Archives for the month of: June, 2013

This is a strange but true story.

As you know, I have a new book coming out in mid-September, and I plan to visit several cities on the west coast.

A reader of the blog reached out to see if the Los Angeles World Affairs Council would host me to speak at a luncheon.

I will be in Los Angeles October 1 and 2. I am speaking at Cal State-Northridge on the evening of October 2. So I thought it would be a good idea to speak to LAWAC at lunch on October 2 or in the evening of October 1.

LAWAC has previously hosted Michelle Rhee, who was introduced by Eli Broad, the billionaire philanthropist.

The initial response from LAWAC was that it would be delighted to present me, that its members are very interested in education issues, and that we could work out the details.

I conveyed this information to my lecture agent, who is coordinating my travel arrangements. She asked for a fee, as is customary (I don’t know what she asked for). The response came back that LAWAC does not pay speaker fees.

I responded immediately, directly to the executive director of LAWAC and wrote that I would gladly speak for free. He replied that LAWAC does not pay speakers’ fees.

I thought maybe he missed my previous email, so I wrote again and said, clearly and in caps, I will speak for FREE, I require no fee, nothing at all, not even expenses. I am willing to speak for no fee. No fee, no fee, no fee. Do I make myself clear? No fee. Free.

Again came back the response. “LAWAC does not pay speakers’ fees.”

I think the message is: LAWAC does not want to hear anyone who disagrees with Michelle Rhee and Eli Broad. Or maybe LAWAC is no longer interested in hearing about education as it is no longer an important issue. But it cannot be about fees.

What do you think?

If you read this post, you will never again believe any claim coming out of Louisiana. Crazy Crawfish (aka Jason France) used to work in the data division of the state department of education. He knows their tricks.

EduShyster has gotten to the root cause of all our education problems, most especially those in the inner cities of the action. The answer, she has discovered, is missionaries. Yes, there are too many teachers from the local communities. They lack the youth, the vigor, energy, and the sheer excellence of missionaries.

As she explains:

“If you are a member of the fastest (and best funded) congregation in the nation, the First Church of Education Reform, it will come as no surprise to you that the crisis of low expectations and skill-less-ness that once afflicted our failed and failing public schools has been solved. It turns out that the solution is as obvious as the golden plates that once presented themselves to Joseph: replace the native, homegrown teachers, also known as LIFO-lifers or “non believers,” with fresh young missionaries.”

Michele McNeil analyzed Secretary Duncan’s remarks yesterday to the nation’s newspaper editors. She politely said they were not accurate.

Neil McClusky of CATO took the critique a step further.

Duncan needs to pretend that the federal government had nothing to do with the sudden adoption of these unknown standards. It just happened.

He claimed the Common Core was well underway before Obama was elected. McNeil politely says that’s not true.

Lisa Fleisher of the Wall Street Journal reminds us what investigative reporting looks like.

In New York City, we nearly forgot, especially since Michael Winerip of the New York Times was taken off the education beat.

Fleisher filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out whether top officials at the New York City Department of Education receive job evaluations. As we know, the Bloomberg DOE evaluates everyone in its reach.

Except those at the top of the DOE.

“Top administrators at the city’s Department of Education haven’t been subject to formal evaluations during the Bloomberg administration, a break from past practice and an unusual occurrence among school districts across the U.S.

“The disclosure follows the culmination of a yearslong battle by Mayor Michael Bloomberg to implement tougher teacher and principal evaluations in the district.

“Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott, who has been on the job since April 2011, said formal job reviews weren’t necessary because he informally evaluated his staff daily, and he was evaluated daily by the mayor. Teachers, he said, were in a different position.

“They’re in front of the classroom and teaching our children, and we need to have a sense of how well they’re doing,” he said. “With us, we’re not teaching children directly, we’re setting policy. And I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all.”

As Leona Helmsley once famously said, “Only the little people pay taxes.” Apparently, under Bloomberg, only the little people get job evaluations.

The following officials are exempt:

“In a response dated June 11, the department’s public-records officer said no evaluations had been created since at least 2001 for the following positions: chancellor, chief of staff, chief academic officer, senior deputy chancellor, chief schools officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, deputy chancellor and general counsel. Mr. Bloomberg has appointed three permanent chancellors.”

A reader, Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, offered the following critique of the new national study of charter schools by CREDO. The “improvement” seems to be a result of closing low-performing charter schools. Is this like kicking out the low-performing students and declaring that your test scores are great?

He writes:

Diane, you *must* read the scenario analysis that starts in page 89.

They actually think the survivorship bias is a *feature*, not a bug! They run a bunch of scenarios detailing the dramatic improvement that you get in results if you eliminate from the study different kinds of underperforming charters (in addition to the ones that were closed down, of course), and theyconclude:

“The purpose of these simulations is not to advocate for any particular approach. Rather, the different scenarios make obvious the fact that the impact on quality that accompanies closure is more dramatic and enduring than efforts to improve the current stock of schools. The glimpse of what the future holds provided by these scenarios should quicken the collective resolve to use closure policies where charter schools are clearly underperforming. If the commitment to quality is to be fully realized, everyone
needs to put the interest of students first and use all the resources at their disposal to ensure the best possible student outcomes.”

Hey! Why not close *every* charter school except the top 10%? Why stop there? Shut down every high school in the country except Stuyvesant and Bronx Science! Everyone will be doing calculus in polar coordinates by the time they turn 16 then!

This is demented. What’s going on? What am I missing?

He adds in another comment:

Further on survivorship bias. From the study:

Results for charter students in new schools mirror the 2009 findings: students
at new schools have significantly lower learning gains in reading than their TPS peers.
[…]
The new charter school results in math follow the
pattern seen for reading – the performance of the newcharter schools mirrors the 2009 results.
[…]

*New* charter schools continue to perform worse than public schools!! It seems clear that all of the improvement is the result of pure and simple survivor bias. You start a lot of charters. Some do worse, some do better, but overall they do somewhat worse than public schools. You shut down the bad ones (and kick the poor kids back to the public schools -lest we forget). You repeat the analysis with the non-terrible ones. Voila! You have improved!

And he adds in a third comment:

From the press release: “charters in the original 16 states have made modest progress in raising student performance in both reading and mathematics, caused in part by the closure of 8 percent of the charters in those states in the intervening years since the 2009 report”

So charter measurements the 8% of schools that had presumably worst outcomes??? Did the study do anything to compensate for this massive survivorship bias?

Paul Thomas of Furman University (one of the four institutions that the National Council on Teacher Quality awarded four of its dubious stars) here gives Secretary of Education Arne Duncan a lesson in evidence. Duncan ridiculed the critics of Common Core in a speech yesterday to the American Society of News Editors.

Thomas now gives him a tongue-lashing for his indifference to evidence about test-based accountability. He includes a brief list of sources (read them) on the failure of testing and accountability as drivers of better education.

Another point that Duncan failed to mention: The Common Core has never been subjected to a field trial in any state. No one knows how it works. There is no evidence for its efficacy. No one knows if it will push struggling children further down, whether it will widen the achievement gap and harm children.

That would be nice to know, wouldn’t it?

This teacher-to-be read the report of the National Council on Teacher Quality on teacher preparation and was disappointed to realize that its research methodology was so flawed.

Here is her insightful comment:

As a current teacher candidate in an initial certification program I was very, very concerned with the NCTQ’s report. My institution was among the 90% of colleges and universities that did not participate in the study and after reading the report I can clearly see why. Curious to see what research method was used to conclude that most of the schools are failing in their programs; I sought out their methodology and was very dismayed with what I found. After reading the methodology NCTQ clearly did not complete its research to make the resulting report quantified. I say that because where are the teacher candidate surveys, observations, interviews, faculty interviews, teacher placement data and subsequent student achievement data? No information was given on the thoughts, opinions, and achievement of both pre-service and in-service teachers after year one, year two, etc.

None of this information was retrieved yet NCTQ published a report that says teacher preparation programs are ineffective. As I can see, they made no visits to any schools for qualitative data yet clearly deduced that universities are failing in their teacher preparation. I found the report to be slanted, horribly incomplete, totally inconclusive from the data gathered and very detrimental to the teaching field. I can only hope the public is critical enough to read the report which in itself will reveal its lack of validity.

A statement from the Forward Institute in Wisconsin:

Statement from Forward Institute regarding passage of the Executive Budget (AB40)

 

            The Wisconsin Legislature has passed a budget which will do long-term damage to education in Wisconsin. In expanding the private voucher program statewide, failing to keep up with inflation in funding public schools, failing to address student poverty issues, and unfairly rewarding select schools and students, Wisconsin Legislators are basing bad policy solely on multi-million dollar marketing campaigns and lobbying efforts, not the evidence for what works in schools.  The most important function of state government is the support of public education (Brown v. Board of Education, majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1954); the majority party in Wisconsin has passed a budget which is a fundamental governing failure. Every citizen in Wisconsin will be negatively affected by this budget. 

1. Statewide expansion of private voucher schools increases spending by hundreds of millions of dollars on a program which has failed in its fundamental purpose:  provide a better educational alternative for children of poverty. After twenty-plus years of the Milwaukee experiment, voucher schools have shown no positive benefit to student outcome and have almost no accountability to the taxpayers

2.  Voucher school expansion increases the financial burden on local public schools, especially those in areas of high poverty, as state funding fails to keep up with inflation. Students in rural and urban areas of poverty continue to be denied equal access to educational opportunity compared to their more fortunate peers.  This is fundamentally inviolation of Article X(2) Section 3 of the State Constitution and Wisconsin state statute 121.01. 

3. Property taxes will continue to increaseFunding for the private voucher program is taken from the education budget first, with public school funding coming out of the remaining revenues.  As state revenue for public education continues to diminish relative to costs and inflation, property taxpayers will shoulder the burden for the local funding gap in public education. This is also in violation of state statute 121.01 on public school financing. 

4. The budget provisions allow existing voucher schools to accept students statewide, without the new students counting toward the enrollment cap. This statewide expansion is contrary to the original, bi-partisan voucher experiment as established during Tommy Thompson’s tenure as Governor. 

5. The budget limits accountability for educational outcomes by explicitly forbidding the Department of Public Instruction from reporting voucher school and student data without the consent of individual schools, data that public schools are required to provide. This intentionally prevents comparative analyses of the effectiveness of voucher school programs. 

Forward Institute applauds lawmakers’ agreement with our policy recommendation to abandon the use of School Report Cards to make critical school financing decisions. The remainder of the education budget is a disaster, ignoring critical evidence presented in the months preceding debate. Legislators who advocated for passage of the education budget have demonstrated they are not interested in creating evidence-based policy.  Wisconsin’s heritage of forward thinking public education is threatened by policies driven by outside lobby groups that want to compete for public funds, instead of focusing those funds on improving our troubled schools. The Forward Institute will continue to advocate for effective, evidence-based public policy in Wisconsin through independent research and communication efforts, and engagement across partisan lines. 

Forward Institute Board of Directors

Scott Wittkopf, Meg Turville-Heitz, Julie Wells, Nathaniel Haack, Sara Shultz

Innovation Ohio, which keeps a close watch on the education budget and policy issues, reports that the state increased the budgets for charter schools operated by men who are generous donors to Republican elected officials.

The point:

“Republican mega-donors David Brennan (White Hat Management) and William Lager (ECOT) saw major increases in their funding. Meanwhile, Charter Schools that actually do a far better job educating children received far less additional revenue.

“To give you an idea of just how much better Brennan and Lager’s schools do, take a look at this statistic: Brennan and Lager run 33 of the state’s 369 Charter Schools, or 9 percent. Yet according to the Ohio Senate’s Charter Schoolsimulations, Brennan and Lager’s schools will receive $8.6 million additional over last school year. That represents 38 percent of all the increases to the rest of the 336 Charter Schools. So 38 percent of the increase to Charters went to 9 percent of the schools.”

This is called rewarding political friends, not rewarding excellence.