Since he took office, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has had a lot of cash to give out. Starting with the first American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA) funding, an unprecedented amount of money has come from Washington to schools across the country. Those dollars though, even at their current scale, haven’t been enough to stave off layoffs, bring required levels of staff back into classrooms, pay for new playgrounds and PE teachers, refurbish libraries, ensure sufficient and high quality materials at all schools, and more. The unending recession is certainly a major culprit in this, but so is the general disinterest on the part of leadership in states like Mississippi and California to adequately invest in our schools.

This weak financial foundation makes schools and their supporters endlessly hungry for resources wherever they can find them. That in turn means that after Secretary Duncan delivered dollars to stop the total shutdown of our nation’s schools, he was at liberty to exponentially develop and deploy his free-market approach to education support and funding. Competitive grant programs of all sorts are now how education funding is flowing from the capital to the states. Students who live in areas where leaders are willing to play the game – or who have some political favors due them – are likely to be on the receiving end of the grants and programs considered “winners” by the Department of Education (DOE).

In this world not everyone wins and, depending upon your point of view, not even winners come out ahead. This latest bid for Race To The Top (RTTT) will bring the victors more narrow-dependence on test score data (this time as an indicator of individual teacher quality), creeping privatization through the establishment of charter schools, and forced, but never proven effective ,“turnaround” strategies. This is just some of what these states will get to implement with their jackpot. No doubt some of the programs and efforts will be constructive and have positive outcomes, but at a high cost and at the loss of other changes that would have had even greater effect, such as those articulated in the recent “Civil Rights Framework,” or by FairTest, to name just two.

California was one of the losers in competition, as were all states west of the Mississippi except for Hawaii. We missed out on the prize money, and along the way lost the significant time and resources that were invested in crafting the application. Not only that, but we gave up our much admired curriculum standards and now have to adapt our school systems to the different set of Common Core Standards.

Our state is not totally shut out from receiving federal support though. More recovery money is coming our way, and the San Francisco Unified School District was one of the districts in the state to receive School Improvement Grants for our ten lowest performing schools. Again, this is expensive money that is tied to the employment of the Secretary’s proclivity for competition and “creative destruction.” Some very solid actions are part of the proposal, for instance, providing professional development that includes one-on-one coaching and additional assessments to generate more opportunities to evaluate student performance. The not so great part is the choice of “turn-around” models, including the familiar “fire half your teachers” and “principal swap” strategies. These strategies have been around for years, were employed in San Francisco previously, and have obviously not been effective.

Many parents around the country are distressed and dissatisfied with this situation. Not only are the reforms not what we want, but the parent voices are almost completely absent. Recently, a newly formed group called “Parents Across America” sent President Obama and Congress a letter to that effect. This is one of the many types of actions that will be required to move the DOE onto a different path. Hopefully we’ll see some change, soon.

PARENTS ACROSS AMERICA

August 26, 2010

Dear President Obama:

Several weeks ago, we wrote to you about our concern that your proposed “Blueprint for Reform” did not acknowledge the critical role parents must play in any meaningful school improvement process. We also expressed our serious reservations about some of the Blueprint's strategies.

Our goal is simple – to ensure that our children receive the best possible education. As parents, we are the first to see the positive effects of good programs, and the first line of defense when our children's well-being is threatened. Our input is unique and essential.

Recently, Secretary Duncan announced that he would require districts that receive federal school improvement grants (SIG) to involve parents and the community in planning for schools identified for intervention. We appreciate this response as a first step; however, more needs to be done.

First, leadership must come from the top. We would like to see meaningful, broad-based parent participation not just in our local districts, but at the U.S. Department of Education, where critical decisions are being made about our children's education.

Second, we need more than rhetoric to feel confident that only educationally sound strategies will be used in our children's schools. The current emphasis on more charter schools, high-stakes testing, and privatization is simply not supported by research. Disagreement on these matters is not a result of parents clinging to the “status quo,” as you have recently asserted. No one has more at stake in better schools than we do – but we disagree with you and Secretary Duncan about how to get them.

We need effective, proven, common-sense practices that will strengthen our existing schools, rather than undermine them. These include parent input into teacher evaluation systems, fairly-funded schools, smaller class sizes and experienced teachers who are respected as professionals, not seen as interchangeable cogs in a machine. We want our children to be treated as individuals, not data points. And we want a real, substantial role in all decisions that affect our children’s schools.

More specifically, and urgently, we insist on being active partners in the formulation of federal school improvement policies. The models proposed by the U.S. Department of Education are rigid and punitive, involving either closure, conversion to charters, or the firing of large portions of the teaching staff. All of these strategies disrupt children’s education and destabilize communities; none adequately addresses the challenges these schools face.

We also insist on being active partners in reforms at the school level, with the power to devise our own local solutions, using research-based methods, after a collaborative needs assessment at each individual school.

Our voices must count. If you listen, you will make real changes in your School Improvement Grant proposals as well as your “Blueprint” for education reform.

We look forward to your response and a brighter future for our children and our nation.

Sincerely, Parents Across America (signatories attached)

Natalie Beyer, Durham Allies for Responsive Education (DARE), NC
Caroline Grannan, San Francisco public school parent, volunteer and advocate, CA
Pamela Grundy, Mecklenburg Area Coming Together for Schools, NC
Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters, New York, NY
Sharon Higgins, public school parent, Oakland, CA
Susan Magers, Parent Advocate, FL
Mark Mishler, active public school parent, former president, Albany City PTA*, NY
Bill Ring, TransParent®, Los Angeles, CA
Lisa Schiff, San Francisco public school parent, board member of Parents for Public Schools*, member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco*, "School Beat" columnist for BeyondChron, CA
Rita M. Solnet, President, CDS, Inc.; Director, Testing is Not Teaching, FL
Dora Taylor, Parent and co-editor of Seattle Education 2010, WA
Julie Woestehoff, Parents United for Responsible Education, Chicago, IL

*for identification purposes only

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco and the PTA and is a board member at the national level of Parents for Public Schools.