Archives for the year of: 2014

This is the most important article you will read this week, this month, maybe this year. Lee Fang, a brilliant investigative reporter at the Nation Institute, documents the rise and growth of the new for-profit education industry. They seek out ways to make money by selling products to the schools, developing new technologies for the Common Core, writing lucrative leasing deals for charter school properties, mining students’ personal data and selling it, and investing in lucrative charter schools.

Their basic strategy: disrupt public education by selling a propaganda narrative of failure, which then generates consumer demand for new, privately managed forms of schooling (charters and vouchers), for new products (a laptop for every child), and for new standards (the Common Core) that require the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars for new technology, consultants, and other new teaching products. The Common Core has the subsidiary effect of reducing test scores dramatically, thus reinforcing the failure narrative and the need for new schools and new products. Meanwhile, absent any evidence, the boosters of the Common Core promise dramatic results (“bigger better cleaner than clean, the best ever, everything you ever dreamed of, success for all, no more achievement gap, everyone a winner”), while reaping the rewards.

The end goal is the reaping of billions in profits for entrepreneurs and investors.

The crucial enabler of the entrepreneurial takeover of American public education has been the Obama administration. From the beginning, its Race to the Top was intended to close schools with low scores, require more charter schools, all to create a larger market for charter organizations. Its requirement to adopt “college-and-career-ready standards” established the Common Core standards in 45 states, thus creating a national market for products. Its funding of two national tests guaranteed that all future testing would be done online, thus generating a multi-billion dollar market for technology companies that produce software and hardware. At the same time, the Obama administration was curiously silent as state after state eliminated collective bargaining and silenced the one force that might impede its plans. Neither President Obama nor Arne Duncan made an appearance in Wisconsin when tens of thousands of working people protested Scott Walker’s anti-union program.

Lee Fang has connected the dots that show the connection between entrepreneurs, the Obama administration, ALEC, and Wall Street. We now know that their promises and their profit-driven schemes do not benefit students or teachers or education. Students will be taught by computers in large classes. Experienced and respected teachers do not like the new paradigm; they will leave and be replaced by young teachers willing to follow a script, work with few or no benefits, then leave for another career choice. Turnover of teachers will become the norm, as it is in charter schools. “Success” will be defined as test scores, which will be generated by computer drills.

This is the future the entrepreneurs are planning. Their own children will be in private schools not subject to the Common Core, or large computer-based classes, or inexperienced teachers. The public’s children will be victims of policies promoted by Arne Duncan to benefit the entrepreneurs.

We see the future unfolding in communities across the nation. It can be stopped by vigilant and informed citizens. If we organize and act, we can push back and defeat this terrible plan to monetize our children and our public schools.

I am casting a protest vote for the first time in my life. I am voting for the candidates of the Green Party, Howie Hawkins and Brian Jones. I voted for Zephyr Teachout in the Democratic primary for three reasons: her position on education, on public integrity, and on the environment. And these are the reasons I will cast my ballot in November for the Green Party.

I like their platform on the issues that matter most to me. I oppose hydrofracking ( yes, there was a recent study that said that hydrofracking did not cause pollution, but the faulty wells dug during the process of fracking caused pollution; forgive me for saying that is a distinction without a difference).

Cast your vote as you choose. This is my choice.

FRACKING

BAN FRACKING: Protect New York farms from the air, water, and land pollution, climate change, and degradation of rural infrastructure and property values that hydrofracking of shale formations for natural gas would bring to rural upstate New York.

100% CLEAN ENERGY BY 2030

Build in 15 years a full clean energy system based on:
*energy production from distributed solar, wind, wave, tidal, hydro, and geothermal energy production, where every home, office, and factory is retrofitted to be a solar power producer;
*energy storage from electrolytic hydrogen, battery, potential, and thermal energy;
*transportation through electrified vehicles and rails;
*heating and cooling by electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, heat exchangers, and backup electric resistance heaters;
*an interactive smart grid to match energy supply and demand and sales and purchases of distributed energy producers and consumers.

INTEGRITY

1. END CORRUPTION

30 state legislators have been indicted or pushed out of office for ethics violations since 1999, including 11 since Governor Cuomo took office in 2011. Cuomo promised in his 2010 campaign to establish an independent ethics commission. Instead, we got the Joint Commission on Public Integrity (JCOPE) and the Legislative Ethics Commission (LEC), both of which are compromised by segmented jurisdictions and leadership appointed by and staffing drawn from staffs of the very politicians they are supposed to monitor. Then in 2014 Cuomo shut down the Moreland Commission to investigate public corruption before it could complete its work. We need strong ethics reforms to end this epidemic of corruption.

2. RECONVENE THE MORELAND COMMISSION

Bring the Moreland Commission back to finish the investigations it began. Give it the funding it needs and the autonomy to let the commissioners hire staff this time without interference from the governor’s office or the legislature.

3. ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

Establish a truly independent ethics commission with comprehensive responsibility for ethics enforcement. Give it the resources necessary to vigorously investigate and punish ethics rules violations by members of both the executive and legislative branches. Operate it under the following rules:

No elected officials on its governing board.

A five-year revolving door restriction for recent politicians or their staff members to serve as board or staff for the Ethics Commission.

Apply Freedom of Information and Open Meetings Laws to the Ethics Commission.

4. FUND ETHICS ENFORCEMENT BY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

County DAs need additional resources in order to enforce public ethics laws in addition to their work on street crime.

5. FULL TIME LEGISLATURE

Bar income from outside work while serving a term in office. Legislators should be public servants, not politicians getting rich from the work (show or no-show) they secure because they are legislators who influence legislation. They should devote their full time to the people’s business.

EDUCATION

QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL

Fully fund public schools with an equitable state aid formula.

Eliminate the Gap Elimination Adjustment and the state-mandated local tax cap.

100% Foundation Aid for public schools.

Fully funded, full day, and developmentally appropriate Universal Pre-K and Kindergarten with certified and unionized educators.

Opt out of high-stakes testing for students, teachers, and schools.

Opt out of Common Core and Race To The Top.

Opt into common standards, curricula, and diagnostic tests written by professional teachers in the schools, not by outside corporate contractors.

Opt into teacher and school evaluation based on collaboration.

Opt into affirmative action to reduce school segregation by race and class, such as regional inter-district transfer programs.

State legislation to reduce class sizes and case loads.

Free Tuition at CUNY, SUNY, and Community Colleges.

*

The full platform is online here:
http://www.howiehawkins.org/platform

Mike Klonsky reports on Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s latest faux pas. Rahm is opening another selective enrollment high school –in upscale Lincoln Park–while leaving less fortunate neighborhoods without a public high school. He decided to name the $60 million high school for President Obama, but the President’s team didn’t like that idea.

“Rahm’s dream of a two-tiered public school system — one tier for gentrifying neighborhoods and one for the rest of us — is turning into a political nightmare.

“The mayor has once again gotten himself into deep doo-doo with Obama’s people over the naming of another proposed expensive, new selective-enrollment high school for Lincoln Park. As I pointed out last week, Rahm thought that naming the school after the president would help mend his election campaign fences, both with Obama’s people who dislike him and with black voters still irate over his notorious mass school closings.

“But the response from White House staffers was quick and to the point. Valerie Jarrett reportedly told Rahm in no uncertain terms — don’t drag Obama’s name into your mess. He’s got enough problems of his own. And just like that, Rahm walked it back.”

This is an excellent letter to the editor that asks the right questions about charters:

Why do they get public money yet refuse to submit to public audits?

Why do they enroll fewer children in poverty?

Why do their leaders refuse to aid struggling public schools?

Why do they claim that the only way to help poor children is to move them to their privately managed schools?

Why do they refuse to acknowledge that public magnet schools outperform charter schools?

Why are charters the preferred “reform” of some of the state’s wealthiest citizens?

Why do charter advocates slander our public schools?

Anthony Cody writes here about a new low in efforts to silence parents who oppose corporate reform.

Kathy Korte is a member of the Albuquerque school board who is active in an organization called Stand4KidsNM. This group has a Facebook page and a Twitter account. It opposes high-stakes testing and supports public schools. The group held a demonstration and invited political candidates from all parties. Only the Democrats showed.

A state legislator then filed a formal complaint with ten state attorney general, claiming that the group had violated state law and demanding that Stand4KidsNM register as a PAC.

But that wasn’t all.

As Cody writes, “But this is not the only effort to silence Korte. A nationally known GOP “opposition researcher” by the name of Tim Killeen put in a request in August for disclosure of “any and all emails and letters sent to APS board member Kathy Korte that discusses or mentions Stand4KidsNM.”

“Korte’s activities fall clearly in the realm of free speech and free association that is protected by the US Constitution. It is apparent that she has been made a target by politically powerful people, who have managed to cost her the job her family relies on.

“But the story will not end here. Korte has responded to the charge that she has violated state laws, and if there is any justice at all, this will be dismissed. She recently told the Santa Fe New Mexican,

“As a public official representing teachers, parents and citizens, and as a mother of four children impacted by public school policies, I have a right to speak my mind and I have a right to do it on FB [Facebook] and Twitter. I don’t deserve to be intimidated and harassed and my good character attacked by all these political hit women and hit men.”

The attacks on Korte and the group Stand4KidsNM are clearly an effort to frighten those who use social media to defend public schools. I urge anyone who lives in New Mexico and supports public education to join Stand4KidsNM. This is a time to show that you will not be intimidated, you will not back down.

The Education Law Center reports on a major ruling in Washington State:

WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT HOLDS LEGISLATURE IN CONTEMPT ON SCHOOL FUNDING

Orders State to Comply in 2015 Legislative Session

On September 11, 2014, in McCleary v. State, the Washington Supreme Court held the State in contempt for failing to obey a court order for a phase-in schedule for fully funding the components of “basic education” by the 2017-18 school year. The Court ruling was unanimous.

As reported by the Associated Press, Thomas Ahearne, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said Thursday’s order “wipes out all the excuses that legislators tell themselves as to why they don’t have to do anything. I think the attorney general is now going to be telling legislators, ‘Guys you are in a box.'”

In an earlier McCleary decision (2012), the Court found the State was not meeting its “paramount duty … to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its border,” as stated in the Washington Constitution. The Court commended the Legislature and agreed with its chosen means of reaching a constitutional level of funding. The Court ordered the State to implement the agreed on changes within the 2018 deadline the legislative body had set.

Since 2012, however, the State has not made “sufficient progress to be on target to fully fund [basic] education … by the 2017-18 school year,” the Court concludes in this decision. And, “the State admitted that it did not comply with the court’s … order.”

The Court also points out that “The State, moreover, has known for decades that its funding for public education is constitutionally inadequate,” and warned that, “If the contempt is not purged by adjournment of the 2015 legislature, the court will reconvene and impose sanctions or other remedial measures.”

The cost to pay for basic education in Washington has been estimated at $4 billion or more in each biennial state budget. Underfunded educational resources that the Legislature has identified as basic education include full-day kindergarten, more instructional hours for high school students, pupil transportation, a new formula for school staffing levels for smaller class sizes, and more state support for school equipment and supplies.

Education Justice Press Contact:

Molly A. Hunter, Esq.
Director, Education Justice
email: mhunter@edlawcenter.org
voice: 973 624-1815 x19
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org

Copyright © 2014 Education Law Center. All Rights Reserved.

Wendy Lecker, civil rights attorney, takes Connecticut’s Governor Dannel Malloy to task for his empty rhetoric about testing. He has consistently been a fervent support of standardized, high-stakes testing. Yet now he wants to roll back one test, in the 11th grade. Who is he fooling?

 

 

Throughout his administration, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s education policies have been characterized by a disdain for evidence of what helps children learn, and a refusal to listen to those closest to students — parents and teachers. While it has been proven that test-based accountability has done nothing to help learning, and has increased stress in children of all ages, Malloy callously maintained, “I’ll settle for teaching to the test if it means raising test scores.”

 

Now, weeks before the gubernatorial election, the governor has suddenly declared an interest in the welfare of children — or some children. In a self-congratulatory news release, the governor announced that he wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to begin a “dialogue” about how to reduce one standardized test for 11th graders.

 

Malloy’s newly discovered concern for over-testing for one grade must be understood against his record on standardized testing. Just two years ago, the Malloy administration rushed through an application for an NCLB “waiver,” which exchanged some of NCLB’s mandates for many other mandates — including massively increasing standardized testing. The waiver obligated the state to administer the Common Core tests, including moving the high school test from 10th to 11th grade, and to use the widely discredited method of including standardized test scores in teacher evaluations.

 

Recognizing the potential for an explosion in standardized testing, parents, school board members and teachers implored the Malloy administration not to apply for the NCLB waiver until it assessed the impact on our children and the cost to taxpayers. Yet, the Malloy administration ignored these warnings and submitted the application….

 

Though Malloy professes concern about over-testing 11th graders, in reality he plans to increase testing for everyone. In May, his PEAC commission announced a plan to use multiple standardized tests in teacher evaluations going forward. Not only does this plan double down on the flawed practice of using standardized tests to measure a teacher’s performance, it also vastly increases testing for children. The SBAC interim tests, which the Malloy administration recommends, will likely double the standardized testing that already exists.

Against the reality of his policies, Malloy’s letter to Duncan proves to be nothing more than political posturing.

 

 

 

 

 

I had a message from a relative who works in a program helping youngsters in Harlem apply to college. The kids are wonderful, she says: bright, ambitious, and energetic. Their biggest stumbling block, she says, is the SAT.

I contacted Bob Schaeffer of Fairtest, which maintains a database of colleges and universities that do not require the SAT.

He wrote:

“A complete database of the more than 830 accredited, bachelor-degree granting colleges that will make admissions decisions about all or may applicants without regard to ACT/SAT scores is online at: http://www.fairtest.org/university/optional — the list includes 160+ colleges and universities ranked in the top tiers of their respective categories.”

You can support the Network for Public Education by joining and becoming a member.

Join us for our historic event, “Public Education Nation” on October 11 in New York City at the Brooklyn New School or watch it live-streamed.

You can support our work by sending a check to:

Network for Public Education
P.O. Box 44200
Tucson, AZ 85733

Your organization can affiliate with the NPE.

If you are a blogger who supports public education, you can affiliate with the Public Education Bloggers Network (contact Jonathan Pelto at jonpelto@gmail.com).

We are adept at connecting individuals and organizations and helping them work together to repel the corporate assault on public education. Since our budget is small, we are adept in using social media.

We are many, and they are few. They have money, but we have deep and broad public support. We will stand in their way when they try to privatize public schools. We will mobilize people to fight the overuse and misuse of testing. We will defend our children, our public school, and our educators. Join us.

Professor Helen Ladd of Duke University, internationally renowned economist of education, and her husband Edward Fiske, former education editor of the New York Times, recently wrote about a sneaky move by the North Carolina legislature to undermine the funding of children in public schools. Not content to fund charters and vouchers, the legislature is directly attacking the basic funding formula for the state public system. The overwhelming majority of children in the state attend public schools. Why do their parents elect these people who short-change public education?

Ladd and Fiske write:

“In a last-minute change that was taken with no hearings and no prior publicity, the Republican-controlled General Assembly has undermined the fundamental building block of school finance in North Carolina.

“Ever since the state took over responsibility from the local districts for funding public schools during the Great Depression, state funding in North Carolina has been based on the number of students served. When a local district’s school rolls increased or decreased, the state would adjust the funding up or down accordingly, using a variety of formulas, all of them driven by the number of students.

“Under legislation enacted last month, the legislature has scrapped this system. From now on, every spring the state will make an initial commitment of state funds to districts for the following year based on the number of students currently enrolled rather than, as in the past, on their projected enrollments. In other words, districts with growing enrollments will no longer be guaranteed an increase in per pupil funds to cover the costs of educating the additional students.

“Any additional funds will have to be negotiated as part of the legislature’s more general budgetary process later in the year.

“Local and state school finance officers describe this change, seemingly quite technical in nature, as the most fundamental, even “drastic,” change in school finance in North Carolina in nearly a century. It constitutes a direct attack on the state’s ability to carry out its constitutional obligation to provide a sound basic education to all children in the state.

“Here’s how the system has worked since 1933. Every February or March the Department of Public Instruction notifies local districts what their per pupil allotments will be for the coming school year. The calculation is based on the prior year’s statewide per pupil funding levels or a range of expenditures, from teachers to textbooks, multiplied by the number of students projected for the district for the following year. Districts then use this figure as they construct their budgets and make plans for hiring teachers and other spending decisions.

“Now that the legislature has struck down this system, districts with growing enrollments will no longer be guaranteed a proportionate increase in funding to cover their additional students.

“The legislature will still have the option, through its budgetary process, to provide additional funding, but it will have no obligation to do so. Funding to cover growing enrollments will have to be negotiated and compete with other state priorities.

“The practical implications of policy change are huge for two reasons. First, it undercuts the basic pupil-based structure for distributing state funds to local districts that has served the state well for many decades. Second, it undermines the ability of district officials to do responsible financial planning. Whereas districts normally hire teachers for the coming year in the spring, they will now have to wait until the legislature gets around to adopting a new budget, which this year was August, before they can make firm commitments.

“Perhaps the most far-reaching aspect of the new policy is that it undermines the state’s constitutionally mandated commitment to provide sound basic education to all young people in North Carolina. While politicians in the past have debated about what constitutes adequate per pupil funding, now, for the first time, they will also be debating whether to appropriate any additional funding simply to cover the costs of additional students. Such funding will now be a matter of political give and take.

“The new policy will clearly have the most obvious effect on districts with growing student populations. Although a majority of North Carolina school districts, especially those in rural areas, are currently experiencing population declines, the overall number of students in the state continues to increase, and six of the eight largest districts are dealing with a growing number of students. Wake County schools are projected to see an increase of more than 8,000 students over the next three years, while Charlotte-Mecklenburg is facing growth of more than 9,000 during the same period. Even districts with declining school populations will be hurt because available state funds will have to be spread among a larger total student population….

“So why would Republican leaders adopt a policy that weakens the state’s ability to provide quality education for all students and makes it more difficult for district officials to engage in responsible planning? Perhaps one answer is that, since the large tax cuts Republicans implemented last year have reduced the revenue available for major state expenditure items such as education, they are now scrambling to find new ways of reducing support for education without seeming to be doing so. A related answer lies in the overall thrust of their education policies.

“Since taking power in 2012 Gov. Pat McCrory and the Republican leaders have enacted a series of efforts aimed at weakening the state’s commitment to public education. They have, among other things, reduced the number of classroom teachers, teacher assistants, assistant principals, guidance counselors and nurses in North Carolina schools They have cut funding for textbooks and other learning materials and eviscerated teacher professional development – all the while giving favored treatment to charters and adopting a voucher program that diverts funds from public schools and puts them in the hands of religious and other private schools immune from public accountability…..

“The sleight of hand continues.”

Helen F. Ladd is professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Edward B. Fiske, formerly Education Editor of The New York Times, edits the Fiske Guide to Colleges.

Read more here: