NEA president praises Finland, Singapore and Canada, conveniently omitting facts about school choice and competition.
The “global education reform movement has failed” … or at least that’s what National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García told a group of businessmen in Detroit last month. Spouting the usual edubabble, the union president told the Detroit Economic Club that the system should serve the “whole child” and that education should be “humanized.”
García went on to explain,
The business community relies on evidence and reliable data. Bad data should be avoided at all costs because it can destroy a business. But communities across the country have been force-fed privatization plans and ‘test and punish’ regimes that have not produced the desired results and have decimated many schools. … ideologues are committed to doubling down on bad ideas, regardless of the evidence.
What García means by “bad data” in conjunction with “test and punish” is a reference to the fact that some reformers actually want to use student performance on standardized tests as a part of a teacher’s evaluation. But what really catches the eye in the quote is “force-fed privatization plans.”
Huh? Just where is this “force-feeding” going on and who are the force-feeders? García didn’t elaborate, of course, because it’s a lie. A lie of whopper magnitude. Surely Ms. García knows that just about every (non-push) poll taken recently shows that the public strongly favors vouchers and other types of school choice. (I wonder if she gave any thought to spilling her anti-privatization/competition bilge to a group of businessmen who are undoubtedly well-aware of public education’s failures.)
Parents, especially those in need, embrace vouchers because with them, their kids are given an opportunity to get out of a failing public school and attend a superior private school without having to foot the entire bill. In fact, according to a 17-year study in New York City, “Minority students who received a school voucher to attend private elementary schools in 1997 were, as of 2013, 10 percent more likely to enroll in college and 35 percent more likely than their peers in public school to obtain a bachelor’s degree.” (Emphasis added.) Sadly 20,000 applications for vouchers were received, but the program could only accommodate 1,300. I wonder how many of the 20,000 families felt as if they had been “force-fed.”
García also engaged in other dubious affirmations. She extolled the virtues of Finland, Canada and Singapore, informing us that the evidence and data tell us that their school systems are superior. But she picks and chooses her spots, and anywhere competition and choice of any sort are in play, she is MIA.
While cooing that Finland “threw practically every standardized test away to focus on time to teach, classroom assessments, and professional collaboration,” she failed to acknowledge that Finland has a highly competitive system for students who want to become educators. In fact, those who become teachers are selected from the top 10 percent of college graduates, unlike in the United States, where, sadly, education majors are at the bottom of the academic barrel after four years of college. (She also didn’t mention that kids in Finland don’t start school until age 7, starting teachers make 20 percent less than ours and the country spends 30 percent less on education than we do.)
She touts Singapore, telling the businessmen that teachers there “analyze data to develop personalized instruction, tutoring, class projects.” She stresses that Singaporeans never set “arbitrary targets for prizes and punishments.” But she didn’t tell the businessmen that parents must pay fees even if their child goes to a public school and that the island nation has vigorous private school options. (She also neglected to acknowledge that the average class size in Singapore is about 40, almost twice that of the U.S.)
The union leader points out that in Canada, officials see to it that teachers are given the necessary training and support to reach every student. But she omits the inconvenient truth that Canada has publicly funded school choice throughout much the country. The province of Alberta has the most interesting set-up, whereby property taxpayers have a choice which type of school system to earmark their education tax dollars – public or private (including religious schools).
García’s omissions are necessary, of course. Had she told the whole truth, she would have had to admit that competition, whether between teachers or schools – or businesses – makes us all better. As a monopolist, of course, that would be the last thing she would ever do.
A dialogue between businessmen and teacher union leaders is a good idea, but it should be the businessmen doing the talking. A union boss’ tired, biased and noxious agenda is not worth listening to.
Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.
National Education Association new “reform” document is free of substance.
Apparently threatened by the education reform movement taking hold across the country, the National Education Association has decided to join the party. In concert with six other organizations – including the American Federation of Teachers – the biggest union in the country has released “Excellent Teachers for Each and Every Child: A Guide for State Policy.”
The guide’s recommendations draw from substantial research evidence on teacher effectiveness and from the practices of high-achieving nations like Finland and Singapore. The document includes go-to resources for policymakers and advocates, such as:
- Recommended action steps to support policymaking and agenda-setting.
- Model legislation language and examples of successful state policies that improve teacher diversity, set a high entry bar for educators, establish career ladders and professional learning standards for teachers, fund a sustainable teaching force, and support evaluation models that drive meaningful professional growth.
- Summary recommendations on recruitment, preparation, professional development, evaluation, teaching and learning conditions, funding, and ways to develop coherent and systemic policy.
In reality, this flatulent report drones on for 36 pages and speaks in generalities that sound reasonable, even commendable. We do need good teaching strategies and to hire the best teachers we can find; then we should pay them well and do everything we can to keep them in the profession, right? But….
There is tons wrong with this policy attempt. One of the most glaring misconceptions is the concept of “best practices.” Take their examples: Finland and Singapore. Yes, both are successful, but very different. For example, Singapore, like high achiever South Korea, uses very “high stakes” testing, whereas Finland avoids standardized tests altogether. Classes tend to be quite large in Singapore, but small in Finland. In short, there is no one “best practice.” In this country, some students do better with a “back-to-basics, squared” approach to schooling used in the American Indian Charter Schools in Oakland, while other kids thrive in the more sensitive KIPP schools, yet others do better working from home, “attending” a virtual charter school.
Perhaps the worst part of this document is what it omits: there is one vague allusion to teacher tenure and no mention of seniority or any policy recommendations about how to get bad teachers out of the classroom, though these are major problems that must be dealt with.
Toward that end, the Students Matter (Vergara v. California) case starts in Los Angeles next month. As John Fensterwald explains,
The lawsuit asserts that five “outdated statutes” prevent administrators from making employment decisions in students’ interest. The tenure statute forces districts to decide after teachers are on the job only 18 months whether to grant them permanent job status. Once granted tenure, they gain due-process rights that make it expensive and difficult to fire them even if they’re “grossly ineffective.” And then, when an economic downturn comes – witness the last four years – a Last In/First Out (LIFO) requirement leads to layoffs based strictly on seniority, not competency.
If successful, this lawsuit will remove the tenure, seniority and arcane dismissal statutes from the California education code and render them unconstitutional, thus making it easier to get rid of incompetent and criminal teachers while outlawing seniority as a method of teacher-retention. (It’s worth noting that the Students Matter lawsuit doesn’t ask the court to devise specific policy solutions, leaving those decisions to local districts – as they are in 33 other states.) While this litigation will help all students in the state, inner-city kids would benefit the most. As I wrote in City Journal last year,
Struggling inner-city schools end up suffering the most, as the lawsuit states: “One recent study showed that a school in the highest poverty quartile is 65 percent more likely to have a teacher laid off than a school in the lowest poverty quartile. As a result of seniority-based layoffs, the highest poverty schools in California are likely to lose 30 percent more teachers than wealthier schools. The disproportionate number of vacancies in those schools are then filled by transferring lower performing teachers, including grossly ineffective teachers, from other schools.”
Though not named in the lawsuit, the teachers unions just couldn’t sit idly by and accept a change in rules that would benefit students at their expense. Two state teachers unions – the California Teachers Association (NEA’s state affiliate) and the California Federation of Teachers – came out with a joint press release announcing that they had filed a motion “to intervene in litigation.” This means that the teachers unions have become involved because they feel that the current defendants – the state and the school districts – are not adequately representing the interests of their members, whose rights they maintain could be adversely affected by the case.
Perhaps the best case for the Students Matter prosecution is made by the victimized children themselves. The nine plaintiffs are public school students from various districts around the state. Here are three of their stories:
- Daniella, a Mexican-American 12 year-old, is an economically disadvantaged student who lives in east San Jose, a primarily minority and low income community. While attending traditional public schools, she was assigned to multiple grossly ineffective teachers who were unable or unwilling to teach her how to read, write, or perform basic math calculations. As a third grader who still could not read, she “was broken.”
- Brandon is a 17 year-old African-American student who lives with his parents in Oakland. Although both his mother and father work, they are struggling financially. Brandon is an accomplished football player who hopes to attend college and someday obtain a master’s degree, but he has been hindered by two grossly ineffective teachers who made him feel “destined for failure.” One teacher told him that he “wouldn’t amount to anything” when he was only in the fifth grade. Another, who taught tenth grade geometry, expected his students to learn math on their own and wasted the lion’s share of class time taking attendance. Even though other faculty members at Brandon’s school were acutely aware of that teacher’s ineffectiveness, and even warned Brandon to “be careful” in his class, the school could do nothing about it.
- Julia is a 13 year-old Hispanic student who lives in Reseda with her mother, father, and younger sister. Julia – who dreams of attending Harvard Law School – has been taught by two grossly ineffective teachers in the traditional district system. Her second grade teacher repeatedly told her that she was “just not good at math,” devastating the child’s confidence, causing her to cling to her parents when they would drop her off at school. She even asked her parents if she could be homeschooled to avoid her teacher’s disparaging words. Julia’s parents contacted the principal, who agreed that the teacher was a problem and advised them “to transfer [Julia] to another classroom.” In sixth grade, Julia was assigned to a second ineffective teacher who would lose her students’ written assignments and even called some of her students “stupid.” As a result, Julia’s test scores plummeted and she again lost confidence in her own abilities.” When Julia was taught by two wonderful teachers, they both received layoff notices. At one point, parents and teachers at the school rallied “to save” one of them, a teacher who was “caring, smart, and motivational,” yet their efforts fell short and the teacher was laid off.
The bottom line is that the NEA “sound good” reforms will not do anything to improve the lives of these children. Of course we need good teachers, but until we enact strong policies that deal with the ones who don’t deserve to be around kids, we haven’t accomplished much at all.
Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.