...The Right To Be An American is the Right to Protest FOR Right

Here are three good reads to help fill the enormous gap between the surface hullaballoo about the nation's education crisis generated by WFS and Education Nation and the angry mob of teachers and educators who are seething against what some are calling the "war on teachers," (and their unions) -- Dana Goldstein's piece in The Nation about the successes of union-management collaboration (here), Jonathan Gyurko's piece on what Guggenheim left out of his piece (here), and Nick Lemann's New Yorker commentary about the overheated crisis rhetoric surrounding so-called reform (here). I'm hoping that there will be more about this in the mainstream sometime soon -- sketching out not only the controversies surrounding Guggenheim's proposed solutions but also the practical and political limits of going to war against traditional schools as we now now them. You'd think that the resounding defeat of Fenty and Rhee would have made this clear, but perhaps there wasn't enough time for it to sink into the journalistic consciousness enough before the WFS media juggernaut came through. Thank you. Alexander Russo July 19, 2010 Education Week.

I've really got to stop plag... recycling these articles.

School reform won’t help all (Most) struggling students. Though some will succeed, others will continue to fail.

Demonizing teachers for the failures of these students is both easy though misguided and counterproductive in that it misses the target for students with no support from home...
It appears that a  philosophical backlash is gaining momentum, as important empirical evidence and some insightful truths have begun to emerge on the national educational frontline. One of these truths, as AFT President Randi Weingarten noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, is that the evidence shows that the market-based reforms, which are so much in vogue today, have not delivered. While self-described education reformers may suggest that we double down on these reforms—such as creating more charter schools, implementing voucher programs, using student test scores to evaluate and compensate teachers, and relying more and more on corporate executives and business practices to run school districts—Weingarten suggests a different path, a path taken by the world’s most successful education systems:

These countries focus on developing great teachers and giving them the autonomy to hone their craft. There is an ethos of working together to continuously improve. They de-emphasize excessive standardized tests and test prep, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that engages students in gaining knowledge by developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills—not by rote memorization. These countries provide a more equitable education for all students, and they offset the effects of poverty through on-site wraparound services such as medical and dental care and counseling.

Another truth is that demonizing teachers is not a good starting point for a school improvement plan. As Dave Eggers and Nínive Clements Calegari write in the New York Times, “No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition. And yet in education we do just that.” The disrespect for teachers extends to salaries, which have declined in real terms over the past 30 years. Today, 62 percent of teachers work a second job, and 46 percent quit before their fifth year. The high turnover rates cost school systems more than $7 billion annually. As Eggers and Calegari write, “There is no silver bullet that will fix every last school in America, but until we solve the problem of teacher turnover, we don’t have a chance.”

All the best evidence shows that leading countries like Finland, Singapore and South Korea respect and revere their teachers. They support and mentor them, and give them the tools and conditions they need to do their jobs. While we are celebrating Teacher Appreciation Week, we should pay close attention to how these nations develop, support and respect their teachers.

It’s also true that teachers’ experience and class size matter. That’s the case in an Orlando, Fla., school highlighted by the New York Times’ Michael Winerip, who focuses on three sisters who live at a homeless shelter and get a terrific education at Fern Creek Elementary School. The school, where 20 percent of the students are homeless, has received an A on the state report card for each of the past five years. The principal credits experienced teachers, small class sizes and strong discipline.

Finally, a piece by Joe Nocera in the New York Times, titled “The Limits of School Reform,” points out some important truths. Nocera revisits a New York Times Magazine article about M.S. 223, a school in the South Bronx whose principal and teachers struggle valiantly to educate homeless children. Sometimes successful, sometimes not, the school offers a lesson for would-be school reformers, Nocera believes:

What needs to be acknowledged, however, is that school reform won’t fix everything. Though some poor students will succeed, others will fail. Demonizing teachers for the failures of poor students, and pretending that reforming the schools is all that is needed, as the reformers tend to do, is both misguided and counterproductive. Over the long term, fixing our schools is going to involve a lot more than, well, just fixing our schools.

The bottom line: Evidence does matter. It should guide us as we seek to transform schools and improve student learning—and it shouldn’t be ignored. 

Why Did For-Profit College Stocks Rise After the Gainful Employment Rule Was Released?

 by David Halperin

On Thursday, June 3, 2011 the Obama Administration issued its long-awaited “gainful employment” rule, aimed at pushing for-profit colleges and career training schools to stop ripping off students and taxpayers. Although there are good programs in the for-profit sector, many programs are high-priced and low-quality, and some programs, as we have learned from recent government and media investigations, appear to be little more than straight-up swindles: Recruit students to fill slots, collect the federal checks, leave the students without career skills or options. Repeat.

The dramatic rise of such schools over the past decade has left hundreds of thousands of students deep in debt. For-profit colleges now have about 10 percent of US students, 25 percent of federal financial aid, and nearly half of all student loan defaults. Many of these schools get 90 percent of their revenue from federal grants and loans.  Left unchecked, this sector could produce a new subprime-like debt crisis.

The reaction to the new rule has been all over the place. Among representatives of for-profit schools, responses have ranged from “Congress must stop this rule” to “we’ll have to see what happens.” Groups who advocate holding these schools accountable (including Campus Progress), have issued statements with sentiments varying from “thanks Obama Administration!” to “thanks for nothing.”

Some insist that money talks and cite a rally in for-profit college stocks as proof that this is a critical victory for the industry.

I think the rule gives bad actors in the industry a few more years to do their worst. But their unrestrained orgy of waste, fraud, and abuse at taxpayer expense inevitably will come to an end.

It’s certainly true that the final rule is significantly weaker than the rule that the Administration proposed last summer (and even the standards of that original rule were too low). Under the final rule, a program can systematically fail to provide value to students and still be eligible for federal financial aid.  Sixty-five percent of students from a program can fail to pay back their loans, and loan repayment from a school’s graduates can consume 30 percent of their disposable income, and the program will nevertheless remain eligible [PDF] for federal grants and loans.

In fact, a program would have to slip below those low standards three out of four years in order to lose eligibility. That’s pathetic. But amazingly, some of today's for-profit programs would likely fail those standards because they are so high-priced and so low-quality. The Department of Education says that five percent of for-profit programs will run afoul of this rule and lose their aid.

So even under these low standards, the very worst programs will eventually have to shut down. But also, crucially, a much larger pool of bad programs will have to improve their performance for fear of being part of this bottom five percent. Before, there was little incentive to do more than take students’ and taxpayers’ money. Now industry players know they will have to provide at least some value or lose the federal aid that keeps them alive. Also important is that the new rule will provide students and the public with critical information about the effectiveness of individual career college programs. The programs that will have the best reputations will be those that keep debts low and prepare people for jobs that really exist—exactly what students want. These changes could help millions of students.

So what has driven up the for-profit stocks, at least for now?

First, the market values certainty. Few people are giving this rule a big hug, which suggests that the Administration may have found the political center between the fact-based arguments of our coalition and the cynical position of the for-profits, who have spent tens of millions of dollars on a furious campaign of lobbying, litigation, advertising, and political contributions in an effort to maintain the status quo. The concessions made by the Administration are likely to make the rule harder to overturn in Congress. So the rule may well be the standard that guides the industry for a while.

Second, Wall Street is focused on short-term profits. Even more significant than the degraded quality standards of the final rule is the extended delay in making the rule effective—programs are not at risk of losing eligibility until 2015. So for-profit companies can hope that the 2012 election will bring a new President and Congress that will overturn the rule. Some bad actors also could adopt a strategy that, rather than seeking to comply with the rule, instead starts to loot the assets of their schools, cutting costs and quality even further, and going out in a blaze of glory until the rule catches up with them in 2015.

If the for-profit education business is ultimately compelled to reform, it will be because the gainful employment rule is just one part of a changed landscape. The Administration already has issued other rules aimed at curbing misinformation and over-aggressive recruiting practice by for-profits. Senator Tom Harkin continues to hold public hearings focused on misconduct by these schools. Eleven state attorneys general have joined together to investigate for-profit abuses. More and more students who have been misled and mistreated by these schools are speaking up and even going to court.  And media investigations have exposed more bad practices in the industry and widespread abuses of students who need help the most–low-income people struggling to support families, students of color, and our veterans. Finally, there is now a strong coalition of civil rights, consumer, educator, and student groups, representing millions of Americans, that is determined to hold bad schools accountable and protect students and taxpayers.

Collectively, these developments will make it more and more difficult to sustain a business model based on deception, low investment in students, and skyrocketing prices. For-profit education companies will be forced to clean up their acts or shut their doors.

It would be a travesty if the for-profits now spend even more money—largely money that comes from taxpayers—on a continued pressure campaign to avoid accountability. But if the industry refuses to back down, Congress should act in the interests of fiscal responsibility, our economy, and especially our students, and resist efforts to roll back the new rules. Republicans and Democrats should support directing federal resources to programs that actually help students to learn, graduate, and succeed in the job market.

David is the Director of Campus Progress and a Senior Vice President at the Center for American Progress.