Morning Shots

Bill Gates, one of the most successful men in history, has weighed in on a problem that will prevent others from achieving success like his. American students now languish near the bottom on international rankings.

“This isn’t supposed to happen,” Bill Gates told Oprah Winfrey on an August 7, 2008, Special Report. The problem is worse than Mr. Gates and Oprah Winfrey imagine.

In grade four, U.S. students out-perform their international peers in 65 percent of participating countries in math and science. In grade eight that figure drops to 46 percent. When U.S. students reach grade 12, they do about as well as students from Lithuania and surpass only students from Cyprus and South Africa. Educrats are fond of blaming low achievement on poor students, but that is not the case.

“This is affecting all schools,” said Melinda Gates. She is right, and California is one example.

At more than one in 10 affluent, middle-class public schools statewide, nearly 300 in all, less than half of the students in at least one grade level are proficient in English or math on the California Standards Test (CST). Less than one-third of those schools’ students are poor, few students are English language learners or have disabilities, parents are well educated, and most, if not all, of their teachers are certified. Those schools are in neighborhoods where median home prices approach, and even exceed, $1 million. But California’s not alone.

By eighth grade around one in five American students who are not poor score below basic in math and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card. Close to two-thirds of non-poor 8th graders are not proficient in these core subjects.

Twenty-five years ago the landmark report A Nation at Risk warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity.” To

Read More …

As the yearly convention of the National Education Association (NEA) approaches, it is time to reflect on the relationships that this organization and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) have with their members. Much has been written about the nation’s two teachers’ unions, and the case has been frequently (and justly) made that the unions are anti-student because of their adamant positions on school choice, charter schools and teacher tenure. However, I contend that the unions are not only anti-student, they are all too often anti-teacher.

In 28 of our 50 states, a teacher is essentially forced to join a very costly union. A typical teacher in Orange County pays $922 on a yearly basis to his/her local, which then sends $611 of that amount to the state affiliate, the California Teachers Association (CTA), and $140 to the national affiliate (NEA.) One has to wonder – if the unions are so beneficial, why are teachers forced to join and to pay such hefty dues in most states?

And just where do all those forced dues go? Untold millions go to political causes, whether the teacher wants them to or not. According to Reg Weaver, NEA president, the unions’ rank and file teachers are about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican and one-third independent. Yet, well over 90 percent of NEA political spending goes to liberal and left wing causes. Thus, if you are a conservative teacher, your own dues are used to support causes and candidates that you oppose.

If you are religious it can be even worse. Carol Katter, a veteran teacher and lifelong Catholic, objected to the fact that her union supports abortion on demand. When she sought a religious exemption, a union official suggested that she change her religion! In her state, Ohio, only Seventh Day Adventists and Mennonites

Read More …

Earlier this month, thousands of parents took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest the ongoing assault against their children’s charter schools by the powerful Los Angeles Unified School District.

“Families That Can,” the new parent organization and the first-ever statewide advocacy organization for charter school families, objects to the LAUSD’s disparate treatment of their children.

“Charter school students are public school students,” says founding parent Jackie Duvivier Castillo. “Yet they don’t have the same access to resources, funding, and facilities that traditional public schools do.” Ample evidence backs ups that claim.

State funding data reveal independently operated public charter schools receive about $3,000 less funding per student than district-run public schools - even though charter schools abide by the same admissions, accountability, and testing requirements as any other public school. This disparity is not new.

In 1992 California became the second state to embrace charter schools in response to overwhelming popular demand for alternatives to failing district-run public schools. Even opponents went along, preferring public charter schools to other proposed education reforms, including private school tuition vouchers. Back then, the Golden State was a trailblazer. Today other states are leaving California in the dust.

In California, public school districts are the primary authorizers of charter schools, and they control the purse strings. In other states, public school districts are one of many chartering entities, including universities, mayors, statewide chartering boards, and non-profit organizations. This helps ensure that charter schools maintain financial autonomy and do not fall prey to the whims of district officials or politicized agendas.

Absent such diversity, California charter schools become targets when they succeed in educating students in districts that failed to do so. Money is one of the most powerful weapons in a district’s arsenal. The massive LAUSD is a case in point.

Eight years ago, in 2000, California voters

Read More …