Archives for the month of: June, 2012

When Melinda Gates was interviewed on the PBS Newshour on June 4, she said something that surprised me. I will give you the full quote, which I copied from the Newshour website. I was surprised because I never heard that claim, I don’t know whose research she was citing or if it even exists. I checked with Linda Darling-Hammond, who seems to have read every study of teacher effectiveness, and asked her if she knew the source; she said she had never heard this claim and had no idea where Melinda Gates got this information, if it exists.

So, I ask my readers, and I ask you to ask your friends in the academic world, do you have a citation for this statement?

MELINDA GATES: Well, we know from good research that the fundamental thing that makes a difference in the classroom is an effective teacher. An effective teacher in front of a student, that student will make three times the gains in a school year that another student will make.

And so what the foundation feels our job is to do is to make sure we create a system where we can have an effective teacher in every single classroom across the United States.

The second claim is that the foundation has the knowledge to “create a system where we can have an effective teacher in every single classroom across the United States.” Someday, someone might ask whether they have achieved that goal. Right now, I would be content if the Gates Foundation were able to point to a single district in the U.S. where they had achieved that goal.

Diane

I don’t mean to pick on Governor Bobby Jindal but it is fascinating to watch the evolution (or should I say “the creation”) of his voucher program.

First came the news that many of the schools that are taking voucher students had no facilities or teachers. Then we learned that many of the little schools opening their doors are Bible-based church schools that teach creationism and use textbooks in history, science and other subjects from Christian publishing houses. Then it turned out that no one at the state department of education had vetted any of the schools that were approved to receive the students “fleeing” l0w-rated public schools. Then the Commissioner of Education John White said that the letter informing the schools that they had been approved really was not a letter informing them they had been approved.

What he actually meant to say, he said, was that the letter of approval was just a letter of “preliminary” approval, and they were going to be vetted for real approval.

But it gets worse (or better, depending on your point of view). According to an article in a Louisiana newspaper, the state will not require voucher-receiving schools to have certified teachers, to have modern technology or to accept students with disabilities.

I hope someone will find the time to explain why they expect to improve the education of these children by sending them to schools that lack the essentials required even of so-called failing public schools. Other than saying that parents in Louisiana know what’s best, Commissioner White has not offered a persuasive answer. If that were true, why does no one listen to the parents who oppose the closing of their public schools? When John White worked in New York City, he never cared what parents wanted  for their children when he closed their neighborhood schools and replaced them with charters.

Officials in the Oklahoma Department of Education posted on its website the personal information of students who received an exemption from state testing. The names, date of birth, test scores and disabilities of these students were made public.

To get an exemption from the state test, the students waived their rights under federal privacy law, but the waiver typically means that their records will be released to education officials with a need to know, not to the public.

Legislators who complained were unsure whether this act was done out of ignorance or as retribution for students who might be challenging the state superintendent’s testing mandates.

If any state official was ignorant of state and federal law governing student privacy, they should be fired. If they acted out of malice, they should be fired.

What an outrage.

Diane

Gotta love these parents. Here is a brilliant comment to an earlier blog about parent power. What will Gates and Broad and the U.S. Department of Education and the governors and state legislatures do when parents get engaged and angry? What will they do when parents rise up and say, “Enough is enough,” as parents in New York City did today? How will they defend themselves when parents demand an end to the use and misuse of their children?

Parents are the key here.  Unfortunately, parents tend to be invested in their own children’s education and that does not translate into a national movement yet.  Many parents are still ardent supporters of a data driven, educational model whether the numbers tell them something useful or not. The outrage is not universal, by far, as not every state, city, or local district has embraced the testing culture to the same extent.  It will come as we all jump on the common core bandwagon.  When parents throughout the country start to grumble, the political machinery will start to crumble.  I wonder how long powerful foundations and corporations will be able to control the agenda.  They can’t possibly be totally staffed by people who can afford elite private education for their children.  Will they sell out their own children?

The forces promoting the obsession with standardized testing and data are powerful, but they cannot hold back a tide of informed and committed parents. Once parents realize what is happening to their children, their teachers, and their schools, once they see how the quality of education is being eroded by data mania, once they understand that they are sacrificing their own children to the giant data-crunching machine, game over.

Rule of the day, the month, the week, the year, the decade, the century: Do not do unto other people’s children what you would not do to your own.

Diane

I received the following comment from a parent. There are all too few opportunities for parent voices to be heard.

One such space is the website http://www.parentvoicesny.org

I am glad to provide the opportunity for this parent to express frustration at the way that standardized testing and data-driven instruction have overtaken teaching and learning.

“As both a parent and an educator, I am keenly attuned to the issue of standardized testing and am absolutely appalled at how it seems to have become the epicenter of instructional decision making. Last week, I learned that a Pearson field test for ELA would be given in my son’s third grade classroom so I contacted the principal to inquire about the protocol for boycotting this test. I was advised to keep my son home from school as the directive from the state was that if the child was present, it was required that he be given the test. The principal advised me that the test would be given first thing in the morning on Wednesday, June 6 and that I could safely assume that it would be done by 10:30 AM at which time I could bring him to school. As per these suggestions, I kept my son home from school during which time he practiced the piano and read Harry Potter for 45 minutes. As fate would have it, when I dropped my son off at school at 10:30, his child’s teacher was “running a bit behind” and was still administering the test. Despite my wishes and actions to prevent him from taking the test, he was given the test anyway. When I learned of this occurrence, I contacted the principal who apologized profusely. I asked what recourse I had with regard to having his test pulled and destroyed. In addition to the principal, I have spoken to the assistant superintendent and a woman who works in New York State’s assessment office in Albany. They have all told me that I have no recourse. According to them, this field testing is in the best interest of my child and they were just doing what they were told to do. So in spite of my boycott, my wishes, and their gross error, they are sorry, but there is nothing they can do. His results will be sent to Pearson. This is in the best interest of my child? From where I stand, my child’s interests would be best served by giving him time to read books of his choice and time to practice writing thoughtfully and persuasively. It would be in his best interest to conduct experiments and collaborate with peers to solve problems and grow new ideas. This field test, the state test, and the test-driven curriculums that follow don’t support any of these things. And as far as I can see, the only one who “benefits” from this is Pearson. As a parent, I feel violated. And angry. I don’t understand how Pearson has the right to impose upon my child’s education like this without my consent. I am confused and disappointed in my school district who dared to suggest that this is what is right and best for my child. It makes me realize how defeated educators feel and how they have succumbed to the pressures of our data driven culture. We have forgotten what really matters—children and learning. Educators appear beleaguered and beaten by this battle which means just what you have said, Diane. It is time to awaken the sleeping giant. Children are the heart of our schools and the best voice for children are the ones who love them most: their parents. I hope this is only the beginning of the rally cry.”

When you read this comment, reflect that the same politicians and policymakers like to prattle on about “choice,” but are not willing to permit any choice when it comes to the imposition of standardized tests on children. They like to blather about differentiated instruction, but insist that children all be judged by the exact same test.

We live in a low, dishonest decade.

Diane

P.S. Any parent interest in learning how to remove their child from state testing should look at this website: www.unitedoptout.com

I wrote earlier today about clueless policymakers who think they are helping struggling students by raising standards. They believe fervently that the students will try harder and get higher test scores if the passing mark is raised.

A reader responded:

A similar policy is being rolled out in LAUSD.   The total number of credits needed for graduation have been reduced so that students can retake and retake courses they have failed.   However, the stakes are even higher because a “D” is no longer considered a passing grade.    Again, there is no pilot program to base the efficacy of such a move.   As class sizes increase and services are cut, there is no plan to address the cause of poor performance that leads to failure in high school.

Many feel that this policy will actually increase the dropout rate and/or create pressure on schools to demand that teachers inflate student grades in order to get a positive evaluation.

When this policy eventually fails, as it most certainly will, who will take the blame?    Most likely, the school board will have new members and the district will have hired a new superintendent.    So, who will be left to take the blame?    Could it be the teachers?

This is becoming a national story. First, they cut the budget. Then they lay off teachers. Then they increase class size and cut out the arts and other things not tested. Then they say the schools are failing. And the reason: Not enough effective teachers.

Diane

Three charter schools in Georgia affiliated with followers of Turkish cleric Fetullah Gulen defaulted on bonds and were subject to public audit. The audit revealed, according to the New York Times, that “the schools improperly granted hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts to businesses and groups, many of them with ties to the Gulen movement.” The schools used public funds to purchase a variety of goods and services from organizations with ties to school officials and other Gulen followers. In some cases, bids were won by the organization that was not the low bidder.

This story is becoming familiar. “The New York Times reported last year that the group’s 36 Texas schools had granted millions of dollars in construction and renovation contracts to firms run by Turkish-Americans with ties to the movement, in some cases bypassing lower bids from firms with no connections to the movement. The Texas schools also awarded deals for cafeteria food, after-school programs and teacher training to organizations affiliated with Gulen followers.”
The schools affiliated with the Gulen movement typically deny that they are connected to the Gulen movement, even though Imam Gulen has said that establishing charter schools in the United States is part of his mission. The Gulen-related or not-related schools constitute the largest charter chain in the nation. They have received hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidy for capital costs and tuition.
The Gulen charter schools specialize in math and science, and some of the schools get high test scores.
It does seem odd that the U.S. imports science and math teachers from Turkey because Turkey is not a high-performing nation on international tests. It also seems surprising that Turkey should be exporting science and math teachers to the U.S. because Turkish students are in need of good teachers.
None of this makes much sense.
Diane

 

Over the past decade of mayor control in New York City, the newly established Department of Education has had a free hand to do whatever it wanted with the city’s 1.1 million students, free of any concern about the reaction of parents, teachers, principals, or the public.

One reform after another has rolled out of City Hall, after Mayor Bloomberg or Chancellor Klein or someone else got a new idea or had a conversation at a dinner party. Sometimes these ideas are announced with great fanfare, and almost always they are announced as the solution to some problem, trumpets blaring, success preceding implementation.

The state scores went up and up, evidence of the New York City “miracle,” until 2010, when the New York State Education Department acknowledged that the state scores were a hoax. Someone at the SED had decided to help raise test scores by lowering the passing mark, and had done the same year after year, creating the illusion of progress. This was enough to enable New York to win Race to the Top funding, enough to help Mayor Bloomberg win a third term in 2009, and enough to get mayoral control extended in 2009 by the Legislature for another six years , all because of those amazing but phony test scores.

When the test score mirage dissolved, we learned that graduation rates had gone up into the low 60%, but there were no press conferences to talk about the persistently high remediation rates for entering college students, nor about their low persistence or graduation rates in postsecondary education.

A new blog by Peter Goodman, a veteran observer of the New York education scene, reveals a new round of thick-headed decisions:

City and state policymakers are now applying what they think is a sure cure for low academic performance: They will raise the bar, make the courses harder, more demanding. High schools will be incentivized to offer more college-level courses to students who are three or four grade levels behind in reading and/or math. This is supposed to incentivize students who can’t read or do math to take advanced placement courses, to work harder and to get higher test scores.

Here is the theory: If you raise standards, students will get higher scores.

What exactly is the logic here? If a student can’t jump over a four-foot bar, how exactly does it help if you raise the bar to six feet?

Goodman sensibly asks: What is the evidence that taking a “college level” course for which a student is not prepared will increase college readiness?

Other changes now about to be imposed involved the placement of special education students, not decided on a case-by-case basis by experienced professionals, but by fiat.

And Goodman sensibly suggests: Policy should be based on peer-reviewed research and years of experience in teaching and leadership positions within an urban school system.

But that is no longer the way things work these days.

Diane

As the movement to privatize public schools grows stronger, we should pay attention to the costs of privatization.

Those who push for privatization also claim that private business operates more efficiently than government and will thus save taxpayers’ dollars.

If only it were true.

The latest example in the privatization sage was a story in the New York Times of June 6 about what has happened to the cost of privatized special education for preschool children in New York City. The cost, now at $1 billion for 25,000 children of ages 3 and 4, has doubled in the past six years. It is far more than is paid for the same services in other cities and states.

New York City now spends about $40,000 per child in the program. Says the article, “Massachusetts, whose program is considered “resource-rich” by experts in the field, spends less than $10,000 a child.”

Oversight by the city and state has been lax, and efforts to tighten regulation in Albany has been blocked by the industry’s lobbyists.

The private contractors, who have their tuition rates set by the state, have become an influential lobbying force in Albany, where they have regularly rallied parents of disabled children to protest spending curbs in the program.

Auditors’ reports have found that:

Some contractors have billed the program for jewelry, expensive clothing, vacations to Mexico and spa trips to the Canyon Ranch resort, The Times found in a review of a decade’s worth of education, financial and court records. Others have hired relatives at inflated salaries or for no-show jobs, or funneled public money into expensive rents paid by their preschools to entities they control personally.

New York is the only state that has turned this program over to private contractors, many of which operate for-profit. Typically, the same firms evaluate the children and then provide services to them. 83% of the firms that conducted the evaluation also provided the services needed. Critics believe, not without reason, that the companies have a finanical incentive to over-identify children’s needs to inflate their bottom line.

When services are privatized, there will inevitably be operators who overbill for their services and pad the books and their profits. Lax oversight enables fraud. In the case of this program, oversight is very lax indeed: Regulators rely on contractors’ own accountants to vouch for billing. City and state officials conduct audits infrequently, and when they do, the results often languish on the shelves of the State Education Department. Some audits have not been given final approval and released until years after the contractors being audited went out of business.

Thus, the growing cost does not mean that children are getting more services they need, but that private firms are getting more profits at the expense of the children they supposedly serve.

A spokesman for New York City’s Department of Education defended the program and said that although it was expensive, it works.

As this article shows, it certainly works for the private contractors, who use the children and their parents to prevent appropriate and necessary oversight.

Diane

On Tuesday, I posted a blog at Bridging Differences (Education Week) called “The Pearsonizing of the American Mind.”

The title was a reference to Allan Bloom’s bestselling book of the 1980s, The Closing of the American Mind. His book referred to the insidious ways that popular culture interferes with the goals of liberal education. My article described the ways in which one giant corporation was taking control of the education “industry,” through testing, online instruction, ownership of the GED program, online charter schools, and proprietary control of instructional materials for the Common Core. Truly, the reach of Pearson across all of American education is astonishing.

As often happens, I got many wonderful comments. This one came from a regular reader who (from the moniker) is a chemistry teacher:

Yes, our focus has to be on the “locus of control”. Pearson and Gates goal in testing isn’t to improve education outcomes; it’s to increase market control. For corporate reformers, holding districts, schools, teachers and children (yes, children!) “accountable” means having the legal power to take control of them, and run them for their own purposes. Yes, we’ve politically given actual legal authority over our children’s minds to the same monopolists who crashed our finance system. The price isn’t just the damage of the testing, though. Now that they own our public schools, the corporatists have removed many unprofitable costs. Brick and mortar buildings, breathing teachers, playgrounds and libraries, are now all hopelessly out of the reach of many children. With the advent of the common core and the “revolution” of online delivery of proprietary learning materials, our children can sit home in front of a screen, not even moving around the room, and be assessed by computer programs aligned to the one true Core. We’ll have Pearsonized their minds, their lives, and their bodies. Here is one true example of the cost we contemplate: “She’s pretty typical. She is a very sedentary child, has been for a long time, really has no experience with activity, no way to think about being active. She’s relatively socially isolated, doesn’t really have very many social opportunities. She’s homeschooled. She has a number of medical problems, in addition to her diabetes.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june12/diabetes_06-06.html

We must worry about what we are doing to our children, our society and our future as we drift along into a world we did not make and do not want.

Diane