“Today is Jan. 5, 2017. There will never be another Jan. 5, 2017 ever again. No matter how we use this day, if we make the most of it, if we waste it, it’s gone. Every day we don’t take bold actions for our students is a day we lose. Every day we don’t take bold actions for our teachers, is a day they lose.” – Mark Johnson

On that day a tad over two years ago, Mark Johnson spoke of “urgency.” He spoke of “change.”

And remember that the time he has been in Raleigh is longer then his actual time in a classroom as an educator. It is longer than his time as a local school board member.

On this very day, Mark Johnson is closer to the end of his first (and hopefully only) term than he is to the beginning of it and it might be worth maybe looking at a list of those “bold actions he has taken for our teachers.”

1. …

Actually there are none. But there is a long list of actions (or lack of) that have more than represented his time in the state superintendent’s office.

1. Johnson said that he conducted a “listening tour” around the state to gather ideas and to help craft innovations in classroom teaching. He said at one time that he would present those findings when that tour was over in the first summer. But North Carolinians have not really heard anything except some glittering generalities.

2. Johnson said that he would decrease the amount of standardized testing that NC would subject students. But nothing has really happened except announcements without plans.

4. Johnson celebrated the “revamped” NC School Report Card website and further entrenched our state into a relationship with SAS and its secret algorithms. Furthermore, he made sure that a system that actually shows how poverty affects school achievement is more entrenched in NC.
5. Johnson called for an audit of the Department of Public Education. And that million dollar audit to find wasteful spending actually showed that DPI was underfunded. So…
6. Johnson did a reorganization of DPI and replaced high ranking officials with loyalists from the charter industry and made them only answer to him and not the State Board of Education.
7. Johnson’s reorganization came after he won an empty lawsuit against the state board over having more powers over the DPI budget. That lawsuit lasted until the second summer of his term.
8.  Johnson seemed rather complicit with the legislature cutting the budget for DPI while he was actually taking taxpayer money to fight the state school board over the power grab that the NCGA did in a special session that gave him control over elements of the school system that the voting public did not actually elect him to have.
9. Johnson rallied for school choice advocates and never rallied with public school teachers. In fact, on May 16th, he left town.
10. Johnson had such an acrimonious relationship with the state board that three of them resigned their posts before the expiration of their terms so a governor from the other political party could appoint members to oppose the agenda of the people enabling Johnson.
11. Johnson bought 6 million dollars worth of iPads for some teachers. They never requested them. And the money came from where?
12. Johnson supported both the extensions and renewed investment of two failed initiatives: Read to Achieve and the NC Virtual Charter Schools.
13. Johnson championed the Innovative School District which to date has one school. One.
14. Johnson has set up a personal website to act like a website for information about his job and initiative, but really looks more like a campaign website. And he used a hurricane as the reason for doing it.
15. Johnson has used questionnaires and surveys to literally gather information that was already known. In fact, just this past week, he told us that teachers and parents do not like all of this testing.
16. Johnson hosted Jeb Bush this past summer. Jeb Bush is a leading privatization champion of the public school systemics in the nation.
17. Johnson said he would eat doughnuts and run a mile or two for us. Doughnuts.

 

1. Mark Johnson literally sent out a statement about how he was going to “reduce” testing in a week where midterms and state exams (EOC’s and NC Finals) were being administered.
2. Teachers fill out a working conditions survey every other year for the state that has no questions about how teachers feel the state handles public education.
3. SAS releases EVAAS scores for a current class well after the school year has begun. In the case for high school block classes, these EVAAS scores come nearer to the end of the semester than at the beginning.
4. Most of the exams for fall semesters take place after the winter break.
5. The less experience one has in education magically makes that person more “appropriate” to be the state’s (or even the nation’s) highest public school official.
6. Failed initiatives like NC’s virtual charter schools and the Read to Achieve program get added funding and more support when data shows they are failing miserably.
7. The state spends money to hire a team to audit DPI to identify where money is being wasted and that team concludes that DPI is not spending enough.
8. Leaders in the NCGA have boasted of an average teacher salary of over $53,000 in 2018-2019 when they released a salary schedule could never sustain that average.
9. The School Performance Grading system does a better job of showing how poverty affects student achievement than it does showing how teachers help students grow.
10. North Carolina has more NBCT’s than any other state, has arguably one of the better public university systems in the nation, and has a plethora of quality private institutions that offer teacher training, but the state has a manufactured teacher shortage.

If you can think of others, then please put in the comments section.

 

 

 

Mark Johnson is “mad as hell” and “he’s not gonna test it anymore!” At least that is what he says in his latest op-ed posted by EdNC.org entitled “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna test it anymore!”

Two years into an enabled term as the least qualified state superintendent in NC’s history and Mark Johnson is finally “mad as hell?”

Two years as a puppet for Phil Berger and Tim Moore with their ALEC-styled reform efforts and Mark Johnson is now “mad as hell?”

Is this the same “mad as hell” Mark Johnson who skipped town when over 20,000 “mad as hell” public educators and supporters literally came to his town last May and let him and other lawmakers know that they weren’t “gonna take it anymore?”

Is this the same “mad as hell” Mark Johnson who only spent two school years as an educator to help change the landscape of public education?

Is this the same “mad as hell” Mark Johnson who never finished even one term as a local school board member before running for the highest public school office in the state?

Is this the same “mad as hell” Mark Johnson who after hearing the results of a million-dollar audit of DPI that DPI was actually underfunded but still let go of many DPI veteran employees in needed positions and then did a reorganization of DPI and placed proponents of privatization in leadership positions?

Is this the same “mad as hell” Mark Johnson who never showed any “mad as hell” anger toward the governing body that was not fully funding public schools in years of “economic prosperity” for the state.

Here’s a man who was literally given more powers as a state superintendent by a veto-proof majority in both branches of the NCGA, who had the legislative backing of the very bodies that could have spearheaded any efforts to reduce testing, who actually had a state school board of education controlled by his own political party, and now after the midterm elections has decided he is “mad as hell.”

How convenient.

Everyone should read this op-ed and then measure it against the actions and lack of actions attributed to a man who said when he took office that his mission was a matter of “urgency” and action.

He starts:

“As state superintendent of North Carolina’s public schools, I often hear from other leaders that standardized tests help hold students, teachers, and schools accountable. Accountability is important for our schools but also for our leaders. The testing system that the education-industrial complex built over the past decade forces our students and teachers to endure too many high-stakes tests layered on by federal, state, and local authorities.”

Ironic that much of this past decade on the state level has been dictated by the very people whose policies Mark Johnson seems to want to champion.

He continues:

“Since being elected superintendent, I have worked hard to give voice to those who have the most to gain and lose in our K-12 schools. Breaking new ground for the state education agency, we emailed parents directly a few months ago, asking them what they thought of standardized testing. More than 42,000 responded, and 78 percent told us that their child takes too many tests.

 

Our classroom educators agree. At the end of last school year, we asked teachers what they thought of standardized testing. More than 25,000 of them took the time to respond, and 76 percent said that North Carolina’s students are tested too much. I agree as well — as both an education leader and as a parent of a child in our public schools.”

It took two years for him to realize that we have too many tests? Did he really need questionnaires to ascertain that teachers and parents overwhelmingly want to reduce testing? Did he not run on this platform?

And it is rather funny that he would rather listen to people through a questionnaire rather than meeting large groups of teachers in person. Teachers have gotten together many times for discussions that he easily could have come to.

He adds:

“Clearly, there is too much testing. But parents, educators, community leaders, and education leaders also agree that we do need to strategically monitor progress. Otherwise, how can parents be assured their children are learning? How will teachers know what their students need? How will employers know that North Carolina high school diplomas mean students are ready for their next steps?”

Well, when the NCGA starts actually listening to teacher voices and even allows educators to be at the table of shaping education improvements, then this statement is nothing more than empty partisan spin.

“This is not a new dilemma. In fact, we have seen two decades of swings back and forth since the accountability movement went nationwide with the No Child Left Behind Act. It’s an old problem, but fortunately, there is a new solution to it.”

And yet the brother of the man who instituted the use of NCLB was Johnson’s guest over the summer (June of 2018) to teach even more ideas on how to “reform” education.

Later Johnson says:

“No child is standard. There is no “average” student. We are all unique individuals with different strengths. Yet, the education system relies on standardized tests that are designed based on what the “average” student should know.”

He finally figured that out? Any teacher could have told him that.

“To be sure, we must measure our students’ progress, but we can do that with fewer and better tests, and especially by using technology to replace outdated testing methods.

New, personalized learning technology allows teachers to get the information they need about students’ progress without high-stakes testing. Especially in the early grades, progress checks can feel like a normal, engaging lesson instead of an examination. In many cases, students won’t even know we are checking in on their progress.”

And he bought a lot of iPads and is now showing up on PowerSchool as teachers log in.

“We are working with local superintendents and state leaders to reform the system of over-testing that the education industry created. In doing so, we can get back the time for teachers to do what they entered the profession to do: teach.”

If he wants to really change our relationship with the education industry, then Mark Johnson should start by not letting Pearson have so much sway in North Carolina and not allowing the ACT to have so much power over measuring student achievement.

And Johnson’s op-ed is made even more intentionally vague with a list.

“Some of the ways we are attacking the problem of over-testing this year are:

• Reducing the number of questions on tests
• Reducing the time students must sit for tests
• Changing testing policies to reduce stress at schools around testing time
• Working with local leaders to reduce the number of tests
• Pushing to eliminate tests not required by Washington, D.C.
• Giving students other ways to show progress if they have a bad test day
• Using the appropriate amount of technology as a tool for students and teachers to personalize learning and eliminate tests”

If one really looked at that list for what it says, then it shows the real disconnect Johnson has. Reducing the number of questions on tests now makes every question of a standardized test mean more in the “measure of a student.” Reducing the time students must sit for a test now makes those testing times even more stressful because less time is being used to “measure” the student.

Allowing students to leave tests after they finish as others are still working would create a rather confusing and noisy campus during exams. It would be a logistical nightmare and the safety concerns would be numerous. Just go to a large school and see how much timing and having personnel in the right places are essential to safety.

Has Johnson not had two years to push for eliminating tests not required by D.C.? Is he willing to eliminate the Read to Achieve failed initiative that actually adds to testing in the elementary grades?

If Johnson says that there should be other ways to measure progress, is he willing to fight for changing the way that school performance grades are used and measured to allow for schools to show student achievement? Actually, if we are going to “personalize” education, then each student’s growth and achievement should be measured individually. School performance grades are standardized. Johnson actually gives the argument to eliminate them.

And what technology is he talking about?

He ends with:

“We have already taken action on many of these points, and others are now in progress. See NCsuperintendent.com for more information.”

We can find more information on his personal site. Not the DPI site. A personal .com site that looks like a campaign website.

“Some of the ways we are transforming our education system so that it better supports students and educators are revolutionary. Some are common sense. All of them require us to hold the education-industrial complex at least as accountable as we hold students and educators. We are doing that, and the future is bright for North Carolina’s public schools.”

Revolutionary? Common sense? Holding the education-industrial complex accountable?

It’s none of those things.

That’s why it makes me “mad as hell.”

 

“At DPI, we want to transform our education system to one that uses 21st century best practices so students and educators have access to unique learning experiences personalized for their individual needs and aspirations.” – Mark Johnson from “North Carolina Public Schools Accelerating into 2018” in December of 2017 on EdNC.org.

In 2018 we saw a reduction in budget and a reorganization at DPI.

And iPads. Six million dollars worth.

And hurricanes along with an election cycle that saw a vteo-proof majority in both branches of the NCGA taken away from the very people who have been “crafting” education policy for years in North Carolina.

“New, personalized learning technology allows teachers to get the information they need about students’ progress without high-stakes testing. Especially in the early grades, progress checks can feel like a normal, engaging lesson instead of an examination. In many cases, students won’t even know we are checking in on their progress.” – Mark Johnson from “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna test it anymore!” in January of 2019 on EdNC.org.

The term “personalized learning” has become a bit of a buzzword in North Carolina – a fashionable way to possibly veil an educational reform under the guise of something altruistic.

In its literal and denotative form, “personalized learning” is a rather noble concept. It would allow students to receive tailored-made lessons that match their learning styles, needs, and interests.

It also requires a great amount of time, resources, and PERSONAL attention from instructors.

Time, resources, classroom space, and opportunities to give each student personalized instruction are not items being afforded to North Carolina’s public school teachers. In fact, as state superintendent, Mark Johnson has never really advocated for those things in schools. Actually, he has passively allowed for the class size mandate to proceed without a fight, has never fought against the massive cuts to the Department of Public Instruction, and devotes more time hiring only loyalists and spending taxpayer money to fight against the state board.

And the fact that he is now starting to advocate for a statewide $1.9 billion bond seems more like trying to take credit for something that could have easily been on last November’s ballot when the party he affiliates himself with had the very supermajority to allow for it.

In November of 2017, Benjamin Herold of Education Week wrote an investigative article entitled “The Case(s) Against Personalized Learning.” It is a straightforward look at how the amorphous term of “personalized learning” has been used to actually advance agendas that really are not good for enhancing instruction. Specifically, he uses three arguments against “personalized learning.” They are:

• “Argument#1: The Hype Outweighs the Research”
• “Argument #2: Personalized Learning is Bad for Teachers and Students”
• “Argument #3: Big Tech + Big Data= Big Problems”

If what Mark Johnson is trying to accomplish with his version of “personalized learning,” then does it not make sense that he would have to counter the arguments laid forth by Herold?

And why specifically counter those arguments now?

• Because there has been nothing from Johnson’s office or even his own mouth to offer the research for his claims.
• Because Johnson has been more concerned with rushing in technology for “technology’s sake.”
• Because Johnson has not explained how personalized learning in his version will actually allow more teachers to spend more time with individual students.

One of the many people whom Herold refers to is Alfie Kohn, a heavy-hitter in the world of educational thought. He quotes Kohn from his book, Schools Beyond Measure.

With a “revamped” website controlled by a software company like SAS that uses secret algorithms to show how well schools are performing on standardized tests which teachers don’t even help to write, Johnson’s idea of “personalized learning” in a state that still has a very low per-pupil expenditure lacks credibility.

Alfie Kohn’s work as an author and critic is known the world over. In fact, his book The Homework Myth is one of the choice reads for my AP English Language and Composition classes (which ironically argues against the veracity of AP classes in general).

In February of 2015, Kohn wrote an entry in his blog entitled “Four Reasons to Worry About ‘Personalized Learning.’” In it he outlined four warning signs:

1. The tasks have been personalized for kids, not created by them.
2. Education is about the transmission of bits of information, not the construction of meaning.
3. The main objective is just to raise test scores.
4. It’s all about the tech.

I believe Kohn more than I believe Johnson. In fact, Kohn actually shows his research if you look at the actual post (http://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/personalized/). Footnotes galore and a bibliography at the conclusion.

Until Mark Johnson is able to communicate clearly, candidly, and convincingly how his vision and/or version of “personalized instruction” is going to allow teachers to give all students more individualized attention, then what he is selling is nothing more than a scheme to make a profit for someone else.

Johnson states further in his December 2017 op-ed in EdNC.org,

“Our society uses technology to personalize our news, social media, entertainment options, and even fast-food orders.”

The fact that Johnson equates the use of technology in the classroom with the use of technology in these other venues already shows his huge disconnect with the learning process.

We live in a country where we have a president who trashes most news outlets, where social media companies seem to be more concerned with accruing data to sell for a profit, where entertainment makes us question what actually is reality, and where fast food offers cheap non-alternatives for substantial dietary options from a prefab menu (but great for entertaining college football’s national champions.

And Johnson wants us to rely on their examples to personalize how we teach our students?

Kohn also uses a fast-food reference in his post on personalized learning. But Kohn makes a better choice for the palate of the American education system.

“For some time, corporations have sold mass-produced commodities of questionable value and then permitted us to customize peripheral details to suit our “preferences.” In the 1970s, Burger King rolled out its “Have it your way!” campaign, announcing that we were now empowered to request a recently thawed slab of factory-produced ground meat without the usual pickle — or even with extra lettuce! In America, I can be me!”

I guess Johnson would like to “supersize” that.

But first I might order some “specificity” as an appetizer.

It was welcome to hear that there is an effort to reduce testing in public schools.

Mark Johnson released a statement today regarding testing. As reported in today’s News & Observer:

State Schools Superintendent Mark Johnson announced this week several changes that the state Department of Public Instruction will make for testing this school year that he says should reduce the amount of stress on students and teachers. Changes include state exams with fewer questions, allowing students to leave the exams sooner and easing rules requiring exam proctors.

“We will be working with local superintendents and state leaders to reform the system of over-testing,” Johnson said in a press release. “That way, we can give the teachers the time to do what they entered the profession to do: teach.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________

The number of questions on the state end-of-grade math exams, science end-of-grade exams and biology end-of-course exams are being reduced, according to Drew Elliot, a DPI spokesman. He said changes in the state’s language arts end-of-grade exams will begin in the 2019-20 school year.

The reduction in questions will shorten those exams. Currently, the exams are expected to last three hours with a maximum of four hours to finish them. Elliot said the exams will now take two hours with up to three hours allowed.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

But new rules will let teachers discuss test-taking strategies with students on the day of the test.

“Teachers can’t discuss the content of the test,” Elliot said. “But it didn’t make sense for them to not discuss testing strategy.”

Another change could end the annual scramble to find thousand of volunteer proctors. Elliot said it will now be a local decision whether a district or charter school wants to have proctors.

• Fewer questions?
• Shorter testing time?
• No proctors?
• Students can leave after taking actual tests?

Overall that sounds great. But there are some serious questions and considerations that need to be answered and fleshed out.

First, if there are fewer questions for tests, will the tests still themselves count the same amount in the students’ final grades? As of now, an EOC or NC Final in high schools counts for %25 of a student’s final grade for the course. Would fewer questions on a shorter test still carry the same impact as previous tests with more questions on a longer test? If so, that would mean a student’s final grade will depend on fewer test questions.

That’s more room for error and a shorter amount of time would be used to dictate a student’s final grade.

Secondly, these tests would still be used in determining school performance grades. Remember that %80 of a school’s performance grade is based on achievement scores – scored derived from standardized tests.

That would mean if school performance grades still look to follow a formula of %80 achievement and %20 growth, then fewer questions on those tests would mean that each standardized test question would actually have more power in measuring achievement and, therefore, a school’s performance grade.

And there could be more pressure on students because room for error would be smaller. Fewer variables would be at work.

Johnson may be claiming that this will “reduce the amount of stress on students and teachers.” In a sense, he is right. But…

… the stress of standardized tests is the effect they have on student achievement and how schools are measured. Lowering the amount of testing and not reducing the effect of testing on school report cards actually has the effect of placing more emphasis on each question on those standardized tests.

That could induce a lot more stress.  That is unless Johnson is willing to to change how standardized tests are used to “measure” student achievement. He could actually push to eliminate many of the state tests. That would reduce testing.

And he could push to change how school performance grades are used to measure schools and change the formula by which school performance grades are calculated.

In fact, he could push to simply eliminate school performance grades.

Until then, what was proposed today looks good, but needs further explanation and thought.

 

It is the right of every American to come together and peacefully speak out for an issue. What someone rallies for speaks for their interests and values.

When a lawmaker or an elected official attends a rally, it can show his priorities and his loyalties.

Take North Carolina State Superintendent of Public Schools Mark Johnson for instance.

According to the job description of the state superintendent, Johnson is responsible for the “day-to-day” management of the North Carolina public school system. It seems that if anything was to threaten the public school system, then Mark Johnson would be the first to “rally” for the public school system and the students in the public school system.

Last January a rally was held in Raleigh at the Halifax Mall of public school advocates calling for a fix to the class size mandate that threatened most public school systems. This unfunded dictate would have caused LEA’s to make decisions on what classes might have had to be eliminated and how to have navigated certain obstacles on classroom space and teacher allotment.

That rally was to petition Raleigh’s lawmakers to do the right thing. FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Mark Johnson was not there. Yet a former state superintendent was present, Bob Etheridge. He was rallying for public schools.

Remember May 16th? The largest gathering of public school teachers and advocates in state history?

Mark Johnson was not there.

Other rallies have been held in recent years for public education dealing with funding and keeping teacher assistants. Mark Johnson was not there for any of those as there are no indications of his attendance. On his personal webpage as state superintendent, Johnson remarks,

…having served as a teacher, an education leader, and as a father of a young daughter soon to start school, improving education in North Carolina is a personal mission for Johnson (http://www.ncpublicschools.org/statesuperintendent/).

It seems that with this assumed pedigree of public school commitment, Johnson would be the first to rally for public schools – as a teacher, a “leader,” and as a parent.

Yet it has been documented that Mark Johnson has refused to answer inquiries in state board meetings about public school policy which is in essence a chance to “rally” for public schools.

But that does not mean he will not “rally” for people. Take for instance an event on January 23rd  of last year.

Johnson was there. He was even the keynote speaker. He will rally for charter schools in a state that has gone out of its way to deregulate charter schools, ramp up vouchers, and use taxpayer money to fund those endeavors when no empirical data shows an overall increase in student achievement.

That’s the same taxpayer money that is not now being used for public schools.

Interesting that a man “elected” by the people would rally for school choice but not for traditional public schools where an overwhelming majority of the state’s students “choose” to attend school. But it is not surprising.

Why? Because Mark Johnson does not really seem to stand for public schools as much as he “rallies” for private interests and GOP stalwarts in the NC General Assembly. If he disagrees with that statement, then he can come to a rally for public schools and explain himself. He can be more “public” to the “public.” However, his unavailability and his unwillingness to speak up for public schools are becoming more of the rule rather than the exception.

Make no mistake, Mark Johnson is a puppet – a man whose entire experience in teaching and teacher preparation is less than two calendar years and whose only foray into public education policy before his current office is an unfinished term on a local school board.

When Johnson said in the December 2017 state school board meeting, “I think what the General Assembly is looking for is accountability, accountability for the money that is sent to this department,” what he was implying was, “I work for people on West Jones Street and not the people of the state. (http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2017/12/07/state-board-education-superintendent-mark-johnson-clash-dpi-funding/#sthash.hajrdpLu.hb54ZsZP.dpbs).

So limited is Johnson’s experience in education and politics and so narrow is his vision for what should be done to actually help public schools that his naivety to be used by the General Assembly to carry out their ALEC-inspired agenda has become something of an open secret. Look at who he has in leadership positions in DPI.

School choice is part of the ALEC agenda.

Of course Mark Johnson would rally for them last year and work for them while in office. And guess what is happening next week?

One of the more valuable ways that I can send messages to students and parents is through a service called Remind 101.

It allows me to create “classes” and alert all who are in that class about assignments, changes in scheduling, and activities.

Most students carry with them their smartphones and respond more quickly to texts. It allows them to contact me whenever they need. In fact, I used it frequently over the missed days due to weather. It works when the internet is down and there is no power in the house.

And it’s transparent.

As a parent of a high school student, I am on groups for her activities to alert me when there are changes.

It is a good tool for teachers, students, and parents that does not crunch the wallet. Teachers already pay for enough.

Now there is this:

Verizon is wanting to increase the charge for Remind to send messaging. That will not only disrupt being able to use Remind for teachers like me, but may result in charges to teachers to use Remind in the capacity we use it now.

Let them know that this is not good for teachers, students, and schools.

Go to www.remind.com/verizon-fee. 

If you did not know, UTLA (the United Teachers of Los Angeles) will be going on strike starting tomorrow. And like the “strikes” that happened in West Virginia, Arizona, and Oklahoma and the march in North Carolina, the issue isn’t really all about teacher pay – it’s about funding schools fully.

Dr. Diane Ravitch posted on her blog a report from Capital & Main out of California called “Why a Teachers Strike in Los Angeles Could Bring Big Rewards as Well as Risks.”

If you marched in North Carolina on May 16th, then you will see the similarities between what is happening in North Carolina and Los Angeles.

If Los Angeles’ public school teachers go on strike Monday, they will face off against a school district headed by superintendent Austin Beutner, a multimillionaire investment banker and former L.A. Times publisher with no experience in education policy. Perhaps more important, this strike will play out on an education landscape that has radically changed since 1989, when the United Teachers Los Angeles union last walked out. Foremost has been the national rise of charter schools — which, in California, are tax-supported, nonprofit schools that operate within public school districts, yet with far less oversight and transparency than traditional schools. Only a fraction of charter schools are unionized, a situation preferred by the charters’ most influential supporters, who include some of California’s wealthiest philanthropists.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Kent Wong, executive director of the University of California, Los Angeles’ Labor Center, notes that UTLA’s demands have moved away from larger raises and toward more funding to alleviate the deep education cuts that have been made over the years.

“It is important to understand the bigger forces at work here,” said Wong, who added that the pro-charter forces have invested millions of dollars to elect a pro-charter majority on the Los Angeles school board to shift resources from public schools to charters.

 

All strikes are risky undertakings and it’s an axiom that no one wins a strike. But a UTLA walkout would dramatically raise the stakes by casting the strike as a challenge to the creeping absorption of public schools by private charter management organizations.

“A strike is a big deal,” Wong said, because “you have this massive privatization scheme that’s been gutting support for public education and resources for public education. That’s the broader scenario that’s at stake here.”

Massive privatization scheme? That’s not just happening in Los Angeles.

It’s happening in NC.

 

• NCAE formed in 1970. Almost 50 years strong.
• NCAE Memberships and drives.
• Sit-ins and Walk-ins.
• Decline to Sign.
• Court Cases Won on Behalf of public teachers.
• We ❤ Public Schools.
• Wearing Red on Wednesdays.
• Students Deserve More March.
• Moral Mondays.
• Rallies.
• 2016 Election for a pro-public education governor.
• May 16th.
• Op-eds.
• Blogs.
• 2018 Elections to break veto-proof majorities.
• And every conversation between a public school teacher or staff member with another public school teacher or staff member or even a community member to let them know what positive impacts public schools have in our communities.

And now it is 2019 and as important as ever.

If you are an NCAE member or a public school advocate, then consider coming to a regional meeting of the Respect For Public Education Initiative.

A day of connecting, learning, and collective planning to win the public schools our students deserve led by the North Carolina Association of Educators for all public school educators, students, parents, and community supporters – 10 AM to 4 PM .
o January 19th→ Raleigh
o January 26th→ Asheville
o February 2nd→ Charlotte and Greenville

And if you are planning on attending, please fill out the this Google Form to help organizers prepare.

Advocacy started many years ago. It is still going. And it will get stronger in 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember last February? That’s when a “fix” for the class size mandate was “agreed” upon by both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly that was presented as a welcome outcome.

On the surface, it was a victory for parents, advocates, and schools in that the mandate will be pushed back for a while and some extra funding for “specials” teachers is being given.

But during that press-conference in which Sen. Chad Barefoot announced with carefully prepared and partisan comments the “fix,” he negated to tell North Carolinians what else was attached to the bill that NC democrats were never privy to (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article199207129.html).

That link not only gives you a video of Barefoot’s press conference; it also links to Lynn Bonner’s report that further explores HB90’s reach.

Long-sought help for schools struggling to lower class sizes is now tied up with a controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline fund and a power struggle over control of elections boards.

A bill proposed Thursday would take $58 million that energy companies building a pipeline through Eastern North Carolina are expected to give state government as part of a deal Gov. Roy Cooper negotiated, and distribute it to school districts in eight counties the pipeline would run through. Cooper calls it a mitigation fund to offset environmental effects of the pipeline, but Republicans repeatedly called it a “slush fund.”

House Bill 90 also makes changes to the state elections board. The changes are the response to Republicans’ recent loss in the state Supreme Court in a ruling that said their earlier attempt to reconstitute the board was unconstitutional. In the latest iteration, the elections board would have nine members, including one member not affiliated with a political party.

But to Barefoot and other GOP members of the NCGA, the day was really about bragging about a class-size fix. A short-term solution to a problem that was manufactured and lied about.

Throughout most of the last calendar year people like Barefoot, Berger, and Moore have been yelling that the class size mandate has been funded in the past, yet there was absolutely no proof of that. One only has to read the work of Kris Nordstrom and see that those claims were not only baseless, but now are revealed to be the very smokescreen for today’s announcement.

What happened was that the GOP education reformers took credit for a temporary solution to a problem that they purposefully used to position themselves to pass partisan legislature to help them remain in power despite the gerrymandering and doublespeak.

And yes, it is politics. But public school kids were the pawns. They made it look like they were listening to the public, but it seems more than orchestrated.

Think of Craig Horn’s statements earlier in 2018 that a “fix” was coming only to be rebuffed by Berger. That is until more came out about the ruling of the state supreme court on the state elections board. They needed that time to figure out how to allow a fix that they have been holding in their back pocket to a problem they originally created could be used to offset their political loss.

And again, the kids were the pawns.

They have been all along.

And class-size chaos is coming back. That fix was temporary. The problem could be permanent. Because it was an unfunded mandate to being with and because the 2018 NCGA sessions ramrodded bills through like the Local Municipalities Charter bill (that allows property taxes to be used more in funding schools), local LEA’s, school boards, and county commissioners will be having to fight even more to help fully fund schools.

Remember the statements  from Mark Johnson’s “less than stellar” op-ed from a February 2018 issue of News & Observer ?

And some of those tasked with making schools better are more focused on preserving tired partisan wedges….

Nothing was more partisan than what the people who empower and enable Johnson  (who never has really said anything about the class size mandate) did last February.

Now that the next session of the NCGA has convened without the veto-proof majorities that were in place for many years, class-size chaos can be fixed permanently – by fully funding the mandate, keeping specials in the schools, and stopping the use of students as political pawns for a partisan agenda.