Archives for the month of: June, 2015

State Representative Tim Kelly, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called for the dissolution of the Detroit public schools. This is a sign of abdication of responsibility by those on control.

“The state has controlled DPS for much of the last 15 years. It has been run by governor-appointed emergency managers since 2009, and was under state control from 1999 until 2005.”

Kelly admits the state has “some” culpability, but nonetheless wants to eliminate public educationin Detroit, which the citizens of that city have not controlled for 15 years.

Republicans are talking about turnong Detroit into an all-charter district, but as the newspaper points out, charters in Detroit do not outperform the maligned public schools. Some are talking vouchers, but there is no reason to believe that they would be any better.

In short, the same people at the top who have sliced and fixed the schools of Detroit for 15 years are now throwing up their hands and saying, “Let’s abandon the state’s obligation to educate the children of Detroit and instead hand them over to the private sector.”

This is not a solution, it is a retreat from the state’s responsibilty. Why is it that state takeovers and suspension of democracy seem to be concentrated in black districts?

At the Network for Public Education conference in April, Jitu Brown of Journey for Justice described these takeovers as “the new colonialism.”

Stephen Dyer helped to create the marvelous Know Your Charter website for Ohio. Here he summarizes the awful week that charters have had in a state where GOP politicians and business leaders have embraced them.

Dyer writes:

“On Saturday, the Akron Beacon Journal (again) led the way on enterprise reporting on this topic by publishing an analysis of 4,263 audits done last year by the Auditor of State revealed that

“No sector — not local governments, school districts, court systems, public universities or hospitals — misspends tax dollars like charter schools in Ohio.”

Yikes.

“Among the findings:

“While charters only accounted for 400 of 5,800 audits, they accounted for 70% of the misspent money

“$25 million in misspent money remains unpaid

“For every $1 misspent found by private auditors, public auditors found $102
The misspending is probably worse than what the audits turned up because so many charters were next to impossible to audit, according to the Beacon Journal.

“Then came a Columbus Dispatch editorial (historically, no friend of the charter critic) that called out charter school sponsors for wanting to hide their expenditures to oversee the sector, except in limited cases — an argument not much different from one I made about the same time.”

Add to that charter school closings, convictions of charter officials for financial crimes, and more.

If this keeps up, the public will begin to associate “charters” with fraud, greed, and corruption.

The state education department in Ohio has taken control of eight charter schools and closed four of them for poor performance. Two of the closed charters are operated by the for-profit charter chain Imagine Inc. of Virginia.

 

The for-profit company has been criticized for charging its schools what the state has called exorbitant rent. The rent, in turn, is used to pay back private investors who buy up the charter school property then lease it back to the school management company….
The Romig Road operation, Imagine Leadership Academy, was on notice in 2012 that it would have to close in 2013 for poor academics. The charter school, instead, closed a year early, found a new school board and reopened under the same management company.
By creating a new school, the clock was restarted on its academic performance. And even though it is performing as poorly, or worse, than the two Imagine schools targeted for closure, the Ohio Department of Education cannot intervene.
Imagine Schools operates 17 charter schools in Ohio, including Imagine Akron Academy, a kindergarten school also taken over by the state after the Portage County Educational Service Center closed.

 

 

 

 

This is an open letter by Scott Wittkopf and Kirstie K. Danielson regarding the defunding of high education and the threats to academic freedom by undercutting tenure protections.

Wittkopf and Danielson write:

UW Budget Proposal Jeopardizes Freedom for Everyone

The following is revised from a letter submitted to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, UW Board of Regents, Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly leadership, UW System President Ray Cross, and UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank.

It is significant that the State and University of Wisconsin were both founded in 1848, because the people’s prosperity is directly linked to the prosperity of both public institutions. The UW System budget amendments proposed by the conservative-controlled Joint Finance Committee are ideologically driven and a misguided attempt to cripple essential relationships between the State, the University, and the People. This ideology will systemically destroy the University and each Wisconsin citizen’s future potential to prosper and enjoy the opportunities provided by educational freedom.

As alumni of the University and life-long Wisconsin residents, we are alarmed by betrayal of public trust at the highest levels of state and UW System leadership. Our current leaders are charged by Wisconsin citizens with the responsibility to empower people through knowledge, and protect basic educational freedoms. Yet they intentionally neglect that responsibility for political expedience. If the proposed UW budget is approved, no longer will Wisconsin citizens, students and faculty benefit from the freedom to inquire, teach, explore, and dream all that is possible.

Since the UW System impacts each person in the state, it is the responsibility of each citizen in the state to speak out in support of democratic public institutions that uphold essential educational freedoms providing opportunity for all. The proposed destructive amendments to the UW budget include weakening our public investment in higher education; eliminating critical tenure protections for faculty and students to research and teach emerging and cutting-edge topics; and silencing shared governance which ensures the democratic voice of those who teach and practice “The Wisconsin Idea.”

Embodying “The Wisconsin Idea,” the people of the state and the University have always worked together tirelessly to improve the quality of health, life, land and water, and gastronomical pleasures (e.g., Babcock Ice Cream) for everyone. It is all of us, through our investment and responsibility to future generations, who have provided citizens with life changing discoveries from vitamins A, B & D, to Warfarin, land conservation, stem cells, computer science, transplant surgery, and the list can go on and on. The current proposal weakening our investment in the future will inevitably hinder breakthroughs and discoveries that would otherwise benefit and bring hope to the people of Wisconsin. This is why the rest of the developed world is accelerating their investment in public education.

The guarantee of academic freedom at UW pre-dates “The Wisconsin Idea.” In 1894, the Board of Regents adopted a statement which has become part of Wisconsin culture. The critical section to tenure and shared governance protection reads, “…the great State University of Wisconsin shall ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth may be found.” Tenure and shared governance have historically guaranteed necessary protection and empowerment to fearlessly pursue truth. Without which we as a state may return to the days of academic persecution, especially under the current political climate. History is rife with examples of individuals who were punished for thinking freely and challenging the intellectual status quo, even as history has shown their discoveries to be true, be it Galileo, Einstein, Turing, or Cecilia Payne (astrophysicist). Is Wisconsin at the dawn of a new era of witch hunts in academia? Already, politicians and corporate powers are pursuing greed, power and profit over freedom of thought and speech. We must protect the Public from undemocratic private rule dictated by one political figure – the governor.

We call on our public leaders to uphold their moral responsibility to protect freedom of thought and speech, and empower the citizens of Wisconsin with opportunity to pursue knowledge. Expand investments, and protect tenure and shared governance for the UW System to fulfill our promise and commitment to future generations of Wisconsin. Our future prosperity as a people depends on it.

Kirstie K. Danielson, PhD & Scott Wittkopf

About the authors:

Kirstie K Danielson received her PhD from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and is currently an Assistant Professor in the Division of Transplant Surgery at the University of Illinois – Chicago. She still maintains her permanent residence in Madison, Wisconsin due to her love for the Badger State.

Scott Wittkopf attended the University of Wisconsin – Madison and is a political communications consultant and co-founder of Forward Institute, a public policy think tank in Wisconsin.

As readers are aware, Congress is considering reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, which should have been reauthorized in 2007. One of the most contentious issues is whether to retain or modify the federal mandate for annual testing. Some have proposed grade-span testing as an alternative, since annual testing has caused some schools to spend a disproportionate amount of time on test preparation. Some would like to see the federal trying mandate eliminated altogether, with federal money used for equity rather than standardized testing (I’m in the third camp but would find grade span testing an improvement over annual testing).

Recently a dozen civil rights groups released a statement criticizing parents who opt out of annual testing. The Network for Public Education responded in disagreement in a statement written by teacher Jesse Hagopian and the NPE board. Mark Tucker wrote a post disagreeing with the civil rights groups, saying there was no evidence that annual testing helps poor and minority children and some evidence that it harms them by narrowing the curriculum to test prep.

Kati Haycock, leader of pro-testing Education Trust (which helped to draft NCLB), responded angrily to Tucker.

Here, Mercedes Schneider challenges Haycock for her defense of annual testing. Schneider says that Haycock failed to refute Tucker’s evidence and instead went on a rant.

Schneider writes;

“In her June 4, 2015, Education Post rebuttal, Haycock jumps out of her daytime-TV chair, knocking it back as she rushes forward to get in Tucker’s face while declaring that she, “even a white girl,” can register what is Tucker’s obvious insult: That the civil rights community could possibly be injuring children by insisting upon annual standardized testing.

“No such drama was necessary. All Haycock had to do was refute Tucker’s evidence.

“She did not.

“Instead, she goes on to write (in the $12 million, Walton-Broad-Bloomberg-funded, corporate-reform Education Post) that she– the white girl– is there to call Tucker out on behalf of a group of 12 civil rights organizations that she admittedly did not join with in their May 5, 2015, formal declaration against opting out.”

Watch and read the verbal fisticuffs. It might be funny if it were not so sad. The evidence matters.

PS: Marc Tucker responds:

“Tucker told Morning Education that Haycock is “just plain wrong.” The civil rights community is not as united on testing as many think it is, he said, citing a recent op-ed [http://bit.ly/1BKzpI3]. “I actually laughed when I saw it, to tell you the truth,” Tucker said. “What’s important to me here is not overriding the civil rights community, but persuading people in it that they have misread the situation.”
.

As Peter Greene explains, Nevada has decided to forego all the half-measures and subterfuges about vouchers. No more insincere rhetoric about vouchers (or “opportunity scholarships”) for poor kids, kids” trapped in failing schools,” or kids with disabilities.

Nevada wants vouchers for everyone.

Greene writes:

“Nevada has made its bid for a gold medal in the race to the bottom of the barrel for public education. The state’s GOP legislature, with help from Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (a name that belongs in Orwellian annals right next to “Peacekeeper Missile”), has created an all-state voucher system.

“This is the full deal….Next fall every single student in Nevada gets a taxpayer-funded voucher to spend at the school whose marketing most appeals to that student’s parents.”

The backers of the bill believe that competition is the answer. Peter Greene explains that competition produces winners and losers, not equal educational opportunity.

Anyone looking for the fruits of competition might consider the television industry. Newton Minow, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, told the leaders of the broadcast industry that television was “a vast wasteland.” He dared them to spend a day glued to their own television sets. Now, there are hundreds more channels to choose from, but Minow could give the same speech with equal conviction.

To destroy public education in pursuit of competition is just plain ignorant or mean-spirited. There is no evidence to support this policy. It won’t improve education. It won’t increase equity. It won’t inspire excellence. It will lead to greater inequality and greater segregation. It is bad for our democracy.

Greene writes:

“Nevada was already well-positioned for the Race to the Bottom prize, consistently ranking among the bottom ten states for education funding. With this bold step, they have insured that even that little bit of money will be spent in the most inefficient, wasteful manner possible. Not only will they be duplicating services (can you run two households with the same money it takes to run one?), but by draining funds away from public schools, they can guarantee that those public schools will struggle with fewer resources than ever.”

The original purpose of the SAT was to sort students for the “right” college. Their scores on the tests would show whether they could succeed in an selective college. The designer of the SAT was Carl Brigham, a psychologist who had been a pioneer in developing IQ tests. Brigham wrote a book about intelligence expressing the then-common belief that IQ was fixed, innate, measurable, and inherited. Brigham also believed that different races and ethnic groups could be ranked by IQ. Since he believed that IQ was fixed and that it was tied to one’s race and ethnicity, there was little that schools could do to raise up children’s intelligence other than to identify it and place them in the right track. Brigham was the chief scientist who developed the Scholastic Aptitude Test, as it was then called. Today it is simply the SAT, standing for nothing in particular. It replaced the College Boards, which relied on essays and written answers, in 1941; the decision was made on December 7, when the U.S. joined World War 2. The machine-scored test was faster, easier to grade, and cheaper. (You can read more in my book “Left Back,” where I describe the history of standardized testing, which is rooted in the history of intelligence testing.

 

We now know that SAT scores are supposed to predict future success in college, but high school grade point average is a better predictor.

 

Our frequent commenter “Democracy” posted these thoughts on the SAT and the ACT:

 

 

Part 1

 

The SAT is a badly flawed and virtually worthless test, unless one is interested in determining the family incomes of students. And many colleges are, for reasons that have nothing to do with academics.

 

The best predictor of success in college is high school grade point average (including SAT score doesn’t add much). Moreover, research shows that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average. A high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.”

 

The College Board, which produces the PSAT, SAT, and Advanced Placement courses and tests, now recommends that schools “implement grade-weighting policies…starting as early as the sixth grade.” The SIXTH grade! If that sounds rather stupid, perhaps even fraudulent, that’s because it is.

 

College enrollment specialists say that their research finds the SAT predicts between 3 and 15 percent of freshman-year college grades, and after that nothing. As one commented, “I might as well measure their shoe size.” Matthew Quirk reported this in ‘The Best Class Money Can Buy:’

 

“The ACT and the College Board don’t just sell hundreds of thousands of student profiles to schools; they also offer software and consulting services that can be used to set crude wealth and test-score cutoffs, to target or eliminate students before they apply…That students are rejected on the basis of income is one of the most closely held secrets in admissions; enrollment managers say the practice is far more prevalent than most schools let on.”

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/the-best-class-money-can-buy/4307/2/

 

The authors of a study in Ohio found the ACT has minimal predictive power. For example, the ACT composite score predicts about 5 percent of the variance in freshman-year Grade Point Average at Akron University, 10 percent at Bowling Green, 13 percent at Cincinnati, 8 percent at Kent State, 12 percent at Miami of Ohio, 9 percent at Ohio University, 15 percent at Ohio State, 13 percent at Toledo, and 17 percent for all others. Hardly anything to get all excited about.

 

Here is what the authors say about the ACT in their concluding remarks:

 

“…why, in the competitive college admissions market, admission officers have not already discovered the shortcomings of the ACT composite score and reduced the weight they put on the Reading and Science components. The answer is not clear. Personal conversations suggest that most admission officers are simply unaware of the difference in predictive validity across the tests. They have trusted ACT Inc. to design a valid exam and never took the time (or had the resources) to analyze the predictive power of its various components. An alternative explanation is that schools have a strong incentive – perhaps due to highly publicized external rankings such as those compiled by U.S. News & World Report, which incorporate students’ entrance exam scores – to admit students with a high ACT composite score, even if this score turns out to be unhelpful.”

 

Part 2

 

As most people know, the Princeton Review does quite a bit of test prep for the SAT. Here’s Princeton Review founder John Katzman on the SAT:

 

“The SAT is a scam…It has never measured anything. And it continues to measure nothing. And the whole game is that everybody who does well on it, is so delighted by their good fortune that they don’t want to attack it. And they are the people in charge. Because of course, the way you get to be in charge is by having high test scores. So it’s this terrific kind of rolling scam that every so often, somebody sort of looks and says–well, you know, does it measure intelligence? No. Does it predict college grades? No. Does it tell you how much you learned in high school? No. Does it predict life happiness or life success in any measure? No. It’s measuring nothing. It is a test of very basic math and very basic reading skill. Nothing that a high school kid should be taking.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html

 

Here’s author Nicholas Lemann –– whose book The Big Test is all about the SAT –– on the SAT’s severe limitations:

 

“The test has been, you know, fetishized. This whole culture and frenzy and mythology has been built around SATs. Tests, in general, SATs, in particular, and everybody seems to believe that it’s a measure of how smart you are or your innate worth or something. I mean, the level of obsession over these tests is way out of proportion to what they actually measure. And ETS, the maker of test, they don’t actively encourage the obsession, but they don’t actively discourage it either. Because they do sort of profit from it…every time somebody takes an SAT, it’s money to the ETS and the College Board. But there is something definitely weird about the psychological importance these tests have in America versus what they actually measure. And indeed, what difference do they make? Because, there’s two thousand colleges in the United States, and 1,950 of them are pretty much unselective. So, the SAT is a ticket to a few places.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html

 

 

Part 3

 

As to AP courses and tests, the hype is as great or greater than with the SAT. Students are told that if they want to be “well prepared for academically strenuous college classes” then they have to take “rigorous” high school classes, and counselors tell them that means AP classes. Jay Mathews of The Post has popularized the myth that “AP is better.” But the research doesn’t support Mathews’ contention, although students seem to understand the importance of constructing a facade. Students admit that ““You’re not trying to get educated; you’re trying to look good.” And “The focus is on the test and not necessarily on the fundamental knowledge of the material.”

 

Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found that AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, they write that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”

 

The College Board routinely coughs up “research studies” to show that their test products are valid and reliable. The problem is that independent, peer-reviewed research doesn’t back them up. The SAT and PSAT are shams. Colleges often use PSAT scores as a basis for sending solicitation letters to prospective students. However, as a former admissions officer noted, “The overwhelming majority of students receiving these mailings will not be admitted in the end.” Some say that the College Board, in essence, has turned the admissions process “into a profit-making opportunity.”

 

Advanced Placement may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010). Indeed, there are “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students” (Geiser, 2007). College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”). Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.

 

And guess what? ACT, Inc. and the College Board were instrumental in developing the Common Core. Both organizations say they have “aligned” all of their products with it. Both are avid supporters of it. And yet, it’s wholly unnecessary. It was based on the silly idea that better test scores are necessary for economic competitiveness and prosperity, a notion perpetrated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall street entities, and the Business Roundtable, among others.

 

Students, parents, teachers, and school leaders –– not to mention admissions officials, reporters, and politicians and tutors –– would do well to heed the research and to stop perpetuating the myths. Because the future of public education is at stake.

 

States across the nation are talking about, planning, or implementing Tennessee’s Achievement School District. The director of the ASD, Chris Barbic, pledged to take the state’s lowest-performing schools (inthe bottom 5%) and move them into the top 25% of schools in five years. All the schools in ASD are charter schools. The spin and hype about the ASD have been so intense that few people asked for evidence that it was working. The promise was enough evidence.

But this tweet appeared tonight:

Commercial Appeal (@memphisnews)
6/4/15, 8:02 PM
Memphis Achievement School District superintendent says he’s not sure 5-year turnaround goal is possible. memne.ws/1GacI5o

Superintendent Roy Montesano wrote a powerful letter describing the dangers of Governor Cuomo’s education plan.

He warned that the plan would create a permanent culture of high-stakes over testing; good teachers will be fired, and the judgments of their principals will be disregarded; local control will be eroded (he adds that no one could possibly believe that more control by Albany will improve the performance of the schools of Hastings-on-Hudson); the loss of local control will drag down high-performing districts like his own.

He invites everyone who agrees to sign the petition calling for the repeal of the Cuomo law. The link is included in his letter.

Download the full letter here.

There is a very serious problem associated with deregulation of public school funding turned over to privately managed charter schools. The absence of oversight and auditing facilitates criminal schemes, such as the one that was just revealed in Dayton, where three men were convicted of bribery and other charges.

 

A federal jury in U.S. District Court on Tuesday convicted three men of bribery and conspiracy charges connected to their work for Arise! Academy, a Dayton area charter school that operated from 2004 to 2010.
Federal prosecutors said two Arise board members — Christopher D. Martin, 44, of Springfield and Kristal N. Screven of Dayton — and school superintendent Shane K. Floyd, 42, of Strongsville conspired to steer lucrative, unbid contracts and make overpayments to Global Educational Consultants, which was co-owned by Carl L. Robinson, 47, of Durham, N.C.

 

 

Martin, Floyd and Robinson were convicted Tuesday in a jury trial of the bribery and conspiracy charges and Martin and Floyd were also convicted of lying to FBI investigators. Martin and Floyd face up to 20 years in prison while Robinson could be sentenced to up to 15 years.

 

Screven, 39, pleaded guilty on May 8 to one criminal count of conspiracy to commit bribery and faces up to five years in prison. Screven had originally been charged with conspiracy, bribery and witness intimidation for allegedly telling a witness to lie to the grand jury.
Arise! paid Global $420,919 over 15 months, starting in September 2008 at a time when the charter school had trouble paying its bills and staff, according to federal investigators.
In exchange for the consulting contract, Robinson paid Floyd and Martin thousands of dollars in cash and other benefits, like an all-expense -paid Las Vegas trip taken by Martin.
The defendants may be required to forfeit the $420,919 paid to Global Educational Consultants.
Floyd and Robinson knew one another well and had previously formed another educational consulting firm together — a fact they concealed from other Arise board members, prosecutors alleged.
Martin, who served as Arise board chairman, worked as an aide to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

 

Beset by financial problems and poor academic performance, Arise charter school closed its doors in June 2010.

 

This statement by one of the men who was convicted is priceless:

 

In 2009, when Arise paychecks were bouncing, vendors went unpaid and staff took a 20 percent pay cut, Floyd told the Dayton Daily News: “These pains, these wounds are great now; I understand that and I sympathize with the staff here to take a cut like that. But I do commend their determination and the willingness to still go about the business of educating our young people.”
“At the end of the day, it’s about the kids,” he said.

 

 

Remember that: “At the end of the day, it’s about the kids.”

 

 

Scoundrels used to wave the bloody flag (the blood of patriots, that is) and wrap themselves in their patriotism; now, they say, “It’s all about the kids.”