Archives for the year of: 2013

Today, the New York Times gave a lot of column inches to an article by a Harvard professor who claims to know how to fix the teaching profession.

He begins with the assertion that despite the many reforms of the past 30 years, the performance of our K-12 education system “remains stubbornly mediocre.”

His “evidence” is the test scores on the 2009 PISA in which the US scored about average.

Wouldn’t you expect a Harvard professor to check out the socioeconomic breakdown of the PISA scores which showed that US students in low poverty schools had scores higher than those of Japan, Finland, and other high scoring nations and that our average scores fell as the poverty level of the school increased? (Table 6, p. 15.)

Wouldn’t you expect a Harvard professor to cite the far better US scores on the 2011 TIMSS tests, where black eighth grade students in Massachusetts tied with their peers in Finland in math? If the Daily Howler noticed, why didn’t a Harvard professor?

He then goes on to say this, as though both Rhee and I are extremists and equally wrong:

“The debate over school reform has become a false polarization between figures like Michelle Rhee, the former Washington, D.C., schools chancellor, who emphasizes testing and teacher evaluation, and the education historian Diane Ravitch, who decries the long-run effort to privatize public education and emphasizes structural impediments to student achievement, like poverty.”

Wouldn’t you think that a Harvard professor would see some relationship between the scandalously high rate of child poverty in the United States–about 23%–and low scores on international tests?

The rest of the article is an effort to shift the blame to teachers for what he claims is mediocrity. If only we could get “the best and the brightest!”

If only the professor would explain how the teaching profession will improve when state after state is demoralizing teachers with unproven evaluations based on test scores, stripping away protection for academic freedom, cutting benefits, and lowering standards for new teachers.

Grrrr.

Kay McSpadden writes frequently about education issues in North Carolina. Here she explains why the Tennessee bill to cut welfare benefits to families if their children didn’t get high test scores was a disaster. Fortunately, key Republican legislators put a halt to it and it never came to a vote.

I try not to read comments on blogs, other than this one, where I read them all.

But I couldn’t help read the ones that followed Kay’s compassionate post and was appalled by several, especially this one:

“I’m not going to profess to be a Christian scholar Joe, but would you cite for me one passage where Jesus calls on people to forsake their own family in order to take care of someone else’s family?”

Wasn’t there something called the Golden Rule?

North Carolina has some awful legislation of its own, hurtling toward passage. Right now, there is one that will remove any due process protections for teachers (aka, “tenure”). Who will dare to teach about evolution or anything controversial? The angry commenters will drive them out.

EduShyster ponders the plight of a reformer trying to figure how to pay for an elite private school.

What to do?

The tuition is just the beginning.

All those fancy clothes and vacations and SAT prep.

Could she use an Opportunity Scholarship?

Not likely. The school won’t take them.

See how she solves her problem.

Ken Bernstein, retired teacher, posted this comment:

“There are other issues that need to be included, even if there are no problems with erasures. States report scaled scores. They can and do change the conversion rate from raw to scaled in order to show “improvement” year to year. The year before I taught in Virginia the school in which I taught had a 58% pass rate on the Middle School American History test. The year I was there the pass rate was 81%, my own was 89%. Sounds great, right? Except they had lowered the cut score and changed the conversion. If the previous year’s raw scores had been converted using the same matrix, the score would have been 71% or so. Thus we showed “improvement” but not that much.”

This is Julian Vasquez Heilig’s continuing series called the Teat, in which he follows the money behind corporate reform. This one focuses on the so-called parent trigger. Previous installments have looked at TFA and KIPP.

I posted Gary Cohn’s excellent analysis of the funding behind Parent Revolution, the group created by charter advocates to trick parents into turning their public school over to charter corporations.

The name of the organization is the first hoax: Apparently the Walton family, the Broad family, and the Gates family want to start a “revolution.”

What kind of revolution would billionaires foment?

John Merrow’s bombshell investigation of cheating in DC is seeping into the mainstream media. There is no way that polished statements and well-honed rhetoric will stop the suspicions and speculation. It’s time for a thorough and professional investigation.

Here is a blogger for Esquire magazine, who goes to the heart of the matter. What did Rhee know and when did she know it and what did she do in response?

The money quote as written by the blogger:

“And, of course, there is the inevitable Weaselspeak.

“As chancellor I received countless reports, memoranda and presentations. I don’t recall receiving a report by Sandy Sanford regarding erasure data from the (DC Comprehensive Assessment System), but I’m pleased, as has been previously reported, that both inspectors general (DOE and DCPS) reviewed the memo and confirmed my belief that there was no widespread cheating.”

“Yeah, there was this report right here on how much floor polish we needed, and this one right here about the possibility of changing dairies that supply our milk, and there’s the annual assessment on crayon-munching and paste-eating, especially among my own personal staff. I am a busy woman. I can’t be expected to remember every report, especially one that might indicate that the things upon which I have based my entire career, and which have brought me considerable fame and fortune, are the functional equivalent of swampland in Polk County.

“Who do you think I am? Superman?”

This was in my email:

From: Education writers forum. [mailto:EWA-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU] On Behalf Of John Merrow
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:31 PM
To: EWA-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU
Subject: [EWA-L] Michelle Rhee and the Missing Memo—which has turned up

Listers,

Below are the first few paragraphs of what I am posting in a few minutes. The piece runs 4300 words is fully footnoted: 40 footnotes, which appears as hashtags in the excerpt below.
I am also reporting that, after five years of Rhee/Henderson, the DC schools are worse off by almost every conceivable measure: graduation rates, truancy, enrollment, test scores, black-white gap and teacher and principal turnover.

John

Will the cover up succeed?

Read this in the New York Times.

The DC City Council will hold hearings. But hearings are not the same as a professional investigation as was conducted in Atlanta.

Rhee deserves the same scrutiny as Hall.

Given the fear and intimidation reported by John Merrow, hearings will not get to the bottom of this mess.

Who will investigate?

This comment was posted by a reader:

The Washington Post editorial page has a lengthy recent history of misrepresenting the truth about American public education. Worse, it continues to support and advocate for “remedies” that do little to improve schooling.

The lead education editorial writer, Jo-Ann Armao, has made the claim that American public education is broken and teacher unions are to blame. She has consistently touted more testing, charter schools and abolishment of tenure as “the fix.” But Armao gets it wrong again and again, and again.


If unions impede student learning, for example, how does Armao explain high achievement in many strong union states (Maryland and Massachusetts come to mind), and bottom-of-the-barrel achievement where unions are weak or non-existent (the deep South, for example)? She cannot.

A USA Today investigation into cheating in the District schools under Michell Rhee found that for a school to be “flagged” for possible cheating a “classroom had to have so many wrong-to-right erasures that the average for each student was 4 standard deviations higher than the average for all D.C. students in that grade on that test, meaning that “ a classroom corrected its answers so much more often than the rest of the district that it could have occurred roughly one in 30,000 times by chance. D.C. classrooms corrected answers much more often.” When half of all the schools in the system are flagged for grossly abnormal wrong-to-right erasures on tests and “ the odds are better for winning the Powerball grand prize than having that many erasures by chance,” then it’s more than likely that “some cheating” took place. And, even Rhee has admitted that “some cheating” may have occurred during her reign as superintendent of the DC schools.

But, in a fit of editorial obtuseness, The Post(Armao) said “there are many innocent explanations for changed answers.” The Post told the public, inaccurately, that Rhee and her cronies “were cleared by an outside firm.”

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cheating-allegations-cant-mask-real-gains-in-dcs-schools/2011/03/30/AFeh8Q5B_story.html

However, Rhee and her top minions, including current chancellor Kay Henderson, were very reluctant to have any kind of investigation. Consider also that the “investigations” that finally took place were quite limited. The school system refused to release the names of the schools that were initially investigated, and it refused to release the limited-in-scope “investigative” reports. In essence, the “test security” company, Caveon, that performed the very limited inquiries into the DC testing irregularities, performed much like the Wall Street ratings agencies (Fitch’s, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s) that signed off on the toxic, collateralized securities peddled by the investment banks. Those agencies took the big fees and gave the banks what they wanted: AAA ratings for securities that were dogs. So too, Caveon took the money and looked the other way. It suggested, as did DC school officials, that all the red flags signaling rampant cheating might be due to students who just checked their work. Interestingly, that “checking” was virtually always from wrong answers to right ones.

Here’s how Post education reporter Bill Turque covered the DC limited inquiry:

“Caveon founder John Fremer said he was doing exactly what his client, DCPS, asked. Had it asked for more, he said, more could have been done. The Utah-based firm could have analyzed answer sheets at greater depth–far beyond erasure rates, which Fremer says are the crudest and least reliable marker for possible testing misconduct.”

“It could have searched for patterns of collusion, looking for unusual levels of agreement on answers among students seated near each other. It could have checked for logical inconsistencies in answer patterns, determining if students were doing unusually well on the harder questions while getting easier ones wrong. It could have gone back and looked at prior-year performance by students, or the performance of classrooms under certain teachers in the past.”

“I could do everything you could ever want done,” Fremer said.

Obviously, like the big bankers and hedge funders who caused the financial meltdown and still do not want prosecutors nosing into their corrupt practices, Rhee and Henderson (and others) do not want full scrutiny. They know what an independent, in-depth investigation –– like the one in Atlanta –– would uncover.

The Washington Post The Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, wrote fairly recently that when “Eugene Meyer bought this newspaper in 1933 he put at the top of his seven guiding principles…”

Two of those “guiding principles” are these:

‘The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained,’ AND ‘The Newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it.’

The Washington Post and its editorial page, including Ms. Armao, would do well to remember and abide by Meyer’s principles. But they seem to be having a difficult time of it.

A reader wonders about whether the data can be trusted when there are so many reasons to inflate the numbers.

She writes:

“Merrow finally points out the most explosive point in this memo, one that’s being passed over in commentaries. Fay noted that specific erasure patterns occurred across many classrooms. That would indicate that systematic cheating occurred at the building level, and point toward the principals.

“Massachusetts has never requested erasure analyses, so far as I know. I wish they would. My own district is in an odd bind, because it was an education reform superstar, ranked at level I (the top 20%), in 2009. We’ve been data-driven for a decade. This year, we are flagged as level 3, the bottom 20%. I’m concerned our new principal will be blamed for testing a higher percentage of our actual students, but maybe there’s something more.

“I’m walking on eggs here. The state assistance team that came to our building quoted an improved graduation rate, and I want so much to believe it, but it didn’t make statistical sense. They told me they couldn’t divulge the denominator they used, because of confidentiality involved in tracking students after they left the building. The gap between the number of kids in the testing rooms and the number of scores reported makes actual data analysis impossible. I have no idea what any “data” anywhere means, even if the tests did measure anything worthwhile.”