|
Strange Bedfellows?
 Now that the midterm elections are history, speculation about the long overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is sure to pick up steam. When the massive federal education law was last rewritten, in 2001, it enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. The late Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the law's principal architects, even flew to Ohio along with fellow House Democrat George Miller, to stand beside President Bush as the bill was signed. Partisanship has grown considerably deeper and more acrimonious since the law's previous reauthorization. However, the failure of the now-lame-duck Congress to rewrite ESEA most probably had less to do with divisions over federal education policy than with the state of political gridlock (and, perhaps, exhaustion) in which law-makers found themselves in the aftermath of their massive battles over the stimulus and health care bills. But that, as they say, was then, and 2011 may, at long last, prove to be the year in which reauthorization is finally accomplished. In light of yesterday's Congressional election results, what can we expect to see by way of political positioning? Interestingly, it is by no means inconceivable to anticipate a certain alignment between the National Education Association, conservative Republicans, and the nation's private school community. What possesses the power to bring these groups into agreement? The answer is mutual dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration's signature Race to the Top Fund program. When the Administration released its " A Blueprint for Reform" document, last March, it was clear that one of the plan's principal policy anchors consisted of extending the competitive grant model employed by RTTF to existing ESEA programs. As the "Blueprint" put it: "New competitive funding streams will provide greater flexibility, reward results, and ensure that federal funds are used wisely." The document is peppered with references to the establishment of competitive grants for all manner of programs, from STEM education, to innovative staff recruitment initiatives, support for transition to higher standards, programs for Native Americans, and a host of others. The nation's largest teachers union, the NEA, lost little time in responding to the "Blueprint." Within days of its release, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel was quoted as saying: "We were expecting more funding stability to enable states to meet higher expectations. Instead, this blueprint requires states to compete for critical resources, setting up another winners-and-losers scenario." Four months later, the union produced a document titled, " ESEA: It's Time for a Change! NEA's Positive Agenda for the ESEA Reauthorization," in which it presents its prescriptions for the law. The document contains few surprises. The union wants all ESEA programs to be "fully funded at their authorized levels," smaller class sizes, "safe, healthy, modern, and orderly schools," accountability based upon "multiple measures of student learning and school success," and much more. The NEA's "Positive Agenda" makes no mention of competitive grants, but includes the following: "To function efficiently, while also meeting the increased demands being placed on them, schools need funding streams that are stable and sustainable. Year-to-year fluctuations in available resources and last-minute uncertainties hamper school
districts' efforts to plan, to hire, and to retain highly qualified and experienced educators, to keep class sizes small, and to provide other essential resources, ranging from curriculum materials to transportation." That's code for no competitive grants! The private school community can link arms with the NEA over opposition to an expansion of federal competitive grants programs. After all, private schools were all but shut out of Race to the Top Fund and Investing in Innovation Fund grants. And private school denizens can take a measure of comfort in the NEA's characterization of ESEA's history, which appears in the form of an appendix to its "Positive Agenda" document. There, the NEA authors write: "ESEA created for the first time a partnership among federal, state, and local governments to address part of the larger national agenda of confronting poverty and its damaging effects by targeting federal aid to poor students and schools. It also was based on a 'grand' compromise concerning federal aid to private and parochial schools. To avoid directly sending public dollars to parochial schools, ESEA instead directed public school districts to use a portion of their Title I funds to provide services to low-income students enrolled in private schools. This provision-known as equitable participation-has stood for over 40 years." Nowhere in the document is this status quo challenged. At the risk of dampening the warm and fuzzy feelings occasioned by the acknowledgement of agreement between the private school community and the teachers union, there is at least one statement in the NEA's "Positive Agenda" document that should give cause for concern. In its characterization of the current law, the document claims ESEA "...undermines existing state and school district structures and authority, and shifts public dollars to the private sector through supplemental education services and takeovers of public schools by for-profit companies." In other words, the union wishes to eliminate third-party providers of service and charter schools operated by non-governmental entities. While private school leaders can debate the value of union opposition to charter schools, few would likely care to see the provision of Title I supplemental services restricted to school district personnel. According to the Education Intelligence Service, the NEA "...has now set aside $2.5 million to fund campaigning and activism on the issue, including 'teletown halls,' issue briefs, and outreach to progressive funders." Stay tuned! |
|
CAPSO 2011 - Exciting, Engaging & Affordable
 Mindful that private schools continue to face a challenging economic environment, CAPSO's leadership has committed to maintaining the same registration fee structure for its 2011 convention as was in place in 2008. With these affordable rates, we hope your faculty will be among the 2,000 participants from across California's private school community who will gather in Long Beach, California, November 21-22, 2011. CAPSO 2011 will once again offer more than 200 stimulating professional development sessions for administrators and teachers of grades Pre-K thru 12 (as well as for school trustees and parents) in the following content areas: The Arts
Early Education
English Language Arts
Faith Development & Character Education
Instruction
Mathematics
People/Social Skills
Physical Education
Private School Issues
Management & Governance
Science
Social Studies & History
Special Needs
Technology
...and more!
CAPSO 2011 Registration Fees (Same as 2008!)
All registration fees are per-person.
Early Registration - Prior to November 5, 2011
Schools affiliated with CAPSO member organizations $ 75.00
Schools not affiliated with CAPSO member organizations $100.00
Registration - November 5, 2011 or Later
Schools affiliated with CAPSO member organizations $ 85.00
Schools not affiliated with CAPSO member organizations $110.00
Bargain Hotel Rates!
The best way to enjoy CAPSO's 2011 convention is to experience the event in residence. Enjoy the amenities offered by our outstanding hotels, plan an evening with colleagues, meet and befriend colleagues from other groups, or just relax!
To help you get the very most out of CAPSO 2011, we've secured the following special rates for our participants:
Hyatt Regency Long Beach (562-491-1234)
Single or Double Occupancy $105.00*
Triple or Quad Occupancy $105.00*
Renaissance Long Beach (562-437-5900)
Single or Double Occupancy $105.00*
Triple or Quad Occupancy $105.00*
Westin Long Beach (562-436-3000)
Single or Double Occupancy $99.00*
Triple or Quad Occupancy $99.00*
Courtyard Long Beach Downtown (562-435-8511)
Single or Double Occupancy $99.00*
Triple or Quad Occupancy $99.00*
*per night, plus applicable taxes
At these exceptional rates, space is limited. CAPSO has reserved blocks of rooms for which the above rates are applicable, and the room blocks will be sold out. To secure the above rates, you are urged to make your reservations at the earliest possible date. The rates posted above apply to the nights of Sunday, November 20, and Monday, November 21, 2011. Some rooms are also available at the above-quoted rates for the nights of Saturday, November 19, and Tuesday, November 22, 2011.
Important: Please make your hotel reservations by telephone. When you contact the hotel, be sure to identify yourself as a CAPSO (California Association of Private School Organizations) convention attendee, and confirm that you are being offered one of the special rates appearing above.
Note: CAPSO 2011 workshop sessions and exhibitors will be located at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center, and the adjacent Hyatt Regency Long Beach Hotel. The Renaissance Long Beach Hotel is located across the street from the Convention Center, and both the Westin and Courtyard Long Beach Downtown hotels are located nearby. Free Long Beach "Passport" buses run between the Westin and the Convention Center approximately every 15 minutes.
Hold the dates! Mark your calendars! We'll see you in Long Beach!
|
|
Quick Takes
 Instant Cure for Hypotension
Do you suffer from low blood pressure? If you're a member of the private school community, reading this New York Times op-ed piece is guaranteed to elevate your blood pressure by at least ten points. (If you happen to be hypertensive, make sure you've taken your meds prior to reading it.) Columnist Charles M. Blow suggests that private school students internalize the message that they, "...are literally the chosen ones - special, better," and for this reason, they behave in a far less civil manner than their public school peers. His observations regarding civility stem from the findings of a study conducted by the Josephson Institute Center for Youth Ethics in which boys attending private religious schools were most likely to self-report that they had used racial slurs and insults, and to have bullied, teased, or taunted someone during the past year. Mr. Blow conveniently fails to report some of the survey's additional findings. For example, 39 percent of public school respondents indicated that "physical violence is a big problem at my school," compared to only 8 percent of private religious school students. A higher percentage of public school students answered "yes" to the statement, "I am prejudiced against certain groups." Nearly four times as many public school students reported feeling unsafe at their schools, twice as many reported having been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at school, and twice as many indicated that they had taken a weapon to school. The results of the survey can be viewed, here. Ignoring the responses to the majority of the survey's questions, Mr. Blow titled his article, "Private School Civility Gap." Apparently, his decision to ignore the majority of the report's findings is explained in his concluding shot: "This all assumes that these children told the truth. As it turns out, private school students were also the most likely to lie. According to the study, they were the least likely to say that they had answered all the questions 'with complete honesty.'" I don't know about Mr. Blow, but as I see it, a teenager who admits to having been less than completely honest may very well be among the most honest of respondents. Spelling Tests vs. Self EsteemPinch hitting for Jay Mathews, University of Missouri-St. Louis Professor of Political Science J. Martin Rochester delivers a scathing critique in response to the elimination of spelling tests in two Missouri school districts. Professor Rochester concedes that "many kids cannot spell...and it is true that no amount of spelling tests are going to get them to spell." He then continues: "However, given the reigning orthodoxy in K-12, since some kids cannot do well on spelling tests, then no kids should be allowed to take spelling tests. It is about self-esteem, avoiding failure, some learning styles (e.g., inability to memorize) not being served by such tests, etc., but is rationalized as 'inauthentic assessment' in the pretentious jargon of the profession." But wait - there's more! The professor views the policy as, "...just another case of K-12 progressive educators devaluing the basics, putting down spelling tests (because in truth they don't care if kids can spell) just as they put down computation skills (because they don't care if kids have automaticity with math facts), rationalizing all the while that schools should focus on developing (sniff, sniff) 'higher order skills.'"
But how do you really feel, Dr. Rochester?
An Education Earthquake? Writing in advance of yesterday's elections, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's Chester E. Finn, Jr., offered his thoughts on the looming potential for a significant transformation of the national educational landscape. As Dr. Finn sees it, "...we could be sitting on a tectonic fault with the potential to turn into an education earthquake-and that might actually be a blessing." Among an array of interesting predictions, the scholar, educator and public servant notes that "...America may finally face up to the fact that over the past half century we have reduced the student/teacher ratio from twenty-seven-to-one to fourteen-to-one with no matching gains in achievement."
He also observes: "We're witnessing a gradual but nontrivial change in public perceptions of teacher unions and their power over the system. The unions (and other established education interests) are scrambling to re-establish their once-solid footing by contradictorily pushing back against reform while trying to position themselves as champions of it..." We Californians get antsy upon hearing predictions of impending earthquakes. But maybe in this instance, we'll make an exception. |
|
An Open Letter to Eli Broad and Bill Gates
 Dear Mssrs. Broad and Gates, Each of you is a great American success story. While the manner in which you succeeded in creating wealth, both for yourselves and countless others, is fascinating, it is your passion for service and philanthropy that
is truly remarkable. Nowhere is your commitment to giving any more evident than in your astoundingly generous support for efforts to improve our nation's public education system. Through the work of the Broad Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you have given hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of empowering and dignifying young lives. Your involvement in fostering the creation of a world-class public eduction system is hardly impersonal or dispassionate. That each of you is so visibly engaged in the work you champion makes you paragons of civic involvement. It's one thing to be a "hands-off" donor, motivated largely by self-serving tax considerations, and something altogether contrary to be Eli Broad or Bill Gates. You are honorable men with noble intentions, and are, rightfully, deserving of praise and gratitude for your service and contributions to the advancement of the common good. It is, therefore, with a deep sense of pain that I see you vilified by a chorus of voices who would have us believe that they are defenders of our public schools, and you are unwelcome enemies. I use the term "enemy" quite deliberately, given that you, Mr. Broad, recently topped a list of " The 10 Most Wanted Enemies of Public Education Leadership." Shockingly, this document wasn't the Haloween creation of a crackpot blogger. It was penned by Fenwick W. English, the R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Education, and published in the Fall, 2010 edition of the UCEA Review, an organ of the University Council for Educational Administration. (Rick Hess, who also appears on the "Enemies" list, notes the irony of the publication's lead article, "Diversity-Responsive School Leadership.") In this article, in which you each "enjoy" prominent mention, the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss explains,"How billionaire donors harm public education." After denigrating your sponsorship of various reform-focused programs, she concludes by cautioning readers: "...let's not imagine for a minute that the millionaires and billionaires giving out all this money are doing anything other than making it harder to fix the public schools that America needs." In her most recent book, NYU Professor Diane Ravitch mocks your philanthropy and impugns your intentions in a chapter titled "The Billionaire Boys Club," a derisive moniker she often invokes in Twitter messages such as this. And it doesn't end there. Barbara Miner, a prolific opponent of school choice, insinuates that your integrity may be compromised by your race, when she asks: "Should the American people put their faith in a white billionaires boys' club to lead the revolution on behalf of poor people of color?" It doesn't end there. Writing in the Huffington Post, self-described "teacher and activist" Brian Jones reveals that he, "...can't help but think that Dr. King (or Rosa Parks, Ella Baker or Bayard Rustin) would not sign up with Bill Gates, Goldman Sachs, and the owners of Wal-Mart for such a 'movement'." Since people like you, Mr. Gates, have expressed criticism of unions, Mr. Jones concludes that, "we are left with the conclusion that these 'reformers' are using poor and working class children of color as a veil to disguise their real aim: to privatize education, destroy the gains of the labor movement and cheapen the workforce." I could go on, but what's the point? Instead, I would like to propose the following: Given that roughly 10 percent of our nation's students receive their K-12 education in private schools, I ask you to consider devoting 10 percent of your education-related giving to founding private schools that can serve as laboratories and showcases for the testing and demonstration of the ideas you favor, and would like to test. You can situate these new schools in challenging, impoverished neighborhoods in which families are desperate for educational alternatives now. You will be free to experiment with whatever staffing, governance and management configurations you wish. You'll have all the lattitude you will need when it comes to the adoption of standards, the specification of curriculum, and the use of varying instructional methodologies. You'll be able to work collaboratively and positively with your administrators, faculty, and parent body to establish teacher assessment and evaluation models that make sense. And you'll be at liberty to assess students' academic achievement and growth by employing instrumentation that is sensitive to local instruction. Best of all, you will be appreciated. No one in the private school community will decry you for conspiring to destroy our enterprise. Your schools will, of course, have to perform. After all, every private school parent has the option of withdrawing his/her children, and placing them in the public school located just down the street or around the corner.
I have every confidence that your private schools can and will succeed. And those of us in the private school community would be delighted to regard you as "family."
Sincerely,
Ron Reynolds
|
|
