Archives for the month of: April, 2014

Reader Michael Fiorillo deciphers the corporate reformers’ game plan:

The Final Solution to the Teacher Question:

– Proclaim austerity for the public schools, while continuing to expand charters.

– Create incentives for non-educators to be in positions of power, from Assistant Principal on up.

– Maintain a climate of scapegoating and witch hunting for “bad teachers,” who are posited as the cause of poverty and student failure, doing everything possible to keep debate from addressing systemic inequities.

– Neutralize and eventually eliminate teacher unions (the first part largely accomplished in the case of the AFT). As part of that process, eliminate tenure, seniority and defined benefit pensions.

– Create and maintain a climate of constant disruption and destabilization, with cascading mandates that are impossible to keep up or comply with.

– Create teacher evaluations based on Common Core-related high stakes tests for which no curriculum has been developed. Arbitrarily impose cut scores on those exams that cast students, teachers and schools as failing, as was done by NYS Education Commissioner John King and Regent Meryl Tisch.

– Get teachers and administrators, whether through extortion (see RttT funding) threats or non-stop propaganda, to accept the premises of “data-driven” everything, even when that data is irrelevant, opaque, contradictory, or just plain wrong.

– Get everyone to internalize the premises and language of so-called education reform:

– Parents are not citizens with rights, but “customers” who are provided “choices”
that are in fact restricted to the decisions of those in charge, based on policies
developed by an educational industrial complex made up of foundations,
McKinsey-type consultants and captive academics.

– Students are “valuable assets” and “products,” whose value is to be enhanced
(see the definition of VAM) before being offered to employers.

– Teachers are fungible units of “human capital,” to be deployed as policy-makers
and management see fit. Since human capital depreciates over time, it
needs to be replaced by fresh capital, branded as “the Best and Brightest.”

– Schools are part of an investment “portfolio,” explicitly including the real estate
they inhabit, and are subject to the “demands” of the market and the preferences
of policy-makers and management.

– Create an intimidating, punitive environment, where the questions and qualms are either disregarded or responded to with threats.

– Get the university education programs on board under threat of continuing attack. Once they are on board, go after them anyway, and deregulate the teacher licensing process so that it’s easier to hire temps.

– Eliminate instruction that is deemed irrelevant to the most narrowly-cast labor market needs of employers, getting rid of art, music, dance, electives, etc., thereby reducing the focus of education to preparation for passive acceptance of low-wage employment.

– Embed software and electronic gadgets in every facet of the classroom and school, from reading to test-taking, with the intention of automating as much classroom input and output as possible.

– Use the automation of the classroom to enlarge class size – something explicitly promoted by Bill Gates – and transform teachers into overseers of student digital production that is connected to massive databases, so that every keystroke is data to be potentially monetized.

– Cash your bonus checks, exercise your stock options, and declare Excellence and Civil Rights achieved.

Readers if this blog have long known that the Billionaires Boys Club has pledged its allegiance to the privatization of American public education. Among the Billionaires Boys Club, we include the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foubdation, the Walton Family Foundatioon, and hedge fund managers. They are allied with ALEC and other rightwing “think” tanks, all of which are in live with charters and vouchers.

Motoko Rich wrote in Saturday’s Néw York Times about the dedication of the vastly wealthy Walton Family Foundation. The Waltons do not like public education. They do not like unions. They like charters and vouchers. They spend $160 million every year to spread the gospel of privatization and to destroy the public schools that are the heart of most communities.

With their support, the US is recreating a dual school system: one that chooses its students and the other that accepts all. Further, they have got the media cheering for segregated schools, determined as the Waltons are to establish the success of all-black schools.

They use their vast wealth not to pay their workers a living wage but to destroy their communities, killing off mom and pop stores, and destroying their local public school, replacing it with a corporate chain school.

Altogether a great triumph for the cold and mean face of American capitalism, which cares not at all for family , community, tradition, or humane values.

Philadelphia has experienced a long string of charter school failures.

Here is another one, in trouble both financially and academically.

Yet The business and civic leadership, egged on by the Boston Consulting Group, wants to close more public schools and open more charter schools.

Haven’t they figured out that deregulation and lack of supervision are not strategies for education reform, but opportunities for malfeasance?

Despite the fact that major scholarly organizations have debunked value-added measurement as a way of identifying and quantifying teacher quality, there are still a few lonely defenders of VAM.

There is the U.S. Department of Education, which bet nearly $5 billion on VAM.

There is the Gates Foundation, which has bet hundreds of millions on VAM.

There are stragglers here and there.

And then there is the Center for American Progress, which says that despite all the research to the contrary, they are sticking with VAM.

Just a few weeks ago, the American Statistical Association stuck a pin in the VAM bubble.

The National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association had earlier expressed their skepticism about the utility of VAM.

Nonetheless, the CAP still wants to believe. They really truly want to believe, no matter what the statisticians and researchers say.

Probably they are just showing their loyalty to Arne Duncan and the Obama administration.

So Audrey Amrein-Beardsley decided to stick a pin in CAP’s ideological bubble. 

She writes:

Their research is notably a small subset of the actual research out there on VAMs, research that was used to rightfully construct the aforementioned position statement released by the ASA, and research that for decades has evidenced that teachers account for, or can be credited for, approximately 10% of the variance in student test scores, while the other 90% is typically due to factors outside of teachers’ control.

Regardless, while the Center for American Progress briefly acknowledges this, they spin this into their solution: The reason this percentage is so low is because we have not yet been accounting for growth in student achievement over time; that is, via value-added models (VAMs). In other words, using more sophisticated models of measurements (i.e., VAMs) will help to illuminate the “real” results we know are out there, but simply have not been able to capture given our archaic models of measurement and teacher accountability.

Not to worry, though, as they write that these “[n]ew measures of teacher effectiveness, determined by evidence of teacher practice and improvements in student achievement, are now available [emphasis added] and provide strong markers for assessing teaching quality and the equitable distribution of the most capable teachers.”

CAP wants to believe in VAM, therefore it does believe in VAM, no matter what the evidence may show.

This should be laughable but this skit, she says, is not funny.

 

 

It is curious that duo many supporters of the Common Core standards want choice among schools but celebrate the standardization and lack of choice among suppliers of education materials. They want to multiply choices of schools while standardizing learning and standing back while only two, perhaps three at most, mega-publishers create nearly identical products for the nation’s students and schools.

Robert Shepherd posted a comment about the death of competition in the marketplace for educational materials. Consolidation started years ago as large companies bought up small companies, and as small companies found they were financially unable to compete with the giant corporations. Those trends have accelerated to the point where only two or three corporations control the education publishing industry. He wonders if anyone cares. I say yes, but no one knows how to stop this monopolizing trend. We feel powerless. To whom do we direct our complaints? This is not an oversight. Creating a national marketplace for vendors of goods and services was an explicit purpose of Race to the Top.

Joanne Weiss, who was Arne Duncan’s chief of staff and who directed Race to the Top, wrote in The Harvard Business Review:

“The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.

“In this new market, it will make sense for teachers in different regions to share curriculum materials and formative assessments. It will make sense for researchers to mine data to learn which materials and teaching strategies are effective for which students – and then feed that information back to students, teachers, and parents.”

This may explain why so many major corporations are enthusiastic about the Common Core. It promises them a national market for their products and bring America’s schools into the national economy, where consolidation reigns. Walmart wins, Amazon wins, Google wins, small-scale enterprises lose and disappear.

Robert Shepherd writes:

“I am despairing of anyone’s paying any attention to the consequences for markets in educational materials on the CC$$ and of inBloom.

“Perhaps we have become so used to people using political influence to fix markets in this country that they simply don’t think twice when they see another instance of this. Is that the problem? Or is it that people don’t understand why these dramatically reduce the number of players in the educational materials market? Or are people just fine with having a couple of all-powerful providers of educational materials and with having all the little companies go under. Maybe people are OK with curricula from the educational equivalent of McDonalds or Walmart or Microsoft.

“Even on this blog, when I post about these matters, there is very, very little, if any, response.

“When I started in the educational publishing business years ago, there were 30 companies competing with one another. When the teachers at a school got together to decide what book they wanted to use, there were many, many options. Now, there are three big providers that have almost the entire market. What were previously competing companies are now separate imprints from one company.

“And the CC$$ creates ENORMOUS economies of scale for those few remaining publishers, making it almost impossible for any other publisher to compete with them.

“And inBloom creates a single monopolistic gateway through which computer-adaptive online materials must pass. A private monopoly created by the state.

“Are people OK with this? Where are the articles and essays and speeches about these issues from those opposed to Education Deform? One can understand the silence from the deformers–they created these deforms precisely in order to ensure their monopoly positions. But . . . but . . . why the deafening silence from the other side?

Lace to the Top, an activist group of educators and parents in New York opposed to high-stakes testing, became curious about the appearance of certain commercial products on the state’s mandated exams.

Edith Balthazar, a New York City public school parent and freelance editor, thought the product placements were too blatant to be an accident.

The exams were created by Pearson, the giant British publishing company.

Imagine! An American Girl doll with a Pearson textbook in her backpack!

Typically, publishers’ guidelines for test development prohibit any mention of commercial products.

Members of Lace to the Top did some research and found ties between Pearson and the products placed in its exams.

Were the references to these products mere coincidence or advertising?

If their research is wrong, I hope that representatives of Pearson will contact me so I can correct the record.

The NCAA recently announced that it would not recognize credits from 24 virtual charters, all run by K12. One of them is the Ohio Virtual Academy.

Bill Phillis of the Ohio Equity and Adequacy Coslition writes:

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): Will not accept credits from Ohio Virtual Academy after 2013-2014 school year

The credits from Ohio Virtual Academy, (OVA) operated by Michael Milken’s K-12, Inc., will no longer be accepted by the NCAA. (Michael Milken is the former “junk bond” guy). This year, OVA is extracting $85,171,828.28 from Ohio schools for students whose credits will no longer be accepted by the NCAA.

Why did the Governor, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education and the legislature not discover this fraudulent educational programming before the NCAA did? The report card of OVA has been available to these state officials for several years.

By the way, the CEO of K-12, Inc. had been paid in the range of $4-5 million annually before leaving the job a few months ago. This was in addition to several million dollars in company stocks.

There are other privately-operated, for-profit online schools in Ohio that have a similar report card to the OVA operation. The NCAA may wish to look at those operations. State officials should be first in line to investigate the efficacy of all of the for-profit online charter school operations.

William Phillis
Ohio E & A

ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net |
Ohio E & A | 100 S. 3rd Street | Columbus | OH | 43215

Today, April 26, marks the two-year anniversary of this blog. When I began, I was not sure who would read it or how it would evolve.

In these past two years, the blog has received some 11,645,000 page views. I have put up nearly 8,000 posts, and you have registered nearly 200,000 comments.

My purpose when I started was to create a space where parents, students, teachers, principals, superintendents, public-spirited citizens, school board members, and anyone else who wishes to do so could share their ideas, dreams, fears, and hopes about the current state and future of American education. My guiding principle has been “a better education for all children.” I have never been so presumptuous as to assert that I know how to teach or that I have the answer to all questions. I rely on you, the readers, to share your knowledge and experiences as we together examine some of the ruinous policies now mandated by the federal government, policies that place more value on data than on children, that trust metrics more than professional judgment, and that prioritize standardized tests over learning and real education.

We have that space. We have the most vigorous discussion of education issues on the Internet. We don’t bar dissenting views, although I do ban certain curse words that I don’t want on my blog and I do not tolerate personal insults. We even have trolls. I have said repeatedly that this blog is my virtual living room (although sometimes it is my virtual classroom), and I expect a certain level of civility. You may feel angry, and you can express your anger or frustration or rage, but please mind your language. And remember, if you want to insult me, do it on another blog, not here. Other than those rather limited rules, the floor is always open.

If you post a fascinating comment, I may turn it into a featured post, but I won’t use your name unless you use it. If you write in anonymity, I will respect your need to protect your job.

I believe the tide is turning. I believe the American public is waking up to the orchestrated effort to privatize and monetize public education. We will not sit by idly as a small group of very wealthy people try to gain control of our public schools. We are organizing to educate the public. In state after state, teachers and parents are speaking out against high-stakes testing and privatization. I am convinced that the public will not willingly turn their children or their tax dollars over to entrepreneurs, hedge fund managers, corporations, and vendors of snake oil.

With Anthony Cody and others, I helped to create the Network for Public Education to bring together activists from across the nation. With the help of parent groups, teacher groups, the BATs, and friends of public education in every state, we will stop the effort to privatize our public schools. We understand the privatizers’ strategy: First, demand perfection (e.g., No Child Left Behind). Second, anything less than perfection is declared evidence of abject failure. Third, divert attention from the real causes of low academic performance, which is poverty and inequality. Fourth, attack anyone calling attention to poverty as someone just making excuses for bad teachers. Fifth, create a frenzied hunt for a statistical means of finding and firing those “bad” teachers. Sixth, eliminate due process for teachers so they can be fired for any reason without a hearing. On and on it goes.

That’s why this blog is here. It exists to tell parents and educators: You are not alone. We will join together and defeat those who would destroy one of our most important democratic institutions, doors open to all.

We will strive together so that all children have equality of educational opportunity. We will not stop until every child may attend schools with experienced teachers, reasonable class sizes, the arts, foreign languages, history, civics, physical education, mathematics, literature, and the sciences. Nor will we be content until every school has a library with librarians, counselors, a school nurse, and a psychologist. What we want for all children is what parents in well-resourced districts expect for their children.

Join the conversation. Join us as we organize, mobilize and speak out, not only for our children but for our society and our democracy.

A new poll from Siena College of voters in New York State produced some unsettling news for Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has presidential ambitions. While most see him as “effective,” only about 50% say they expect to vote for him in the fall election.

When matched against his Republican challenger Rob Astorino, Cuomo has a lead of 58-28%.

But when a third-party challenger from the left is added to the choice–an unnamed candidate from the Working Families Party–Cuomo’s lead drops to 39%, and Astorino and the anonymous representative of the WFP are tied at 24%.

What this shows is that Cuomo has lost the liberal base of the Democratic Party. His assiduous courting of Wall Street has paid off in campaign contributions. He last reported some $33 million, enough to scare away challengers. But the liberal base would prefer “anyone but Cuomo” on the WFP line.

As for Common Core, 27% say they are “very familiar” with the new standards, and another 46% say they are “somewhat familiar” with them.

However, only 23% say the standards are “just right,” with the majority saying they are to hard, too easy, or don’t know. That suggests very shallow support.

When asked whether the Common Core standards will make students more college-and-career-ready, only 9% feel “very confident” with this statement, while another 29% feel “somewhat confident.”

When asked whether New York–given the changes of the past three years– is headed in the right direction on education, only 26% say yes. Another 28% say the state is headed in the wrong direction, and 43% say the changes have had little impact at all.

Bottom line: Cuomo does not have a commanding lead, The liberal base of the Democratic party doesn’t like him, and his record on education is a weak spot for him.

Arne Duncan and Barack Obama have this unbelievably incredible idea: grade teachers’ colleges by the test scores of the students taught by their graduates. Got that? It’s a stretch but where our Secretary of Education is involved there is no time or place where test scores don’t matter more than anything else. He loves test so much that I wish he would take the new SAT and publish his scores. Or how about if he took the 8th grade NAEP math test and published his scores. No one–no one–loves standardized tests more than Arne.

Bruce Baker, our pre-eminent manure detector, ran a simulation to test Arne’s latest goofy idea.

If n education school wants to get a high rating in New Zjersey, where should they send their graduates? Which districts should they avoid?

Here is his advice for those seeking to please the Secretary, the man who would be king:

“It’s pretty simple – New Jersey colleges of education would be wise to get their graduates placements in schools that are:

20% of fewer free lunch (to achieve good math gains)
5% or lower black (to achieve good math gains)
11% or lower free lunch (to achieve good LAL gains)
2% or lower black ( to achieve good LAL gains)

Now, the schools NJ colleges of ed should avoid (for placing their grads) are those that are:

over 50% free lunch
over 30% black”

Pretty smart incentives, Mr. Secretary.

Help the haves, hurt the have-nots.