Archives for the year of: 2014

Judge Rolf M. Treu, who decided the Vergara case , declared that he was shocked, shocked to learn from Professor Raj Chetty and Professor Thomas Kane of Harvard about the enormous harm that one “grossly ineffective” teacher can do to a child’s lifetime earnings or to their academic gains.

How did he define “grossly ineffective” teacher? He didn’t. How did these dreadful teachers get tenure? Clearly, some grossly incompetent principal must have granted it to them. What was the basis–factual or theoretical–that the students would have had high scores if their teachers did not have the right to due process? He didn’t say.

The theory behind the case–as I see it–is that low test scores are caused by bad teachers. Get rid of the bad teachers, replace them with average teachers, and all students will get high test scores. You might call it the judicial version of No Child Left Behind–that is, pull the right policy levers–say, testing and accountability–and every single child in America will be proficient by 2014. Congress should hang its collective head in shame for having passed that ridiculous law, yet it still sits on the books as the scorned, ineffective, toxic law of the land.

You might also say that Judge Treu was regurgitating the unproven claims behind Race to the Top, specifically that using test scores to evaluate teachers will make it possible to weed out “bad teachers,” recruit and reward top teachers, and test scores will rise to the top. Given this theory, a concept like tenure (due process) slows down the effort to fire those “grossly ineffective” teachers and delays the day when every student is proficient.

Relying on Chetty and Kane, Judge Treu is quite certain that the theory of universal proficiency is correct. Thus, in his thinking, it becomes a matter of urgency to eliminate tenure, seniority, and any other legal protection for teachers, leaving principals free to fire them promptly, without delay or hindrance.

Set aside for the moment that this decision lacks any evidentiary basis. Another judge might have heard the same parade of witnesses and reached a different conclusion.

Bear in mind that the case will be appealed to a higher court, and will continue to be appealed until there is no higher court.

It is not unreasonable to believe that the California Teachers Association might negotiate a different tenure process with the Legislature, perhaps a requirement of three years probationary status instead of two.

The one thing that does seem certain is that, contrary to the victory claims of hedge fund managers and rightwing editorial writers, no student will gain anything as a result of this decision. Millions more dollars will be spent to litigate the issues in California and elsewhere, but what will students gain? Nothing. The poorest, neediest students will still be in schools that lack the resources to meet their needs. They will still be in schools where classes are too large. They will still be in buildings that need repairs. They will still be in schools where the arts program and nurses and counselors were eliminated by budget cuts.

If their principals fire all or most or some of their teachers, who will take their places? There is no long line of superb teachers waiting for a chance to teach in inner-city schools. Chetty and Kane blithely assume that those who are fired will be replaced by better teachers. How do they know that?

Let’s be clear. No “grossly ineffective” teacher should ever get tenure. Only a “grossly ineffective” principal would give tenure to a “grossly ineffective” teacher. Teachers do not give tenure to themselves.

Unfortunately, the Vergara decision is the latest example of the blame-shifting strategy of the privatization movement. Instead of acknowledging that test scores are highly correlated with family income, they prefer to blame teachers and the very idea of public education. If they were truly interested in supporting the needs of the children, the backers of this case would be advocating for smaller classes, for arts programs, for well-equipped and up-to-date schools, for after-school programs, for health clinics, for librarians and counselors, and for inducements to attract and retain a stable corps of experienced teachers in the schools attended by Beatriz Vergara and her co-plaintiffs.

Let us hope that a wiser judicial panel speedily overturns this bad decision and seeks a path of school reform that actually helps the plaintiffs without inflicting harm on their teachers.

Now that the Washington Post has identified how Bill Gates underwrote every aspect of the Common Core standards, everyone knows what some suspected.

Readers of this blog were not surprised, because we had read Mercedes Schneider’s posts about Gates’ funding of the CCSS.

But somehow, seeing it spelled out in detail in the Washington Post made it official.

Here is a teacher who connected the dots. She wanted to share what she knew with her colleagues. Read her story.

 

In the spring of 2011 I put up a bulletin board in my teachers’ room, not visible to children or parents, regarding the Bill Gates take over of our educational system. The heading read… You Should Know… I posted NO opinions, just articles linking him to Teach for America, Donors Choose, ( a program that was being pushed down our throats that I believe pitted teacher against teacher) and many other programs that made him look like a philanthropist but actually proved his disire to undermine teachers and the profession as a whole. I posted quotes that proved that Gates wanted to increase class size and hire less teachers, replacing them with virtual lessons. My board outlined his connection to data collection programs that would pigeon hole students and be used to evaluate teachers. I used red arrows to show the connections between all of his “generous” programs and the implementation of the lauded CCSS which we never piloted and knew nothing about except that a child moving from one state to the other wouldn’t be lost in his or her new classroom.
I bet you can guess what happened? My 30 something principal demanded I take it down. I refused,citing a little thing I like to call freedom of speech. She called the Superintendent to take a look. I still refused to take it down. Members of the School Committee weighed in, I still refused. My union finally came over and said it could stay, but strangely, they had nothing to say to me. (At the time they were all for Gates and CC. Why? The money of course. Had no one else taken the time to spend an hour or to online investigating?)

Many of my friends and colleagues either indicated I was overreacting or simply ignored me. I started to feel shunned, and soon I was shunned. And then, I broke. I resigned after 27 years in the midst of one of the deepest depressions I had ever experienced. The job that I loved, the lessons in which I sang and danced to help my fourth graders remember, the pleasure I received as I watched my students grow to appreciate the love of learning

Peter Greene here picks apart an article by Patricia Levesque defending the Common Core, testing, and accountability.

Who is Patricia Levesque? She is CEO of Jeb Bush’s organization called the Foundation for Educational Excellence. It is safe to assume that she speaks for Jeb Bush in celebrating the Flrida miracle, Common Core, and the immense value of standardized testing and accountability.

Levesque is critical of those who question the value of a one-shot standardized test or the value of holding teachers accountable for their students’ test scores.

This, he writes, is what he learned from Levesque:

“Student success depends on testing and accountability. Not teaching. Not learning. Not supportive homes. Not a supportive classroom environment. Not good pedagogical technique. Not a positive, nurturing relationship with a teacher. Just tests. Tests with big fat punishments attache to failure.

“Perhaps what we need is an all-test district. Every day students file in, receive their punishments for the previous test results, take a new test. I mean, if testing is the whole key to learning, the whole key to a successful life itself, then why are we wasting classroom time on anything else? Let’s just test, all day, every day. “

Peter Dreier of Occidental College explains how the Occupy Wall Street movement started a momentum that changed Seattle:

Friends,

An idea that only a year ago appeared both radical and impractical has become a reality. On Monday, Seattle struck a blow against rising inequality when its City Council unanimously adopted a city wide minimum wage of $15 an hour — the highest in the nation.

In my new article in The American Prospect, “How Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Victory Began in New York City’s Zuccotti Park,” I explain that this dramatic change in public policy is partly the result of changes brought about by last November’s Seattle municipal elections. But it is also the consequence of changing social conditions beyond Seattle, shifts in public opinion about business, government, and the poor, and years of effective grassroots activism around the country.

We can trace Seattle’s remarkable victory to the wave of local “living wage” campaigns in the 1990s, growing public outrage about corporate abuse and widening inequality, the explosion of anger that became Occupy Wall Street, and the rising protest movement of low-wage workers in the past two years.

Seattle’s union and community organizers, and their allies in government, did not wait for the time to be “ripe.” They helped ripen the time — seizing new opportunities and building on past successes.

Now that Seattle has established a new standard, the pace of change is likely to accelerate quickly as activists and politicians elsewhere seek to capture the new mood. Many other cities and states are now looking to follow in Seattle’s footsteps. The momentum for raising the minimum wage will not only improve living conditions for millions of Americans. It will also spark a new wave of organizing, by revealing how the combination of inside politics and outside protest can bring about progressive change.

Five years from now, Americans may look back at this remarkable victory in Seattle and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Feel free to circulate and repost.

Peter

——————————————————————
Peter Dreier
Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics
Chair, Urban & Environmental Policy Department
Occidental College
1600 Campus Road
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Phone: (323) 259-2913
FAX: (323) 259-2734
Website: http://employees.oxy.edu/dreier
New book: The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame (Nation Books) — published July 2012

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” – Dante

Thanks to legislation recently passed in Albany with the strong support of Governor Andrew Cuomo, Eva Moskowitz announced that she will seek another 14 charter schools, expanding her network significantly. This August, according to her website, she will have “9,450 scholars at 32 schools” in the city. She is applying to the State University of New York, which is a friendly authorizer. The public schools of New York City are now required by state law to give her free space or pay her rent in private space. Thanks, Governor Cuomo!

This is how her press release began:

“RESPONDING TO STRONG COMMUNITY DEMAND, SUCCESS ACADEMY TO APPLY FOR 14 ADDITIONAL CHARTERS

“June 10, 2014 (New York, NY) — Success Academy Charter Schools announced today that it is submitting applications to SUNY Charter Schools Institute to establish 14 new public charter schools in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens. Community demand for these high-performing schools reached an all time high this year, with more than 14,400 families applying for fewer than 3,000 open seats. An outgrowth of the charter-friendly legislation championed by Governor Cuomo and other state leaders this spring, the planned schools will provide educational equity to thousands of families in communities currently without viable school options for their children.”

“Chancellor Fariña recently noted that it is important to listen to the community. That is what we are doing in applying for these charters because the community is demanding more high quality charter schools,” said CEO Eva Moskowitz. “These families — representing more than a dozen neighborhoods — are desperate for great schools. Even with 14 more schools, we will not make a dent in the demand we are seeing.”

A cautionary tale:: Governor Cuomo and the effort to destroy public education in New York

To be published in The Australian Educators Union journal the “Professional Voice” June, 2014. Please visit their website for the current and past issues:

http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/publications_index_13_53773280.html

David Hursh
Professor
Warner Graduate School of Education, University of Rochester
Rochester, New York

As a long-time activist in educational policy, I have observed in New York the continual ratcheting up of high-stakes testing requirements, beginning in the 1990s with the graduation requirement of passing five standardized tests, then, under No Child Left Behind, requiring standardized tests in math and reading in grades three through eight as a means of assessing students, schools and school districts, and finally, with the institution of the Common Core State Standards, requiring standardized tests in every subject to not only assess students, but to determine teacher effectiveness and potentially removing teachers whose students do poorly on the tests (see Hursh, 2007, 2008, 2013) Furthermore, teachers are increasingly blamed not only for the failings of our educational system but also for the increasingly economic inequalities in society and the decline of the middle class, a tactic that Michael Apple describes as “exporting the blame” (Apple, 1996).

However, the increasing use of standardized tests to hold accountable and punish students and teachers tell only part of the story. Standardized testing is increasingly used as part of the rationale for privatizing education by increasing the number of privately administered but publicly funded charter schools. Consequently, public education and teachers face the greatest threat yet, one that may mean the demise of public education in New York’s cities and teaching as a profession.

As I write this, Governor Cuomo, a Democrat but not a progressive, is chairing a three-day event on educational reform called “Camp Philos” at Whiteface Lodge in the Adirondack Mountains. Many of the invitees are sponsored by a group called Education Reform Now, a non-profit advocacy group that lobbies state and federal public officials to support charter schools (publically funded but privately operated elementary and secondary schools), evaluating teachers based on student test scores, and eliminating tenure for teachers. Many of the remaining invitees are hedge fund managers, who see charter schools as investment opportunities. Admission to the retreat costs $1,000 per person, an amount teachers can little afford. But, no matter, when some teachers attempted to register, they were told “no thank you.”

Cuomo’s support for charter schools was made blatantly clear a few months ago when he led a rally at the state capitol promoting charter schools. At the rally he stated that, “education is not about the districts and not about the pensions and not about the unions
and not about the lobbyists and not about the PR firms – education is about the students, and the students come first.” He then continued to misrepresent the evidence regarding the effectiveness of charter schools, ignoring the fact that charter schools cream off the more capable students, often denying admission to students who are English Language Learners or students with disabilities. He also seemed to forget that charter schools have more funding per student because they do not have to pay for the space they use in public school buildings, pay lower salaries to their teachers who are typically young and work under year-to-year contracts, and receive extra funding from corporations and philanthropic foundations who support privatizing schooling. He also forgot to mention that he has received $400,000 for his upcoming re-election campaign from one charter school operator and another $400,000 this year from bankers, hedge fund managers, real estate executives, philanthropists and advocacy groups who have flocked to charter schools and other privatization efforts.

Cuomo often describes New York’s schools and teachers as failing. While as I have consistently argued throughout my career that public schools could do better, especially if teachers were supported in developing culturally appropriate and challenging curriculum, to place all the blame on teachers ignores four major issues. First, test scores are manipulated to yield whatever result current and past commissioners of education desire. As I have detailed elsewhere, results on the standardized tests are entirely unreliable because commissioners have raised and lowered the cut score on tests to portray students as failing or improving, depending on what suited their political interests (Hursh, 2007, 2008, 2013). For example, on the newly instituted Common Core exams, the cut score was set so high as to result in failing 69% of students state-wide and 95% of students in the city of Rochester. Such low passing rates have been used to denigrate public schools and teachers, and as evidence for why education needs to be privatized. Further, because the current commissioner, John King, wants to take credit for improving student learning in the state, he has already guaranteed that the scores on this year’s tests will improve, which he can ensure simply by lowering the cut score.

Second, Cuomo and other corporate reformers ignore that data show that New York’s public schools are highly racially and economically segregated; indeed, we have separate and unequal schools. A new study (Kucsera, 2014) by The Civil Rights Project at UCLA confirms what many of us always suspected: New York State has the most segregated schools in the United States. Sixty years after Brown versus Board of Education supposedly ended segregation, New York’s schools are more segregated than in the past. In “2009,” writes Kucsera, “black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools” (p. 1).

Third, Rochester has the fifth highest poverty rate of all the cities in the United States and the second highest of mid-sized cities. Ninety percent of the students in the Rochester City School District come from families who live in economic poverty. Yet Cuomo, who regularly makes public announcements on many issues, from urging us to shop locally for Easter presents and how to avoid ticks while hiking, has remained silent on the issue of segregation (Bryant, 2014, April 26).

Fourth, even though charter schools on average do not perform better than the publicly administered schools (a fact Cuomo distorts), charter schools have several advantages that should lead to better results. As mentioned earlier, charter schools are not required to admit students who are English Language Learners or who have learning disabilities. Since charter schools have the advantage of accepting only the more capable learners, leaving the others behind in the public schools, and, in many cases have space provided free by the public schools, and receive additional financial support from the Walton Family and other foundations (Rich, 2014), charter schools should have much better results than they do.

Given the weakness of the corporate reformers’ arguments, how to we explain their ability to move their agenda forward? From what I have said above, I want to expand on two things. First, the corporate reformers aim to control the discourse of public education, portraying themselves and their reform agenda as the only one that aims to improve education for all students, particularly for children living in our urban areas. While Cuomo ignores the more intractable issues of school segregation and child poverty, he claims that he is supporting charter schools because “children come first.”
In the past he has used observances marking Dr. Martin Luther. King, Jr.’s birthday to assail teachers as the primary cause for the failures of New York’s educational system and assert that high-stakes standardized testing responds to King’s vision. To be specific, Cuomo claims that, “we have to realize that our schools are not an employment program…. It is this simple: It is not about the adults; it is about the children” (Kaplan & Taylor 2012, A-17). Oddly enough, given his silence on New York’s status as the state with the most segregated schools, at the same event he cited the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, lamenting that because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.” Perhaps he has forgotten that the Supreme Court case declared that children cannot overcome the harm caused by segregated schools. Instead, he portrays teachers’ unions as special interests and unionized teachers only caring about their pensions and contracts, while only he and others like him are for the children.

Similarly, he states that “education is not about the lobbyists,” portraying himself as above special interests and defying the efforts of lobbyists. Perhaps for Cuomo, because Camp Philos brings together the corporate and political elite who are unified in holding teachers and students accountable through standardized tests, ending tenure, decreasing the power of unions, and privatizing education, and because most importantly they are not educators, he imagines them as not the lobbyists they are but merely advocates for equality.

Which leads to the second explanation for the corporate reform success: they have money and lots of it, which not only provides supporters of charter schools and other forms of privatization access to politicians, such as in the Camp Philos retreat (no teachers wanted!), but also supports projects that help them achieve their goals. The Walton Family Foundation, who support charter schools and voucher programs that use public funds to send children to private schools, and despise unions, has given, since 2000, approximately $1 billion to charter schools and charter school advocates (Rich, 2014, April 25). Likewise, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has poured billions into privatization efforts and reforms including the Common Core State Standards and exams. On the Common Core alone, “research by Jack Hassard, Professor Emeritus at Georgia State, shows compelling evidence that Gates” has provided $2.3 billion in support of the Common Core, with “more than 1800 grants to organizations running from teachers unions to state departments of education to political groups like the National Governor’s Association [that] have pushed the Common Core into 45 states, with little transparency and next to no public review” (Schneider, 2014, March 17, p. 1).

Money buys influence. In March Bill Gates and David Brooks (2014), New York Times editorialist and outspoken supporter of the Common Core, had dinner with 80 U.S. Senators. Similarly, the Walton Family Foundation not only provides funds, according to their own website, to one out of every four charter schools in the United States but also funds advocacy groups like Students First, led by Michelle A. Rhee, the former Washington D.C. schools chancellor who oversaw many of the policy changes funded by Walton. As Rich (2014) notes in his article on the Walton Family Foundation, “Students First pushes for the extension of many of those same policies in states across the country, contributing to the campaigns of lawmakers who support the group’s agenda” (p. A-1). The influence of wealthy families such as Bill and Melinda Gates and the Walton family confirm the recent findings of a study by Martin Gilens (2013) on Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America that reveals how policy makers enact the preferences of the rich.

All of the above suggests that the corporate reformers have used their wealth and power to dominate the education reform agenda and promote the privatization of public education, increased standardized testing, and the demise of teaching as a profession. Consequently, what hope is there for resisting and reversing the corporate agenda?

In New York and across the country there is increasing resistance to the corporate reform movement as teachers, parents, students, and community members have formed alliances to combat corporate reforms. Last August, I was one of twelve educators and community members to create the New York State Allies for Public Education, which has a website (http://www.nysape.org%5Bnysape.org) and offers critical analysis of the corporate reform movement in New York. The number of organizations making up the allies now numbers 50.

Furthermore, critics of corporate reform have influenced the dominant discourse, in particular making economic and racial inequality part of the agenda. For example, critics are using the research revealing the failure to integrate schools sixty years after Brown V. Board of Education to make racial inequality an issue. They are also using the fortieth anniversary of President Johnson’s War on Poverty to ask why there is more economic inequality now than at any time since the Great Depression. And they are using the increasing efforts by Pearson to other corporations to turn schools into centers of profit to question the purpose of schooling. Recent hearings held by Commissioner King regarding the implementation of the Common Core curriculum and exams have conceptualized and implemented have been completely dominated by critics. Critics have called for the resignation of the current commissioner. Lastly the New York State United Teachers organized four hundred teachers to “picket in the pines” at Camp Philos in upstate New York to protest that Cuomo’s education retreat is excluding teachers. The New York State Regents, who make education policy, and the New York State legislature have both acted to implement moratoriums on state initiatives to increase testing of students and teachers. Teachers, parents, and community members are becoming increasing knowledgeable, outspoken and allied regarding the corporate reform movement. The battle is on.
—————

—————————————————————————————————
Note: For nine weeks from mid January to mid March I visited with teachers, union officials, and university faculty in Australia and New Zealand to learn more about the education reform initiatives in both countries. I also gave numerous presentations on the corporate led education reform movement in the United States and, in particular, my home state of New York (see the youtube video of my keynote talk to New Zealand primary school teachers and administrators at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4vZGsLiL4.

References

Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dobbin, S. I2-13, December 10). New study: Rochester is fifth poorest city in country. Democrat and Chronicle. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/12/10/new-study-rochester-is-fifth-poorest-city-in-country/3950517

Brooks, D. (2014, April 18). When the circus descends. New York Times. A-23.

Bryant, E. (2014, April 26). Governor silent on school segregation. Democrat and Chronicle.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/columnists/bryant/2014/04/26/bryant-governor-silent-school-segregation/8176951/

Gilens. M. (2013) Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Hursh, D. (2007). “Assessing the impact of No Child Left Behind and other neoliberal reforms in education,” American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518.

Hursh, D. (2013). Raising the stakes: High-stakes testing and the attack on public education in New York. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5). 574-588. DOI:10.1080/02680939.2012.758829

Hursh, D. (2008). High-Stakes Testing and the Decline of Teaching and Learning: The Real Crisis in Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kaplan, T. and Taylor, K. (2012, January 17). Invoking King, Cuomo and Bloomberg stoke fight on teacher review impasse. The New York Times: A-17.

Rich, M. (2014, April 25). A Walmart Fortune, Spreading Charter Schools. New York Times. A-1. Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/us/a-walmart-fortune-spreading-charterschools.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3As&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry926%23%2FWALMART%2520charter%2520schools

Schneider, M. (2014, March 17). Gates Dined on March 13, 2014, with 80 Senators

Gates Dined on March 13, 2014, with 80 Senators

David Hursh, PhD
Professor
Teaching and Curriculum
Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development
452 LeChase Hall
RC Box 270425
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627-0425
Phone: 585.275.3947
Fax: 585.486.1159
Mobile: 585.406.1258
E-mail: dhursh@warner.rochester.edu
https://www.warner.rochester.edu/facultystaff/hursh
Associate Region Editor- Americas- Journal of Education Policy.
Associate Editor- Policy Futures in Education

Stephanie Simon writes in politico.com about how parents organized, lobbied, agitated, and brought down inBloom.

Simon writes:

“You’ve heard of Big Oil and Big Tobacco. Now get ready for Big Parent.

“Moms and dads from across the political spectrum have mobilized into an unexpected political force in recent months to fight the data mining of their children. In a frenzy of activity, they’ve catapulted student privacy — an issue that was barely on anyone’s radar last spring — to prominence in statehouses from New York to Florida to Wyoming.”

Most shocking of all is that the Obama administration is prepared to spend $1 billion (half from the federal government, half from the states) to track the movements of every child:

“Now, parents are rallying against another perceived threat: huge state databases being built to track children for more than two decades, from as early as infancy through the start of their careers.

Promoted by the Obama administration, the databases are being built in nearly every state at a total cost of well over $1 billion. They are intended to store intimate details on tens of millions of children and young adults — identified by name, birth date, address and even, in some cases, Social Security number — to help officials pinpoint the education system’s strengths and weaknesses and craft public policy accordingly.

“The Education Department lists hundreds of questions that it urges states to answer about each child in the public school system: Did she make friends easily as a toddler? Was he disciplined for fighting as a teen? Did he take geometry? Does she suffer from mental illness? Did he go to college? Did he graduate? How much does he earn?

“Every parent I’ve talked to has been horrified,” said Leonie Haimson, a New York mother who is organizing a national Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. “We just don’t want our kids tracked from cradle to grave.”

Why does the Education Department want so much information about every child? What is the rationale for assembling Big Data about our children? Does Congress know about this? Is there any other government in the world that is data mining its children?

Will parents mobilize to stop the federal government from mining their children’s personal data?

According to the text of the Vergara decision, two expert witnesses for the plaintiffs were Professor Raj Chetty of Harvard and Professor Tom Kane of Harvard.

Professor Chetty, the judge said, testified that “a single year in a classroom with a grossly ineffective teacher costs students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings per classroom.” Dr. Kane testified that students in LAUSD taught by a teacher in the bottom 5% of competence lose 9.54 months of learning in a single year compared to students taught by an average teacher.

Chetty, you may recall, is the nation’s leading proponent of VAM. Kane directs the Gates Foundation’s MET (Measures of Effective Teaching) Project.

The judge accepted these statements as fact, not knowing they are strongly disputed by other scholars.

Here is the text of the Vergara decision, ruling the laws governing tenure and seniority unconstitutional.

Now, as we all know, Bill Gates paid over $2 billion for the Common Core standards. They are supposed to be the linchpin of a coordinated system: standards, tests, teacher evaluations based on test scores, school closings, turnarounds, etc. but a funny thing happened on the way to the millennium. Parents and educators got angry. Some hated the tests. Some hated the standards. Some hated the federal takeover of their public schools. A few states said they would drop the standards.

The Gates Foundation decided the best way to calm the protests was to slow down the implementation. Here is the story in the New York Times.

This afternoon, on one of my rare outings while I recuperate from surgery, I was sitting in the car outside the fish market, when I got an email from reporter Motoko Rich of the Times. She asked what I thought of the moratorium. This is the last quote in the story:

“Some critics of the standards and testing said that a moratorium was not enough.

“If the sanctions and punishments tied to test scores are wrong now — promoting teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, cheating, and gaming the system — the sanctions and punishments will still be wrong two years from now,” Diane Ravitch, an education historian and critic of standardized testing in schools, wrote in an email. “The opposition to high-stakes testing will not go away.”