This was reported by politic.com:
“ROCKETSHIP SPUTTERS: Rocketship Education has been one of the hottest charter networks for some time, hailed for a blended learning model that puts its K-5 students to work on computers for part of the day. But it’s recently hit a rough patch. This fall, the network failed to meet enrollment targets for its first school outside California, signing up 307 students in Milwaukee when it had projected 485. Then a federal review found that software the network has used extensively to drill students in math has no discernible effect on math scores.
“- This week, Rocketship withdrew its application to open a school in Santa Clara County, Calif., after intense community opposition. But Rocketship officials say their academic results remain strong and they’re still committed to a huge national expansion. The network now serves 5,000 students; within three years, it expects to enroll 25,000, with campuses in Tennessee, Louisiana, Indiana and D.C. Senior Vice President Kristoffer Haines said his team has “invested a lot of time building strong relationships with community partners” in the target cities – and feels confident families will flock to enroll.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is from a piece on blended learning. Ed reformers in my state, Ohio, are selling blended learning hard, assisted by lobbyist groups like that of Jeb Bush. My fear is it will be used in poor and middle class districts to replace live instruction or actually replace teachers with (cheaper) “monitors”, as Rocketship does.
I thought this was sad:
“Titan teachers have begun experimenting with different ways to motivate students. Esparza shares his online data with his second graders every Friday and shows them the number of math lessons completed and high scores on online book quizzes. He recognizes individual excellence with certificates students can take home. When the class reaches collective goals, Esparza offers prizes like a popcorn party or movie screening in class.
Montero, who began replicating his colleague’s practice, asked his students what they wanted at the end of one recent productive week.
The choice was unanimous: The students all asked for more time with him, the teacher.”
What the children ask for as a reward for “productivity” on a computer is time with a real, live teacher.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/when-computers-are-co-teachers/282927/
LikeLike
I’d be worry now if I my state was named one of the “promise zones” right now.
LikeLike
*worried
LikeLike
Maybe they have a “rocket in their pocket”???
LOL
Evidently they did not build a fire under their students – not so hot after all.
Building “strong” relationships. Does it pass the smell test?
LikeLike
Here’s a working Politico link.
http://www.politico.com/morningeducation/0114/morningeducation12676.html
There’s other interesting stuff there, about more Gates Foundation extortion demands. His 2009 “grant” to Pittsburg was another one of those dribbled-out gifts that keeps on taking.
LikeLike
Lots of rocketship posts, so I thought I’d check out their website. What a load. I was swimming in a sea of buzzwords. Is anyone else getting tired of the same d*** words all the time? Do these people talk like this in private? They probably do. They’ve lost all connection with real and meaningful language.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
LikeLike
Kristoffer Haines and his team stand to lose lots of school tax money so you can expect this organization and their corporate allies to put up a huge fight. Hopefully, citizens will continue to fight for the governance of their own schools.
LikeLike
Dear Ms. Ravitch,
You responded briefly to a comment I posted on your blog a month or so ago without saying what you agreed with me about. You did refer me to a book you wrote some time ago that challenges some of the claims that have been made about schooling by Colin Greer and others and by myself. I have not been able to order that book yet as I had intended, but I feel compelled to plead with you now to reconsider the approach you are taking and to offer some comments to explain what I see as essential and too obvious to doubt.
It is not for no reason that there has been a steady chorus of voices calling for school reform since before Montessori, since before Dewey, since before Goodman, Holt, and literally thousands of others. No one can possibly say with a straight face that schools did not and do not do substantial harm to large numbers of students, or that major harm has not been documented sufficiently. The damage done to self-confidence, to personal identity, to initiative, to trust, to curiosity, to creativity, to spirit, and to awareness are not hypothetical, theoretical, imaginary, or negligible. The mental health and criminal or delinquency statistics merely reflect the tip of an iceberg. The problems have persisted and have actually been exacerbated recently, and no school reform has ever swept the nation to begin the decline in negative effects. Happy talk and promises aside, the reality cannot be ignored by responsible adults.
You of all people can certainly understand that the wholesale a priori denial of dignity, respect, and full citizenship rights is the best possible way to undermine education. I know you are a person of conscience and that you have already discovered that placing your faith and belief in children is a gamble worth taking when support and opportunities are made available.
Scientists are obliged to use anecdotal evidence very carefully and with a high degree of skepticism and I am strongly in favor of the scientific method. You have to have blinders on to avoid the empirical evidence that proves the disconnect between school and education. However, I want to register my own personal experience here, which is not irrelevant after five decades of rather disciplined scrutiny and as much bias in favor as in opposition to schooling when doubt has arisen in the past.
My particular course of activities and interactions has exposed me to many young people with whom I’ve often had significant contact. I have witnessed many exceptional high school students and graduates who are bright, articulate, aware, engaged, and in possession of adequate social skills. I give good teachers much of the credit. However, I am not unusual in having observed that a sizable proportion of the young people with whom I’ve had interactions appear to lack much curiosity or interest in civic, intellectual, social, or philosophical matters. Most seem to struggle with thinking with clarity, with language, with inductive or deductive reasoning processes and new learning, and with relationships and personal interactions and communication. If they read at all it is with some difficulty or only when required for job duties or for a class, and material on the Internet that is of dubious character. More than a few have not graduated, and I would find it too much of a stretch to consider many of the drop-outs or the others “educated’ by any reasonable definition. I am an inveterate optimist and don’t look for these faults or anticipate them before I encounter them.
You don’t impress me as someone who has lived her life in a bubble, but if you haven’t seen just how sad some of these cases are, how many there are, or how many can trace their maladjustment and angst back to a long series of destructive interactions or failures or to alienation in classrooms, you need to get out more. I hasten to say that while the hierarchical system we have attracts a contingency of people who shouldn’t be teaching, many of these issues involve great teachers who are simply unable to spread themselves thin enough.
You can claim that my experience is not ordinary, but I don’t think you are that dishonest with yourself. You know that this is quite typical across the board and around the country. Innumerable factors determine the abilities, inclinations, and attitudes of young adults and one should never jump to conclusions. The family is the first and most significant influence as a rule. But blaming parents for these problems is no less a cop-out than blaming teachers. The school has a powerful influence and it is the stated job of the school to provide education, training, guidance, and practice. The ostensible purpose of having schooling is to compensate for parental inadequacies or their need to focus on work and survival.
One theme that has been repeated by several teachers in response to my comments on your blog is that children from areas of poverty will suffer if school attendance is not mandatory because their parents will be less likely to encourage or require attendance in the absence of a law. I find this somewhat improvised concern disingenuous and elitist. I also got the ludicrous old canard that kids must learn to take their distasteful medicine in order to make it in the real world as a justification for trying to legalize education!
The sad truth is that children from poor homes are damaged much more by experiences that reinforce their negative self-images and that they find onerous, unpleasant, boring, stifling, or otherwise uninspiring, irrelevant, and repetitive on the whole. Why else do so many fail, drop out, or barely scrape by, and in ever-increasing numbers fall into the traps of drug abuse, criminality, and second-generation poverty? Schools that cannot attract poor children or their parents and that don’t produce desirable and visible results for them should not receive public money in any amount.
You reject the emphasis on testing that is prevalent and the way tests have been used to compare students. Yet, if I understand many of the things I’ve read on your blog, you rely on the same sort of assessments to discredit the criticisms of the reform-obsessed complainers. You say that IQs are higher and that the evaluations that are used are less accurate than the evaluations that you recommend, which are still questionable quantitative indices.
I am begging you to recognize that you have taken a hard position favoring the continuation of public schooling under the compulsory framework without acknowledging the preponderance of hard scientific evidence apart from the test scores that we both abhor, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, not only does school as now conceptualized NOT guarantee educational opportunity, but it restricts and frequently annihilates it. You are extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. You can only deny that schools have failed to perform anywhere near an acceptable level by turning a blind eye to millions of young people who lack basic skills and have great deficits and issues that render them handicapped and inept in numerous ways.
Having had the extensive experience and knowledge that you have had, it can’t possibly have escaped your notice that positive meaningful learning occurs in inverse proportion to the extent of coercion or authoritarian pressure. Where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it between “we will save the lives and futures of your children by forcing them to direct their attention to the ABC’s, basic arithmetic, and a smattering of Shakespeare”, and, “we will drill algebra into their brains whether they get it or not, and save their pathetic souls from hell by teaching them about grammar and Jesus”?
If we can presume to be educational missionaries to all children and to know what they need as a “basic” foundation for a broader knowledge, then why isn’t Arne Duncan or Michele Rhee just as capable as you or I or some group of experts to make those kinds of decisions? You apparently haven’t even condemned the common core curriculum; you just want common core lite with a little less testing to determine levels of inebriation.
You are considered a hero and I have paid you that compliment with much sincerity myself any number of times. But, being a cult hero or part of a mutual admiration society carries with it certain obligations. You know at some level deep within yourself that winning this war will not do anything to improve the lives of innumerable children who will still find the demands and expectations of schooling to be enough to dim their lights and dampen their enthusiasm for learning in the way they learned prior to their induction into the service of someone else’s ego or ambition. You cannot change the things that happen that are beyond anyone’s control because change is a dirty word in an authoritarian system and those who should be in control have little control due to laws that limit even their autonomy, tying their hands. I’m sure you are not going to pass up your chance to make a real difference and make real history. I know you have the courage to face this truth. There is no time to waste.
PS: This was sent last week to your FB page but I’ve rec’d no acknowledgement, so assume you didn’t see it. I know you are busier than the President but have to keep trying to appeal to your conscience and logical capacities. I’ve written an article that I attached to the FB message, but see no way to attach it here. It deals with the same issue of the current post. The “reformers” and those you so ardently oppose are unfazed by any opinions, opposition, attacks, or public sentiment. They have the power and you are not yet willing to undermine their power in the only way possible. If our faith in you is misplaced, the time lost will be significant.
LikeLike
Robert Elliott: You did not receive a reply from me on the FB page because I do not read FB and do not see anything posted there. As to the Common Core standards, I have pointed out their flaws in many places, beginning in this post: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/
LikeLike
Dear Ms. Ravitch,
It may have been others posting comments on your blog who have suggested that common core might be acceptable if they were changed in certain ways or not tied to testing so closely. That was a relatively minor point at the end of my comments. Apparently, you did not regard the balance of my remarks worthy of a response. That is disappointing. I’m beginning to think I have personally offended you or hurt your feelings. That was never my intent and for me, this is not about me, or you, or ego, or even winning the fight against the opportunists. I have tried to extract myself from the cycle of back and forth that goes nowhere and I think I’m finally going to achieve that objective. I have summed up my sentiments in one last piece, which I will copy here for what it is worth, if you can be enticed to read it.
A CHALLENGE; A PLEA: PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR MINDS! DO YOU ACCCEPT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO EDUCATION, OR DO YOU FAVOR MYTHOLOGY, SENTIMENTALITY, & MEANINGLESS ANECDOTES?
If you search for scientific research that shows that learning and education are enhanced in any way or over the long term by an authoritarian or regimented and rigidly controlled approach, you aren’t likely to find anything in the professional literature or journals that confirms that such an approach has consistent and enduring positive consequences for children. You will come up empty for the most part except for a few mentions of the need for order, structure and discipline, which are actually the typical result of less, rather than more imposed anonymous arbitrary authority. What you will discover is a preponderance of empirical evidence showing that the most meticulous and thorough science has come down heavily on the side of a more inviting, hospitable, encouraging, inspiring, nurturing, and friendly atmosphere as the optimal learning environment for everyone of any age who isn’t preparing to enter a war zone.
Most educators are at least vaguely aware of this strong bias on the part of researchers and education theorists. Most of the people in the field of education who are aware of the needs and optimal learning environments, who consider themselves advocates for children, with the exception of the supposed reformers who hope to exploit schooling as a for-profit business and those who don’t actually know anything about the history of the field or psychology and learning theory, generally believe that children should have a high degree of autonomy, as should their teachers.
Everywhere I look, teachers and those who support them as professionals and dedicated public servants are using the terms from this extensive literature. They are speaking in glowing and flowery language about “freedom”, “autonomy”, “child-centered teaching”, “a nurturing environment”, empowering children”, “democracy in education”, and any number of other uplifting Polly-Annish expressions that convey the message that they firmly believe in treating children with respect, dignity, and confidence.
Does no one get then, just how utterly absurd it is to take the position that coercion with respect to attendance is acceptable or even essential? How does one reconcile the belief that the maximum degree of autonomy in schools that is practical or possible is desirable, with the opposite belief that children cannot be allowed to exercise choice with respect to going into that environment in the first place? The contradiction is a unique and even bizarre phenomenon. Arbitrary authority must be maintained in order to get the students into schools and to force them to stay and participate, yet it is acknowledged that the same sort of arbitrary authority defeats the whole purpose of their being there! What kind of kabuki logic is that?
How can we have it both ways? Have the laws of the universe changed while we weren’t looking?
The usual arguments that nearly always follow these questions have to do with the deprived children from low-income households whose parents will fail to send them to school if there is no law requiring attendance. The promoters can even show statistics or reports that indicate that where attendance rules are relaxed, attendance levels decline in these poor neighborhoods. The more fortunate children from affluent homes will probably be alright because they live in enriching environments and their parents are more engaged and motivated, but we have to “protect” those young victims of economic deprivation.
Do the words “paternalistic”, “elitist”, or “over-zealous” sound familiar in this context? There is much more than a hint of a cultural superiority complex or a messianic complex in all of this. Are we missionaries or educators? If we have something to offer these poor children, why can’t we entice them to show up voluntarily every day? Why are our schools not seen as havens from the harsh and hostile environments so many economically disadvantaged children occupy? Why is the heavy hand of the law needed to compel attendance? Who’s kidding whom? Give me a break! More importantly, how many of these children are actually graduating and moving on into satisfying and productive lives with adequate pay and rewarding, lasting relationships? Would you like me to answer those questions for you? Stay tuned.
To be quite honest, I’m sick to death of the weak rationalizations and lousy excuses for this state of affairs. It has been taken for granted that we are stuck with compulsory school attendance laws because even if they don’t yield good results, they are better than some imagined alternative involving supposed chaos and anarchy, and it would be just too darned hard to eliminate these pesky laws that imprison children. They are only children, after all – they aren’t US citizens until they are – well, maybe never.
I call BS. This is America, is it not? If it doesn’t serve the purposes for which it was ostensibly intended, do we the exceptional ones, the chosen ones, the movers and shakers just throw up our hands and throw in the towel? Are we going to stand up for what we believe and know and what is right for ALL kids, or are we going to be mamby-pamby, wishy-washy, yes men and women? Not in my America. It’s time to grow a pair my friends, if I may use the vernacular.
How can we possibly have laws that deprive children of choice, liberty, and freedom on their face and by their very existence, yet simultaneously ignore the inexorable daily intrusions into our institutions and lives that those laws necessitate? Does pretending that authority is just there as some kind of formality or technical feature square with the reality of a century-and-a-half? Can we exclude the administrators, teachers, board members and others who will use or abuse this kind of authority and somehow insulate children from the insidious and pernicious effects? When will parents get the message? Are we willing to wait another 150 years for the love and understanding to percolate down to the rank and file?
You may be willing to wait. I for one definitely don’t have quite that much patience.
LikeLike
I don’t see this as a model for the average child, especially for Kindergarten to fifth graders. Their goal of 25,000 registrants is pie in the sky and, even if reached, will never be sustained. Although it will be interesting to see where blended education leads, it will definitely be at expense of the child.
Ironically, in an age where concerned parents limit “screen” time for their children – whether TV, iPad, computer, gaming systems, etc., – here is a system that calls for “online all the time”.
LikeLike
“[We started to see] a backlash develop in certain districts and areas against just deploying technology for technology’s sake, without having thought about what problem a certain leader was trying to solve, or putting in place really sound processes to guard against abuses of technology. My sense is that we’re going to see some continuation of that in 2014 as people become suspect of school leaders just deploying technology simply because you ‘have to have technology’.”
https://www.edsurge.com/n/2013-12-27-michael-horn-there-is-going-to-be-a-backlash-against-tablets
The solution seems to be Chromebooks rather than tablets 🙂
Beginning in about 2009, we started to see people coming into the law office and complaining about the for-profit online colleges they had signed up for (and borrowed a lot of money to attend). This is a rural, working class area and after the crash caused by the financial sector, we had huge unemployment, hence people turned to online for profit colleges. There isn’t anything we can do for them once they get recruited and borrow the money. Student loans can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. The trickle built to a flood and it was interesting what happened. By 2011 or so the online for profits had destroyed their own reputations. Word got around. The schools are considered rip offs here now.
Unfortunately, a lot of the people who took out the loans BEFORE word got around, are, of course, stuck with the payments essentially for life.
Too bad those colleges weren’t regulated, huh? Might have avoided a lot of misery.
LikeLike
Who would flock to go here, unless they were duped into believing it offered a fantastic program? If you go and google image this place it doesn’t look like a school, it looks like a telemarketing call center.
All this screen time can’t be good for backs, necks nor brains.
LikeLike
I wonder if parents or students can sue when the child develops a slipped disk in their neck or back, not to mention carpel tunnel syndrome.
LikeLike
ALERT!!!!! http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/former-de-secretary-of-education-lillian-lowery-now-just-making-up-a-new-name-for-ccss-to-cover-the-stink/
LikeLike
I found this very sad…(the last paragraph in the post)
“Senior Vice President Kristoffer Haines said his team has “invested a lot of time building strong relationships with community partners” in the target cities – and feels confident families will flock to enroll.”,
So our children will be educated to the purveyor with the “best marketing”, the biggest lobbyist corps, and the highest advertising budget. No attention will be paid to whether they can educate..
LikeLike
As Ronald Reagan, one of Obama’s favorite ex-presidents, immortally said, “Facts are stupid things.”
Here, via the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are some “stupid” facts that demonstrates the falsity of the so-called reformers’ claim that education invariably leads to increased economic opportunity: a graph showing that 17 of the 20 projected fastest-growing jobs pay below the median.
Yes, in Obama’s “Promise Zone,” you’re promised a temporary job in one of Jeff Bezo’s warehouses, while your kids sit in front of a Rocketship computer screen, their every keystroke uploaded to Bezo’s data cloud, where it will then be monetized by Amazon and other vendors.
It will be interesting to see how many so-called reformers contribute to Obama’s presidential library in the coming years; he’s certainly given them an excellent return on investment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/01/Most%20New%20Jobs.upg
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Naked Teaching and commented:
All hype and no delivery. Sounds like the latest face cream to me.
LikeLike
Sounds like the latest face cream, all hype and no delivery.
LikeLike