Archive for May, 2009

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.

Aspects of Change: A Time of Learning

May 27th, 2009

By Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach, 21st Century Learning

“Things do not change; we change.” Thoreau

“It’s not that some people have willpower and some don’t. It’s that some people are ready to change and others are not.” James Gordon, M.D.

“Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.”
King Whitney Jr.

Aspects-of-change

As a year of helping districts and schools manage change comes to a close, I understand more than ever that leading a successful change
effort is a hands-on, fully engaged job. One which often kept me from doing other things I love. It has been two months since my last blog post. I have missed blogging and reflecting here with you- because my personal path for change and growth comes from sharing, reflecting and constructing knowledge here with you.

I have learned a lot this year, but what stands out most clearly is that to change an organization, its people
must see their roles in it differently. If we focus on the people,
and how they change themselves, organizations change more quickly.

CHANGE IS GENERALIZABLE

Some of you know I bought a house this year. Pretty big change for me and mine. Then I got this crazy idea that I would remodel the home. So we gutted the kitchen, den, and dining room. Knocking down walls and starting at scratch. It has been a time of renewal. The other day it occured to me that the frustration, redefining, and hard work I am experiencing through this process (which has been going on since February- change takes time) is generalizable to the organizational and personal change efforts Will and I have been leading with PLP.

Preparing for Change

For change to take hold and redefine people and the places they live and grow there needs to be a time of inquiry, reflection, and visioning.

When I moved into this house I knew I wanted to change it. I started with imagery. I started looking at possible images and examples of what I wanted this house to become; scourging the Web, my networks and books and magazines for stories of others who had transformed their homes into more updated and functional spaces. Because I understood the culture of our family I was instinctively drawn to options that would work for us. Interestingly enough many of the changes I wanted to make came from a schematic building of ideas I had been collecting since childhood. Some of the changes were for fun and “cool” factor, some were to make the home more functional and relevant, some were to create a sense of beauty and well being and some were to support the social aspects of my life and to connect to the future- my children and their children.

Once I had some basic ideas I began to reflect and think and share. I would sit in a room quietly and observe, vision, and play with concepts. Then I would bring others in the room and elaborate my vision and ask for their opinions and ideas. I asked lots of questions. Then I took the new information and reworked my plans incorporating the ideas I liked best. Constantly, I was using the “wisdom of the crowd” to shape and reshape my vision. I brought family members into the planning to garner buy-in and collaboratively we created a shared vision. Every time there was a disagreement and a storm of ideas and opinions colliding I reminded myself this was part of the process and that out of diversity would come innovation.

Once I had a clearer vision of what the principled changes needed to be to make this home more relevant in our lives, now and in the future, I committed it to paper. In some cases where I knew I had limited knowledge, like the landscaping, I hired an expert designer to actually draw up some plans to follow. I worked for weeks with the designer to make sure the options we chose were the ones that would fit best with the needs of our family. It is important that as you are reculturing you consider best fit and how lives will be impacted in the most positive way from the changes you are about to make.

Getting the Right People on the Bus

Finding the right people is important. I needed to have a team that was willing to take risks. One that was not daunted easily. One that didn’t mind learning new things and being innovative. I needed a team that would not bend and give me what I thought I wanted in a time of weakness but rather would hold true to the vision. I needed team members with skill and expertise who were networked and could bring in other experts to help us deliver. I needed a team that was in it for the long haul and who would pay attention to detail. I wanted team members who understood this project was going to be transformational and as a result joined me in pursuing excellence.

I needed to make sure I had not only the right people on my team but enough people to get the job done in a timely manner.

DSCF5655

Keeping the Momentum Up and Not Giving Up

The toughest part of the change process with this house has been keeping the momentum and the dream of the transformation alive. I have had contractors in my house since February. Dust, debris clutter, noise, parking issues, inconveniences are all part of the messiness of change. Dealing with the ambiguity has been tough too. There are times I wanted to throw in the towel and thought as outdated as the home was at least there was peace and comfort. I questioned if I did the right thing. And in the demolition phase I reminded myself of the implementation dip- that things will look worse before they get better, and that the end result will not be chaos, but rather peace and improved and better for all.

Fear is a big part of it too. Especially in these tough economic times. Am I spending money that should be allocated somewhere else? Should I be saving this money for a “just in-case” moment or is what I am investing going to payoff? Trust is another issue. Do the experts I have hired to make these changes a reality have the know how and wisdom to make it all happen- or was it just talk? When all around me looks overwhelming, can they lead us out of the chaos and confusion into the shared vision we have developed?

It was the talking, visioning, revisioning, and reflecting that kept this change project alive and moving forward. It was interesting to me that as one task of the mission was completed, the next change needed would become obvious. Change motivates and reveals the need for more change.

Lessons Learned

When one group fails to perform their piece of the change process it sets everyone back.

Relationships need to be negotiated along the way.

Resources need to be examined closely and also negotiated creatively.

Risks need to be considered and in some cases pieces of the plan need to be abandoned while others move on to phase 2.

Celebrate and document the progress and changes along the way. Recognize those who are working hard. Reward and credit those who deserve it. Nurture those who need help.

Not everyone on your team has pure motives for change. Some see the change as an opportunity for wealth and power rather than the goal of helping those who will be living out the change. Deal with this diplomatically.

This experience has reminded me of a reality TV show at times- intense with drama and life. It is almost surreal. But change produces movement and turbulence. And turbulence is life force. It is opportunity.

Comparisons

So as I wrote about the change process with my home I could clearly see the comparison to the changes organizations and individuals go through with 21st Century reform. Can you? I would love for us to discover them together here in the comments. Please share your ideas- how does what I describe above compare?

Self-Regulation Supports Student Learning and Achievement

May 26th, 2009

By Dr. Kevin Washburn, Contributing Editor

You sit in a room with almost nothing in it. It’s just you, a table, and a single cookie. The researcher who left a moment ago said you could eat the cookie—two chocolate wafers connected by a cream filling. Or, you can wait until he returns in a few minutes and have two cookies. You sit, thinking, “One now? or two later?”

Oh, one more detail: you are four-years-old, and whether you eat one cookie now or wait for two later may predict many aspects of your future.

Thanks to recent Radio Lab episodes, coverage on news programs, and attention from bloggers such as writer Jonah Lehrer and educator Aaron Eyler, self-regulation has become a hot topic.

Much of the attention has focused on the original study, often called the “Marshmallow Test,” conducted by Walter Mischel in the 1960’s. (The researchers switched to cookies shortly after launching the experiment.) But more recent research provides insights into the relationship of self-regulation and academic achievement.

Also known as self-discipline, researchers describe self-regulation as the ability to consciously suppress or delay responses in order to work for a higher goal. Examples include “deliberately modulating one’s anger rather than having a temper tantrum, reading test instructions before proceeding to the questions, paying attention to a teacher rather than daydreaming, saving money so that it can accumulate interest in the bank, choosing homework over TV, and persisting on long-term assignments despite boredom and frustration.” Self-regulation predicts academic success better than IQ. It also better predicts GPA, standardized test achievement, homework completion, the potential for GPA gains during the course of a year, and even SAT scores.

Because it significantly influences student achievement, it makes sense to develop students’ self-regulation capacities. But how? How can teachers and schools aid their students’ strengthening of self-regulation? Self-regulation is much like a muscle. It can be exercised and strengthened. Any task that requires ignoring and delaying reward or that requires persistence through boredom or challenge exercises the self-regulation “muscle.” For example:

  • Exercise students’ “muscles” of self-regulation. By engaging students in activities that require delayed gratification or perseverance, we provide a self-regulation workout. Just like exercising yields slow but steady results, gradually increasing the amount of self-regulation required for tasks slowly builds capacity. As Aaron Eyler suggests, engage students in complex assignments that require time spent thinking about how ideas connect instead of separate, quickly-completed assignments focused on individual ideas.
  • Teach students stick-to-it and wait-for-it strategies, such as self-talk. The messages we consciously “speak” to ourselves influence our thinking, and our thinking influences our actions. In several recent studies, researchers have found that “mental tricks,” motivational and instructional self-talk has “small but significant effects” on “physical exertion…[and] performance” and help us stay “focused.”
  • Teach students “cognitive transformation.” Cognitive transformation involves distracting the mind by shifting the focus. For example, in the famous “marshmallow test,” some children managed to avoid eating the marshmallow by imagining it as something else—a cloud, a table, a chef’s hat. This “distraction” prolonged their ability to resist eating the marshmallow.
  • Engage students in attention training, such as listening for details, observing closely, and solving complex puzzles. Again, increasing the level and duration of attention required for success can strengthen the self-regulation “muscle.” Reading aloud to students is one of the best ways of accomplishing this. Throughout a school year, increase the amount of time you read to children and the complexity of the texts you read.
  • Implement a school FITNESS program. The emphasis needs to be on fitness, not on competition or learning a specific sport. Students engaged in regular physical activity score higher on self-regulation measures.

Some may argue that because self-regulation is non-academic it should not be addressed in school. This perspective fails to recognize the strong connection between self-regulation and learning. Perhaps a metaphor can help. Imagine a suspension bridge, such as San Francisco’s Golden Gate or the Bristol Channel’s Severn. If the road, carrying travelers from one shore to another, represents a student’s learning, the cables, the roadway’s essential support, represent self-regulation. Weak cables limit the roadway’s depth and distance. Strengthening students’ self-regulation capacities supports the academic learning we’re seeking through our teaching.

Duckworth, A. L. (2008). Self-discipline, IQ, and academic achievement. Presented at Learning & the Brain: Using Emotions Research to Enhance Learning. Boston (Fall 2008).

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science 16(12), 939-944.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1), 198-208.

Eyler, A. (2009). Hybridizing education. Stretch our minds (May 22, 2009): http://stretchourminds.blogspot.com.

Physical Spaces in Support of Whole Child Education

May 21st, 2009

By Ann Etchison, Virginia ASCD

Recently I spent a day visiting the physical spaces inhabited by the students and educators of Manassas Park City Schools in Northern Virginia—a revamped learning community more than ten years in the making envisioned by educators, the School Board, the community, and a group of architects. I thought I would be writing about this rather sleek concept of how/where school design and instruction intersect, but I’m stuck at the keyboard with more thoughts about engaging and caring school cultures, program-based school design, effective instruction and inspirational leadership. Perhaps the intersection occurs where these four ingredients of effective schools overlap—a recipe of complementary efforts with a common focus on what’s best for children’s academic, emotional, social, and physical health. I’m reminded of ASCD’s Whole Child campaign and think this school division epitomizes its tenets.


The story of Manassas Park Superintendent Tom Debolt and the School Board’s mission to create community investment in a vision for quality education is well chronicled by University of Virginia Professor Daniel Duke in his 2008 book, The Little School System That Could: Transforming a City School District. I won’t delve into that story in this post, but suffice it to say that since the mid nineties, Dr. DeBolt has led a reform effort that transformed the school-community culture, raised student achievement, and created wide support for physical learning spaces designed to foster a caring and creative learning community.

One of the goals within the system’s plan includes providing world-class facilities for all students, and in the last ten years, Manassas Park has replaced each existing school facility with a new building and added a pre-K facility. Interestingly, planning the educational program for each of these schools began well before the school was designed and built. The instructional program drove the design, and the architects listened to the educators to inform their work. At the elementary level, school staff chose a parallel block schedule to optimize learning, and the schools were designed to support the schedule, which allowed for small group instruction in core subjects, common planning for teachers, and dedicated time for both physical and arts education.



The newest school, Manassas Park Elementary School and Pre-K addition, opened weeks ago and exemplifies the school system’s focus on design that enhances instruction and positive school climate. Similar to the other facilities, the interior is bathed in natural light, wide and inviting stairwells, and common areas for students to gather; the library serves as a central hub. All schools employ the concept of “passive supervision” with interior glass that promotes both an openness but also a sense of ever-present supervision. Teachers belong to a teacher cluster space that includes a person space, group meeting space, and kitchenette. In this gold LEED environmentally friendly school, design includes solar tubes throughout that maximize natural lighting, a rainwater harvesting system, and a geo-thermal heating and cooling system. Moreover, the instructional program incorporates teaching students about the systems used in the school and wall plaques throughout the building explain reasons behind each with computer monitors that provide energy usage data to the entire school community. Physical and arts education serve as an integral part of the school schedule, and every student learns to play an instrument during the upper elementary years.

Interestingly, this is not a wealthy community full of parents with advanced degrees. Half of the very diverse student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch, and many have felt the pains of economic recession and home foreclosure. But the proud investment in the public education system looms large, as witnessed by the fact that 1000 people showed up on the last Friday in April for the official move to the new school. Teachers, parents, community members, administrators, high school students, and most of the staff of the architectural firm that designed the school joined forces in what Superintendent DeBolt described as the educational equivalent of a barn raising and completed the move in less than two hours.


School buildings deteriorate and have to be replaced or community growth mandates the need for new structures. Children enter those buildings, look around, and decide whether they feel valued and welcome. Teachers often spend as much if not more time in their respective school buildings than they do anywhere else, and a community speaks volumes through the leaders it chooses, the programs it creates, the culture it nourishes, and the physical spaces it designs for learning.

Last week the House of Representatives passed a bill intended to funnel millions of dollars into each state coffer to promote healthy educational spaces for children to learn. It’s exciting to picture more schools like the ones I saw in Manassas Park that promote the development of the Whole Child through innovative and effective program design, learning-focused school culture, high quality teaching and leadership, and valued community support.

I’m curious about school facility design processes in other communities, especially in the midst of an economic recession. What other factors not included in this post should influence school design? How have people and available resources worked to create learning-focused spaces for children and/or what obstacles must be overcome?

Ann Etchison (@ann1622) is the Executive Director of Virginia ASCD (@vascd).

Who Should Coach? Three Essential Traits for Professional Development Coaches

May 19th, 2009

By Kevin Washburn

“Who do you think should be our coach?” I get this question from administrators in schools that invite me to lead professional development events. There is an assumption that after a few days of working with teachers I’ll have a good sense of who could coach colleagues effectively. Sometimes I do, but often I don’t feel confident in making a recommendation. I’ve had teachers in these events who seemed resistant but on a return visit had become a new initiative’s supporter and best practitioner. Conversely, I’ve experienced teachers who seemed receptive and motivated during training but who resisted actually making changes to their practice. The training event is not the best setting for identifying potential coaches.

What, then, should we look for? What traits does a successful coach possess? While a lengthy list could easily be developed, let’s examine three that are critical.

First, an effective coach possesses a passion for and a deep understanding of the new initiative. Genuine passion is contagious. It acts like a magnet, drawing others to its energy, but it rarely manifests itself as a cheerleader. A quiet dedication to doing something right, to working with excellence even while learning, marks the teacher who attracts others to a new initiative. An effective coach will help colleagues see the value of new ideas through actions more than words. Does the teacher take an initiative to make changes to her practice? Does she seem concerned about getting it right, about trying out the initiative as designed? Does the teacher pursue more knowledge and better ways of implementation?

Implementing a new initiative is an act of transfer—the applying of new ideas and methods to actual classroom practice. Coaching others is a step beyond that: equipping and enabling others to be successful in their transfer of new ideas and methods to their classrooms. “The first factor that influences successful transfer is degree of mastery of the original subject,” conclude Bransford, Brown, and Cocking. “Without an adequate level of initial learning, transfer cannot be expected. This point seems obvious, but it is often overlooked…Transfer is affected by the degree to which people learn with understanding rather than merely memorize sets of facts or follow a fixed set of procedures [italics added].”1

Just attending the same training event everyone else attended does not equip someone to coach colleagues successfully. Deeper understanding must be constructed so that the coach can adapt the initiative to various teachers, various classrooms, and to best serve various students. An effective coach seeks additional learning and, if available, additional training in the new initiative.

Second, an effective coach knows how to strategically handle difficult conversations. If the training event went well and the administration has been open with teachers prior to it, difficult conversations may be few in number, but they will still happen. At some point, the coach encounters a colleague who is overwhelmed and feels stressed and defensive about making changes, or a colleague who feels threatened by the idea of having a coach in the classroom, or even a colleague who would like to be left alone to use the same approaches that have been used before. All these conversations occur in every type of school.

After explaining the importance of self-respect and respect for one’s counterpart, Holly Weeks, author of Failure to Communicate, explains how a successful coach perceives difficult conversations:

Self-respect and respect help us frame the problem between us and figure out how to talk about it. Meanwhile, respecting the landscape of a tough conversation assumes there will be problems ahead. Rather than put our heads down and start to plow through, we will do better to step back, take a satellite view, and think about the lay of the land. That is, think about the problems we are likely to encounter and look for a good path through them.2

A good coach will approach difficult conversations with such a “satellite view,” rather than a perspective of “the problem is you.” A good coach stays focused on solving problems and supporting progress, avoiding and ignoring personal attacks.

Finally, a good coach focuses on improving thinking. The goal with any major professional development initiative should not be to produce robots who follow formulas to plan teaching. The goal should be to help teachers understand what works and why it works, to deepen teacher thinking about teaching and to increase teacher intentionality. A good coach aids colleagues’ thinking, often using questions to support teacher thinking rather than short-circuiting thinking by always giving answers. Questioning helps others discover insights for themselves. David Rock, author of Quiet Leadership, explains:

…it’s time to give up second guessing what people’s brains need and become masters of helping others think for themselves. The best way to do that is by defining solutions rather than problems, and helping people identify for themselves new habits they could develop to bring those solutions closer. Pivotal to all this is the art of enabling other people to have their own insights. Once people have had new insights for themselves, our job as quiet leaders is to provide the encouragement, ongoing support and belief in people, over time, to ensure they develop the new habits that are possible. Then we will be truly bringing out the best in others.3

Certainly more contributes to successful coaching, but these three traits are where I’d begin my search, either for a coach or to determine my potential as a coach. Here are some guiding questions based on these thoughts:

  • With whom does the new initiative seem to resonate? Who holds the same values as those advocated by the new approach? Who shows an authentic dedication to the new ideas?
  • Who is skilled at navigating difficult conversations? Who can calm others in the midst of heated interaction? Who maintains a focus on finding solutions? Who seems capable of equipping and encouraging colleagues?
  • Who is skilled at engaging others in thinking? Who asks great questions? Who can use questioning to help others think things through for themselves? Who works with colleagues to think things through rather than assigning blame or taking resistance personally?

The professional development event may be great. The presenter may be dynamic, engaging, and informative. But after the event, the real work begins. The coach plays a pivotal role and directly influences the success of a new initiative. Effective coaches know the program, know the people, and know the processes that will optimize success. When asked for my recommendations, the best advice I can offer administrators is, “Choose wisely.”

  1. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1999), 41, 43.
  2. Weeks, H., Failure to Communicate: How Conversations Go Wrong and What You Can Do to Right Them (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008), 45.
  3. Rock, D., Quiet Leadership: Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 27.

Brown v Board of Education after 55 years

May 17th, 2009

By Kenneth Bernstein, originally posted at Daily Kos

Fifty-five years ago today the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously issued Earl Warren’s opinion in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, in which it stated unequivocally that

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

And yet even after 55 years the promise of the Brown decision we still have not overcome what is effectively a system of educational apartheid.

Below the fold I am offering the text of a piece by Sam Chaltain, the National Director of The Forum for Education and Democracy. I am going to urge you to read carefully his words. I will offer a few additional comments of my own, but the primary purpose of this diary is to make Sam’s statement more widely known.

Doesn’t Every Child Deserve a High Quality Education?
By Sam Chaltain

On May 17, America will mark the 55th anniversary of Thurgood Marshall’s historic victory in Brown v. Board of Education. If Marshall were alive, however, he would urge us to stop celebrating 1954 and start accepting responsibility for our complicity in the creation of a “separate but equal” education apartheid system – with one method of instruction for the poor, and another for the privileged.

In theory, the Brown decision represents the most hopeful strains of the American narrative: working within a system of laws to extend the promise of freedom, more fairly and fully, to each succeeding generation. “In the field of public education,” the unanimous Court wrote, “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” and the opportunity to learn “is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” The Chicago Defender proclaimed May 17, 1954 as “the beginning of the end of the dual society in American life and the system of segregation that supports it.” Marshall himself remembered feeling “so happy I was numb.”

In practice, integrated schools today are as much of a dream now as they were then, and the subject of segregation has all but disappeared from the national conversation about education reform. Worse still, many of the newest and most promising schools in our nation’s cities are actually increasing the racial stratification of young people and communities – not lessening it.

Providing ‘separate but equal’ facilities, it seems, has once again become an acceptable justification for allowing an inequitable schooling system to exist. In this system, some schools receive ample funding, while others scrape by. Some schools are filled with passionate, experienced educators, while others are flooded with passionate, inexperienced rookies. And while one child is being taught that the key to success is finding the right (multiple-choice) answer to other people’s questions, another is learning that success comes from finding his voice and discovering his rightful place in the world.

Which child is more likely to do well in life, and in a democratic society?

Ostensibly, this inequity was what the Court ended in 1954. But legal changes tend to outpace social changes, and so in 1973 the Court was again asked to intervene, this time when a group of poor Texas parents claimed that their state’s reliance on local taxes to determine per-pupil expenditures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A state court agreed, but the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, reversed.

The unfair distribution of resources, Justice Potter Stewart conceded, “has resulted in a system of public education that can fairly be described as chaotic and unjust. It does not follow, however, that this system violates the Constitution.”

Justice Lewis Powell agreed. “Though education is one of the most important services performed by the state, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution.” If it were, Powell conceded, “virtually every State will not pass muster.”

For Justice Marshall, a sitting member of the Court he had stood before two decades prior, that was precisely the point. “The Court concludes that public education is not constitutionally guaranteed,” he wrote, even though “no other state function is so uniformly recognized as an essential element of our society’s well being.”

Marshall understood that without equal access to a high-quality public education, democracy doesn’t work. “Education directly affects the ability of a child to exercise his First Amendment rights,” he explained. “Education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society. Both facets of this observation are suggestive of the substantial relationship which education bears to guarantees of our Constitution.”

After so many years and so little real change, something new – perhaps even something drastic – needs to be done.

What if Powell and Stewart were wrong? What if we made the guarantee of a high-quality public education our nation’s 28th Constitutional Amendment? Is that the game-changer we need to make the promise of Brown a reality, 55 years later?

Sam Chaltain is the National Director of The Forum for Education & Democracy, a national education “action tank” committed to the public, democratic role of public education — the preparation of engaged and thoughtful democratic citizens.

(follow Sam on Twitter)

Let me start by noting again the words of Justice Powell, that Though education is one of the most important services performed by the state, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution. And still today, more than a quarter century after that opinion in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, it is still true, as Powell wrote in 1972, that virtually every State will not pass muster.

Some states guarantee a free and appropriate public education in their state constitution, although such guarantees were often from a time when such education was only through the 8th grade.

We have come out of a two-term presidency where the focus on No Child Left Behind as the supposed means of addressing the inequity that is still pervasive in America’s schools has had the unfortunate effect of narrowing the educational opportunities for many children of color. The recent scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) show that while scores at the elementary level have risen somewhat (albeit less than in the previous periodic assessment covering a time when NCLB had only briefly been in effect), the gap between white and black had not closed and at the high school level there had been no significant change in performance. In short, we are still leaving many children behind. And in the meantime we are robbing them of access to the arts, which are not tested, and incredibly to history and civic education, which also are not part of the calculation of Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB, and hence get ignored inr restricted in favor of more time to raise scores on those tests whose results do get included.

I teach government. Thus the words of Thurgood Marshall in dissent are to me quite relevant: Education directly affects the ability of a child to exercise his First Amendment rights. Our students need to understand those writes to be fully participating citizens helping shape their own future and the future of this nation. Marshall recognized this: Education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society. Both facets of this observation are suggestive of the substantial relationship which education bears to guarantees of our Constitution.

But these ideas are not new now, nor were they when Marshall expressed them in 1972. Let me offer a selection from Warren’s opinion in Brown that remains as relevant today as it was 55 years ago:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We must remember that despite the unanimity of the Brown decision there was strong resistance. I write these words from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which after the succeeding Brown 2 decision of 1955, which said that segregated school systems must be integrated with all deliberate speed chose a path of “massive resistance” repeatedly articulated in the editorial pages of a major newspaper, the Richmond News Leader, penned by the very articulate editor James Jackson Kilpatrick. We often forget that Topeka was only one of 5 districts involved in the Brown case. There were two parallel decisions, because one case came from our national capital which since it was note a state had to be decided on somewhat different legal grounds as it was in Bolling v Sharpe. The other states, besides Virginia, included South Carolina and Delaware. The Virginia situation is illustrative of how difficult it has been to achieve racial equity in public schools. The General Assembly had allowed the closing of public schools that were to be integrated, but this was ruled unconstitutional in 1959, whereupon the General Assembly repealed compulsory school attendance and left it to local option. That meant either integrated public schools or no public schools. Prince Edward County, which had been the subject of the Virginia case combined into Brown, chose to be the sole Virginia district that abandoned public education. From May 1, 1959 until in 1964 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unconstitutional governments making grants to private (segregated) schools, Prince Edward County had no public schools.

Too many do not know the history of that time. The decision 55 years ago today did not magically erase an era of racial discrimination in education. While it might no longer be de jure on racial grounds today, the inequity of schools serving primarily or exclusively minority populations is not so much better, despite the various federal and state efforts that have been made. The process of of addressing the failures of such schools has inextricably become a political football used by some to advance causes that have little to do with the meaningful education of children whose economic situations give them less access to educationally related activities outside of school, and whose in-school education has increasingly been narrowed to preparation for tests to “prove” we are offering an education, even if the unstated purposes on the part of many advocates are things like destroying the legitimacy of (and hence the support for) public education and destruction of teachers unions as a force both in educational policy and in politics.

Education is essential if we are to remain a liberal democracy. It is one of the few ways we can empower all of our citizens to something beyond a dependence on the whims of corporations whose sole purpose is maximizing their profits. Education should prepare people for a future that is more than merely for the workforce, but also for civil society, for the body politic, for the future of America.

We have come 55 years since the Brown decision was issued. We have not yet come close to fulfilling the promise contained in Warren’s sweeping opinion. Despite the unanimity of the Court in 1954, we have never achieved a consensus on the purposes of public education, nor do we have a willingness to make the commitment necessary to achieve the promise of the right to a high quality public education.

Perhaps pursuing a federal Constitutional Amendment is the only way of refocusing our attention as a nation to what Brown was supposed to help us achieve. Certainly the public discussion that would ensue from exploring that option would benefit the nation, whether or not we ever ratify such a proposal.

Warren wrote in Brown that

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

Allowing clearly inferior educational opportunities, even if nominally not done specifically on racial grounds, nevertheless still has the same impact. Students are not idiots – they quickly realize that the inferiority of their facilities, in some cases teachers, and in many cases quality of instruction indicates that society does not truly care about them despite the rhetoric about leaving no child behind, of overcoming the disparity that is apparent when we look even at gross indicators like test scores. Their hearts and minds are still battered by the inequity a continuing part of the experience of far too many children of lesser economic circumstances. They may be children of color in inner cities. They may be whites in economically distressed rural communities. They are often children in schools on the reservations in which many Native Americans still grow up.

Regardless of race or location, when we do not offer them a high quality education, we betray the basic principles of our Constitutional system and give lie to the promise of the Brown decision.

Fifty-five years. We have come somewhat. We have not come far enough.

Peace.

Or Is It About the Technology?

May 11th, 2009

By Kelly Hines, Keeping Kids First

A few weeks ago, I published a series of my thoughts on 21st century learning and teaching in a post titled “It’s Not About the Technology.” For a tech integrator and enthusiast like me, it was almost uncomfortable to articulate these ideas independent of technology. As a quick recap, my main points were that educators must focus on the skills of problem solving, addressing the needs of individual students and learning, as opposed to teaching.

This week, Ben Grey posted a thought-provoking article to “Tech & Learning” titled “Why Technology?” As friends of mine in ed tech positions across the United States are losing funding for their departments, and even their positions, Ben Grey’s questions are all the more pressing. As the author of a post titled “It’s Not About the Technology”, what would I say if I were asked to stand in front of a board of education or other decision making body and answer the question “Why should we continue to use and pursue technology in our district?”

Honestly, I would start by taking a quick, informal poll. Where have you received and made most of your recent calls? Your cell phone or your land line? Have you ever by passed a gas station because they didn’t have pay at the pump? Where do you look for information? In an encyclopedia or on the internet?

What do our children need to know in order to be successful in our world? Already in 2009, you must be able to navigate the internet and be savvy about decision making and purchasing. North Carolina’s Department of Motor Vehicles is no longer sending out license plate renewal notifications by US Postal Service. All drivers in North Carolina will have to go online to renew their registration. Our children have to be prepared to live and prosper in this world.

But what are we really talking about here? We talking about standing in front of a decision making body that has to weigh sustainability, budgets, personnel and other political factors. They can easily argue that technology use in the classroom has not been proven to raise test scores. Technology is always changing, so how can we keep up? Opponents say that kids get enough social media at home. So, let’s talk a language that they will understand.

The state of California spends approximately $400 million dollars per year on textbooks. Yes, that’s $400, 000, 000 every year. A university professor I know figured out that his university could hire three full-time teaching faculty positions if the university would go paperless. A particular school system in Maine spent nearly $10, 000 this year on hospital/homebound services, not including labor costs. It costs $200 per person to send a teacher to interactive whiteboard training with particular software companies. Webinars can be included for free for unlimited participants to learn on their own time in their own way. For any governing body, these numbers should be staggering. The great news is that we have the resources to combat these things in a modern, all-inclusive and multi-functional way. Technology.

What do high schools need in order to establish academic credibility? They must offer a high variety of courses in all disciplines. They need to provide opportunities for individual and collective groups of students to pursue independent areas of advanced studies. What do you do when you cannot afford a Japanese teacher for ten interested students or an Advanced Placement Biology teacher for nine motivated students? You coordinate with a community college, university or partnering school to offer these courses to students virtually. How can you provide SAT test prep for students who have to work late and on weekends? You create a free Moodle course that students can access from home at times that are conducive to their busy schedules. How do you provide high quality hospital/homebound instruction for students? You enroll them in a regular education classroom and you have them Skype in to a grade-level appropriate classroom where they can interact with curriculum, teachers and peers to facilitate learning. How do you make sure that teachers are getting “just in time” professional development? You create a series of professional development activities that are collaborative in nature to address the demands of individual teachers on a schedule that meets family obligations as well. How do you create an environmentally conscious school system while saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment, toner, repairs & paper? You help students. to learn and share in a paperless learning environment. How do you avoid spending millions of dollars on loosely correlated textbooks that are error riddled and often out-dated before they are printed? You build courses around free, open source resources that are web-based, accessible from all edges of the globe and are easily differentiated to address the learning needs of all students without sacrificing the integrity of the curriculum’s content.

Before systems around the United States (and the world) start cutting technology positions and funds, I hope they will consider that these positions and resources may be exactly what saves us in this time of economic uncertainty. While I will holdfast to my ideas that there are fundamental concepts that must be in place before 21st century learning will be at its best (with or without the technology), maybe it IS about the technology when it comes to best serving our students today and beyond!

On Charter Schools, Part 5: Separate but … Better?

May 8th, 2009
Education, Poverty & Race

That an achievement gap exists in the United States across racial and socio-economic lines is undeniable. This gap can be seen in “standardized test scores, grade point average, dropout rates, and college-enrollment and -completion rates.” Few would deny the connection between race and poverty in the United States. According to a recent study published by Kansas State University, this poverty in America is rooted in our education system. According to Kay Ann Taylor, associate professor of secondary education,

Because public school funding relies, in part, on property taxes, in communities with little property ownership in the way of a tax base, schools and children suffer.

Even more frightening is the fact that our leaders seem to be well aware of these problems … and completely ineffectual at confronting them. The only education reform act passed by congress in the last 40 years, the No Child Left Behind Act, has as one of its stated goals, the narrowing of the Achievement Gap. But according to a recent New York Times article, NCLB is not closing this gap: “Between 2004 and last year, scores for young minority students increased, but so did those of white students.” The article continues,

Although Black and Hispanic elementary, middle and high school students all scored much higher on the federal test than they did three decades ago, most of those gains were not made in recent years, but during the desegregation efforts of the 1970s and 1980s. That was well before the 2001 passage of the No Child law, the official description of which is “An Act to Close the Achievement Gap.

Perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves is, what are education reformers doing to tackle the problems of Racial and Socio-Economic Segregation?
Thirty years after the civil rights era, the United States remains a residentially segregated society in which Blacks and Whites inhabit different neighborhoods of vastly different quality.
The percentage of black children who now go to integrated public schools is at its lowest level since 1968. The words of “American apartheid” have been used in reference to the disparity between white and black schools in America.
Charter Schools and Segregation
Thus far in my writings for the Edurati Review, I have been focusing on the burgeoning Charter School movement. I would prioritize my perspective on this movement as such: 1) an urban, mathematics educator, 2) a school reform advocate teaching for an high-profile Charter Management Organization (CMO) and 3) a Master’s Candidate in Public School Administration. In this column, I hope to delve deeper into the issues of Poverty and Race as they effect and are effected by Charter Schools.
I have written about this issue previously in a post on Criticisms of Charter Schools. In this post, I wrote

That minority parents should be embracing charter schools should not be surprising. I believe that our nation’s Achievement Gap speaks to the fact that problems faced by our public education system are compounded for minority communities. As a result, “charter schools in most states enroll disproportionately high percentages of minority students, resulting in students of all races being more likely to attend school that on average, had a higher percentage of minority students.”

Indeed, much of the research on segregation and charter schooling points to this sort of pattern. As education reform advocate, Derrell Bradford, commented on the post,

These schools serve residential assignment patterns that already mirror segregated housing patterns created to send kids to traditional district schools. These concentrations, particularly of black parents, in charter schools are less about housing and assignment, patterns, which predate charters, as they currently exist (and school segregation that is endemic of that) and more about the ethnicity of the people who feel the most urgent need for an alternative. Harlem is full of black people. The traditional public schools in that area are terrible overall. So this is a natural response from the most put-upon sector of students who attend those schools.

This would be inline with findings by the Civil Rights Project, whose 2003 report on Charter Schools and Race found that:
  • Seventy percent of all black charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools compared with 34% of black public school students. In almost every state studied, the average black charter school student attends school with a higher percentage of black students and a lower percentage of white students.
  • Becuase of the disproportionately high enrollement of minority students in charter schools, white charter school students go to school, on average, with more nonwhite students than whites in non-charter public schools. However, there are pockets of white segregation where white charter school students are as isolated as black charter school students.
Separate but Better?
In his comment on my April 24th post, Bradford states

school integration is laudable, but I don’t particularly think it should be considered a goal. Which is to say, if there’s a school where 100% of the kids are black or 100% are Latino, and everyone is testing advanced proficient, I think that should be enough for everyone.

While Charter Schools are segregated, this is most likely no fault of their own, but reflective of historical trends. Bradford is, in essence, asking, If Charter Schools are largely segregated, but they are performing, is segregation a problem? Conventional wisdom would point to research that connects segregation to the achievement gap, and answer “yes.” The standards-based education reform movement attempted to tackle this problem head-on and has been marginally successful.
Now, consider the fact that segregated Charter Schools are performing.
The Charter Practice Project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education recently published Inside Urban Charter Schools, an analysis of the five high performing Charter Schools with whom the project works closely. While the crux of the Charter School movement is in what these five schools are doing with their freedom, it is important to this post that these five schools are “serving predominantly low-income, minority youth.” The CMO I work for recently had three of its schools selected as California Distinguished Schools. All three of these schools serve overwhelmingly low-income and minority students. Does this mean that the research was wrong and that segregation does not breed an achievement gap or does this mean that with the freedom that a Charter provides, a new breed of pioneering and innovative educators have found a solution to Poverty and Race?

Happy Hour with Michelle Rhee in DC

May 6th, 2009

By Camilo Acosta

I’d like to invite everyone in the DC area to join Democrats for Education Reform in a happy hour fundraiser THIS Friday to honor Michelle Rhee and her staff. Rhee will be there with her staff to meet and greet everyone who supports her efforts to overhaul the status quo of the DC public school system. As many of you know, the DC public school system trails the nation in just about every measurable standard, yet has some of the highest per pupil spending in the country (~$13K/student). We are excited to finally have someone like Rhee who is standing up to the entrenched special interests that have resisted reform for so long. Here are the event details:

May 8th, from 6 to 8 PM
Local 16 (corner of U and 16 Streets, NW)
$15 per person

Space is running out but you can guarantee entry by buying your ticket here: http://www.dfer.org/events/RheeinDC

We’re also planning an event in June with Senator Bennett, Colorado’s freshman Senator who is leading the charge for education reform in the Senate, so check back soon for more information about that.

Switch to our mobile site