Archives for the month of: March, 2014

The board of Los Angeles Unified School District amended the contract of Superintendent John Deasy and set new goals.

“Deasy originally accepted the job in 2009 with the understanding that he would be able to advance his own aggressive reforms. These included revamping teacher evaluations to include student test scores as one measure of effectiveness. Deasy also has pushed, with limited success, to conduct layoffs based on performance rather than seniority.

“Deasy’s revised contract drops the superintendent’s previous goals related to student achievement because the state is moving to a new exam and won’t provide scores.

“Despite incremental progress, the district has fallen short of most of Deasy’s targets, which experts have characterized as ambitious. Deasy, for example, was never able to earn a $10,000 bonus by increasing the percentage of ninth-graders proficient in algebra by 8 points.

“Instead, Deasy will be required to submit a plan for increasing revenue for schools by June 30. He’s also charged with increasing enrollment by 5% a year; that strategy also will be required by June 30.”

This requires Deasy to compete with charters to hold on to students.

“The enrollment target is intended to blunt growth at independently operated charter schools. The loss of students to charter schools and for other reasons has resulted in reduced funding for district operations.

Boosting enrollment could be difficult because numbers are trending the other way. From 2009 to 2013, enrollment in L.A. Unified’s campuses has dropped 11% to 567,150.

“Charters are in direct competition for our enrollment,” said school board member Steve Zimmer. “Anyone who doesn’t recognize that is not in contact with reality. One thing we ask for in this contract is that we compete.”

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy here contrasts the governing structure of public schools and charter schools. The implicit questions: how transparent is their governing structure? How “public” are charter schools?

“Governance of school districts compared to governance of charter schools.

“School district board members are visible and scrutinized when they run for a seat on the board. They are visible and accessible to the public at well-publicized board meetings and on a 24/7 basis in their respective communities. The Secretary of State provides pertinent information about school district board members on a published statewide roster. This accountability and transparency of the lives and actions of board members are appropriate and essential.

“But, what is the level of accountability and transparency of charter school board members? No statewide roster. In some school communities, one-fourth or more of the students are enrolled in charter schools, but there is no community-wide roster of charter school board members.

“Three new board members in Columbus were recently featured in a front page story in The Dispatch. Although, about one-fourth of the students in Columbus City School District attend charter schools, there have been no front page stories about charter school board members. These individuals have little or no visibility in the community. In many charter school cases, board members are mere figureheads. Hence, who is accountable to whom?

“The governance structure in the charter school kingdom is obscure. Who is held accountable for the use of funds and the academic rating of charter schools? The State Department of Education? The sponsors? The charter school board members? The education management company? The stockholders in the for-profit companies? The executive of the education management company? The board of directors of the education management companies? The charter school principal or site manager? Who? Who?

“Who appoints charter school board members? The sponsors? The management company? The charter school employees? Public school districts give up funds and students to private operations over which the community school districts have no control. The only public aspect of charter schools is public funds. Period.”

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

This email was sent by ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net |

Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

This new blogger dissects Gerald Graff’s defense of the Common Core standards,and his second post says that I can learn a lot from Saul Alinsky.

The writer is a former high school teacher, who taught for many years in the Chicago public s hools.

Among other trenchant comments, he writes about Graff:

“Graff reduces education reform to a set of standards, but he’s not alone in doing so. He’s in good (loathsome?) company. In fact, he can now join the ranks of a long list of so-called education reformers, including our own Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, for whom the idea of actually teaching in our most difficult schools seems absurd. (His claim to his current post rests on the fact that his mother was a teacher.) This brings to mind a quip that made the rounds during the last CPS teacher strike: Those who can, teach. Those who can’t, pass laws (or write essays) about teaching.

“Of course, such a stance begs the question: How might Graff (or Gates or Duncan) feel if a group of folks, say a handful of successful people from outside their institution were to hijack their department or business or institution and tell them how they aught to run things? To take this a step further, why not apply the same logic that Graff deploys in his response to Ravitch to his own English department at UIC? According to Graff, in his own courses at UIC he sees evidence that the American education system has done little for “the great majority of students who are essentially confused about how to do academic work, about how to analyze a text and summarize its argument, or about how to make an argument of one’s own.” Then why doesn’t he simply compel his colleagues to raise their standards? Why doesn’t he just raise his own standards, for that matter?”

And in his advice to me, he knows I despise the “reformers'” efforts to disrupt the schools to impose their ideological and commercial agenda. So he writes:

“When it comes to creative disruption in our schools, though, I disagree with Ravitch. I understand that there’s a place and a time for stability in school; I understand that teachers and students need a space where they can think for themselves about their lives and decide what to learn and what to do. But now is not the time to dutifully follow the mandates in order to preserve some sense of stability and calm. It’s precisely because of the current instability in our schools that we have an opportunity to turn the tables on these reformers. By creating more disruptions, more chaos, and more upheaval, we can reset the reform agenda.

“And, this is the lesson of Alinsky. He reminds us that disorganizing communities can be a powerful tool; it’s exactly what so-called reformers like Arne Duncan, David Coleman, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Kline have been doing to teachers across the country. These people are disorganizing our schools and communities. They are running actions against us in order to make us feel powerless and disorganized. And, what’s worse, it isn’t just another empty exercise: this is real. They’re trying to change education forever. They want to hijack and narrow the curriculum. They want to give away public education to private corporations. They want to debase and deskill the profession of teaching. And, they want to reduce education to a test score.

“We can change this. Now is the time to organize and occupy our schools in order to disrupt and destabilize current reform efforts. We can go on the offensive—one grounded in creative disruptions that we design and produce. We can construct our own chaos and upheaval in ways that compel education reformers to stop what they’re doing and start listening to the people most affected by their decisions. And, as Diane Nash reminds us, we can opt out; we can refuse to participate in our own oppression.

“Only after we create enough disruption can we (students, teachers, parents, and community members) then demand the right to develop our own standards: ones that best address the needs, desires and aspirations of our communities, rather than the desires and aspirations of corporations and private foundations. Only then can we create stable schools that foster creativity and innovation, rather than conformity and obedience. Only then can we create schools that take as their starting point that building great schools and communities are reciprocal projects, not separate ones.”

Paul Thomas is not impressed by the ballyhoo over the redesign of the SAT.

He predicts that it will continue to be a test that stratifies students by family income and that means far less than the students’ grade point average. He says that the SAT is “possibly the oldest and longest running education scam.”

He writes:

“…this reboot is just another publicity move by the College Board/SAT that falls in line with recent history: the mid-1990s re-centering (scores were dropping due to the testing pool changing and thus the SAT was getting bad press), the expansion in 2005 (the University of California caused a stir by calling for opting out of the SAT and thus the SAT was getting bad press), and now the 2016 reboot (the ACT surpassed the SAT in number of students taking the exam and thus the SAT was getting bad press).

“There simply has never been and will never be a way to justify the time and expense needed to implement single-sitting standardized tests in pursuit of doing something for which we already have rich, credible, and free data (GPA) to guide decisions about students entering higher education.

“The relentless faith in the SAT (and ACT) in the U.S. is trapped inside a misguided belief in objectivity—even though standardized tests have been shown repeatedly to perpetuate biases related to class, race, and gender.”

Two Congressmen–a Democrat and a Republican–proposed legislation to cut back on federally mandated testing.

This is great news!

The legislation was immediately endorsed by the NEA.

“Today the National Education Association endorsed HR-4172, introduced last week by Reps. Chris Gibson (R-NY) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). The bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to change the number of federally mandated standardized tests state would be required to administer under the current law, eliminating annual testing and replacing it with grade-span testing (or testing once over a certain span of grades.)

“According to Rep. Gibson: “In the decade since No Child Left Behind was signed into law the focus in education has shifted from teaching to testing. But data shows the current testing regime established in No Child Left Behind has not led to higher standards. Teachers are spending more time preparing students to take tests and less time educating, while students are spending more time taking tests and less time learning.”

“The NEA’s leadership agrees. The organization today issued a lengthy endorsement of the legislation, praising the bill’s sponsors and slamming high-stakes standardized testing as harmful to students and detrimental to education.”

Write or call or email your Congressman and Senators and urge them to support HR-4172.

End the failed mandates of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

If you want to learn about the growing movement to opt students out of mandated state and federal testing, go to this meeting in Denver.

Parents, scholars, and educators will convene in one of the nation’s most test-driven, test-obsessed cities and states, where the fate of teachers, principals, and schools depends on standardized test scores, a law foolishly enacted without any evidence at all in 2010. Test scores in Colorado counts for 50% of educator evaluations due to SB191, one of the worst laws in the nation (though by no means unique). In typical “deform” style, the law promises that it will produce “great teachers and great schools” by firing educators whose students don’t get ever higher test scores.

Where is the evidence? Read this summary of the research by Professor Edward Haertel, emeritus, from Stanford University, in an address to the Educational Testing Service. Please note that he concludes that “value-added measures” (the rise or fall of test scores) should not count for a set percentage of any teacher’s evaluation because they are too inaccurate and unstable.

He is measured and polite.

Another way to describe test-based accountability is “junk science.”

Baker Mitchell opened a new K-2 for-profit charter in North Carolina that projected enrollment of 225. Only 33 students are enrolled. The law requires that any school enrolling less than 65 must close.

The state’s charter advisory board unanimously gave the school a waiver so it can have more time to find students. Baker Mitchell is a member of that board. He recused himself from the decision but didn’t leave the room.

“Helen Nance, chair of the Charter School Advisory Board, observed the fact that with the waiver, Douglass would essentially be allowed to operate for two full school years while not having to comply with the statutory 65 student minimum.

“If they don’t have that many students by the end of October, the process takes several months…and in essence you’re saying they can stay open a second year,” said Nance.

“Joel Medley, director of the Office of Charter Schools, cautioned against setting this kind of precedent going forward for future applicants, noting that waivers granted in the past only involved geographically isolated schools and schools serving students with special needs.”

…….

“Mitchell, who has collected in the neighborhood of $16 million in taxpayer funds over the past five years for managing two other charter schools in southeastern North Carolina, is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. Details of the case have not been made public.

“Edward Pruden, Superintendent for Brunswick County Schools, theorizes that the investigation has to do with improper enrollment practices. Boosting enrollment numbers would direct more state funding to Mitchell’s charter schools.”

The state charter advisory board has 11 members. Nine of the 11 are charter school founders, administrators, or board members. The 10th operates five Sylvan Learning Centers. The 11th is a lawyer.

– See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/03/11/charter-school-advisory-board-recommends-a-waiver-for-douglass-academy-wilmington-charter-with-low-enrollment/#sthash.qa1HmrWC.dpuf

The Philadelphia public school district is being aggressively starved of resources by Governor Corbett and the Legislature, and its Broad-trained superintendent now proposes to shrink the district still farther to save money. He is offering parents a choice of converting to charter status or remaining in the district, where they cannot count on having a library, a school nurse, reasonable class sizes, the arts, basic supplies, or anything else. Thousands of teachers, school aides, nurses, social workers, and nurses have been laid off. This is reform-by-attrition. Last fall, a 12-year-old child died of an asthma attack in her public school in Philadelphia because there was no school nurse on duty that day, due to Corbett’s budget cuts.

Before Superintendent William Hite offers to turn more students over to charters, he should conduct an investigation of the charters and their records. Philadelphia was the first city to try a massive experiment in privatization in the early part of this century, an experiment that failed because the district schools outperformed the privately managed ones. Nearly a score of Philadelphia charters have been investigated by federal authorities for various kinds of misdeeds. What is their record? Who do they accept? Who do they refuse?

This is another sorry chapter in the ongoing privatization of American public education. A superintendent selected by an unelected board–a board appointed by the state–turning over more schools to private management.

Peter Greene here respectfully disagrees with an advocate for the Commin Core.

He shares the same goals: to have students actively engaged, to encourage creativity and innovation, to promote “nuance, individuality and freedom,” to downplay bubble tests, etc., but Greene says that Common Core will advance none of these goals.

Are standards good in and of themselves? Greene says it depends.

Read on.

Sometimes it seems that the purpose of the false reform movement is to keep us diverted from the center ring, where America’s public schools are being starved of the resources they need while expected to do more and produce ever higher test scores.

While we battle rearguard actions to stop the attack on teachers and the escalating demands for more testing, elected officials defend privatization and implement tax caps (see Cuomo, Andrew, exhibit A).

Yet not all common sense has departed our fair land! In Kansas, the state’s high court ruled that the state must spend more on its schools.

“TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas must spend more money on its public schools, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday in a decision that could jeopardize Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s desire to make his state a tax-cutting template for the nation.

“The high court’s ruling, which found that Kansas’ school funding isn’t constitutional, came in a 2010 lawsuit filed by parents and school districts. Instead of balking, Brownback and other leaders of the state’s GOP-dominated government said they were pleased because the decision stopped short of telling legislators exactly how much the state must spend on its schools overall, leaving that responsibility to a lower court.

“It was not an unreasonable decision,” Senate President Susan Wagle said. Republican leaders also believe the court left the Legislature substantial leeway in providing adequate aid to poor school districts and pledged to get it done before the session adjourns in late April or early May.

“Education advocates and attorneys for the parents and school districts saw the decision as a rebuke to the GOP-led state and in line with past court decisions that strongly and specifically laid out how much needed to be allocated to provide adequate education for every child.

“This decision is an important one in sending a message to states across the nation that need to reform their financing systems to get their house in order,” said David Sciarra, executive director of the Newark, N.J.-based Education Law Center, which filed a brief in the Kansas case.”

We are a country that likes flowery rhetoric about education and children, yet is unwilling to take care of our children, nearly a quarter of whom live in poverty and unwilling to fund our schools equitably so that all public schools have the resources they need.