Archives for the month of: April, 2013

Texas is fed up with the testing obsession. The state has handed over nearly a billion dollars to Pearson in recent years, even as the Legislature cut $5.4 Billion from public education.

For an insiders’ view of the revolt against high-stakes testing in Texas, read Jason Stanford.

He says only two people in the state still defend the testing deluge, and one of them is paid to lobby for Pearson.

That would be Sandy Kress, the same man who is widely acknowledged as the architect of No Child Left Behind. In recent years, he has served on state advisory commissions, testified in favor of more and more testing, written opinion pieces in favor of testing.

But now the game is up. 86% of school boards across the state have said no to high-stakes testing. Moms have organized to fight it. The Legislature is listening. Texas is the place where the testing vampire (as former state commissioner of education Robert Scott called it) gets a stake through the heart.

The Washington Post has a great education blog, Valerie Strauss’s The Answer Sheet.

I wish the editorial board would read The Answer Sheet.
.
Instead, they wrote this absurd editorial, chastising Texas for backing away from test mania.

At present, Texas spends more on testing–$100 million yearly to Pearson –than any other state.

Students in Texas are expected to pass 15 end-of-course tests to graduate from high school. This is more testing than in any other state.

The outcry from parents was so loud that even the Legislature heard it, and Texas plans to cut back on its testing mania.

The Washington Post thinks this is terrible, just terrible.

Please, editorial board, read The Answer Sheet and learn about the folly of high-stakes testing.

Or read the report of the National Research Council on “Incentives and Test-Based Accountability.”

Larry Lee is an Alabama native who cares about public schools. He has a particular interest in rural schools and community schools. He is a member of the board of the Network for Public Education. This is his analysis of the recently passed “Alabama Accountability Act,” which enacted tax credits and is a stealth voucher plan.

Larry Lee writes:

Have you ever made a promise you knew you couldn’t keep? I sure did every time mama took a switch to me. “I promise, I promise I won’t ever do it again,” I hollered as I tried to dance out of her reach.

Unfortunately when you strip all the rhetoric away, when you cast aside all the pleadings that “this is for the children” and when you look at the starkness of the numbers, you see that this is what our legislature did when they passed the Alabama Accountability Act.

They made a promise they cannot keep. Whether this was intentional or just inept doesn’t much matter at this moment. HB 84 was passed by the Alabama House and Senate and signed into law on March 14, 2013 by Governor Bentley.

As they said, it is what it is. A promise that cannot be kept.

On page 13, line 13, the new law says:

“For tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2013, an Alabama income tax credit is made available to the parent of a student enrolled in or assigned to attend a failing school to help offset the coast of transferring the student to a non-failing public school or nonpublic school of the parent’s choice.”

It further states in the same paragraph:

“If income taxes owed by the parent are less than the total credit allowed under this subsection, the taxpayer shall be entitled to a refund or rebate, as the case may be, equal to the balance of the unused credit with respect to that taxable year.”

My math says there are 89,087 students in “failing schools” in Alabama. This means we have promised to give a tax credit or rebate check of about $3,500 to each of these students. That’s a liability of more than $311 million.

While some guesstimate that only 10 percent of these kids will apply for the money, they may need to take off their rose-colored glasses. A close look at Montgomery County shows what I mean.

There are 21 schools on the “failing” list in Montgomery with 14,511 students. Of these, 86 percent receive free and reduced lunches, a substantially higher rate than those in non-failing schools.

But here’s the rub. There is no way for the existing non-failing public schools to accommodate even a small portion of these kids. However, the law says the rebate, “is made available”. It does not say “may be available under certain circumstances.”

There are seven public high schools in Montgomery. Three, with a total of 4,848 students, are failing. Three are magnet schools that have stiff entrance exams. So the failing high school students have only one public school option, Carver High with 1,385 students. They’re going to add nearly 200 classrooms and 200 new teachers to take all these students? Highly unlikely.

What about these kids going to private schools? For one thing, how many poverty families can send their kids to a private school, even with a $3,500 rebate since tuition is far more than $3,500? And can private schools in Montgomery absorb 14,511 additional students?

Or do we just hold a lottery to see who gets into a school where there is some space and who gets the $3,500 rebate? Surely since we’re dead set against gambling we would never do this. (Even though the truth is that in some places in Alabama we already hold lotteries to see which kids get to go to pre-kindergarten.)

Of course there are plans for a scholarship fund to help students get into private schools. Let’s say 10 percent of the Montgomery students can get into private schools (1,451 students); at $5,000 per scholarship, that’s more than $7 million for just this one school system.

But forget all this guessing on numbers and go back to the law and the promise that each child in a failing school in Alabama is worth approximately $3,500. Common sense tells me that a single mother who takes advantage of free lunches for her school age kids is also going to apply to get $3,500 for each of them. And she’ll find plenty of tax preparers who will be glad to help her–for a cut of the rebate.

But wait, if her kids don’t move to a non-failing school is this then tax fraud? Is it her fault the local school can’t find space for her children in qualified schools? Is it her fault some lawmakers made a promise they could not keep?

One might even ask: is it the mother perpetrating the fraud, or is it the state of Alabama?

Larry Lee led the study, Lessons Learned from Rural Schools, and is a long-time advocate for public education who frequently writes about education issues. larrylee33@knology.net

Jay Mathews has been a strong supporter of using test scores for teacher evaluation.

No longer.

He describes his change of view here.

Jay writes:

“I used to think student test score gains were a good way to rate teachers. I don’t think that any more. Grading individual teachers with scores is too approximate, too erratic and too destructive of the team spirit that makes great schools. Rating schools, rather than teachers, by test score gains is better, at least until we find a way to measure deeper indicators of learning.”

And more.

“We would be better off rating teachers the old-fashioned way. Let principals do it in the normal course of watching and working with their staff.”

But here is where I disagree with him, when he would make every principal an autocrat:

“But be much more careful than we have been in the past about who gets to be principal, and provide much more training. Give them the power to hire, compensate and fire staff members as they see fit. If student achievement lags, the principals should be in the hot seat. Give them warnings. Give them help. But if the school doesn’t improve, remove them.”

What is the evidence that schools soar when teachers have no right to a hearing? I don’t know of any.

Ohio is very friendly territory for charter schools.

Governor Kasich loves charter, vouchers, and virtual schools.

But the charters are not doing so well.

Read the following comment and the link with it:

I have been following your work closely since reading your most recent book a few years ago. My local paper, the Akron Beacon Journal, today ran an article analyzing the impact of the new state report card system on public schools, particularly the charter schools. The link is below to the article. The part that jumped out at me was the comments from the vice president of research and accountability for the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She claims that the high failure rate of these schools is caused by the special needs of the students (autism, drop-out recovery programs, etc.). She also used the excuse that most of the failing charters are in urban areas, and that geopgraphic location affects those charters. Mobility and the environmentla factor are aso cited as possible causes of low scores in the charters. Clearly she did not get the memo about “no excuses” and “every child can learn” that we hear so much about. Please share this article if you can. Keep up the good work.

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/academic-ratings-for-ohio-charter-schools-likely-to-tank-in-new-scoring-system-1.386455

Remember that charter schools are supposed to be models of innovation and excellence. Public schools are supposed to learn from the charter model.

But look at this:

“Among Ohio’s 612 public school districts, 60 percent would score an “A” on proficiency tests because their children would have at least a 75 percent pass rate. On the other hand, 72 percent of charter schools would receive an “F” for the same measure.”

“For graduation rates, only 7 percent of public school districts would receive an F, but 89 percent of the more than 300 charter schools would receive the state’s worst academic rating.”

In 2011, when the U.S. Department of Education revised the regulations governing FERPA to allow third parties to access children’s data without the consent of their parents, the Council of Chief School Officers weighed in. Here is. Comment by Sheila Kaplan, whose organization (educationnewyork.com) is devoted to student privacy issues:

“Here’s Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Comments on 2011 FERPA RULE CHANGE

CCSSO own the Common Core State Standards Copyright with the National Governor’s Association (NGA).

Click to access ccsso.pdf

Also:

“The American Council on Education expressed concerns about the FERPA rule change:

Click to access ace.pdf

The most bizarre was the Head Start opposed the rule change saying they’re under HHS authority, not he USED, and the USED was acting beyond their authority.

HEAD START says US ED acted beyond their authority. This one is interesting.

Click to access headstart.pdf

Myra Blackmon, who writes a column in the Athens (Georgia) Banner-Herald, has discovered an amazing and well-hidden secret: Most of our nation’s dropouts did not drop out of high school. She looked at Georgia’s high school graduation rate and did some fact-checking. The graduation rate is supposedly 67%, but many students who did not drop out are not counted as graduates.

The first thing she learned was that the U.S. Department of Education considers anyone who did not get a high school diploma in four years to be a dropout. Students who took an extra year to graduate are treated as dropouts. Students in special education who need extra time to earn credits are counted as dropouts.

Manufactured crisis? Myra Blackmon reports, you decide.

In the past few years, the privacy protections built into federal law have been weakened by the U.S. Department of Education to allow third-parties to access confidential information about students.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center summarizes the chronology. It has filed a lawsuit to fight the Department’s new policy, which will give the private sector access to confidential student data.

In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations governing the release of student data to the private sector, without Congressional authorization to do so. At that time, “the ED issued final regulations implementing its proposed amendments, despite the agency’s admission that “numerous commenters . . . stated that they believe the Department lacks the statutory authority to promulgate the proposed regulations contained in the NPRM.” The final regulations’ definitions for statutory terms “authorized representative,” “education program,” and “directory information” did not differ from the proposed regulations.”

The new regulations “removed limitations prohibiting educational institutions and agencies from disclosing student personally identifiable information, without first obtaining student or parental consent. For example, the proposed FERPA regulations reinterpreted FERPA statutory terms “authorized representative,” “education program,” and “directory information.” This reinterpretation gives non-governmental actors increased access to student personal data.”

In January 2012, the Education Department and the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy created something called the Education Data Initiative. All these terms obscure what is going on: The Department of Education is colluding to release confidential student data to third-party vendors.

Here is what the Electronic Privacy Information Center says about this intrusion:

“The Education Data Initiative reflects a growing trend with student data: government agencies are taking personal information that students are required to provide, skirting federal regulations, and turning student data over to the private sector with few, if any, safeguards for privacy and security.”

This is the background for inBloom, the massive database of confidential student information funded by the Gates Foundation with $100 million, assembled by a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, stored on a “cloud” by amazon.com.

Tech entrepreneurs are excited by the prospects of using student data for marketing purposes, according to this article in Reuters.

But why isn’t the U.S. Department of Education fighting to protect student privacy? Why did it weaken the FERPA law? Why is it acting on behalf of the private sector? They have their own lobbyists.

I have been listening today to news reports that certain Florida politicians are very angry that Beyonce and Jay-Z went to visit Cuba. That’s ridiculous. I bet they had all the visas they needed.

Good for them.

As readers may recall, I visited Cuba in February. I had a great trip, visited artists and museums, and saw a poor and very beautiful country.

I came away convinced that the embargo keeps the Castro regime in power.

If we ended the embargo, the country would flourish. The regime would wither away in response to free trade in ideas, people, culture, and commerce.

I was fortunate to discover a travel agent who has approval from the US Treasury Department to plan trips for Americans. She arranged all the necessary visas and permits from the US government and the Cuban government. She selected all accommodations and meals. It was an unforgettable trip.

My group of four people flew directly from Miami to Havana. We flew on a charter flight for about 120 people. We couldn’t help but notice an American Airlines flight at the Havna airport, also a charter. It flies every day.

The embargo is a farce. Visit Cuba before McDonald’s and Starbucks open there.

I would go back in a heartbeat, with all the visas in place.

My agent was a wonderful Cuban-American named Miriam Castillo of Bespoke Travel in NYC. Here is a good description of the trip, which appeared in Forbes.

The most fun: All those fabulous cars from the 1940s and 1950s, in gorgeous condition.

If you want to go to Cuba, call Miriam Castillo at 212-352-8012. There are no more no stops from JFK to Havana. You have to fly from Miami.

Mike Deshotels reports on what is happening in the Louisiana legislature.

Bear in mind that Governor Bobby Jindal proposed to “reform” taxes by eliminating the personal income tax and the corporate income tax, shifting the entire tax burden to the sales tax. This is a very unpopular proposal, which appears to have driven his poll numbers down into the mid-30s. It will also hurt the state’s public schools, as you will see in this post.

Jindal also plans to fund the voucher schools by taking money from the state’s Minimum Foundation budget for public schools, even though a state court has already declared it unconstitutional. Same for Jindal’s plan to pay for-profit course choice providers, also found unconstitutional but still in the governor’s budget. And predictably, Jindal’s allies will return with new ways to strike down teacher tenure, which was struck down by a state court a few months ago because the law addressed too many issues in the same bill.

Here is Mike Deshotel’s report:

From: Michael Deshotels
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:01 AM
Subject: Legislative update
Governor Jindal is kicking off the 2013 legislative session today at 12 noon and I am happy to report that it looks like his big tax reform proposal is in big trouble. The governor’s new tax proposal greatly increases state sales taxes and could end up depriving local school boards of a vital source of sales tax when local voters fail to renew local sales taxes to try to offset the high state sales tax. I hope that trouble spills over to the education area so that we will have a chance of stopping his destruction of public education.
The MFP: Several of you asked that I give you more details about why the legislature should reject the new MFP. Some of you have since supplied me with critical information including the changes to special education funding. So I hope the following gives you plenty of information about why we want the MFP rejected by the legislature and sent back to be reenegotiated with the stakeholders so that a more acceptable formula can be proposed.
1. The new MFP would remove the automatic growth factor in the MFP. Because of huge unfunded mandates in recent years, it is critical that the growth factor be reinstituted. Meanwhile many charter schools are exempted from paying their share of mandated costs such as the increased costs for retirement contributions. Just the increase in retirement contribution for unfunded accrued liability is a crippling drain on local school system. To add insult to injury, our DOE is forcing local systems to upgrade local computers and internet access just to take care of more state tests that are making the testing companies rich and are reducing student instruction time. (Remember the Governor refused the federal money for upgrading internet services because his favored private companies may not get the contracts)
2. The new MFP still provides funding for vouchers and the new course choice programs even though this has been ruled unconstitutional. Thecourse choice program allows out of state companies to raid the MFP while the student testing scores still go to their local home schools. These private companies can get paid even if the students do not attend regularly or learn nothing!
3. The new MFP begins a change to a new weighted formula for special education that is strongly opposed by all special education stakeholders because it may not provide adequately for some students individual plans and may penalize gifted and talented programs based on as yet untried tests.
Bills: Jindal’s allies in the legislature have filed bills that would find a way around the recent court rulings stiking down Acts 1 and 2 of last year. I will send more details on this later but for now I want to point out just a few important bills. You can read the bills just by clicking on the highlighted bill numbers.
SB 89 by Appel: Please ask your Senators to defeat this bill if it is brought up because it destroys all teacher due process and makes many teachers’ fate rely on a very innacurate evaluation system.
HB 160 by Reynolds: Please ask your representative to support this bill which will put off the evaluation system until the VAM can be reworked. (I hope VAM can be done away with because in my opinion it can never be accurate for all circumstances)
SB 41 by Kostelka: I am hoping we can support this bill because it will allow a vote of the people to make the State Superintendent an elected position. As it stands now, the Governor totally controls both the State Superintendent and the majority of BESE. The present system does not have checks and balances and allows a radical like Jindal who has other motivations to practically destroy public education. Again this would just let the general public vote on a constitutional amendment to make the position elected.
Please go to the Louisiana Legislature web site and click on the name of your Representative and Senator so you can get his/her local office phone number where you can leave him/her messages with his legislative assistant, or send an email. Just introduce yourself and make sure they know you live in their district and that you want their support on education issues.
Thanks in advance for your efforts,
Mike Deshotels
____________________________________