Archives for the year of: 2013

Students at Indiana University’s education school will go on strike on April 11 and 12 to protest the excessive and toxic testing in K-12.

As they say in their statement, they are the children of No Child Left Behind.

Read the entirety of their statement.

Here is an excerpt:

“As striking students at Indiana University, we are struggling against the corporatization of our school, lack of diversity on campus, and ever-increasing tuition and fees which are fast making an education here inaccessible to all but the most privileged. As we begin these important conversations here at IU we also recognize their systemic nature. We stand in solidarity with others throughout the nation working to rescue education from those who seek to profit from it. We recognize the bravery and commitment of the teachers, students, and parents in places such as Garfield High School in Seattle and the Project Libertas in Indianapolis, who have taken stands against the absurdities inherent in standardized testing.”

Here is a commentary on the strike in The Nation.

And here is a petition to support the Indiana students.

Readers of this blog are familiar with the writings of Carol Burris, principal of South Side High a school in Rockville Center, New York.

Her fellow principals across the state just named her Principal of the Year..

Carol is a dedicated, passionate educator who is a leader of the fight against the state’s educator evaluation system. She and her colleague Sean Feeney created a petition drive and signed up more than third of the other principals in the state to oppose this ill-considered approach. Thousands of parents and fellow citizens signed their petition.

It is not too late. You can sign too.

Congratulations, Carol!

If you live anywhere near Cambridge, you should plan to attend this FairTest event on May 9 when FairTest will honor Jonathan Kozol.

FairTest will present Jonathan with the Deborah W. Meier Award for Heroes in Education for his lifelong commitment to education, children, and human rights.

Jonathan is indeed a hero in education.

He is a champion for children, for teachers, and for public schools.

I am happy to add him to this blog’s honor roll for his courage, his eloquence, and his clear vision of a just, decent, and humane society.

 

Jonathan Pelto asks whether the Connecticut House of Representatives will approve the nomination of a charter school executive to the State Board of Education.

Governor Dannell Malloy nominated Andrea Comer, the chief operating officer of a charter school to the state board, where she will exercise influence over issues that directly affect her organization, as well as the continued expansion of charter schools in that state.

Malloy is mad about charter schools. He chose a charter school founder, Stefan Pryor, to be his state commissioner of education.

“If Andrea Comer, the Chief Operating Officer of FUSE/Jumoke Inc., finds herself on the State Board of Education, she will certainly be in a “unique” position to directly and indirectly impact her job, her employer and the industry she has worked so hard to represent.  Prior to working for FUSE/Jumoke, Inc. she worked for Achievement First, Inc., the even larger charter school management company co-founded by Stefan Pryor.”

Charters in Connecticut that have the best success are known for having very small numbers of English language learners and students with disabilities. Comer’s charter is one of them.

Connecticut has leadership that disdains public education. Privatization is all the rage in the Nutmeg State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post thinks this is terrible, just terrible.

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

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

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

Larry Lee writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It further states in the same paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No longer.

He describes his change of view here.

Jay writes:

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

And more.

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

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

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

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

Ohio is very friendly territory for charter schools.

Governor Kasich loves charter, vouchers, and virtual schools.

But the charters are not doing so well.

Read the following comment and the link with it:

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

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

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

But look at this:

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

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

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

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

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

Click to access ccsso.pdf

Also:

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

Click to access ace.pdf

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

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

Click to access headstart.pdf