Archives for the month of: January, 2014

Governor Bobby Jindal and John White are determined to keep protecting and expanding charter schools, as they press for the transfer of public funds to private entities.. That may explain why the state board of education renewed the charter of a Gulen-associated school that was under FBI investigation.

“The state Department of Education showed little interest in an ongoing federal probe into a Baton Rouge charter school even as the agency completed its own lengthy but much different examination to see if the school deserved to have its charter renewed, according to department records.

“The records were released to The Advocate in response to a public records request.

“The federal probe, which the state learned of by late spring 2012, is barely mentioned in the dozens of records the state has released about Kenilworth Science & Technology Charter School. The probe, which seemingly had been quiet for months, re-emerged Dec. 11 when the FBI raided the school six days after the agency renewed the Baton Rouge school’s charter through the year 2019.

“The search warrant, which The Advocate first disclosed Sunday, revealed that federal authorities have been seeking financial records from Kenilworth relating to nine companies. Most of these companies are owned by individuals of Turkish descent, and seven of them have done business with the school.”

Paul Horton is a history teacher at the University of Chicago Lab School.

He writes:

The Cure for the Common Core

The Common Core is like that insidious commercial that creeps into the darker recesses of our short-term memories: the jingle that we wake up hearing; the embarrassingly male enhancement ad that we wince at; or the little message that penetrates the space between the paragraphs of every online news story we read. It has become the unintentional trope of market driven education: the separation of learning from creative, non alienated interaction between two subjects: the teacher and the learner. The Common Core Standards seek to reify the learning and assessment processes into code intended to objectify and operate skilled 21st century workers.

Stephen Pinker could not explain its staying power!

Readers of New York Times editorials who read nothing else about “The Core” tend to be down on trash talking critics. The message from the Times editorial board is that informed citizens want higher standards because we are fighting an educational multipolar Cold War with other countries that take an international test. We have to catch up or we are toast. Critics of catching up are ignorant cretins who are either burned out hippies who cling to warm and fuzzy notions of “progressive education,” lazy disgruntled teachers who will have to work harder for less, or “white suburban moms” who hover.

“Get real! say the Tiger moms, we have got to get our kids prepared for the ultimate multicultural meritocracy! The Spartans were wimps, we need real discipline!”

Well, I am hear to tell you that we did not need Common Core last year, and we don’t need it this year, just like we don’t need a lot of other things that we are told that we need.

Here is why:

1) The Common Core will not raise international test scores and there is no correlation between how we perform on international tests and the growth of our economy

2) The Common Core will not create high paying jobs. In fact, the net effect of the long-term implementation of the Common Core will be to drive down the salaries of teachers as their work is standardized to conform to digitalized instruction and standardized testing. The bargaining power of unions will be diminished as more charter schools are licensed and as digital learning forces students all over the world to compete for job qualifications (their test scores as well as transcripts will become what McKinsey calls “liquid information” that will follow them)

3) The Common Core will not lead to a more democratic society: the Common Core is funded by the 1% to make the one 1% more money. The corporations and foundations that have sponsored the Common Core are in it for the money, not kids, parents, or communities who effectively lose control of the educational process with its implementation. Microsoft, Pearson, Amplify and Rupert Murdoch have no loyalty to this country or any another country: they are loyal to stockholders all over the world. Money will be made by penetrating global educational markets with gadgets, software, and virtual learning systems. The leaders of the global movement to standardize education like Microsoft, Apple, and HP, to name three corporations have already set up schools in production and assembly areas that will interface with American and global educational standardization. So the corporate education reform movement might be sold in America as an effort to catch up with other country’s scores. The reality is that global corporations seek global skills alignment to be able to force workers around the world to compete with each other in acquiring a measurable set of skills. Value will thus be added by creating more competition between workers worldwide as test scores will create a scarcity of qualified employees worldwide. Competition for quantified qualifications will drive wages down even for the best jobs. Far from reducing income inequality, Common Core will make it worse locally, nationally, and globally. If you are a great test taker, you will have the opportunity to work for a global corporation, but you will always be competing against great test takers from all over the world.

4) The Common Core will not reduce the achievement gap. No credible study suggests that it does or will. Remember that the big foundations and companies that are pushing Common Core can create “independent studies” that skew results. Remember as well that our media consistently reports foundation “think tank” studies and not academic studies. Remember as well that the Gates Foundation’s resources are virtually limitless. Is there anyone on the Harvard Education faculty who has not received a grant that has origins in the Gates Foundation?

5) The Common Core Standards are top down, not written by experienced educators, and do not consider the individual needs of students of varying abilities who might need to be challenged more or who face steep learning challenges. The National Council of Teachers of English was given the opportunity to review the Common Core literacy standards and their review was scathing. The Common Core Math Standards are confusing, developmentally inappropriate for many students in grades one through three, and do not end up preparing students for college level calculus courses. As more students, parents, and teachers are exposed to the shoddy quality of the scripted lessons, software, and assessments that are being rushed out by for profit testing companies, they begin to understand that they are purchasing a lemon without ever being involved in a decision to buy at any level. The adaption Common Core Standards was required as a part of the Race to the Top competition that states entered to qualify for federal grant money. Our Education Secretary, working with two top aides who were previously employed at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, devised the RttT competition to compel compliance with more charter school creation, state mandated testing aligned with the Common Core Standards, data collection on students and their families, and Value Added Assessments for teachers based on student standardized testing. In many cases applications were prewritten and modified by the Gates Foundation. In most states, only two signatures were required: the governor’s and the state superintendent of education’s. There was very little involvement of experienced educators in this whole process from framing to drafting to mandating. Effectively, local districts gave up control without understanding how or why. Perhaps more importantly, despite Mr. Duncan’s claims, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and leading officials within the DOEd successfully collaborated on creating the requirements for RttT in violation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Together, they successfully mandated the framework for the creation of a national curriculum and coordinated efforts between the National Governor’s Association and Achieve to fund the writing of national assessments that constitute a national curriculum that will be used as the foundation for a national testing regime.

New Year’s Resolutions:

1) We need a new non-aligned movement: against RttT, the Common Core, standardized assessments, and VAM evaluations

2) State and local school boards and major teacher unions need to seriously examine all current and proposed standards to determine the standards that they will support and implement

3) We need to end standardized for profit assessments: why are we paying for shoddy products that will be used to punish kids, schools, parents, and the poor?

4) Allow only those charters that will be administered by the public and for the public. They must be transparent and not for profit. They need to serve communities and kids, especially in underserved neighborhoods

5) We need to end the involvement of for profit investors in education. We need legal transparency that identifies Wall Street influence on Education policy at all levels. We need to be able to identify which local politicians and investors have profited from the possession of Microsoft or Pearson stock or stock in charter companies

6) DOEd funds for special education and other support services should not be held hostage to compliance to RttT mandates

7) Teachers should mentor new teachers to reduce reliance on scripted curricula; teachers should create authentic assessments and grade authentic assessments. Boards of teachers at grade levels and subject departments should create authentic assessment rubrics and should control and examine the state wide assessment process

8) Laws should be passed at the Federal level and in every state to insure that policy makers have at least ten years in a classroom before they are allowed to assume an administrative or policy level post. Our educational system is being destroyed from within by policymakers who are more loyal to corporate and foundation interests than they are to students, communities, and parents. Increasingly, these policy makers have no experience in Education. They are hired to turn Education into for profit businesses

9) Citizens United must be repealed. Because both major parties are beholden to Wall Street interests, our education policies are beholden to bundlers who fund political campaigns in exchange for investment opportunities

10) Remember that although many on the corporate reform side are well intentioned, they care nothing for due process or democracy: they have pulled off a power play and we must resist by coming together. They have demonstrated to the American people that they have contempt for the democratic process. They have the money, the big media, the talking points, the PR firms, and the Chamber of Commerce and Exxon making speeches. We have the passion and the fight! Resist Moloch we must!

Happy New Year in Solidarity!

Paul AFT Local 2063

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey’s embattled Governor Chris Christie has always made a deal of his love for Bruce Springsteen, hero troubadour of regular folk and the Garden State.

But apparently it is not a mutual admiration society.

Here is Bruce Springsteen singing about “Governor Christie’s Traffic Jam.”

And kudos to Jimmy Fallon, who starts the song looking and sounding like the young Bruce S.

This may become the most infamous traffic jam in American history, the one that derailed the Presidential ambitions of a bully governor.

Marc Epstein, a teacher for many years at Jamaica High School (targeted for closure) here describes the Bloomberg years in New York City public schools and how difficult it will be to unravel the changes he imposed:

Bloomberg’s School Disaster

When Mayor-elect de Blasio announced Carmen Farina as his choice for schools chancellor and pointedly added that she was an educator, a metaphorical puff of white smoke appeared on the horizon for most of the city’s 75,000 schoolteachers.

That’s because after a succession of four chancellors over the past 13 years who had no professional education experience, it was if the Babylonian Captivity of the papacy had finally come to an end with Farina’s succession.

The hope is that Farina, with 40 years of experience that includes two decades in the classroom and another two decades holding administrative positions as principal, district superintendent, and deputy chancellor, has a fair idea of what has gone on in the school system over the past 12 years of mayoral control.

But there is also a fair amount of anxiety. The fear is that political forces outside of the school system reaching as far as the White House have a vested interest in seeing to it that unraveling public education continues unabated.

There’s even word from Valerie Strauss at the Washington Post that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan helped put the kibosh on one of the candidates on de Blasio’s short list for chancellor.

Within hours of the Farina appointment the editorialists began espousing their anti anti-Bloomberg position. Anyone who might seek to undo Bloomberg’s accomplishments is a regressive Neanderthal according to the Wall Street Journal, Daily News, and New York Post.

Should Farina maintain the status quo, the fate of public education in New York City will be sealed. What’s more, she will enjoy the accolades of the media, a media that has become heavily invested, both figuratively and literally, in the narrative put forth by Michael Bloomberg about business solutions and data driven decision-making.

That’s because Bloomberg, with his vast wealth intact, despite having spent more than $600 million dollars on his mayoralty, will continue to shape the narrative with commissioned dynastic histories and the use of his own news empire.

In addition, Rupert Murdoch and his Newscorp, which includes the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, are heavily invested in the “education revolution.” Murdoch boasts former chancellor Joel Klein as his vice-president in charge of education operations too.

So if this to be the party line, and Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Farina want to begin undoing the damage of the past 12 years, they would do well to expose the train wreck that has become the New York City school system under Michael Bloomberg sooner rather than later.

For the past 12 years New Yorkers have been treated to a steady drumbeat over the airwaves and in print that posits that Mike Bloomberg was able to housebreak an unresponsive, unmanageable, sclerotic public school system and head it in the right direction.

He accomplished this by taking on the teachers union, introducing business-tested management techniques, creating a new kind of school principal purposefully chosen with little classroom experience, but trained in these business techniques, reconfiguring the school districts, closing failed schools and creating hundreds of new schools that offer a wide variety of school choices to parents who could shop schools to their heart’s content.

The numbers would determine all decision-making on the macro and micro level, because numbers don’t lie. Principals were given control over their budgets so they could run a school unencumbered for the first time.

And, every editorial page, intellectual journal, and radio wordsmith, bought Bloomberg’s spiel hook, line, and sinker. They’ve bought it despite irrefutable reports of poor student test performance, record numbers of students entering college unprepared, and an on-time graduation rate of 3% at New York’s community colleges. What’s more, they celebrate a budgeting system that gives the principals an incentive to hire younger, cheaper, inexperienced teachers, over more senior teachers that Bloomberg wants pushed out of the system.

The simple truth of the matter is that all of Bloomberg’s claims are counterintuitive. Numbers were manipulated in the service of his prejudices and ideology. The multiple reconfigurations of the state’s largest department actually destroyed institutional memory, and hence accountability.

State education laws regarding services are flouted with impunity. English language learners and more advanced ESL students are denied mandated instruction. The “litigate and be damned” attitude has defined the operatives at the Tweed Courthouse.

The only ones held culpable in Bloomberg’s education universe were the average teachers, and that was good enough for the pundits and Wall Street. But culpability should never be confused with accountability!

A young schoolgirl drowns on an improperly chaperoned field trip and the assistant principal who was supposed to go on the trip is let off the hook because he was busy with the school budget. Oh, there were no parental consent slips either.

Before Bloomberg, heads would have rolled possibly as high up as the chancellor, but for Joel Klein it was just another day at the beach.

A student becomes ill but is left unattended because there is no nurse in the building and the Dean’s office was instructed not to call 911 for fear that an emergency call would damage the school’s safety record being monitored in the new data driven accountability system.

It turns out the student suffered a stroke and was left permanently impaired. Her name disappeared from the enrollment list, and it was only because a lawsuit was brought against the city, and the illegal memo was leaked to the Daily News by someone in the school that the story saw the light of day.

An investigation was conducted. The chancellor promised a full report. But in Bloomberg’s universe, time heals all wounds. Nobody was held to account or lost their job. No report assigning responsibility was issued, and the city quietly settled the lawsuit.

Two weeks ago science experiment went terribly awry. All the facts aren’t in, but it appears all sorts of safety regulations were ignored.

But that’s to be expected when you have supervisors who haven’t been seasoned by years of experience or are petrified by honest reporting because they fear that bad news could lead to the demise of their school.

This has become a school system that simply can’t handle the truth. I’ve been writing about the schools for a decade, and for the first time my name has been sent to a conflicts of interest board about the content of my writing.

It’s not because I’ve become rich doing it, mind you. It’s because a thuggish ethos has became part of the DNA of the New York City schools and you speak your mind at your peril. Learning, inquiry, and dissent are being systematically flensed from the classroom and the schoolhouse in much the same manner it was done in totalitarian societies.

The net result is that the school system that Mayor de Blasio inherited is not a “mixed bag” of good innovations and things that need tinkering with, but a $25 billion dollar a year city department that is in a death spiral.

Large bureaucracies fight their battles with the tools they are given. Time and again history demonstrates that a bureaucracy can be bent to the will of the political forces running them in ways that are inimical to its mission and its very existence.

During the Korean War it seems that the generals running the war had far less intelligence capabilities at their disposal than they had when they were fighting WW II.

So what did they do?

An expert in army intelligence during this period once told me, “they fought the war they had with the tools that they were given. That’s the nature of bureaucratic organizations.”

Which brings me back to the New York City school system. My belief is that the breakdown in accountability, the widespread dissemination of doctored statistics, and the predisposition to hold the classroom teacher responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the schools has deeply compromised institutional memory. And without institutional memory, a bureaucracy of this breadth is doomed.

As a consequence, nothing short of a South African post-apartheid style commission that examines the past decade of mayoral control will suffice.

This is imperative because a well-funded chorus of writers and journalists continue to churn out a hagiography of the Bloomberg era, and portray it as a Golden Age of public education when all the evidence indicates that there has been no progress at great expense to the children and taxpayers of New York.

It should be composed on one level of well known people whose impartiality is beyond reproach and include representatives of all segments of the teaching, clerical, and administrative pool.

If the past 12 years are simply papered over, and Bloomberg’s gutting of the school system is treated as a “work in progress” that wasn’t completed because three terms as mayor didn’t give him enough time, then Farina and de Blasio will ensure that a once great system now at its tipping point, plunges over the public policy cliff.

Bruce Baker of Rutgers University is well known for his candor and scholarly acumen.

Here he dissects the new plan to destroy public education in Kansas City and shows what an outright farce it is.

He writes:

This past week, the good citizens of Kansas City and Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education were graced with one of the most vacuous manifestos on education reform I’ve read in a really long time. Yes, on my blog, I’ve pontificated about numerous other vacuous manifestos that often take the form of blog posts and op-eds which I suspect have little substantive influence over actual policies.

But this one is a little different. This report by an organization calling itself CEE, or Cities for Education Entrepreneurship Trust, in collaboration with Public Impact, is a bit more serious. No more credible, but more serious, in that it is assumed that state policymakers in Missouri might actually act on the report’s recommendations.

I’ve had the displeasure of reviewing several reports by Public Impact in the Past. Their standard fare is to establish a bold conclusion, and then cite (including self citation) materials that support – with no real validation- their forgone conclusion, cite other stuff that’s totally unrelated, and cite yet other stuff that doesn’t even exist. Thus, they are actually able to construct a report with a few graphs here and there and lots of footnotes, without ever validating a single major (albeit forgone) conclusion (see for example, this one, by the same author, under a different organizational umbrella, or this one).

Is the plan original? No, he says, it is the same old song, which has no research to support it, just a mountain of assertions and assumptions. Here goes:

Here’s a synopsis – call it an advanced organizer – of the story line crafted in the report:

  • Urban districts don’t work (and aren’t stable)
  • Kansas City is an urban district, therefore, it doesn’t work (even though we find it has stabilized)
  • Privately operated charter schools in Newark, New Jersey, New York City, Texas and New Orleans are producing miracles – yielding incredible graduation rates and high test scores while serving comparably low income and otherwise needy children (even though they really aren’t serving similar kids, and many have far more resources)
  • Thus, the same can – no must – work in Kansas City (even though it hasn’t)
  • Somewhat tangentially, decentralized financing – driving money to schools for site based control – is necessarily good (even though reviews of the research suggest otherwise)

Therefore, the only solution is to deconstruct the entire failed urban district, turn control over to a non-government authority which shall loosely govern a confederation of private non-profit entities that shall compete with one another for students, choose which market niche and geographic space within KC they wish to serve and be evaluated on the test scores and graduation rates they ultimately produce.

None of the assertions and assumptions are true, but so what? That is what it will take to tear apart the KC school district and hoax the fools who buy the story.

After a good deal of fascinating analysis of demography and statistics about results, Baker concludes:

While the authors of this report so confidently conclude that the obvious solution is to replace the failed urban district with an under-regulated, loosely governed confederation of benevolent non-profit actors, one might easily alternatively conclude from the evidence herein… that simply put, large scale chartering in urban centers like Kansas City simply doesn’t work. It never has and likely never will. It fails to serve the neediest children because “market forces” and accountability measures favor avoiding those children and the neighborhoods in which they live.

Further, large scale chartering leads to deprivation of important constitutional and statutory rights for children, primarily low income and minority children. Meanwhile, suburban white peers are not being asked to forgo constitutional protections in order to access elementary and secondary schooling.

Finally, large scale chartering has made far more opaque financial and governance accountability as governing institutions have created more complex private structures in order to shield their operations, records and documents from full public view.

EduShyster surveys the emerging controversies across the land and makes some bold and somewhat nutty predictions for 2014.

The National Education Policy Center has released the names of the winners of its annual Bunkum awards, which recognizes the most glaring exemplars of Bunkum, hokum, spin, and hype in the world of education research. Included in the link is a YouTube video in which the distinguished researcher David Berliner announces the winners. Be it noted that the Brookings Institution, once esteemed for the quality of its research, was awarded the Grand Prize for “the shoddiest educational research of 2013.” Be it noted that the director of Brookings’ education research program is Grover Whitehurst, former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences in the administration of President George W. Bush.

Please go to the link to find the links for all the winners of the Bunkum awards.

Here is the NEPC press release.

Bunkum Awards 2013

This marks our eighth year of handing out the Bunkum Awards, recognizing the lowlights in educational research over the past year. As long as the bunk keeps flowing, the awards will keep coming. It’s the least we can do. This year’s deserving awardees join a pantheon of divine purveyors of weak data, shoddy analyses, and overblown recommendations from years past. Congratulations, we guess—to whatever extent congratulations are due.

2013 Bunkum Honorees:

The ‘Do You Believe in Miracles?’ Award
To Public Agenda for Review of Failure Is Not an Option
Read Review →

The “Do You Believe in Miracles?” Award goes to the Public Agenda Foundation for Failure is Not an Option: How Principals, Teachers, Students and Parents from Ohio’s High-Achieving, High-Poverty Schools Explain Their Success

A particularly egregious disservice is done by reports designed to convince readers that investment in disadvantaged communities can be ignored. In this increasingly common mythology, students’ substandard outcomes are blamed on teachers and schools that don’t follow the miracle-laden path of exceptional schools.

Early in 2013, we sent a report of this genre out for review. The authors of this report, from Public Agenda, identified nine Ohio schools where “failure is not an option.” The report’s basic claim was that certain school-based policies and programs can by themselves overcome the impact of poverty on student performance. Among the earth-shaking recommendations were: “Engage teachers,” “Leverage a great reputation,” “Be careful about burnout,” and “Celebrate success.”

While these seem like good practices and have indeed been pursued since the time when the report’s authors were in kindergarten, it’s hard to see how they will lead to miracles. Miracles are hard to come by and even harder to sustain. In fact, notwithstanding the report’s title, four of the nine selected schools had poverty rates at the state average and thus not particularly high-poverty schools.

While it may be easy to laugh at the idea that the recommended approaches will somehow overcome the effects of unemployment, bad health care, sub-standard living conditions and the like, it is also an outrageous neglect of the fundamental social needs and problems of neighborhoods, families and children. The truth that these reports hide is that school failure will almost always prevail in a society that will not invest in disadvantaged communities and the families who live there.

The ‘We’re Pretty Sure We Could Have Done More with $45 Million’ Award
To Gates Foundation for Two Culminating Reports from the MET Project
Read Review →

The “We’re Pretty Sure We Could Have Done More with $45 Million” Award goes to the Gates Foundation and its Measures of Effective Teaching Project.

We think it important to recognize whenever so little is produced at such great cost. The MET researchers gathered a huge data base reporting on thousands of teachers in six cities. Part of the study’s purpose was to address teacher evaluation methods using randomly assigned students. Unfortunately, the students did not remain randomly assigned and some teachers and students did not even participate. This had deleterious effects on the study–limitations that somehow got overlooked in the infinite retelling and exaggeration of the findings.

When the MET researchers studied the separate and combined effects of teacher observations, value-added test scores, and student surveys, they found correlations so weak that no common attribute or characteristic of teacher-quality could be found. Even with 45 million dollars and a crackerjack team of researchers, they could not define an “effective teacher.” In fact, none of the three types of performance measures captured much of the variation in teachers’ impacts on conceptually demanding tests. But that didn’t stop the Gates folks, in a reprise from their 2011 Bunkum-winning ways, from announcing that they’d found a way to measure effective teaching nor did it deter the federal government from strong-arming states into adoption of policies tying teacher evaluation to measures of students’ growth.

The ‘It’s Just Not Fair to Expect PowerPoints to Be Based on Evidence’ Award
To Achievement School District and Recovery School District for Building the Possible: The Achievement School District’s Presentation in Milwaukee & The Recovery School District’s Presentation in Milwaukee
Read Review →

The “It’s Just Not Fair to Expect PowerPoints to Be Based on Evidence” Award goes to Elliot Smalley of Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Patrick Dobard of the Louisiana Recovery School District.

For years, Jeb Bush’s “Florida Miracle” has been unmatched as the most bountiful wellspring of misleading education reform information. But Florida and Jeb have now been overtaken by the Louisiana Recovery School District, which serves the nation as the premier incubator of spurious claims about education reform and, in particular, the performance of “recovery school districts,” take-overs, portfolio districts, and charter schools.

Superintendent Patrick Dobard has taken his suitcase of PowerPoints on the road, touting the Recovery School District’s performance. Nothing has stood in his way. Not the dramatic post-Katrina change in student composition. Not the manipulation of student achievement standards in ways that inflate performance outcomes. Not the unique influx of major funds from foundations, the federal government and billionaires. And not the unaccounted-for effects of a plethora of other relevant factors.

But Dobard is not alone. Elliot Smalley, the chief of staff for the Achievement School District in Memphis, flexed his PowerPoints to show his school district’s “Level 5 Growth.” This certainly sounds impressive—substantially more impressive, for instance, than, say, Level 3 Growth. But this growth scale is unfortunately not explained in the PowerPoint itself. What we can say is that a particular school picked by Smalley to demonstrate the district’s positive reform effects may not have been a good choice, since the overall reading and math scores at that school went down. Picky researchers might also argue that more than seven schools should be studied for more than two years before shouting “Hosannah!”

As was the case with the Florida Miracle, the Bunkum Award here is not for the policy itself—serious researchers are very interested in understanding the reform processes and outcomes in these places. Rather, the Bunkum is found in the slick sales jobs being perpetrated with only a veneer of evidence and little substance backing the claims made.

The ‘Look Mom! I Gave Myself an ‘A’ on My Report Card!’ Award
Second Runner-up: To StudentsFirst for State Policy Report Card
Read Review →

First Runner-up: To American Legislative Exchange Council for Report Card on American Education:
 Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform
Read Review →

Grand Prize Winner: To Brookings Institution for The Education Choice and Competition Index
Read Review →

and for School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools
Read Review →

Back in the old days, when people thought they had a good idea, they would go through the trouble of carefully explaining the notion, pointing to evidence that it worked to accomplish desired goals, demonstrating that it was cost effective, and even applying the scientific method! But that was then, and this is now. And some of the coolest kids have apparently decided to take a bit of a shortcut: They simply announce that all their ideas are fantastic, and then decorate them in a way that suggests an evidence-based judgment. Witness the fact that we are now swimming in an ocean of report cards and grades whereby A’s are reserved for those who adopt the unproven ideas of the cool kids. Those who resist adopting these unproven ideas incur the wrath of the F-grade.

It’s apparently quite a fun little game. The challenge is to create a grading system that reflects the unsubstantiated policy biases of the rater while getting as many people as possible to believe that it’s legitimately based on social science. The author of the rating scheme that dupes the most policy makers wins!

This year, there are triple-winners of the “Look Mom! I gave myself an ‘A’ on my report card!” award, including our Grand Prize Winner for 2013!

Second Runner-up goes to StudentsFirst, which came up with 24 measures based on the organization’s advocacy for school choice, test-based accountability and governance changes. Unfortunately, the think tank’s “State Policy Report Card” never quite gets around to justifying these measures with research evidence linking them to desired student outcomes. Apparently, they are grounded in revealed truth unseen or unseeable to lesser mortals. Evidence, though, has never been a requirement for these report card grades. And naturally the award-winning states embrace the raters’ subjective values. In a delightful expose, our reviewers demonstrated that the 50 states received dramatically different grades from a variety of recent report cards: a given state often received a grade of “A” on one group’s list and an “F” on another group’s list.

First Runner-up goes to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which almost took the top honors as the most shameful of a bad lot. What makes the ALEC report card particularly laughable is the Emperor’s-clothes claim that its grades are “research-based.” Yes, evidence-based or research-based report card grades would be most welcome, but all ALEC offers is a compilation of cherry-picked contentions from other advocacy think tanks. Thus, what is put forth as scientifically based school choice research is actually selective quotations from school-choice advocacy organizations such as Fordham, Friedman and the Alliance for School Choice. Similarly, the report’s claims about the benefits of alternate teacher certification in attracting higher quality candidates are based on only one paper showing higher value-added scores. Unfortunately, that paper was unpublished—and the report’s reference section led to a dead link.

This year’s Grand Prize Winner is the Brookings Institution and its Brown Center on Education Policy. Brookings has worked hard over the years to build a reputation for sound policy work. But, at least in terms of its education work, it is well on its way to trashing that standing with an onslaught of publications such as their breathtakingly fatuous choice and competition rating scale that can best be described as political drivel. It is based on 13 indicators that favor a deregulated, scaled-up school choice system, and the indicators are devoid of any empirical foundation suggesting these attributes might produce better education.

Since the mere construction of this jaundiced and unsupported scale would leave us all feeling shortchanged, Brookings has also obliged its audience with an application of its index to provide an “evaluation” of New York City’s choice system. Where an informative literature review would conventionally be presented, the authors of this NYC report touchingly extoll the virtues of school choice. They then claim that “gains” in NYC were due to school choice while presenting absolutely nothing to support this causal claim. And, following from this claim and from their exquisite choice and competition rating scale, they offer the expected recommendations. They almost literally give themselves an “A.”

Seldom do we see such a confluence of self-assured hubris and unsupported assertions. It’s hard to find words that capture this spectacular display except to say, “Congratulations, Brookings! You just won the Bunkum’s Grand Prize for shoddiest educational research for 2013.”

StudentsFirst, the organization created by Michelle Rhee to promote her ideas about fixing schools by high-stakes testing and choice, has issued its second state-by-state report card.

The highest scoring states are not those whose students have the highest achievement on NAEP; that would be Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

No, the highest scoring states are those that do what Rhee did in D.C., the nation’s lowest-scoring district on NAEP.

She awards points for “elevating the teaching profession,” which means tying evaluations of teachers and principals to test scores, eliminating teacher tenure, eliminating collective bargaining, awarding bonuses to teachers whose students get higher test scores, and opening teaching jobs to teachers who have no certification or other credentials. In other words, the way to “elevate the teaching profession” is to make teachers into temporary workers whose job depends on the test scores of their students and to lower standards for entry into teaching. I wish that whoever defined this category would read the research on value-added methodology (VAM), like here and here. Tying teacher and principal evaluations leads to narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, and CHEATING.

She awards points for “empowering parents,” which means that a state gets higher scores if it offers charters and vouchers and has a parent trigger so that parents can hand their public school over to a charter corporation. Of course, the report offers no research to support these recommendations since voucher schools do not outperform neighborhood public schools-their advocates, nor do charters, on average. Some charters get higher test scores, because they enroll motivated students who apply. Others get high scores because they exclude students with disabilities and English learners. But on average, there is not much difference in outcomes between public schools and charter schools. The “parent trigger” has thus far–in its four years as state law in California–converted one public school to charter status and fired one principal.

Her third priority–spending wisely and well–promotes governance by the state and mayoral control. In other words, states get a plus if they override or preferably abolish local school boards.

The highest scoring states: Louisiana: #1; Florida (#2); Indiana (#3); Rhode Island (#4); D.C. (#5).

How did the highest performing states in the nation do on the StudentsFirst report card:

Massachusetts: (first in nation on NAEP): D (#21 on Rhee’s report card);

New Jersey: (tied for second place in the nation on NAEP): D (#31 on Rhee’s report card);

Connecticut (tied for second in the nation on NAEP): D+ (#24 on Rhee’s report card).

It is ironic that an organization that wants states to rank teachers, students, and schools in relation to student test scores issues a report card that evaluates states without any reference to student test scores.

Clearly, the rankings have nothing whatever to do with any academic outcomes for students. These are the states that comes closest to complying with Michelle Rhee’s ideological preferences: privatization and dismantling the teaching profession.

MEDIA ALERT: TUESDAY FORUM
PARENTS DEMAND HALT TO CHARTER EXPANSION-

Community Organizations across Chicago Urge CPS to Vote Against Proposed Charter Expansion and Refocus on Protection/Funding of Neighborhood Schools

What: Following the closure of 50 neighborhood schools due to budget and a so-called “underutilization crisis,” parents and community members are furious at the proposal for the creation of 21 new charter schools, which will come up for vote at the School Board on January 22nd – bringing the total numbers of potential new CPS charter schools to 31 in the next two years.

Held in the Brighton Park community, this public forum will bring together community groups, area professors, parents and students from around the city to shed light on the facts surrounding rapid charter proliferation and the harm it is causing to district schools. The forum will address action steps to halt this expansion.

Date: Tuesday, January 14
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Shields Middle School, 2611 W. 48th Street

Why: Despite tremendous CPS budget cuts, a one billion dollar deficit and the recent closing of 50 neighborhood schools, the Board is planning to vote to open up to 31 new charter schools in the next two years. Parents and community members are outraged as neighborhood schools continue to receive funding cuts that have forced elimination of critical teaching and support positions as well as fundamental education programming.

Topics will include:
· Charter impact on special education
· Financing issues and lack of transparency with charter budgets
· Academic performance of charters vs. neighborhood schools

Speakers and supporters to include:
· Students who have been counseled out of charters will offer testimony.
· Researchers:
· Members from the following organizations will be present: Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Albany Park Neighborhood Council, Blocks Together, Raise Your Hand, Parents4Teachers, Teachers for Social Justice,

Contact: If you plan to attend this event or have any questions, please contact Wendy Katten at 773-704-0336, wkatten@yahoo.com.

Amy Smolensky
amysmolensky@comcast.net
312-485-0053

Mercedes Schneider, who teaches high school English in Louisiana, saw a photo of an ominous 5-story-high billboard in Times Square, New York City, attacking teachers’ unions. She knew who paid for the ad: the so-called Center for Union Facts. Schneider had already written about this corporate public relations firm, and the billboard got her thinking about who might have funded this particular hit job.

I might add that CUF, which has access to very few actual “facts” but a huge supply of vitriol, is also running radio ads on local stations in New York City, attacking the teachers’ union, blaming the union for low test scores, and calling for merit pay and other non-solutions. Its goal, as I wrote earlier, is to demonize the unions. Its own “solutions” are not research-based. Its goal is to destroy collective bargaining.