Idaho has a problem, and it may not be unique to Idaho.
One of the most powerful families in the state is the Albertson family, which runs the Albertson Foundation.
It seems that one of the family heirs has made millions of dollars by investing in the online charter company K12, and now the Albertson Foundation thinks the whole state should get behind the for-profit corporation and put their kids online. Follow the money.
The foundation has been running “public service ads” with the slogan “Don’t Fail, Idaho,” insisting that the kids in Idaho are doing horribly on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the federal tests. What’s the cure? One guess.
The ads claim that 60% of children in Idaho are “not proficient” on the NAEP tests, but they don’t explain that “proficient” on NAEP is a very high level of performance, what I consider a very strong A or B. The NAEP state coordinator from 2002-2012 tried to explain what the NAEP labels mean, but he probably did not persuade the Albertson Foundation.
Here are the facts:
In fourth grade reading: 31% of children in Idaho are below basic, just below the national average of 34%.
In eigth grade reading, 19% are below basic, well below the national average of 25%.
In fourth grade math, 17% are below basic, about the same as the national average.
In eighth grade math, 23% of the kids are below basic, well below the national average of 28%.
Idaho is not failing.
What would really fail Idaho would be to put large numbers of students into K12 virtual academies, which have high attrition rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates.
Idaho, don’t fall for a bill of goods.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Idaho is also strongly committed to Common Core. What do national on-line and traditional schools need for profitable implementation of their business plan? Common assessments and standards for a national, profitable model. These groups don’t care about the standards quality only on their large scale applicability.
The more public education gets commercialized
The more tax $$$ will be spent on commercials.
That includes, of course, revenue losses to phony “Social Welfare” foundations and PACs, er, “SW”ACs.
Careful with that “swack” stuff-ha ha!
Idaho has a second problem, one directly related to the first–namely, a profound lack of accountability for the Albertson Foundation and supporters of the Foundation’s efforts to privatize the Idaho education system. In this particular instance, those supporters include the Foundation-funded “Don’t Fail Idaho” campaign; the conservative, Boise-based television station KTVB-TV; and a shadowy group of business people, civic leaders, and resident Babbitts known as Idaho Business for Education.
For years now all of them have loudly and repeatedly made the false claim that “60% of children in Idaho are ‘not proficient’ on the NAEP tests,” without clarifying that “proficient” is equivalent to very high performance (A and B level) . They CONTINUE to make this claim even after Bert Stoneberg, Idaho NAEP State Coordinator from 2002-2012, explained in the blog Idaho Education News how that data point was being incorrectly interpreted and then disseminated in a misleading fashion. Others, myself included, have brought Mr. Stoneberg’s analysis to the attention of the Albertson Foundation, “Don’t Fail Idaho,” and Idaho Business for Education. Our requests for clarification and retraction of the misleading statistic have been met with complete silence. Meanwhile, the TV and radio ads continue to be aired, leaving Idaho citizens with the inaccurate perception that 60% of Idaho’s 4th- and 6th-graders cannot read or do simple math.
Note that Mr. Stoneberg’s analysis first appeared in Idaho Education News, a blog that is funded, in part, by the Albertson Foundation. Idaho Education News claims to be an independent member of the press, but it serves as a fundamental mechanism for promoting the Albertson Foundation’s message that Idaho schools are failing, teachers are to blame, and privatization and vouchers are the solution. In this respect, Idaho Education News is part of the Albertson Foundation’s attempt–along with the “Don’t Fail Idaho” campaign, KTVB-TV, and Idaho Business for Education–to both define the terms of discussion about “education reform” in Idaho and to monopolize that discussion. In short, the Albertson Foundation isn’t interested in an open, free-ranging discussion. It is not interested in dialogue, except on its own terms, and then only if establishing a monologue is somehow not feasible.
These are not people interested in hearing from the other side; these are people interested in defining the “other side” as those who think that public education should be only PARTLY privatized.
Mr Wilson,
You wrote…
“For years now all of them have loudly and repeatedly made the false claim that “60% of children in Idaho are ‘not proficient’ on the NAEP tests,” without clarifying that “proficient” is equivalent to very high performance (A and B level)”
So if proficient is very high performance, what is NAEP “Advanced”?
You claim that DFI is not clarifying, but at their website, they have a direct link to NAEP scores at Kidscount showing Basic vs. Proficient. Maybe this clarification was recently added? [Click View More, on the 67% BELOW PROFICIENT animation]
The rest of your post falls in the guilt by association trap that is so prevalent here.
Ms. Ravitch says ‘Idaho is not failing’. In my book, 1/3 of students below basic is failing.
1. I’m not here to do your homework for you, Ms. Weiss, but Bert Stoneberg, Idaho NAEP state coordinator from 2002 to 2012, appears willing to explain the difference between “Advanced” and “Proficient” as those terms are used by the NAEP.
http://www.idahoednews.org/voices/use-grade-levels-to-understand-naep/
If you disagree with his explanation, then I suggest that you take your disagreement to him and to the administrators of the NAEP.
2. You just directed me to a link on the Don’t Fail Idaho web site that is labeled “67% of Idaho 4th graders aren’t proficient in reading.” Thank you for helping to make my point that the Albertson Foundation has taken a term (“proficient”) with a specific, specialized meaning in the realm of NAEP and used it out of context to imply that 67% of 4th-graders are unable to read or to read at even basic levels.
You do realize, right?, that a typical Idaho taxpayer does not see “proficient” as corresponding to a specific grade level when used as the term is used by NAEP. That is Dr. Stoneberg’s point, Dr. Ravitch’s point, and mine. As Dr.Stoneberg points out, the truth is that the statistic tells us only that “more than 60 percent of Idaho students failed to exhibit at least an ‘A’ performance in reading and mathematics” while telling us nothing about the “‘B’ and ‘C’ students who did demonstrate NAEP proficiency in reading.” In other words, a bogus, misleading statistic intended to leave the impression that the overwhelming majority of 4th graders can’t read.
BTW, your praise of what amounts to a footnote on the Don’t Fail Idaho web site is amusing and silly. Linking to the results that one is misrepresenting is hardly providing a “clarification.” At best it is window-dressing to make intellectual dishonesty seem unlikely, to make the misrepresentation seem plausible and supported by empirical research, when in fact intellectual dishonesty is exactly what the Albertson Foundation and others are engaged in.
Mr Wilson,
That certainly is circular. You refer to a blog post from Ms Ravitch’s blog, that blog discusses NAEP achievement levels and then it points back to this blog and Ms Ravitch. IT seems that NAEP itself says that its levels do not map to grade letters or grade levels.
And BTW, there is no such grade as an “A+”, most reasonable schools and colleges use A or A-.
And how is a direct link to the full data a footnote? It is not like DFI said 98% of students in ID are not NAPE Advanced.
Cynthia Weiss,
It is true that NAEP achievement levels are not aligned with grade levels.
But very few students are “advanced.” Usually less than 10%. From seven years of reading NAEP questions as a member of the governing board, I assure you that is A+ performance.
On NAEP, “proficient” is very high performance. Again, in my experience, these are highly accomplished students. I give them an A.
What is “basic”? About C-B.
It is awful that any child scores below basic. But, you see, some can’t read English, so that lowers their score. Some have severe disabilities that get in the way of their test-taking skills.
I am still waiting for your good ideas about how to make sure no child is below basic. Until you provide them, no more responses from me.
A minor correction to the original blog entry:
There is no comma in the slogan “Don’t Fail Idaho” used by the Albertson Foundation in its efforts to privatize the Idaho education system. The absence of a comma is a small distinction, but one that makes a difference.
“Don’t Fail Idaho” (without the comma) implies that Idaho government and its taxpayers and voters have long been doing the right thing in regard to education, and that they now stand at the threshold of doing truly great things if only those taxpayers and voters get their minds right and take steps to ensure that “union thugs” and powerful union bosses don’t screw things up.
By contrast, “Don’t Fail, Idaho” puts the onus for the current state of Idaho’s education system, and responsibility for nurturing and improving it, precisely where that onus belongs: on the Idaho state government and, by extension, those who elected them.
Small wonder that the Albertson Foundation prefers the slogan without the comma.
Maybe they should hold the mirror up and look into it and see what they see and who is to blame for this. Of course, Idaho is a real right wing state with many neo-nazi’s in it.
Never been to Idaho, huh, George?
Don’t believe everything you see on a Hallmark/Lifetime Channel Made-for-Television Movie.
Good lord, Ms Ratvitch, you consider about one in three children performing ‘below basic’ in reading as not failing. Or one in four ‘below basic’ in math acceptable because it is near the national average.
So disappointing.
Why are so many students “below basic”? Pay attention to the causes of low test scores: poverty and segregation. Give me your ideas.
Please note that Washington, D.C. has the highest rate of low-performing students and the largest achievement gaps of any district or state in the nation. The achievement gaps in D.C. between blacks-whites and Hispanic-whites is double what it is in other cities. This is after nearly six years of control by Michelle Rhee and Kaya Henderson.
Read my new book. It explains all this in detail. You will learn a lot.
Idaho has the second-lowest per pupil expenditure in the country (behind Utah). THAT’S a good part of the problem right there.
Which state or district has the highest expenditure per pupil? No doubt they are leading the negation. I think it is the District of Colombia at $29,000, but I could be mistaken.
So you do think these numbers are acceptable, groups in Idaho should accept them and these groups should focus their resources outside of trying to improve education in Idaho?
Cynthia, poverty is the most reliable predictor of low test scores. What are your ideas for raising test scores? Do you work for StudentsFirst? Should the people of DC be satisfied with their failed leaders?
At least charter schools are making a significant improvement in DC…
“DC charter schools significantly outperform traditional public schools. In fact, the study says that, on average, a student at a DC charter gets the equivalent educational benefit each year of 99 extra days in school. That’s like getting a year and a half worth of school for every school year”
http://credo.stanford.edu/reading-state-charter-impacts/
Cynthia, Rhee and Henderson have had responsibility for the PUBLIC schools in DC, which have the lowest test scores and lowest graduation rates of any district in the nation. Charter schools thrive by skimming off the best kids. Big deal. I thought you were worried about the bottom third and now you are changing the subject. The bottom third are not in charters.
Hi Ms Ravitch,
Thank you for the reply.
1) You brought up DC in your reply
2) Education in DC is a travesty and parents should not be satisfied and they are not. DC Charter schools have a waiting list of over 22,000 according to PCSB (yes, some students are likely double counted and includes Pre-K)
3) No I do not work for Student First.
4) Still trying to understand if you think those ‘below basic’ numbers in Idaho are acceptable to you and if foundations like Albertsons should accept them and move on.
Cynthia,
I don’t think “below basic” is acceptable anywhere. I think zero kids should be below basic. But I know from many years experience that poverty and segregation are the root causes of low test scores. Charter schools don’t change that. They are like “loss leaders” in a supermarket that offer you a bargain to lure you in, then you find out that they are no better than public schools and many are far, far worse. I won’t be satisfied until our society has addressed the root causes of academic failure. Not with a charter band-aid, but by reducing poverty and segregation. Do you agree?
“poverty is the most reliable predictor of low test scores”
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Ms. Weiss:
I can’t decide whether you have missed the point of Ms. Ravitch’s original post or whether you have chosen to ignore the point in favor of changing the subject to charter schools so you can bust Ms. Ravitch’s chops. If the latter is your intent, well, have at it, I guess.
If the former, please see my earlier replies; they may help you to understand that the point of the original blog entry is that the Albertson Foundation is purposely distorting data to convince Idaho citizens that the sky is falling, that Idaho schools are failing, and that the Promised Land lies that-a-way, in the form of a privatized, market-driven, technology-laden school system. The point, to be specific, is that the Albertson Foundation and its co-conspirators have for years now been sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt in a media campaign marked by unethical manipulation of data, misrepresentation of facts, and outright lies.
With millions of dollars at its disposal, and with the ability to waive millions more of grant dollars beneath the noses of school administrators, legislators, and Idaho institutions of higher education, the Albertson Foundation possesses unique power to shape public opinion in Idaho, and they have been abusing that power. If you seek evidence of this power, you need only ask my friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family here in Idaho about how the state’s school system shapes up in comparison to other states. Many of them will repeat uncritically what they’ve been told, that “Idaho is 48th in the nation in education”–a meaningless number gleaned from a perverse and incomplete interpretation of EdWeek’s 2013 “Quality Counts” study. Or they will point to the “fact” that 60% of 4th- and 8th-graders cannot read or do simple math, overlooking the more important fact that such a claim simply is not true.
The point, Ms. Weiss, is not that Idaho schools need no improvement. The point is not that school children performing below basic level are unimportant. The point is not whether charter schools are the answer, or even whether they are any good. The point is simply this: The Albertson Foundation and other moneyed, powerful interests in Idaho have repeatedly engaged in deception, misrepresentation, data manipulation, and outright lying to monopolize the conversation about education in Idaho and to advance their agenda of privatization in service of financial gain.
“The Albertson Foundation and other moneyed, powerful interests in Idaho have repeatedly engaged in deception, misrepresentation, data manipulation, and outright lying to monopolize the conversation about education in Idaho and to advance their agenda of privatization in service of financial gain”
Funny, I don’t see that anywhere in Ms Ravitch’s post. I see Ms. Ravitch defending poor NAEP scores as not failing.
I live in Idaho. I have seen public education dollars drop so low, that we are seeing our largest district in the state, struggling to hold on, using up reserves they once had. The push of charter schools in this state is high.
Idaho has reduced it’s public funding to schools since 2001. The voters of Idaho approved a 1% sales tax increase back in 2006 that was earmarked for education, only for the state to remove other funds that were allocated towards education, to help support a decrease in business property tax. Education lost money in this deal. I know my kids’ school is considered a low performing school, there is high poverty, yet there are great teachers! And, my boys are getting a great education. Charters spread the states’ education dollars further, in an already poorly funded system.
http://www.thenation.com/article/167782/questions-idaho-economist-mike-ferguson#axzz2XvGxwLwm
My boys attend a school that has poor ratings, according to Idaho’s new 5 star rating system. I understand there is high poverty in their school, but there are also great teachers and great learning opportunities. I believe my boys are not only getting an academic education, but an education on how to develop relationships with people from all different backgrounds. This is huge, when being successful in a business/career. Everyone encounters different types of people. A mediocre boss, a great boss, a not so great one, and same with coworkers. It is true in any profession. But, in order to be successful in a company, there must be respect…something that seems to be lacking at times when it comes to teachers. In fact, that’s what got me involved. A parent, who saw the blaming of teachers as the problem with our schools, ludicrous! Something was not right, and boy, did I find out more than I could imagine in this web of destruction of our public schools.
Governor Otter even boasted to a gun company to come and bring their business to Idaho, because we have the most minimum wage workers in the country. Just who is failing Idaho, the people? I think not.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/2013/05/08/bottom-rung-gov-otter-touts-idahos-low-wages-to-attract-gun-companies/
We had public hearings on education at the state house. There was going to be a public hearing with the Joint Finance and Approppriations Committee, but Governor Otter didn’t feel that was necessary, because we didn’t have a budget issue this year. Oddly enough, the biggest complaint at the education hearings was lack of funding, regardless if you were supporting “traditional” public schools or charters.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/19/2417923/legislaturekills-public-hearings.html
So do we have some high poverty schools? Yes, I guess you can say that. And running these ads of “Don’t Fail Idaho,” are hard to swallow when you know the real truth. Cause no, it is not my kids, nor will I let it be!
Is the Albertson Foundation the same
group that owns Lucky grocery stores?
or did?
The Albertson Foundation has been divested from the Albertson chain of supermarkets for many years. To my knowledge, it has no interest or investment in any supermarkets.
I think it’s also important to note that this propaganda used by the Albertson’s Foundation is not new. Ads were run by EVI (Education Voters of Idaho) in support of the Students Come First. Donors were revealed here: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/oct/31/ny-mayor-among-secret-donors-idaho-school-campaign/
Idaho schools have been underfunded for years, causing districts to ask for supplemental levies, and now there is huge disparities in school funding throughout the state. Sound familiar? Class sizes have increased in urban areas, with lagging technology in rural areas. Lack of funds for materials such as text books etc. We are talking lack of funding for basic educational resources.
Diane is right when she says, “Follow the money.”
Diane I thought you may enjoy this. I asked for a well respected teacher/friend to give me her thoughts on Students Come First, and the props being voted on last November. I asked her if I could share it. She asked I not reveal her name, in fear of reprisal. As a friend, she is explaining to me her thoughts, without trying to offend me, as I wanted her to give me her honest opinion and didn’t mention my thoughts on them. I got responses back such as, this is union propaganda.
“Well…I do have issues with all three props. Not that I don’t agree with parts of each, but as a whole, I don’t endorse any of them.
I am all for testing kids to monitor growth, but having my pay depend on it is an issue. And how they test for growth is an issue, too. I have students who enter way below kindergarten level, but manage to make a tremendous amount of growth…sometimes more than a years’ worth in one year… but still struggle on the “test” to be at grade level by the end of the year. The growth they showed throughout the year was greater than many other students’ growth throughout the year, but they didn’t make the cut score to qualify, thus looking as though they weren’t “taught” properly. Some students come in well prepared. They are often near the total growth expected on the assessment when they enter kindergarten and the amount of growth necessary for qualifying on the cut score at the end of the year is significantly less than the other learners, so that child doesn’t have to be “taught” a lot to make the cut. Does that make sense? When that child does well on the assessment, it looks as though they had the best teacher in the world, even though they didn’t learn as much in their year as the student who performed less-than-perfect on the exam, but grew far more in the year. I think an assessment should be on an individual growth basis and not on a test that separates those kids in our society that have a lot of support before entering school and those who come in the proverbial “blank slate”…and I don’t think it is a true reflection of a teachers’ ability to be a “good” teacher. Hope this makes sense…and it’s not too “rambly”
Last year I had a student in my class. He was a wonderful student and came from a repeat and very supportive family. The mother informed me that her other children were in the charter school, but she wanted her child to “experience” my class. I was flattered. When the year ended, she told me her child would be going to the charter school with his brothers the following year. When I asked her why she decided to move to the charter school she said she was embarrassed to say that she was putting her kids in charter school not because they “teach” better, but because it provided smaller classes and classes filled with students she wanted her children associating with… the ones with strong family support and advantages that not all kids have. It made me sad, but I appreciated her honesty. She commented on the fact that her kids would be attending a school where all students score well on tests…and she knows it’s NOT because of “just the teachers”. It’s sad…it never has been “just because of the teachers” at any school! And it was sad that scores could be a sole, deciding factor in what qualifies as success. I agree that scores are important, but it goes deeper and these props don’t factor in anything but scores.
Now I will ramble on about technology. I think it’s a wonderful tool. I think it is a good idea to make sure each child has access to technology. I know it is a wonderful tool for learning, but it is only a tool. It still has to be used properly, supported and supervised. I recently talked to a teacher from another state…a state that issues computers for each child to take home…beginning in 6th grade! She said it was wonderful and really loved all the technology that was in their schools’ classrooms. She even stated it started clear down in kindergarten! When I asked for more details, she said her state was hesitant to go the tech route, but agreed to it only if the teacher-to-student ratio was lowered to provide the support students really needed to make the most of the opportunities provided by the technology. Her state made it a mandate that in order to have the technology, class sizes needed to be reduced to allow for greater teacher support for students as they used the technology to enhance learning. When I told her about our prop and it’s proposal, she thought it was crazy and couldn’t imagine how it could be done properly. She said in her school district, the 5th grade classes only had 20 students in them…max. Wow! The citizens in her state felt technology was a wonderful tool, but the human element is also vital to using the tool correctly and to its greatest potential. Even the kindergarten classes at her school were low …15-17 maximum per class AND each teacher had a personal aide to help support student learning with technology! What a luxury. I started the year with 26 kids, no aide….but the promise of a smartboard (still waiting) that was going to make all the difference. Does what I am saying make any sense to you? I do agree with the technology part, but not at the cost of cutting educators needed to guide the student’s as they use the technology to learn. With Luna’s plan, the technology is there but the class sizes MUST increase. Luna states that it won’t increase class sizes…he states the districts still have the same amount of money per class given to the districts as before so they shouldn’t have to increase class sizes, but what he doesn’t say is that the money is the same, but ( by the way) the technology has to come from that same budget. That is like saying your grocery budget isn’t going down, you still get the same amount of money to buy food, but you must figure out a way to squeeze the mortgage payment out of that grocery budget, too, without needing to make any adjustments to the amount of, or quality of food you buy…and you certainly shouldn’t have to make cuts anywhere else to make up for having to make the mortgage payment out of your grocery budget. I am not sure how that works and I can’t quite figure it out…all I know is I’ve never seen such crowded classes, such poorly stocked classes, in all my 26 years of teaching.
I am so sad about my profession. Lots of talent being told they have no talent. Yes, there are bad teachers out there and I do like the portion of these laws that allows easier removal of poor teachers, but I feel these props, as a whole, tell all teachers they aren’t worthy…no matter what. Lots of great teachers are leaving the profession. They can be miserable in another job, but get more money and less headaches for it.
All in all, I’ve become almost ashamed to be a teacher. This job that I love…this job that gave me such joy and passion..has made me feel like my talents are worthless since all these props were passed. I feel like my opinions are worthless and I don’t really know what I am doing. I do know that Melissa McGrath, Luna’s “voice” at the state department makes about 20,000+ dollars more a year than I do just being the voice of the superintendent. Her job is somehow much more important for the students of Idaho than any teacher in any classroom…at least according to her salary! Wonder how her bonus is figured and I bet it’s more than $2,000.00! I wonder if she ever pays for Mr. Luna to go on a field trip or buy him incentives out of her own pocket? I know I always have for my students…gladly…because I knew it made a difference or at least I thought so. I was never in this job for the pay, but for the joy. Now I feel like I have neither. I want what is best for kids, but I don’t think these props, as they are stated, are what is best for kids…and these props certainly make me feel that I am not what is best for kids, either.
Please feel free to say you heard it from a teacher, but please don’t use my name. I am familiar with Mr. Luna and I don’t trust him not to go after people personally…especially ones he knows.
I do appreciate you asking me about these props and I hope I haven’t bored you to tears or made you angry with any of my comments. I do appreciate you saying that I am a “well respected” teacher in the community. Made me feel a little better.
“And BTW, there is no such grade as an “A+”, most reasonable schools and colleges use A or A-.” ~ Cynthia Weiss, assessment expert.
Please do not disparage my alma mater–the University of New Hampshire–or any of the scores of other quite reasonable institutions that use A+ in their grading scales. You may continue to squeeze tight your eyes and whisper fervently “There’s no such thing as an A+, There’s no such thing as an A+, There’s no such thing . . . ” but doing so won’t alter the facts, not even slightly. If you’re going to spend your time and energy attempting to wish away something from the world, may I suggest that you target Karl Rove instead?
I think the University of New Hampshire is a bit unusual, but that is the joy of having a wide variety of schools for students to choose from.
Hope you’re all still chewing on some of the information and replies in this post. I am a resident of the state of Idaho and have been asked to write an article for our local paper clarifying the confusion surrounding the Common Core and especially Idaho’s Common Core. I am curious about two things:
(1) How much standardization is there between the various states that have adopted the Common Core standards? Does there truly end up being leeway to establish standards on a state and local level?
(2) Do you feel Common Core is really about the money? For example, was the reason the legislation adopted it because more money was going to be thrown into Idaho education or was it because there really is a dedicated effort to improve educational standards for Idaho students?
Thank you.