Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

A look at Chicago schools under Duncan

May 29th, 2009

By Kenneth Bernstein, Daily Kos

also posted elsewhere

Every now and then it is useful to step back from the hype and the spin and see what people on the ground have to say about important issues. In the case of education policy, we should not forget that George Bush gave us Rod Paige and the so-called Texas Miracle (which never was) as the argument for passing into law No Child Left Behind.

Obama has chosen his basketball buddy Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education. Duncan is an exemplar of several things (1) mayoral control of the school system; (2) a non-educator put in charge of education. The track record of both is not particularly sanguine.

But rather than merely my saying so, perhaps you will take the words of someone on the ground in Chicago. Wade Tillett is a Chicago public school parent and teacher who also blogs about Chicago schools. The piece below appeared on his Bubble Over Network, the name of which comes from the ubiquitous use of bubble-in mass produced tests. I have Wade’s permission to reproduce the entire piece, and I will add a few comments of my own at the end.

Flunk, retain, drop out

Written by Wade on May 27th, 2009

Soon scores from a small portion of the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) will come back.
The booklet sent out with ISAT says “No person or organization shall make a decision about a student or educator on the basis of a single test.” (1)
Despite this, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) trusts this test to override our own teachers in deciding the future of our children.
For third, sixth and eighth graders, our promotion policy automatically flunks at least one in four children based on a thirty or forty question test. (2)
At the end of summer school, CPS is five times more likely to retain a child for the next year if they are African-American than if they are white. (3)
By retaining a student, CPS increases that child’s chance of dropping out by 29%. (4)
Chicago Public Schools spends $100 million dollars every year on this policy. (5)
Extensive research shows that it DOES NOT WORK. Repeating a grade does not help children succeed. (4)
Why do we continue to threaten eight-year-olds and tell third-graders they are failures? Why do we make students cry, throw-up, and finally quit?
Chicago Public Schools should use the $100 million it spends every year on holding back kids to instead provide what students really need: caring professionals with the time and resources to find out what works for each of them. Our children need advocates, not inflexible policies spit out of a machine.
CPS should stop using standardized test scores to override all other considerations in making student grade promotion decisions. I encourage anyone who agrees to sign the petition. And I encourage other parents to contact Parents United for Responsible Education if your child is forced to go to summer school.

1. 2009 ISBE ISAT Professional Testing Practices for Educators booklet

2. CPS policy sends any student below the 24th percentile to summer school.

3. http://pureparents.org/data/files/retentionreport09.pdf

4. http://www.fairtest.org/chicago-research-criticizes-retention-test-driven-improvement

5. $10,000 per student per year times approximately 10,000 students retained

Here’s what is scary. Chicago is the model for what Duncan wants to do to American education. What has been done in Chicago since Richie Daley got mayoral control of the schools, first under Paul Vallas (who also imposed his “magic” on Philadelphia and New Orleans, but who is really interested in elective public office) and then under his one-time assistant Arne Duncan, has NOT addressed issues like the achievement gap that plagues poor, minority students. There is extensive evidence in the peer-reviewed literature of the negative consequences of retention, and that is without even considering the scope of retention system-wide in Chicago. The use of one-shot high-stakes multiple choice tests – which may or may not truly be standardized – to make the determination of who is retained is contrary to what the psychometricians responsible for the creation of the tests say is appropriate use of their tests.

The idea that anyone at below the 24th percentile is automatically required to attend summer school is also troublesome, unless there is an independent determination that at such a level the student is unable to function at the appropriate level for the next grade. It seems like an arbitrary cutoff without sufficient justification. Even if one presumes that the test is an accurate measurement of meaningful skills and knowledge, by that rationale we are assuming that just under 1/4 of all of our students are not succeeding sufficiently in regular school settings. If that is true, perhaps the answer is to address the deficiencies in the schooling received during the school year. Of course, the track record in Chicago has been instead to reconstitute troublesome schools, then not include their performance in the evaluation of the system on grounds that it is a “new school” so comparison with previous years’ test scores is meaningless. Thus the Chicago Public Schools mask the lack of progress under many years of mayoral control.

That we are doing this to relatively young children, marking a significant portion as failures early in the school career is an abomination – the failure is not theirs, it is ours, all of us, for allowing this to occur.

I will not attempt to rationalize the disparate impact of these policies by race. Wade points that out clearly.

Testing, then analyzing test results and applying punitive sanctions has not yet proven successful within cities and state nor across the nation. While some advocates of the NCLB approach brag on “improved” scores at the elementary level in NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress), such improvement is tenuous at best. The amount of improvement at the elementary level is less than in the previous cycle, that previous cycle having covered a period most of which occurred before NCLB. There is no improvement demonstrated at the upper grades. And even in the lower grades, the so-called achievement gap has not closed – minority children still lag behind as they did before – for this it is worth remembering that the ostensible purpose of NCLB was to close those gaps, to ensure that poor and minority children were not shortchanged on their education.

People in Chicago have been trying to warn the rest of us since before Obama became a candidate for president. Parents United for Responsible Education (PURE) has done yeoman’s work in documenting the real story behind the supposed success of the various initiatives in Chicago.

Wade Tillett’s piece is but one of a series of alarums to which we should pay heed. As Arne Duncan continues on his listening tour around the nation, people should be prepared to challenge him on the real record in Chicago.

In the last presidency we learned how badly our nation’s educational system could be damaged by propagating a failed model. I fear we confront a similar challenge right now.

Learn, and then speak out, for the future of our public schools.

Peace.

Take the Sotomayor Quiz!

May 28th, 2009
By Brian Jason Ford, Esq., Legal Editor
This post origionally appeard as the May, 2009 issue of the DBYD Education Law Newsletter.
Obama Nominates Sotomayor to U.S. Supreme Court
How well do you know the nominee?
Take our quiz and find out!
WARNING – This edition of the newsletter a bit heavy with acronyms and legalese but, every now and then, those of you down in the weeds deserve a little “inside baseball.”
This week, President Obama nominated Federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. Writing for Education Week’s School Law Blog, Erik W. Robelen noted that Judge Sotomayor sat on appellate panels in Second Circuit education law decisions including Garcia v. Yonkers School District (awarding legal fees to students in a student protest case) and Somoza v. New York City Department of Education (regarding the interplay between the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations and New York state law). You can read Mr. Robelen’s post at this link.
A cursory glance will reveal almost 60 education and disability law cases that Judge Sotomayor has either participated in or decided throughout her career. I will not attempt to use these cases to pigeonhole Judge Sotomayor. But, if prior decisions forecast future holdings, consider these additional highlights as we play…
Better Know A SCOTUS Nominee!
Olson v. State of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Written by Sotomayor
A New York State Police investigator who was also a union official was hospitalized for depression. After getting out of the hospital, he returned to work but started fighting with and cursing at his supervisors and stopped following orders. Later when the investigator was fired, he brought an ADA action against the state police but lost in front of a jury. The investigator appealed to Judge Sotomayor, who affirmed because…
A) The trial judge properly placed the burden of proof on the investigator; OR
B) The trial judge properly placed the burden of proof on the state; OR
C) The trial judge’s jury instructions, although far from ideal in that they did not properly explain “mixed-motive” burden shifting, were harmless.
ANSWER: C – This is Judge Sotomayor saying, “no harm no foul.”
Cortese v. New Fairfield Board of Education
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Acting without a lawyer, Mother brought an IDEA action (denial of FAPE) against her school district. She brought the lawsuit on her own behalf and on behalf Son, a student with disabilities. Son was 17 years old when Mother filed the lawsuit, but turned 18 – the age of majority – eight days later. The trial judge dismissed Mother’s clams, reasoning that students have rights under the IDEA, not their parents. At this point, Mother asked the trial judge to let the case go forward under Son’s name (i.e. treat Son as a separate plaintiff pursuing his own case). The trial judge refused, dismissing the case in its entirety, because Son was an unrepresented minor when the claim was filed. Mom and Son appealed to a panel of judges including Judge Sotomayor. The panel concluded…
A) The trial judge got it wrong. Parents have rights under the IDEA so Mother’s claims should not have been dismissed. Also, no matter how old the student was when the case was filed, he is now 18 and can speak for himself in court; OR
B) The trial judge got it wrong. Parents are entitled to FAPE so Mother’s claims should have continued no matter what Son’s status was; OR
C) The trial judge got it right. Students, not parents, are entitled to FAPE and minors are not allowed to represent themselves.
ANSWER: A – This is Judge Sotomayor showing deference to a pro se litigant.
Bonus fact! After this case was decided, the Supreme Court ruled that lawyer-less parents can represent their minor children in court! See Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007).
Mr. and Mrs. B. ex rel. M.B. v. East Granby Board of Education
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Mr. B. sued his school district alleging a denial of FAPE and seeking tuition reimbursement. Mr. B. lost both at the Due Process Hearing and Federal District Court level. He could not obtain reimbursement because, according to both the Hearing Officer and the trial judge, M.B.’s evaluations and IEPs were appropriate. Nevertheless, the trial judge upheld the Hearing Officer’s award of 10% of Mr. B.’s attorney’s fees. When the case reached Judge Sotomayor’s panel, on the issue of fees…
A) Parents were awarded 100% of their attorney’s fees. Parents are entitled to “fee shifting” if they prevail in even the slightest part of their case; OR
B) Judge Sotomayor’s panel ordered the trial judge to reconsider his opinion because (1) the Hearing Officer did not actually award attorney’s fees, (2) the Hearing Officer would not be allowed to order attorney’s fees even if she did and (3) the trial judge has to determine how successful – or not – the parents are before he can determine if they are entitled to anything; OR
C) Lets keep this simple. In the words of Willie Wonka, the panel said to Mr. B., “You lose! You get nothing!”
ANSWER: B – it’s messy, but legally correct.
State of Connecticut Office for Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Hartford Board of Education
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Written by Sotomayor
The Connecticut Office for Protection and Advocacy (OPA) is a state-created agency authorized to investigate suspected abuse or neglect of individuals with disabilities or mental illness in Connecticut and to advocate on their behalf. OPA wanted to (1) observe and interview students a district-operated therapeutic school for students who are seriously emotionally disturbed, in order to investigate complaints of abuse and neglect at the school, and (2) obtain a directory of students with contact information for their parents or guardians. The Hartford Board of Education refused. Judge Sotomayor ruled…
A) OPA gets in because the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (“PAIMI”), the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (“DD Act”), and the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Act (“PAIR”) say they can; OR
B) Despite all of those laws, OPA stays out because students have privacy rights under both FERPA and the IDEA; OR
C) OPA gets in under all the laws listed in (A) and because neither FERPA nor the IDEA keeps them out.
ANSWER: C – Hartford was all by itself on this one.
Bonus fact! The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services filed amicus briefs in this case to say that the access that OPA sought was okay under both FERPA and the IDEA.
As the confirmation process moves forward (or drags on – depending on your point of view), we will let you know if Judge Sotomayor faces any education law question on her way to the bench.
This post is subject to a disclaimer.

Switch to our mobile site