Archives for the month of: September, 2015

Mike Klonsky does his usual round up of Chicago news.

70% of students in Illlinois “failed” the PARCC test. Arne Duncan was not troubled at all.

“Arne Duncan agrees…

“It actually doesn’t concern me at all. What Illinois and many other states are doing is finally telling the truth.” (EdWeek)”

Did he forget that President Obama named him as Secretaryof Education because of the alleged leap in test scores in Chicago? We’re they not telling the truth in 2008?

The news: the Dyett hunger strike is in day 32. See the interview with Jitu Brown.

JOIN THE WALK-IN TO SAVE MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Thousands of parents, educators, students and community leaders will hold “walk-ins” on Friday, September 18 at more than 100 public schools across the city of Milwaukee to celebrate public schools and to share information about how a proposed public school takeover will hurt students and the Milwaukee economy. In addition to Milwaukee, all public schools in LaCrosse, Wisconsin will also hold walk-ins in solidarity with Milwaukee students.

When we walk in on Friday, we are demanding justice for our kids and our city, and we are willing to unleash all our collective power to win that justice. When we walk in tomorrow we will be saying that we will not stop until our students have the schools and communities they deserve.

The Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association and the Schools and Communities United coalition are organizing the walk-ins in response to a public school takeover plan passed as part of Wisconsin’s 2015-17 state budget. The takeover is part of a coordinated attempt by Governor Walker and state legislators to turn as many public schools as possible over to private operators, whether it be through takeovers, statewide voucher expansion, special needs vouchers, or additional charter school authorizers.

The takeover plan charges Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele with appointing a takeover czar this fall. The takeover commissioner would then choose 1-3 schools and attempt to convert them into privately run charter or voucher schools in 2016-17. In subsequent years, up to five schools per year could be targeted for takeover.

Milwaukee parents and community members are concerned about this takeover plan for several reasons:

• The takeover threatens the entire school district – not just the schools targeted for takeover. In Milwaukee, more than 40% of students already attend privately run charter or voucher schools. Similar challenges have brought school systems to their financial brink in cities from Detroit to Chester Uplands, PA.

• The takeover plan offers no new ideas or resources to help students succeed. Simply changing who runs a school does not automatically lead to student success.

• Many students will be left without critical services. The takeover schools are not required to meet the needs of special education students or English language learners.

• School takeovers eliminate good jobs, particularly for African Americans and Latinos. Takeovers have hurt the economy in New Orleans, Memphis and Detroit. They have eroded middle class communities of color, and have led to a less diverse teaching force.

• Takeovers eliminate democratic local control, and disenfranchise African American and Latino communities. A recent report by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools shows that across the nation, school takeovers target almost exclusively African American and Latino students: of nearly 50,000 students whose schools were taken over nationwide, 97% were Black or Latino.

Milwaukee parents have a better plan to promote and strengthen public schools, and make sure all students – regardless of zip code – get a great education. Community Schools, a nationally recognized model that increased graduation rates in Cincinnati by more than 30%, have begun to take root in Milwaukee and have wide support from Milwaukee-based state legislators.

The Network for Public Education is delighted to endorse Lee Barrios for the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Lee is a tireless advocate for children and public education.

Barrios retired from teaching in 2010 and became a full-time advocate, working to protect public education in her home state. Barrios has a long list of qualifications for a seat on BESE. She is a retired National Board Certified Teacher with a Masters Degree in Secondary Education; a founding member of the Coalition for Louisiana Public Education, which represents classroom teachers; the Information Coordinator for Save Our Schools – LA; and she was a founding member of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, which worked to expose inBloom around the country.

Her opponent is James Garvey, who is running for his third term on BESE. He is a part of the board majority that supports charter schools, high stakes testing, vouchers, Common Core, VAM, and controversial Louisiana state superintendent John White. Garvey has well over $200,000 in his campaign coffers. Garvey entered the race with almost $160,000 left over from his previous campaign, and another $40,000 has been donated to his current campaign by four Political Action Committees (PACs) formed by the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry. See here, here, here, and here.

Barrios is well aware that she is up against powerful, moneyed interests, and has a clear sense of how dangerous market-based education reform is to the cause of public education.

“The market-based model that is driving reform since the 2001 federal No Child Left Behind Act has not contributed to meaningful, lasting improvements in education. Privatization of our public school system will only diminish the education opportunities to which every Louisiana child is constitutionally guaranteed. Market-based reforms remove the community-based system and its democratic foundation. Privatization is profit driven.”

HERE IS THE LINK FOR DONATIONS TO LEE’S CAMPAIGN: http://electleebarrios.blogspot.com/p/donate.html

Open the link to see embedded links.

A comment on the blog:

I am a parent of a student at one of the state’s 20 “persistently struggling schools” LeBrun mentions in the article. We learned at a meeting earlier this week that because the school has met the state’s goals on many of the metrics used to evaluate these schools entering the receivership game, the school cannot choose those metrics to be evaluated on at the end of the year. Almost all of the metrics that are left to be chosen to be evaluated on are related to the state testing. It is all a game of trying to figure out which population subgroups will be most likely to meet the metrics when the tests are given months from now And you just keep your fingers crossed that you pick the right subgroups. (This is helping the kids how?)

It also appears that the school population as a whole has to have 95% participation in state testing to meet metrics. Is there any district in the state that did that last year? I think our school was about 80% participation last year. This is something that the school has very little control over. (To the administration’s credit, they do not strong arm families to take the test.) How can a school be evaluated on this?

Ideas of what we can do about this? The school’s plan is due Sept 30, so there’s not much we can do to change the procedure prior to plan submission. (We received the metrics from SED earlier this week, so there wasn’t much lead time.) How can we fight this even after our plan is submitted?

I am quite scared about what might happen to the school next year. No one seems to know what the possibilities even are or what rights the school and the parents have.

Malala Yousafzai is the Pakistani girl who was shot by the Taliban on her way to school; she survived to became a world-famous advocate for girls’ education.

She won the Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy and courage.

She decided she wants to go to Stanford University to study politics and philosophy.

But Stanford will not accept her unless she takes the SAT and presumably scores the requisite points.

I can understand that Stanford wants to maintain its high standards, but shouldn’t a Nobel Prize count for more than an SAT score?

Fred LeBrun is rapidly emerging as the most astute education writer in New York State. He writes for the Albany Times-Union so there is a good chance that the Governor’s staff and the legislative staff read what he writes. I hope so.

In this article, he skewers Cuomo’s plan to put struggling schools into “receivership.” That’ll fix them. Millions will be burned while the state ignores the root causes of low-performance in school: poverty. It seems that all the schools on the Governor’s list are in poor communities. Black and brown children will be Cuomo’s playthings, as teachers and principals and other staff are fired and new ones brought in, who will also be fired.

It is painful to read. You know that millions of dollars will be spent on consultants, and by the time the money is all gone, there will be more schools to hand over to Cuomo’s hedge fund buddies to turn into low-performing charters.

LeBrun writes:

While New York public education struggles to resolve an idiotic dependence on standardized tests, waiting in the wings is another poorly-thought-out plan threatening more harm than benefit: school receivership.

So far you haven’t heard a great deal about it because the dramatic consequences are a year off, but you will. And, unlike the statewide disgust over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s testing obsession that affects every school district and has gotten a lot of press, the threat of receivership at the moment hangs over only 144 “struggling” schools — not districts — all of them among the state’s poorest. Of these, 20 are labeled by the state Education Department as “persistently struggling” because of the length of time they’ve been “struggling” and need to turn themselves around in just a year, or else. The rest have two years.

In the Capital Region, only Albany’s William S. Hackett Middle School is on the persistent list, but if a handful of schools in Albany, Troy, Schenectady and Amsterdam, including Albany High School, don’t show appropriate progress, they will join Hackett next year.

What happens now for schools like Hackett is as complicated as directions to Atlantis, and about as reliable.

Albany school Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard becomes the acting school receiver, with broad powers, for the next year. A required community engagement team composed of the principal, staff, teachers, parents and even students from Hackett will forward recommendations for improvements to the superintendent, who will use them to help create her intervention plan to turn the school around. The plan is due at State Ed for approval by the end of this month. Over the next year, the community team will look over her shoulder as the intervention plan unfolds.

In the meantime, the school receiver can do pretty much what she wants (with approval from State Ed): change the curriculum, replace teachers and administrators, increase salaries, reallocate the budget, expand the school day or year, turn Hackett into a community school, even convert to a charter school. Although there’s enormous rigmarole attached to much of it, including going charter. Remember, the receiver in this case remains the superintendent for the rest of the district, so she is answerable for any wild and crazy ideas to the voters through the school board.

Anyway, to help start the process, Vanden Wyngaard can apply for a grant from a $75 million pot set up by the state, although she’ll have plenty of competition from other “persistently struggling” school receivers in Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Yonkers, New York City and elsewhere. She has a year to do her turnaround. Or the hammer falls and we are off to Neverland.

Then the state would appoint an independent receiver who is answerable only to State Ed. At which time the process of community involvement, an intervention plan, and the rest are repeated, only now change is apt to be far more radical, with wholesale staff firings. An independent receiver can be a person from an approved list that doesn’t yet exist, or an institution or charter school. Although charter schools upstate have been mostly a bust, as Albany well knows. Middle school charters in Albany could not save themselves, let alone others.

So. If you’re getting the idea that this receivership idea seems like a plan designed to fail and thus prepare the way for school privatizers to make a bundle, move over.

For one thing, the state has yet to give school receivers a clear idea of what would constitute appropriate progress to avoid an independent receiver. Presumably, we’ll know by the end of the month when intervention plans have to be approved. What is expected and how reasonable it is will answer a great deal.

Because just a year to show any marked improvement on any front for a school like Hackett, no matter how thoughtfully considered, broadly accepted by the community, or earnestly pursued, is absurd. Real change needs time for all stakeholders to become invested. Teachers at Hackett today are still complaining that attendance and discipline as major problems, just as it was when I substituted there, oh, a half century ago. These are, after all, manifestations of the poverty and despair underlying most of Hackett’s problems; they don’t go away. They are the community’s problems, not just Hackett’s.

And for any turnaround plan to stand a chance of success, it will need tons of money and sustained financing for years. Curiously, while the law creating school receiverships is rich in the detail of who can be fired and not rehired, on punitive measures, and what extraordinary powers a receiver may exercise, it does not specify who will pay for an independent receiver.

Keeping in mind, always, that the state has an abysmal record in meeting its education commitments. At the moment, the state owes New York City more than $2 billion in aid; Albany more than $37 million; Schenectady nearly $60 million.

So there you have it. A boondoggle in the making. Cuomo forced us to accept a mandate of an independent receiver for certain schools labeled struggling by his cohorts at State Ed, but so far there isn’t a hint of state money to pay for it. Can you imagine what that burden will do for school budgets like Albany’s?

Oh, and it gets better. Amusingly, the concept of “struggling” public schools is defined by the educational establishment as the bottom 5 percent of all state schools based on a host of criteria. Which means no matter how much struggling schools improve, there will always be 5 percent at the bottom who potentially need a receiver.

What a surprise.

flebrun@timesunion.com • 518-454-5453

NEWS RELEASE September 16, 2015

Contacts: For CFT: Fred Glass, (510) 579-3343
For CTA: Frank Wells, (562) 708-5425

For Information on the Civil Rights Groups Brief:
Jennifer Bezoza or Candice Francis, (415) 543-9697, ext. 232

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Civil Rights Groups, Researchers, Legal Scholars, and Top Educators
Urge Reversal of Deeply Flawed Vergara Ruling

Amicus “Friend of the Court” Briefs Filed Today Spotlight Harm to Students and Failings of Decision

LOS ANGELES — Some of the nation’s top legal scholars, education policy experts, civil rights advocates, award-winning teachers, school board members and administrators filed five amici curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs with the California Court of Appeal today. The filings shine a spotlight on the numerous and major flaws that would harm students in last year’s decision striking down important due process rights for California educators, as well as other laws governing hiring and layoffs of state educators. The briefs strongly criticize the Vergara ruling on both legal and policy grounds, urging that the decision be reversed.

Prominent civil rights organizations including the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Equal Justice Society, Education Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Advancing Justice-LA filed powerful briefs. These organizations argued that a lack of adequate funding, and certainly not the challenged statutes, is the primary cause of educational inequity, and that in order to close the achievement gap, disadvantaged schools and students must have the support and resources they need to succeed. Arguing that money and race influence competition for qualified teachers and the ability of districts to enact proven reforms like smaller class sizes, the organizations urged the Court to reverse the “…plaintiffs’ attempt to lay blame at the feet of the tenure system for disparities that are the product of other factors, including chronically inadequate funding for education.”

Some of California’s most-honored teachers—including 2012 National Teacher of the Year Rebecca Mieliwocki, and 2014 California Teacher of the Year and national nominee Timothy Smith—wrote of the importance of due process and how these laws ensure they are able to teach without fear of discriminatory, politically-motivated, or baseless termination, and how the laws support the risk-taking often necessary to be an outstanding teacher. They also stressed how striking down the challenged statutes would likely worsen teacher turnover in already disadvantaged school districts. The educators were joined in their brief by the American Association of University Professors, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the Korematsu Center for Law & Equality.

More than ninety top national education researchers and scholars, including Diane Ravitch, Richard Ingersoll and Eva Baker, took the decision to task for failing to establish any causal link between the challenged statutes and any alleged problems the suit purports to address. These experts argued that current laws play a key role in the recruitment and retention of quality teachers, in a job market where teaching is unfortunately often becoming less and less attractive as a career option for university students. The researchers were also highly critical of the plaintiffs’ proposal to rely on standardized test scores and the “value-added method (VAM)” of interpreting those scores as the major criteria for teacher layoffs due to budget cuts. “VAM scores have been shown to be unstable and to fluctuate dramatically from year to year, so that a teacher could appear very ineffective one year and then very effective the next,” they wrote. “The trial court ultimately failed to consider the possibility that relying solely on VAMs as a way to administer reductions-in-force could drive teachers away from the profession and exacerbate the teacher shortage.”

Past and present school board members, as well as school administrators, filed a brief that argued making teaching a more attractive profession is in the best interest of students. Vergara would make teaching a less desirable profession and would exacerbate a growing teacher scarcity, especially in light of the fact that it is just one among many ongoing orchestrated attacks on educators. Among supporters of the appeal were Kevin Beiser, board member of the San Diego Unified School District; Joan Buchanan, former state lawmaker and trustee of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District; and Steve Zimmer, board president of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Perhaps most devastating to the decision was the brief by some of the top legal scholars in the country, among them Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk of UC Irvine Law School, Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, and Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School. These experts said there was simply no basis in the law for finding the challenged statutes unconstitutional or that any causal link had been demonstrated between the statutes and a diminished education for any student. They argued that striking down the statutes could in fact make things worse for students. They wrote, “In this case, the trial court substituted its judgment about desirable education policy and the best way to improve education for students without regard to the harms its policy choice might cause and without regard to the evidence or the law about the cause of educational inequities and the likelihood that the court’s injunction would redress it. The trial court exceeded its role in our constitutional system and its ruling must be reversed.”

Attorney General Kamala Harris, representing the State of California as defendant; and the intervening parties, California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers, had filed separate appeal briefs earlier this summer. The amici curiae briefs filed today, as well as a complete list of signatories, can be seen here.

Illinois released the results of Common Core test results, and the proportion of students who met PARCC’s wildly unrealistic expectations declined from previous years.

“In a troubling picture of performance, the vast majority of Illinois students failed to reach the high academic bar on the new state PARCC exams, meaning they weren’t on track academically for the next grade level, let alone for college or careers.

“Preliminary statewide results from last spring’s testing, released for the first time Wednesday, reveal the extent to which students fell short of the key goal of the Common Core movement, to ultimately prepare students for higher education and the world of work.

“Between 26 and 36 percent of third-through-eighth-grade students “met expectations” or “exceeded expectations” on the PARCC math exams. In English language arts/literacy, the figure was 33 to 38 percent for third-through-eighth-graders.

“In high schools the picture was even more dismal, with 17 percent of students meeting or exceeding expectations in math while 31 percent did so in English language arts/literacy. In high school, districts had the choice to give the exams in various grades, depending on the level of courses students were taking in math and English. For example, districts could give ninth-graders the Algebra 1 PARCC exam.

“The Illinois State Board of Education’s data is not complete but includes students who took the exams online, which represents more than 75 percent of test takers. Results of students taking the exams with paper and pencil will be melded into final results later.

“The scores on the new exams are lower than any statewide test results since 2001, data shows, when the state launched the Prairie State Achievement Examination for high school juniors. The Illinois Standards Achievement Test for grade school students had debuted in 1999. The percentage of students meeting and exceeding expectations on those exams since 2001 never dipped below 50 percent statewide, even after the state made it tougher to pass the grade school tests.”

These are the dismal results that the test developers of PARCC and Smarter Balanced planned for and predicted.

Some educators recognized the tests for what they are: madness .

“For educators following the debate over testing and the new exams, the results were expected.

“We’ve been writing and meeting with ISBE officials for over two years to stop this madness. We’ve told them that our technology isn’t ready, our Common Core curriculum isn’t ready and the test will be hurting kids,” said Argo Community High School District 217 Superintendent Kevin O’Mara, who also is president of the Illinois High School District Organization.

“They didn’t listen then; I hope with a new ISBE chairman and a new ISBE state superintendent, they’ll finally rethink PARCC and get back to helping students learn.”

With a rabidly pro-charter Governor Rauner, students and educators can’t expect much relief. These are results that discredit public education and can be used by the privatizers to push their agenda.

As Mercedes Schneider has repeatedly declared, there is zero evidence that these tests are an accurate gauge of college or career readiness.

Mercedes writes:

“Chin up, Illinois. These lousy scores are only a half-full glass. Besides, there will be other PARCC states releasing terrible scores, and we can make it a senseless contest to see which of the few PARCC states is the worst.

“Of course, there is no evidence that PARCC and its Common Core host have any empirically-established, practical connection to any useful outcome. But practicality is beside the test-obsessed point. These scores must be useful because they’re just too awful to not accurately capture the marketed message about American public education.”

What would you rather be? A mid-level bureaucrat monitoring fiscal matters in the school district or a millionaire?

Find the answer to this question in this article about Philadelphia.

“MANY OF the recent charter bond deals have been helped by Santilli & Thomson, a New Jersey-based firm that has made millions off consulting contracts and bond fees.

“The firm, run by ex-School District of Philadelphia finance officials Gerald Santilli and Michael Thomson, touts on its website “more than 50 years of combined experience in municipal school management.”

“There is no way to know exactly how much Santilli & Thomson has earned in taxpayer-funded contracts from charter schools, according to a district spokesman. The firm did not respond to numerous requests for comment.

“However, a Philly.com analysis of financial documents for several charter schools that received municipal bonds found that Santilli & Thomson has billed at least $5 million since 2010….

“After working for 14 years as executive director of fiscal management for the school district, Santilli moved into charter consulting full time in 1999, shortly before String Theory was founded.

“Santilli personally helped found several other schools, like First Philadelphia Charter and its sister school, Tacony Academy, before starting his own consulting firm with Thomson.

“After a while, it appears [Santilli] realized that this could be a lucrative and growing business, and that he could make more money doing the work on his own,” said former school district chief financial officer Michael Masch.

“Santilli & Thomson was subpoenaed as part of a federal investigation into charter corruption in 2010, but no one there was ever charged with a crime and the firm’s contracts have continued to grow. The charters that Santilli helped found have become some of his biggest clients and secured some of the biggest bond deals in city history.

“What Santilli does to facilitate these arrangements is unclear. Consultants like Santilli & Thomson face little scrutiny from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.”

Other firms have also reaped the benefits of charter consulting. The best pay-off comes when the company that owns the charter owns the space used by the school and pays itself large leasing fees. Sweet.

“Reimbursements rose 79 percent – to $6.8 million annually – while the number of charter schools increased by just 20 percent, state records show. Only a fraction goes to schools that rent their buildings from unrelated owners.

“The issue isn’t limited to Philadelphia, according to state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, who is conducting a statewide review of charter leases.

“About half the charter schools we’ve audited basically have this circular arrangement where there’s an entity that owns the building and an entity that leases the building, and they’re connected,” he said.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150914_The_get-richbusiness_of_charter_consulting.html#LIKI5ysP4FrAUQ3E.99

An investigation in Philadelphia finds that some charters now spend more on paying down the debt of lavish facilities than they spend on instruction.

“THREE FRANKLIN Plaza, a bow-shaped eight-story building at 16th and Vine streets, once hummed with 1,700 GlaxoSmithKline white-collar workers.

“Today, it is empty more than three months out of the year, a lone security guard watching over the corporate art still hanging in the lobby.

“From September to June, a charter school called String Theory occupies half the floors. The school acquired and began renovating this premier office tower in 2013 as part of a $55 million tax-exempt bond deal, arranged with help from the city’s biggest economic-development agency. It was the largest bond deal of its kind in city history.

“It is also the most conspicuous example yet of a risky, expensive and fast-growing financial scheme underpinning the rapid expansion of Philadelphia charters – a bond market now worth nearly $500 million. But the bond financing behind the mountain of money gets little scrutiny as to whether the debt is a smart use of Pennsylvania’s limited education dollars.

“The lack of transparency can translate into deals that may be unsustainable. Shortly after moving into its flashy high-rise, String Theory posted its first operating deficit. After revealing it was $500,000 in the red from paying out millions annually to bondholders, administrators told parents that they were cutting certain classes and suspending bus service as cost-saving measures.

“On the plus side, if the String Theory board members who indirectly own the Center City high-rise sell it, there could be a big profit. But is this the way charters should operate?”

“Charter schools used to inhabit repurposed supermarkets or old storefronts, but a Philly.com analysis of bond documents showed that an increasing number – one out of three charters today – have bought or constructed newer and larger school buildings with tax-exempt bonds, paying millions in debt and fees to consultants along the way.

“Bonds – school debt sold to investors who are gradually paid back with interest – have become popular among charters because they allow lower borrowing costs than standard commercial loans. Bonds are commonly floated by governments and school districts to get up-front money for infrastructure projects, but charters were long considered too risky an investment because they can be abruptly shut down.
As charter schools became more established, investment prospects improved. But the bonds that charter schools have tapped are still riskier and come with “junk” ratings, carrying high interest rates.

“They’re getting bond ratings that have an 8 or 8 1/2 percent interest rate, whereas a school district getting [government] bonds to finance a project can get much lower interest rates,” said Bruce Baker, a Rutgers education professor.

“This leaves charters spending more education dollars on interest payments – $78 million over 30 years on top of String Theory’s $55 million bond, for instance – at rates that are double or triple what the district pays.
The financing process and real-estate transactions themselves also entail millions in consulting and legal fees. Schools like String Theory can become enmeshed in complex and costly deals for marquee buildings that are difficult to sustain.

“There’s no real scrutiny of these deals, and charters end up saddled with big fixed costs,” said Michael Masch, former chief financial officer for the School District of Philadelphia. “They’re saying, ‘Look at this really prestigious building we have, that’ll attract people.’ But it’s a ridiculous amount of money to be spending on the facilities side.”

“Today, an increasing number of charters are spending more of their budgets paying down debt than on actual instruction. In the case of String Theory, which enrolls 1,400 students, the school now spends nearly one-third – $5.5 million – of its $16 million budget just to occupy the half-empty 228,000-square-foot high-rise, along with two older, smaller schools in South Philadelphia. That figure is more than String Theory spends on teachers’ wages – $5.3 million.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150914_Charter_schools__Prefer_building_booms_to_classrooms_.html#aUSVATZcLzHUkTEj.99