benefits from grad schools and employers

If you are an educator, I suggest you check out Educator Discounts because you may be eligible for some of them. In other words, you don’t have to be a Teach for America recruit to take advantage of many of them.

I know I’m not the only teacher rejected by Teach for America this year. TFA must stop leading with the mantra that certified, experienced teachers will not teach in poor schools. It is simply not true. It is a matter of recruitment and access to jobs. Teachers simply do not have access to TFA jobs because, inexplicably, the government has promised them to untrained, inexperienced corps members who do real harm to children and cost school districts millions. It’s time to stop this foolish, elitist jobs program and give every child a professional teacher.

In the meantime, I wish the new crop of TFAers well. I hope each of you have a better experience than John Bilby, and if you don’t, I hope you’ll have the courage to tell the world about it because every child deserves a great education.

Our public schools aren’t failing!

Education reformers would like us to believe that our public school system is in shambles, teachers are failing our students, and as a result we need to implement more rigorous methods of evaluation (ie. standardized testing). Are we really any worse off than we were 50 years ago? Are schools really failing, or are we looking at education through an out of focus lens? Join Diane as she focuses on the realities of education today.

Illahee Lecture
Date: March 20, 2012
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Lincoln High School, 1600 SW Salmon Street
Tickets: $20.00
Register here

Reception
Date: March 20, 2012
Time: 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
Location: First Unitarian Church, SW 13th and Salmon Street
Tickets: free
Register here

Diane Ravitch is Research Professor of Education at New York University, a historian of education, and educational policy analyst. From 1991-94 she was Assistant Secretary of Education and led the effort to promote the creation of voluntary state and national academic standards. From 1997 to 2004, she was a member of the Assessment Governing Board, which oversees federal testing. In her most recent book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Ravitch examines her career in education reform and repudiates positions that she once staunchly advocated, including standardized testing, privatization, restructuring schools. Drawing on over forty years of experience, Ravitch now critiques today’s most popular methods of restructuring schools, including privatization, standardized testing, and the proliferation of charter
schools.

Watch an excerpt from Diane’s keynote speech to at 2012 Louisiana School Boards Association Conference:

Take a look inside The Death and Life of the Great American School System here.

Diane Ravitch believes education reform should focus on getting children out of poverty, not finding the bad teachers. Watch Diane on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart here.