Archives for the month of: September, 2015

The test scores for most charter schools, like most public schools, declined sharply on the new Smarter Balanced tests of the Common Core.

Rocketship charters, in particular, did poorly.

The typical response of charter leaders was not to complain that the tests are biased and unreliable (which they are), but to say, showing grit, “We will have to up our game.” I suppose that means they weren’t trying hard enough until they got the scores.

Will the sobering news burst the charter bubble? Of course not. Too much money riding on their proliferation.

This comment appeared on the blog, written by a parent who knows the BASIS charter schools well and whose son is doing very well. BASIS charters are regularly recognized as among the very best high schools in the United States because of the number of students who take and pass AP exams. There are many things this parent likes about the school. But she is taking her son out. She explains why here.

BASIS Mesa opened for the 2013-2014 school year. My son started there as a 5th grader. He is a straight A student at BASIS and has been since he started. Why are we thinking of moving him to the Chandler School District when he is obviously doing so well? We believe that there is more to school than teaching for AP exams. Our son has many outside interest that he no longer has time for. It’s a rush every night to get home, eat quickly and start working. All those after school clubs…well it’s great if you can afford them. Also, so many times, he has so much work, that staying until 4:45 when the club ends means he’ll be up late finishing homework and studying.

His classes consist of taking notes and then spitting them out on exams. There is no time in any of his core classes for any meaningful discussions about the subject matter. It’s a race to copy the notes and then study the notes to then take the weekly exams given in all core subjects. Two February’s have passed and not one teacher has made mention of Black History Month. Recently we had our very own Arizona astronaut launch into space; again no mention of this. His Language Arts class consists of weekly packets that are not gone over in class yet the kids are expected to complete them on their own at home and then take the unit exam at the end of the week.

What we have found at BASIS is that only the strongest survive. The kids who leave behind all their extra curricular activities and focus solely on their academics. Very smart kids are leaving the school so that they may have a better balance of school and life outside of school. We also have found that the BASIS kids have no idea of current affairs, what’s going on in the world now. They also do little to no community service.

Why are we thinking of taking our son out even though he is a top performer? Because life is short and there is more to life than studying 24/7. We want him to be well rounded. To understand about the world he is growing up in and to care enough about it to grow into a person who wants to make it a better place. It was great for him to go there for 5th and 6th grade because his other charter school could’t keep up with his level of advancement from year to year. He needed the advanced math and sciences. Now that he is going into the 7th grade the Chandler School District can accommodate his educational needs. He’ll be able to be in advanced, honors and AP classes. Even better, he will have a choice of what subjects he will take his AP’s in instead of being forced to take AP exams that are mandated by BASIS. If he stays on the path is on he will still graduate with as many AP classes as the students at BASIS but it will be in subjects he is interested in and at a pace that will allow him to also grow into a responsible person who understands that life is more about what you scored on a exam.

BASIS schools are a good idea in theory but I think they are leaving out the human touch. They have many dedicated teachers and administrators who truly care about the students, but whose hands are tied by the sheer volume of information they need to cover in a particular year. It’s the inch deep, mile wide approach to education that may look great on a transcript but may leave your child with great deficits in other aspects of their lives. Also, since many of the teachers have no actual teaching experience or background they lack what it takes to engage and motivate students and are not the best choice for teaching such advanced material.

Jeb Bush is trying to present himself to the public as a moderate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When it comes to education, Jeb Bush boasts of the wonderful transformation of the schools in Florida, but that is not an accurate portrayal of what Bush actually did. With his far-right dedication to privatization, he has created a voracious industry of greed, which relies on the public’s gullibility. Some of his allies are getting very rich, but the children of Florida are not benefitting by the opening and closing of charter schools, many of which operate for-profit.

Jeff Bryant describes how Jeb did it, knowing full well that he would destroy public education at the same time:

The obsession over money that is driving charter school growth in Florida is increasingly evident to those who bother to look.

“Outrageous,” is the word former state Senator Nan Rich uses to describe recent decisions Florida lawmakers made to steer more money toward these schools. Until she termed out, Rich represented the 34th District that overlaps part of Broward County. Although she has never opposed charter schools, she now believes financial demands coming from the sector have become unreasonable.

As a recent article in Florida’s Herald-Tribune notes, for the past two years, only charter schools have received capital outlay funds from the state for new construction. Now charter school lobbyists say their schools deserve a share of local property taxes too.

“When they were started, charters were never supposed to tap capital funds,” Rich explains, “but gradually lawmakers with ties to the charter industry tipped the scales to favor them financially.”

“I’m not one who opposes charter schools that are set up the way they were intended,” Rich adds. But she now believes, “The whole movement … is undermining public education and moves public money to private interests.”

What Rich and Jensen describe is an increasing fear among parents and public officials across South Florida – and Broward County in particular – that any educational value charter schools were supposed to bring to the state is now overshadowed by corruption and chaos linked to money-making.

A new consensus is percolating from the ground up that those responsible for starting and operating charter schools, and making decisions to support the growth of these schools, “don’t understand children,” as Jensen puts it. They’re mostly, “motivated by money….”

Most people trace the manic scramble for more charter schools in Florida to one source: former governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush. In 1996, two years before he became governor, Bush helped steer passage of the state’s first law permitting charter schools. That same year, he led the effort to open the state’s first charter, Liberty City Charter School in Miami.

During Bush’s first administration, charter school growth averaged a whopping 56 percent annually in the Sunshine State, according to a Florida-focused NPR outlet. Annual growth rates during his second and final four-year term dropped to 17 percent, but by the time Bush left office in 2007, charter schools across the state had grown from a modest 30 in total to well over 300. The number of Florida charter schools has since doubled to over 600.

In his initial campaign to promote these schools, Bush maintained that charter schools would rescue students from supposedly failed public schools, especially in low-income communities of color. But by 2009 – two years after he left office – Bush’s rationale for charter schools had significantly changed.

According to a Palm Beach Post news article published that year, Bush debuted his revamped message at a summit put on by his non-profit organization, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, in Washington D.C. In his speech to that group, he declared, “I wish our schools could be more like milk. … Go down the aisle of nearly any major supermarket these days and you will find an incredible selection of milk. … They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk.”

Bush would repeat his observation from the dairy aisle three years later at the Republican National Convention of 2012, and what was once thought of as a civil rights cause became firmly established as a campaign for a new business-oriented model that would offer increased consumer “choice.”

“It started as a movement and now it’s an industry,” Vickie Marble, a well-known Florida charter school advocate, gleefully declared to NPR reporters chronicling the evolving messaging campaign.

One of Jeb’s favorite charter chains is Academica:

With nearly 100 schools in Florida “and well over $150 million in annual revenue,” Academica has been a key player in charter school expansions in the state since 1999. And Bush has shown an affinity for the schools for years. “As governor,” Hensley-Clancy reports, “Bush visited Academica schools several times, his emails show.”

But Academica has a long history of financial wheeling and dealing, so much so the organization is now the target of “an ongoing federal probe into its real estate dealings,” as the Miami Herald reported in 2014. While the 1996 law allowing charters to operate in Florida restricted applicants to nonprofit groups only, profit-minded charter businesses like Academica have skirted that restriction.

Another of his buddies runs the for-profit Charter Schools USA chain:

Another large, Florida-based, for-profit charter school chain, Charter Schools USA, practices a similar business scheme. As a Florida television outlet reported in 2014, “Charter Schools USA makes millions by managing schools, but tens of millions building and renting their buildings.”

The reporters note that when a non-profit board opens a new charter school and contracts with Charter Schools USA to manage it, Charter Schools USA’s for-profit “development arm, Red Apple Development, acquires land and constructs a school. Then, CUSA charges the school high rent.” One charter school paid “a $2 million rent payment to CUSA/Red Apple Development. The payment will equate to approximately 23 percent of its budget.”

Academica and Charter Schools USA are hardly the only large charter chains operating under these kinds of business practices in Florida and generating significant growth as a result. According to Hall’s research, “The top four charter operators in Florida for 2011-2012 were Academica (72), Charter Schools USA (37), Charter School Associates (20), and Imagine Schools (23).” More recent research by Rutgers University professor Bruce Baker finds that large charter school chains – the ones mentioned by Hall, as well as others like White Hat Management, Rader Group, the Richard Milburn Academy and KIPP – dominate the state.

As governor, then later as the head of his influential foundation, Jeb Bush did everything he could to facilitate these sorts of charter school business dealings. As MacGillis explains in his piece for the New Yorker, “Bush signed a law allowing charter operators who were denied approval by local school boards to appeal to the state.” The “state,” in this case means the Florida State Board of Education, which was appointed by, you guessed it, Gov. Bush.

If he is elected President, we can say farewell to public education and hello to financial schemes that generate millions for charter chains.

Spread the news. Send Jeff Bryant’s story to every newspaper writer, every TV reporter, every editorial board.

Jeb Bush is no moderate. He is a front man for the avaricious.

This article was posted originally on September 9. Somehow it disappeared from my WordPress files and from the Internet. I sent out a call to readers and several sent it back to me. Thank you!

The Regents meet this week on September 16-17 to decide whether to approve Governor Cuomo’s teacher evaluation plan. They should vote NO.

The tests have not been shown to be valid or reliable. The passing marks are set so high that most children will continue to fail, as they have for the past three years.

But there is another reason to vote “no.” The Governor has overstepped his bounds. He has no constitutional authority to make education policy. Will the Regents relinquish their authority to the Governor? If the governor wants to set education policy, he should submit a referendum to voters to change the state constitution, which denies him that power.

Here is the original post:

The New York State Board of Regents was founded in 1784, then reorganized in 1787. In their wisdom, the state’s founding fathers (there were no mothers there) decided to place educational policy making in the hands of this body rather than the governor. Governors come and go. Educational decisions should not change with every election.

Unfortunately, Governor Andrew Cuomo has seized control over educational policy, despite the absence of any state constitutional authority. To avenge his anger at the state’s teachers for not endorsing his re-election, Cuomo inserted into the state budget a punitive teacher evaluation plan.

Now, the question is whether the State Board of Regents will endorse the Governor’s seizure of the powers that legally belong to the Regents. They meet on September 16-17 to decide whether to abandon their constitutional authority.

Lisa Eggert Litvin, a public school parent and lawyer, explains why the Cuomo plan is harmful to students, teachers, and education. She concludes it should be voted down.

It will make tests more consequential than ever. This will certainly fuel the growth of the opt out movement.

Litvin wrote:

“The Regents need to address one of the biggest flaws in the evaluation plan — that this technical plan is apparently not based on any science, research or expert study, in violation of the law, and against all common sense.

“For much of the past year, New York’s teacher evaluation plan has been a central concern of parents and educators. There is wide agreement that an accurate teacher evaluation plan is necessary, with the public urging that the plan be created with experts, based on research, science and best practices, unlike past plans. In its Education Transformation Act of 2015, the state Legislature even specifically directed that the Education Department, which drafts the plan, to consult with experts in education, economics and psychometrics.

Unfortunately, it appears that what was created is not based on expert input. New York’s State Administrative Procedure Act is clear that any studies, research or analyses on which the plan is based be specifically identified in the required notice to the public.

“Summaries, citations and authors must be listed, so that the public may assess the plan’s validity and may comment. But the notice fails to provide any of this information; instead the notice just acknowledges that expert input is mandated. And despite numerous follow-up calls and emails to the Education Department alerting it to its deficient and defective notice, the department still refuses to supply the information or, alternatively, confirm that in fact, the rules aren’t based on any research whatsoever.”

Last June, six Regents voted no -and insisted that any such plan must be based on research and evidence.

Now, “the other Regents need to join their colleagues and vote “no” this time, and insist on following the law, gathering the appropriate research, and giving the public access, as the law requires. By doing so, they will insure that new rules are scientifically and not politically based and that the Regents are ready to work with the public instead of what has appeared to be against it. And perhaps most important, a “no” vote will show that the Regents want the laws of our state to be respected and enforced, especially when those laws protect the public’s right to transparent and participatory rule making.”

Tonight begins the Jewish Néw Year, Rosh Hashonah.

I want to wish you a year of health, peace, happiness, and hope.

Your friend,

Diane

The Los Angeles Times endorses Eli Broad’s plan to move at least half the public school students into privately managed charter schools.

It does so while recognizing that charter schools have (at best) a “mixed record.”

“The school district shouldn’t seek to rein in charter growth, but it and the state should be doing a better job of overseeing such schools. There have been numerous reports that charter schools, in an effort to improve their test scores, have prodded their lowest-performing students to leave and return to traditional public schools. This never has been proved, but then again, no one has ever bothered trying to find out. The concerns have been worrisome enough, though, that new school board member Ref Rodriguez — a charter supporter and co-founder of a group of charter schools — wants the issue thoroughly investigated.

“There also have been scattered cases of charter schools ensuring that they enroll only the most motivated and successful students by setting high bars for interested families, such as parent-volunteering requirements and long application essays. Efforts to cherry-pick students are unacceptable; charter schools are supposed to accept all comers, just as regular public schools do. (If too many apply, charter schools are supposed to use a lottery.) When they have been caught breaking or bending the rules, it has generally been by the media and student advocacy groups, not by the agencies responsible for approving and checking up on charter schools. The only serious official scrutiny that charter operators typically get is when they are issued the right to operate, and five years later when they apply for renewal. It would seem a more thoughtful approach could be developed.”

So, let’s see. Neither the city not the state has the staff to oversee charters. The editorial board has heard rumors that charters exclude children with high needs and low scores. Well, let’s just right ahead, demolish public education, and see what happens next.

The firm hired to fill 5,000 substitutes for Philadelphia public schools has managed to hire only 11% of the number needed. The firm was paid $34 million. The money might have been better spent raising teachers’ salaries instead if trying to fill jobs with subs.

Is that a reform strategy? It is certainly not in the interest of the students.

Robin Alexander of the Cambridge Primary Review Trust reports on the results of the British national competition to find and reward the schools that are best at teaching “grit.”

He writes:

The Department for Education–DfE – England’s equivalent to the US Department of Education, but with considerably greater powers – has duly announced the 27 prizewinners in its Character Education competition.

Though the names of the schools are not likely to mean much to US readers, complaints about the award methodology may strike a chord. Schools nominated themselves and then justified their claims to a 23,000 dollar prize for building character, grit and resilience through brief answers to six questions. One of these questions asked for evidence of the impact of their character forming strategies on their students, but critics of the scheme claim that such evidence counted for less than the eloquence of schools’ answers, that these were not independently checked for accuracy, and that the provision of genuinely verifiable evidence was optional.

We have not been told how many of England’s schools entered this bizarre competition (DfE’s remit doesn’t extend to the whole of the UK, to the increasing relief of many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), but we can safely assume that the overwhelming majority did not. Most, quite simply, will have been too busy to do so. Some will have been unwilling to have their names so publicly linked to what was essentially a pre-election political stunt. Others will have been justly offended by the suggestion that schools didn’t attend to the development of their students’ personal and interpersonal attributes until the UK government told them to, or that without a 23,000 dollar incentive they wouldn’t bother. Others again, as my blog of 30 January suggested, will have objected to being told to replace their carefully conceived and sensitively nurtured efforts in this direction by a recipe from which ethics, communality, plurality, social responsibility and global citizenship are so conspicuously excluded.

Which is not to say that the 27 winners did not deserve to be recognised for the work they do. But no less deserving of recognition are the thousands of schools whose teachers value and nurture ‘character’ but manifest it by not competing with others to advertise the fact.

The DFE announced the winners last February.

Patricia Schaeffer, a consultant to philanthropies, reviews Teach for America’s 25 years of promises and concludes that they have not been fulfilled. To draw thousands of bright young people into the classroom for a commitment of only two years, having only five weeks training, is not sufficient to close the achievement gap or to change American education in any significant way.

The many studies of TFA’s “effectiveness” conflict about whether its recruits raise scores more or less than other new teachers. No one, however, has ever demonstrated that TFA has closed the achievement gap anywhere. Or ever will.

Schaeffer writes:

“America has a love-hate relationship with Teach for America. What began as the dream of one idealistic undergraduate in the late 80s is now, some 26 years later, an internationally recognized behemoth in the education reform movement, with more than $200 million (yes, you read that correctly) in investments as of last year.

“A recent book, edited by T. Jameson Brewer and Kathleen deMarrais, titled ‘Teach for America Counter-Narratives’ is the latest to put the organization under scrutiny. In an article this week in the ‘Las Vegas Review-Journal,’ Washington Post columnist Esther J. Cepeda writes about the “explosive and jaw-dropping” stories written by 20 of TFA’s alumni, which she says “eviscerate the myth of TFA’s unmitigated success.” Her takeaway is that the book should be a cautionary tale to those studying the education reform movement. The stories reveal the smoke and mirrors (“money and great marketing,” in her words) that TFA uses to recruit the best and brightest while convincing their donors and other partners that they are moving the needle on outcomes.

“According to its most recent tax return, TFA has total assets of close to half a billion dollars and revenues of more than $330 million, of which about 90 percent comes from government grants and contributions from corporations, foundations and individuals. An organization of this size and stature has an obligation to its constituents to demonstrate its success, and TFA has accumulated years of research findings about its programming, expansion and scale-up efforts. Marty Levine and Ruth McCambridge asked on this site several weeks ago whether Teach for America’s results justify its pillar status.

“In 2013, Mathematica Policy Research concluded a federally-funded controlled study of TFA. Comparing TFA secondary math teachers across eight states with a control group of math teachers in the same schools, the study found that, on average, students in TFA classrooms gained the equivalent of an additional 2.6 months of school, as evidenced by end-of-year math assessments. However, two years later, a subsequent Mathematica evaluation was unable to replicate those results.

“While the later study concluded that TFA teachers in early primary grades produced roughly 1.3 months of extra reading gains, that good news was overshadowed by the more troubling evidence that an overwhelming majority of TFA staff (87 percent) reported that they did not plan to spend the rest of their career as a classroom teacher or, for that matter, in any education-related career.”

There is a saying in New York that all the state government decisions are made by “three men in a room”: the governor, the speaker of the Assembly, and the speaker of the Senate. The latter two have been indicted by the U.S Attorney on corruption charges. Now it appears that there is trouble ahead for Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The New York Times reported that leaders of the Moreland Commission on government ethics, which Cuomo created and then disbanded less than a year later, have complained that he interfered with their work.

Senior officials of a state anticorruption commission shut down last year by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo have told federal prosecutors that they believed he and his staff intervened in its operations “in a manner that, at times, led them to question the independence” of the panel, the prosecutors said in a recent letter.

The letter, which briefly summarizes the officials’ statements, was attached to court papers filed on Friday night by lawyers for Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly speaker, as he prepares for his corruption case in federal court in Manhattan.

The officials have not spoken publicly about the involvement of the governor’s office in the operation of the panel, which was known as the Moreland Commission. Their statements to prosecutors are in contrast to Mr. Cuomo’s assertions last summer that his office did not inappropriately intervene in the work of the panel, which he created in July 2013 and abruptly disbanded nine months later.

Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, left the courthouse on Thursday in Manhattan.Sheldon Silver, Assembly Speaker, Took Millions in Payoffs, U.S. SaysJAN. 22, 2015
In Buffalo to discuss jobs, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday was peppered with questions on the Moreland Commission.Defiant, Cuomo Denies Interfering With Ethics CommissionJULY 28, 2014
interactive The Short Life of an Anticorruption CommissionJULY 23, 2014

Now comes a report that Governor Cuomo took $200 million earmarked for school aid and gave it to the New York Racing Association, one of the governor’s major donors.

And, last comes a report from Perdido Street School blogger that Governor Cuomo’s “receivership program” for low-performing schools will be a boondoggle for the charter industry.

What we have here is “stacking ranking” for schools, with the state playing rank and yank every year, adding schools to the privatization, er, receivership list, setting them up to “fail” and then handing them over to the privatizers, profiteers and/or charter operators.

Just as with stack ranking for employees, the program will disempower, demoralize and ultimately destroy the system (this is also the same rationale behind Cuomo’s APPR teacher evaluation system, btw – ranking teachers every year and declaring 7% “ineffective” no matter what.)

Just ask Microsoft, which used stack ranking as its evaluation system for employees, how well that worked for them as Apple was kicking them to the wayside in competition.

But of course if you’re Andrew Cuomo, you want to destroy the system – that’s exactly what he promised to do in 2014 and that’s the plan he’s been carrying out since.