A.central feature of the corporate reform narrative is the oft-repeated claim that our public schools are failing. They elite think that if they say it often enough, the media will repeat their narrative. And the media fall for the narrative of failure.
But it is not true.
Read this commentary from Indiana, where the privatization movement has slandered the public schools repeatedly, as a prelude to their takeover. The privatized schools get worse results, but no one cares about that. The important goal for the reformers is to disrupt, destroy, and take control of public schools and their funding.
The reality is that Indiana’s public schools are excellent. Where there is low performance, the root causes are segregation and poverty, about which the “reformers” have nothing to say.
Here is Vic reporting from Indiana, where “reformers” have done their best to destroy public education:
Vic’s Statehouse Notes #146 – June 28, 2013
Dear Friends,
A review of 23 consecutive years of data for Indiana’s public schools show that they are currently performing at or near their historic high on eight of ten key indicators. While there remains plenty of room for further improvement, claims that Indiana’s public schools have declined or failed are clearly not based on facts, as a review of the attached data will show. The legislative push to dismantle public education and use state tax dollars for vouchers to send students to private schools is clearly based on beliefs and ideology and not on performance data.
A 23 Year Review: Improvement in Indiana’s Public Schools
To rebut charges that Indiana’s public schools were failing, I issued the first data report data for the decade of the 1990’s in May of 2000, showing year by year ups and downs on ten common measures. After adding additional data each year, the ten tables have now grown to 23 years.
Once again, I updated this report for presentation at the annual IUPUI/ IUSA Summer Conference on Urban Education, held this year on June 12, 2013. The full 16-page report is attached.
Here are a few findings from data for the most recent year, showing changes from the 2012 report to the 2013 report:
1) Indiana’s graduation rate shows that 88.4% graduated in four years or less in the Class of 2012, up from 85.7% in the Class of 2011 and up from 76.1% in the Class of 2006 when the new 4-years-or-less cohort definition was initiated.
2) Hoosier public schools successfully raised the daily attendance rate to in 2011-12 to 96.1%, tied with the highest level ever recorded in 2008-09.
3) Performance on the SAT, both quantitative and verbal measures, taken by 69% of Indiana’s students, lagged behind the past performance of Indiana’s students and comprise the two key indicators out of ten in which Indiana students are not at their historic high.
4) Performance on the ACT, taken by 32% of Indiana’s students, continues to exceed the national average and to stand at the high point in Indiana’s longitudinal record with a composite score of 22.3, well above the national average of 21.1.
5) No additional National Assessment scores were released during the past year. Indiana has outperformed the national average on the basic standard on all 41 NAEP assessments since 1990.
6) Hoosier public school students improved their passing percentages on ISTEP+ English/Language Arts in Grades 3, 5 and 6 compared to the previous year. Grades 4 and 8 remained the same, and Grade 7 went down.
7) On ISTEP+ Math, Hoosier public school students improved their passing percentages in Grades 3, 6, 7 and 8 compared to the previous year. Grades 4 and 5 remained the same. No grade went down.
8) Academic Honors Diplomas reached a record high of 32.3% of all diplomas in the Class of 2012, and Core 40 diplomas tied the record set the previous year at 49.6% of all diplomas. Added together, a record total of 81.9% earned either the Academic Honors diploma or the Core 40 diploma.
Significance
This is not a failing record. While great improvement is still needed and tremendous needs still exist in many locations, the steady improvement seen in these statewide data undercut arguments made by some that public education needs to be dismantled and privatized through vouchers and for-profit ventures.
Check out the data for yourself on the ten tables in the attached report. The tables are designed for transparency, showing year-by-year data and whether each year went up, went down or stayed the same.
The last page summarizes 23 years in a glance. If you have limited tolerance for numbers, just look at this page, which is also reprinted below. It summarizes the 23-year range on each indicator, gives the current mark and then answers the question of whether Indiana is near the historic high.
The conclusion is that on eight of the ten measures, Indiana’s public school students are performing at or near the historic high for that indicator.
This improvement is unrelated to the two years that Indiana has given out vouchers, undercutting the argument that voucher proponents are fond of making that vouchers improve public schools. The longitudinal charts show that steady improvement has occurred throughout the 23 year span.
This record of improvement is the result of the hard work of thousands, even millions, of educators, students, parents and community members. Public schools need the broad support of the entire community to maintain this record of improvement.
Thanks for your continuing support of public education in Indiana!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith vic790@aol.com
SUMMARY OF TEN IMPROVEMENT INDICATORS
23-YEAR CURRENT AT OR NEAR
RANGE MARK HISTORIC HIGH?
1. ATTENDANCE RATE 94.7 – 96.1 96.1 YES
2. GRADUATION RATE 76.1 – 88.4 88.4 YES
(new method since 2006)
3. SAT VERBAL SCORES 485 – 504
(1988-89 – 2004-05)
SAT CRITICAL READING 493 – 498 493 NO
(revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)
SAT WRITING 475 – 486 476 NO
(revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)
4. SAT MATH SCORES 485- 508
(1988-89 – 2004-05)
SAT MATH –REVISED 501 – 509 501 NO
(revised test 2005-06 – 2010-11)
5. ACT COMPOSITE SCORES 20.9 – 22.3 22.3 YES
6. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT (NAEP) YES
(percent passing basic standard)
4TH GRADE MATH 60% – 89% 87% YES
8TH GRADE MATH 56% – 78% 77% YES
4TH GRADE READING 64% – 70% 68% YES
8TH GRADE READING 73% – 79% 78% YES
4TH GRADE SCIENCE 70% – 74% 70% NO
8TH GRADE SCIENCE 62% – 67% 67% YES
8TH GRADE WRITING 85% – 89% 89% YES
7. ISTEP ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS SCORES YES
(67 year-to-year comparisons) 33 (49%) went up Gr. 3, 5 & 6 went up
18 (27%) went down Gr. 7 went down
16 (24%) same Gr. 4 & 8 same
8. ISTEP MATH SCORES YES
(67 year-to-year comparisons) 42 (63%) went up Gr. 3, 6, 7 & 8 went up
11 (16%) went down No grade went down
14 (21%) same Gr. 4 & 5 same
9. ASPIRING TO COLLEGE 48.9% – 77.0% 77.0% YES
10. HONORS/CORE 40 DIPLOMAS 42.8% – 81.9% 81.9% YES
CONCLUSION: EIGHT OF THE TEN INDICATORS ARE AT OR NEAR THEIR HISTORIC HIGH.
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose privatization of schools in the Statehouse. I keep hearing reports that some public school supporters read these “Notes” with great interest but don’t translate that interest into joining ICPE. We had an outstanding lobbyist Joel Hand working hard to support public education throughout the session. We need additional members and additional donations to pay off our expenses for the General Assembly session. We need your help! Please join us! Thanks to all who have joined or sent extra donations recently!
Go to http://www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is just a question and not a criticism. If we are going to rebel against high stakes testing, why do we use test scores to prove points? It seems to me that this gives credence to the testing machine. Are tests a good indicator of mastery of subject matter and the real evil in them is the way the results are used to punish educators or are the tests fundamentally flawed and the measurements are meaningless? I will consider trying to opt out if it is the latter, but if it is the former, then perhaps the fight should be to change the way the results are used. From what I read standardized tests are fundamentally flawed, but perhaps that is not true.
LikeLike
The same thought has occurred to me.
Better to track where former students end up? Or what former students recall about their experiences in certain schools?
This opens up a lot of questions. Good ones.
LikeLike
Why do we use test scores? You have to fight back with the weapons the critics use. You might notice that Vic uses varied forms of data, not just test scores to prove his point. One thing that was not mentioned was the evaluation of teachers called RISE (created by Tony Bennett). RISE was supposed to eliminate all of those bad teachers, you know the hundreds, no thousands of bad teachers! But RISE back fired and it is estimated that over 90% of the teachers were evaluated effective or highly effective. Their own weapon has proven the critics wrong, but that still did not stop Indiana from creating the largest voucher program in the country.
LikeLike
It is amazing how most measures seem to say that around 90-95% of teachers are OK in many of the reformed districts.
The thing is I get the impression the next move may be to simply say “we’ll get rid of the bottom 5-10% of teachers” – regardless of whether they’re sound by any objective measure because you will always have a bottom % and it sounds really good to say “we did that” (in the same vain as saying that 49% of people are below average).
Back to the topic at hand…
The numbers are good. It shows the system itself is healthy. What the charters are focusing on are the micro-issues of communities and saying they will improve places where there is failure. This only helps if making the distinction that the system is already healthy shows we don’t need charters period.
Seeing as charters won’t disappear overnight, unfortunately, while it’s great to show that we’re not the abject failures we’re made out to be, we still need to wage a ground campaign against them still on a case-by-case community-by-community basis.
LikeLike
And maybe, also, the answer is balance.
I remember standardized tests, for sure, all through school, but they were rarely discussed (not like the awareness my fourth grader had this year of his EOGs and assessments). And I remember SATs being important, but not the only thing to being a teacher.
Also, aren’t standardized tests what distinguish certified teachers from non? In the five states where I have been certified there were Praxis tests and scores that had to be reached. Do non-traditional certification paths require these tests?
LikeLike
Per SATs I meant to say not the only thing for getting into college
LikeLike
Also do TFA recruits take Praxis tests?
LikeLike
Can we fight for balance without opting out?
I vaguely remember taking standardized tests at the very beginning of the school year (in elementary school) and they were never mentioned again. In HS I only took optional tests – SATs, and course specific tests. I seriously hope my school doesn’t have an EOG pep rally…(I’ve even heard of EOG spirit weeks)
LikeLike
I have often pondered your concern, and I do think we need to be careful about buying into the rheephormers’ worldview that test scores are an adequate measure of student learning – they’re not. But on the other hand, there is a certain irony that all their rheephormy policies don’t improve education even by their own standards.
One of the things we need to do to fight back is develop better means of judging student learning and success – perhaps look at things like project-type portfolios or future accomplishments for instance. Otherwise, we just get painted as being opposed to “assessment” as if standardized tests equal assessment. We need to do a better job of defining what we mean by “assessment” and getting the word out there. I’ll give the rheephormers credit for controlling the message (it helps that they own the media).
LikeLike
Yes and not only opposed to but some people mock and say teachers are scared of assessment (that one gets me, but when it is thrown at me I keep my calm and just explain how they can be cumbersome and take away from instruction time).
LikeLike
Standardized Testing assessments, that is
LikeLike
concernedmom: you said exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this author’s well researched piece! A quote was running through my head, “Live by the sword, die by the sword”… would rather the author state in one sentence.. if we follow the “corporate ed” agenda and cite their stats, Indiana is doing well…”. But as an educator let me tell you HOW we can do better…
LikeLike
“From what I read standardized tests are fundamentally flawed, but perhaps that is not true.”
Yes, “that is true”, concernedmom, with the truth being that educational standards and standardized tests and the “grading” of students are fundamentally flawed. I would take it a step further and say that they are fatally flawed processes/projects that cause serious harm to the most innocent of society, young children.
I beg of you to opt your children out of this nonsense. There will be a lot of social pressure thrown upon you by the administrators and maybe even some teachers (personally I tell all parents to opt out of the tests and tell students not to take them) but you must resist. The more parents that do so the sooner this nonsense will come to an end.
Now, you don’t have to trust me on this (even though I have been reading and researching this for over a dozen years) but trust someone who has been in the belly of the standards and testing beast Down Under, Noel Wilson. I have referenced his study many times. Read it and understand it and you will see that these educational malpractices are fundamentally flawed: “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms shit-in shit out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
Thanks to everyone who replied and shared your opinion and resources. It helps a lot to “internet-converse” with others. I have a two years to decide and I am leaning toward opting out. I already asked if opting out was an option and I was told no.
Duane – I totally agree about the labels. I was not happy when my child came home and announced his reading level to me. It just seems wrong that a first grader is already aware of such things.
LikeLike
Concernedmom,
It is horrendous that a first grader would have internalized that reading level, especially if it is at the “lower” end-in other words not up to “standard” as children of that age (I’ve raised three) are quite varied in skills and abilities of all sorts. The invalid practice of labeling a student with a “grade” or category-beginning, advanced, proficient, etc. . . is one of the most egregious and pernicious of all our educational malpractices.
Demand a different type of evaluation. Do not allow them to bully you (and that is what it is-bullying) to subjecting your children to these insane educational malpractices. If docs consistently used practices that caused as much harm as educational standards and standardized testing and the grading of students does, they wouldn’t be practicing medicine as they wouldn’t be able to get any malpractice insurance
Reject the labeling process and let them know why it is wrong (see Wilson for a better explanation than my summary).
My children in K-12 where evaluated with a portfolio of their work where we would sit down at their desk and they would proudly display what they had done. The teacher would follow up with what he/she saw as strengths and weaknesses and what he/she was attempting to do to address those issues. I don’t remember standardized test scores being part of this process (and believe me I would remember) as it was pre-NCLB and the teachers and evaluation system were more holistic in their approach.
Again don’t let them bully you. Threaten them with “Well, I’ll have to take this up with my lawyer” (even if you don’t have one it’s good for them to know you have legal rights, otherwise they will attempt to step all over you and your child’s right to a proper education for him/her.)
Have your reasons for opting out written out. Look up the laws in your state. One way to opt out even if the law says there is no opting out would be to withdraw your children for the testing time frame, maybe a couple of two or three weeks and then re-enroll them afterward. (and then use that time so the children get “real world”-and I hate that term thus the quotes-hands on experiences like maybe learning about the outdoors through camping, hiking, canoeing, floating, going to the beach etc. . . ) Get creative.
Contact the opt out folks for support. Fight the beast in as many ways as possible. Become a “difficult” parent so that the administrators and teachers will dread having to deal with you because you are right/logical in your thinking and beliefs and that they have no answers to your concerns other than “What you say is correct. (and then they’ll add: But. . . )
Good luck,
Duane
LikeLike
How did your child’s teacher decide what was a strength or weakness? Was the teacher comparing your children to students in the class or the school or the country?
LikeLike
TE,
No need to compare my child against any other child as that is a false way of evaluating/assessing a student.
As it were, the teachers had an age level/class level curriculum that they were attempting to teach through engaging each student individually as much as was possible (elementary class sizes were below twenty and each class usually had an aide, parent helper and/or Sped teacher.). Within that framework, and it was a broad enough one (and no they weren’t “standards” against which one was “measured”) they let parents know how well the students were doing through examples of the student work and a written narrative by the teacher of to the social and academic progress of the child. There was no “grading” of students.
That type of holistic process is totally different from a “standards” based one that narrowly focuses and constricts what the teaching and learning process is about. Since other parents knew I was a teacher and whose children I either coached in sports and/or worked with in scouts (both boys & girls) including some with IEPs, would discuss their children’s education with me. From these conversations here is no doubt in my mind that many a student was helped along by this holistic process and not being subjected to the nefarious test and label processes currently in place around the country.
LikeLike
How can a teacher claim a student is strong in mathematics or weak in reading without an external reference?
LikeLike
By assessing (notice I didn’t say measuring) what the student knows through observation, paying attention to each individual student’s work and how that work compares with what is a broad band with fuzzy edges of what is considered normal and appropriate for the particular grade. And then working in conjunction with the parents/guardians to ascertain what would be the best course of “education action” would be appropriate for the individual.
LikeLike
So the teacher was comparing your children to what was normal and appropriate to that grade?
How did the teacher know what was normal or appropriate?
LikeLike
I agree you have to use your data to fight theirs. Other measures identifying good schools should include the amount of:
lunch groups, after school activities, diversity of activities offered, evening activities, parent volunteer opportunities, field trips, visiting enrichment from community (libraries, museums, theatre, etc.), monies for science exploration (science labs, historical reenactments), ease of transportation, access to counselors, freedom of students to make daily choices, community service, gardens, libraries, school physical education challenges, teacher training in diversity, behavior management, ….
I’m really describing my kids’ schools; and the list can go on and on, a list that does not include testing but describes a place that fosters so much for so many.
And guess what? Our principal is being monitored for test scores that have decreased only because the special ed population has increased.
A principal who volunteers to accept special education students because he sees how much is gained by all in doing so!
LikeLike
I would be worried that the rural schools in my state would do very badly on these metrics.
LikeLike
And one big thing that Vic left out of this report: How much our state education budget was cut during that period. “Do more with less,” they said.
DONE!
LikeLike
Respectfully, I would suggest that people visit the following blogs:
Link: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org
Link: http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com
Link: http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com
They are all run by numbers/stats folks with varying combinations of degrees, teaching experience and expertise.
I would be remiss leaving out a music teacher who deftly handles numbers and stats too:
Link: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com
[The above are presented in no order of merit; they simply run from the first blog I encountered to the last.]
Two points.
1), Expert commentary on the uses and misuses of numerical data is sorely needed in the ed debates. Why? Because a hallmark of the edufrauds is the use of mathematical intimidation and obfuscation to mislead the general public as well as to poison discussions. For just a few examples: truncated graphs that visually misrepresent the data they are supposed to explain; the often unclarified use of averages (not specifying whether they are employing a mean, median, or mode); confusing use of rates, ranks and scores; gross errors in sampling backed up by attempts to avoid transparency in how the results were obtained; and I end with [but there are more] not just comparing apples to oranges, but comparing apples to non-organic substances and claiming they are exactly the same. In other words, cooking the results to reach a predetermined conclusion. Unfortunately for the edubullies and their accountabully underlings, ethical numbers/stats folks can easily catch them out on what are often [sadly? pathetically? frighteningly?] clumsy attempts at unprofessional use of numbers and stats.
2), Given the above, even within the constraints the edubullies attempt to impose on the ed debates, they can’t make their case. I mean that literally. Hence the necessity of torturing the numbers and their presentation in order to create a smidgeon of plausibility for their unfounded assertions.
Naturally, this is not how the self-styled cagebusters and achievement-gap crushers see themselves. As the greatest mathematical mind of this Most Innovative EduExcellent Twenty First Century has proclaimed: “Men lie and women lie but numbers don’t” [Dr. Steve Perry, borrowing from rapper Jay-Z].
Their reliance on dubious mathematical inspiration is only surpassed by their misinterpretation of Mark Twain: “Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.”
The edufrauds [thanks, Linda, for this term!] keep thinking this wasn’t a caution AGAINST indulging in misbehavior but an exhortation to engage IN it.
And just what has been the reaction of the edufrauds to the owners of the above blogs? In general, Twain anticipated this too: “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.”
A hearty “thank you” to the owners of the above blogs [in reverse order]: Jersey Jazzman, Dr. Mercedes Schneider, GF Brandenberg, Dr. Bruce Baker, and Gary Rubinstein.
🙂
LikeLike
I was thinking the same thing. All I do is follow my gut. These folks put the time in and I also appreciate that a great deal.
LikeLike
Keep the wry wit coming KTA, keep it coming.
It helps to have a humorous outlook in “irreal” times like these all the while promoting truthful dialogue. Without “truthful dialogue” we can never arrive at a more satisfactory, equitable and just public education for all.
LikeLike
Duane Swacker: it is not just that “a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.” [Julie Andrews, THE SOUND OF MUSIC]
Or that it can be both instructive and telling to explicitly set the behaviors of the edubullies against their own words, proving once again that “The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.” [Mark Twain]
Their FUD is no match for our sense of humor—just as their numbers/stats people are no match for ours. But what could be expected of the edufrauds, who only understand the metrics of the first part of this statement by one of those non-informational-text type old Greek guys: “Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them.” [Aristotle]
We are slowly but surely turning the tide in our favor. Be confident. We are whistling in the graveyards they have created and it is driving them RHEEALLY RHEEALLY crazy.
13th percentile will get you a 90th that Noel Wilson would agree.
You figure not?
“Men lie and women lies but numbers don’t.’ [Dr. Steve Perry, channeling rapper Jay-Z]
Ahora no hay duda ninguna. Porque como dice the viejo y muy conocido refrán “¡No contaban con mi astucia!” [El Chapulín Colorado] /Now there can be no doubt whatever. Because like the old and well known saying puts it, “They didn’t count on my cunning!” [The Red Grasshopper {a beloved comedic super hero on Mexican tv for many years}].
🙂
P.S. Bill says he’ll give you a 98% on your next teacher eval if you’ll just stop posting online and let yourself be judged as a Spanish teacher by drive-by evaluators who don’t know Spanish. You in?
🙂
LikeLike