Archives for the month of: March, 2013

David Sirota of Denver has been trying for some while to send a wake up call to the American public: billionaires and entrepreneurs are scoping out the schools as an emerging market for their goods and services. What they call “reform” has nothing to do with education and everything o do with money, power, control, and ideology. What they call “reform” is a shell game to hoodwink the public and divert attention from privatization.

As Sirota writes:

“…though it is rarely mentioned, the truth is that the largest funders of the “reform” movement are the opposite of disinterested altruists. They are cutthroat businesspeople making shrewd financial investments in a movement that is less about educating children than about helping “reform” funders hit paydirt. In that sense, they are the equivalent of any industry leaders funding a front group in hopes of achieving profitable political ends (think: defense contractors funding a front group that advocates for a bigger defense budget). The only difference is that when it comes to education “reform,” most of the political press doesn’t mention the potential financial motives of the funders in question.”

Kenneth Bernstein is an award-winning NBCT who recently retired as a teacher of government. He is now caring for his wife, who is recovering from a major illness. He usually blogs at the Daily Kos but has taken the time to share his insights here as a comment. Thank you, Ken.

He writes:

We have had a decade of the “reforms” of No Child Left Behind. The approach embodied therein actually is traceable back 30 years, to the release of A Nation at Risk, continued through Goals 2000 which claimed that it would result in America being first in the world in math and science by that date, has seen policy doubling down through Race to the Top and the proposals in the Obama administration’s “Blueprint,” and now we continue the insanity through Common Core and the common assessments. In each of these cases what was excluded in the making of education policy were the voices of those expected to implement the policy choices, professional educators – teachers and principals.

Instead we have had think tanks, we have had politicians, we have had organizations that stand to profit from the decisions – and that includes ostensibly non-profit organizations such as the College Board and ETS among others.

The results to date have not been as promised.

We have failed to address many of the real issues affecting our students, starting with the high percentage (compared to other industrialized democracies) of children in poverty, children who do not get proper nutrition or health care, whose teeth may be rotting, who need glasses but do not have them.

We have had imposed policies that have already been tried and found wanting – turning schools over to “educational management” organizations, converting them to charters, turning to mayoral control – or not yet piloted and evaluated – here the Common Core is one of the best examples. The “data” that has been produced is often either incomplete or in fact downright manipulated – such as graduation rates in Texas, from which we got No Child Left Behind. We ignore contradictions in policies – we have too many students dropping out so to fix that we are going to raise the bar and impose “standards” that are not based on what we know about brain development and differential development rates.

Unfortunately too often the media organizations which should serve to explain things jumps on board the bandwagon. Perhaps it should be expected when the corporation which owns one of the major national newspapers, The Washington Post, gets most of its profits from a for-profit educational venture, Kaplan, which benefits from policies such as increased emphasis on tests.

Fortunately modern means of communicating and organizing are allowing pushback – by parents, students, teachers, administrators, even school boards.

Slowly Americans are beginning to realize that the emperor of educational “reform” is naked – that is, what is being forced upon America’s public schools is less concerned about real learning by students and more concerned about political and economic power.

Perhaps it is time for major media organizations to be far more transparent in their presentations on education, to give equal voice to the voices that have not been heard.

I once had a conversation with a sitting governor, close to a decade ago. The governors had just had a conference on education. Each governor had brought a business leader, which he acknowledged. I asked why each governor had not brought a teacher, or some other educator. He was shocked and acknowledged he at least had never considered the possibility. That is symptomatic of what is wrong in how we make educational policy.

It is also why so many educators – principals as well as teachers – are so demoralized. They are excluded from the making of policy, they are demonized when they object and try to raise the issues that should be discussed. Meanwhile they continue to see the conditions necessary for serving their students disappear, what protections they had to enable them to do their jobs correctly are being taken away from them.

I once told Jay Mathews that I might not object to having my students assessed by quality tests at the end of a course, but I refused to be held accountable if you told me how I had to teach them, because then I had no ability to shape my instruction according to what I knew of my students, and how they were learning.

Increasingly we are trying to tell our teachers not only what to teach but also how to teach it. Sometimes we are even imposing scripted lessons.

Should not the real evaluation be of the results of what has been imposed by those who are not educators, who are not attempting to address the individual needs of the students in their classes, in their schools? And were we to evaluate that way, would w not find almost all of the “reforms” to be failures?

Except the ‘reforms’ have not failed in their other purposes

– increasing profits for testing and curriculum companies (often the same)
– breaking the power of teachers unions
– diminishing the professionalism of teachers, principals and superintendents
– effectively privatizing one of the most important public functions
– removing democratic control of public education and politicizing it in places where it becomes easier to impose the corporatizing agenda.

You know all this.

You have written and spoken out about this.

We need more voices speaking out, loudly.

Thanks for being an important voice.

In recent weeks, Mercedes Schneider reviewed the members of the board of the National Council on Teacher Quality.

She did so because NCTQ is now often perceived as a nonpartisan, independent evaluator of teacher education programs, teacher colleges, and teacher quality. It has been the recipient of grants from many foundations, including Gates. Its investigation into the nation’s teacher preparation programs is considered authoritative by US News and World Report. Its report on teacher quality in Los Angeles, produced in cooperation with the Gates-funded United Way, blamed teachers for low test scores. In short, NCTQ is a power player with funding and media influence.

As Schneider shows, NCTQ is a leading player in the corporate reform movement. Its board includes Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and Wendy Kopp.

This post reviews NCTQ as an organization.

Schneider has a Ph.D. In statistics and research methods. She teaches high school in Louisiana.

An earlier post reported that students in Warwick, Rhode Island, were being disciplined because of tweets they wrote about state commissioner Deborah Gist. Who was reading the tweets? Who has that job?

A reader commented:

“This is scarier than all the testing malarky… we need to guard the first amendment with all the zeal the NRA uses to protect the second amendment! We’ve already indoctrinated kids that walking through metal detectors is OK, that carrying a coded ID card with a tracking chip is OK, being checked over by a good guy with a gun to gain entry to school is OK, being videotaped 24-7 is OK… now we’re going to convince them that their email communication and tweets will be monitored? We’re moving in the wrong direction in the name of protection…”

The Providence Student Union has taken a stand against the NECAP graduation test. Last Saturday, a few dozen local leaders took the test, any said it was too hard for them, and they are nervously waiting for their scores.

When students take action, everything changes!

Here is the news:

“Providence City Council education committee opposes NECAP as graduation requirement”

March 18, 2013
By Linda Borg
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The City Council’s education committee is asking the Rhode Island Department of Education to abandon using the New England Common Assessment Program as a requirement for high school graduation.

In a resolution to be submitted before the City Council, the committee’s chair, Sam Zurier, calls the state test “unfair” because it doesn’t allow some children “a reasonable chance to succeed, and imposes devastating consequences on many children who,
through no fault of their own, are not ready to achieve the required test scores.”

The letter asks the education department to reconsider the “high-stakes testing” policy, which would take effect with this year’s juniors.

The ACLU is protesting disciplinary actions taken against high school students in Warwick, Rhode Island.

The students tweeted something negative about State Superintendent Deborah Gist. Whatever they tweeted was not reported in this story.

The story said: “Several students called Gist names on Twitter following a story in the Journal in which about 35 adults took a portion of the New England Common Assessment or NECAP, deeming it very difficult. Several questioned if should be linked to high school graduation.”

Some of the students tweeted on school time. Some tweeted from home.

At a time when school officials are breaking the budget to put all students online, policing what they say online is going to be a full-time job for someone.

You have to wonder whose job it is now to follow Twitter and scrutinize what students are saying.

One of the comments said that the state test should include the study of the Constitution.

Since when did it become illegal or bad behavior to criticize government officials?

Wasn’t Roger Williams a founding father of Rhode Island? Wasn’t it founded as a refuge for religious and political dissent? When did Rhode Island become a state that punishes dissenters?

I am late posting about the school closings in Sacramento, but better late than never.

In Sacramento, the Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP) and the Sacramento Coalition to Save Public Education are working together to protest the closing of seven elementary schools. The closing of these schools will have a disparate impact on children of color and English-language learners. The “savings” to the district will be miniscule.

The HIP press release against the closings follows here:

For Immediate Release Contact
March 7, 2013 Jonathan Tran
626.607.1897
Press Release
School Closures Disproportionately Impact Sacramento’s Most
Disadvantaged, Budget Woes to Continue
SACRAMENTO, CA – On Thursday, Superintendent Jonathan Raymond and four members of
the Sacramento City Unified School Board of Education finalized the last of their “wrong-sizing”
plan. While Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP) is extremely happy for the students and parents of
Mark Twain and Tahoe Elementary; we also recognize that the District’s poorly devised
proposal, arbitrary saving projections and disregard for community input will have devastating
impacts on the Sacramento’s most vulnerable communities. In total, the Board voted to close
seven neighborhood schools—ALL in low-income and socioeconomically disadvantaged
communities.
With poorly developed transition plans and only a month of public discourse, it is clear that the
Superintendent and Board Member’s irresponsible decision will hurt Sacramento’s most
vulnerable populations. According to the California Department of Education, two of every five
displaced student will be Limited English Proficient (LEP). Moreover, while students of color
account for 80.9-percent of the total SCUSD Elementary school population, they account for
more than 93.4-percent of the displaced student population. Finally, students enduring
‘socioeconomic disadvantages’ make up 97.8-percent of the total displaced student population,
compared to only 72-percent of the total Elementary school population.
Overall, the detrimental impacts of these school closures outweigh any fiscal gains. Originally
anticipated to be a savings of $2.3 million, the District’s projected savings has dwindled to $1
million or less than 0.8% of the total budget. These projections do not reflect the drop in
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) that historically follows school closures nor does it include the
unexpected expenses of transition impacted students. In addition, Thursday evening’s board
meeting highlighted the possibilities of on going budget deficits. HIP has maintained that rather
than closing schools, the District must seek out innovative solutions that attract more students—
not disenfranchise parents. Ultimately, the Superintendent and Board Member’s actions will
exacerbate issues of under-enrollment, undermine student achievement and jeopardize student
safety.

Carol Burris, the principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York, was an early proponent of the Common Core standards. She wrote a book about how to implement them to benefit students.

But as the standards are turning into reality, what she imagined is going sour. She recently wrote two articles (here and here) about why she has decided she cannot support the Common Core.

To her dismay, the Common Core has turned out to be a way to standardize curriculum and testing across the nation and to generate uniform data.

This is not what she hoped for.

She writes:

“I confess that I was naïve. I should have known in an age in which standardized tests direct teaching and learning, that the standards themselves would quickly become operationalized by tests. Testing, coupled with the evaluation of teachers by scores, is driving its implementation. The promise of the Common Core is dying and teaching and learning are being distorted. The well that should sustain the Core has been poisoned.”

In her second article, she expresses concern about the developmentally inappropriate nature of the standards in the early grades. She explains them in this way:

“The disconnect between the standards and childhood development is not difficult to explain. The standards were developed through backwards mapping, that is, standards for college readiness were established and then skills were walked backward through the grades. However, children move forward not backward through development, and as any pediatrician will tell you, they do so at individual, unique paces.”

A recent post reported that Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify business won a contract to develop the formative assessments for one of the two federally-funded consortia preparing tests for the Common Core standards. Joel Klein is head of Amplify. As in any conversation among knowledgeable adults, we often don’t explain every word to outsiders. Do you object to the Common Core? to the online assessments? to the contract going to Murdoch and Klein? to the profit-making at a time of budget cuts? This student has a question about that post. Please explain your concerns to him or her:

“So, question. I’m a student and don’t understand exactly what this is about? What I see it as being, given the comments, is that its like a boring sort of Leapfrog. Or mass produced education. Is this correct? Someone correct me if its not.”

Sheila Kaplan of Education Néw York is a specialist in student privacy issues.

She recommends this model law to protect children from marketing of their personal data.