Archives for the year of: 2013

Susan Ochshorn, who advocates for early childhood education, is aghast at the idea that children as young as four or five are expected to take standardized tests. She explained that experts in early childhood education were appalled by the idea of testing young children with bubble tests.

Then she discovered a school where anti-testing sentiment had grown to include not only the principal and the teachers but the parents as well.

Parents and teachers always ask: What can we do? At the Castle Bridge Elementary School in New York Coty, they figured out what to do, and they took action:

“Late last week, an email arrived from Emma Frank, mother of two, including a first-grader at Castle Bridge, a K-5 school in Washington Heights led by progressive educator Julie Zuckerman. After a school-wide decision to opt out of K-1 testing, Frank was calling each member of the city council (“I’m up to ‘G,’ she wrote), to protest the policy. She also passed along the following letter, written by Don Lash, to state-level officials, which she is circulating as fast as she can:

“Dear Assembly Member Nolan and Senator Flanagan:

“I am contacting you because I am the parent of a first grade student who is expected to take a multiple choice standardized test as a result of a policy directive from the New York State Education Department (NYSED) that students from Kindergarten to 2nd grade be tested using an exam mandated by NYSED.

“The test is not intended to reveal any information that would be used to improve instruction to my child, but would be used solely to evaluate her teachers. Having seen some of the sample testing material published in news accounts, which was developed by the for-profit testing conglomerate PearsonEd, I don’t believe the test has any validity in assessing the quality of her instruction or the level of mastery of the curriculum. Moreover, I deeply resent the intrusion on her learning time that would be required to master test-taking skills that would serve no purpose beyond the test.

“Finally, my child is in a dual language program, with some students acquiring English as a second language and others acquiring Spanish as a second language. The test was developed and normed in English, so it would be worse than useless in evaluating the performance of my child’s teachers. I have exercised my right to opt out of this pointless testing, but I am nevertheless concerned that if my child’s teachers and the administrators of the school are forced to administer a test with no educational value, her instruction time will be reduced whether she takes the test or not.

“As a taxpayer, I object to the diversion of funds into Pearson’s or any other developer’s coffers, and the waste of the time of teachers and other school personnel, time that could be dedicated to teaching and learning. I am requesting that as chairs of the Assembly and Senate Education Committees, with oversight responsibility for NYSED, you demand that Commissioner King reverse this ill-considered and poorly implemented policy.”

Faced with a widespread parent rebellion against the Common Core testing, the New York Board of Regents declared they have no intention of making any changes. It’s full steam ahead!

Stay tuned. Rough waters, unseen obstacles, captain not at the helm.

Sue Peters, parent activist, is running for the school board in Seattle.

She has raised $28,289.

Her opponent, Suzanne Dale Estey, has raised over $100,000, plus an independent PAC has raised more than another $100,000 for Estey.

That means that Sue Peters is outspent about 7-1.

Estey has raised more money for her contest than any school board race in the state’s history.

Read the list of Estey’s contributors: it is the same handful of wealthy entrepreneurs who have been pouring big money into election after election in Seattle and in the state of Washington, to promote charters, test-based evaluation, Teach for America, and other failed policies.

Few, if any, of Estey’s donors have children in the Seattle public schools.

Why are the rich buying up school board seats?

In Seattle, is democracy for sale to the highest bidder?

Is anyone minding the store?

Los Angeles superintendent John Deasy made a commercial for Apple long before his board voted support for a $1 billion purchase of iPads for every student.

His deputy Jaime Aquino worked for Pearson-owned America’s Choice. He was in charge of the iPad purchase, which became a major embarrassment for Deasy and the LAUSD board. Aquino resigned his $250,000 a year job, but won’t actually leave until the end of the year.

The iPads are loaded with…..surprise!…Pearson content.

Will voters ever approve another bond issue, now that they know whatever new funds they approve will be spent on whatever the superintendent of the moment wants to do?

Harvard Yard, here I come! I will be sponsored by Citizens for Public Schools and accompanied by the famous EduShyster.

CPS Presents Diane Ravitch
in Cambridge, Oct. 24

Citizens for Public Schools is proud to present Diane Ravitch, speaking on her new book, Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Reign of Error picks up where Diane left off with her ground-breaking book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

Excitement is building for Diane’s talk just one week from this Thursday. Register now so you do not miss out.

When: Thursday, October 24, 2013, 7:30 p.m.
Where: Memorial Church, Harvard Yard, Cambridge
Ticket Donations: $12

Come join us and learn how corporate reforms threaten public education as a cornerstone of democracy. Stay to hear Diane’s proposals for reasonable and achievable solutions to the challenges our public schools face.

As Jonathan Kozol, our speaker from last fall, wrote in The New York Times, “Those…who have grown increasingly alarmed at seeing public education bartered off piece by piece, and seeing schools and teachers thrown into a state of siege, will be grateful for this cri de coeur — a fearless book, a manifesto and a call to battle.”

Thanks to our generous co-sponsoring organizations, including: AFT Massachusetts, Black Educators Alliance of Massachusetts, Boston Teachers Union, Brookline Educators Union, Center for Collaborative Education, Center for Law and Education, Educators for a Democratic Union, Educators for Social Responsibility, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Massachusetts Jobs With Justice, Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, METCO, National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest).

To become a sponsor of this event and/or register and pay online, click here.

18 Tremont St Ste 320 | Boston, MA 02108 US

Stephanie Simon has written a blockbuster article that describes how Teach for America has enlarged its goals.

It is no longer just an organization that trains young people to teach in low-income schools.

It is, as she puts it, “a political powerhouse” that is seizing control of education in district after district, state after state, funded by rightwing millionaires and billionaires.

The far-right, anti-union Walton Foundation is one of TFA’s biggest funders.

So is Arthur Rock, a San Francisco venture capitalist, who pays the salaries of TFA staffers who work in key offices of Congress, protecting the interest of TFA. Rock is a big supporter of vouchers.

Wherever there is advocacy for vouchers and charters, there you will find TFA.

And their numbers are growing, fueled by their vast treasury, and their ability to fool young people into thinking that they are “progressive,” when they have become the frontline soldiers of the far-right enemies of public education.

 

A group of scholars in Oklahoma reviewed the state’s A-F grading system–borrowed wholesale from Jeb Bush–and found that it was fundamentally flawed.

The Oklahoma Center for Education Policy at the University of Oklahoma and the Center for Research and Evaluation at Oklahoma State University reviewed the state’s A-F system and found that it consistently mislabeled schools.

Please read this short and highly informative report. It explains in clear language why single letter grades do not accurately reflect school quality.

The letter grades are highly tied to changes in test scores. But a difference of only 3-6 answers on a standardized test of 50 questions can change the score from an A to an F.  Thus, small differences on tests are magnified in the letter grade system.

There is also a problem with classifications. Some schools with low letter grades had higher achievement in math or other subjects than students in schools with high letter grades.

There are many other problems, all of them significantly mislabeling schools and misleading the public.

When the grades were released to the schools, they were found to be loaded with errors, and school superintendents complained bitterly about the mislabeling of schools that they knew were good schools.

When we regain our collective common sense, we will recognize school letter grades as a truly stupid idea, concocted to set schools up for failure and privatization.

 

Rocketship charter schools have a goal of expanding to enroll one million children. Their model relies heavily on technology and inexpensive, inexperienced teachers who work long hours and have no union. Their schools are focused on test scores and leave out the arts and other “non-essentials.” The San Jose, California, board of education will decide tomorrow about whether to send more children and more public dollars to this poor substitute for a real school.

This letter came to me from a Rocketship teacher:

“Dear Diane,

I have been reading the coverage on your blog on the lawsuit against Rocketship in its quest to build Rocketship Tamien in San Jose. I appreciate your attention to this issue. I am a current Rocketship teacher who is also concerned about Rocketship’s expansion. With a vote by the San Jose City Council coming this Tuesday, I decided I could not longer remain silent. Below you will find an anonymous letter I sent to the San Jose City Council, as well as the parent group against Tamien you featured on your blog. I wanted to send this letter to you as well. I’m not sure if it is something you would be interested in posting on your blog, but even so I wanted you to know you helped encourage me to write it.

Thank you!
A Rocketship Teacher

To all those concerned and involved with the Rocketship Tamien dispute,

I am a Rocketship Teacher who has become increasingly concerned and frustrated while silently watching the dispute over Rocketship Tamien. In this letter, I hope to bring a perspective of a current Rocketship teacher. I am just one perspective and do not claim to speak for other Rocketship teachers. However, I do think my point of view, without a union for protection, is silenced and hidden in this debate. By raising my voice, I am fearful my job could be in danger. Therefore, I have chosen to write this letter anonymously and leave out many details of my own personal experience.

I have structured the letter under a few key points of my feelings about Rocketship as an organization and the direction we are headed. I hope this perspective might raise new questions in the ongoing debate over opening Rocketship Tamien. I have tremendous respect for many of the teachers I work with at Rocketship and by no means wish to attack the incredible effort and energy they put into this difficult job.

Rapid Expansion Without a Clear Model:

Just a few months into the last school year, Rocketship announced to teachers the start of “redesign.” I say announced, because it was not offered as a conversation, but as a mandate. We would be changing many of our schools to an “open-space” model. This model’s vision would have placed 100 students in a room with two credentialed teachers and one learning specialist (including in Kindergarten and first grade). Without research or proof that this was a good idea for our students, redesign was launched at several Rocketship campuses. Teachers, without a union, had no choice but to follow blindly into the “redesign” path, many teachers staying nightly until 9pm trying to figure out what in the world they were going to do in a new space with that many students.

Unfortunately, the experiment Rocketship embarked on with their students and communities proved to be rash. This year, they have slowed down and redesign is happening, for most schools, only in 4th and 5th grade classrooms. I think my biggest concern when thinking about redesign, which left many teachers bitter and caused many to leave Rocketship, is that even though Rocketship is experimenting with its model and unsure of its future direction, it still seeks to rapidly expand across San Jose and across America. It is irresponsible and egotistical to believe that a model that you have not figured out is superior to established public schools in the neighborhoods you are interrupting. This is especially true in light of last year’s CST scores which showed a decline at every Rocketship campus.

No Teacher Sustainability, Little Experience at All Levels:

Working at Rocketship is not sustainable. I personally have never had a colleague tell me, “I could work as a Rocketship teacher for the next 10 years.” I haven’t even heard a colleague say they could work as a Rocketship teacher for 5 years. Rocketship relies heavily on Teach for America corps members. Many TFA teachers come into the classroom with no experience and no perspective on what a traditional school is like. Without experience of a traditional model, I think many TFA teachers come into Rocketship blindly and follow the unreasonable expectations blindly. They grind through their two year commitment of late hours, ridiculous test score pressure, and tumultuous school and organizational environment. At the end of those two years, or even before it, many will leave Rocketship. Some will go into traditional public schools; some will run away from teaching, or what they believe from Rocketship to be teaching, forever. This turnover and burnout robs the San Jose community of veteran teachers that have worked in and understand the community.

It is not just inexperience on the teacher end, it is also inexperience on the administrative end. If you teach for three years at Rocketship, you may have just as much or more teaching experience as some administrators at Rocketship. Rocketship claims to have a robust teacher training and development program, but unfortunately that training comes from inexperienced educators, which I think highly questions the value of such training. When I have heard this concern brought up, usually the value of veteran teachers and experience is scoffed at as unnecessary. This, I think, is part of a larger issue at Rocketship. In my opinion, Rocketship believes itself superior without the experience or results to support it.

Instability of Student’s Day:

Rocketship, to save money by hiring fewer teachers, has a rotational model. Students move throughout the day between different classrooms and spaces, largely three: 1) Literacy, 2) Math, 3) Learning Lab. Literacy teachers have two classes during the day, while math teachers have four, which I think greatly contributes to lack of teacher sustainability. Building relationships with 60 or 120 elementary students and their families, as well as maintaining classroom culture throughout the day, is difficult, emotionally draining, and exhausting.

I truly believe that this middle school model of rotation is not appropriate for elementary school students and creates a culture of instability that breeds behavioral issues. When students are rotating through multiple spaces throughout the day, they do not have consistent behavior expectations, consistent authority figures, or often enough eyes monitoring the transitions. I do not believe this model suits every child, particularly those with special needs. I believe many of our students crave a more stable environment, especially for our students who may experience instability at home.

Students also spend about one hour a day on computers which, as Rocketship has admitted in the PBS special, is not currently effective in pushing student learning. However, because we have a higher student to teacher ratio than traditional schools, students continue to be “held” in the learning lab until their math and literacy classes open up. I do believe that online learning has incredible potential, but Rocketship is using it for too long every day which breeds a lack of investment and boredom in our student’s experience in the learning lab.

Anti-Union Anti-Traditional Public School Rhetoric:

Rocketship claims unions will block their ability to expand and innovate. What that means practically for teachers in the case of the “redesign” experiment last year and day to day decisions of the organization, is that we effectively have no voice or tangible power in this organization.

The PBS special had two Rocketship teachers who claimed that they did not need a union, that they were valuable to Rocketship and safe. Both of those teachers were slated and have now become administrators at Rocketship. PBS didn’t dig, but if they had done some digging, they would have found plenty of disillusioned teachers for their interviews. Or perhaps, they wouldn’t have since we have no union protection. Rocketship also pushes its anti-union, anti-traditional public school rhetoric on our families. I have had many interactions with parents where claims are made about unions or public schools in the area, that have been garnered from Rocketship, that are wrong or over-generalized.

Rocketship, I believe, is not here to provide pressure and competition to traditional public schools. They, with their goals of expansion to reach 1 million students, are here to take over. It is essential to that goal then, to discredit traditional public schools and the teachers at those schools. Students, because of state funding per child, become dollars Rocketship takes from a traditional public school with every child it recruits. This in turn puts more pressure on established districts to lay off teachers and will, eventually, lead to school closures.

Test Scores as the Ultimate Goal:

Rocketship is obsessed with its tests scores. As a charter, they live or die by those test scores. We are now asking our students to learn how to bubble multiple choice questions as early as kindergarten. Teachers are constantly in cycles of testing (which again, is to 60 or 120 students which contributes to the unsustainability).

I believe that knowing where our students are and working to address knowledge gaps is important, but test scores have taken over the culture of Rocketship schools. The stress put on teachers I believe translates directly to the students who are constantly being assessed. Last year, my and other teachers’ salaries were based largely on one computer examination that is given to the students three times during the year. Science, social studies, art and general play time have all become victim to the testing grind. I do not believe Rocketship is cultivating creative, innovative, challenging, minds.

In closing, I do not believe that Rocketship is an organization to be given blind trust. The parents at Rocketship are just like the parents protesting against Rocketship Tamien. They want the best educational experience for their students. I send this letter in the hopes of raising more pause towards Rocketship, its lobbyists, and the tighter hold it is trying to establish over San Jose’s elementary schools.

Adell Cothorne, DC whistle-blower extraordinaire, offers a warning: Don’t believe so naive as to believe the hype from the District of Columbia public schools about its teacher evaluation system.

Cothorne was there.

She says that the principals were not trained; that school secretaries often did the crucial paperwork.

That the IMPACT system is so complicated that no one, not even its designers, could explain how it works.

That the system continues to lose excellent principals and teachers.

That the evaluation system has no bearing on student achievement.

Cothorne suggests that IMPACT should be applied to central office staff.

Despite the glowing hyperbole in the media, Mercedes Schneider says there is nothing new in the results. The study is dated, there is missing data, the effects of the cheating scandal remain unknown, and the investigation of the cheating was turned over to an accounting firm with no experience in investigating cheating. Mercedes is not impressed.